HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence PLANNER 2/3/2009
.
.
To: Springfield Planning Commission
From: Gregory Moll, Planning Manager, City of Springfield
Date: February 3,2009
Subject: Amendments to the Transportation Element of the Metropolitan Plan and to TransPlan
Issue
The Transportation Element of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and
TransPlan, a functional plan of the Metro Plan, are proposed for amendment as follows:
I. Remove the OR 126/Main and OR I 26/52nd Street interchange projects from TransPlan Chapter 3:
Table I b entitled "Future (Beyond 20- Years) Capital Investment Actions: Roadway Projects", and from
the corresponding Future Roadway Projects Map (Appendix A); and,
2. Add the OR 126/Main and OR 126/52nd Street interchange projects to TransPlan Chapter 3: Table la
entitled "Financially Constrained 20- Year Capital Investment Actions" and to the corresponding
Financially-Constrained Roadway Projects Map (Appendix A).
3. Amend the Metro Plan pursuant to Oregon Administrative Rule 660-012-0016(2)(a-b)(1): "When an
MPO adopts or amends a regional transportation plan that relates to compliance with this division, the
affected local governments shall review the adopted plan or amendment and either: (a) Make a
finding that the proposed regional transportation plan amendment or update is consistent with the
applicable provisions of adopted regional and local transportation system plan and comprehensive plan
and compliant with applicable provisions of this division; or (b) Adopt amendments to the relevant
regional or local transportation system plans consistent with one another and compliant with
applicable provisions of this division. "
The project lists and maps in TransPlan are adopted into the Metro Plan by reference (Transportation
Element, Policy F.9) therefore amendments to TransPlan must also be adopted as amendments to the
Metro Plan.
Background
The subject projects have been included in the Metro Plan and TransPlan since 1986. When TransPlan
was updated in 2000 the list of projects was refined by qualifYing them as either "Financially
Constrained" or as "Future". This distinction is required for the MPO- prepared federal regional
transportation plan (RTP). For sake of convenience, the Central Lane MPO simply combined the federal
requirements and the state-mandated requirements into a single plan, TransPlan, because the physical
boundaries were the same; because both plans needed to include regionally significant projects; and
because the same elected officials adopted each plan.
In 200 I the MPO adopted the federal RTP separately from the state-mandated regional transportation
plan, but this occurred by adopting TransPlan exactly as it appeared for state purposes; even the name
TransPlan was used for the RTP. Amendments to the state-mandated regional transportation system plan
(also TransPlan) stripping out all federal requirements, and a similar editing exercise removing State-
mandated elements from the federal RTP, did not occur and as a prelude to these separate adoptions and
as a result, both of these documents retain unnecessary elements from their respective conjoined past.
The cities and Lane County adopted an update to the RTP in November of2007 that included the subject
projects and agreed that an update to TransPlan was necessary in order to achieve compliance with state
law and consistency between these two transportation plans. A TransPlan update work program was
prepared in coordination with ODOT and DLCD staff and was reviewed and apf.)at3 ~e~ceeived
Ff:R 'l 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
officials of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County in September, 2008. The Land Conservation and
Development Commission reviewed and approved the TransPlan update work program in October, 2008.
The first tasks on this work program are to update the project lists in TransPlan consistent with the
project lists in the RTP. Adopting the changes to TransPlan and the Metro Plan as identified in #'s 1-3
above is consistent with previous actions of this region's elected officials, with the actions ofLCDC and
with state law.
Amendments to the Metro Plan and TransPlan are subject to the post-acknowledgment plan amendment
(PAPA) requirements of ORS 197; the Metro Plan amendment procedures in Chapter IV of the Metro
Plan; and the procedure and the criteria of approval for Metro Plan amendments found in Springfield
Development Code Chapter 5, Section 5.14-100 through 5.14-155.
Discussion
The proposed amendments are part of a group of amendments contained in the approved TransPlan
update work program (see Exhibit D of attached staff report for the approved work program). All of these
proposed amendments were identified during the development of this work program prior to submittal to
the joint elected officials last September. State land use law requires state transportation plans to be
consistent with federally mandated transportation plans for the same region. A principal element of this
consistency is that the same regionally significant projects appear in both documents. This is commonly a
straightforward process because the state-mandated plan lists all projects necessary to accommodate
projected land use and the federal plan includes those same projects, but distinguishes between
"financially constrained" and "future." When a project is moved from the future list to the constrained
list in the federal plan it means that project is eligible for federal funding and is likely to be funded during
the planning horizon; only the federal plan is amended (state law does not require financial constraint).
Matters are complicated in this MFO because the federal and state transportation plans were formerly one
in the same out of convenience, but have recently been separated into two distinct documents subject to
two distinct sets of law and adopted by two distinct groups of elected and appointed officials. All of this
occurred without refining these documents to exclude unnecessary carry-over provisions from state law
(for the federal RTP) or federal law (for the regional TSP).
The attached staff report and exhibits provides a much more complete explanation of past and current
relationships and rules applicable to the proposed amendments than could be provided in this summary
memorandum. Please refer to these documents and any testimony that may be submitted on this proposal
as the basis for any and all forthcoming recommendations forwarded to the City Council.
Conclusion
These amendments have been subject to review for specific inclusion in TransPlan in 1986 and again in
2001 (future list); for inclusion in the federal RTP in 2000 (future list) and in the update of the RTP in
2007 (constrained list); for inclusion in the TransPlan update work program by the joint elected officials
in September 2008 and by the Land Conservation and Development Commission in October 2008 (both
for inclusion on the constrained list). In each instance these projects were included as proposed. Based
on this history and on the findings and conclusions contained in the attached staff report, there is
sufficient evidence in the record to forward a recommendation of support for the proposed TransPlan and
Metro Plan amendments, moving Projects # 27 and #30 from the Future Capital Investment ACTIONS
LIST AND MAPS TO THE FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINED ROADWAY PROJECTS LIST AND
MAP.
Date Recp.ived
FFR ~ 7009
Planner: BJ
.,.
."" '~..:(... ;;/' .C"'~. t'
'I ,y).,. ~ ~ ,i~ : :: . .
.1
'tf;b\ ~
.; -.'
,
-'-.'
'. ;:.....1... f.
'" ~. ,
. ~ '
.
.
-;"
.
.
Staff report and fmdings of compliance with the Metro Plan
and Statewide Goals, Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon
Administrative Rules to Adopt Text and Map Revisions to
the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan
(TransPlan) to move the OR126j52nd Street Intersection and
the OR126jMain Street Intersection projects to the
fmancially constrained list in TransPlan. These same
changes will be made simultaneously to the Metro Plan as
that document includes the maps and project lists found in
TransPlan.
Springfield File: LRP 2008-00013 Amend TransPlan to move the OR126/52nd Street Intersection
and the OR126/Main Street Intersection projects to the financially constrained list in TransPlan (Projects
30 and 27 deleted from Table Ib and added to Table la; remove the same two projects from the Future
Roadway Projects Map and place them on the Financially Constrained Roadway Map, both of which are
found in Appendix A of TransPlan).
Applicant
City of Springfield
Nature of the Application
The proposed amendment would concurrently amend TransPlan and the Metro Plan to:
1) Remove the OR126/Main and OR126/52nd Street intersection projects from TransPlan Chapter 3:
Table Ib entitled "Future (Beyond 20-Years) Capital Investment Actions: Roadway Projects", and from
the corresponding Future Roadway Projects Map (Appendix A); and,
2) Add the OR126/Main and OR126/52nd Street intersection projects to TransPlan Chapter 3: Table la
entitled "Financially Constrained 20- Year Capital Investment Actions" and to the corresponding
Financially-Constrained Roadway Projects Map (Appendix A).
The proposed amendments move the two projects to the Financially Constrained List in TransPlan'
consistent With their status on the financially constrained project list in the federal Regional
1 The requirement for financial constraint applies only to the federal RTP; state law does not ioclude this
requirement for regional or local transportation system plans. The project lists io TransPlan do differentiate
between future (mifunded) and constrained (funded) because TransPlan formerly doubled as both the federal RTP
and the state transportation systein plan. In 200 I the MPO adopted the RTP separately from TransPlan thereby
removing. th.. e.ne. ed for federal standards remaining io TransPlan. Eugene, Spriogfield and Lane County.Ad ~~. d
" ~.", '_,_, .':ll:d~~~~~ ~endment process to "de-federa1ize" TransPlan because the addition of Cob'Satellf"reB81Ve
~~ :'~'" ll.;'~ :Ii . ',) ,,~, '.' .
FE8 :-\ 2009
fifiD', y
,'I
ll'~
\....'.. ;
~ ,,::--;
~r\'-;,,~'-' ,; ~"ll Ii,_
jj\l-.--"I,/ Ij' .' J.
ATTACHMENT 1 - 1
Planner: BJ
.
.
Transportation Plan (RIP Map: Exhibit G) and in compliance with OAR 660-012-0016(2) (a-b):
"When an MPO adopts or amends' a regional transportation plan that relates to compliance with this
division, the affected local governments shaH review the adopted plan or amendment and either: (a)
Make a finding that the proposed regional transportation plan amendment or update is consistent with
the applicable provisions of adopted regional and local transportation system plan and comprehensive
plan and compliant with applicable provisions o:f this division; or (b) Adopt amendments to the relevant
regional or local transportation system plans consistent with one another and compliant with
applicable provisions of this division. "
Background
The OR126152OO Street and the OR126/Main Street Intersection Improvement Projects have been included
in TransPlan since 1986 (See Exhibit A: OR 126 at Main Street Interchange Improvements). OR 126 is
a critically important, limited access east-west expressway that allows through movements of freiiht and
passenger vehicles to by-pass 8 miles of local access urban uses along Main S'treet; this is an
indispensible, irreplaceable facility. The entirety of OR 126, including all interchanges, intersections and
right-of-way for additional capacity improvements at 5200 Street and at Main Street is located within the
Springfield City limits and Springfield Urban Growth Boundary. Main Street, which is without question
Springfield's principal local access business route, is located midway between the north and south urban
growth boundary and traverses the entire east-west length of the city. The intersection at Main Street is a
highly traveled crossroads that provides the only west bound option for motorized vehicles originating
east of 58th Street and destined for Springfield, Eugene and 1-5. The intersection at 5200 is the only
signalized, at-grade facility on this limited access expressway and is prone to delay and vehicular
conflicts.
Specific planning for these two projects has been underWay since 2001 as part of the OR 126 Expressway
Management Plan (EMP). Two elements of this EMP are attached to this report as a demonstration of the
reasons why these projects are a priority for ODOT and the City of Springfield: the Draft OR 126 EMP
Phase 2 Problem Statements; and Memorandum 4.2: Existing Conditions Traffic Ooerations (Exhibits B
and C). Both of these documents identify current safety and operational issues at both intercbanges and
forecast worsening conditions as the surrounding vacant land within Springfield's urban ,growth boundary
develops at permitted, planned densities. The Jasper-Natron mixed use nodes are identified as
development that is "expected to increase traffic at the intersection and, surrounding area" in spite of the
reduced vehicle trips associated with nodal development.
The draft Problem Statement projects a volume over capacity ratio (vie) exceeding 1.0 at both
intersections by 2025 if no action is undertaken. The Oregon Highway Plan sets a vlc of .80 for its
facilities and this performance standard has already been exceeded at Or l26/Main intersection; therefore,
capacity improvements will be required for both of these facilities in order to opcrate within state
standards.
In November, 2007 the Metropolitan Policy Committee(MPC) adopted an update to the federal RIP (See
Exhibit F). Among other changes, this update moved the OR126/52OO Street Interchange Project and the
OR126/Main Street Interchange Project from the lllustrative Project List (beyond 20-years) to the
2004 meant a much more substantial, update of TransPlan would be required. The update of TransPlan was delayed
, in anticipation of the much larger work tasks necessary to achieve consistency with the 2007 RIP update (See
! '~::' EXliibitE):: -, ....- : Da fa R'ece'
I ' ....~, ,,' ~,'\ ~ J
" ~ -, . -". . . . '
tr;';;., ..(;
FFB
J
; ,.,.,":
.
,. 1. . ., ..~.,~
>.
... ': '
,-
ATTACHMENT 1 - 2
Planner:
.
.
Financially Constrained 20-Year Capital Investment Actions List. These were not the only changes made
to the RTP; the planning horizon was adjusted out to the year 2031; several projects were added in
Eugene; and the boundary of the Plan Was increased to include Coburg (Exhibit E). The state determined
that these changes were sufficient to trigger OAR 660-012-0016 and require this metropolitan area to
amend the state-mandated transportation system plan (TransPlan) to he consistent with the RTP.
The cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County could not complete all of these required
amendments within one year as specified in OAR 660-012-0016(2) (h), therefore the state imposed the
following provision of the rule: "amendments shall be initiated no later than 30 days from the adoption
of the RTP amendment or update and shall be adopted no later than one year from the adoption of the
RTP amendment or update or accordin/l to a work plan approved bv the commission." The cities of
Eugene and Springfield and Lane County submitted this required work plan to the Land Conservation and
Development Commission in September for consideration at their October 16, 2008 meeting. The work
program included, as a [lIst step, the following Post-acknowledgment Plan Amendments (pAPAs):
Remove completed projects; remove WEP; move ODOT projects from lllustrative to Financially
Constrained list for consistency with RTP; adjust plan horizon. The Commission approved the work
program without modification to these four PAPAs (See Exhibit D).
Applicable Standards and Procedures
Metro Plan Amendment Criteria
Section 5.14-110 of the Springfield Development Code provides that Metro Plan amendments
shall be made in accordance with the standards contained in Chapter IV of the Metro Plan and
the provisions of this code.
lbis application involves site specific amendments to TransPlan, a special purpose functional
plan, which forms the basis for the Transportation Element of the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan.
The Metro Plan Amendment is a "Type II" amendment as defined ill the Springfield
Development Code at SDC 5.14-115, because it:
a) involves a site specific transportation improvement project;
b) does not change the Metro Plan Urban Growth Boundary;
c) does not change the Metro Plan jurisdictional boundary;
d) does not require a goal exception,
e) does not include a non-site-specific amendment of the Metro Plan text.
Springfield is the "Home City" for the proposed amendment, as provided in SDC 5.14-115(D)
because the subject sites are east ofI-5 and entirely within the city limits of Springfield.
The proposed Metro Plan Amendment does not have a regional impact, as defined in SDC 5.14-
115(F) because the amendment:
"
Date Received
. .
."
", ,_ .L.~...... ~
eWt\ ~.
Ii
FEB 3 2009
r , ~
'" " "\ ,
l " , . . ,
r"
. ,
ATTACHMENT 1 - 3
Planner: BJ'
.
.
a) does not involve a change to a plan designation or a site location,
b) does not significantly expand or decrease the residential, commercial or industrial
growth potential within the City beyond that which is already planned for in Metro
Plan and TransPlan, .
c) does not have a demonstrable impact on the water, stonn drainage, sanitary sewer, or
transportation facilities of the City of Eugene or Lane County.
SDC 5.14-140 provides that, "To become effective, a Metro Plan Type II amendment inside the
city limits must be approved by the Home City." The subject amendment is a site-specific Type
II amendment involving land that is entirely within the city limits of the City of Springfield.
Accordingly, it requires only approval by the governing body of the City of Springfield to
become effective.
STATEWIDE GOAL CONSISTENCY:
Section 5.14-13 5 of the Springfield Development Code requires that, in reaching a decision on
proposed Metro Plan amendments, the planning commission and city council shall adopt
findings which demonstrate that the amendment is consistent with the relevant statewide
planning goals; and that the amendment shall not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
TransPlan is a special purpose functional plan which fonus the basis for the Transportation
Element of the Metro Plan. Demonstration of compliance with the statewide goals for this
amendment which simply involves moving the two implementation projects in TransPlan from
the Future List to the Financially Constrained List is address in a manner that explains why this
action was not contrary to the goals.
The proposed amendments are consistent with applicable goals and interpretive mles as follows:
GOAL 1- CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
Springfield has an acknowledged citizen involvement program and an acknowledged process for
securing citizen input on all proposed Metro Plan amendments. On October 15, 2008 notice of
this proposed amendment was sent 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 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. Mailed notice of this Planning
Commission public hearing was sent to all property addresses and owner addresses within 300 .
feet of both interchanges on January 13,2009, and published notice of the hearing was placed in
.the E~elle Register Guard on January 19, 2009.
"
'. ,\
,
Date Receive
:Oi.\ 1
FEB 3 l009
. '.
~t \.. ,
ATTACHMENT 1 - 4
Planner: B
,
, .
.
.
In addition, the 1986 TransPlan as well as the 2001 TransPlan underwent extensive citizen
involvement and intergovernmental coordination as these two plans were being prepared and
adopted. These two proj ects are contained in both of these plans.
GOAL 2 - LAND USE PLANNING
Goal 2 requires local comprehensive plans to be consistent with statewide land use goals; that
local comprehensive plans are internally consistent; and that implementing ordinances are
consistent with acknowledged comprehensive plans.
Both the OR 126/52nd Street and OR 126/Main Street intersection projects are centrally located
within the city limits of the City of Springfield. Adopting the proposed text and map
amendments will not result in any change or conflict with the policies of Metro Plan or
TransPlan. These projects are included on the TransPlan Capital Investment Actions Project
List. lbis proposed amendment will move the two projects from the Future Investment Actions
List to the Financially Constrained List in Transplan which means that they are anticipated to be
constructed within the next 20-year time frame. These projects were initially included in
TransPlan in 1986 as an integral component of the transportation system needed to support the
population, employment and land uses planned for in the Metro Plan. These amendments have
properly been determined by both the acknowledged 1986 TransPlan and the acknowledged
2001 update to TransPlan to be necessary to accommodate existing and planned UGB
development.
GOAL 3 - AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Adopting the proposed text and map amendments will not result in any change or conflict with
the policies of the Metro Plan or TransPlan since these projects are already identified on the
Capital Investment Actions Project List and are necessary to meet identified transportation
system needs. Additionally, Goal 3 is inapplicable because it applies only to "rural" agricultural
lands and the proposed projects are within the city limits and the acknowledged urban growth
boundary. (See OAR 660-15-000(3) ..
GOAL 4 - FOREST LANDS
Adopting the proposed text and map amendments will not result in any change or conflict with
the policies of the Metro Plan or TransPlan since these projects are already identified on the
Capital Investment Actions Project List and are necessary to meet identified transportation
system needs. Both project sites are located within Springfield's city limits and UGB therefore
Goal 4 does not apply. (See OAR 660-06-0020)
"'''-'''1
. ,I ~~~:~:..~,."l'~I"" :.~'
.:> '
ATTACHMENT 1 - 5
Date Received
FEB 3 2009
Planner: BJ
f .. IF., "..,
Ii ,....,"" ~~.....,. ~> ..... l . 4;).' ',"c
_t~' ~!!~.' ", 'I, , . " ~'-.l
", -.. ".
/-nn\ l; h.j.l'
.
.
GOAL 5 - OPEN SPACE, SCENIC AND mSTORIC AREAS, NATURAL RESOURCES
Goal 5 requires local governments to protect a variety of open space, scenic, historic, and natural
resource values. Goal 5 and its implementing rule, OAR 660 Division 16, require planning
jurisdictions, at acknowledgment and as a part of periodic review, to
" (1) identify such resources:
(2) determine their quality, quantity, and location:
(3) identify conflicting uses:
(4) examine the economic, social, environmental, and energy (ESEE) consequences that
could result from allowing, limiting, or prohibiting the conflicting uses, and
(5) develop programs to resolve the conflicts.
Adopting the proposed text and map amendments will not result in any change or conflict with
the policies of the Metro Plan or TransPlan since these projects are already identified on the
Capital Investment Actions Project List arid are necessary to meet identified transportation
system needs. The proposed text amendments will not expand or decrease the residential,
commercial or industrial growth potential within the City beyond that which is already planned
for in the Metro Plan and Transpian. There are no inventoried Goal 5 resources within the
existing ODOr right of way therefore Goal.5 does not apply to this proposal. Any use of federal
funds to construct improvements to these interchanges will require compliance with the
provisions of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); the NEPA process includes an
assessment of actual and potential impacts on all identified natural resources in the vicinity of the
proj ect area.
GOAL 6 - AIR, WATER, AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY
Placing these two projects on the constrained list in TransPlan does not preempt actual
construction from standards or rules in place at the time of construction: all new: construction
must comply with applicable state and federal air and water quality standards. Adopting the
proposed text and map amendments will not re'sult in any change or conflict with the
policies of the Metro Plan or TransPlan since these projects are already identified on the
Capital Investment Actions Project List and are necessary to meet identified transportation
system needs to service the land uses identified inside the UGH of the Metro Plan. Further,
these text amendments will not expand or decrease the residential, commercial or
industrial growth potential within the City beyond that which is already planned for in the
Metro Plan and TransPlan. The level and significance of environmental impacts resulting
from the physical improvements at the 52nd Street/OR 126 intersection and Main
Street/OR126 intersection will be further assessed in accordance with NEPA requirements.
Air quality can be degraded by the degree of congestion that occurs at street: intersections;
vehicles idling in congested queues create air quaJity impacts. The improvement of these
interchanges will reduce congestion to levels (.80 v/c or less) that comply with Oregon
Highway Plan standards. Improved level of service reduces congestion thereby reducing
vehicular contributions to degraded air quality.
l'''~ <:~;.~~,':;-'~ :""<.' Date Received
~:11U~. r ;-: -1-
FEB3 2009
'I~' . -
..~ """, ':.~i"~."" :-~..~-~
.....':'
"
ATTACHMENT 1 - 6
Planner: BJ
.
.
GOAL 7 - AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL HAZARDS
Goal 7 requires that development subject to damage or that could result in loss of life not be
planned or located in known areas of natural hazards and disasters without appropriate
safeguards. The goal also requires that plans be based on an inventory of known areas of natural
disaster and hazards. Both sites are flat (not within areas subject to rapidly inoving landslides)
and outside mapped flood hazards zones (Zone A 1 DO-year flood hazard). The level and
significance of environmental impacts resulting from the physical improvements at the 52nd
Street/OR 126 inter~ection and Main Street/OR126 intersection will be assessed in accordance
with NEP A requirements. All construction associated with these proposed projects will be
designed to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations.
GOAL 8 - RECREATIONAL NEEDS
Goal 8 requires local governments to plan and provide for the siting of necessary recreational
facilities to "satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors." Adopting the
proposed .text and map amendments will not result in any change or conflict with the
recreational land use policies of the Metro Plan or the Willamalane Park and Recreation
Plan. There are no existing or planned park facilities nearby these two sites therefore
construction at these two sites will not create a negative impact on the recreational needs
of the community. These text amendments will not expand or decrease the residential,
commercial or industrial growth potential within the City beyond that which is already
planned for in the Metro Plan and TransPlan.
GOAL 9 - ECONOMY OF THE STATE
Goal 9 requires local governments to provide adequate opportunities for a variety of economic
activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
Adopting the proposed text and map amendments will not result in any change or conflict with
the economic policies of Metro Plan. Further, these text amendments will not expand or
decrease the residential, commercial or industrial growth potential within the City beyond that
which is already planned for in the Metro Plan and TramPlan. 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. OR 126 is a designated Truck
. Route. As these facilities become more congested, freight movement is influenced negatively
through delays and spent fuel. Successful development of the Jasper-Natron mixed-use site will
rely on a transportation system that can efficiently accommodate the variety of trips coming and
going from this area. The OR126/52nd Street and OR126/Main Street projects are identified on
the TransPlan Capital Investment Actions Project List and will support economic development
opportunities in the City.
GOAL 10 - HOUSING
~.~ <t: .:.. .'
ATTACHMENT 1 - 7
Date Received
FEB 3 2009
PlannAr' R.B
,. ~', ~ t' . '"':
. .
\-,
"':/' I..
.
.
LCDC's Housing Goal requires cities to maintain adequate supplies of buildable lands for
needed housing to provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. Adopting the proposed
text and map amendments will not result in any change or conflict with the housing policies of
the Metro Plan. These text amendments will not expand or decrease the residential growth
potential within the City beyond that which is already planned for in the Metro' Plan and
TransPlan. However, as stated in the Background section of this report, the Jasper-Natron area
is a large, undeveloped mixed-use site that is intended to provide a broad choice in housing type
and density as well as commercial and office shopping and employment opportunities. The
OR126/52nd Street and OR126/Main Street intersection projects are identified on the TransPlan
Capital Investment Actions Project List as necessary to service planned land uses including this
important development site. Reducing congestion in the immediate vicinity of this future
development will make it a more attractive place to live and work and will improve the quality of
life for existing and future residents in East Springfield.
GOAL 11- PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
This goal requires the provision of a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities
and services. Goal 11 does not apply to these proposed text amendments, since these
amendments will not result in any change or conflict with the Public Facilities and Services Plan.
a fullctional plan of the Metro Plan that does not contain transportation system improvements.
These text amendments will not expand or decrease the residential, commercial or industrial
growth potential within the City beyond that which is already planned for in the Metro Plan and
TransPlan.
GOAL 12 - TRANSPORTATION
The Transportation Goal requires, the city to plan and provide for "a safe, convenient, and
economic transportation system." Goal 12 also sets out numerous requirements for the content
of local transportation plans. Both the OR ] 26/52nd Street and OR 1261Main Street interchange
projects are identified as implementation actions on the TransPlan Capital Investment Actions
Project List. This proposed amendment will move the two projects from the Future Investment
Actions List to the Financially Constrained List in Transplan consistent with the status of these
same two projects in the federal RIP as adopted in November 2007. These projects were
, initially included in TransPlan in 1986 as an integral component of the planned transportation
system needed to support the population, employment and land uses planned for in the Metro,
Plan. Adopting the proposed text and map amendments will not result in any change or conflict
with the policies of the Metro Plan or TransPlan, nor is this action being taken in response to a
land use amendment.' The preliminary analysis of the current and future operational
characteristics of these two interchanges, as documentejI in the OR 126 EMP, is continued
substandard performance and ultimately (by 2025) congestion at least 20% in excess of ODOr s
maximum standard. Adopting the proposed text and map amendments is consistent with all
applicable provisions of OAR 660-012-0016; there are no provisions in OAR 660-012 that
require financially constrained project lists.
.'f
"'
ATTACHMENT 1 - 8
, Oa~9 ReoeNed
fibS 'S-
Planner: BJ
.,.
... i.
...,.. ,'.
~
.'nl!~~ ;
. ,
,
"
',j
.
.
OAR 660-012-0060 implements Goal 12 through evaluation of "Plan and Land Use Regulation
Amendments." Specifically, the requirements of this rule state:
"(1) Where an amendment to ajitnctional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land
use regulation would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, the local
government shall put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule to assure that
allowed land uses are consistent with the identified jitnction, capacity, and performance
standards (e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility. A plan or land use
regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would:
(a) Change the jitnctional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility
(exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan);
(b) Change standards implementing afunctional classification system; or
(c) As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted transportation
system plan:
(A) Allow land uses or levels of development that would result in types or levels of
travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing
or planned transportation facility;
(B) Reduce the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility below the
minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive
plan; or
(C) Worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is
otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable performance
standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. "
TransPlan is a functional plan of the Metro Plan and is therefore as much a part of the
acknowledged comprehensive plan as is the Transportation Element of the Metro Plan. The
proposal places these two projects on the [unrequired but none-the-Iess present]' "financially
constrained project list" found in both documents.
The assumption of 660-012-0060(1) is that a governing body's action is either specific to the
facility, i.e. amends the functional classification or standards implementing a functional
classification system that applies directly to the facility; or amends the plan or land use
regulation of land exterior to the facility in a way that [could] result in more trips or different
trips or both onto the system thereby resulting in a significant affect on the existing or planned
transportation facility. Determination of significance is then made by applying (c)(A-C) to the
proposal., In other words, if the facility itself is not being reclassified, then significant affect
must be generated ,as a result of the governing body's action to amend the plan or land use
regulation of land exterior to the facility in some other way that is demonstrated through
application of (c)(A-C).
!, Response to 660-012-0060(1)(a-b): The proposal does not seek, nor does it require a change in
::;" ,the' classification of OR 126 or of Main Street; or of the standards that classify the existing or
;f'''~': ' Date Received
; ,-.
FEB
!l l009
, ...-~.
ATTACHMENT 1 - 9
Planner: BJ
.
.
future intersections that are the subject of this proposal. The standards of OAR 660-012-
0060(1)(a-b) do not apply to this proposal.
Response to 660-0l2-0060(1)(c)(A): The proposal is intended as the appropriate response to
existing and projected traffic conditions at these intersections resulting from development of all
land use inventories already within the acknowledged urban growth boundary and consistent
with the acknowledged plan's land use designations and implementing zoning districts for
appropriate uses and densities. The proposal will resUlt directly in improvement to the safety
and operational characteristics of these two facilities; will enable land already within the urban
growth boundary to be developed as planned; will improve air quality and livability be reducing
congestion and traffic conflicts; and will comply with Metro Plan and Oregon Highway Plan
standards for mobility and level of service. The proposal does not change allowed land uses or
levels of development already allowed in the acknowledged comprehensive plan; the proposal
allows the appropriate level of improvement to these intersections consistent with the Metro Plan
and Oregon Highway Plan; and the proposal does not require any change to the functional
classification of these two facilities. The affects of this proposal do not create the circumstances
identified as significant affect in OAR 660-0l2-0060(1)(c)(A).
Response to 660-0l2-0060(1)(c)(B): The current performance of these facilities does not
always meet the minimum acceptable performance standards of Level of Service D adopted into
the Metro Plan and TransPlan (See Transportation Policy F.15(b) Metro Plan; and TSI Roadway
Policy #2 TransPlan). . The analysis of projected performance as articulated in the OR 126
Expressway Management Plan is for increasing degradation including a vlc exceeding 1.0 by the
year 2025 as a result of planned growth and dl!Velopment. The proposal does not reduce the
performance on these facilities; it allows improvement consistent with the adopted performance
standards contained in the comprehensive plan. The affects of this proposal do not create the
circumstances identified as significant affect in OAR 660-0l2-0060(1)(c)(B).
Response to 660-0l2-0060(1)(c)(C): The proposal will improve, not reduce, and: not worsen,
the performance of these two facilities. The proposal will enable a future design improvement of
these intersections to comply with safety and mobility standards adopted in the Oregon Highway
Plan and the Metro Plan. The proposal does not allow a change in permitted development or
development density, nor does it change land use designations or development standards to any
land within the urban growth boundary that might generate trips to or through these two
. facilities. The affects of this proposal do not create the circumstances identified as significant
affect in OAR 660-0l2-0060(1)(c)(C).
Inasmuch as the proposal has been evaluated using the provisions of OAR 660-012-0060(1)(a-b)
and (c)(A-C) and has been determined to not significantly affect an existing or proposed
transportation facility, the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Goal 12.
"
Date Rece\ved
FEB 3 2009
Planner: BJ
GOAL 13 - ENERGY CONSERVATION
.-.l'
.....-:.
:..",
,
rl
, ~ . ,
.\>r,
,~- . .
ATTACHMENT 1 - 10
.
.
The Energy Goal is a genera1planning 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. Adopting the proposed text and map amendments will not
result in any change or conflict with the energy policies of the Metro Plan. Reducing congestion,
which is one of the cornerstones of pr~ect need, will save energy and improve air quality due to
reduced idling. Both the OR l26/52n Street and OR l26/Main Street interchange projects are
identified as implementation actions on the TransPlan Capital Investment Actions Project List.
The proposed projects will be designed to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local
energy regulations.
GOALI4-URB~ZATION
The subject sites are within the Metro Area UGB and within the city limits of Springfield
therefore Goal 14 has no direct applicability to this proposal. Adopting the proposed text and
map amendments will not result in any change or conflict with the urbanization policies of the
Metro Plan. These projects are identified implementation actions, necessary to meet the
transportation system needs of the planned land uses in the Metro Plan. These text amendments
will not expand or decrease the residential, commercial or industrial growth potential within the
City beyond that which is already planned for in the Metro Plan and TransPlan.
GOAL 15 - WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY
This goal is inapplicable because the subject sites are more than a mile from the nearest segment
of the Willamette River Greenway boundary.
GOALS 16-19 - COASTAL GOALS
These goals do not apply to the City of Springfield.
METRO PLAN CONSISTENCY
The proposed amendment is consistent with applicable Metro Plan policies and objectives for
the same reasons that it is consistent with the corresponding goals that those policies and
objectives are designed to implement. Both the OR l26/52nd Street and OR l26/Main Street
interchange projects are identified as implementation actions on the TransPlan Capital
Investment Actions Project Lists. This proposed amendment will move the two projects from
the Future Investment Actions List to the Financially Constrained List in Transplan which is
consistent with the status of these two projects in the federal RTP. These projects were initially
included in TransPlan in 1986 and are an integral component of the planned transportation
system designed to support the population, employment and land uses planned for in the Metro
Plan. In addition, fue proposal is consistent with the following provisions of the Metro Plan and
, TransPlan:
" .
;" '", ~ .;~. "'" :
'.'
~Ut!l.
Date Received
;' -~"
. ..
FEB 3 2009
,
. ,
ATTACHMENT 1 -11
Planner: BJ
.
.
The Metro Plan sets forth general planning policies and land use allocations and serves as the
'. .
basis for the coordinated development of programs concerning the use and conservation of
physical resources, furtherance' of assets, and development or redevelopment of the metropolitan
area.
The Metro Plan is intended to designate a sufficient amount of urbanizable land to accommodate
the need for fUrther urban expansion, taking into account the growth policy of the area to
accommodate a population of 286,000 within the UGB by the year 2015. The Metro Plan also
identifies the major public facilities required to meet the land use needs designated within the
UGB. PageI-I
These projects will modernize an existing asset (OR 126) of irreplaceable significance; these
projects are necessary for the future development of Thurston and Jasper-Natron, two
areas that represent the single largest remaining residential inventory in Springfield's
UGB.
More specifically, the Metro Plan provides the overall framework for the followirig planning
junctions. The Metro Plan:
1, Guides all governments and agencies in the metropolitan area in dfcvelopment and
implementing their own activities which relate to the public planning process.
2, Establishes the policy basis for a general, coordinated, long-range approach among
affected agencies for the provision of the facilities and services needed in the
metropolitan area.
3. Makes planning information available to assist citizens to better understand the basis for
public and private planning decisioTL~ and encourages their participation in the planning
process.
4. Proves the public with general guidelines for individual planning decisions. . Reference to
supplemental planning documents of a more lacalized scape, including neighbarhaad
refinement plans, is advisable when applying the Metro Plan to specific parcels of land
or individual tax lots.
5. Assist citizens in measuring the pragress of the community and its officials in achieving
the Metro Plan's goals and objectives.
6. Provides continuity in the planning process over an extended period of time.
7. Establishes a means far consistent and coordinated planning decisions by all public
agencies and across jurisdictianallines.
8. Serves as a general planning framework to be augmented, as needed, by more detailed
planning pragrams to meet the specific needs of the various local gavernments.
9. Provides a basis for public decisions far specific issues }Vhen it is determined that the
Metro Plan, without refinement, cantains a sufficient level of informatian and policy
directian.
10. Recognizes the social and economic effects of physical planning policies and decisions,
11. Identifies the major transportation, wastewater, stormwater, and water projects ,!eede~
" ~a.se,,:e~fUture .UGB papulation af286, 000. Page 1-2 Date Rece\Veo
f,:=1-i '12009
. 'n'J~~" .- i
"I.... .
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 1 - 12
.
.
The responses to compliance with Goals 1,2,9,10,12 and 14 preceding these citations are
equally applicable to the Metro Plan's framework functions.
Metropolitan Goals:
Growth Management
i. Use urban, 'urbanizable, and rural lands efficiently.
2. Encourage orderly and efficient conversion of land from rural to urban uses in response
to urban needs, taking into account metropolitan and statewide goals.
3. Protect rural lands best suited for non-urban uses from incompatible urban
encroachment.
Residential Land Use and Housing
i. Provide viable" residential communities so all residents can choose sound, affordable
housing that meets individual needs.
Economic
i. Broaden, improve, and diversifY the metropolitan economy while maintaining or
enhancing the environment.
Transportation
1. Provide an integrated transportation and land use system that supports choices in modes
of travel and development patterns that will reduce reliance on the automobile and
enhance livability, economic opportunity, and quality of life .
2. Enhance the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area's quality of life and economic
opportunity by providing a transportation system that is:
Balanced
Accessible
Efficient
Safe
interconnected
Environmentally responsible
Supportive oj responsible and sustainable development
Responsive to community needs and neighborhood impacts and
Economically viable" and finanCially stable
Page II-B~2
Date Received.
'TY ~
FEB 3 2009
,. '.'
I r.
"
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 1 - 13
.
.
The responses to compliance with Goals 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14 preceding these citations
are applicable to these Metropolitan Goals. Two tremendously important facilities in the
Eugene-Springfield region, the sub-region, and impacting statewide mobility (expressway,
freight) on the state's system in this region, and integral to Springfield's successful
economic and housing priorities are currently experiencing safety allld operational
difficulties. Futur.e development of planned residential and mixed-use centers within
Springfield's UGB are projected to create periods of congestion well in excess ofthe state's
standard for operational level of service. Additionally, the effects of this circumstance, if
not corrected, will dinIinish the economic vitality and livability associated with an efficient
transportation system. Although modernization of existing roadways is only a part of an
integrated land use and transportation plan, there is no substitute or viable alternative for
freight and through movements in this part of Springfield, particularly where the largest
vacant development site in the city awaits. development as a mixed-use center.
Residential Land Supply and Demand
Policies
A.10 Promote higher residential density inside the UGB that utilizes existing
infrastructure, improves the efficiency of public services and facilities, and conserves
rural resource lands outside the UGB.
A.ll Generally locate higher density residential development near ,~mployment or
commercial services, in proximity to major transportation systems or within
transportation-efficient nodes.
A.12 Coordinate higher density residential development with the provision of adequate
infrastructure and services, open space, and other urban amenities.
A.22 Expand opportunities for a mix of uses in newly developing areas and existing
neighborhoods through local zoning and development regulations.
A.35 Coordinate local residential land use and housing planning with other elements of .
this plan, including public facilities and services, and other local plans, to ensure
consistency among policies. Pages lli-A-7 through lli-A-13
The success of the Jasper-Natron mixed-use nodal development as well as the remaining
vacant residential land in Thurston are dependent upon a safe and efficient transportation
. system comprised of all modes of transportation. Even adding the presence of an expanded
bus rapid transit system (EmX) and additional employment opportunities at Jasper-
Natron, new trips from within Springfield as well as those originating ontside the plan area
will rely on these two interchanges for access and through movement. I Jii .
of service in exces~. .of the maximum standard established by ODOT .. 1,.1
-. -, p.
,--
FEB 3. lOO9
Planner: IBJ
..,'1
ATTACHMENT 1 -14
.
.
these Metro Plan policies; modernization to accommodate trips at a level of service of .80
vIe or less promotes the implementation of these Metro Plan policies.
Economic Element
B.6 Increase the amount of undeveloped land zoned for light industrial and commercial
uses correlating the effictive supply in terms of suitability and availability with the
projections of demand '
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 (FransPlan) and the Eugene Airport Master Plan.
B.22 Review local ordinances and revise them to' promote greater flexibility for
promoting appropriate commercial 'development in residential neighborhoods.
B.23 Provide for limited mixing of office, commercial, and industrial uses under
procedures which clearly define the conditions under which such uses shall be permitted
and which: (a) preserve the suitability of the affected areas for their primary uses; (b)
assure compatibility; and (c) c,onsider the potential for increased traffic congestion.
Pages ill-B-4 through ill-B-6
The Jasper-Natron development area is slated for nodal development overlay district
designation in at least two locations and possibly a third. 'This designation is intended to
promote walkable communities within which a variety of housing types and densities are
available; a variety of commercial goods and services are available; additional non-retail
employment opportunities are available; a major transit facility is present; and includes a
series of interconnected bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Employment mobility to and
from job-sites as well as goods and services mobility from these same sites is critical to the
viability and continuing success of these mixed~use developments and therefore
achievement of the policy. Notwithstanding these techniques at reducing use of and reliance
on automobiles, auto trips will be generated where none currently exist (vacant land).
These trips will rely heavily upon the OR 126 @ Main interchange and to a lesser degree,
on the OR 126 @ 520d interchange. If these two facilities are operating at unacceptable
.~ .,',r' "~ ~~ "
"!evels' of serVice~ the development of Jasper-Natron will certainly be delayed thereby
. 1,..,.. .. -J'-;,-' i.c_ ',~ ,_~", ,~'-. .
., tiifliieilcing laid supply needlessly to the detriment of Springfield's c"tlate Received
[!;~'.:. ,-
ATTACHMENT 1 - 15
FEB 8 2009
Planner: BJ
r' .,
r. ~,. ;
",
\.">
.'....... .
.
.
Transportation Element
F.l Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each jurisdiction that have
identified potential Jor this type oj transportation"efficient land use pattern
F.3 Provide Jor transit-oriented development along major transit corridors and near
transit stations; medium- and high-density residential development within Y. mile oj
transit stations, major transit corridors, employment centers, and downtown areas; and
. development and redevelopment in designated areas that are or could be well served by
existing or planned transit.
F.9 Adopt by reference, as part oj the Metro Plan, the 20-Year Capital Investment
Actions project lists contained in TransPlan. Project timing and estimated costs are not
adopted as policy. .
F.I0 Protect and manage existing and fUture transportation infrastructure.
. F.13 Support transportation strategies that enhance neighborhood livability.
F.14 Address the mobility and safety needs oj motorists, transit users, bicyclists,
pedestrians, and the needs oj emergency vehicles when planning and constructing
roadway system improvements. .
F.15 Motor vehicle level oj service policy:
a. Use motor vehicle level oj service standards to maintain acceptable and
reliable performance on the roadway system. These standards shall be
usedJor: .
(I)IdentifYing capacity deficiencies on the roadway system.
(2)Evaluating the impacts on roadways oj amendments to
transportation plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans and land-
use regulations, pursuant to the TPR (OAR 660-012-0060)
(3)Evaluating development applications Jor consistency with the land-
use regulations oJthe applicable local government jurisdiction.
b. Acceptable and reliable perJormance is defined by the Jollowing levels oj
service under peak hour traffic conditions: LOS E within Eugene's
Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) area, and LOS D elsewhere.
c. Performance standards from the [Oregon Highway Plan] OHP shall be
applied on state Jacilities in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
F.16 Promote or develop a regional roadway system that meets combined needs Jor travel
through, wi~hin, and outside the region. Date Received
"" '..
';1 ~.. \ '
FEB 3 2009
. '
, "
~ .' J l
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 1 - 16
.
.
F29 Support reasonable and reliable travel times for freight/goods movement in the Eugene-
Springfield region.
F35 Set priorities for investment of ODOT and federal revenues programmed in the region's
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to address safety and major capacity problems on
the region's transportation system. Pages ill-F-4 through ill-F-13
The two projects are critical to the transportation system that supports all land uses in East
Springfield and an freight and passenger trips which originate from outside the Metro Plan
boundaries. OR 126 @ Main Street frequently experiences LOS F and is projected to
exceed 1.0 vlc by 2025. This service level does not comply with the Metro Plan's LOS D nor
does it comply with ODOT's service level of .80 v/c. Such substandard condition will
delay, and may prevent the development of the Jasper-Natron mixed-use node, a land use
pattern that supports a variety of housing by type, density and price range; neighborhood
appropriate commercial and employment uses; presence of alternative modes of travel;
and a more compact urban form. Modernization of these two interchanges (ultimately)
will reduce congestion and improve air quality in and. around highly developed
neighborhoods thus improving at least two elements that are essential to livability.
TransPlan
Land Use Policy #I: Nodal Development
Apply the nodal development strategy in' areas selected by each jurisdiction that have
identified potential for this type of transportation-efficient land use pattern.
Land Use Policy #2: Supportfor Nodal Development
Support application of the nodal development strategy in designated areas through
information, technical incentives.
TSI System- Wide Policy #1: Transportation Infrastructure Protection and Management
Protect and manage existing andfUture transportation infrastructure.
TSI System-Wide Policy #4: Neighborhood Livability
Support transportation strategies that enhance neighborhood livability.
.
.
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.
TSI Roadway Policy #1: Mobility and Safety for all Modes
Address the mobility and safety needs of motorists, transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians,
and the needs of emergency vehicles when planning and constructing roadway system
improvements.
TSI Roadway Policy #2: Motor Vehicle Level of Service (LOS)
1. Use motor vehicle level of service standards to maintain acceptable and reliable
performance on the roadway system. These standards shall be usedfor:
a. Identifying capacity deficiencies on the roadway system.
b. Evaluating the impacts on the roadways of amendments to transportation
plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans and land-use regulations, pursuant to
the TPR (OAR) 660-012-0060)
c. Evaluating development applications for consistency with the land-use
regulations of the applicable local government jurisdiction.
2. Acceptable and reliable performance is defined by the following levels of service under
peak hour traffic conditions: Level of SerVice E within Eugene '.I' Central area
Transportation Study (CATS) area, and Level of Service D elsewhere.
3. Performance standards from the Oregon Highway Plan shall be applied on state
facilities in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
Finance Policy #3: Prioritization of State and Federal Revenue
Set priorities for investment of Oregon Department of Transportation (ODqT) and
federal revenues programmed in the region's Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) to address safety and major capacity problems on the region's transportation
system. " 2 Pages 10-12, Chapter 2
CONCLUSION
2 Financial constraint is a requirement of the federal RTP aod is defined as: "Financially constrained or Fiscal
constraint means that the metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, and STIP includes sufficient financial information
for deI1tonstI:!!lll?g ~t projects in the metropolitan transportation plan, TIP and STIP cao be implemented using
conmritte(( available, or reasonably available revenue sources, with reasonable assurance that th"t~ Rece'lv d
supported transportation system is being adequately operated and maintained." (CFR 450.104 De~LtJl
:Vi' -;-,
FEB 3 2009
J
ATTACHMENT l' - 18
Planner:
.
.
The proposed amendments meet all applicable standards and cntena in the Springfield
Development Code, Chapter 5, Section 5.14-135. State law does not require state~mandated
regional or local transportation plans to distinguish projects based on financial constraint; this is
strictly a federal requirement for MPOs when adopting, updating or amending federal regional
transportation plans. TransPlan has served as both the federal RIP and the state transportation.
system plan since at least 1986. In 2001 the MPO adopted TransPlan as the RIP and the elected
officials of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County adopted TransPlan as a functional plan to the
Metro Plan; however,.this latter action occurred without removing the federal standards that had
always co-habited TransPlan. This audit/edit was deferred to a later date to coincide with future
triennial updates of the RIP. !tis only as a result of this deferral circumstance, not Oregon
Administrative Rule, which has led to the need to undertake this amendment to TransPlan.
Notwithstanding this situation, the proposed amendments are consistent with the provisions in
the Springfield Development Code; with policies in the Metro Plan and TransPlan for Metro
Plan amendment; and with the applicable statewide planning goals and the Oregon
Administrative Rules which interpret those goals.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A - History of these projects (prepared by Springfield staff)
Exhibit B - OR 126 EMP Draft Problem Statement (prepared by CH2MHill)
Exhibit C - Memorandum 4.2 (prepared by Kittleson and Associates)
Exhibit D - October 2, 2008 Memorandum from DLCD to LCDC
Exhibit E - October 30, 2007 Memorandum from LCOG to MPC
Exhibit F - November 8, 2007 MPC Meeting Minutes
Exhibit G - Map showing location of proposed projects
Exhibit H - Correspondence submitted into the record ofLRP 2008-00013
,".",.';!.j;~:' 1'''('
Date Received
FEB ~ 2009
ATTACHMENT 1 - 19
Planner: BJ
.'Gri\ )
.
.
'1 ,c.
.
.
EXHIBIT A - P1
OR 126 at Main Street Interchange Imorovements
1. Construction of the interchange improvement is an integral assumption of
land use planning inside the urban growth boundary.
. Land use plans and decisions over the past 25 years have
anticipated the improvement.
. The improvement is needed to serve current planned land use
densities inside the UGB, including two nodal development areas
specified in TransPlan.
. The nodal development areas have also been long anticipated
employment centers - proposed near residential, commercial and
public uses in this part of the metro area.
2. The interchange location is a significant distance from the existing urban
growth boundary.
. There are four schools east of this location, between the
intersection and the UGB,
. Two new school are now being planned south of this location.
. The future interchange location is 2.6 miles to the west of the
eastern UGB and 2.4 miles north of the intersection of Bob Straub
Parkway and Jasper Road, a location north of the southern UGB.
3, The existing intersection is over capacity right now (LOS F), and is currently
in the top 10% on OOOT's Safety Priority Index System list. The top 10% of
safety problems are those OOOT prioritizes to work at resolving.
Some Facts About OR 126/Main Street and OR 126/52nd Street
.
In 1986 Eugene, Springfield and Lane County adopted TransPlan, the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. . The 1986 TransPlan Was also
adopted as the Transportation Element of MetroPlan, the Metropolitan Area General
Plan.
.
The 1986 TransPlan included Projects #305 and #306. These projects are described
in the 1986 TransPlan as:
o 305. SR 126 at 52nd Street - construct interchange.
Justification: Level of Service and Safety
o 306. SR 126 at Main Street - construct interchange.
Justification: Level of Service and Safety .
.
Projects 305 and 306 are listed in the 1986 TransPlan as Long Range Projects,
which means that they are assumed to be needed near the end ,of the plan horizon.
TransPlan states that identifying short, medium and long range projects is "based on
a 1985 estimate ofproject need and justification, funding availability and rate of
. - development".
Date Received
. "
\ r.
";101\ ..
FEB 3 2009
\.',.
Planner: BJ
. .
.
.
EXHIBIT A -
.
In the section describing the 1986 TransPlan relationship to MetroPlan, TransPlan
states that "TransPlan is designed to serve the population, employment and land
uses specified in the MetroPlan".
.
Land uses within the urban growth boundary in 1986 projected enough planned
vehicle trips to justify including these two long range projects in the plan as
necessary to preserve mobility and provide safe highway operations at th(: two
locations.
.
Each subsequent amendment and update to TransPlan since 1986, in addition to the
2007 adoption of the 2031 Federal Regional Transportation Plan, have included
these important Projects.
.
When ODOT constructed SR 126 in the late 1960s and early 70s, 126/52"d Street
and 126/Main Street were built as at-grade signalized intersections. However, at
that time the State also acquired right of way at both locations in anticipation of the
future need to construct interchanges at those locations.
.
In 2004 ODOT Region 2 began a facility planning project for all of OR 126 from
1-5 to Main Street. This facility had recently been designated by the Oregon
. Transportation Commission as a Statewide Expressway. The project goal is to
ultimately complete an Expressway Management Plan, or EMF, for the entire
facility from 1-5 to Main Street.
.
Two project phases of the Expressway Management Plan were completed by ODOT
between 2004 and 2007. These phases are the Existing and Future No-Build
Conditions Report and Concept Development and Evaluation for 126/42.d St.,
126/52nd St., and 126/Main St. During this time OR 126 was also designated a
Statewide Freight Route. .
.
The Current and Future No-Build Conditions Report documented, among other
things, significant existing mobility, geometry and safety problems at 126/52nd
Street and 126/Main Street. Future no-build projections at these locations showed
serious degradation of existing sub-standard safety and mobility conditions.
.
In 2008 ODOT began Phase 3 of the OR 126 Expressway Management Plan. The
purpose of this Project phase is to evaluate and select interchange alternatives at
126/52nd St. an.d 126/Main St., to complete the associated policy framework for
interchange area management planning, and to complete NEP A-level analysis
appropriate to this stage of project planning.
.
In 2007 and 2008, the Lane County United Front Federal Priorities included
requests for funding to complete a NEP A documentation (EIS or EA as required), to
begin preliminary design, and to potentially acquire needed right of way.
.
The Jasper-Natron area in southeast Springfield has been included in the metro area
. urbangr(J:vth boundary since 1987. In 2002, the updated TransPI~a~ived
three Nodal Development areas (9G, 9H,.9J) along the route of the Yas't~'R~a~v"
?xtension (now Bob Straub Parkway) inside the urban growth boundary fEB 3 lOD9
: ~'r{.
"
Planner: BJ
. ,
.
.
EXHIBIT B - Pl
. .,_.~., ,;.0;"',
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #3
CH2MHILL
, . ~f;;t:~~~.,__,. :" .
DRAFT- OR 126 EMPtf~~2'.Problem Statements
PREPARED FOR:
Tom Boyatt, ODOT
OR 126 Phase 2 PMT
Sam Seskin, CH2M I-llLL
Kirsten Pennington, CH2M HILL
Julia Kuhn, Kittelson & Associates
Kristin Hull, Jeanne Lawson Ass,"ia _ ~
Vaughn Brown, Jeanne Lawso~ Associate
.-,i!;~ ""t},.
~'l.'4""~'-""'" -,;>
Revised November 8, 2005,1 "
330812 ,,;l"
f~
""I
(
PREPARED BY:
Problem Statements. Overview
..
~;
COPIES:
DATE:
PROJECT NUMBER:
aption of prob.Jtn; ,Stq.tement as part of Work
ment Plan ~)'Phase 2 project.
- ,,~,",
,'.,
,~,
The development of p~$" tatements . 'of the planning process.
;;.-
Problem statements/Wst -. most tefle ehold alues, and frame the problem to
be addressed,duA'ih, ~',~,,- proje _ e ~evelo .:~t ~f prOblem,' stat~ents gen~~aIIy occurs
after ~evelopmg-i:he l:~~ fo~ ~rOJ~ct - esta~g baseline eXIsting c.onditions, .
engagmg st~~olders th.f;.q~RnJ!l!~~)~ and!feHning goals for the prOJect - but pnor to
the develo,pm.r' e evaluation frameW:0:tkltf1.at will be used to analyze project solutions.
l~~t ' -<-;~; ~,~_, I~~
.4' statements 0 . e w~~e1:!olders agree on, legitimize the full range of
'I>'~~""
s er values, and ot offenso-futions. Problem statements serve l\S the foundation
for a Na:~ Environm . PolicfAct (NEP A) process "Purpose and Need" statement as
well as the a lopment 0; ; lutions.
The OR 126 E -tie.2,;!oject has three problem statements, focused on the subject
intersections and int~~ge: the OR 126 & Main Street intersection; the OR 126 & 52n~
Street intersection; alt'tfthe OR 126 & 42n~ Street interchange. Separate problem statements
are developed for each interchange or intersection because it is assumeli that the problem
statements Will be suitable to use for development of a purpose and need statement shoulli
there be a future NEP A process. It is assumed that each of the intersections and. interchange
has indepenlient utility and could be phased in over time as funding allows.
Technical Memorandum #3 addresses Td~
Order Contract 37 for the OR 126 Express'Wa1
!:
It is important to note that these problem statements are draft. They will be refined and
validated through an open process to reconcile differences in stakeholder opinion and focus
on the most relevant problems for the subject interchange and intersections along the OR
"J26 corridor.
,
"
D~. j~ '~r:r
p.'lr. '.' ',-
.1'" 1/.
(>~.,-'.
Date Received
FEB .~ 2009
L .
SEAiREVlSED OR 1:za P2 PROBlEM STATEMENTS l1"B.DDC
- .
.. . ~,
, .
Planner: BJ
.
.
EXHIBIT B
p
CRAFT. OR 126 EMP P\<ASE 2 PROBLEM STATEMENTS
OR 126 & Main Street Intersection Area Problem Statement
When roadways in the OR 126 & Main Street intersection area were originally constructed,
they served a rural area. As development and population increased, traffic congestion has
increased, and it is expected to worsen in the future as growth continues. The OR 126 &
Main Street intersection is approaching full capacity during peak travel times 1 , and heavy
traffic congestion and delay are anticipated at several intersections in the area by 2025 if no
improvements are made. .
The existing volume/ capacity (v / c) ratio at OR 126 & Main Street is 0.93, where l.00
represents the roadway filled to capacity during peak travei nme. Future (2025) operational
analysis shows that operations at the OR 126 & Main Street intersection are antidpated to
exceed a v / c of 1.0 by 2025 without improvements,,;fhese v / c ratios also do not meet ODOT
highway standards. 2 Congestion at other intersitions ift the immediate area is also
expected to worsen over time. ...,.~.:,.'\.
"".r
. ' .". .'", ,~,~(';-',
Future mixed-use development at the 800+-acre Ja$percl'J~lfuri:'Site located south'~ast of the
OR 126 & Main Street intersection is expected to incre~~igaffic at the intersection and
surrounding area, partially through a direct connection ~i.t!;e new Jasper Road Extension.
.-, ..". .'.:. " '~:'f~~1~\, .
Local stakeholders are concerned about.the'i!rtpact of new inl~19ytiinents or potential
development restrictions on the economjr and loCal business artd land owners. Concerns
include impacts to prol1ettWi!.4sting structures,buildlibili,1Yibusiness visibility and access.
Stakeholders recogr)j;iii the rii!~~tto make saine improvements to the OR 126 & Main Street
intersection to r~i{~l'future coij:'gestion while .minimizing property impacts to the greatest
extent possible. Stakehg1!'!ers th,1hk there should'be a community-oriented, compromise
approach to d"termi:nirlg'}lppr6Rf::\~\!MPJ.utions. -.
. <; ;.~..~.i ;':;:~/',,:~;::,' '... '\.';;,J-:i>., . ""'." :''1 /&:jf~%~}~~,~;t.. .
Stakeholders agreeihat the tr~jion from e5<pressway to commercial arterial at the OR 126
'..r-.,o-
& Main Street intersectionshouldiw,flrkAor everyone, including local residents and
businesSes, freight, and thetrave1ii\g;{ffrblic. Lane Transit District wants to maintairi the
park-and~lide facility located at OR:~i26 & Main Street and has identified issues with access
and circulation to the Thurston Bus Station.
:\:
Crash trends shOW;:a pattern of rear-end collisions at the OR 126 & Main Street irltersection
(15 of 20 total crashe'~frOin 1998-2002), though the crash rate is lower than the statewide
averages for similar rbadway facilities. There is a perception that the OR 126 & Main Street
intersection is challenging for pedestrians and bicyclists due to the crosswalk length and
lack of defined bicycle facilities on the north side of Main Street. There are several private
driveways and public roadways along Main Street located very close to the OR 1.26 & Main
Street intersection, which can slow traffic operations and lead to opportunities for crashes.3
1 The peak hour of travel is 5:00-6:00 p.m.
2 Standards: At OR 126IMain: V/C = 0.60 (Oregon Highway Plan) and V/C = 0.75 (Highway Design ManuaD; At 54"lMain: V/C
= O.SO (Oregon Highway Plan) and V/C = 0.75 (Highway Design Manual); At 5S"/Main: VlC = C.SO (Oregon Highway Plan) and
V/C = 0.75 (Highway Design Manual); At Jasper RdlMt. Vernon Rd: V/C = 0.90 (OHP). . d
~..~tultipl~ private,and public accesses to the west and east of Main Street do not meet OOOT aca~ DAAla,ve
statewide' highways (990' for non-5TA statewide highways with a posted speed of 40-45 mph). UC:Uv nV'\;IQ
. ;," ':'
, " ~
I,
FEB 3 2009
2
Planner: BJ
.t.
.
.
EXHIBIT B
DRAFT -DR 126 EMP PHASE 2 PROBLEM STATEMENTS
OR 126 & 52nd Street Intersection Area Problem Statement
"" ..
"i.}:!...<":
.it'
4S1an.c[a,,!!~;_AtPR,1,26!52.."' St: VlC = O.BO (Oregon Highway Plan) and V/C = 0.75 (Highway De~JlI; tt1 . d
52~t;tlghbanks: LOS", E or VIC < 0.9 (City of Springfield); Al 52"' SVG St: LOS = E or VlC < O.g (~'i'"reoel\le
SVF St LOS = E or VlC < 0.9 (City of Springfield) V'
I r ~
FEB ~ 2009
3
,','
"\
. C)'
Planner: BJ
,i" .
,. i
'- . ~
P3
I
I
"
f'
l'
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
.
.
EXHIBIT B
DRAFT. OR 126 EM? PHASE 2 PROBLEM STATEMENTS
OR 126 & 42nd Street Interchange Area Problem Statement
The OR 126/42nd Street interchange was not originally built to accommodate the levels of
traffic that it is expected to experience in the future due to increased growth in the area. The
interchange structure is outdated, which contributes to issues with traffic congestion and
perceptions of safety. Future development in the area is anticipated to increase traffic levels
(e.g. vacant Pierce property located north of the interchange, which is zoned campus
industrial, community commercial and medium density resi~enq!il).
:i',~;;';!"'.'
The existing volumel capacity (v I c) ratio at the OR 126 Eastq9'~d Ramps & 42n' Street is
0.92, where 1.00 represents the roadway filled to capacity;,ittililig peak travel time.
.: ~:.-,!.' . ., ;.s -
'. . ;"L~~~0>..
Future traffic operations at 42nd Street and the OR 126 Eastbound iiricL\\Testbound Ramps
are expected to worsen (Eastbound = vlc of 0.95 and Westbcund =vJa;~eater than 1.0).
The OR 126 mainline (42nd Street to 52nd Street) is ,expected to operate attl.95,in the
eastbound direction during peak travel time by 2025, where 1.00 representii ~rbadway
filled to capacity. The Marcola Road & 42nd Street iritersecti6n and the Olympic Street &
42nd Street intersection are expected to experience heavy congestion and delay by 2025 (vi c
greater than 1,0) without improvem&i!:!!,; 5' ,
. - . \~~.:\;.~t:~?:~~,i'~, . "'":;",..-' .
On 42nd Street, six driveways to the norl:h. cif'i:he!:mt~~change aild:tWo driveways to the south
of the interchange are located within OD9T s q~.~e:f0~e spacb:tg recommendation for
interchanges, which c\lfl~aff~gt};raffic operfiag~s!'Soutlt;'ii'(;~l:!"OR 126 & 42nd Street,
interchange, a railroad'crossilig-on 42nd Streltl'is routinely?olocked 20 times each day as
trains service thentia:J:RY forest pi;oducts mill: 'f.he City of Springfield has observed queuing
and travel delay issue's related to rail movemerttffi-_this location at certain times of the day.
o,!_ ,.- """f'.)
"'~~,:'";;!::"_'" ~":':~':: _ . ';: ;: ::: ,":".: :':.. )1:;-'
Stakehol!'l,erlfa:8f~~;>fuat the'OR 126 &: '42"d ,Street interchange area must be able to
acco~bdate freigRt'-m,OVenlertt with rniniIcized congestion to continue to serve as a
p~ point for tru~R;1li:-<:ess tonearbyland uses (e.g. Weyerhaeuser and trucking firms).
~:':-':';;'-':'~:~';"'- ':!;'~~., .'.:. .
Safety c6ti!:\l,~ at the OR ~~~ & 42nd Street interchange relate to increasing traffic volumes
and safetY ~~~ related to mterchange geometry. Ramp taper lengths are too short and
'."':..". ;-,:.,
cause difficul~i{pr traffic,%particularly trucks - at the interchange. Vertical stopping sight
distances presertti~er:>gii~ to drivers. The eastbound off-ramp has a vertical curve that is
too short given thel'B~'i:he beginning of the off-ramp. The westbound exit ramp has a
crest curve that is tod'~hort given the operating speeds of vehicles exiting the expressway
and entering the looping off-ramp. The westbound exit ramp deceleration ramp length is
extremely short, and the short length combined with the vertical and horizontal curvature
make negotiating the ramp difficult.
, 5 Standards: At 42'" SUOR 126 Westbound Ramps: V/C. 0,85 (Oregon Highway Plan) and VlC. 0._- waYRsign
" 'Manual); At 42"! SUOR'126 Eastbound Ramps: VIC = 0,85 (Oregon Highway Plan) and VlC = 0,75 ( i ,s ' .
"At42"'SUOlympic:LOS = 0 (City of Springfieid); At 42'" SlIMareola: LOS = E orV/C<0,9 (City of Spnng ,e eee,ved
:fl'., ~
FEB 3 zoo~
Planner: BJ
~
.
.
EXHIBIT C - P1
I
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
T RAN S P 0 R TAT ION E N. GIN E E R I N G I P I.. ANN I N G
610 SW Alder Street, Suite 700, Portland, OR 97205 P'S03.228.5230 ;= 503.273.8169
MEMORANDUM
Date:
December 11, 2008 .
Savannah Crawford, ODOT Region 2
Kirsten Pennington, CB2M HILL
OR 126 PMT
Project #: 6221
To:
From:
Project:
Subject:
Julia Kulm, P.E, Joe Bessman, P.E. & Nick Badal
. OR 126 Expressway Management Plan - Phase 3
Memorandum 4.2: Existing Conditions Traffic Operations
1bis memorandum describes the existing traffic conditions and safety analyses for Phase 3 of the
OR 126 Expressway Management Plan (EMF). Future memoranda will address year 2031 no-
build conditions as well as an analysis of potential "build" alternatives. This memorandum
addresses Task 4.2 of the project scope, and reviews traffic conditions at and between 52nd Street
and Main Street (Business 126) in Springfield, Oregon. The information presented in this
memorandum shall supersede exis.ting conditions information developed in Phase lof the EMF;
the previous information should now be considered outdated.
Introduction
OR 126 is classified in the Oregon Highway Plan as a Statewide Highway, an Expressway, a bypass,
and a designated freight route. The study area for the EMF contains the roadway section between
1-5 and Main Street (Business 126). Phase 3 of the project focuses only on the eastern 'segment of
the corridor, specifically, the 52nd and Main Street intersections.
Within the study area, the highway has two distinct sections in terms of design and character.
The western portion (1-5 to 4200 Street) is a grade-separated and access-controlled four-lane
divided facility. The eastern section (52nd Street to Main Street-OR 126 Business) is an access-
controlled facility with at-grade signalized intersections at 5200 Street and Main Street. The
location of existing roadway facilities within close proximity to these intersections along OR 126
are illustrated in Figure 1.
The remainder of this memorandum documents the existing traffic,volumes and operations'and a
roadway safety review.
,,0"' ".t. ;r~;
.','rtc,.."tirit'...:,. :';"~ 1....s...'<.:.,.--
"
Date ReceiVed
FEB 3 2009
Planner: BJ'
"
FILENAME: PROJEcrFILE/6221/EXISTTNG.DOC
;;
~
"
~
!
1
~
.
i
'"
~
-
~
Q
~
"
.
~
i
~
~
'!;
..
<ll
~
~
:9 ''>
~ "
..
i \)-(\", ,
i:
.
.
EXHIBIT C -
OR 126 Expressway 'Management Plan
December 2008
B
(NO SCALE)
~"GHB4
NKs RD
T N RD
LANE COUNTY
SITE VICINITY MAP
SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
~ krrrELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
~ TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING I PLANNING Planner: BJ
.
.
EXHIBIT C
P3
DR 125 Expressway Management Plan - Phase 3
December 11,2008
Project #: 5221
Page 3
Existing Conditions
The OR 126 study area is located within the Oty of Springfield Urban Growth Boundary. The
study segment is bordered by residential and commercial uses. A park-and-ride ,transit facility
operated by the Lane Transit District is located m the southeast quadrant of the OR 126/Maffi
Street mtersection, Thurston High School is located northeast of the OR 126/Maffi Street
mtersection (east of 58th Street), and a Bonneville Power AdrnIDistration (BP A) transmission lIDe
crosses the OR 126 corridor along the west side of the OR 126/Maffi Street mtersection.
Geometric Configurations
Lane configurations and posted speeds were reviewed along the study area roadways to identify
any changes or improvements completed smce the initial EMP Phase 1 work efforts m 2004. The
only noted change to the study area was the extension .of the Bob Straub Parkway, the southern
leg of the OR 126/Mam Street mtersection. While the connection had been m place at the OR
126/Maffi Street mtersection during the previous efforts, the roadway has now been extended
through Daisy ,Street south to S 57th Street, providIDg access to and from the adjacent
neighborhoods. The Bob Straub Parkway contains a five-lane cross-section with bicycle lanes,
detached sidewalks, and illummation. The roadway is accessccontrolled with a landscaped center
median and left-turn bays at public mtersections. No other significant improvements were
, identified that impact the study area mtersections. Figure 2 illustrates the existing geometric lane
configurations and traffic control devices throughout the study area.
Existing Access Management
As identified m the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP), minimum spacing standards for OR 126 (a
Statewide Highway and Expressway) are 2,640 feet, measured centerlIDe to centerline. Along
Busmess 126 (also a Statewide Highway with a posted speed of 40 mph) the minimum access
spacing standard is 770 feet.
The spacing between OR 126/Maffi Street-Bob Straub Parkway is 1,050 feet and contains two
driveways. A 'two-way center left-turn lane divides eastbound and westbound traffic along
Busmess 126 (Mam Street), allowing full-access movements at both driveways.
Between OR 126/Maffi Street-Bob Straub Parkway and OR 126/58th Street is also 1,050 feet and
contains seven driveways. A raised median is m place between OR 126/Maffi Street and OR
126/58th Street, restrictffig access along the segment.
,
With the number of access pomts currently m place, access management standards are not met
within the study area.
..-. '~".'_.. _"4'""___ ~.. ,...._".."....._.
Date Received
,"
~ <. .;:
q::!3 ~ 2999
Portland, Oregon
Planner: BJ
,j
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
'.'
* OR 121) - MAIN STf * OR 126 - MAIN STI
@ALBEATSOWBI-MARTACCESS @ SHELl../BI-MART ACCESS
ra :J9UUBld
83~
!i2NDSTI
o H1GHBANKS AD
,
,
52NDSTI
eGST
'"
. ~
BUS 126 -IMIN STI
CD SAFEWAY EAST ACCESS
~
J
~
I
I
i
i
!
f
!
J ...... MCHANNELlZATION
ti c:::I MMEDIAN
t 0 M PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
j: . - PUBLIC INTERSECTION
BOB STRAUB'PKWYI
@ TRANSIT CENTER ACCESS
'~
~
'NOTE: WHILE THE n FUEL CENTER (INTERSECTION '10)AND 6HELL FUEL CENTER
(INTERSECTION '11) EACH INCLUDE TWO DRIVEWAYS, EACH PAIfIIS SHOWN AND ANALYZED
AS A SINGLE DRIVEWAY G"'.ENTHE PROXILtl'TY.
YEAR 2008 EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS AND TRAFAC CONTROL DEVICES
SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
~ KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES,INC.
~ TRANSPORTATloNENGI'll!:ERNGI PLANNINi
BUS 1211- MAIN STI
e!i4THST
OR 126. B08 STRAUB PKWY/
Cl) BUS 128 -MAtN ST
~
~=lIl~.
.... r
'II"
4-
III
.y
D/ICfJf1Ibtor2OOlJ
m
tOO SCAlf)
.
m
><
:x:
~
OJ
-l
n
-0
""'-
BUS 126 - MAIN STI
@SAFEWAYWESTACCESS
=
....
OR 126 - MAIN STf
o Bl-MAAT WEST ACCESS
~
l~~
o
OR 128 - MAIN STI
e 56TH ST
4~.
-'
.
.
OR 126 Expressway Management Plan - Phase 3
December 11, 2008
EXH I BITe
P5
Project #: 6221
Page 5
Design Hour Traffic Volume Derivation
The analysis of existing conditions was conducted by factoring the raw count data to obtain the
30th highest hour design hour traffic volumes. The derivation of the traffic volumes includes
review of the manual traffic counts to identify data anomalies and errors, seasonal adjustments to
account for variations in traffic flow by time of year, and balancing between intersections to
account for data imprecision. This section details the existing conditions design hour traffic
volume development.
Data Collection Efforts
All of the data collection efforts throughout the study ar!,a were conducted on May 20, 2008 to
ensure proper balancing between intersections and driveways. The traffic counts were conducted
in May to account for school traffic associated with Thurston High School, which is located along
NE 58th Street near the OR 126/Main Street intersection. Attachment "A" includes a detailed summary
. .
of the data collection efforts and contains the raw traffic data.
Design Hour Identification
Development of the existing traffic volumes followed a multi-step process. Sixteen-hour traffic
counts were conducted between 4:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. at the key study intersections of OR
126/Main Street and OR 126/5200 Street. Review of the count data in 15-minute incr.ements was
used to identify the peak analysis hour on a total entering vehicle (fEV) basis. Traffic volume
profiles for the two intersections are shown in Chartl. As illustrated in Chart 1, the data shows
that the study area contains two distinct peaks; one in the morning between 7:15 and 8:15 a.m.
and another during the evening commute period between 4:4S and 5:45 p.m.
Following the morning peak hour, traffic volumes decline until 9:00 a.m., then rise throughout the
day until the evening commute peak. Traffic volumes measured at the intersections during the
weekday p.m. peak hour are approximately 20 percent higher than those during the weekday
'. a.m. peak hour, representing the critical analysis period. Traffic volumes in the study area decline
rapidly following the evening peak hour.
Following identification of the 4:45 to 5:45 p.m. analysis period, the traffic counts were reviewed
on an individual and system-wide basis to identify potential data anomalies. As the traffic counts
were collected during a single day in May and were collected at all of the intersections and
driveways throughout the study area, the counts were checked for consistency along the corridor.
Review of the raw data showed no significant volume disparities between any of the traffic
counts. .;
. - .'~
..
'.,
~p I~
KitteJso~ -& Assodates: Inc.
Date Rec$ived
FEB q 200Q
Portland, Oreg~n
Planner: BJ
.
.
EXH I BITe
.OR 126 Expressway Management Plan - Phase 3
December 11,2008
Project II: 6221
Page 6
Chart 1
Traffic Volume Profile
500
-+-OR 126/52nd Street I
_OR 126/Main St
.r' / ...
~ .? / ,It
........ ,;-.
I \ ...... / \ :\
~ ..:> ,/ -
I I\~ ,..J ~ /' .~
./' '0'
j \ J ......
I
...
It"
4,000
3,500
3,000
.
.
u 2,500
E
.
:>
'"
.e 2,000
.!l
c
"'
;;;
~ 1,500
f"
1,000
o
4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2;00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00
~ ~ ~ ~ AM AM ~ ~ PM PM ~ PM ~ ~ PM PM
Time of Day (Hour Starting)
Traffic volumes were then balanced throughout the corridor to correct for minor count
synchronization and data collection errors. The traffic counts.were balanced from locations with a
higher expected degree of accuracy in consideration of individual intersection signal phasing and
right-turn treatments.
S~asonal Adjustments
The balanced and rounded traffic volumes were factored from the May 20, 2008 cmmts to the 30th
highest hour design volumes using seasonal adjustment factors. Data for the seasonal adjustment
factors were obtained using the Commuter roadway classification within ODOT's Seasonal Trend
Tables to characterize the OR 126 corridor. As identified from the tables, an adjustment factor of
3.1. percent was applied to the traffic volumes to reflect peak summertime conditions. All traffic
volumes were rounded to the nearest five vehicles to better represent the data collection
imprecision and daily traffic variability. Figure 3 illustrates the resultant 30th highest design hour
traffic volumes. Attachment "B" includes a summary of the seasonal adjustment procedure.
Date R6Cf3!ived
,
FEB
S 2009
".l
':'1'
Kittelson & Associate;s, Inc.
OR 126 ExpnInw.y Manll(}amtllll P/1III
,-- ~
,. .~
~
!
I
I
i
~
~
t' ,..----
lOS_INTERSECTION LEVEL DF 5ERVICE
(61GNAUlED)/CAITlCAl MOVEMENT lEVel
fj Of5ERVICE(UNSlGNAUZED)
1M Del. INTERSECTION AVERAGE CONTROL DB.AY
(BIOnwzED,vcRI1100 MOVEMENTCONffiOL
DELAY (UNSlGNALIZED)
:I:: V~.. CRlTlCAl YOLUME.TD-CAPACI1Y RATIO
CD - PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
o - PUBUC INTERSECTION
NOTE: 30TH HIGHEST HOUR DESIGN VOLUMES ARE BALANCED,'ROUNDED AND
SEASONALLY ADJUSTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
~ KfTTELSCN & ASSOCIATES,INC.
It!iiiWT......POIlT..TION"'~....., PL."~
FFB
~ 2009
Planner: BJ
52N05TI
o HIGHBANK5 AD
~~:.;
~
lJdollll
'JIf..4!;Q
);
52NOSTI
C).OST
BUS 128 - MAIN STI
o SAFEWAY EAST ACCESS
54THSTI
f) HIGHBANKS AD
-
63J:::=;::~~
BUS 128-lAA1NSTI
e54T1iST
OR 128 - BOB STRAUB PKWVI
e ~U5 1211 - MAIN ST
QR128-MAINSTI OA128-MAINSTI
@)ALBERT5DWBI.MARTACCESS @SHELUElI-MART ACCESS
BOB STRAUB PKWYt
@ TRANSIT CENTER ACCESS
BOB STRAUB PKWYI
CD DAISY ST
""''''''''"'-
m
(N05CAlE)
.
OA 128 - MAIN STI
@BI.MARTWESTACCESS
.
m
><
:r:
-
<II
-
YEAR 200B 30TH HIGHEST HOUR DESIGN VOLUMES
SPR,NGFIELD, OREGON
-l
("")
"'tl
......
.
.
EXHIBIT C
OR 126 Expressway Management Plan - Phase 3
December 11, 2008
Project #: 6221
Page 8
Saturation Flow Rates
Saturation flow rates are defined as the maximum rate, expressed as vehicles per hour per lane
green (vpHPLG), at which vehicles can discharge through an intersection assuming a solid green
signal indication. Saturation flow rates car, vary widely based on the area type, relative
congestion, geometric conHguration, and other site-specific factors. While standardized default
saturation flow 'rates are widely used to assess traffic operations, saturation flow rate
measurements were' obtained at both key intersections along the OR 126 corridor to more
accurately assess the current operations. These measured rates account for upstream roadway
characteristics that are affecting how traffic flows at the study area intersections. Measured
saturation flow rates resulted in the values summarized in Table 1. Attachment .e" summarizes the
saturation flow rate calculation methodology.
Table 1
Saturation Flow Rate Comparison
Measured Saturation
Measur~d Saturation . Flow Rate with Truck
Intersection Movement Flow Rate Adjustment
Eastbound Through 1,762 VPHPLG 1,797 VPHPLG
OR 126/ Westbound Through 1,699 VPHPLG 1,769 VPHPLG
Main Street Southbound Left-turn 1,743 VPHPLG 1,796 VPHPLG
Value Applied to Intersection: 1,800 VPHPLG
- , Eastbound Through 1,848 VPHPLG 1,886 VPHPLG
OR 126/ Westbound Through 1,828 VPHPLG 1,924 VPHPLG
52nd ~S.treet Value Applied to Intersection: 1,900 VPHPLG
- ".
.- > . VP~:LG: Vehicles per hour per lane green
-.
, ,
,
Foi intersections where saturation flow rates were not measured, an ideal saturation flow rate of
1,900 vehicles per hour per lane green was applied.
. .
1.
j'
. .t
Signal Timing
There are four signalized intersections within the study area; OR 126/5200 Street, OR 126/Main
Street, OR 126/58"' Street, and Main Street/5.4"' Street. While under the jurisdiction of ODOT,
signal timing at all of the signalized intersections are maintained by the City of Springfield.
Current' signal timing plans were obtained from the City for each of these intersections to
replicate existing traffic conditions in the analysis models.
As identified in the signal timing plans, all lif lhe study intersections operate in an uncoordinated
mode throughout the day with no fixed cycle length. All of the study intersections operate with
protected left-turn phasing along the major routes with protected or pemrissive signal phasing
along the minor streets, depending on the traffic volumes.
At the intersection of OR 126/Main Street the traffic signal operates with split phasing to
accommodate the heavy southbound to eastbound mo~~ee~c along OR 126.
Kittelson & Assodatesl Inc.
FEB 3 LU09
Portland, Oregon
Planner: BJ'
.
.
EXH I BITe
P9
OR 126 Express'way Management Plan - Phase 3
December 11,2008
Project #: 6221
Page 9
Additionally, westbound and southbound right turns are channelized maneuvers that operate
. separate from the signalized intersection as yield-controlled or merge/diverge maneuvers.
Review of the existing signal timing plans identified deficiencies related to pedestrian walk and
flashing don't walk times. These signal timing parameters were modified within the existing
conditions analysis to reflect minimum times needed to ensure pedestrian safety.
Analysis Methodology
Operational analysis models were constructed for the study area based on the 30" highest hour
traffic volUjI1es, GIS base map information, the site inventory, and signal illriing information
obtained from the City of Springfield. This model was used to assess existing traffic operations
and queuing within the study area. A peak hour factor was used throughout the analysis to
replicate traffic operations and queuing during the peak 15 minutes of the peak hour..
In addition to volume-to-capacity ratios, level-of-service, and delay, intersection queuing was also
reviewed to determine whether vehicular queues extend beyond the available storage bays or
require more than a single signal cycle to clear. The queuing analysis was completed using
SimTraffic software averaging multiple model runs, as outlined in the July 10, 2008 Analysis
Procedures memorandum (included as Attachment "D").
Performance Measures
The OHP and subsequent OHP amendments outline specific performance measures to be
maintained along ODOT facilities. These standards are aimed at maintaining mobility along
important roadway corridors and vary according to functional classification, location, and role
within the National Highway System (NHS). Applicable intersection performance measures for
facilities within this study are summarized in Table 2'.'
. ,
I .
..
Date Received
FEB 3 2009
-.t";:.
. -. ~ .....- i. ~
:"1':
1 Performanc~ standards outlined herein are subiect to chanqe.
Kitte/;on ~& Associates, Inc. .,
Planner: BJ
Portland, Oregon
"
.
OR 126 Expressway Management Plan - Phase 3
December 11, 2008
.
EXHIBIT C
Pl
Project #: 6221
Page 10
Table 2
Applicable Existing Conditions Operational Standards
Location Jurisdiction Applicable Standard
. OR 126 Corridor ODOT OHP vIe = 0.80
. OR 126/520' Street .
. OR 126/Main Street
. OR 126/58'" Street OOOT OHP vIe = 0.80
. OR 126/Retail Accesses between
Main/OR 126 & 58'"
. Main Street/54th Street
ODOT OHP vIe = 0.85
. Main Street;Safeway Accesses
. 520' StreetlHighbanks
. 52'" Street/G Street City/County LOS D and vie = 0.85
. Highbanks/54'" Street
. Bob Strau~ Parkway/Daisy Street
. Daisy Street/58'" Street
City/County LOS D and vIe = 0.85
. Bob Straub ParkwayfTransit
Center Access
Traffic Operations Analysis
The existing intersection operational conditions were evaluated using Synchro analysis software.
Detailed review of the OR 126 segment and intersection operations are presented below, as well
as an overview of the adjacent public intersections and driveways throughout the study area. A
summary of the intersection operations is presented in Figure 3.
OR U6 Corridor Analysis
Weekday p.m. peak hour volume-ta-capacity ratios were calculated for the OR 126 and Business
126 roadway segments based on the methodologies outlined in the Highway CapacitY. Manual. A
summary of the existing segment volumes and capacity are provided in Table 3.
Segment
OR 126 (520'
Street to Main
Street).:';', :.'
OR 126 (Bob
Straub Parkway
to 58'" Street)
Businessi26 n,
'(54'" Street to .
Bob Straub' ....
ParkwaY)i; I .
Direction
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
, ,~.
Eastbound
:Westbound
, ..' .~, .,., .
Table 3
OR 126 Mainline Capacity
Applicable Existing
Standard Design Hour
(ODOT OHP) . Volumes
vIe = 0.80 1,340
vIe = 0.80 670
vIe = 0.80 1,815
vIe = 0.80 975
vIe = 0.85 1,015
vIe = 0.85 705
Capacity vie Ratio Adequate?
3,150 0.43 Yes
3,150 0.21 Yes
3,150 0.58 Yes
3,150 0.31 Yes
3,150 0.32 Yes
3,150
1-'-~'14 <'11.009
Plannm~d'ed"
Kittelson & Assodates, Inc.
.
OR 126 Expressway Management Plan - Phase 3
December 11,2008
.
EXHIBIT C - P11
Project #: 6221
Page 11
AB shown in the table, the OR 126 corridor currently meets OHP volume-to-capacity standards of
0.80. Corridor volumes along this segment show a 13 percent increase from the 2004 traffic counts
in the eastbound direction and a five percent increase westbound.
OR 126/52" Street and Adjacent Intersections
Both a field review and the results of the operational analyses confirm that the OR 126/52" Street
intersection is currently experiencing long queues during peak periods, especially on the
eastbound left-turn movement. This intersection currently operates at a volume-to-capacity ratio
of 0.74, meeting OHP standards. The adjacent intersections along 52nd Street and Highbanks Road
that were analyzed operate acceptably.
OR 126/Main Street and Adjacent Intersection
The OR 126/Main Street intersection is a signalized at-grade intersection, forming the connection
between OR 126 and Business 126. Eastbound and westbound drivers on OR 126 are required to
turn at the intersection to remain on the highway. Accordingly, no route continuity is currently
provided along OR 126 between the Business and expressway segments, as drivers are required
to turn to stay on the higher-order facility. The westbound and southbound right-turns are
channelized free-flow maneuvers and are not operated through the traffic signal. Given the
existing imbalance between traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound approaches, the
intersection operates with split phasing in the north-south direction and protected phasing east-
west.
AB shown in Figure 3, the OR 126/Main Street intersection operates with a volume to capacity
ratio of 0.79 during peak periods, narrowly meeting ODOT mobility standards (volume-to-
capacity ratio less than 0.80). Although long queues occur on the southbound (i.e., OR 126) and
eastbound (Main Street) approaches, these queues can generally be accommodated within the
existing storage bays.
The Bob Straub Parkway, which comprises the southern intersection approach is a Lane County
facility that currently terminates at South 75th Street, approximately a half mile south of the OR
126/Main Street intersection. There are plans to extend the Bob Straub Parkway to provide a
connection between Main Street arid Jasper Road to the south to accommodate planned growth in
the Jasper-Natron area. AB shown in Figure 3, the study intersections along the Bob Straub .
Parkway south of Main Street currently operate acceptably with the low levelsl5atet~'Ved
density that currently exist. .
FEB 3 2009
BJ
, Business 126/54th Street and Adj acent Private Driveways 01 r.
The Business 126/54th Street intersection is approximately 400 feet west of the mJrrg ~~ .
<. - ,..
th'?~<?ll~):>qriJ:lg.i!ghht).1;rn movement at the OR 126/Main Street intersection. This short distance
. can cause weav:h,g issues for southbound OR 126 drivers merging in the outside travel lane and
.4Ei~~ed fo~ the retail uses on the south side of Main Street. No median is currently in place along
Klttels'On &.Associates, Inc.
Portland, Oregon
.
.
.
EXHIBIT C - p~12
OR 126 Expressway Management Plan - Phase 3
December 11, 2008
Project #: 6221
Page 12
Business 126, with eastbound and westbound traffic separated by a two-way center left-turn lane.
With the two-way center left-turn lane, all of the private driveways allow full turning
movements, some of which become blocked by opposing queues during portions of the signal'
cycles.
The Main Street/54th Street intersection currently operates acceptably per OOOT mobility
standards with a volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.46 during the weekday p.m. peak hour. As will be
discussed below, the queuing can generally be accommodated at the intersection during peak
periods.
OR u6/s8th Street and Adjacent Private Access Driveways
A median is in place along OR 126 east of the intersection with Main Street restricting left turns at
all private driveways east to 58th Street. The westernmost entrance to the Bi-Mart and Key Bank
stores contains a left-in pocket within the median, which provides back-to-back queue storage
with the westbound left-turn onto the Bob Straub Parkway.
The restricted access along OR 126 results in the consolidation of left-turn demand at the OR
126158th Street intersection associated with the adjacent retail uses. As shown in Figure 3, the
intersection currently exceeds OOOT mobility standards (volume-to-capacity ratio less than 0.80)
with a volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.81.
Operations analysis was also completed for all of the private driveways along Main Street within
the study area. As shown in Figure 3, all of the driveways currently operate below capacity with
low critical movement delays. Similar to conditions along Business 126, the driveways are shown
to be blocked by vehicular queues during portions of the signal cycles.
A summary of all of the mainline and study intersection operations and a comparison to the
applicable performance standards (as shown in Table 2) is provided in Table 4.
Table 4
Intersection and Corridor Operations Summary
"
Intersection Applicable Existing
ID (Figure 3) Intersection Jurisdiction Standard Conditions Acceptable?
Table 3 OR 126 Mainline ODOT OHP, vIe = 0.80 vIe = 0.43 ' Yes
Eastbound
Ta ble 3 OR 126 Mainline ODOT OHP, vIe = 0.80 vIe = 0.21 Yes
Westbound
OR 126-Main Street
Table 3 . , Eastbound ODOT OHP, vIe = 0.80 vIe = 0.58 Yes
" (Bob Straub to 58~)
OR 126-Matn Street
"\1'\ Table 3 , Westbound ODOT OHP, vIe = 0.80 vIe = 0.31 Yes
(58~ to Bob Straub)
, .Table ~ Bus 126 Eastbound DDOT OHP, vIe = 0.85 vIe = 0.32 Yes
(54~ to Bob Straub)
Ta ble 3 Bus 126 Westbound ODOT OHP, vIe = 0.85 vIe = 0.22 Yes
(Bob Straub to 54"')
. (Continued) R1
. , ..,' i
. .. . \
Kittelson & Assod~tes, Inc.
Date eceNed
:PEB. 1-
p~;ner: 8J
.
..
EXHIBIT C - P13
OR 126 Expressway Management Plan - Phase 3
December 11, 2008
Project #: 6221
. Page 13
Table 4 (Continued)
Intersection and Corridor Operations Summary
Intersection Applicable Existing .
10 (Figure 3J Intersection Jurisdiction Standard Conditions Acceptable?
52nd Street! LOS D SB LT/RT
1 Highbanks CitylCounty vIe = 0.B5 LOS B Yes
vIe = 0.03*
Highbanksl LOS 0 NB LT/RT
2 54'" Street CitylCounty vIe = 0.85 LOS B Yes
vIe = 0.02*
3 OR 1261 ODOT OHP, vIe = 0.80 vIe = 0.74 Yes
52nd Street
52"" Street! LOS D WB LT/RT
4 G Street CitylCounty vIe ~ 0.B5 LOS A Yes
vIe = 0.04*
5 Main Street! ODOT OHP, vIe = 0.B5 vIe = 0.46 Yes
54th Street
Main Street! NB LT/RT
6 Safeway West ODOT OHP, vIe = 0.85 vIe = 0.15* Yes
Access
7 Main Street! ODOT. OHP, vIe = 0.85 NB LT/RT Yes
Safeway East Access vIe = 0.23*
8 OR 1261 OOOT OHP, vIe = O.BO vIe = 0.79 Yes
Main Street
9 Main Street! OOOT OHP, vIe = O.BO SB RT Yes
Bi-Mart West Access vIe = 0.09*
Main Street! SB RT
10 Albertson's/Bi-Mart ODOT OHP, vIe = 0.80 vIe = 0.17* Yes
Access
11 Ma i n Street! OOOT OHP, vIe = 0.80 NB RT Yes
Sheli/Bi-Mart Access vIe = 0.06*
- - OR 1261 - . 9fiP, vj<-= 0.80 -
1- 12 - 58'" Street - .- €lOOT - vIe -= O.~l u No
- ~- .. . -
Bob Straub WB LT/RT
13 Parkwayl CitylCounty LOS 0 LOS A Yes
Transit Center vIe = 0.85 vIe = 0.09*
Access
Bob Straub LOS 0 EB LTR
14 Pa rkway I CitylCounty vIe = 0.85 LOS CI Yes
Da isy Street vIe = 0.21
Da isy Street! LOS 0 SB LT
15 City/County LOS BI Yes
5Sth Street vIe = 0.85 vIe. = 0.31
*Note: Values at unsignalized Intersections reflect the critical (highest delay) movement as defined within the
Highway Capadty Manual 2000, which is typically reflective of stop-controlled minor-street maneuvers. Given the low
minor-street volumes on the private approaches, high delays may be experienced on a per-vehicle basis while
operating at low volume-to-capacity ratios.
Intersection Queuing Analysis
Given the high levels of congestion along OR 126 and Main Street, a quelling analysis was
completed using microsimulation to account for the interaction between the signalized
intersections, potential queue spillover beyond the storage bays, and queue interactions along the
Main Street center left-rum lane. The quelling analysis was completed using an averaged 95th
.pe~centil~ . queue length from five simulation model runs. This queuing an~~.Li~e~es . .
vehicular queue lengths during the 3(]th highest hour accounting for the existing si~elVed
,/ '
,j~ 'lit" \. __ 'j' ..
Kittelson & Assodates, Inc.
FFR ~ 2009
Portland, Onegon
Planner: BJ
'.-,
",
..
EXHIBIT C - p~14
.
OR 126 Expressway Management Plan - Phase 3
Oecember 11,2008
Project #: 6221
Page 14
phasing. Table 5 provides a summary of the queuing analysis results at each of the signalized
intersections.
Intersection
OR 126/
Main Street
OR 126/
52nd Street
Main Street!
54th Street
Main Street;
58~ Street
Table 5
95" Percentile Intersection Queuing Analysis, Weekday PM Peak Hour
Movement
Eastbound Left-Turn
Eastbound Through
95th Percentile
Queue (feet)
150
350
Adequate?
Yes
Yes
Available
Storage (ft)
150'
200'/960
Eastbound Right-Turn- ---I- - 225 -- . - '.- '-150 . . - No
Westbound Left-Turn
Westbound Through
Northbound Left-Turn
Northbound Through/Right
Southbound Left-Turn
Southbound Through
125
200
175
125
450
250
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
140
225'/930
260
260
560
360'
Eastbound Left-Turn I 350 310 No, I
Eastbound Through 225 > 1,000 Yes
Eastbound Right 50 175 Yes
Westbound Left-Turn 25 160 Yes
Westbound Through 300 >1,000 Yes
Northbound Approach 175 > 1,000 Yes
Southbound Left/Through 50 50 Yes
Southbound Right 175 350 Yes
Eastbound Left-Turn 75 150' Yes
Eastbound Through/Right 275 700 Yes
Westbound Left-Turn 50 145' Yes
Westbound Through/Right 200 415'/945 Yes
Northbound Approach 100 460 Yes
Southbound Approach 100 420 Yes
Eastbound Left-Turn 325 360 Yes
Eastbound Through/Right 350 890 Yes
Westbound Left-Turn 150 140' Yes
Westbound Through/Right 275 600 Yes
Northbound Left-Turn 175 120' Yes
95'
Southbound Throu h/Ri ht 375 390
. BOLD text indicates 95 percentile queues that exceed the available storage.
1 Additional storage is available in the center two-way left-turn refuge lane.
, Eastbound through queues beyond 200 feet will block the eastbound right-turn lane; 960 reet is
available between the OR 126/Main Street and Main Street/54th Street intersections.
3 Queues beyond 225 feet will obstruct the westbound right-turn
4 Queues beyond 360 feet will obstruct the southbound right-turn lane. Additional storage is available
in the inside through lane. .
5 Additional queue storage is available but will block access to the Transit Center,
6 Queues beyond 415 feet will block the southbound right-turn merge area.
J Queues beyond 115 feet will extend beyond the northbound tight-turn pocket.
As shown in Table 5 and discussed above, forecast 95th percentile queues are shown to exceed the
available storage at the OR 126/52nd Street, the OR 126/Main Street, and OR 126/58th Street
intersections. Accordingly, while the signalized intersections may have adequate capacity to serve
the traffic volumes, queue spillover during the peak hours can result in unused available capacity
at the !;1tersections due to queue blockages and individual signal cycle failures.
"
j.:
Date Receivetl
FEB 3 2009
Portland, Oregon
Planner: B~
KitteJson & Assodates, Inc.
'- ., :\:.
~.....: ~~ ! ~ .' . :: t
.
.
EXHIBIT C - P15
OR 126 Expressway Management Plan - Phase 3
December 11, 2008
Project #: 6221
Page 15
ROADWAY SAFETY
Roadway safety was analyzed based on a review of the OOOT Safety Priority Index System
(SPIS) list' and crash records at the signalized intersections. This review was used to highlight
potential safety deficiencies in the study area, as detailed.below.
ODOT SPIS
The OOOT SPIS program categorizes facilities on a scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 being safer and 5 being
less safe), based on the number of recorded serious injury and fatal crashes during the most
recent three-year period available (2004 to 2006), Currently, OR 126 is classified as a Category 2
facility (with category one being best and category five being worst), identified by 1 to 2 fatal and
serious injury crashes per five mile segment over .the 2004 to 2006 period. Main Street (Business
126 and OR 126) is shown as a Category 5 roadway with 10 or more serious crashes per. five mile
segment. In addition, OR 126/58th Street appears within the 95th to 100th percentile SPIS
intersections, and OR 126jMain Street is identified within the 90th to 94.99th percentile SPIS
intersections.
Crash Data Review
. Review of crash records from the six-year period between 2002 and 2007' 'was completed to
identify potential crash patterns and existing safety deficiencies along the study segment of the
OR 126 corridor based on the individual incidents. Crash data was obtained from the OOOT
database and includes all reported crashes (~eported crashes involving property damage
exceeding $1,500 or resulting in injuries or fatalities).
Table 6
Intersection Crash Rates (2002 through 20072)
Estimated
Peak Hour Estimated Annual Total Crash Crash
Intersection Volume ADT Volume Crashes Rate:t Rate >11
OR U6/ 3,026 30,260 11,044,900 29 0.44 No
52nd Street
OR 126/ 3,436 34,360 12,541,400 37 0.49 No
Main Street
Main Street! 1,729 17,290 6,310,850 22 0.58 No
54th Street
Main Street! 2,904 29,040 10,599,600 34 0.53 No
58th Street
lCrashes per million entering vehicles
Intersection crash rates are. typically reviewed as a crash rate per million entering vehicles. A
crash rate greater than 1.0 crash per million entering vehicles is indicative of potential geometric
or operational deficiencies. As shown in Table 6, all of the intersections currently a crash rate less
th~.1.0 'crash pe~ million entering vehicles. To further explore the recorded crashes, additional
review was conducted at the intersections to review crashes by time of day, roadway surface
conditions; collision type, collision severity, and other characteristics.
, Date Received
I ~.' . . .' . - ,
~'.Yea;, 200'rc(ash' ~ata ;"as not available at the OR 126/S8~ Street and Main Street/S4~ Street intersectionfi:~sh 3 2009
. records at these intersections were obtained from January 2002 throuah December 2006.
Kittelson & Assodates, Inc.
Pfmirn~r: BJ
.
.
EXHIBIT C
P1
OR 126 Expressway Management Plan - Phase 3
December 11, 2008
Project #: 6221
Page 16
Crash Types
Table 7 summarizes crashes by type and yeM for each of the four signalized public intersections
in the study Mea. As shown in Table 7, all four signalized intersections had a roughly equivalent
. number of reported crashes between 2002 and 2007. The majority. of all collisions were reM-end
type crashes (54 percent of all reported crashes), which were likely the result of congestion in the
corridor. The highest rate of reM-end collisions occurred at the OR 126/Main Street intersection.
Review of the queuing analysis shows that the 95"' percentile southbound queues at the OR
126/Main Street intersection remain within the tangent section of OR 126. Main Sb'eet/54"' Street
and Main Street/58"' Street each had two pedestrian crashes within the analysis period.
Table 7
OR 126 Crash Summary
Crash Type
Rear- . Side- Fixed
Intersection Year Turning Angle End Swipe Object Pedestrian Backing Total
2002 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 6'
2003 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5
2004 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3
OR 126/ 2005 0 1 4 0 2 0 0 7
52nd Street 2006 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 6
2007 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
Total 3 3 17 3 3 0 0 29
Percent 10% 10% 60% 10% 10% 0% 0% 100%
2002 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 7
2003 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 6
2004 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 8
OR 126/ 2005 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3
Maln Street 2006 3 0 3 2 1 0 0 8
2007 0 0 1 0 0 0 0: 1
Total 4 0 27 5 1 0 0 37
Percent 11% 0% 73% 13% 3% 0% 0% 100%
2002 i 1 5 0 0 1 0 9
2003 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 4
2004 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
Main Street! 0 0 0 1 ' 0 3
54th Street 2005 1 1
2006 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 4
Total 4 7 7 2 0 2 0 22
Percent 18% 32% 32% 9% 0% 9% 0% 100%
(Contmued)
ij\)l
I'
Date lReceived
FEB 3 2009
Planner: BJ
Kittelson & As~fdates, Inc.
f'ortland, Oregon
.'
.
.
EXHIBIT C
P17
OR 126 Expressway Management Plan - Phase 3
December 11, 2008
Project #: 6221
Page 17
Table 7 (Continued)
OR 126 Crash Summarv
Crash Type
Rear~ Side- Fixed
Intersection Year Turning Angle End Swipe Object Pedestrian Backing Total
2002 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 5
2003 1 0 7 0 0 0 1 9
2004 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 6
Main Street!
58th Street 2005 5 1 1 1 0 1 0 9
2006 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 5
Total 9 3 16 2 1 2 1 34
Percent 26% 9% 47% 6% 3% 6% 3% 100%
Total 20 13 63 12 5 4 1 118
Overall
Percent 170/0 11% .,54% 10% 4% 3% 1% 100%
Crash Severity
Table 8 shows the annual crash statistics as summarized by intersection and severity. Crash
severity is used to identify locations with higher ratios of injury and fatality versus non-injury
crashes.
Table 8
i
l ". ~.
, ,
Intersection Crash Severitv
Crash Severin
Intersection Year Non-In;urv In;urv Fatal~
2002 4 2 0
2003 5 0 0
2004 3 0 0
OR 126/ 2005 4 3 0
52nd Street 2006 5 1 0
2007 1 1 0
Total 22 7 0
Percent 76% 24% 0%
2002 1 7 0
2003 6 1 0
2004 5 4 0
OR 126/ . 2005 2 1 0
Main Street 2006 7 2 0
2007 1 0 0
Total 22 15 0
Percent 59% 41% 0%
2002 8 1 0
2003 3 1 0
Main Street; 2004 2 0 0
54th Street 2005 1 2 0
- 2006 4 0 0
Total 18 4 0
Percent 82% 18% 0%
2002 2 3 0
2003 8 1 0
Main Street! 2004 5 1 0
58th Street 2005 5 4 0
2006 4 1 0
Total 24 10 0
. Percent 71%. 29% 0%
Overall Total 84 34 0
1'. I Percent I 71% I 29% I 0% II
Date Received
FEB 3 2009
elaMer: BJ
Port/and, Oregon
III
r Kittelson & Assodates, Inc.
"
'.'
.
.
EXHIBIT C
P18
OR 126 Expressway Management Plan -Phase 3
December 11, 2008
Project #: 6221
Page 18
No fatalities were recorded at any of the signalized intersections during the analysis period, and
the number of non-injury crashes is higher than injury crashes at each of the study intersections.
The intersection at OR 126/Main Street experienced a higher percentage of injury crashes than the
other study intersections, with nearly half of the injury crashes occurring in 2002. Excluding the
2002 data and considering only the most recent five years of data, 72 percent of the crashes were
classified as non-injury crashes, consistent with the remaining intersections.
Pavement and lighting Conditions
Table 9 shows the distribution of crashes according to pavement surface conditions and natural
lighting to identify crashes associated with the roadway and weather conditions. All of the study
area intersections contain roadway illumination.
Table 9
Crash Statistics by Weather and Roadway Conditions
"
Pavement Conditions Light/Illumination COl1ditions
Intersection Year Dry Wet, Ice Day Dusk/Dawn Dark
2002 5 0 1 5 0 1
2003 3 2 0 3 0 2
2004 3 0 0 1 0 2
OR 125{ 2005 4 3 0 5 , 0 2
52"d Street 2005 3 2 1 5 0 0
2007 2 0 0 1 1 0
Total 20 7 2 21 1 7
Percent 69% 24% 7% 72% 3% 24%
2002 4 3 0 5 1 0
2003' 5 1 0 4 1 1
2004 5 2 0 5 1 1
OR 125{ 2005 3 0 0 3 0 0
Main Street 2005 8 0 0 5 2 1
2007 1 0 0 0 0 1
Total 27 6 0 24 5 4
Percent 82% 18% Ol'la 73% 15% 12%
2002 9 0 0 5 0 3
2003 3 1 0 2 2 0
2004 2 0 0 2 0 0
Main Street! 2005 1 2 0 2 , 1 0
54th Street 2005 3 1 0 2 2 0
Total 18 4 0 14 5 3
Percent 82% 18% 0% 64% 23% 13%
2002 4 1 0 3 1 1
2003 8 1 0 5 2 2
0
Main' Street ; 2004 5 1 0 1 1 4
58th Street 2005 5 4 0 5 0 4
2005 4 1 0 3 1 1
T'
0; Total 26 8 0 17 5 12
. " Percent 76% 24% 0% 52% 15% 36%
Total 91 25 2 76 16 ,- I~rj ...
Overall': 64% I, , %ifl J>
Percent 77% 21% 2% ' 14%
ceive
*1\,
. "
~H ::\ l009
/,21and, Oregon 81 ft
t" lanner: I'
,.
Kittelson & Assodates, Inc.
.
.
EXHIBIT C - P19
OR 126 Expressway Management Plan - Phase 3
December 11, 2008
Project: #: 6221
Page 19
Overall, 77 percent of crashes occurred with dry pavement and 64 percent of crashes occurred
during the day. The intersection of Main Streetj58th Street contained more nighttime crashes than
any other intersection, although at the intersection nighttime trashes still account for only 36
percent of the total.
Crashes by Time of Day
Crash data by time of day at the intersections were also further reviewed in an effort to identify
crash patterns. The results from this analysis are summarized in Chart 2.
Chart 2
Crashes by Time of Day
20
18
-+-Overall
___ Oregon 126152nd Street
.....-Oregon 1261Main Sreet
~ Main StreeU54th Street
........ Main Street/58th Street
16
14
:3 12
"
.
E
o
Q 10
-
.
.c
e
:l1 8
4
~ ~ ~
< <
g c c
c c
" M ,;
~
g
~
~
<
c
c
~
~
~
c
C
~
~
c
c
~
6
2
o
Time of Day
Typical graphs of crash data over time of day display significant peaking through the evening
peak hour, with a rise in crashes starting at approximately 1:00 p.m., peaking around 4:00 p.m.,
and stabilizing at 7:00 p.m. Both the overall crash trend and the individual. ~~h for each
;'in~e-r~e.~.on'res~~Wd'-t\ris pattern, which follows volume trends and congestion llJ.!J8t&Heceived
'1i" ~..
Intersection Safety Conclusions
~~~$rte:d::~a;sh.l,-;' ai:'~:;'~ signalized intersections are primarily rear-end collisi.Q18fI(cl.-9r: BJ
d'uiing daylight hours under dry roadway conditions. The high incidence of rear-end crashes are
typical of signalized intersections, and are likely due ,in part to congestion given that the majority
FEB 3 2009
Kittelson & Assodates, Inc.
Portland, Oregon
.
.
EXHIBIT C'
p
OR 126 Expressway Management Plan - Phase 3
December 11, 2008
Project #: 6221
Page 20
occur during the evening peak hour. Review of the crash data by type, roadway conditions,
illumination, and time of day did not identify any specific trends or safety deficiencies.
Intersection crash records are included in Attachment "G".
CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS
As summarized, intersections along the OR 126 corridor operate near or beyond ODOT mobility
standards with vehicular queues exceeding the available storage at a number of locations.
Limited access management strategies are currently employed along OR 126 (Main Street) east of
the Bob Straub Parkway, with little or no access control along Business 126 to the west. A detailed
safety review identified no discernable patterns at any of the signalized intersections, with the
highest number of crashes related to rear-end eollisions.
Next steps will be to assess future year 2031 no-build conditions at the study intersections so that
a comparison can be provided between the traffic operations and queuing if no improvements
other than those that are currently planned and funded are completed within the study area. This
information will be used to inform the analysis of alternatives to address the issue of future
congestion in the corridor.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment" A" Data Collection Memorandum and Raw Data Files
Attachment "B" Seasonal Adjustment Memorandum
Attachment "C" Saturation Flow Rate Methodology
Attachment "0" Analysis Procedures Memorandum
Attachment "E" 5ynchro Operational Analysis Files
Attachment "P" SimTraffic Queuing Analysis Files
Attachment "G" Intersection Crash Records
.
Date Received
FEB 3 2009
Planner: BJ
.,..
,.,
, , , ~
Kittelson & Assodates, Inc.
PortJa[ld, Oregon
.
.
EXHIBIT 0 - P1
regon
Department of Land Conservation and Development
635 Capitol Street, Suite 150
Salem, OR 97301-2540
(503) 373-0050
Fax (503) 378-5518
www.oregon.govILCD
Theodore R Kulongoski. Governor
October 2, 2008
~
TO: Land Conservation and Development Commission
FROM: Richard Whitrnan,.Director
Robert Cortright, Transportation Planning Coordinator
SUBJECT: Agenda Item 9, October 15-17, 2008 LCDC Commission Meeting
EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE
WORK PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL
I. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
The cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County are requesting Commission approval of a
work plan to complete an updated regional transportation system plan (RTSP) in compliance
with the requirements 'of the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR).Commission approval is
required because preparation and adoption of the updated RTSP will extend beyond the one-year
deadline allowed for such updates in the TPR.
Commission approval would result in adoption of an updated RTSP by the affected local
governments in 2013. Additional tiroe is necessary to coordinate development of an updated
RTSP with other regional planning activity, notably development of separate comprehensive
plan, transportation system plans, and urban growth boundaries for Eugene and Springfield and
consideration of possible urban growth boundary amendments consiStent with Goal 14. .
The department recommends approval of the work plan with conditions requiriog Eugene and
Springfield to complete reporting on TPR related benchmarks and performance measures.
A. Tvpe of Action and Commission Role
OAR 660-012-00 16(2)(b) authorizes the Commission to approve a work program for completion
ofRTSP updates. The Commission's decision is not directed or constrained by the rule.
B. Staff Contact Information
, ' , ,For~,dditional iIiformation about-this agenda item please contact Bob Cortri~at 503-g3-0050,
I. ',.' ;Y~eX1'f41,'o~by email bob.cortriiilit@state.or.us. uate NeCelVed
;'[1:1' p ,r:.
HR !l 2009
.,'>
Planner: BJ
.
.
EXHIBIT D -
.j
R2
Agenda Item 9
October 15-17, 2008 LCDC Meeting
Page 2
II. RECOMMENDATION
The director recommends, based on the infOImation contained in this report, that the
Commission approve the attached work plan (Attachment B) for completion and adoption of an
updated RTSP as provided in the TPR (OAR 660-012-0016(2)(b)).
III. BACKGROUND
A. History of Action
The TPR requires metropolitan areas to adopt update RTSPs and update them at five year
intervals in coordination with federally-required regional transportation plans. The Central Lane
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)- which includes the Eugene-Springfield urban area
- adopted an updated Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to meet federal requirements in
November 2007. Under the TPR, the cities are otherwise required to adopt an updated RTSP
within one year of that date unless the commission approves a work plan for a longer period of
time.
The distinction between an RTP and an RTSP is explained further later in this report. The work
plan before the Commission addresses update of the RTSP.
In November 2007, local staff advised the department that amendments to the RTSP (locally
called "TransPlan") to comply with the TPR would not be accomplished within one year. Since
that time, department staff has been working with local staff to prepare a work plarl itemizing
tasks necessary to complete an updated RTSP in compliance with applicable TPR requirements.
On September 15,2007, Lane County, Eugene and Springfield reviewed and approved the
proposed work plan for submittal to the Commission. (The proposed work plan is included as
Attachment B. Attachment C includes a detailed outline that shows how the proposed work plan
relates to and is integrated with other local and MPO planning activities.) The proposed work
plan and schedule calls for adoption of an updated RTSP by 2013.
In May 2008, the Commission received a similar request from Metro to approve a work plan for
completing an updated state version of the Metro 2035 Regional Transportation Phm to comply
with the TPR. The Commission approved a work plan for Metro, which extends through 2010.
B. Maior Legal and Policy Issues
1. Coordination of Federal and State Required Regional Transportation Planning. Regional
transportation planning within MPOs is guided by federal and state laws. Federal transportation
law requires formation ofMPOs - designated by the governor and made up of local officials - to
prepare a coordillated long-range transportation plan - a regional transportation plan. The
~ . ~.~;'[ ,;9.pp.t~.!\~Jn~pr.9s:e,ss for development and adoption of such plans is directed by fe~rallaw Rd .
; o,.I\regulatlOns}.._!." ," ' Uale MeCelVea
. ,
.~. \ r
Hl
!' .,.:--,
~ \.; :. jr'~ r.... r
. -,'
',.
FEB 3 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
EXHIBIT D - P3
Agenda Item 9
October 15-17, 2008 LCDC Meeting
Page 3
The TPR requires cities and counties within MPOs to adopt a regional transportation system plan
or RTSP. The RTSP must comply with relevant portions of the TPR, and must be consistent
with the applicable statewide plans (such as the Oregon Highway Plan). In addition, once
adopted, the RTSP provides a framework for local transportation system plans (TSPs).
In most respects, federal and state requirements call for the same product - a long-range
transportation"plan that includes a network of planned transportation facilities, services and
improvements that is coordinated with other relevant plans and policies, including those related
to land use. A key difference is how plans are adopted and their legal effect. Federally required
plans are adopted by the MPO bdard - made up primarily of local elected officials. While the
resulting plan must be consistent with relevant federal requirements; adoption of an RTP is not a
land use decision under Oregon law. RTSPs are adopted by local governments as
comprehensive plan amendments; and are, consequently, land use decisions that must comply
with the TPR and other applicable statewide planning goals and rules.
In 2006, the Commission amended the TPR to specifically address coordination of TPR -required
planning with federally required planning in MPOs. The objective of the amendment is to "
coordinate and integrate planning to avoid duplication of effort in meeting state and federal
requirements. Overall, the rule calls for metropolitan areas to "insofar as possible" use a single
coordinated process to develop plans to meet state and federal requirements.
The Commission specifically amended the requirements for plan updates and reporting on
benchmarks so that they would synchronize state timelines with federally required updates. The
intended result is that state and federally required plan updates should be prepared at the same
time, using the same information and processes.
Federal requirements for preparation ofRTPs include coordination requirements thatare very
similar to those in the TPR. In particular, federal rules direct that MPO plans be consistent with
state and local land use plans and policies.
2. Status of Regional Transportation Planning in Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area.
The Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area's approach to addressing state and federal
requirements has changed over the last ten years. In 2001, following a multiyear process, the
two cities and Lane County adopted TransPlan to serve as the both the federal R TP and the state
RTSP.
Starting in 2004, the MPO has undertaken to amend and update the federally required RTP
separately from the state required RTSP. The result, following adoption of the 2007 Central
Lane Regional Transportation Plan is that the region now has two separate plans: the 2007 RTP
that addresses federal requirements, and the preexisting 2001 TransPlan that addresses state
requirements.
.,. ". '.-
.: _......~,.r \.
Key' differen~es between two plans are as follows:
"' "1\ ih::~pdated RTP used a planning horizon of2031; TransPlan is current QaW2a~ceived
FEB ~ 2009
~..~
",,,,,..,
......
Planner: BJ
.
.
EXHIBIT D -
Agenda Item 9
Oelober 15-17, 2008 LCDC Meeting
Page 4
The RIP does not include the West Eugene Parkway as a planned improvement;
TransPlan does.
The RIP does not address the status of TransPlan benchmarks and has been amended to
delete benchmarks and performance measures required by the TPR'
The RIP list of [mancially constrained transportation projects has been amended to
includes two major interchange projects on Highway 126 in Springfield that are not
included in TransPlan's fiscally constrained project list.
3. Key Local Planning Issues. Preparation and adoption of an updated RTSP is a key element
in regional efforts to comply with the IPR The current effort involves preparation of a major .
update to the 200 I TransPlan, which currently serves as the regional transportation system plan.
The region's update will address several significant issues:' .
. Develop a new framework for regional transportation planning reflecting lIB 3337
which results in separate UGBs for Eugene and Springfield
. Report on progress in addressing adopted benchmarks and performance measures
related to IPR compliance
. Incorporate the City of Coburg in the updated RTSP
. Make the state RTSP and the federal RIP consistent with one another
. Coordinate with development and adoption of updated plans for Eugene and
Springfield to 2030 aiJ.d beyond
4. TPR Compliance. A key element in RTSPs for metropolitan areas is the adoption of
standards and actions that significantly increase the availability and convenience of alternative
modes of transportation and that reduce reliance on the automobile.
Eugene-Springfield's adopted standard - included in TransPlan and approved by LCDC in May
2001- is a multi-part standard based in large part on implementation of the region's nodal
development strategy. The strategy includes designation of a series of mixed use centers,
implementation of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and other supporting transit and bicycle system
improvements. The locally developed standard sets the following targets:
. 74 miles of priority bike lanes
. 2000 acres in nodal development designations
. 23% of new housing units in nodes
. 45% of new employment within nodes
The approved standard includes benchmarks to be met at five year intervals which are outlined in
the chart included in Table 7 from TransPlan:
"".",;
,
, ~,ol. '.~..' .'.f..::....... '
\...:.}~.:;t'_ ' , ',,' l~,.
Date Received
FEEl .sl!OO9
Planner: BJ
. c;'i;. ~ 1
.. "..' .~
. . ~
.... .
.
.
EXHIBIT D - P5
Agenda Item 9
October 15-17, 2008 LCDCMeeting
Page 5
Table 7
A1femative TPR Performance Measures fur the Euglme-Springfield l\iIPO
(appro,'ed by LCDC on May 4th, 200l)
Meas1lI"f' Key l'bn l'bn 1995 2005 2010 2015
Element Implementation
Dr
IramJMarket
ResnoR-"Se
Alternative Travel 14.43% 17%
0/0 Non-Auto Modes Response
Trips Walk-=S.93% 15% 16"k WaJk..10%
B~3.6&% ~%
Bus=1.83% Bus=3%
% Transit Transit Travel
Mode Share Respoose 5.8% 10.0"/0
nD 6.8% 8.()%
Cnngested 5.9% in 1999
Corridors
Priority Bicycle Plan
Bikeway Impll"ml"'tlt:ttion 15 miles 45 miles 74 miles
Mil..
Acres nf Nodal Plan 2,000 acres
wDed Dnda1 Development Implementation 1,000 acres 1,500 acres zoned for
d",-.!opment nodal
develonmeol
%of Nodal Market. 2.5% 14.5%
dwelling Development Respoose 23.3% nf
units built in 5.6l}~ 20.4% new Dos
nodes
% of New Nodal Marlret 10% 25%
"ToW" Development Response . 45%
Employment 18,1% 32.6
in Node.
Internal 2,305,779 3,224,037 .
VMT
""MT/Capita 11 10.9
In approving this standard, the Commission expressed concern that the cities move quickly to
implement the nodal deveiopment strategy. The Commission was concerned that much of the
land identified for nodal development was not appropriately planned and zoned and that interim
development could undermine implementation of nodal development Consequently, the
Commission asked the local governments to accelerate identification and zoning of nodes and to
report on progress the following year.
In 2002, Eugene and Springfield reported on the status of local efforts to select areas for nodal
development. The cities reported they had identified nodes including more than 2000 acres of
, '.,.' .?o.d,!!l,de,;,elopment. While.this met the target, the department and commissioIfl'r~~ th~_ .
U' . ;, cities 'do additional analysis to assess whether the identified nodes include sufig\Cl!li~eIVed
HJU\ \-' ~.
FEB 3 2009
...'"
~ .'
..)f i~,
. .
.~. ,it"'.:
"
Planner: BJ
.
.
EXH I BIT D -
Agenda Item 9
October 15-17, 2008 LCDC Meeting
Page 6
. and redevelopable land to meet regional targets for housing and employment in nodes.
(According to city estimates, the identified nodes included only about 700 acres of vacant or
redevelopable land.) The department noted that, depending on the outcome of this analysis it
might be necessary for local governments to identify additional lands or nodal development to
meet the adopted targets.
The 2031 Central Lane MPO Regional Transportation Plan, adopted in November 2007,
. provides updated estimates on the three "transportation" performance measures - transit mode
share, non-auto trip percentage, and priority bikeway miles for the horizon year 2031. (The 2031
CLMPO RTP did not estimate nodal development implementation or provide estimates for the
interim progress.) In March 2008, MPO staff provided an initial report on progress on housing
and employment in nodal development areas through 2005. Raw data shows that housing and
employment in nodes is close to or exceeds benchmarks for 2005. However, much of the
housing and. employment is in potential nodes - areas that have not yet been planned or zoned
for nodal development. Consequently, more analysis by city staff is needed to determine
whether the development that occurred in these areas is "nodal" in character.
IV. ANALYSIS
The period of time requested to complete this update is substantial. The proposed schedule
extends beyond the next benchmark and plan update periods (2010 and 2011). While the
department is concerned about the amount of time requested, we believe it is warranted because
of the unique circumstances in this metropolitan area.
Regional planning in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area is in transition. The long-
standing arrangement based upon a single regional land use plan is in the process of being
replaced by separate but coordinated plans for each city. This affects land use and tninsportation
plans, and means additional time and resources will be needed to prepare an updated RTSP.
The department's primary interest in this update is that local governments implement the locally
developed, commission-approved goals for reducing reliance on the automobile in a timely way.
This is important because progress in meeting benchmarks is supposed to bea major factor
guiding plan updates, and should result in identification and evaluation of additional actions to
be included in the updated RTSP to meet the performance measures. Work related to
benchmarks and performance measures is especially important for this update for several
reasons:
Evaluation of progress in meeting 2005 benchmarks is not yet complete.
Analysis to date shows that most of the housing and employment counted as "nodal" has
occurred in potential or proposed nodes - i.e., on lands that are not currently planned or
zoned for nodal development. Additional analysis is needed to determine whether this
development is, in fact, nodal in character.
The proposed work plan extends past the next benchmark period (20 I 0), and benchmarks
.~ OEor2010.call for accelerated progress in implementation of nodal deveBate. Received
;'I);!\
"
FER ~ 2009
,
, .\.;
Planner: BJ
.
.
EXHIBIT D - P7
Agenda Item 9
October 15-17, 2008 LCDC Meeting
Page 7
Expected outcomes in the 2031 RTP falls short ofmeeting the adopted 2015 performance
measures for transit mode share, non-auto travel, and priority bikeway miles.
The cities are also considering possible UGB expansions over this same period of time;
work on performance measures related to nodal development needs to be integrated and
coordinated with related Goal 14 analysis. (TransPlan targets for nodal development
needs to be factored into Goal 14 housing and land needs analysis.)
Performance measures and benchmarks will need to be extended to match the extended
planning period, and measures need to be developed to cover the expanded metropolitan
area, that now' includes the City of Coburg.
It is particularly important that this update evaluate progress in meeting the 2010 benchmarks.
As noted above, TransPlan benchmarks anticipate much more nodal development will occur in
between 2005 and 2010 than has occurred through 2005 Since this plan update will not be
completed until 2013, it is logical that progress during the 2005-2010 period be considered
during this update, and not deferred to a subsequent update.
V. COMMISSION OPTIONS
The Commission may:
1. . Approve or disapprove of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County's proposed work
plan for preparation and adoption of the updated regional transportation system plan;
or
2. Request further information from the department or local gove=ents before acting
on the request.
VI. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION AND DRAFT MOTION
The department recommends that the Commission support the director's recommendation and
accept the request from Eugene, Springfield and Lane County for the Commission to proposed
work plan for preparation and adoption of an updated RTSP in compliance with the TPR.
The department recommends that the Commission approve the proposed work plan included in
Attachment B with the following condition:
In the performance measure work scheduled for the 1 st through 4th quarters 2009 the
cities will assess progress in meeting benchmarks for 2005 and 2010 and shall, as
necessary, ideritifY and evaluate additional measures to meet TransPlan's TPR
Performance Standards.! Tills will also include developing benchmarks and .
performance measures for the extended planning period (likely 2031 or 2035).
.
,
. "
;.-. .
FEB
3 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
EXHIBIT 0 -
Agenda Item 9
October 15-17, 2008 LCDC Meeting
Page 8
Proposed Motion: I move that the Commission approve the request from Eugene, Springfield
and Lane CountY to approve the proposed work plan for preparation and adoption of an updated
regional transportation system plan to comply with the Transportation Planning Rule as set forth
in Attachment B with the condition recommended in the department's staff report.
Alternative Motion (1): I move that the Commission approve the request from Eugene,
Springfield and Lane County to approve the proposed work plan for preparation and adoption of
an updated regional transportation system plan to comply with the Transportation Planning Rule
as set forth in Attachment B. .
Alternative Motion (2): I move that the Commission deny the request from Eugene, Springfield
and Lane County to approve the proposed work plan for preparation and adoption of an updated
regional transportation system plan to comply with the Transportation Planning Rule as set forth
in Attachment B because [fmdings].
Alternative Motion (3): I move that the Commission approve the request from Eugene,
Springfield and Lane County to approve the proposed work plan for preparation and adoption of
an updated regional transportation system plan to comply with the Transportation Planning Rule
as set forth in Attachment B modified as follows: * * *
ATTACHMENTS
A. Transmittal Letter from Local Planning Directors, September 29, 2008
B. Regional Transportation Wark Plan, September 8, 2008, 2 pages
C. Joint Elected Officials Meeting Packet, September 15, 2008, 13 pages
O*!~
'". . ~ .'
ol-.... ~i1r...~ ., ~~ .
"'". ',...
',~'
fEB
'S~
:..' ".'
'II\!',
:.-1
Planner: BJ
1"".,
.' ,(,.. ....', ~ . t"'~ .-'_ : v. ..
. , '
. -
.. .... ..... --..-... ...... .
EXH I B IT D -
ATTACHMENT A
.
P9
September 29, 2008
J ahn VanLandingham, Chair
Land Canservatian and Develapment Cammissian
635 Capitol Street NE, Suite ISO
Salem, OR 97301-2540
Subject: Appraval afCentral Lane MPO Regianal Transpartatian System Plan
Wark Program per OAR 660-012-00 I 6(2)(b)
Dear Mr. VanLandingham:
On behalf af the elected afficials af Eugene, Springfield, Caburg, and Lane Caunty we .
appreciate the Cammissian's review and appraval afthe attached wark pro.gram.
The Transpartatian Planning Rule requires applicable provisians af adapted regio.nal and
Io.cal transpo.rtatian system plans to. be cansistent with federal Regianal Transpartatian
Plans (RTF). The Navember 2007 adaptian afthe latest Central Lane Metrapalitan
Planning Organizatian's RTP includes a planning harizan year and a project list that does
nat match these same elements in TransPlan (the Eugene-Springfield lacal Transportation
System Plan). These incansistencies can anly be recanciled by making carrespanding .
amendments to. TransPlan and develaping a new Regianal Transpo.rtatian System Plan
(RTSP). The attached wark plan, a requirement afthe Transpartatian Planning Rule,
identifies the tasks and timelines that will be undertaken to. camply with the cansistency
requirements afthe rule.
Representatives fram Eugene, Springfield, Caburg, Lane Cqunty, Lane Cauncil af
Go.vernments, ODOT, and DLCD wo.rked diligently to. prepare the prapased wark plan to.
satisfy state rules and lacal needs and efficiently coardinate ather state and federal
requirements. On September 15, 2008 the elected afficials af Eugene, Springfield, and
Lane Co.unty unanimausly endo.rsed this wark pro.gram
The members afthe Central Lane MPO will undertake several significant planning
abligatians aver the next few years. The RTSP update must be carefully integrated with
. the ather wo.rk to. effectively camply with statewide land use gaals and ensure
caordinatian o.fland use and transpo.rtatian planning.
t l' ~ \' ~ . I
Date Received
FFR ~ 2009
.....".
.J,.....
_,,'J...,
. lJ.,. . ~. " ,....1
Planner: BJ
\
....._m__
.
EXHIBIT 0 - Pl0
At the same time, HB 3337 (now ORS 197.304) requires the cities of Eugene and
Springfield to modify their longstanding regional planning system by separating the two
cities with a new Urban Growth Boundary; Both cities have initiated comprehensive
buildable lands inventories, housing need:; analyses, and economic opportunity analyses.
These studies will lead to updated land use components to these cities' comprehensive .
and refinement plans. The inventories are: scheduled to be completed by January 2010
pursuant to ORS 197.304. The proposed RTSP work plan provides short-term progress
followed by an ambitious two-year window to achieve full integration of the cities'
updated transportation and land use plans in year 2012. The proposed work plan also
provides time for policy discussions about the future structure of our regional plans, Lane
County's coordinated population forecasts and exploration of rural reserves.
While the work plan provides an estimated timeline for completion, the work plan must
remain flexible in order to respond to data and policy direction derived from local
activities. For example, the results of the buildable lands analysis projects currently
underway in Eugene and Springfield are necessary for the preparation oflocal
transportation system plans. Therefore, the completion dates for these buildable lands
projects will influence the completion dates for the local TSPs.
We hope you agree that the proposed work plan represents a logical process, and we
thank you in advance for your approval.
Very Truly Yours,
Greg Mott, City of Springfield
Lisa Gardner, City of Eugene
Celia Barry, Lane County
Attachments
1. Proposed RTSP Work Program
2. Seotember 15. 2008 Joint Elected Offidal Materials
. Agenda
. Agenda Item Summarv
. Attachment A
I' t...
,
, . ~ :, i
<" ". 'rl "
., ,
. ,.' .. -/ -j J.~
....'t_,
Date Received
FEB .~ 2009
Planner: BJ
'C>'~:';<1:.J~".~ .~",~,!..-~
:l.j.
"
.
. EXHIBIT
ATTACHMENT B
D - P11
Regional Transportation Work Plan
4th QUARTER 2008
1ST QUARTER 2009
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
~(jfi' '
I', '
,"
-'
-,
PAPA Adoption(s)
. Appropriate jurisdictions to amend TransPlan to achieve RTP-
TSP consistency ,
o , Remove completed projects
o 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
FEB ~ 2009
Planner: BJ
.............-
.
EXHIBIT 0 - P12
. Complete reporting on T ransPlan benchmarks fo," 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 R TSP policy language
Public Involvement
. Publish transportation work outcomes to date for public
comment as appropriate
. Seek public comment on regional transportation iramework
4'" QUARTER 2009
Performance 11easures
. Consider and.developadjustments 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 2011
[Regional transportation planning progressing in coordination with long-range land use planning efforts]
4TH QUARTER 20 II
Regional Transportation System Plan (RTSP)
. Policy de~velop 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 TransPlan, including multi-
jurisdictional co-adoption plans
wi
Date Received
FEB 3 2009
.1..
,W'\
, ,
Planner: BJ
'.
.'; I
pue
. EXHIBIT
ATTACHMENT C
D - P13
JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING
City of Coburg . City of Eugene . City of Springfield . Lane County
September 15, 2008
Noon to I :30 pm
Springfield City Hall
Library Conference Room
225 5'" Street, Springfield
12:00 -1:30 pm
I.
Regional Transportation Work Plan
Tom Boyott. Oty of Springfield
Celio Barry. Lane County
Rob Iner(eld, City of Eugene
Petra Schuetz, City of Coburg
Action Requested: Approval of Transportation
Work Plan for Submittal to LCDC
SPRINGFIELD LIBRARY MEETING ROOM
JlJe Library Meeting Room Is located adjacent to the Library Inside City Hall on the second floor.
If you enter City Hall at 5'" and A. you will enter by the Library. Contlnue past the Library entrance. Turn right
lust past the library and you will be looking at the Library Meeting Room.
If you enter from the East Entrance. go through the lobby. The library Meeting Room Is off to the left before you
re3th the library.
PARKING AROUND SPRINGFIELD CITY HALL
There Is free two hour parking beneath City Hall, next to the Museum at 6th and Main. There Is also free two
hour parking along Main S~ and most streets surrounding City Hall.
. For those that will be parked for more than two hours, there Is a pay-to-park lot on A St. between 6th and 7th
Streets. It Is $3.00 per day. There Is also the employee parking lot on the corner of 4th and B Streets which Is
fre~ .
.,:;"t
I~.ca.tion is wheelchair I1ccessible (WCA). AmeriC3l1 Sign Language (ASL) interpretation is available with 48"~,~e. R . d
LCOG Main Office: 99 East Broadway, Suile 400, Eugene, Oregon 9740l~3111 UOlti ecelve
, 1. Phon.: (541) 682-4283 . Fox: (541) 682-4099 ' TrY: (541) 682-4567 .
FEB 3 2009
,I
Planner: BJ
.___. ._..0_...._._ ...___._..._ __m..._.
e
~REGONP
~---~
.
EXHIBIT 0 - p
JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING
City of Coburg . City of Eugene . City of Springfield . Lane County
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting Date:
September 15, 2008
Discussion Item Title:
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION WORK PLAN
AgencyfDepartment
City of Coburg Planning Department
City of Eugene Public Works
City of Springfield Public Works
Lane County Public Works
Staff Contact
Petra Schuetz
Rob Inerfeld
Tom Boyatt
Celia Barry
Phone
682-7858
682-5343
744-3373
682-6935
Action Requested:
Approval of the Regional Transportation Work Plan
Estimated Time:
90 Minutes
ISSUE STATEMENT
Staff Is requesting approval of a transportation work program required by state land .use law
under the Transportation Planning Rule (TpR). This Is strictly a work program describing staff
work and a target schedule, and not a policy document. The work program ensures that the
appropriate elected officials from each jurisdiction set polley at relevant work plan milestones.
The Transportation Planning Rule requires applicable provisions of adopted regional and local
transportation system plans to be consistent with federal Regional Transportation Plans (RTP).
This Includes plan policies, project lists, location of projects, changes in.functlonal classifications,
and changes In the planning period or population forecasts upon which the plan is balled. Local
governments. must make this determination elf consistency every four years when the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) updates or amends the RTP.! The November 2007
adoption of the updated R TP Includes a planning horizon year and a project list that doesn't
match these same elements In T ransPlan (the Eugene-Springfield local TSp). These
Inconsistencies can only be reconciled by making corresponding amendments to TransPlan.
The attached work plan, also a requirement of the TPR, Identifies the tasks and tlmelines that
will be undertaken to comply with the consistency requl rements of the law. If approved by the
local agencies, the work plan will be subn:lItted to the Land Conservation and Development
Commission (LCDC) for consideration and approval at their October 16th meeting In Prlneville.
I Ref. Oregon Ad;"inlstrative Rule 660-012-0016.
." 1\
.. .
)
D~le Received
FEB 3 2009
Planner: BJ
----. ..- -:--_._--~-~.-
.
EXHIBIT D - P15
BACKGROUND
. The RTP is a federal requirement for all metropolitan areas with populations over 50,000. The
RTP Is a 20-year transportation planning and financing document and includes MPO
jurisdictions of Coburg, Eugene, Springfield, Lane County, Lane Transit District and the Oregon
Department of Transportation. Among several key aspects, the RTP includes a financially
constrained list of all regionally significant projects, and Is updated and adopted every four years
by the MetropolItan Policy Committee (MPC). Although it Is difficult to predict all of the
changes that might be made during these regular update cycles, the federal standards require
that each update extend the planning horizon by four years. The current RTP was adopted by
the MPC in November 2007 and includes a planning horizon year of 203 i, . .
TransPlan is serving as the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area's local transportation system
plan (TSP), which is required by the State of Oregon as a component of the comprehensive land
use plan. TransPlan guides transportation system planning and development In the metropolitan
area and establishes transportation policies in support of the Metro Plan, the region's
comprehensive land use plan. Changes to TransPlan, including adoption, update and amendment
are the responsibility of Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County. Mandatory updates similar to the
federal standard for R TP's are required at intervals of seven years as specified .by Oregon Revised
Statutes for periodic review.' The most recent update of TransPlan occurred in December,
2001.
The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and the Oregon Department
of Transportation (ODOT) are concerned about the following differences between TransPlan
. and the RTP. The project list in the 2007 federal RTP has been updated, and those changes
have not yet been made to T ransPlan. The horizon year of the federal 2007 RTP is 2031, and
the 200 I TransPlan horizon year remains 2015. To comply with state administrative rules, staff
from the participating local governments, ODOT and DLCD have been working together on a
coordinated Regional Transportation Work Plan (Attachment A).
The work plan Includes a description of major work Items, interim products, and critical
milestones. An additional column titled "Ongoing Coordinated Local and MPO Planning
Activities" has been included to help inform the development of the work plan. This
supplementary list of activities is not the subject of the TPR required work plan. However, It
provides a broader view of related land use and transportation planning activitieS underway In
the metropolitan area that will affect the progress and outcome of the work plan.
While the work plan provides an estimated tlmeline for completion It should be noted that the
work plan will need to remain flexible In order to respond to data and policy direction derived
from the activities in the right-hand column. For example, the results of the buildable lands
analysis projects, currently underway in Eugene and Springfield are necessary for the preparation
1 A city wlth'a population of more than 2,500 within a metropolitan planning organization or a metropolitan
service district shall conduct periodic review every seven years after completion of the previousDiOd!C revf\" -
t, . ~ef.ORS \97,6'2.9 . - .. ale neceived
'2.
FEB .~ 2009
Planner: BJ
., .
./, I
--------.------
.
EXHIBIT 0 -
.1
P16
ef lecal transportation system plans. Therefore, the completion dates for these buildable lands
projects will Influence the completion dates for the local TSPs.'
PREVIOUS POLICY DISCUSSION
Regional transportation planning was discussed earlier this year at the July 15, 2008 Joint
Elected Officials meeting. Staff presented a draft work plan that outlined short, medium and
long term actions for consideration. Members of the jEO agreed that they would schedule
separate work sessions fer each elected body to provide direction to staff concerning future,
actions to be taken. Following is a summary of those discussions.
SpriniVleld
On July 21, 2008, the City Council of Sprlngfeld gave their staff direction to:
. Begin work on a Springfeld Transportation System Plan (TSP);
. , Amend TransPlan to extend the planning horjzon from 2015 to 2023 (based on
population estimates contained in the existing, adopted TransPlan); and
. Amend TransPlan to move the OR 126 at Main Street and OR 126 at 52nd Street'
OOOT interchange projects from thE! Future Projects list to the list of Fiscally
Constrained projects, to be consistent with the adopted federal R TP.
Eug-ene
The City Council of Eugene held a similar work session August 13, 2008 to review the draft
work plan. They provided staff direction to Initiate the following amendments to Tr.lnsPlan:
. Oelete the West Eugene Parkway from the project list and plan as part of the short-
term amendments; and
. Move the West II th Avenue from TE!rry to Greenhill and the Beltline Highway from
River Road to Oelta Highway OOOT facility projects from the Future Projects list to
the list of Fiscally Constrained projects.
Lane Coun1;,V
lane County transportation staff presented the draft work plan to the Board of County,
Commissioners on September 3,2008, and revised the work plan to reflect the following
comments:
. Add information to the work program regarding Lane County Metro Plan and other
long range planning discussions, Including County establishment of rural reserve policies;
and
. Identify specific co-adoption work elements.
Based on the results of these local policy-maker. discussions and Input received from OLCO and
OOOT, the attached work plan was developed. The work plan shows the relationship of the
development of local TSP's with the concurrent County population forecasting work, Metro
Plan discussions, and rural lands policy discussions, and City HB 3337 Implementation efforts. It
also shows how this work wili coordinate with and Inform the development of the Regional
Transportation System Plan and any other work needed to comply with state transportation
planning requirements.
'The City Councils of Eugene and Springfield directed their respective staff to prepare local tra~!i a.m_liI._atIli
plans In coordination with the development of new buildable lands Inventories and urban growth!bUiu.'1ilisn~V~
required by H53337. '
. . " ." ' FEB S 2009
.:\f.
3
Planner: BJ
"
en.
e
EXHIBIT D - P17.
WORK PROGRAM TIMElINE
The work plan describes significant transportation planning activities to be carried out by the
governing bodies and MPO over the next 4-5 years. The timeline is based on the best
information available today. Transportation planning must be Integrated with land use planning
work program schedules. In estimating the tlmeline for completion of the Eugene TSP for
example, staff is projecting a 2-year timeframe to prepare and adopt amendments to the Metro
Plan. beginning after the Decemb~r 2009 completion of Eugene's Comprehensive lands
Assessment. The work program will be adjusted as necessary to address any future county or
city policy direction. Including with regard to the Metro Plan.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Approve the Regional Transportation Work Plan and forward to the land Conservation and
Development Commission requesting approval.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Regional Transportation Work Plan
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contacts: Petra Schuetz, City of Coburg
Rob Inerfeld, City of Eugene
Tom Boyatt, City of Springfield
Cella Barry. lane County
682-7858
682-5343
744-3373
682-6935
.r, :: . 'I,; ,r:,~ <t ./'1.:.1 . Zl"
,..'. .J::!1';-'),,,,;
<:" .1.
4
Date Received
FEB 3 2009
'.
I"
. Planner: BJ
!;
.--
.
EXHIBIT D - P
Attachment A:
Regional Transportation Work Plan
September 8, 2008
Ongoing Coordinated local &
MAJOR WORK PLAN MILESTONE ' MPO Planning Activities
4th Quarter 2008 .. .....). ...... - .........:-.. ....-,..
....
Transportation Work Plan
. October 1 - Draft submitted to Land
Conservation and Development
Commission (LCDC)
. October 16 - LCDC approves
Post-Acknowledgement Plan Amendment PAPA processes:
(PAPA) . Remove completed projects-Sprtngfield initiates
Finalize schedule and responsible parties for . Remove WEP-Eugene Initiated August200e
initiation/participation/co-adoption. includ ing: . Move ODOT projects from Illustrative to .
. Remove completed projects Financially Constrained list for consistency with
. Remove WEP RTP-Initiated by Eugene and Sprtngfield for their
. Move OOOT projects from Illustrative to respective projects invoMng lands entirely within
existing city Iim~s
Financially Constrained list for consistency . Adjust plan'hortzon-8pringfield initiates
with RTP
. Adjust plan horizon
Begin Work on Local Eugene & Sprtngfield
Transportation System Plans (TSP)
. Springfield work scope complete and Request
For Proposals (RFP) issued for consultant
services in November
. Eugene completes draft Transportation System
Plari (TSP) work scope, including PUblic
involvement plan
. Sprtngfield Buildable Lands Analysis (BLA) and
Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment
(CLA) are progressing
. Discuss resource needs with state and Identify
funding to comply with mandates for local TSP's
and Regional TSP (RTSP)
. Eugene continues work on Pedeslrian and
Bicycle element of TSP update through
Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Update in
five south hills neighborhoods
Lane County Population Forecasting Work Program in
Process
. Phase 2: Population Forecast Development
Lane County Board begins discussions on Metro Plan
policy direction including rural reserves concepts
(additional work program elements to unfold based
upon Mure Board direction)
. . .~.' ~ .
".'
Date Received
CoburglEugenelSprlngfield/Lane County
September,S. 2'008 .
RegIonal T";'n'~~on "3o~
PAGE I 018
,
Planner: BJ
'"
_.m.u-..e
e
EXHIBIT 0 - P19
Ongoing Coordinated Local &
MAJOR WORK PLAN MILESTONE MPO Planning Activities
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 with In other plans
Public Involvement
. Develop mUlti-agency public involvement
plan
. Determine public outreach components
. Identify public outreach schedule relative to
work schedule
.
2035 RTP Update .
. Develop Outline of Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) Update content based on federal
regulations and survey of best praclices
. Define relationship to other plans
Springfield, HB 3337 Work:
.. . . Draft Commercial/Industrial Lands Inventory
Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) &
. Economic Development Strategy presented
. 'Alternative Analysis begins (includes
.. employment and residential lands)
1,t. Ql1arter 2009 . . ".::;'.' .:'..'..;.:0.....:.:.:..'.:.:....: ....::..... ..-:"....:. . "
'.' .:.' . .... ...
PAPA Adoption(s) PAPA processes:
Appropriate jurisdictions to amend TrensPlan to . . Remove completed projects-requires co-
achieve RTP-TSP consistency 'adoptlon by Lane County, Eugene, and
. Remove completed projects Springfield
. Remove WEP . Remove WEP-Requires co-adoption by Eugene
. Move ODOT projects from Illustrative to . and Lane County
Financially Constrained list for consistency . Move ODOT projects from Illustrative to
Financially Constrained list for consistency with
with November, 2007 RTP project lists November, 2007 RTP project lists-requires
. Adjust plan horizon adoplion by Eugene and Springfield for their
respective projects involving lands entirely within
existing city limits
. Adjust plan horizon-requires co-adoption by
Lane 'County, Eugene and Springfield
t."- ....
Date Received
!
!'
FEB 3 2009
Regional Transportltion Work Plan
Planner:ABJ8
~bUI-gIEligenelSpririgffeldtLane COUllty . ,~;tl\. \.
September 8. 2008
.
MAJOR WORK PLAN MILESTONE
Performance Measures
. Assess existing performance measures in
TransPlan
. Estimate Vehicle Miles Traveled"
(VMT)/capita for 2004,2015 and 2031
. Confirm vehicle trip reduction requirements
and determine relationship between RTSP
and TSP's in meeting the requirements
. Undertake additional performance measure
assessment and reporting at city level
. Complete reporting on TransPlan
benchmarks for 2005, Including qualitative
discussion about nodal implementation
. . .", :'~' ~ -': .-:....-~
iE'\ }~
CoburglEugenelSprlngfield/Lane County
Sep~mbef: pOp.8. ,'0 "
, ~' .
.
EXHIBIT 0 - p
Ongoing Coordinated Local &
MPO Planning Activities
Eugene and Springfield Local TSP's in process
. Eugene work scope complete and RFP Issued
for consultant services
. State resources identified and committed for TSP
wo~ .
. Data collection
. Existing conditions inventory
. Policy scan
. Public Involvement '.
. Eugene West 11th Avenue Transportation
Corridor Study completed
. West Eugene Collaborative (WEC)
recommendations for land use and transportation
in west Eugene finalized
Lane County Population Forecasting Work Program in
Process
. Phase 2: Population Forecast Development
Continues
Check-in on status of Commercial. Industrial, and
Residential Lands Analysis for Eugene and
Springfield
West Eugene Collaborative (WEC) recommendations for
land use and lransportatlon in west Eugene finalized
RTP update continues
Springfield HB 3337 Work Alternative An~llysis
completed including employment and residential
lands
. Study Area Identification
. Agricultural Soils and Exceptions Areas
. Unbuildable Areas
. Public Facilities Analysis
. Transportation Analysis
r::UJ !I 2009 "Regional Transportation Work Plan
PAGE 3 of 8
Planner: BJ
.....P-. .
.
EXHIBIT 0 - P21
Ongoing Coordinated Local &
MAJOR WORK PLAN MILESTONE MPO Planning Activities
2"d Quarter 2009
Performance Measures
. Begin development of Performance
Measure position paper
. Identify potential additional
actions/procedures for successful
performance measure implementation
Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment (CLA) basic
data available
Lane County Population Forecasting Work Program in
Process:
. Phase 3: Population Forecast Adoption Proc~ss
Begins
TSP's continue in process
Eugene completes policy discussions: Rasor-Park &
Walnut Station Mixed Use Centers, Opportunity.
Siting, Infill Standards, South Hilis Habitat Study
RTP update continues
,
'.:, <"/';~ ,. ." .. . . . '.
3'd QUiirler 2009 .. ~c.><' '. '.' ,'. ......
..- . .. ..... .' .' '.
. .... . .. ,. p'. ...... '.
. .". . ." :., '",. -. ." .....'
Population Forecast Work Complete
. Eugene, Springfield finalize safe harbor numbers
. Lane County finalizes and adopts county-wide
population forecast
. Evaluate Eugene & Springfield population
forecasts safe harbor numbers relative to Lane
County population forecast outcomes
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
Scenario development for Eugene CLA
Preferred alternative chosen for West Eugene EmX
Extension
TSPs continue in process Date Receiv
.- - - "--,.._-~. - . RTP update continues
. .
.~,
d
, ,",d., .: ~
FEB 3 Z009
Reg'piannoer:~J
CoburglEugenelSprlngfieldllane County
September e, 200e
;')
~ . "- ':
..:. .. .. ~ - ,
...-------------......---
.
EXHIBIT D - P
Ongoing Coordinated Local &
MAJOR WORK PLAN MILESTONE MPO Planning Activities
Springfield HB 3337 Work: Population and Land
. Inventory Analysis Adjustments
. Coordinated Population Forecast incorporated
into Springfield Land Inventory and Needs
Analysis
. Adjust Land Needs Analysis as needed based
upon new coordinated population forecast
4'h Quarter 2009 .' . '. .' .'.: '.
'. .
.Performance Measures
. Consider and develop adjustments to
performance andfor implementation
measures to achieve benchmarks
. Consider modified benchmarks and
performance measures for the extended
planning period .
Eugene CLA completed
- . Determination of land needs
. Refine scenario development and begin policy
discussion for implementation
TSPs continue in process
. Tilrget Springfield TSP Final Draft
RTP update continues
.1:" Quarter 2010 ',:,. .,<: . ':'dO',' '.. ....:..i...\.:.<.
. .<.: ..... ':- '..... -,'- .' .
',.:',','
Springfield Council Adopts HB 3337 Implementation
Actions either as refinement to existing MetroPlan or
as stand-alone Springfield Comprehensiv.e Plan
. New land inventories
. New Urban Growth Boundary
. New policies
Lane County co-adopts Springfield Implementation
Measures.
Eugene Comprehensive PlanfTSP:
. Develop work program for addressing CLA
determination
. Refine work program for updating TSP to
coordinate with comprehensive plan work
program
January .2010: MPO deadline for new land use
framework for development of 2035 RTP scenarios
Continue discussions and refinement of regional
transportation concepts
.'
_Oat~_Received
FEB 3 2009
'1.:/';
CoburglEugeneJSprlngfleldlLane County
Se'pumber a, 2008 ,
Planner: BJ
Regional Transportation Work Plan
PAGE 5 of 8
"..: ",.,;
u.
.
EXHIBIT D - P23
Ongoing Coordinated Local &
MAJOR WORK PLAN MILESTONE MPO Planning Activities
TSP progress continues .
Refine Springfield TSP based on adoption of HB 3337
. implemenlatlon actions
RTP update continues
~d Quarter 2010
Eugene Comprehensive PlanfTSP
. Finalize work program
. Secure funding
. Develop draft community engagement plan
. . Proposals solicited
Springfield amends Final Draft TSP in conformance with
20 year land supply and growth scenario and adopts
. Includes performance measures necessary to
comply with Transportation Planning Rule
Lane County co-adopts Springfield TSP and necessary
county TSP amendments
RTP update continues
3'd Quarter 2010 .. . . '. '>:." ..'7 '.
",:":.." . '. . .
.' ~ ... . ..! .' .
Eugene Comprehensive PlanfTSP
. Department Advisory Committee formed'
. Technical Advisory Committee formed
. Community outreach started, website created
. Consultants hired
. Record of Decision expected for West Eugene
EmX Extension
RTP update continues
4th Quarter 2010 '.-:':-',::':'. -' -' .... -,-( : . . ". -~'.
". :.,':"
-. .', ""., '0 . "'. ~.
Eugene Comprehensive PlanfTSP
, . Includes performance measures necessary to
comply with Transportation Planning Rule
. Models created for scenarios
. Scenarios drafted, reviewed by advisory
committees
. Community outreach continues
RTP update continues
1st Quarter 2011
Eugene Comprehensive PlanfTSP
. Scenarios refined
. Transportation options studies
. Publications created, website updated
. Community outreach continues
January 2011: MPO deadline for final land use
-Bat - f~~ework for 20~i RTP
,y r ._
CoburglEugenelSpringfieldllane County ,
September 8, 2008
FEB 3 2009
Regional Transportation Work Plan
PAGE 6 of 8
Planner: BJ
n.n...
MAJOR WORK PLAN MilESTONE
2" Quarter201.1 '.
:r Quarter 2011
4th Quarter 2011
RTSP
. Policy developed based upon multi-
jurisdictional elected official direction
. Components drafted for public comment
. Public outreach on RTSP framework
2012.
2013
RT5P
. Take Action to Meet RTSP requirements,
including multi-jurisdictional co-adoption
actions
. Take action as necessary to eliminate
TransPlan, including multi-jurisdictional co-
adoption actions '
CoburglEugenelSprrngfieldiLine County
September 8, 2008
"
,
.
EXHIBIT 0 - p
Ongoing Coordinated Local &
MPO Planning Activities:
Eugene Comprehensive PlanfTSP
. Community Workshop(s)
. Results compiled
Draft 2035 RTP available for pUblic review
Eugene Comprehensive PlanfTSP
. Reports to Planning Commission/City Council
. Scenanos refined, reviewed by advisory
committees
. Community outreach continues
2035 RTP Adopted
Eugene Comprehensive PlanfTSP
. Draft comprehensive plan and TSP 'available for
review
. Community outreach continues
. Planning Commission Public Healing
. Planning Commission deliberation,
recommendation
. City Council Public Hearing
. City Council deliberation
. Adoption .
Lane County co-adopts Eugene Implementation
Measures
'Oate ReoeNed
9 ~eglonal Transportation Work Plan
FiBS ,,~ PAGE70fB
, Pianner: BJ
e
___________u____ -------:-------...:------e -
EXH I B IT D - P25
ACRONYM LIST
BtA
CtA
EOA
HB
LCDC
MPO
ODOT
PAPA
RFP
RTP
RTSP
TSP
VMT
WEC
WEP
Buildable Lands Analysis (City of Springfield)
Comprehensive Lands Assessment (City of Eugene)
Economic Opportunities Analysis
House 81i1 (HB 3337)
Land Conservation- and Development Commission
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Oregon Department of Transportation
Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment
Request For Proposais
Regional Transportation Plan
Regional Transportation System Plan
Transportation System Plan
Vehicle Miles Traveled
West Eugene Collaborative
West Eugene ParkWay
Date Received
FEB 3 l009
eJfmo~r~o~J
PAGE 8 018
CoburglEugenelSprlngfieldlLane County
September 8. 2008
.
.
.,
,.
'....'
. .
LCOG\
. "-
LANK COUN=- OP GOYl!KHMKNTS "-
. ,
,
EXHIBIT E - P1
October 30, 2007
To:
Metropolitan Policy Committee
From:
Paul Thompson
Subject:
Item 4.b: Adopt 2031 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
Action Recommended: Approve Resolution 2007-09 adopting the Central Lane
Metropolitan Planning Organization 2007-2031 Regional
Transportation Plan.
Background
The Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP) was last adopted in December, 2004. The RTP provides the policy and
planning framework for long-term regional transportation planning and contains the
financially-constrained long-term transportation priorities over a twenty-plus-year
planning horizon. Under Federal law, the RTP must be updated at least every four
. years, and must contain at least a 20-year planning horizon.
The current update of the RTP extends the planning horizon to 2031, updating the
Roadway, Transit and Bicycle/Pedestrian project lists, financial forecasts andpther
elements.
In March 2007, MPC reviewed the draft RTP financially constrained and illustrative
project lists for all of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) projects
contained in the RTP. At thattime, MPC provided input on the ODOT project lists,
which were incorporated into the drafllists and presented again to MPC in April.
At the April 2007 MPC meeting, MPC discussed the RTP's updated 2031 plan horizon
in light of local plan horizons. As was discussed at that and subsequent meetings, the
2031 RTP reflects anticipated growth in the MPO area through 2031 under current
planning assumptions, and, as local policy and planning direction is updated beyond the
current local plan horizons, subsequent RTP updates will reflect those new directions.
At the June 2007 MPC meeting, all of the drafl2031 RTP project lists were presented
for review. This review included a summary of all of the new, changed and deleted
projects since the,2025 I{rp. In addition, at tre June meeting the RTP environmental
consultation materials were presented for review. 0 t R . d
I' " ' a e ecelve
!o{ll;{:.,. 1"-!
FEB ~ 2009
; I'
, <
~ p..... f
".
. ':
-,
,
_"r j.
Planner: BJ
.
.
EXHIBIT E -
The August 2007 MPC meeting included a review of the complete Preliminary Draft
RTP.
The September 2007 MPC meeting presented the Final Draft 2031 RTP and included a
public hearing on the Final Draft at which two citizens testified. MPC engaged in
extensive discussion of the Final Draft, continued the public hearing to the October 11
MPC meeting and extended the public comment period through November 5, 2007.
The October 2007 MPC meeting included a second public hearing on the Final Draft
2031 RTP, at which five citizens testified. Written citizen comments were also
distributed at that meeting. MPC continued discussion of the Final Draft RTP.
Subsequent to the October MPC meeting, two additional written comments have been
submitted, one from Robert Cortright of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation
and Development (DLCD), and one from Ed Moore, ODOT Region 2, Area 5 Region
Planner. Both of these written submissions are included as part of Attachment 2 to this
memo.
Discussion
The Final Draft 2031 Regional Transportation Plan, included with this memo as Exhibit
A to Attachment 1, fully meets all federal U.S. Department of Transportation
requirements and is ready to be adopted as the Central Lane MPO's SAFETEA-LU
compliant long range transportation plan.
'1"\ .
MPC 4.b - Adopt 2031 RTP
The Final Draft RTP included as Exhibit A is unchanged from the Final Draft included in
the September 2007 MPC packet, with tl1e exception of the updated/expanded RTP
Appendix C (List of Supporting Documents), which was included in the October 2007
MPC packet. The Final Draft RTP has been reviewed by staff from all of the MPO
member jurisdictions, and the MPO has consulted with the Federal Highway .
Administration (FHWA) on the readiness of the RTP update for adoption. FHWA has
indicated that the MPO's planning processes, and the resulting Final Draft HTP, have
met all federal requirements and are compliant with the provisions of SAFETEA-LU (the
current governing federal transportation law), and that the Final Draft RTP is thus ready
for adoption.
Specifically, the MPO has demonstrated that the Final Draft RTP, among other things:
. Establishes a new long range MPO transportation planning horizon of atleast 20
years
. Contains projects identified in state and local plans, as well as through the MPO.
planning process, as necessary to serve the transportation needs of the existing
community and the growth anticipated over the planning horizon
. Was developed as part of a coordinated regional planning effort involving the
local and state jurisdictions
. Is based 'on the latest available estimates and assumptions for population, land
use, travel, employment, congestion, and economic activity" (U.S. Code of
;.c..:.F~d;:.~.I.Regulations: 23 CFR ~50.322(e)) Date Received
FEB 3 2009
Page 2 of 12
Planner: BJ
'\
.
.
EXHIBIT E - P3
o .Includes a discussion of types of potential environmental mitigation activities and
potential areas to carry out these activities. . . developed in consultation with
Federal, State, and Tribal land management, wildlife, and regulatory agencies."
(U.S, Code of Federal Regulations: 23 CFR 450.322 (f)(7))
. Utilized a public involvement process that met or exceeded all of the
. requirements of the MPO's adopted Public Participation Plan
While the above is not a comprehensive list of the federal requirements met by the
development, and pending adoption, of the 2031 RTP, it includes a significant subset of
the considerations that the U.S. Department of Transportation takes into account when
considering an MPO's planning processes compliance with SAFETEA-LU.
Several of the public comments on the draft RTP submitted to date have questioned
whether the MPO process, and the resulting draft RTP, have been consistent with, or
complied with, one state regulation or another (including Oregon's Goal 1 and Goal 6,
the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule, and more). It must, however, be noted that
the federal standard the MPO must meet is one of .considering" and .consistency." In
consultation with FHWA, this standard has been has expanded upon in the following
way:
. The MPO's processes and resulting products must include consideration of .the
latest available" adopted state and local information, and must be consistent with
adopted state and local regulations.
. With regards to "Consideration," FHWA has stated that "consideration" does not
necessarily predetermine an outcome - that the MPO/local decisions are not
under scrutiny by FHWA, merely the process used to arrive at those decisions,
and it is that process that must consider the adopted state and local information.
. Similarly, .consistent with" does not mean .the same as." Furthermore, for the
MPO's processes and products to be consistent with adopted state and local .
regulations, plans, etc. does not mean that the MPO must apply or fulfill those
regulations. The MPO does not apply the Oregon land use regulations in its
processes or resulting products, but it .must not do anything that is inconsistent
with those regulations. This is the standard that must be met, the MPO must not
conduct a process or produce a product that is in any way inconsistent with
adopted state, regional or local guidance.
The written comment submitted by Robert Cortright of the DLCD dated October 26, .
2007 (included as part of Attachment 2) raises the following specific points, which are
individually addressed here:
. "Under federal and state law, as well as the region's adopted TSP, the RTP
update is to be used simultaneously as the process to guide update of local
plans."
-and-
. .Procedurally, we are concerned that the proposed plan has not been
coordinated with a scheduled update of the region's transportation system plan -
TransPlan - as required by TransPlan itself and the Transportation Planning
Rule (TPR): Tran'sPlan and the Transport~atetReceivedR) anticipate
. :. ~' .
MPC 4.b - Adopt 2031 RTP
,
!
FEB 3 2009
PlannAr~ R.I
Page 3 of 12
.
.
. EXHIBIT E -
that the process used to update the CLMPO plan will be simultaneously used to
update TransPlan."
Nothing in federal law in any way addresses the Regional Transportation
Plan, nor the process used to develop it, as the process to guide an
update of local plans. While an adopted RTP may indeed provide
guidance to the development of local plans; it is not the MPO's process
that should be guiding updates of local plans, much less is it the case that
"under federal. . . law. . . the RTP update is to be used Simultaneously as
the process to guide update [sic] of local plans."
State law (the TPR) is even more explicit, and does not "require" that the
RTP and TSP update processes should be conducted "simultaneously."
The attachment included with Mr. Cortright's letter correctly cites the TPR:
"TPR requirements are set forth in OAR 660-012-0016:
'In metropolitan areas, local governments shall prepare,
adopt, amend and update transportation system plans
required by this division in coordination with regional
transportation plans (RTPs) prepared by MPOs required by
federal law. insofar as possible. reQional transportation
system plans for metropolitan areas shall be accomplished
throuQh a coordinated process that complies with the .
applicable reQuirements of federal law and this
division.'"(ernphasis in Mr. Cortright's original attachment)
Setting a standard of "insofar as possible" is not establishing a
"requirement." Given the MPC direction to differentiate between the
federal RTP and the Eugene-Springfield-Lane County TSP, the diversity of
jurisdictions and TSPs within the MPO area, and other practicaL
considerations such as Or':gon House Bill 3337, a single coordinated
process is not feasible within the Central Lane MPO boundary.
. "federal law and regulations include. . . requirements to consider and reflect
adopted state and local plans. . . "
As stated above, fHWA has stated the MPO is fully compliant with the.
federal requirements to consider and be consistent with adopted state and
local plans. (see two bullet points down for more on this)
. "Trans Plan requires reporting and response to performance measures at plan
updates."
This applies to TransPlan, the Eugene-Springfield-Lane County local
Transportation System Plan (TSP), and does not apply to the federal RTP.
The May 8, 2001 Land l:;onservation and Development Commission
(LCDC) Order 01-LCDC-024 "Approving Alternative Plan Performance.
Measures" states as a conclusion of I~~.k~~~t/,t{"iew, the
Cqmrpission approved the alternative ~~~~e Eugene-
MPC 4.b - Adopt 2031 Rl'P ,1 .. .
FEB 8 ZOll9
Page 4 of 12
1\
Planner: BJ
.
.
EXHIBIT E - P5
Springfield metropolitan area with the following conditions, that are to be
complied with by incorporation of the approved standard into TransPlan
when it is adopted locally. . . . and further stated that "the Commission
also adopted the following recommendations to provide guidance to
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan area local governments as they prepare
and implement the regional transportation system plan, TransPlan . . . .
The Oregon land Use Board of Appeals (lUBA) July 27,2005 Final Order
No. 2004-223 stated that "In 2001, the city councils of Eugene and
Springfield, the lane Transit District Board and the lane County Board of
Commissioners adopted TransPlan to serve as the state-mandated
Transportation System Plan (TSP), and the MPO adopted the same
document to serve as the federally-mandated Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP)." This clearly differentiates between the two documents,and
establishes that the plan that was "adopted locally" is the "state-mandated'
'Transportation System Plan (TSP)" and not the "federally-mandated
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)" that is currently the focus of
di$cussion. Further differentiating the two documents is the fact that since
2001/2002, the federal RTP has become a completely separate document
from the local TSPITransPlan.
The lUBA Order additionally states that "In 1992 the Oregon
Transportation Commission adopted the Oregon Highway Plan and in
1995 the land Conservation and Development Commission (lCDC)
adopted the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), OAR 660-012 et seq., to
implement Goal 12 of the statewide planning goals. Both of these state
actions required additional transportation planning and coordination by
local jurisdictions to meet state planning requirements, different than the
planninQ and coordination actions alreadv required bv federal law."
(emphasis added)
. "Virtually identical provisions ofTransPlan and the adopted RTP establish the
perfonmance measures and benchmarks. . : (Chapter 4 Plan Implementation and
Monitoring)"
While Part Three of Chapter 4 in the Preliminary Draft 2031 RTP
addressed the TPR Alternative Performance Measures, upon direction
received from MPC at their August, 2007 meeting, Part Three of Chapter 4
was removed from the Final Draft 2031 RTP, along with Appendices E
and F, which.also addressed the TPR Alternative Perfonmance Measures.
This direction was given in recognition of the fact that responsibility for
addressing the state TPR requirements falls to the local jurisdictions in the
development and updating of their TSPs, and was not appropriately
addressed within the federal RTP. Date Received
\"'.."",...,,>- ",..st ~,;,: '0 ,5", FEB 3 2009
...;,. ..-w' ~':im:':-""""-":ll- i -,y.'i!i,~, r:;~,.:~~
ff.:', ;:
-'
Planner: BJ
Page 5 of 12
MPC 4.b - Adopt 2031 RTP
,
. !
.,'
,
.'
"
.
.
EXHIBIT E -
. Finally, Mr. Cortright cites the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in both
his letter and the attachment to the letter.
o "They [performance measures] are also significant for federal purposes
because the MPO plan is required to "reflect, to the extent that they exisf
the area's comprehensive long-range land use plan and metropolitan
development objectives..." (CFR 450.322 (9))"
-and-
o "Federal law and regulations include comparable requirements to consider
and reflect adopted state and local plans:
450.322 Metropolitan transportation planning process: Transportation
plan.
(b) In addition, the plan shall:...
(9) Reflect, to the extent that they exist, consideration of: the area's
. comprehensive long-range land use plan and metropolitan
development objectives; national, State, and local housing goals and
strategies, community development and employment plans and
strategies, and environmental resource plans; local, State, and national
goals and objectives stich as linking low income households with
employment opportunities; and the area's overall social, economic,
environmental, and energy conservation goals and objectives ...."
Both of these instanc~s inGorrectly cite the federal code. As noted earlier
in this memo, the current ;;!3 CFR 450.322 (e) states that:
"In updating the transportation plan, the MPO shall base the
. update on the latest available estimates and assumptions for
population, land use, travel, employment, congestion, and
economic activity."
(See htto:/Iecfr.Qooaccess.QovlcQiltltextltext- .
idx?c=ecfr&sid=7f5985b5d2fe301 f3fd5a6f537 e6bfb8&rQ n=div5&vie
w=text&node=23:1.0.1.5.11&idno=23#23:1.0.1.5.11.3.1.12, the
U.S. Government Printing Office official Electronic Code of Federal
Regulations web site.)
There are important distinctions between the old and current codes. The
FHWA has stated that the MPO has fully complied with the currenl
requirements under 23 CFR 450.322 (e) in the development of the 2031
RTP.
The memo submitted by Ed Moore (ODOT) dated October 25, 2007 (included as part of
Attachment 2) requests the inclusion of "disclaimer" language in the RTP. The
proposed disclaimer language presents several problems, such that FHWA has stated
that if the proposed language is included in the adopted RTP, FHWA will n<)f be able to
approv~ the Air Quality. Conformity Determination (AQCD) for the RTP, therefore
leaving the MPO without a conformed RTP or MTIP. (Procedurally, it should be noted
here that life only forinal adopting/approval action on lh~m~ tM~n....b.:a,j1..fi.~
MPOIMPC. The RTP is then provided to the state and tdJlid~tmfU1llnation
,
FEB 3 2009
Page 6 of 12
Planner: BJ
MPC 4.b - Adopt 2031 RTP
.
.
EXHIBIT E - P7
purposes, but there is no further formal federal action on the RTP itself. However, the
U.S. DOT does have formalapproval 'authority over the AQCD for the RTP, and that
formal FHWA AQCD approval is required to have an RTP in effect.
Specifically, ODOT's proposed disclaimer language states in part:
. "Certified for Federal Planning Purposes and Compliance with SAFETEA-LU -
Shall not be used or relied upon for the purpose of determining consistency with
local and state land use and transportation plans, rules, regulations or programs."
FHWA has stated that the RTP can not, by definition, at once comply with
SAFETEA-LU yet not be determined to be consistent with local and state
plans, rules, regulations or programs (which is one of many SAFETEA-LU
requirements). Furthermore, FHWA has stated that they find that the
Central Lane MPO planning processes, and the resulting Final Draft 2031
RTP are consistent in all elements required by the federal regulations and
SAFETEA-LU.
. "The 2031 RTP shall not be relied upon for land use decision making or support
of land use decisions, nor shall it be used to find consistency with the .
Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012), the newly adopted Oregon
Transportation Plan, or the Oregon Highway Plan."
An RTP is not in itself a land use action or decision. However, State of
Oregon laws do give some standing to an RTP when making other land
use decisions. ODOT's proposed language would circumvent any case-
by-case application of those laws, and set a precedent for all related
actions under the 2031 RTP. Initial reaction by several of the local
jurisdictions' Planning Directors is that this would be unacceptable - in
effect signing away the ability to rely on the RTP for land use decisions (as
allowed in Oregon law) in any and all cases, when it should be considered
on a case-by-case basis.
. "Until such a time as a comprehensive update of the TransPlan . . . constrained
projects list that is consistent with and based on a legally adopted 20-year land
use forecast is fully adopted and acknowledged, ODOT will determine MPO area
project compliance with OAR 660-012-0060(4) on a case-by-case basis."
Similar to the above concem, this makes a blanket statement about how
ODOT will treat all decisions.
Furthermore, this statement is referring to a requirement of TransPlan
and, as such, would be mis-placed in the RTP.
Several public comments have suggested that the public involvement process for the
2031 update of the RTP has been inadequate. As stated above, the MPO has fully met
all federal requirements in this area as contained in the MPO's adopted Public
Participation Plan(f'pp). " . h .
i'[.~fii!\ ';""1" . Date Received
FEB 3 2009
, .~
MPC 4.b - Adopt 2031 RTP:
Page 70f 12
Planner: BJ
.
.
EXHIBIT E -
Specifically, the public participation process for the 2031 update of the RTP has
included all of the following elements, exceeding the requirements of the PPP:
. A public comment period (which, in this case, was open more than 93 days)
. MPC public hearing (2, in this case) .
. Legal Notice (July 13, 2007)
.. Newspaper Display Ad (July 14, :!O07)
. Open House (July 30, 2007)
. Media Notices (multiple notices - not required by PPP)
. Notice to Interested Parties (more! than 800 addressees, multiple notices)
. Web Notices and Materials Postings (multiple postings over more than a year)
. Interior Bus Poster (in English and Spanish, roughly entire month of September)
Another public comment submitted by Rob ZakQ specifically called for the removal of
five projects from the proposed financially constrained roadway projects list in the RTP.
While this specific comment was addressed in the cover memo for the October MPC
meeting (available here htto://www.lcoq.orq/meetinqs/moc/1007/MPC4b-CoverMemo-
FinalDraflRTP.odfl, an additional response with further information is summarized in the
table on the following page. ..
Date Received
FEB 3 2009
,
Planner: BJ
Page 8 of 12
MPC 4.b - Adopt 2031 RTP
;;::
"tI
C1
....
c-
'I
)>
C-
o
"0
-
.~~-
'w
~ "
';0-" ;
:tJ
RTP
Pro ect
Project
27
Eugene-Springfield Hwy (SR 126) @
. Main Street
30
Eugene-Springfield Hwy (SR 126) @
52nd Street
. Category/Description
Construct Interchange
Construct Interchsfl9B
#306,
long range
i%J'n$:~JO\Hf;yg!;I)lQ ..PJl ~
2001 Dee
Capital
Investment
Actions: Beyond
20 years
level of
Service; Safety
#27
#305,
long range
Levelef
Service; Safety
Capital
Investment
Actions: Beyond
20 years
#30
North Eugene Transportation Improve capacity across 20 year Capital
506 Improvements: River Rd to Della the Wiltametter River #506 Investment #506
Hwy within North Eugene Area Actions
Improve 20 year Capital
333 W. 11th Avenue: Greenhill Rd to Upgrade to 5-lan8 urban #320, Access, #333 Investment #333
TerrySt facility long range Safety, Urban Actions
Standards
~{ ;$;;
2002 Jul )
CepItal
Investment
Actions: Beyond
20 years
#27
#30
Capital
Investment
Actions: Beyond
20 years
CapItal
Investment
Actions: Beyond
20 years
Capital
Investment
Actions: Beyond
20 years
1999 Se I)
1003
1-5 @ CUy of Coburg (Phase 1) Interchange Improvements
#1
Medium Range
"tI "'0 0
OJ - DJ
co m
'" 'T1 -
'" ::3 rn CD
a a:J
~ :J :JJ
N (]) ~ (I)
"""C "" n
= CD
. . =
l.D _.
~ '<
(I)
a..
#27
illustrative
.
#30
illustrative
#508
illustrative
#333
Illustrative
Illustrative;
amended to
#1003 Financially
Constrained
Au '05
.
m
><
:t:
-
<Xl
-
-t
m
I
"lJ
<0
.
.
EXHIBIT E - P
The table demonstrates that all five of the projects have been in a local TSP since 1986
(three projects), 1999 (one project) or 2001 (one project). Similarly, three of the five
projects have been in the RTP since 1986, the other two were added to the RTP in
2001. It is important to clarify the difference noted in the table between the designations
of "20 Year Capital Investment Actions' (now referred to as the financially constrained
project list) and "Capital Investment Actions: Beyond 20 Years' (now referred to as the
illustrative project list). All of the projects in the RTP have been identified as needed to
serve the planning geography over the planning horizon, either due to existing need, or
need resulting from future growth, or both. The critical distinction in the RTP between
the two designations is not one of planning or need, it is merely one of financial
constraint. The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations refers to illustrative projects as
"additional projects that would be included in the adopted [constrained] transportation
plan if additional resources beyond those identified in the financial plan were to become
available." (23 CFR 450.322 (10) (vii)) Again, all of the projects under either
designation/list have been planned for and identified as needed to the same extent as
required under federal regulations for inclusion in the MPO's RTP. It is only a matter of
a financial distinction between the two.
In response to the sum of the public comments received on the draft RTP, and at the
request of the MPO to clarify the federal deadlines and requirements facing the MPO,
and the implications of not adopting the 2031 RTP, FHWA has provided the following
written response:
"For conformity purposes your clocks start with action taken on "new"
documents. . . in this case when you first adopted the 2025 RTP, your
RTP conformity clock started. If you do another conformity determination
on the 2025 RTP, your clock does not change. As you also point out, the
2025 RTP no longer has the minimum 20-year horizon.
If LCOG does not adoptthe SAFETEA-LU compliant 2031 RTP, LCOG
will not have an underlying SAFETEA-LU compliant process. This could
greatly affect your area's ability to obligate funds for federal-aid projects.
If LCOG does not adopt a 2008-2011 TIP (based upon your 2031
SAFETEA-LU compliant plan), projects in your area would have to be
excluded from the USDOT 2008-2011 STIP approval. Once the 2008-
2011 STIP is approved by USDOT, your area's ability to obligate federal
funds could be greatly diminished if you do not have a SAFETEA-LU
compliant planning process and products (Plan and TIP) in place.
0""1\
,j.
If the area suspects that you will not have a SAFETEA-LU compliant
plan and TIP in place when the 2008-2011 STlP is approved, we
strongly encourage that you coordinate closely with all affected
parties, so that they understand the implications and possible
. project delays that may be associated with that decision." (emphasis
in original) Date Received
FEB 3 2009
MPC 4.b - Adopt 2031 RTP
Planner: BJ
Page 10 of 12
.
.
EXHIBIT E - Pll
Based on this FHWA language, and extensive further discussions with FHWA and other
sources, MPO staff has laid out the following points (this has been fully confirmed,
point-by-point, with FHWA):
1. By doing nothing, the 2025 RTP will continue to Dec 13, 2008.
2. The issue of the mismatch between the state air quality conformity cycle and the
federal cycle has not been resolved by U.S. DOT. Until confirmed otherwise,
MPO staff strongly recommends recognizing the state cycle, requiring conformity
. by December 13, 2007. Without confirmation to the contrary, ignoring the state
conformity rule requirement could lead to litigation.
3. A conformity determination made on the 2025 RTP without a trigger from a
federal standpoint would not be recognized by U.S. DOT as resetting the
conformity clock. An AQCD would still be required on a new plan prior to Dec 13,
2008. .
4. Since the 2025 RTP is not SAFETEA-LU compliant, an AQCD can not be made
on this plan. A new SAFETEA-LU compliant plan is required.
5. If the 2025 RTP remains in place, the MPO will not have an underlying
SAFETEA-LU compliant process or a SAFETEA-LU compliant RTP.
6. U.S. DOT will not act until a request is made for federal action on a program or
project within the area.
7. This means that no amendment could be made to the 2025 RTP that requires a
federal decision on a NEPA review or air quality conformity determination.
Removing the West Eugene Parkway would require such an AQCD. Thus, the
2025 RTP can only remain with the WEP in its constrained project list.
8. Since the 2025 RTP is not SAFETEA-LU compliant, the FY08-11 MTIP (adopted
after July 1, 2007 - the SAFETEA-LU deadline for actions on TEA-21
plans/programs) cannot be based on the 2025 RTP. It was prepared using the
2031 RTP, and the FY08-11 MTIP cannot be amended to be consistent with the
2025 RTP due to the SAFETEA-LU deadline.
9. The FY08-11 MTIP could not therefore be added to the pending FY08-11 STIP.
Thus projects in this area would be excluded from the 2008-2011 STIP approval
by U.S. DOT.
10. This approval is fully expected by 2 December. At that time, the 2006-2009 STIP
and the 2006-2009 MTIP are no longer in force. FY06-09 MTIP project phases
that have not been authOrized by FHWAlFTA at that time will be affected.
11. Without adoption of the SAFETEA-LU compliant RTP, the SAFETEA-LU
compliant AQCD, and thus the ability to include the MPO's FY08-11 MTIP
projects in the FY08-11 STIP, NO projects that are in the current FY06-09 MTIP
and that have not yet been authorized can be carried forward into the FY08-11 .
STIP. Period. .
12. Therefore, without the actions mentioned in the preceding item, the MPO would
have NO projects in effect in either the MTIP or the STIP. Period.
Date Received
FEB 8 2009
Planner: BJ Page11of12
i'.f \
,
,n '
, ,.
MPC 4.b - Adopt 2031 RTP
, t ~.
, -
-..,
"" ,
.
.
EXHIBIT E - P
Staff Recommendation
. The MPO's Transportation Planning Committee (TPC) voted 7-1 to recommend
adoption of the 2031 RTP as attached. This vote followed extensive discussion
of OOOT's proposal to include the! additional "disclaimer" language in the RTP.
The resulting vote was to recommend adoption of the RTP without the addition of
the OOOT language - the single dissenting vote was cast by OOOT.
Action Requested
. Approve Resolut{on 2007-09 adopting the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning
Organization 2007-2031 Regional Transportation Plan
Attachments:
. Attachment 1: Resolution 2007-09
Exhibit A to Resolution 2007-09: Central Lane MPO Regional
Transportation Plan
Attachment 2: Comments received from July 30, 2007 through October 30, 2007
during RTP public (:omment period
. .~. ,
LCOG: T:IMPOICOMMrrTEE'S,MPC1FY08WOV a7\MPC4.f3.covE.Qaf&~ved LBst Sa,l!!Ci: October 31, 2007
'I): \. I .
FEB 3 l009
'\
.
. ,~ .,
Planner: BJ
Page 12 of 12
MPC 4.b-Adopt 2031 RTP, '
I'~-~,~' ~~ -~ \
I .......i _ \: .' "~j ~ . ~ ::i~"0,':
I ~ t\~ ~-r:,~~ .~~'~ ..... ...
. I . ~ "".",", )' '-'",
. i. ~ .... ..,"
1.\") (~~. ,t "I - .(:/1
r . ~'i .'lIt', b..-*"'1~ '-. ~-~;,. aJ r . .-._~;IE1( lj
I~'~. '~,'~" ';:'.',' { ~ ,10 , ,.
I..i'l~";"~:"~ t- ,'," L.. ""I__~..1 i~
('I~'~"I...;t'~,:"r~:;"'" ;!~. '\-t~'--I
, '" , "~ "~ I;' ".' I La! I
t~....!k;;;.., '~,- , 1:.0 ~._ ___ I I.Nrt "fOo .L
l:: ~~~r>' ~' ~ . .
)>.1. .'_."'" --. J' 0 I 'n__r
i ",.".~ "._~ - ml""'~''"' r I_
1".';,:JP;Y~~"t:i~, ," . \~ ;.r-~r-.H ,_0
. '{~,' :~.!~~'-~:!i',~, \;.~J, '~-{ ,. ' r: !
'''i.. .~~',"~ ~I' I I
,:b ' I~~"f.;a:~: ~ ) . 1- - II "~I,"i
~:;~, {t-~. .\~~~i If ....,i--~--- -l~/ I'~
";t>"':!!: -\ ,,'" .~~,~ '0:-' ,"!'1.i ,;;", .....-: ---;8
."':"', .,~, 1 __,~"--J . I l (/ !
"'X .., ~;" <:~ .' I,; ""'.m,,.,, f ~ l-f;:;o~--"-:II,'.
''- " ':: -L '"-I
. i4i ~"1,. ------j---- ! -r i?'
'\ ,,~.,-lio 1 ~ "~I" If
''''U..",.{, J II i~.Ii i i ;;;
. ,) L""'''<'''''. !::bi-:;j 1"-
lj: ( 1'1 J tl l! , ,
,.""-".--,,.,~L~--C"~lJrU- i I.
1 <)l .\.~~._-+-:><-..:i'"''''f...:~'; i,LL.;~,)I'".",..
\,,;~:::~~,,~~,,Et~--F=J1~!Fl~ ~\i '~""",- _ 1____ , "
",_,-",,~,l I !~ 'I'~ f .j ':_,".'_~u'~'1 12
I'" - ' ", I'
J ,____.. ',t-_,_,"':'::~7:'.,._._ In
I I)!' I 0 ir~ ii' -!'~b
:'~!Il 'J.,-' ,). )'. it ~I' :'r-""'" ~:>~/
'-'~ 10,'." i3i .I..... -<,..
J :,il ..1\)>0' J ~,.",~",,"",..)>
J - \~ ~,:.. ~~' '~<, ii:
i~;i; I !llq~) I
_ ' :\ "'" L J _,
(", '" III
;). 1/ i";:)li 0,
.~ ~,
':. ',:; 1<~;5 I'
~i;;l~
:::,iI..;;r
a~~
i~U
i"i-~:~
~!H
i~~~
~iffi~
i!i(
~ ~8.~
;;a~1>
n~~
~ '" c'
;-~~ii
"' 1-
:H~
~~H
~,. ~
L.
'! "::\
",
\\~~
,:~
',"~
~~''S:-t
.'i~~;1:'~~
'\""',.~'"
'~A,,\\I!1:~
.."'f7'%) 'l~~~
:~f ,.' }:r
':";,:~ k"'_
'.;:~krl
,. 'f~'~~;J~.
o
,I -( _J
r ~ .. >2 ) I
~.l I
_,"",~\f. ":"'f> '~.,::,' I, 'I
.s- ~"'4h , I~.)'
t: $'~ ';i..
, ~ \: '~' ~.~'~/ \'~ {, ~
",/ ':~~' ::"~i!;:,' '~,~Jr~\<
,'\ij\~~\t~.~.:,~;,.." \,~ :,'f.\. \'
~ ;i&'~", . ~ "~, ,( i'\
It h '-t.,. ,...s....;.~"~. . ,~~.' 'lc..;" !" 'i
";1:" ..~ . ',,"'~' V I ..". \,;""
';;l",o'....:=:i,~"~'~j ~',..,..,,' ;';t.2
:10. ..s !!:',,::,)..~..:..:.." . ~..:t\.\ \ ('. ,.
~' - cJ ,.' ~_ \.~'\.j; " l
'.
~t,
"''''
,,0_-
.
.
~
,
,
;
.~_---:;:f;;t-~ l'l
.,.-
j
~r';;"':""...._ .:>'j
';' -
~'~
,
,"',;./
:x~<-
,H.,
.".",
-.~';,;
~
'.~ I
1\
,,,
,'- .--J
.m .') ,,-<.~~
........:::::'\,/ ,,/-/""&'- .
\. ", //
\,.z./
"
,f
\
"
I..""
1,,, ~;~ ,~
1-;'
~"'}~,
':~
l\~
";,~--:",,,
,~ ,'\I.
I'
\::\ :,"':~~
", ~\\.,~..._~ \..~,
}N:~",;""'-'-"";':\.'~71,.
/\ 1,[",_"
_.~.",:""
~
~
'\-
,. ,~\ \\\
th
;,.,,:\:.
'. .
,
... ,
1._~ .,
. ,
EXHIBIT E
P13
j
!
j
;'@
j
,
-~
~------.-
",-
--~)
:'''-:'~;~;/:~.,o
,
\.~l
,~- ~-)
,
.,::'
"";'\,\
{
j~
~~~
c-",,">'
\\
" '~'fb.
'-' '
,'.-"
...
\
"
03:
~[
, . "
~ .:- :
I" 1[ fl
;<
![ lD
~
Z
o
~
.
.
;::
,,'
..;;0
Q,(l)
C:lC
.. -,
. f .. 0
, C")::I
0
[ .. III
1 ,,-
(;':;'
.; . ., III
~ 0::1
J ~ Ul
!t-c
.go
s;:l.
.. III
~::=
-0
~::I
lll"tl
..-
III
::I
l---'i'
~',.::;:tI'
!;{ ---
~(5 [0:
Q)j!:~ . I
(.)~~~ ~Q;
Q);,~"", ~ ,....
,'-'J. C:IIr.:a
~~~~83 ~. C
Q):~LL ct
ClCI~' i:i:
~
"
"
g
,
.
~
."
-
0>
~
~
CD
~
. .
OJ
C-
I~
, .
.-;
" I
, ,,"::, >
.I ,j ,
I "
'I I )
!
"
~ ...,.:-.... 'I
~:.
"
,
.
.
EXHIBIT E
'~"
'\. \~.".'; ~\.-~
"'<~'.'
. ~' . "",}~~r;;:
t ,~'i::'A'~
i; '\ ~~\~.\\~.~~
, ,I "f ,"-
t\"~
"I ~~",
~~,\~ "-I_\~'~
. ~~~~ 1~~
, ~ ~~i\
N
o
:n....
t;j," ..a.
· :il;;a
~(1)
nl!:!.
00
=> ::l
l!l.1ll
01-
5' ::;t
CD III
Q.::l
:tJen
0"0
!o
~~
'<:~
~ O'
.g::l
~J2
lit III
::l
I-~_~'. ~\
'-~V_ . . -\. "\:
. ~ ~~c~ .'''' \'~
- ~~':'f;-,"i't .~ .\~. , ...
'~ "', -: :;, , :o.~ ,., j' -",;;-:,;.." I c
- ~.,,, ':' Ii "
;'f.rj','.~~4 \ _
';."l<~'~' ,'" $ mi' 1,
....~\t :~.\.,..~...,;;~,.'.:): .... .'_ "T!'~; Ii '
..._ 'r ...,(1..:'." "
(~~~~'~i,;\~t\ l.;' ""\ I i I
.....~~~~.,., 1''''1 I~
,.\, -- ~ i---~"-~ll ~ I.:
}'>:z .:~~ ~ ""~"".., 1.'~
"J;;-;;'~,.\ -. ' '"'" ~ ii:....-;Ul
;:\."'t..r \~.t: 1':.- \]:, ','. I I
,"'<;\" , .",', ;.~.,;~ . ,<,.,; :. I i
;, ~\... ~q lo,~~" :.~~,~__ "<:/:=-.=--" lu~ J./~ '
\~.Yl ."",~; . -t- ..};1, .'"
~ \.( ;~-b ~ . . ';';,:" - /:'~ ./
,.... .~. ,.... .. .. '':'':;. -". ,.. ~
;H", .' J ,,,.... ~
" .ii.'.. ~;. ".'
.~"'..,."~, . T'b: f' .- ".-_.u
- . '" il ~ ,- ", '~\: v '-- .:....--- : "'''~~._- i,,~ 'H-~ '_._..
..;~'~. j;, . 'i
,~:;t 1 'e"",, sJi
~'- r' .... If
-~. "._~,- j I~T':~! I
'-"'''''! . ('
. I~' I i ~~~ - ~;r.'~P,._,~,,'.(!'
.....",.,.~", -
! !'" I.
i,. i~ ;:
l'::;J) .
\. '-~~- -~h~
~- ! \~
. /,';
/
I'
',. I ."
'....:'t
"
I
tii~tr
~~i:
SEl-@:';-
i a~:3
mi
!l ~ 3 ..
d~,
~.h
~~~~
.2: ~~i
~~~l
~ ",Ii E
..",~-
!i~i
~*1 ~
,~'1! ~. ~
~'" ~
I!..-,~
;::;..-
,
,\
j
.F-<."
,
...
. ""'S'I""r-,.L~:}...-;",
I . ".',
'1 '.'
.1;.... ,/'"
I-
l "
~i<
,.
l
.
:~
.~
j'!
."
rn
CD
\
,
,
,',
c',""_
..,"j
:.~,,;
<;:-
'~,<;~l/
,"1....< ::
,~- - '
. .
r ~
~LJ.__~
L..'j'"
'~-'-j ~
~1~ ",j40.u
i.'--."'.,
.-':
,.f;"""'"
!i
~-~l.~ ,.
"'I:~; .
. .
. . II'" ~-
"jl .........'
,. \ ,>',
/
,-"".~
',,;-
q
'co. (.
f ,;ft"
i.1 /--:::;'1"'
::? "'-//""-'''1
, ,i/ / I!
\.1... .
i.
',-f'
~
(
i
,
J'
100'",
"
" ~
, ~
, ~
,--~' "'.
o
ea." i'~'
CD ":' ,
/" "
y@ J
'~,;./
.' H
7ii;\i~ .,
\
f.
\.
...
''''0'
:-,
,:;,
r;
.""
i,)'
=
r->
=
=
<D
~~..
i
"1
I '.'
.,
"',
'--\",
~
111110..
~ c 91~~~~f~5:~f
o [~!~il!)>.!l~&5:.,
~ a ~ ~ 0 ; ~ ~ ~ ~
~! 8.~~~i: "gill
~ i i~-!~~ -!~~
~, ~ ~:. -tl ~ 5'
~ ~~~ ~~~
i f g. 3 ~ ii:'
:> 1 ~ 1! ~ .a
.. i og .. ~ II
;l "
~ ~
. .
,
o
.
,-:].
, :;:\f;;;i". ~ ~~?~
"'" ".'\r;"~.t ""'i
I: . ".-. ""
-~h _ f~ . t~~_.\ > ~+i}f_~:i.
,', if' -'x.".',, ..
iri( \:,..:
,i.,,!;i,,~ 1"~ . ~j-,
:.~, '. ""'\>. ~. "\'
'Ci....'\: .~ ..';
l. '-4: ''''1o,.~_~,..., ,\
:3:'..~ '- ...~\..,'.i \;,..i<.
;:;1 "tI' ...= -_' ~.:..~ .." ~"~':_,: ~"
g!clt 11.5 ~~~~-~~~<~:"{.~\~1~
"
, ,
~ IS I
.,,--
~~ \ ,i,~',.,
~ I ""
. ": ~" '.
~ i ,\
\ ! I'
, '
\ I "~'I
i ';\ Ii ",i5y
\
--'"
@
......'.
.,-.;;.
i'~,:(:'t;;
'.:::,-;.-~ '-.
~'~Y,
I \. ,,;;1
i> :'"
"'~'..
.~~'i
i
.
I
p
.
.
EXHIBIT F - P1
MINUTES
Metropolitan Policy Committee
Lane Council of Governments-4th Floor Conference Room-99 East Broadway
. Eugene,~egon
November 8, 2007
11:30 a.m.
PRESENT:
Kitty Piercy, Chair; Alan Zelenka (City of Eugene); Bobby Green, Peter Sorenson (Lane
County), Anne Ballew, Sid Leiken (City of Springfield), Greg Evans, Mike Dubick (Lane
Transit District), Judy Volta (City of Coburg), Sonny Chickering (~gon Department of
Transportation), members; Angel Jones (City of Eugene), Bill Van Vactor (Lane County),
Gino Grimaldi (City of Springfield), Stefano Viggiano (Lane Transit District), Don
Schuessler (City of Coburg), ex officio members.
George Kloeppel, Kathi Wiederhold, Susan Payne, Petra Schuetz, Byron Vanderpool, Ann
Mortenson, Jamon Kent (Lane Council of Governments); JeffScheick, Ed Moore, Eric
Havig (~egon Department of Transportation); Greg Mott, Len Goodwin, Tom Boyatt
(City of Springfield), Chris Henry, Kurt Yeiter (City of Eugene), Tom Schwetz, Mary
Archer, Connie Bloom-Williams, Lisa Van Wmkle (Lane Transit District); Celia Barry
(Lane County); Dave Jacobson (MPO Citizen Advisory Committee); Terry Connolly, Rob
Zako, Lauri Segel, guests.
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Ms. Piercy called the meeting of the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) to order and welcomed
committee members, staff and guests. Those present introduced themselves.
APPROVE OCTOBER 11, 2007, MINUTES
Ms. Ballew, seconded by Mr. Green, moved to approve the October II, :2007,
minutes as submitted. The motion passed unanimously, 9:0. .
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
Lanri Segel, speaking on'behalf of the Goal I Coalition, stated that the Regional Transportation Plan
update did not comply with the State's Transportation Planning Rule regarding a finding of consistency
with the transportation system plan (TSP) or triggering an update of the TSP. She referred to a letter from
the ~egon Department of Transportation (ODOT) as capitulation and said regardless of whether ODOT
was complicit with the MPO, she was not aware of anything that had changed.
Rob Zako, 1,000 Friends of ~gon, said the problem was lack of planning by the MPO. He felt there
was no planning because there had been no discussion of goals, evaluation of how to achieve those goals,
or involvement of the public. He saw public money being spent without planning. He hoped after the
I .,I3-TP.uPdate.w!lSadopted the MPO would begin planning. .
"r I' '.~ ~'~ .
"Ill!' .
MINUTES Metropolitan Policy Committee
November 8, 2007
Date RecAived
Page"'1
H.k 'l 2009
,-, ",
. . .
Planner: BJ
.
.
EXHIBIT F -
'I
R2
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) ISSUES
Report from the MPO Citizen Advisol"J' Committee (CAe)
Dave Jacobson, CAC vice chair, noted that a written report of the CAC's November 7 meeting had been
provided, along with a report from the Freight Subcommittee. He said the subcommittee had been formed
io response to recommendations io the MPO certiJication review and provided some recommendations
regardiog the composition of an MPO Freight Advisory Committee.
Mr. Sorenson asked if the CAC had been io contact with members of the Goal I Coalition and those who
had signed the petition expressiog concern about lack of public iovolvement io the RTP update process.
Mr. Jacobson said the CAC was publishiog a guide for citizen iovolvement io regional transportation
planniog, had developed a public participation plan and encouraged members of the public to attend
monthly CAC meetings to share their comments and concerns.
Mr. Sorenson asked if the CAC would provide the MPC with recommendations on any items that came
before it for action. Mr. Jacobson said the CAC would respond to any specific direction or request from
the MPC for feedback. Ms. Wiederhold noted that the CAC bylaws, approved by the MPC, specifically
identified those items or issues on which the CAC was to provide recommendations and comments. She.
said the CAC routinely reviewed documents and perhaps the reports could more clearly spell out any
cominents or recommendations to the MPC.
Ms. Piercy suggested contacting iodividuals who had signed the petition and extendiog an iovitation to
attend a CAC meeting.
Adopt 2031 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
Mr. Vanderpool directed the committee's attention to additional materials distributed at the meeting: a
petition from the Goal I Coalition with additional signatures, a letter from Rob Zako dated October 31,
2007, and a letter from ODOT dated November 6, 2007. He said staff had no further comments with
regard to the additional materials and the RTP was unchanged from the version reviewed at the MPC's
October 2007 meeting. He said the Transportation Planniog Committee and MPO staff recommended
adoption of the RTP, which was io compliance with all federal guidelines.
. Ms. Piercy asked if adoption of the RTP could be postponed for another month. Mr. Vanderpool replied
that the Air Quality Conformity Determination (AQCD)'had to be passed at this meeting, as it was'
required io order for the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) to be iocluded io the
State Transportation Improvement Program (STlP). He said the Federal Highways Administration
(FHW A) would consider a one month extension of the RTP adoption if the MPO could articulate what
federal procedural steps would be undertaken io that additional time; a longer delay would not be
considered and there was no guarantee that a one month delay would be granted.
In response to questions from Mr. Sorenson, Mr. Vanderpool said the current AQCD expired on December
13,2007, io accordance with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality requirement, which
prevailed under federal law; the new AQCD had to be received by fede~ agencies by D~re3~beive
MINUTES Metropolitan Policy Committee
November 8, 2007
FEB 3 2009
Page 2
Planner: BiJ
I
, ,
"
.
.
EXHIBIT F - P3
which was the date of the next MPC meeting. He said the public comment period on the AQCD closed on
October 24.
Mr. Leiken arrived at 11 :50 a.m.
Continuing, Mr. Vanderpool explained that as of July 2007 the MPO was required to have a SAFETEA-
LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible Transportation Equity Act-A Legacy for Users) compliant RTP in order
for the MTIP to exist; that had to occur by December 2007 to allow MPO projects to remain eligible for
federal funding. He said the public comment period on the RTP update was concluded on November 5,
2007.
Ms. Ballew urged adoption of the RTP without delay to avoid jeopardizing federal funding. She said if
problems with the RTP were identified, it could always be amended.
Mr. Evans concurred with Ms. Ballew that it was necessary tei adopt the RTP to protect the status ofMTIP
projects. He said that TransPlan issues could be addressed as an ongoing process to align it with the RTP.
Ms. Piercy commented that there appeared to be agreement among MPC members that it was important to
begin the TransPlan update process as soon as possible.
Mr. Sorenson asked if adoption of the RTP triggered a requirement to update TransPlan within a one-year
period. Mr. Vanderpool said the State Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) required one of three things to
occur upon adoption of an RTP: 1) amend the local transportation system plans to be consistent with the
RTP, or 2) issue a finding of consistency, or 3) enter into a work program agreement with the Department
of Land Conservation and Development. He said local jurisdictions would determine which approach they
would take. He said staff could report back to the MPC at its next meeting on discussions among local
jurisdictions about next steps.
In response to 'a question from Mr. Sorenson, Mr. Havig explained that ODOT had initially requested
additional of disclaimer language, but that was not acceptable to FHW A; subsequently ODOT determined
that the existing language in the RTP update was sufficient for its needs, particularly as ODOT began to
'work with local jurisdictions on local transportation system plans. '
Mr. Zelenka expressed concern with insufficient linkage to land use plans and inadequate public
involvement. He asked staff to bring back, in cooperation with Eugene, Springfield and Lane County, a
discussion of actions that had to be taken, deadlines and impacts on different jurisdictions"and ways to
improve public involvement. He said the RTP contained hundreds of millions of dollars in projects and
only a few people came to testify. 'He also requested an analysis of how the projects in the plan matched
with anticipated State resources over the next several funding cycles, as he felt the RTP did not match the
reality of available funding.
Ms. Volta said she was in favor of adopting the RTP and even though it was not a perfect document, there
was not time to resolve all issues. She said that amendments could occur at a later date.
Mr. Evans agreed with concerns that transportation and land use planning were not integrated, but it was
necessary to adhere to the process that was currently in place and not jeopardize project funding. He said
addressing those concerns would require a task force to overhaul all municipal planning processes within
;the MPO; in the meantime the RTP and MTIP should move forwatd.
t \.
"
. ,.
~, ... i"' ':
date Received
-,fT. i
< " . MJNUTESMetropolitan Policy Committee
..'" I"
November 8, 2007 H ~ 2009 Page 3
Planner: BJ
.
.
'I
EXHIBIT F - R4
Mr. Green, seconded by Mr. Evans, moved to approve Resolution 2007-09
adopting the Central Lam: Metropolitan Planning Organization 2007-2031
Regional Transportation Plan.
Mr. Green appreciated the concern about public participation and agreed that it could be improved. He
said the R TP could also be amended if necessary, but if it was not adopted it would be difficult to advocate
. for federal funding. He also supported adoption of the RTP so the State could continue t~ invest in
regional projects. .
Mr. Zelenka also asked for an estimate of the cost, associated with the list of planning activities and
deadlines he requested earlier, along with an accounting of how the $100,000 budgeted by LCOG for
public involvement was spent.
In response to a question from Mr. Sorenson, Mr. Vanderpool indicated that the two Springfield projects
were moved from the illustrative to the financially constrained list in the RTP, but did not change their
status in TransPlan as there was no concept of a financially constrained list in state plans. He said the
projects' status was only being changed at the fede:rallevel, not the local level.
. Mr. Sorenson questioned why the MPC should take action before it fully understood the implications of
that action.
Mr. Variderpool said that local jurisdictions had been meeting for the past year to discuss the implications
for local planning processes and he doubted that those questions would be resolved by the next MPC
meeting.
Mr. Evans left the meeting at 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Leiken remarked that the RTP was a living document that established opportunities for the region
today, but could be revised if the region's goals changed in the future. He said adoption of the updated
RTP did not guarantee all of the projects would be built by 2031.
. Mr. Scheick asserted that ODOT was in favor of adoption of the RTP and the language addressed its
concerns. He said the Oregon Transportation Commission was scheduled to adopt the 2008-2011 STIP in
November and if the region's MTIP waS not in compliance, federal funds would be jeopardized. He
affirmed that ODOT was willing to be a partner with local jurisdictions and assist financially to update
TransPlan to better match state and federal planning horizons. He pointed out the planD.1ng horizons did
not need to match exactly, but should be closer together than a decade.
Mr. Zelenka asked if updating TransPlan would require an update to the RTP. Mr. Vanderpool said the
RTP must be updated at least every four years, but could be updated sooner if necessary.
Mr. Green asked what criteria FHW A would require to grant a one-month extension. Mr. Vanderpool said
the MPO would need to identify the specific steps in the federal process that warranted another month and
even then there was no guarantee the extension would be granted.
Mr. Dubick cautioned against missing the opportunity for MTIP projects to be included in the STIP.
Date Received
FEB 3 2009
MINUTES Metropolitan Policy Committee
November 8, 2007
planner: BJ
J.
,':~ , 'I ".
.
.
EXHIBIT F - P5
Ms. Piercy asked if the State was willing to help with resources to assist with an extensive overhaul of
regional and local planning processes. Mr. Scheick indicated that some funding would be available, but
local jurisdictions would be expected to make a major investment in the process.
Mr. Sorenson stated he would vote against the motion without a realistic assessment of the impact on local
transportation and land use plans.
Mr. Zelenka stated he would not vote for the motion until the deficiencies had been addressed.
Ms. Piercy said she would vote in favor in order to move the process forward, but felt strongly the region
should commit to an examination of the planning processes and pursing the resources necessary to
accomplish that.
The motion passed, 7:2; Ms. Piercy, Mr. Green, Ms. Ballew, Mr. Leiken, Mr.
Dubiel<, Ms. Volta and Mr. Chickering voting in favor; Mr. Zelenka and Mr.
Sorenson voting in opposition.
Mr. Green thanked Ms. Piercy for her affirmative vote and indicated his willingness to commit to the
planning efforts required to address concerns. Mr. Leiken concurred with Mr. Green.
Adopt MPO Air Quality Conformity Determination (AQCD)
Ms. Payne stated that the committee was being asked to adopt the AQCD for the RTP and MTIP. She said
the AQCD was. a finding that the RTP and MTIP projects would not cause the established.carbon
monoxide standards to be exceeded and was required as part of the RTF and MTIP update process. She
said there were a few minor editorial changes to the previous draft and those were indicated in the
document. She said the analysis had concluded the RTP and MTIP projects would not result in a violation
of the carbon monoxide standards. She said the public comments and staff responses were included in the
agenda materials..
Ms. Volta left the meeting at 12:50 p.m.
Ms. Ballew, seconded by Mr. Dubiel<, moved to approve Resolution 2007-10
adopting the air quality conformity determination for the 2007-2031 Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) and the FY2008-2011 Metropolitan Transportation
Improvement Program (MTIP). The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. (Mr.
Chickering was out of the room.)
Oregon MPO Consortium (OMPOC) Legislative Policy Concepts and Objectives
Mr. Vanderpool pointed out there were two versions of the legislative agenda; the flIst version reflected
comments at the MPC's last meeting and the second version reflected comments from the Eugene City
Council. He asked for direction on how the two sets of revisions should be reflected in a single document
for MPC approval.
..1
, .',." ' .~. 'I~ ~
:.. .Mr; Zeler*..\' said he preferred the second version, which retained the fourth bulleted item related
sustainable state funding for local transportation needs and local flexibility in the use Of funds.
'1If,\: p ~H ~
" .' . MINUTES Metropolitan Policy Committee
", . ~ '! .. .
November 8, 2007
DatA Rer.p.ived
Page 5
-. .:< 7009
Planner: BJ
.
.
EXHIBIT F -
'I
R6
Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Green, moved to adopt the second version of the
draft legislative agenda
Ms. Ballew expressed concern with the addition o:fIanguage in an "Overall co=ents" section as not
necessarily reflecting tbe priorities of all jurisdictions.
Ms. Piercy said the "Overall co=ents" section could simply accompany the revised draft as Eugene's
co=ents and did not need to be included in the legislative agenda document Mr. Zelenka agreed with
that suggestion.
The motion passed, 8:0.
Commuter Solutions Strategic Plan
Mr. Schwetz used a slide presentation to review th,e Co=uter Solutions 2005-2010 Strategic Plan. He
said Co=uter Solutions was formed in 1995 by Lane Transit District to promote use of alternative
transportation modes. He reviewed statistics for group, business-based and school-based pass programs,
which represented 49 percent of the population. He said congestion mitigations services had been
extremely suc~essfuI in helping residents cope with roadway construction projects. He said Co=uter
Solutions would continue to playa key role in the future and remain a wise investment by regional
partners.
Ms. Piercy asked if there had been any discussion about neighb~rhoods owning and sharing a vehicle. Ms.
Bloom-Williams said staffhad been in discussions with Flexcar and tbere was the possibility of a pilot
program on the University of Oregon campus, although such a program would become more feasible with
greater density in tbe community.
Ms. Piercy commended L TD's EmX service for its ease of use. She felt its accessibility, including no fare,
was an asset to tbe community and helping to change people's behaviors.
Mr. Sorenson, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to encourage Lane Tiansit
District to develop a plan to provide no fare transit services. The motion passed,
, 8:0.
FoUow-up and MPO Calendar
ODOT Update
Mr. Scheick distributed a handout entitled ODOT Program Allotment Adjustment. He stated that the OTC
was facing a $140 million shortfall in program funding and considered options for addressing that at its
October 2007 meeting. He said adjustments to eliJninate tbe deficit included reducing tbe program reserve,
delaying tbe remodel of ODOT headquarters and removing $70 million from tbe 2008-2011 STIP in the
modernization category. He anticipated a decision would be made at tbe OTC's next meeting.
Mr., Sorenson left tbe meeting at I :20 p.m.
Date Received
FEB 3 2009
.' I~"
.
" ~ ~
, MINUTES Metropolitan Policy Committee
November 8, 2007
Plan~er: BJ
.
.
EXHIBIT F - P7
Mr. Scheick anticipated Region 2's share of the reduction to be $20.5 million. He said the region would
develop a straw proposal for projects in the STIP from which funds could be removed and ask for
responses from the MPOs; chairs and vice chairs would then meet with OnOT to develop a final proposal.
He expected to get a proposal out by the end of November. He said IvlPOs would also be asked for input
on the 2010-2013 STIP, which would make about $6.5 million available to Region 2 for modernization.
He said there was some momentum during the 2007 legislative session for a transportation funding
package, which he hoped would result in a package in the 2009 session. He indicated that if there were a
significant increase in modernization funds, regions would be asked to identify their priorities. He said the
OTC was concerned that the existing infrastructure was not being maintained and had directed OnOT to
take a triage approach to redeploy funds for maintenance, the bridge program and operations.
Mr. Green asked if Senate Bill 994 had prompted OTC's action. Mr. Scheick said there were several
factors involved in the $140 million shortfall, including lower gas tax revenues than were projected, an
increase in the costs of employee benefits and overhead and the distribution of $56 million to the counties
under SB 994.
Mr. Green commented that it would be up to counties and local jurisdictions to identify which projects
were priorities for modernization funding. He asked how that would be equalized for those counties that
did not have modernization project that were ready to go. Mr. Scheick said a regional equity would be
applied to the amount of modernization dollars that would be reduced in each region. He said all regions'
would have a reduction in their modernization program, but every county might not be affected. He said
some projects might be eliminated, but it Was more likely projects would be reduced, delayed or built in
phases.
MTIP Administrative Amendments
Ms. Payne stated that the administrative amendment added a new project to purchase two replacement
vehicles for L TD's rural service, with the funding to come from a new federal grant received from ODOT's
Public Transit Division. .
The meeting was adjourned at 1:35 p.m.
(Recorded by Lynn Taylor)
Date Received
~~~ ~ 2009
Planner: BJ
MINUTES Metropolitan Policy Committee
November 8, 2007
Page 7
I. ..
.
.
:: "\' ;
.
.
EXHIBIT G - P1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION
Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday, February 3, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of Springfield City Hall, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, OR the Springfield
Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on the following matter:
Amendments to TransPlan and the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan by adding Project #27 (interchange improvements to SR 126@Main Street)
and Project #30 (interchange improvements to SR 126@ 52Dd Street) to Table la
Financiallv Constrained 20-Year Canital Investment Actions Roadwav Proiects List
and deleting these same projects from Table Ib Future Proiects List; corresponding
ameudments will be made to the Future Roadwav Proiects Man (deletion) and the
FinancialIv Constrained Roadwav Man (addition). Including these projects on the
financially constrained list means they are eligible for federal funding during the 20-
year planning horizon of Trans Plan. NOTE: State law requires cities to adopt
transportation system plans that include transportation facilities designed to
accommodate projected development within urban growth boundaries. All projects and
maps contained in the transportation system plan must be adopted as part of the
comprehensive plan; therefore the same tables and maps amended in TransPlan are
contained in the Metro Plan and similarly amended.
The decision of the planning commission will be forwarded to the Springfield City
Council for additional hearings and final action at a time and place to be announced.
Anplicant
The City of Springfield
Criteria of Aonroval
Criteria to be used to evaluate a Metro Plan Text Amendment is found in Springfield
Development Code, Chapter 5, Section 5.14-135( C )(1-2) 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.
Additional Information - Staff Reoort. Providinl! Testimonv
Anyone wishing to testify on this matter may do so in person, in writing, or both by
appearing at the hearing or sending written correspondence, including e-mail, to the
Development Services Department, c/o Greg Mott, Planning Manager, 225 Fifth Street,
Springfield, OR 97477, or gmott@ci.snrinl!field.or.us The application and staff report
are available for viewing or purchase after 3 :00 p.m. on Friday, January 23, 2009 in the
Development Services Department. A map showing the location of these two projects is
on the reverse side of this notice.
Date Received
FEB ~ 2009
Planner: BJ
1:'\',. I
, ,
.
.
@
\.} 1~~c;l }';;;~f1;;/ ''''Jf''~ -:;~ 2031 Regional Transportation Plan
\ ~, ' ' , ~~e1f.J,~,';':~r/'~ Fiscally con, strained Roadway Projects
\ \. (;rc""",."i;8f.' '?:;~~:;'A'~' ,
\ ' ~') ":i-~~~/;'" ~..", ,,'.1 . NewArtenaILin~(lrl[ll/!rCha,"g,
\ -A"\~,.. '- 9'y~~ttfJ'- " . Adde,dFreewayLolleslMBJOrlntercllal1ilolmprovemenls
" ~.. .#-,~---:;)1'iJii:.~~41 0 ArtenalCapac~ylmprovemenls
'_'=-""". _~ \ .\~ . /"';0. ..!; \.t-....,,;;t;::."'?-';.~ 0 Study
() '., ~ "0', .~ \-' c t. ~- ~ , ,-\ . A-tl:.1";'1'( - NewArlelialLlnkorlnterchange
-, ~ --,.~ -it \ - ~ ~ ~~~/ -",,.#J~~~u.1t'~ -Addedl'reewayLanes{MaJorlnlerchange
\ . '~..,'~'-......*"" -Y(10_~.::1!l;:'Yf: -ArtoffillCepaeitylmpravemellls
.( "j \ t -= ?;r"f# <'J';.~r"" ~~ -NewColleClor
, :0.. J - "I ' ,,' '. L" ;,J)-'!!I
., " ,~'"'-,~ '/J "-'~-" '1');1' ~ -u""",.",,,,,
- ~ ~,;-"I"'''~'''' ,.. -:J,;: ,~'" 9 ;<L~
,'t :.;. , ' - -r ~ ,~'...; 1:;1' ~~I\ "'_ ~ m""
" , q \, :m..J3pJ;~":;;; ~ ;;.)./~~_.... 'fI;' , 'c u.'",row,"bo"""'.'
-\-- . \,", ,,,,<oJ ,-,.~~t;Jr;,:1fn ~,""j
~........... c; "h'''''~r. 3~ "'.."""r \ m "" (i; l 611 ~ ~"L'--(.~fI!.-~'~' MPOBQundary
-( \ ," ,. ;--~ - J b,"]\ ';v "I?'l~~,(,. ,-f, -' t:". :,.' 'Ii./.,' -r~ ' ~' ^";r.",;d
" !\1 ~ \ '\ \ V . ,,,,. ~ ~ " t. ~ _ -.. .~ ~'-'l;; ,l'{
, ~',L: '-,^', l' ~ . '.,""~, "t '~; .li{. ~ ,:' ~ v,~""..: ..... '"
\ '-"" ,'.v~ -\ ',' -i'" '" "'-.. I, ,-,' IJit- ,~:i.;.;J);".::",' ~ I!f' /! ~. > "';;;' ;-
v----r-- " .. ~ '" 1m .......'..' '<. -J-.k: " "~ ",,' / I'i//h ,.. ;-' I
O;:,c ,-_./--> '\~.r ,I E .,,~ ,'" \ \ , ""0, r) "---:'i', 11!1:~ ":;'...,.."Y ': l' 'Jt!Y, ft 'r, ,,:.' ~ :';" /" - '-ft
>- 'i~' i ~~ ~ ~':" ~ '," ~ . i k ,,~ ' "'~. J, "ll rl.J1'~ff b;( ,~l'" ': N~)i
, . L\.c- ' '. ' " \ ,.../.... ....10..__ _O"'-ollil'~" ..~, . J ,[f 2'{~, ~ l-U yl;, .' " '- r r-:"l
1r ) ~ ~-~ O{"<_ j ~ ~\ r sc\.- ~f;J; '!:y ~~. J ----~--61=
iJg.f!:!)-, - '" -J<' '.., '1 \y- .' ~ ;,' ,.. , 'B'ctOillO", ",@J".-;;~ ", ~u~ g;J ?IprOjec'3o-\~R~~6~_~2ndSI.I.:cv-~~
,;,______1' '\"'., '<>0- ~,' .t~' \ _'!2<'-'''' ,_l/~,;-' ,..,~,--- f( ~ ~,
., t' ~'~ ;; ~ D . 1!~ - , \ \ -;0- - -:'Y"""L.-::::) ~-~ .....~J :J \-
. ,~""; ,-""~ I --.:.."'!_~ ,'" I' "" ..:. .' "'. r -. ""',"~ r" Projec'27 - OR 126@MalnSt...-
If, t ~I "L "'j- Il~Jtl -"i'D -X-801 ~ - ~ iil ~ ';~f "-1 U .. ::::---__.r
#--;.);/~- r-';:'" r J '}b; " " ,!, ,",,';' r ,"':"";[-;:;i..,:~,-~ ,"" ;~",,'f .r" "'o~." "" '. ." /~:
,'u'lF;;:;-'(-' ""-;~~ "''''. i, ! ;\ . ,,,. ""', \~. / -.J'l , ~,~ ' ',:' J J7'
J' '/'~~' r-~'~/\ ", I 1 '--:" . '~., ;. / ". \ .. ~ \ ' ~ ,.: 1f,",..l:"!f:J!,
~/ nr-ff1/:..rs3::r' I..:.~, , ., ;- ~ ,. ' / / . ~ ",.' ~ 'Jr r, - J.
;""7.,., r,t-~('~~J;;,.;'F ~~'i1'.r("v~l :-' :':~^~ ( .~~\ ,: . ~ L$Q ~ 0; , ~:\ "" ~~;;IJ):~'~~ ' }~~ '--;..{
'lI" 41.: ')J, ...""p-!e:,.(<,/)I "'fo 't'h.,r<" :'1 ,-~ / I . ~" .. '-- , , (//, ~ .." ..,;{.i t, ".;d'. _. ;rl~
t; t..' =::-t~~" .' '1:." > J>"{ l \.""""-~' ~J; i./ (/~ 'J;r,])-f' ')IiL- H
" -"#'" h-.,..~. 'H'ity~.ry"1k ~- h ,'1 ' // r II ) //- t:J' " 'if}'J ' ,< i '~"~'%i" lJj
i. '?.. ~" ~/", r "Y.~t(/.,..,j'j;" '1;.'\ r -' r. . \" / f ." .y,-/ If. ~rj -' "'-, oJ- ,}'..... H
y. -<~ ..~).... r_r (Irr; A;~~ I) "j /,,-:, /, JJ' ;:''";f. 'A ,J -Jf' ; C, 1-3
,;' .Ji! I .tr;.r~'/j, "..74,' ~.ri~M~';; ~ 1 ~":; I ;:. '. ~>j- v." ,I 0 -oIt,,:>_ ....1 ' '
~. · , " '-i;'1: -" ,j,? // ~ ,~J-J~3r;; t.', ,,~,. i, '-'~\1r:'i ".17"~' "', , ,',/ j ~:0' , "I' _: ~ L.... .--.
'I ~ . ..-:~ry:<. ~ \ , 99 ~ ~ ,?'"----~- 1I11lllUII U.J.
D 05 1 2 11 . ~"" ..... ~ & ~ _ ''''~~ .,_
"". '" f' rtf/tAt, \' "'~,)..-a, ~ . \' a '~(< .....
1,01<< lt1srr-"'P"III"""t'D~"""<I<l"ML~dr,eused!"",~j~-f"""'oJ'Jly fd'\;" ..Jf1i'l' I ---'-CY.["" t-rl ~~~ .@) I ~ ._-
n","",pd<>plCI&applo'"u'"I"""H>r"'CI~~"~llendproP<l""p .v ;., 7 I ~ ,""";.,. ;l ~ ~ ~,.. ...-" .J/ ~ - MPO
1'""""';Mlpn!~c,llr...a$ofthodllaO!lh'.fol,," "'llgnrnonl'll"'. ,,;/ , __; ',J !11J.I 1'-"01:" A , r'" ; M.p""'...... ~
."I>J.<!1l:>CMlIge "'!I\p!oJeCI~~.elplaMJ~.g!!;"O"'Em~~n July2i)07 _ ~ "'_f \;,- ~ :;""~JOII' (,,-;1 "J (7 , f :r" .,LCOG 'V
Da e eceived tv
)
,
I
I
'"
'-
:-
'.."..",-",*'"
,
,,,.0
FEB !l 2009
Planner: BJ
"..
.
.
'0
00
.
Oregon
.
EXHI BIT H -
P1
Theodore R Kulongoski, Guvernor
Department of Land Conservation and Development
635 Capitol Street, Suite 150
Salem, OR 97301-2540
(503) 373-0050
Fax (503) 378-5518
www.lcd.state.or.us
Greg Mott
City of Springfield
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
~
January 6, 2009
grnott@ci.springfield.or.us
Submitted via email
Re: Addition of interchange projects to RTSP (TransPlan) fmancially constrained project list
Springfield File LRP2008-00013
DLCD File 008-08
Dear Greg,
We appreciate the opportunity to review the proposed amendment to the RTSP. The amendment
would add two major projects to construct interchanges on Route 126, at 52nd Street and at Main
Street to the Regional Transportation System Plan (RTSP, or TransPlan) financially constrained
project list. The department is concerned about this amendment as it relates to the region's
efforts to complete planning for implementation of nodal development and to meet
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requirements for reduced reliance on the automobile.
The proposed amendment earmarks an estimated $ 18 million ofregional transportation funding
for two major interchange projects. We are concerned that committing such a large portion of .
available funding to a few large roadway improvements is premature until the region has
determined whether additional resources are needed to support nodal development or implement
other actions to reduce reliance on the automobile. In addition, we are concerned that the
planned interchange improvements may facilitate auto-oriented development that is at cross-
purposes with implementation of the nodal development strategy.
For these reasons, we encourage the city to defer this plan amendment until city and region
determine whether further actions. or investments should be included in the fmancially-
constrained plan to accomplish the region's adopted targets for complying with the TPR
Date Received
-/1:.'\
FEB !l 2009
I
Planner: BJ
.
.
EXHIBIT H -
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at ed.w.moore@state.or.us or
bill.holmstrom@state.cir.us.
Sincerely,
&d~
Ed Moore, AlCP
DLCD Regional Representative
Jfi1~
Digitally signed by William A
Holmstrom
Date: 2009.01.06 15:09:04 -08'00'
William A. Holmstrom, AlCP
DLCD Transportation Planner
cc: Bob Cortright, DLCD Transportation Planning Coordinator (via e-mail)
Terry Cole, ODOT Region 2 Planner (via e-mail)
, .
\ "
'/lll..
Date Received
FEB 3 L009
Planner: BJ
.
.
EXH IS IT H - P3
.oregon Department of Transportation
Region 2, Area 5
644 "A" Street
Springfield, OR 97471
Telephone: (541) 747-1354
FPlX:(541)744-8080
January 20, 2009
E-mail: Savannah.Crawford@odotstate.or.us
Greg Mott, Planning Manager
City of Springfield
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
,.
Re: OR126 Expressway Management Plan - Phase 3
Dear Mr. Mott,
Since 2001, the Oregon Departrnent'ofTransportation (ODOT) has been developing an Expressway Management
Plan (EMP) for the ORI26 Expressway. Divided in four phases, this planning effort is in Phase 3 to develop
Interchange Area Management Plans (lAMP) for the intersections ofORl26/52nd Street and ORl26/Main Street.
Bacl<!!:round
Completed in2004, Phase I developed the ORl26 Existing and Future No-Build Conditions Report. This report
identified the need for further planning study within the expressway corridor. In 2007, Phase 2 completed
analysis for the 42'd Street interchange, ORI26/52'd Street.intersection, and the ORl26/Main Street intersection.
The report identified numerous deficiencies at these locations and recommended that planning studies, called
lAMPs, be developed for the interchanges and intersections within the corridor.
I
,
i
f
I
EMF Phase 3 Analvsis Results - Existin!! and Future No-Build Conditions
Past and recent analysis identifies safety, geometric, and mobility deficiencies at the ORI26/52'd Street and
OR126/Main Street intersections. Phase 3 ex.isting and future no-build analysis illustrates the following:
. Traffic Volumes - In 2008, both intersections either exceed, or are close to exceeding, ODOT's mobility
standards. The 2031 no-build future analysis indicates intersection failure (v/c ratio> 1.0) by 2031.
. High Crash Rate - Currently, these intersections have a high crash rate due to high traffic volumes, high
speeds, and geometric deficiencies. ORl26/52'd Street has a significant number of rear-end collisions.
The 2008 Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) lists the ORl26/Main Street in the 10th percentile of SPIS
sites, making it among the top priorities for safety concerns on state highways.
. Geometric - The expressway is a high speed;limited access corridor. The at"grade signalized
intersections are insufficient to meet current traffic demand and will be unable to meet increased demand
in the future.
,. .
, I' :'"1 " "7 ,~, ~ :
Date Received
FEB ~ 2009
Planner: BJ
!
t
!
I
!
I,
I
As a result of this analysis; we identiiy a need for the ongoing ORl26 Expressway Management Plan and
. anticipate,comple~onofPhase 3 by fall2009/winter 2010.
..'
.
.
EXHIBIT H -
January 20, 2008 ORl26 Expressway Management Plan - Phase 3
Page 2
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 541-747-1354.
&~Q
Savannah Crawford
ODOT Area 5 Planner
Cc Erik Havig, ODOT Region 2 Planning Manager
Terry Cole, ODOT Principal Planner
Tom Boyat!, Springfield Transportation Manager
or.',
FEB S tOO9
Planner: au