HomeMy WebLinkAboutDowntown Transportation Plan
í
/;
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
":1~
cMt CITY Of'~t~"
endz;nu '\
~ IDAHO l
/> j}/
~ p
OS' (j, /"
~.(Ì\'~
~"'ll .,,{
"""~,Tf1fO,~$UW, '{~~ , 5mCE
.~ ",~,- 1\1903
CITY HALL
(208) 888-4433 - Fa]{ 887-4813
PUBLIC WORKS
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
(208) 887-2211 - Fax 898-9551
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Keith Bird
ChJ:istine Donnell
Shaun Wardle
Charles M. Rountree
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208) 888-4433
STAFF REPORT:
City Council Hearing Date: July 26, 2005
Transmittal Date: July 20, 2005
To:
Mayor and City Council
RECEIVED
JUL 2 1 2005
From:
Steve Siddoway
Transportation Coordinator
Subject:
Downtown Meridian Transportation Management Plan
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Overview:
On Tuesday, July 26, 2005, the Meridian City Council will hold a public hearing on the
proposed Downtown Meridian Transportation Management Plan (DMTMP). The proposed
plan recommends the 'Split Corridor' as the best option to balance the needs of both
moving traffic and revitalizing downtown. Per the City Council's request, the Planning and
Zoning Commission reviewed the DMTMP at their meeting on July 7, 2005. The motion to
recommend approval of the plan, with the Split Corridor as the preferred option, was
approved unanimously by the Commission.
This staff report reviews public involvement, the process background, Multi-Criteria
Evaluation, and summarizes the analysis results. A full copy of the plan and all public
comments received were transmitted to the Mayor and Council previously.
Public Involvement:
Four public meetings have been held to date: September 30, 2004; November 16, 2004;
January 19,2005; and May 18, 2005. The first public meeting coincidentally occurred on the
evening of the f1rst Presidential debate. Though it was not well attended, participation was
positive from those who came. Purposes of the meeting were to inform the public of
current conditions, describe the planning process and outline six alternative transportation
solutions.
The second public meeting focused on familiarizing participants with details of the three
finalist alternatives. It was widely publicized to encourage participation and a count shortly
after the meeting began identified 122 people present. Discussion was spirited and many
people expressed frustration with the current circulation system. All in attendance except
one agreed that change is needed. Over the course of the meeting, participants became
increasingly engaged, constructive and positive. The meeting facilitator encouraged
1
participants to further express their thoughts in writing so that their ideas could be recorded
for consideration by City and ACHD leaders. Over forty people did so at the meeting.
Their comments are in the plan as Appendix 3a. Staff recommends that the Council review
all of the statements to get a better sense of public response to the presentation.
The third public meeting in January was held to present the Split Corridor as the preferred
alternative. It was also well attended, with just under 100 people at the presentation.
Written public comments from the meeting were also compiled and included in the full plan
as Appendix 4. Originally, this was intended to be the last workshop; however in April
ACHD revised the cost estimates for all alternatives upward and it was decided that the new
information needed to be taken back to the public for review and comment.
Thus, a fourth public meeting was held in open house format to present the revised cost
estimates along with ideas for phasing the Split Corridor. Attendance was not taken, as
people were able to come and go at any time during the evening, but the open house was
also wcll attended. Written comments from the May meeting were compiled and submitted
to the Mayor and Council with a separate cover memo dated July 14 for your review and
consideration.
Throughout the process, a Steering Team was also involved in reviewing and making
recommendations to the project. The Steering Team included a diverse array of interests,
including the City of Meridian, ACHD, MDC, Chamber of Commerce, Compass, ITD,
Police Dept., Valley Regional Transit, and the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission.
Process Background:
This project has been an outstanding partnership between the City, ACHD, and the project
Steering Team. The collaborative process, including extensive public involvement, has
resulted in moving from a list of about fourteen transportation management alternatives to
six semi-fl11alists; and then from six to three finalist alternatives. The three finalist
alternatives received a very thorough analysis through a process known as Multi-Criteria
Evaluation (MCE). After much analysis and discussion, a preferred alternative, known as
the Split Corridor, was selected for the plan.
How did we come to select the Split Corridor as the preferred alternative? The MCE
method uses goals and priorities as criteria to measure the relative merits of different
alternatives. First, relevant City and ACHD (Ada County Highway District) goals were
identified in existing documents (e.g., Comprehensive Plan). Then, the project Steering
Team collaborated to identify other project goals that should be considered and to weight
the goals according to their relative priority. Generally, the Team organized goals into three
categories: Community Priorities, Transportation Priorities, and Fiscal Priorities.
The evaluation criteria and their relative weighting! are:
! Steering Team members were asked to distribute 100 points among the 22 criteria. The more important
anyone criterion, the more points it should receive. Scoring from each of the members was then totaled
and averaged. This democratically derived final (average) score reflects the combined insights of people
with a variety of backgrounds and specialty knowledge.
2
Transportation Priorities
»- Compatible with current & probable uses / zoning
»- Integrates adequately with regional transportation network
»- Reduces traffic congestion
»- Enhances circulation in all cardinal directions
»- Provides for reasonable traffic flow & progression
»- Provides adequate capacity for next 20 years
)0- Minimizes traffic diversion
)0- Allows for reasonable pedestrian flow and safety
Community Priorities
)0- Compatible with community vision and probable land uses
)0- Encourages strategic development of downtown as the
heart of Meridian
»- Compatible with Downtown as a pedestrian-oriented
community center
)0- Fosters multi-modal lifestyles
)0- Fosters environmental quality
)0- Provides high potential for public acceptance and use
)0- Allows for emergency vehicle access and routing
)0- Accommodates parking and commercial deliveries
)0- Minimizes impacts to historic structures
Fiscal Priorities
)0- Compatible with reasonable maintenance costs
)0- Compatible with reasonable construction costs
)0- Provides for Phased Implementation
Score
3
9
3
3
6
6
3
3
7
7
5
3
2
7
3
5
3
9
5
6
How Multi-Criteria Evaluation Works: (Skip this section of you are familiar with MCE)
In the real world, choices are complicated by the presence of multiple and diverse goals.
Multi-Criteria Evaluation is an analytic system that helps decision-makers compare
alternatives using a range of typically incomparable criteria (e.g., cost, square feet, number of
people, time, etc.). The fltst step in this process is to identify goals, or 'criteria', to be used in
the evaluation. The priorities listed above are such criteria.
The second step is to determine means to measure performance of each alternative against
each criterion. There are many ways to measure performance. Sometimes decision-makers
are well served with measures as simple as 'yes-no.' Often, more detailed measures can
provide a greater depth of insight (e.g., square feet, total dollars). For the Downtown
Meridian project, a mix of such measures has been used. Each measure needs to be
expressed in quantitative terms. Even with Yes-No situations, <Yes' becomes a one and 'No'
becomes a zero. Partial fulfillment in such situations can be stated as a fraction between
zero and one.
In the third step, the value of Multi-criteria Evaluation (MCE) becomes most clear.
Ordinarily, such things as dollars cannot be compared to square feet. With MCE,
3
performance measures for all alternatives are totaled for each criterion. An average is then
calculated. Individual measures for each alternative are compared to the average in terms of
its variance from the average. This is called "normalizing the score." At this stage, measures
from diverse criteria are now in a comparable form.
In the fourth step, normalized scores are multiplied by a weighting factor that expresses their
relative importance. Again, this reflects the real world where different goals (criteria) have
varying levels of importance. In MCE, to obtain these weights, one hundred points are
distributed among the criteria. The higher the importance of a criterion, the more points it
gets (c. f., Footnote 1). The individual weighted and normalized measures are totaled for
each alternative to derive a comparable performance score. Generally, the higher the score,
the better an alternative addresses the collective criteria.
Results:
The results of the MCE scoring are summarized in the following table:
Alternative
1. Split Corridor
2. Widen Meridian
3. One-Way Couplet
4. Base Condition
Cost
$11.6 M
$11.7 M
$8.1 M
$0
Score
74
58
47
29
These scores measure relative performance and are useful only in comparing one alternative
to another. No "perfect" score is possible or implied.
In brief, the Split Corridor performs the best among all criteria. The Widen Meridian
alternative also addresses the Community priorities better than the One-Way Couplet. All
alternatives perform substantially better than the Base Condition (which relies exclusively on
regional transportation improvements to address program criteria).
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the Downtown Meridian Transportation Management Plan,
with the Split Corridor as the preferred alternative. F or many years the City has been in a
debate between the one-way couplet and widening Meridian Road. We have found a
solution that combines the best components of both other options and meets the needs for
both traffic flow and downtown revitalization. We look forward to a productive discussion
with the Mayor, Council, and the public about this plan.
4
Attachments:
Attached to this report include:
1. The Multi-Criteria Evaluation matrices (parts 1-3)
2. MDC Resolution 05-017 approving the Downtown Meridian Transportation
Management Plan
3. Meridian Chamber of Commerce letter, dated April 5, 2005
4. Steering Team Memo showing unanimous support for the Split Corridor
5
PART 1: CfRCULA TlON AL TERNA TlVES' RAW SCORES FOR EACH TRA NSPOR TA nON MANAGEMENT GOAL
May 16, 2005 Base ABC
Widen Split
Couplet I Merid'n Corridor I Measure
Category
Goa IslC riteria
A. Transportation Impacts
Ai Integrates adequately with the regional transportation network
A2 Minimizes congestion by providing for reasonable traffic flow and capacity
A2.1 Average Major Intersection Delay (seclveh)
A2.1 a CentraVMai n/Merid ian
A2.1 b Franklin/Main
A2.1 c Fran klin/Merid ian
A2. 1 d F airview/Ma in
A2.1 e Fairview/Cherry/Meridian
TOTAL
A2.2 Total Corridor Delay - Main and Meridian Only (hr) PM Peak Hour
A3 Preserves opportunities for longer-term community development goals
A3.1 North End
A3.2 South End
A4 Appropriately distributes regional traffic while accommodating local traffic
A5 Promotes a safe pedestrian friendly environment
A6 Provides connections and signage to enhance circulation in all directions
A7 Accommodates multi-modal (multiple modes of) transportation
B. Community Impacts.
81 Compatible with community vision and probable land uses
82 Encourages strategic development of downtown as the heart of Meridian
83 Compatible with Downtown as a pedestrian-oriented community center
84 Fosters multi-modal lifestyles
85 Fosters environmental quality
B6 Provides high potential for public acceptance and use
B7 Allows for emergency vehicle access and routing
B8 Accommodates parking and commercial deliveries
89 Minimizes impacts to historic structures
89.1 Structures on State or National Register of Historic Places
89.2 Potential Historic Structures Listed by Local Historical Society
C. Fiscal Impacts
C1 Compatible with reasonable project costs
C1.1 Roadway construction cost
C 1.2 Rig ht -of-Way acq u isition cost
C1.3 Number of structures impacted
C 1. 3a Com mercia I structu res
C 1.3 b Res idential structu res
CiA \jumber of parcels impacted
C2 Compatible with reasonable maintenance costs
C3 Provides for phased implementation
".
0.50
157.30
36.90
47.40
24.80
39.20
305.60
526.00
0.00
0.50
0.50
0.25
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.25
0.50
916.00
0.00
1.00
0.50
0
0
1.00
31.90
25.70
20.70
34.90
22.40
135.60
215.00
0.00
1.00
0.75
0.50
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.25
0.75
667.00
0.50
0.75
1.00
0
0
0
0
6.35
1,75
0
0
0
1
1.0
0
0
15
1
0.75
1.00
30.00
22.20
92.50
15.00
51.80
211.50
554.00
1 .00 I Yes/Partially/No
35.00 Seconds per Vehicle
29.10 Seconds per Vehicle
23.60 Seconds per Vehicle
15.70 Seconds per Vehicle
54.80 Seconds per Vehicle
158.20 Seconds per Vehicle
296.00 Hours, All Vehicles
1.00
0.50
0.75
0.50
1.00
1.00
0.75
1.00
1.00
1.00
925.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 Yes/Partially/No
1.00 Yes/Partially/No
0.75 Yes/Partially/No
0.75 Yes/Partially/No
1.00 Yes/Partially/No
1.00 Yes/Partially/No
1.00 Yes/Partially/No
1.00 Yes/Partially/No
1.00 Yes/Partially/No
1.00 Yes/Partially/No
729.00 Peak Hour Fuel Corlsumed, Gals
1.00 Yes/Partially/No
0.75 Yes/Partially/No
1,00 Yes/Partially/No
a
3
6.23
5.44
20
25
100
1
0.25
0
3
Number of Structures
Number of Structures
7.291 Millions of Dollars
4.30 Millions of Dollars
15 Commercial Structures
30 Residential Structures
65 Parcels Impacted
1 Yes/Partially/No
0.5 Yes/Partially/No
PART 2: CfRCULA TION AL TERNA TlVES' NORMALIZED RAW SCORES FOR EACH TRANSPORTA TlON MANAGEMENT GOAL
13-Jan-O5 Base A B C
Category I Widen Split
G oals/C riteria Couplet Merid'n Corridor I Average
A. Transportation Impacts
A 1 Integrates adequately with the regional transportation network 1 1 0.571 1.141 1.141 1.141 0.88
A2 Minimizes congestion by providing for reasonable traffic flow and capacity
A2.1 Average Major Intersection Delay (seclveh) I I -1.511 -0.671 -1.041 -0.781 202.73
A2.2 Total Corridor Delay - Main and Meridian Only (hr) PM Peak Hour -1.32 -0.54 -1.39 -0.74 397.75
A3 Preserves opportunities for longer-term community development goals
A3.1 North End 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.50
A3.2 South End 0.67 1.33 0.67 1.33 0.75
A4 Appropriately distributes regional traffic while accommodating local traffic 0.73 1.09 1.09 1.09 0.69
A5 Promotes a safe pedestrian friendly environment 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.50 0.50
A6 Provides connections and signage to enhance circulation in all directions 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
A7 Accommodates multi-modal (multiple modes of) transportation 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS SUBTOTAL, UNWEIGHTED SCORE 1.64 5.36 5.46 7.54
B. Community Impacts
81 Compatible with community vision and probable land uses 0.73 0.73 1.09 1.45 0.69
82 Encourages strategic development of downtown as the heart of Meridian 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.50
83 Compatible with Downtown as a pedestrian-oriented community center 0.40 0.40 1.60 1.60 0.63
84 Fosters multi-modal lifestyles 0.62 0.92 1.23 1.23 0.81
85 Fosters environmental quality -1.13 -0.82 -1.14 -0.90 809.25
86 Provides high potential for public acceptance and use 0.00 0.80 1.60 1.60 0.63
87 Allows for emergency vehicle access and routing 1.14 0.86 1.14 0.86 0.88
88 Accommodates parking and commercial deliveries 0.57 1.14 1.14 1.14 0.88
89 Minimizes impacts to historic structures .
89.1 Structures on State or National Register of Historic Places 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo¡ 0.00
89.2 Potential Historic Structures Listed by Local Historical Society 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 1.50
COMMUNITY IMPACTS SUBTOTAL, UNWEIGHTED SCORE 2.33 4.03 10.66 10.98
C. Fiscal Impacts
C1 Compatible with reasonable project costs
C 1. 1 Roadway construction cost I I 0.001 -1.281 -1.251 -1.471 4.97
C1.2 Right-of-Way acquisition cost 0.00 -0.61 -1.89 -1.50 2.87
C1.3 Number of structures impacted
C1.3a Commercial structures 0.00 0.00 -2.29 -1.71 8.75
C1.3b Residential structures 0.00 0.00 -1.82 -2.18 13.75
CiA Number of parcels impacted 0.00 -0.33 -2.22 -1.44 45.00
C2 Compatible with reasonable maintenance costs 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
C3 Provides for phased implementation 1.60 1.20 0.40 0.80 0.63
FISCAL IMPACTS SUBTOTAL, UNWEIGHTED SCORE 2.60 -0.02 -8.07 -6.50
TOTAL UNWEIGHTED SCORE 6.56 9.36 8.05 12.02
PART 3: CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES' WEIGHTED, NORMALIZED SCORES FOR EACH TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT GOAL
13-Jan-O5 8ase A 8 C
Category !weight Widen Split
G oals/Crite ria Couplet Merid'n Corridor
A. Transportation Impacts
A 1 Integ rates adequately with the reg ional transportation network I 31 1.711 3.431 3.431 3.43
A2 Minimizes congestion by providing for reasonable traffic flow and capacity
A2.1 Average Major Intersection De!ay (sec/veh) I 5.51 -8.291 -3.681 -5.741 -4.29
A2.2 Total Corridor Delay - Main and Meridian Only (hr) PM Peak Hour 5.5 -7.27 -2.97 -7.66 -4.09
A3 Preserves opportunities for longer-term community development goals
A3. 1 North End 3 0.00 0.00 6.00 6.00
A3.2 South End 3 2.00 4.00 2.00 4.00
A4 Appropriately distributes regional traffic while accommodating local traffic 6 4.36 6.55 6.55 6.55
A5 Promotes a sate pedestrian friendly environment 6 3.00 6.00 6.00 9.00
A6 Provides connections and signage to enhance circulation in all directions 3 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
A7 Accommodates multi-modal (multiple modes of) transportation 3 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
TRAN SPORT A TION IMPACTS S U 8TOT AL, WEIGHTED SCORE 1.51 19.32 16.58 26.59
B. Community Impacts
B1 Compatible with community vision and probable land uses 7 5.09 5.09 7.64 10.18
B2 Encourages strategic development of downtown as the heart of Meridian 7 0.00 0.00 14.00 14.00
B3 Compatible with Downtown as a pedestrian-oriented community center 5 2.00 2.00 8.00 8.00
B4 Fosters multi-modal lifestyles 3 1.85 2.77 3.69 3.69
B5 Fosters environmental quality 2 -2.26 -1.65 -2.29 -1,80
B6 Provides high potential for public acceptance and use 7 0.00 5.60 11.20 11,20
B7 Allows for emergency vehicle access and routing 3 3.43 2.57 3.43 2.57
B8 Accommodates parking and commercial deliveries 5 2.86 5.71 5.71 5.71
B9 Minimizes impacts to historic structures
B9.1 Structures on State or National Register of Historic Places 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
89.2 Potential Historic Structures Listed by Local Historical Society 1 0.00 0.00 -2.00 -2.00
COMMUNITY IMPACTS SUBTOTAL, WEIGHTED SCORE 12.96 22.10 49.39 51.56
C. Fiscal Impacts
C1 Compatible with reasonable project costs
C 1.1 Roadway construction cost I ~I 0.001 -5.111 -5.021 -5.87
C1.2 Right-at-Way acquisition cost 0.00 -1.83 -5.68 -4.49
C 1.3 Number of structures impacted
C 1. 3a Com me rcial structu res 1 0,00 0.00 -2.29 -1.71
C 1. 3b Reside ntial structures 0.5 0.00 0.00 -0.91 -1.09
C 1.4 Number of parcels impacted 0.5 0.00 -0.17 -1.11 -0.72
C2 Compatible with reasonable maintenance costs 5 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
C3 Provides for p_hased implementation 6 9.60 7.20 2.40 4.80
FISCAL IMPACTS SUBTOTAL, WEIGHTED SCORE 14.60 5.09 -7.61 -4.09
TOTAL WEIGHTED, NORMALIZED SCORE 29.07 46.51 58.35 74.06
, MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
TIlE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
/I II Jr:wQd... 'j IJ 2/05
'1.- q .. RESOLUTION NO. 05-017
BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY OF
MERIDIAN, IDAHO, AlKJA THE MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION:
A RESOLUTION OF TIlE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE
URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, APPROVING
THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE HUDSON REPORT
RELATING TO THE DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN 1RANSPORTATION
MANAGEMENT PLAN; DIRECTING THE CHAIRMAN OR
ADMINISTRATOR TO DIS1RIBum TInS RESOLUTION TO ANY
INTERESTED PERSONS OR ENTITlES AND TO PROVIDE
LEITERS OF SUPPORT FOR THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
OF 1HE TRANSPORTATION STUDY; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
THIS RESOLUTION, made on the date hereinafter set forth by the Urban Renewal
Agency of the City of Meridian, Idaho, an independent public body corporate and politic,
authœized -under the authority of the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, as amended, Chapter
20, Title 50, Idaho Code, a duly created and funcûoning urban renewal agency of the City of
Meridian, Idaho, hereinafter referred to as the "MDC."
WHEREAS, the MDC, an independent public body, corporate and politic, is an urban
renewal agency created by and existing under the authority of and pursuant to the Idaho Urban
Renewal Law of 1965, being Idaho Code title 50, chapter 20, as amended and supplemented, and
the Local Economic DeVelopment Act of 1988, being Idaho Code, title SO, chapter 29, as
amended and supplemented (collectively the II Act");
WHEREAS, the MDC was established by Resolution No. 01-367 of the City Council of
the City of Meridian, Idaho (hereinafter the "City Counci1j, adopted July 24" 2001;
WHEREAS, the City of Meridian, Idaho (hereinafter the "City"), is a public entity,
organized and operating pursuant to Title 50, Idaho Code, as a.mended and supplemm;ated;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho (1he "City"), on October 8,
2002, after notice duly published, conducted a public hearing on the Meridian Revitalization
Plan (the "Revitalization Plan");
WHEREAS, following said public hearing the City adopted its Ordinance No. 02.987 on
December 3, 2002, approving the Revitalization Plan and mAlcine certain fincHnes;
WHEREAS, the City of Meridian and the Ada County Highway District ("ACHD"). with
the concurrence of the MDC Board, jointly retained a consultant group headed by the Hudson
Company (the "Consultant") to conduct the Downtown Meridian Transportation Management
RESOLUTION NO. OS.1L-.1 ~SWdyfiadiaplp n'4J)
"'-""-""""""""-"-----"'-"~"
Plan (the "'Transportation Plan"), reviewing several transportation planning alternatives for
routing traffic through the City of Meridian, including 1ransportation routes which traverse
through the Revitalization Plan area;
WHEREAS, the MDC Administrator and certain Board members have been involved in
the Transportation Plan to examine transportation routing and alternative vehicle movements;
WHEREAS. the Consultant has presented the prelimin9'Y findings at several MDC Board
meetings, including the meetings of December 15,2004. and January 19.2005;
WHEREAS, at the January 19, 2005 meetiDg the MDC Board conceptually endorsed the
preferred transportation alternative, subject to the several pJRllninf meetings and public sessions
scheduled to review the proposed conclusions;
2005;
WHEREAS, the MDC Board has reviewed the information compiled since January 19.
WHEREAS. the Consultant has prepared and submitted its findings in a report entitled
the Hudson Report (the "Hudson Report") to the Board of Directors; and has requested the Board
provide a statement of support for the Hudson Report;
WHEREAS. the Board ofDùectors finds it is in the best public interest to approve the
findings and conclusions in the Hudson Report
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, A!KI A
TIIE MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
That the above statements are 1lue and correct.
Section 2: That the MDC Board finds the proposed preferred alternative for traffic
routes through the Revitalization Plan as outlined in the Hudson Report ( a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference). provides the best
development opportunity throughout the Revitalizaûon Plan area and meets the objectives set
forth in the Revitalization Plan.
Section 3: That the MDC Board hereby endorses and supports the finding.,; and
conclusions of the Hudson Report.
Section 4: That the MDC Chairman and Secretary are hereby authorized to take steps
necessary to formally distribute copies of this Resolution evidencing MDC' s support of the
Hudson Report to interested persons or entities, and to provide letters of support for the findings
and conclusions of the Hudson Report.
Section 5: That this resolution sba11 be in full force and effect immediately upon its
adoption and approval.
RESOLUfION NO. 05--ÚU.- - 2
~1UmS/naDS Study fiadiøaa 1 pM1I4I)
þ
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Urban Renewal Agency of the City ofM~
Idaho, alkJa the Meridian Development Corpoœtion, on March 30, 2005. Signed by the
Chairman of the Board of Commissioners, and attested by the Secretary to the Board of
Commissioners. on this 9th day of March 2005.
ATTEST:
By
Secretary
RESOLUTION NO. 05-Jll.. - 3
APPROVED:
By
Chairman
(Moricü~ SlUdy liadÎ1188 appnlYlli)
/f~Wi
tt"~., CHA~BER
~ COMMERCE
215 E. Franklin Rd., Meridian, ID 83642
888-2817 if fax: 888-2682
AprilS, 2005
The Honorable Tammy de Weerd
Meridian City Council
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ill 83642
Dear Mayor de Weerd and Council Members,
The Meridian Chamber of Commerce Board is very interested in the City's solution to
downtown Meridian traffic. Upon reviewing all of the City's presentations the membership and
our Joint Government AffairsÆconomic Development Committee, and after attending various
public meetings on the suggested traffic alternatives, the Chamber is taking the following
position.
We support the split corridor option as a long-term solution to downtown traffic
congestion; however, because this project will not be complete for at least 5 years, the on-
going vitality of the Meridian business community requires an immediate solution that
provides relief in the interim. We call on the City and ACBD to address this interim
solution, which includes detailed plans of the FairviewIMainIMeridian intersections.
With the continuing positive redevelopment of downtown, and our ever increasing population
and traffic congestion, solutions need to be found soon to ensure that we have a vibrant
downtown core that people will want to visit. We urge you to continue the good work you have
begun in making this a reality. The Chamber is ready and willing to assist you towards this goal.
Sincerely,
Robert Chandler
President
Downtown Merid ian
Transportation Plan
Memo
1"0; Meridian City Council
Ada County Highway District Commission
From: Steering Committee
Dat8; May 11 , 2005
Rs
Preferred Alternative for Downtown Meridian Traffic
The Steering Committee supports the process and results of the Downtown Meridian
Transportation Management Plan. We established evaluation criteria that consider three
different types of impacts: transportation, community, and fiscal. We used these criteria and
public input to narrow our evaluation from fourteen to six to three altematives. The top three
alternatives then received in~depth analyses over the past several months. Through these
analyses, we have conduded that the 'Split Conidor' option along Main StreetlMeridian
Road best meets the combined transportation and community needs of the City of Meridian.
We understand that there are still many unresolved issues conceming implementation and
funding related to constructing the corridor. We encourage the Meridian City Council and
Ada County Highway District Commissioners to work together to further refine the design of
the corridor and to resolve the funding issues.
Thank you for your consideration,
Steering Committee
Committee Members:
Steve Siddoway Bruce Mills
Anna Canning Teny Little
Linda Rupe Teny Smith
David Zaremba Kelli Fairless
Charles Trainor
Sue Sullivan
Capt. John Overton