Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Cip topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bend outlines transportation work schedule, asks council to set priorities for GeoBond and CIP trade‑offs
Summary
City staff laid out a series of transportation work sessions and asked the subcommittee to consider trade‑offs between GeoBond priorities and the capital improvement program, emphasizing that funding and construction sequencing will require council direction to move projects into design and construction.
Russ Grayson and transportation staff briefed the Community Building Subcommittee on Aug. 11 about a sequence of council work sessions on transportation projects and funding priorities tied to the city’s GeoBond and transportation CIP.
Staff said the next 6–18 months will contain multiple decision points where council input on scope and sequencing will affect what the city designs and builds. "All things are connected," Grayson said, noting that moving one project forward can require pushing another project back because funding and construction capacity are limited.
Key topics and timing staff presented include:
- Reeder (Reading) intersection: an August 20 briefing will provide options and scope questions; staff said no decision will be requested on Aug. 20 but that council direction at the Oct. 8 session would help staff add the project to near‑term design if desired.
- Parking districts: a Sept. 10 briefing will present candidate districts (Old Bend east of Broadway, Jack‑Straw/Fox Factory area, Wood River Village, and OSU Cascades) and request prioritization for any district initiation under the new parking code process.
- Midtown Crossings: a Sept. 24 session will review Greenwood quick‑build survey results and discuss Franklin and Hawthorne corridor decisions; staff said the Greenwood quick‑build survey results will be at least one year old by then and that council will be asked whether to leave, revert or enhance current conditions.
- GeoBond funding and ODOT projects: staff said some GeoBond allocations — for example, the Murphy ramps and the Empire interchange — will not cover full construction costs and asked council to confirm whether to retain funds for future matching or reallocate to other priorities.
Staff asked council to consider trade‑off scenarios: for example, accelerating one major corridor (such as Reeder or a roundabout on Century Drive) requires identifying which other projects would be delayed. Council members asked for clearer mapping between the Transportation System Plan (TSP) project lists and current GeoBond/CIP items, and for "if‑then" scenarios that show consequences of prioritizing particular projects.
Subcommittee members also raised public‑safety concerns tied to design choices and construction sequencing — including ensuring fire and emergency response routes are preserved during construction — and suggested staff present crash‑data and safety‑benefit analyses for candidate projects.
Staff said they will prepare more detailed, easy‑read CIP summaries that show near‑term/mid‑term/long‑term projects, funding sources and how GeoBond dollars have been allocated and spent. They also said they will surface programmatic options (for example, a mix of capital and non‑capital programs to reduce congestion) and the potential need for additional operating or program funding for mode‑shift and demand‑management strategies.
Staff requested council guidance at the October sessions so staff can finalize scopes and sequencing for key GeoBond and CIP projects and determine whether to move any projects into design or construction windows in 2025–26.
