Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: West Eugene Transporation System/MPC Update EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY G Work Session: Collaborative Process to Identify a Transportation Solution for West Eugene and the FY06-09 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program Meeting Date: July 10, 2006 Department: City Manager's Office www. eugene-or.gov Agenda Item Number: B Staff Contact: Dennis M. Taylor Contact Telephone Number: 682-5336 ISSUE STATEMENT Attachment A is a letter dated July 5,2006, to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) from Matthew Garrett, Director of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). In the letter, Mr. Garrett states that substantial costs likely to be incurred by ODOT and the time required for a collaborative process to identify a transportation solution for West Eugene are unacceptable to ODOT. Mr. Garrett further states that if the City of Eugene cannot support either the current alignment of the West Eugene Parkway (WEP) or the southern alignment proposed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) (Attachment B), then ODOT will recommend a "no build" decision which would bring closure to the WEP and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) process. Attachment C is a letter dated June 22, 2006, to the MPC from Gary Williams, Chair of the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) Board of Directors. In the letter, Mr. Williams identifies the following actions requested of MPC by the LCOG Board: 1. At the July, 13,2006 meeting, MPC will pass an FY06-09 MTIP. Its composition is left to the MPC to decide; and 2. Not later than the January 2007, MPC meeting (six months), the MPC will develop a dispute resolution process for delegated MPO duties which ensures MPO responsibilities will be met. This process and supporting changes to MPC bylaws must meet the approval of the LCOG Board. Mr. Williams furthers states that "Failure to comply with these two requirements will force the LCOG Board to take necessary intervention steps up to and including rescinding our delegation of MPO responsibilities to MPC." On Thursday, July 13, the MPC is scheduled to take action on the FY06-09 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) as submitted in November 2005, and as modified by amendments to the FY05-07 MTIP. BACKGROUND At the City Council meeting held on October 26, 2005, the council failed to pass the following motion: L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060710\S060710B.doc To continue to support the West Eugene Parkway as a modernization project priority when the Metropolitan Policy Committee considers the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization modernization project priorities for the 2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program and the 2006-2009 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program. The following subsequent motion was passed by the City Council: To direct the City Manager to consult with the City of Eugene's intergovernmental partners and community organizations to scope a process to design and build transportation projects in West Eugene to address congestion, safety, and operation for all modes of transportation. With the direction provided by the failure of the first motion, the council's two representatives on the MPC voted against the adoption of the FY06-FY09 MTIP at the MPC meeting held on November 10, 2005. The FY06-FY09 MTIP remains un-adopted. In March 2006, the Osprey Group was selected to conduct an assessment of the controversy surrounding the WEP, with a particular emphasis on what, if any, expanded community involvement might be helpful. The Osprey Group completed its work and prepared a report titled "Conflict Assessment, Florence-Eugene Highway Project (commonly referred to as the West Eugene Parkway or WEP)" in May 2006. The Osprey Group identified three options for moving forward towards a decision including: . Proceed with the current NEP A review process . A collaborative process . Heightened commitment to public engagement The Osprey Group concluded that a collaborative process can best address the challenge of getting to a transportation solution for West Eugene that has widespread understanding and acceptability. The Osprey Group also concluded that without willing and active ODOT participation, such a process should not be pursued. At the City Council meeting held on May 24, 2006, the City Council passed a motion directing its MPC representatives to request that the MPC adopt a resolution that would: . Adopt the FY06-09 MTIP air quality conformity . Adopt the FY06-09 MTIP as modified by the reprogramming of the WEP to FY09 and by the FY05- 07 MTIP amendments adopted subsequent to November 2005 . Endorse and agree to participate in a collaborative process as outlined in Option II of the Osprey Group's May 2006 Conflict Assessment . Request ODOT to delay conclusion of the NEPA process on the WEP until after completion of the collaborative process and to consider the product of that collaborative process. COUNCIL OPTIONS The council may: 1. Support the current West Eugene Parkway alignment and adoption of the FY06-09 MTIP. 2. Support the Alternative Southern Alignment as proposed by FHW A and adoption of the FY06-09 MTIP. L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060710\S060710B.doc 3. Support a "no build" decision for the WEP. 4. Decline to take any action. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION If there is not City Council support for either the current alignment of the WEP or the southern alignment proposed by FHW A, then the City Manager recommends that the City refocus its regional transportation priorities to the Beltline Corridor from Coburg Road to River Road including the Delta Highway/Beltline interchange. SUGGESTED MOTION There is no suggested motion. ATTACHMENTS A. Letter from Matthew Garrett dated July 5, 2006 B. Alternative Southern Alignment proposed by FHW A C. Letter from Gary Williams dated June 22, 2006 FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Dennis M. Taylor Telephone: 682-5336 Staff E-Mail: dennis.m.taylor@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060710\S060710B.doc regon Department of Transportation Office of the Director 355 Capitol St. NE Rm 135 Salem, Oregon 97301-3871 Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor July 5, 2006 Lane Council of Governments Metropolitan Policy Committee 99 East Broadway, Suite 400 Eugene, Oregon'97401-3111 FILE CODE: , Subject: West Eugene Parkway (WEP) Decision Thank you for the opportunity to attend the June meeting of the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) to hear the comments both for and against moving the WEP forward in its current form. ODOT appreciates both the proposals from the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) for a southern alignment, and from the City of Eugene' s proposal.for a collaborative process. We have reviewed the proposals 'and issues raised by all sides of the controversy in recent months, and we think it is appropriate to clarify the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) position on the WEP: . ODOT greatly values working with stakeholders to get input into projects. The WEP would not have progressed as far as it has had there not been commitment on the part of all local governments to advance the project forward in its current alignment. No~, however, the City of Eugene has retracted its support for the current WEP alignment which all regional parties had previously agreed with. Even with the continued support of the other regional partners, without the support of the City of Eugene (the community predominantly impacted by the project), ODOT believes that continuing to move the WEP forward in its current fohn is not feasible. onOT expressed a willingness to move forward on the southern alignment proposed by FHW A if the members of the MPC unanimously supported that option., FHW A believes' that the southern alignment substantially reduces environmental impacts to wetlands; howeyer, this view is not shared by regUlatory agencies. In any event, federal environmental regulatory agency partners have expressed the importance of local support to move the WEP through their required approvals, and the City.'seems unwilling to move any specific alignment forward ill order to bring the National Environmental Protection Act (NEP A) process to a conclusion. · ODOT has spent more than $15 million on this project in the past 25 years, $2 million of which is part of the current Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). If this proj ect ends with no formal conclusion to the curr~nt NEP A process, FHW A rules require repayment of the federal portion of the expenditure. Form 731-0323 (1-03) @ July 5, 2006 Lane Council of Governments POage 2 .\, \~ . '{ \\ As a steward of taXpayer dollars, anaT is critically concerned about obligating additional funds on top of the money already spent. For this reason, onOT believes that the current NEP A process needs to be brought to a conclusion, even if that conclusion is a "no build" on the project as it is defined in the WEP environmental document. UDue to these concerns, we recommend that a collaborative process be initiated only if there is no time limit placed on the deliberations. " The letter further indicates that ODaT would likely incur substantial costs to support such a process. Additionally, further time delay will likely mean escalating project costs to construct beyond the current estimates. This is not acceptable to aDaT . We need to bring the current NEP A process to closure. If the City of Eugene cannot accept either the current proposed alignment or the FHW A southern alte~ative, then aDaT h~ been advised by FHW A that ~ "no build" NEP A document could be submitted immediately based on the obs'ervations in the Osprey report. A "no build" decision would bring closure to the WEP and will be the action recommended if the City of Eugene cannot accept the current proposed alignment or the FHW A southern alternative. With regard to funding dedicated to the WEP, a "no build" decision would result in the re~aining funds currently allocated in the STIP for the WEP being restored to the Department's modernization funds for reallocation by the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC). This decision does not come lightly. It is extremely difficult for our agency, tasked with state transportation project development and delivery, to take this action. It is no small thing to come to the end of a costly, decades-long effort to reach this outcome, particularly when, with one exception, all of the regional partners continue to support the WEP. Sincerely, 'rI~ Matthew L. Garrett Director July 5, 2006 Lane Council of Governments . Page 3 MG:jl C OTC Members Doug Tindall, Highway Deputy Director Craig Greenleaf, TDD Deputy Director'. JeffScheick, Region 2 Manager , . Michael Long, Region 2 Project Delivery Manager Jane Lee, Lane CoUnty Area Manag.e~; ~ Steve Cooley, Region 2. Tech Center Manager Ken Kohl, Area 5 CPM ~ . \'.'." Molly Cary, Region 2 Environmental Manager t' ,,~~ '~~ ' David Cox, FHW A Emily Lawton, FHW A Michelle Eraut, FHW A , 'l1. ./ ~ .'~ .( '1.)- . ' "'....1.... I .1"" ._ ,,1'1 f' ..' d" : ....,.<--. 1'01 rrl..y~ West Eugene Parkway Pllblic Comments / Possible Agency Response The proposed alignment is "right through the middle" of the wetland · Investigate an alignment west of Beltline that is along the southern boundary of the West Eugene Wetland but as much as possible, outside of the West Eugene Wetland and off of BLM property. (this alignment is estimated to impact 27 total wet~and acres including 1 0 L WCF acres as compared to the 37 total and 21 L WCF acres impacted by the current alignment) Reduce Wetland impacts .. Any revised locations should impact fewer total acres of wetlands and fewer acres of high functioning wetlands than the current preferred alignment.. ~ Stay on structure as much as possible over land currently designated 'as "wetland" · Contain roadway runc;>ff . - Maintain all waterways and minimize impedance to surface and groundwater flows Reduce visual impacts . ., Cross railroad near current crossing . . Investigate an "at grade" intersection with Terry Street. . Plant native vegetati"on / trees to act as a screen between the road~ay and the wetlands . . Investigate use of earth berms and or walls adjacent to WEP at strategic locations. . . these berms and walls should be screen.ed with native vegetation '\.. Reduce noise from roadway . "Jersey" shape barrier on structures to "contain" tire noise · Use of roadside earth berms /walls and plantings where possible · Possibly relocate alignment to near southern boundary of West Eugene Wetland property Protect the Butterfly (and all endangered / protected species) . Supplement BLM activities to produce a "recovery plan." Will also need to' involve U S Fish & 'Wildlife (and others) who have already done some work on a recovery plan. May want to hire Cheryl Swartz or other experts to assist with the details of the plan and eventual implementation. . Work to establish a new colony (or colomes) in the West ElJgene Wetland away from the project. . .may need Ore'gon Zoo assistance in propagating lupine and perhaps "captive bre~ding" of butterflies. . Possible use of Eugene schools to assist with rearing Kincaid's Lupine (or a similar lupine) and to build community interest. . These are "Federally designated" endangered species but they have no state status... possibly show commitment by designating them as "Oregon" or even "City of Eugene" endangered species. ' .' Consider possibility of usip.g "butterfly crossing" speed limit signs onthe WEP (maybe on 126/ West 11 th also) .. . similar to school crossing signs.. .to be used when appropriate in" the month of May when the butterflies are airborne. · Consider establis~g 'a new colony (or colonies) elsewhere on BLM land for great,er assurance of survivability ./ The proposed alignment is too expensive . Look closely at structure and embankment costs . . Reevaluate the intersection with US 126? Possible use ofOTIA funds for Hwy structure over RR and tie WEP into that structure rather than including the structure in the WEP project. . . Consider redesign of Terry Street intersection The proposed alignment negatively impacts recr~ation . Added bike.path / trail (possibly parallel to WEP or adjacent to RR) . Cons.ider funding / building / or at least ,providing for access road to BLM education center site. Consider transportation enhancement funding to tie Education Center paths and bikeways into larger bike / path system . Consider Transportation Enhancement project to improve other wetland trails / exhibits TIle proposed alternate is not the one that does the "least environmental damage" . Is the "ROD" alignment the least environmentally damaging alternate? The COE . must make this judgment in order to issue the project.a permit.. . this judgment 'could be based on either the alignment currently shown as "the preferred" or another alignment that m~ets the purpose and need. . . Least environinentally damaging has some room for interpretation.. .IE.. .takes fewer Wetland acres, allows better screening .opportunities, improves butterfly survivability, supports more .mitigation than the others.. .etc. This judgme~t may be made considering the totality of project impacts and mitigating benefits. . ~~ Consider the need for improved public transit , . . Could possibly provide appropriately located "bus bays" in the event that the WEP is chosen as a bus route and perhaps by building a "park & ride" lot near the west end of the project. Such a par~ & ,ride lot could also be transit stop. . Consider improvements to the park & ride lot at the Shady Rest Fern.Ridge Reservoir parking area . The WEP -will remove trucks and autos from West 11 th possibly creating an , opportunity for ephanced transit on.West 11th Mitigation package is unknown and uncertain Time to start considering options.. ~ . ~creening (both visual and noise) . Wetland replacement acres (at least 2-to 1 ratio) . Butterfly Recovery Plan . Iniprove trails / paths . Possible assistance for Education .Center . Other?? . Solution should not comDromise TransDortation Goals Reduce congestion on West 11 th Facilitate through movements Improve residential access Minimize "user costs" Enhance Safety Reduce travel times- Reduce travel_distances Provide for current and futUre traffic volumes Reduce "infiltration" on local streets Reduce air pollution Improve access_to yvest Eugene Industrial ~ea (Freight, customers, employees) Support Local / Regional land use plans Support Local / Regional Economic and Employment Plans / goals 2005 Modified Project FHWA Southern Alignm [] . . LCOG c . .......~. LANE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS June 22, 2006 Commissioner Bobby Green, Sr. Lane County 125 E. 8th Avenue Eugene, OR 97401 Dear Commissioner Green and Members of the Metropolitan Policy Committee: The transportation system in the Central Lane Transportation Management Area is vital to the health, welfare and economic well-being of all citizens of Lane County. Our children go to school, our citizens travel to and from work and play, ambulances respond swiftly to emergencies, and goods travel from our factories and into our stores, across a vital web of highways and streets. Bike and pedestrian paths provide for alternate modes of transportation to meet federal and state requirements and afford recreational opportunities for our citizens. Transit services efficiently move people throughout the area. Federal and state transportation funds provide ongoing support to this regional network of highways, streets, paths and transit. These ~oad, path and bridge construction and maintenance projects bring millions of dollars into the county which create and sustain hundreds of jobs. It is the responsibility of the MPO to ensure federal transportation requirements are'met to ensure this syst~ and the funds to support it continue. When the LCOG Board delegatedits MPO responsibilities to the MPC, it was with 'the understanding that the MPC would diligently carry out its delegated tasks. To ensure the LCOG Board would not fail in its MPO responsibilities, it required on-going oversight and reporting ofMPC actions on a regular basis. Since November 2005, the LCOG Board has watched with concern as the MPC has failed to pass an FY06-09 MTIP. In February 2006, the LCOG Board asked the MPC Chair to p_ersonally . report on MPC's situation. At each subsequent LCOG Board meeting, the LCOG Board has directed staff to bring it a report 'ofMPC's progress, and to take a report of our concernS back to the MPC. . We still believe the MPC is the proper body to ~arry out the duties of the MPO, but we will not allow this region to lapse in fedetal funding. We owe that to the citizens we all serve. Since November, the MPC has failed to find a way around its impasse. rItis puts the region at risk of losing federal funding. The MPC has many options available to keep the process moving. These options might include: . Alter the FY06-09 MTIP to make it acceptable to the group; or 99 EAST BROADWAY, SUITE' 400, EUGENE, OREGON 97401-3111 www.lcog.org (541) 682-4283 Bobby' Green, Sr. June 22, 2006 Page 2 · Negotiate a package agreement which provides for passage of the MTIP; or . Alter the MPC bylaws to prevent a small minority from freezing your process indefinitely; or . Request outside assistance to mediate your dispute; 'or . Defer the question to the LCOG Board for final resolution. And yet, the MPC has failed to move forward on its delegated MPO responsibilities. Let us be clear, the LCOG Board is not taking a position for or against any project or series of projects. That is your responsibility. But the LCOG Bo~rd insists that the duties of the MPO be c~ed out in a responsible and timely manner. We owe the public nothing less. We have given the MPC sufficient time to find a solution'without result. MPC is the designated conflict resolution body for the Metro Area. You are charged with the responsibility to find solutions to conflicts. The LCOG Board of Directors, as the designated MPO for the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Area, requests that the MPC do the following: 1) At your July 13, 2006 meeting you will pass an FY06-09 MTIP. Its composition is left to MPC to decide; and 2) Not later than the January 2007 MPC meeting (6 months), the MPC will develop a dispute resolution process for delegated MPO duties which ensures MPO responsibilities will be met. This process and supporting changes to MPC bylaws must meet the approv~l of the LCOG Board. . Failure to comply with these two requirements will force the LCOG Board to take necessary intervention steps up to and including rescinding our delegation of MPO responsibilities to MPC. In conclusion, the LCOG Board still believes the MPC is the proper body to discharge the duties of the MPO. We are willing to work with you to ensure your success, but will no longer sit idly by while the region's well being is put at risk. ary Williams, Chair oard of Directors