MEETING NOTICE
MEETING: METROPOLITAN POLICY COMMITTEE DATE: Thursday, February 4, 2016 TIME: 11:30 AM - 1:30 PM LOCATION: Springfield City Hall, Library Meeting Room 225 Fifth Street (directions on back) CONTACT PERSON: Paul Thompson, 541-682-4405
A G E N D A
1. WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS 2. CALL TO ORDER 3. APPROVE DECEMBER 3RD MEETING MINUTES 4. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA/ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM MPC MEMBERS 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (Anyone wishing to comment is asked to sign up on the public comment sheet provided at the meeting. A limit of 3 minutes per person is requested.) 6. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2016; APPOINT OMPOC MEMBERS (10 mins) Staff Contact & Presenter: Brenda Wilson, LCOG Action Requested: Election of MPC officers. Appointment of Oregon MPO Consortium members. 7. METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) ISSUES a. ODOT Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (40 mins) Staff Contact: Paul Thompson, LCOG Presenters: Savannah Crawford, ODOT; Rob Inerfeld, Eugene Action Requested: Presentation and overview of draft ODOT Plan. Overview of staff recommendations for potential comments on draft Plan. Provide feedback to ODOT on draft Plan. b. Amendment to Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) (10 mins) Staff Contact & Presenter: Paul Thompson, LCOG Action Requested: Conduct public hearing. Provide feedback and direction to staff. c. Programming MPO STP-U Funds for Main St./McVay Outreach (15 mins) Staff Contact: Paul Thompson, LCOG Presenters: Paul Thompson, LCOG; Tom Schwetz, Lane Transit District -OVER- Location is wheelchair accessible (WCA). American Sign Language (ASL) interpretation is available with 48 hours notice. LCOG Main Office: 859 Willamette Street, Suite 500, Eugene, Oregon 97401-2910 Phone: (541) 682-4283 • Fax: (541) 682-4099 • TTY: (541) 682-4567 • Web: www.lcog.org Action Requested: Conduct public hearing. Approve Resolution 2016-01, programming funds. d. Lane Regional Safety Plan Update (20 mins) Staff Contact: Paul Thompson, LCOG Presenter: Josh Roll, LCOG Action Requested: None. Information only. Follow-up and Next Steps (15 mins) 1) ODOT Update (including STIP Non-Highway Enhance; FAST Act; Governor’s Transportation Vision Panel) 2) Legislative Update 3) Springfield Main Street Safety Update 4) Rail Update 5) LaneACT Update 6) OMPOC Update 7) Next Steps/Agenda Build
2016 MEETINGS: March 3, 2016 – Springfield City Hall Library Meeting Room April 7, 2016 – Springfield City Hall Library Meeting Room May 5, 2016 – Eugene Library Bascom Tykeson Room June 2, 2016 – Springfield City Hall Library Meeting Room July 7, 2016 – Coburg City Hall Council Chambers August 4, 2016 – Springfield City Hall Library Meeting Room September 1, 2016 – Eugene Library Bascom Tykeson Room October 6, 2016 – Springfield City Hall Library Meeting Room November 3, 2016 – Eugene Library Bascom Tykeson Room December 1, 2016 – Springfield City Hall Library Meeting Room
SPRINGFIELD LIBRARY MEETING ROOM The Library Meeting Room is located adjacent to the Library inside City Hall on the second floor. If you enter City Hall at Fifth and A, you will enter by the Library. Continue past the Library entrance. Turn right just past the Library and you will be looking at the Library Meeting Room. If you enter from the East Entrance, go through the lobby. The Library Meeting Room is off to the left before you reach the Library. Bus: Take the bus to the LTD Springfield Station. From there walk east to 5th Street, then north approximately 2 blocks to City Hall. Bicycles: There are bicycle racks close to the front entrance of City Hall. Parking: There is free two hour parking beneath City Hall, next to the Museum at Sixth and Main. There is also free two hour parking along Main Street and most streets surrounding City Hall.
PLEASE NOTE: LCOG is now posting meetings on its website at http://www.lcog.org/346/Metropolitan-Policy-Committee. These postings will include the agenda, minutes and attachments. If you no longer want to receive your meeting announcement in paper format, please contact David Phillips, 541-682-6295 or [email protected]. This meeting will be broadcast live, and rebroadcast on Metro Television, Comcast cable channel 21, at 1:30 PM on Mondays, 7:00 PM on Tuesdays, and 11:00 AM on Sundays for the rest of the month. A webcast will also be archived for future viewing on the LCOG website. Get details through links at http://www.lcog.org/346/Metropolitan-Policy-Committee.
LCOG: T:\MPO\Committees\MPC\FY16\February 16\MPC_Agenda_20160204.doc Last Saved: January 28, 2016
M I N U T E S
Metropolitan Policy Committee Springfield City Hall—Library Meeting Room—225 Fifth Street Springfield, Oregon
December 3, 2015 11:30 a.m.
PRESENT: Pat Farr, Chair (Lane County), Christine Lundberg (City of Springfield), Kitty Piercy, Alan Zelenka (City of Eugene); Jerry Behney (City of Coburg), Frannie Brindle (Oregon Department of Transportation), Gary Wildish, Gary Gillespie (Lane Transportation District); members; Becky Taylor for Steve Mokrohisky (Lane County), Gino Grimaldi (City of Springfield), Rob Inerfeld for Jon Ruiz (City of Eugene), AJ Jackson (Lane Transit District); Petra Schuetz (City of Coburg); ex officio members.
Paul Thompson, David Phillips, Ellen Currier (Lane Council of Governments); Sasha Luftig, Theresa Brand, Tom Schwetz (Lane Transit District); Jeff Kernen (City of Coburg); Chris Henry, Zach Galloway (City of Eugene), Tom Boyatt, Emma Watson (City of Springfield); David Reesor (Oregon Department of Transportation); Rob Zako (Better Eugene-Springfield Transit); Carleen Riley (River Road), guests.
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Mr. Farr welcomed everyone to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) meeting and those present introduced themselves.
Mr. Wildish introduced new LTD General Manager AJ Jackson. Ms. Jackson spoke briefly about her background and her interest in collaboration with other agencies and jurisdictions in the region.
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Farr called the meeting to order.
ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA/ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM MPC MEMBERS
Ms. Lundberg said she would need to leave the meeting early and wanted to comment on MovingAhead. She said prior to the MovingAhead initiative Springfield was working on a Main Street corridor and she was concerned that Main Street now would be lumped into the MovingAhead corridors and perhaps be displaced for funding consideration when it had already been approved by the Springfield City Council and significant planning work had already been done in conjunction with other Springfield initiatives along the route. She hoped it would be considered independently.
Mr. Thompson announced that Ellen Currier, who had been working for Lane Transit District (LTD), had recently joined the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) staff.
Ms. Brindle said in addition to her position as Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Area 5 Manager in Lane County she was also taking on management of Area 4, which included Linn, Benton, and Lincoln counties.
MINUTES—Metropolitan Policy Committee December 3, 2015 Page 1
Mr. Farr thanked Ms. Brindle for being part of the Build a Better Bethel project.
APPROVE OCTOBER 1, 2015, MEETING MINUTES
Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Wildish, moved to approve the October 1, 2015, minutes as submitted. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Rob Zako, Better Eugene-Springfield Transit (BEST), commended the City of Eugene for adopting Vision Zero as a goal to eliminate traffic fatalities. He cited the number of annual traffic fatalities locally, statewide, nationally and worldwide and asked if that was acceptable or should the goal be zero deaths, even if th at was not obtainable. He said that meant zero fatalities, regardless of the transportation mode, because all lives mattered. He said human error could not be eliminated, but engineering could remove many safety problems from the transportation system, along with education and enforcement.
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) ISSUES
ODOT Enhance Non-Highway Funding Priorities
Mr. Thompson said the agenda packet contained applications for ODOT's Enhance Non -Highway funding process received from jurisdictions within the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) boundary and outside of the MPO boundary, but within Lane County. He noted that in his cover memorandum the term "Area 2" should be "Region 2." He said the applications were for non-highway multi-modal projects, four of which were from within the MPO boundary. He asked the MPC to formally determine the priority of those projects to the 150 percent funding level. He said the LaneACT (Area Commission on Transportation) protocols established with the MPO required that the order of those four projects remain the same during the ACT's prioritization of all projects. He also asked for direction from the MPC on how all of the applications should be prioritized so he could reflect those preferences as the MPO representative to the ACT, although that direction would not be binding. He said the intent was to coordinate priorities with the ACT and among a collection of jurisdictions.
Mr. Thompson distributed a handout showing MPO and ACT projects, includin g some updated funding requests and staff recommendations for priority ranking of MPO projects and ranking of all projects (MPO and non-MPO). He noted that Lane County's Territorial Complete Design project had been withdrawn because discussions with ODOT had determined that it would be submitted for funding through the ODOT Leverage funding process.
Ms. Brindle explained that the improvements proposed for Territorial Highway would also entail fixing the entire highway, which made it ineligible for the Non-Highway Enhance funding and suitable for the Leverage programs. She said the project would go through the same prioritization process with local input, although the funding decision would be made by ODOT. She felt the project had a good chance of being fun ded.
Mr. Thompson said a rough guide for the Area 5 (Lane County) 150 percent funding target was $3.4-4.8 million, based on past experience, and the total request for the six remaining projects was $4.85 million. He said Springfield's Moe Mountain project was the largest funding request and recent discussions among staff had resulted in a recommendation to move it from the 3rd MPO priority to the 4th MPO priority.
MINUTES—Metropolitan Policy Committee December 3, 2015 Page 2
Mr. Boyatt further explained that reversing the priority position of the Moe Mountain project with that of Eugene's River to Ridges project made sense from several positions. The funding request of the Eugene project conformed better to the funding available, even at 150 percent, than Moe Mountain and the Moe Mountain project was behind Rivers to Ridges in terms of project development, making the Eugene project more likely to be successful within the timeframe. He said Springfield was also appreciative of the MPC's support of the Franklin Boulevard project's funding during the last funding process .
Ms. Lundberg concurred with the switch of priority positions between the Moe Mountain and Rivers to Ridges projects. She was pleased with the prospect of funding through another source for the Territorial Highway project.
Mr. Thompson summarized the modified priority recommendations and asked that a public hearing be held on the proposed MPO priorities:
Project MPO Priority ACT Priority Eugene: Roosevelt Path 1 1 Springfield: Filling the Gaps 2 2 Florence: US 101 Multi-Modal Improvements 3 Veneta: Veneta-Elmira Multi-Use Pathway 4 Eugene: Rivers to Ridges Bikeway 3 5 Springfield: Moe Mountain Path 4 6
Mr. Farr opened the public hearing on prioritization of MPO Non-Highway Enhance projects. He determined there was no one wishing to speak and closed the hearing.
Ms. Piercy, seconded by Ms. Lundberg, moved to accept the modified priority of MPO projects for Non-Highway Enhance funding. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Mr. Farr called for discussion of prioritization of all projects to be considered by the LaneACT.
Mr. Thompson said the Florence and Veneta projects were strong and had been well received by the ACT during the pre-proposal presentations. He said those projects were important to the jurisdictions and fit the Non-Highway Enhance criteria well.
Ms. Brindle conveyed concern from LaneACT members about the MPO prioritizing non -MPO projects, which they felt was within the ACT's purview alone. She noted that MPO jurisdictions were well represented on the LaneACT and the MPC's direction on project priority was advisory in nature. She said it was important to be sensitive to rural interests.
Ms. Piercy observed that the intent of establishing an ACT was to give everyone a seat at the table and an equal voice in the conversation about what was best for the region as a whole. She felt it was created to help get past jurisdictional competitiveness and division between rural and urban interests.
Mr. Farr concurred that the intent of the ACT was to level the playing field in distribution of resources.
Mr. Behney thanked Mr. Thompson, Ms. Piercy and Ms. Brindle for their comments. As an ACT member he also had some concerns about the MPO's prioritization of projects and appreciated the discussion and the MPC's support of the ACT.
MINUTES—Metropolitan Policy Committee December 3, 2015 Page 3
Mr. Inerfeld suggested that rather than giving formal direction to Mr. Thompson on prioritization of ACT projects, the MPC could provide input on the modified priorities to help inform his actions as an ACT member.
Mr. Farr determined there were no objections to the suggestion. Mr. Thompson stressed that while the MPC's guidance was not binding on him, he did not want to fulfill his role as the MPO's ACT representative in a vacuum and wished to take staff and MPC members' opinions into consideration.
Ms. Lundberg noted the ACT was a large body composed of many different interests and commended its effectiveness. She agreed that MPC feedback to Mr. Thompson was important. She felt that readiness was an important factor in project prioritization.
Mr. Thompson said the Florence project had scored very well during the pre-proposal process as it was a follow-up to work already done by ODOT on that section of US Highway 101 and its readiness helped in its high ranking.
Mr. Gillespie said that LTD was supportive of the Florence project.
Mr. Wildish supported the modified staff recommendations for project prioritization.
Mr. Farr asked for a moment of reflection on the shooting at the Umpqua Community College campus that occurred during the MPC's last meeting.
Mr. Farr changed the order of the agenda to take up the MovingAhead update prior to Ms. Lundberg's departure. There were no objections.
MovingAhead Update
Mr. Galloway distributed two documents entitled MovingAhead update #2, December 3, 2015 and Project Phases: November 2015. He reminded the committee that MovingAhead was a collaborative effort by the cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane Transit District (LTD) to integrate land use and transportation, specifically transit investments, by building on past planning efforts. He said transit improvements were only one aspect of expectations for corridors and neighborhood centers; a multi-modal approach would also address bicycle and pedestrian improvements that supported transit. He said the intent was also to assure that land use supported transit investments.
Mr. Galloway said the Level 1 screening process had been completed and described the extensive public outreach that resulted in the selection of corridors that move to Level 2 for a more detailed evaluation.
Ms. Luftig said the following corridors were examined during Level 1:
Highway 99 River Road Coburg Road 30th Avenue/Lane Community College (LCC) Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard Valley River Center
Ms. Luftig said a range of transit investments, along with investments for bicycle and pedestrians, were studied for each corridor. The transit investment options being considered were No Build (traditional fixed route service), Enhanced Corridor (combination of investments in transit infrastructure and service frequency)
MINUTES—Metropolitan Policy Committee December 3, 2015 Page 4 and EmX (comprehensive bus rapid transit). She said the Eugene City Council and LTD Board had both approved the recommendations of stakeholders and the project's Governance Team to advance specific corridors and associated options to the Level 2 screening process. She said the project also took a coordinated approach to determining the region's long-term system needs in terms of connectivity and linking service to the corridors. Service needs under consideration were the 2021 track and field championships, airport service, increased frequency on other routes, linking neighborhood service to the main corridors and increased east-west connectivity. She reviewed the Level 1 screening process summary table set forth in the agenda packet.
Mr. Henry said the project team attended many community events over the spring and summer and engaged about 600 people in conversations about transportation improvements. Public input indicated a preference for considering EmX or Enhanced Corridor solutions on corridors, along with the need to improve safety for people walking, biking and using mobility devices. The Level 2 process would analyze the environmental footprint of each corridor, how it functioned from a transportation and traffic operations perspective and refinement of corridor concepts. He said those corridors approved for further study at Level 2 were:
River Road - EmX and Enhanced Corridor Coburg Road - EmX and Enhanced Corridor Highway 99 - EmX and Enhance Corridor 30th Avenue/LCC - EmX and Enhanced Corridor Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard - Enhanced Corridor
Ms. Luftig said the timeline of project phases distributed at the beginning of the presentation indicated a locally preferred alternative decision would not be made until around November of 2016, after a similar decision was made for the Main Street-McVay Transit Study. Mr. Schwetz added that LTD would be considering Main Street for its next investment prospect, but it was beneficial to move forward planning for all co rridors in order to take advantage of future funding opportunities.
Ms. Lundberg commented that the City of Springfield had not participated in MovingAhead because it was primarily a Eugene/LTD project and the Springfield City Council had already voted to move forward with the Main Street-McVay project. She said staff resources were focused on the Main-McVay Transit Study, and several other transportation projects related to the lengthy Main Street corridor. She was concerned about the Main-McVay corridor being displaced for consideration by one of the MovingAhead corridors as the City had already done a significant amount of work on Main-McVay. She was pleased to hear that Main-McVay would be considered for LTD's next corridor.
Mr. Zelenka asked if funding agencies gave priority to projects that enhanced an existing successful system over new systems that were being developed. Mr. Schwetz said that applications for projects that enhanced existing systems were more competitive because they created a system-level benefit that would not exist for projects where a system was not already in place. He said LTD's past experience in delivering those types of projects would also make its applications more competitive. He said the new federal transportation authorization contained funding in the Small Starts program for these projects.
Ms. Piercy asked if LTD was engaged in discussions about connections between transit and rail and enhanced capacity in anticipation of the 2021 games. She volunteered to participate and assist with those discussions. Ms. Luftig said LTD viewed 2021 as a major opportunity for implementing transit projects identified through the Main-McVay and MovingAhead transit studies. Ms. Jackson added that staff had been briefing her on a myriad of projects and preparations for 2021. She was aware it would take close coordination among many entities to have a successful event.
MINUTES—Metropolitan Policy Committee December 3, 2015 Page 5
Mr. Gillespie commented that the intent of MovingAhead was to streamline the planning and project implementation process to address Federal Transit Administration concerns about the length of time it took to develop and deliver a corridor.
Ms. Piercy said it might be necessary for local entities to initiate the conversation about opportunities for rail/transit connections and the value the 2021 games could bring to the state as a whole.
Ms. Lundberg agreed with Ms. Piercy. She said it would be helpful to develop a list of talking points about improved rail/transit connection were important as the general perception was that peo ple would just stay in Portland area hotels and not locally. She said other countries were far ahead of the United States in delivery of passenger rail service.
Ms. Lundberg left the meeting at 12:45 p.m.
Governor's Transportation Vision Panel Regional Forum
Mr. Thompson announced that the Governor's Transportation Vision Panel was holding a Lane County Regional Forum in Eugene on January 13, 2016. He said the panel was close to completing its set of draft recommendations and would be inviting the LaneACT, the MPO, local elected officials, and legislators to participate. He said MPC members would be receiving their invitations shortly.
Follow-up and Next Steps
ODOT Update—There was no additional information.
Legislative Update—Mr. Thompson said that federal transportation authorization legislation would likely be passed by the end of the week. The authorization would be a five-year bill and largely continued and preserved those programs important to the MPO. He said there would be a slight increase in some program funds, but there were no new funding strategies. He provided some estimates of funding amounts.
Springfield Main Street Safety Update—Mr. Reesor said ODOT met with City of Springfield staff to discuss the All Road Transportation Safety (ARTS) program as there were potential ARTS projects associated with safety improvements along the Main Street corridor. He said ODOT and city staff scoped projects in the field and they would become part of the 150 percent funding list. ODOT would then work with local jurisdictions to develop a draft 100 percent list for presentation to the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) in June 2016.
Mr. Grimaldi commented that motorists along Main Street seemed to be paying better attention to the rules with fewer speeding violations.
Mr. Zelenka asked if data was available on the effectiveness of the new strips around signal lights. Mr. Reesor said they had been recently installed so limited data was available, but they made the light much more visible. Mr. Henry added that the strips were a proven safety counter measure that reduced red light running. He said the City of Eugene was installing them as part of an ARTS project on 18th Avenue.
Rail Update—Ms. Piercy said the Oregon Passenger Rail Leadership Council was nearing a preferred alternative decision.
MINUTES—Metropolitan Policy Committee December 3, 2015 Page 6
LaneACT—Mr. Reesor reported that the ACT was meeting on December 9 to consider State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Enhance projects. A public hearing would be held and projects would be prioritized. He said election of officers for 2016 and recruitment of a freight stakeholder were also on the agenda. He said that ConnectOregon applications were due the same day as STIP Enhance applications. The ACT would review the ConnectOregon application during March and April. Mr. Thompson said the STIP Enhance ACT/MPO protocols for coordination and prioritization would apply to ConnectOregon applications.
OMPOC Update—Mr. Thompson reported that OMPOC met on November 6, 2015, to approve a work program. He said the MPC had provided input on the draft work program and OMPOC adopted the program with one amendment that included development of a set of guidelines for providing more consistent input to OMPOC from all eight of the Oregon MPOs. It was unanimously approved that the work program be housed at the Lane Council of Governments.
The next MPC meeting was scheduled for February 4, 2016.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:05 p.m.
(Recorded by Lynn Taylor)
MINUTES—Metropolitan Policy Committee December 3, 2015 Page 7
January 27, 2016
To: Metropolitan Policy Committee From: Paul Thompson Subject: Item 7.a – ODOT Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Staff from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) will provide a presentation on ODOT’s draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The draft Plan is currently out for review, and ODOT is looking for feedback.
Based on discussion at the MPO’s staff Transportation Planning Committee (TPC), Rob Inerfeld (TPC Vice-Chair) will provide recommendations on potential areas for MPC input.
The Executive Summary of the draft Plan is included with this memo as Attachment 1. The full Plan, and additional information, is available here: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/Pages/bikepedplan.aspx
Action Recommended: Presentation and overview of draft ODOT Plan. Overview of staff recommendations for potential comments on draft Plan. Provide feedback to ODOT on draft Plan.
MPC 7.a - Attachment 1 Page 1 of 10
EXECUTIVEEXECUTIVE SUMMARYSUMMARY
OREGONOREGON PAR N T O BICYCLEBICYCLEM ANDAND PEDESTRIANPEDESTRIAN G E E N R T PLANPLAN
O
O
F N
O T I R T A A An element of the Oregon Transportation Plan N T Oregon Department of Transportation S P O R Public Review Draft - November 2015 MPC 7.a - Attachment 1 Page 2 of 10 Acknowledgement & Information The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan was prepared by the Oregon Department of Transportation in coordination with multiple state, regional, and local partners. This project was funded in part by the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Policy Advisory Committee The Oregon Department of Transportation would like to thank the Policy Advisory Committee for their time and insights over the course of the project. A special thanks goes to Oregon Transportation Commissioner Tammy Baney, who chaired the Policy Advisory Committee. Please see Appendix B for a complete list of the Policy Advisory Committee.
Additional thanks to state, regional, and local partners who participated in the plan Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) or in stakeholder interviews and provided their comments during plan development. ODOT would also like to thank everyone who provided public comment at the Policy Advisory Committee meetings and during the Public Review Period.
ODOT Project Team Savannah Crawford, Amanda Pietz, Sheila Lyons, Talia Jacobson, Stephanie Millar, Brooke Jordan, Mac Lynde, Jerri Bohard, and Erik Havig, ODOT Transportation Development Division
Consultant Team Lead: Toole Design Group Supported By: JLA Public Involvement, Cambridge Systematics, and Kittelson & Associates
Information Copies of the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and supporting materials can be found at the project website: http://www/oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/pages/bikepedplan.aspx
To obtain additional copies of this document contact:
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Transportation Development Division, Planning Section 555 13th Street NE, Suite 2 Salem, OR 97301-4178 (503) 986-4121
2 | Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan MPC 7.a - Attachment 1 Page 3 of 10 Executive Summary
The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan creates a policy foundation for the state, supporting decision-making for walking and biking investments, strategies, and programs. Under the Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP), and parallel to associated mode and topic plans like the Oregon Highway Plan, the walking and biking direction established in this plan helps to bring about an interconnected, robust, efficient, and safe transportation system for Oregon. The plan solidifies the walking and biking infrastructure and culture Oregon has built and expands upon it to recognize and influence key outcomes like safety, equity, and health. It establishes the role of walking and biking within the context of the entire transportation system and emphasizes these modes as essential for travel and beneficial to the people and places in Oregon. The policies and strategies in the plan direct the work of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and regional and local jurisdictions must be consistent with them. As a whole, the plan envisions a well-connected and safe walking and biking system that meets the diverse needs of its users and the state.
Executive Summary | 3 MPC 7.a - Attachment 1 Page 4 of 10 Specifically by 2040, the Plan envisions that:
In Oregon, people of all ages, incomes, and abilities can access destinations in urban and rural areas on safe, well-connected biking and walking routes. People can enjoy Oregon’s scenic beauty by walking and biking on a transportation system that respects the needs of its users and their sense of safety. Bicycle and pedestrian networks are recognized as integral, interconnected elements of the Oregon transportation system that contribute to our diverse and vibrant communities and the health and quality of life enjoyed by Oregonians. THE VISION
Walking and Biking are Essential Modes of Travel
Oregon has some of the most heavily used walking destinations. In addition, Oregon has a growing bicycle and biking routes in the nation, with a high proportion tourism industry, catering to thousands of visitors each of people using these modes for all or part of their trip. year who come to access Oregon’s urban and rural Everyone in Oregon walks (using a mobility device or areas by bike. strolling), whether for their entire trip, from their car to the store, or from home to the bus stop. Biking is an Not only is interest in walking and biking growing, the energy and cost efficient means of travel utilized by potential utilization of these modes for short distance some who do not have other options, but by many who trips is also high. According to national travel data, two prefer it as a more reliable, environmentally friendly, and out of every five trips total three miles or less. Having physically active means of getting around. Businesses more of these trips taken by foot or bike could help to also rely on walking and biking routes, which help get alleviate congestion, improve air quality and achieve workers to their jobs and shoppers to their stores. other personal and societal benefits important to Oregonians. The demands on the walking and biking system and needs for increased connectivity will continue CHANGE IN more and grow in the future. Many youth rely on these MILLENIAL walking trips modes of travel to safely get to school, and are likely TRAVEL PATTERNS to continue to walk or bike as they age. As a whole, BETWEEN more biking younger generations are showing increased interest 2001-2009 trips in walking and biking as their primary means of travel fewer SOURCE: FEDERAL HIGHWAY and older generations are often dependent on walking driving ADMINISTRATION (6) to reach medical services, daily amenities, and other trips
4 | Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan MPC 7.a - Attachment 1 Page 5 of 10 Benefits of Walking and Biking Investments
Walking and biking are vital to Oregon’s transportation highest emitting sectors, approaches for reducing system, providing travel choices that support people, transportation-related emissions are essential. places, and the economy. Investing in walking and • Mobility – For pedestrians and cyclists, biking can help create a safer, more connected, and high levels of mobility result from safe and accessible transportation system. These investments appropriate facilities that offer direct connections have broader benefits that vary across the state to destinations and routes, and provide end-of- according to their context, including contributing to trip accommodations such as bicycle parking. economic vitality, healthy communities, and tourism. Improving or preserving ease of movement on • Economic growth – Walking and biking can walking and biking networks also promotes contribute to a healthy economy. Benefits range accessibility to key destinations and improved from relatively direct impacts for users, such as connectivity to other modal systems, such as reductions in travel costs, to more indirect impacts, public transportation. The availability, quality, such as growth in businesses related to the bike and connectivity of walking and biking facilities is industry. Additional economic benefits include especially important for older adults and people reductions in travel costs, job creation, tourism, with disabilities. These individuals may not drive due access to jobs, and increased ability to attract and to issues of poor health, limited physical or mental retain employees. abilities, concerns with safety, or because they have no car. To ensure pedestrians’ mobility, the • Health – Walking and biking modes are often transportation system requires frequent crossings collectively referred to as “active transportation,” and short distances between desirable origins and because people who walk or bike are engaging destinations. For cyclists, enhanced mobility may in physical activity. Investing in pedestrian and result from dedicated bike lanes, bicycle parking, bicycle infrastructure, supporting educational and and other transit-oriented amenities that make it encouragement programs, and supporting active easier to integrate a bicycling trip with use of public transportation options helps to encourage physical transportation, which can be essential in making activity for better health and are likely to reduce longer trips. health care costs by decreasing rates of chronic disease, improve personal health and increase life expectancy. In addition to walking and biking, connections to transit are also essential to health, as access to transit is critical in helping those who cannot or choose not to drive reach needed health services such as medical care. • Environment –Walking and biking are zero emission modes that play an important role in reducing fuel consumption, air and noise pollution and carbon emissions. Increasing biking and walking for transportation is a key strategy in helping Oregon achieve its greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. As transportation is one of the
Executive Summary | 5 MPC 7.a - Attachment 1 Page 6 of 10 Decision-Making Support
The goals, policies, and strategies of the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan provide direction for what needs to be achieved in the next 25 years and how. The nine goals of the plan, described below, reflect statewide values and desired accomplishments, and refine and expound upon the broad goals of the OTP. The next level down from the goals are policies and strategies. Policies and strategies describe how to bring about each goal through a variety of deliverables, decisions, more visible pedestrian crossings, and examination or investments, depending on contexts. They span all and consideration of lower speeds where appropriate. levels of decision making, including planning, investing, constructing, and maintaining the walking and biking Policies and strategies also focus on safe operations system. Most are written to be jurisdictionally blind and on the walking and biking system through education set statewide decision-making support. Those specific and encouragement. They more broadly recognize to a single authority, such as ODOT, are called out as the need to educate all roadway users. Those policies such. In this way, the goals, policies and strategies and strategies touching on comfort and security help of the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan are to encourage more users to the system by increasing comprehensive and inclusive. The following summary their sense of safety. captures each of the plan goals and a sampling of key Relating to enforcement, the Plan recognizes the role policies and strategies. of law enforcement agencies in assuring that rules of Goal 1: Safety the road are followed and safe operations occur. In addition, the strategies call for assuring local codes are Eliminate pedestrian and bicycle fatalities and serious enforced so that mailboxes or foliage do not impede injuries, and improve the overall sense of safety of pedestrian travel, for example. those who bike or walk. Lastly, policies and strategies focus on evaluation, an Safety is a primary goal in all of the Oregon’s mode assessment of the system to determine safety issues. and topic plans and is a key driver in decision making. Policies and strategies specify more robust data The safety goal of this plan is written to align with collection and sharing, as they relate to safety and “Vision Zero” and other federal and local initiatives that other needs. target the elimination of the most serious safety issues. Associated policies and strategies are comprehensive of all aspects of safety, including comfort and security Pedestrian survival and they are designed to bring about an overall safer rate by speed system. ~55% Policies and strategies call for, among other things, ~15% engineering apporaches, such as a multimodal look at 30 roadway cross-sections, updating design guidance to ~95% 20 40 identify the most appropriate walking or biking facility depending on context (such as physical separation),
6 | Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan MPC 7.a - Attachment 1 Page 7 of 10
Goal 2: Accessibility and Connectivity COMMUTE TO WORK Provide a complete bicycling and pedestrian network For Oregonians without a car, that reliably and easily connects to destinations and other transportation modes. 20% walk to work &
It is recognized that there are gaps in sidewalks and 12% bike to work bike lanes and that Oregon does not have a fully SOURCE: 2013 AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY (42) connected network. This goal targets making walking and biking accessible in areas where it is currently not, filling in gaps, and connecting to other modes. Policies and strategies call for such things as system inventories Goal 4: Community and Economic Vitality to identify gaps and prioritize walking and biking Enhance community and economic vitality through needs, retrofitting existing facilities to accommodate walking and biking networks that improve people’s pedestrians and cyclists, wayfinding signage, bike ability to access jobs, businesses, and other share, and enhancing connections to other modes, destinations, and to attract visitors, new residents, and especially public transportation. In addition, strategies new business to the state, opening new opportunities hit upon trails and paths, and policy foundation is laid for Oregonians. for prioritizing Regional Paths that serve as important off-system connection points across a region and for Both land use and tourism are included under this the state. goal area. Specifically, the land use policy framework identifies the need for model code assistance, siting Goal 3: Mobility and Efficiency schools and government buildings so they are accessible to walking and biking, considering land use Improve the mobility and efficiency of the entire attractors to assure safe connections, bicycle parking, transportation system by providing high quality walking and prioritizing employment centers and main streets and biking options for trips of short and moderate as critical connection points that serve the community distances. Support the ability of people who bike, walk, and economy. Tourism policies and strategies focus or use mobility devices to move easily on the system. on partnerships, collaboration opportunities and Mobility and efficiency focuses on assuring that disseminating information as ways to encourage pedestrians and cyclists can move freely and easily on pedestrian and bicycle recreational travel. the existing system. The goal is inclusive of how walking and biking impacts the mobility of other modes, such Goal 5: Equity as reducing motor vehicle congestion. Policies and Provide opportunities and choices for people of all strategies seek to reduce physical barriers that may ages, abilities, and incomes in urban, suburban, and impede movement, hit on maintenance practices, seek rural areas across the state to bike or walk routes to to assure movement through or around construction reach their destinations and to access transportation zones, and touch on design elements such as signal options, assuring transportation disadvantaged timing and bicycle detection, among other issues. communities are served and included in decision making.
Executive Summary | 7 MPC 7.a - Attachment 1 Page 8 of 10
The equity goal focuses on making walking and and strengthening partnerships, and improving data biking options equally available to all. Assuring collection and sharing. access to underserved areas, and more specifically transportation disadvantaged populations, is called Goal 7: Sustainability out. The policies and strategies under this goal are Help to meet federal, state and local sustainability designed to understand the issues that may prevent and environmental goals by providing zero emission certain portions of Oregon’s population from walking transportation options like walking and biking. and biking, such as looking at census data, conducting research, and doing network gap analysis that looks at In recognition of the environmental benefits of walking demographics. They also focus on integrating equity and biking, the sustainability goal highlights the impacts criteria and considerations into decision making, these zero emission modes can have on helping the locating and prioritizing transportation disadvantaged state to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions, have populations, and helping to close the gap between cleaner air and water, and be generally low impact. areas served and not served. Strategies promote encouragement, and innovations such as electric bikes or scooters, which may attract Goal 6: Health more people to use those modes. Provide Oregonians opportunities to become more active and healthy by walking and biking to meet their 1 mile 1 lb daily needs. pedaled or of CO2 walked saves Walking and biking require physical activity to get from origin to destination and is inextricably linked to personal and public health. This goal seeks to be more overt about that linkage. Policies and strategies SOURCE: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (28) call out such things as integrating health criteria in transportation decision making and conducting analysis Goal 8: Strategic Investment when appropriate, engaging health professionals Recognize Oregon’s strategic investments in walking and biking as crucial components of the transportation system that provide essential options for travel, and HEALTH FACTS can help reduce system costs, and achieve other important benefits.
25-33% of Oregon adults have chronic disease preconditions and over 40% of The contribution that walking and bicycling facilities Oregon adults do not meet CDC physical make to the entire transportation system is recognized activity recommendations. SOURCE: OREGON HEALTH AUTHORITY (21) in this goal. In looking at walking and biking issues and opportunities, available funding is likely to fall short of A 2011 study estimated that Portland, OR could see between $388 and $594 million in investment needs. Therefore a strategic approach is health cost savings attributable to new bicycle needed to spend existing resources on the highest infrastructure and programs by 2040. Every $1 invested in bicycling yields $3.40 in health care need and greatest value investments, leverage what cost savings. When the statistical value of lives is available, and to identify additional funding sources. is considered, every $1 invested yields nearly $100 in benefits. Policies and strategies address these issues and create SOURCE: ALLIANCE FOR BIKING & WALKING, GOTSCHI (1,23) an investment prioritization framework. The framework lays out priorities as follows: protect the existing system
8 | Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan MPC 7.a - Attachment 1 Page 9 of 10
(e.g. maintenance and preservation) and address significant safety issues; add critical connections Implementation (defined in the Plan) and address other safety issues; The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is a modal complete the system (e.g. separation, and bicycle element of the OTP, the state’s multimodal policy parking); and elaborate the system (e.g. pedestrian and plan. The policies and strategies in the Plan direct the bicycle only bridges). Strategies also cover such actions work of ODOT and impact transportation decisions as pedestrian and bicycle project lists in Transportation of local jurisdictions through their Transportation System Plans and other relevant planning documents, System Plans (TSPs) and other planning efforts, being opportunistic in acquiring right-of-way for which must be consistent with statewide policy plan future facilities, pursuing local funding mechanisms direction. Region and local plans refine policies and and sources, and leveraging funding opportunities. strategies to the appropriate context and identify projects and programs, which are then prioritized for Goal 9: Coordination, Cooperation, and investment. Implementation then continues through Collaboration Project Development and Delivery, Maintenance, and Work actively and collaboratively with federal, state, Education, Outreach and Training. regional, local and private partners to provide consistent and seamless walking and biking networks Effective Plan implementation requires coordination that are integral to the transportation system. among multiple agencies and organizations. The walking and biking networks cross multiple state There are many different jurisdictions that own highways, county roads, city streets, parks and other and operate walking and biking facilities, which lands. The patchwork of facilities and ownership means that a single route is likely to cross different necessitates the collaboration among the various authorities. With an interest in creating an integrated agencies and organizations responsible for the myriad and seamless system, this coordination, cooperation of facilities across the state. To achieve the Plan’s vision, and collaboration goal seeks to assure communication the policies and strategies need to be implemented by between entities in decision making. Policies and a variety of partners, including state, regional, and local strategies call for a checklist of communication needs, governments and the private sector. guidance for coordinating with transportation agencies and utilities companies, for example, and local capacity Key Initiatives building. Key Initiatives are foundational activities that need to occur following Plan adoption in order to achieve the Plan vision. These initiatives are anticipated to be of significant effort that begin in the near term and require coordination among entities like ODOT, other state agencies, and local jurisdictions, as appropriate, to ensure future implementation.
Defining the Network - This key initiative is an early concept recognizing stakeholder interests in a better definition for the walking and biking network in order to inform design and help with system inventories, needs, and project priorities. At a high level, this key initiative recognizes that while the motor vehicle network has
Executive Summary | 9 MPC 7.a - Attachment 1 Page 10 of 10
been defined by state functional classifications to be used in prioritization performance measures, such distinguish how different parts of the system are used as network connectivity, potential demand, or safety. as well as how they should be designed and function, the biking and walking network does not have a Performance Measures consistent approach for such definition. Further work The Plan will help to shape the future of walking and is needed to understand what the best approach biking options in Oregon over the next 25 years. To is to define the biking and walking network but this understand how this plays out in achieving the Plan initiatives aims at identifying a way to differentiate vision, performance measures are needed to track the walking and biking system and provide clarity on and monitor implementation progress. At the Plan appropriate infrastructure, design, and treatments level, performance measures focus on ways to gauge given unique contexts, such as: vehicle speed, statewide success or to help inform decision making to roadway characteristics and constraints, planned land achieve the Plan vision. While performance measures uses, key destinations, walking and biking uses and are often specific in nature, Plan level performance users, and latent demand. This would provide further measures need to be high-level, all-encompassing, direction in prioritizing needs (both infrastructure and and few in total number in order to be applicable and funding), identifying system gaps, developing criteria informative statewide. for differentiation of facility type, and refining design guidelines to support multimodal system and user In the development of the Plan, several performance needs. measures were explored. Those selected and outlined below represent performance areas that Data - Data is needed to support efficient and effective could be measured today because sufficient data decision-making. Use, availability, and quality of data exists, a methodology for how to measure has been vary across the state. This key initiative provides an established, and they can be evaluated statewide. The opportunity to focus on finding ways to collect and performance measures indicate if safety is improving, standardize data that relates directly to decision use of the system is increasing (assumed through making, identified Plan performance measures, and overall improvements to the network) and that data those program level performance measures to be needs are being understood and data collected for identified in plan implementation (described in the key more robust performance measures in the future: initiative below). • Number of pedestrian and bicycle fatalities Program Level Performance Measures - While (five-year average) performance measures have been identified to track progress on achieving the Plan vision, more specific • Number of pedestrian and bicycle serious injuries performance measures may be needed to assess (five-year average) needs, system condition, and program performance. Prioritization performance measures are important in • Perceived safety of walking and biking order to employ appropriate data to support decision- • Utilization of walking or biking for short trips making for network development and maintenance. This key initiative focuses on developing program-level • Identifying data needs for pedestrian and bicycle performance measures that can be used in project performance measures prioritization as it relates to public investment in walking and biking. Indicators used to “define the network” may • Pedestrian access to transit
10 | Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
January 27, 2016
To: Metropolitan Policy Committee From: Paul Thompson Subject: Item 7.b – Amendment to Regional Transportation Plan
The City of Eugene is requesting an amendment to the Central Lane MPO’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for the 24th Avenue Sidewalk Widening project. The City wishes to amend the RTP to place the project on the Plan’s fiscally constrained project list.
The project will replace the existing 5-foot wide sidewalk on the south side of 24th Avenue (beginning at the Amazon (shared use) Path and terminating 200 feet to the east) with a new 8-foot wide sidewalk that will match the newly rebuilt 8-foot sidewalk in front of the new Roosevelt Middle School building. This project is needed to provide a path-like connection between Roosevelt Middle School and the Amazon path.
At the February 4th MPC meeting, Eugene staff will be available to provide further details on the project. The project cost, as it would be listed in the RTP, will be $57,700, and the City has ensured that fiscal constraint of the RTP will not be affected.
An amendment to the RTP requires action by the MPO Policy Board – MPC. The staff Transportation Planning Committee (TPC) has reviewed the request and unanimously acted to forward it for consideration by MPC and review and potential comment by the public. A public comment period on the proposed amendment will be open from January 29 through February 28, 2016. A public hearing on the proposal will be conducted at the February 4th MPC meeting. MPC will be asked to act on the proposed amendment at the March 2016 meeting.
Action Recommended: Conduct public hearing. Provide feedback and direction to staff.
January 27, 2016
To: Metropolitan Policy Committee From: Paul Thompson Subject: Item 7.c – Programming MPO STP-U Funds for Main St./McVay Outreach
Background Lane Transit District and the City of Springfield are seeking STP-U funding to support Business Outreach that will help determine a Locally Preferred Solution for the Main-McVay Highway corridor. The project study area follows Main Street in Springfield from Thurston to Glenwood, and McVay Highway from Glenwood to Nugget Drive.
Following the February 2015 Main-McVay Transit Study, The Lane Transit District Board of Directors and the Springfield City Council passed resolutions to advance a set of “Most Promising Transit Solutions” for the corridor and to proceed with the identification of a Locally Preferred Solution (LPS). General parameters for these solutions were identified, but the options remain conceptual. The solutions need additional design refinement based on in-depth community and decision-maker input. This phase of the project will develop and analyze detailed designs of the Most Promising Transit Solutions and engage the public and decision- makers to advance the LPS into project development.
This application (Attachment 1) for funding focuses on business outreach along the corridor and will include mailings, door to door outreach, and meetings with elected officials and select business or property owners. Staff will also conduct two Design Solutions Workshops to identify potential solutions for avoiding or minimizing impacts for a locally preferred transit solution. The outreach will be conducted in two phases, the first phase gathers input at a higher level and the second phase will bring more refined concepts back to the community for further input. More details about the specific tasks that will be funded under this application are included in Attachment 2.
The MPO’s Transportation Planning Committee (TPC) has discussed the funding application and is recommending the programming of this funding due to the regional significance of the project. The additional outreach to community members and business owners along the corridor is an important piece of selecting appropriate design solutions for this regional transit project.
Action Recommended: Approve Resolution 2016-01, programming funds.
Attachments: 1. STP-U Application 2. Main-McVay Transit Project Process Outline 3. Resolution 2016-01
MPC 7.c – Attachment 1 – STP-U & TAP Application Form Page 1 of 10
APPLICATION FOR: STP-U FUNDS (Project Development, Preservation, Modernization) TAP FUNDS (Transportation Alternatives Program) FY 2016-2018
Project Information Business Outreach for Main-McVay Locally Preferred Project Title: Transit Solution Agency Applying: Lane Transit District and City of Springfield Applying for STP or TAP: STP-U Fiscal Year(s): FY 16 Staff Contact: Tom Schwetz, LTD Staff Phone: 541-682-6203 Staff Email: [email protected]
Project Type: Preservation Modernization Project Development Other
Mode: Roadway Transit Bike/Ped Other Project Description: This project will determine a Locally Preferred Solution for future transit service along the Main Street- McVay Highway Corridor. The project study area follows Main Street in Springfield from Thurston to Glenwood, and McVay Highway from Glenwood to Nugget Drive. The February 2015, Main-McVay Transit Study resulted in resolutions by the LTD Board of Directors and the Springfield City Council to advance a set of “Most Promising Transit Solutions” for the corridor and to proceed with the identification of a Locally Preferred Solution (LPS). Some general parameters for these potential solutions have been identified, but the options remain conceptual with questions that cannot be answered without additional design refinement and community and decision-maker input. This phase of the project will develop and analyze detailed design of the Most Promising Transit Solutions and engage the public and decision-makers in the review of and determination for an LPS to advance into project development.
Description of Need or Problem The Main-McVay project has reached a critical milestone in the achievement of an adopted set of most promising transit solutions to advance into the penultimate phase of determining if a single locally preferred solution exists to advance into the full funding and project development stage. Because this phase of the project leads to more detailed design of the alternatives, specific impacts along the corridor will be better understood. In review of a preliminary scope of work for this phase of the project, the project Governance Team (consisting of 2 representatives from the Springfield City Council, 2 representatives from the LTD Board, and one representative from ODOT) identified the need for more engagement of businesses and property owners adjacent to the corridor. In response to this discussion, staff worked with the consultant team to identify the additional effort required to provide this level of engagement. The attached scope summary provides an outline of the overall project, highlighting the additional work added to the scope. The modified scope provides a more robust engagement of affected businesses and property owners, allowing for an iterative development of design solutions focused on minimizing and mitigating project impacts. MPC 7.c – Attachment 1 – STP-U & TAP Application Form Page 2 of 10
Eligibility YES NO RTP Is the project listed in, consistent with, or able to be added to financially constrained RTP, during project time frame?
Timeliness. Does the agency have the ability to utilize funds in FY requested?
Federal Eligibility. Is project eligible for STP-U or TAP funding under Federal guidelines1
Local Match. Can agency provide minimum required matching funds (10.27% of project total)?
Sufficient Funding. Has sufficient funding been identified to complete project/phase
1For STP-U, see http://www.lcog.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/1558?fileID=7308 For TAP, see http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidetap.cfm
Cost Estimate/Funding Needs Total Estimated Project Cost $100,000 Funding Available $20,100 Source: LTD in-kind match (67%) $9,900 Source: City of Springfield in-kind match (33%)
Amount of STP-U/TAP Request $70,000 (Indicate to the right funding source requested) Note: Total non-federal funding must meet minimum match requirement of 10.27% of Total Project Cost.
MPC 7.c – Attachment 1 – STP-U & TAP Application Form Page 3 of 10
Regional Priorities PRESERVES EXISTING TRANSPORTATION ASSETS Goal: Meet a minimum Pavement Condition Index (PCI) on high volume Arterials, Collectors and Multi-Use Paths. Measures: Roadway Transit Route Bike Multi-Use Path Lanes
Function Minor Arterials Transit See next section al Class: Volume: PCI: N/A Freight See V/C data in Volume: Attachment 2 and 3 Traffic See V/C data in Attachments 2 and 3 Bike/Ped Not available, See bike Volume: Counts: and ped facilities figures in Attachments 4 and 5 Qualitative Assessment: While not a traditional pavement preservation project, this study will facilitate future pavement preservation projects by predetermining the opportunities for bicycle, pedestrian and transit improvements on several key arterial streets.
Regional Priorities PRESERVES OR ENHANCES TRANSIT SERVICES Goal: Maintain or increase transit ridership. Measures: Existing Main Street Projected Average weekday ridership: Current service on the Main Street segment ridership boardings compared to east of the Springfield Station is provided by regular bus service in the #11 Thurston route. The route has very 2035 is estimated to high ridership, with a weekday average of increase depending on 3,900 boardings and a weekday ridership transit investments productivity of 55 boardings per hour. between 0% and 12% The #11 Thurston, operates every 10 minutes depending on segment during the weekday afternoon peak time and selected LPS. period, every 15 minutes weekday mornings Detailed ridership and midday, evenings, and Saturdays, and projections will be every 30 minutes late evenings and Sundays. modeled as part of this This makes it the route with the second proposed project. highest ridership (second to EmX) in the LTD Existing Proj. The frequent transit system. Ridership is distributed throughout service service network facilitated by this the route, with the highest numbers of hrs: hrs: project will provide boardings at the following stops: higher-capacity transit • Springfield Transit Station: 1,300 boardings service. per weekday Ex. area • Thurston station: 150 boardings per Project The project service area will of weekday service remain the same as the service: • Stations at 30th, 42nd, 54th and 69th all area: areas are already served by transit. have greater than 100 boardings per weekday. MPC 7.c – Attachment 1 – STP-U & TAP Application Form Page 4 of 10
The Main Street segment of the project corridor suffers from lengthening transit travel times and deteriorating public transportation reliability due to growing traffic congestion, signal delays, and passenger boarding delays. Average run time route on the #11 Thurston has increased 3.5 percent in the last five years, with midday run time increasing by more than 10 percent during that period. In the fall of 2014, schedule time will be added to the route due to the lengthening travel time. Approximately 7.5 percent of the #11 Thurston trips on an average weekday are more than four (4) minutes late, a figure that is higher than the system average of 7.0 percent.
McVay Highway Transit service on the McVay Highway Segment is provided by the #85 LCC/Springfield, which travels between the Springfield Station and Lane Community College (LCC). The #85 route operates weekdays with a service frequency of a bus every 30 minutes. There is currently no Saturday or Sunday service on the McVay Highway segment of the corridor. Average daily ridership on the route is 730 boardings, and ridership productivity averages 74 boardings per hour. Approximately 94 percent of the riders on the #85 route board at either the Springfield Station or at LCC. There are very few boardings between these two route termini. Title VI Title VI This project seeks to Issues: The fact that the corridor has relatively low Issues: identify better, less use of public transportation suggests an expensive transportation opportunity to improve transit use through options and better access improved service options. The corridor to employment and demographics include relatively high levels of services within the Main youth and a tendency toward lower incomes, Street-McVay Corridor. with race and ethnicity reflecting rates similar to those of the entire regional area. Corridor demographics tend to support the provision of higher quality transit service, particularly along the Main Street Segment with its higher population base. Refer to MPC 7.c – Attachment 1 – STP-U & TAP Application Form Page 5 of 10
demographic data in Attachments 6 through 9. Qualitative Assessment: This project is an implementation strategy for transit solutions (ranging from No Build, Enhanced Corridor, and Bus Rapid Transit). The planned transit improvement will provide frequent high-capacity transit service, increased utility for riders, and more stable operating costs at a sustainable level. Improvements for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and connections between modes will be part of a transit solution project if the selected LPS is not the No Build option.
MPC 7.c – Attachment 1 – STP-U & TAP Application Form Page 6 of 10
Regional Priorities IMPROVES SAFETY Goals: Reduce the number and severity of accidents involving pedestrians, bicyclists, and/or vehicles. Address areas perceived to have safety issues to increase the use of multi-use paths. Measures: Roadway Multi-Use Path Sidewalk Mixed
Vehicular Identified Safety Issues: Traffic Traffic volumes vary along the Crash As part of the Springfield TSP, crash Volume: various portions of the Data: rates per million entering vehicles corridor. (MEV) were calculated for each of the Typical AADT volumes in 2012 study intersections. Typically further ranged from 13,799 on Main investigation is warranted when and 13,400 on South A Street crash rates are greater than 1.0. at 4th Street, to 13,040 on None of the study intersections has a Main Street and 13,164 on crash rate approaching 1.0. While the South A Street at 14th Street. intersections studied in the TSP did At the end of couplet, just not show remarkably high crash west of the crossing at 21st rates, there has been a concern Street where Main Street and about pedestrian collisions between South A Street combine, the 20th Street and 73rd Street (including traffic count in 2012 for both 12 pedestrian fatalities in 10 years). directions was 19,599. Finally, In addition, due in part to the high in the east end, near Highway number of accesses in the corridor, 126, the counts reduced to collisions between intersections 13,835 in both directions and appear to be high. The OR 126 Main reduced even farther east of Street Safety Study was conducted 72nd Street, with counts of due to these continued occurrences. only 8,368. The primary emphasis of the study Historic and projected was on providing safe pedestrian increases in traffic congestion crossings at unsignalized locations. in the Main-McVay Corridor The study recommended a number of due to increases in regional safety improvements specifically and corridor population and aimed at improving pedestrian safety employment. Four (4) in the corridor, with nine prioritized intersections in the corridor crossing improvement locations (McVay/Franklin, Main/42nd, identified. Main/Hwy 126, and Main/58th) are projected to exceed ODOT mobility standards for 2035 The approach to Lane Community College from Interstate 5 has a very high level of congestion in the morning periods, which creates delays for the #85 LCC/Springfield route;
The Interstate 5 interchange at MPC 7.c – Attachment 1 – STP-U & TAP Application Form Page 7 of 10
30th Avenue is in need of improvements to address traffic and safety issues. While there is a recognized need for improvements to the interchange, funding and the schedule for the improvements are uncertain.
Bicycle There are major bicycle related safety Transit See Preserves of Enhances Crash issues along the Main Street Corridor, Volume: Transit Services section. Data: with 33 bicycle injuries, including one (1) fatal and one (1) severe injury reported during the 2008 through 2013 time period. Pedestria Main Street suffers from major Bike/Ped See bicycle and pedestrian n Crash pedestrian safety issues including for Counts: facility data in Attachments 4 Data: riders walking to and from the bus and 5. stops on Main Street, and street crossings to access bus stops that are not located near a signalized or enhanced crossing. From 2009 through 2013, along Main Street between McVay Highway and 68th Street, there were a total of 29 pedestrian injuries including three (3) fatalities and six (6) severe injuries. From 1999 through 2010, there have been a total of nine (9) pedestrian fatalities during the past ten years along Main Street between 20th and 73rd Streets.
McVay Highway From 2004 through 2013 there were no reported pedestrian injuries and two (2) bicycle injuries (neither was a fatal or severe injury) on the McVay Segment of the Corridor. Despite the low number of reported injuries on this segment, as this area continues to develop there is a greater probability for pedestrian and bicycle safety issues for riders accessing transit service on McVay Highway due to high travel speeds, narrow roadways, and lack of sidewalks in many areas. Qualitative Assessment: MPC 7.c – Attachment 1 – STP-U & TAP Application Form Page 8 of 10
Residents in our region value transportation that is safe and accessible for everyone whether on foot, or using a mobility device, bike, bus, or car. This project will examine transportation needs and improved access for all modes. A large component of the project is to improve safety along and across the corridor, and to increase the safe and convenient connections between modes. Regional Priorities REDUCES GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Goals: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing congestion, increasing operational efficiency, supporting alternative modes, and managing transportation demand. Measures: Congestion Operational Alternative Trans. Demand Reduction Efficiency Modes Management (TDM)
Qualitative Assessment: This project facilitates bicycle, pedestrian, and transit improvements along corridors planned by the City of Springfield for higher densities and a greater mix of uses. These combined land use and transportation strategies reduce reliance on automobile travel, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions and potential congestion. The frequent transit network facilitated by this project will provide higher-capacity transit service with 10-15 minute headway, increased ridership and system utility, and more stable costs at a sustainable level. Improvements to the pedestrian and bicycle networks improve choice, safety, and access without reliance on fossil fuels.
MPC 7.c – Attachment 1 – STP-U & TAP Application Form Page 9 of 10
Additional Project Benefits Will completed project fill in key gaps in the transportation Connectivity system, complete system components, or provide better pedestrian, bicycle, or roadway connectivity at a regional scale? This project will improve transit connections throughout the project corridor, as well as plan pedestrian and bicycle connections to the transit network. The land use component of this study will improve access between residences, transit, goods, employment, and other destinations. Measures: Gaps in bike and pedestrian system filled; connections made for bikes, mobility devices, and pedestrians to transit.
How will completed project benefit more than one mode or Multiple Modes purpose (i.e., roadway & transit, bicycle & roadway users, or roadway & identified freight route)? This project will plan for people who use transit, bicycles, mobility devices, and for those who walk. The Main Street segment of this study is a designated freight route. The routes under study have high traffic and some corridors do not have continuous bike facilities and sidewalks. Measures: The number of modes considered and accommodated. Miles of bike lanes and sidewalk added or improved.
Will completed project reduce congestion through provision of Congestion Reduction additional capacity or critical link or other means? The project aims to increase street capacity (for movement of people), access to goods and services, reliability of freight movement, and improved safety for all modes. Conceivably, this plan could result in more congestion or delayed travel times for automobiles at specific locations or times of day. Measures: Traffic model (only preliminary afforded by this grant).
Will completed project improve the freight system and freight Freight movement? The project aims to increase street capacity (for movement of people), access to goods and services, and safety for all modes. It could result in more congestion or delayed travel times for automobiles. This project will not result in decreased intersection Level of Service (LOS) along designated freight routes, specifically Main Street. Measures: Traffic model (preliminary only afforded by this grant); input from freight industry.
Public Health Will the completed project provide public health benefits? This study facilitates bicycle, pedestrian, and transit improvements along corridors planned by Envision Eugene for higher densities and a greater mix of uses. These combined land use and transportation strategies promote active modes of travel, reduced reliance on automobile travel, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants. Active modes improve individual health, reduce pollution, promote a healthy social environment, and improve safety through fewer, less severe crashes.
Measures: Crash history, emissions reductions
Will the completed project promote or support economic Economic Development development? The project aims to increase the capacity of the street system and access between residents, goods, services, and employment opportunities. This will facilitate growth within the Urban Growth Boundary, reduce household costs for travel, and allow greater expenditures that support the local economy (as opposed to payments for imported fuels). The project will improve access to employment areas. Measures: Implementation of the Springfield Main Street Vision Plan – increase in population and job density along Main Street corridors.
Other Are there other benefits that the completed project will MPC 7.c – Attachment 1 – STP-U & TAP Application Form Page 10 of 10
provide?
Measures: Other Project Information Scope of improvement, i.e., regional, community, neighborhood, local Although contained mostly inside the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary, the project is regional in impact. The project specifically involves several neighborhoods and cross town connections between Eugene, Springfield, and Lane Community College. The benefits will be felt throughout the region. Ratio of STP-U Overhead to Overall Project Cost Most of the foreseeable overhead (local project management, billing, reporting, meeting logistics) will be covered by the City and LTD in-kind match. The match totals 10.27% of the total project costs, but is not charged to the grant. Opportunity Costs, i.e., cost of not doing activity/project The Main-McVay project is already funded and in process. Not doing this final stage required for both entering project development and community acceptance would result in the project not advancing and loss of funds and community and agency investments of time and resources to bring the project to this point. Approximately $200,000 of the original project funds remain but this amount is not adequate to meet the requirements of the next phase of the project. These funds will be forgone without this requested supplemental funding to identify a preferred alternative to advance into project development. Opportunity costs also include delayed implementation of the transit improvements along Springfield’s major planned urban growth corridor (perhaps by years, decades), resulting in severe traffic congestion, lack of transportation infrastructure improvements necessary to support mixed-use development, inefficient transportation networks, less than optimal design and inefficient land use/transportation connections, lessened public understanding and support for transit improvements, and more crashes and personal injuries. APPLICATION DUE DATE: JULY 24, 2015 PLEASE SUBMIT APPLICATION ELECTRONICALLY TO PAUL THOMPSON, LCOG [email protected]
MPC 7.c - Attachment 2 Page 1 of 1
Main-McVay Transit Project Process Outline
Process Step Schedule 1. GT meeting to approve scope and give go ahead 12/17/15 2. Inform Stakeholders a. Community Outreach Plan i. Reengage stakeholders with the process ii. Effectively reach business and property owners iii. Inform broader community 3. Develop and Refine Design Options 4. GT Review / Feedback on Design Options (1-2 meetings) a. Pre public outreach b. Toss out what can’t be lived with (eliminating rather than choosing) 5. Project Team Refine Design Options 6. Community: Review / Feedback on Design Options a. Community-wide communication b. Business & Property Owners with Potential Effects i. Contact via Mail, Door-to-door – (LTD, City, Consultants); Mayor / Councilor Woodrow meetings with select business / property owners, as needed c. Broader Community Open House i. Broad invitation for those not directly impacted to engage in process. Two opportunities on same day (7AM and 7PM), follow up with Tom S, Emma 7. Design Solutions – First iteration (high level) a. Focused meetings with business and property owners to determine solutions for avoiding or minimizing impacts (touch each of the impacted properties/people) b. Design Solutions Workshop - Project Team, LTD construction group, City engineering and project staff determine solutions based on all reviews and feedback c. GT Review design solutions – provide feedback /direction 8. Design Refinement and Evaluation 3/18/16 9. Select Preferred Solutions 4/04/16 a. GT Review refined design options, updated evaluation, trade-off analysis and make preliminary determination b. Project Team make necessary revisions c. Community Outreach: Review / Feedback on preliminary determination i. Community-wide communication ii. Business & Property Owners with Potential Effects iii. Broader Community Open House d. Design Solutions – Second iteration (more focused) i. Focused meetings with specific business and property owners to determine solutions for avoiding or minimizing impacts ii. Design Solutions Workshop 1. Project Team, LTD capital projects & City engineering/project teams 2. Determine solutions based on all reviews and feedback 3. GT Review design solutions – provide feedback /direction e. GT Select single Locally Preferred Solution (LPS) and recommendation to proceed to NEPA f. Springfield City Council review GT recommendation, make LPS decision g. LTD Board review GT recommendation, SCC decision and make Board LPS decision 8/17/16 h. Metropolitan Policy Committee adopts LPS 9/01/16
Note: Highlighted text indicates use of requested STP-U funding. MPC 7.c – Attachment 3 – Resolution 2016-01 Page 1 of 1
RESOLUTION 2016-01
AMENDING THE CENTRAL LANE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) has been designated by the State of Oregon as the official Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Central Lane region; and
WHEREAS, the LCOG Board has delegated responsibility for MPO policy functions to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC), a committee of officials from Eugene, Springfield, Coburg, Lane County, Lane Transit District, and ODOT; and
WHEREAS, federal regulations require that transportation projects using several categories of federal funds and projects that are regionally significant for air quality purposes be included in a Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP); and
WHEREAS, 23 CFR §450.324(b) requires that the MTIP be updated every four years and be kept current to reflect decisions regarding the programming of federal funds; and
WHEREAS, the Air Quality Conformity Determination for this MTIP was approved by US Department of Transportation on June 27, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment set forth in Exhibit A has been determined to not affect the existing air quality conformity determination or trigger the need for a new air quality conformity determination; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment does not affect fiscal constraint of the MTIP; and
WHEREAS, a public review and comment period has been conducted, and the Metropolitan Policy Committee has approved the public review process,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Metropolitan Policy Committee amends the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program, as set forth in Exhibit A, attached to and incorporated within this resolution by reference.
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 4th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016, BY THE METROPOLITAN POLICY COMMITTEE.
ATTEST:
______, Chair Brendalee Wilson, Executive Director Metropolitan Policy Committee Lane Council of Governments
January 26. 2016
To: Metropolitan Policy Committee
From: Josh Roll - Senior Planner LCOG
Subject: MPC 7.d – Lane Regional Safety Plan Update
Action Recommended: None. Information only.
Background Between 2007 and 2014, 285 people lost their lives in traffic collisions in Lane County, while 942 have been severely injured with another 18,529 experiencing a less than severe injury. These outcomes are the result of nearly 10 traffic collisions occurring in the county every day. The Regional Transportation Safety Plan will provide Lane County and the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization (CLMPO) an opportunity to collect data; analyze and understand multi-modal safety conditions throughout the region; develop recommended countermeasures to reduce fatal and severe injury crashes and establish performance measures through which the region can monitor implementation. The Regional Transportation Safety Plan will be the result of a data-driven planning process and will establish a direction for policy development in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The process will also help inform any ongoing local Transportation System Plans (TSP).
Progress Update Currently in its fourth month of development, this transportation safety planning process has completed key deliverables that will be used in the remaining elements of the effort. A stakeholder group has been convened consisting of individuals representing diverse local interests and disciplines, including engineering, law enforcement, planning, public health, emergency medical services, education and advocates. In-depth analysis of regional crash data has helped the stakeholder team establish emphasis areas which are being used to frame the existing conditions and areas of concern. More information about emphasis areas and the methods used to derive them is included as Attachment 1 to this memo. An inventory of existing policies and programs related to transportation safety was completed and is helping the project management team and stakeholder group understand the resources currently available to mitigate existing safety problems.
Next Steps The emphasis areas established in the previous work tasks will shape the remaining elements of the plan. Focus groups are being created that will bring in additional perspectives through a diversity of stakeholders from multiple disciplines to help the project management team more fully explore strategies for reducing fatal and severe injuries. Information gathered from focus groups will be used to inform the stakeholder advisory team and the plan’s strategic framework, one of the last elements of the plan.
Attachments: 1. Memo: Stakeholder Meeting # 2 Emphasis Areas Summary
Stakeholder Meeting # 2 Emphasis Areas Summary 12/9/2015
Introduction
The following document presents information to support Stakeholder Advisory Team (SAT) members understanding of information and concepts that will be presented at SAT Meeting # 2. This document reviews the purpose of Emphasis Areas as they relate to transportation safety planning in the Lane Region. The document then summarizes proposed Emphasis Areas for the Lane Regional Safety Planning effort along with supporting information. Finally this document describes the Emphasis Area selection criteria used in this process. This document is not meant to be an exhaustive review of the information but rather a primer for the upcoming SAT Meeting.
What is an Emphasis Area?
The primary goal of Emphasis Areas is to help stakeholders including the public and decision makers, better understand the safety conditions under examination.
• Designed as near-term implementation focus areas directly related to the safety plan’s long-term goals, policies and strategies.
• The selection of emphasis areas is an important step in the planning process that should be based on the best available data and consideration of values, trends, safety programs, and regulatory requirements.
• Provide a strategic framework for the development and implementation of the safety plan.
Proposed Emphasis Areas
Table 1 below summarizes the proposed Emphasis Areas determined through seven selection criteria. Detailed data and explanation will be presented at the upcoming meeting; the below table uses Harvey Ball symbols to summarize the information. The nature of the current planning effort dictates that two plans, one for the urban area and one for Lane County as a whole, are completed. To better understand the differences in rural and urban conditions within Lane County the proposed Emphasis Areas may not apply to both areas. This is noted in Table 1 below in the Geographic Focus column. The Harvey Ball symbols apply differently to the quantitative criteria compared to the qualitative criteria. The quantitative criteria use low, medium, high whereas the qualitative criteria use no, some, yes. This is described in the legend below the table.
MPC 7.d – Attachment 1 1
Table 1 Proposed Emphasis Areas by Selection Criteria and Geography
Geographic Quantitative Criteria Qualitative Criteria Focus Disparate Emphasis Area Emphasis Area Frequency Severity Trend Impact Overlap Policy Focus SAT Input Rural Urban Risky Behaviors Impaired Driving ● ● ○ ○ ◒ ● X X Speed ◒ ◒ ◒ ○ ● ○ X X Unrestrained Occupants ◒ ● ◒ ○ ○ ○ X - Distracted ○ ○ ● ○ ◒ ○ X X Vulnerable Users Pedestrian ◒ ● ● ● ● ● - X Bicycle ◒ ● ◒ ● ● ● - X Motorcycle ◒ ● ● ● ○ ○ X X Young Drivers (15-21) ◒ ○ ○ ● ◒ ◒ X X Infrastructure Principle Arterials - Other ● ○ ● ● ● ○ X X Minor Arterials ● ○ ◒ ● ● ○ - X
Major Collectors ● ◒ ◒ ● ○ ○ X - Intersections ● ○ ● ● ● ○ X X Foundational
EMS, Data, Training NA X X Uncategorized
Roadway Departure ● ◒ ◒ ○ ● ○ X X
Unlicensed Drivers ○ ◒ ● ○ ○ ○ X X
Legend ○ Low No ◒ Medium Some ● High Yes
MPC 7.d – Attachment 1 2
Selection Criteria for Proposed Emphasis Areas
The Lane Regional Safety Plan process intends to use a data driven process and incorporates four quantitative selection criteria. However the selection criteria also incorporates qualitative measures to help connect the emphasis areas with one another, link emphasis areas with non-safety policies, and embrace SAT input. Below are descriptions of the emphasis areas used in Table 1 above.
Quantitative
• Frequency: Number of fatal and serious injury crashes (and proportion of total)
• Severity: Fatal and serious injury crashes per 100 crashes
• Trend: Regression trend line slope for fatal and serious injury crashes
• Disparate Impact: Unequal burden or risk on certain demographic group, type of user or area
Qualitative
• Emphasis Area Overlap: Multiple benefits (the solution to one problem solves another)
• Policy Focus: Existing non-safety related policy
• SAT Input: SAT members provided input
SAT Meeting # 2
The above information is provided as a primer for the upcoming Stakeholder Meeting and is by no means exhaustive in its scope. Detailed information will be presented when the SAT meets next and the project management team hopes for a robust discussion of these methods and the current outcomes. Using this methodology we hope to identify which of the proposed emphasis areas should be retained and determine any additional emphasis areas. The next steps will involve how to accomplish reductions in fatal and severe injuries within the emphasis areas.
Data Exploration
For members interested in exploring the data behind the emphasis areas in more detail please see the link below to the CLMPO’s data portal and emphasis area dynamic data visualization - http://tableau.thempo.org/Safety/emphasis.htm
MPC 7.d – Attachment 1 3
MEETING NOTICE
MEETING: METROPOLITAN POLICY COMMITTEE DATE: Thursday, February 4, 2016 TIME: 11:30 AM - 1:30 PM LOCATION: Springfield City Hall, Library Meeting Room 225 Fifth Street (directions on back) CONTACT PERSON: Paul Thompson, 541-682-4405
A G E N D A
1. WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS 2. CALL TO ORDER 3. APPROVE DECEMBER 3RD MEETING MINUTES 4. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA/ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM MPC MEMBERS 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (Anyone wishing to comment is asked to sign up on the public comment sheet provided at the meeting. A limit of 3 minutes per person is requested.) 6. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2016; APPOINT OMPOC MEMBERS (10 mins) Staff Contact & Presenter: Brenda Wilson, LCOG Action Requested: Election of MPC officers. Appointment of Oregon MPO Consortium members. 7. METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) ISSUES a. ODOT Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (40 mins) Staff Contact: Paul Thompson, LCOG Presenters: Savannah Crawford, ODOT; Rob Inerfeld, Eugene Action Requested: Presentation and overview of draft ODOT Plan. Overview of staff recommendations for potential comments on draft Plan. Provide feedback to ODOT on draft Plan. b. Amendment to Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) (10 mins) Staff Contact & Presenter: Paul Thompson, LCOG Action Requested: Conduct public hearing. Provide feedback and direction to staff. c. Programming MPO STP-U Funds for Main St./McVay Outreach (15 mins) Staff Contact: Paul Thompson, LCOG Presenters: Paul Thompson, LCOG; Tom Schwetz, Lane Transit District -OVER- Location is wheelchair accessible (WCA). American Sign Language (ASL) interpretation is available with 48 hours notice. LCOG Main Office: 859 Willamette Street, Suite 500, Eugene, Oregon 97401-2910 Phone: (541) 682-4283 • Fax: (541) 682-4099 • TTY: (541) 682-4567 • Web: www.lcog.org Action Requested: Conduct public hearing. Approve Resolution 2016-01, programming funds. d. Lane Regional Safety Plan Update (20 mins) Staff Contact: Paul Thompson, LCOG Presenter: Josh Roll, LCOG Action Requested: None. Information only. Follow-up and Next Steps (15 mins) 1) ODOT Update (including STIP Non-Highway Enhance; FAST Act; Governor’s Transportation Vision Panel) 2) Legislative Update 3) Springfield Main Street Safety Update 4) Rail Update 5) LaneACT Update 6) OMPOC Update 7) Next Steps/Agenda Build
2016 MEETINGS: March 3, 2016 – Springfield City Hall Library Meeting Room April 7, 2016 – Springfield City Hall Library Meeting Room May 5, 2016 – Eugene Library Bascom Tykeson Room June 2, 2016 – Springfield City Hall Library Meeting Room July 7, 2016 – Coburg City Hall Council Chambers August 4, 2016 – Springfield City Hall Library Meeting Room September 1, 2016 – Eugene Library Bascom Tykeson Room October 6, 2016 – Springfield City Hall Library Meeting Room November 3, 2016 – Eugene Library Bascom Tykeson Room December 1, 2016 – Springfield City Hall Library Meeting Room
SPRINGFIELD LIBRARY MEETING ROOM The Library Meeting Room is located adjacent to the Library inside City Hall on the second floor. If you enter City Hall at Fifth and A, you will enter by the Library. Continue past the Library entrance. Turn right just past the Library and you will be looking at the Library Meeting Room. If you enter from the East Entrance, go through the lobby. The Library Meeting Room is off to the left before you reach the Library. Bus: Take the bus to the LTD Springfield Station. From there walk east to 5th Street, then north approximately 2 blocks to City Hall. Bicycles: There are bicycle racks close to the front entrance of City Hall. Parking: There is free two hour parking beneath City Hall, next to the Museum at Sixth and Main. There is also free two hour parking along Main Street and most streets surrounding City Hall.
PLEASE NOTE: LCOG is now posting meetings on its website at http://www.lcog.org/346/Metropolitan-Policy-Committee. These postings will include the agenda, minutes and attachments. If you no longer want to receive your meeting announcement in paper format, please contact David Phillips, 541-682-6295 or [email protected]. This meeting will be broadcast live, and rebroadcast on Metro Television, Comcast cable channel 21, at 1:30 PM on Mondays, 7:00 PM on Tuesdays, and 11:00 AM on Sundays for the rest of the month. A webcast will also be archived for future viewing on the LCOG website. Get details through links at http://www.lcog.org/346/Metropolitan-Policy-Committee.
LCOG: T:\MPO\Committees\MPC\FY16\February 16\MPC_Agenda_20160204.doc Last Saved: January 28, 2016
M I N U T E S
Metropolitan Policy Committee Springfield City Hall—Library Meeting Room—225 Fifth Street Springfield, Oregon
December 3, 2015 11:30 a.m.
PRESENT: Pat Farr, Chair (Lane County), Christine Lundberg (City of Springfield), Kitty Piercy, Alan Zelenka (City of Eugene); Jerry Behney (City of Coburg), Frannie Brindle (Oregon Department of Transportation), Gary Wildish, Gary Gillespie (Lane Transportation District); members; Becky Taylor for Steve Mokrohisky (Lane County), Gino Grimaldi (City of Springfield), Rob Inerfeld for Jon Ruiz (City of Eugene), AJ Jackson (Lane Transit District); Petra Schuetz (City of Coburg); ex officio members.
Paul Thompson, David Phillips, Ellen Currier (Lane Council of Governments); Sasha Luftig, Theresa Brand, Tom Schwetz (Lane Transit District); Jeff Kernen (City of Coburg); Chris Henry, Zach Galloway (City of Eugene), Tom Boyatt, Emma Watson (City of Springfield); David Reesor (Oregon Department of Transportation); Rob Zako (Better Eugene-Springfield Transit); Carleen Riley (River Road), guests.
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Mr. Farr welcomed everyone to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) meeting and those present introduced themselves.
Mr. Wildish introduced new LTD General Manager AJ Jackson. Ms. Jackson spoke briefly about her background and her interest in collaboration with other agencies and jurisdictions in the region.
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Farr called the meeting to order.
ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA/ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM MPC MEMBERS
Ms. Lundberg said she would need to leave the meeting early and wanted to comment on MovingAhead. She said prior to the MovingAhead initiative Springfield was working on a Main Street corridor and she was concerned that Main Street now would be lumped into the MovingAhead corridors and perhaps be displaced for funding consideration when it had already been approved by the Springfield City Council and significant planning work had already been done in conjunction with other Springfield initiatives along the route. She hoped it would be considered independently.
Mr. Thompson announced that Ellen Currier, who had been working for Lane Transit District (LTD), had recently joined the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) staff.
Ms. Brindle said in addition to her position as Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Area 5 Manager in Lane County she was also taking on management of Area 4, which included Linn, Benton, and Lincoln counties.
MINUTES—Metropolitan Policy Committee December 3, 2015 Page 1
Mr. Farr thanked Ms. Brindle for being part of the Build a Better Bethel project.
APPROVE OCTOBER 1, 2015, MEETING MINUTES
Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Wildish, moved to approve the October 1, 2015, minutes as submitted. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Rob Zako, Better Eugene-Springfield Transit (BEST), commended the City of Eugene for adopting Vision Zero as a goal to eliminate traffic fatalities. He cited the number of annual traffic fatalities locally, statewide, nationally and worldwide and asked if that was acceptable or should the goal be zero deaths, even if th at was not obtainable. He said that meant zero fatalities, regardless of the transportation mode, because all lives mattered. He said human error could not be eliminated, but engineering could remove many safety problems from the transportation system, along with education and enforcement.
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) ISSUES
ODOT Enhance Non-Highway Funding Priorities
Mr. Thompson said the agenda packet contained applications for ODOT's Enhance Non -Highway funding process received from jurisdictions within the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) boundary and outside of the MPO boundary, but within Lane County. He noted that in his cover memorandum the term "Area 2" should be "Region 2." He said the applications were for non-highway multi-modal projects, four of which were from within the MPO boundary. He asked the MPC to formally determine the priority of those projects to the 150 percent funding level. He said the LaneACT (Area Commission on Transportation) protocols established with the MPO required that the order of those four projects remain the same during the ACT's prioritization of all projects. He also asked for direction from the MPC on how all of the applications should be prioritized so he could reflect those preferences as the MPO representative to the ACT, although that direction would not be binding. He said the intent was to coordinate priorities with the ACT and among a collection of jurisdictions.
Mr. Thompson distributed a handout showing MPO and ACT projects, includin g some updated funding requests and staff recommendations for priority ranking of MPO projects and ranking of all projects (MPO and non-MPO). He noted that Lane County's Territorial Complete Design project had been withdrawn because discussions with ODOT had determined that it would be submitted for funding through the ODOT Leverage funding process.
Ms. Brindle explained that the improvements proposed for Territorial Highway would also entail fixing the entire highway, which made it ineligible for the Non-Highway Enhance funding and suitable for the Leverage programs. She said the project would go through the same prioritization process with local input, although the funding decision would be made by ODOT. She felt the project had a good chance of being fun ded.
Mr. Thompson said a rough guide for the Area 5 (Lane County) 150 percent funding target was $3.4-4.8 million, based on past experience, and the total request for the six remaining projects was $4.85 million. He said Springfield's Moe Mountain project was the largest funding request and recent discussions among staff had resulted in a recommendation to move it from the 3rd MPO priority to the 4th MPO priority.
MINUTES—Metropolitan Policy Committee December 3, 2015 Page 2
Mr. Boyatt further explained that reversing the priority position of the Moe Mountain project with that of Eugene's River to Ridges project made sense from several positions. The funding request of the Eugene project conformed better to the funding available, even at 150 percent, than Moe Mountain and the Moe Mountain project was behind Rivers to Ridges in terms of project development, making the Eugene project more likely to be successful within the timeframe. He said Springfield was also appreciative of the MPC's support of the Franklin Boulevard project's funding during the last funding process .
Ms. Lundberg concurred with the switch of priority positions between the Moe Mountain and Rivers to Ridges projects. She was pleased with the prospect of funding through another source for the Territorial Highway project.
Mr. Thompson summarized the modified priority recommendations and asked that a public hearing be held on the proposed MPO priorities:
Project MPO Priority ACT Priority Eugene: Roosevelt Path 1 1 Springfield: Filling the Gaps 2 2 Florence: US 101 Multi-Modal Improvements 3 Veneta: Veneta-Elmira Multi-Use Pathway 4 Eugene: Rivers to Ridges Bikeway 3 5 Springfield: Moe Mountain Path 4 6
Mr. Farr opened the public hearing on prioritization of MPO Non-Highway Enhance projects. He determined there was no one wishing to speak and closed the hearing.
Ms. Piercy, seconded by Ms. Lundberg, moved to accept the modified priority of MPO projects for Non-Highway Enhance funding. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Mr. Farr called for discussion of prioritization of all projects to be considered by the LaneACT.
Mr. Thompson said the Florence and Veneta projects were strong and had been well received by the ACT during the pre-proposal presentations. He said those projects were important to the jurisdictions and fit the Non-Highway Enhance criteria well.
Ms. Brindle conveyed concern from LaneACT members about the MPO prioritizing non -MPO projects, which they felt was within the ACT's purview alone. She noted that MPO jurisdictions were well represented on the LaneACT and the MPC's direction on project priority was advisory in nature. She said it was important to be sensitive to rural interests.
Ms. Piercy observed that the intent of establishing an ACT was to give everyone a seat at the table and an equal voice in the conversation about what was best for the region as a whole. She felt it was created to help get past jurisdictional competitiveness and division between rural and urban interests.
Mr. Farr concurred that the intent of the ACT was to level the playing field in distribution of resources.
Mr. Behney thanked Mr. Thompson, Ms. Piercy and Ms. Brindle for their comments. As an ACT member he also had some concerns about the MPO's prioritization of projects and appreciated the discussion and the MPC's support of the ACT.
MINUTES—Metropolitan Policy Committee December 3, 2015 Page 3
Mr. Inerfeld suggested that rather than giving formal direction to Mr. Thompson on prioritization of ACT projects, the MPC could provide input on the modified priorities to help inform his actions as an ACT member.
Mr. Farr determined there were no objections to the suggestion. Mr. Thompson stressed that while the MPC's guidance was not binding on him, he did not want to fulfill his role as the MPO's ACT representative in a vacuum and wished to take staff and MPC members' opinions into consideration.
Ms. Lundberg noted the ACT was a large body composed of many different interests and commended its effectiveness. She agreed that MPC feedback to Mr. Thompson was important. She felt that readiness was an important factor in project prioritization.
Mr. Thompson said the Florence project had scored very well during the pre-proposal process as it was a follow-up to work already done by ODOT on that section of US Highway 101 and its readiness helped in its high ranking.
Mr. Gillespie said that LTD was supportive of the Florence project.
Mr. Wildish supported the modified staff recommendations for project prioritization.
Mr. Farr asked for a moment of reflection on the shooting at the Umpqua Community College campus that occurred during the MPC's last meeting.
Mr. Farr changed the order of the agenda to take up the MovingAhead update prior to Ms. Lundberg's departure. There were no objections.
MovingAhead Update
Mr. Galloway distributed two documents entitled MovingAhead update #2, December 3, 2015 and Project Phases: November 2015. He reminded the committee that MovingAhead was a collaborative effort by the cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane Transit District (LTD) to integrate land use and transportation, specifically transit investments, by building on past planning efforts. He said transit improvements were only one aspect of expectations for corridors and neighborhood centers; a multi-modal approach would also address bicycle and pedestrian improvements that supported transit. He said the intent was also to assure that land use supported transit investments.
Mr. Galloway said the Level 1 screening process had been completed and described the extensive public outreach that resulted in the selection of corridors that move to Level 2 for a more detailed evaluation.
Ms. Luftig said the following corridors were examined during Level 1:
Highway 99 River Road Coburg Road 30th Avenue/Lane Community College (LCC) Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard Valley River Center
Ms. Luftig said a range of transit investments, along with investments for bicycle and pedestrians, were studied for each corridor. The transit investment options being considered were No Build (traditional fixed route service), Enhanced Corridor (combination of investments in transit infrastructure and service frequency)
MINUTES—Metropolitan Policy Committee December 3, 2015 Page 4 and EmX (comprehensive bus rapid transit). She said the Eugene City Council and LTD Board had both approved the recommendations of stakeholders and the project's Governance Team to advance specific corridors and associated options to the Level 2 screening process. She said the project also took a coordinated approach to determining the region's long-term system needs in terms of connectivity and linking service to the corridors. Service needs under consideration were the 2021 track and field championships, airport service, increased frequency on other routes, linking neighborhood service to the main corridors and increased east-west connectivity. She reviewed the Level 1 screening process summary table set forth in the agenda packet.
Mr. Henry said the project team attended many community events over the spring and summer and engaged about 600 people in conversations about transportation improvements. Public input indicated a preference for considering EmX or Enhanced Corridor solutions on corridors, along with the need to improve safety for people walking, biking and using mobility devices. The Level 2 process would analyze the environmental footprint of each corridor, how it functioned from a transportation and traffic operations perspective and refinement of corridor concepts. He said those corridors approved for further study at Level 2 were:
River Road - EmX and Enhanced Corridor Coburg Road - EmX and Enhanced Corridor Highway 99 - EmX and Enhance Corridor 30th Avenue/LCC - EmX and Enhanced Corridor Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard - Enhanced Corridor
Ms. Luftig said the timeline of project phases distributed at the beginning of the presentation indicated a locally preferred alternative decision would not be made until around November of 2016, after a similar decision was made for the Main Street-McVay Transit Study. Mr. Schwetz added that LTD would be considering Main Street for its next investment prospect, but it was beneficial to move forward planning for all co rridors in order to take advantage of future funding opportunities.
Ms. Lundberg commented that the City of Springfield had not participated in MovingAhead because it was primarily a Eugene/LTD project and the Springfield City Council had already voted to move forward with the Main Street-McVay project. She said staff resources were focused on the Main-McVay Transit Study, and several other transportation projects related to the lengthy Main Street corridor. She was concerned about the Main-McVay corridor being displaced for consideration by one of the MovingAhead corridors as the City had already done a significant amount of work on Main-McVay. She was pleased to hear that Main-McVay would be considered for LTD's next corridor.
Mr. Zelenka asked if funding agencies gave priority to projects that enhanced an existing successful system over new systems that were being developed. Mr. Schwetz said that applications for projects that enhanced existing systems were more competitive because they created a system-level benefit that would not exist for projects where a system was not already in place. He said LTD's past experience in delivering those types of projects would also make its applications more competitive. He said the new federal transportation authorization contained funding in the Small Starts program for these projects.
Ms. Piercy asked if LTD was engaged in discussions about connections between transit and rail and enhanced capacity in anticipation of the 2021 games. She volunteered to participate and assist with those discussions. Ms. Luftig said LTD viewed 2021 as a major opportunity for implementing transit projects identified through the Main-McVay and MovingAhead transit studies. Ms. Jackson added that staff had been briefing her on a myriad of projects and preparations for 2021. She was aware it would take close coordination among many entities to have a successful event.
MINUTES—Metropolitan Policy Committee December 3, 2015 Page 5
Mr. Gillespie commented that the intent of MovingAhead was to streamline the planning and project implementation process to address Federal Transit Administration concerns about the length of time it took to develop and deliver a corridor.
Ms. Piercy said it might be necessary for local entities to initiate the conversation about opportunities for rail/transit connections and the value the 2021 games could bring to the state as a whole.
Ms. Lundberg agreed with Ms. Piercy. She said it would be helpful to develop a list of talking points about improved rail/transit connection were important as the general perception was that peo ple would just stay in Portland area hotels and not locally. She said other countries were far ahead of the United States in delivery of passenger rail service.
Ms. Lundberg left the meeting at 12:45 p.m.
Governor's Transportation Vision Panel Regional Forum
Mr. Thompson announced that the Governor's Transportation Vision Panel was holding a Lane County Regional Forum in Eugene on January 13, 2016. He said the panel was close to completing its set of draft recommendations and would be inviting the LaneACT, the MPO, local elected officials, and legislators to participate. He said MPC members would be receiving their invitations shortly.
Follow-up and Next Steps
ODOT Update—There was no additional information.
Legislative Update—Mr. Thompson said that federal transportation authorization legislation would likely be passed by the end of the week. The authorization would be a five-year bill and largely continued and preserved those programs important to the MPO. He said there would be a slight increase in some program funds, but there were no new funding strategies. He provided some estimates of funding amounts.
Springfield Main Street Safety Update—Mr. Reesor said ODOT met with City of Springfield staff to discuss the All Road Transportation Safety (ARTS) program as there were potential ARTS projects associated with safety improvements along the Main Street corridor. He said ODOT and city staff scoped projects in the field and they would become part of the 150 percent funding list. ODOT would then work with local jurisdictions to develop a draft 100 percent list for presentation to the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) in June 2016.
Mr. Grimaldi commented that motorists along Main Street seemed to be paying better attention to the rules with fewer speeding violations.
Mr. Zelenka asked if data was available on the effectiveness of the new strips around signal lights. Mr. Reesor said they had been recently installed so limited data was available, but they made the light much more visible. Mr. Henry added that the strips were a proven safety counter measure that reduced red light running. He said the City of Eugene was installing them as part of an ARTS project on 18th Avenue.
Rail Update—Ms. Piercy said the Oregon Passenger Rail Leadership Council was nearing a preferred alternative decision.
MINUTES—Metropolitan Policy Committee December 3, 2015 Page 6
LaneACT—Mr. Reesor reported that the ACT was meeting on December 9 to consider State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Enhance projects. A public hearing would be held and projects would be prioritized. He said election of officers for 2016 and recruitment of a freight stakeholder were also on the agenda. He said that ConnectOregon applications were due the same day as STIP Enhance applications. The ACT would review the ConnectOregon application during March and April. Mr. Thompson said the STIP Enhance ACT/MPO protocols for coordination and prioritization would apply to ConnectOregon applications.
OMPOC Update—Mr. Thompson reported that OMPOC met on November 6, 2015, to approve a work program. He said the MPC had provided input on the draft work program and OMPOC adopted the program with one amendment that included development of a set of guidelines for providing more consistent input to OMPOC from all eight of the Oregon MPOs. It was unanimously approved that the work program be housed at the Lane Council of Governments.
The next MPC meeting was scheduled for February 4, 2016.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:05 p.m.
(Recorded by Lynn Taylor)
MINUTES—Metropolitan Policy Committee December 3, 2015 Page 7
January 27, 2016
To: Metropolitan Policy Committee From: Paul Thompson Subject: Item 7.a – ODOT Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Staff from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) will provide a presentation on ODOT’s draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The draft Plan is currently out for review, and ODOT is looking for feedback.
Based on discussion at the MPO’s staff Transportation Planning Committee (TPC), Rob Inerfeld (TPC Vice-Chair) will provide recommendations on potential areas for MPC input.
The Executive Summary of the draft Plan is included with this memo as Attachment 1. The full Plan, and additional information, is available here: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/Pages/bikepedplan.aspx
Action Recommended: Presentation and overview of draft ODOT Plan. Overview of staff recommendations for potential comments on draft Plan. Provide feedback to ODOT on draft Plan.
MPC 7.a - Attachment 1 Page 1 of 10
EXECUTIVEEXECUTIVE SUMMARYSUMMARY
OREGONOREGON PAR N T O BICYCLEBICYCLEM ANDAND PEDESTRIANPEDESTRIAN G E E N R T PLANPLAN
O
O
F N
O T I R T A A An element of the Oregon Transportation Plan N T Oregon Department of Transportation S P O R Public Review Draft - November 2015 MPC 7.a - Attachment 1 Page 2 of 10 Acknowledgement & Information The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan was prepared by the Oregon Department of Transportation in coordination with multiple state, regional, and local partners. This project was funded in part by the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Policy Advisory Committee The Oregon Department of Transportation would like to thank the Policy Advisory Committee for their time and insights over the course of the project. A special thanks goes to Oregon Transportation Commissioner Tammy Baney, who chaired the Policy Advisory Committee. Please see Appendix B for a complete list of the Policy Advisory Committee.
Additional thanks to state, regional, and local partners who participated in the plan Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) or in stakeholder interviews and provided their comments during plan development. ODOT would also like to thank everyone who provided public comment at the Policy Advisory Committee meetings and during the Public Review Period.
ODOT Project Team Savannah Crawford, Amanda Pietz, Sheila Lyons, Talia Jacobson, Stephanie Millar, Brooke Jordan, Mac Lynde, Jerri Bohard, and Erik Havig, ODOT Transportation Development Division
Consultant Team Lead: Toole Design Group Supported By: JLA Public Involvement, Cambridge Systematics, and Kittelson & Associates
Information Copies of the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and supporting materials can be found at the project website: http://www/oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/pages/bikepedplan.aspx
To obtain additional copies of this document contact:
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Transportation Development Division, Planning Section 555 13th Street NE, Suite 2 Salem, OR 97301-4178 (503) 986-4121
2 | Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan MPC 7.a - Attachment 1 Page 3 of 10 Executive Summary
The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan creates a policy foundation for the state, supporting decision-making for walking and biking investments, strategies, and programs. Under the Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP), and parallel to associated mode and topic plans like the Oregon Highway Plan, the walking and biking direction established in this plan helps to bring about an interconnected, robust, efficient, and safe transportation system for Oregon. The plan solidifies the walking and biking infrastructure and culture Oregon has built and expands upon it to recognize and influence key outcomes like safety, equity, and health. It establishes the role of walking and biking within the context of the entire transportation system and emphasizes these modes as essential for travel and beneficial to the people and places in Oregon. The policies and strategies in the plan direct the work of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and regional and local jurisdictions must be consistent with them. As a whole, the plan envisions a well-connected and safe walking and biking system that meets the diverse needs of its users and the state.
Executive Summary | 3 MPC 7.a - Attachment 1 Page 4 of 10 Specifically by 2040, the Plan envisions that:
In Oregon, people of all ages, incomes, and abilities can access destinations in urban and rural areas on safe, well-connected biking and walking routes. People can enjoy Oregon’s scenic beauty by walking and biking on a transportation system that respects the needs of its users and their sense of safety. Bicycle and pedestrian networks are recognized as integral, interconnected elements of the Oregon transportation system that contribute to our diverse and vibrant communities and the health and quality of life enjoyed by Oregonians. THE VISION
Walking and Biking are Essential Modes of Travel
Oregon has some of the most heavily used walking destinations. In addition, Oregon has a growing bicycle and biking routes in the nation, with a high proportion tourism industry, catering to thousands of visitors each of people using these modes for all or part of their trip. year who come to access Oregon’s urban and rural Everyone in Oregon walks (using a mobility device or areas by bike. strolling), whether for their entire trip, from their car to the store, or from home to the bus stop. Biking is an Not only is interest in walking and biking growing, the energy and cost efficient means of travel utilized by potential utilization of these modes for short distance some who do not have other options, but by many who trips is also high. According to national travel data, two prefer it as a more reliable, environmentally friendly, and out of every five trips total three miles or less. Having physically active means of getting around. Businesses more of these trips taken by foot or bike could help to also rely on walking and biking routes, which help get alleviate congestion, improve air quality and achieve workers to their jobs and shoppers to their stores. other personal and societal benefits important to Oregonians. The demands on the walking and biking system and needs for increased connectivity will continue CHANGE IN more and grow in the future. Many youth rely on these MILLENIAL walking trips modes of travel to safely get to school, and are likely TRAVEL PATTERNS to continue to walk or bike as they age. As a whole, BETWEEN more biking younger generations are showing increased interest 2001-2009 trips in walking and biking as their primary means of travel fewer SOURCE: FEDERAL HIGHWAY and older generations are often dependent on walking driving ADMINISTRATION (6) to reach medical services, daily amenities, and other trips
4 | Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan MPC 7.a - Attachment 1 Page 5 of 10 Benefits of Walking and Biking Investments
Walking and biking are vital to Oregon’s transportation highest emitting sectors, approaches for reducing system, providing travel choices that support people, transportation-related emissions are essential. places, and the economy. Investing in walking and • Mobility – For pedestrians and cyclists, biking can help create a safer, more connected, and high levels of mobility result from safe and accessible transportation system. These investments appropriate facilities that offer direct connections have broader benefits that vary across the state to destinations and routes, and provide end-of- according to their context, including contributing to trip accommodations such as bicycle parking. economic vitality, healthy communities, and tourism. Improving or preserving ease of movement on • Economic growth – Walking and biking can walking and biking networks also promotes contribute to a healthy economy. Benefits range accessibility to key destinations and improved from relatively direct impacts for users, such as connectivity to other modal systems, such as reductions in travel costs, to more indirect impacts, public transportation. The availability, quality, such as growth in businesses related to the bike and connectivity of walking and biking facilities is industry. Additional economic benefits include especially important for older adults and people reductions in travel costs, job creation, tourism, with disabilities. These individuals may not drive due access to jobs, and increased ability to attract and to issues of poor health, limited physical or mental retain employees. abilities, concerns with safety, or because they have no car. To ensure pedestrians’ mobility, the • Health – Walking and biking modes are often transportation system requires frequent crossings collectively referred to as “active transportation,” and short distances between desirable origins and because people who walk or bike are engaging destinations. For cyclists, enhanced mobility may in physical activity. Investing in pedestrian and result from dedicated bike lanes, bicycle parking, bicycle infrastructure, supporting educational and and other transit-oriented amenities that make it encouragement programs, and supporting active easier to integrate a bicycling trip with use of public transportation options helps to encourage physical transportation, which can be essential in making activity for better health and are likely to reduce longer trips. health care costs by decreasing rates of chronic disease, improve personal health and increase life expectancy. In addition to walking and biking, connections to transit are also essential to health, as access to transit is critical in helping those who cannot or choose not to drive reach needed health services such as medical care. • Environment –Walking and biking are zero emission modes that play an important role in reducing fuel consumption, air and noise pollution and carbon emissions. Increasing biking and walking for transportation is a key strategy in helping Oregon achieve its greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. As transportation is one of the
Executive Summary | 5 MPC 7.a - Attachment 1 Page 6 of 10 Decision-Making Support
The goals, policies, and strategies of the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan provide direction for what needs to be achieved in the next 25 years and how. The nine goals of the plan, described below, reflect statewide values and desired accomplishments, and refine and expound upon the broad goals of the OTP. The next level down from the goals are policies and strategies. Policies and strategies describe how to bring about each goal through a variety of deliverables, decisions, more visible pedestrian crossings, and examination or investments, depending on contexts. They span all and consideration of lower speeds where appropriate. levels of decision making, including planning, investing, constructing, and maintaining the walking and biking Policies and strategies also focus on safe operations system. Most are written to be jurisdictionally blind and on the walking and biking system through education set statewide decision-making support. Those specific and encouragement. They more broadly recognize to a single authority, such as ODOT, are called out as the need to educate all roadway users. Those policies such. In this way, the goals, policies and strategies and strategies touching on comfort and security help of the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan are to encourage more users to the system by increasing comprehensive and inclusive. The following summary their sense of safety. captures each of the plan goals and a sampling of key Relating to enforcement, the Plan recognizes the role policies and strategies. of law enforcement agencies in assuring that rules of Goal 1: Safety the road are followed and safe operations occur. In addition, the strategies call for assuring local codes are Eliminate pedestrian and bicycle fatalities and serious enforced so that mailboxes or foliage do not impede injuries, and improve the overall sense of safety of pedestrian travel, for example. those who bike or walk. Lastly, policies and strategies focus on evaluation, an Safety is a primary goal in all of the Oregon’s mode assessment of the system to determine safety issues. and topic plans and is a key driver in decision making. Policies and strategies specify more robust data The safety goal of this plan is written to align with collection and sharing, as they relate to safety and “Vision Zero” and other federal and local initiatives that other needs. target the elimination of the most serious safety issues. Associated policies and strategies are comprehensive of all aspects of safety, including comfort and security Pedestrian survival and they are designed to bring about an overall safer rate by speed system. ~55% Policies and strategies call for, among other things, ~15% engineering apporaches, such as a multimodal look at 30 roadway cross-sections, updating design guidance to ~95% 20 40 identify the most appropriate walking or biking facility depending on context (such as physical separation),
6 | Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan MPC 7.a - Attachment 1 Page 7 of 10
Goal 2: Accessibility and Connectivity COMMUTE TO WORK Provide a complete bicycling and pedestrian network For Oregonians without a car, that reliably and easily connects to destinations and other transportation modes. 20% walk to work &
It is recognized that there are gaps in sidewalks and 12% bike to work bike lanes and that Oregon does not have a fully SOURCE: 2013 AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY (42) connected network. This goal targets making walking and biking accessible in areas where it is currently not, filling in gaps, and connecting to other modes. Policies and strategies call for such things as system inventories Goal 4: Community and Economic Vitality to identify gaps and prioritize walking and biking Enhance community and economic vitality through needs, retrofitting existing facilities to accommodate walking and biking networks that improve people’s pedestrians and cyclists, wayfinding signage, bike ability to access jobs, businesses, and other share, and enhancing connections to other modes, destinations, and to attract visitors, new residents, and especially public transportation. In addition, strategies new business to the state, opening new opportunities hit upon trails and paths, and policy foundation is laid for Oregonians. for prioritizing Regional Paths that serve as important off-system connection points across a region and for Both land use and tourism are included under this the state. goal area. Specifically, the land use policy framework identifies the need for model code assistance, siting Goal 3: Mobility and Efficiency schools and government buildings so they are accessible to walking and biking, considering land use Improve the mobility and efficiency of the entire attractors to assure safe connections, bicycle parking, transportation system by providing high quality walking and prioritizing employment centers and main streets and biking options for trips of short and moderate as critical connection points that serve the community distances. Support the ability of people who bike, walk, and economy. Tourism policies and strategies focus or use mobility devices to move easily on the system. on partnerships, collaboration opportunities and Mobility and efficiency focuses on assuring that disseminating information as ways to encourage pedestrians and cyclists can move freely and easily on pedestrian and bicycle recreational travel. the existing system. The goal is inclusive of how walking and biking impacts the mobility of other modes, such Goal 5: Equity as reducing motor vehicle congestion. Policies and Provide opportunities and choices for people of all strategies seek to reduce physical barriers that may ages, abilities, and incomes in urban, suburban, and impede movement, hit on maintenance practices, seek rural areas across the state to bike or walk routes to to assure movement through or around construction reach their destinations and to access transportation zones, and touch on design elements such as signal options, assuring transportation disadvantaged timing and bicycle detection, among other issues. communities are served and included in decision making.
Executive Summary | 7 MPC 7.a - Attachment 1 Page 8 of 10
The equity goal focuses on making walking and and strengthening partnerships, and improving data biking options equally available to all. Assuring collection and sharing. access to underserved areas, and more specifically transportation disadvantaged populations, is called Goal 7: Sustainability out. The policies and strategies under this goal are Help to meet federal, state and local sustainability designed to understand the issues that may prevent and environmental goals by providing zero emission certain portions of Oregon’s population from walking transportation options like walking and biking. and biking, such as looking at census data, conducting research, and doing network gap analysis that looks at In recognition of the environmental benefits of walking demographics. They also focus on integrating equity and biking, the sustainability goal highlights the impacts criteria and considerations into decision making, these zero emission modes can have on helping the locating and prioritizing transportation disadvantaged state to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions, have populations, and helping to close the gap between cleaner air and water, and be generally low impact. areas served and not served. Strategies promote encouragement, and innovations such as electric bikes or scooters, which may attract Goal 6: Health more people to use those modes. Provide Oregonians opportunities to become more active and healthy by walking and biking to meet their 1 mile 1 lb daily needs. pedaled or of CO2 walked saves Walking and biking require physical activity to get from origin to destination and is inextricably linked to personal and public health. This goal seeks to be more overt about that linkage. Policies and strategies SOURCE: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (28) call out such things as integrating health criteria in transportation decision making and conducting analysis Goal 8: Strategic Investment when appropriate, engaging health professionals Recognize Oregon’s strategic investments in walking and biking as crucial components of the transportation system that provide essential options for travel, and HEALTH FACTS can help reduce system costs, and achieve other important benefits.
25-33% of Oregon adults have chronic disease preconditions and over 40% of The contribution that walking and bicycling facilities Oregon adults do not meet CDC physical make to the entire transportation system is recognized activity recommendations. SOURCE: OREGON HEALTH AUTHORITY (21) in this goal. In looking at walking and biking issues and opportunities, available funding is likely to fall short of A 2011 study estimated that Portland, OR could see between $388 and $594 million in investment needs. Therefore a strategic approach is health cost savings attributable to new bicycle needed to spend existing resources on the highest infrastructure and programs by 2040. Every $1 invested in bicycling yields $3.40 in health care need and greatest value investments, leverage what cost savings. When the statistical value of lives is available, and to identify additional funding sources. is considered, every $1 invested yields nearly $100 in benefits. Policies and strategies address these issues and create SOURCE: ALLIANCE FOR BIKING & WALKING, GOTSCHI (1,23) an investment prioritization framework. The framework lays out priorities as follows: protect the existing system
8 | Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan MPC 7.a - Attachment 1 Page 9 of 10
(e.g. maintenance and preservation) and address significant safety issues; add critical connections Implementation (defined in the Plan) and address other safety issues; The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is a modal complete the system (e.g. separation, and bicycle element of the OTP, the state’s multimodal policy parking); and elaborate the system (e.g. pedestrian and plan. The policies and strategies in the Plan direct the bicycle only bridges). Strategies also cover such actions work of ODOT and impact transportation decisions as pedestrian and bicycle project lists in Transportation of local jurisdictions through their Transportation System Plans and other relevant planning documents, System Plans (TSPs) and other planning efforts, being opportunistic in acquiring right-of-way for which must be consistent with statewide policy plan future facilities, pursuing local funding mechanisms direction. Region and local plans refine policies and and sources, and leveraging funding opportunities. strategies to the appropriate context and identify projects and programs, which are then prioritized for Goal 9: Coordination, Cooperation, and investment. Implementation then continues through Collaboration Project Development and Delivery, Maintenance, and Work actively and collaboratively with federal, state, Education, Outreach and Training. regional, local and private partners to provide consistent and seamless walking and biking networks Effective Plan implementation requires coordination that are integral to the transportation system. among multiple agencies and organizations. The walking and biking networks cross multiple state There are many different jurisdictions that own highways, county roads, city streets, parks and other and operate walking and biking facilities, which lands. The patchwork of facilities and ownership means that a single route is likely to cross different necessitates the collaboration among the various authorities. With an interest in creating an integrated agencies and organizations responsible for the myriad and seamless system, this coordination, cooperation of facilities across the state. To achieve the Plan’s vision, and collaboration goal seeks to assure communication the policies and strategies need to be implemented by between entities in decision making. Policies and a variety of partners, including state, regional, and local strategies call for a checklist of communication needs, governments and the private sector. guidance for coordinating with transportation agencies and utilities companies, for example, and local capacity Key Initiatives building. Key Initiatives are foundational activities that need to occur following Plan adoption in order to achieve the Plan vision. These initiatives are anticipated to be of significant effort that begin in the near term and require coordination among entities like ODOT, other state agencies, and local jurisdictions, as appropriate, to ensure future implementation.
Defining the Network - This key initiative is an early concept recognizing stakeholder interests in a better definition for the walking and biking network in order to inform design and help with system inventories, needs, and project priorities. At a high level, this key initiative recognizes that while the motor vehicle network has
Executive Summary | 9 MPC 7.a - Attachment 1 Page 10 of 10
been defined by state functional classifications to be used in prioritization performance measures, such distinguish how different parts of the system are used as network connectivity, potential demand, or safety. as well as how they should be designed and function, the biking and walking network does not have a Performance Measures consistent approach for such definition. Further work The Plan will help to shape the future of walking and is needed to understand what the best approach biking options in Oregon over the next 25 years. To is to define the biking and walking network but this understand how this plays out in achieving the Plan initiatives aims at identifying a way to differentiate vision, performance measures are needed to track the walking and biking system and provide clarity on and monitor implementation progress. At the Plan appropriate infrastructure, design, and treatments level, performance measures focus on ways to gauge given unique contexts, such as: vehicle speed, statewide success or to help inform decision making to roadway characteristics and constraints, planned land achieve the Plan vision. While performance measures uses, key destinations, walking and biking uses and are often specific in nature, Plan level performance users, and latent demand. This would provide further measures need to be high-level, all-encompassing, direction in prioritizing needs (both infrastructure and and few in total number in order to be applicable and funding), identifying system gaps, developing criteria informative statewide. for differentiation of facility type, and refining design guidelines to support multimodal system and user In the development of the Plan, several performance needs. measures were explored. Those selected and outlined below represent performance areas that Data - Data is needed to support efficient and effective could be measured today because sufficient data decision-making. Use, availability, and quality of data exists, a methodology for how to measure has been vary across the state. This key initiative provides an established, and they can be evaluated statewide. The opportunity to focus on finding ways to collect and performance measures indicate if safety is improving, standardize data that relates directly to decision use of the system is increasing (assumed through making, identified Plan performance measures, and overall improvements to the network) and that data those program level performance measures to be needs are being understood and data collected for identified in plan implementation (described in the key more robust performance measures in the future: initiative below). • Number of pedestrian and bicycle fatalities Program Level Performance Measures - While (five-year average) performance measures have been identified to track progress on achieving the Plan vision, more specific • Number of pedestrian and bicycle serious injuries performance measures may be needed to assess (five-year average) needs, system condition, and program performance. Prioritization performance measures are important in • Perceived safety of walking and biking order to employ appropriate data to support decision- • Utilization of walking or biking for short trips making for network development and maintenance. This key initiative focuses on developing program-level • Identifying data needs for pedestrian and bicycle performance measures that can be used in project performance measures prioritization as it relates to public investment in walking and biking. Indicators used to “define the network” may • Pedestrian access to transit
10 | Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
January 27, 2016
To: Metropolitan Policy Committee From: Paul Thompson Subject: Item 7.b – Amendment to Regional Transportation Plan
The City of Eugene is requesting an amendment to the Central Lane MPO’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for the 24th Avenue Sidewalk Widening project. The City wishes to amend the RTP to place the project on the Plan’s fiscally constrained project list.
The project will replace the existing 5-foot wide sidewalk on the south side of 24th Avenue (beginning at the Amazon (shared use) Path and terminating 200 feet to the east) with a new 8-foot wide sidewalk that will match the newly rebuilt 8-foot sidewalk in front of the new Roosevelt Middle School building. This project is needed to provide a path-like connection between Roosevelt Middle School and the Amazon path.
At the February 4th MPC meeting, Eugene staff will be available to provide further details on the project. The project cost, as it would be listed in the RTP, will be $57,700, and the City has ensured that fiscal constraint of the RTP will not be affected.
An amendment to the RTP requires action by the MPO Policy Board – MPC. The staff Transportation Planning Committee (TPC) has reviewed the request and unanimously acted to forward it for consideration by MPC and review and potential comment by the public. A public comment period on the proposed amendment will be open from January 29 through February 28, 2016. A public hearing on the proposal will be conducted at the February 4th MPC meeting. MPC will be asked to act on the proposed amendment at the March 2016 meeting.
Action Recommended: Conduct public hearing. Provide feedback and direction to staff.
January 27, 2016
To: Metropolitan Policy Committee From: Paul Thompson Subject: Item 7.c – Programming MPO STP-U Funds for Main St./McVay Outreach
Background Lane Transit District and the City of Springfield are seeking STP-U funding to support Business Outreach that will help determine a Locally Preferred Solution for the Main-McVay Highway corridor. The project study area follows Main Street in Springfield from Thurston to Glenwood, and McVay Highway from Glenwood to Nugget Drive.
Following the February 2015 Main-McVay Transit Study, The Lane Transit District Board of Directors and the Springfield City Council passed resolutions to advance a set of “Most Promising Transit Solutions” for the corridor and to proceed with the identification of a Locally Preferred Solution (LPS). General parameters for these solutions were identified, but the options remain conceptual. The solutions need additional design refinement based on in-depth community and decision-maker input. This phase of the project will develop and analyze detailed designs of the Most Promising Transit Solutions and engage the public and decision- makers to advance the LPS into project development.
This application (Attachment 1) for funding focuses on business outreach along the corridor and will include mailings, door to door outreach, and meetings with elected officials and select business or property owners. Staff will also conduct two Design Solutions Workshops to identify potential solutions for avoiding or minimizing impacts for a locally preferred transit solution. The outreach will be conducted in two phases, the first phase gathers input at a higher level and the second phase will bring more refined concepts back to the community for further input. More details about the specific tasks that will be funded under this application are included in Attachment 2.
The MPO’s Transportation Planning Committee (TPC) has discussed the funding application and is recommending the programming of this funding due to the regional significance of the project. The additional outreach to community members and business owners along the corridor is an important piece of selecting appropriate design solutions for this regional transit project.
Action Recommended: Approve Resolution 2016-01, programming funds.
Attachments: 1. STP-U Application 2. Main-McVay Transit Project Process Outline 3. Resolution 2016-01
MPC 7.c – Attachment 1 – STP-U & TAP Application Form Page 1 of 10
APPLICATION FOR: STP-U FUNDS (Project Development, Preservation, Modernization) TAP FUNDS (Transportation Alternatives Program) FY 2016-2018
Project Information Business Outreach for Main-McVay Locally Preferred Project Title: Transit Solution Agency Applying: Lane Transit District and City of Springfield Applying for STP or TAP: STP-U Fiscal Year(s): FY 16 Staff Contact: Tom Schwetz, LTD Staff Phone: 541-682-6203 Staff Email: [email protected]
Project Type: Preservation Modernization Project Development Other
Mode: Roadway Transit Bike/Ped Other Project Description: This project will determine a Locally Preferred Solution for future transit service along the Main Street- McVay Highway Corridor. The project study area follows Main Street in Springfield from Thurston to Glenwood, and McVay Highway from Glenwood to Nugget Drive. The February 2015, Main-McVay Transit Study resulted in resolutions by the LTD Board of Directors and the Springfield City Council to advance a set of “Most Promising Transit Solutions” for the corridor and to proceed with the identification of a Locally Preferred Solution (LPS). Some general parameters for these potential solutions have been identified, but the options remain conceptual with questions that cannot be answered without additional design refinement and community and decision-maker input. This phase of the project will develop and analyze detailed design of the Most Promising Transit Solutions and engage the public and decision-makers in the review of and determination for an LPS to advance into project development.
Description of Need or Problem The Main-McVay project has reached a critical milestone in the achievement of an adopted set of most promising transit solutions to advance into the penultimate phase of determining if a single locally preferred solution exists to advance into the full funding and project development stage. Because this phase of the project leads to more detailed design of the alternatives, specific impacts along the corridor will be better understood. In review of a preliminary scope of work for this phase of the project, the project Governance Team (consisting of 2 representatives from the Springfield City Council, 2 representatives from the LTD Board, and one representative from ODOT) identified the need for more engagement of businesses and property owners adjacent to the corridor. In response to this discussion, staff worked with the consultant team to identify the additional effort required to provide this level of engagement. The attached scope summary provides an outline of the overall project, highlighting the additional work added to the scope. The modified scope provides a more robust engagement of affected businesses and property owners, allowing for an iterative development of design solutions focused on minimizing and mitigating project impacts. MPC 7.c – Attachment 1 – STP-U & TAP Application Form Page 2 of 10
Eligibility YES NO RTP Is the project listed in, consistent with, or able to be added to financially constrained RTP, during project time frame?
Timeliness. Does the agency have the ability to utilize funds in FY requested?
Federal Eligibility. Is project eligible for STP-U or TAP funding under Federal guidelines1
Local Match. Can agency provide minimum required matching funds (10.27% of project total)?
Sufficient Funding. Has sufficient funding been identified to complete project/phase
1For STP-U, see http://www.lcog.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/1558?fileID=7308 For TAP, see http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidetap.cfm
Cost Estimate/Funding Needs Total Estimated Project Cost $100,000 Funding Available $20,100 Source: LTD in-kind match (67%) $9,900 Source: City of Springfield in-kind match (33%)
Amount of STP-U/TAP Request $70,000 (Indicate to the right funding source requested) Note: Total non-federal funding must meet minimum match requirement of 10.27% of Total Project Cost.
MPC 7.c – Attachment 1 – STP-U & TAP Application Form Page 3 of 10
Regional Priorities PRESERVES EXISTING TRANSPORTATION ASSETS Goal: Meet a minimum Pavement Condition Index (PCI) on high volume Arterials, Collectors and Multi-Use Paths. Measures: Roadway Transit Route Bike Multi-Use Path Lanes
Function Minor Arterials Transit See next section al Class: Volume: PCI: N/A Freight See V/C data in Volume: Attachment 2 and 3 Traffic See V/C data in Attachments 2 and 3 Bike/Ped Not available, See bike Volume: Counts: and ped facilities figures in Attachments 4 and 5 Qualitative Assessment: While not a traditional pavement preservation project, this study will facilitate future pavement preservation projects by predetermining the opportunities for bicycle, pedestrian and transit improvements on several key arterial streets.
Regional Priorities PRESERVES OR ENHANCES TRANSIT SERVICES Goal: Maintain or increase transit ridership. Measures: Existing Main Street Projected Average weekday ridership: Current service on the Main Street segment ridership boardings compared to east of the Springfield Station is provided by regular bus service in the #11 Thurston route. The route has very 2035 is estimated to high ridership, with a weekday average of increase depending on 3,900 boardings and a weekday ridership transit investments productivity of 55 boardings per hour. between 0% and 12% The #11 Thurston, operates every 10 minutes depending on segment during the weekday afternoon peak time and selected LPS. period, every 15 minutes weekday mornings Detailed ridership and midday, evenings, and Saturdays, and projections will be every 30 minutes late evenings and Sundays. modeled as part of this This makes it the route with the second proposed project. highest ridership (second to EmX) in the LTD Existing Proj. The frequent transit system. Ridership is distributed throughout service service network facilitated by this the route, with the highest numbers of hrs: hrs: project will provide boardings at the following stops: higher-capacity transit • Springfield Transit Station: 1,300 boardings service. per weekday Ex. area • Thurston station: 150 boardings per Project The project service area will of weekday service remain the same as the service: • Stations at 30th, 42nd, 54th and 69th all area: areas are already served by transit. have greater than 100 boardings per weekday. MPC 7.c – Attachment 1 – STP-U & TAP Application Form Page 4 of 10
The Main Street segment of the project corridor suffers from lengthening transit travel times and deteriorating public transportation reliability due to growing traffic congestion, signal delays, and passenger boarding delays. Average run time route on the #11 Thurston has increased 3.5 percent in the last five years, with midday run time increasing by more than 10 percent during that period. In the fall of 2014, schedule time will be added to the route due to the lengthening travel time. Approximately 7.5 percent of the #11 Thurston trips on an average weekday are more than four (4) minutes late, a figure that is higher than the system average of 7.0 percent.
McVay Highway Transit service on the McVay Highway Segment is provided by the #85 LCC/Springfield, which travels between the Springfield Station and Lane Community College (LCC). The #85 route operates weekdays with a service frequency of a bus every 30 minutes. There is currently no Saturday or Sunday service on the McVay Highway segment of the corridor. Average daily ridership on the route is 730 boardings, and ridership productivity averages 74 boardings per hour. Approximately 94 percent of the riders on the #85 route board at either the Springfield Station or at LCC. There are very few boardings between these two route termini. Title VI Title VI This project seeks to Issues: The fact that the corridor has relatively low Issues: identify better, less use of public transportation suggests an expensive transportation opportunity to improve transit use through options and better access improved service options. The corridor to employment and demographics include relatively high levels of services within the Main youth and a tendency toward lower incomes, Street-McVay Corridor. with race and ethnicity reflecting rates similar to those of the entire regional area. Corridor demographics tend to support the provision of higher quality transit service, particularly along the Main Street Segment with its higher population base. Refer to MPC 7.c – Attachment 1 – STP-U & TAP Application Form Page 5 of 10
demographic data in Attachments 6 through 9. Qualitative Assessment: This project is an implementation strategy for transit solutions (ranging from No Build, Enhanced Corridor, and Bus Rapid Transit). The planned transit improvement will provide frequent high-capacity transit service, increased utility for riders, and more stable operating costs at a sustainable level. Improvements for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and connections between modes will be part of a transit solution project if the selected LPS is not the No Build option.
MPC 7.c – Attachment 1 – STP-U & TAP Application Form Page 6 of 10
Regional Priorities IMPROVES SAFETY Goals: Reduce the number and severity of accidents involving pedestrians, bicyclists, and/or vehicles. Address areas perceived to have safety issues to increase the use of multi-use paths. Measures: Roadway Multi-Use Path Sidewalk Mixed
Vehicular Identified Safety Issues: Traffic Traffic volumes vary along the Crash As part of the Springfield TSP, crash Volume: various portions of the Data: rates per million entering vehicles corridor. (MEV) were calculated for each of the Typical AADT volumes in 2012 study intersections. Typically further ranged from 13,799 on Main investigation is warranted when and 13,400 on South A Street crash rates are greater than 1.0. at 4th Street, to 13,040 on None of the study intersections has a Main Street and 13,164 on crash rate approaching 1.0. While the South A Street at 14th Street. intersections studied in the TSP did At the end of couplet, just not show remarkably high crash west of the crossing at 21st rates, there has been a concern Street where Main Street and about pedestrian collisions between South A Street combine, the 20th Street and 73rd Street (including traffic count in 2012 for both 12 pedestrian fatalities in 10 years). directions was 19,599. Finally, In addition, due in part to the high in the east end, near Highway number of accesses in the corridor, 126, the counts reduced to collisions between intersections 13,835 in both directions and appear to be high. The OR 126 Main reduced even farther east of Street Safety Study was conducted 72nd Street, with counts of due to these continued occurrences. only 8,368. The primary emphasis of the study Historic and projected was on providing safe pedestrian increases in traffic congestion crossings at unsignalized locations. in the Main-McVay Corridor The study recommended a number of due to increases in regional safety improvements specifically and corridor population and aimed at improving pedestrian safety employment. Four (4) in the corridor, with nine prioritized intersections in the corridor crossing improvement locations (McVay/Franklin, Main/42nd, identified. Main/Hwy 126, and Main/58th) are projected to exceed ODOT mobility standards for 2035 The approach to Lane Community College from Interstate 5 has a very high level of congestion in the morning periods, which creates delays for the #85 LCC/Springfield route;
The Interstate 5 interchange at MPC 7.c – Attachment 1 – STP-U & TAP Application Form Page 7 of 10
30th Avenue is in need of improvements to address traffic and safety issues. While there is a recognized need for improvements to the interchange, funding and the schedule for the improvements are uncertain.
Bicycle There are major bicycle related safety Transit See Preserves of Enhances Crash issues along the Main Street Corridor, Volume: Transit Services section. Data: with 33 bicycle injuries, including one (1) fatal and one (1) severe injury reported during the 2008 through 2013 time period. Pedestria Main Street suffers from major Bike/Ped See bicycle and pedestrian n Crash pedestrian safety issues including for Counts: facility data in Attachments 4 Data: riders walking to and from the bus and 5. stops on Main Street, and street crossings to access bus stops that are not located near a signalized or enhanced crossing. From 2009 through 2013, along Main Street between McVay Highway and 68th Street, there were a total of 29 pedestrian injuries including three (3) fatalities and six (6) severe injuries. From 1999 through 2010, there have been a total of nine (9) pedestrian fatalities during the past ten years along Main Street between 20th and 73rd Streets.
McVay Highway From 2004 through 2013 there were no reported pedestrian injuries and two (2) bicycle injuries (neither was a fatal or severe injury) on the McVay Segment of the Corridor. Despite the low number of reported injuries on this segment, as this area continues to develop there is a greater probability for pedestrian and bicycle safety issues for riders accessing transit service on McVay Highway due to high travel speeds, narrow roadways, and lack of sidewalks in many areas. Qualitative Assessment: MPC 7.c – Attachment 1 – STP-U & TAP Application Form Page 8 of 10
Residents in our region value transportation that is safe and accessible for everyone whether on foot, or using a mobility device, bike, bus, or car. This project will examine transportation needs and improved access for all modes. A large component of the project is to improve safety along and across the corridor, and to increase the safe and convenient connections between modes. Regional Priorities REDUCES GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Goals: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing congestion, increasing operational efficiency, supporting alternative modes, and managing transportation demand. Measures: Congestion Operational Alternative Trans. Demand Reduction Efficiency Modes Management (TDM)
Qualitative Assessment: This project facilitates bicycle, pedestrian, and transit improvements along corridors planned by the City of Springfield for higher densities and a greater mix of uses. These combined land use and transportation strategies reduce reliance on automobile travel, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions and potential congestion. The frequent transit network facilitated by this project will provide higher-capacity transit service with 10-15 minute headway, increased ridership and system utility, and more stable costs at a sustainable level. Improvements to the pedestrian and bicycle networks improve choice, safety, and access without reliance on fossil fuels.
MPC 7.c – Attachment 1 – STP-U & TAP Application Form Page 9 of 10
Additional Project Benefits Will completed project fill in key gaps in the transportation Connectivity system, complete system components, or provide better pedestrian, bicycle, or roadway connectivity at a regional scale? This project will improve transit connections throughout the project corridor, as well as plan pedestrian and bicycle connections to the transit network. The land use component of this study will improve access between residences, transit, goods, employment, and other destinations. Measures: Gaps in bike and pedestrian system filled; connections made for bikes, mobility devices, and pedestrians to transit.
How will completed project benefit more than one mode or Multiple Modes purpose (i.e., roadway & transit, bicycle & roadway users, or roadway & identified freight route)? This project will plan for people who use transit, bicycles, mobility devices, and for those who walk. The Main Street segment of this study is a designated freight route. The routes under study have high traffic and some corridors do not have continuous bike facilities and sidewalks. Measures: The number of modes considered and accommodated. Miles of bike lanes and sidewalk added or improved.
Will completed project reduce congestion through provision of Congestion Reduction additional capacity or critical link or other means? The project aims to increase street capacity (for movement of people), access to goods and services, reliability of freight movement, and improved safety for all modes. Conceivably, this plan could result in more congestion or delayed travel times for automobiles at specific locations or times of day. Measures: Traffic model (only preliminary afforded by this grant).
Will completed project improve the freight system and freight Freight movement? The project aims to increase street capacity (for movement of people), access to goods and services, and safety for all modes. It could result in more congestion or delayed travel times for automobiles. This project will not result in decreased intersection Level of Service (LOS) along designated freight routes, specifically Main Street. Measures: Traffic model (preliminary only afforded by this grant); input from freight industry.
Public Health Will the completed project provide public health benefits? This study facilitates bicycle, pedestrian, and transit improvements along corridors planned by Envision Eugene for higher densities and a greater mix of uses. These combined land use and transportation strategies promote active modes of travel, reduced reliance on automobile travel, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants. Active modes improve individual health, reduce pollution, promote a healthy social environment, and improve safety through fewer, less severe crashes.
Measures: Crash history, emissions reductions
Will the completed project promote or support economic Economic Development development? The project aims to increase the capacity of the street system and access between residents, goods, services, and employment opportunities. This will facilitate growth within the Urban Growth Boundary, reduce household costs for travel, and allow greater expenditures that support the local economy (as opposed to payments for imported fuels). The project will improve access to employment areas. Measures: Implementation of the Springfield Main Street Vision Plan – increase in population and job density along Main Street corridors.
Other Are there other benefits that the completed project will MPC 7.c – Attachment 1 – STP-U & TAP Application Form Page 10 of 10
provide?
Measures: Other Project Information Scope of improvement, i.e., regional, community, neighborhood, local Although contained mostly inside the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary, the project is regional in impact. The project specifically involves several neighborhoods and cross town connections between Eugene, Springfield, and Lane Community College. The benefits will be felt throughout the region. Ratio of STP-U Overhead to Overall Project Cost Most of the foreseeable overhead (local project management, billing, reporting, meeting logistics) will be covered by the City and LTD in-kind match. The match totals 10.27% of the total project costs, but is not charged to the grant. Opportunity Costs, i.e., cost of not doing activity/project The Main-McVay project is already funded and in process. Not doing this final stage required for both entering project development and community acceptance would result in the project not advancing and loss of funds and community and agency investments of time and resources to bring the project to this point. Approximately $200,000 of the original project funds remain but this amount is not adequate to meet the requirements of the next phase of the project. These funds will be forgone without this requested supplemental funding to identify a preferred alternative to advance into project development. Opportunity costs also include delayed implementation of the transit improvements along Springfield’s major planned urban growth corridor (perhaps by years, decades), resulting in severe traffic congestion, lack of transportation infrastructure improvements necessary to support mixed-use development, inefficient transportation networks, less than optimal design and inefficient land use/transportation connections, lessened public understanding and support for transit improvements, and more crashes and personal injuries. APPLICATION DUE DATE: JULY 24, 2015 PLEASE SUBMIT APPLICATION ELECTRONICALLY TO PAUL THOMPSON, LCOG [email protected]
MPC 7.c - Attachment 2 Page 1 of 1
Main-McVay Transit Project Process Outline
Process Step Schedule 1. GT meeting to approve scope and give go ahead 12/17/15 2. Inform Stakeholders a. Community Outreach Plan i. Reengage stakeholders with the process ii. Effectively reach business and property owners iii. Inform broader community 3. Develop and Refine Design Options 4. GT Review / Feedback on Design Options (1-2 meetings) a. Pre public outreach b. Toss out what can’t be lived with (eliminating rather than choosing) 5. Project Team Refine Design Options 6. Community: Review / Feedback on Design Options a. Community-wide communication b. Business & Property Owners with Potential Effects i. Contact via Mail, Door-to-door – (LTD, City, Consultants); Mayor / Councilor Woodrow meetings with select business / property owners, as needed c. Broader Community Open House i. Broad invitation for those not directly impacted to engage in process. Two opportunities on same day (7AM and 7PM), follow up with Tom S, Emma 7. Design Solutions – First iteration (high level) a. Focused meetings with business and property owners to determine solutions for avoiding or minimizing impacts (touch each of the impacted properties/people) b. Design Solutions Workshop - Project Team, LTD construction group, City engineering and project staff determine solutions based on all reviews and feedback c. GT Review design solutions – provide feedback /direction 8. Design Refinement and Evaluation 3/18/16 9. Select Preferred Solutions 4/04/16 a. GT Review refined design options, updated evaluation, trade-off analysis and make preliminary determination b. Project Team make necessary revisions c. Community Outreach: Review / Feedback on preliminary determination i. Community-wide communication ii. Business & Property Owners with Potential Effects iii. Broader Community Open House d. Design Solutions – Second iteration (more focused) i. Focused meetings with specific business and property owners to determine solutions for avoiding or minimizing impacts ii. Design Solutions Workshop 1. Project Team, LTD capital projects & City engineering/project teams 2. Determine solutions based on all reviews and feedback 3. GT Review design solutions – provide feedback /direction e. GT Select single Locally Preferred Solution (LPS) and recommendation to proceed to NEPA f. Springfield City Council review GT recommendation, make LPS decision g. LTD Board review GT recommendation, SCC decision and make Board LPS decision 8/17/16 h. Metropolitan Policy Committee adopts LPS 9/01/16
Note: Highlighted text indicates use of requested STP-U funding. MPC 7.c – Attachment 3 – Resolution 2016-01 Page 1 of 1
RESOLUTION 2016-01
AMENDING THE CENTRAL LANE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) has been designated by the State of Oregon as the official Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Central Lane region; and
WHEREAS, the LCOG Board has delegated responsibility for MPO policy functions to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC), a committee of officials from Eugene, Springfield, Coburg, Lane County, Lane Transit District, and ODOT; and
WHEREAS, federal regulations require that transportation projects using several categories of federal funds and projects that are regionally significant for air quality purposes be included in a Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP); and
WHEREAS, 23 CFR §450.324(b) requires that the MTIP be updated every four years and be kept current to reflect decisions regarding the programming of federal funds; and
WHEREAS, the Air Quality Conformity Determination for this MTIP was approved by US Department of Transportation on June 27, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment set forth in Exhibit A has been determined to not affect the existing air quality conformity determination or trigger the need for a new air quality conformity determination; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment does not affect fiscal constraint of the MTIP; and
WHEREAS, a public review and comment period has been conducted, and the Metropolitan Policy Committee has approved the public review process,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Metropolitan Policy Committee amends the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program, as set forth in Exhibit A, attached to and incorporated within this resolution by reference.
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 4th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016, BY THE METROPOLITAN POLICY COMMITTEE.
ATTEST:
______, Chair Brendalee Wilson, Executive Director Metropolitan Policy Committee Lane Council of Governments
January 26. 2016
To: Metropolitan Policy Committee
From: Josh Roll - Senior Planner LCOG
Subject: MPC 7.d – Lane Regional Safety Plan Update
Action Recommended: None. Information only.
Background Between 2007 and 2014, 285 people lost their lives in traffic collisions in Lane County, while 942 have been severely injured with another 18,529 experiencing a less than severe injury. These outcomes are the result of nearly 10 traffic collisions occurring in the county every day. The Regional Transportation Safety Plan will provide Lane County and the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization (CLMPO) an opportunity to collect data; analyze and understand multi-modal safety conditions throughout the region; develop recommended countermeasures to reduce fatal and severe injury crashes and establish performance measures through which the region can monitor implementation. The Regional Transportation Safety Plan will be the result of a data-driven planning process and will establish a direction for policy development in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The process will also help inform any ongoing local Transportation System Plans (TSP).
Progress Update Currently in its fourth month of development, this transportation safety planning process has completed key deliverables that will be used in the remaining elements of the effort. A stakeholder group has been convened consisting of individuals representing diverse local interests and disciplines, including engineering, law enforcement, planning, public health, emergency medical services, education and advocates. In-depth analysis of regional crash data has helped the stakeholder team establish emphasis areas which are being used to frame the existing conditions and areas of concern. More information about emphasis areas and the methods used to derive them is included as Attachment 1 to this memo. An inventory of existing policies and programs related to transportation safety was completed and is helping the project management team and stakeholder group understand the resources currently available to mitigate existing safety problems.
Next Steps The emphasis areas established in the previous work tasks will shape the remaining elements of the plan. Focus groups are being created that will bring in additional perspectives through a diversity of stakeholders from multiple disciplines to help the project management team more fully explore strategies for reducing fatal and severe injuries. Information gathered from focus groups will be used to inform the stakeholder advisory team and the plan’s strategic framework, one of the last elements of the plan.
Attachments: 1. Memo: Stakeholder Meeting # 2 Emphasis Areas Summary
Stakeholder Meeting # 2 Emphasis Areas Summary 12/9/2015
Introduction
The following document presents information to support Stakeholder Advisory Team (SAT) members understanding of information and concepts that will be presented at SAT Meeting # 2. This document reviews the purpose of Emphasis Areas as they relate to transportation safety planning in the Lane Region. The document then summarizes proposed Emphasis Areas for the Lane Regional Safety Planning effort along with supporting information. Finally this document describes the Emphasis Area selection criteria used in this process. This document is not meant to be an exhaustive review of the information but rather a primer for the upcoming SAT Meeting.
What is an Emphasis Area?
The primary goal of Emphasis Areas is to help stakeholders including the public and decision makers, better understand the safety conditions under examination.
• Designed as near-term implementation focus areas directly related to the safety plan’s long-term goals, policies and strategies.
• The selection of emphasis areas is an important step in the planning process that should be based on the best available data and consideration of values, trends, safety programs, and regulatory requirements.
• Provide a strategic framework for the development and implementation of the safety plan.
Proposed Emphasis Areas
Table 1 below summarizes the proposed Emphasis Areas determined through seven selection criteria. Detailed data and explanation will be presented at the upcoming meeting; the below table uses Harvey Ball symbols to summarize the information. The nature of the current planning effort dictates that two plans, one for the urban area and one for Lane County as a whole, are completed. To better understand the differences in rural and urban conditions within Lane County the proposed Emphasis Areas may not apply to both areas. This is noted in Table 1 below in the Geographic Focus column. The Harvey Ball symbols apply differently to the quantitative criteria compared to the qualitative criteria. The quantitative criteria use low, medium, high whereas the qualitative criteria use no, some, yes. This is described in the legend below the table.
MPC 7.d – Attachment 1 1
Table 1 Proposed Emphasis Areas by Selection Criteria and Geography
Geographic Quantitative Criteria Qualitative Criteria Focus Disparate Emphasis Area Emphasis Area Frequency Severity Trend Impact Overlap Policy Focus SAT Input Rural Urban Risky Behaviors Impaired Driving ● ● ○ ○ ◒ ● X X Speed ◒ ◒ ◒ ○ ● ○ X X Unrestrained Occupants ◒ ● ◒ ○ ○ ○ X - Distracted ○ ○ ● ○ ◒ ○ X X Vulnerable Users Pedestrian ◒ ● ● ● ● ● - X Bicycle ◒ ● ◒ ● ● ● - X Motorcycle ◒ ● ● ● ○ ○ X X Young Drivers (15-21) ◒ ○ ○ ● ◒ ◒ X X Infrastructure Principle Arterials - Other ● ○ ● ● ● ○ X X Minor Arterials ● ○ ◒ ● ● ○ - X
Major Collectors ● ◒ ◒ ● ○ ○ X - Intersections ● ○ ● ● ● ○ X X Foundational
EMS, Data, Training NA X X Uncategorized
Roadway Departure ● ◒ ◒ ○ ● ○ X X
Unlicensed Drivers ○ ◒ ● ○ ○ ○ X X
Legend ○ Low No ◒ Medium Some ● High Yes
MPC 7.d – Attachment 1 2
Selection Criteria for Proposed Emphasis Areas
The Lane Regional Safety Plan process intends to use a data driven process and incorporates four quantitative selection criteria. However the selection criteria also incorporates qualitative measures to help connect the emphasis areas with one another, link emphasis areas with non-safety policies, and embrace SAT input. Below are descriptions of the emphasis areas used in Table 1 above.
Quantitative
• Frequency: Number of fatal and serious injury crashes (and proportion of total)
• Severity: Fatal and serious injury crashes per 100 crashes
• Trend: Regression trend line slope for fatal and serious injury crashes
• Disparate Impact: Unequal burden or risk on certain demographic group, type of user or area
Qualitative
• Emphasis Area Overlap: Multiple benefits (the solution to one problem solves another)
• Policy Focus: Existing non-safety related policy
• SAT Input: SAT members provided input
SAT Meeting # 2
The above information is provided as a primer for the upcoming Stakeholder Meeting and is by no means exhaustive in its scope. Detailed information will be presented when the SAT meets next and the project management team hopes for a robust discussion of these methods and the current outcomes. Using this methodology we hope to identify which of the proposed emphasis areas should be retained and determine any additional emphasis areas. The next steps will involve how to accomplish reductions in fatal and severe injuries within the emphasis areas.
Data Exploration
For members interested in exploring the data behind the emphasis areas in more detail please see the link below to the CLMPO’s data portal and emphasis area dynamic data visualization - http://tableau.thempo.org/Safety/emphasis.htm
MPC 7.d – Attachment 1 3