HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: Update on the West Eugene Parkway and the 2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: Update on the West Eugene Parkway and the 2008-2011 State
Transportation Improvement Program
Meeting Date: October 26, 2005 Agenda Item Number: B
Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Kurt Corey
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5612
ISSUE STATEMENT
The Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) is scheduled to discuss the Central Lane Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) 2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
modernization project priorities on November 10, 2005, and approve the modernization project priorities
on December 8, 2005. Mayor Piercy and Councilor Kelly, as the City’s two MPC representatives,
requested a work session on the West Eugene Parkway (WEP) prior to the MPC discussion and approval
of the 2008-2011 STIP modernization project priorities. The City Council is requested to continue its
support of the WEP as a modernization project priority in the 2008-2011 STIP.
BACKGROUND
West Eugene Parkway Status
The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), upon approval from the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), initiated a Re-Evaluation Report in March 2003 to reassess the WEP as
defined in the 1997 Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS). ODOT
commissioned this reassessment in light of: 1) the need for an extended forecast year for the project
(from 2015 to 2025); and, 2) the need to use revised, and generally more stringent, operating and design
standards for ODOT expressway facilities, adopted in 2003. The intent of the re-evaluation was to
determine: 1) whether the design of the WEP should change in response to the revised forecast year and
operating/design standards; 2) whether a WEP project that meets the new operating and design standards
in the new forecast year could advance to the publication of the Supplemental Final Environmental
Impact Statement (SFEIS), or if the FHWA would require another SDEIS to be conducted prior to
publishing an SFEIS; and 3) whether any local plans would need to be amended to reflect changes made
to the proposed design of the project.
The re-evaluation, led by ODOT in cooperation with FHWA, the Lane Council of Governments
(LCOG), Lane County and the City of Eugene was conducted by a consultant team and re-examined:
The purpose and need statement for the project
?
Traffic modeling in light of changes to volume/capacity and level of service standards
?
Right-of-way requirements, compared to the SDEIS
?
Environmental impacts, including protected wetland displacements (as per the West Eugene
?
Wetlands Plan (WEWP)) and additional rare plants displaced, compared to the SDEIS
Capital cost expressed in base year (2005) dollars
?
Design standards, ODOT and City of Eugene
?
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implications, assessment of whether an additional
?
SDEIS would be required
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M051026\S051026B.doc
Plan amendment, assessment of whether a local plan amendment would be required (e.g. WEWP or
?
TransPlan)
Design and phasing considerations to determine if there were significant design issues or
?
complications to logical construction phasing
The Re-Evaluation Report updated the project’s travel demand forecasting and traffic analyses to reflect
the extended design year, required to comply with FHWA guidance that projects should generally use a
20-year design horizon. Land use (population and employment) projections were also adjusted to reflect
the design year and factor in changes in development patterns (e.g. the purchase of previously assumed
developable land for resource preservation or recreation use; changing densities on moderate slopes
from ten units per acre to four). Further, traffic conditions and travel patterns for the base year were
calibrated to known existing conditions based on recent intersection counts and vehicle speed surveys
prepared by the study participants and in Traffic Impact Analyses and studies by others.
The consultant team prepared a draft project design based upon the Re-Evaluation Report for closer
examination of the potential impacts to property access resulting from the design and updated ODOT
design standards. Meetings with potentially affected business and property owners were held in March
2005 to solicit comments on the design and impacts to their commercial or industrial sites. On May 26,
2005, ODOT was invited to the regular meeting of the Active Bethel Citizens (ABC) neighborhood
organization to make a presentation on the project status and timeline.
As a result of the input received at those meetings, the design team took a closer look at the proposed
Hwy. 99/WEP interchange, seeking alternatives that may reduce the impacts to abutting properties in the
vicinity of the planned interchange. Those efforts identified a longer term, at-grade solution that would
allow the interchange to be “futured” beyond 2025. A closer evaluation was also conducted in the area
of the proposed Beltline/WEP intersection and Terry Street connector and it was determined that the
Terry Street connector could also be “futured” beyond the project horizon as long as the at-grade
Roosevelt at Beltline intersection was retained. Project elements that are “futured” are those elements
that are not necessary for a fully functional project during the project horizon of 2025. Construction of a
folded diamond interchange on Beltline at the WEP as a part of completing the Phase 3 Beltline
th
improvements (widening from just south of Roosevelt to West 11) was determined to be the most cost-
effective (minimizing throw-away improvements) means of phasing construction.
In addition to the design, traffic, hydrologic and environmental updates being accomplished by the
technical teams, ODOT has been meeting with Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers staff, coordinating the completion of activities so that the SFEIS can be utilized by FHWA for
their Record of Decision (ROD) as well as RODs from the other federal cooperating agencies. Total
project costs will also be updated as an element of the SFEIS and are expected to be below the Regional
Transportation Plan estimated cost of $169 million, particularly given the deferral of costly interchange
and structured connection costs as a part of the 2005 modified project.
It is anticipated that the SFEIS will be published in mid-2006 and an FHWA ROD signed one to two
months after the SFEIS is published. Construction of Unit 1A would likely start in 2007 and take two
years to complete.
Funding in the amount of $17,737,000 was first programmed for Unit 1A of the WEP in 1994. The
funds continued to be programmed in the Final 2004-2007 STIP. Funding for future phases of the WEP
would be included in future STIPs.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M051026\S051026B.doc
Attachment A is the 2008-2011 STIP Development Timeline. The update of the 2008-2011 STIP began
in March 2005 and will conclude in September 2007 with review and approval by the FHWA of the
Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) approved 2008-2011 STIP.
Attachment B is the Central Lane MPO 2008-2011 STIP Timeline. The MPO 2008-2011 STIP
modernization priorities are scheduled for discussion at the November 10, 2005, MPC meeting and
scheduled for approval at the December 8, 2005, MPC meeting.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
The Roadway Policies in Transplan, the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan include:
1. Mobility and Safety for all Modes
2. Motor Vehicle Level of Service
3. Coordinated Roadway Network
4. Access Management
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The City Council may:
1. Continue to support the WEP as a modernization project priority when the MPC considers
the Central Lane MPO modernization project priorities for the 2008-2011 STIP.
2. Discontinue its support of the WEP as a modernization project priority when the MPC considers the
Central Lane MPO modernization project priorities for the 2008-2011 STIP.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council continue to support the WEP as a modernization
project priority when the MPC considers the Central Lane MPO modernization project priorities for the
2008-2011 STIP.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move 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.
ATTACHMENTS
A. STIP Process Timeline
B. Central Lane MPO 2008-2011 STIP Timeline
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Kurt Corey
Telephone: 682-5612
Staff E-Mail: kurt.a.corey@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M051026\S051026B.doc
ATTACHMENT A
-Icn en " n
iil:::! :;;! m >
ii!" 0 In Jan 2005
" -l m ;:;
~ "C II m ~ z
Ocn "T1 ~ ""ll
in' n
m Ii Iii (jj r
0. n :!! " Feb ..
0> gf > en -< Q.
iil r ~ .~ ;.
N 0. -< Begin 08-11 STIP update, begin data collection, draft performance goals
0 CD ~ ~ AJ Mar iif
0 0::;1 n
'" " ~ ;:r
011> Data collection continues 3
-Iii! " Apr CD
11"8 ;a
0;:,. ~
CD II> Data collection complete, compile and review information 0
~~ May 0
;:,." ODOT HQ develops funding allocation scenarios. ODOT transmits draft Modernization eligibility 0
3- ~ -l
CD 3 ::1
,,"C June criteria and prioritization factors to ACTs/Lane Co,
-a 0
2.ai '" ODOT HQ develops funding allocation recommendation. ACTS/Lane County approve area-specific :!':
g~ ~ July prioritization factors. en
" " ODOT HQ assembles funding allocation materials for stakeholder input and OTC. R-2 ACTs/Lane Co. -l
III - ;;
"C"
o a solicit new Modernization project proposals fr local agencies & ODOT. -l
Ii co 3
"'iil ODOT HQ distributes funding allocation recommendation to OTC, stakeholders, ACTs, and MPOs. !!.
g 3 S'
OTC approves project eligibility criteria and prioritization factors. ACT Chairs/ Lane Co. meet with m
)> Region 2 Mgr. to develop/modify the Region Large Project Priority list. Region 2 requests /ACTs begin
(') prioritization for Modernization projects. (Ratings must be based on the OTC criteria & factors at a
-I
II Sept minimum.)
~ OTC/ODOT Management discuss funding allocation and program goals for 08-11 STIP. ACTs begin
II> N
(') ~ refining their prioritized lists of Mod needs. Begin project scoping for Mod (as project lists are
0
3 Oct identified).
3
or ACTs, MPOs & others give OTC input about program goals and OTC begins discussion.
III
cr Management Systems prioiritized needs lists are completed by ODOT HQ and submitted to Regions.
"
0 Noy Continued project scoping for Mod.
"
-I N OTC approves program goals and funding allocations for 08-11 STIP. Region 2 ACTs/Lane County
iil 0 N
" g Dee submit their preliminary prioritized Mod lists to Region. Continued scoping for Mod. 0
III 0
"C
0 N Project selection/scoping begins, region funding targets distributed. Region 2 Mod scoping is ClI)
;:,. ~ Jan 2006 I
!!l. completed. N
0' 0
" Project selection/scoping continues. Region 2 releases preliminary Region recommendation of Mod ....
Feb projects for ACT/Lane County review and comment in early February. ....
VI
;: Project selection/scoping continues. Region 2 ACTs/Lane County review Region's preliminary Mod -t
" Mar recommendation. =ti
0
II Project selection/scoping complete. Region 2 ACTs/Lane County and MPOs provide feedback on C
;: Apr Region's Mod recommendation to Region staff. m
CD <
a Regions prepare draft program for review by stakeholders. Region 2 staff analyze feedback and m
"C prepare revised Mod proposal. Region 2 releases final Mod proposal to ACTs/Lane County for the Ali- I
g
Iii May Area Meeting by mid-May. 0
" "'tI
" '" Regions complete draft program for review by stakeholders. Region 2 A11- Area Meeting held to decide 3:
iii ~
" June Mod project priorities. m
" z
5' ACTs, MPOs and other stakeholders begin review of draft STIP. ODOT HQ begins funding target-te-
co !!l -t
0 0 July actual comparison.
.a ... -t
II> Funding target-te-actual comparison process continues. Regions review Draft STIP database with i:
"
N' Aug ACTs, MPOs, other stakeholders m
!!l. ..
0' N Draft STIP printed, mailed, provided to OTC, regions, the public. Region 2 ACTs/Lane County meet 0 I
" 0 g Z
8 Sept with the Region Manager to develop/modify the Region 2 Large Project Priority list. ~ m
0 0
-I ~ Public review process begins ..
(') Oct !!l
II ;;
0 Public review process complete; comments summarized. ACTs, MPOs, Regions, OTC review public S'
iil Noy input. ."
co
0 ;;
.... " S
~ -I Public comments reviewed by OTC, ACTs, MPOs, Regions.
0 iil
&' "
III
3 "C Adjust program if necessary based on OTC direction, funding allocations
3 0
" ;:,.
I !!l.
0' Air quality conformity determinations and modeling begins
" Feb
" (')
9
~ 0
3 Air quality conformity determinations and modeling continues
~ 3 Mar
li. or
III
~ 0' Air quality conformity determinations and modeling continues
" Apr
"
"
.. Air quality conformity determinations and modeling completed, constrain STIP to estimated available
0. 0
i 0 May revenue
0
-I l!l Add MPO TIPs, prepare Final STIP for review
II
i 0 !:l June
iil
0 co Review of Final STIP by ACTs, MPOs, other stakeholders
0
0 "
0 0
....
~ CD OTe review and approval of Final STIP, submit to Federal DOT, MTIPs to governor for signature
"C
~ II>
;:,.
III 3
CD
=l a
" ""ll
=l a "
i '"
m
ii
" !l.
..
MPC 4.a - Attachment 1 - FY08-11 MPO STIP Timeline
ATTACHMENTB
Page 1 of2
- July 14
- August 3
- In Progress
- August 11
- August
- August
- August 29
ATTACHMENT 1: CENTRAL LANE MPO FY08-11 STIP TIMELINE
MPC/CAC Review Draft ODOT Eligibility Criteria and Prioritization Factors;
MPC/CAC Review and Provide Staff Direction on Central Lane MPO FY08-11
STIP Timeline
CAC Reviews MPO-Specific Prioritization Factors and Evaluation Process
(maHout 7/27)
StafflTASC Work on MPO-Specific Prioritization Factors and Evaluation Process
MPC Reviews MPO-Specific Prioritization Factors and Evaluation Process used
during FY06-09 STIP Process (maHout 8/3)
Initiate Preliminary Solicitation of Potential STIP Priority Projects at MPO and
County-wide Level
Begin Staff Evaluation of Projects as "dry-run" tests of evaluation criteria and
process
TPC Develops Recommendation to MPC for MPO-Specific Prioritization Factors
and Evaluation Process (maHout no later than 8/26)
- September 7 CAC Develops Recommendation to MPC for MPO-Specific Prioritization Factors
and Evaluation Process (maHout 8/31)
- September 15 MPC Reviews TPC and CAC Recommendations for MPO-Specific Prioritization
Factors and Evaluation Process; MPC Comments on ODOT Region 2/ACT/MPO
Review of Large Project List (maHout 8/1)
- September OTC Distributes Draft Program Goals (proposed funding levels)
- Sept/Oct. TPC and CAC Review Draft Program Goals and Develop Recommendations for
MPC
- October 20 MPC Comments on Draft Program Goals (Nov. Idh contingency)
- Nov. 22 or 30 Lane County Board of Commissioners Comments on Draft Program Goals
- October 27 TPC Develops Recommendation to MPC on Modernization Priorities
- November 2 CAC Reviews/Develops Recommendation to MPC on Modernization Priorities
- November 10 MPC Approves Final Modernization Priorities (Dec. gh contingency)
- December 14 County Approves Final County-wide Priorities
MPC 4.a - Attachment 1 - FY08-11 MPO STIP Timeline
Page 2 of2
- December '05 ACTs/Counties Submit Preliminary Modernization Priorities
- December
OTC Approves Program Funding Levels
- January 2006 ODOT Completes Project Scoping
- February Region 2 Releases Preliminary Recommendation for Modernization Priorities
- Feb. - April MPC and County Comment on Region 2 Priorities
- May Region 2 Releases Final Modernization Proposal
- June 2006 Region 2 All-Area Meeting
- July 2006 Begin Review of draft FY08-11 STIP Project Lists
- September Draft STIP Printed & Distributed
- September Meet with ODOT Region 2 Manager to Develop/Modify Region 2 Large Project
Priority List
- October Public Review Process Begins
- November '06 Public Review Process Complete; MPO & County Review Public Input
- June 2007
MPO MTIP Incorporated into Draft STIP
- July 2007
Review Final STIP
- August 2007 OTC Approval
- September '07 Federal Approval.
- November '07 STIP Printed & Distributed
LCOG: T: \MPO\COMM!TTEESIMPCIFY06\A UG 051MPC4A _ATTACHMENT! _MPOSCHEDULEFORFY08-! 1ST!P.DOC Last Saved: August 4, 2005