Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item - 2002-12-03 - Number 5.3 - CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 5.3 AM AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY 12/03/02 MEETING DATE: December 3, 2002 SUBJECT: Stafford Road and Rosemont Road Update on the Clackamas County Intersection Project RECOMMENDED MOTION: None, for discussion only EST. FISCAL ATTACHMENTS: NOTICED (Date): IMPACT: • Schmitz memo of 26 November STAFF COST: $ Ordinance no.: BUDGETED: Y N Resolution no.: FUNDING SOURCE: Previous Council consideration: '4 CITY L1NAGER signoff/date ``S• OE LAKE OSkECO CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE groW MEMORANDUM OREGO$ TO: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor Members of the City Council FROM: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager SUBJECT: Stafford Road and Rosemont Road DATE: 26 November 2002 BACKGROUND Clackamas County is considering the construction of traffic roundabouts at Borland and Stafford Roads and at Rosemont and Stafford Roads. A meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, 26 November, for a discussion amongst traffic engineers of the Rosemont-Stafford proposal. Tom Tushner, Traffic Engineer, will be in attendance at that meeting and will present information to the Council on Tuesday morning,3 December. (Mr. Tushner will be attending the meeting on Tuesday, 26 November. Due to the printing schedule for the Council packet and the timing of the meeting, information received at the meeting cannot be placed in the packet.) The purpose of placing this on the agenda next Tuesday morning is to provide the Council with information regarding the County's decision-making process and to receive Council policy guidance on the proposal. 23 S 3 Apt? 1�OELAKEo io ` Community Development Department Al iii Engineering Division Memorandum OREGO$ TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager FROM: Tom Tushner, Assistant City Engineer RE: Stafford Road and Rosemont Road Intersection Clackamas County HEP (Hazard Elimination Program) project DATE: December 2, 2002 On November 26, 2002 I was invited to attend a meeting with Clackamas County's engineering staff to discuss their HEP project at the Stafford Road and Rosemont Road intersection. The following is a summary of that meeting along with some background on this project. Background This intersection first came to my attention in July of 2000 when it was suggested by a County Commissioner that an "All-Way Stop" be installed at this intersection. At an August 9, 2000 Clackamas County Board of Commissioner's study session this issue was discussed. The pursuit of the "All-Way Stop" was dropped after Lake Oswego's City Council sent a letter on October 9, 2000 requesting that the decision be shelved until funds could be found to construct the improvements in the County's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The County's CIP showed a$1.5 million dollar project. The project was envisioned as an intersection improvement that included turn lanes and a signal. In August of 2001 I received a copy of an ODOT prospectus for the intersection as a part of a Hazard Elimination Program (HEP) project from the County. The County, in working with ODOT, had secured a grant for $500,000 (the maximum allowed under the HEP program) to address the safety issues at the intersection. I sent the County comments on the prospectus. The project at that time was for a signal and addition of turn lane improvements. In March of 2002 the City began work on the 2002 Street of Dreams. The County was contacted regarding impacts to its road system in general and specifically regarding this intersection. The County did not request that conditions be levied on Atherton Heights to improve the intersection, but the County did ask that Atherton Heights provide flaggers at the intersection for the duration of the Street of Dreams. Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager December 2, 2002 Page 2 of 3 Stafford Road and Rosemont Road Intersection Clackamas County HEP (Hazard Elimination Program) project In July of 2002 I inquired as to the project status and at that time, the County stated it thought that an optimistic project schedule was for the improvements to be constructed in the summer of 2003. More realistically it was anticipated that the project would occur in summer of 2004. A meeting was set up with County staff in July, but the County because of some undefined issues that arose surrounding the project canceled the meeting. At an October 3, 2002 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) meeting with the County I inquired as to the project status. I was informed that the County was looking at a roundabout for this intersection. I requested a copy of their feasibility study. On October 28, 2002 I sent comments to the County (copy attached) regarding the roundabout feasibility report. On November 22, 2002 I was contacted by County staff and asked to attend a meeting regarding the public involvement on this project. The County stated that it had deliberated internally and decided to do a roundabout and wanted to know what needed to be done as far as public involvement was concerned. November 26,2002 Meeting Summary On November 26, 2002 I attended a meeting with the County's staff regarding the HEP project. I was the only non-County person at the meeting. I had requested that County staff invite West Linn representatives but none were present. The County's staff at the meeting was all project management and engineering representatives. Issues discussed: 1) Project- County presented its latest concept for the project, which is to build a single lane roundabout with the HEP funds. A discussion ensued about how that decision was made. County related that the roundabout was safer, cheaper, required less right- of-way (overall) and was more efficient from a traffic operations perspective. We discussed some design options, I asked them for an analysis of project alternatives to address issues such as; added capacity, cost, right-of-way impacts, and safety. 2) Schedule-County presented a schedule. The County stated that in order to secure the funding for this project it needed to start survey work for this project within the next couple of weeks. Project funds need to be obligated by September of 2003. I asked them to investigate the repercussions of not meeting the September 2003 deadline for obligation of the funds. A couple of key dates; Plans Specifications & Estimate to Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager December 2, 2002 Page 3 of 3 Stafford Road and Rosemont Road Intersection Clackamas County HEP (Hazard Elimination Program) project ODOT by April 28, 2003, bid opening August 28, 2003 and obligation of funds by September of 2003. 3) Public Involvement- The County had a rough outline for what it thought the public involvement process should be. A long discussion ensued of what the process should/was required to be. I related to the County what Lake Oswego's normal public process would be for a project: three public meetings, followed by a presentation to TAB and finally a presentation to City Council. 4) Funding- The County's CIP currently shows this to be a $1.5 million dollar project. The County's estimate for a roundabout is at$750,000. They have projected $500,000 from the HEP fund. I reminded them of the IGA that was supposed to entered into with West Linn as a result of the Tanner Basin development whereby the development was obligated to contribute, based upon their impact (documentation shows that 12.4%), to the intersection. This should generate a contribution of approximately $90,000, leaving a project shortfall of$160,000. I asked how the County intended to fund the remainder of the project. The staff was not clear as to where the funds would come from, but eluded that Gas Tax or Road Fund dollars would be allocated to help meet the shortfall. The discussion then shifted to Lake Oswego's contribution. The County would like to see Lake Oswego do some or all of the following: Landscaping - pay for and maintain the landscaping for this project; Match Contribution - contribute a "share" of the match for this safety related project; and finally Right-of-Way - since two of the four corners are owned by Lake Oswego, the County would like to see the City contribute the right-of-way to the project. At meetings end I related to the County's staff that I would like to see them follow up on the comparative analysis for the project alternatives and provide me with ODOT's response to not meeting the September of 2003 deadline. They requested that I get back to them with a response as to what the City would require for the public involvement process for this project. I asked that they provide me with a written request and related to them that the requirements would probably differ based upon some of the above issues such as funding and right-of-way requirements. c: Joel Komarek, City Engineer Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Director Attachment: October 28, 2002 e-mail Tom Tushner to Clackamas County H\TOM_T\Junsdichons\Clackamas County\Stafford-Rosemont memo 11-25-02 DOC Tushner, Tom From: Tushner, Tom Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 11:02 AM To: Chris Christofferson (E-mail) Cc: Komarek, Joel; Schmitz, Doug; Thomas, Joshua O O Subject: Stafford/Rosemont Roundabout Feasibility Study Chris I finally got around to reviewing Kittelson's October 1, 2002 DRAFT Technical Memorandum for the Stafford/Rosemont Roundabout Feasibility Study. I would offer the following comments for your consideration: 1) Bikes - It should be noted that both Stafford and Rosemont are shown as bike facilities on the City's TSP. 2) Stafford Road Ultimate Number of Lanes- Kittelson shows that a five-lane section is necessary on Stafford Road. I realize that there has been an on-going discrepancy between the City and the County's TSP's for Stafford Road, but I am wondering if the added lane is driven by the link or node capacity. Did this report take into account any potential changes that might occur as a result of the plans for the Stafford/Borland intersection? 3) Comparative Analysis -The Project Prospectus submitted to ODOT for a signal reflected a three lane section was adequate for this intersection. Was there a comparative analysis done of a signal versus a roundabout. While I like the idea of a roundabout because of the potential advantages of roundabouts, a comparative analysis would be the best way to provide the information upon which to base this decision. Things that I think should be included in the comparative analysis are: Cost, Right-of-way, impact to bike and ped, capacity, operations, public acceptance,.... 4) Imbalance- I am concerned about the imbalance and the potential for safety and/or operational problems. The Atherton Heights leg is extremely light in comparison to the Stafford Road volumes. I didn't see this addressed in the report. 5) Public Involvement-As noted above, since roundabouts are new to the area I think that it is critical for there to be a public involvement program to educate and inform the public of the alternatives being considered. I have included a copy of this e-mail to the City's Citizen Information Coordinator, Josh Thomas (503)635-0257. I would suggest that you contact Josh for advice on the public involvement portion of this project. It will be essential for this project to be presented to both the LO Transportation Advisory Board and City Council. 6) Landscaping- Probably premature since the project is not at the design stage, but the City is concerned about the aesthetics of either a signal or a roundabout and would like to have input into the landscape design. 7) Funding -As you get deeper into the design portion of the project it will be critical for us to discuss the funding issue. An IGA will need to be prepared if funds are anticipated from LO. As we discuss funding we can look at what other jurisdictions are contributing and examine what elements LO is responsible for or willing to assume. There maybe opportunity to work out some exchanges of right-of-way and maintenance responsibility for hard dollar contributions. Thanks for letting me comment. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Tom Tushner, PE Assistant City Engineer City of lake Oswego Post Office Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 (503)675-3990 (503)635-0269 FAX ttushner@ci.oswego.or.us 1