Ordinance No. 20258 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

WEST EUGENE PARKWAY [~OOIFJED PROJECT--,CONSISTENCY W~H THE 8TATEWIDE PLANNING ~S AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE Hill Flyover Alternative does not require a new goal exception, it reasonably belongs in the category of facilities addressed under OAR 660-012-0070(5). However, fbr the same reasons described immediately above under the Approved Design, it makes more sense to address this alternative in the section addressing alternatives requiring exceptions. That analysis is incorl~rated herein by this reference, and for the reasons therein stated, the Green Hill Flyover Alternative cannot reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need. omplmnce with OAR 660-012-0070(6) OAR 660-012-0070(6) requires the exception to justify the thresholds chosen to judge whether an alternative method or location identified under OAR 660-012-0070(4) or (5) cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed transpo~tion need or facility. These thresholds include cost, operational feasibility, economic dislocation and "other relevant factors." For the West Eugene Parkway, the thresholds used to judge an alternative's ability to "re " accommodate" the identified transportation need include: asonamy Cost Operational Feasibility and Design Standard Compliance Economic Dislocations and Other Economic Impacts Protecting Natural Resources Consistent with Federal Environmental Objectives Achieving State and Local Planning and Transportation Objectives Maintaining the Integrity of the Comprehensive Planning Process Cost Cost is an appropriate threshold to consider in judging whether alternative methods or locations not requiring goal exceptions cannot reasonably accommodate the WEP. Cost factors include costs for right of way acquisition and relocation rights, sub-grade preparations, drainage features, surfacing, structures, and roadside amenities. To the extent that raw land acquisition costs outside of an urban growth boundary are cheaper generally than those inside a ~undary, cost is not a reasonable basis for determining that alternatives not requiting goal exceptions axe not reasonable. However, where existing development patterns, required dislocations, loss of access and other factors are of such magnitude as to substantially increase the costs of urban lands above their raw land values, then the comparative costs of alternatives become a legitimate factor to consider. This is particularly so in an era where the need for transportation improvements is substantial and the resources available to pay for them are constrained. Transportation finance has not kept up with inflation. Safety, pavement conditions, and bridge sufficiency ratings are not meeting minimum sen, ice levels and are declining. While costs along cannot be the determining factor, relative savings represent potential system improvements to existing facilities elsewhere on the transportation network. Operational Feasibility and Design Standard Compliance A facility that c,~not operate as a major arterial in a manner consistent wkh applicable state or local highway design and safety standards is not deemed reasonable to accommodate the WEP. Consistent with the identified need for the WEP, the facility must be capable of operating ~n a manner consistent with its function of moving inter-and intra-urban traffic efficiently through the Eugene-Springfield metro~litan area, and its design must be safe. This threshold is consistent with the provision in OAR 660-012-0065(5)(a) that a jurisdiction need not consider any alternative that is inconsistent with applicable standards or not approved by a registered professional engineer~ EXHIBIT C~ - FINDINGS 4~