Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdmin Order 58-21-15 -- Modifying Traffic Diverter (Fairway Loop)Administrative Order -- Page 1 of 2 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 58-21-15 of the Traffic Engineer of Public Works Maintenance's Traffic Operations Team of the City of Eugene REPEALING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 58-00-06 AND MODIFYING THE TRAFFIC DIVERTER LOCATED ON FAIRWAY LOOP TO RELOCATE IT TO A POINT THAT IS APPROXIMATELY 340 FEET SOUTH OF EASTWOOD LANE. The Traffic Engineer of Public Works Maintenance's Traffic Operations Team of the City of Eugene finds that: A. Under the provisions of Chapter IV, Section 16 of the Eugene Charter of 2002, the City Manager is designated as the administrative head of the City and is specifically authorized to enforce all ordinances of the City. In addition, EC 5.040 authorizes the City Manager or the Manager’s designee to take administrative action establishing or altering traffic control areas and traffic control devices including traffic control signals, signs, and pavement markings. EC 5.055 sets forth the criteria the City Manager or the City Manager’s designee should consider when taking administrative action authorized by EC 5.040. B. On August 5, 2020, the City Manager issued Administrative Order No. 58-20-17 granting the Executive Director of the Public Works Department the authority to exercise all of the duties and responsibilities specifically defined as those of the City Manager in Sections 5.040, 5.045 and 5.050 of the Eugene Code, 1971. That Order also granted the Executive Director of the Public Works Department the authority to further delegate those duties and responsibilities to such person or persons qualified to perform the delegated duties. C. On August 6, 2020, the Executive Director of the Public Works Department issued Administrative Order No. 58-20-18 granting the City Engineer the authority to perform the duties and responsibilities specifically defined as those of the City Manager in Sections 5.040, 5.045 and 5.050 of the Eugene Code, 1971. That Order also granted the City Engineer the authority to further delegate those duties and responsibilities to such person or persons qualified to perform the delegated duties. D. On August 11, 2020, the City Engineer issued Administrative Order No. 58-20-19 granting the Traffic Engineer of Public Works Maintenance's Traffic Operations Team (“Traffic Engineer”) the authority to perform the duties and responsibilities specifically defined as those of the City Manager in Sections 5.040, 5.045 and 5.050 of the Eugene Code, 1971, including the explicit authority to establish, maintain, remove, or alter traffic diverters as provided in Section 5.040(1)(h) of the Eugene Code and the traffic diverter procedures adopted in administrative rules that implement that code section (See Administrative Order No. 58-94-09). Exhibit A Administrative Order No. 58-21-15 By Administrative Order No. 58-00-06, dated March 9, 2000, the City Traffic Engineer ordered that Fairway Loop be closed to through vehicular traffic at a point approximately 300 feet south of the centerline of Eastwood Lane. This partial closure was intended to address a significant number of vehicles using Fairway Loop as a “cut-through” to the Oakway and Cal Young areas. Administrative Order No. 58-00-06 was implemented by the City’s placement of a barricade (the “traffic diverter system”) at a point approximately 320 feet south of the centerline of Eastwood Lane. The present request is to modify the traffic diverter system by relocating the barricade by approximately 20 feet - to a point that is approximately 340 feet south of the centerline of Eastwood Lane. This proposed modification of the diverter system will allow full access to undeveloped Fairway Loop property while continuing to restrict traffic on Fairway Loop. The City of Eugene Administrative Rules at R-5.040TD, adopted in 1994 via Administrative Order No. 58-94-09-F, set out the procedures and criteria for installing, removing or modifying a traffic diverter system. Sections R-5.040TD-C and D of those rules pertain to a decision to install a diverter system. However, the 2000 decision that directed the installation of the subject traffic diverter did not appear to address the considerations for installation of a diverter system set out in R-5.040TD; the 2000 Order appears to have addressed only the more general considerations at EC 5.055(a)-(n). Section R-5.040TD-E of the Rules pertains to an application to remove or modify an existing diverter system. In determining whether to approve a proposed modification to a diverter system, R- 5.040TD-E directs the Traffic Engineer to determine whether “the system as designed no longer meets the criteria for initial approval.” R-5.040TD-E. Although the initial decision to install the subject diverter system did not appear to address the Rules’ criteria for evaluating a proposal to install a diverter system (at R-5.040TD-C-1.4), this decision to modify the diverter system does so, below. 1.4.1 Average daily traffic volumes. The proposed modification of the existing traffic diverter will not affect average daily traffic volumes. The existing traffic diverter on Fairway Loop was installed to restrict through travel and the relocation of the traffic diverter will continue to serve the same function. 1.4.2 Traffic speed. The proposed modification of the existing traffic diverter will not affect traffic speeds on Fairway Loop. 1.4.3 Street geometrics. The proposed modification of the existing traffic diverter will not alter the street geometry. The existing traffic diverter closes Fairway Loop to through traffic. The proposal will modify the traffic diverter by moving the closure point approximately 20 feet to the south from its existing location to allow full access to the Fairway Loop property abutting the partially closed street. The street section and associated geometries are the same in the modified location as in the existing condition. 1.4.4 Percentage of through traffic. The proposed modification of the existing traffic diverter will not affect through-traffic, as the existing traffic diverter closed Fairway Loop to all through-traffic in 2000. This is an existing condition that is not altered by the proposed modified traffic diverter. 1.4.5 Presence of certain characteristics such as bike routes, bus routes, postal deliveries, service deliveries, emergency vehicle access, pedestrian access, or access to private property. The proposed modified traffic diverter will retain the existing access that allows people riding bicycles to pass through. There are no bus routes on Fairway Loop. The existing traffic diverter requires postal deliveries, service deliveries, and emergency vehicle access to use Oakway Road to access the existing residential area to the north and to use Southwood Lane to access the existing residential development to the south. People walking may continue to use Fairway Loop. The proposed modified traffic diverter, however, will allow full access to the abutting private property on the east side of Fairway Loop. Provision of this access was not provided when the diverter system was originally designed. The diverter system was installed to allow local traffic the use of Fairway Loop, without allowing the cut-through traffic from vehicles with neither an origination or destination in the neighborhood. If the diverter is not modified, the intent to allow those trips that originate or end in the neighborhood, which prompted the request for installation, will be frustrated with respect to the property that is located on the east side of Fairview Loop. See R-5040TD-C-1.7. The Traffic Engineer addressed the general considerations at EC 5.055 when the partial closure, and resulting traffic diverter on Fairway, were initially authorized in 2000 by Administrative Order No. 58- 00-06 (attached). The findings that justified the partial closure of Fairway Loop at that time are still valid, but the proposed diverter system that carried out that partial closure should be modified to better address the considerations at EC 5.055 with respect to the undeveloped land adjacent to Fairway Loop. Specifically, the 2000 Traffic Engineer’s findings regarding efficient use of the public way and use of abutting property did not adequately consider the access needs of the undeveloped property on Fairway Loop when considering the location of the diverter under EC 5.055(d), (g) and (i). The proposed modification better addresses the considerations referenced in the Traffic Diverter Modification Rule and at EC 5.055 while still addressing the ultimate purpose for the partial closure. Therefore, the proposed modification is granted. Additional Notes  A copy of the findings adopted with Administrative Order No. 58-00-06, which is repealed by this Order, is attached to this Exhibit A for reference only.  The study provided by the applicant provides a sufficient basis for review of the proposed modification; an additional study was not needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the traffic diverter.  The Traffic Engineer determined that a public hearing was warranted to consider the proposed modification. On September 8, 2020, the City mailed notice of a virtual public hearing to all addresses within the study area - bound by Southwood Lane on the south, Fairway Loop on the west (including residential development accessing Fairway Loop from the west), Fairway Loop on the north (including residential development with frontage on Fairway Loop), and Oakway Road on the east. Additional notification was sent via email to the Cal Young Neighborhood Chair on Monday September 21, 2020. This exceeds the notice required by Sections R-5.040TD- E (referring to R-5.040TD-C-1.8).  This decision to modify the traffic diverter system is not a “land use decision” as argued in some of the public comment received by the Traffic Engineer. A city decision that “determines final engineering design, construction, operation, maintenance, repair or preservation of a transportation facility that is otherwise authorized by and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land use regulations” is not a land use decision per ORS197.015(10)(b)(D).  Notice of this decision will be provided in the manner set forth in Section R-5.045-B (2).  A person that is aggrieved by this administrative action may appeal it within 30 days of the action as provided at EC 5.045 and Section 5.045-C(1) of Eugene Administrative Rule 5.045. Attachment to Exhibit A - Administrative Order No. 58-21-15 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  Exhibit A Findings for Administrative Order No. 58‐00‐06  of the  Traffic Engineer of the City of Eugene, Oregon Closure of Fairway Loop south of Eastwood Lane Background  As late as the 1950's and 1960's, Coburg Road and the Ferry Street bridge served as a link from downtown Eugene to the town of Coburg to the north. Coburg Road has passed through a sparsely populated area of Lane County located between the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers that has since become known as the 'Willakenzie' or 'Ferry Street Bridge' area. In the mid 1960's the Willakenzie area began to experience a period of development and growth which coincided with the construction of Interstate 105 which occurred in 1966-68. Initially constructed as the intersection of an interstate highway and relatively rural roadways, the intersections of 1-105 and Coburg and Country Club Roads were designed to function under an entirely different set of circumstances than what exists today. The eastbound to northbound movement from 1-105 to Coburg Road was intended to leave 1-105, pass under the north end of the Ferry Street bridge structure and access Coburg Road at what is now the intersection of Coburg and Centennial. Many motorists have found this movement to be difficult and inconvenient and have chosen to access the Willakenzie area via Southwood and Fairway Loop to Eastwood, Westwood, or Fairoaks Drive. This cut-through pattern by as many as 3,000 vehicles per day has led to numerous complaints from residents of the area and repeated requests for the city Transportation Division to solve the problem. The city made an attempt to address the situation in 1977 with the unsuccessful installation of a test full traffic diverter. A compromise solution, one-way half-diverter, was eventually reached that failed to address the crux of the problem, but reduced the cut-through to northbound only. The city's response has consistently been that the short-term options have been limited and a long-term solution must be incorporated into the Ferry Street bridge project. The development of the final design for the Ferry Street bridge and associated revisions to the street network of the area produced a new roadway (Cedarwood) between 1-105 and the Honda/Acura auto dealership which provides direct access to northbound Coburg Road for eastbound motorists exiting 1-105 or traveling southbound on Country Club Road. This new route provides a positive alternative for the traffic that has been cutting through the neighborhood and enables the City to pursue the planned closure of Fairway Loop. Criteria for Administrative Action The administrative action of the Traffic Engineer of the City of Eugene, Oregon, closing Fairway Loop to through traffic approximately 300 feet south of the centerline of Eastwood Lane is based on consideration of criteria (a) - (n) at EC 5.055. Consideration of those criteria follows: (a) Traffic engineering principles and traffic investigations (1) Traffic engineering principles were considered in the following areas:  ► Roadway Capacity;  ► Intersection Capacity;  ► Safety;  ► Signs, Signals, Markings;  ► Intersection Control;  ► Roadway Lighting;  ► Access Control; and  ► Speed Zoning.  ♦ Roadway Capacity is diminished by all closures. However, this particular segment of roadway has not been utilized for two-way normal neighborhood circulation for many years. The unimproved asphalt surface has received minimal maintenance by the City and has served as a short-cut to the Oakway and Cal Young areas much more than the nearby residents. ♦ Intersection capacity: The closure will have minor positive effects on the capacity of the intersection of Country Club and Southwood by removing most southbound to eastbound left tum movements and converting them to southbound through movements. The new signal design at this intersection provides a new right tum lane and creates a through/left option for motorists in the left tum only lane. Likewise, the intersection of Coburg/Oakway/Southwood/1-105 will carry additional northbound movements, but again the signal re-design has eliminated the southbound Oakway to northbound Coburg movement. ♦ Safety: All potential safety impacts, both positive and negative, are minor. The pattern of reported crashes at the intersection of Country Club and Southwood are unremarkable and typify signalized, cross type intersections. Closing a street can have negative safety impacts, including: 1) an increase in emergency vehicle response time; 2) the barricade could be hit by a motorist; and 3) the increased traffic at other intersections could increase the probability of accidents at those intersections if capacity is significantly affected. In the case of the Fairway Loop closure, the anticipated effects on safety are slight, as 1) the closure was reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshall; and 2) the barricade and all associated signing and marking, is in compliance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device (MUTCD) standards. 3) the construction of Cedarwood provides a signalized left tum across Coburg Rd. which is safer for motorists than the left tum from Eastwood or Westwood to northbound Oakway. ♦ Signs, Signals, Markings: This project adds several signs notifying motorists of the street closure, and warnings including a No Outlet sign added below the street name sign at Country Club and Southwood, and regulatory signing including End and Object marking signs back to back at the barricade on Fairway Loop. ♦ Intersection Controls: This project will make no changes to existing controls.  ♦ Roadway Lighting: This project proposes no changes in roadway lighting.  ♦ Access Control: No direct driveway or approach changes are a part of this action, however all access to points north of the closure from Southwood is eliminated. The driveway into the Elmwood Townhouses is unaffected. (b) Standards, limitations, and rules promulgated by the Oregon Transportation Commission or the Oregon Public Utility Commission or their successors. ♦ No applicable standards, limitations, or rules apply. (c) Other recognized traffic control standards. ♦ Signing and markings comply with Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices  standards. (d) The city's adopted transportation-related plans and policies. The Eugene Local Street Plan, August of 1996, contains planning principles that define and describe local streets These include: ♦ Principle 4 on page 5 states that "Local streets should be interconnected to  reduce travel distance, promote the use of alternative modes, provide for  efficient provision of utilities and emergency services, and provide for more even  dispersal of traffic."  While on the surface this appears to be contradictory to the actions in this order, the street being disconnected from the neighborhood has not been utilized for normal neighborhood circulation due to the large volume of cut-through traffic. These volumes and the length of the trip by most motorists are more characteristic of a Collector type street than a local. The lack of smooth surfaces and sidewalks also limits alternative mode usage. ♦ Principle 1 on page 5 more appropriately defines the condition this order seeks to obtain by separating the longer distance trips from the residential  neighborhood streets, allowing these particular "Local streets to help determine  the form and character of neighborhoods; street design should be considered a  part of neighborhood design. "  The City also has several adopted transportation-related Policies and Implementation Strategies developed in the Willakenzie Area Plan in September of 1992. ♦ Policies and Proposed Actions 1 on page 97 states that "The transportation net‐  work within the Willakenzie area shall be planned and designed to ensure: a)  preservation of existing neighborhoods; b) an adequate system of arterials and  collectors for the efficient movement of through traffic; and c) the preservation  of the use of local streets for local traffic. " More specifically, 1.5 states "Close  Fairway Loop to through traffic between Southwood and Eastwood Lanes. "  The installation of a barrier at a point 300 feet south of Eastwood Lane is in compliance with this Policy and Proposed Action and will enhance the livability of residential land uses on those streets being used as a cut-through route. The provision for bicycle/pedestrian passage through the barrier will enhance circulation for those modes. (e) Existing state and local laws regulating use of public ways. ♦ Provisions of the Oregon Vehicle Code will continue to apply after the changes  have been made.  (f) The efficient use of the public way by the public. ♦ This closure should have no effect on the use of the public way by the public, as motorists have optional paved routes to streets at either end of the closure and pedestrians and bicyclists will have passage through the barrier. (g) The use of abutting property. ♦ The land use on the west side of Fairway Loop between Southwood and Eastwood Lanes consists of medium density residential and parks/open space uses while the east side of the roadway is undeveloped with designations for future commercial and general office uses south of the barrier and medium density residential uses north of the barrier. Residents feel that the closure will have a positive effect on the use of their abutting property. Although some access will be restricted, they feel that the reduced traffic volumes and elimination of inappropriate cut-through traffic will improve the livability of the street and thus have a positive effect on the use of the abutting property. (h) The intensity of use of the street by vehicles and pedestrians. ♦ Intensity of use of Fairway Loop is discussed in section (a). As discussed there, the closure will reduce the intensity of use of the street by vehicles. ♦ The use of the street by pedestrians or bicyclists will not be affected. Provisions will be made to provide pedestrian and bicycle access through the barricade on Fairway Loop. (i) The physical condition and characteristics of the street and abutting property. ♦ Fairway Loop is a 28 foot wide two-way, two lane street between Southwood Lane and the driveway to the Elmwood Townhouses and narrows to a 20 foot wide one-way northbound street with a contra-flow southbound bicycle lane between the barricade and Eastwood Lane approximately 300 feet north. ♦ The abutting property on the east side of Fairway Loop consists of undeveloped property on both sides of the closure. The parcels on the west side of the street north of Southwood Lane south of the closure include residential use and open space (golf course). The open space (golf course) extends north of the closure. (j) Emergencies. ♦ Emergency vehicle service could be affected by the closure and restriction, but Police and Fire department personnel have reviewed and approved the closure. (k) The public health, safety, and welfare. ♦ The public health, safety and welfare will not be affected by this project. (1) Special events of community interest including parades and public gatherings. ♦ Special events will not be affected by this project. (m) Construction within or adjacent to the street. ♦ Impacts on construction within or adjacent to the street will be minor. Ingress or egress at construction sites by large vehicles may be more difficult, as these vehicles will have to tum around if they enter the closed segment of roadway. (n) When establishing conditions upon the use of parking in the public way and city-owned parking facilities: 1. Applicable and appropriate time limits;  2. the vehicle type and purpose; 3. The relative, seasonal and special event demands for parking  spaces within the areas of the requested parking;  4. The other public uses for the property; 5. The location and physical characteristics of the parking area or  facility;  6. The demand for operating revenues, the costs of operations and enforcement; 7. The use of parking regulations to promote city adopted goals and  policies;  8. Abuse by applicants of any parking-related permits; 9. The impact on nearby commercial uses;  10. The ease of enforcing the provisions of this chapter; and 11. The availability of other parking spaces.  ♦ Parking is prohibited at all times on both sides of the closure, on both sides of the street. This is necessary to provide room for motorists to tum around and will also increase the visibility of the barricade. ♦ Demand for on-street parking is low to non-existent, due to the proximity of adjacent occupied residential uses, the availability of off-street parking, and the undeveloped state of other adjacent property. Due to the lack of demand for on- street parking, the parking prohibition is not a relevant factor in considering whether to close the street. Summary and Conclusion The elimination of cut-through traffic associated with the development and intensification of the Willakenzie area north of Fairway Loop and consistent volumes well beyond those associated with normal neighborhood demand are the primary motivating factors behind the closure. The conclusion of this report is that the closure and has only a small negative impact on circulation in the southwest portion of the Willakenzie/Cal Young neighborhood, particularly for thoseresidents between Fairway Loop and Oakway, south of Fairoaks, but has a significant positive impact for those same particular residents. The Eugene Code requires that a road closure be based on     consideration of each of the factors at EC 5.055. Consideration of the criteria at EC 5.055 results in positive findings under criteria (d), (g), (h) and (i) and, a determination that the considerations of all other criteria support the closure of Fairway Loop.