HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Meeting PLANNER 3/16/2009 (2)
.
Meeting Date: Marcb 16,2009
Meeting Type: Regular Session
Department: DSD/PW
Staff Contact: Greg Molt
S P R I N G FIE L D Staff Phone No: 726-3774
C I T Y C 0 U N C I L Estimated Time: 15 Minutes
ITEM TITLE: AMENDMENT TO 1HE PROJECT LIST AND MAP OF THE
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF 1HE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) AND TO 1HE
PROJECT LIST AND MAP OF THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN (TRANSPLAN).
,)
.
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Conduct a frrst reading and public hearing on the following Ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) AND THE
EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN (TRANSPLAN)
BY REMOVING PROJECT #27 OR126/MAIN STREET AND PROJECT #30
OR126/52ND STREET FROM TABLE 1b AND MAP-APPENDIX A IN
CHAPTER 3 OF TRANSPLAN AND CONSISTENT WITH POLICY F.9 OF
THE METRO PLAN; AND PLACE THESE SAME PROJECTS IN TABLE 1a
AND MAP-APPENDIX A IN CHAPTER 3 OF TRANSPLAN AND
CONSISTENT WITH POLICY F.9 OF 1HE METRO PLAN; AND ADOPTING
A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE (FIRST READING).
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
The Metro Plan and TransPlan must be amended to comply with the provisions of
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012-0016(2) (a-b) (1) which requires
consistency between federal regional transportation plans (RTP) and state-
mandated transportation plans (RTSP). This area's RTP was updated in November
2007 by moving projects #27 and #30 from the future list to the fmancially
constrained project list; these same two projects appear only on the future project
list in TransPlan and the Metro Plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance
2. Planning Commission Staff Report and Findings
3. Final Recommendation
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
All roadway projects of regional significance must appear on the financially
constrained project list in the RTP in order to be eligible for federal funding. In
November 2007 the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) adopted an updated
RTP that included, among other changes, the two OR126 projects on the financially
constrained project list. As part oflhis region's obligation for consistent
transportation plans we requested (and received) approval from the Land
Conservation and Development Commission for a work plan outlining the tasks and
timeIine to achieve consistency between the RTP and RTSP. One of the tasks on
that work plan scheduled for the first quarter of 2009 is to "Move [ODOT] projects
from the illustrative to the Financially Constrained list for consistency with
November, 2007 RTP project list." Please see page 19, Exhibit D of Attachment 2.
On February 3, 2009 the Springfield Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on these amendments; no one appeared at this hearing. Two letters were
entered into the record; one from ODOT and the other from DLCD. Ple~e Received
Exhibit H of Attachment 2. The Planning Commission forwarded ~ UCll
recommendation of unanimous support for these amendments. MAR 1 6 2009
Planner: 8J
.
.
ORDINANCE NO.
~
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA
GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) AND THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM PLAN (TRANSPLAN) BY REMOVING PROJECT #27 ORI26JM,AIN STREET AND
PROJECT #30 ORI26/5:zND STREET FROM TABLE Ib AND MAP - APPENDIX A IN CHAPTER 3
OF TRANSPLAN AND CONSISTENT Willi FOLlCY F.9 OF THE METRO PLAN; AND PLACE
THESE SAME PROJECTS IN TABLE la AND MAP - APPENDIX A IN CHAPTER 3 OF
TRANSPLAN AND CONSISTENT WI1H POLICY F.9 OFTHE METRO PLAN; AND ADOPTING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. '
wiffiREAs, Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan AIea General Plan (Metro
Plan) sets forth procedures for amendment of the Metro Plan, which for Springfield 31re implemented by
the provisions of Chapter 5 of the Springfield Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the Metro Plan identifies the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation
Plan (TramPlan) as a specialpurpose functional plan which fonDS thll basis for the Tumsportation
Element of the Metro Plan and is therefore subject to the same amendtD.ent procedures as the Metro
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the TransPlan Serves the goals, objectives and policies of the Metro Plan by
addressing a variety of transportation issues and includes project lists and maps identi:tying financially
constIllineci roadway projects and future roadway projects; and
WHEREAS, the federal Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for the Eugene-Springfield
metropolitan area was updated in November, 2007; and '
WHEREAS, state law requires TransPlan to be consistent with the RTP' including the list of
regionally significant roadway projects; and
,
,
I
I
I
i
!
WHEREAS, the recently updated RTP includes a financially constmined projl:ct list th;it
includes Project #27 ORI26/Main Street and Project #30 OR126/521ld Street; ,and
WHEREAS, the current TramPlan adopted in 1986 and amended in 1989, 1992 and 2001, and '
which still shows Project #27 ORI26/Main Street and Project #30 OR126/52ad Street on the future
roadway projects list, is in need of amendment to comply with stste law requiring consistency between
the federal RTP and the local trBnsportation system plan; and
WHEREAS, amendments of the project lists in TramPlan require simultaneous amendment of
the same project lists in the Metro Plan as descn"bed by Policy F.9, Chapter ro, of the Metro Plan; and
WHEREAS, following a public hearing of the Springfield Planning Commission on Februmry 3,
2009, the Springfield Planning Commission recommended amendments to the project lists and maps in
TransPlan and the Metro Plan (File LRP 2008-00013) consistent with the status of those same projects
in the federal RTP, to the Springfield City CouItcll; and
Ord_ No, amending lbo Ilu~pringficld Metropolitan AIoa 0cnaaI PIllII ODd Transi'Ian 10 _ Projoct 127 ORl26lMain Slnct ODd
Projoct" 3D, ORl, 261SZ" s_ fulm lbo Future Roudw8y Projcc:l List mul Map and add Projoct N27 ORl26IMain _ Bod Pro~~.._1o
tbC F~!.J1y ~.d 2lJ.:~corCllPitalln_Actions_y Projects List mul Map; oadAdopdng. ScvcrabiIity ~lt:: neCelV
'..,. ',;~'" ,1 I ),' ",' .
...' '.. .. , ", ' '. ' Page 1 of2
MAR 1 6 l009
ATTACHMENT 1 - 1
Planner:
.
.
WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing and is now ready to take action
based upon the above recommendations and the evidence and testimony already in the record as well as
the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing held in the matter of adopting amendments to
the project lists and maps in TransPlan and the Metro Plan.
NOW, lREREFORE, the Common Council of the City of Springfil;ld does ordain as follows:
. Section i. The "Transportation Elemenf' (Chapter ill, Section F) of the Metro Plan is hereby
amended as follows: Delete Project #27 OR126/Main Street and Project #30 OR126152ud Street from
Table I b Future Projects List and map Future Roadwav Projects Man. Appendix A; add Project #27
OR126/Main Street and Project #30 OR126152od Street to Table la Financiallv Constrllined 20- Year
CaDital Investment Actions Roadwav Projects List and map Financiallv Constrained Roadway Map.
Appendix A, consistent with Policy F.9. Project timing and estimated costs are not adopted as policy.
Section 2. Chapter ill of TransPlan is hereby amended as follows: Delete Project #27
ORI26/Main Street and Project #30 OR126152Dd Street from Table lb Future Projects List and map
F~ Roadwav Proiects MaD. Appendix A; add Project #27 ORI26/Main Street and Project #30
OR126152od Street to Table la Financiallv Constrained 20- Year Canital Investment Actions Roadwav
Proiects List and map Financiallv Constrained Roadwav Man. Appendix A. Project timing and
estimated costs are nOt adopted as policy.
Section 3. The Springfield City Council adopts the Legislative Findings set forth in the attached
Exhibit "A" in support of this action.
Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for
any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion sha1l be
. deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions hereof.
Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this _ day of
2009 by a vote of _ in favor _ against. .
,
Approved by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this _ day of
.2009.
City Recorder
f, r
(. h.
r ,.JO
I> -
,,' .
cG~"'1I<<
o to ~r.:
g:' E ..11'1.
l-'~ ( 11:
..., Ii
L' (.'--1
!:..
Mayor
ATTEST:
Ordin8m:eNo. .. omcndlog lite E~prioglicld MclropoIilllnAloaClcoerul Plan lIIld TransPlan to dc1ctc~7 OR .. S_ and
PJqjcei'I30 OR12~61.5r:S_ limn Ihc Futun: ROlIliway Project List and Map and add Project 127 0Rl26/Main S . ~;.;:;;..-;:. '::o..ni.
Ihc Fimuu:io1ly eo_cd 20. Ye.. Cllpllallnvestmenl Actions Roadway Prqj.... List and Map;,and Adopting a t:t.-e1 vt7U'
. Pagc2 0(2
MAR 1 6 2009
ATTACHMENT 1 - 2
Pfanner: 8J
.
.
To: Springfield Planning COmmission
From: Gregory Mott, Planning Manager, City of Springfield
Date: February 3, 2009
Subject: AmendmentS to the Transportation mement of the Metropolitan Plan and to TransPlan
Issue
The Transportation Element of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Ge(leral 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 126/52<d Street interohange 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 OR 126/Main and OR 126/52"" Street interchange projects to TransPIan Chapter 3: Table la
entitled "Financially Constrained 20- Y ear 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-h )(1): ''When an
MPO adopts or amends a regional transportation plan that relates to compliance with thiy division, d,e
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 C{}nsistent with the
applicable provisions of adopted regional and local transportation system plan and comprehensive plan
and compliant with applicable provisions of this alVision; or (b) Adopt amendments to tbe relevant
regional or local transportation system plans consistent with one another and compliant with
applicable provisions of this awision. "
The project lists and maps in TransPlan are adopted into the Metro Plan by reference (fnmsporlation
Element, Policy F .9) therefore amendments to TransPlan must also be adopted as amendmc..'Uts 10 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 refmed by qualifYing them as either "Financially
Constrained" or as "Future". This distinction is required for the MPO- prepared federal regional
transjlOrtation plan (RTP). For sake of convenience, the Central Lane MPO simply combin.ed the :\\:deral
requirements and the slate-mandated requirements into a single plan, TransPlan, because the physical
boundaries were the same; hecause bolh plans needed to include regionally significant projects; and
because the same elected officials adopted eacb plan. .
In 2001 the MPO adopted the federal RTP separately from the slate-mandated regional transportation
plan, but this occurred by adopting TransPIan exactly as it appeared for state purposes; even the name
TransPlan was used for the RTP. Amendments to the sIale-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 nol occur and as a prelude to these separale adoptions and
as a result, both of these documents retain unnecessary elements from their respective conjoined past.
The cilies and Lane County adopted an update to the RTP in November of 2007 tbat included the subject
projects and agreed that an update to TransPlan ,'!as necessary in order to achieve compliance with state
law and consistency between these two transportation plans. A TransPlan npdate work program was
prepared in coordination with ODOT and DLCD staff and was reviewed and aplJllliwihY IM~int eleCledd
. UQ ~ lr1~celve .
MAK 1 6 2009
ATTACHMENT 2 - 1
Planner: BJ
.
.
officials of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County in September, 2008. The Land Conservation and
Development Commission reviewed and approved the Transl'/an update work program in October, 2008.
The first tasks on this work program are to update the project lists in Tra1l3Plan 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 of LCDC 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 kktro
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 "futore." When a project is moved from the future list to the constrained
list in the federal phin it means that project is eligible for federal funding and is likely to be funded during
the planning horizon; only the fedeml plan is amended (state law does not require financial constraint).
Matters are complicated in this MPO 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 reconunendations forwarded to the City Council.
Conclusion
These amendments have been subject to review for specific inclusion in TransPlan in 1986 and again in
200] (futore list); for inclusion in the federal RTP in 2000 (future list) and in the update of the RTP in
2007 (constmined 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 .s 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 Futore Capital Investment ACTIONS
LlST AND MAPS TO THE FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINED ROADWAY PROJECTS LlST AND
MAP.
"I,J"y;~' '.
,.,.
:.;..: .;-#-[ ,
Date Received
MAl( 1 6 2D09
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 2 - 2
.
.
Staff report and findings 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
financially 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 OR126/52Dd Street Interse~tion
and the OR126/Main Street Intersection projects to the financially constrained list in TransPlan (Projects
30 and 27 deleted from Table lb 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, bolth of which are
found in Appendix A of TransPlan).
Applicant
City of S prihgfield
Nature ofthe Application
The proposed amendment would concurrently amend TransPltm and the Metro Plan to:
1) Remove the OR126/Main and OR126/52"" Street intersection projects from TransPlan Chapter 3:
Table 1 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 ORl26/Main and ORl26152nd 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 TransPlan1
consistent 'with their status on the financially constrained project list in the federal Regional
I The requirement for financial constraint applies only to the federal RTP; state law does not include this
requirement for regional or local trallsporlation system plans. The project lists in Trill1sPlan do difF..rentiate
between future (wifunded) and constrained (funded) because TransPlan formerly donbled as 00th the federal RTP
and the state transportation system plan. In 2001 the MPO adopted the RIP separately from'TramPlan thereby
removing the need for federal standards remaining in TranoPlan. Eugene, Springfield and Lane Co'mty did not
, lIIldertake the amendment process to "de-federalize" TransPlan because the addition of Coburg wi~!lf MPO ip d
" . ' Date t1ecelve
MAR 1 6 lOng
ATTACHMENT 2 - 3
Planner: BJ
.
.
Transportation Plan (RTP Map: Exhibit G) and in compliance with OAR 660-012-\)016(2) (a-b):
"When an MPO adopts or amends a regional transportation plan that relates io compliance with this
division, the affected local govel'tU1le11ts shaD review the adopted plan or anumdnwtl and either: (a)
Make aftnding that the proposed regional transportotion plan amentlmetri or update is col1Sis1etri with
the applicable provisions of adopted regional and local transportation system plan and comprehensive
plan and compliant with applicable provisions of this division; or (h) Adopt amendments to the relevant
regional or local transportation system plans consistent with one another and compliont with
applicable provisions of this divisiOn. "
Background
The OR126/52nd Street and the OR126/Main Street Intersection Improvement Projects have been included
in TransPlmI 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 freight and
passenger vehicles to by-pass 8 miles of local access urban uses along Main Street; this is au
indispensible, irreplaceable facility. The entirety of OR 126, including all interchanges, intersections and
right-of-way for additional capacity improvements at sznd 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 I-S. The intersection at S2"d is the only
s:ignalized, at-grade facility on this limited access expressway _ and is prone to delay and vehicular
conflicts. "
;
I
I
I
I
I
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 42: Existing Conditions Traffic ODerations (Exhibits B
and C). Both of these documents identify current safety and operational issues at both interChanges and
forecast worsening conditions as the surrounding vacaht 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 tOO 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 (v/c) 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 0r126/Main intersection; therefore
capacity improvements will be required for both of these facilities in order to operate within state
standards.
In November, 2007 the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) adopted an update to the federal RTP (See
Exhibit F). Among other changes, this update" moved the OR126/S2'd Street Interchange Projeet and the
OR126/Main Street Interchange Project from the TIlustrative Project List (beyond 20-years) to the
2004 meant a much more substantial update of Tra113Plan would be required. The update of TrQ1lSPlon was delayed
in anticipation of the much larger work tasks necessary to achieve consistency with the 2007 RTP update (See
Exlubit E). "
Date Received
MAR 1 6 2009
-ATTACHMENT 2 - 4
Planner: 8J
.
.
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 slate determined
that these changes were sufficient to. trigger OAR 660-012-0016 aod require this metropolitan area to
amend the state-mandated transportation system plan (TransPlan) to be consistent with the RTP. .
The cities of Eugene and Springfield and ume County could not complete aU of these required
amendments within one yea,r as specified in OAR 660-012-00]6(2) (b), therefore the stll.te imposed the
following provision of the rule: "amendments shall be initiated no later than 30 days fram 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 accordin1! to a work plan a"proved bv the commission." The cities of
Eugene and Springfield and Lane County submitted this required work plan to the Lmd Conservation and
Deve]opment Commission in September for consideration at their October 16, 2008 meeting. The work
program included, as a first step, the following Post-acknowledgment Plan Amendments (PAPAs):
Remove completed projects; remove WEP; Inove ODOT projects from Illustrative 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 5.14-11 0 of the Springfield Development Code provides' that Metro Plan amendments
shall be made in accordance with the standll1'ds contained in Chapter N of the Metro Plan and
the provisions of this code.
This 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 ll" amendment as defined in 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 bOWldary;
d) does not require a goal eJl:ception, .
e) does not include a non-sitecspecific 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 of 1-5 arid 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 Receive
MAR 1 6 20119
ATTACHMENT 2 - 5
Planner: B
.
.
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, storm 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 5.14-135 of the Springfield l)evelopment 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 forms 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 roles as follows:
GOAL 1- CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
Springfield has an acknowledged citizen involvement program and an acknowledged process for
securing citi~en 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 ]5, 2008 prior to being submitted 10 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 Eugene Register Guard on January 19, 2009.
,"
.-it
Date Received
MAR 1 6 2009
ATTACHMENT 2 - 6
Planner: BJ
.
.
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 projects 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 implementlllg ordinances are
consistent with acknowledged comprehensive plans.
Both the OR 126f52nd Street and OR 126fMain 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. This 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 TronsPlan 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 becanse it applies only to "rural" agricultural
lands and the proposed projects are.within the city limits and the acknowledged mban 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 MetroP/an or TransPlan since these projects are already ide.ntified on the
Capital Investment Actions Proj eet 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)
Date Received
MAK 1 6 2009
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 2 - 7
.
.
GOAL 5 - OPEN SPACE, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, NATURAt 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 resuh 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. 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 ODOT right of way therefore Goal 5 does not apply to this proposal. Any use offederal
. funds to construct improvements to these interchanges will require compliance with the
provisions of National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A); the NEP A process includes an
assessment of actual. and potential impacts on all identified natural resources in the vicinity of the
project area.
GOAL 6 - AIR, WATER, AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY
Placing these two projects on the constrained list in TransPlan does not p~einpt 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 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 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 ocrurs at street intersections;
vehicles idling in congested queues create air quality impacts. The improvement of these
interchanges wiU reduce congestion to levels (.80 vie or less) that comply with Oregon
Highway Plan standards. Improved level of service reduces congestion thereby reducing
vehicular contributions to degraded air quality.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 8
Date Received
MAR 1 6 2009
Planner: BJ
. .
GOAL 7 - AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL HAZARDS i .
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 )hat plans be based on an inventory of known areas of natural
disaster and hazards. Both sites are flat (not within areas subject to rapidly moving landslides)
and outside mapped flood hazards zones (Zone A 100-year flood hazard). The level and
significance of environmental impacts resulting from the physical improvement.s at the 52nd
Street/OR 126 intersection and Main Street/ORI26 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
facilit.ies 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:nm STATE
Goal 9 requires lc;>cal 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 growih potential within the City beyond that
which is already planned for in the Metro Plan and TransPlan. 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 influericed negatively
through delays and spent fuel. Successful development of the Jasper-Natron mixed-use site will
rely on a transport.ation system that can efficiently accommodate the variety of trips coming and
going from this area. The OR126/52nd Street. and OR126/Main Street projects am identified on
the TransPlan Capital Investment Act.ions Project List and will support economic development
opportunities in the City.
GOAL 10 - HOUSING
Date Received
MAR 1 (j lliM
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 2 - 9
.
.
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 Pli1f/. 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 Backgrolllid 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 OR126IMain 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 immediirte 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.
GOALII-PUBLICFACILITIESANDSERVlCES
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 functional 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 coment
of local transportation plans. Both the OR 126/52nd Street and OR 126IMain Street iTIterchange
projects are identified as implementation actions on the TransPlan Capital Investment Actions
Project List. This proposed amendment will move the two prqjects 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 RTP as adopted in NoVember 2007. These projects were
initially included in TransPlan in 1986 as an integral component of the planned transportation
systei:n 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 documente}l in the OR 126 EMP, is continued
substandard performance and ultimately (by 2025) congestion at least 20% in excess of ODOT'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.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 10
Date Received
MAR 1 6 2009
Planner= B. B
.
.
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 a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, ur a land
use regulation would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, the local
gavernment shall put in place measures as provided in section (7) of this rule to assure that
allowed land uses are consistent with the identified junction, 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 junctional classification of an existing or planned transportation facilitY
(exclusive of correction of map errors in an adoptedplan);
(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:
(.4) Allow land uses or levels of development that would result in types or levels of
travel or access that are inconsistent with the junctiona/classification of an existing
or planned transportation facility; .
(B) Reduce ihe 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 Ii part of the
acknowledged compreheosive plan as is the Transportation Element of the MetrfJ Plan. The
proposal places these two projects. 00 the (unrequired but none'the-Iess presentl "financially
constrained project lisf' fouod in both documents.
The aSsumption of 660-012-0060(1) is that a goveming 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 ofland exterior to the facility in a wily that [could] result in more trips or different
trips or both onto the system thereby resolting 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. goveming 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
Date Heceived
MAR I 6 2009
ATTACHMENT 2 -11
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 660-012-0060(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 660-012"0060(I)(c)(A).
Response to 660-012-0060(1)(c)(8): 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 arid 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 development. 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 660-012~0060(1)(c)(8).
Response to 660-012-0060(I)(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 660-012-0060(I){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.
GOAL 13 - ENERGY CONSERVATION
.'"
Date Received
MAR 1 6 2009
ATTACHMENT 2 - 12
Planner: BJ
.
.
The Energy Goal is a general,phmning goal that calls for land and uses developed on the land to
be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation ofall fOJ:ms 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 ofpr~ect need, will save energy and improve air quality due to
reduced idling. Both the OR 126/52" Street and OR 1261MainStreet 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.
GOAL 14 - URBANIZATION
i
'I
I
I
,
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 Jlolicies 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, (;ommercial 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 witb. the corresponding goals that those policies and
objectives are designed to implement. Bofb. the OR 126/52"d Street and OR 126/Main Street
interchange projects are identified as implementation actions on the Tr<insPlan Capital
Investment Actions Project Lists. This proposed amendment will move the two projects from
the Future Investment Actions List to fb.e 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 trausportation
system designed to suppOrt the population, einployment and land uses planned for in the Metro
Plan. In addition, the proposal is consistent with the following provisions of the Metro Plan and
. TransPlan:
"
Date Received
MAl{ ] 6 l009,
ATTACHMENT 2 - 13
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 of286,000 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. Page 1-1
These projects will modernize an exisiing 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
UGH.
More specifically,' the Metro Plan provides the overall framework for the following planning
fimctions. The Metro Plan:
1. Guides all governments and agencies in the metropolitan area in development 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 decisions and encourages their participatian in the planning
process.
4. Proves the public with general guidelines for individual planning decisions. .R.eference to
supplemental planning documents of a more localized scope, including neighborhood
refinement plans, is advisable when applying the Metro Plan to specific parcels of land
or individual tax lots.
5. Assist citizens in measuring'the progress 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 for consistent and coordinated planning decisions by all public
agencies and across jurisdictional lines.
8. Serves as a general planning framework to be augmented, as needed, by more detailed
, planning programs to meet the specific needs of the various locargovernments.
9. Provides a basis for public decisions for specific issues }IIhen it is determined that the
Metro Plan, without refinement, contains i1 szifficient level of irrformation and policy
direction. .
10. Recognizes the social and economic effects of physical plannmgpolicies and decisions.
11. Identifies the major transportation, wastewater, stormwater, and water projects needed
to serve ajidure UGB population of286,000. Page 1-2
Date Received
MAH 1 6 2009
ATTACHMENT 2 -14
Planner: BJ
.
.
The responses to "ompliance with Goals 1,2, 9, 10, 12 and 14 preceding these citations are .
equally applicable to the Metro Plan's framework funmou8.
Metropolitan Goals:
GrQwth Management
1. Use urban, urbanizahle, 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
1. Provide viable residential communities so all residents can choose sound, affordable
housing that meets individual needs.
Economic
1. 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 aflife. .
2. Enhance the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area's quality of' life and economic
opportunity by providing a transportation system that is:
Balanced
Accessible
Efficient
Sqfe
Intercoruiected
Environmentally responsible
Supportive of responsible and sustainable development
Responsive to community needs and neighborhood impacts and
Economically viable and financially stable
. Page II-B-2
..
.Date ReGeN
MAR I 6 2009
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 2 - 15
.
.
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 regiou, and integral to Springfield's successful
economic and honsing priorities are currently experiencing safety and operational
difficulties. Futur.e development of planned residential and mixed-use eenters within
Springfield's UGB are projected to create periods of congestion well in excess of the state's
standard for operational level of service. Additionally, the effects of this circumstance, if
not corrected, will diminish 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
irifrastructure, 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 employment 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 llTban 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 ill-A-7 thCough lll-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 outside the plan area
will rely on these two interchanges for access and through movement. Operating at a level
of service in excess of the maximum standard established by ODOT is inconsistent with
ATTACHMENT 2 - 16
Date Received
MAR ] 6 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
these Metro Plan policies; modernization to accommodate trips at a level of seTViee 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 effective 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 (I'ransPlan) 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, commercia~ and industrial uses under
procedures which clearly defme the conditions under which such uses shall be permitted
and which: (a) preserve the suitability of the qlfected areas for their primary uses; (b)
assure compatibility; and (c) consider 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 10catioDs and possibly a third. This designation is intended to
promote walkable communities within which a variety of housing types and deBIlities 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 bicyde and pedestrian facilities. Employment mobility to and
from job-sites as weB as goods and services mobility from these same sites is l:ritical to the
viability and continning sueeess of these mb;ed-nse developments aud therefore
achievement of the poliey. Notwithstanding these techniques at reducing nse of aud 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 aild to a lesser degree,
on the OR 126 @ 52nd interchange. IT these two facilities are operating at unacceptable
levels of service, the development of Jasper-Natron will certainly be. delllyed thereby
influencing land supply needlessly to the detriment of Springfield's citizens. R.' ""....,...Ad;
. .' Date el~WW
MAR 1 6 lOO~
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 2 - 17
.
.
Transpartation Element
F.1 Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each jurisdiction that have
identified potential for this type of transportation-efficient land use pattern.
F.3 Provide for transit-eriented development along major transit corridors and near
transit stations; medium- and high-density residential development within ~ mile of
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 of the Metro Plan, the 20-Year Capital Investment
Actions project lists contained in TransPlan. Project timing and estimated costs are not
adopted as polic-y.
F.10 Protect and manage existing and future transportation infrastructure.
. F.13 Support transportation strategies that enhance neighborhood livability.
F.14 Address the mobility and sifety needs of motorists, transit users, bicyclists,
pedestrians, and the needs of emergency vehicles when planning and constructing
roadway system improvements. '
F.15 Motor vehicle level of service policy:
a. Use motor vehicle level of service standards to maintain acceptable and
reliable performance on the roadway system. These standards shall be
usedfor: ' '
(l)Identlfytng capacity deficiencies on the roadway system
(l)E-valuating the impacts on roadways of amendments to
transportation plans, acknowledged comprehenstve plans and land-
use regulations, pursuant to the TPR (OAR 660-012-0060) ,
(3)Evaluating development applications for consistency with the land-
use regulations of the applicable local goVernment jurisdiction.
b. Acceptable and reliable performance is defined by the following levels of
service under peak hour ,trtiffic 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 facilities in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
F.16 Promote or develop a regional roadway system'that meets combined needs for travel
through, ,within, and outside the region.
Date Received
ATTACHMENT 2 - 18
MAR 1 6 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
F.29 Support reasonable and reliable travel times for freight/goods mavement ill the Eugene.
Springfield region.
F.35 Set priorities for investment of ODOT and federal revenues programmed in the region's
Transportation Improvement Program (I'IP) to address safety and major capacity problems on
the region's transportation system. Pages III-F-4 through III-F-l3
The two projects are critical to the transportation system that supports all lanlluses in East
Springfield and all freight and passenger trips whicb origiDate 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 witb 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-nse node, a land use
pattern that supports a variety of housing by type, density and price range; neighborhood
appropriate commnciaI and employment uses; presence of alternative modes of travel;
and a more compact orban form. Modernization of these two interchanges (ultimately)
will reduce congestion and improve air quality in and aroimd highly developed
neighborhoods thus improving at least two elements that are essential to livability.
TransPlan
Land Use Policy #1: 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.
TS1 System-Wide Policy #1: - Transportation Infrastructure Protechon and Management
Protect and manage existing and future transportation infrastructure.
TSI System- Wide Policy #4: Neighborhood Livability
Support transportation strategies that enhance neighborhood livabiltty.
TSI System-Wide Poiicy #5: TransPlan Project Lists
. ".
Date Rercei
MAR I 6 ~009
."., ,.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 19
Planner: B_
.
.
Adopt by reference as part of the Metro Pian the 20-Year Capital Investment Actions
project lists contained in TransPlan. Project timing and estimated costs are not adopted
as policy.
TSl 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 used for:
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's 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-Springfteld metropolitan area.
. ,
Finance Policy IH: Prioritization of State and Federal Revenue
Set priorities for investment of Oregon Department of Transportation (OD01) and
federal revenues programmed in the region's Transportation bnprovement Program
(ITP) to address safety and major capacity problems on the region's transportation
system. " 2 Pages 1 0-12, Chapter 2 .
CONCLUSION
, Financial constraint is a requirement of the federal RTP and is defined as: "Financially constrained or Fiscal
constraint means that the metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, sod STIP includes sufficient financial infonnation
for demonstrating that projects in the metropolitan transportation plan, TIP and SUP can be implemented using
committed, available, or reasonably aV3.11able revenue sources, with reasonable ~O~ 'Ived
supported transportation system is being adeqnately operated and maintained" (CFR&8<l1~
MAR 1 6 2009
ATTACHMENT 2 - 20
Planner: BJ.
.
.
. The proposed. amendments meet all applicable standards and criteria. 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 conmaint; this is
strictly a federal requirement for MPOs wht.'Il adopting, updating or amending federal regional
transportation plans. TramJPlan has served as both the federal RTP and the state transportation .
system plan since at least 1986. In 2001 the MPO adopted TransPlan as the RTP aJld the elected
officials of Springfield, Eugene and Lane COlmty 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 RTP. It is 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 interpretthose 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 bLCD 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
EJdnDit H - Correspondence submitted into the record of LRP 2008-00013
i
,
I
I
!
i
!
I
MAt< 1 6 ~009
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 2 - 21
.
.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 22
,
Date Received i
MAR 1 6 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
EXHIBIT A - P1
OR 126 at Main Street Interchange Improvements
1. Con$truction of the interchange improvement is an integral assumptilJn 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. '
. T~e 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 locatio!! 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 ODOT's Safety Priority Index System list. The top 10% of
safety problems are those ODOT prioritizes to work at resolving.
Some Facts About OR 126/Main Street and OR 126/52nd Stree~
. In 1986 Eugene, Springfield and Lane County adopted T=Plan, the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. . The 1986 TransPlan "',,is also
adopted as the Transportation Element of Metro Plan, the Metropolitan Area General
P~. .
. The 1986 TransPlan included Projects #305 and #306. These projects are descnoed
in the 1986TransPlan 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 homon.
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
dev~lopment". .- _ Date Received
. ,f": ~_.;' ,..
MAR 1 6 2009
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 2 -23
.
.
EXHIBIT A - P2
. In the section descn"bing 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 the 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, 126152Dd Street
and 126/Main Street were built as at-grade signalized intersections. However, at
that time the State also acquired right of way at poth 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 EMP, 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-J?uild
Conditions Report and Concept Development and Evaluation for 126/4Znd St.,
12615Znd St., and lZ6/Main St. During this time OR lZ6 was also designated a
Statewide Freight Route. ,
. The Current and Future No-Build Conditions Report docwnented, among other
things, significant existing mobility, geometry and safety problems at 126/5Znd
Street and lZ6/Main Street. Future no-build projections at these locations showed
serious degradation of existing sub-standard safety and mobility conditions.
.. In Z008 ODOT began Phase 3 of the OR lZ6 Expressway Management Plan. The
purpose of this Project phase is to evaluate and select interchange alternatives at
126/5Znd St. and 126IMain St., to complete the associated policy framework for
interchange area management planning, and to complete NEP A-level analysis
appropriate to this stage ofproject planning.
. In Z007 and Z008, the 4ne County United Front Fedeml 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
urban growth boundary since 1987. In ZOO2, the updated TransPlan desitl\1~d ..
three Nodal Development areas (90, 9H,.9J) along the route of the Jasp~6e ReceIVed
Extension (now Bob Straub Parkway) inside the urban growth boundary. . .
. M~16WM
ATTACHMENT 2 - 24
Planner: BJ
.
.
EXHIBIT B - P1
.TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #3
CH2MHIlL
DRAFT - OR 126 E~i.4>-,Problem Statements
PIlEPARED FOR:
Tam Boyatt, ODor
OR 126 Phase 2 PMT
SilIIl S~s~, CH2M I1ILL
Kirsten Pennington, CH2M Hn.L
Julia Kulm, Kittelson &;: Associat~'"""
Kristin Hull, J~anne Lawson A1j~~'a .
Vaughn Brown, J.!1lnn~ lawso,f' ~socia
~~...:~ ?
Revis~d Novemh~ 8, 20JJ,.r?' \,' .
- .~
....;.~ . . L . l,b
~ ~J,,_
, .' ~\
Jojt. ~ ,1~:p.;,1.,.
'f:<i~~ ,u_~tI 'l..l
'..,- X"" "t
'~
~~'"
.~.
Tedmical Memorandum #3 addresses 11 ,doption ofPi-o~IJ~St~fement as part of Work
Order Contract 37 for the OR 126 Express~ f Plan ~._ ~,' ''Phase 2 project.
. I~' IF'~
Th~ development of plt<;i~~~sj;atements ~ . 0 'of the planning pr~ss.
Problem statements trfsi: ~~!most:!:ell ehold. alu~, and fram~ the problem to
be addressed d~~~E! projec~;rhe develo t of problem statements generally occurs
af~ developing the ~~~ foJR project - . . : g baseline existing conditions,
engaging S~..~ '_ oll'ders~gh'\f~~~~ and . .' g goals for the ~ect - but prior to
th~ dev~~ll1ii' ~ eVarllation fi~~t will be used to analyze project solutions.
d.. ~.. -------~
~ "~a'r:~:'1' . .
Pro: ~ statements 0 . wh~<f1.~~olders agi'~e on, l~gitimiz~ th~ full rang~'of
s . ~~er values, and' . ot offiifi1it\itutio~. Problem statements s~e ~ the foundation
fm a Na ,-'." Enviromn Policf Act (NEP A) prOCess "Purpose and Need" statement as
well as th~opment of~..lutiah5.. .
The OR 126 ~'. 2" ~ject has three problem statement~, focused on the subject
in~sections and . ~; the OR 126 & MainStteet intersection; the OR 126& 520'
Street inrersection; .the OR 126 & 42n<l Street interchange. Separ.rle problem statements
are developed for each interchange or intersection because it is assumed that the problem
statements will be suitable to use for development of a purpose and :need statement should
there be " ful:1m! NEP A process. It is assumed that ea& of th~ intersections and inter&ange
has independent utility arid could be phased in over time as ftmding allows.
P~EPARED BY;
COPIES:
DATE:
,PROJECT NUMIl8l:
330812
Problem Statements. Overview ~
It is important to note .that these problem stfdements are draft. They will be refined and
l1alidated through an open process to reconcile iHfferences in stq.keholder opinimt and focus
on the most releuant problems for the Sllbjer:t interchange and intersections along the OR
126 clJ1"ri,dOr. .
Oate Hecet~/~
~SEDt>l111lP2PROlllEMSTATEMEIITS l1.,8.COC
MAK J -6 ilIDQ'&
ATTACHMENT 2 - 25
Planner: BJ
I
I
I
I
i
f
"
!;
,.
,
I
,
1
.
.
EXH I B IT B - P 2
DRAfT. OR 12Jj El.F PHAS.2 PROBI.E/oI 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 wOIsen 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 volumel capacity (v I c) ratio at OR 126 & Main Street is 0.93, where 1.00
represents the roadway filled to capacity during peak travei fune. Future (2025) operational
analysis shows that operations at the OR 126 & Main Etreet intersection are anticipated to
exceed av I c of 1.0 by 2025 without improvements,J'h~e vi c ratios also do not meet ODor
highway standards. 2 Congestion at other interseJltlons lft the immediate area isalso
expected to worsen over time. . ....i{rdJk. \',,' .
": '~'.~ .~'.......-.
Future mixed-use development at the 800+-acre J~~~;N~;~Sjte located southeast of the
OR 126 & Main Street intersection is expected to incri!'~~\l;raffic at the intersection and
surrounding area, partially through a &rect connection ~i!Be new Jasper Road Extension.
:~. ;.~:_:_;:::. .<t~~~;. ,.,:..
Local stakeholders are concerned about'ihe 1irtpact of new impIPyements or potential
development restrictions on the economyCand loc!aJ. business 3l1tlland owners. Concerns
include impact<! to prQP~i.Yi;~~sting structu:res,.buildabilityi'business visibility and access.
Stakeholders recom#i.' the ri.ii~;to make soine improvem~nt<! to the OR 126 & Main Street
intersection to r~~~lfpture ccil}lestion while minimizing property impacts to the greatest
extent pOSSlble. Stakeh.ql$ers. there shouldcbe a community-oriented, compromise
approach to d",terminiIlg).il.Rpr6t~)!1J;1ii?~utions. .'
.~;;;~~.i~:~?d;:...._ \'~1{.;,,- ~. "'r;Y~~r~~~~.;".
Stakeholders ali~e'that the t!~},1ton from J:pressway to commercial arterial at the OR 126
& Main Street intersection.shOufd~rk"for everyone, including local residents and .
busiriesses, freight, and thetravellii:~tbIic. Lane Transit District wants to maintaih the
park-and;.l::irile facility located at OR?126 & Main Street and has identified issues with access
and circulatiOn to the Thurston Bus Station.
..
-."..
Ctash trends show;:a'pattem of rear-end collisions atthe OR 126 & Main Street intersection
(15 of 20 total crashesfrotn 1998-2002), though the crash rate is lower than the statewide
averages forsimiIar roadway facilities. There is a perception that the OR 126 & Mam Street
intersection is challenging for pedestrians and bicyclists due to the crosswalk length and
lack of defmed 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 126 & Main
Street intersection, which can slow traffic operations and lead to opportunities for crashes.3
1 The peak hour of travelts 5:00-6:00 p.m.
2 Slandal1!s: AI OR 126/Main: V/C = 0.80 (Olegon Highway Plan) and VIC = 0:\.5 (HIghway Design ManuaO; Al54"/Main: VIe
= 0.80 (Oregon Highway Plan) and VlC = 0.75 (Highway Design Manual); AI 58 1Main: Vie = 0.80 (Oregon Highway Plan) and
VlC. 0.75 (Highway oesrgn Manual); Al Jasper Rd/Ml Vernon Rd: Vie = 0.90 (OHP). .
3 Multiple private and public accesses tl) the west and east Qt Main Slreet do not meet OPOT~spagng str-ianis for
statewide highways (.990' for n<ln-ST A slalewida highways with a pooled speed of 40-45 mph). U ate n ece ived
,.
MAR 1 6 20rigz
ATTACHMENT 2 - 26
Planner: BJ
.
.
EXHIBIT B P3
llRAFT -OR '26 ElAPl'HASl; 2 PR<lIlL51STAlBoIENTS
OR 126 & 52nd Street Intersection Area Problem Statement
There are perceived safety issues in tne OR 126 & 52nd Street intersection area related to
signalization, because the roadway does not offer visual, cues (oilier titan signage) for an
abrupt transition between a grade-separated freeway-style roadway and a signalized
roadway that drives more like a commercial arterial- the signal "sneaks up" on drivers. The
grassy median contributes to safety concerns, as it indicates a rural grade-separated
roadway to drivers.
.."";:1:";~,~.
VebicIes queue beyond the storage capacity at the eastbotlIjd,;,!;ili.tmrt! contributing to
operational issues imd crash trends. Crash trends show a, patti!l;n..,of rear-end collisions at the
OR 126/52nd Street intersection (11 of 21 total crashes frdin 1998;~:OW were rear-end),
though the crash rate is lower than the statewide averages for ~~~adway fadlities.
.\itr~_~l
Increased growth and development in the area is expected to lead to cottt~~d conditions at
the OR 126 & 52nd Street intersection and on the OR 126 mainline between'4;1~~l!rid 52nd .
Streets by 2025. Future (2025) operational analysis shows that the intersectiOlr~ expected to
experience heavy congestion and d~ay (v / c exceeding 1.0) by 2025 withourimprovements.
The OR 126 mainline (42nd Street to 52n<!.street) is expected to operate at 0,95 in the
-, ..., " i ~.
eastbound direction by 2025 if no impt,~v~ti1eJlts are made, where 1.00 represents the
roadway filled to capacity conditions d:tWllg'p~'J+avel time.4
:1:!I.i.. 1!!.@:~~;:{,~.
. Stakeholders agree thaHhe OR 126 & 52n';'~!:re~mteiii'eii#gpLarea must be able to
accommodate freightmovemiiAt in the futt&'t" . ,?
't~.
'17~..
\;~+';-';':
';;.'1.
:;.~'
..:"..
-.. ..
.....
.-.'
,.}..~~',~C;' :;ji;"J.:j~~~;jfr7~.:f.' .
."- "'iii'
"~\~,,- '''~\
-~ -'" ;;
-'l
4 Standards; At OR 126152"" St Vtc = 0.80 (Oregon Highway Plan) and VIC. 0.75 (HIghway Design Man'li"liA1- ,
52"'/Hlghbanks: LOS = EorVIC <0.9 (CllyorSpringfield~At 52"" SVG St LOS = E orVIC < 0.9 (CiIyOfS~,~ ~fi""'ft~l
StIF St LOS = E orVIC < 0.9 (City Q' Springfield) UtG' nG'b~V
ATTACHMENT 2 - 27
MAR I & 2009
. Planner: B
~
~
!
I
I
I
;
I
I
i
I
I
!
!
I
!
I
!
I
r
,
I
I
I
\.
i.
,
.
.
EXHIBiT B P4
IllW'T -OR "'EMPPl'ASE2PR<lllEMSTAmeflS
OR 126 & 42nd Street Interchange Area Problem Statement
The OR J2fJ/42'" 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 residenti!'-l).
. .;/},~'~;~":.
The existing volume/ capacity (v / c) ratio at the OR 126 EastW9,~d RJunps & 42nd Street is
0.92, where 1.00 represents the roadway filled to capacity:,il'iftllig peak travel time.
~ J;t~ t.l~;'~:;..
Future traffic Operations at 42nd Street and the OR 126 E~tbound ~~"YVestbound Ramps
are expected to worsen (Eastbound = v / c of 0.95 and Westbound = v/il~eater fhan 1.0).
The OR 126 mainline (42nd Street to 52'" Street) is ,expected to operate at'il;% in the
eastbound direction during peak travel time by 2025, where 1.00 represeni~~~,,:tbadway
filled to capacity, The Marcola Road & 42'" Streetiritersection and the Olympic Street &
42nd Street intersection are expected ~o experience heavy~ongestion and deJay by 2025 (v / c
greater than 1.0) without improvern$\J!" 5 .-,;~"'
\~:i~~t>?fit~.. .":; '..
On 42nd Street, six driveways to the nor\ ot'~~g0ange iin!i:rwo driveways to the south
of the interchange are located within orlqr s q~li!:~ffii)e spacing recommendation for
~terchanges, 'which ~~aff~~.!;raffic opera~q~r5ou:W~~!!-OR 126 ~ 42,nd Street
mterchange, a railroa.d crossmg-on 4200 Stree1.1S routinelYiBlocked 20 times each day as
trains service thenii!lt~y forest pi;oducts mill. V,te City of Springfield has observed queuing
and travel delay isstilisrlllated to rail movemerttin.this location at certain times of the day.
......;"'.;.<':'.~. ";":.';:.';(~i ,-:;';: "'::''''"';''''1;: i~f:-(
Stakehol9,l!i?sYa~l~l't tlu:i OR 126 &'42"~~Streef interchange area must be able to
acc~aate freigffr~2vemefit:with minimized congestion to continue to serve as a
p~ point for l:r\1cR~ess to" ne""by.land uses (e.g. Weyerhaeuser and trucking fi;rms).
';!1......;J.J~;;~.. ~1~.'. :., . .
Safety ~6~C,~ at the OR -~~ & 42nd Street interchange relate to increasing traffic volumes
and safety ]sifu~ related to ~terchange geometry. Ramp taper lengths are too short and
/'<..<::<;:, ....=<
cause difficulti~~i68r traffi~Jparticularly trucks - at the interchange. Vertical stopping sight
distances presenh~lJ.liengjlS to drivers. The eastbound off-ramp has a vertical curve that is
too short given the~~.~rthe beginning of the off-ramp. The westbound exit ramp has a
crest curve that is tocl~ort 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 St~ndard.: Al 42" SIlOR 125 Westbound Ramps: V/C: 0,85 (Oregon Highway Plan> and VlC: 0,75' (Highway Design
I.1anuaQ: Al~td.SVOR 126 ~..tlJound Ramps: Vie: 0.85 (Oregon Highway Plan) and VlC' 0,75 (Highway Design ManuaQ:
Al42'" SVOlympic: LOS: 0 (City of Springfield): Al 42'" StiMarcola: LOS = ~ or VIC<O.9 (City of Springfield).
Date Received
MAR I 6 2009
,"
ATTACHMENT 2 - 28
Planner: BJ
.
.
EXHIBIT C - P1
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATioN ENGINEERlNG /PLANNING
610 SW Alder Street, SUite 700, Portland, OR 97205 P 503.228.5230 ;:: 503.273.816S
MEMORANDUM
Date:
Project #: 6221
To:
From:
, Project:
Subject:
Derember 11, 2008
Savannah Crawford, ODOT Regi<m 2
Kirsten Pennington, CH2M HILL
OR 126 PMI
Julia Kubn, P.E, Joe Bessman, P.E. & Nick Badal
OR 126 Expressway Management Plan - Phase 3_
Memorandum 4.2: Existing Conditions Traffic Operations
This 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. TIns memorandum
addresses Task 4.2 of the project scope, and reviews traffic conditions at and between 52.d Street
and Main Street (Business 126) in Springfield, Oregon. The information presented in this
memorandum shall supersede existing conditions information developed in Phase 1 of 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 EMP contains the roadway sedi,on between
1-5 and Main Street (Business 126). Phase 3 of the project focuses only on the eastern 'segment of
the corridor, specifically, the 52"" and Main Street intersections.
Within the study area, the highway has two clistinct sections in terms of design and character.
The western portiOn (1-5 to 42"d Street) is a grade-separated and access-controlled four-lane
divided facility. The eastern section (52"" Street to Main Street-OR 126 Business) is an access-
controlled facility with at-grade signalized intersections at 52.d 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.
:'\:f;::~l~>* ..
, ~, .~ "
Da'e \R~
M~Rl :s :ml5I
FILENAME: PROJECTFILE/622l/EX15TING.DOC
Planner:BJ
ATTACHMENT 2 - 29
.
.
EXHIBIT C - P2
- OR 126 Exprsssway Management Plan
December 2DOB
;;
~
~
I
'1
~
~
..
-~ '"
-
a
r
~
~
~
'f
i
~
.
~
s
:l;
m
(NO SCAlE)
HIGHBA
~FlD
LINE COOOY
SITE
SPRINGFI
~ KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES,INC.
~ TRANSPO<<TATtONENGINEERING/PLANNING
ATTACHMENT 2 - 30
Planner: BJ
.
..
EXHIBIT C P3
OR 126 Expressway Managemenr Pian - Phase 3
December 21, 2008
Pft~ecr #: 6221
Page 3
Existing Conditions
The OR 126 study area is located within the City of Springfield Urban Growth Bound;uy. The
study segment is bordered by residential and commercial uses. A park-and-ride tran.sit facility
operated by the Lane Transit District 'is located in the sou1heast quadrant of the OR 126/Main
Street intersection, Thurston High School is located northeast of the OR 126/Main' Street
intersection (east of 58"' Street), and a Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) transmission line
'crosses the OR 126 corridor along 1he west side of the OR 126/Main Street intersection.
Geometric Configurations
Lane configurations and posted speeds were reviewed along 1he study area roadways to identify
any changes or improvements completed since the initial EMF Phase 1 work efforts in 2004. The
only noted change to the study area was the extension of the Bob Straub Parkway, the southern
leg of the OR 126/Main Street intersection. While 1he connection had been in place at the OR
126/Main Street intersection during the previous efforts, the roadway has now been extended
through Daisy ,Street south to S 57" Street, providing access to and from the adjacent
neighborhoods. The Bob Straub Parkway contains a five-lane cross-section with bicycle lanes"
detached sidewalks, and illumination. The roadway is access,.controlled with a landscaped center
median and left-turn bays at public intersections. No o1her significant improvements were
, identified that impact the study area intersections. Figure 2 illustrates 1he existing geometric lane
configurations and traffic control devices throughout the study area
Existing Access Management
As identified in 1he Oregon Highway Plan (OHP), minimum spacing standards fOr OR 126 (a
Statewide Highway and Expressway) are 2,640 feet, measured centerline to centerline. Along
Business U6 (also a Statewide Highway with a posted speed of 40 rnph) the minimum access
spacing standard is 770 feet.
The spacing between OR 126/Main Street-Bob Straub Parkway is 1,050 feet and contains two
driveways. A two-way center left-tom lane divides eastbound and westbound traffic along
Business 126 (Main Str~et), allowing full-access movements at bo1h driyeways.
Between OR 126/Main Street-Bob Straub Parkway and OR 126/58"' 5treet is also 1,050 feet and
contains seven driveways. A raised median is in place between OR 126/Main Street and OR
126/58"' Street, restricting access along the segment.
With 1he number of access points currently in place, access management standards are not met
within 1he study area
KIttelson & Associates, Inc.
Date Received
MAR iii, 2009
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 2 - 31
"'0
-
'S>>
::J
:::J
CD
-,:
'" ..
c
~.
(I)
:r;
'"
o
s::
)>
"""
~~
.,.,
"""
m
'C-
,
""'
)>
-I
-I
)>
(")
:J:
;;:
m
z:
-I
N
I I
Ct.> !
N !
I
i
!
j
.... ~ CHANNEUZATION
~ -MEOI"N
@ - PRIVATe DRNEWAV
. - PUBUC iNTERSECTION
"NOTE, WHILE! lHE 71 FUEL Carn:H (lN1UlG.&crlON 11G) AHa SHRl.. FUEL !=fNl'U
llN"l'ElISECTlONJJI1) EACH lHCLua13nvo DJIlVlWAV8, UCft PAIR IS SHOWN ANDA,w.LVZED
Alii A fiIHGLEQ.NVIlWA.... QJYliH THO 'ROlttMlTY.
m Krrr~ON & ASSOciATES,INc.
~ T....MSJI'OIlT...TJDN UlCIIIIl:UlNIH ..L...,..a.o
",",sn
o H15HaANKS RD
BUS12G-w.lNfirl
O","ST
~
...
III
~
r
\".
.0A1~I-UAINSTI '*0A1211.UAlNS.TJ
@l ,\UlERTlSOtuBl-MART ACCIiS$ @ SHaLJeI.WlAf ACCESS
EI083TRAlJII"P'rNNJ
@ TAANSl'r cENTflnACCD&
11'
"_1mB
B
(NO'''^'''
.
OA120.)M.INSTJ
@BI4lARTWE&.TACCESS
.J
"..
J
.
m
><
:t:
-
ClI
-
-I
(")
YEAR :!DDIJ JOOSllNG LANE CDNFlGUR"nONSI AND 'f'RAffiC CONTROL DEVICES
SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
-0
"..
.
.
OR 126 Expressway Management Plan - Phase 3
December 11; 2008
EXHIBIT C P5
Prgject #: 6221
Page 5
Design Hour Traffic Volume Derivation
The analysis of existing conditions was conducted by factoring the raw count data b~ obtain the
30" 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 adjustm~ts to
account for variations in traffic flow by time of yeat, and balancing between intersections to
account fot 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 area 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 58" Street neat the OR 126/Main Street inters~ction. Attachment U A" includes a detaciled summary
of the data collection effurts 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.rn. at the key study intersections of OR
. 126/Main Street and OR 126/52nd Street Review of the count data in IS-minute incr.ements was
used to identify the peak analysis hour on a total entering vehicle (rEV) basis. Tniliic volume
profiles fot the two intersections ate shown in 01art 1. 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 4:45 and 5:45 p.rn.
Following the. morning peak hour, traffic volumes decline until 9:00 a.m., then rise throughout the
day until the evenil).g 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 periocl Traffic volumes in the study area decline
rapidly followhlg the evening peak hour.
Following identification of the 4:45 to 5:45 pm. 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 atea, 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. .
Kittelson & Associates, ItIC.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 33
.Date~~
MIlN 1 ~.
Portland, Oregon
Planner: BJ
..
.
EXHIBIT C P6
OR 126 Expressway Management Plan - Phase 3
Decemberll,200a
Pn>ject #: 6221
Page 6
Chart 1
Traffic Volume Profile
4,000
500
-+-OR 126152nd street
___OR 126/Main St
.,r' ~ \
~ ./ V ~
~ ~
J "\ ..... / \ l\
..... .. ~
-'
I \, ~ ~ / I~
../ v
j \ -I ,.....-..
I
II'
~
3,500
3,000
~
u 2.500
E
:!t
~
.g 2,000
l!l
c
w
~ l,5D[]
...
1.00e
o
4:00 5,00 6:00 7,00 8:00
AM.AM AM AM AM
9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3'00 4,00 5,00 6:00 7:00
AM AM AM' PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM
Time of Day (HaUl'" 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.
Seasonal Adjustments
The balanced and rounded traffic volumes were factored from the May 20, 2008 counts to the 30'"
highest hour design volumes using seasonal adjustment factors. Data for the seasonal adjustment
factors were obtained using the Cummuter roadway classification within ODOr'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 30" highest design hour.
traffic volumes. Attachment VB" includes a summary af the seasonal adjustment procedure.
Kittelson & AssOdates, Inc.
Date Received
MAR , 6 2009
PortJandl Oregon .
. Planner; BJ
ATTACHMENT 2 - 34
'R)
u
~
Eti
.~
l'
. ....~
."1
~
~
~
e
~
:>:i
i=l.
. i&i,u
<=
g
>
-I
-I
>
C')
::J:
s:
m
Z
-I
'"
I I
(.0) !
01 I
I
i
i
J
i
CUi_Col'IIrr:t.lutWBllHT r ...."'.1.. "",."
LOhtNTUSEOnDliI LItVa. OJ' I5EHIIlOI:
~WlViMSIfLi\lEl.
Dl'lIElMCllU~Dl
OIl_INTEIW!CJtLII..weJWl!!WIffl\OlCI't.o''t
Is~TJCA1K1ifJA:ENTCOtmlOL
PeLAYllJN8IJI,IAUZEO!
Y.lC..OAfTICr\1.VCI.IJId.ToGAPAc::m'RATIO
CD ~PIWJliTEDflIVEWAY
o . PlII1UO lWfERSECTlOH
NDTJ!;:DtIlt HIGHBT HOUR 'CeSlllN VOLUIIES All!. tiLANCED. RQUNPED AND
3CAJl;ONALLYADJIJS'I'IlDTMPl'KiVOWIlIlilJ .
IiIA KrrrEUON & A460C,^TES.fNC.
IMJTII_~y.."l1I>>lIDlll$~lIII.&_
aus 12ll . UAIN frT1
(1) SAFEWAY EAST ACCESS
.eUS1U.Mo\JNsrt
eS4THST
OR W. MAIN S'TJ OAtU.W,INS,l1
@l ALSJ<WrSONIBj.w.RT ACCESS @ sliaUBl-uART ACCE5f1
~OB STMtJa Pl<YNt
@ TMNSlTC;f:N'W\ACCEBS
.
,/
I _f:=....
lIft"'l&:=-l:1
t
.
--
m
plO SCAU~I
BUS1H-IMINcrt.
.@8AFEWAVWaTACOeifl
.
OR1~'-~INtm'
(j)Bl-IIARTWUTACCU.
. ,
.
',,"1i17
eDAIS'f'ST
ft.
'I~
-
.....
~
.-.
m
X
::c
-
CD
~Ir
"'----/
-
-I
YEAfI 200B 30Ttt HIGtfes'T HOUR DE!SlllN YOUJMeS
5PmNGPmLD,OReaOH
C':l
"'D
....
.
.
EXHIBIT C P8
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 can vary widely based on the area type, relative
congestion, geometric, configu:ration, and other site-specific factors. While standardized default
saturation flow 'rates are widely used to assess traffic operations, saturation flow ~te
mea5U1ements were obtained at both key intersections along the OR 126 corridor to irlore
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 re:mJted in the values summarized in Table 1. Attachment "C" summarizes the
saturation flaw rate calculation metiwdolagy.
Table 1
Saturation Flow Rate Comparison
Mf!a!5ured Saturation
Meas\lred 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 InterseC~On: 1,800 VPHPLG
Eastbound Through 1,848 VPHPLG 1,666 VPHPLG
OR 126/ Westbound Through 1,628 VPHPLG 1,924 VPHPLG
52nd St'reet
Value Applied to Intersection: 1,900 VPHPLG
VPHPLG: Vehicles per hour per lane green
For intersections where saturation flow rates were not measured, an ideal saturation flow rate of
1,900 vehicles per hour per lane green was applied.
Signal Timing,
. There are four signalized intersections within the study area; OR 126/520' Street, OR 126/MaIn
Street, OR 126/58'" Street, arid Main Streetj54'" Street While under the jurisdiction of ODOT,
signal liming at all of the signalized intersections are maintained by the City of Springfield.
Current signal timing plans were obtained from the City ~or each of these intersections to
replicate existing traffic conditions in the analysis models.
As identified in the signal liming plans, all df the 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 permissive signal phasing
along the minor streels, depending on the traffic volumes. .
At the in~rsectiop of OR 126/Main Street the traffic signal operates with ~!.1'~~ to
accommodate.the heavy southbound to eastbound movements for through ~Cfl9€eiVed
, ", ,: I
'~MAR-; G z.oa9
Portland, Oregon ;
rPiJanner; BJ
Kittelson & AssoCiates, InC.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 36
.
.
EXHIBIT C P9
OR 125 Expressway Management Plan - Phase 3
December 11, 2008
Project #: 6221
Page 9
Additionally, westbound and sou1hbound right tums are channelized Inaneuvers 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 volumes, GIS base map information, the site inventory, and signal timing 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 aIld queuing during the peak 15 minutes of the peak hour..
In addition to volume-te-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 dear. 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 Ineasures for
facilities within this study are summarized in Table 2'.
Date IfterGt*
IM'AR'l f6 ~0lf9
1 Performance standards outlined herein are sub"ect to chan e.
Kittelson &'Assodates, Inc.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 37
.
.
EXHIBIT C Pl0
OR 126 Expressway Management Plan - Phase 3 .
Det:ember 11, 2008
Project #: 6221
Page JO
Location Jurisdiction Applicable Standard
. OR 126 Corridor OOOT OHP vIe = 0.80
. OR 126/52"' Street
. OR 126/Ma in Street
. OR 126/58" street OOOT OHP vIe = 0.80
. OR 126/Retail Ac:c:esses between
MainlOR 126 &. sa"
. Main Street/54" Street
OOOT OHP vIe = 0.85
. Main Street/Safeway Aecesses
. S211d StreetjHighbanks
. 52" Street/G Street CitylCounty LOS D and vIe = 0.B5
. Hlghbanks/54" Street
. Bob Strau~ Parkway/Oaisy Street
. Daisy Street/Salt! Street aty/County
LOS 0 and vIe = 0.B5
. Bob Straub ParkwayfTransit
Center Access
. Table 2
Applicable Existing Conditions Operational Standards
Traffic Operations Analysis
The e?,isting intersection operational conditions were evaluated using Syncluo 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 atea. A
summary of the intersection o~tioi:ts is presented in Figure 3. .
OR 126 Corridor Analysis
Weekday p.m..peak hour volume-te-capacity ratios were calculated for the OR 126 and Business
126 roadway segm.ents based on the methodologies outlined.in the Highway CapacitY Manual. A
summary of the existing segment volumes and capacity are provided in Table 3.
Table 3
OR 126 Mainline Capacity
Applicable Existing
Standard Design Hpur
Segment Direction (ODOT OMP) . Volumes Capacity vIe Ratio Adequate?
OR 126 (52"" Eastbound vIe = O.BO 1,340 3,15Q 0.43 Yes
Street to Mafn
Street) Westbound vIe = o.ao 670 3,150 0.21 Yes
OR 126 (Bob Eastbound vIe = O.BO 1,815 3,150 0.5B Yes
Straub Parkway Westbound vIe ~ O,BO 975 3,150
to 58'" Street) 0.31 Yes
Business 126 . Eastbound VIe = 0.B5 1,015 3,150 0.32 Yes
(54~ 'Street to
Bob Straub . Westbound vIe = 0.B5 705 3,150 0.22 Yes
Parkway)
ATTACHMENT 2 - 38
Date Received
r.wWoU!AA
Planner; BJ
Kittelson' B.-AssodareS, iiIC.
.
.
. EXHIBIT C - Pl1
OR 126 Expressway Management P1an- Phase 3
December 11, 2008
Project #: 6221
Page II
As shown in the table, the OR 126 corridor cw:rently meets OHP volume-ta-capacity standards of
0.80. Corridor volumes along this segment show a 13 percent increase from the 2004 traffic cmmts
in the easfummd 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 confinn that the OR 126/52"" Street
intersection is currently experiencing long queues during peak periods, especi,illy on the
eastbound left-turn movement. This intersection currently operates at a volume-to-<:apacity ralio
of 0.74, meeting OHP standards. The adjacent intersections along 52"" 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 "';d Business 126. Eastbound and westbound drivers on OR 126 are reqcired to
tum 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 rlgllt-tums are
channelized free-flow maneuvers and are not operated through the traffic signal Given the
existing imbalance betweerl traffic volumes 011 the northbound and southbound approaches, the
intersection operates with split phasing in the north-south direction and protected phasing east- .
west.
As 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., Oi:126) and
eastbound (Main Street) approaches, these queues can generally be accommodated within the
existing storage bays.
The Bob Straub Parkway, which comprlsesthe southern 1I\tersection approach is a l.ane County
facility that CUl'I'E!ntly terminates at South 75"' 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
COl1I\ectibn between Main Street and Jasper Road to the south to. accommodate planned growth in
. the Jasper-Natron area. As shown in Figure 3, the study intersectioM along the Bob Straub
Parkway south of Main Street currently operate acceptably with the low levels of development
density that currently exist.
Business 126/54th Street and Adj aeent Private Driveways
The Business 126/54"' Street intersection is approximately 400 feet west of the merge point from
the southbound right-turn movement at the OR 126/M'!in Street intersection. This short distance
can cause weaving issues for southbound OR 126 drivers merging in the OUtsid~\!~cJ..a\\ia
. destined for the retail uses on the south side of Main Street. No median is curren~ ~G \f '"
ATTACHMENT 2 - 39
Pllrtlalt\P,.wm~
Planner: S.
I(jftelson & Associates, Inc.
.
.
EXHIBIT C - P12
OR 125 ExpreSsway Management Plan - Phase 3
Dec;ember 11, 20GB
Project #: 5221
Page 12
Business 126, with eastbound and westbound traffic separated by a two-way center left-tam 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 Streetj54'" Street intersection currently operates acceptably per ODor mobility
standards with a volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.46 during the weekday pm. peak hour. AB will be
discussed below, the queuing can generally be accommodated at the intersection during peak
periods.
OR 126/58'h Street and Adj acent Private Access DrivewaYll
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
126/58'" Street intersection associated with the adjacent retail uses. As shown in Figure 3, the
intersection currently exceeds ODOT mobility standards (volume-to-capacity ratio less ~ 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. .
IntersectIon Applicable ExIsting
10 (Fig.ue 3) Inter:section Jurisdiction Standard Conditions Acceptable?
Table 3 CR'126 Mainline OOOT OHP, vIe = 0.80 vIe = 0.43 Yes
Eastbound
Table 3 OR 126 Mainline OOOT OHP, vIe = 0.80 vIe = 0.21 Yes
Westbound
OR 126-Main Street
Ta ble 3 Eastbound OOOT OHP, vIe ~ 0.80 vIe = 0.58 'Yes
(Bob Straub to 58"')
OR 126-Maln Street
Ta ble 3 Westbound OooT OHP, vIe = 0.80 vIe = 0.31 Yes
(58"' to Bob Straub)
Table 3 Bus 126 Eastbound OOOT OHP, vIe = 0.85 vIe = 0.32 Yes
I (54"' to Bob Straub)
Table 3 Bus 126 Westbound OOOT OHP, vIe - 0.85 vIe ~ 0.22 . Yes
(Bob Straub to 54"')
Table 4
Inte",ection and Corridor Operations Summary
(Continued)
Date Received
MAR I 6 illllll
Port/aM, Or'e{JIJlf
",~,. ;'.:/F'. _ .: l~.
.p1,j;': ;', :'~lf'_iJr~"{,'
Kiltelson& Assodares, Inc.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 40
Planner: BJ
.
.
EXHIBIT C - P13
OR 126 Expressway Management Plan - Phase 3
December 11, 2008
Project #: 6221
Page 13
Table 4 (Continued)
Intersectlon and Corridor Operations Summary
Intersection Applicable ExistIng
10 (Figure 3) Intersection Jurisdiction Stilndard ConditiDns J"""ptable?
52"" street!' LOS 0 SB LT/RT
1 tflQhbanks City/c:ounty vIe = 0.B5 LOS B Yes
vIe - 0.03"
Hlghbanksl LOS 0 N6 LT/RT
2 S4~ Street CltylCounty vIe = 0.85 LOS 6 Yes
vIe = 0.02'
3 OR 126/ OOOT OHP, vIe = 0.60 vIe = 0.74 Yes
52" Street
52" Street! LOS 0 WB LT/RT
4 G Street CitylCounty vIe = 0.85 LOS A ' Yes
vIe = 0.04'
5 Main StreeV OOOT OHP, vIe = 0.85 vIe = 0.46 Yes
S4~ Street
Main Street! 1\18 L T/RT
6 Saleway West OOOT OHP, vIe = 0.85 Yes
Access vIe = 0.15-
7 Main Street! OOOT OHP, vIe ~ O.BS 1\16 LT/RT Yes
Safeway East Access ' vIe - 0.23-
8 OR 1261 OOOT OHP, vIe = 0.80 vIe = 0.79 Yes
Main Street
9 Main Street! OOOT OHP, vIe = 0.80 56 RT Yes
Bl-Mart West Aecess vie = 0.09*
Main Street! OHP, vIe;' 0.80 56RT
10 Albertsonis/Bj-Mart OOOT vIe = 0.17" Yes
Access
11 Main Street! ' COOT OHP, vIe = 0.80 NBRT Yes
ShelllBi-Mart Access vIe = 0.06"
. OR 1261 GOOT l I ., ,
" . 12 . . 9HP, vjo.= 0.80 . vIe;:' 0.81 No
. - 581h Street - .
Bob Straub W6 LT/RT
13 Parkwayl CltylCounty Lose lOSA ". Yes
Transit Center vie - 0.85 vie = 0.09"
Access
Bob Straub' LOS 0 EBLTR
14 Parkwayl CltyICounty vIe = 0.85 LOS C/ Yes
Daisy Street We = 0.21
Daisy street! LOSe 56lT
15 CitylCounty LOS 61 Yes
58th Street vIe ::L 0.8S vIe = 0.31
i
i
I
I
!
"'Note:. Varues at unsignalized IntersectIons reflect the critical (highest delay) mOvement as defln~d within the
Highway Capacity Manual 2000, whJch'ls typically reflective of stop-controlled minor-street maneuvers, Given the low
mlnor~5tn:!et volumes on the private approat:hesl hf!lh delays may be experienced on a per-vehlde basis whlle
operating at low vDtumB~to-capat:lty ratios. . .
Intersection Queuing Analysis
Given the high levels of congestion along OR 126 and Main Street, a queuing analysis was
. completed using roicrosimulation 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-tam lane. The queuing analysis was completed using. an averaged 95'"
percentile queue length from five simulation model runs. This queuing analysis identifies
vehicular ~eue lengths during the 30" highest hour accounting for the existing sign~timin,' ',,' g fill, d, ' ' '
'. ' uate "ace
ATTACHMENT 2 - 41
Planner:
Kittffilsoo'B.ASsodat.es, Inc.
""rtland,~op6 ~009
.
.
EXHIBIT C - P14
DR 126 Expressway Management Plan - Phase 3
. December 11, 2008
Project #: 5221
Page 14
phasing. Table 5 provides a sun:m:tary of the queuing analysis results at eaCh of the signalized
intersections.
Intersection
OR 126/
Main Street
OR 126/
52"" Street
Main Streetj
54'" Street
Main Street!
58~ Street
Table 5
95" Percentile Intersection Queuing Analysis, Weekday PM Peak Hour
Movement
Eastbound len-TUrn
Eastbound Through
9Sttl Percentile
Queue (feet)
150
.350
Adequate?
Yes .
Yes
Available
storage (It)
150'
200'/960
Eastbound Right-Turn --. - . 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-T~~.------no--- - ~;--
Eastbound Through 225 :> 1,000 Yes
Eastbound Right 50 175 Yes
Westbound Left-Turn 25 160 Yes
Westbound Throug h 300 > 1,000 Yes
Northbound Approach 17S > 1,000 Yes
Southbound Lef\lThrough 50 50 Yes
Southbound Rig ht 175 350 Yes
Eastbound Left-Turn 75 150' Yes
Eastbound Through/Rlght 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
Eastbound Through/Right 350 890
westbound Left...Turn 150 140'
Westbound Through/Rlght 27S 600
Northbound Left-Turn 175 120'
95'
Southbound Throu h/Rl ht 375 390
BOLD text Indicates 95th percentile queues that exceed the available storage.
, Additional storage is available in the center two-way lelt-turn refuge lane.
1 Eastbound tl1rough queues beyond 200 feet will block tl1e eastbound right-turn lane; 960 feet Is
available between tihe OR 126/Maln Street and Main Street/54th Street intersections.
3 Queues beyond 225 feet will obstruct the westbound right-turn
· Queues beyond 360 feet will obstruct the soutl1bound right-turn lane. Additional storage Is available
In tl1e Inside through lane.
s Additional queue storage is available but will block access to the Transit Center,
o Queues beyond 415 feet will biock tl1e southbound right-turn merge area.
7 Queues beyond 115 feet will extend beyond the northbound right-turn pocket.
As shown in Table 5 and discussed above, forecast 95'" percentile queues are shown to exceed the
available storage at the OR 126/520' Street, the OR 126/Main Street, and OR 126/58'" 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 intersections due to queue blockages and individual signal cycle failures.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 42
Date Received
~Mf..1d,~~
Planner: BJ
Kittelson & Assodatesl Inc.
.
.
EX,HIBIT 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 ooor 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 ODOT 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 cr3shes dUDng 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 arid
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 126/58" Street appears within the 95'" to 100'" percentile SPIS
intersections, and OR 126jMain Street is identified .within the 90'" to 94.99'" percentile SPIS
intersections.
Crash Data Review
. Review of crash records from the six-year period between 2002 and 20()'72 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 ODOT
database and includes all reported crashes (reported crashes involving propel1y damage
exceeding $1,500 or resulting in injuries or fatalities).
Table 6
Intersection Crash Rates (2002 through 2007')
Estimated
Peak Hour Estimated Annual Total Crash Cl'a$h '.
intersection . Volume ADT VQlume Crashes Rat'" Rate >17
OR 126/ 3,026 30,260 11,044,900 29 0.44 No
52" Street
OR 126/ 3,436 34,360 12,541,400 37 0.49 No
Main Sb"eet
Main Street! l,ng 17,290 6,310,850 22 0.58 No
54'" Street
Main Street/ 2,904 29,040 10,599,600 34 0.53 No
5S'" Street
J.crashes per mime" entering vehicles
Intersection crash rates are typically reviewed as a crash rate per million enteriri.g vehicles. A
crash rate greater titan 1.0 crash per million entering vehicles is indicative of potential geometric
or operational deficiencies. AiJ shown in Table 6, all of the intersections =tly a crash rate less
than 1.0 crash per million entering vehicles. To further explore tite 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.
Planner:
Illate IReoe'
'Year 2007'crash data was not available at the OR 126/58" Street and Main Street/54'" Street intersections. Crash
records at these Intersectklns were obtained from January 2002 throuoh December 2006. IMI'R 1 6 ~
KittelSon & Assodates, InG PcrtJand, Oregon
ATTACHMENT 2 - 43
.
.
EXHIBIT C - P16
OR 126 Expressway Management Plan - Phase 3
December 11, 2aDS
Project #: 5221
Pilge 15
Crash Types
Table 7 5Illl11Iliriizes crashes by type and year for each of the fmu signalized public intersections
in the study area. As shown in, Table 7, all fow: signalized intersections had a roughiy equivalent
. number of reported crashes between 2002 and 2007. The majority of all collisions were rear-end
type crashes (54. percent of all reported crashes), which were likely the result of congestion in the'
corridor. The highest rate of rear-end collisions occurred at the OR U6/Main Street intersection.
Review of the queuing analysis shows that the 95" percentile southbound queues at the OR
U6/!11fain Street intersection remain withiri the tangent section of OR U6. Main Street/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- . Sid.... Fixed
Intersection Year Turning Angle End Swipe Object Pedestrian Backing Tatal
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
52'" Street 2006 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 6
2007 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
Tatal :3 3 17 3 3 0 0 29
Percent 10% 1D% 50% 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 ci 0 0 8
OR 126/ 2005 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3
Main Street 2006 3 0 3 2 1 0 0 8
2007 0 0 1 0 0 0 0: 1
Tatal 4 0 27 5 1 a a 37
Percent 11% 0% 73% 13% 3% a% a% 100%
2002 2- 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 Streetj 1 0 0 0 1 . 0
54t11 Street 2005 1 3
2006 1 0 1 2 0 .0 0 4
Tatal 4 7 7 2 0 :2 a 22
Percent 18% 32% 32% 9% (lOA. 9% a% 100%
(Continued)
Date Received
MAR J 6 2009
Kil:teJson & Associates, Inc.
'~J
, gan
ATTACHMENT 2 - 44
.
.
EXHIBIT C P17
OR 125 I:xpressway Management Plan - Phase 3
December 21, 2008
pmject #: 5221
Page 17
Table 7 (Continued)
OR126C~hSumma~
crash TyP'l
Rear- Side- fixed
Intersection Year TurnIng Angle End Swipe Object Pedestrian llacking Total
2002 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 5
2003 1 D., 7 0 0 0 1 9
2004 1 1 '3 1 0 0 0 6
Main Street{ 2005 5 1 1 1 0
58~ Street 1 0 9
2006 1 0 4' 0 0 0 0. 5
Total 9 3 ,15 2 1 2 1 34
Percent 25% 9% 47% 6% 3% 5% 3% 100%
Total' 20 13 63 12 5 4 1 218
Overall 1%-
Percent 17% 11% 54% 10% 4%' 3% 100%
Crash Severity
Table 8 shows the annual crash statistics as summarized by intersection and severity. Crash
seve:dty is used to identify locations with higher ratios of injury and fatality Versus non-injury
crashes. '
Table 8
-'
Intersection Crash Severity
Crash Severih
Intersection Year Non-Iniurv Inlurv Fatality
2002 4 2 0
2003 5 0 0
20.04, 3 0. 0
OR 1261 2005 4 3 0
52"" Street 2006 5 1 0
2007 1 1 0
Total ,22 7 0
Percent 76".4. 24% D"h
2002 1 7 0
2003 6 1 0
20.0.4 5 4 0
OR 126/ . 20.0.5 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
2004 2 0 0
Ma In Street! 2005 1 2 0
54 ttl Street 2006 4 0 0
Total 18 4 0
Percent 82% 18% 0.%
2002 2 3 0
2003 8 1 0.
2004 5 1 0.
Ma; n Street{ 200.5 5 4 0
S8~ Street 2006 4 l' 0
Total 24 10 a
Percent 71% 29% 0%
Overall Total 84 34 a
Percent 71% 29% 0%
Kittelson & Assodates,. Inc.
"0
~
~ffi
(.)
Q)
a:
(J)
.-
ctS
PrJrt!1lnd,oQ
ATTACHMENT 2 -45
C")
=
=
c-...J
<:.0
.-..
a::
<J:
::;;;
.
.
.EXHIBIT C - P18
OR 126 Expressway Management Plan - Phase 3
December 11, 2008
Pro~ct #: 622l
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 U6/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 weath.er conditions. All of the study
area intersections contain roadway illumination.
Table 9
Crash Statistics by Weather and Roadway Conditions
Pavement Conditions light/Illumination Conditions
Intersection ' Yel:llr 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 126/ 200S 4 3 0 5 0 2
52nd Street 2006 3 2 1 6 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 6 1 0
200:; 5 1 0 4 1 1
2004' 6 2 0 6 1 1
OR 126/ 2005 3 0 0 3 0 0
Main Street 2006 8 0 0 5 2 1
2007 1 0 0 0 0 1
Total 27 6 0 24 5 4
Percent: 82% 18% 00/. 73"% 15% 12%
2002 9 0 0 6 0 3
1.003 3 1 0 2 2 0
1.004 1. 0 0 1. 0 0
Main Street! 21105 1 2 0 2 1 0
54th Street 2006 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
Main Street 2004 5 1 0 1 1 4
58th Street 2005 5 4 0 5 0 4
2006 4 1 0 3 1 1
Total 26 8 0' 17 5 12
Percent 76% 24% 0% 52% 15% 36%
Overall Total 91 25 2 76 16 21;
Percent 77% 21% 2% 64% . 14%~~t::
ATTACHMENT 2 - 46
ceived
MAR 1 6 ZD09
Portland, Oregen
BJ
Planner:
K"t!telson & Associates, Jne.
.
.
EXHIBIT C P19
OR 125 Expresswav Management Plan - Phase 3
De=nber 11, 2008
Project #: 5221
Page 19
Overall, 77 percent of crashes occw:red with dry pavement and 64 percent of crashes occun:ed
during the day. The intersection of Main Street/58'" Street contained mote nighttime l:rashes than
any other intersection, although at the intersection nighttime crashes still account for only 36
percent of the total '
Crashes by Time of Day
Crash data by time of day at the intersection" 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
-+-OveraD
1 S ~Oregon 126/52nd Street
-rQregon 1261Main Sn!:et
-4-Main Stmet/5ol\th Street
16 ........Main Streeti58th street
,.
~ 12
.c
.
.
U
Q 10
"
.
.c
E
oil ·
.
.
,.
0
" " " " " " " " ~ ~ " ~ l ~ , . . . , , ~ . "
~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . . ~ ~ ~
a a 8 8 8 ! ~ 8 8 a a a ~ ~ 11 . 8 !I '. 8 8 . a
a ~ ~ . 9- P- o . ~
~ " ;,; " " . $! ::! " ~ ;; . " ;; ;,; ~
Titne of Day
Typical graphs of crash data O'ler time of day display significant peaking tluough the evening
peak hour, with a rise in crashes starting at approximately 1:00 pm., peaking around 4:00 pm.,
and stabilizing at 7:00 p.m. Both the overall crash' trend and the individual graph fer each'
intersection resembled this pattem, which follows volume trends and congestion 'in the area.
Intersection Safety Conclusions
Reported crashes at the signalized intersections are pmr;.ruy rear-end cO~~~F-~i\f ,.
during daylight hours under ,dry roadway conditions. The high incidence of reaM~~nes are
typical of signalized intersections, and are likely due in part to congestion given that thNIAwi'Pr&Yl009
KitteJsan & As.sodatesl Inc.
Porttand, Oregon
Planner: B'
ATTACHMENT 2 - 47
.
.
EXHIBIT C- P20
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. lime of day did not identify any specific trends or safety deficiencies.
Intersection crash records are included in AttacJmumt "G".
CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS
As summari.z~ intersections along the OR 126 corridor operate near or beyond ODOT mobility
standards with vehicular queues exceeding the available storage at . number of locations.
Limited access management strategies are currently employed along OR 126 (Main Street) east of
the Bob Straub Parl<way, with little or no access control along Business U6 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 collisions.
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
Attachm~t "C" Saturation Flow Rate Methodology
Attachment "0" Analysis Procedures Memorandum
Attachment "E" Synchro Operational Analysis Files
Attachment "F" SimTraffic Queuing AnalyIDs Files
"
Attachment "G" Intersection Crash Records
. .~ .
"">,,""~',:""'.. ':"<.;:!., '~:-.J::.;!.
Date Received
MA~ 1 6 2009
. .. ~.~ .;..:\ :,\ ~.'
Planner: BJ
KittelsolJ ~ AssodaC'eS, Inc.
~I}d, Oregon
ATTACHMENT 2 - 48
.
.
EXHIBIT D - 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
Tbcodtm: R. Kuloogoski,. Governor
October 2, 2008
~
TO: Land Conservation and Development Commission
FROM: Richard Whitman, 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'ofthe Transporiationl'lanning 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 time is necessary to coordinate development ofan updated
. RTSP with other regional planning activity, llotably 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. .
Tbe department recommends approval of the work plan with conditions requiring Eugene and
Springfield to complete reporting on TPR related benchmarks and performance measures.
A. TVDe of Action and Commission Role
OAR 660-012-0016(2)(b) authorizes the Commission to approve a work program for completion
ofRTSP updates. Tbe Commission's decision is not directed or constrained by the rule.
B. Staff Contact Information
For additional information about this agenda item please' contact Bob Cortright at 503-373-0050,
ext 241, or by email bob.cortriirlrtralstate.or.us.
Date Receiv
MAR 1 6 lllOO
ATTACHMEN:r 2 - 49
Planner: B
.
.
EXHIBIT 0 -P2
Agenda Item 9
October 15-17. 2008 LCDC Meeting
Page 2
n. RECOMMENDATION
The director recommends, based on the information 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)).
m. 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 feden;l 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.
Tbe di~tinction 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 Qocally
called "'J'ransPlan") 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 plan 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 calIs 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 Plan to comply
with the TPR. The Commission approved a work plan for Metro, which elctends through 2010.
B. . Maior Lel!al and Poliey 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 ofMPO~ - designated by the governor and made up ofloeal officials -to
prepare a coordinated long-range transportation plan - a regional transporta,tioo'plan. The
content and process for development and adoption of such plans is directed by federal law and
regulations.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 50
Date Received
MAR I 6 2009
PI~nn,Qlt". B:l1
.
.
EXHIBIT D - P3
Agenda Item 9
October 15-17,2008 LCDC Meeting
Page 3
The IPR requires cities and counties within MPOs to adopt a regional transportation system plan
or RTSP. The RTSP must comply with relevant portions of the IPR, and must be consistent
v;ith the applicable statewide plans(such as t.he Oregon Highway Plan). In addition, once
adopted, the RTSP provides a framework for local transportation systlml plans (TSPs).
In most respects, federal and state requirements call for the same product - a long-range
transportation'plan that includes a netwOIk 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 h,ow plans are adopted and their legal effect. Federally required
plans are adopted by the MPO board - made up primarily of local elected officials. While the
resulting plan must be consistent with relevant federal requirements; adoption of an RIP is not a
land use decision under Oregon law. RTSPs are adopted by local governments as
comprehensive plan amendments; aod 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 spedfically address coordination ofTPR-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 aod 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 that-ate 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. Tra1lSj1orlation Planning in Eugene-8pringfieId 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 RIP 6Jld the state
RTSP.
Starting in 2004, the MPO has undertaken to amend and update the federally required RIP
separately from the state required RTSP. The result, following adoption of the 2007 Central
Lan.e Regional Trai1.sportation 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.
Key differences between two plans are as follows:
Date Racei ad
- The updated RTP used a plarining horizon of2031; TransPlan is current through 2015.
, " MM16WO
ATTACHMENT 2 - 51
Planner: BJ
.
.
EXHIBIT D - P4
Agenda Item 9
October 15-17, 2008 LCDC Meeting
Page 4
The RTP does not include the West Eugene Parkway as a planned improvement;
TransPlan does.
The RTP does not address the statuS of TransPlan benclunaxks and has been amended to
delete benchmarks and performance measures required by the TPR.'
The RTP list of financially 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 TPR. 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 HB 3337
which results in separate UGHs for Eugene and Springfield
. Report on progress in addressing adopted benchmarlcs and performance measures
related to TPR compliance
. Incorporate the City of Coburg in the updated RTSP
. Make the state RTSP and the federal RTP consistent with One another
"-Coordinate with development and adoption of updated plans for Eugene and
Springfield to 2030 aiId 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 LCOC 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:
Date Received
MAR I 6 2009
ATTACHMENT 2 - 52
Planner:8J
.
.
EXHIBIT 0 - P5
Agenda hem 9
October 15-17, 2008 LCDC Meeting
Page 5
Table 7
Altel"Jlalive TPR PerfllI'1t13Jlce Measures for the Engene-Springlield MPO
. (aPJll'oved by LCDC on May 4", 20lll)
!oIeanIre Key l'bn Plan 1995 2005 2010
Elrmmt Jmpl.......iati.... 2GB
or
T....vtlJ1dad;1!t
Rem.....
Altenl.ative Tmrel 14.43% 17%
% Non-Auto Modes ' Response
Trips Wall.-..fl.93% 15% Hi% Walk=IO%
Bik<:=3.68% BiIre-4%
Bus=1.83% Bos-3%
% Transit Tr:msi1 Thlvel
Mod. Shar. Response . 5.8% 10.0%
on 6.8% 8.0%
Congested 5.9% in 1999
Corridors
Priority Bicycle Plan
Bik"""y Implementation IS miles 45 miles 74 miles
Mil..
A<:ns of Nodal Plan 2,000 acres
zooed nodal Development Implementation 1,000 acre. 1,500 acres zonm for
noda1
dfl'l!loplWlnt devekmmenl
"AI of Nodal Markel' 2.5% 14.5%
d'\Wlling Iki<:lopment Response 233% of
mnls builtin 5.6"10 20.40/. new Dos
noo..
% of New Nodal Market 10"/.0 2:5%
~Total" Development Response '. 45"A.
EmploJ1lleot lU% 32.6 . .
in Nodes
Internal. 2.305,779 3,224,037
VMI
VMTICapita 11 10.9
I
,
. i
I
I
I
i
I.
;
i
I
i
I
In approving this standard, the Commission expressed concern that the cities move quickly to
implement the nodal development 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 zoningofnodes 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
nodal development While this met the target, the department and commission asked that the
cities do additional analysis to assess whether the identified nodes include SUffict1afeIR~
I MAli I 6 ~aQ9
ATTACHMENT 2 - 53 Planner: B
.
.
EXHIBIT DP6
AgcndaItem 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 about700 acres ofvacant or
redevelopab Ie land.) The department noted that, depending on the outcome of this llIllIlysis it
might be necessary for local governments to identify additional lands or nodal development to
meet the adopted targets.
The 2031 Centriil 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 oftime requested, we believe it is warranted. because
of the unique circumstances in this metropolitan area.
Regional planning in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitao 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 tr.\nsportation
plans, and means additional time and resources will be needed to prepare an updated RTSP.
The deparbnent'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 be.a 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
for 2010 call for accelerated progress in implemeutation of nodal d~~. e!tln . d
. .~. ,.'. ".'. .' UCUe neCelVe
MAR 1 6 2009
Planner: 8.J
ATTACHMENT 2 - 54
.
.
EXH[BIT 0 - P7
Agenda Item 9
October lS-17, 2008 tCDC Meeting
P"ll"7 '
- Expected outcomes in the 2031 RTP falls short of meeting the adopted 2015 perfonnance
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 ;
wo(k on perl'ormance measures (elatl:d to nodal development needs to be integmted and
coonlinated with related Goal 14 analysis. (T I'aIl8Plan targets fo( nodal development
needs to be factored into Goal 14 housing and land needs analysis.)
Perl'ormance measures and benchmarks will need to be extended to match the extended
planning period, and measures need to be developed to cove( the expanded metropolitan
area, that now includes the City of Coblll'g.
It is particularliimportant that this update evaluate progress iIi meeting the 2010 benchmarks.
As noted above, TI'aIl8Plan benchmarks anticipate much more nodal development will occur in
between 2005 and 20 I 0 than has occurred through 2005 Since this plan update will not be
completed until 2013, it is logical that progress durmg 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 prepamtion and adoption ofthe updated (egionaltransportation system plan;
or
2. Request furthe( information from the department or local governments before acting
on the request.
VI. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION AND DRAFT MOTION
The department recommends that the Commission support the directo(' s recommendation and
accept the (equeat 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 'IPR.
The department recommends that the Commission approve the proposed work plan included in
Attachment B with the following condition: -
In the performance measure wo(k sl:heduled fo( the l:it through 4th quarters 2009 the
cities will assess pro~ess in meeting benchmarks for 2005 and 2010 and shall, as
necessary, identify and evaluate additional measures to meet TranSPlan's TI'R
Performimce Standards.L This will also include developing benchmarks and '
performance measures for the extended planning perl()d (likely 2031 or 2035).
I See Table 7 above "A1temative TPRPerl'onnance Measures for the Eugi:n&-Springfield ~ate Received
ATTACHMENT 2 - 55
MAR 1 6 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
EXHIBIT D - P8
AgendaItem 9
OcIcber 15-17, 200S LCDC Meeting
PageS
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 staffreport
Alternative Motion (1): I move that the Commission approve the request from Eugene,
Springfield and Lane County to apprDve the prDposed 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 propDsed 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 hecause [findings].
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 Df
an updated regional transpDrtation system plan to comply with the TransportatiDn Planning RUle
as set forth in Attachment B modified as follDws: * * *
ATTACHMENTS
A. Transmittal Letter from Local Planning Directors. September 29, 2008
B. Regional Transportation Work Plan, September 8, 2008, 2 pages
C. Joint Elected Officials Meeting Packet, September 15, 2008, 13 pages
Date Received
MAR 1 6 2009
ATTACHMENT 2 - 56
.Planner: BJ
__ ___.. u' .... _._.._t1t..__
.
EXHIBIT 0 - P9
ATTACHMENT A
B
September 29, 2008
John VanLandingham, Chair
Land Conservation and Development CoIJUDission
635 Capitol Street NE, Suite ISO
Salem, OR 97301-2540
,
Subject: Approval of Central Lane MFO Regional Transportation System Plan.
Work Program per OAR 660-0l2-0016(2)(b)
Dear Mr. VanLandingham:
on behalf of the elected officials of Eugene, Springfield, Coburg, and Lane County we'
appreciate fue Commission's review and approval of the attached work program.
. The Transportation Planning Rule requires applicable provisions of adopted regional and
local transportation system plans to be cmisistent with federal Regional Transportation
Plans (RTP). The November 2007 adoption of the latest Central Lane Metropolitan
Planning Organization's R TP includes a planning horizon year and a project list that does
not match these same elements in J'ransPlan (the Eugene-Springfield local Transportation
System Plan). These inconsistencies can only be reconciled by making correspohding
amendments to TransPlan and developing a new Regional Transportation System Pl.1D
(RTSP). The attached work plan, a requirement of the Transportation Planning Rille,
identifies the tasks and timelines that will be undertaken to comply with the consistency
requirements of the rule.
Representatives from Eugene, Springfield, Coburg, Lane County, Lane Council of
Governments, ODOT, and DLCD worked diligently to prepare the proposed work plan to
satisfy state rules and local needs and efficiently COordinate'other state and federal
requirements. On September IS, 2008 the elected officials of Eugene, Springfield, and
Lane County unanimously endorsed this work program
The members of the Central Lane MFO will undertake several significant planning
. obligations over the next few years. The RTSP update must be carefully integrated with
the other work to effectively comply with statewide land use goals and ensure
cQ9rdination oHand use and transportation planning.
D,...!lI, ID-i;.l~
I '~IDe n~\'~
MA'R ) 6 M
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 2 - 57
00" '''oOn _.....m
.
EXHlBlT 0 - P10
At the same time, FIB 3337 (nowORS 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 needs analyses, and economic opportunity analyses.
These studies will lead to updated land use components to these cities' comprehensive
and refmement plans. The inventories are scheduled to be completed by January 2010
pursuant to ORS 197 .304. The proposed RTSP work plan provides short-tC1:m progress
followed by an ambitious two-year window to achieve full i:rrtegration 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 ofrura1 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"prepamtion ofIoeal
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
than!<: you in advance for your approval.
Very Truly Yours,
Greg Matt, City of Springfield
Lisa Gardner, City of Eugene
Celia Barry, Lane County
A ttaclunents
1. Proposed RTSP Work Program
2. Seotember 15.2008 Joint Elected Official Materials
" . Agenda
. Agenda Item Summarv
. Attachment A
Date Received
MAR 1 6 2009
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 2 - 58
-_...._~-_._.__._-- ----. -- _. -. -...-...----.. -'
.
EXHIBIT 0 - Pll
ATTACHMJENT B
Regional Transportation Work Plan
4th QUARTER 2008
1ST QUARTER 2009
Transportation Work Plan
. October I: Submit draft to LCOC
. October 16: LCOC Meeting
Post-Acknowledgement Plan Amendment (PAPA)
. Finalize schedule' and responsible parties for
. fnitiationlparticlpation/co-adoption. including:
o Remove completed pl"Qjects
o Re1l1<Jve West Eugene Parkway
o Mov,~ ODOT projects from Illustrative to Financially
Cono,trained nst for consistency with RTP
o Adjust plan horizon
Regional Tran.'portation System Plan (RTSP)
. Continu<, 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 s(:hedule
PAPA Adoption(s}
. Appropriate Jurisdictions to ame.nd TransPlan to achieve RTP-
. TSP consistency -
o , Remove completed projects
o Remove West Eugene Parkway
o Move OooT projects from IDustrative to Finandally .
Conmalned list for consistency with November'1007 RTP
projr.ct list
o Adjust plan horizon
Performance r1easures
. 'Assess e>dsting performance measures in TransPlan
. Estimate Vehicle Miles Traveled (YMT)/capita for 1004. 20 I ~
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
MAl{ 1 6 Z009
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 2 - 59
...................-..-... ..
-
EXHIBIT 0 - P12
. Complete reporting on TransPlan benchmarks for 2005,
induding qualitative discussion about nodal implementation
2nd QUARTER 2009
Performance Measures
. . Begin developmem of Performance Measure position paper
. Identify potential additlonaJ actions/procedures for successful
performance measure implementation
Jrd QUARTER 2009
Regional Transportation System Plan (RTSP)
. Draft RTSP .tructural and poncy 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 framework
4.h QUARTER 2009
Performance Measures
. Consider and.develop.adjustments to performance and/or
implementation measures to achieve benchmarks
. Consider modified benchmarks and performance measures for
the extended planning period
1ST QUARTER 2010 THROUGH JRD QUARTER 201 I
[Regional !Tansponaden planning p'ragressing in coordination with long-range land use planning efferts]
4TH QUARTER 201 I
Regional Transportation System Plan (RTSP)
. Policy develop based upon multi-jurisdictional elected official
direction
. Components drafted for public comment
. PubUc outreach" on RTSP framework
2013
Regional Transportation System Plan (RTSP)
. Take Action to meet RTSP requirements including multi-
lurisdictiOl1al co-adoption actions .
. Take action.as necessary to eliminate TransPIan, Including multi-
jurisdictiOl1al co-adoption plans .
Date Received
MAR 1 6 2009
.,
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 2 - 60
...--.----..-........
.
EXHIBIT 0 - P13
ATrACHMENT C
~~
_.
JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING _
City of Coburg . Qty of Eugene . City of Springfield . lane County
September 15. 2008
Noon to I :30 pm
Springfield City Hall
Ubrary Conference Room
225 5'" Street, Springfield
12:00 -1:30 pm
I.
Regional Transportation Work Plan
Tom Boyott, CIty of Springfield
Celia Barry, Lane County
Rob Inerfeld. Oty of Eugene
Petra Schvetz, Oty of Cobul);
Action Requested: Approval of Transportation
Work PllIn for Submittal to LCDC
SPRINGFIELD LIBRARY MEETING ROOM
The Library Meeting Room l! lcated adjacent to the Ubrary Insld e CIIY Hall on the second floor.
If 10U ~nter CilY Hall at S" and A. 10u w", enter by tile Library. Contl""e past the Library entrar=: Turn right
just pm the Library and you will be looking at the Library Meeting Room, .
If you enter from the Ea.t Entranc.. go "'rough the lobby, The Library Meeting Room I. off to ,"0 left before you
reach tile Library.
PARKING AROUND SPRINGFIELD CITY HAb!,
Thero's free two hour parking beneath City Hall, next to the Museum at 6th and Main. There i. al.o fr.e two
hour parking along Maln St. and mon streea iurroundlng Clty HaiL .
. For tho.e that will be parked for more tlron two hou.... there I. . pay--co-park lot on A St. between 6tn and 7th
Strom, It i. $3.00 per day, There b abo the employee parldng lot on the comer of 4th and B Stree., which I.
Ire..
I;ocatioa is wheelchair a~~lo (WCAl. American Sign Language (ASL) tDterpr=tatioo i$ 1VJ.i1alblc willi 4~1'J ~ticTI ~
LCOGMainOffiL'e; 99 Eul Broodwuy,SuilC 400, Eugc"",Or,g"" 97401-3111 Wale necelve
.. Pb"",,: ('41) 682--4:283. . Fax: (S41) 682-'\099 . TIY: (~4]) ~2-4jj;1 _
MAR 1 6 2009
ATTACHMENT 2 - 61
Planner: B
---- ------------.-----.,------ ,
C..--~
..... . ~':f.
t;-.o :
.
EXHIBIT 0 - P14
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
Agency/Department
City of Coburg Planning Department
City of Eugene Public Works
City of Springfield Public Works
Lane County Public: Works
Staff Contact
Petra Schuetz
Rob lnerfeld
Tom Boyatt
Celia Barry ,
Phone
6ll2-7858
6112-5343
74-4-3373
682-6935
Action Requested:
Approval afthe Regional Transportation Work Plan
Estimated Time: -
90 Minutes
ISSUE STATEMENT
Staff Is requestlng 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 releva,nt work plan milestones.
The Transportatlon Planning Rule requires applicable provisions of adopted regional and local
transportation system prans to be consistent wlth federal Regional TransporUtkln Plans (RTP).
This Indudes plan policies, project lists, locatlon of projects, changes in 'functional classifications,
and changes In the planning period or Populatlon forecasts upon which the plan 15 based. Local
_ govemmentsmust make this determination of consistency every four years when the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) updates or amends the RTP.I The November 2007
adoption of the updated RTP Includes a planning horizon year and a prolect list that doesn't
match these same elements In TransPlan (the Eugene-SpringfIeld local TSP). These
InconsistencIes can only be reconciled by making ~rrespondlng amendments to TransPlan.
The attached work plan, also a requirement ofthe TPR; identifies the tasks and tlmellnes that
will be undertaken to comply wlth the consistency requii;!ments of the law. If approved by the
local agendes, the work plan will be subllJltted to the land Conservation and Development
Commission (LCDC) for consideration and approval at their October 16"' meeting in Prlnev!fle.
'Ref. Oregon-Admrnistratrve Rule 660-012-0016.
',-
Date Received
MAR] 6 2009
ATTACHMENT 2 - 62
Planner: BJ
.
.
EXHIBIT 0
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 flnai1dng document and Indudes MPO
Jurisdictions of Coburg, Eugene, Springfield, lane County. Lane Transit District and the Oregon
Department of Transportation. Among several key aspects, the RTF Includes a flmincllllly
constrained list of all regionally signlflcant projects, and Is updated and adopted every four years
by the Metropolitan Polley 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 RTF was adopted by
the MPC In November 2007 and Includes a planning horizon year of 2031.
. .
TransPlan Is serving as the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area's local transportatiOll system
plan (TSP), which is required by the State of Oregon as a component ot the comprehensive land
use plan. TransPlan guides transportation system planning and development In the metropolitan
area and establishes transportation poneles in support of the Metro Plan, the region's
comprehensive land use plan. Changes to TransPlan, Including adoption. update and amendment
are the responsfblllty of Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County. Mandatory updates similar to the
federal stindard for RTP's are required at Intervals of seven years as spedfled.by Oregon Revised
Statutes for periodIc review.] The most reCEmt update ot TnmsPlan occurred in December,
2001.
The Dep'artment of Land Conservation and Development (OLeO) and the Oregon Department
of Transportation (ODOT) are concerned about the following differences between TransPlan
and the RTP. The project list In the 2007 feClera! RTP has been updated, and those changes
have not yet been made to Trans?lan. The horl~on year otthe federal 2007 RTP is 2031, and
the 2001 TransPlan horizon year remalns 2015. To comp1y with state administrative rules, staff
from the'partlclpatlng local governments, ODOT and DleD have been worldng together on a
coordinated Reglonal Transportation Work Plan (Attachment A),
The work plan includes a description of malor work Items, Interim products, and critIcaj.
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 actlvltles Is not the subject of the TPR required work plan. However, It
provldes a broader view of related land use and transportation planning activities underway In
the metropolitan area. that wlll affect the progress and. outcome of the work plan.
Whlle the work plan provides an estimated tlmellne for completion It should be noted that the
work plan will need to remain flexIble In order to respond to data and policy dIrection derlved
from the activities In the right-hand column.. For example, the results otthe buildable lands
analysis proJects currently underway In Eugene and Springfield are necessary for the preparation
] A dty with a population of more than 2,500 wlthln a metropolitan planning organization or a nietrop","tan .
,ervice dbtrltt shall conduct periodic ""iew .very ....n )"'.~ after compl.tion of the pre'tlou. Perlo~iew. .
Ref,ORS 197.629. lUate Receiv d
I' ,
2
111M ;j 2009
ATTACHMENT 2 - 63
PlannQr: - J
.____.______m_ __._______. _______ ___
.
EXHIBIT 0 - P16
of local transportation system plans. Therefore, the completion dates for these buildable lands
projects will influence the- completion dates for the focal ~Ps.3 .
PREVIOUS POLICY DISCUSSION _
Regional transportation planning was discussed earlier this year at theJuly 15, 2oo810lnt
Elected Officlals meeting. Staff presented a draft work plan that outlined short, medium and
long term actions for conslderatlon. Members of the lEO agreed that they would schedule .
sepa'?lte work sessions for each elected body to prey/de direction to staff concerning future-
actions to be taken. Following is a summary of those discussions.
Sprlnrlleld
On July 21, 20OS, the City Council of Springfield gave their staff direction to:
. Begin work on a Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP); .
. Amend TransPlin to extend the planning horizon from 2015 to 2023 (based on
population estImates contained In the existing, adopted TrallsPlan); and
. Amend TransPlan to move the OR 126 at Main Street and OR 126 at 52nd Street
bOOT interchange projects from the Future Projects list to the list of Fiscally .
Constrained projects, to be conslste~t With the adopted federal R TP.
Eu[ene
The City Council of Eugene held a similar work session August 13.. 2008 to review the draft
work plan. They p,ovided staff direction to inItiate the followIng amendments to TransPlan:
. Delete the West Eugene Parkway from the project list and plan as part of the short-
term amendments; and
. Move thl! West II th Avenue from Terry to Greenhill and the Beidlne Highway from
Rlver Road to Delta Highway ODOT fadlity projects from the Future Projects list to
the list of Fiscally Constrained projects.
lane Count;y
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 rellect the following
comments:
. Add Information to the work program regarding Lane County Metro Plan and other
long range planning discussions, Including County establishment of nlral reserve policies;
and
. Identify specific co-adoption work elements.
BaSed on the results of these local policy-maker discussions and Input received from DLeD and
ODOT, the attached work plan was developed. The work plan shows the relationship of the
develol?ment of local TSP's wlth the concurrent County populatlon forecasting work. Metro
Plan discussions, and rural lands policy discussions, and City HB 3337 implementation efforts. It
also shows how this work wni coordinate wlth and Inform the development of the Regional
Transportation System Plan and any other work needed to comply with state transportation
planning requirements. -
J The Oty Council. of Eugene and Sprlngfleld dlre<:ted thelr re'pe<tIve staff to prepare local transportation system
plaN In coOrdInallc" with the development ot new buildable land. I"""ntories and urban growth boundarle.
, jrequlred by H~l337. . Date Received
MAl{ 1 6 2009
)
ATTACHMENT 2 - 64.
Planner: BJ
i
j
-I
..
.
EXHIBIT D
, I
,
I
!
P17
WORK PROGRAM TIMEUNE
The work plan describes signiflcant transportation planning actlvitles to be carried out by the .
governing bodies and MPO over the next <1-5 years. The tlmellne Is based on the best
Information avallable today. Transportation planning must be Integrated with land use planning
work program schedules. In estlmatlng the t!meUne for completion 'of the Eugene TSP fOf
example, staff is proJectlng a 2-year tlmeframe to prepare and adopt amendments to the Metro
Plan. beginning after tire December 2009 completlon 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 fo~d 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 lnerfeld, Oty of Eugene
Tom Soyat!, City of Springfield
Cella Barry, lane County
682-7858
682.5343
7<1<1-3373
682-6935
4
Date Received
MAR 1 6 2009
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 2 - 65
.--.--,
.
EXHIBIT 0 - P18
Attachment A:
Regional Transportation Work Plan
September S, 2008
Ongoing Coordl11ated Local &
MAJOR WORK PLAN MILESTONE ' MPO Planning Activities
4111 Quarter 2008 " '" .... '!', . ~'. . " , -,' ....., 0.', " . ......;...
" .. '" , " .- "
" . : '." -, ..
.. ,,, , "
Transportation Work Plan
. October 1 - Draft submitted to Land
Conserva~on and Development
Commission (LCOC)
. October 16 - LCDC approves
Post-Acknowledgement Plan Amendment PAPA processes:
(PAPAl . Remove completed pro]ec!s-springfield Inifiates
Finalize schedule and responsible parties for . Remove WEP-Eugene Innlated AugUst 2008
inlliation/partlclpatlon/co-adoptlon. including: . Move OOOT projects from lIIustiative to
. Remove completed projects Financially Constrained Ust for consistency with '
. Remove WEP RTP-Initiated by Eugene and Springfield for their
. Move ODOT projects from lIIuslratlve to respective projects Involving lands eIltlrely Within
existing city limits
Financially Constrained llst for consistency . Adj1.lst plan'hor!zon--8pringfield initiates
with RTP
. Adjust plan horizon
Begin Work on Local Eugene & Springfield
Transportation System Plans (TSP)
. Springfield work scope complete and Request
For Proposals (RFP) Issued for consultant
services In November
. Eugene completes draft Transportation System
Plan (TSP) work scope, Including pu~no
Involvement plan
. Springfield Bundable Lands Analysis (BLA) end
Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment
(CLA) are progressing
. Discuss resource needs with slate and Identity
funding to comply w1th mandales fur local TSP's
and Regional TSP (RTsP)
. Eugene conlfnues wort< on Pedestrian and
Bicycle alement 01 TSP update through
Pedestrian and Bicycle Master 'Plan Update In
live 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 unfoid based
upon Mure Board dlrection)
Date Received
Cob..-,lElJgcnclSprifl!!ieldll.an. County , MAR 1 6~ Tl'lInsponatiQil won. PI..
Septembor Il, 2008 , PAGe I of a
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 2 - 66 '
__ _ _. ...__ m......... ... ..__ __.________.._ ____._
MAJOR WORK PLAN MILESTONE
Regional Transportation System Plan (RTSPI
. Continue RTSP framework discussion
. Create denniiion 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 pubijc outreach components
. Identify public outreach schedule relative \0
work schedule
.
EX.H I B IT 0 - P 19
Ongoing Coordinated Local 1\
MPO Plannlng Activities
2035 RTF Update
. Develop Outline of Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) Update content based on federal
regulations and survey of best practIces
. Define relationship to other plans
Sprtngfield, HB 3337 Work:
. Draft Commerclalflnduslrial Lands Iflvenlory
Economio Opportunities Analysis (EOAl &
. Economic Development Strategy presented
. 'Al\ematlve Analysls begins ~ncludes
employment and resldenllallands)
. ",
.: . -', ,,~ .:'. .~:.:>' :;: ::-;':~:'" :. :. -~'. ~ ~ :;'.~: .:' -, '. .:..~ 1~..::::.: ..~. ~ : ,".: :'.:. :.
",.
rt. Ql!arter 2p09 : .. '. ..
PAPA Adoptlon(s)
Appropriate Jurisdictions to amend TransPlan to
achieve RTp.TSP consistency
. Remove completed projects
. Remove WEP
. Move ODOT projects from Illustrative \0
Financially Constrained list for consistency
with November. 2007 RTP projeclllsts
. Adjust plan hori:z;on
Cob..-gll:ugenel$prln&flnldl\.ann County
Sop_"'" e. 2008
PAPA processes:
. . Remove completed projecls-Jequlres co- .
adoption by Lane County, Eugene, and
Springfield
. Remove WEP-RequITes co-adoption by EUlJens
. and Lane County
. Move ODOT projects from Illustrative to
Flnancially Constrained list lor consistency with
November, 2007 RTP project lists-requires
adoption by Eugene and Springfield for their
respective projects Involving lands entirely wltllln
exlsflng city "mils
. Adjust plan horlzon-requlres co-edoptlon by
Lane County, Eugene and Spri!lgfteld
Date Received
MAR 1 6 2009
Reponal Tnm.portatlon Work PI..
PAG'E1 of 8
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 2 - 67
.
.
EXHIBIT 0 - P20
Ongoing Coordinated local &
MAJOR WORK PLAN MILESTONE MPO Planning Activities
Eugene and Springfield Local TSP:s In process
. Eugene work SCope complele and RFP Issue<!
for consultant services
. Stale resources Identified and commllted for TSP
work
. Data caUeatlon
. Existing conditions Inve!\lory
. Policy scan
. Publlo Involvement
. Eugene West 11th Avenue Transportaiion
Corridor Study completed
. West Eugene Collaborative (WEC)
recommendaflons for land use and transportation
in west Eugene finalized
lane County Population Forecasting Work Program In
Process
. Phase 2: PopUlation Forecast Development
Continues
Performance Measures
. Assess existing performance measures In
TransPlan
. Estimate Vehicle Miles Traveled_
(VMTj/capita for 2004, 2015 and 2031
. Confirm vehicle trip reductlon requirements
and determine relatiOnship between RTSP
and TSP's In meeting the requirements
-. UndertaKe additional pertormance meaSure
assessment and reporting at city level
. Complete reporting on TransPlan
benchmarKs for 2005, Includlng qualitative
discussion about nodallmplementalion -
Check..Jn on status of Commercial, lnduslrlal) and
Resldenllal lands Analysis for Eugene and
Springfield
West Eugene Couabora~ve (WEC) recommendations for
land use and 1ransportation In west Eugene fmallzed
RTP update continues
Springfield H B 3337 Work Alternative AnalysIs
completed inclu<ling employment and residential
lands
. Study Area IdenOOcallon
. Agriculhlral sons and Exceptions Areas
. Unbulldable Areas
. Public Facllllles Analysis
. Transportation Analysis
Date Received
CobV!'glEllgeneJSprlng1leldll.ane COMly _ _
Septem~: 8. 2008 ", I ,
MAR 1 6 2009
R~g1onll Tronsportatlon Work Plan
PAGE30fB
ATTACHMEJ;I~IJ~er: BJ
....-...-....--.----....... .-.... ..--.,-.-. .--
e.
EXHIBIT D - P21
Ongoing Coordlnated Local 8.
MAJOR WORK PLAN MILESTONE MPO Planning Activilles
'l!'d Quarter 2009 '. . . . .
..
Peifonnance Measures
. Begin development of Performance
Measure position paper
. Identify potential additional
actions/procedures for successful
performance measure Implementation ,
Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment (CtA) basic
data available
Lane County Population Forecasting Work ?rcjJram In
Process:
. Phase 3: Population Forecast AdopUon Process
Begins
TSP's conUnue In process
Eugene completes policy discussions: Rasor.ParI< &
Walnut Slation Mixed Use Centers, Opportunity
Siting, Infill Standards, South Hms Habit;,! study
RTP update continues
.:{d Quaner 2009 . . ,.... ~ ~..~):.... ;: ~'. :;.' l~~'~:~ ~.~: ::;/~~ ~::.::;;.~. ,: ,:.' ":: :~~.:. :;:~ ~ ,: :".~ ".
. .. . '.~ I' .' ..
. .
PopUlation Forecast Work Complete
. Eugene, Springfield finalize safe haltor numbers
. Lane County 1lnaIIzes and adopts counly-wide
population forecast
. Evaluate Eugene & Springfield population
. forecasts safe harbor numbers relative 10 Lane
County population forecast oulcomEill
Regional Transportatlon System Plan (RTSP)
. Draft RTS? structural and polley framework
based upon elected official discussions and
public input
. Begin developing RTSP polley language
Pubnc Involvement
. Publish transportallon work outcomes to
date for public comment, as appropriate
. Seek pUblic comment on regional .'
transportation framework
Scel)arlo development far Eugene CLA
Preferred alternative chosen for West Eugene EmX
extension
TSPs continue In process
RTP update continues .i
ReceWt:U
Ccbur:dEugoneJSpringn.tdlL.= county
s.p..mber8,1OO8 .
. ,
Date
R 6 OM9 PoeslonalT,...pcrtlUonWorkPbn
.MA 1 LUU' PAGE4018
ATTACHMENT
2 t?linner: BJ
_.._~._._._---_..._----_... .
.
EXHIBITD - P22
MAJOR WORK PLAN MILESTONE
Ongoing Coordlnated Local &
MPO Planning Activities
Springfield HB 3337 Work: Pop~lation and Land
Inventory Analysis Adj~stments
. Coordinated Pop~lation Forecast incorporated
into Springfield Land Inverrtol)' and Needs
Analysis
. AdJ~s1 Land Needs Analysis as needed based
upon new coordinated population foreoast
;rn Quarter 2009
",.
.....
...'....
Performance Measures
. Consider and develop adjustments to
performance and/or implementation
measures to achieve benchmarks
. Consider modified benchmarks and
performance measures for. the extended
planning period.
E~gene CLA completed
. Determinalion of land needs
. Refine scenario development and begm policy
discussion for Implementation
TSPs continue In process
. Target Springfield TSP Final Draft
RTP update oontinues
.1~ Quarter 2010
.:: . ~,. ," ;: :: .~~~: :~',:r:..: ~~";i ~:J ::-: J ~ ~:.':~ ::.': ;':':: '::' . ~ . ....: j. F~".(:' .-..:":
I
Springfield Counell Adopts HB 33;l7Implementation
AoIions either as refinement to existing MetroPJan or
as stand-alone Springfield Comprehensiv.e Plan
. New land invenlories
. New Urban Growth Boundary
. New policies
Lane County co-adopts Springfield Implementation
Measures
Eugene Comprehensi~e PlanITSP;
. Develop wolk program for addressing CLA
determination .
. Refine work program for updating TSP to
ooordinate with comprehensive plan work
program
Janual)' 2010: MPO deadline for new land use
framework for development of 2035 RTP scenarios
Continue di.cussion. and refinement of regional
transportation concepts
Date Received
MAR 1 6 2009
C<>burgJE",",,",SprtngfloldlLan. Collnt)'
Sopumbor a, 2IlO8
Planner: BJ
lIegional T""'portadon Work Plan
PAGE 5 of8 .
ATTACHMENT 2 - 70
__e.__.
.
EXHIBIT 0 - P23
MAJOR WORK PLAN MILESTONE
Ongoing Coordinated Local &
MPO Planning Activities
TSP progress continues
Refine Springlield TSP based on adoption elf HE 3337
Implementation actions
RTP update continues
:I'd Quarter 2010
, . '. . J . ~
"
, "
- ;;.
Eugene Comprehensive PlanrrSP
. FlnaBze work program
. Secure funding
. Develop draft communlty engagement plan
. Proposals soRcbed
Springfield amends Final Draft TSP In confClrmance 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 necessal}'
county TSP amendments
RTP update continues
:r Quarter 2010
.... -,~
"
'. ~~::.... .:.: . .
:~ .~'. ,'! ,: ,:;-
',:..\:. ::.. ".. -
Eugene Comprehensive PlanrrSP
. Department Advlsol}' Committee formed'
. Technical Adlilsory Cominillee formed
. Community' outreaoh slarted, websile created
. Consultants hired
. Record of Decision expected for Wesl Eugene
EmX Extension
RTP updale continues
4" Quarter 2010'" ,
.:..
.' .;.......
"
.. ":'-':4:-<':'-
. .,.".
.', -....
: ''''.,'' '. :'
". .' ...'.' '" ~~ -. .:=:-- ";';;:.~'::-'. ,',.
,
Eugene Comprehensive Planrrsp
. Includes performance measures nec:essary to
comPly with Transportatlcn Planning RUle
. Models created for scenarios
. Scenarios drafted, reviewed by advisory
committees
. Community outreach continues
RTP update continues
1.1 Quarter 2011
Eugene Comprehensive PlanrrSP
. Scenarios reflned
. Transportation options studies
. publications created, websile updated
. community outreach conUnues
January 2011; MPO ~eadUne for lirialland use
framework for 2035 RTP
Cobu'zlEulene1Sprlri&fleldILane County
September a, 2008
Date Receiv9G-""'po11al!on Wori< Plan
" PAGe6of8
MAR 1 6 Z009
ATTACHMENT 2 Planner: BJ
- .....-...-..--..
.
EXHIBIT D - P24
Ongoing CoordInated Local &
MAJOR WORK PLAN MILESTONE MPO Planning Activities
'~d Quarter.20"1.1 . .;_ . -.: - :'..;- . - .;' .' "-~:'.- ;;:~:-:; .~:- :..\-....-:; ~~~.;::~_11;.-;~~:.~.~(~~f~~) \:~.._'--~5.:~..:' .:r.... ;f; - ':-~: ~. . .
Eugene Comprehensive PlanlTSP
. Community Workshop(s)
. Results compiled
Draft 2035 RTP available lot pubilc review
:1" Quarter 2011
Eugene Comprehensive PlanlTSP
. Reports to Planning CommlsslonlCllY Council
. Scenarios rermed, reviewed by advisory
committees
. Community outreach continues
4th Quarter 2011
RTSP
. Polley developed based upon muili-
Jurisdictional elected offlclal direction
. Components drafted far public comment
. Public outreach on RTSP framework
" '.
.....,n
..
..
...."
... -._ "'.{ . 'J, : '.~
..'", ......-
2035 RTP Adopted
2012
'. ," ~. . "" "." ". ""'~,:;':"';:~:;:::.i'...~";~?':r~Y!/~ -(:~:';~::~'~<:\:~~."'~~ ::~:.x:.~:~/. ~":::.';.; ;;:.\ ,..... '_~ "
Eugene Comprehensive PlanITSP
. Oralt comprehensive plan and TSP .avallable for
review
. Community outreach continues
. Planning Comml<;slon Public Healing
. Planning Commission deliberation,
recommendation
. City Councli PUbl1c Healing
. City Council deliberation
. Adoption .
Lane County oo-adopts Eugene Implementation
Measures .
2013
RT5P
.. Take Action to Meet RTSP requirements,
including multl-jurisdictional co-adoption
actions .
. Take action as necessary to eUmlnate
.'.' . TransPllln,lncludlng multi-jurisdictional co-
adoption actions
Cob"'dEugen<!;Sprfngfio1d11.in" C<HlntY
S'pt.mb.r 8, 20Q8 -.
Date Received
MAR 1 6 2009
Rqlonal Tnnsporl.~on Work Plan
PAGE 7 018
A Rl~[t~rt ~~
-... .. .--_... --.-... -..--------------------.......
ACRONYM UST
BLA Buildable Lands Analysis (City of Splingfield)
CLA Comprehensive Lands Assessment (City of Eugene)
EOA Economic Opportunilies Amllysis
HB House Bill (HB 3337)
LCDC Land Conservation and Development Commission
MPO . Metropolitan Planning Organ~aUon .
ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation
PI'J'A Post Acknowledgement Plan Am~,"dment
RFP Request For Proposals
RTP Regional Transportation Plan .
RTSP Regional Transportation System Plan
TSP Transportation System Plan
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
WEC West Eugene Collaborallve
WEP West Eugene Parkway
Ccbur&lEugtl1e1Sprln~eldILane eo'"''Y
September S. 1008
ATTACHMENT' 2 - 73
.
EXHIBIT 0 P25
Date Received
MAR 1 6 2009
Planner: BJ'
R"Iional Tronsperla~on Wo", Pion
, PAGESolS
.
,.:
ATTACHMENT 2 - 74
.
Date Received
MAR 1 6 2009
. Planner: BJ
.
.
LCOG\
LA,"" COUNCl1 O. GOYEJIRJlHRTI t-
~,
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 Organi2:ation 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 poliGY and
planning framework for long-term regional transportation planning and contains the
financially-constrained long-term transpmtation priorities over a twal)ly-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 BicyclelPedestrian project lists, financial forecasts and.pther
elements.
In March 2007, MPC reviewed the draft RTP financially constrained and illustrative
project lists for all of the Oregon Deparnnent of Transportation (ODOn projects
contained in the RTP. At that time, MPC provided input on the ODOT project lists,
which were incorporated into the draft lists and presented again to MPC in April.
At the April 2007 MPC meeting, MPC discussed the RTP's updated 2031 plan hori2:on
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 draft 2031 RTP project lists were presented
for review. This review included a summary of all of the new, changed and deleted
projects since the 2025 RTP. In addition, at the June meeting the RTP \l'\vir2nmMtal . . d
consultation materials were presented for review. . Uale neCelVe
MAR 1 6 'Z009
,",
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 2 - 75
.
.
EXHIBIT E P2
The August 2Q07 MPC meeting included a review of the complete Preliminary Draft
RTP.
The September 2007 MPC meeting presented the Final Draft 2031 RTP and induded 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 (DLCO), and one from Ed Moore, OOOT 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.
The Final Draft RTP included as Exhibit A is unchanged from the Final Draft induded in
the September 2007 MPC packet, with the 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 RTP, have
met all federal requirements and are compliant with the provisions of SAFETEA-LU (the
current go\(eming federal transportation law), and that the Final Draft RTP is thus ready
for adoption.
Specifically, the MPO has demonstrated that the Final Draft RTF>, among other things:
. Establishes a new long range MPO transportation planning horizon of at least 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 'onthe latest available estimates and assumptions for population, land
,.. use, travel, employment, congestion, and economic activity" (U.S. Code of
Federal Regulations: 23 CFR 450.322(e)) Date Received
MAR 1 6 2009
. Page 2 0112
, _ MPC4.b-AdopI2031 RTP
ATTACHMENT 2 - 76
Planner: BJ
.
.
.EXHIBIT E - P3
. '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 Tnballand 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 adoptE!d 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 processElS 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 M PO 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 MPOllocal 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 tocal
regulations, plans, etc. does not mean that the MPO must apply or fulfill those
, regulatlons. 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 thEl 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 DLCO 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 ofthe region's transportation system plan -
TransPlan - as required byTransPlan itself and the Transportation Planning
Rule (fPR). TransPlan and the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) anticipate
Date Receiv d
PagWl.<< 126 2009
("~,
'., . .
MPC 4,li - Adopt 2031 RTP
ATTACHMENT 2 - 77
Planner:
.
.
. EXHIBIT E - P4
. that the process u.sed 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. reaional 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."'(emphasisjn 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 RIP and the Eugene-Springfield-Lane County TSP, the diversity of
jurisdictions and TSPs within the MPO area, and other practical..
considerations such as Oregon 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
Iransportation System Plan (TSP), and does not apply to the federal RTP.
The May 8, 2001 Land Conservation and Development Commission
(LCDC) Order 01-LCDC-024 "Approving Altemative Plan Performance
Measures' states as a conclusion of law that "Based on its review, the
CommisSion approved the alternative "~P~(f~l\}~Cfugene-
MPC 1I.b - Adopt 2031 Rtf' MAR 1 6 2009 Page 4 of 12
ATTACHMENT 2 - 78 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 guidam:e 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
discussion. Further differentiating the two documents Is the fact that since
200112002, the federal RTf' has become a completely separate document
from the local TSPffransPlan.
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) , -'
I
I
i
. 'Virtually identical provisions ofTransPfan and the adopted RTP establish the
performance measures and benchmarks. . . (Chapter 4 Plan Implementation and
Monito~ingr '
While Part Three of Chapter 4 in the Preliminarv Drafl2031 RTP
addressed the TPR AlternativePerformimce MeaSUres, upon direction
received fromMPC at their August, 2007 meeting; Part Three of Chapter 4
was removed from the Fin,!! Drafl2031 RTP. along with Appendices E
and F, which .also <;lddressed the TPR Alternative Performance 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.
MPC 4.b - Adopt 2031 RlP
Date Received
MAR 1 6 2009
Planner: BJ
Page 5 of 12
i
I
,
,
;
ATTACHMENT 2 - 79
.
.
EXHIBIT E P6
. 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'araa's comprehensive long-range land use plan and metropolitan'
development objectives..." (CFR 4,50.322 (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 such 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 instances incorrectly cite the federal code. As noted earlier
in this memo, the current 23 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 hlto:ffecfr.QPoaccess.QovfcqiltltexUtext- .
idx?c=ecfr&sK:l=7f5985b5d2fe301 f3fd5a6f537e6bfb8&mri=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 current
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 not be able to
approve 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 the only formal adopting/approval action on the RTP is taken by the .
MPOfMPC. The RTP is then provided to the state aM tOt the ~s. DOT for information
... .. Ua e Neceived
MPC4.bl~Adopt2031 RTP MAD 6 Page6of12
" " ..' 1\.1 2009 .
ATTACHMENT 2 - 8oPlanner: BJ
.
.
EXHIBIT E - P7
purposes, but there is no further formal f'E!deral action on the RTP itself. However, the
U.S. DOT does have formal approval authority over the AQCO for the RTP, and that
formal FHWA AQCO approval is reqUired to have an RTP in effect.
Specifically, OOOTs proposed disclaimer language states in part:
. 'Certified for Federal Planning 'Pllrposes find 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 01' 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 somEl standing to an RTP when making other land
use decisions. ODOTs 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 iri 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 thatis consistent with and based ,on a legally adopted 20-year hand
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 concern, this makes a blanket statement about how
ODOT will treat all decisions.
Furthertnore, 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 requir~ments in this area as contained in the MPO's adopted Public
Participation Plan (PPP).
MPC 4.b - Adopt 2031 RTP
Date Received
MAR 16 20~~ge 7 of 12
ATTACHMENT 2 - 81
Planner: BJ
.
.
EXHIBIT E - P8
Spedfically, the public participation process for the 2031 update of the RTF has
included all <;If the following elements, exceeding the requirements ofthe 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, 2007)
. 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 poslings 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:llwww.lcoq.orQlmeetinqs/mpcl1007/MPC4b-CoverMemo-
FinaIDrattRTP.odf), an additional response with further information is summarized in the
table on the folloWing page.. .
Date Received
MAR 1 6 Z009
Planner: BJ
MPC 4.b ~ Adopt 2031 RTP
Page 80f12
ATTACHMENT 2 - 82
;:
~
...
c-
'I
~
.g
-
N
0
'" P "I!I &i' n' I. ug~n 9 ,.
~ prDje'l Camgo~fDescrip~on , y. .
~ Pro act 1988 Ma I 2001 (Oe.) 2002 Jul 004 D.i~
Capital Capital
'Z1 Eugene-Sprlngfleld Hwy (SR 126)@ Construct InterchBtlge #308, Levetof #27 Investment #27 Investment 1127 tUuatretlv6
Maln Slreet long range Service: Safety Actions; Beyond Acllllns: B~nd
20 years ;2.Dyeal'6
Capital Capital
30 Eugene-Sprlnglleld Hwy (SR 126) @ Construct Irttefeha~ge #305, level of #30 Investment #30 Investment #30 Illustrative
52nd Street long range Service; Safety Actions: Beyond Actions; Beyond
20 years 20 yeiu~
. North Eugene Transportation Improvl! capacity across 20 year CapRa! Capital
Investment
500 Improvements: River Rd to De:J1a the WlUametter River #GOB Investment #506 Actions: Beyond #506 lDuetratl.a
Hwy within North Eugene Area Actions 20 years
Improve 20 yea' Capital Capital .
333 W. 11th Avenue: Greenhnl Rd to Upgrade to &-Iane urban #320, Access. #333 Investment 1/333 Inveslment #333 Uluslrali..
TerrySI facility long range Safety, Urban AcUons Actions: Beyond
Standards 20 years
.
IDustrallve;
amended to
1003 1-5@CllyofCoburg(pha..l) Inrerchange Improvements. #1 Medium Range #1003 FlnonclaUy
ConstraIned
Au '05
)>
--l
--l
)>
C')
:I:
;::
m
Z
--l
N
I
00
(.oJ
"'II
~
-'"
Dh.
::J~
:::s
CD
..,
. .
OJ
(,.,.,.---
m
><
:I:
s
;b
'^'
-
.,.,
.....,
=
=
'"'"
C
5>>.
"'*,
CO
~
<f
CD
Q,
-
al
--l
m
I.
-0
CO
.
.
EXHIBIT E - P10
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 Capilallnvestment Actions' (now referred to as the financially constrained
project list) and ~Capilallnvestment 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) (vim 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 adopt the 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 obllgate federal
funds could be greatly diminished if you do not have a SAFETEA-LU
compliant planning process and products (Plan and TIP) In place.
"the area suspects that you will not have a SAFETEA-LU compliant
plan and TIP in place when the 2008-2011 STIP 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)
ATTACHMENT
Date Received
MAR 1 6 2009
Planner" BJ
2 - 84 "
. Page 10 of 12
MPC 4.b-Adopt2031 RTP
.
.
EXHIBIT E - P11
. Based on this FHWA language, and extE!nsive 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 Dee 13, 2008.
2. The issue of the mismatch between the state air quality confonnity cycle and the
federal cycle has not been resolved by U.S. DOT. Untirconfinned otherwise,
MPO staff strongly recommends recOgnizing the state cycle, requiring conformity
. by December 13, 2007. Without confirmation to the contrary, ignoring the state
confonnity rule requirement could lead to litigation.
3. A conformity detennination 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 Dee 13,
2008. .
4. Since the 2025 RTP is not SAFETEA-LU compliant, an AQCD can not be made
on th.is plan. A new SAFETEA-LlJ compliant plan is required.
5. Ifthe 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 nolact until a requl~t 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 MTI? (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 consistentwith the
2025 RTP due to the SAFETl:A-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.
1 Q. This approval is fully expected by 2 December. At that time, the 2006-2009 STlP
and the 2006-2009 MTIP are no longer in force. FY06-09 MTIP project phases
that have not been authcirized by FHWAlFTA at that time will be affected.
11.Without adoption of the SAFETEA-LU compliant RTP, the SAFETl:A.lU
compliant AQCD, and thus tile ability to include the MPO's FY08-11 MTIP
projects in the FY08-11 STIP, NO projects that are in the current FY06-09 MTlP
. 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 MTI P or the STIP.. Period.
MPC 4.b - Adopt 2031 RTP
, .
Oate IR.~Geif$d
,MAR 1 i6 ~Drm
P':J. ~e~1 of12
; ~annef: w .
ATTACHMENT 2 - 85
.
.
EXHIBIT E - P12
Staff Recommendation
. The MPO's Transportation Planning Committee (fPC) voted 7-1 to recommend
adoption of the 2031 RTP as attached. This vote followed extensive discussion
of ODors 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 ODOT language - the single dissenting vote was cast by ODOT.
Action Requested
. Approve Resolution 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 comment period
Date Received'
MAR 1 6 2009
Planner: BJ
lCOS: 7:WPo\COMM1T1EESWPCIFY08WOV rmMPC4.S-COVERMEMo-AD0PT2OJ1RTP.lJOC last Saved: October 31, 2007
MPC 4.b~- Adopt 2031 RTP Page 12 0112
ATTACHMENT 2 - 86
.
.
EXHIBIT F - Pl
MINUTES
Meti'opClitan Policy Committee
Lane Council of Govermnents-4th Floor Conference Room-99 East Broadway
Eugene, Oregon
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 (Oregon Department of
Transportation), members; Angel Jones (City of Eugene), BiU Van Vactor (Lime County),
Gino Grimaldi (City of Springfield), Stefano Viggiano (Lane Transit District), Don
Schuessler (City of Coburg), ex qfJicio members.
George Kloeppel, Katbi Wiederhold, Susan Payne, Petra Schuetz, Byron Vanderpool, Ann
Mortenson, Jamon Kent (Lane Council ofGovemments); Jeff Scheic1" Ed Moore, Eric
Havig (Oregon Department ofTransportatlon); Greg Mott, Len Goodwin, Tom Boyatt
(City of Springfield), Chris Henry, Kurt Yeiter (City of Eugene), Tom Schwe17. Mary
Archer, Connie Bloom-Williams, Lisa VanWmkle (Lane Transit District); Celia Barry
(Lane County); Dave Jacobson (MPO Citizen Advisory Committee); Terry Connolly, Rob
Zako, Lauri Segel, guests.
WELCOME AND INTRODUCfIONS
Ms. Piercy called the meeting of the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) to order and welcomed
committee members, staff llI1d guests. Those present introduced themselves.
APPROVE OCTOBER 11, 2007, MINUTES
Ms. Ballew, seconded by Mr. Green, moved t~ approve the October II, 2007,
minutes as submitted. The motion passed unanimously, 9:0.
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
Laud Segel, speaking on'behalf of the Goal I Coalition, stated that the Regional TIaDSpCrtation Plan
update did not comply with the State's Transportation Planning Rule regarding a finding of consistency
with the trllIlSportatiOIi system plan (TSP) or triggering an update of the 1SI', She referred to a letter from
the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) as capitulation and said regardless ofwbether ODOT
was complicit with the MPO, sbe was not aware of anything that had changed.
Rob Zako, 1,000 Friends of Oregon, 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 pnblic money being spent without planning. He hoped after the
RTP update was adopted the:MPO would begin planning. .
MINU1ES Metropolitan, Policy Committee
.November 8, 2007
Oar~e Received
Page I
iMiAR 1 i6 m
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 2 - 87
.
.
EXHIBIT F - P2
METROPOLITANPLANNlNG ORGANIZATION (MPO) ISSUES
. Report from the MPO CItizen Advisory C01Dlllittee (CAq
Dave Jacobson, CAC vice chair, noted thet a written report of the CACs November 7 meeting had been
provided, along with a report from the Freight Subcommittee. He said the subcommittee had been formed
in reSponse to recommendatioos in the MPO certification review and provided some recommendations
regarding the composition of an MFa Freight Advisory Committee.
Mr. Sorenson asked if the CAC had been in contact with members of the Goal I Coalition and those who
had signed the petition expressing concern about lack of public involvemeut in the RlP update process.
Mr. Jacobson said the CAC was publishing a guide for citizen involvement in regional transportation
planning, had developed a public participation plan and encouraged members ofthe public to attend
monthly CAC meetings to share their comments and concerns.
Mr. Sorenson asked if the tAc 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 MFC.
Ms. Piercy suggested contacting individuals who had signed the petition and extending an invitation 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 Goall Coalition with additional signatures, a letter from Rob Zako dated October 31,
2007, and a letter from OOOT dated November 6,2007. He said staff had no further comments with
regard to the additional materials and the R TP was unchanged from the version reviewed at the MFCs
October 2007 meeting. He said the Transportation Planning Committee and MPO staff recommended
adoption of the RTP, which was in compliance with all federal gnidelines.
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 in order for the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTlP) to be included in the
State Transportation Improvement Program (8TIP). He said the Federal Highways Administration
(FHW A) would consider a one monlb extension oflbe RTF adoption if the MFO could articulate what
federal procedural steps would be undertaken in thet 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, in accordance with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality requirement, which
prevailed under federailaw; the new AQCD had to be received by federal agencies by December 13,2007,
MINUTES Metropolitan Policy Committee
Date Received
November 8, 20W1R 1 6 2009 Page 2
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 2 - 88
.
.
EXH I B IT 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, Fle.xible 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 commerit 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 to adopt the RTP to protect the status ofMi1P
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 H.e 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 staps. .
In response to",i question from Mr. Sorenson, Mr. Havig explained that ODor had initially requested
additional of disclaimer laIiguage, but tbat waS not acceptable to FHW A; subsequently ODOT detennined
tbat the elristing language in the RTP update was mIfficient 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 resouroes 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 ofadoptlngthe RTP and e'len 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. E'lans agreed with concerns that transportation and land use planning were not integrated, bot it was
necessary to adhere to the process that was currently in place and not jeopardize project fimdiog. He said
addressing those concerns would require a task force to ovemaul all municipal planning proce.sses within
the MPO; in the meantime the RTP and MTIP should move forwatd.
Date HecfJ,l\1'etl
MINUTES Metropolitan Policy Committee
"
November 8, 2007"
M P~.e 3
!\K 1 6 ruQ~
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 2 - 89
.
.
EXHI BIT F - P4
Mr. Green, seconded by Mr. Evans, moved to approve Resolution 2007-09
adopting the Cent:ral Lane Metropolitan P1amring Organization 2007-2031
Regional Transportation Plan.
Mr. Green appreciated the concern about public participation and agreed that it could be improved. He
said the RTP 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 Slate could continue to invest in
regional proj eels. .
Mr. Zelenka also asked for an estimate of the costs associated with the list of planning activities and
deadlines he requested earlier, along with an accounting of how the $100,000 budgeted by LCOO for
public involvement was spent
In response to a question from Mr. Sorenson, Mr. Vanderpool indicated that lhe 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 lhere was no concept of a financially constrained list in state plans. He said the
projects' status was ooly being chaoged at the federal level, not the local level.
Mr. Sorenson questioned why the MPC should take action before it fully understood the implications of
that action. .
Mr. Vanderpool 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 tha meetirig at 12:30 p.rn.
Mr. Leiken remarked that the RTP was a living doc).l1Ilent that established opportunities for lhe 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. Scboick 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 2008-2(}1 i STlP in
November and if the region's MTIP waS not in compliaoce, federal funds would be jeopardized. He
affirmed that ODOT was willing to be a partner with local jurisdictions and assist financially to updafe
TransPlao to better match state and federal planning horizons. He pointed out the planning horizoD.S did
not need to match exactly, but should be closer together than a decade.
Mr. Zelenka asked if updating TraosPlan would require an update to theRTP. Mr. Vanderpool said the
Rll' must be updated at least eve!)' 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 wananted another month and
even then there was no guarantee lbe exterision would be granted.
Mr. Dubick cautioned against missing the opportunity for MTlP projects to be mcluded in the STlp.
l\1INUTES Metropolitan Policy Committee
Date Received
November 8, 2007 Page 4
MAR ] 6 2009 .
ATTACHMENT 2 - 90
Planner: BJ
.
.
EXHIBIT F - P5
Ms. Piercy asked if the State was willing to help with rescurces to assist with an extensive overlJaul of
regional and local planning processes. Mr. Scheick indicated that some fimding 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 tile impact on local
transportation and land use plans.
Mr. Zeleoka stated he would not vote for the motion until the deficiencies had be.:n addressed.
Ms. Piercy said she would vote in favor in order to move tbe process forward, but felt strongly the region
should commit to an examination of the planning processes and pursing the resources necessary to
accomplisb that
. The motion passed, 7:2; Ms. Piercy, Mr. Green, Ms. Ballew, Mr. Leiken, Mr.
Dubiek, Ms. Volta and Mr. Chickering voting in favor; Mr. Zelenka and Mr.
SorenSon voting in oPllosition.
Mr. Green thaoked Ms. Piercy for her affinnative 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 RTF and MTlP. She said
the AQCD was a finding that the RTF and MTIP projects would not cause the established carbon
monoxide standards to be exceeded and was required as part of the RTP 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 bad concluded the RTF and MTIP projects would not result in a violation
oftbe 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. Dubick, moved to approve Resolution 2007-10
adopting the air quality conformity determination for the 2007-2031 Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) and the m008-20l1 Metropolitan Transportation
Improvement Program (MTIP). The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. (Mr.
Chickering was out of the room.)
Oregon MPO C.onsortinm (OMPOC) l..egislatlve Policy Concepts and Objectives
Mr. Vanderpool pointed out there were two versions of the legislative agenda; the first 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 siny)e document
for MPC approval.
Mr. Zelenka 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 fimds.
Date Racei"
MINUTES Metropolitan Policy Committee
November 8, 2007
MA~ 52009
Planner: B
ATTACHMENT 2 - 91
.
.
EXHIBlT F - P6
Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Green, moved to adopt the second version of the
dnUt legislative agenda.
Ms. Ballew expressed concem with the addition of language in an "Overa1l comments" section as not
. necessarily reflecting the priorities of all jurisdictions.
Ms. Piercy said the "Overall comments" section could simply accompany the revised draft as Eugene's
comments 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 the Commuter Solutions 200.5-2010 Strategic Plan. He
said Commuter Solutions was formed in 1995 by Lane Transit District to promote use of alternative
transportation rnodes. }Ie 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 successful in helping residents cope with roadway construction projects. He said Commuter
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 neighborhoods owning and sharing a vehicle. Ms.
Bloom-Williams said staffhad been in discussions with Flexcar and there was the possibility of a pilot
program on the Univernity of Oregon campus, although such a program would become more feasible with
greater density in the community.
Ms. Piercy commended L TD's EmX service for its ease of use. She feit its accessibility, including no fare,
was. an asset to the community and helping to change people's behaviors.
Mr. S~renson, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to encourage Lane Ti~it
District to develop a plan to provide no fare transit services. The motion passed,
'8:0. .
Follow-npand MPO Calendar
ODOT Update
Mr. Scheick distributed a handout entitled ODOT Program Allotment .k(justment. He stated that the OTC
was facing a $140 million shortfall in program funding and considered options for addressing that at its
October 2001 meeting. He said adjustments to eliminate the deficit included reducing the program reserve,'
delaying the remodel ofODOT headquartern and removing $10 million from the 2008-2011 STIP in the
modernization category. He anticipated a decision would be made at the OTC's next meeting.
Mr. Sorenson left the meeting at 1:20 p.II1-
MINUTES Metropolitan Policy Committee
Date Rece\ved
November 8, 2oofAl\\l. 1 6' 2009 Page 6
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 2 - 92
.
.
EXHIBIT F.;... P7
Mr. 8cheick 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 8TIP from Which funds could be removed and ask for
responses from the MPOs; chairs and vice chair.! would then meet with ODOT to develop a:5nal proposal.
He expected to get a proposal out by the end of November. He said MPOs 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 fimding
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, regioDS would be asked to identUY their priorities. He said the
OTC was concerned that the existing infrastructure was not being maintained and had directed ODOr to
take a triage approach to redeploy funds for maintenance, the bridge program and operations.
. Mr. Greeo asked if Senate Bi1I994 had prompted OTC's action. Mr. Scheick said there were several
factors involved in the $140 million shortfall, including lower gas tax revenues than WCJ1l projected, an
increase in the costs of employee benefits and overhead and the distribution of$56 Jnl1lion to the counties
under SB 994.
Mr. Green commented that it would be up to counoes 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 tq go. Mr. Scheick said a regional equity would be
applied to the amoup.t of modernization donars that would be reduced in each region. He said all regions
would have a reduction in their modernizatioD program, hut every county roight 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 LTD's rural service, with the funding to come from a Dew federal grant received from ODOT's
Public Transit Division. . .
The meeting was adjourned at 1:35 p.m.
(Recorded by Lynn Taylor)
MINUTES Metropolitan Policy Committee
Date Received
MAR 1 6 2009
November 8, 20117Plan net; BJ
ATTACHMENT 2 - 93
.
'""
'. ~."
ATTACHMENT 2 - 94
.
Date ReCQived
MAR J 6 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
EXHIBIT G - P1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - SPRlNGFIELD 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:
Amendmenu 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@ 520d Street) to Table la
Financianv Constrained 20- Year Canital Investment Actions Roadwav Proiects List
and deleting these same projects from Table Ib Future Proiects List; corresponding
amendments will be made to the Futurll Roadwav Proiects Man (deletion) and the
Financiallv 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.
Annlicant
The City of Springfield
Criteria of AnProval
Criteria to be used to evaluate a Metro Plan Text Amendment is fOlmd 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 r;devant 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 Renoct. Providinl! Testimonv
Anyone wishing to testii'y 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 Matt, Planning Manager, 225 Fifth Street,
Springfield, OR 97477, or e:rnott(aJ.ci.springfield.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 Receive
MAR 1 6 2009
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 2 - 95
e
.!!ll
ll. '"
<ll
c: '0"
o ....
._ a..
-,.,
ca ..
t:~
0..
Cl.o
Ula:
e..,
ca <ll
.= .5
-l!!
ca-
e ~
i\ _J.
~
11
!
!
!
. .
o 0
.
o_~ ._ ~
-.. :s '"
(; 1: Q.];
~ ~ ~ ~
'" e "' e i
~ ~ ~ I g
-. -..~. E. "
~ -; - -
:gi ~g.~~ j
Li: L1 u.. u 'a {;) '"
i~~ il~ufii~c
~ ~ il
. .00
V'
I .
1 I ':"- I
..( _ L-~--r
....---' -I
.,.-/', .-JI; .
.____- ~: It~: .
.--- ~-
,,"
- 5! ... ~ ;
~ "' t
. . . ~ ~
"".--' "
',;.,r";.-:e;',,~'>""N:f_' . il~
'.i t", ~'""'<""~" .
, . .,' ,.... """"1).,
eceiwed / . '~UT
/' '----. ..,.,-
. -6-Z009 ' L./
~
r
Date
MAR
.-'9)
l[
"'
,~
-'i '
it
'i>' :.
'V ."
.'
Planner: BJ
HIBIT G - P2
;
~
u
~olI'
J
I ".
'J'
ATTACHMENT 2 - 96
.
.
. .
.
.
EXHIBIT H - P1
Oregon
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
Thcod... R KIWmgoski, Govetno,
Greg Mott
City of Springfield
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
~
, January 6, 2009
gmott@ci.springfield.or.us
Submitted via email
Re: Addition of interchange projects to RTSP (TransPlan) fmancially constrained project list
Springfield File LRPZ008-00013
DLeD 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 of regional 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 financially-
constrained plan to accomplish the region's adopted targets for complying with the TPR
Date Rece\ved
MfiR 1 () 2009
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 2 - 97
.
.
EXHIBIT H - P2
If you have any questions., please do not hesitate to contact us at ed.w.moore@state.or.us or
bill.holmstrom@state.or.us.
Sincerely,
&d~
Ed Moore, AICP
DLCD Regional Representative
Jfl1p-
Digitally signed by William A
Holmstrom
Date: 2009.01.06 15:09:04 -08'00'
William A. HoImstrom, AlCP
DLCD Transportation Planner
cc: Bob Cortright, DLCD Transportation Planning Coordinator (via e-mail)
Terry Cole, ODOl' Region 2 Planner (via e-mail)
r,_
ATTACHMENT 2 - 98
Date Received
MAR 1 6 2009
. Planner: BJ
.
.
EXHIBIT H - P3
I),'
.. .
. .
. .
. ..
. .
'-. ,.'
'. ..
."
-Oregon
.oregon Department of Transportation
Region 2, Area 5
644 '.A. Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Telephone: (541) 747-1354
FAX: (541) 744-8080
Theodore R. Kulongoslci. Governor
January 20, 2009
E-mail: Savannah.Crawford@odotstate.or.us
Greg Mort, Planning Manager
City of Springfleld
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
,.
Re: 0R126 Expressway Management Plan - Phase 3
Dear Mr. Mott,
Since 2001, the Oregon Department'ofTransportation (ODOT) has been developing an Expressway Management
Plan (EMP) for the OR126 Expressway. Divided in four phases, this planning effort is in Phase 3 to develop
. Interchange Area Management Plans (lAMP) for the ilitersections of OR126152.d Street and ORl26IMain Street.
Backt!round
Completed in 1004, Phase I developed the OR126 Existing and Future No-Build Conditions Report. This report
identified the need for further planning study within the el!:pressway corridor. In 2007, Phase 2 completed .
analysis for the 42.d Street interchange, ORI26/52ol Streetintersecrion, and the ORI261Main Street intersection.
The report identified numerous deficiencies at these locations and recommended that planning studies, called
lAMPs, be develaped for the interchanges and intersections within the corridor.
EMP Phase 3 Analvsis Results - ~istinl! alld Future No--Build Conditions
Past and recent analysis identifies safety, geometric, and mobility deficiencies at the OR126/52'. street and
ORl26JM:ain Street mtersectians. Phase 3 existing and future no-build analysis illustrates the following:
· Traffic Volumes - In 2008, both intersections either exceed, or are close to exceeding, ODOrs mobility
standards. The 2031 no-build future analysis indicates intersection failure (vie ratio> l.0) by 2031.
. High Crash Rate - Currently, these intersections have a high crash rate due to high traffic volumes, high
speeds, and geometric deficiencies. OR126152'd Street has a significant number of rear-end collisions.
Tbe 2008 Safety Priority Indel!: System (SPIS) lists the ORl26lMain Street in the 10" percentile ofSPIS
sites, making it among the top priorities for safety conCetns 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.
As a result of this analysis, we identify a need for the ongoing ORI26 El!:pressway Management Plan and
anticipate completion of Phase 3 by fan 2009/winter 2010. . Date Received
MAR 1 6 2009
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 2 - 99
I
I
g
Ii
f
i
!
I
,
I
I '
. .
I
I :
II
1
I
I
i
,
I
I
I
!
I
I
,
i
I
I
i
.
.
..
January 20,2008 OR!26 Expressway Management Plan - Pbase 3
EXHIBIT H - P4
Page 2
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to lXlotact me at 541-747-1354.
. Thank you. .
~~Q
Savannah Crawford
ODOT Area 5 Planner
Cc Erik Havig, ODOT Region 2 Planning Manager
Terry Cole, ODOT Principal Planner .
Tom Boyatt, Springfield Transportation Manager
. Date Receive
MAR 1 6 2009
Planner: B
ATTACHMENT 2 -100
,
.
.
. "
.
BEFORE TIlE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF TIlE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
"REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF THE ]
EUGENE-SPRINGFIEID METROPOLITAN ]
AREA GENERAL PLAN AND TRANSPLAN, ]
ADDING PROmCT 1f27 AND #30 TO TABLE la ]
FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINED 20- YEAR ]
CAPITAL INVESTEMENT ACTIONS AND TO ]
MAP FINANCIALLY-CONSTRAINED ROADWAY]
PROmCTS IN APPENDIX A; AND REMOVING ]
THESE SAME PROJECTS FROM TABLE Ib AND ]
MAP FUTIJRE ROADWAY PROmcTS FROM ]
APPENDIX A
File LRP 200S.()()013
RECOMMENDATION
TO THE SPRINGFIELD
CITY COUNCIL
I
i
I
NATURE OF THEAPPUCATION
This proposal moves two transportation i'aci1ities improvement projects from lbe future list to lbe financially
constrained list in lbe Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and !be Metropo1itan Area
Tnmsportation System Plan (TransPlan). These amendments are consistent with !be same amendments
adopted into lbe Regional Tnmsportation Plan (RTP) in NoveIl1ber, 2007. Oregon Administrative RnIe
(OAR) 66()"() 12'()()1 6(2) requires consistency between lbese plans:
/
,
"When an MPO adapts or amends a regional transportation pllm that relates" to compliance with this
division, the affected local governments shall review the adopted plan or amendment and either: (a) Make
afinding that the proposed regional transportation plan amendment or update is consistent with the
applicable provisions of adopted regional and local transportation flJ'stem plan and comprehensive plan
and compliant with applicable provisions of this division; or (b) Adapt amendments to the relevant .
regional or local transportation flJ'stem plans cansistent with one another and compliant with applicable
provisions of this division. .. "
The commitment to achieve this required consistency was affirmed, respectively, on September IS, 200S by
lbe joint elected officials of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County; and on October 16, 200S by 1Iie Land
Conservation and Deveiopment Cnmmk.inn when bolb groups approved lbe TransPlan update worl<:
program which specifically identifies lbese projects for inclusion on !be financially constrained list in
TransPlan and lbe Metro Plan. "
1. The application was initiated by lbe Springfield City Council on October 6, 200S.
2. Notice of this proposed action was sent to lbe Depar1ment of Land Conservation and
Development on October IS, 200S in accordance with lbe provisions ofORS 197.610.
3. Timely and sufficient notice oflbe public hearing, puimnmt to Chapter 5, Section 5.2-115 oflbe
Springfield Development Code, has been provided.
4. On Fcbruary 3, 2009 lbe Springfield Planning Commission held a public hearing accepting
testimony and evidence on these proposed llIDenrlmenu. to lbe Metro Plan and TransPlan (File LRP 2008-
00013). At lbe conclusion of this meeting, lbe Springfield P1anning Commission forwarded a "
recommendation of approval to lbe Springfield City CounciL The staff notes and recommendation of !be
Development Services Depar1ment stan; together with !be testimony and submittals entered into !be record
of this hearing by staff from lbe Land Conservation and Development Depar1ment and !be Oregon "
Depar1ment of Transportation have been considered and are part oflbe record of this proceeding.
Date Received
MAR J 6 Z009
ATTACHMENT 3 - 1
Planner; BJ
.
.
CONCLUSION
On 1he basis of all the evidence included in this n:conl, the proposed amendment application, File Uu>
2008-00013 is cnnsistent with the criteria of Chapter 5, Section 5.14-135 of1he Springfield Development
Code. This general finding is supported by 1he specific findings of fact and conclusions in 1he """r.h"<l staff
report
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission heieby recommeods the City Council approve and adopt File LRP 2008-00013
amending the Metro Plan and TransPlan by placing Project #27 - Oregon 126 at Main Street and Project
#30 - Oregon 126 at 52" Street onto Table la the Financially Constrained 20-Year Capil;ll Jnwstment
. Actions list and onto 1he financially Constrained Roadway Projects Map found in Appendix A; and remove
these same two projects from Table Ib the Future Capital Investment Actions Roadway Projects and from
the Map found in Appendix A.
on ChaiIperson
P
A'ITEST:
/
,
AYES: '1
NAYS: 0
. ABSENT: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
Date Received
MAR 1 6 Z009
ATTACHMENT 3 -.2
Planner: BJ