HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 20234 Exhibit C
Exhibit C
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS
TO THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE
EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN.
,
AMENDMENTS TO MAINTAIN THE CONSISTENCY OF THE
EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN;
AND REVISIONS TO THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN
INTRODUCTION
In the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area, land use and transportation planning begins
at the regional level. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro
Plan) is the acknowledged comprehensive plan for the cities of Eugene and Springfield
and unincorporated areas of Lane County within the Metro Plan boundary. Originally
acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission in 1982, the
Metro Plan is currently undergoing its second periodic review. The Metro Plan is a
framework plan, and is supplemented by more detailed refinement plans. In the Eugene-
Springfield metropolitan area, refinement plans include functional plans, special area
studies and neighborhood plans. The transportation system plan for the Eugene-
Springfield metropolitan area (TransPlan) was adopted by Eugene, Springfield and Lane
County in 1986 as a refmement plan to the Metro Plan and this update of TransPlan was
initiated by the elected officials in 1992. In turn, TransPlan as a regional refinement plan
to the Metro Plan may be supplemented by plans specific to the Eugene or Springfield
urban areas, such as the Eugene Local Street Plan and Springfield Bicycle Plan. In the
context of these actions adopting revisions to TransPlan and amendments to the Metro
Plan, the term "refinement plan" is used to refer to a plan adopted as a refinement to the
Metro Plan rather than the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660, Division 12) defini-
tion of "refmement plan" as a specific type of amendment to a transportation system plan.
The Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) is the metropolitan planning organization
(MPO) designated by the Governor to coordinate transportation planning within the
Eugene-Springfield urbanized area. Eugene-Springfield is one of four Oregon metro-
politan areas subject to state and federal require:ments for MPOs. LCOG has prepared the
TransPlan update with staff support from Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and Lane
Transit District (LTD). Other agencies involved in the planning process include the Ore-
gon Department of Transportation (ODOT), the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority
(LRAPA), Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), Federal
Highway Administration (FHW A), and the Federal Transit Agency (FT A).
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
Although not required by the Transportation Planning Rule when the TransPlan update
was initiated in 1992, the revised TransPlan is designed as an integrated transportation
and land use plan. As a result, the evaluation and selection of transportation system plan
alternatives included land use measures as well as transportation demand management
strategies and transportation system improvements. Based on direction from the elected
officials in 1997, the TransPlan update is based on the "Equal Emphasis" alternative, us-
ing all three of these fundamental components of transportation planning in a balanced
and integrated manner to address the identified transportation needs of the planning area.
The goals and policies in the revised TransPlan are also proposed for adoption as the
Metro Plan transportation goals and policies. The finance component of the revisions to
TransPlan includes 20-year financially constrained Capital Investment Actions project
lists. Those lists include projects from the 1986 TransPlan and, where supported by the
needs analysis of the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660, division 12), some proj-
ects from the 1986 TransPlan remain in the revised TransPlan and the project lists
adopted and incorporated by policy into the Metro Plan. A revised Metro Plan Trans-
portation element and related amendments to the Metro Plan text will be adopted concur-
rent with the adoption of the revisions to TransPlan.
Since the review of TransPlan and Metro Plan periodic review are being conducted si-
multaneously, work on those plans 'has been closely coordinated. Population and em-
ployment projections developed by the Lane Council of Governments for the 20-year
planning period were used for both TransPlan and Metro Plan periodic review. Policy
direction in both the revised TransPlan and the Residential Land Use and Housing Study,
a periodic review work task, support nodal development as a key land use strategy to
achieve higher-density, transportation-efficient development patterns.
The findings contained in this document demoristrate compliance with the applicable cri-
teria for adoption of amendments to the Metro Plan and amendments to TransPlan as a
refinement plan to the Metro Plan.
On June 28, 2001, the Lane Council of Governments Board of Directors, the body dele-
gated federal authority for transportation planning in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan
area, adopted TransPlan in compliance with federal transportation requirements. The
LCOG Board Executive Committee adopted the plan air quality conformity determina-
tion, a federal requirement, on August 2,2001. Following adoption of the TransPlan up-
. date by the Eugene and Springfield City Councils, Lane County Board of Commissioners
and Lane Transit District Board, the Lcob Board will act on amendments necessary to
make its June 28th adopted version consistent with the locally adopted version.
The following criteria from Eugene Code (EC) Section 9.128(3), Springfield Develop-
ment Code (SDC) 7.070(3), and Lane Code (LC) 12.225(2) shall be applied by the
elected officials in approving or denying the amendments to the Metro Plan:
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
2
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning
goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission;
and
(b) Adoption of the amendments must not make the Metro Plan internally in-
consistent.
The TransPlan update is considered a major plan update under Section 9.138 of the
Eugene Code, 1971, and is not subject to the criteria for refinement plan amendments
outlined in EC 9.139 through 9.148. The following criteria shall be applied by the
elected officials to the adoption of amendments to TransPlan as a refinement plan to the
Metro Plan:
(a) Consistency with the relevant statewide planning goals adopted by the
Land Conservation and Development Commission; and
(b) Consistency with the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan).
Since these approval criteria overlap, the findings in this document are organized as fol-
lows:
I. findings of consistency of the Metro Plan and TransPlan amendments with the
applicable statewide planning goals;
II. findings of consi~tency of the Metro Plan and TransPlan amendments with the
applicable sections of the Transportation Planning Rule, OAR 660, Division 12;
III. findings of consistency of the revised TransPlan with the Metro Plan; and
IV. findings that the Metro Plan amendments do hot make the Metro Plan internally
inconsistent.
The following information, analysis, reports, minutes and materials are included along
with other material in the record of this proceedings. While this supporting background
material may not all be specifically mentioned or referenced in the findings, they provide
most of the factual basis for these findings:
· Seventy-one documents published by the Lane Council of Governments, Eugene,
Springfield, the Lane Transit District or consultants and used as background
documents during the preparation of tlie TransPlan update, dated through June
2001, as listed in TransPlan Appendix D.
· Minutes and agenda material of the Eugene, Springfield and Lane County plan-
ning commissions and Lane County'"Roads Advisory Committee public hearings
and work sessions; of the Eugene and Springfield City Councils, Lane County
Board of Commissioners and Lane Transit District public hearings and work ses-
sions; and of the meetings of the Metropolitan Policy Committee and its Trans-
Plan subcommittees.
· Indexed public testimony included in the record of the planning commis-
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
3
sions/roads advisory committee process.
· Oregon Transportation Plan, Oregon Department of Transportation, 1992
· Oregon Highway Plan, Oregon Department of Transportation, January 1999
· Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, Oregon Department of Transportation, 1995
· Model results of the Regional Travel Forecasting Model
· Model results of the COMSIS TDM Strategy Evaluation Model
· Findings of Consistency with Federal Requirements, Lane Council of Govern-
ments, August 1999
· Oregon Rail Passenger Policy Plan, 1992
· Oregon Rail Freight Plan, 1994
· Oregon Public Transportation Plan, 1997
· Oregon Aviation System Plan, 1997
The Eugene and Springfield city councils and the Lane County Board of Commissioners
make the following findings with respect to the criteria for approval of the proposed
amendments to the Metro Plan and revisions to TransPlan as a refmement plan to the
Metro Plan.
I. FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY WITH STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS
Goall - Citizen Involvement: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures
the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
The amendments to the transportation element of the Metro Plan and the proposed revi-
sions to TransPlan were developed as a part ofa comprehensive review of the Eugene-
Springfield transportation system plan (TransPlan). This review focused on revisions to
TransPlan and related amendments to the transportation element of the Metro Plan.
The Metro Plan designates the Joint Planning Commission Committee (JPCC), a com-
mittee composed of two representatives from each of the metropolitan planning commis.,.
sions, as the citizens committee to review citizen involvement plans for metropolitan
planning projects. Phase I of the TransPlan update process began in June 1992 with the
development of a citizen involvement plan. The plan was prepared by the Lane Council
of Governments (LCOG) and approved byjpCC in September 1992. Beginning in No-
vember 1992, two community workshops were held to introduce the TransPlan update
process, surveys were distributed, and presentations were made to a variety of citizen
groups.
Phase II of the public involvement process was approved by the JPCC in April 1993 and
approved by the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) in May 1993. MPC is composed
of six elected officials (two each from Eugene, Springfield and Lane County). When
considering metropolitan transportation planning matters such as the TransPlan update,
two members of the Lane Transit District Board also serve as voting members. Phase II
involved the selection of stakeholder groups and stakeholder group representatives. The
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
4
first stakeholder meeting had 68 of the 88 stakeholder representatives attending and over
150 attendees. Later stakeholder meetings had fewer participants, but all stakeholder
meetings had a strong level of citizen and stakeholder participation in the process of
forming and identifying issues. Stakeholder task forces were established for each of the
three revised TransPlan components - land use measures, transportation demand man-
agement and transportation system improvements - which developed strategies and rec-
ommendations used in the preparation of alternative plan concepts.
Public involvement continued during Phase III of the process. From 1994 through 1996,
JPCC reviewed various TransPlan involvement activities, including formation of focus
groups and public review of alternative plan concepts. Community workshops were con-
ducted, focus groups were formed and their input was used in later plan development.
Throughout the development process, a newsletter, Transportation News, was published
and circulated among the public. A guidebook focusing on transportation and growth
issues was developed and circulated. Copies of the proposed changes to the regional
transportation plan, including modifications as they were developed during the public in-
volvement, were widely distributed.
After extensive citizen and key stakeholder involvement, including elected government
officials and the Metropolitan Policy Commission, proposed revisions to TransPlan were
reviewed through a public hearing process before the Eugene, Springfield and Lane
County Planning Commissions and the Lane County Roads Advisory Committee
(LCRAC). The February 1998 draft TransPlail revision document was subject to the
public notification and hearing processes adopted by the City of Springfield in SDC
7.100, City of Eugene in EC 9.118 to 9.136, and Lane County in LC 12.240. Notice of
the public hearings was published in the Register-Guard and the Springfield News.
The three planning commissions and the LCRAC held joint public hearings on April 14
and 16, 1998. In addition, the Springfield Planning Commission on April 21, 1998 and
the Eugene Planning Commission on June 30, 1998 held separate public hearings. On
August 18 and September 29, 1998, joint public work sessions were held by the planning
commissions of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County and the LCRAC. Over the next
six months the planning commissions and the LCRAC held a combined total of twenty
public work sessions. As a result of these"sessions, the May 1999 Revised Draft Trans-
Plan and proposed amendments to the Metro Plan were forwarded to the elected govern-
ing bodies of Eugene, Springfield and Lane C<?~ty and the Lane Transit District Board.
The May 1999 Revised Draft TransPlan went through an extensive public and adopting
official review. A variety of techniques were used to inform and involve the public, in-
cluding: direct mail, broad distribution of TransPlan, web site information, direct contact
in person and via e-mail, Metro TV, distribution of TransPlan summary to all Register-tGuard, Springfield News and Business Week subscribers, display ads, news releases, a~-
tive contact with print, radio and television media, public comment periods and public
hearings. Throughout the deliberations of the Revised Draft TransPlan by the adopting
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
5
officials, the public was informed of all meetings and any opportunities for public com-
ment.
The elected bodies of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County and the Lane Transit Board
conducted public hearings on September 29 and October 20, 1999 in which approxi-
mately 685 people submitted testimony in the form of an oral presentation at one of the
two public hearings, e-mail testimony, by letter or by petition. Following the.close of the
record on October 29, 1999, TransPlan staff prepared a response to the public testimony,
which was provided to the adopting officials and the general public.
The TransPlan adopting officials re-opened the public record from January 25 to March
31, 2000 to allow the public to submit additional testimony. The public record was re-
opened again from August 10 to October 6, 2000 to allow the opportunity to provide
written testimony on the Alternative Plan Performance Measures.
TransPlan adopting officials held an extensive number of work sessions to review and
deliberate on the public comment and the revised TransPlan. Fifth-four individual work
sessions were held through June 2001. In addition, the adopting officials conducted three
joint work sessions to resolve any outstan~ing is~ues that resulted from the individual
meetings. The adopting officials then forwarded the unresolved outstanding issues to the
Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) for dispute resolution. All adopting officials re-
ceived agendas and materials for all MPC meetings. The public was kept informed of the
MPC meetings and opportunities for public comment.
MPC formed two subcommittees to resolve the outstanding differences. One committee
was assigned to resolve the outstanding issues and the other was directed to identify and
recommend Alternative Plan Performance Measures to be forwarded to the Land Conser-
vation and Development Commission. Both committees met several times prior to
sending their recommendations to the full MPC. All issues approved by MPC were sent
out to the adopting officials for concurrence by the four adopting agencies.
The Department of Land Conservation and Development opened up their public comment
period to allow residents of the Eugene-SPr4tgfield metropolitan area to comment di-
rectly to the Land Conservation and De,;elopmeJ;lt . Commission on the Alternative Plan
Performance Measures. On May 4,2001, the Land Conservation and Development
Commission conducted a public hearing prior to approving the Alternative Plan Perform-
ance Measures for the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
Additional detail on the TransPlan update process is provided in TransPlan Appendix C.
These processes afforded ~ple opportunity for citizen involvement consistent with
Goal 1.
Goal 2-Land Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process and policy
framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an
; ,
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
6
adequate factual base for such decisions and actions.
Goal 2 has two elements: compliance with established land use planning processes and
demonstration of the appropriate grounds for any necessary actions, including exceptions.
Part I. Compliance with Established Planning Processes
This proposal to adopt revisions to TransPlan and to amend the Metro Plan text is con-
sistent with Plan amendment provisions found in the Metro Plan, as codified in the
Eugene Code, Springfield Development Code and Lane County Code. The Metro Plan
and TransPlan are acknowledged pursuant to provisions specified by the Land Conserva-
tion and Development.Commission. The proposed adoption of a revised TransPlan as a
refmement plan of the Metro Plan is consistent with the provisions of the Metro Plan and
the applicable statewide planning goals.
Provisions in the Springfield Development Code (SDC 77.010 to 7.110), Eugene Code
(BC 9.118 to 9.136), and Lane Code (LC 12.240) specify the means by which the Metro
Plan may be amended. The process for reviewing the requested amendments follows the
procedures outlined in the Springfield, Eugene and Lane County Codes and the require-
ments ofORS 197.610 et. seq. and of OAR 660 Division 18 for post-acknowledgement
plan amendments, thus conforming with the established land use planning process con-
sistent with Goal 2.
The development of the revisions to TransPlan and amendments to the Metro Plan pro-
ceeded through the process outlined under Goal 1 , Citizen Involvement above, moving
from the general discussion of problems toward a more focused concentration on specific
provisions to deal with the identified issues. At every phase of the process, opportunities
were provided for citizen input. The citizen involvement process is detailed in TransPlan
Appendix C and summarized in the findings of compliance with Goal 1, Citizen In-
volvement.
The proposed revisions to TransPlan were guided and made possible by the collection of
a significant amount of relevant information, mchidfng traffic levels and other transporta-
tion facility uses, regional and local development plans, the development of transporta-
tion alternatives and other matters. The capacities and limits of the natural resources of
the planning area, the location and condition of all important structures and transportation
facilities and the population and economic characteristics of the area were considered in
the development of revisions to TransPlan. A list of background documents used in the
preparation of TransPlan is provided in TransPlan Appendix D.
Part II. Adequate Factual Base/Exceptions
Action on the revisions to TransPlan and amendments to the Metro Plan are supported by
an adequate factual basis. A project that is not consistent with the statewide goals appli-
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
7
cable to the property upon which the project is expected to be located can only be devel-
oped if it can be shown, by means of the exception process set forth in Goal 2, that the
overall purpose of the statewide goals is better met by excepting the project from the ap-
plicable goal. None of the projects in the revised TransPlan require additional analysis
prior to TransPlan adoption under the exceptions requirements of Goal 2.
As described in Chapter Three of the revised TransPlan, the transportation needs analysis
required under the Transportation Planning Rule resulted in the Capital Investment Ac-
tions project lists in that chapter. The projects listed in the Capital Investment Actions
project lists are the product of an analysis of current and future transportation needs and
are based in part on the list of projects established in the previously acknowledged Trans-
Plan. Those acknowledged projects continue to address the area's transportation needs
and remain in the revised TransPlan. Some of the projects listed in Table la and Table Ib
in Chapter 3 of the TransPlan are previously acknowledged projects that address future
transportation needs. The projects in Table la'remain on the list of20-year capital proj-
ects because they have not yet been developed but they remain consistent with, and the
best means of addressing, the transportation needs for the Eugene-Springfield area identi-
fied in the revised TransPlan. The projects i'ncluded on the Financially Constrained 20-
Year Capital Investment Actions project lists (Tables la, 2, 3a) establish a network of fa-
cilities that meet overall transportation needs for the 20-year planning period. The proj-
ects included in the revised TransPlan as a part of the future projects lists (Tables Ib, 3b)
are also included because they will meet the area's transportation needs for the period be-
yond the initial 20 year planning period.
The Transportation Planning Rule and other administrative rules applying the statewide
goals allow the development of transportation projects on several types of property that
are designated for other uses. Table la of the revised TransPlan contains the financially
constrained list of roadway capital investments that will be needed in the Eugene-
t J.' .
Springfield metropolitan area over the next twenty years. Some are located completely
within the corporate limits of either Eugene or. Springfield. Others are located in the un-
incorporated area betWeen the corporate limits and the urban growth boundary (UGB). In
several instances the project follows along or outside of the UGB. Most projects that are
adjacent to, or cross, the UGB are permitted on rural lands by OAR 660-012-0065. Some
projects that are not scheduled for development within the projected period of the current
TransPlan, which generally includes projects listed in Chapter 3: Table 1 b, may not yet
be sufficiently planned to determine whether they require an exception at this time. In all
cases where a project's plans are sufficiently developed to analyze, projects fit within the
authorization of the Transportation Planning Rule.
Roadway improvement projects 60 (Jasper Road), 98 (Thurston Road), 454 (Greenhill
Road, Barger to West 11 th), 527 (Hunsaker LaneIBeaver Street), 533 (Irvington Drive),
635 (Delta Highway, Greenacre's to Ayres), and 654 (Game Farm Road North) are coter-
minous with some portion of the UGB. In each'instance these are existing two-lane roads
without bike lanes and sidewalks, with inadequate provisions for cyclists and people on
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
8
foot. The main purpose of these projects, as required by OAR 660-0 12-0020(2)(b), is to
reconstruct them to be consistent with their functional classification; accommodate per-
sonal vehicles and public transit; and provide safe and convenient bike and pedestrian
circulation. In each of these instances TransPlan calls for curbs, sidewalks and bikes
lanes, which is the typical design for urban streets. The provisions of OAR 660-12-0065
identify the types of improvements that are consistent with Statewide Planning Goals 3,
4, 11 and 14. This section of the Transportation Planning Rule does not prohibit or re-
strict these types of improvements on the rural side of the street; therefore the issue of
whether these roads will be used by urban or rural motorists becomes moot. The pro-
posed road design lends itself to both categories of users, and in either context the pro-
posed improvements are permitted by the Transportation Planning Rule. F or each of
these projects, the decision to install curbs and sidewalks on the rural side of the street
will be made during the project design phase. Regardless of the decision, the projects
comply with the Transportation Planning Rule.
Roadway improvement projects 66 (Jasper Road Extension), 297 (Bloomberg Connec-
tor), 485 (Greenhill Road, Barger Drive to AirpoitRoad), 486 (Greenhill Road, north
boundary of the airport to Airport Road), 554 (Wilkes Drive), and 625 (Coburg Road)
extend beyond the UGB to some degree. Project 66 (Jasper Road Extension) is a new
road within the Springfield UGB that requires a short realignment of Jasper Road outside
the UGB. Project 297 (Bloomberg Connector) is a realignment ofa portion of McVay
Highway north of the 30th Avenue interchange. Project 485 (Greenhill Road, Barger
Drive to Airport Road) upgrades a substandard portion of Greenhill Road to meet the re-
quirements of OAR 660-0 12-0020(2)(b). Project 486 (Greenhill Road, north of airport
boundary to Airport Road) is a realignment of another segment of Greenhill Road neces-
sitated by safety improvements to the EugerieAifport. Project 554 (Wilkes Drive) im-
proves a short segment of Wilkes Drive east of the UGB. Project 625 (Coburg Road) up-
grades the segment of Coburg Road leading .to Annitage State Park from the south to
meet the requirements of OAR 660-012-0020(~)(l>). ;In each of these instances, the pro-
posed work is not only permitted by the Transportation Planning Rule; it is consistent
with the intent of the rule to upgrade roads to agency standards.
These findings and the documents and evidence developed in support of the revisions to
TransPlan and the Metro Plan amendments demonstrate compliance with Goal 2.
Goal 3: Agricultural Lands: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
No Plan policies or Plan diagram designations for agficulturallands are changed by the
revisions to TransPlan or the Metro Plan amendments. Projects that are projected to im-
pact agricultural lands have been previous'lya~knowledged or are allowed by the Goal 3
and Goal 12 rules as explained more fully in the findings under Goal 2, above. There-
fore, the revisions to TransPlan and the Metro Plan amendments comply with Goal 3.
Goal 4-Forest Lands: To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
9
to protect the state s forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest
practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the
leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish
and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture.
No Plan policies or Plan diagram designations for forest lands are changed by the adop-
tion of the Metro Plan amendments or revisions to TransPlan. None of the prDjects in the
20-year Capital Investment Actions project lists are located on land designated for forest
use. Forest lands are not impacted by the TransPlan revisions or Metro Plan amend-
ments. Therefore, the revisions to TransPlan and the Metro Plan amendments comply
with Goal 4.
Goal5-0pen Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources: To con-
serve open space and protect natural and scenic resources.
One project on the constrained list, Project 66, the Jasper Road Extension, is shown on
the Roadway Project map to be in an area designated for sand and gravel use, a Goal 5
resource. The project was previously included and acknowledged in the 1986 TransPlan .
project list. Pursuant to the Goal 5 rule, OAR 660, Division 23, it may be necessary to
conduct an analysis of the economic, social, environmental and energy consequences that
could result from a decision to allow a conflicting use. Design and construction plans
that will determine the exact placement of this roadway project will include a considera-
tion of any applicable Goal 5 resource. Therefore, the revisions to TransPlan and the
Metro Plan amendments comply with Goal 5.
Goal6-Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: To maintain and improve the qual-
ity of the air, water and land resources of tHe Sfa.te.
The proposal to adopt revisions to TransPlan and amend the Metro Plan text include poli-
cies relating to nodal development, transportation demand management and the encour- .
agement of additional-alternative modes of transportation, including transit, bicycles and
. pedestrian use. Adoption of these policies is in part related to the need to maintain and
improve the air quality of the Metro area. Vehicle emissions is a measure of plan air
quality impact. The Eugene-Springfield area is required to meet National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for various pollutants. Of primary concern to the transportation system
are the standards for carbon monoxide (CO). The region is currently in compliance with
the standards for this pollutant. A comparison of the projected performance of the 2015
Financially Constrained TransPlan scenario with 1995 existing conditions shows a 10%
decrease in weekday tons of CO emissions. ,Therefore, the revisions to TransPlan and the
Metro Plan amendments comply with Goal 6.
Goal 7-Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: To protect life and property
from natural disasters and hazards.
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
10
The proposal to adopt revisions to TransPlan and amend the Metro Plan text will not re-
sult in significant construction or alteration of property within the floodway or the flood-
plain. Depending on the final alignment of certain projects some road and bridge con-
struction may occur in areas within the floodway or floodplain subject to Goal 7. Any
construction of roadways or bridges, including the repair or improvement of existing
bridges and roadways, will be done in a manner consistent with applicable local, state and
federal regulations to assure that alterations have no negative effect on flooding or flood
risks. Therefore, the revisions to TransPlan and the Metro Plan amendments comply with
Goal 7.
Goal8-Recreational Needs: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the
state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recrea-
tional facilities including destination resorts.
The proposals to adopt revisions to TransPlan and amend the Metro Plan text include
policies to: (1) promote a regional roadway system that meets combined needs for travel
through, within and outside the region (Transportation System Improvements (TSI),
Roadway Policy #3); (2) support public investment in the Eugene Airport (TSI, Other
Modes Policy #1); (3) support provision of rail-related infrastructure improvements (TSI,
Other Modes Policy #2); and (4) support improvements to the passenger rail station and
inter-city bus terminals (TSI, Other Modes Policy #3). These policies are among those
that support access to recreational facilities within the Metro Plan area and to recreational
opportunities outside the area. Construction of the proposed transportation projects will
make recreational facilities more available wifuout an unacceptable increase in vehicle
miles traveled or congestion. Therefore, the revisions to TransPlan and the Metro Plan
amendments comply with Goal 8.
Goal 9-Economic Development: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the
state for a yariety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of
Oregon ~ citizens.
The proposals to adopt revisions to TransPlan and amend the Metro Plan text are directed
toward enhancing the economic opportunity available within the Eugene-Springfield area
by assuring adequate public facilities and infrastructure to provide a transportation system
that is efficient, safe, interconnected and economically viable and fiscally stable. Adop-
tion of the policies related to nodal development will open new economic opportunities.
Adoption of policies relating to goods movement will further the goal of using the public
facilities infrastructure to support responsible economic development. Therefore, the re-
visions to TransPlan and the Metro Plan amendments comply with Goal 9.
GoallO-Housing: To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
The proposed revision to TransPlan and Metro Plan land use policies related to nodal de-
velopment and transit-supportive land use patterns and development (Land Use Policies
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
11
#1, #2, #3 and #5) will expand housing opportunities for the region's citizens. These
policies support and reinforce adopted Metro Plan fundamental principals, goals and poli-
cies to achieve compact urban growth, increase residential densities, and increase mixed-
use developments in designated areas. The proposed Metro Plan diagram designation of
ND, Nodal Development, will facilitate implementation of these housing opportunities.
Adoption of Finance Policy #5 requires that transportation facilities and improvements to
support nodal development will be included among short-term project priorities. There-
fore, the revisions to TransPlan and the Metro Plan amendments comply with Goal 10.
Goalll-Public Facilities and Services: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and ef-
ficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban
and rural development.
The proposals to adopt revisions to TransPlan and amend the Metro Plan text concern
only the provision of transportation facilities. Transportation System Improvements
Policies guide planning and implementation for all transportation system modes and Fi-
nance Policies # 1 through #5 guide the development and allocation of funding for trans-
portation services, facilities and projects. As required by the Goal 11 administration rule'
(OAR 660, Division 11), a written description of the general location or service area of
the projects in the 20-year Capital Investment Actions project lists are adopted as part of
the MetroPlan. Therefore, the revisions to TransPlan and the Metro Plan amendments
comply with Goal 11.
Goall2- Transportation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system.
The proposals to adopt revisions to TransPlan and amend the Metro Plan text were devel-
oped to meet the goals of an integrated transportation and land use system that enhances
the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area's quality of life and economic opportunity
(Goals 1 and 2). The revisions to TransPlan seek to achieve these goals through three
sets of strategies: land "use measures, transportation demand management, and transporta-
tion system improvements. Together, these strategies form a balanced and integrated
framework for meeting the Transportation Planning Rule purpose to "promote the devel-
opment of safe, convenient and economic transportation systems that are designed to re-
duce reliance on the automobile so that the air pollution, traffic and other livability prob-
lems faced by urban areas in other parts of the county might be avoided." Land Use Poli-
cies encourage transportation-efficient development'patterns, such as nodal development
and transit-supportive land use patterns which reduce trip lengths and auto dependency
and support transit, bicycling, and walking. Transportation Demand Management Poli-
cies focus on reducing demand on the transportation system by actions that eliminate the
need for vehicle trips and increase the use of transit, carpooling and vanpooling, bicy-
cling, and walking. Transportation System Improvements Policies address the need for
improved operations and maintenance of the existing system and investments in system
infrastructure and services. These policies are supported by Finance Policies which pro-
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
12
vide the direction needed to fund implementation of the land use, demand management,
and system improvement policies.
Although not required by the Transportation Planning Rule when the TransPlan update
was initiated in 1992, the revised TransPlan is designed to serve as an integrated trans-
portation and land use plan. As a result, the evaluation and selection of transportation
system plan alternatives included land use measures as well as transportation demand
management strategies and transportation system improvements. Based on direction
from the elected officials in 1997, the revised TransPlan is based on the "Equal Empha-
sis" alternative, using all three of these fundamental components of transportation plan-
ning in a balanced and integrated manner to address the identified transportation needs of
the planning area. The goals and policies in the revised TransPlan are also proposed for
adoption as the Metro Plan transportation goals and policies. The fmance component of
the revised TransPlan includes Financially Constrained 20- Year Capital Investment Ac-
tions project lists. Where supported by the needs analysis conducted for this update of
the plan, projects from the 1986 TransPlan are included in the revisions to the TransPlan
and adopted and incorporated by policy into the Metro Plan. A revised Metro Plan
Transportation element and related amendments to the Metro Plan text will be adopted
concurrent with the adoption of TransPlan.
Findings of consistency with the applicable sections of the Transportation Planning Rule
found in Section II of this document are incorporated here by this reference and further
establish consistency with Goal 12. Therefore, the revisions to TransPlan and the Metro
Plan amendments comply with Goal 12. '
Goall3-Energy Conservation: To conserve energy.
The proposals to adopt revisions to TransPlan and amend the Metro Plan text will pro-
mote more compact development, will encourage the use of alternate modes of travel and
will provide a transportation system designed to increase the efficiency of travel wherever
possible. Therefore, the revisions to TransPlan and the Metro Plan amendments comply
with Goal 13.
Goall4-Urbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to
urban land use.
The proposals to adopt revisions to TransPlan and amend the Metro Plan text preserve the
distinction between urban and rural uses through the development of policies and pro-
grams that provide for more efficient urban uses within the urban growth boundary
(UGB), thus preserving rural lands for rural uses. Those projects located on rural lands
outside the UGB are permitted by the Transportation Planning Rule. The revised Trans-
Plan was developed to keep the urban transportation system viable, to anticipate future
needs and to address those needs within the financial constraints of the Plan. The type,
location and phasing of the facilities planned for in the revised TransPlan project lists are
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
13
designed to direct urban growth toward urbanizable areas and avoid unnecessary expan-
sion of the UGB. Therefore, the revisions to TransPlan and the Metro Plan amendments
comply with Goal 14.
Goal 15-Willamette River Greenway: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the
natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands
along the Willamette River as the WiUamette River Greenway.
The revisions to TransPlan and amendments to Metro Plan text protect and maintain the
scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the
Willamette River. The proposals to adopt revisions to TransPlan and amend the Metro
Plan text will not affect Metro Plan compliance with Goal 15. At the time the 1986
TransPlan was adopted, a new policy 13 was added to the Metro Plan Willamette River
Greenway River Corridors and Waterways Element to state that the taking of an excep-
tion shall be required if a non-water dependent transportation facility requires placing of
fill within the Willamette River Greenway. The widening of Beltline, River Road to
Delta Highway (Project 506) including widening or replacement of the Willamette River
bridges on Belt1ine, acknowledged as part of the 1986 TransPlan (as Project 201), is sub- '
ject to that policy. All TransPlan projects will meet applicable Willamette Greenway
protection measures. Therefore, the revisions to TransPlan and the Metro Plan amend-
ments comply with Goal 15
Goals 16-19:
There are no estuarine resources, coastal shorelands, beaches and dunes or ocean re-
sources located within the Metro Plan boundary. Therefore, these goals are not applica-
ble.
Conclusion:
'.
Based on the above findings and supporting nlaterial in the record, we fmd that the pro-
posed revisions to TransPlan and amendments to the Metro Plan text are consistent with
the statewide planning goals.
II. FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING RULE, OAR 660, DIVISION 12
OAR 660-012-0015 Preparation and Coordination of Transportation System Plans
OAR 660-012-0015(2): MPOs and counties shall prepare and amend regional TSPs
in compliance with this division. MPOs shall prepare regional TSPs for facilities of
regional significance within their jurisdiction.
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
14
The Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) is the MPO for Lane County and the cities of
Eugene and Springfield. The revisions to TransPlan which constitute the regional Trans-
portation System Plan (TSP) for those jurisdictions within the Metro Plan boundary, was
prepared by LCOG on behalf of and in conjunction with those jurisdictions.
(a) Regional TSPs shall establish a system of transportation facilities and serv-
ices adequate to meet identified regional transportation needs, and shall be
consistent with adopted elements of the state TSP;
As explained in findings of compliance with OAR 660-012-0020(1), the revisions to
TransPlan continue to provide a regional system of transportation facilities and services,
which is intended to meet the region's transportation needs. Those needs are assessed in
Chapter 3, Part 1 of the TransPlan. Findings establishing compliance with OAR 660-
012-030(1) explain how the regional needs have been determined.
(b) Where elements of the state TSP have not been adopted, the MPO or county
shall coordinate the preparation of the regional TSP with ODOT to assure
that state transportation needs are accommodated;
The portions of the state TSP relevant to the preparation of the regional TSP have all been
adopted. Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) staff participated in the staff
committees working on the TransPlan update. ODOT staff offered testimony in support
of plan adoption at the public hearings on TransPlan.
(c) Regional TSPs prepared by MPOs other than metropolitan service districts
shall be adopted by the counties and cities within the jurisdiction of the
MPO;
Revisions to TransPlan are adopted by Lane County, Eugene and Springfield as a refine-
ment plan of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan), the
comprehensive plan for the cities of Eugene and Springfield and unincorporated areas of
Lane County within the Metro Plan boundary.
OAR 660-012-0015(4): Cities and counties shall adopt regional and local TSPs re-
quired by this division as part of their comprehensive plans. Transportation fi-
nancing programs required by OAR 660-012-0040 may be adopted as a supporting
document to the comprehensive plan.
Revisions to TransPlan are adopted by Lane County, 'Eugene and Springfield as a refine-
ment plan of the Metro Plan, the comprehensive plan for the cities of Eugene and Spring-
field and unincorporated areas of Lane County within the Metro Plan boundary. Revi-
sions to TransPlan include a financing program, as required by and explained in findings
of compliance with OAR 660-012-0040. I . .
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
15
OAR 660-012-0015(5): The preparation of TSPs shall be coordinated with affected
state and federal agencies, local governments, special districts, and private providers
of transportation services.
Preparation of revisions to TransPlan has been a coordinated effort between affected
public agencies and citizens. Local jurisdictions involved in the regional transportation
planning that has resulted in TransPlan revisions include the Lane Council of.Govern-
ments (LCOG), Lane County, the cities of Eugene and Springfield, and the Lane Transit
District (L TD). Other agencies involved in the planning process include the Department
of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), the Oregon Department of Transporta-
tion (ODOT), the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA), the Federal Highway
Administration (FHW A) and the Federal Transit Agency (FT A). This coordination also
satisfies the Goal 2 coordination requirements.
OAR 660-012-0015(6): Mass transit, transportanon, airport and port districts shall
participate in the development of TSPs for those transportation facilities and serv-
ices they provide. These districts shall prepare and adopt plans for transportation
facilities and services they provide. Such plans shall be consistent with and ade-
quate to carry out relevant portions of applicable regional and local TSPs. Coop-
erative agreements executed under ORS 197~185(2) shall include the requirement
that mass transit, transportation, airport and port districts adopt a plan consistent
with the requirements of this section.
As the provider of the region's mass transit system, LTD has been an integral participant
in the preparation of revisions to TransPlan, which constitutes the L TD transit plan.
The Eugene Airport serves as the regional air transportation facility. Responsibility for
the planning and development of the Eugepe Ajrport lies with the City of Eugene. The
2000 Eugene Airport Master Plan was adopted by Eugene and Lane County as a refme-
ment plan to the Metro Plan. Pursuant to TSI Other Modes Policy # 1: Eugene Airport,
the 2000 Eugene Airport Master Plan serves as lhegwde for future improvements of fa-
cilities and services at the airport. The needs and impact of the Eugene Airport are con-
sidered as a part of the regional transportation system demands that are dealt with in revi-
sions to TransPlan and are specifically addressed in Transportation System Improvement
(TSI) Other Modes Policy # 1 and portions of the revised TransPlan that implement that
policy. In addition, the realignment of Greenhill Road (Project 486) within the airport
area, is a new project added to the Transplan as a result of coordination with airport staff
through the recently-adopted Eugene Airport Master Plan update. This project is consis-
tent with runway and site planning for the airport. Projects 454 and 485, planned on
Greenhill Road south of the airport, will also ~~prove access and serve the Eugene Air-
port.
OAR 660-012-0015(7): Where conflicts are i~~~tified between proposed regional
TSPs and acknowledged comprehensive plans, representatives of affected local gov-
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
16
ernments shall meet to discuss means to resolve the conflicts. These may include:
(a) Changing the draft TSP to eliminate the conflicts; or
(b) Amending acknowledged comprehensive plan provision to eliminate the con-
flicts;
(c) For MPOs which are not metropolitan service districts, if conflicts persist
between regional TSPs and acknowledged comprehensive plans after efforts
to achieve compatibility, an affected local government may petition the
Commission to resolve the dispute.
TransPlan is adopted as a refinement plan of the Metro Plan. Several sections of the
Metro Plan are amended, concurrent with the adoption of TransPlan, including the fol-
lowing: (1) Metro Plan Section F: Transportation Element. The entire transportation
element, including the Introduction, Findings; Goals, and Policies, are revised to ensure
consistency between and among the Metro Plan and TransPlan. The Goals and Policies
that have become part of the Metro Plan Transportation Element are found in Chapter 2
of the TransPlan. (2) Metro Plan Section E: The'Plan Diagram. This section is
amended to include new Metro Plan diagram designations to implement nodal develop-
ment. (3) 20-year Capital Investment Actions project lists. As required by OAR 660-
0012-0040, the final fiscally constrained project lists, provided in Chapter 3 of the Trans-
Plan, is incorporated into the Metro Plan. (4) The Metro Plan Glossary is amended to
add a definitions of Nodal Development.
OAR 660-012-0020(1): A TSP shall establish a coordinated network oftransporta-
tion facilities adequate to serve state, regio~al and local transportation needs.
As stated in Goal 2 of the revised TransPlan, a 'primary goal of TransPlan is to provide a
balanced, accessible, efficient and interconnected transportation system that provides for
ease of transfer between different modes of travel,- such as auto to bus or bicycle to rail.
Transportation System Improvement (TSI) Sys!em- Wide Policy #2 addresses that goal
through a policy of intermodal connectivity. That policy is to develop or promote inter-
modal linkages for connectivity and ease of transfer among all transportation modes. As
detailed in TSI Roadway Policy #3, the revised TransPlan also strives to maintain a coor-
dinated roadway network that meets combined needs for travel through, within and out-
side the region. The regional roadway sys~em must meet the transportation needs of all
users, including motorists, transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians and commercial vehicles,
and must be characterized by adequate capacity and seamless connections to roads enter-
ing the region.
The revised TransPlan meets these goals and policies through a coordinated network of
transportation facilities that includes and intertWines roadway, transit, and bicycle and
pedestrian projects and programs aimed at addressing the region's overall transportation
needs while reducing reliance on private automobiles and increasing use of alternate
modes of transportation. The revised TransPlan was developed in coordination with the
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
17
local, regional and state transportation planning agencies. The coordination and joint de-
velopment of revisions to TransPlan assures that the plan is adequate to serve state, re-
gional and local needs.
OAR 660-012-0020(2): The TSP shall include the following elements:
(a) A determination of transportation needs as provided in OAR 660-012-0030;
The transportation needs are characterized in the two Goals that provide the framework
for revisions to TransPlan. The first goal recognizes the need to integrate transportation
and land use planning in order to enhance livability, economic opportunity and quality of
life. The second goal specifically recognizes the need to provide for a transportation
system that is balanced, accessible, efficient, safe, interconnected, environmentally re-
sponsible, supportive of responsible and sustainable development, responsive to commu-
nity needs and neighborhood impacts, and ecorionucally viable and financially stable.
Chapter 1 of the revised TransPlan summarizes the regional trends that have created the
region's current transportation needs. Findings of compliance with OAR 660-012-0030
further describe those needs, and the trends that precipitate them.
(b) A road plan for a system of arterials and collectors and standards for the
layout of local streets and other important non-collector street connections.
Functional classifications of roads in regional and local TSPs shall be consis-
tent with functional classifications of roads in state and regional TSPs and
shall provide for continuity between' adjacent jurisdictions. The standards
for the layout of local streets shall provide for safe and convenient bike and
pedestrian circulation necessary tQ carry out OAR 660-012-0045(3)(b). New
connections to arterials and state highways shall be consistent with desig-
nated access management categones~'
The'"intent of this requirement is to provide guidance on the spacing of future
extensions and connections along existing and future streets which are
needed to provide reasonably direct routes for bicycle and pedestrian travel.
The revised TransPlan is premised on four TSI roadway policies designed to address the
need for a multi-modal roadway system that responds to the needs of all forms and pur-
poses of travel, including automobile, transit, bicycle and pedestrian travel and goods
movement. These policies address the mo:tJility and safety needs of all roadway users in
planning and constructing roadway system improvements; the use of motor vehicle level
of service (LOS) standards to maintain acceptable and reliable performance on the road-
way system and Oregon Highway Plan (OHP)perfOimance standards on state facilities;
and the promotion or development of a regional roadway system that meets combined
needs for travel through, within and outside the region.
The revised TransPlan roadway implementation measures provide for several categories
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
18
of capital improvements for roadways, including new arterial links or interchanges, added
freeway lanes or major interchange improvements, arterial capacity improvements, new
collectors, and improving existing roadways to urban standards. They also includes non-
capital transportation system improvements, which provide planning and program actions
related to the regional roadway system. These actions include access management tech-
niques, neighborhood traffic calming techniques, and design considerations for all modes.
Standards for the layout of local streets are included in the Eugene Local Street Plan
(1996) and Springfield Conceptual Local Street Map (1997).
The functional classification of roads in the revised TransPlan is consistent with the
functional classification of roads in other relevant transportation plans. These functional
classifications refer to the level of use on the road, the function and location of the road-
way, the number of lanes and connection to o~er routes on the transportation system. A
classification map is included in TransPlan, Appendix A.
. The revised Bikeway Plan, discussed in Chapter 3 and illustrated on the Bikeway Map in
TransPlan Appendix A, is designed to provide safe and convenient bike circulation along
and adjacent to the region's roadways. The revised Bikeway Plan is predicated on the
TSI Bicycle Policies detailed in Chapter 2. Those policies provide for constructing and
improving the region's bikeway system and providing bicycle system support facilities;
requiring bikeways along new and reconstructed arterial and major collector streets; and
requiring bikeways to connect new development with nearby neighborhood activity cen-
ters and major destinations.
Pedestrian circulation along the region's roadways is addressed through TSI Pedestrian
Policies # 1 through #3 and implementing measures. ' Those policies provide for a pedes-
trian environment that is well integrated with adjacent land uses and is designed to en-
hance the safety, comfort and convenience of walking; provide for a continuous pedes-
trian network with reasonably direct travel routes between destination points; and encour-
age construction of sidewalks along urban area arterial and collector roadways, except
freeways.
(c) Public transportation plan which:
(A) Describes public transportation services for the transportation disad-
vantaged and identifies service inadequacies;
Revised TransPlan TSI Transit Policy #1 is designed to improve transit services and fa-
cilities to increase the system's accessibility, attractiveness, and convenience for all users,
including the transportation disadvantaged population. This policy supports the need for
multi-modal accessibility, including adequate public transit access for people who are
transportation disadvantaged, to employment, shopping, other commerce, medical care,
housing and leisure. In addition, the Bus Rapid Transit (BR T) system and other transit
improvements described in Chapter 3, Table 2, provide good access to public transporta-
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
19
tion services to the transportation disadvantaged. The'needs of the transportation disad-
vantaged are further assessed under a separate Metro-area ParaTransit Plan, the strategies
and recommendations of which are consistent with the revised TransPlan and which is
referenced and considered in the revised TransPlan. The ParaTransit Plan identifies and
addresses the specific needs of the transportation disadvantaged population, namely those
persons who are limited in meeting their transportation needs because of age, income,
physical or mental disability and other conditions. Implementation of the ParaTransit
Plan is carried out in coordination with implementation of the revised TransPlan through
the regional Transportation Improvement Program.
(B) Describes intercity bus and pas~e~ger rail service and identifies the
location of terminals;
Amtrak provides passenger rail service throughout the region and Greyhound is the pri-
mary provider of inter-city bus service. TSI Other Modes Policy #3 is designed to sup-
port improvements to the existing passenger rail station and intercity bus terminals to en-
hance usability and convenience. Policy #2 supports providing rail-related iIlfrastructure
improvements as part of the Cascadia High Speed Rail Corridor project, and reflects local
support for improvements to the passenger rail system. The revised TransPlan Goods
Movement and Intermodal Facilities Map in TransPlan Appendix A illustrates regional
transportation facilities and land uses related to goods movement, depicting facilities and
stations for truck, rail, air and pipeline. : "
(C) For areas within an urban growth boundary which have public tran-
sit service, identifies existing and planned transit trunk routes, exclu-
sive transit ways, terminals and major transfer stations, major transit
stops, and park-and-ride stations.
Lane Transit District (L TD) provides public transit service for the region. Revisions to
TransPlan, imd specifically the transit planning portion of the revised TransPlan, the
Transit Policies of Chapter 2 and the future transit project list in Chapter 3, Table 2, are
based on the existing and planned development of the transit ways. L TD participated in
the development of the revised TransPlan, which incorporates and relies on the existing
transit routes and stations. "
The revised TransPlan TSI Transit Policies are designed to complement and enhance the
existing L TD transit service to provide a more vrabl~ transportation alternative for a
greater percentage of the population. TSI Transit Policy #3 is designed to implement
traffic management strategies and other actions, where appropriate and practical, that give
priority to transit and other high-occupancy vehicles. These include various traffic man-
agement techniques, such as transit signal priority, bus queue jumpers and exclusive bus
lanes that can improve transit travel time, reduce operating cost and make transit a more
attractive transportation alternative. TSI Transit Policy #4 is designed to expand the L TD
Park-and-Ride system, in order to improve access to the transit system for those who live
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
20
in areas without direct transit service.
TSI Transit Policy #2 is designed to establish a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system com-
posed of frequent, fast transit service along major corridors and neighborhood feeders that
connect with the existing transit system. The revised TransPlan Appendix A includes a
BRT map, which depicts the proposed BRT system as a set of linked, high-speed bus cor-
ridors that would use Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area arterial streets to move pas-
sengers rapidly. These buses may have dedicated travel lanes, may employ such tech-
niques as signal priority, and will connect with bus feeder routes that serve adjacent
neighborhoods. The proposed BR T system will be phased in over 20 years.
(d) A bicycle and pedestrian plan for a network of bicycle and pedestrian routes
throughout the planning area. The network and list of facility improvements
shall be consistent with the requirements of ORS 366.514.
The revised TransPlan serves as the bicycle plan for the City of Eugene urban area. The
Springfield Bicycle Plan (1998) serves as the bicycle master plan for the City of Spring-
field urban area. Any amendment to that plan must be consistent with TransPlan. Lane
County coordinates bicycle improvements with Eugene and Springfield when construct-
ing bicycle and pedes~ian facilities within the urban transition area. All bikeway and bi-
cycle system improvements are designed to me~t the standards specified in the Oregon
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (1995). TransPlan,1\ppendix A includes a map of the bike-
way system, which illustrates both the existiilgbikeway system and the general location
of planned bikeways. The range of bikeway projects includes striped lanes, bike routes
and multi-use paths. Table 3a of Chapter 3 outlines bicycle capital improvement projects
included in the 20- Year Financially Constrained Plan. These projects include adding
striped bike lanes to roadways or adding bicycle route signs along designated corridors,
constructing bicycle lanes in conjunction with roadway projects, and adding new off-road
facilities designated for bicycle and pedestrian use both in conjunction with roadway
projects and independent of them.
TransPlan also incorporates a pedestrian transportation plan, the policies of which aim to
improve the quality of the pedestrian transportation system. TSI Pedestrian Policy # 1 is
designed to integrate the pedestrian transportation environment with adjacent land uses to
enhance the safety, comfort and convenience of walking by providing connections be-
tween uses, improved pedestrian access to transit stops and stations, and enhanced pedes-
trian amenities such as street crossings and lighting. Pedestrian policies also aim to pro-
vide a continuous pedestrian network that allows reasonably direct routes between desti-
nation points, and a system for providing sidewalks during roadway construction or re-
construction, and the retrofitting of sidewalks with curb ramps and the infilling of miss-
ing sidewalk sections.
(e) An air, rail, water and pipeline transportation plan which identifies where
public use airports, mainline and branchline railroads and railroad facilities,
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
21
port facilities, and major regional pipelines and terminals are located or
planned within the planning area. For airports, the planning area shall in-
clude all areas within airport imaginary surfaces and other areas covered by
state or federal regulations;
The TSI Goods Movement Policy supports integration of goods movement considerations
into the revised TransPlan to provide reasonable and reliable travel times for moving
freight in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. It also supports development of
collaborative strategies between public agencies and freight transportation providers to
improvement the efficiency of roadway, rail, air and pipeline goods movement. Together
with the TSI System-Wide and Roadway Policies, these policies address truck routes, rail
corridors, aviation facilities and pipelines, with the aim to maintain and enhance the re-
gion's competitive advantage in freight distribution through a multi-model transportation
network that offers competitive choices for freight movement.
TransPlan TSI Other Modes Policy # 1 supports the Eugene Airport, the major airport
providing commercial passenger, cargo, mail and general aviation services to the region.
The policy is designed to support public investment, provide land use controls to limit
incompatible development and continue using'the Eugene Airport Master Plan to guide
improvements at the airport. An update of the Eugene Airport Master Plan was adopted
in 2000. This plan was prepared to analyze current conditions and revise forecasts for the
future. Like the previous version of the plan, the update was prepared to meet all re-
quirements of the F ederal Aviation Administration, the agency that must ultimately cer-
tify the projections and what is referred to as the airport layout plan. The 2000 Eugene
Airport Master Plan includes a series of major capital improvements such as expansion of
the terminal building, addition of a new parallel runway, rerouting of Greenhill Road, and
improvements to circulation and parking.
(t) For areas within an urban area containing a population greater than 25,000
pers'ons a plan for transportation system management and demand man-
agement; .
The revisions to TransPlan incorporate a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
plan, the policies of which are directed at the development and implementation of actions
that encourage the use of modes other than single-occupant vehicles to meet daily travel
needs. The TDM policies include expanding the existing TDM programs and developing
new TDM programs that focus on reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips for both work
and nonwork purposes, and increasing the use of parking management strategies to ad-
dress both the supply and demand for vehicle parking. The revised TransPlan Chapter 3
includes a TDM implementation program, which consists of both a detailed description of
the TDM implementation process and the IDM Planning and Program Actions.
(g) A parking plan in MPO areas as provided in OAR 660-012-0045(5)(c).
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
22
TDM Policy #2 is designed to increase the use of motor vehicle parking management
strategies in selected areas throughout the region. The revised TransPlan Chapter 3, Part
5 includes a detailed Parking Management Plan to implement the TPR requirements for
parking space reduction. The parking plan addresses both supply and demand for park-
ing, and provides mechanisms to achieve the TPR required 10% reduction in parking
spaces per capita in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
(h) Policies and land use regulations for implementing the TSP as provided in
OAR 660-012-0045.
Policies and recommended land use regulation implementation measures included in the
revised TransPlan and Metro Plan text amendments are designed to reduce reliance on the
automobile. Revised TransPlan Chapter 3, Part 4 includes recommended actions to im-
plement various transportation-related land use policies. Chapter 3, Part 4 also provides a
nodal development and integrated land use transportation plan development schedule in-
corporating recommendations to provide guidance to Eugene-Springfield metropolitan
area local governments contained in Section 7 of LCDC Order 01-LCDC-024, adopted by
the Commission in May 2000. TransPlan Appendix G is a copy of LCDC Order 01-
LCDC-024. ·
(i) For areas within an urban growth boundary containing a population greater
than 2500 persons, a transportation financing program as provided in OAR
660-012-0040.
As explained in findings regarding compliance with OAR 660-012-0040, the revisions to
TransPlan include a detailed financing program. The Finance Policies aim to ensure ade-
quate funding, and support the development of a stable set of revenue sources to ade-
quately fund the range of regional transpo~tion needs for all transportation modes. The
policies also support operating and maintaining transportation facilities in a way that re-
duces the need for more expensive future repair' and requiring new development to pay
for its capacity impact. They also include policies for setting priorities for investment of
ODOT and federal revenues programmed in the region's Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP), and for considering and programming short-term projects. Chapter 3 of
the revised TransPlan includes details of how the Finance Policies are to be implemented,
including identifying priorities and funding sources for capital improvements required to
implement the various components of the revised TransPlan.
OAR 660-012-0025(2): Findings of compliance with applicable statewide planning
goals and acknowledged comprehensive plan policies and land use regulations shall
be developed in conjunction with the adoption of the TSP.
Compliance with all applicable statewide pl~g goals is established in the findings in
section I of this document. Compliance with applicable acknowledged comprehensive
plan policies and land use regulations is established in the findings in section III of this
. t j .
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
23
document.
OAR 660-012-0025(4): Where a Corridor Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is
prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, the development of the refinement plan shall be coordinated with the prepara-
tion of the Corridor EIS. The refinement plan shall be adopted prior to the issuance
of the Final EIS.
Projects subject to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 will comply with this
requirement.
OAR 660-012-0030 Determination of Transportation Needs
OAR 660-012-0030(1): The TSP shall identify transportation needs relevant to
the planning area and the scale of the transportation network being planned
including:
(a) State, regional, and local transportation'needs;
The revisions to TransPlan identify numerous trends for the metropolitan area that pro-
vide the focus of the area's transportation network needs. As the revised TransPlan ex-
plains, those trends include a growing regional population, a faster growing number of
automobiles per capita, and an even faster growing number of miles traveled by automo-
bile. It also recognizes that reliance on the automobile is increasing while the use of al-
ternative transportation modes is decreasing. Premised on those trends, the revised
TransPlan identifies the transportation-related issues that affect the region's quality of
life, which form the basis of the region's need~. The issues identified include the existing
and anticipated increased congestion caused by growth in automobile traffic; the affects
on air and water quality from automobile emis~~ons; the mobility limitations caused by
land use policies that encourage the sep~ation of pses; the preservation of existing trans~
portation systems, and the need to fmance new'transportation projects, as well as main-
tain and operate existing facilities with funding that is not keeping pace with demand.
The revised TransPlan also recognizes issues involving increasing state and federal envi-
ronmental standards; federal and state policies that emphasize reducing reliance on the
automobile, and federal funds supporting investment in alternative transportation modes.
Premised on those trends and issues, the revisions to TransPlan identify the transportation
needs that TransPlan strives to address. Those needs are characterized by the two over-
riding Goals of the revised TransPlan. The f~t goal recognizes the need to integrate
transportation and land use planning to enhance livability, economic opportunity and
quality of life. The second goal lists the specific' transportation needs of the region.
Those needs are for a transportation system that is balanced, accessible, efficient, safe,
interconnected, environmentally responsible, supportive of responsible and sustainable
development, responsive to community needs and neighborhood impacts, and economi-
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
24
cally viable and financially stable.
In order to address these needs, the revised TransPlan adopts an integrated approach,
combining three components that focus on the genera! needs and provide the balance that
can most effectively address the region's varied needs. Those components include a land
use component, to address the need for transportation-efficient development patterns; a
transportation demand management component, to address the need to reduce demand on
the transportation system; and a transportation systems improvement component, to meet
the need for improved operations and maintenance of existing systems and investments in
system infrastructure and services. Objectives and policies are adopted for each of the
components to further focus on the specific needs to be addressed through each.
Chapter 3 of the revised TransPlan summarizes how the transportation needs that have
arisen as a result of the identified trends have been assessed and evaluated, and details the
recommended implementation measures for "each component to address these needs.
Background reports used in preparing the ne~ds analysis are listed in the revised Trans-
Plan, Appendix D. Additional detail is provide? in the model results from the Regional
Travel Forecasting Model and COMSIS TDM Strategy Evaluation Model.
Transportation needs for the Eugene-Springfield area were assessed using standard meth-
ods typically employed in regional transportation planning. Appendix C outlines the
overall update process, including a description of the development and evaluation of al-
ternative plan concepts.
The analysis of needs was based on population and employment growth forecasts consis-
tent with the Eugene-Springfield Metropol,itaq ~ea General Plan (MetroPlan) and state-
wide forecasts. The population and employment forecasts were used to establish overall
demand for transportation.
As described in more detail in Appendix C, a wide range of strategies were identified to
address this demand, including land use, TDM, and TSI strategies. Different combina-
tions of these strategies were formulated as alternative plan concepts and tested using a
computer-based travel-forecasting model. The alternative plan concepts ranged from a
Base Case consisting of trends to an alternative designed to meet the vehicle miles trav-
eled reduction targets of the Transportation Planning Rule.
The alternatives development and evaluation included consideration of state and local
needs consistent with the Oregon Transportation Plan, Metro Plan, and state and local
improvement programs. Surveys were conducted to provide data on travel behavior and
input on a wide range of alternative strategies. TransPlan stakeholders and the region's
planning commissioners reviewed the results of this, analysis with final direction coming
from the region's elected bodies. This direction established the framework for develop-
ment of the February 1998 Draft TransPlan.
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
25
Analysis of system needs was conducted using state of the practice transportation system
modeling tools. Investments identified for inclusion in the plan were based the forecasted
transportation demand stemming from the population and employment forecasts and the
land use allocation contained in Metro Plan.
(b) Needs of the transportation disadvantaged;
The revised TransPlan TSI Transit Policy # 1 specifically recognizes that the needs of the
transportation disadv~taged to have accessible, attractive and convenient transit facilities
and services can be met through improved services and facilities. A separate ParaTransit
Plan, which is referenced in the revised TransPlan, identifies the needs of the transporta-
tion disadvantaged population, namely those persons who are limited in meeting their
transportation needs because of age, income, physical or mental disability or other condi-
tions. The ParaTransit Plan identifies the specifi'c needs of this population, addresses
these needs and provides solutions to ensure those needs are satisfied. In addition, the
BRT system and other transit improvements listed in Chapter 3, Table 2, provide a basic
network to serve those defined as transportation disadvantaged.
(c) Needs for movement of goods and services to support industrial and com-
mercial development planned for pursuant to OAR 660-09 and Goal 9 (Eco-
nomic Development).
The TSI Goods Movement Policy recognizes the need for integration of goods movement
considerations into the transportation planiring process and the regional need to maintain
and enhance the region's competitive advantage in freight distribution through a multi-
modal transportation network offering competitive. choices for freight movement. TSI
Goods Movement Policy # 1 supports reasonable and reliable travel times for freight and
goods movements in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The revised TransPlan
graphically 'illustrates how the movement of goods is planned for the region, and how that
movement relates to existing and planned intermodal facilities. In addition, the technical
evaluation of projects shows that each of the major proposed projects in the revised
TransPlan will significantly enhance the movement of goods and services throughout the
metropolitan area by enhancing linkage to commercial/industrial areas, and by making
improvements to the National Highway system that will provide congestion relief. That
evaluation also shows that numerous of the proposed major projects will have a positive
impact on the economic vitality of the affected area by providing or improving access to
currently inaccessible land, undeveloped land and existing major retail and employment
areas.'
(. ~. ~:- ..
OAR 660-012-0030(2): Counties or MPOs preparing regional TSPs shall rely on the
analysis of state transportation needs in adopted elements of the state TSP. Local
governments preparing local TSPs shall rely on the analyses of state and regional
transportation needs in adopted elements of the state TSP and adopted regional
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
26
TSPs.
The revised TransPlan constitutes a regional TSP, addressing the transportation needs of
Eugene, Springfield and the unincorporated area of Lane County within the Metro Plan
boundary. The revised TransPlan is based on and specifically refers to the needs analysis
in the Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) and state plans formulated to implement the
OTP, including the Oregon Highway Plan and the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
ODOT staff participated in the staff committees developing technical analysis and re-
sponses to identified needs on the state and local transportation system. The specific
goals of the revised TransPlan are intended toaddress the regional and state transporta-
tion needs.
OAR 660-012-0030(3): Within urban growth boundaries, the determination of
local and regional transportation needs shall be based upon:
(a) Population and employment forecasts and distributions which are consistent
with the acknowledged comprehensive plan, including those policies which
implement Goal 14, including Goal 14's requirement to encourage urban de-
velopment on urban lands prior to conversion of urbanizable lands. Fore-
casts and distributions shall be for 20 years and, if desired, for longer peri-
ods;
The revisions to TransPlan recognize the region's population growth as a primary trend
driving the regions' transportation needs. Population and employment forecasts devel-
oped by the Lane Council of Governments for the 20-year planning period have been
used for both TransPlan and Metro Plan'periodi~-review. The revised TransPlan forecasts
and projects growth in employment and population based on past trends and other factors.
Those trends reveal that the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area population has in-
creased by 30% in the last 20 years, and is expected to increase by an additional 43%
during the next 15 years. As the revisions to TransPlan explain, during the last 25 years,
growth through the region has been relatively compact, due in large part to the Metro
Plan requirement for annexation and provision of public facilities prior to development.
The revised TransPlan population and employment distributions rely on and are consis-
tent with the Metro Plan population and employment forecasts.
(b) Measures adopted pursuant to OAlf660-012-0045 to encourage reduced reli-
ance on the automobile.
Policies and recommended land use regulation j.mplementation measures included in the
revised TransPlan and Metro Plan text amendments are designed to reduce reliance on the
automobile. Revised TransPlan Chapter 3, Part 4 includes recommended action to im-
plement various transportation-related land use policies. Chapter 3, Part 4 also provides a
nodal development and integrated land use transportation plan development schedule in-
corporating recommendations to provide guidance to Eugene-Springfield metropolitan
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
27
area local governments contained in Section 7 of LCDC Order 01-LCDC-024, adopted by
the Commission in May 2000. TransPlan Appendix G is a copy of LCDC Order 01-
LCDC-024.
OAR 660-012-0030(4): In MPO areas, calculation of local and regional transporta-
tion needs also shall be based upon accomplishment of the requirement in OAR 660-
012-0035(4) to reduce reliance on the automobile.
Goal One of the revised TransPlan is to "Provide an integrated transportation land use
system that supports choices in modes of travel and development patterns that will reduce
reliance on the auto and enhance lIvability, economic opportunity, and the quality of life."
(Emphasis added). In assessing the region's transportation needs, the importance of re-
ducing reliance on the automobile is given significant emphasis. The list of transporta-
tion projects and the modification of land use patterns was specifically developed with
the purpose of reducing reliance on the automobile. The Regional Travel Forecast Model
uses assumptions consistent with 660-012-060(5)(a) when modeling travel behavior from
the nodal development areas proposed in the land use strategy for the plan. As demon-
strated in the findings related to compliance with OAR 660-012-0035, the revised Trans-
Plan gives thorough consideration to the requirements related to reducing reliance on the
automobile.
OAR 660-012-0035(1): The TSP shall be based upon evaluation of potential impacts
of system alternatives that can reasonably be expected to meet the identified trans-
portation needs in a safe manner and at a reasonable cost with available technology.
The following shall be evaluated as components of system alternatives:
(a)
(b)
, .
improvements to existing facilities or services;
new facilities and services, including different modes or combinations
of modes that could reasonably meet identified transportation needs;
Transportation system management measures;
Demand management measures; and
A no-build system alternative.
(c)
(d)
(e)
The TransPlan update process involved eval~tion of numerous system alternatives to
determine how the region's transportation needs P9!lld be most effectively met. Trans-
Plan Appendix C, TransPlan Update Process Uocumentation, outlines each of the alter-
native "concepts" evaluated. Concept 1, the "Base Case," was a "no build" alternative that
included strategies that were essentially an extension of current transportation and land
use conditions and trends. Concept #2, the "Demand Management Emphasis," contained
higher levels of demand management strategies and lower levels of land use and system
improvement strategies. Concept #3, the "Land Use Emphasis," contained higher levels
of land use strategies and lower levels of demand management and system improvement
strategies. Concept #4, the "System Changes Emphasis," contained higher levels of sys-
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
28
tern improvement strategies and lower levels of land use and demand management strate-
gies. Concept #5, the "Equal Emphasis," attempted to strike a balance between the three
strategy categories of land use management, demand management and systems improve-
ment. Finally, Concept #6, the "Transportation Planning Rule Vehicle Miles Traveled
Goal Compliance" emphasized demand management and system improvement strategies
to meet the TPR goal of reducing vehicle miles traveled by 10 percent over the current
conditions by the year 2015.
After evaluating each of the concepts, it was determined that an alternative approximating
the Equal Emphasis Concept would most effectively address the region's transportation
needs. Concept #6, which would have achieved the Transportation Planning Rule VMT
reduction goal, was determined to be infeasible, as it would have required a significant
increase in gas tax, a tripling of the price of parking in downtown Eugene, and an adverse
economic impact from toll bridges. Conversely, the Equal Emphasis alternative balances
the strategies available to address transportation needs and implements them through an
integrated framework. In May 2001, the Land Conservation and Development Commis-
sion adopted Commission Order 01-LCDC-24 approving an alternative standard for the
Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area based on the Equal Emphasis approach to reduced
reliance on the automobile. The land use component is addressed by the revised Trans-
Plan policies and implementation actions that encourage meeting the need for transporta-
tion-efficient development patterns, such as nodal development and transit-supportive
land use patterns, which reduce trip length and.auto dependency, and support transit~ bi-
cycling and walking. The transportation demand management component is supported
by the revised TransPlan policies and implementation actions that strive to meet the need
to reduce dem~d on the transportation system through actions that eliminate the need for
vehicle trips and increase the use of transit, carpooling and vanpooling, bicycling and
walking. The transportation systems improvement component is supported by the revised
TransPlan policies and implementation actions that address the need for improved opera-
tions and maintenance of the existing transportation system and investments in system
infrastructure and services. The revised TransPlan evaluates improvements to existing
facilities and services and incorporates planned improvements to existing facilities in its
consideration of alternatives. .
OAR 660-012-0035( 4)~ In MPO areas, regional and local TSPs shall be designed to
achieve the objectives listed in (a)-(c) below fo,r reducing automobile vehicle miles
traveled per capita for the MPO area. The VMT target and alternative standards
are intended as means of measuring progres's of metropolitan areas towards devel-
oping and implementing transportation systems and land use plans that reduce reli-
ance on the automobile. It is anticipated that metropolitan areas will accomplish
reduced reliance by changing land use patterns and transportation systems so that
walking, cycling, and use of transit are highly convenient and so that, on balance,
people need to and are likely to drive less than they do today:
(a) In MPO areas of less than 1 million people, a 50,lc. reduction within 20 years
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
29
of the adoption of a plan as required by OAR 660-012-055(1);
(b) [applies to Portland]
(c) Through subsequent planning efforts, an additional 5 percent reduction
within 30 years of adoption of a plan as required by OAR 660-012-0055(1).
OAR 660-012-0035(5): The Commission may authorize metropolitan areas to use
alternative standards in place of the VMT reduction standard in 0035(4) .to demon-
strate progress towards achieving reduced automobile reliance
As required to meet OAR 660-012-0035(5), the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area
submitted a proposal to the Department of Land Conservation and Development for the
use of alternative performance measures demonstrating TransPlan's ability to reduce reli-
ance on the auto. In May 2001, the Land Conservation and Development Commission
adopted Commission Order 01-LCDC-24 approving an alternative standard for the
Eugene-Springfield area. TransPlan Chapter 4, Part 3 details the development of the al-
ternative standards. The measures comprising the standard, 2005 and 2010 benchmarks
and 2015 targets for each measure are provided in Table 7 of that chapter. TransPlan Ap-
pendix G is the May 2001 LCDC order approving the alternative standard. The findings .
prepared for the proposal to LCDC are reproduced below.
Elements of TransPlan Directlv Contributing to Reduced Reliance on the Auto:
Achieving a reduction in automobile reliance is dependent on the success of implement-
ing the following key elements of TransPlan and the degree to which each option is de-
veloped. As mentioned above, four key elements identified by TransPlan policy officials
include Nodal Development, Bus Rapid Transit, Transportation Demand Management
and Priority Bikeway Miles.
The diagram to the left depicts the synergistic
relationship that exists between each of the pro-
poseq elements and their combined ability to
reduce automobile dependency. The effect of
comblmng TSI, TDM and Land Use policies,
programs and services is relative to the degree in
which auto dependency is diminished.
As residential, retail and commercial densities
increase in specific areas, urban design features
Mixed Uses & Density Design can be implemented that give more emphasis to
Elements of Nodal Development the mobility of pedestrian, bicycle and transit
modes. The addition of parking constraints within a limited area, further affects the use of
the automobile. Connecting nodal developments with a fixed, frequent transit service,
provides competition for similar trips that would have originally been made using an
automobile. Through TDM, providing comprehensive information about alternative
transportation programs, services and facilities to residents and employees in nodal de-
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
30
velopments, insures that options other than driving can begin to be considered.
The more robust the implementation of TSI, TDM and Land Use, the greater the effect
the combination will have reducing automobile reliance.
The integrated nature of the plan elements means that changes in any of the individual
elements will affect the outcome of the alternative performance measures. For example,
while nodal development and BRT have a primary affect on reducing Percent Non-Auto
Trips, changes in TDM, bikeway and other plan strategies also contribute to the reduc-
tion.
Nodal Development - By design, nodal development reduces the need for individual trips
made by automobile within the node. The proximity of residential clusters to retail and
commercial services, coupled with at-grade pedestrian and bicycle facilities, fosters
movement by alternative modes within the node. A range of designs exist that can di-
rectly affect the amount of drive alone traffic that occurs within and through the node. As
the integration of designs for pedestrian, bicycle- and transit are enhanced, the accessibil-
ity and movement of the automobile through this environment starts to diminish.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) - BR T provides a frequent ,and highly reliable source of trans-
portation that can compete with the automobile'.- The more frequent and reliable transit
service becomes, the easier it is for patrons to board and use the service. People have a
tendency to avoid using transit because it cannot compete with the ease and convenience
their own automobile affords them. As proposed in TransPlan the service will provide a
quick and easy transportation solution for a whole variety of trip purposes and will com-
pete well with the travel time of the automobile along major corridors. As such, the serv-
ice will start to attract more riders. As the time between buses using the BR T corridor
diminishes, so to does the need for using a schedule. Connecting viable nodes along the
BR T corridor creates the ability for more riders to use the service to get to and from the
destinations they want to go to.
Transportation Demand Management (I'DM) - TDM is the essential management of in-
formation that can be provided to prospective users of alternative means of transportation
to diminish their reliance on driving to and frow destinations via their own automobiles.
An essential component in establishing TDM programs is marketing. The more attractive
TDM options become, the easier they are to use; however, in order to be used the public
needs to be made aware that various programs, facilities and services exist. Nodal devel-
opment coupled with TDM marketing and services effectively reduces the reliance of
single occupancy automobile trips.
Priority Bikeway Miles - Priority bikeway projects consist of those projects that are along
an essential core route on which the overall system depends, fill in a critical gap in the
existing bicycle system, or overcome a barrier where no other nearby existing or pro-
grammed bikeway alternatives exist (e.g., river, major street, highway), or significantly
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
31
improve bicycle users safety in a given corridor. As such, they are the key additions to
the bikeway system that support nodal development and an increase in the use of this al-
ternative mode.
C. Analvsis
The assessment of compliance below focuses on the five objectives listed in the TPR.
TPR Obiective A: Achieving the alternative standard will result in a reduction in re-
liance on automobiles.
The draft plan's performance on this objective can be measured using the Travel Re-
sponse performance measures. In general, the travel response described below relies on
implementation of the nodal development, Bus Rapid Transit, and expanded TDM strate-
gies set forth in TransPlan, and the Priority Bikeway Miles.
Reduced reliance on the auto is indicated in the forecasted 18 percent increase in the Per-
cent Non-Auto Trips, a measure of the relative proportion of trips occurring by alternative
modes. This increase is particularly significant when compared to the 2015 Trend Sce-
nario which indicates an 11 percent decrease without implementation of the plan. An in-
crease in the percent of the region's trips taken by alternative modes is a direct measure
of reduced reliance on the auto. An increase indicates that improvements made to alter-
native modes have been successful in attracting more people to use those alternatives for
some trips. Percent Non-Auto Trips is a good measure of the cumulative effect of the
implementation of all of TransPlan' s key strategies.
The Percent Transit Mode Share on Congested Corridors measure also directly indicates
reduced reliance on the automobile. The target of increasing transit mode share on the
congested corridors by 72 percent over the 1995 base is a significant shift in reliance on
the automobile. The fact that this target specifically calls for reduced reliance on the
automobile 'in the areas of greatest congestion is also of significance. By doing so, the
measure targets reduced reliance on the automobile in those areas where the impact will
be the greatest.
TPR Obiective B: Achieving the alternative standard will accomplish a significant
increase in the availability or convenience of alternative modes of transportation.
The draft plan's performance on this objective can be measured using Plan Implementa-
tion and other measures. These measures reflect the implementation effort made by the
adopting agencies in nodal development, TDM, and alternative modes improvements
(e.g., additional Priority Bikeway miles, etc.).
The additional 74 miles of Priority Bikeway Miles proposed in TransPlan represents a 58
percent increase in total bikeway miles. Thi,s is,part of TransPlan's overall planned in-
crease in total bikeway miles of 104 percent. An increase in bikeway miles is a direct
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
32
measure of the availability and convenience of alternative modes and is expected to result
in an increase in the use of those modes. One of the key aspects of the bike system plan-
ning effort was to identify and address existing gaps and barriers in the existing system.
These gaps and barriers are addressed in the bicycle project list, and are identified as the
"Priority Bikeways," thus increasing the convenience and availability of the bike mode.
This measure provides a direct indication of the public policy effort in TransPlan toward
reducing reliance on the auto and increasing the availability of alternative modes.
Both the Percent Transit Mode Share on Congested Corridors and the Percent Non-Auto
Trips also are indicators of increased availability and convenience of alternative modes.
Achieving the 72 percent increase in transit mode share along the congested corridors is a
direct result of more frequent service. The proposed BR T system would provide 10-
minute service along its corridors. The 10-minute threshold is a critical one for transit
service because it is considered to be the level of service at which riders do not need
schedules. This increase in convenience is one of the main reasons for the 72 percent in-
crease in mode share on congested corridors. This is part of an overall increase in transit
mode share of 49 percent.
j,I..;o-t.,
TPR Obiective C: Achieving the alternative standard is likely to result in a significant
increase in the share of trips made by alternative modes, including walking, bicycling,
ridesharing and transit.
Virtually all of the plan's six performance measures are relevant to this objective. As al-
ready described above, the 72 percent increase in Transit Mode Share on Congested Cor-
ridors and the 18 percent increase in Non-Auto Trips both show a significant increase in
the share of trips made by alternative modes as a result of implementation actions in the
plan.
Also already described above is the direct relationship between the Priority Bikeway
Miles measure and the likely result of additional.bike trips.
The three plan measures related to nodal development - Acres of Zoned Nodal Develop-
ment, Percent of Dwelling Units Built in Nodes and Percent of New "Total" Employment
in Nodes - are all indicators of plan implementation measures directly intended "to result
in a significant increase in the share of trips made by alternative modes". The Percent of
Dwelling Units Built in Nodes and Percent of New "Total" Employment in Nodes meas-
ures are both market response measures in that they reflect the development sector re-
sponse to the public policies proposed for nodal development. They reflect the benefits
coming from changes in development anticipated for nodal development. The very defi- .
nition of nodal development included in TransPlan states that:
Nodal development is a mixed-use pedestrian-friendly land use
pattern that seeks to increase concentrations of population and em-
ployment in well-defined areas with good transit service, a mix ofidiverse and compatible land uses, and public and private improve-
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
33
ments designed to be pedestrian and transit oriented. (emphasis
added)
., ". ,.~,. <40
The TransPlan defmition of nodes and nodal development continues, stating in part that:
Fundamental characteristics of Nodal Development reauire:
· Design elements that support pedestrian environments and encourage
transit use, walking and bicycling; .
· A transit stop which is within walking distance (generally 1/4 mile) of
anywhere in the node;
· Mixed uses so that services are available within walking distance
These requirements are directly related to increasing the use of alternative modes. The
nodal development measures and their integration into the overall TransPlan strategy are
the basis for the increase in Percent Non-Auto Trips and the Percent Transit Mode Share
on Congested Corridors. Nodal development in IransPlan also plays a significant role in
allowing the region's VMT per capita to remain virtually unchanged over the planning
horizon.
TPR Obiective D:
VMT per capita is unlikely to increase by more than 5 percent.
VMT per capita in the Eugene-Springfield area is expected to remain virtually unchanged
through 2015 (0.3 percent increase).
TPR Obiective E: The alternative standard is measurable and reasonably related to
achieving the goal of reduced reliance on !he au~omobile as described in OAR 660-012-
0000.
The measurability of each of the performance measures weighed heavily in the MPC sub-
committee's selection process. The relationship of these measures to reduced reliance on
the automobile is referenced in our assessment of other objectives. The table below
summarizes the measurability of each of the proposed measures. While each measure
relies on different data, the region currently maintains all of the underlying information
required to track these measures.
Measure Update Process/Reliability
The mode choice model relies on current data on the existing transportation
system (traffic counts, transit ridership, roadway speeds, etc.) and travel be-
Percent Non-Auto Trips havior data (typically through travel surveys). Estimates are as reliable as the
model being used: The model is most reliable when based on an updated
travel survey and current system data.
Percent Transit Mode LID updates its ridership da41 frequently. Traffic volumes are updated regu-
Share on Congested Cor- larly. Very reliable.' . ,
ridors
Priority Bikeway Miles This measure would be updated based on the sum of the distances of bikeway
projects determined to be "priority." Very reliable.
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
34
Acres of zoned nodal de- This measure would be updated as each city takes action to zone parcels for
velopment nodal development. Very reliable.
Percent of dwelling units This measure would be'updated periodically through analysis of building per-
built in nodes mits. Very reliable.
Requires taking employment files and "cleaning" them to establish correct
Percent of New "Total" address (geographic location). GIS is then used to estimate new employment
Employment in Nodes in nodes. This is typically done on a regular basis (every two years). Fairly
reliable. Need to defme "excluded" employment to equate to standard em-
ployment codes used in the state employment files.
OAR 660-012-0035(6): Regional TSPs shall specify measurable objectives for each
of the following and demonstrate how the combination selected will accomplish the
objectives in section (4) of this rule:
Measurable objectives provided in TransPlan 9hapter 4, Part 2 are summarized in (a)
through (c) below.
(a) An increase in the modal share of non-automobile vehicle trips (i.e., transit,
bicycle, pedestrian); for example, a doubling of the modal share of non-
automobile trips;
Under the 2015 Financially Constrained TransPlan, the modal share of non-automobile
vehicle trips is projected to increase from existing levels, going from 14.4% to 17%. The
number of households with access to 10-minute transit service is projected to increase
from 23% to 88%, an increase of281.8%. Likewise, the percentage of employment with
access to 10-minute transit service is also projected to increase significantly, from 52%
percent to 91%, an increase of75%. Increases in the percent of households and employ-
ment with access to 10-minute transit service are-projected to result in a 49% increase in
that transit mode share.
The percentage of roadways with sidewalks is projected to increase by 20.9%, from 58%
to 70%. Measurable increases in the percent of roadway miles with sidewalks and an in-
crease in the number of bikeway miles also contribute to the projected increase in the
modal share of non-automobile vehicle trips.
(b) An increase in average automobile occupancy (i.e., persons per vehicle) dur-
ing; for example, an increase to an average of 1.5 persons per vehicle; and
Under the 2015 Financially Constrained TransPlan, automobile drive alone trips are pro-
jected to decrease, from the existing conditions of.43.5% to 39.5%. Conversely, the
number of shared automobile trips (Le.two or 'more vehicle occupants) is projected to
increase from 42.4% to 44.5%.
(c) Where appropriate, a decrease in the number or length of automobile vehicle
trips per capita due to demand management programs, rearranging of land
Exhibit C 35
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
uses or other means.
Under the 2015 Financially Constrained TransPlan scenario, auto trip lengths are pro-
jected to decrease from 3.7 miles under existing conditions to 3~6 miles.
OAR 660-012-0035(7): Regional and local TSPs shall include interim benchmarks to
assure satisfactory progress towards meeting the requirements of this section at five
year intervals over the planning period. MPOs and local governments shall evalu-
ate progress in meeting interim benchmarks at five year intervals from adoption of
the regional and local TSPs. Where interim benchmarks are not met, the relevant
TSP shall be amended to include new or additional efforts adequate to meet the re-
quirements of this section.
Table 7 of TransPlan Chapter 4, Part 3 provides 2005 and 2010 interim benchmarks for
the six performance measures comprising the LCDC-approved alternative standard.
OAR 660-012-0035(10):Transportation uses or improvements listed in OAR
660-012-0065(3)(d) to (g) and (0) and located in an urban fringe may be included in .
a TSP only if the improvement project identified in the Transportation System Plan
as described in section (11) of this rule, will not significantly reduce peak hour travel
time for the route as determined pursuant to section (10) of this rule, or the jurisdic-
tion determines that the following alternatives can not reasonably satisfy the pur-
pose of the improvement project:
(a) Improvements to transportation facilities and services within the urban
growth boundary;
(b) Transportation system management~easures that do not significantly in-
crease capacity; or
(c) Transportation demand management measures. The jurisdiction needs only
to cdnsider alternatives that are safe and effective, consistent with applicable
standards and that can be implemented at a reasonable cost using available
technology.
Projects on the revised TransPlan Financially Constrained 20- Year Capital Investment
Actions project lists that may include construction in the urban fringe are not expected to
significantly reduce peak hour travel time for tl;le route. These projects are required be-,
cause improvements within the urban growth boundary and within city limits will not ac-
complish the same results. These projects ate included as a part of the planned transpor-
tation projects because they are needed to serve areas adjacent to the UGB, such as the
Eugene Airport.
The term "urban fringe" refers to the area 5 miles beyond the Eugene-Springfield UGB.
"Significantly reduce" is defined elsewhere in the rule to mean a reduction of more than
15% from current conditions. Most of the projects listed in Chapter 3 of the revised
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
36
TransPlan are not subject to this provision because they are authorized by provisions of
OAR 660-012-0065 other than (3)(d) to (g) and (0). However, projects 66 (Jasper Road
Extension), 297 (Bloomberg Connector), and 486 (Greenhill Road, north airport bound-
ary to Airport Road) do require an evaluation of travel time because, wholly or partially,
they are realignments authorized by OAR 660-012-0065(3)(d).
Project 66 includes a short realignment of Jasper Road (the edge of the Springfield UGB)
to join the new Jasper Road Extension (wholly contained within the Springfield UGB).
The current travel time for this 1000 foot segment is about 13 seconds. The realigned
segment will be more than 1500 feet long; therefore travel time for this particular stretch
of road will increase by several seconds.
Project 297 will realign an existing segment of McVay Highway to form a new intersec-
tion with 30th Avenue and Eldon Schafer Drive. The purpose of this project is to im-
prove the operations of the I-5/3Oth Avenue interchange ramp, where a.m. peak hour traf-
fic often backs onto the southbound freeway travel lanes. Under normal conditions travel
time for the 1700 foot stretch of McVay Highway between Bloomberg Road and 30th
Avenue is on the order of 20 seconds, however when classes are in session at Lane
Community College congestion can lead to delays of a minute or more as vehicles must
negotiate the intersection at 30th Avenue, weave across a lane of traffic, and turn left onto
Eldon Schafer Drive. The new alignment will actually lengthen the segment between
Bloomberg Road and 30th Avenue to about 2000 feet, theoretically increasing travel time
by a second or two. However, the real effect of consolidating these two intersections will
help bring the 30th Avenue interchange closer to the Interchange Access Management
Area Spacing Standards for Approaches in the Oregon Highway Plan. It will also set the
stage for future project 257, the eventual reconstruction of the I-5/30th Avenue inter-
change~
Project 486 will realign part of Greenhill Road near the Eugene Airport. The segment of
the road between Fiddler's Green Golf Course and Airport Road needs to be moved about
2000 feet east in order to correct an existing air safety problem at the east end of cross
runway 3-21, and to prepare for the eventual construction of a new parallel runway east
of Greenhill Road. The net effect will be to increase travel time for users of Greenhill
Road by about 25 seconds.
OAR 660-012-0040: Transportation Financing Program
OAR 660-012-0040(1): For areas within an urban growth boundary containing a
population greater than 2,500 persons, the TSP shall include a transportation
financing program.
The revised TransPlan Finance Policies in Chapter 2 identify and explain the fmancial
policies that guide the development and allocation of funding for transportation services,
facilities and projects. The Capital Investment Actions and Part 2 of Chapter 3 provide
Exhibit C
Findings in .Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
37
the specific details of the transportation financing program as described further below.
OAR 660-012-0040(2): A transportation financing program shall include the items
listed in (a)-(d):
(a) A list of planned transportation facilities and major improvements;
(b) A general estimate of the timing for planned transportation facilities and ma-
jor improvements;
(c) A determination of rough cost estimates for the transportation facilities and
major improvements identified in the TSP; and
The revised TransPlan Capital Investment Actions are illustrated in Chapter 3, Tables la,
2 and 3a, that detail the 20- Y ear Financially Constrained project lists for Roadway Proj-
ects, Transit Projects and Bicycle Projects. These tables list the planned transportation
facilities and major improvements within each of these categories; provide an estimate of
the timing of each project, and provide a rough estimate of the costs for each project. The
planning cost estimates consider the type and scope of each proposed improvement.
They are rough estimates, not based on precise engineering estimates, but rather planning'
estimates to assist in determining financial impacts. Most bicycle improvement projects
show a $0 for the rough cost estimate. Many projects which include restriping are ex-
pected to require no capital expenditure because they can be implemented with operating
funds. Other bicycle projects are planned for construction as part of more extensive
roadway projects, and thus the cost estimates are included as part of the roadway project
cost estimate. The timing of each project is listed as either "programmed" or
"unprogrammed." Programmed projects have been identified in a local agency's CIP or
the STIP. Both "programmed" and "unprogrammed" projects within the Financially
Constrained 20- Year Capital Improvement Actions project lists have reasonable funding
sources identified that will enable them to proceed to project construction.
(d) In Dtetropolitan areas, policies to guide selection of transportation facility
and improvement projects for funding in the short-term to meet the stan-
dards and benchmarks established p'ursuant to 0035(4)-(6). Such policies
shall consider, and shall include among the priorities, facilities and im-
provements that support mixed-use, pedestrian friendly development and in-
creased use of alternative modes.
TransPlan Finance Policy #5 describes the short-term project priorities, which are to con-
sider and include among short term project priorities, those facilities and improvements
that support mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly nodal development and increased use of al-
ternative modes. This policy supports consideration and programming of facilities and
improvements that support nodal development and the increased use of alternative trans-
portation modes.
OAR 660-012-0040(3): The determination of rough cost estimates is intended to
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
38
provide an estimate of the fiscal requirements to support the land uses in the ac-
knowledged comprehensive plan and allow jurisdictions to assess the adequacy of
existing and possible alternative funding mechanisms. In addition to including
rough cost estimates for each transportation facility and major improvement, the
transportation financing plan shall include a discussion of the facility provider's ex-
isting funding mechanisms and the ability of these and possible new mechanisms to
fund the development of each transportation facility and major improvement. These
funding mechanisms may also be described in terms of general guidelines or local
policies.
The revised TransPlan Capital Investment Actions project lists provide an estimated cost
for each capital investment project. The cost estimates are not precise, but rather are in-
tended as planning estimates to assist in determining financial impacts. The Finance
Policies in Chapter 2 guide the development and allocation of funding for transportation
services, facilities and projects, noting the characteristics of the desired transportation fi-
nance system. The financial plan set forth in Chapter 3, Part 2, includes a discussion of
existing and possible alternative funding mechanisms.
OAR 660-012-0040(5): The transportation financing program shall provide for
phasing of major improvements to encourage in fill and redevelopment of urban
lands prior to facilities and improvements which would cause premature develop-
ment of urbanizable lands or conversion of rural lands to urban uses.
The Capital Investment Actions project lists in 'the revised TransPlan include three phases
of projects: programmed projects identified to proceed to construction in the next five
years; unprogrammed projects expected to be developed in the period of 6 to 20 years,
and future projects not expected for construction during the 20-year planning period.
Most projects are concentrated within the urban lands, and are primarily directed at de-
velopments within the UGB. All projects are consistent with the provisions of the Metro
Plan that encourage infill and redevelopment of urban lands prior to the extension of ur-
ban services into urbanizable land or conversion of rural land to urban uses.
OAR 660-012-0045 Implementation of the transportation System Plan
Revised TransPlan Chapter 3, Part 4 includes recommended actions to implement various
transportation-related land use policies. Chapter 3, Part 4 also provides a nodal develop-
ment and integrated land use transportation plan development schedule incorporating rec-
ommendations to provide guidance to Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area local gov-
ernments contained in Section 7 of LCDC Order 01-LCDC-024, adopted by the Commis-
sion in May 2000. TransPlan Appendix G is a copy of LCDC Order 01-LCDC-024.
OAR 660-012-0050 Transportation Project Development
Local jurisdiction project development processes include referral to affected agencies.
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
39
OAR 660-012-0055 Timing of Adoption and Update of Transportation System
Plans; Exemptions
Policies and recommended land use regulation implementation measures included in the
revised TransPlan and Metro Plan text amendments are designed to reduce reliance on the
automobile. Revised TransPlan Chapter 3, Part 4 includes recommended actions to im-
plement various transportation-related land use policies. Chapter 3, Part 4 also provides a
nodal development and integrated land use transportation plan development schedule in-
corporating recommendations to provide guidance to Eugene-Springfield metropolitan
area local governments contained in Section 7 of LCDC Order 01-LCDC-024, adopted by
the Commission on May 4, 2000. TransPlan Appendix G is a copy of LCDC Order 01-
LCDC-024.
OAR 660-012-0060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments
Findings of consistency with OAR 660-012-0060 are required prior to adoption of Metro
Plan amendments, refinement plan amendments and land use regulation amendments by
Eugene, Springfield and Lane County elected officials.
OAR 660-012-0065 Transportation Improvements on Rural Lands
(3) The following transportation improvements are consistent with goals 3, 4,
11, and 14 subject to the requirements of this rule:
(a) Accessory transportation improvements for a use that is allowed or condi-
tionally allowed by ORS 215.213, 215.283 or OAR 660, Division 6 (Forest Lands);
(b) Transportation improvements that are allowed or conditionally allowed
by ORS 215.213, 215.283 or OAR 660, Division 6 (Forest Lands);
(c) Channelization not otherwise allowed under subsections (a) or (b) of this
section; .
(d) Realignment of roads not othe~ise allowed under subsection (a) or (b) of
this section; .
( e) Replacement of an intersection with an interchange;
(f) Continuous median turn lane;
(g) New access roads and collectors withiIi a built or committed exception
area, or in other areas where the function or the road is to reduce local access to or
local traffic on a state highway. These roads shall be limited to two travel lanes. Pri-
vate access and intersections shall be limited to rural needs or to provide adequate
emergency access.
(h) Bikeways, footpaths and recreation trails not otherwise allowed as a
modification or part of an existing road;
(i) Park and ride lots;
(j) Railroad mainlines and branchlines;
(k) Pipelines;
(I) Navigation channels;
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
40
(m) Replacement of docks and other facilities without significantly increasing
the capacity of those facilities;
(n) Expansions or alterations of public use airports that do not permit service
to a larger class of airplanes; and
(0) Transportation facilities, services and improvements other than those
listed in this rule that serve local travel needs. The travel capacity and level of serv-
ice of facilities and improvements serving local travel needs shall be limited to that
necessary to support rural land uses identified in the acknowledged comprehensive
plan or to provide adequate emergency access.
Certain projects set out in the revised TransPlan project list and described below extend
onto rural land, or constitute an expansion of a road that is coterminous with the UGB
and may encroach upon rural lands. While projects within the UGB that serve as the
boundary to the UGB may not need to be independently evaluated under this rule, all of
these projects comply with the provisions of this rule. Project 454, the expansion of
Greenhill Road, project 533, the improvements to a small portion of Irvington Drive,
project 625, the improvements to Coburg Road, projects 654 and 606, the portion dealing
with improvements to Game Farm Road between 1-5 and Crescent Avenue, project 98,
the improvements to Thurston Road, and project 66, the improvements to Jasper Road all
constitute transportation improvements allowed by ORS 215.213 and OAR 660-012-
.0065(3)(b). The functional classifications of these roads refer to the size, capacity and
design of the road, not to its location in an urban or rural setting.
Other roadway improvement projects extend beyond the UGB to some degree and are
permitted by OAR 660-0 12-0065(3)(b), (d) or (g). Project 66 (Jasper Road Extension) is
a new road within the Springfield UGB that requires a short realignment of Jasper Road
outside the UGB. Project 297 (Bloomberg Connector) is a realignment of a portion of
McVay Highway north of the 30th Avenue interchange. Project 485 (Greenhill Road,
Barger Drive to Airport Road) upgrades a substandard portion of Greenhill Road to meet
the requirements of OAR 660-012-0020(2)(b):-"Project 486 (Greenhill Road, north of air-
port boundary to Airport Road) is a realignment of another segment of Greenhill Road
necessitated by safety improvements to the Eugene Airport. Project 554 (Wilkes Drive)
improves a short segment of Wilkes Drive east of the UGB. Project 625 (Coburg Road)
upgrades the segment of Coburg Road leading to Armitage State Park from the south to
meet the requirements of OAR 660-012-0020(2)(b). Most of these projects are permitted
by OAR 660-012-0065(3)(b). Project 486, the realignment of Greenhill Road near the
Eugene Airport, project 297, the realignment of the McVay Highway, and project 66, the
realignment of a portion of Jasper Road to form a new intersection with Jasper Road Ex-
tension, meet the definition of "realignment" specified by OAR 660-012-0065(2)(f), and
are therefore allowed by OAR 660-0 12-0065(3)(d).
In each of these instances, the proposed work is not only permitted by the Transportation
Planning Rule; it is consistent with the intent of the rule to upgrade roads to agency stan-
dards. In addition, nearly all of the projects in table 1 a of chapter 3 have been previously
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
41
acknowledged. As such, they comply with the statewide planning goals and do not now
need a new or revised exception or further analysis under the Transportation Planning
Rule. Their description here to demonstrate compliance with this section of the Trans-
portation Planning Rule is not intended to suggest that an additional exception would
otherwise be required.
OAR 660-012-0065(5) For transportation uses or improvements listed in sub-
section (3)( d) to (g) and (0) of this rule within an exclusive farm use (EFU) or
forest zone, a jurisdiction shall, in addition to demonstrating compliance
with the requirements of ORS 215.296:
(a) Identify reasonable build design alternatives, such as alternative
alignments, that are safe and can be constructed at a reasonable cost, not
considering raw land costs, with available technology. Until adoption of a lo-
cal TSP pursuant to the requirements of OAR 660-012-0035, the jurisdiction
shall consider design and operations alternatives within the project area that
would not result in a substantial reduction in peak hour travel time for proj-
ects in the urban fringe that would significantly reduce peak hour trav.el
time. A determination that a project will significantly reduce peak hour
travel time is based on OAR 660-012-0035(10). The jurisdiction need not con-
sider alternatives that are inconsistent with applicable standards or not ap-
proved by a registered professional engineer;
(b) Assess the effects of the identified alternatives on farm and forest
practices, considering impacts to farm and forest lands, structures and facili-
ties, considering the effects of traffic on the movement of farm and forest ve-
hicles and equipment and considering the effects of access to parcels created
on farm and forest lands; and
(c) Select from the identified alternatives, the one, or combination of
identified alternatives that has the least impact on lands in the immediate vi-
cinity devoted to farm or forest use.
, :: - ..~:.
. '. It"
The realignment of Greenhill Road near the Eugene Airport (Project 486), the realign-
ment of the McVay Highway (project 297) and the realignment of a short section of Jas-
per Road (as part of Project 66, Jasper Road Extension) constitute realignments of high-
ways allowed under OAR 660-0 12-0065(3)(d).
The proposal to relocate McVay Highway from the area of Bloomberg to 30th Avenue
(Project 297) is a realignment of a road authorized by OAR 660-012-0065(3)(d). The
agricultural land to the west of the present location of McVay Highway over which the
highway will be relocated is not currently in active agricultural use. The proposed relo-
cation is necessary to allow other modifications to McVay Highway and the I-5/30th Ave-
nue interchange (project 257) and to allow traffic approaching Lane Community College
(LCC) from McVay Highway to have direct access to the college from the traffic signal at
30th Avenue and Eldon Schafer Drive. It improves the spacing of the intersection from 1-
5 as suggested by the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan. The present location of the intersec-
Exhibit C 42
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
tion creates a difficult traffic flow situatioQ. for traffic from McVay Highway to turn onto
30th Avenue and then turn off into LCC. The proposed realignment will provide more
efficient traffic flow, eliminating a right turn movement at 30th A venue and a left turn at
the Eldon Schafer Drive traffic signal. These t1iiri1ng movements require vehicles to
weave from the right lane across the left throu,gh-Iane and into the left turn lane at the
signal. This weaving movement is creating operational problems now and will be more
diffic~lt in the future as traffic volume increases. In addition, Project 297 provides the
best access to the east side of LCC. No other alignment of McVay Highway can achieve
these results or have a lesser impact on lands in the immediate vicinity devoted to farm
and forest use. An alternative to project 297 would be to route college traffic west on
Bloomberg Road and a constructed connection to the Gonyea Interchange further west on
30th Avenue. Bloomberg Road is not designed for this type of use and this alternative
would not provide efficient access to the east side of the LCC. This alternative would
require greater use of agricultural land, would 'have greater adverse effects on farming
practices and would have a greater adverse effect on residential properties than the pro-
posed alternative. The proposed realigl11l1ent will be. compatible with adjacent uses, will
not force a significant change in or significantly increase the cost of accepted farm prac-
tices on surrounding lands devoted to farm use' and will have the least impact on farm
lands in the immediate vicinity devoted to farm use. McVay Highway is already adjacent
to the existing uses and the area to be occupied by the relocated McVay Highway is
largely unused for farming.
The transportation project to relocate Greenhill Road from north of the airport boundary
to Airport Road (project 486) is a realignment of a road authorized by OAR 660-012-
0065(3)(d). Much of the relocation will take place on property designated for airport use
and not considered rural land. The northern ~d a southern portion of the relocated
Greenhill Road will cross land designated and zoned for agricultural use under statewide
Goal 3. The current location of Greenhill Road-is in conflict with the runway protection
zone (RPZ) for the existing diagonal runway. The' present location of Greenhill Road is
also in conflict with the proposed taxiway between the current north/south runway and
the proposed second parallel runway to be built to the east. These runway projects are
included in the Eugene Airport Master Plan. Relocating Greenhill Road to the eastern
airport boundary maintains local road circulation in the area and minimizes conflicts with
the airport and other adjacent land uses. Unless Greenhill Road is closed in this area, it
must be relocated to the east. Closing Greenhill Road is not an acceptable alternative be-
cause it would result in increased traffic on State Highway 99. Much of the traffic that
uses this portion of Greenhill Road is farm traffic, including slow moving farm vehicles.
The alternative of closing Greenhill Road was 'rejected in large part because of the ad-
verse effect on Highway 99 and agriculture reiated traffic that would come from such an
action. The amount agricultural land that is _bei,ng affected by the proposed relocation is
being minimized. No other location with reasoQ~l?le, safe design consistent with
AASHTO standards will preserve the cUrrent u~e of Greenhill Road, meet Federal A via-
tion Administration (FAA) runway clearance requirements and have less effect on agri-
cultural land. An alternate location of Greenhill Road would likely not have any different
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
43
environmental impact. Alternative locations of Greenhill Road, other than the proposed
relocation, would have greater adverse impacts to farm practices in that it would involve
the conversion of larger areas of agricultural land or the assignment of greater agricultural
traffic to Highway 99 and longer times of vehicle travel. The proposed realignment will
be compatible with adjacent uses, will not force a significant change in or significantly
increase the cost of accepted farm practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm use and
will have the least impact on farm lands in the immediate vicinity devoted to farm use.
The proposed road use will be compatible with adjacent uses and adverse impacts will be
mitigated to the greatest extent possible by limiting the amount of agricultural land dedi-
cated to the relocated road.
The proposal to construct a new road within the Springfield UGB between Main Street
and Jasper Road (Project 66) creates the need for realigning a short segment of Jasper
Road outside the UGB authorized by OAR 660-012-0065(3)(d). This component of the
project is essential to provide safe merging with Jasper Road and a perpendicular crossing
of the railroad tracks that are located parallel to and immediately east of Jasper Road.
Three different alternatives were presented to an 18 member Stakeholders Group before
the proposed alignment was selected. One placed the junction about 2,000 feet further
north on Jasper Road. Another placed it more than 4,000 feet to the south. Several crite-
ria were to evaluate the pros and cons of each concept, including the potential impact on
natural resources on the west side of Jasper Road (the area outside the UGB). The pro-
posed alignment was selected, in part, because each of the other alternatives would have
placed the realigned approach to Jasper Road extension within a few feet of a Class I
stream. Among a number of arguments to its credit, the proposed junction of Jasper Road
and Jasper Road Extension associated with TransPlan project 66 has less impact on pro-
tected riparian vegetation and the Willamette Greenway than all the other alternatives.
Findings in support of the selected design concept for project 66 were adopted by the
Board of County Commissioners as part of Lane County Board Order No. 98-12-9-19.
The proposed realignment will be compatible with adjacent uses, will not force a signifi-
cant change in or significantly increase the cost of accepted farm practices on surrounding
lands devoted to farm use and will have the least impact on farm lands in the immediate
vicinity devoted to farm use. The proposed road use also will be made compatible with
adjacent uses and adverse impacts will be mitigated to the greatest extent possible by
limiting the amount of agricultural land dedicated to the relocated road.
Conclusion:
Based on the above findings and supporting material in the record, we find that the pro-
posed revisions to TransPlan and amendments to the Metro Plan text are consistent with
the applicable provisions of the Transportation Planning Rule, OAR 660, Division 12.
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
44
III. FINDINGS OF REVISED TRANSPLAN CONSISTENCY WITH METRO
PLAN POLICIES
A. Growth Management and the Urban Service Area Policies
1. The urban service area concept and sequential development shall continue to
be implemented as an essential means to achieve compact urban growth.
The planning, programming, and financing for provision of all urban serv-
ices shall be concentrated inside the projected urban service area.
The revised TransPlan goals focus on the metropolitan area's responsible and sustainable
development. The revised TransPlan land use policies related to nodal development and
transit-supportive land use and development help to support and reinforce this Metro Plan
policy. The Financially Constrained 20-year Capital Investment Actions list of transpor-
tation projects is concentrated primarily within the urban service area.
2. Control of location, timing, and financing of the major public investments
that directly influence the growth form of the metropolitan area shall be
planned and coordinated on a metropolitan-wide basis.
The Financially Constrained 20-year Capital Investment Actions project lists set forth and
adopted as a part of the revisions to TransPlan, Chapter 3 were planned and coordinated
on a metropolitan-wide basis.
24. When conducting metropolitan planning studies, particularly the Public Fa-
cilities Plan and Alternative Growth Areas Study, consider the orderly provi-
sion and financing of public services and the overall impact on population
and geographical growth in the metropolitan area. Where appropriate, fu-
ture planning studies should include specific analysis of the growth impacts
suggested by that particular study for the metropolitan area.
Population and employment projections developed by the Lane Council of Governments
for the 20-year planning period were used in the preparation of revisions to TransPlan.
The revised TransPlan project lists were developed following population projections for
the metropolitan area and expected concentration of growth in nodal development areas.
The project timing set forth in revisions to TransPlan is designed to achieve an ordered
development consistent with the policies of the Metro Plan and the projected growth pat-
terns.
B. Economic Element Policies
10. Provide the necessary public facilities and services to allow economic devel-
opment.
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
45
The revised TransPlan goals support transportation strategies that improve the economic
vitality of the region and enhance economic opportunity. The revised TransPlan policies
were written to fulfill those goals and several policies directly address the importance of
continued economic development of the area. The Capital Investment Actions project
lists are designed to facilitate achievement of the revised TransPlan policies and objec-
tives and includes projects which will provide necessary public facilities and services to
allow economic development.
18. Encourage the development of transportation facilities which would improve
access to industrial and commercial areas and improve freight movement ca-
pabilities by implementing the policies and projects in the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) and the
Mahlon Sweet Field Master Plan, as outlined in Chapter 8( a), "On Airport
Land Use."
The revisions to TransPlan include policies and provide for transportation facilities de-
signed to improve access to industrial and commercial areas and assures efficient freight
movement.
23. Provide for limited mixing of office, commercial, and industrial uses under
procedures which clearly define the conditions under which such uses shall
be permitted and which: (a) preserve the suitability of the affected areas for
their primary uses; (b) assure compatibility; and (c) consider the potential
for increased traffic congestion.
The revised TransPlan develops the nodal development strategy (Land Use Policies # 1,
#2 and #5). These policies provide for the development of conditions under which the
mixing of office, commercial and industrial uses shall be permitted and still assure com-
patibility. TSI Roadway Policy #2 and TDM Policy #3 recognize the possibility of in-
creased traffic congestion and develop policies to deal with that issue.
28. Recognize the vital role of neighborhood commercial facilities in providing
services and goods to a particular neighborhood.
The revised TransPlan nodal development strategy (Land Use Policies #1 and #2) recog-
nizes the vital role of neighborhood commercial facilities and seeks to implement nodal
development strategies to help the region address important transportation issues.
29. Encourage the expansion or redevelopment of existing neighborhood com-
mercial facilities as surrounding residential densities increase or as the char-
acteristics of the support population change.
The revised TransPlan nodal developmenfstrategy (Land Use Policies #1 and #2) en-
courages the redevelopment and expansion of existing neighborhood commercial facili-
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
46
ties as a means to respond to changes in residential densities and population.
C. Environmental Design Element
4. Public and private facilities shall be designed and located in a manner that
preserves and enhances desirable features of local and neighborhood areas
and promotes their sense of identity.
The revised TransPlan System-Wide Policy #4 calls for the support of transportation
strategies that enhance neighborhood livability. The intent of this policy is to provide
direction for local governments when they implement strategies to address neighborhood
traffic impacts. The revised TransPlan nodal development strategies recognize the im-
portance of neighborhood continuity and seek to support the viability of neighborhoods
by encouraging nodal development where that is appropriate.
D. Willamette River Greenway Element
13. The taking of an exception shall be required if a non-water dependent trans-
portation facility requires placing of fill within the Willamette River Green-
way setback.
In the event final project design requires the placing offill within the Greenway setback,
an exception will be taken prior to the final development approval of the project.
E. Energy Element
7. Encourage medium and high density residential uses when balanced with
other planning policies in order to maximize the efficient utilization of all
forms of energy. The greatest energy savings can be made in the areas of
space heating and cooling and transportation. For example, the highest rela-
tive densities of residential development shall be concentrated to the greatest
extent possible in areas that are or can be well served by mass transit, para-
transit, and foot and bicycle paths.
The revised TransPlan nodal development strategy (Land Use Policies # 1, #2 and #5) and
Land Use Policy #3, concerning transit supportive land use patterns, provide direction to
encourage medium and high density residential uses along transit corridors and at other
locations where access to alternative modes of transportation will achieve energy savings.
8. Commercial, residential, and recreational land uses shall be integrated to the
greatest extent possible, balanced with all planning policies to reduce travel
distances, optimize reuse of waste heat, and optimize potential on-site energy
generation.
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
47
The revised TransPlan nodal development strategy (Land Use Policies # 1, #2 and #5) and
Land Use Policy #3, concerning transit supportive land use patterns, provide direction to
encourage the integration of commercial and residential land uses with the specific intent
of reducing travel distances. Revised TransPlan Bicycle Policy #3 and Pedestrian Policy
# 1 direct the development of bicycle and pedestrian environments that are integrated into
all developments and provide greater opportunities for walking and bicycle use.
F. Metro Plan Citizen Involvement Element
4. Maintain an ongoing metropolitan region policy committee, known as the
Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC), to provide policy direction on major Plan
updates, Plan amendments, and special studies. MPC shall resolve land use issues
and other disagreements among the two cities and the county and fulfill other inter-
governmental functions as required by the three metropolitan governments.
The MPC has been delegated responsibility by the local Metropolitan Planning Organi-
zation (MPO) to provide policy guidance related to the conduct of the transportation
planning process, for adoption of the annual Transportation Improvement Program, and
to advise the LCOG Board (the MPO) on transportation planning related issues. This re-
sponsibility has assured that the MPC has been closely involved in the discussion of all
transportation related issues, including the adoption of revisions to TransPlan and the
Metro Plan text amendments.
5. In addition to its citizen involvement responsibilities, JPCC shall provide
guidance for intergovernmental studies and projects and shall provide a forum at
the planning commission level for resolving intergovernmental planning issues, in-
cluding proposed Metro Plan amendments.'
The Metro Plan designates the Joint Planning Commission Committee (JPCC) as the citi-
zens committee for coordinating and soliciting citizen input on the Plan update process.
The first phase of the TransPlan amendment process began development in June 1992.
The process was developed by the Lane Council of Governments and the Transportation
Planning Committee. The JPCC reviewed and approved the public involvement plan in
September 1992. Two community workshops were held, surveys were distributed, and
presentations were made to a variety of citizen groups.
Phase II of the public involvement process was approved by the JPCC in April 1993 and
approved by the Metropolitan Policy Committee in May 1993. Phase II involved the se-
lection of stakeholder groups and stakeholder group representatives. The first stakeholder
meeting had 68 of the 88 stakeholder representatives attending and over 150 attendees.
Later stakeholder meetings had fewer participants, but all stakeholder meetings had a
strong level of citizen and stakeholder participation in the process of forming and identi-
fying issues.
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
48
Public involvement continued during Phase III of the revision to TransPlan development
process. Stakeholder participation continued in the evaluation of alternatives. Commu-
nity workshops were conducted, focus groups were formed and their input was used in
later plan development. A community survey on alternative strategies was circulated and
the results were evaluated. Throughout the revision to TransPlan development process, a
newsletter, Transportation News, was published and circulated among the public. A
guidebook focusing on transportation growth issues was developed and circulated. Cop-
ies of the proposed draft revised TransPlan, including modifications as they were devel-
oped during the public involvement, were widely distributed.
After extensive citizen involvement and the involvement of key stakeholders, including
elected government officials, the Metropolitan Policy Commission and the JPCC, the re-
vision to TransPlan development process moved to public hearings and work sessions of
the Eugene, Springfield and Lane County planning commissions and the Lane County
Roads Advisory Committee. These meetings started with April 1998 joint public hear-
ings and continued with further public hearings by the Springfield and Eugene planning
commissions. These hearings were followed by joint work sessions of the planning
commissions and the roads advisory committee. Starting in October 1998, the planning
commissions and the roads advisory committee held a combined total of 20 work sessions
to fully review the proposed revisions to TransPlan.
The JPCC involvement provided guidance and a forum for resolving the intergovern-
mental planning project, which included revisions to TransPlan and related amendments
to the Metro Plan text. The newsletters, public information sessions, literature distribu-
tion and public hearings constituted a significant program of citizen information distribu-
tion and citizen input gathering. After review and approval by the planning commissions,
the proposed revisions to TransPlan and amendments to the Metro Plan were sent on to
the governing bodies of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County.
Conclusion:
Based on the above findings and supporting material in the record, we find that the pro-
posed revisions to TransPlan are consistent with the applicable Metro Plan policies.
IV. FINDINGS THAT ADOPTION OF THE METRO PLAN AMENDMENTS
WILL NOT MAKE THE METRO PLAN INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT.
The Metro Plan text amendments adopting a revised transportation element and related
changes are consistent with applicable Metro Plan policies and will not make the Metro
Plan internally inconsistent for the same reasons described in section III above. To pre-
serve consistency within the Metro Plan upon adoption of the Metro Plan text amend-
ments concerning the revised transportation element, other text amendments are neces-
sary. These text amendments are consistent with the proposed amendments to the trans-
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
49
portation element portion of the Metro Plan and will maintain the internal consistency of
the Metro Plan.
Conclusion:
Based on the above findings and supporting material in the record, we find that the pro-
posed Metro Plan amendments will not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
Exhibit C
Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan
50