Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Ordinance No. 20461
Roll] - Z [a]15�] 9 COUNCIL BILL NUMBER 5030 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE- SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN (TRANSPLAN) TO ADJUST THE PLANNING PERIOD FROM YEAR 2015 TO YEAR 2027, TO REMOVE COMPLETED PROJECTS FROM THE PROJECT LISTS AND TO MAKE RELATED AMENDMENTS TO THE EUGENE - SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN. ADOPTED: August 9, 2010 SIGNED: August 11, 2010 REJECTED: 4 1- 0 i ABSENT: EFFECTIVE: Pursuant to Section 6 and 8 of this Ordinance ORDINANCE NO, 20461 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE - SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN (TRANSPLAN) TO ADJUST THE PLANNING PERIOD FROM YEAR 2015 TO YEAR 2027, TO REMOVE COMPLETED PROJECTS FROM THE PROJECT LISTS AND TO MAKE RELATED AMENDMENTS TO THE EUGENE - SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN, The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: A. Chapter ITT of the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) sets forth procedures for amendment of the Metro Plan, which for Eugene are implemented by Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971. B. The Metro Plan identifies the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) as a special purpose or functional plan which forms the basis for the Transportation Element of the Metro Plan and guides surface transportation improvements in the metropolitan area. C, The City Council adopted TransPlan by Ordinance No. 19385, enacted on April 28, 1986, which was subsequently amended by Ordinance No. 19584, enacted on November 28, 1988, Ordinance No. 19857, enacted on June 8, 1992, Ordinance No. 19872, enacted on September 9, 1992, Ordinance No. 19887 enacted on November 9, 1992, Ordinance No. 20 186 enacted on February 14, 2000, Ordinance No. 20234 enacted on September 10, 2001, Ordinance No. 20258 enacted on July 8, 2002, and Ordinance No. 20442 enacted on November 9, 2009, adopting a revised Transportation Element of the Metro Plan and adopting revisions to TransPlan. D, On November 8, 2007, the Metropolitan Policy Committee adopted an update to the federally- required Regional Transportation Plan (RTP); the update included extending the RTP's planning period to 2031 and deleting projects that had been completed or that were determined to be no longer needed. E, Following a public hearing on April 7 2009, the Eugene Planning Commission recommended to the Eugene City Council that TransPlan be amended to adjust the planning period from year 2015 to year 2024, to remove completed transportation projects from TransPlan's project lists, and to make related amendments to the Metro Plan. On September 1, 2009, following Eugene, Springfield and Lane County's adoption of coordinated population forecasts, the Eugene Planning Commission recommended to the Eugene City Council that the previously - recommended 2024 planning period be ad j usted to reflect the newly adopted population numbers. F, On June 17, 2010, the City Council conducted a public hearing on these amendments, and is now ready to take action based upon the above recommendations and the Ordinance - Page 1 of 3 evidence and testimony already in the record as well as the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearings held on adopting revisions to TransPlan and to the Metro Plan. O. Substantial evidence exists within the record that the proposal meets the requirements of Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971 and the requirements of applicable state and local law as described in the findings adopted in support of this ordinance. Now, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. TransPlan, adopted by ordinance No. 19385, enacted on April 28, 1986, and amended by ordinance No. 19584, enacted on November 28, 1988, ordinance No. 19857, enacted on June 8, 1992, ordinance No. 19872, enacted on September 9, 1992, ordinance No. 19887 enacted on November 9, 1992, ordinance No. 20185 enacted on February 14, 2000, Ordinance No. 20234, enacted on September 10, 2001, ordinance No. 20258 enacted on July 8, 2002, and ordinance No. 20442 enacted on November 9, 2009, is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A attached and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2. The revisions to the 20 -Year Financially- Constrained Roadway Projects list included in Exhibit A are hereby adopted by reference and made a part of the Metro Plan, as required by Metro Plan Policy F.9, page III -F -7. Project timing and estimated costs are not adopted as policy. Section 3 . The Metro Plan, Transportation Element, Chapter III, Section F, is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit B attached and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 4. The City Council adopts the findings set forth in the attached Exhibit C in support of this action. Section 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof. Section G. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Eugene Charter of 2002, Sections 1- 3 of this ordinance shall not become effective until the Lane County Board of Commissioners and the Springfield City Council have taken action identical to the action taken by the City of Eugene in Sections 1- 3 of this ordinance. Section 7 . The heading on Chapter 3, page 7 of TransPlan is hereby amended to add a footnote that states: "while transportation projects related to the West Eugene Parkway (WEP) remain on the project lists, the Metropolitan Policy Committee has eliminated all funding related to the WEP from the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program and the State Transportation Improvement Program and has deleted all WEP transportation projects from the Ordinance - Page 2 of 3 federally - required Regional Transportation Plan. Thus, no WEP transportation project can be relied upon as a `planned transportation facility' under the state Transportation Planning Rule." Section 8. Pursuant to EC 9.7730(2) and LC 12.225(1)(b), notwithstanding the provisions of the Eugene Charter of 2002, Section 7 of this Ordinance shall not become effective until the Lane County Board of Commissioners has taken action identical to the action taken by the City of Eugene in Section 7 of this Ordinance. Passed by the City Council this day of 4 X44 2010 0 Deputy City ecor er Approved by the Mayor this � day of , 2010 Mayor Ordinance - Page 3 of 3 Exhibit A Trends Issues- The region is anticipating significant population and employment growth. The population of the Eugene-Springfield area is expected to grow by 41 percent by [241-5] 2027. Employment in the region is expected to grow by 43 percent during that same period. A forecast of trends during the planning period points to several issues should land use patterns and travel behavior continue as they exist today. Congestion would rise dramatically, increasing the cost of travel and reducing the efficiency of the region's roadway network. Congested miles of travel would increase from 2.8 percent of total miles traveled to 10.6 percent, a 283 percent increase. Vehicle mites traveled per capita would go from 10.99 to 1 1.53, a 7.7 percent increase. One of the primary roles played by public agencies is in the provision of transportation system infrastructure. Without a balanced Opproach to the development of future improvements, little change will be made in the transportation choices available to the region. ' with little improvement in choices, the proportion of drive alone auto trips would increase while the proportion of alternative modes use would decrease. r* Shorter trip distance is one factor that contributes to making the use of alternative modes more attractive. The percentage of total trips under one mile in length would decline by 9.2 percent. Overview of the Regional Transportation System Plan The .Eugene- Springfleld Metropolitan Area Transportation .flan (TransPlan) guides regional transportation system planning and development in the Eugene - Springfield metropolitan area. TransPlan includes provisions for meeting the transportation demand of a pro, 'ected population of 296,500 in the TransPlan Study Area, [ ] while addressing transportation issues and making changes that can contribute to improvements in the region's quality of life and economic vitality. As discussed under the "Participating Agencies, Geographic Area and Planning Period" section of this Chapter, the TransPlan Study Area is an area extending beyond the U B and Metro Plan boundary that is used for transportation modeling purposes. ` There is a great deal of flexibility in choosing how the region's transportation demand is met via supply decisions and demand management strategies. with the balanced and integrated combination of land use, transit, demand management, and bicycle strategies included in . TransPlan, significant progress can be made away from the trends. Notably, while congestion will still increase significantly over existing conditions, TransPlan's proposed combination of strategies will help reduce future congestion by 48 percent over forecasted trends. Com ared to the future Trend Conditions, there will also be: c* . 8 percent less vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita, b 20.5 percent more trips under one mile in length, 7 percent fewer drive alone trips, 29 percent more non -auto trips, and 11 percent less carbon monoxide emissions. TransPlan July 2002 Chapter l , Page 2 concepts indicated that TDM strategies can contribute to greater use of modes such as bicycling, walking, transit, and carpooling. TransPlan focuses on voluntary demand management strategies, such as incentives, i.e., free or reduced -cost bus pass programs. In the future, the region may explore opportunities to establish market- based, user -pay programs to offset subsidization of the true cost of automobile use and other transportation services. The region can maintain conformity with air quality standards over the next 20 years. The computer model indicated that the region will be able to maintain conformity with existing national air quality standards through implementation of any of the alternative plan concepts. Despite traffic growth, the offsetting effects of less- polluting and more fuel- efficient new vehicles will cause a net decline in emissions, even under trend conditions. The attainment and maintenance of air quality standards is primarily due to improved auto emission technology, rather than reduced reliance on autos. Participating Agencies, [ Geographic Area and Planning.Period TransPlan represents a coordinated effort of public agencies and citizens. The local jurisdictions involved in regional transportation planning include the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), the cities of Eugene and Springfield, Lane County, and Lane Transit District (LTD). Other agencies involved in the planning process include the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA), Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Federal Transit Agency (FTA). The TransPlan study area is illustrated in Figure 1. As shown on Figure 1, the study area is an area extending beyond the UGB and Metro Fran boundary. When TransPlan was updated in 2001, it was anticipated that the TransPlan Study Area's population would reach 296,500 in 2015. It is now anticipated that the TransPlan Study Area's population will not reach 296,500 until approximately 2027. Since the transportation modeling for the TransPlan Study Area was based on a projected population of 296,500, TransPlan guides regional and transportation system planning and development in the TransPlan Study Area until 202Z Accordingly, TransPlan's planning period has been updated to 202 7. Addition ally, th a .Region al Transportation Work Plan, adopted by th a Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDQ on October 16, 2008, required an ad, justment to TransPlan 's planning period to more accurately reflect the year that the plan's study area would hit the projected population and to bring TransPlan 's planning period closer to the planning period of the planning period of thefederally-req uired .regional Transportation Plan (RTP). TransPlan July 2002 Chapter I, Page 5 Even though TransPlan - s planning period is extended until 2027, TransPlan continues to contain some references to 2015. References to 2015 remain in TransPlan when the 2015 year is in conjunction with percentages reached using the Regional Travel Forecasting Model; this model predicts future h uman ch oices based on more th an just projected population. References to 2015 also remain in TransPlan in terms of the LC'DC -- approved alternative performance measures (order 0.1- LC'DC-024); these references are found in Chapter 4 to TransPlan. The local governments intend to meet the 2015 alternative performance measure goals regardless of population, Further, because TransPlan was originally adopted to serve [9] as [beth] the federally required R TP ` ] in addition to the state - required regional transportation system plan, TransPlan includes references to a [, ' Ali t13 tL Ja 66. QW: H J 3%J"nL'PW, tW iL %AF 3L*L AV; 'V): iL t%. L&L t%. L&Jfal J RL fn =: R A n i P A A A S te e 9 e & r. e a F 3 2 p4nt Af ' .] [A] 2021 planning ] year [ hnQ meet te that met federal requirements [ ` J. While TransPlan no longer serves as the federally required RTP, references erences to the 2021 planning year remain throughout this document. R . ] Revenue and Cost estimates used in TransPlan are for 2021. TransPlan Legal Status and Adopted Sections Local jurisdictions will adopt TransPlan as the region's transportation plan. The portions of TransPlan that will be adopted as Metro Plan policy amendments include goals, policies and 20 -year fiscally constrained Capital Investment Action project lists (programmed and unprogrammed projects). Under state law, TransPlan is a functional plan of the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan area General Plan (Metro Plan). The ,Metro Plan is the official long -range general plan (public policy document) for the region comprised of the cities of Eugene and Springfield and metropolitan Lane County. The Metro .Plan establishes the broad framework upon which Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County snake coordinated land use decisions. As a functional plan, TransPlan must be consistent with the Metro Plan. Metro Plan amendments required for consistency will be adopted by the elected officials concurrent with the adoption of TransPlan. See Appendix F: Metro Plan Text Amendments for a description of proposed amendments. TransPlan July 2002 Chapter 1, Page 6 Transportation Demand Management Policies TransPlan transportation demand management (TDM) policies direct the development and implementation of actions that encourage the use of modes other than single - occupant vehicles to meet daily travel needs. The TDM policies support changes in travel behavior to reduce traffic congestion and the need for additional road capacity and parking and to support desired patterns of development. TDM .findings TDM addresses federal ISTEA and state TPR requirements to reduce reliance on the automobile, thus helping to postpone the need for expensive capital improvements. The need for TDM stems from an increasing demand for and a constrained supply of road capacity, created by the combined effects of an accelerated rate of population growth (41 % proj ected increase from 1995 to [2-044] 2027) and increasing highway construction and maintenance costs; for example, the City of Eugene increased the Transportation systems development charges by a total of 15 percent to account for inflation from 1993-1996. 1. The Regional Travel .forecasting Model revealed that average daily traffic on most major streets is growing by 2 -3 percent per year. Based on 1994 Commuter Pack Survey results, half of the local residents find roads are congested at various times of the day; and the vast majority finds roads are congested during morning and evening rush hours. 2. The COMSIS TDMStrategy Evaluation Model, used in August, 1997 to evaluate the impact of TDM strategies, found that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle trips are reduced up to 3 percent by voluntary strategies (e.g., employer -paid bus pass program) and up to 10 percent by mandatory strategies (e.g., mandatory employer support); that requiring employers to increase the cost of employee parking is far more effective than reducing employee. transit costs; and that a strong package of voluntary strategies has a greater impact on VMT and vehicle trips than a weak package of mandatory strategies. 3. Lane Transit District (LTD) system ridership has increased 53 percent since the first group . pass program was implemented in 1957 with University of Oregon students and employees. 4. The OHP recognizes that TDM strategies can be implemented to reduce trips and impacts to major transportation facilities, such as freeway interchanges, postponing the need for investments in capacity - increasing projects. 5. The study, An .evaluation of Pricing Policies for addressing Transportation Problems (ECONorthwest, July 1995), found that implementation of congestion pricing in the Eugene- Springfield area would be premature because the level of public acceptance is low and the costs of implementation are substantial; and that parking pricing is the only TDM pricing strategy that would be cost - effective during the 20 -year planning period. TransPlan July 2442 Chapter 2, Page 19 Chapter 3.* Table la- Financially Constrained 20 -Year Capital Investment Actions: RoadwayProjects Geographic Estimated Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number Project Category: New Arterial fink or Interchange ,S'tatus, Programmed Jasper Road Main Street to Jasper Construct 4-lane arterial; Lane County $10,400,000 3.2 66 Extension Road phasing to be determined; improve RR X -ing at Jasper Rd; at grade interim improvement; grade separation long -range improvement Reesmft Boulevard .am f6eilit West Eugene Seneca Road to Beltfine W 19th - Garfield: 4-lane CDOT $17 1.3 336 Parkway, (1A) Road new construction ,Status Sub -Total $28 1 799,000 Status: Unprogrammed Centennial 28th Street to 35th Street Construct 3 -lane urban Springfield $3,000,000 0.5 930 Boulevard TransPlan July 2002 Chapter 3, Page 14 Status Sub -Total $82,772,000 Project Category Sub -Total $111,571, TransPlan July 2002 Chapter 3, Page 15 Geographic Estimated Name -Pioneer Parkwa Limits 1 larlow Read !a BOHM te Description 4=55 W, fl, it), zi tig, ia! Jurisdiction SPI1119fluld Cost ` Length Number , Extemisien West Eugene Road Garfield Street to Seneca W 11 th - Garfield: 4 -lane MOT $34,231 ,000 1.3337Parkway, (7 B) Road new construction, continued West Eugene West 11 Avenue to Construct two lanes of future ODOT $30,496,000 2.56 338 Parkway (2A) Beltline Road 4-lane roadway • West Eugene West 11 u Aven ue to Construct remaining two lanes ODOT $6,545,000 2.56 339 r Parkway (213) Belfiine Road Status Sub -Total $82,772,000 Project Category Sub -Total $111,571, TransPlan July 2002 Chapter 3, Page 15 Geographic Estimated Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Dumber Project Category: Added Freeway Lanes or Major Interchange Improvements Status: Programmed Benebe, fi d! at g rade si is! . th N. SNW4)- 1 -5 @ Beltline Highway ROW Purchase QDDT $1 ,250,000 0 606 Delta/Beltline Interim/safety improvements; Lane County $5,500,000 0 638 Interchange replace /revise existing ramps; widen Delta Highway bridge to 5 lanes Status Sub- Total $21 Status: Unprogrammed 1 -5 @ Beltline Highway Reconstruct interchange DDDT $53,300,000 0 606 and 1 -5, upgrade Beltline Road East to 5 lane urban facility, and construct I -5 bike and pedestrian bridge. TransPlan July 2002 Chapter 3, Page 16 Geographic Estimated Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number Project Category: Arterial Capacity Improvements Status: Programmed r s Bloomberg McVay Highway to 30th Modification of connection Lane County, $500,000 0.4 297 Connector Avenue of McVay Highway to 30th CDCT Avenue Status Sub -Total $2,246,000 Status: Unprogrammed 42nd Street @ Marcola Road Traffic control improvements Springfield $200,000 0 712 Avenues eta. Gaffie* Washin stfeet sod" Beltline Highway Q Coburg Road Construct ramp and signal CDOT $500,000 0 622. Improvements Centennial @ 28th Street Traffic control improvements Springfield $200,000 0 924 Boulevard Centennial a@ 21 st Street Traffic control Improvements Springfield $200,000 0 927 Boulevard Centennial Prescott Lane to Mill Reconstruct section to 4-5 Springfield $1,000,000 0.3 818 Boulevard Road lanes Eugene - Springfield @ Mohawk Boulevard Add lanes on ramps ODCT $250,000 0.68 821 Highway (SR -126) Interchange Harlow Road @ Pheasant Boulevard Traffic control improvements Springfield $200,000 0 744 Irving Road @ NW Gansborough entrance to Construct overpass over Lane County $2,000,000 0.3 530 Expressway Prairie Road NW Expressway and railroad. Signalize access on north side. Main Street @ 48th Street Traffic control improvements Springfield $200,000 0 69 TransPlan July 2002 Chapter 3, Page 18 Geographic Estimated Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number Project Category: New Collectors ----------- Status: Unprogrammed I9th Street Yolanda Avenue to Extend existing street as Springfield $891,000 0.33 703 Hayden Bridge Road 2 -lane collector • 30th Street Main Street to Centennial New collector street Springfield $904,500 0.57 915 Boulevard 36th Street Yolanda Avenue to Extend'existing street as Springfield $1,701,000 0.63 709 Marcola Road 2 -lane collector per Local Street Plan. 54th Street Main Street to Daisy New 2 -lane collector Springfield $756,000 0.28 87 Street 79th Street Main Street to Thurston New 2 to Vane collector Springfield $1,000,000 0.37 18 Road et~ improvements f r f Future Collector A Gilham to County Farm New neighborhood collector Eugene $1,890,000 0.7 651 • : Road @ Locke Street Future Collector C1 Linda Lane - Jasper Road New 2 to 3 -lane urban Springfield $1,350,000 0.5 33 Extension collector Future Collector C2 Jasper Road - New 2 to Vane urban Springfield $3,510,000 1.3 36 Mountaingate collector Future Collector C3 Jasper Road Extension - New 2 to Vane urban Springfield $1,890,000 0.7 39 East Natron collector Future Collector C4 East-west in Mid - Natron New 2 to Vane urban Springfield $1,620,000 0.6 42 .. site collector Future Collector C5 Loop Rd in South Natron New 2 to Vane urban Springfield $2,700,000 1 45 Site collector Future Collector C6 Mt Vernon Road - Jasper New 2 to Vane urban Springfield $2,700,000 1 48 Road Extension collector TransPlan July 2002 Chapter 3, Page 20 Glacier Drive 55th Street to 48th Street Develop new, 2 -lane urban Springfield $1,840,000 0.92 57 facility Ext McKenzie - Gateway Geographic New 2 to 3 -lane collector Springfield Estimated 0.8 756 Name Limits.. Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number Future Collector C7 North -south in mid - Natron New 2 to 3 -lane urban Springfield $1,512,000 0.56 51 762 site collector north -south collector S $2,489,090 Future Collector E Bailey Hill Road to New major collector Eugene $2,700,000 1 318 ' Bertelsen Road 2 -lane collector Future Collector F Royal Avenue to Terry New major collector Eugene $1,890,000 0.7 429 Street Future Collector H Future Collector G to New major collector Eugene $1,350,000 0.5 435 Bridge Road Royal Avenue collector Future Collector J Awbrey Lane to Enid New major collector Eugene $2,160,000 0.8 441 Road . Future Collector C ` Barger Drive to Avalon New neighborhood collector Eugene $1,800,000 0.5 447 Street Future Collector P Avalon Street to Future New neighborhood collector Eugene $4,500,000 1.11 449 Collector F Glacier Drive 55th Street to 48th Street Develop new, 2 -lane urban Springfield $1,840,000 0.92 57 facility Ext McKenzie - Gateway Within MDR site New 2 to 3 -lane collector Springfield $2,160,000 0.8 756 MDR Loop Collector into MDR site MDR Site North -south within MDR Construct new 3 -lane Springfield $1,440,004 0.4 762 site north -south collector S $2,489,090 . Mt Vernon Road Jasper Road Extension to Extend existing street as Springfield $540,000 0.9 0.2 81 ' Mountaingate Drive 2 -lane collector V Street 31st Street to Marcola New 2 to 3 -lane collector Springfield $1,755,000 0.65 777 Road ' Vera Drive /Hayden 15th Street to 20th Street New 2 to 3 -lane urban Springfield $918,000 0.34 780 Bridge Road collector TramPlan July 2002 Chapter 3, Wage 21 Tr ansPlan July 2002 Chapter 3, Page 23 Geographic Estimated Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number Categmy: .�'ro J ect Urban Standards Status: Programmed t8M Avenue Bet telsen Read to Willow W to 2- lame urbom Eu $4,066, 00 G1.71- 139a A Read. Belts 1 Up to to Name urbam Eu $q,262,809 0.52 Bertelsen Road 18th Avenue to Bailey Hill Upgrade to 2 to 34ane urban Eugene $1,035,000 0.6 315 Road facility Delta Hi Dillard Road A Read is 13919iAe Read Ord Street to Garnet IJ t98 IaA9 WWII Upgrade to 2 -lane urban rMu Eugene $98SIGGO $450,000 9.94 0.34 686 233 ' Street facility Fox Hollow Road Donald Street to UGB Upgrade to 2 -lane urban Eugene, Lane $841,000 0.5 245 facility County Goodpasture Delta Highway to Happy Upgrade to 2 -1ane urban Eugene $413,000 0.19 664 Island Road 1PAn Read Lane RiVeF Read to PFaige Read facility Up te 2 le 3 1aR8 Inane Geunt PFaMe Read Royal Avenue Terry Street to Greenhill wFbaR Upgrade to 3 -lane urban Lane County, 109 $2,580,000 4AA 1.01 - 633 422 481 Road facility Eugene Seward St. Wayside to Manor Upgrade to local urban Springfield $40,000 0.25 787 Connecblon standards Gateway /Harlow Gateway/Harlow Intersection improvements Springfield $1,300,000 0.5 785 Intersection Gateway/Game Gateway/Game Farm Intersection improvements Springfield $400,000 0.25 786 Farm Rd. East Rd. East Intersection Status Sufi -Total $22481,000 Tr ansPlan July 2002 Chapter 3, Page 23 Geographic Estimated Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number Status. Unprogrammed 28th Street Main Street to Centennial Widen /provide sidewalks Springfield $1,050,000 0.7 909 Boulevard and bike lanes; provide intersection and signal improvements at Main Street 31 st Street Hayden Bridge Road to U Upgrade to 2 to 3 -lane urban Lane County $1,275,000 0.85 765 Street facility 35th Street Commercial Avenue to Upgrade to 3 -lane urban Springfield $920,000 0.46 918 . Olympic Street facility 42nd Street Marcola Road to Railroad Reconstruct to 3 -lane urban Springfield $2,064,000 1.03 713 Tracks facility 48th Street Main Street to G Street Upgrade to 2 -lane urban Springfield $720,000 0.48 3 facility 52nd Street G Street to Upgrade to 2 -lane urban Springfield $300,000 0.2 6 Eugene- Springfield facility Highway (SR 126) 69th Street Main Street to Thurston Widen on east side of Springfield $840,000 0.56 15 Road roadway Agate Street 30th Avenue to Black Oak Upgrade to 2 -lane urban Eugene $585,000 0.39 215 Road facility Aspen Street West D Street to Reconstruct to 2 to 34ane Lane County, $750,000 0.5 809 Centennial Boulevard urban facility Springfield Baldy View Lane Deadmond Ferry Road to Upgrade to urban standards Springfield $420,000 0.28 715 the and of dedicated right-of-way Bethel Drive Roosevelt Boulevard to Upgrade to 2 -lane urban Eugene $2,500,000 1.68 414 Highway 99 facility Commercial Street 35th Street to 42nd Street Upgrade to 34ane urban Springfield $1,620,000 0.81 933 facility County Farm Loop North -to -South Section Upgrade to 3 -lane urban Lane County, $825,000 0.55 631 facility Eugene • County Farm Loop West -to -East Section Upgrade to 2 -lane urban Lane County, $795,000 0.53 632 ._ facility„„_,.,,,,....,.... - - -- ._... -- Eugene _,.,_.,. _..... ._- Deadmond Ferry Baldy Lane to Upgrade to urban standards Springfield $1,095,000 0.73 724 Road McKenzie River Division Avenue Division Place to River Upgrade to 2 to 3 -lane urban Eugene $1,720,000 0.85 509 -Elm,Fa Read Avenue Beke'sen Read to facilit Up to 2 'one Eu TramPlan tifbam 4 1 4.24 July 2002 408 Chapter 3, Page 24 S. 28th Street Main Street to Millrace Upgrade to 3 -lane urban Springfield $2,000,000 0.67 945 facility , TransPlan July 2002 Chapter 3, Page 25 Highway 99 facility Geographic Estimated Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number G Street 48th Street to 52nd Street Upgrade to 2 -cane urban Springfield $465,000 0.31 54 Game Form Road Gebur Read- to 1 5 facility Game Farm Road Game Farm Road East to Upgrade to 2 -lane urban Getint Lane County, , $1,395,000 0.93 737 South Harlow Road facility Springfield Greenhill Road in Q Barger Drive to West 11th Upgrade to 2 to 3-lane urban Lane County, $5,000,000 2.5 454 Avenue facility Eugene Greenhill Road Barger Drive to Airport Rural widening and Lane County $2,000,400 2 485 Road intersection modifications Hayden Bridge Yolanda Avenue to Reconstruct to 2 -lane urban Lane County $2,310,000 1.54 747 Road Marcola Road facility Hunsaker Lane I Division Avenue to River Upgrade to 2 -lane urban Lane County $1,710,000 1.14 527 Beaver Street Road facility Jeppesen Acmes Gilham Road to Upgrade to 2 -lane urban Eugene $525,000 0.35 570 Road Providence Street facility Laura Street Scotts Glen Drive to Widen to 3-lane urban Springfield $800,040 0.4 750 Harlow Road facility S. 28th Street Main Street to Millrace Upgrade to 3 -lane urban Springfield $2,000,000 0.67 945 facility , TransPlan July 2002 Chapter 3, Page 25 Geographic Estimated Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number ber Project Category: Study Status: Programmed Status Sub -Total $3,375 Status: Unprogrammed 1 -5 Interchange Study Wilamette River south to 30 Avenue Comprehensive study of 1 -5 interchanges ODOT $750,000 -- 250 18th Avenue Bertelsen Road to Agate Street Corridor study to determine Eugene $250,000 4.79 118 improvements Chambers Street 8th Avenue to 18th Avenue Corridor Study to determine Eugene $250,000 0.8 136 Coburg Road Crescent Avenue to improvements Access management) Eugene $900,000 2.24 619 Oakway Road safety - operational study GOLAh Bank Street W 11 th Avenue Mill 6treet-te 1 10 Be1#line Road to Chambers Street Beveiap refinef"ent I slam fef Access Management, Safety, and Operational Eti Eugene $269,99% $100,000 4 2.74 332 Study Willamette Street/Amazon 13th Avenue to 33rd Avenue Corridor study to determine improvements Eugene $250,000 5.55 187 Parkway /Patterson Street(Hilyard Street Main Street/ Highway 126 1 -5 to UOB Access management plan ODOT15pringfield $100,000 6.0 838 Eugene-Springfield Hwy. 1 -5 to Main Corridor Study ODOT /Springfield $150,000 6.5 835 Main St. and 52nd St./Hwy 126 Int. 52nd to Main interchange Plans ODOT /Springfield $100,000 1.5 96 Beltline River Rd to Coburg Rd Facility Plan Study ODOT $500,000 3.46 555 Status Sub -Total $3 Project Category Sub -Total $69425,000 TransPl'an July 202 ` Chapter 3, Page 27 Chapter 3.9 Table 2 - Financially Constrained 20 -Year Capital Investment Actions: TransitProjects - - - ---------------- Geographic Estimated . Name Limits Description Cost Number Project Category.* Buses and Bus Maintenance Bus Purchases New & replacement buses $41,155,040 1110,1315 r Project Category Sub- Total $46 9 155400 July 2002 TransPlan Chapter 3, page 35 Geographic Estimated Name Limits Description Cost Number Project Category: Stops and Stations Project Type: General Stops and Stations 9 Park and Ride Lots To be determined Park-and-Ride lots along $9,000,000 1105, 1305, 1345 major corridors 11,066,6100 PHIR-MrId-Ride lot! f Passenger Boarding Various locations Pads, Benches & Shelters $1,500,000 1130,1330, 1355 Improvements -onsfer station, possibl $4,889,98a .Project Type Sub -Total ,14,000,000 Project Type: Stops and Stations in Nodal Development Areas Passenger Boarding Various locations Pads, Benches & Shelters $1 ,500,000 1130, 1330, 1355 Improvements Barger & Beltline Vicinity of Barger Transfer station $1 ,000,000 1310 Station Rd and Beltline Highway Churchill Station Vicinity of 1 8th Transfer station $ 1,000,000 1 335 Avenue and Bailey Hill Road . Coburg & Beltline Vicinity of Coburg Transfer station $1,000,004 1120 Station Rd and Beltline Highway Mohawk & Olympic Vicinity of Mohawk Transfer station $1,000,000 1325 Station Blvd and Olympic Project Type Sub -Total $10,500,000 Project Category Sub -Total $24 Total Capital Projects: Transit System Sl 70 655, 000 July 2002 TransPlan Chapter 3, Page 37 Chapter 3.9. Table 3a- Financially Constrained 20 -Year Capital Investment Actions: BicycleProjects - ------------- Geographic Estimated Name Limits Description Jurisdiction cost Length Number Project Category: Multi -.Use Paths Without Road Project S Programmed East Rank 1-Ifs A.I. Read Status sub -Total 1 $4,715,000 Status: Unprogrammed 5th Avenue- Garfield Street to Route, Multi -Use Path Eugene $36,000 0.21 127 Chambers Street 5th Avenue Connector Garfield Street to Multi -Use Path GDCT $205,000 0.36 130 (WEP) McKinley Street Avalon Street (A) Candlelight Drive to Multi -Use Path/Route Eugene $74,500 0.36 403 Beltline Path Booth Kelly Road 28th Street to Multi -Use Path Springfield $245,000 2.14 921 Weyerhauser Truck Road By Gully Extension Mill Street to 5th Street Multi -Use Path Springfield, $80,000 0.11 812 Willamalane Delta Ponds Path East Bank Trail to Robin Multi -Use Path and Bridge Eugene $1,372,000 1.06 637 GaFdeA Hood Lane ' r -.6680 Gmn 1 -5 Path Harlow Road to Chad Multi -Use Path Eugene $716,000 0.89 668 McKenzie River Path 42nd Street to 52nd Multi -Use Path and Striped Springfield $2,620,000 1.55 753 Street Lane Millrace Path (Eug.) {C} Moss Street Multi -Use Path Eugene $933,000 0.51 169 to Rail underpass Millrace Path (Spr.) 28th Street to 32nd Street Multi -Use Path Springfield $150,000 0.40 859 July 2��2 Trans�°lan Chapter 3, Page 40 Status Sub- $109 01 7, 700 Project Category Sub -Total $14 TransPla July 2002 n Chapter 3, page 41 Geographic Estimated Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number Millrace Path (Spr.) S. 2nd Street to S. 28th Multi-Use Path Springfield $2,340,000 1.66 840 • L1a4m...st ©rsrti Street Q Street Channel Read Centennial Loop to Multi -Use Path Eugene , $565,200 9.42 682 Garden Way Path Spring Boulevard (B) 29th Avenue to 30th Multi -Use Path Eugene $205,000 0.22 289 Avenue Valley River Valley River Way to North Multi -Use Path Eugene $102,000 0.12 692 Connector (B) Bank Trail Westmoreland Park Fillmore Street to Taylor Multi -Use Path Eugene $102,000 0.41 181 Path Street Status Sub- $109 01 7, 700 Project Category Sub -Total $14 TransPla July 2002 n Chapter 3, page 41 Geographic Estimated Name Limits Description J u ri sdiction Cost Length Number Project Category: OnStreet Lanes or Routes With Road Project Status: Programmed AL - ' a zz't,' ", - � -4 a - - _ ■- Beaver Street Arterial Hunsaker Lane to Wilkes Striped Lane Lane County $0 0.92 503 Drive Bertelsen Road 1 8th Avenue to Bailey Hill Striped Lane Eugene $0 0.60 315 Road . R ead age .-A Read to GFe Dillard Road A�es� 43rd Street to Garnet Striped Lane Eugene $0 - 0.39 233 Street Division Avenue Delta Highway to Beaver Striped Lane Lane County $0 0.47 512 Street (new frontage road) Fox Hollow Road Donald Street to Cline Striped Lane Eugene, Lane $0 0.50 245 • Road County Goodpasture Island Delta Highway to Happy Striped Lane Eugene $0 0.33 664 Road Lane - 533 . .�..... --g !•I;.Fe- Fi u e 4 Royal Avenue Terry Street to Greenhill Striped Lane Lane County, $0 1.01 481 Road Eugene West Eugene Parkway Seneca Road to Beltline Striped Lane CDDT $0 1.65 336 _ (1A) Road Status Sub-Total $p Judy �a�2 TrasPl�xn Chapter 3, Page 43. J �oa� T'ransPlar� Chapter 3, Page 44 Geographic Estimated • Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number Status: Uu ro rammmd 28th Street - Main Street to Centennial Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.70 909 Boulevard • 31 st Street Hayden Bridge to U Street Striped Lane Lane County $0 0.57 765 35th Street Commercial Avenue to Striped Lane Springfield ., $0 0,57 918 Olympic Street 51 st152nd Street Main Street to High Banks Route, Striped Lane Springfield $0 1.20 6 Road 69th Street Main Street to Thurston Striped Lane Springfield $0 0,55 15 Road Aspen Street West D Street -to Menlo Striped Lane Lane County, $0 0,58 $09 Loop Springfield • Beltline Road East Gateway Street to Game Striped Lane ODOT - $0 0.70 718 Farm Road Bethel Drive Roosevelt Boulevard to Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 1.69 414 Highway 99 Commercial Street 35th Street to 42nd Street Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.70 933 County Farm Loop West-to-East section Striped Lane Lane County, $0 0.55 632 Eugene County Farm Loop North -to -South section Striped lane Lane County, $0 0.53 631 ' Eugene _. Daisy Street - El1`A iw�'J dA+s d ni -�r��i 46th Street to 48th Street Qww Al�llln/�Road BeFte Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.05 24 Future Collector H Future Collector G to Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 0.47 435 Royal Avenue Future Collector O Barger Drive to Future Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 0.49 447 Collector G Game Farm Road 1 -5 to Crescent Avenue Striped Lane Lane County $0 1,01 606 North Game Farm Road Beltline Road to Harlow Striped Lane Lane County, $0 0.90 737 South Road Springfield Gilham Road Honeywood Street Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 1,03 662 To Tarr Avenue Glenwood Boulevard Judkins to Striped Lane Springfield $0 0,42 S27 Glennwood Drive J �oa� T'ransPlar� Chapter 3, Page 44 TransPran July 2002 Chapter 3, Page 45 Geographic Estimated ' Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number - . Greenhill Road Barger Drive to W. 11 th Striped Lane Lane County,. $0 2.74 454 Avenue Eugene Hayden Bridge Road Yolanda Avenue to Striped Lane Lane County $0 1.30 747 Marcola Road Hunsaker Lane 1 Division Avenue to River Striped Lane Lane County $4 1.11 527 Beaver Street Road Jasper Road (B) Mt. Vernon Road to UGB Striped Lane MOT $0 2.20 63 South Lakeview /Parkview Gilham Road to County Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 0.79 644 Farm Road Laura Street Scotts Glen Drive to Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.40 750 Harlow Road • Old Coburg Road Game Farm Road to Chad Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 • 4.34 680 Drive River Avenue 'River Road to Division Striped Lane Eugene $0 0.85 542 Avenue r S. 28th Street S. 32nd S#_ Main Street to Millrace n Street to RaIlFea Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.51 945 S. 42nd St . Van Duyn Road Western Drive to Harlow Route Eugene -$G $0 0.25 596 Road - County Weyerhauser Haul 48th Street to 57th Street Striped .Lane Springfield $0 0.91 57 Road Wilkes Drive River Road to River Loop 1 Striped Lane Lane County $0 0.99 554 West Eugene Parkway Highway 99 to Seneca Rd Striped Lane GDGT 30 0.64 337 (1 B) West Eugene Parkway West 11 m to Beltline Striped Lane ODOT $0 2.38 338 (2A) Status Sub -Total $0 Project Category Sub- Total $0 TransPran July 2002 Chapter 3, Page 45 Geographic Unprogrammed Estimated Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number PrOj Ors- ,S' treet La yes or .sa utes without Road Status: Programmed 14�ee4. ..` 103 Street 28th Street Centennial Boulevard to Striped Lane ld Springfield $p 0,25 912 Olympic Street Striped Lane Eugene $30,000 1.04 106 Lincoln Street 7th Avenue Bailey Hill Road to Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 0.90 306 McKinley Street Eugene $30 0.96 109 Bailey Hill Road 5th Avenue to W. 11th Striped Lane Eugene $p 0,27 309 Avenue 18 1 st Avenue Bertelsen Road to Seneca Striped Lane or Route Eugene McKinley Street 5th Avenue to 7th Avenue Route Eugene $0 0.19 163 ��rnu uinn.n.r�� Stat Sub-TOW $0 Status: Unprogrammed 1 0th Avenue Lincoln Street to High Striped Lane Eugene $0 0,45 103 Street 11th Avenue Chambers Street to Striped Lane Eugene $30,000 1.04 106 Lincoln Street 13th Avenue Chambers Street to Striped Lane Eugene $30 0.96 109 Lawrence Street 18 1 st Avenue Bertelsen Road to Seneca Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 1.12 491 21 st StFeet Road to 014=M; 24th Avenue Chambers Street to Striped Lane or Route Eugene $50,000 0.82 121 Jefferson Street July 2002 TransPlan Chapter 3, Page 46 TransPtan July 2002 - Cha ter 3 Page 47 p Geographic Estimated Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number 29th Avenue Pearl Street to Portland Striped Lane Eugene $90,000 0.15 206 Street 2nd Avenue Polk Street to Van Buren Route Eugene $0 0.25 1 24 Street 30th Avenue 1 Amazon Parkway Agate Street to 29th Avenue Striped Lane Eugene $528,000 0.91 209 33rd Avenue Willamette Street to Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 0.55 212 34ta --fie Halyard Street 42nd Street Marcola Road to Railroad Striped Lane Springfield $0 1.10 713 Tracks 5th Street Centennial Boulevard to G Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.35 806 Street 66th Street Main Street to Thurston Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.55 1 2 Road Augusta Street 1 -5 Ramp to Floral Hill Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 0.98 218 Drive Candlelight Drive It Barger Avenue to Royal Route Eugene $0 1.01 417 Danebo Avenue Avenue 'Add sidevm1k to- -b.rl.d an Chambers Street 24th Avenue to 28th , Striped Lane Eugene 224 $0 0.42 Avenue Clinton Drive 1 Debrick Cal Young Road to Route Eugene $0 0.51 616 Road Willagillespie Road Dillard Road Garnet Street to UGB Striped Lane Eugene $670,000 1.83 234 Donald Street 39th Avenue to Fox Route Eugene $0 0.62 236 Hollow Road DO e Emerald Street/29th Read0fliaM Read 24th Avenue to Route Eugene $0 4.0 0 242 Avenue Laurelwood Golf Course and University Street Franklin Boulevard Glenwood Boulevard to Striped Lane Eugene, $264,000 0.54 824 Springfield Bridges QDOT Friendly Street 18th Avenue to 28th Striped Lane or Route Eugene $44,000 0 251 Avenue G Street 5th Street to 28th Street Striped Lane or Route Springfield $9,500 1.60 899 TransPtan July 2002 - Cha ter 3 Page 47 p TramPlan ruler 2402 Chapter 3, Page 48 Geogmphic Estimated Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number Garfield Street Roosevelt Boulevard to Striped Lane Eugene $132,000 1.29 145 14th Avenue Golden Gardens Jessen Drive to Barger Route Eugene $0 8.50 451 Drive Greenhill Road Barger Drive to Airport Shoulder Lane County $209,000 1.47 457 Road Greenhill Road Crow Road to W. 11 th Striped Lane /Shoulder Lane County $38,000 0.25 453 Avenue Grove Street Silver Lane to Howard Striped Lane or Route Lane County $0 0.15 515 Avenue High Street 3rd Avenue to 5th Avenue Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 0.25 185 Hilliard Lane N. Park Avenue to W. Route Lane County $0 1.09 518 Bank Trail Fiore Lane N. Park Avenue to River Striped Lane or Route Lane County $144,000 0.75, 521 Road • Howard Avenue River Road to N. Park Striped Lane or Route Lane County $0 0.96 524 Avenue Ivy Street 67th Street to 70th Street Route Springfield $0 0.30 99 Kinsrow Avenue Centennial Route Eugene $0 0.30 672 Boulevard to the East Lake Drive 1 N. Park - Avenue Maxwell Road to Striped Lane or Route Lane County $171,000 0.91 536 Northwest Expressway Lincoln Street ! Lawrence Street 5th Avenue to 18th Avenue Route, Striped Lane Eugene $0 1.14 160 Springfield McVay Highway 1-5 to 30th Avenue Striped Lane QDCT $114,000 D.71 834 Mill Street 10th to 15th Avenue Route Eugene $400,800 0.38 166 Mill Street S. A Street to Fairview Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.99 837 Drive Minda Drive /Sally Way Norkenzie Road to Route Eugene $0 0.51 574 Norwood Street Monroe Street/Fairgrounds 1 st Avenue to Fern Ridge Path Striped Lane or Route Eugene $75,000 1.16 172 N. 36th Street Main Street to Commercial Striped Lane or Route Springfield $100,000 0.30 939 Street TramPlan ruler 2402 Chapter 3, Page 48 July �4�� Trar�sFlan Chapter 3, Page 49 Geographic Estimated Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number N. Park Avenue Maxwell Road to Horn Lane Striped Lane or Route Lane County $190,000 1.02 539 Nugget.15th,17th,19th in Glenwood Route Springfield $0 1.58 845 Olympic Street (A) Read 21 st Street to Mohawk Striped Lane Springfield to 0.25 942 Boulevard Polk Street 5th Avenue to 24th Avenue Striped Lane Eugene $404 ,000 1.39 175 Prairie Road Maxwell Road to Highway Striped Lane Eugene $58 ,000 0.15 495 99 Rainbow Drive Vilest "D" Street to Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.55 848 Centennial Boulevard S. 57th Street Ivy Street to Main Street Striped Lane or Springfield $42,000 0.30 92 S. 70th Street Main Street to Ivy Street Striped Lane Springfield $115,040 0.60 94 Seavey Loop Road l Coast Fork of Willamette Route or Shoulder Lane County $0 2;44 957 Franklin Boulevard River to'l -5 Seneca Road W.11th Avenue to 7th Striped Lane Eugene $0 0.27 324 Place Silver Lane Grove Street to River Road Striped Lane Eugene $0 0.89 548 Spring Boulevard (A) Fairmount Boulevard to Route Eugene $0 1.07 278 29th Avenue Springfield Bridges Franklin Boulevard to Mill Striped Lane CDOT $0 0.68 857 Street Summit Street Fairmount Boulevard to Route Eugene $0 0.31 287 Floral Hill Drive Tandy Turn l Lariat Coburg Road to Gakway Route Eugene $0 0.48 685 Meadows Road Thurston Road Billings Road to Highway Route or Shoulder Lane County $0 1.61 96 126 Tarr Avenue Gilham Road to Locke Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 0.66 588 Road Tyler Street 24th Avenue to 28th Route Eugene $0 0.37 290 Avenue July �4�� Trar�sFlan Chapter 3, Page 49 Status Sub -Total $4,455 Project Category Sub -Total $4,455 500 Fatal Capital Projects: Bicycle Projects $19 TransPlan Judy 2002 � Chapter 3, Page 50 Geographic Estimated Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number Valley River Wa (A) Valley River Drive to Striped Lane Eugene $200,004 0. 23 694 Valley River Connector Van Duyn Road I Bogart Road Westem Drive to Willakenzie Road Route Eugene $0 0.61 698 Walnut Avenue 1 5th Avenue to Fairmont Route Eugene $0 0.36 295 Boulevard h Kell Road to M Real Willamette Street 1 8th Avenue to 32nd Striped Lane Eugene $396,000 1, 30 296 Wirl ai}7@tte Street '"' Avenue Yolanda Avenue 31 st Street to Hayden Striped Lane Springfield $0 0,80 784 Bridge Road Status Sub -Total $4,455 Project Category Sub -Total $4,455 500 Fatal Capital Projects: Bicycle Projects $19 TransPlan Judy 2002 � Chapter 3, Page 50 Part Five: Parking Management Plan This plan discusses Capital Investment Actions and resents Plannin and Pro p .g gram Actions related to parking management that meet the parking requirements of • . � p g q he TPR., vvh�le maintaining a parking supply that supports the economic health of the community. Parking g management needs to be looked at regionally, while providing ' urisdictional flexibility. ty . Parking management strategies are an important art of an integrated set o . p gr f implementation actions that support nodal development, system improvements, and p s demand management. Avast supply of free and subsidized parking can encourage automobile use over transit ' � ans�t use. A limited, rather than abundant supply of parking can encourage use of non -auto modes, . � des, especially transit. There 's also a direct relationship between the rice of arkin and the u ' p p g u of public transit. Parking management strategies address both the supp and demand for v . pp y vehicle parking. They contribute to balancing travel demand with the region among he various mode ' g s of transportation available. Parking management strategies are effective in increasing he use o ' g f alternative modes, especially when combined with other TDM strategies. Supportive TD g Pp M programs include carpoollvanpool programs, preferential parking and reserved spaces for ' p p arpo of Ong, and p g TPR Requirements for- Parking Space Reduction The TPR requires a parking plan that achieves a 10 percent reduction in the • p number of parking . spaces per capita In the metropolitan area over the 20 -year planning period. For the Eugene- Springfield region, the TPR reduction goal is .514. If the level of arkin dens' � P g ��' (spaces per developed acre) remains constant and lanevelopment and population forecasts are a . d d P p accurate, then the level of parking spaces per capita will be reduced b more than the I Y 0 percent reduction required by the TPR. Capital Investment Actions Capital Investment Actions that support non -auto modes have an indirect imp act p on parking needs by lowering the demand for spaces in higher densit areas. For example ' .. � p , Park - and - facilities can contribute to lowering the demand for arkin in downtown areas. . p g eas. Transit Capital Investment Actions call for the establishment of Park- and -Ride facilities throughout the Eugene - Springfield area. TramPlan .dui Y 2002 Chapter 3, Page 97 Estimated Parking Supply 1995 to 12" 2027 1995 R W1 2027 2027 TPR Goal zone/Plan Total Spaces Total Spaces p Total Spaces Designation Spaces Per Spaces Per Spaces p s Per Lapita Ca ita Capita Commercial 51,259 .229 57,865 .194 61 S .207 Industrial 27 .124 30,200 � .101 33 205 .111 Institutional 48,692 .218 49 .165 58,534 .196 Total 127,573 .571 137,132 .460 - 1 S3 357 s .514 Capital Investment Actions Capital Investment Actions that support non -auto modes have an indirect imp act p on parking needs by lowering the demand for spaces in higher densit areas. For example ' .. � p , Park - and - facilities can contribute to lowering the demand for arkin in downtown areas. . p g eas. Transit Capital Investment Actions call for the establishment of Park- and -Ride facilities throughout the Eugene - Springfield area. TramPlan .dui Y 2002 Chapter 3, Page 97 Part Two: Projected Plan Performance The combination of land use, transportation demand management (TDM), and transportation system improvement (TSI) programs and capital investments included in TransPlan is the result of a comprehensive evaluation of alternative scenarios. This technical analysis provided a process to determine the relative significance of alternative scenarios and the desirability of one scenario over another. The main focus of reviewing the performance of the plan is to assess how the proposed investments and actions are either: 1) Improving existing conditions, or 2) Avoiding undesirable conditions that would be present without the planned investments and actions. Table 5 shows data for existing conditions and projections for two future scenarios: • Existing Conditions 1995, shows system performance as of 1995. • The first future scenario, [ Trends, shows system performance for 1 995 conditions extended into the year [ This scenario shows projections of what is expected to happen by [ under business as usual trends. * The second future scenario, [24151202 7 Financially Constrained TransPlan, shows projected draft TransPlan performance for the year [20141 2027 under conditions of financial constraint. Like the second scenario, it assumes implementation of land use and TDM strategies. Transit, bicycle, and roadway capital actions are limited to financial resources expected to be available to the region as discussed in Chapter 3. Capital actions identified as Future in Chapter 3 are riot included in this scenario. For each future scenario presented in Table 6, the amount for each performance measure is listed along with the percentage change in that performance measure from 1995 conditions. In the descriptions of performance measures that follow, except where explicitly noted, comparisons are drawn between 1995 Existing Conditions and the [29 -15] '2027 Financially Constrained TransPlan. Changes to performance measures resulting from the west Eugene Parkway - related amendment to TransPlan are presented in this chapter in legislative format, In general, implementation of the [ 2014 ] 2027 Financially Constrained TransPlan is projected to serge the region's future travel needs for people and goods, while turning the transportation system and the service it provides in a more desirable direction than existing trends. The proposed plan reflects a set of tradeoffs among the communities' goals and ob i ectives. A comprehensive set of transportation system performance measures provides the framework for a meaningful comparison of the scenarios. TransPlan July 2002 F Chapter 4, Page 4 L� m w n cs� t 0 v m to @ Gf m ca C m G. N N as x D C @ . c @ E m m S 00 E c c a ' �t u EL D �i h `�°� �° °�° c C D ° [ ° o C�1° \ • ag o aR 0 a\ oR c * -W •�+ w be a �'? OD ti er Q �' t- {� i t0 to r N Q t- co N 4[i ti 1 to d -q M` 00 N N N C) N t• 0) (p ti C; ui Ci K R CV Q e U E p c c 0 = ._ to o LL '3 0 i 1 D o m c L- E v v m 3 D D ro c to 3 a D s�• v. v m 3 sc r n 'a m 3m .� U CJ - v m "v sn „C m c e a e� ea � — m [1: ❑ a' _ H D �. cCt a m c' .. c ira a v v =w .y ..6 m 0 C o m CL m qq* LD SO {-- Oa C) C *- N ■# e V .. r.. r� N N m m as aR v ne v zft ti 0 m co i o a G C LO v s° m b ;D co N v C) v Cri a M N u7 to CO M t• cn t,. 0 r LO v e r- Lr. & D 9 G) 0 � r `- 0 .0 Ci �" W C�7 N� C) ti r CM a a �r H N d N .- .. N 0 @ v th r U) - - - - -- a c ca %_. a� ZR e3a `�° �° off �° ate a at o 'OR 0 V a It CO) t- CO) C� ih N to tG Cl) D !� 4? N D) N a) t'? (' v a0 CA N % W 1 i 1 � V c N � .. v °°. v '� Ii m co 0 pe �.° ► aQ p r T t°. LO v C) ev N N U) a N as ( 43 Ci E cb tq ` (M T- N p �) r" ti (Y) r 4 N OttV Or, ai V- YI A v v �° 00 co 1� co e� o 0 Co va ry � Sri 0 � 0 42 of � � v n. � �r © M {,y a �y to co OD cc M w CO v N C7 t!7 M +e r LA -o- N= © Q co CO N m 1 0 © N r co V it T- a v N � a► U L L .i a r-► low (D H C v �' C v C7 4 O C M %Nor x Ci y H C X17 c @ c ` E 'E •• CL tr E m G LD a C D to ❑ 0 o Z 'C D to 0 r.. c E L H� ' ❑ .�'' W p C c w F" m ❑ C C @ c y C �' D w mom .LZ c c o t v �. H- U «DJ a _ N @ W o c� m c C �► IM '+ 7 w m �. °0 O m 44 �. C OCR LO v L W ❑ 'C3 Q �„ m C C . ohm "13 "". C E it U. w ❑ y �' _Y ❑ [0 (D Gi t0 Q D to W a 4 G D a. w U D oc ❑ z r __ Q 3.1 Y m u o > a¢ 0 Ci T " N V) v to .a LD m t%- ca 00 .a V 00 00 -a 00 co CO CO C) e-• r ■-- a a a. a a. cL a. 0. a. a s o. a. a o.. a s a (L v . m ❑ m Lo r C D to CD �" C t ' • Rod C �f a a ' a 0) CL c IA Q C y c m 'L ❑ C to J D = W L� m w n cs� t 0 v m to @ Gf m ca C m G. N N as x D C @ . c @ E m m S 00 E c c a ' �t u EL vi -- N c C U r =ml co a c * -W ,� > > e c ,c @ � 0) ,) 0 .9 O D a E E c a to 2 m G CO X C �.+ m p D w ) V) D .2 in U N C9 @ to fa @ c p c c 0 = ._ to o LL '3 0 C D o m c L- E v v m 3 D D ro c to 3 a D s�• v. v m 3 sc r n 'a m 3m .� U CJ - v m "v sn „C m c e a e� ea � — m [1: ❑ a' _ H D �. cCt a m c' .. c ira a v v =w .y ..6 m 0 C o m CL m qq* LD SO {-- Oa C) C *- N ■# e V .. r.. N N N m m as aa.aa.a.a. a a a. y 0 m � s° m b o EL •G d � w .0 Ci m Q m c E a a d .. 0 @ v z CL U) - - - - -- a c ca %_. uncongested. The objective is to avoid area -vide congestion represented by values of 1 or greater. A lower index value relative to the trend indicates that the plan will have a p ositive impact on managing congestion. The Financially Constrained Tran.sPlan RCI of . 96 is less than 1 and thus indicates that while congestion might occur at peak traffic times on average, g, congestion would remain relatively low on freeways and arterials. In com the region's � V1r com g 7 RCY is below Portland's 1994 value of 1.11. PM.3: Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay Daily vehicle hours of delay provides another measure of the level of congestion. Ver similar t g ry o congested miles of travel, it is expected to "increase significantly in the future. However, as expressed earlier, while congestion will increase over existing conditions, the investments proposed in the Financially Constrained TransPlan mh imize the increase in vehicle hours of delay over what would be experienced under trend conditions. while Daily Vehicle Hours of Belay is expected to increase by 115 percent over 1995 conditions, this is ap p roximately two pp Y thirds of what is expected under trend conditions. PM 4: %Transit Mode share on Congested Corridors The % Transit Mode Share on Congested corridors is the ratio of transit person tri s to total • .. P p person taps on congested facilities during PM peak hour. An increase in this measure is a direct indication of reduced reliance on the automobile. Increasing transit mode share on the congested corridors by 72 percent over the 1995 base is a significant shift in reliance on the automobile. Vehicle Miles Traveled and Trip Length Measures PM 5: Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel Per Capita PM 5a is a measure of the total daily VMT by trips made within the metropolitan area by area residents (internal trips) and PM 5b presents VMT divided by the region's o ulation. Under the Financially p p nancially Constrained TranssPlan, VMT per capita decreases slightly showing no increase over the 20 -year period. The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) seeks no increase in VMT p er capita over ten years and a 5 percent reduction over 20 years. Reasons for not meeting this VMT reduction target include a high proportion of growth in the outlying parts of the urban growth boundary (UGB), and few and small contiguous areas of higher density. Growth in outlying parts of the UGB has the effect of increasing average trip lengths in these areas. Limited areas of higher density limits the effectiveness of transit and alternative mode strategies. The region's model estimates that trips to and from these growth areas are 21 percent longer than the regional average trip length. TramPtan July 2002 Chapter 4, Page 7 Percent Cbanges in VMr and Trip Length Measures { ° /a Change from 1995 Population EnVIornent hAernal VMT b tenW VMr /Capita Average Trip Length (miles) % Person Trips < 1 We 2 A Trends ®2 inaneiall Constrained TransPlan Scenario Amendments to the TPA. require areas not meeting he VMT reduction g ton target to seek approval from the Land Conservation and Development Commission LCDC for the use � } of alternative measures an demonstrating reduced reliance on the automobile. This process is discussed further in Part Three: TPR Alternate Performance Measures of this chapter.. PM 6 and PM7. Average Trip Length and Percentage o Person Trips Under Mile g f p e .I Shorter trip distance is one factor that contributes to making the use of alternative modes more attractive. As presented in Table 6, trip length reflects the average distance for trips taken within the region by all modes and does not include trips made through the region. The objective is to g 1 reduce average trip length. Percentage of person trips under 1 mile rovides a measure of the plan's � p p s specific impact on short trips. The objective here is to increase the percentage of trips under 1 mile. p Average trip length is projected to decrease slightly from 3.7 miles to 3.6 miles � Y under the Financially Constrained TransPlan. As discussed under PM 5, an explanation for why this i p Y change s not greater lies in the fact that a large amount of growth over the lannin period that is p g Pe taking place on the edges of existing development in the region. on. p gi The percentage of trips under I mile is expected to increase to 16.1 percent. ' p pe This reflects the impact of the plan's proposed nodal development strategy. Mode Choice Measures PMS: Mode Shares (All Trips) This measure shows the relative share of the region's trips taken by each mode of transportation. The objective is to reduce drive -alone auto taps while increasing the number of trips taken b p Y YransPlan • July 2442 Chapter 4, Page 8 Percent Change 4° /v -14° /a NO 10° /a 20% 30 4OD /O 50 60% other modes. Measures PM 8a through PM 8e indicate the relative percentage share for wall bike, bus, shared -ride auto, and drive -alone auto trips. The most si cant changes are the 49.2 : percent increase in translt.mode share and the 9.1 percent decline in drive -alone #rips. The decline in bike mode share is due in large part to the significant improvements in transit provided by Bus Rapid Transit. As shown in PM 8f, there is an overall increase in the use of alternative modes under the Financially Constrained TransPlan. PM 8f is the sum of all non -auto (walk, bike, and bus) trips. Model analysis indicates that non - auto mode shares increase by about 18 percent under the Financially Constrained TransPlan. PM 8g provides -an aggregate estimate of the region's reliance on the auto. Total s erson trips p taken in the region are divided by the total number of auto trips. The objective is to increase the overall number of person trips taken relative to total auto trips. Model results suggest that gg person p trips per auto trip will increase by approximately 7 percent under the Financially Constrained TransPlan. Percent Change in Mode Share Measures - An 'lops ( /0 change from 1995) Percent Change 20 1 / 1 0 -10"/0 0 0 /0 10 0 /0 20 % 30% 40% 50% 60% Population Eniployn not Walk w .t" Transit shamed Ride (2 or mev ) Drive Alone %Non - Auto Trips Plasm Trips per Auto Trip TransPlan July 2002 Chapter 4, Page 9 Environmental Measures PM 9: Average .Fuel Economy Miles per Gallon This measure provides an estimate of fuel use under the three scenarios. The objective is to increase fuel economy. Fuel economy is directly related to levels of congestion. Higher levels of g congestion result in more fuel use and lower fuel economy. The Financially Constrained TransPlan's lower fuel economy is a result of increased congestion over existing conditions. However, the fuel economy achieved by the Financially Constrained TransPlan is higher than that achieved under the trend condition. .PM 10: Vehicle Emissions (Annual Tons of Carbon Monoxide Vehicle emissions is a measure of plan air quality impact. The Eugene - Springfield area is required to meet National Ambient Air. Quality Standards for various pollutants. Of rim � primary concern to the transportation system are the standards for carbon monoxide. The region is currently in compliance with the standards for this pollutant. The region will continue to be in compliance with the carbon monoxide standard in the future. Vehicle fleet turnover and stricter emission controls on newer vehicles are factors that contribute to lower emissions in future scenarios. Percentage Change in Environmental Measures (% change from 1995) Percentage Change 20% -toga 00/0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Population Employment Avg Fuel Efficiency (VMTIGal.) CO Emissions (weekday Tons) � 2 2 Trends 0 2%Winancially Constrained TransPlan Scenario TransPlan July 2042 Chapter 4, Page 1 Pbp "Orl Err#oymm %of Rdwy NEes wide S&Nvallc Raffia of BOW M t4 Art/Coll M % of Rdwys in Fairl#3ettea Condition %Hhids W/m 1/4 Me of Mwsit Stop Munsit Savice Hms per C*ta %EWds WAam to 10.n*i 73arksit °/ EW WAam to 10-min Transit Svc ffiaemaymes Priority BhayNCes ArtmW and Cblkcbx Mies ArtariW and G)Uetbar Mies (&d U dir 9 PWA) PM 15: Ratio of Bikeway miles to Arterial and Collector Miles This measure indicates the percentage of total bikeway miles (both on- and off - street) compared to total arterial and collector roadways (excluding freeways). Because of the proposed addition of several miles of off -street bikeways, additional new and reconstructed roadway miles with TramPlan July 2002 Chapter 4, Page 12 PhMmrt amp *S(emommdaiwe MWSUM ( %d=WIWMV" Sty% WO 50% 1W/o W/a 20OP /o 250% 30 bikeways, and the proposed striping of several miles of existing roadway . g y, this ratio is expected to increase substantially from 44 percent today to 81 ercent in [2W4]2027. p PM .16: Percentage of Poadwa s in Fair or Better Condition .Y atio►n This measure provides a summary of the overall pavement condition of the region's g s roadways. Currently, 85 percent of the region's roadways are in fair or better condition. The ' obJ ective � s to maintain at least 80 percent of the roadways in fair or better condition. The ability o . ty maintain that standard is dependent upon financial priorities identified during the draft TransPlan . g sPlan review. Maintaining the roadway condition at this level helps minimize the cost of futures system. em. PM l 7: Percentage of .►households Within %Mfle o a Transit f ans�t stop This measure provides an indication of the geographic coverage of Lane Transit District-'s g service. Currently, 92 percent of the households in the region are within 1 /4 mile of a transit st op. The objective is to maintain that level of coverage. Given the transits stem's maturity ty and extensive geographic coverage, focus is not on achieving 1 percent coverage but on improving the convenience of existing service. PM Z 8: Transit Service Hours er Capita P This measure shows the amount of annual transit service in hours person in the re � }per p goon. The objective in the plan is to increase transit service hours, ideally n terms of the 'frequency uenc Y q y of service (e.g., change from service every 1 S minutes to service every ten minutes . The increases in service hours projected - for the Trend condition are necessary to offset delays caused b y y increased traffic congestion. They assume no increases in service frequency, but are � y� necessary to maintain existing frequency of service. The [x]2027 Financially Constrained TransPlan increases (to 1.99 service hours per capita) reflect substantial increases in service frequency ' q cy with the implementation of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). PM 19: Percentage of Households with Access to Ten -Miry • Ten-Minute Transit Service Frequency of service is one of the key factors in making public transportation more attract p tr e. The frequency of service proposed in the extensive neighborhood feeders stem and interconnected trunk lines of the BRT system is one of the primary reasons explaining the 48.6 p g percent increase in transit mode shares. PM 19 presents the percentage of households in the region with access to ten - minute transit service frequencies. The ro osed BRT s stem p p y would incre ase the percentage of households with access to ten - minute service frequencies from 23 q percent under existing conditions to 88 percent in [2-04 1 2027 under the Financial) Constrain d TransPlan. This represents an increase of approximately 282 1e rcent. PM 20: Percentage of Employment with Access to Ten Minute Transit Service Similar to PM19, PM20 presents the percentage of employment in the region with access to ten- minute service frequency. The proposed BRT system would increase the percentage of TransPlan July 2002 Chapter 4, Page 13 employment with access to ten - minute service frequencies from 52 percent under existing g conditions to 91 percent in [ 2027 under the Financially Constrained TransPlan. This represents an increase of approximately 75 percent. PM 21: Bikeway .Miles This measure indicates the additional bikeway iles and percentage change in bikewa Y p g g y males anticipated over the plaruung period. As described under PM 15, additions to the off - street system and striping of existing roadways result in a significant increase in bikeway miles (103 percent over existing conditions). PM 22: Arterial and Collector Miles This measure indicates the additional roadway centerline miles and percentage change in roadway centerline miles anticipated over the planning period. Total miles of collector and arterials are proposed to increase by 9.3 percent from 325.6 to 355.8. PM 23: Arterial and collector Miles (excludingfreeways) This measure is similar to PM 19a except that it excludes freewa y miles. Total miles of collector and arterials, excluding freeways, are proposed to increase by about 10 percent from 290.5 to 319.6. Summary Assessment This section provides an overall assessment of the plan's performance. A more detailed assessment of the plan's compliance with Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) re p g uirements is q provided in Part Three: TPR Alternative Performance Measures. Over the past 25 years, growth in the region has been fairly compact. This is in part due to the limitations put on partitioning of parcels outside of city limits and allowing development to occur only with the extension of public facilities. Thus, infill and redevelopment have been taking place over time and, as a result, a large portion of future development will occur within the UGB on the edges of existing development. As demonstrated above, growth on the edges leads to longer overall. trip lengths, which in turn, makes non -auto modes less attractive. This makes it difficult to achieve VMT reductions within the planning period. However, the Financially Constrained TransPlan has been shown to perform much better than trend conditions in mini mizing increases in congested miles of travel, and min *nu* zm* g area -wide congestion. An overall outcome stemming from implementation of nodal development is that the region is able to increase the percentage of person trips less than one mile in length to approximately 16.percent. Investments in non -auto modes (particularly BRT) and implementation of nodal development strategies improve choices available for travel and contribute to the Financially Constrained TransPlan 's ability to increase levels of non -auto mode share of all trips over existing conditions (increase from 14.1 % to 17 %). Increases in the percentage of households and employment with access to ten - minute transit service are the basis for the 48.6 percent increase in transit mode TransPlan July 2002 Chapter 4, Page 14 transit because it cannot compete with the ease and convenience their own automobile affords them. As proposed in TransPlan the service will provide a quick and easy transp ortation solution for a whole variety of trip purposes and will compete well with the travel time of the automobile along maj or. corridors. As such, the service will start to attract more riders. As the time between buses using the BRT corridor diminishes, so to does the need for using schedule. Connecting .. g g viable nodes along the BRT corridor creates the ability for more riders to use the service to g et to and from the destinations they want to go to. Transportation Demand Management (TDAI) -- TDM is the essential management of information that can be provided to prospective users of alternative means of transportation to diminish their reliance on driving to and from destinations via their own automobiles. An essential component in establishing TDM programs is marketing. The more attractive TDM op tions become the i p a easier they are to use; however, n order to be used the public needs to be made aware that various programs, facilities and services exist. Nodal development coupled with TDM marketin and services effectively reduces the reliance of single occupancy automobile trips. Priority Bikeway Aires — Priority . bikeway projects consist of those projects that are along an essential core route on which the overall system depends, fill in a critical gap in the existing bicycle system, or overcome a barrier where no other nearby existing or ro ammed bikeway p �' y alternatives exist (e.g,, river, major street, highway), or significantly improve bicycle users safe in a given corridor. As such, they are the key additions to the bikeway system that support nodal development and an increase in the use of this alternative mode. C. Analysis The assessment of compliance below focuses on the five objectives listed in the TPR. TPR Obj ect ve A- 'Achieving the alternative standard will result in a reduction in reliance on automobiles. The plan's performance on this objective can be measured using the Travel Response lies erfo � performance measures. In general, the travel response described below relies on implementation of the nodal .development, Bus Rapid Transit, and expanded TDM strategies set forth in TransPian, and the Priority Bikeway Miles. Reduced reliance on the auto is indicated in the forecasted 18 percent increase in the Percent Non -Auto Trips, a measure of the relative proportion of trips occurring by alternative modes. This increase is particularly significant when compared to the [241-512027 Trend Scenario which indicates a 9 percent decrease without implementation of the plan. An increase in the p ercent of the region's trips taken by alternative modes is a direct measure of reduced reliance on the auto. An increase indicates that improvements made to alternative modes have been successful in attracting more people to use those alternatives for some trips. Percent Non -.Auto Trips is a good p g measure of the cumulative effect of the implementation of all of TransPlan's key strategies. The Percent Transit .erode Share on Congested Corridors measure also directl y indicates reduced reliance on the automobile. The target of increasing transit mode share on the congested T ramPlan July 2002 Chapter 4, Page 20 F. Transportation Element Exhibit B The Transportation Element addresses surface and air transportation in the metropolitan are p p a. TransPlan, the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan area � T ransp ort ation Plan p rovides the basis p for the surface transportation portions of this element and the Eugene A Master Plan provides the basis for the air transportation portions. TransPlan guides regional transportation system planning in the metropolitan area to serve Y�= :�µ� =a -��� the transportation planning needs of [the] a projected population of 296,500 in the TransPlan Study Area (fn 11). The TransPlan Study Area is an area extending beyond the UGB and Metro Plan boundary that is used for transportation modeling purposes. TransPlan establishes the framework upon which all public agencies can make consistent and coordinated transportation planning decisions. Goals and .policies in TransPlan are contained in this Transportation Element and are part of the adopted Metro Plan. TransPlan project lists and project maps are also adopted as part of the Metro Plan. This element complies with State Transportation Goal 12, "To rovide and encourage a safe p g convenient, and economic transportation system." Three types of transportation lannin p g strategies are reflected in the goals and policies in this element: Transportation demand management (TDM), land use, and system improvements. TDM strategies focus on reducing demands placed on the transportation system, and thus system costs, b providing incentives to . yp g redistribute or eliminate vehicle trips and by encouraging alternative modes. Land use strategies focus on encouraging development patterns that reduce the need for automobiles reduce trip lengths, and support the use of alternative modes. System 'imp rovements focus on increasin efficiency and adding capacity or new facilities to the existing hi transit bi and y pedestrian systems. Together, these strategies form a balanced policy framework for meeting local and state transportation goals to. increase urban public transit ridership; reduce reliance on the automobile; substitute automobile trips with alternative modes, such as walking nd bikin • and red g g' reduce automobile energy consumption and transportation costs. Consistent with this approach the policies in this element are presented in the following categories: Not all Transportation Element policies will apply to a specific transportation-related decision. When conformance with adopted policy is required, policies in this and other Metro Plan elements will be examined to determine which policies are relevant and can be applied. when policies support varying positions, decision makers will seek a balance of all applicable policies. pp p Goals are timeless, but some policies will expire as they are implemented. Goals 1. Provide an integrated transportation and land use system that supports choices in modes of travel and development patterns that will reduce reliance on the automobile and enhance livability, economic opportunity, and the quality of life. macipli p U The 296 NO prpioa Xff- this e estifnated 20A. -1 r , � W&A%&WIJL WAX W A. 0 for- addition a! • .] Transportation Demand Management Findings 14. TDM addresses federal Transportation Equity Act for the 21" Century (TEA 21) and state TPR requirements to reduce reliance on the automobile, thus helping to postpone the need for expensive capital improvements: The need for TDM stems from an increasing demand for and a constrained supply of road capacity, created by the combined effects of an accelerated rate of population growth (41% projected increase from 1995 to 202 and increasing highway construction costs; for example, the City of Eugene increased the transportation systems development charge by a total of 15 percent to account for inflation from 1993 -1996. Exhibit C FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY Metro Plan Amendment Criteria Criteria to be used to evaluate amendments to the Eugene - Springfield Regional Transportation System Plan (TransPlan) and the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) are found in Springfield Development Code, Chapter 5, Section 5.14 -135(C)(1 -2), Eugene Code Section 9.773 0(3), and Lane Code Section 12.225(2)(a) &(b) and all reads as follows: (a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning oals ado ted b g p Y the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and (b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internall y inconsistent. This application involves text amendments (non -site specific} and project list amendments to TransPlan, , p J an, a special purpose functional plan, and text amendments (non -site specific ) to the Metro Plan hereinafter referred to as the amendments " }. The process for making the amendments to TransPlan and the Metro Plan are identical; requiring that the three jurisdictions follow the "Type I" amendment process. To . p become effective, the amendments to TransPlan the Metro Plan must be approved b all three governing pp Y g g bodies. Criterion A. STATEWIDE PLANNING COAL CONSISTENCY: Based on the findings set forth below, the amendments are consistent with applicable Statewide Planning g Goals and interpretive rules. GOAL 1 - CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the „ p g opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The Cities of Springfield and Eugene and Lane County have acknowledged citizen involvement programs g p g ram s and acknowledged processes for securing citizen input on all proposed Metro Plan amendments. The governing bodies code provisions require that notice of the proposed amendments be given and public hearings be held prior to adoption. Notification of the proposed amendments and opportunities for public pp p c participation in these amendments were consistent with the rams. acknowledged citizen involvement programs. g p g The governing bodies' code provisions implement Statewide Planning oal .1 b requiring that notice f g y q g o the proposed land use code amendment be given and public hearings be held prior to adoption. g p p Consideration of the amendments will begin with a joint ommission work session on April g 7, 2009, followed by a public hearing. On October 16, 2008, the City of Springfield provided notice of the proposed amendment to the 20- p p year planning period in TransPlan from 2015 to 2023 to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). That notice included copies of the proposal reviousl approved b the p y pp y Metropolitan Policy Committee for inclusion in the federal RTP in November Zoo? and a co py of the report that went to the Springfield City Council for the October 6, 2008, initiation of this amendment. The identical proposal was reviewed and approved by the Joint Elected Officials of Eugene, Springfield g , p gfield and Lane County on September 15, 2008, prior to being submitted to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) in October as part of the proposed work program for the update of TransPlan. Each of these and activities and meetings were noticed and included opportunities for citizen involvement and comment. The October 2008 DLCD notice was revised on January 29, 2009, to add the proposed removal of the completed projects, and to clarify that Metro Plan amendments were also necessary, and that Eugene and Lane County would be participants as well. The DLCD notice was revised again on February 6, 2009, to provide specific proposed text amendments and to provide the new (postponed) date for the first evidentiary hearing. Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was mailed to all persons who had requested such notice on March 6, 2009, thirty (30) days prior to the first hearing. Notice was published in the Register Guard, the area's general circulation newspaper, on March 18, 2009, twenty (20) days before the first hearing. The proposed amendments were available for inspection at the Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County planning offices. The process leading up to the adoption of the amendments provided numerous opportunities for public involvement. We find that the process for adopting these amendments complies with Statewide Planning Goal 1 since it complies with, and surpasses, the requirements of the State's citizen involvement provisions. GOAL 2 -LAND USE PLANNING: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to the use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. The Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the policy tool that provides a basis for decision - making in this area. The Metro Plan was acknowledged by the State in 1982 to be in compliance with statewide planning goals. The Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) is a function plan of the Metro Plan, which forms the basis for the Transportation Element of the Metro Plan and guides surface transportation improvements in the metropolitan area. TranPlan was acknowledged by the State to be in compliance with statewide planning goal. These findings and the record show that there is an adequate factual base for City's decision concerning the amendments. Goal 2 requires that plans be coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units and that opportunities be provided for review and comment by affected governmental units. The Goal 2 coordination requirement is met when the adopting governmental bodies engage in an exchange, or invite such an exchange, between the adopting bodies and any affected governmental unit and when the adopting bodies use the information obtained in the exchange to balance the needs of the citizens. To comply with the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the three j urisdictions coordinated the review of these amendments with all affected governmental units. Notice of the proposed amendments and information about where the materials would be available for review was mailed to all parties that had requested such notice. There are no Goal 2 exceptions required for the amendments. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 2. GOAL 3 - AGRICULTURAL LANDS: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. 2 The amendments will not change or conflict with the policies of the Metro Plan or TransPlan regarding agricultural lands since these amendments continue to reflect the growth planned for and accommodated by the existing, acknowledged Metro Plan and TransPlan. Goal 3 is not relevant and the amendments do not affect the area's compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 3. GOAL 4 - FOREST LAND: To conserve forest lands for forest use. The amendments will not change any policies or plan diagram designations of the Metro Plan or TransPlan, nor do the amendments impact any forest lands. Goal 4 is not relevant and the amendments do not affect the area's compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 4. Therefore, the amendments comply with Goal 4. GOAL 5 - OPEN SPACE, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, NATURAL RESOURCES: To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources. The following administrative rule (OAR 660 -023 -0250) is applicable to this post - acknowledgement plan amendment (PAPA) request: (3) Local governments are not required to apply Goal S in consideration of a PAPA unless the PAPA affects a Goal S resource. For purposes of this section, a PAPA would affect a Goal S resource only if.• (a) The PAPA creates or amends a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged plan or land use regulation adopted in order to protect a significant Goal S resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5; (b) The PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular significant Goal S resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or (c) The PAPA amends an acknowledged UGB and factual information is submitted demonstrating that a resource site, or the impact areas of such a site, is included in the amended UGB area. The amendments do not affect a Goal 5 resource. Specifically, the amendments do not create or amend a list of Goal 5 resources, do not amend a plan or code provision adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5, do not allow new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular Goal 5 resource site, and do not amend the acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary. Therefore, Goal 5 does not apply to these plan amendments. GOAL G - AIR, WATER, AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY: To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. Goal 6 addresses waste and process discharges from development, and is aimed at protecting air, water and land from impacts of those discharges. TransPlan currently contains policies related to nodal development, transportation demand management and the encouragement of additional alternative modes of transportation, including transit, bicycles and pedestrian use. These policies are related to the need to maintain and improve the air quality in the metropolitan area. The amendments will not impact any of these policies and no new projects are proposed; the project list amendments consist only of deleting completed projects. Projects already identified in TransPlan will be designed 3 and constructed in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Therefore the amendments are consistent with Goal 6. OVAL 7 - AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL HAZARDS: To protect lie and ro er .f p P tyf rom natural disasters and hazards. Goal 7 requires that local government planning programs include provisions to rotect people and p p p property from natural hazards such as land slides. The amendments do not address p otential natural disasters. Further, the amendments do not affect the current restrictions on development in areas subject p � to natural hazards, nor allow for new development that could result in a natural hazard. Therefore the amendments are consistent with Goal 7. GOAL 8 - RECREATIONAL NEEDS: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destinations resorts. Goal 8 ensures the provision of recreation facilities to Oregon citizens and is primarily concerned with the provisions of those facilities in non -urban areas of the State. The amendments do not affect the current provisions for recreation areas, facilities or recreational opportunities, nor will the amendments affect access to existing or future recreational facilities. Further, the amendments do not change the Metro Plan and TranPlan policies that support access to recreational facilities with the Metropolitan area and to . . p recreations opportunities outside the area or delete any planned transportation projects that would make recreational facilities more available. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 8. OVAL 9 - ECONOMY OF THE STATE: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state or a variety of economic activities vital to the health, we dare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. The amendments will not impact the supply of industrial or commercial lands and will not change or conflict with the economic policies of Metro Plan. The amendments do not change the TransPlan and Metro Plan policies directed toward enhancing the economic opportunity available within the Eugene- Springfield area by assuring adequate public facilities and infrastructure to provide a transportation system that is efficient, safe, interconnected and economically viable and fiscally stable. Additionall y, the amendments do not change the TransPlan and Metro Plan policies related to the movement of goods; those policies adopted to further the goal of using the public facilities 'infrastructure to support responsible pp p economic development. The Oregon Transportation Plan recognizes that goods movement of all types makes , . a significant contribution to the region's economy and wealth and contributes to residents quality . . • q ty of life. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 9. GOAL 10 — HOUSING: To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state. The amendments will not impact the supply or residential lands and will not result in any change or conflict with the housing policies of the .Metro Plan. Additionally, the amendments any will not change g of the policies in TransPlan and the .Metro Plan related to nodal development and transit-supportive land use patterns and development; those policies adopted to expand housing opportunities for the re ion's g citizens. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 10. V GOAL 11- PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement ofpublic facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. The Eugene - Springfield metropolitan area has an acknowledged Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP). The amendments will not result in any change or conflict with the PFSP. GOAL 12 -- TRANSPORTATION: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), defined in Oregon Administrative Rule OAR 660 -012 -0000, et seq. The proposed amendments are consistent with all applicable provisions of OAR 650 - 012 -0016. Further, the amendments are consistent with, and required by, the Regional Transportation Work Plan approved pursuant to OAR 660-012-0016(2)(b) b y b the Land Conservation and Development Commission on October 16, 2008. The TPR states that when amendments to a functional plan would significantly affect an existing g or planned transportation facility the local government shall put in place measures to assure that the allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and performance standards level of service volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility. Adoption of the amendments will not significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 12. GOAL 13 - ENERGY CONSERVATION: To conserve energy. The Energy Goal is a general planning goal that calls for land and uses developed on the land to be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound p economic principles. The proposed amendments will not change the Metro Plan or TransPlan provisions related to promoting more compact development, encouraging the use of alternate modes of transportation and providing a transportation system design to increase the efficiency of travel wherever possible. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 13. GOAL 14 — URBANIZATION: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. The amendments will not change the TransPlan and Metro Plan provisions adopted to reserve the p distinction between urban and rural uses through the development of policies and ro rams that provide p g p for more efficient urban uses within the UGB, thus preserving rural lands for rural uses. According the amendments comply with Goal 14. GOAL 15 w WILLAMETTE RIVER. GREENWAY: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette Raver G'reenway. The Willamette River Greenway area with the Urban Growth Boundary is governed b existi local . y � provisions that have been acknowledged as complying with Goal 15. Those provisions will be unchanged 5 by the amendments. The amendments will not change TransPlan's and the Metro Plan's p rovisions related to the protection and maintenance of the scenic, historical, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River. Further, the amendments will not affect TransPlan's and the Metro Plan's compliance with Goal 15. Therefore, the amendments comply with Goal 15. GOALS 16 -19 --- COASTAL GOALS: (Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelines, Beaches and Dunes, and ocean Resources) There are no estuarine resources, shorelines, beaches, dunes, or ocean resources located within the Metro Plan or TransPlan boundary. Accordingly, Goals 16, 17, 18, and 19 are not applicable. Criterion B. Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. TransPlan guides regional transportation system planning and development in the Eugene- Springfield g metropolitan area. The region covered by TransPlan is the "TransPlan Study Area ", which is an area extending beyond the UGB and Metro Plan boundary that is used for transportation modeling g purposes. TransPlan includes provisions for meeting the transportation demand of a ro' ected population of p J p p 296,500 in the TransPlan Study Area. when TransPlan was updated in 2001, it was anticipated that the TransPlan Study Areas population would reach 296,500 in 2015. It is now anticipated that the TransPlan Study Areas population will not reach 296,500 until approximately 2027. Since the transportation modeling for the TransPlan Study Area was based on a projected population of 296,500, TransPlan guides regional and transportation system planning and development in the Transportation Stud Area until 2027. p y The proposed amendments to the Metro Plan and TransPlan will not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. while the proposed TransPlan amendments necessitate that the text of the Metro Plan's Transportation Element be amended to ensure internal consistency of the Metro Plan; these needed Metro Plan text amendments are proposed along with the TransPlan amendments. Together, the proposed g p p amendments to the Metro Plan and to TransPlan are consistent with each other and the other provisions of the Metro Plan. Additionally, the amendments are consistent with applicable Metro Plan find" sand policies; specific findings and policies being discussed below. g B. Economic Element B.18 Encourage the development of transportation facilities which would improve access to industrial and commercial areas and improve freight movement capabilities b implementing the policies and projects in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) and the Eugene Airport Master Plan. The amendments to TransPlan's project lists, which delete projects transportation • ects that have been p p constructed, demonstrate consistency with Policy B.18. Specifically, the deletions from TransPlan's project lists identify the following transportations projects as having een completed, Jasper Road g p p Extension, Project No. 66 (Construct 4 -lane arterial); Pioneer Parkway Extension, Project No. 768 (Construct 4-5 lane minor arterial); Beltline Highway, Project No. 409 (Widenin g to 4 lanes construction of Roosevelt extension). F. Transportation Element FA Require improvements that encourage transit, bicycles, and pedestrians in new commercial, public, mixed use, and multi -unit residential development. The amendments to TransPlan's project lists, which delete transportation ro • ects that have been P J constructed, demonstrate consistency with Policy F.4. Specifically, the deletions from TransPlan's project lists identify the following transit, pedestrian and bicycle projects as having been completed: Expansion of Glenwood [Bus] Operating Base, Project 1320 (expansion of existing operation and p maintenance); Autzen Stadium, Project No. 1140 (construction of transfer station and park - and -ride lot), LCC Station Expansion, Project No. 1125 (expansion of LCC station); 11 and Beltline Station, Project No. 1340 (construction of transfer station), Gateway and Beltline Station, Project No. 1350 (construction of transfer station); Springfield Station, Project No. 1355 (construction of new transit station); 42 Street Pathway, Project No. 795 e (multi -use path); East Bank Trail, Project No. 541 (multi -use path); Fern Rid p ) g Path #2, Project No. 423 (multi -use path); Garden Way/Knickerbocker Bridge Connector, Project No. 660 (multi -use path); Gakway Road to Coburg Road, Project No. 678 (route, multi -use path). F,9 Adopt by reference, as part of the Metro Plan, the 20 -Year Capital Investment Actions project lists contained in TransPlan. Project timing and estimated costs are not adopted as policy. The proposed amendments to the project lists contained in TransPlan will be adopted by reference into the Metro Plan, demonstrating consistency with this policy. F.18 Improve transit service and facilities to increase the system's accessibility, attractiveness, and convenience for all users, include the transportation disadvantaged population. The amendments to TransPlan 's project lists, which delete transportation projects that have been constructed, demonstrate consistency with Policy F.18. Specifically, the deletions from TransPlan's project lists identify the following transit projects as having been completed: Expansion of Glenwood p p Operating Base, Project 1320 (expansion of existing operation and maintenance); Autzen Stadium, Project No. 1140 (construction of transfer station and park - and -ride lot); LCC Station Expansion, Project No. 1125 (expansion of LCC station); 11 th and Beltline Station, Project of transfer ect No. 1340 J station); Gateway and Beltline Station, Project No. 1350 (construction of transfer station); Springfield Station, Project No. 1355 (construction of new transit station) F.21 Expand the Park - and -Ride system within .the metropolitan area and nearby communities. The amendments to TransPlan 's project lists, which delete transportation projects that have been constructed, demonstrate consistency with Policy F.21. Specifically, the deletions from TransPlan's project lists identify the following park -and -ride project as having been completed: Autzen Stadium, Project No. 1140 (construction of transfer station and park - and -ride lot). F.22 Construct and improve the region's bikeway system and provide bicycle system support facilities for both new development and redevelopment/expansion. The amendments to TransPlan's project lists, which delete transportation projects that have been constructed, demonstrate consistency with Policy F.22. Specifically, the deletions from TransPlan's project lists identify the following bicycle projects as having been completed: 42 Street Pathway, Project No. 795 (multi -use path); East Bank Trail, Project No. 641 (multi-use path); Fern Ridge Path #2, 7 Project No. 423 (multi -use path); Garden Way/Knickerbocker Bridge Connector, Project No. 660 (multi- use path); Gakway Road to Coburg Road, Project No. 678 (route, multi -use path). F.26 Provide for a pedestrian environment that is well integrated with adjacent land uses and is designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of walking. The amendments to TransPlan's project lists, which delete transportation projects that have been constructed, demonstrate consistency with Policy F.26. Specifically, the deletions from TransPlan's project lists identify the following pedestrian and bicycle projects as having been completed: 42 Street Pathway, Project No. 795 (multi -use path); East Bank Trail, Project No. 641 (multi -use path); Fern Ridge Path #2, Project No. 423 (multi -use path); garden Way/Knickerbocker Bridge Connector, Project No. 660 (multi -use path); Gakway Road to Coburg Road, Project No. 678 (route, multi -use path). F,27 Provide for a continuous pedestrian network with reasonably direct travel routes between destination points. The amendments to TransPlan's project lists, which delete transportation projects that have been constructed, demonstrate consistency with Policy F.27. Specifically, the deletions from TransPlan's project lists identify the following pedestrian projects as having been completed: 42n Street Pathway, Project No. 795 (multi -use path); East Bank Trail, Project No. 641 (multi'-use path); Fern Ridge Path #2, Project No. 423 (multi -use path); Garden Way/Knickerbocker Bridge Connector, Project No. 660 (multi- use path); Gakway Road to Coburg Road, Project No. 678 (route, multi -use path). CONCLUSION The proposed amendments meet all applicable standards and criteria in the Eugene Land Us Code OR Springfield Development Code OR Lane County Code. The proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable Metro Plan policies as discussed in these findings. E:�