HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A: West Eugene EmX Update
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: West Eugene EmX Update
Meeting Date: June 23, 2010 Agenda Item Number: A
Department: Public Works Engineering Staff Contacts: Rob Inerfeld, PWE; Tom Schwetz, LTD
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Numbers: 541-682-5343; 541-682-6203
ISSUE STATEMENT
At this City Council Work Session, Lane Transit District (LTD) staff will provide an update on the West
Eugene EmX Extension (WEEE) with an emphasis on the change in the corridor selection process and
the winnowing of the number of alternatives under consideration.
BACKGROUND
Process Change for West Eugene EmX Project – The Story of 58
Through the extensive outreach conducted in the refinement of the alternative alignments for the West
Eugene EmX Extension (WEEE) project, 58 distinct alternatives have emerged for evaluation. Not only
is this a large number for the community to sort out in the process of selecting a Locally Preferred
Alternative (LPA), it is a large number to take into the currently defined federal process. This Agenda
Item Summary (AIS) provides a summary of the following:
?
A description of the change in process that will more easily facilitate the process of selecting a
preferred alternative;
?
An overview of the various public meetings held to discuss the process change;
?
A review of the new information developed as part of the preliminary analysis completed to date
for the project, the staff recommendations for an initial winnowing of alternatives, and the
feedback received about this information during the public meetings; and
?
A description of the process and general schedule from this point forward.
Summary of Process Change
As in previous EmX development efforts, the general approach has been to balance the operational
needs for EmX operations in a corridor with the intent to develop design options that avoid and
minimize negative impacts where possible. This has resulted in a wide range of alternative permutations
– 56 distinct build alternatives, in addition to the no-build and transportation system management
alternatives – making 58 alternatives in all.
In discussions with LTD Board Members, City Councilors, members of various committees involved in
the project, and members of the public, there is general agreement that it would be confusing and
difficult for the community to try and sort out differences among 58 alternatives. Through discussion
with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) staff, they have indicated that there is a way of working
through a project development process that better fits our needs.
Z:\CMO\2010 Council Agendas\M100623\S100623A.doc
The process envisioned for the project to date has been a combined Alternatives Analysis (required by
FTA) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (required for use of federal capital funds). FTA also
provides for a sequential process where the alternatives analysis can be prepared first, using the same
analysis we are preparing for the original process. This analysis will be used to winnow the range of
alternatives down to a more manageable number. The alternatives analysis will be followed by a process
of selecting a preferred alternative to be taken into the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement.
This has the benefit of breaking the overall decision into more manageable pieces which will assist in
facilitating the community’s decision-making on the project. It also puts the first part – the selection of
the locally preferred alternative – into this calendar year.
Public Outreach on Process Change
At an open house on June 9, LTD was able to share the results of the preliminary analysis to date and
made recommendations. Sixty-four people attended the open house and provided comments
(summarized in the next section). In addition to this open house, other public meetings on this topic
include:
June 1 – EmX Steering Committee
o
June 2 – WEEE Corridor Committee
o
June 3 – WEEE Design Options Local Advisory Committee meeting
o
June 3 – WEEE Design Options Open House
o
(June 9 Open House on Process Change)
o
June 15 – WEEE Corridor Committee (Review of data and recommendations)
o
June 17 – MPO Citizen Advisory Committee
o
Out of 64 attendees at the June 9 open house, 29 comments were received which are summarized in the
following table:
-
Terminus Options - Retain Eliminate
Seneca Terminus Option8 13
Commerce Terminus Option 15 6
Cone/Willow Creek Terminus
Option 1 18
-
Alignment Alternatives
Amazon Alignment Alternative 1 27
7th Place Alignment Alternative 9 15
In the next section there is more information about the preliminary analysis of the alignment and
terminus options.
Results from Preliminary Analysis
Information from the technical analyses completed to date suggests that certain alternatives may no
longer be viable. This information is detailed and summarized in the attached Key Preliminary Results
and West Eugene EmX Extension Alternatives Analysis Refinement Evaluation.
Z:\CMO\2010 Council Agendas\M100623\S100623A.doc
The Alternatives Analysis Refinement Evaluation is a determination of whether or not the proposed
alignment alternatives and terminus options selected for further study in March 2008 are reasonable or
promising alternatives based on the initial technical findings and the project’s evaluation criteria.
Following are the project’s eight primary evaluation criteria and measures:
1.Improve customer convenience by reducing travel time, increasing service reliability, and
making other service improvements.
2.Improve operating and other efficiencies to maximize the use of scarce resources.
3.Support development that is consistent with planned land use documents and serve as a catalyst
for planned transit-oriented development.
4.Help accommodate future growth in travel by increasing public transportation’s share of trips.
5.Consider the mobility and safety needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists.
6.Provide for a fiscally stable public transportation system.
7.Design the project in a way that protects resources in the natural and built environment.
8.Support LTD’s sustainability policy and the City of Eugene’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
Based on the project’s evaluation criteria and the results of the preliminary analysis, LTD staff is
recommending eliminating two of the three terminus options:
?
Both full-length terminus options at Ed Cone and Ed Cone/Willow Creek.
Stormwater runoff from either of these full-length options could result in impacts
o
to protected plant species and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) wetlands west
of Beltline Road.
The additional costs to construct these options are projected to exceed available
o
funding.
The incremental additional ridership gains from extending the terminus to Ed
o
Cone or both Ed Cone and Willow Creek is projected to be below levels that
would merit seeking the required additional construction funding, or justify the
long-term additional operational costs to extend service to these points.
?
The Seneca Terminus option.
Cost and ridership projections indicate the Commerce Terminus would provide
o
better service for the corridor.
Based on the project’s evaluation criteria and the results of the preliminary analysis, LTD staff is also
ththth
recommending eliminating two alternatives connecting either West 6/7 Avenues or West 13 Avenue
th
to West 11 Avenue:
thth
?
Both Amazon alignments. (These would have connected West 13 Avenue to West 11
Avenue via either a route on the north side of the Amazon channel or through a relocation
and restoration of the existing channel.)
Both Amazon design options could result in impacts to endangered plant species,
o
historic resources (the channel), low income housing, and park land.
The Amazon restoration design option would require eight residential
o
displacements and relocations.
thththth
?
West 7 Place. (This would have connected the West 6/7 alternative to West 11
th
Avenue via West 7 Place at Seneca Road.)
Z:\CMO\2010 Council Agendas\M100623\S100623A.doc
th
Projected boardings along West 7 Place are extremely low.
o
This alternative would result in numerous strip commercial property acquisitions
o
as a result of required right-of-way widening; thereby not serving as a feasible
alternative to avoid similar acquisitions along the more direct alterative routing
th
along West 11 Avenue.
In addition to the No-Build and Transportation System Management (TSM) alternatives, LTD staff is
recommending further consideration of the remaining build alternative alignments. These alternatives
include:
?
West 13th Avenue between the Downtown Eugene Station to West 11th Avenue via
Chambers Street (this alternative includes two design options: a two-lane transitway or a
frontage alley design option on West 13th between Polk and Tyler Streets),
?
West 6th/7th Avenues between the Downtown Eugene Station to West 11th Avenue via
Garfield (this alternative includes four design options: a Lincoln/Charnelton couplet or a
two-way bus lane on Charnelton; and either adding or reassigning an existing lane on
West 6th and West 7th Streets between Blair and Fillmore Streets), and
?
West 11th Avenue (Between Garfield Street and the Commerce Street terminus).
Process and Schedule from this Point
Based on the analysis described above, the LTD Board is scheduled on June 23 to take action to winnow
the 58 alternatives down to eight, including No-Build and TSM. These eight alternatives will be
incorporated into an Alternatives Analysis Report which, following review by FTA, is scheduled to be
released for public review and comment in mid-September 2010. At that time, the Locally Preferred
Alternative (LPA) decision-making process would begin. This process will include a variety of public
outreach efforts, the work of several advisory committees (EmX Steering Committee, MPO Citizen
Advisory Committee, and WEEE Corridor Committee), and meetings of the Joint LPA Committee. The
Joint LPA Committee will develop a recommendation to the three deciding bodies – LTD Board,
Eugene Council and Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) based on the analysis and public input. The
members of the Joint LPA Committee are Mayor Piercy and Councilors Ortiz and Pryor from the
Eugene City Council; Mike Eyster, Greg Evans, and Dean Kortge from the LTD Board; and Rob Handy
and Sonny Chickering representing the MPC. The three deciding bodies will then work on reaching a
common LPA to move into the environmental process.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
From Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan (TransPlan):
TSI Transit Policy #2: Bus Rapid Transit
Establish a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system composed of frequent, fast transit service along major
corridors and neighborhood feeder service that connects with the corridor service and with activity
centers, if the system is shown to increase transit mode split along BRT corridors, if local governments
demonstrate support, and if financing for the system is feasible.
From Adopted Growth Management Policies:
Growth Management Policy 11
Increase the use of alternative modes of transportation by improving the capacity, design, safety, and
convenience of the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation systems.
Z:\CMO\2010 Council Agendas\M100623\S100623A.doc
COUNCIL OPTIONS
Provide feedback to LTD and City staff.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
This item is for discussion only.
SUGGESTED MOTION
None.
ATTACHMENTS
A. West Eugene EmX Extension Alternatives Analysis Refinement Evaluation
B. Key Preliminary Results (summary table)
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Rob Inerfeld, Public Works Engineering
Telephone: 541-682-5343
Staff E-Mail: rob.inerfeld@ci.eugene.or.us
Staff Contact: Tom Schwetz, Lane Transit District
Telephone: 541-682-6203
Staff E-Mail: tom.schwetz@ltd.org
Z:\CMO\2010 Council Agendas\M100623\S100623A.doc
West Eugene EmX Extension
Alternatives Analysis Refinement Evaluation
Evaluation Framework for Refinement of Alternatives
The West Eugene EmX Extension project’s evaluation framework consists of the project’s
Purpose and Need Statement and the project’s Goal and Objectives (provided as a separate
handout). The same evaluation criteria and measures used during the project’s screening
evaluation phase are being used during the project’s Alternatives Analysis phase.
The Alternatives Analysis is a determination of whether or not the alignment alternatives are
reasonable or promising alternatives based on the project’s evaluation measures. Following is
a summary of the evaluation criteria and measures:
1. Improve customer convenience by reducing travel time, increasing service reliability, and
making other service improvements.
?
Round-trip transit travel time between select origins and destinations
?
Ridership information
2. Improve operating and other efficiencies to maximize the use of scarce resources.
?
Operating service hours (round-trip travel time proposed service frequency)
?
Operating hours of regular service replaced by EmX within the corridor
3. Support development that is consistent with planned land use documents and serve as a
catalyst for planned transit-oriented development.
?
Vacant and redevelopable land value near the alignment
?
Number of mixed-use centers (land-use nodes) served by the alignment
4. Help accommodate future growth in travel by increasing public transportation’s share of trips.
?
Population and employment density near alignment
?
Transportation mode shift
5. Consider the mobility and safety needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists.
?
General assessment of alternative’s interface with pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle facilities
6. Provide for a fiscally stable public transportation system.
?
General assessment of alternatives affect on the fiscal stability of the public transportation
system
7. Design the project in a way that protects resources in the natural and built environment.
?
Potential for acquisitions and/or displacement of residents, businesses and parking
?
Potential impacts to street, landscape, and charter trees
?
Likelihood of adverse impact to environmentally-sensitive natural resources (i.e., wetlands,
parklands, historic resources, critical habitat, endangered species)
8. Support LTD’s sustainability policy and the City of Eugene’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
?
General assessment on the alternative’s ability to support LTD’s sustainability policy
?
Potential for alternative to attract an increase in public transportation’s share of trips and
the concurrent reduction in vehicle miles traveled and/or single occupancy vehicle use.
Page | 1 June 9, 2010
Summary of Evaluation Results
This section summarizes the evaluation results, which is a determination of whether or not
the proposed alignment alternatives and terminus options selected for further study in
March 2008 are reasonable or promising alternatives based on the initial technical findings
and the project’s evaluation measures.
Key findings from the preliminary draft technical
project’s evaluation measures
reports related to are summarized in Tables 1A through 1D
below. Additional data from the preliminary draft technical reports are provided in two tables
provided separately (“Potential significant Adverse and Beneficial Effects by Mode and Length”
and “Alternatives Analysis: Key Preliminary Results”). The technical reports will be available
upon request from LTD as they become finalized, and they will be posted to the project website
at http://weemx.ltd.org.
Summary of Mode and Length Alternatives by Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation Criteria
?
Still meets WEEE Project’s Purpose and Need for that Evaluation Criteria
Probably will meet WEEE Project’s Purpose and Need and Evaluation Criteria with modifications
?
and / or mitigation
will not
Probably meet WEEE Project’s Purpose and Need and Evaluation Criteria with
modifications and / or mitigation
?
Does not meet WEEE Project’s Purpose and Need for that Evaluation Criteria
NA
Not Applicable
Relatively higher number of significant adverse impacts identified
Table 1A. Summary of Mode and Length Alternatives by Evaluation Criteria:
Bus Alternatives
Evaluation Criteria
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R/E
Support planned land use / catalyst Support sustainability and efforts to
Eliminate the Alternative or Design
Consider mobility and safety needs
Provide for fiscally stable system
Improve customer convenience
future growth in
Recommendation to Retain or
Improve operating and other Sensitive to natural and built
oriented
-
for planned transit
Accommodate
development
reduce GHG
efficiencies
resources
Option
travel
Alternative / Design Option /
Alt #
Terminus Option
Bus Alternatives
No-Build Alternative
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA R
1
Full Length Alternatives
TSM Alternative
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA R
2
Full Length Alternatives
Page | 2 June 9, 2010
Table 1B. Summary of Mode and Length Alternatives by Evaluation Criteria:
Seneca Road Terminus Alternatives
Evaluation Criteria
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R/E
Support planned land use / catalyst Support sustainability and efforts to
Eliminate the Alternative or Design
Consider mobility and safety needs
Provide for fiscally stable system
Improve customer convenience
Accommodate future growth in
Recommendation to Retain or
Improve operating and other Sensitive to natural and built
oriented
-
d transit
development
reduce GHG
efficiencies
resources
for planne
Option
travel
Alternative / Design Option /
Alt #
Terminus Option
BRT Alternatives
With Seneca Road Terminus
th
W 13 Avenue – Amazon via North of Amazon Design Option
???????
3
– Frontage Alley Design Option E
– Two-Lane Transitway Design
???????
4
Option E
th
W 13 Avenue – Amazon via Amazon Restoration Design Option
???????
5
– Frontage Alley Design Option E
– Two-Lane Transitway Design
???????
6
Option E
thth
W 13 Avenue – W 11 Avenue
????????
7
– Frontage Alley Design Option E
– Two-Lane Transitway Design
????????
8
Option E
ththth
W 6 / 7 Avenues – W 11 Avenue via Lincoln / Charnelton Couplet Design Option
??????
9
– Add-A-Lane Design Option E
– Reassign-A-Lane Design
??????
10
Option E
ththth
W 6 / 7 Avenues – W 11 Avenue via Charnelton Two-Way Design Option
??????
11
– Add-A-Lane Design Option E
– Reassign-A-Lane Design
??????
12
Option E
ththth
W 6 / 7 Avenues – W 7 Place via Lincoln / Charnelton Couplet Design Option
????????
13
– Add-A-Lane Design Option E
– Reassign-A-Lane Design
????????
14
Option E
ththth
W 6 / 7 Avenues – W 7 Place via Charnelton Two-Way Design Option
????????
15
– Add-A-Lane Design Option E
– Reassign-A-Lane Design
????????
16
Option E
Page | 3 June 9, 2010
Table 1C. Summary of Mode and Length Alternatives by Evaluation Criteria:
Commerce Street Terminus Alternatives
Evaluation Criteria
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R/E
Support planned land use / catalyst d efforts to
Eliminate the Alternative or Design
Consider mobility and safety needs
Provide for fiscally stable system
Improve customer convenience
Accommodate future growth in
Recommendation to Retain or
Improve operating and other Sensitive to natural and built
oriented
Support sustainability an
-
for planned transit
development
reduce GHG
ncies
resources
Option
efficie
travel
Alternative / Design Option /
Alt #
Terminus Option
BRT Alternatives
With Commerce Street Terminus
th
W 13 Avenue – Amazon via North of Amazon Design Option
???????
17
– Frontage Alley Design Option E
– Two-Lane Transitway Design
???????
18
Option E
th
W 13 Avenue – Amazon via Amazon Restoration Design Option
???????
19
– Frontage Alley Design Option E
– Two-Lane Transitway Design
???????
20
Option E
thth
W 13 Avenue – W 11 Avenue
????????
21
– Frontage Alley Design Option R
– Two-Lane Transitway Design
?
????????
22
Option
ththth
W 6 / 7 Avenues – W 11 Avenue via Lincoln / Charnelton Couplet Design Option
?????
23
– Add-A-Lane Design Option R
– Reassign-A-Lane Design
?????
24
Option R
ththth
W 6 / 7 Avenues – W 11 Avenue via Charnelton Two-Way Design Option
?????
25
– Add-A-Lane Design Option R
– Reassign-A-Lane Design
?????
26
Option R
ththth
W 6 / 7 Avenues – W 7 Place via Lincoln / Charnelton Couplet Design Option
????????
27
– Add-A-Lane Design Option E
– Reassign-A-Lane Design
????????
28
Option E
ththth
W 6 / 7 Avenues – W 7 Place via Charnelton Two-Way Design Option
????????
29
– Add-A-Lane Design Option E
– Reassign-A-Lane Design
????????
30
Option E
Page | 4 June 9, 2010
Table 1D. Summary of Mode and Length Alternatives by Evaluation Criteria:
Full-Length Cone Terminus Alternatives
Evaluation Criteria
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R/E
Support planned land use / catalyst Support sustainability and efforts to
esign
Consider mobility and safety needs
Provide for fiscally stable system
Improve customer convenience
Accommodate future growth in
Recommendation to Retain or
Eliminate the Alternative or D
Improve operating and other Sensitive to natural and built
oriented
-
for planned transit
development
reduce GHG
efficiencies
resources
Option
travel
Alternative / Design Option /
Alt #
Terminus Option
BRT Alternatives
With Full-Length Alternative – Cone Terminus
thth
W 13 Avenue – Amazon via North of Amazon Design Option – W 11 Avenue
???????
31
– Frontage Alley Design Option E
– Two-Lane Transitway Design
???????
32
Option E
thth
W 13 Avenue – Amazon via Amazon Restoration Design Option – W 11 Avenue
???????
33
– Frontage Alley Design Option E
– Two-Lane Transitway Design
???????
34
Option E
thth
W 13 Avenue – W 11 Avenue
???????
35
– Frontage Alley Design Option E
– Two-Lane Transitway Design
???????
36
Option E
ththth
W 6 / 7 Avenues – W 11 Avenue via Lincoln / Charnelton Couplet Design Option
????
37
– Add-A-Lane Design Option E
– Reassign-A-Lane Design
????
38
Option E
ththth
W 6 / 7 Avenues – W 11 Avenue via Charnelton Two-Way Design Option
????
39
– Add-A-Lane Design Option E
– Reassign-A-Lane Design
????
40
Option E
thththth
W 6 / 7 Avenues – W 7 Place – W 11 Avenue via Lincoln / Charnelton Couplet Design Option
???????
41
– Add-A-Lane Design Option E
– Reassign-A-Lane Design
???????
42
Option E
thththth
W 6 / 7 Avenues – W 7 Place – W 11 Avenue via Charnelton Two-Way Design Option
???????
43
– Add-A-Lane Design Option E
Page | 5 June 9, 2010
Evaluation Criteria
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R/E
Support planned land use / catalyst Support sustainability and efforts to
esign
Consider mobility and safety needs
Provide for fiscally stable system
Improve customer convenience
Accommodate future growth in
Recommendation to Retain or
Eliminate the Alternative or D
Improve operating and other Sensitive to natural and built
oriented
-
for planned transit
development
reduce GHG
efficiencies
resources
Option
travel
Alternative / Design Option /
Alt #
Terminus Option
– Reassign-A-Lane Design
???????
44
Option E
Page | 6 June 9, 2010
Table 1E. Summary of Mode and Length Alternatives by Evaluation Criteria:
Full-Length Cone / Willow Creek Terminus Alternatives
Evaluation Criteria
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R/E
Support planned land use / catalyst Support sustainability and efforts to
ative or Design
Consider mobility and safety needs
Provide for fiscally stable system
Improve customer convenience
Accommodate future growth in
Recommendation to Retain or
Improve operating and other Sensitive to natural and built
oriented
Eliminate the Altern
-
for planned transit
evelopment
reduce GHG
efficiencies
resources
Option
travel
Alternative / Design Option /
Alt #
Terminus Option
d
BRT Alternatives
With Full-Length Alternative – Cone / Willow Creek Terminus
thth
W 13 Avenue – Amazon via North of Amazon Design Option – W 11 Avenue
???????
45
– Frontage Alley Design Option E
– Two-Lane Transitway Design
???????
46
Option E
thth
W 13 Avenue – Amazon via Amazon Restoration Design Option – W 11 Avenue
???????
47
– Frontage Alley Design Option E
– Two-Lane Transitway Design
???????
48
Option E
thth
W 13 Avenue – W 11 Avenue
???????
49
– Frontage Alley Design Option E
– Two-Lane Transitway Design
???????
50
Option E
ththth
W 6 / 7 Avenues – W 11 Avenue via Lincoln / Charnelton Couplet Design Option
????
51
– Add-A-Lane Design Option E
– Reassign-A-Lane Design
????
52
Option E
ththth
W 6 / 7 Avenues – W 11 Avenue via Charnelton Two-Way Design Option
????
53
– Add-A-Lane Design Option E
– Reassign-A-Lane Design
????
54
Option E
thththth
W 6 / 7 Avenues – W 7 Place – W 11 Avenue via Lincoln / Charnelton Couplet Design Option
???????
55
– Add-A-Lane Design Option E
– Reassign-A-Lane Design
???????
56
Option E
thththth
W 6 / 7 Avenues – W 7 Place – W 11 Avenue via Charnelton Two-Way Design Option
???????
57
– Add-A-Lane Design Option E
– Reassign-A-Lane Design
???????
58
Option E
Page | 7 June 9, 2010
Page | 8 June 9, 2010