Ordinance No. 20258 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

__ WEST EUC~HE PAP, KWAY M~FIED PROJECT--.CONStSTENC'f WITH THE STATEW~DE PLANNING GOALS 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, for the same reasons described immediately above under the Approved Design, it makes more sense to address this alternative in the section addressing alternatives requiting exceptions. That analysis is incorporated herein by this reference, and for the reasons therein stated, the Green Hill Flyover Alternative cannot reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need. Compliance with OAR 660-012.0070{6} OAR 660-012-0070(6} requires the exception to justify the thresholds chosen to judge whether an almrnative method or location identified under OAR 660-012-0070(4) or (5) cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed transportation 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 "reasonably accommodate" the identified transportation need include: Cost Operational Fe~ibility 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 goat exceptions cannot reasonably accommodate the WEP. Cost factors include cosN for right of way acquisition and relocation rights, sub-grade preparations, drainage features, surfacing, structures, and roadside amenities. To the extent that raw land acquiskion ~sB outside of an urban gro~ boundary are cheaper generally than those inside a boundary, cost is not a reasonable basis for detemfining that alternatives not requiring goal exceptions are not re~onable. However, where existing development patterns, required dislocations, loss of access and other factom 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. ~is 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 semite levels and are declining. While costs along cannot be the determining factor, relative savings represent potential system improvements to existing l~cilities elsewhere on the transportation network. Operational Feasibility and Design Standard Compliance A facility that cannot operate as a major arterial in a manner consistent with applicable state or local highway design and safety standards is not deemed reasonable to accommodate the WEP. Consistent with the idemified need for the ~P~ the facility must be capable of operating in a manner consistent with im function ofmovNg inter-and intra-urban traffic efficiently through the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan 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 0~1 - FINDINGS 41