HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: I-5/Franklin Update
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: I-5/Franklin Interchange
Meeting Date: February 15, 2006 Agenda Item Number: B
Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Lisa Gardner
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: (541) 682-5378
ISSUE STATEMENT
This work session is an opportunity for the City Council to receive an update on the outreach process
conducted for the I-5/Franklin Proposed Interchange project in December 2005. The council is
requested to approve the continuation of the project through a refinement study process. The refinement
study will be funded by a $400,000 SAFTEA-LU earmark requiring a ten percent local match. If a
refinement study is approved, then an FY07 General Fund decision package will be prepared for the
City’s estimated $20,000 share of the local match
BACKGROUND
Over the past year, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has engaged in a “Community
Dialogue” on the potential for new interchange ramp connections between Interstate 5 and Franklin
Boulevard. This process was initiated at the request of the cities of Eugene and Springfield. ODOT’s
commitment to this process has included both funding the process and managing the contract
administration and technical work program of the consultant team and project management team. The
scope of the process has included a technical scan of eight interchange concepts. The results of the
technical scan were summarized in four technical memos: 1) existing conditions and potential
constraints; 2) engineering/environmental and cost analysis; 3) traffic forecasts; and 4) potential revenue
sources. The process also had a public involvement component that included engaging citizen groups,
business owners and residents, and holding a series of public workshops.
At the November 14 work session, ODOT indicated that the council would be provided with an
opportunity to give a “thumbs up, or thumbs down” following the scheduled public workshops in
December 2005. At the February 15 work session, ODOT will provide a summary of the results of the
public workshops, and will provide information on ODOT’s assessment of the project, and its potential
role in further study of the project. In the attached memo, ODOT states that the study has not identified
a state transportation problem that would be solved by adding ramps to the I-5 interchange at Franklin
Boulevard, and therefore does not see a transportation justification for developing interchange ramps at
this location within the next 20 years. However, ODOT does state that it would not preclude further
consideration of this action if the decision is made locally to move forward with the refinement planning
process for I-5 Franklin, and to explore other possible justifications for interchange improvements at this
location. ODOT participation in the refinement planning process would be to commit to co-manage a
more detailed refinement planning effort where ODOT staff manages procurement, contract
administration, and the technical aspects of a refinement plan. ODOT participation in this process
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060215\S060215B.doc
would be dependent on local jurisdictions’ commitment to providing staff resources needed to manage
both the public and local political processes, as well as allocation of ten percent local funds to match the
$400,000 SAFTEA-LU earmark.
Because of proximity, both the I-5 interchange at Franklin and I-5 interchange at Glenwood have been
included within the scope of the process to date. ODOT has concluded that there is no transportation
problem at Franklin, but does not preclude the identification of other issues such as improved access to
downtown Eugene, the University of Oregon, and Glenwood that could be addressed through
interchange improvements. The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) identifies two projects on the
illustrative list: 1) I-5 at Willamette River/Franklin Boulevard Interchange, and 2) I-5 at Glenwood
Interchange. The description of the Glenwood project is to reconfigure the interchange to address
weaving and associated safety issues. The appropriation of $400,000 in the SAFETEA-LU
transportation bill provides an opportunity to further study potential solutions to the transportation
problems and other identified issues at the Glenwood interchange.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
City Council options include:
1.Approve the continued study of the I-5 at Franklin interchange (including I-5 at Glenwood) with a
refinement planning process, with a financial contribution for the local match of federal funds.
2.Approve the continued study of the I-5 at Franklin interchange (including I-5 at Glenwood) with a
refinement planning process, without a City of Eugene local match contribution.
3.Decline to support the refinement planning process.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends supporting the continued study of the I-5 at Franklin interchange
(including I-5 at Glenwood) with a refinement planning process. If approved, an FY07 General Fund
decision package will be prepared to provide the City’s share of the local match to the $400,000
SAFTEA-LU earmark.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to approve the continued study of the I-5 at Franklin interchange (including I-5 at Glenwood) with
a refinement planning process, with a financial contribution for the local match of federal funds.
ATTACHMENTS
A. ODOT Memo (Tom Boyatt, Senior Planner) to Eugene City Council dated February 6, 2006
B. Public Open House Summary
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Lisa Gardner
Telephone: (541) 682-5378
Staff E-Mail: lisa.a.gardner@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060215\S060215B.doc
ATTACHMENT B
MEMORANDUM
CH2MHILL
Public Open House Summary: 1-5 Willamette River
Crossing/ Glenwood Facility Plan Phase II
PREPARED FOR:
Tom Boyatt, ODOT
Linda Girard, CH2M HILL
Brandy Steffen, CH2M HILL
PREPARED BY:
cc:
DATE:
Project Management Team
Sam Seskin, CH2M HILL
Tim Burkhardt, CH2M HILL
Revised: January 25,2006
The Oregon Department of Transportation hosted three public open houses in early
December 2005 to discuss the possibility of a new interchange at 1-5 and Franklin Boulevard
in Eugene and Springfield.
Open houses were held on three different occasions to provide multiple opportunities for
interested parties to participate:
Thursday, December 1, 2005, 4:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Springfield City Hall, Library Room
225 Fifth Street, Springfield
Monday, December 5 2005, 4:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Northwest Youth Corps, Community Room
2621 Augusta Street, Eugene
Thursday, December 8, 2005 4:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Eugene Library, Bascom-Tykeson Room
100 W. 10th Avenue, Eugene
A press release announcing the meetings was issued to the Eugene Register Guard, the
Springfield News, the Eugene Weekly and the Daily Emerald and to local radio and
television stations by Lou Torres, ODOT Region 2 Public Information Officer. Notification,
in the form of a postcard and email was sent to an 11 interested parties" mailing list and e-
mail notification was made to representatives of nearby neighborhoods. An article on the
project which included Open House information was published in the Eugene Register
Guard on Saturday, November 26, 2005.
An open house format was used at the meetings, allowing members of the public to attend
at their convenience, have the opportunity to discuss results of the preliminary analysis on a
potential interchange and ask questions of ODOT, its consultant team and local agency staff.
Attendees were asked to complete a comment form indicating their level of interest in
making a new interchange at 1-5 and Franklin Boulevard a regional transportation priority
for the Eugene/Springfield area. Approximately 150 people attended the three open houses.
OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY-012406,OOC
PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY: 1-5 WILLAMETTE RIVER CROSSING / GLENWOOD FACILITY PLAN PHASE II
The following items were on display at the meeting:
· Introduction, purpose of the study and the open house
· Preliminary Interchange Concepts 1
· Environmental and Land Use Conditions
· Economic Development and Accessibility Benefits
· Traffic and Circulation Benefits
· Traffic Issues
· Cost and Constructability Issues
· Stakeholder and Policy Issues
Handouts distributed at the open house included the following:
· Comment form
· Background information paper
As of January 24, 2006, a total of 135 comment sheets were received at the open houses and
38 comments were received via email. The comments are summarized below. Copies of each
of the actual comment sheets are provided as a separate document.
1 Categories for Interchanges:
Category 1: Full Interchange at Franklin Boulevard, with either a Diamond or
Cloverleaf design
Category 2: Partial Interchange at Franklin Boulevard, with either a Partial Diamond
or Partial Cloverleaf design
Category 3: Split Interchange at Franklin and Glenwood Boulevard, with either a
Two Half-Diamonds or Connected Diamonds design
Category 4: Full Interchange at Glenwood Boulevard, with either a Full Diamond
design
OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY-012406.DOC
PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY: 1-5 WILLAMETTE RIVER CROSSING I GLENWOOD FACILITY PLAN PHASE II
Summary of Public Comments
TABLE 1.
SUMMARY OF ALL THREE OPEN HOUSES AND EMAILED COMMENTS.
Should the study
go forward?
Number of
Responses
Locations
.
54
26 - Thursday, December 1, 2005 - Springfield City Hall, 4-8 pm
7 - Monday, December 5, 2005 - Northwest Youth Corps, Eugene, 4-8 pm
21 - Thursday, December 8, 2005 - Eugene Library, 4-8 pm
Yes
o
20
4 - Thursday, December 1, 2005 - Springfield City Hall, 4-8 pm
10 - Monday, December 5,2005 - Northwest Youth Corps, Eugene, 4-8 pm
6 - Thursday, December 8, 2005 - Eugene Library, 4-8 pm
Yes, but. . .
25
1 - Thursday, December 1, 2005 - Springfield City Hall, 4-8 pm
16 - Monday, December 5,2005 - Northwest Youth Corps, Eugene, 4-8 pm
8 - Thursday, December 8, 2005 - Eugene Library, 4-8 pm
No, unless. . .
35
4 - Thursday, December 1, 2005 - Springfield City Hall, 4-8 pm
12 - Monday, December 5,2005 - Northwest Youth Corps, Eugene, 4-8 pm
19 - Thursday, December 8, 2005 - Eugene Library, 4-8 pm
No
No circle chosen
Not applicable
38
Email Messages Received (through January 24, 2006)
Total = 173
Most common comments from all answers and days (including emails):
Prefer Category 4 (54) if the choice had to be made to build
Concern for the environmental impacts, the Alton Baker and Whilamut parks, the
wetlands, and the river (48)
Feel that any option would require further information about impacts to local traffic,
including the impact to local neighborhoods and other roads in the area (43)
Concern for noise impacts and mitigation (24)
Current access works well or no need for this study (24)
Better signage is necessary for solving the problem (with or without other actions
taken) (15)
Feel that improvements would create an economic boost for the area (14)
Need to consider alternative transportation, including bikes, pedestrians, rail, and
buses (with or without other actions taken) (13)
Prefer category 1 (7)
OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY-012406.DOC
PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY: 1-5 WILLAMETTE RIVER CROSSING I GLENWOOD FACILITY PLAN PHASE II
TABLE 2.
OPEN HOUSE #1 (DECEMBER 1, 2005 - SPRINGFIELD CITY HALL)
Should the study
go forward?
Number of Most common responses
Responses
.
26
Category 1 (2); Category 2 (2); Category 4 (7).
It will bring economic benefit to the area (5); this project will determine the
future of the area and relieve other areas (5); concern for the
park/environment/river (1).
Yes
Category 1 (1); Category 2 (1); Category 4 (2).
o
4
Economic concerns (1); examine local and regional plans first (1); focus on
access to the University (1).
Yes, but. . .
Category 4 (1).
No, unless. . .
.
4
Need more facts and figures about transportation needs (1); concern for the
park/environment/river (2); not a good use of money (2); would rather
encourage alternative transportation instead of single auto use (2); should
have better signage instead (1).
No
OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY-012406.DOC
PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY: 1-5 WILLAMETTE RIVER CROSSING I GLENWOOD FACILITY PLAN PHASE II
TABLE 3.
OPEN HOUSE #2 (DECEMBER 5, 2005 - NORTHWEST YOUTH CORPS, EUGENE)
Should the study
go forward?
.
Yes
o
Yes, but. . .
No, unless. . .
No
Number of
Responses
7
10
16
12
OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY-012406.DOC
Most common responses
Category 1 (1).
Concerns for noise and mitigation (2); what about neighborhood acceptance
and concerns (2); it will bring economic benefit to the area and is needed for
the downtown and to create a 'front door' (2); concern for the
park/environment/river (1); concern over funding source (1); promote
alternative transport/bikes (1); keep the on/off, north-south ramps on same
junction (1).
Category 1 (1); Category 2 (1); Category 4 (2).
Concern for environment/park/river (3); concern for access into and out of,
preservation, and negative impacts to Laurel Hill Valley Neighborhood (6);
concern over traffic distribution into neighborhoods and maintaining local
access to 1-5 (3); need more information (2); economic benefits seem
substantial (1); concern that this project is taking money away from other
projects (1); would like to see the impacts to traffic/congestion at other
interchanges due to this project (1); think outside of the box (1); need to
upgrade the 1-5 ramps at Glenwood (1); must keep Glenwood exit open and
functional (1); diamond ramps are a waste of time and money (1); concern
about hazardous was and related expenses (1); plan for long term future
growth (1).
Prefer Category 4 (8).
concern for noise (6); concern for environment/river/park/wetlands (7);
concern for impact to neighborhood (1); concern about increased traffic and
congestion (3); maintain local access to 1-5, Laurel Hill, and Glenwood (5);
maintain bike access to Riverfront (1); impacts outweigh benefits (1); don't
divert money away from other projects (2); must give local concerns high
priority (1); how necessary is this project (1); limit reconstruction to
Glenwood (2); unless traffic becomes a severe problem (1); consider
alternative funding options (1); improve signage (1); no more than 2 bridges,
otherwise eyesore and environmentally damaging (1); need better estimates
of future growth/demand (1).
Use Category 4 if needed (3).
Neighborhood, historical, and environmental resources would be crushed
(2); money should be spent on failing infrastructure (4); use signage to
improve traffic flow (1); rethink site of UO arena (1); concern for the
environment (4); cost is prohibitive (3); current exits work well (2); concern of
building downstream of dams (1); consider peak oil (1); purpose of 1-5 is to
access downtowns only (1); all categories would diminish access from
neighborhoods to Franklin Blvd for bikers (1); concern for noise (1); should
be developed on a long-term schedule (1); impacts outweigh the benefits (1).
Did not choose a response, only said "great presentation"
PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY: 1-5 WILLAMETTE RIVER CROSSING / GLENWOOD FACILITY PLAN PHASE II
TABLE 4.
OPEN HOUSE #3 (DECEMBER 8, 2005 - EUGENE PUBLIC LIBRARY)
Should the study
go forward?
.
Yes
o
Yes, but. . .
No, unless. . .
.
No
Number of
Responses
21
6
8
19
OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY-012406.DOC
Most common responses
Category 1 (2); Category 2 (2); Category 3 (1); Diamond on north side of
river (1); Category 4 (6).
Should be studied as part of new 1-5 bridge (2); address all concerns (1);
Use new bridge to improve intersections and interchanges (2); study traffic
reduction on 30th (1); help vitality/economics of both cities (4); creates an
entrance (2); need roads to handle increased population and demand (4);
focus on giving other towns access to the metro area (1); mitigating noise
(1); concern for environment/river/park (2); keep full interchange at Franklin
Blvd.loff ramp (2); will help to redevelop Glenwood (1); would alleviate
congestion (1); need to start planning despite lack of money (2); would
improve access to downtowns (2); reduce pressure at Beltline entrance (1);
interest in aesthetics (1); start obtaining right of way for light rail to
Vancouver, BC (1); move Franklin further from the river (1); Is there a
demand for this? (1); easy access to UO (2).
Category 2 (1); Category 4 (1); consider a split clover with East side having a
connection close to Glenwood exit (1); create a diamond at Glenwood and
make north bound ramp to Hwy. 99 a two way local access (1).
Full interchange at Franklin seems like overkill (1); perhaps left lane
exit/entrance ramps (1); concerned about sound mitigation (1); preserve
local connection from Laurel Valley to Franklin (1); improve traffic merge with
Glenwood interchange (1); take funds from WEP (1); needs to be combined
with better streets in Glenwood (1); consider local connections to downtown
Eugene (1); consider a bridge to Astes Street on north side of Willamette (1).
Category 4 (4).
Is it needed? (1); noise reduction/mitigation (1); retain local access (1); does
the cost outweigh the benefit? (1); need a traffic impact study on.the
Fairmount Neighborhood (1); concern parks/river/environment (6); don't
need an expensive gateway (1); money better spent on Beltline congestion
(1); need to shift to mass transit/alternative transportation options (1), What
are the opportunity costs for these options? (1); should be a high priority part
of the picture for further study (1); cost unreasonable for Categories 1-3 (3);
consider the visual impacts (1); not needed until another hospital is sited in
the Glenwood area (1); unsure, but inclined to support Category 4 with
improved signage (1); no additional bridges are built (1); pedestrian and bike
traffic should be planned for (1).
Category 4 (1).
Prefer no build, or Category 4 if required (5); concern for noise pollution in
local neighborhoods (4); concern for entrances/exits from Laurel Hill to
Franklin (2); concerned about the impact to old, established neighborhoods
(3); better signage (4); concern for environment/park/river (9); currently
adequate access from North and South (4); access is better than most cities
(1); aesthetic concerns (1); no real need for this (7); additional interstate
traffic will threaten nodal potential along BRT corridor (1); poor cost/benefit
ratio (7); this would encourage local traffic on a congested 1-5 corridor (1);
this would discourage public transportation (1); only good would be if a
hospital were built in Glenwood (1); only advantage is to UO's arena, which I
oppose, and Springfield downtown, however, that is growing north so this
wouldn't help (1); Categories 1-3 cause more problems than they solve (2);
.. . ?
PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY: 1-5 WILLAMETTE RIVER CROSSING I GLENWOOD FACILITY PLAN PHASE II
the interchange comply with federal and state policies? (1); please give up
on this project (1); Franklin Blvd. can barely handle traffic now (2); opposed
to bridging Glenwood Blvd. with Aspen Street to provide connection with
Centennial (1); best option is alternative transportation, such as high speed
rail and better service from L TD (2); how does it rank in priority with other
projects? (1); What is the purpose/need? (2); What other options are being
considered? (1); Why not fix the existing on/off access? (1); show me the
money (1); the benefits to convenience or economics don't outweigh the cost
in money and to environment (1); 1-5 improvements have more than
adequately addressed access issues int%ut of Eugene from the north (1);
reason for this is the new UO arena. The solution is hiring traffic control
people for infrequent arena events and adding the cost to arena rental fees
(1 ).
TABLE 5.
COMMENTS REVEIVED VIA EMAIL (AS OF JANUARY 24, 2006)
Number of Most common responses
Emails
Received
Concern for the environment, river, riparian habitat, and wetlands (34); need to provide non-
motorized transportation options and consider the energy crisis and oil dependency (2); consider
basic transportation needs for all, not just car owners (1); keep walkways and park paths
contiguous (1); a new interchange would be an ecological and economical mistake (3); protecting
the river corridor is more important than speed and efficiency (2); this natural area is a unique
resource for an urban area, please preserve it (2); this area offers educational opportunities that
will be lost if construction occurs (4); the park will be a desirable and valuable place for company
relocations, tourists and natives in years to come (1); the Citizen Planning Committee for the
Whilamut Natural Area of Alton Baker Park passed a motion to protect the scenic views and
wildlife habitat of the greenway and recommends that no additional bridges be constructed within
the riverside border of the park (1).
38 Work on improving the Glenwood Interchange instead (22); update and improve signage (7);
propose site between Glenwood and the river (1); Franklin interchange is an expensive project
without transportation value and no clear problem (10); don't see the need for this project (1);
Glenwood exit allows for the Willamette Replacement bridge to be a signature gateway (1); focus
on the Delta Highway improvements instead (1); putting more traffic onto Franklin Blvd is negative
because it increases crime, create a "freeway" stop character to the proposed Walnut Station and
the Fairmount Neighborhood, and Eugene already an exit for this area of town (1).
Concern for noise (4); concern for increased traffic and noise within local neighborhoods (5);
aesthetic concerns (8); on/off ramps crossing the Willamette are wrong (4); safety concerns for
water recreation (1); concern for increased traffic on Franklin (2); safety concern for Walnut traffic
light (1); concern for the cost (7); other projects could use the money more than this one (2);
concern for sustainability (1).
OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY-012406.DOC