Springfield Main Street (OR 126)

(1)

Springfield Main Street (OR 126)

FACILITY PLAN VOLUME 1 (DRAFT)

J A N U A R Y 2 0 2 2

(2)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

STRATEGIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SAC)

The City of Springfield and ODOT wishes to acknowledge and sincerely thank the members of the SAC whose guidance and feedback was critical to the development of this plan. The SAC was

comprised of key stakeholders representing various interests from within and along the Main Street corridor and the broader Springfield community and therefore, support of various elements

included in this Facility Plan was not always unanimous. Membership on the SAC does not imply that the committee members supported all elements of the Plan.

William Belcher James Coldren Susan Hartmann Staci Holt

Dean Huber

Dick Jones

Marshall Loveday Alyssa Martin Garrick Mishaga Charles Richmond

Joe Tokatly Jeffrey Wing Dani Wright

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) City Participants

City Transportation Planning Engineer (Michael Liebler) City Senior Transportation Planner (Emma Newman) City DPW Communications Coordinator (Loralyn Spiro) City Economic Development Manager (Courtney Griesel)

City Traffic Engineer (Brian Barnett)

City Principal Engineer (Kristi Krueger)

City Police representative (Sgt. Mike Massey) City Fire representative (Roy Emery)

City Environmental Services Tech (Meghan Murphy) City Operations Supervisor (Ben Gibson)

ODOT Participants

ODOT Active Transportation Liaison (Jenna Berman) ODOT Region 2 Traffic Engineer (Dorothy Upton)

ODOT Region 2 Traffic Analysis Engineer (Arielle Ferber)

ODOT Region 2 Traffic Investigations Engineer & ARTS Program Coordinator (Amanda Salyer) ODOT Region 2 Roadway Engineer (Carl Deaton)

(3)

SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022 iii

ODOT Region 2 Access Management Engineer (Brian Scott Nelson) ODOT Region 2 Transportation Safety Coordinator (Nicole Charlson) ODOT Region 2 Rail Crossing Safety Section (Bob Stolle)

ODOT Region 2 District 5 Assistant Manager (Eric Alexander)

ODOT Motor Carrier Division Mobility Operations Program Coordinator (Katie Scott) ODOT TPAU Senior Transportation Analyst (Peter Schuytema, Dejan Dudich)

DLCD Participants

South Willamette Valley Representative (Patrick Wingard)

Utility Provider Participants

SUB Water representative (Steven Wages)

SUB Electric representative (Dan Norland & Tamara Pitman) NW Natural representative (Sarah Follett)

Century Link representative (Luke Pilon)

Lane Transit District (LTD) & Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) Participants LTD Transit Development Planner (Jeramy Card)

LTD Transit Service Planner (Bret Smith) LCOG Transportation Planner (Kelly Clarke)

Willamalane Park & Recreation District (WPRD) and School District #19 (SPS) Participants

SPS Transportation & Fleet Operations Manager (Mike Schlosser) SPS Safe Routes to Schools Coordinator (Indigo Larson)

WPRD Planning & Development Manager (Eric Adams)

(4)

PROJECT TEAM

ODOT

Bill Johnston Dorothy Upton Amanda Salyer Scott Nelson Carl Deaton (and others)

CITY OF SPRINGFIELD

Molly Markarian Brian Barnett Emma Newman Michael Liebler Loralyn Spiro

DKS ASSOCIATES

John Bosket Kayla Fleskes Lacy Brown Garth Appanaitis

JLA PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Jeanne Lawson Allison Brown

ANGELO PLANNING GROUP

Darci Rudzinski Clinton Doxsee

ECONORTHWEST

Emily Picha Matthew Kitchen

DOWL Austin Bloom

RTE

Scott Ritchie

(5)

SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022 v

Volume 2 of the Springfield Main Street (OR 126) Facility Plan includes background memoranda, meeting summaries, and technical data that were the basis for its development. The contents of Volume 2 represent an iterative process in the development of the Facility Plan. Refinements to various Plan elements occurred throughout the process as new information was obtained. In all cases, the contents of Volume 1 supersede those in Volume 2.

(7)

SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022 vii

LIST OF FIGURES

F I G U R E 1 : P R O J E C T A R E A A N D K E Y D ES TI N A T I O N S . . . 1 3 F I G U R E 2 : F R E I G H T R O U T E S . . . 1 7 F I G U R E 3 : S P R I N G F IE L D ZO N IN G M A P FO R T H E MA I N S T R E ET C O R R I D O R . . . 1 8 F I G U R E 4 : M A I N S T RE E T S A F E TY P R O J E C T P L A N N I NG P H A S E PR O C E S S . . . 2 0 F I G U R E 5 : D EC I S IO N- M A K I N G A N D S TA KE H OL D E R I N V O L V E ME N T S T R UC T U R E . . . 2 1 F I G U R E 6 : E XA M P L ES O F F O C US G R O U P A N D C O MM U N I T Y G R O U P M E ET I N G S . . . 2 5 F I G U R E 8 : C R A S H S EV E R I T Y B Y R O A D US E R S ( 2 0 1 2- 2 0 1 6 ) . . . 3 1 F I G U R E 7 : B R EA K D OW N O F C RA S H S EV ER I T Y O N M A I N S T R E ET ( 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 6 ) . . . 3 1 F I G U R E 9 : C R A S H T YP E ( 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 6 ) . . . 3 2 F I G U R E 1 0 : P R I M A R Y C A US E S O F C R A S H E S O N M A IN S T R E E T ( 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 6 ) . . . 3 2 F I G U R E 1 1 : H I G H E R -T H A N - EX P E C T E D N UM B E R O F C R A S H ES ( 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 6 ) . . . 3 3 F I G U R E 1 2 : F A T A L A N D I N J U R Y C R A S H E S . . . 3 4 F I G U R E 1 3 : E N G I N E ER I N G , ED UC A T I O N A N D E N F O RC E M E N T . . . 3 7 F I G U R E 1 4 : M U L T I -L A N E R OU ND A B O U T (L E F T ) ; S IG N A L IZ ED I N T E R S EC T I O N ( R I G H T ) . 4 9 F I G U R E 1 5 : E XA M P L E R A IS ED ME D IA N W IT H L E F T TU R N O P E NI N G . . . 5 0 F I G U R E 1 6 : E XA M P L E V A R I A T I ON S I N MU L T I M O D A L F A C IL I T I ES . . . 5 0 F I G U R E 1 7 : T U R N I N G M O V E M E NT C O N F L ICT P O I N T S . . . 5 4 F I G U R E 1 8 : R A IS ED M E D I A N D E S I G N , S A F E T Y , A N D A C C ES S RE L A T I O N S H I P . . . 5 5 F I G U R E 1 9 : E XA M P L E O F M A X I MI Z I N G S A FE T Y , M O R E O F O U T D I R E C T I O N T R A V EL . . . 5 5 F I G U R E 2 0 : E XA M P L E O F BA L A NC I N G S A F ET Y A N D A CC E S S . . . 5 6 F I G U R E 2 1 : E XA M P L E O F L I M I T E D M ED IA N S . . . 5 6 F I G U R E 2 2 : E X IS T I NG M A I N S T R E E T T Y P I C A L C R O S S S E C T I ON . . . 5 9 F I G U R E 2 3 : C O NS T R A I N ED W ID T H C R O S S S E C T I ON . . . 6 1 F I G U R E 2 4 : B A L A N C ED S T R E E T W I D T H C R O S S S E C T IO N . . . 6 2 F I G U R E 2 5 : A C T I V E T R A N S P O RT A T I O N EN H A N CE D C R O S S S EC T I O N . . . 6 3 F I G U R E 2 6 : R E C O M ME N D ED T OO L B OX O F S O L U T I O NS . . . 6 8 F I G U R E 2 7 : E XA M P L E R A IS ED ME D IA N O N M A I N S T RE E T W I T H L E F T T U R N O P E N I N G S . 7 3

(8)

F I G U R E 2 8 : C O NS T R A I N ED W ID T H C R O S S S E C T I ON . . . 7 5 F I G U R E 2 9 : B A L A N C ED S T R E E T W I D T H C R O S S S E C T IO N . . . 7 6 F I G U R E 3 0 : A C T I V E T R A N S P O RT A T I O N EN H A N CE D C R O S S S EC T I O N . . . 7 8 F I G U R E 3 1 : L O N G - T ER M R E C O MM E N D A T I ON S . . . 8 0 F I G U R E 3 2 : E XA M P L E C O R R I D OR C O N CE P T ( 3 6^{T H} S TR E E T T O S 4 6^{T H} S T R E E T ) . . . 8 1 F I G U R E 3 3 : E XA M P L E C O R R I D OR C O N CE P T ( 5 1^{S T} S TR E E T T O 54^{T H} S T R EET ) . . . 8 2 F I G U R E 3 4 : T R A N S I T R O U T E 1 1 A L I G N M EN T . . . 8 4 F I G U R E 3 5 : E XA M P L E T R A N S I T S T O P D E S IG N . . . 8 5 F I G U R E 3 6 : R E C O M ME N D ED P H A S I N G O F I M P R O V E M E N T S ( P H A S E 1 - 4 ) . . . 9 3 F I G U R E 3 7 : R E C O M ME N D ED P H A S I N G O F I M P R O V E M E N T S ( P H A S E 5 - 8 ) . . . 9 4

(9)

SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022 ix

LIST OF TABLES

T A B L E 1 : S U M M A R Y O F S T UD Y I N T E R S E C T I O N S FL A G G E D I N S A F E T Y EV A L UA T I O N . . . 3 6 T A B L E 2 : S U M M A R Y O F S T UD Y S E G M E N T S F L A G G E D I N S A F E T Y E V A L UA T I O N . . . 3 7 T A B L E 3 : M A I N S T RE E T I N T E RS E C T I O N M O B I L I T Y T A R G E T S . . . 4 2 T A B L E 4 : IN T E R S E C TI O N O P E RA T I O N S ON M A I N S TR E E T . . . 4 3 T A B L E 5 : IN T E R S E C TI O N C O N TR O L S C O RI N G S U M MA R Y . . . 5 2 T A B L E 6 : R A I S ED M E D IA N T R EA T M E N T S C O R I N G S U M M A R Y . . . 5 8 T A B L E 7 : S T R E E T CR O S S S E CT I O N S C OR I N G S U MM A R Y . . . 6 5 T A B L E 8 : 2 0 4 0 I N T E R S E C T I O N O P E R A T IO N S W I T H R E C O M M EN D E D R O UN D A B O U T S . . . 7 1 T A B L E 9 : R E C O M M EN D E D P H A S I N G O F IM P R O V E M E N T S O N M A I N S T RE E T . . . 9 5 T A B L E 1 0 : K E Y P R I NC I P L ES A ND M E T H OD O L O G Y F OR A CC ES S M A N A G E ME N T . . . 1 0 3 T A B L E 1 1 : R E C O M M EN D E D A L TE R N A T I V E M O B I L I T Y T A R G E T S . . . 1 0 5

(10)

A GUIDE TO THE SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN

Today, Springfield’s Main Street is consistently ranked as one of the most unsafe city streets in Oregon based on the severity and frequency of traffic crashes. The Oregon Department of

Transportation (ODOT) and the City of Springfield must address this problem to save lives, reduce injuries, and lessen property damage due to crashes.

In response to this need, ODOT and the City of Springfield initiated the Main Street Safety Project planning phase with the purpose of selecting infrastructure solutions that will make Main Street safer for people walking, biking, driving, and taking transit. ODOT owns the facility, and it is state and local government’s role and responsibility to take care of public health and safety. The

Springfield Main Street (OR 126) Facility Plan documents the result of the planning phase and:

• Pulls together analysis, outreach and design concepts

• Expresses community values

• Provides a framework for Main Street upgrades

• Positions agencies to obtain funding for detailed design and construction

• Refines the Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP) and the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP)

Over the course of the planning phase, the Springfield City Council has acknowledged community input and reaffirmed that there is a serious safety problem on Main Street, that it is ODOT’s and the City's duty to address the problem, and that the Main Street Safety Project’s approach is sensible and responsible. They have also emphasized the importance of continuing to engage community members and make adjustments during future design phases.

This Facility Plan is divided into five chapters with a summary highlighting key themes at the end of each chapter. The Facility Plan chapters focus on the following:

• Introduction (Chapter 1) – This chapter provides an introduction to the long history of planning projects on Main Street and sets up the policy context that guided the Main Street Safety Project planning phase and the concepts considered for design. Chapter 1

summarizes the planning phase process, including the extensive community outreach and input that informed the development of the recommended solutions in this Facility Plan. The project goals and objectives are also documented in Chapter 1.

• Main Street Needs (Chapter 2) – This chapter discusses the current and future needs on Main Street. These needs are discussed in relation to the key project goal areas of Safety, Business Community, Mobility, Transportation Choices, and Vital Community. This system assessment, combined with the community’s values, helped drive the development of solutions for Main Street.

(11)

SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 11

• Solutions Development and Evaluation Process (Chapter 3) – This chapter discusses the infrastructure solution development and evaluation process. Specifically, it documents the stages used to develop and evaluate alternatives, refine elements and select elements for the recommended toolbox of solutions. This chapter documents how elements

recommended in the toolbox of solutions achieve the project goals and objectives.

• Recommended Toolbox of Solutions (Chapter 4) – This chapter documents the recommended toolbox of solutions. The toolbox of solutions offers an approach that

provides flexibility, phase ability and simplicity. It recommends cross section variations for location-specific constraints to limit property impacts – not a “one size fits all” approach.

The recommended tools include raised medians, roundabouts and street cross section upgrades, as detailed in Chapter 4. The recommendation does not include EmX bus rapid transit service, but it does support existing transit service and provides flexibility to accommodate Enhanced Corridor transit service in the future. It would not prevent all left turns on Main Street and it would not need extensive right-of-way.

• Implementing the Toolbox of Solutions (Chapter 5) – This chapter discusses how the toolbox of solutions will be implemented on Main Street and discusses the next steps after the Facility Plan is adopted. Chapter 5 discusses potential funding sources to implement the recommended toolbox of solutions. This chapter includes a recommended phasing plan, as design and construction will occur in phases over the next five to 20 years, as funding becomes available. Chapter 5 documents key considerations for a future project design phase and documents the requirements that dictate more interagency coordination and adopted plans that will need to be amended as the result of Plan recommendations, or to ensure consistency between adopted plans.

(12)

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

The City of Springfield, Oregon was incorporated in 1885. The commercial center of the city at that time was in what is now the historical downtown area, along Main Street. What is now known as the McKenzie Highway was still a wagon road used primarily by homesteaders. In 1917, this route was formally designated a State highway (OR 126). In the 1960s it became open for year-round travel between Springfield and Sisters.

As the City grew, commercial activity extended further to the east. As the City annexed this area, the name of the road was changed to Main Street. However, the State retained ownership

(jurisdiction) of the street. This is why the street is referred to as both Main Street and OR 126.

When the OR 126 Expressway (126E) was constructed in the 1960s, the section of Main Street west of the intersection of OR 126E (and Bob Straub Parkway) was designated as OR 126 Business (126B), to distinguish it from OR 126E. Main Street east of Bob Straub Parkway is designated OR 126 (not 126B).

As development occurred on the east side of the city (sometimes before the area was annexed), the McKenzie Highway became the primary route for accessing a mix of new commercial,

industrial, and residential development, while continuing to be a popular recreational route and serving regional travel needs. The design of Main Street at that time was focused on providing efficient, high-speed, motor vehicle travel. Over time, continued urban growth, an increasing demand for safe and convenient multimodal travel, and limited east-west connectivity has created new demands on Main Street that are not well served by the current design.

Today, Springfield’s Main Street is consistently ranked as one of the most unsafe city streets in Oregon based on the severity and frequency of traffic crashes. To address this problem, in 2018 ODOT and the City of Springfield initiated the Main Street Safety Project (planning phase).¹

The purpose of the project was to identify infrastructure solutions that will make Main Street safer for people walking, biking, driving, and taking transit. The selected solutions will also provide for the movement of goods and people, support the economic viability of the corridor, and

accommodate current bus service and future transit solutions. These infrastructure solutions will be supplemented with traffic safety education and enforcement. The study area extends from mile point (MP) 2.98 to MP 7.88, which is roughly from S. 20th Street to S. 72nd Street (see Figure 1).

1 The future design and construction phases may also be referred to as the Main Street Safety Project.

(13)

SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • DECEMBER 2021

FIGURE 1: PROJECT AREA AND KEY DESTINATIONS

(14)

SETTING DIRECTION FOR THE PLAN

This document is referred to as a facility plan. It documents the outcome of the planning phase of the Main Street Safety Project. Upon adoption by the City Council and ODOT, it will be incorporated into the Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP) as a refinement plan, and incorporated into the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) as an amendment. This document guides future

transportation investments along Main Street to ensure individual projects align with the community’s vision for the corridor.

In developing this plan, the City and ODOT attempted to balance various competing interests and objectives. Input received from community members clearly indicated that the community believes it is important to address the safety concerns on Main Street. Other input emphasized minimizing the impact on businesses and supporting economic development along the corridor. The

recommended ‘toolbox’ of solutions presented in this plan provides flexibility in terms of applying different types of solutions in different sections of the corridor, rather than a “one size fits all”

approach. This flexible approach also provides simplicity and phase ability and is intended to provide the balanced solution the community desires.

The City and ODOT carefully considered community input. They acknowledge there is a serious safety problem on Main Street, and that it is the responsibility of ODOT and the City to address the concerns. The conceptual solution presented in this plan is sensible and responsible. In the future, when a more detailed design is developed, the City and ODOT will continue to engage community members and make adjustments, as necessary.

The Springfield Main Street (OR 126) Facility Plan builds upon several prior planning studies that focused on safety and infrastructure improvements on Main Street. These major planning efforts include:

• Springfield Main Street (OR 126) Safety Study (2011): This study focused on pedestrian safety along Main Street and led to the identification of several corridor-wide safety treatments including pedestrian countdown timers, left-turn signal head modifications, transit stop

relocations, street lighting, speed feedback signs, and access management. Since the study was completed, the City and ODOT have installed seven enhanced midblock pedestrian crossings throughout the corridor, including near 35th Street, 41st Street, 44th Street, 48th Street, 51st Street, Chapman Lane and 66th Street.

• 2035 Springfield Transportation System Plan (2014, amended 2020): Capital projects recommended in the project area include improvements of streets intersecting Main Street (“Priority” and “Beyond 20 Year” projects) and pedestrian or bicycle crossings (“Opportunity”

projects). This includes intersection improvements on Main Street and Mountaingate Drive and Main Street and 48th Street. One of the transit project recommendations (a transit project on Main Street shown as project T-2 on TSP Figure 8: Transit and Study Projects) is currently being investigated in the Main-McVay Transit Study. Two studies are recommended in the TSP

(15)

for the project area – an access plan study between 21st Street and 48th Street and a study for a new crossing of OR 126 Expressway near Thurston High School.

• Springfield Main Street Corridor Vision Plan (MSVP) (2015): The vision plan identifies vision, goals, and implementation actions for land use changes and transportation choices on Main Street between 10th Street and 69th Street. Vision Plan Segment 2 (from 23rd Street to Bob Straub Parkway) and Segment 3 (from Bob Straub Parkway to 69th Street) – are squarely located in the Main Street Safety Project area. The vision for these segments was used to help guide solutions recommended on Main Street.

• Main-McVay Transit Study (on-going): Based on community feedback and technical analysis for transit along Main Street, the Main Street Governance Team removed EmX (bus rapid transit) from further study in July 2019 and moved forward with Enhanced Corridor as the transit mode to analyze further in coordination with the Main Street Safety Project. Enhanced Corridor includes features to improve reliability, reduce transit travel times, and increase

passenger comfort, such as increased transit service in response to demand, roundabouts, stop consolidation, and stop enhancements and better amenities at ground-level stops. The details for the transit enhancements will be determined after the transit project moves into Phase 3:

Project Design. Transit Design Recommendations are noted on page 85 and 86 below.

• All Road Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program (on-going): The ODOT All Roads

Transportation Safety (ARTS) program was established in 2015. The goal of the program is to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes on all Oregon roads, not just state highways. Projects are identified and prioritized for funding using a data-driven process. In 2015, ODOT allocated

$4.5 million through the ARTS program to address safety concerns on the Main Street corridor.

The recommended solution, initially, was to install a raised median. ODOT and the City subsequently decided to prepare a facility plan first, to develop a more comprehensive and integrated solution. $250,000 in ARTS funds were used to prepare the Main Street Facility Plan.² The rest of ARTS funding was reallocated to other ARTS projects.³ Approximately $1.8 million dollars is currently earmarked for preliminary design and environmental review. ODOT and the City may apply for ARTS funding in the future, to fund the construction of the

improvements identified in the Facility Plan.⁴

2 The total ODOT budget for the Facility Plan effort was $913,000. $663,000 came from ODOT’s State Planning and Research (SPR) budget. The remaining $250,000 came from the ARTS program.

3 ARTS funding needs to be committed for construction (obligated) within the STIP cycle it was programmed for. The ARTS funding for Main Street was programmed in the 2015-18 STIP. It cannot be carried forward to a future STIP.

4 Main Street was competitive for ARTS funding in 2015 and presumably would be competitive in the future – for a project in the $5-6 million range. Lower cost projects are usually more competitive for ARTS funding because they have a higher benefit-cost ratio. The $4.5 million that was awarded in 2015 for Main Street improvements is on the high end of the amount usually awarded for an ARTS project. Note also that an environmental study for the entire corridor will probably need to be prepared before projects along this corridor would be competitive for design and construction funding, through ARTS or any other program.

(16)

POLICY CONTEXT

Main Street (OR 126/OR 126B) is an ODOT highway. As such, specific ODOT policies guided the Main Street Safety Project planning phase and will guide the design of improvements along Main Street.

STREET DESIGNATIONS

Main Street (OR 126/OR 126B) is designated by ODOT as a Statewide Highway and is part of the National Highway System for the entire corridor length. Statewide highways typically provide connections to larger urban areas, ports, and recreation areas that are not directly served by Interstate Highways. A secondary function is to provide connections for intra-urban and intra-regional trips. The management objective is to provide safe and efficient, high-speed, continuous-flow operation. In addition, the 2035 Springfield TSP⁵ designates Main Street in the study area as both a major arterial and minor arterial.

From MP 6.23 to MP 7.88 (Bob Straub Parkway to the eastern project limits at S. 72nd Street), Main Street is designated as a Federal Truck Route and Reduction Review Route⁶, emphasizing the importance of freight movement. Reduction Review Routes are ODOT facilities that require

additional review during planning, project development, development review, and maintenance to examine any potential changes in the vehicle carrying capacity, sometimes referred to as the

“hole-in-the-air”. The term “hole-in-the-air” describes the ability to accommodate permitted over- dimension loads, meaning there cannot be significant horizontal or vertical constraints⁷, which limit the size of freight vehicles beyond what can travel on the street today. The entire corridor is also designated as a City Truck Route (see Figure 2).

LAND USE CONTEXT

Along Main Street, property is primarily zoned Community Commercial (CC). On the west end of the project area, there is a concentration of Heavy Industrial (HI) zoning in addition to the CC zoning. Mid-project area, there are additional, relatively small concentrations of Light-Medium Industrial (LMI) and High Density Residential (HDR). On the east end of the project area, CC zoning gives way to residential zoning – both Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Low Density Residential (LDR) – with fewer than a dozen parcels with Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning. A zoning map for the area surrounding Main Street is provided in Figure 3.

5 2035 Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP)

6 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (as amended January 2006).

7 Horizontal or vertical constraints may include curbs, medians, trees, or roadway signs that create a chokepoint on the roadway which limit the size of freight vehicles that can safely pass through.

(17)

FIGURE 2: FREIGHT ROUTES

Figure 2

(18)

FIGURE 3: SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP FOR THE MAIN STREET CORRIDOR

Eastern Extent Western Extent

Main Street

(19)

ODOT’s Blueprint for Urban Design was released in January 2020 to act as a bridging document for the Highway Design Manual, incorporating current urban design criteria into state highways. The significance of this new guidance is that it provides greater design flexibility for Main Street to better balance multimodal travel needs that align with the surrounding urban land uses in contrast to the more auto-focused design requirements of the past. The Blueprint for Urban Design takes adjacent land uses into consideration when determining appropriate design standards for

roadways, creating a set of six urban land use contexts to describe the variety of urban areas and unincorporated communities in Oregon. Given the adjacent land uses, the existing Urban Context for Main Street is “Urban Mix” from 20th Street to Bob Straub Parkway, “Commercial Corridor”

from Bob Straub Parkway to 61st Street and “Residential Corridor” from 61st Street to 72nd Street.

ACCESS MANAGEMENT

The administrative rules of OAR 734-051 establish procedures, standards, and approval criteria that govern highway approach permitting and access management.⁸ The rules apply to access modifications at the curb line, but not within the travel lanes.⁹ The intent of the rules is “to provide a highway access management system based on objective standards that balance the economic development objectives of properties abutting state highways with the transportation safety and access management objectives of state highways in a manner consistent with local transportation system plans and the land uses permitted in applicable local comprehensive plan(s) acknowledged under ORS Chapter 197.”¹⁰

The rules describe the procedures for addressing access management in highway facility plans¹¹, which include public participation, development of key principles for access to properties abutting the highways, and development of a methodology to assess the facility plan. These rules are used to implement the requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 408, which the Oregon Legislature approved in 2013. The fulfillment of these requirements is discussed in more detail in the Policy Implementation section of Chapter 5 and are also documented in Attachment C of Volume 2.

OAR 734-051 also includes rules that apply to access management in the project delivery process, which is the programming, designing, and construction of highway improvement projects identified in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). These rules include additional collaboration with local agencies and property owners in the decision-making process and direction to balance economic development objectives with transportation safety and mobility objectives,

8 OAR 734-051, https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/displayDivisionRules.action?selectedDivision=3317

9 ODOT’s authority to construct a raised median, or restrict left turn movements in other ways, is not limited by OAR 734-051. Restricting left turn movements does not diminish a property owner’s access rights (according to case law).

10 OAR 734-051-1020, https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=183591

11 OAR 734-051-7010; https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=183712

(20)

consistent with local TSPs and permitted land uses. Therefore, as projects identified in this Facility Plan advance to design and construction, these rules and additional procedures will apply.

PROJECT PROCESS

The Main Street Safety Project planning phase that was the basis for this Facility Plan was

conducted over an approximately four-year period, as illustrated in Figure 3. It began by building upon previous planning efforts along Main Street and engaging stakeholders to understand corridor needs and the history of safety issues, followed by the development of goals, objectives, and evaluation criteria that align with the project purpose and greater vision for Main Street. The goals and objectives guided the development and refinement of a toolbox of solutions for the corridor to improve safety and allow for flexible implementation as each phase advances to design and

construction. The project’s Community Engagement Plan, adopted in September 2018, outlined activities the City and ODOT would implement to assure that interested and affected parties had adequate opportunities to provide meaningful input to the Facility Plan. Feedback from project decision-making groups, advisory bodies, and other stakeholders guided project decisions throughout the process, as described in the following sections.

Note that the timeframe for developing this plan overlapped with the COVID-19 pandemic. This limited the ability of the project team to conduct public meetings and other outreach efforts.

Community feedback received during that time indicated that safety continues to be a key concern in the community. Other feedback emphasized the need for a balanced approach that would minimize the impact on businesses and support economic development.

Note also that the COVID-19 pandemic affected travel volumes and patterns. Traffic deaths surged in 2020 even though there was a decline in driving. According to the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA), 38,680 people were killed on U.S. roadways in 2020 – the highest number since 2007 and an increase of 7.2% from the year before. In Oregon, 508 people were killed in traffic crashes in 2020, which is the most since 2003. Therefore, despite the pandemic-related decrease in traffic volumes, the need to improve safety on Main Street continued to be of paramount importance.

FIGURE 4: MAIN STREET SAFETY PROJECT PLANNING PHASE PROCESS

(21)

PROJECT ADVISORY AND DECISION-MAKING STRUCTURE

Figure 5 below illustrates the overall stakeholder and decision-making structure for the Main Street Safety Project planning process. This structure was designed to ensure that community

stakeholders were regularly engaged and consulted, and that the Springfield City Council and advisory groups had the benefit of that community input at each major milestone of the planning phase.

FIGURE 5: MAIN STREET SAFETY PROJECT PLANNING PHASE DECISION-MAKING AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT STRUCTURE

(22)

DECISION-MAKING GROUPS

The planning process for this Facility Plan was overseen by two decision-making groups, the Main Street Governance Team and Springfield City Council. ODOT, as a partner in developing the plan, provided input and also had a decision-making role.

• Governance Team ‒ Since 2013, Main Street projects have been coordinated through a three-tiered management structure that includes project direction provided by the

Governance Team (GT). The mission of the GT is to provide informed direction and final collaborative decision-making to support on-going projects on Main Street. The GT consists of the following agencies and jurisdictions: City of Springfield (City), the Oregon

Department of Transportation (ODOT), and Lane Transit District (LTD).

• Springfield City Council ‒ The City Council had oversight and decision-making

responsibilities for the Facility Plan, within the context of their authority.¹² The project team provided on-going briefings to City Council members throughout the project process and solicited feedback and guidance at key milestones. Springfield City Council adopted the final Facility Plan as an element of the City’s comprehensive plan.

• Oregon Department of Transportation ‒ After the City Council adopted the plan, it was reviewed and adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission as an amendment to the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP). The plan was also acknowledged by the Department of Land Conservation and Development, as required by DLCD administrative rules.¹³

ADVISORY BODIES

In addition to the governing bodies charged with decision-making and approval of the final Facility Plan, the planning process engaged a variety of advisory bodies and committees, including: the Springfield Planning Commission (PC), a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and a Strategic Advisory Committee (SAC).

12 The City is required to adopt the facility plan as an element of their comprehensive plan (it is considered a refinement plan to the City’s Transportation System Plan). The Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) is also required to adopt the plan, as an amendment to the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP). ODOT staff

participated in developing the plan. If ODOT (on behalf of the OTC) had objected to any of the

recommendations included in the plan, City and ODOT staff would have negotiated a compromise that was agreeable to both parties. The final plan presents the recommendations agreed to by both the City and ODOT.

13 This plan is written in the past tense, for a future audience, after the plan has been adopted. The draft plan was presented to the City Council and the OTC in this format (past tense), even though it had not yet been adopted.

(23)

The TAC & SAC provided input on the goals, objectives, and design solutions considered in the planning phase of the Facility Plan and played a role in prioritization of feasible solutions. They reviewed project deliverables and provided feedback in ten TAC meetings and six SAC meetings.

In its capacity as Springfield’s Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI), the Planning Commission reviewed the community engagement strategies, as well as appointment of SAC members.

Additionally, since the Facility Plan will be adopted as a Refinement Plan of Springfield’s Transportation System Plan, the PC provided input on the evaluation of feasible solutions and recommended a final package of solutions to the GT.

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

The TAC was comprised of staff from various agencies that have an interest in the Main Street corridor and could provide technical expertise. In addition to providing ongoing project input, the TAC ensured consistency with State and regional policy and plans as well as City policy priorities in an advisory role. The TAC included members from the following departments, agencies, and

jurisdictions:

• City Development and Public Works department

• City Police and Fire departments

• City Manager’s Office

• Oregon Department of Transportation¹⁴

• Lane Transit District

• Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

• Utility providers

• Willamalane Park & Recreation District

• Springfield School District #19

• Lane Council of Governments

The City Attorney’s Office also provided project guidance, although they were not formally part of the TAC.

Strategic Advisory Committee (SAC)

The SAC was comprised of key stakeholders representing various interests from within and along the Main Street corridor and the broader Springfield community. The City of Springfield actively reached out to potential stakeholders to invite them to the group with explicit considerations of equity, diversity, and representation of key interests and concerns. Meetings were open to the public with public comments allowed.

Membership on the SAC included representatives from the following groups:

• Corridor residents

14 Various ODOT staff participated from (1) Region 2, (2) Policy, Data and Analysis Division (PDAD), and (3) Statewide Project Delivery Branch (Mobility Services)

• Corridor business and property owners

(24)

• Corridor employees

• General public

• Trucking industry, freight & delivery

• Bike and ped interests

• Chamber of Commerce

• Transit advocates

• Seniors

• Persons with disabilities

Given the SAC was comprised of a diverse set of stakeholders representing various interests, feedback was not unanimous from the SAC and there were varying viewpoints on the

recommendations included in this Facility Plan. Therefore, all viewpoints and considerations from the SAC were shared with the decision-making groups.

COMMUNITY INPUT

Significant community input was considered in developing the plan. Outreach was conducted at several key milestones, including the development of goals and objectives, and the evaluation of solutions. Volume 2, Attachment C documents the outreach and engagements summaries and materials. A variety of outreach and engagement strategies were employed, including:

• Focus Groups and Community Group Meetings: The Main Street corridor contains a higher concentration of Title VI Communities of Concern, which are defined by Central Lane County MPO15 as concentrations of one or more key socioeconomic factors including:

Minority Populations, Elderly Populations, People with Disabilities, and Households in

Poverty. Over the course of the project, eight Title VI focus group meetings were conducted at key project milestones. Groups that were represented include:

o Downtown Languages

o LCOG Disability Services Advisory Council

o Timber Point Senior Living

o Briarwood Senior Living

o Catholic Community Services

o Willamalane Two50 Club

Eleven additional community group meetings were held to discuss the project process and recommendations with interested groups, including:

o Chamber of Commerce

Government Issues Committee

o Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee

o Springfield City Club

o Springfield Board of Realtors

o Springfield Rotary Club

o Twin Rivers Rotary

o City of Springfield’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Figure 6 shows images from various focus and community group events held both in-person and virtually (during COVID-19 pandemic).

15 Central Lane County MPO: Socio Economic Data http://thempo.org/958/Socio-Economic-Data

(25)

FIGURE 6: EXAMPLES OF FOCUS GROUP AND COMMUNITY GROUP MEETINGS AND EVENTS

(26)

• Online open houses: Two online open houses with videos were held to allow people throughout Springfield, as well as adjacent stakeholders, to learn about the planning phase of the Main Street Safety Project and provide their input online. This online format and content mirrored requests for feedback at the Local Access Forums and other community events. The online meeting tool was available to allow the community to participate at their convenience.¹⁶

• Local Access Forums & Stakeholder Issue Resolution: Engagement of stakeholders directly adjacent to the corridor was a key focus of outreach activities. In addition to

supporting a notification and consultation process that follows the requirements of OAR 734- 051 for access management, small group and one-on-one conversations with residents and business and property owners along Main Street were facilitated. Two collaborative

discussions were also conducted with adjacent business and property owners to further discuss the key principles and methodology for guiding access management decisions.

A series of two local access forums were held online (due to COVID-19) in February of 2021, to discuss the recommended toolbox of solutions and any potential impacts to adjacent business and property owners. In addition, the City created an online comment map to document concerns related to site usage and access for specific locations received from adjacent business and property owners during Main-McVay Transit Study and the Main Street Safety Project.

16 The first online open house was available for approximately four weeks. The timeframe of the second online open house overlapped with the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic which may have affected participation, including how participants responded and the number of participants in the online open house. The second online open house was initially planned for four weeks but was extended and the project team did additional promotion in order to gain feedback in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

(27)

• Mobility Advisory Committee (MAC) and freight engagement: The ODOT Mobility Advisory Committee (MAC) provides a platform for stakeholders to inform balanced and transparent decision-making by ODOT on designs in planning, project development and construction that impact permanent or temporary height, width, length, or weight

restrictions, or impose traffic delays. The committee also focuses on upholding the agency’s work zone safety goal of zero fatalities and injuries while efficiently moving people and goods. The project team presented the recommendations from the facility plan to the MAC for review. Overall, the MAC was supportive of the recommendations included in the facility plan with the understanding that they will have additional opportunities for input during future design phases. In addition, members of the project team met with large freight distributors on Main Street (such as Rosboro) to discuss freight needs on the corridor. ODOT Motor Carrier staff was also engaged throughout the project as members of the TAC.

• Social media, podcast, news releases, and email blasts: Social media posts and news releases were created to help inform the community about major engagement and key decision points throughout the public process. The Main Street Safety Project was also the subject of Episode

#143 of the Spent the Rent podcast with Patty Rose. To find episode #143, go to strpod.com. To date, 23 email updates have been sent the interested parties list. Email announcements were distributed to interested parties included in the stakeholder database to provide project updates and notification of in-person and virtual public meetings. Additionally, email updates will be sent about public hearing process.

• Project website: Two pages dedicated to the Main Street Safety Project planning phase were created on the City’s existing website at ourmainstreetspringfield.org. The pages included project information, schedule, upcoming meeting dates and events, project

materials completed to date, opportunities to provide input, opportunities to send comments to the Project Team, and a sign-up form to receive project email updates. A key competent of the project information was the creation and dissemination of six fact sheets and one FAQ. The following is a list of those, which can be found in Volume 2, Attachment B-1:

• Main Street Safety Fact Sheet #1 – General Overview

• Main Street Safety Frequently Asked Questions

• Main Street Safety Fact Sheet #2 – Business and Property Owner Impact Literature Review

• Main Street Safety Fact Sheet #3 – Possible Infrastructure Elements

• Main Street Safety Fact Sheet #4 – Recommendation and Solution Toolbox

• Main Street Safety Fact Sheet #5 – Misconceptions About the Project

Source: https://www.strpod.com/

(28)

• Main Street Safety Fact Sheet #6 – Draft Facility Plan

• Mailed notification of project updates and engagement opportunities: In addition to the general notifications outlined above, additional notification as a part of the planning phase of this project was completed to satisfy OAR 734-051 requirements. This included an introductory mailer sent to adjacent property/business owners and property owners within 300 feet of Main Street; a secondary mailer sent to adjacent business/property owners to inform them of key principles; a postcard sent to adjacent business/property owners to invite them to local access forums; a postcard sent to adjacent property/business owners and property owners within 300 feet of Main Street to notify them that the draft Plan is available for comment. Additionally, mailed notice will be sent as part of the public hearing process.

• Masthead: A project masthead was created and placed on all community outreach pieces for a consistent and identifiable visual for the project. The masthead is pictured on the cover page of this document.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The project team developed a set of goals and objectives for the Facility Plan through consideration of community input on a set of six values derived from the City’s TSP and prior corridor studies (as documented in Technical Memorandum #10 in Volume 2). These goals and objectives guided the development and evaluation of a toolbox of solutions to address the safety problem on Main Street and were used throughout the decision-making process. In addition, the goals and objectives were used as the access management key principles to ensure decisions regarding changes to property access are consistent with the overall corridor vision. The goals and objectives include:

Safety – Increase the safety of Main Street for all users Objectives: Identify infrastructure solutions that:

 Have been demonstrated to result in reducing fatalities and serious injury crashes so that Main Street is not on the statewide high crash list

 Have been demonstrated to result in reducing the frequency of all crashes so that Main Street is not on the statewide high crash list

Note: The primary purpose of the Main Street Safety Project is to improve safety. For a design solution to advance, it must demonstrate an improvement to safety above all other goals.

Business Community – Support the viability of existing and future businesses Objectives: Identify infrastructure solutions that:

(29)

 Provide viable ways for customers and deliveries to patronize/serve businesses along Main Street corridor

 Support the visibility and economic viability of Main Street businesses

 Support the potential for future businesses to locate on Main Street Mobility – Ensure people and goods travel efficiently and reliably through the corridor Objectives: Identify infrastructure solutions that:

 Maintain or improve the efficiency and reliability of passenger vehicle operations through the corridor

 Maintain or improve the efficiency and reliability of transit operations through the corridor

 Maintain or improve emergency response times for police, fire and life safety operations

 Meet ODOT’s freight vehicle mobility standards along Main Street

Transportation Choices – Create a multimodal environment that connects people and destinations

Objectives: Identify infrastructure solutions that:

 Ensure access to services and destinations along Main Street for all members of the community.

 Create safe, comfortable, efficient, and continuous pedestrian and bicycle travel and access along Main Street.

 Support existing transit service and provide flexibility to accommodate Enhanced Corridor transit service in the future

Vital Community – Support the vitality of the community and its vision for Main Street Objectives: Identify infrastructure solutions that:

 Enhance the built and natural environment and stimulate implementation of the Main Street Vision Plan to make it a vibrant place for those who live, work, shop and travel through the corridor

 Connect neighborhood residents to Main Street destinations and services; and transportation options to access the broader region

(30)

Feasibility – Develop a plan with a clear and achievable approach to implementation Objectives: Identify infrastructure solutions that:

 Can be implemented starting within five years and maintained with foreseeable resources

 Can be implemented incrementally as funding is secured

 Ensure the cost-effective use of resources

Note: For a solution to advance, it must be feasible to implement along Main Street.

CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY

• Springfield’s Main Street is consistently ranked as one of the most unsafe city streets in Oregon based on the severity and frequency of traffic crashes.

The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the City of Springfield must address this problem to save lives, reduce injuries, and lessen property damage due to crashes.

• Building upon prior community visioning and planning efforts for Main Street, and input from the Main Street Governance Team and Springfield City

Council, the process to develop this Facility Plan was based on robust community engagement. Community input and values shaped the goals, objectives, evaluation criteria, analysis of potential solutions, and final recommendations.

• The community has reiterated that there really is a serious safety problem on Main Street.

• Based on feedback received, implementation of infrastructure solutions will need to reflect a balanced approach to improve safety and support business and economic development in the corridor. The recommended toolbox responds to this with simplicity, flexibility, and phase ability.

• ODOT and the City will continue to listen to stakeholders and make adjustments in future design phases to ensure the safety, business

community, mobility, transportation choices, vital community, and feasibility goals and objectives are met.

(31)

CHAPTER 2 – MAIN STREET NEEDS 31

CHAPTER 2. MAIN STREET NEEDS

Community outreach, combined with a detailed technical analysis (included in Volume 2), helped provide the groundwork for understanding the transportation needs on Main Street today and into the future. The following sections summarize the needs on Main Street, organized according to the goals for this plan.

SAFETY

Springfield’s Main Street is consistently ranked as one of the most unsafe city streets in Oregon based on the severity and frequency of traffic crashes. Over the past several years, the crash frequency on Main Street has been more than double the statewide average for urban arterial state highways. During the five-year studied period between 2012 and 2016 that was analyzed, there were 653 recorded crashes. Fifty-four percent of the crashes (354) resulted in an injury or fatality, (see Figure 7 below) which is a frequency of approximately 1-1/3 injuries or fatalities along the corridor each week. By mode, pedestrians are disproportionately involved in fatal and severe injury crashes as shown in Figure 8.

FIGURE 7: CRASH SEVERITY BY ROAD USERS (2012-2016)

FIGURE 8: BREAKDOWN OF CRASH SEVERITY ON MAIN STREET

(2012-2016)

(32)

Note that the 2012 to 2016 data was the most recent crash data available at the time of analysis.

Since then, a supplemental safety analysis was also conducted using more recent safety data (safety data from 2017 and a subset of fatal or severe injury crashes on Main Street between 58^th Street and 69^th Street from January 2018 to March 2019, which was obtained from local law enforcement), which indicated similar trends and patterns as the 2012 through 2016 data. Since the 2016 data was analyzed, several more fatal crashes have occurred on Main Street, particularly around the intersection at 54^th Street. The Highway Safety Manual predictive methodology confirms that the existing crash risk factors along Main Street will be exacerbated by additional travel

demand and the frequency of crashes will continue to increase over time if safety improvement are not implemented.

The majority of the crashes along the corridor were rear-end or turning crashes (80%), as shown in Figure 9. Both rear-end and turning movement crashes are common on corridors with a high density of access points and intersections, such as Main Street, but these crashes are

overrepresented on Main Street. The primary causes of all crashes on Main Street are shown in Figure 10.

FIGURE 9: CRASH TYPE (2012-2016)

FIGURE 10: PRIMARY CAUSES OF CRASHES ON MAIN STREET (2012-2016)

(33)

Other crash trends on Main Street include:

• Impairment from drugs or alcohol contributed to only five percent of overall crashes on Main Street but accounted for 12.5 percent of fatal or severe injury crashes.

• Excessive speed and distraction contributed to approximately 10 percent of all crashes but were involved in a small proportion of fatal and severe injury crashes (less than half a percent).

• Approximately 77 percent of crashes occurred during daylight and just 14 percent occurred in darkness. This reflects typical travel patterns throughout the day – more people are driving, biking, and walking on Main Street during daylight hours.

As shown in Figure 12 (pg. 34), the entire Main Street corridor experiences a high frequency of crashes with numerous fatal and serious injury (injury level A) crashes occurring along the segment. Clusters of crashes are observed near major intersections, areas with high access density, and areas with increased multimodal travel demand.

While crashes are spread throughout Main Street within the study area, the figure below (Figure 11) shows the intersections and segments on Main Street with a higher-than expected number of crashes. These locations include:

• Intersections:

o Main Street & 28^th Street

o Main Street & 32^nd Street

o Main Street & 41^st Street

o Main Street & 42^nd Street

• Segments:

o Main Street from 35^th Street to 45^th Street

o Main Street from 51^st Street to 54^th Street

FIGURE 11: INTERSECTIONS AND ROADWAY SEGMENTS WITH A HIGHER-THAN- EXPECTED NUMBER OF CRASHES (2012-2016)

(34)

FIGURE 12: FATAL AND INJURY CRASHES

Figure 12

(35)

To help understand the safety performance of intersection and segments along Main Street, several different safety measures were evaluated. The measures evaluated include:

• Highway Safety Manual (HSM) Predictive Method: The HSM Predictive Method

provides a means for understanding the safety performance of a segment, intersection, or corridor compared to the expected safety performance of a facility with the same

characteristics. This method includes excess crashes, which indicate how many more crashes occur on Main Street than is expected for a similar facility.

• ODOT Safety Priority Index (SPIS): SPIS identifies high-crash locations on all roadways in the state by evaluating the crash frequency, crash severity, and traffic

volume of a roadway in 0.10-mile increments. Top 10^th-percentile SPIS locations are those with SPIS scores that are higher than 90-percent of all statewide locations of that type, which are considered the highest priority locations for safety investigations and

treatments.

• Critical Crash Rates: This method compares the observed crash rate at each intersection to a “critical” or threshold value. In Oregon, the critical value is either based on statewide safety trends or trends at nearby locations with similar characteristics, if sufficient data is available. If the observed crash rate exceeds the associated critical crash rate, that location is flagged for further investigation.

• ARTS Evaluation: The ODOT All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) program aims to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes on all Oregon roads by using a data-driven process to identify, prioritize, and fund safety projects. In 2015, ODOT completed the first round of the ARTS program which utilized a consultant to identify hot-spot safety projects across the state and flagged locations on Main Street.

Tables 1 and 2 list which Main Street intersections and segments, respectively, were flagged as a concern in at least one of the performance measures listed above. There are several locations along Main Street that have a high-risk for crashes and warrant safety treatments, as indicated by being flagged by one or more safety measures.

(36)

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF STUDY INTERSECTIONS FLAGGED IN SAFETY EVALUATION

LOCATION (MAIN STREET INTERSECTION)

EXCEEDS EXPECTED

CRASH FREQUENCY

(HSM)

EXCESS CRASH

TYPES

SPIS LOCATION

EXCEEDS CRITICAL CRASH RATE

(ODOT)

ARTS LOCATION

INTERSECTIONS

28^TH STREET x x

30^TH STREET x x x

32^ND STREET x x x

36^TH STREET x x

41^ST STREET x x x x x

42^ND STREET x x x x

CHAPMAN LANE (NON-STUDY

INTERSECTION) x

48^TH STREET x

S. 51^ST STREET x x 53^RD STREET

(NON-STUDY

INTERSECTION) x

54^TH STREET x x x

BOB STRAUB

PKWY x x x x

58^TH STREET x x x

62^ND PLACE x x

69^TH STREET x x

71^ST STREET (NON-STUDY

INTERSECTION) x

Springfield Main Street (OR 126)