Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Eugene weekly. (Eugene, Oregon) 1993-current | View Entire Issue (March 27, 2003)
Jaqua says the noise and light pollution from the big development will “take away the present serenity of the starry night sky.” Critics point to specific language in local and state planning documents calling for protection of such riverside natural areas. PeaceHealth says it plans to comply with any laws protecting the riparian area and any ecological threat is “based wholly on specula- tion.” Building along the river could be hazardous to the hospital as well. PeaceHealth says its “ex- haustive analysis” of river flooding in the area shows that the proposed facility won’t violate state, local and federal rules against building in the floodplain. But Michael Hughes, a hydrologist consult- ant hired by CHOICES, says errors and poten- tial errors in PeaceHealth’s flood analysis “makes the subject property vulnerable to cata- strophic flooding, even if flood protection or mitigation is provided.” Hughes says efforts to elevate the hospital and other structures above anticipated floods are “likely to significantly” increase flooding on lower parts of the site and adjacent properties. The Endangered Species Act protection of fish in the river “is likely to make the dredge and fill activities needed for development difficult to permit.” to medical office buildings. The Oregon Department of Transportation expressed concern that the PeaceHealth analysis didn’t meet state legal requirements. To address the issue, ODOT negotiated a “trip cap” with PeaceHealth of 1,840 trips from the hospital at the peak afternoon rush hour. But Wilson, Zako and other critics say the trip cap won’t protect the area from traffic snarl. The cap doesn’t apply to the large amount of res- idential development PeaceHealth has to build at the site to comply with planning rules. “It’s obvious that the housing plus the hospi- tal plus the commercial plus the medical serv- ices would generate much more traffic,” says Wilson. PeaceHealth can also easily remove the “cap” with a minor amendment process once the hospital has its approvals in hand, Wilson says. “The trip cap is, in fact, no cap at all.” Another problem with the trip cap is that it’s set to not cause gridlock by 2018 when major road projects in the area are scheduled for com- pletion. But PeaceHealth plans to open the hos- pital in 2007, “leaving area roads struggling to catch up for a decade or more,” Wilson says. “Real compliance would require almost $100 million in new roads on or before the date the hospital and associated commercial facilities become operational.” Traffic Snarl PeaceHealth says its 2,200 employee hospi- tal won’t make traffic congestion worse in the area. PeaceHealth traffic consultant JRH Engineering analyzed the traffic impact of a pro- posed 1.8 million square feet of hospital and medical office buildings and 900 units of hous- ing at RiverBend. “It works,” says Jim Hanks of JRH. But critics say PeaceHealth’s traffic analysis is deeply flawed. “That such a major develop- ment can be assessed to have such minimal im- pacts is incredulous and calls into question the assumptions of the analysis,” says Rob Zako, a local transportation advocate working with CHOICES. Even PeaceHealth’s own traffic analysis in- cludes hints at the massive amount of conges- tion the hospital will produce. Westbound rush- hour traffic at the already snarled Gateway/Beltline intersection will increase eight fold to almost 2,000 cars after the hospital is built. PeaceHealth will directly account for one-third of the increase or 505 cars. Traffic turning south on I-5 would almost double to 715 cars at rush hour. PeaceHealth would directly account for two-thirds of the new congestion. DLCD questions whether PeaceHealth’s traffic impact complies with state and local planning rules. “It is not clear to the department how moving the major operations of PeaceHealth to an edge location will facilitate meeting community planning objectives,” Radabaugh says. Nearby residents are concerned the area will choke with cars. “The traffic congestion in the Gateway area is bad now ... The hospital and as- sociated development will make the situation much worse,” say Ken and Barbara Cerotsky of Springfield. PeaceHealth’s traffic analysis does not use the usual Institute of Transportation Engineers formula for estimating congestion impacts from development. PeaceHealth argues that it should use its own formula that produces lower traffic impacts because the hospital will be located next from a wider presentation of alternatives.” PeaceHealth says Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service to the area will mitigate traffic impacts. But critics say LTD doesn’t have the money to build and run BRT to the distant location. “It seems like a really unreasonable long shot” to expect BRT to serve the hospital in north Springfield, Wilson says. “No funding is in sight” for the expensive BRT extension which could require taking residential front yards for right away along Harlow Road, Wilson says. While 500 buses a day serve the hospital’s cur- rent location, there is no bus service to the pro- posed RiverBend site, she says. With no bus service, the new hospital would be very hard to reach for those who physically can’t drive or can’t afford a car, critics say. DLCD says Springfield should examine re- quiring a BRT line before the hospital can be built. But PeaceHealth balks at the requirement. “With no guarantee that BRT will be available [by] the proposed date of hospital opening, it is unreasonable to require a condition as suggested by Mr. Radabaugh,” development director Farrington says. A key part of TransPlan’s effort to reduce driving congestion is nodal development — compact, walkable areas of mixed use develop- ment served by frequent transit. DLCD and Springfield planning staff agree that the hospital Traffic snarls would make access difficult even PeaceHealth Critics also question whether PeaceHealth’s massive development will cause a development boom in the surrounding area that will further snarl roads. “Additional development could generate more traffic and greater impacts,” DLCD warns. The hospital “exerts a pull on the develop- ment of the entire region,” Zako says. Drive-In Hospital DLCD and other critics question how mov- ing so many jobs from downtown Eugene to the edge of Springfield will comply with the state and regional TransPlan goals to reduce car use. PeaceHealth will move 2,200 jobs to the fringe “without addressing how the proposed land use pattern helps to promote more non-au- tomobile trips,” DLCD writes. PeaceHealth must “assure that there will be adequate mode shift away from automobile reliance.” DLCD says how Springfield handles PeaceHealth will be a “bellwether” to gauge the success of TransPlan’s efforts in reducing re- liance on cars. Kevin Matthews of Friends of Eugene says the massive hospital move will “drive such an increase in VMT [vehicle miles traveled] as to probably overwhelm all other ongoing positive efforts.” DLCD says PeaceHealth’s analysis should have included a comparison of the traffic im- pacts of locating the hospital in the urban core. “The department believes that the PeaceHealth application and review process would benefit on good days, critics say. should be a nodal development area. But PeaceHealth appears concerned that nodal re- quirements would restrict its ability to develop the site and have offered only to later “actively consider” nodal development for “a portion” of the larger area. Wilson says she fears the nodal area for RiverBend would be so large and car dependent that it’s not really nodal at all. She says it’s a “fal- lacy” to think a regional hospital drawing driv- ers from across the metro area could be a walka- ble, transit-oriented node. “Allowing the siting of a 1 million square foot regional medical center that would con- sume approximately 66 percent of a ‘nodal site’ is not nodal development,” Segel of 1000 Friends agrees. Springfield staff argue that the scale of the hospital would make it inappropriate for siting in Springfield’s downtown node because “it would detract from the pedestrian scale of the existing downtown.” Zako says moving the hospital from down- town Eugene will hurt the struggling node there. He also doubts the RiverBend node will be served by frequent enough transit to make it viable. DLCD faults Springfield for not including a detailed nodal plan in the analysis of the hospital site. The agency warns that the trip cap for the site could prevent the dense, mixed use develop- ment required by nodes. “A critical component of success of a nodal development is its ability to demonstrate re- duced reliance upon the automobile,” DLCD says. “Urban form follows parking. More park- ing means less mode shift which means less transit which means more reliance on the auto- mobile and more incentive to produce develop- ment which is non-nodal development.” PeaceHealth’s draft map of the RiverBend development shows at least six large surface parking lots covering much of the site plus two large parking garages. Emergency Access The hospital location will make emergency access difficult, critics say. During a flood that inundates roads to the hospital or an earthquake that destroys bridges or freeway overpasses, get- ting to the RiverBend hospital would be very difficult. With the hospital separated from 80 percent of the region’s population by the river access problems it “would be devastating in cat- astrophic events,” environmentalist Tom Bowerman says. Traffic snarls would make access difficult even on good days, critics say. With the hospital closer to Coburg than many parts of south and west Eugene, RiverBend “would increase the emergency response time for most of Eugene residents,” Sacred Heart inten- sive care nurse Randy Gicker says. PeaceHealth officials claim locating at RiverBend will have no impact on emergency response times. But County Commissioner Peter Sorenson says, “it appears neither staff nor the applicant conducted any studies to determine whether there will be any degradation of these [emer- gency] services.” Public Costs PeaceHealth says it will pay $10 million to cover the added costs of new roads to serve its development. “PeaceHealth does not require a subsidy. Quite the contrary, PeaceHealth is pay- ing more than its fair share of future transporta- tion improvements,” says Hanks, the hospital’s traffic consultant. But critics say the payment isn’t fair at all and won’t nearly cover the impact to taxpayers. “We cannot afford $15 million to upgrade the Pioneer Parkway-126 intersection when PeaceHealth will only bring $750,000 to the table,” says Linda Shaver of one project on the list of needed improvements. ODOT says if the intersection isn’t fixed by the time the hospital opens, the Highway 126 ramps will be choked with “extremely unsafe” back-ups. “A large part of the burden would fall to the area’s taxpayers,” Wilson says of the road proj- ects needed to serve PeaceHealth. Wilson totals $130 million in area transportation projects that PeaceHealth will rely on that are mostly un- funded. The list includes $38 million for extend- ing BRT to the development but doesn’t include the $122 million estimated cost of upgrading the I-5 Beltline interchange. Wilson says the hospital should locate in an urban area already served by roads. “Plainly the community cannot afford these changes.” Noting the high cost of the I-5 interchange, Commissioner Sorenson says the county is “concerned that our investment will be negated by the increased traffic” from PeaceHealth. Zako warns, with money tight, needed road projects in other parts of the area could be de- layed to serve PeaceHealth with new roads. Civic activist Rob Handy of Eugene notes the region is already struggling to find money to repair cracked I-5 bridges. MARCH 27, 2003 11
