Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: I-5/Franklin UpdateEUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Work Session: Interstate 5/Franklin Boulevard Update Meeting Date: May 11, 2004 Agenda Item Number: B Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Chris Henry www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: (541) 682-8472 ISSUE STATEMENT This work session is an opportunity for the City Council to receive information from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) on the second phase of system refinement planning and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes needed to consider grade separated ramp connections between Interstate 5 0-5) and Franklin Boulevard. BACKGROUND The Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA III) includes programmed funds for the replacement of the I-5 bridge structure across the Willamette River. The planned new interstate bridge over the river has generated significant interest in assessing freeway ramp connections at this location as part of the permanent bridge project. Due to several key factors including the OTIA bonding and construction timeframes, lack of existing system planning for a new freeway connection to the metro area at this location, and uncertainty about design considerations, cost, and funding in the context of regional priorities, ODOT will pursue the NEPA process on the OTIA III permanent bridge separately from refinement planning and NEPA documentation for potential ramp connections. Note that it is expected that the permanent bridge will be designed to accommodate potential future ramp connections to the freeway. (See Attachment A: letter presented to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) indicating ODOT's financial commitment to environmental study of an interchange.) During Phase 1 of the process, ODOT conducted a "groundcheck," assessing the existing conditions and needs for the proposed bridge and ramp connections. A series of stakeholder interviews were conducted, and a project management team was developed, including staff from the City of Eugene, City of Springfield, Lane County, ODOT, FHWA and Lane Transit District. The outcome of Phase 1 is the proposed work approach for Phase 2 and subsequent phases. (See Attachment B: summary of project area stakeholder interviews conducted during Phase 1 .) The second phase of transportation system planning is envisioned as a high level community dialogue and decision process. The decision process includes technical work such as conceptual design evaluation and preliminary traffic and environmental analysis, as well as an open public process with appointed and elected officials, citizens and stakeholder groups. The outcome of the proposed decision process is anticipated as a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" decision by the three local governments and ODOT to proceed with more detailed analysis that supports amendments to local Transportation System Plans, and the federal Regional Transportation Plan (Phase 3). L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050511\S050511B.doc COUNCIL OPTIONS Not applicable. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. SUGGESTED MOTION Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS A. ODOT letter (Jeff Scheick, Region 2 Manager) dated April 13, 2005, presented to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) B. Technical memorandum dated March 4, 2005, Phase 1 project area stakeholder interview results. FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Chris Henry Telephone: (541) 682-8472 Staff E-Mail: chris.c.henry~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050511\S050511B.doc ATTACHMENT A }Oregon Region 2 Headquarters Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor 455 Airport Road SE Building B Salem, Oregon 97301-5395 Telephone (503) 986-2600 Fax (503) 986-2630 April 13, 2005 Mr. Mike Kelly City of Springfield 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Dear Mr. Kelly: Thank you for your March 21 letter about an I-5/Franklin Interchange. I think all parties have been clear about their goals - ODOT must construct a new bridge by 2012 and the City of Springfield would like to include an interchange project. Less clear has been the steps we need to take together to accomplish both goals. I will be very clear in this letter. We will construct a new I-5/Willamette Bridge by 2012 using OTIA III Bridge Funding. This will not be easy. While we are confident that a full Environmental Impact Study (ELS) will not be required for the bridge replacement, we anticipate the required environmental work will take two years, followed by two years of design and any needed right-of-way acquisition. Finally, we anticipate two years to complete construction of the new bridge. I understand that you would like one ElS conducted for both the bridge and the interchange projects. The interchange will require a full ElS which will result in delaying construction of the bridge until the environmental work is completed. This is not a feasible option. The interchange ramps will have to be built after the bridge is completed. The need to study and potentially build an interchange after the current bridge replacement should not be a major concern to the City. First, unless it is physically impossible, we will design and build the bridge so that ramps can be added. Second, ODOT remains committed to providing $2.75 million to fund an ElS for a full interchange at Franklin Boulevard. Third, it is entirely possible that the interchange project will be ready to move forward within 3 years if the City and metropolitan area update their transportation plans and complete 'the necessary land use actions to include the full interchange and related improvements. It is critical that the Cities of Springfield and Eugene and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) begin working to update their transportation plans, solidify their priorities, and secure any critical land use approvals as soon as possible. This work must be done before we will initiate the ElS for the interchange. We have learned through experience that a solid system planning foundation is necessary for projects to move successfully through the environmental and project development process. We have committee $500,000 to your local planning effort and ODOT region staff is ready to provide the technical information, the needed transportation system improvements, preliminary cost estimates and documentation necessary for the metropolitan area to complete the required system planning. We will work closely with you to complete this task expeditiously. ODOT has previously said we would fund an ElS for the interchange - and we will follow through on that commitment provided that the Cities and MPO do their part as well, including the transportation planning and land use work. I am optimistic that we can build a new bridge and position the interchange project to move forward if we work together towards both goals. Sincerely, Jeff Scheick Region 2 Manager cc: Congressman Peter DeFazio Commissioner Bobby Green, Lane County Mayor Sid Leiken, City of Springfield Mayor Kitty Piercy, City of Eugene Dennis Taylor, City of Eugene Ollie Snowden, Lane County Doug Tindall, ODOT ATTACHMENT B TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CH2MHILL Franklin Avenue/Glenwood Area Interchange Study PREPARED FOR: Willamette River/Glenwood PMT PREPARED BY: Sam Seskin, CH2M HILL DATE: March 4, 2005 The consultants conducted hour-long interviews in person with project area stakeholders. The interviews were conducted during the second week of February 2005. This memo includes the interview format and questions, interviewees, and summary of the interviews. Interview Format and Questions · Statement of interview purpose: - to obtain their input on problems, issues and decision making process related to a possible Franklin Ave/Glenwood Area interchange - to summarize ODOT's interests and their commitment · Brief description of the anticipated work · Indication that their input will be used in development of the scope of work for Phase 2, including both technical issues and public/agency involvement · Open discussion based generally around the following questions: - 1. How would you describe the problem? What is the history of the problem (not the project) as you see it? What is causing the problem? - 2. What are the key issues related to solving the problem? - 3. How do these issues affect you and/or the constituency you represent? - 4. Do you feel the project scope as described is an appropriate way to address the problem? - 5. What types of activities would be most helpful in developing the best solution to the problem? What approaches have worked well in the past, and why? What approaches have been unsuccessful, and why? - 6. How do you (or the organization you represent) want to be involved in the project? What type and level of information do you want to receive? - 7. Who else should we be talking with (what other groups are affected, what organizations represents them, who are the appropriate contacts)? - 8. Are there any other questions you wish we would ask? TECH MEMO 030705.D0C FRANKLIN AVENUEIGLENWOOD AREA INTERCHANGE STUDY Franklin/Glenwood Interchange Area Interviewees David Kelly, Eugene City Council Allen Lowe, Eugene Senior Planner Bill Dwyer, Lane County Commissioner Rich Hazel, Laurel Hill Neighborhood Association Co-Chair John Lawless, Eugene Planning Commissioner Bobby Green, MPO Vice Chair John Brown, Cai Young Neighborhood President, Real Estate Analyst Kristen Taylor and Jeff Nelson, Fairmount neighborhood co-chairs David Sonnicksen, Whilamut Natural Area of Alton Baker Park John Lively, Lane/Metro Partnership Chris Ramey, University of Oregon Architect Terry Connolly, Eugene Chamber Rob Zako, Laurie Siegel, 1000 Friends of Oregon Steve Moe, Springfield Planning Commission Sid Leiken, Springfield Mayor Mike Kelly, Springfield City Manager Greg Mott, Springfield Planning Manager Steve Dignam, Lane County Planning Commission TECH MEMO 030705. DOC 2 FRANKLIN AVENUEIGLENWOOD AREA iNTERCHANGE STUDY Stakeholder Interviews Summary Introduction This memorandum summarizes the remarks of 19 stakeholders who were interviewed by the project team during the period February 7-9, 2005. The interviewees were from the list of stakeholders made part of Project Management Team (PMT) meeting summary notes (January 12, 2005) for the January 4th meeting. Stakeholders interviewed were: David Kelly, Eugene City Council; Allen Lowe, Eugene Sr. Planning Planner; Bill Dwyer, Lane County Commissioner; Rich Hazel, Laurel Hill Neighborhood Association Co-Chair; John Lawless, Eugene Planning Commissioner; Bobby Green, Lane County Commissioner; John Brown, Cai Young Neighborhood Association President; Kristen Taylor and Jeff Nelson, Fairmount Neighborhood Association Co-Chairs; David Sonnicksen, Whilamut Natural Area of Alton Baker Park; John Lively, Lane/Metro Partnership; Chris Ramey, U of O Architect; Terry Connolly, Eugene Chamber of Commerce; Rob Zako and Laurel Siegel, 1000 Friends of Oregon; Steve Moe, Springfield Planning Commissioner; Greg Mott and Sid Lieken, City of Springfield Planner and Mayor; and Mike Kelly, Springfield City Manager. To maintain confidentiality, none of the remarks below is attributed to specific interviewees. The remarks have been combined to eliminate duplication and are grouped under the following categories: Attitude Toward Project, Issues/Constraints, Data/Information Needs, Outreach Process, and Other Stakeholders. Each category begins with an overview of the remarks. Attitude Toward Project All interviewees demonstrated an understanding of how the proposed project could improve access to the Glenwood area and simplify access to the Eugene downtown core and U of O. Neighborhood and environmental group representatives were especially wary of the impacts, however. City and County officials expressed the most enthusiastic support. Representative remarks follow: Wonderful idea in principle Questionable viability relating to need Replacement of existing city entrance would be a good thing Need to plan for access ahead of development People get lost very often--no good connections New interchange at Glenwood would create development environment Need a comprehensive Franklin Corridor study Concerned--project is driven by university Issues/Constraints Interviewees were concerned with potential for funds diverted from other projects, increased congestion on Franklin Boulevard, traffic circulation/cut-throughs, neighborhood and business access, land use and property value impacts, parkland impacts, river greenway preservation, replacement housing, bike path connections, noise, aesthetics, bus TECH MEMO 030705. DOC 3 FRANKLIN AVENUEIGLENWOOD AREA INTERCHANGE STUDY rapid transit (BRT) construction and function, pedestrian safety, development of Glenwood, and U of O arena events traffic. Specific remarks included: Consider egress from Laurel Hill (16th Street underpass now) with new configuration Connections from Laurel Hill to 30th--prohibited in Laurel Hill plan--has stopped other proposed developments Would like aesthetically pleasing bridge not marred by high flyovers, etc. Consider use of "quiet" pavement or noise walls on structures New subdivision of 200+ homes in progress (East Ridge Village) will need access to freeway at Glenwood Judkins Point---viewed by community as a natural feature Need City Charter Amendment to change Alton Baker Park ODOT doesn't maintain its property next to the Willamette Be clear about project objective (purpose and need) Need to put project in a regional planning context Need to look at metro area growth patterns Urban renewal district in Glenwood will result in new civic, mixed use and industrial growth Ferry St interchange overloaded Arena could encourage hotel/tourism development at Glenwood Exceptions required to meet state/fed policy (interchange spacing, etc.) Data/Information Requirements The most often mentioned need for data and other information was in regard to traffic. Interviewees recognized that the Ferry Street Bridge was inadequate to serve the needs of the area. Several interviewees wanted to know how much a new interchange at Glenwood would relieve the volume on the Ferry Street Bridge. Interviewees also wanted to know the traffic volume and circulation impacts to Franklin Boulevard. Specific remarks often centered on design details, and included: Lane configuration, secondary road locations Capacity improvements Footprint--how far would impacts extend east and west Interchange forms Visual simulations Areas where access management might be required Need a comprehensive Franklin Corridor Study See prior study (done as part of Ferry St. project) -- South Bank Conceptual Study (City of Eugene, Sept. 14, 1994) See Option D of the Ferry Street Bridge Improvements Feasibility Study (19887) Need better origin/destination (O/D) data Impacts of increased traffic and access on intersecting arterials (Orchard, Walnut, Agate) Outreach Process Interviewees all recognized that a broad community discussion was necessary for the proposed project. Neighborhood association and environmental groups may need their own special meetings. Those who were familiar with the public process for the I-5/Beltline TECH MEMO 030705. DOC 4 FRANKLIN AVENUEIGLENWOOD AREA INTERCHANGE STUDY Interchange project cited it as an example. Meetings that would be held jointly by Eugene and Springfield officials (and Lane County) were encouraged. The use of outside facilitators was also encouraged. Generally, the message was, "do what has worked in the past." A rather comprehensive list of remarks follows: Show and ask---here are our ideas, what do you like? Provide irrefutable facts/constraints about design requirements (not overblown standards) Use Mayors as conveners Changes to TSP--need to create boundaries of alternatives, enough definition so elected officials can agree to move forward (e.g., no impacts to park) Need to present a "replacement bridge project only" as one alternative, as well as 3 or 4 others--very conceptual, not engineering drawings Simulations of some form very useful--what it would look like (height, placement, etc.--not detailed design Tie into two other Eugene planning efforts---Walnut Mixed Use Study (on Franklin to consider redevelopment options) and 6th/7th Street Project Real players are in City Council---meet with them in a work session to lay out the issues before going to the public, involve the Planning Commission Meet with executive board of neighborhood association first, then full community meeting Website Use LCOG list for mailing Use process of U of O and Fairmont Neighborhood Association on consideration of East U of O Plan as model--coming together--at first very controversial Neighborhood Leadership Council--good way to get word out about study before it starts, education about process, timelines, etc. Use joint meetings of all the planning commissions--it has been done for other things Use JEO meetings ---Joint Elected Official meetings of Lane County Commission and both City Councils Send letters to 2 Mayors and County Board Chair (Anna Morrison) Use meetings with small group discussions, not open houses---people won't understand it by just viewing posters Hold events at schools and places where people are comfortable Keep language simple Media coverage is important---newspaper and TV We had a good relationship with ODOT over the temporary bridge TECH MEMO 030705.DOC 5 FRANKLIN AVENUEIGLENWOOD AREA INTERCHANGE STUDY We want the process to be inclusive, and take environmental issues into account Find the broader voice by involving Glenwood, Fairmount, and Laurel Hill Use recent planning process (East Campus Plan) with Fairmount as a model-listened to neighbors, while keeping institutional commitment to enlarged campus in mind Beltline was a good model Need to involve the metropolitan Policy Committee, but maybe involve them as elected officials rather than as a policy board, since the former would lead to more public involvement Don't let [some neighbors] run the show--they have to be led Beltline Decision team is the model for decision making...you have the model Concern about ODOT's assertion that planning consensus must be complete in 6 months Can we uncouple this project from the bridge replacement? Keep the issue on ODOT's mind It's hard to find out what ODOT's policy is [for NEPA studies] Who speaks for ODOT? Other Stakeholders Many of the people who interviewees mentioned as other stakeholders to contact were already on the PMT's list, and some were interviewed. A comprehensive list of recommended names and organizations follows with names in italics of people that were interviewed. (We regret any misspellings and other irregularities.) George Poling--Eugene Councilor representing Chevy Chase neighborhood (part of Harlow, north of park) East Alten Baker Park Citizens Planning Committee (CPC)---682-4800--Parks Department can give us names of members Jim Carlson ---Assistant Eugene City Manager, 682-5524 Jan Bowman--Eugene Community Relations, 692-5587 Chris Ramey--U of O campus architect and planner Jim Werfelmann--Peace Health Medical Center Hilyard Campus Railroad Chamber of Commerce Jerry Diethlem, Otto Poticha--architects who developed Glenwood plan John Tamulonis--Springfield economic development TECH MEMO 030705.DOC 6 FRANKLIN AVENUEIGLENWOOD AREA INTERCHANGE STUDY Peter Thurston--architect who developed Glenwood redevelopment plan (may be good source of data for traffic generation, projections) Faye Stewart--County Commissioner who represents Glenwood County Roads Advisory Committee Steve Moe, a major property owner in Glenwood--very civic minded and long-time resident East Ridge Village/Son Blaze Development, Laurel Hill Valley neighborhood Charles Biggs, ex-pres CYNA, (generally, growth and park impacts) Neighborhood residents Laurel Hill neighbors Allen Lowe, Eugene Planning and Garry McNeal, Eugene Public Works Transportation South University Neighborhood - Peg Peters, chair Eugene Parks and Open Space Glenwood Urban Renewal Board Downtown Association, Russ Brink Convention and Visitors' Ass'n., Kari Westland Lane County Commission, Bobby Green Hugh Prichard, Real Estate Broker Sierra Club Convention and Visitors' Assn of Lane County Eugene Bicycle Coalition Bill Dwyer Peter DeFazio, U.S. Congressman Nick Arnis, Springfield Transportation Planner TECH MEMO 030705. DOC 7