HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01 LTD Alternatives Analysis, Main Street and McVay Highway Corridors AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 6/25/2012
Meeting Type:Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Tom Boyatt, DPW
Staff Phone No: 541-744-3373
Estimated Time: 45 Minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D
C I T Y C O U N C I L
Council Goals: Maintain and Improve
Infrastructure and
Facilities
ITEM TITLE: LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT (LTD) ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS, MAIN
STREET AND MCVAY HIGHWAY CORRIDORS
ACTION
REQUESTED:
None. The work session provides Council an opportunity to learn more about the
project and to discuss with LTD the desired project outcomes, and the oversight and
governance process for the Project. A follow up meeting between Council and
LTD is set for work session on July 9, 2012.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
The Lane Transit District has been awarded $750,000 by the Federal Transit
Administration to complete an Alternatives Analysis for improving transit services
in the Main Street (OR 126B) and McVay Highway corridors. Both of these
corridors are currently State highways within the Springfield urban growth
boundary, and a successful outcome will require strong collaboration between the
City and LTD.
ATTACHMENTS: 1.Study Corridor Project Area
2.Overview of Alternatives Analysis Process
3.Discussion Topics
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IPACT:
The City and LTD have partnered successfully on two bus rapid transit projects in
Springfield: the downtown to downtown EmX project which included the
construction of the Springfield Station, and the Gateway EmX line. Experience on
these projects has shown that a successful outcome is greatly enhanced by
identifying key values and priorities for each agency regarding the project, and by
reaching agreement early about how the two agencies will interact during the
project. This work session is an opportunity for Council to share its thinking about
what will be important for the City during the Alternatives Analysis. Attachment 3
to the AIS is a list of issues potentially of interest to the Council for the
conversation with LTD. The list is by no means inclusive, and is provided as a
starting point to stimulate thinking about how to proceed with the project.
As noted above, this is the first of two work sessions in a two week period. City
and LTD staff expects that this first work session is an opportunity for Council to
provide input to LTD on the project. At the July 9th work session it is anticipated
that LTD will provide information and recommendations in response to Council
input.
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 1
Attachment 2
Page 1 of 1
Overview of Alternatives Analysis Process
(Note – this summary is drawn from FTA’s Fact Sheet describing the Alternatives Analysis Process)
The Alternatives Analysis (AA) process is intended by FTA to be the local forum for
evaluating the costs, benefits, and impacts of a range of transportation alternatives
designed to address mobility problems and other locally-identified objectives in a
defined transportation corridor, and for determining which particular investment strategy
should be advanced for more focused study and development.
At its core, alternatives analysis is about providing the public, local officials, and
potential funding partners with sufficient information for the decision-at-hand: that is,
“What is the best solution for addressing our problems? What are its benefits? How
much is it going to cost? And how are we going to pay for it?”
Typical Alternatives Analysis Process Flow:
1. Alternatives analysis begins with a solid understanding of the transportation
problems in need of solving – that is, a corridor’s purpose and need.
2. Once the purpose and need is known, work is done (by staff, public, and decision
makers) to identify and design a number of alternatives that meet the purpose
and need.
3. The definition of these alternatives should reflect a range of high and low cost
capital improvements, including non-guideway options which can serve as a
“baseline” for measuring the merits of higher level investments.
4. Measures for evaluating the relative merits of alternatives are identified, as are
technical methodologies for generating the information used to support such
measures; these will typically include disciplines such as travel forecasting,
capital and operations and maintenance costing and environmental and land use
analyses.
5. Finally, costs, benefits, and impacts of each alternative are developed and
evaluated, funding strategies are analyzed, and a locally preferred alternative
(LPA) is selected (a joint process by the Springfield city council, LTD board, and
MPC) to be advanced for further development.
Discussion Topics
LTD Alternatives Analysis Project, Main Street and McVay Highway
The following are potential issues Council may wish to discuss with LTD:
• How to insure an open and transparent project process
)
o How to communicate consistently with business and property owners
o Methods for public involvement and how to involve the larger community
• Methods for project oversight and Council involvement
o Ideas for how to structure project oversight and management
o Council representation on project team(s
o How to process key project decisions, e.g. trade‐offs between service improvements
concepts and potential impacts to the built environment
• The City’s values for both the process and the outcomes
o Treat stakeholders fairly and with respect
o Minimize impacts to existing businesses
o Access management strategy
• How to assure transit objectives coordinate with broader City goals, such as economic
development and planned redevelopment, in the study corridor
o Integration with comprehensive land use planning
o Coordination with current zoning and permitting regulations
o Coordination with ODOT
• Avoiding preconceived solutions on the front end
o Not starting with lines already on a map
o Remaining open to creative and flexible solutions
• Insuring a clear understanding of the different types of service
o Understandable communications about project pros, cons and trade‐offs
• Reimbursement for City staff time during the project
Attachment 3
Page 1 of 1