Oregon 
Theodore R KjibngDski, Governor 
NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENT 
Department of Land Conservation and Development 
635 Capitol Street, Suite 150 
Salem, OR 97301-2540 
(503) 373-0050 
Fax (503) 378-5518 
www. lcd.state.or.us 
Mis. 
8/3/2009 
TO: Subscribers to Notice of Adopted Plan 
or Land Use Regulation Amendments 
FROM: Plan Amendment Program Specialist 
SUBJECT: City of Jacksonville Plan Amendment 
DLCD File Number 001-09 
The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) received the attached notice of adoption. 
Due to the size of amended material submitted, a complete copy has not been attached. A Copy of the 
adopted plan amendment is available for review at the DLCD office in Salem and the local government 
office. This amendment was submitted without a signed ordinance. 
Appeal Procedures* 
DLCD ACKNOWLEDGMENT or DEADLINE TO APPEAL: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 
This amendment was submitted to DLCD for review prior to adoption with less than the required 45-day 
notice. Pursuant to ORS 197.830(2)(b) only persons who participated in the local government proceedings 
leading to adoption of the amendment are eligible to appeal this decision to the Land Use Board of 
Appeals (LUBA). 
If you wish to appeal, you must file a notice of intent to appeal with the Land Use Board of Appeals 
(LUBA) no later than 21 days from the date the decision was mailed to you by the local government. If 
you have questions, check with the local government to determine the appeal deadline. Copies of the 
notice of intent to appeal must be served upon the local government and others who received written notice 
of the final decision from the local government. The notice of intent to appeal must be served and filed in 
the form and manner prescribed by LUBA, (OAR Chapter 661, Division 10). Please call LUBA at 
503-373-1265, if you have questions about appeal procedures. 
*NOTE: THE APPEAL DEADLINE IS BASED UPON THE DATE THE DECISION WAS 
MAILED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT. A DECISION MAY HAVE BEEN MAILED 
TO YOU ON A DIFFERENT DATE THAT IT WAS MAILED TO DLCD. AS A 
RESULT, YOUR APPEAL DEADLINE MAY BE EARLIER THAN THE ABOVE 
DATE SPECIFIED. 
Cc: Paul Wyntergreen, City of Jacksonville 
Gloria Gardiner, DLCD Urban Planning Specialist 
John Renz, DLCD Regional Representative 
Bill Holmstrom, DLCD Transportation Planner 
<paa> Y A 
1 2 DLCD 
Notice of Adoption 
THIS F O R M MUST BE MAILED T O D L C D 
WITHIN 5 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE FINAL DECISION 
PER ORS 197.610, O A R C H A P T E R 660 - D I V I S I O N 18 
Q In person ÜJ elecuvmr, !_i mm led 
DEPTOF 
JUL 2 4 2009 
UWD GO«SERWJQN 
o f e m o m t N t 
Fur R).( r u . ^ t i î i l y 
J t i r i s d i c t i o n T " ^ ^ ^ 
Date of Adoption: Date Mailed: *7/23|o C 1 
Was a Notice of Proposed Amendment (Form 1) mailed to DLCD? Select oneDate: / H 
Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment G Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 
G Land Use Regulation Amendment G Zoning Map Amendment 
G New Land Use Regulation G Other: 
Summarize the adopted amendment. Do not use technical terms. Do not write "See Attached". 
Does the Adoption differ from proposal? Please select one 
Plan Map Changed from: to: 
Zone Map Changed from: to: 
Location: Acres Involved: 
Specify Density: Previous: New: 
Applicable statewide planning goals: 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • G 
Was an Exception Adopted? Q YES 0 , N O 
Did DLCD receive a Notice of Proposed Amendment.., 
45-days prior to first evidentiary hearing? Yes G No 
If no, do the statewide planning goals apply? G Yes G No 
If no, did Emergency Circumstances require immediate adoption? G Yes G No 
0 0 1 - 0 9 (17480) [15639] 
DLCD file No. 
Please list all affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: 
Local Contact: S J ^ R p ^ Phone? ( Extension: 
Address: f à Fax Number:^( I J 
Z Ì P : t l S ^ E-mail 
ADOPTION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 
This form must be mailed to DLCD within 5 working days after the final decision 
per ORS 197.610, O A R Chapter 660 - Div is ion 18. 
1. Send this Form and TWO Complete Copies (documents and maps) of the Adopted Amendment to: 
ATTENTION: PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIALIST 
DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 
635 CAPITOL STREET NE, SUITE 150 
SALEM, OREGON 97301-2540 
2. Electronic Submittals: At least one hard copy must be sent by mail or in person, but you may also submit 
an electronic copy, by either email or FTP. You may connect to this address to FTP proposals and 
adoptions: webserver.lcd.state.or.us. To obtain our Username and password for FTP, call Mara Ulloa at 
503-373-0050 extension 238, or by emailing inara.ulloa@state.or.us. 
3. Please Note: Adopted materials must be sent to DLCD not later than FIVE (5) working days 
following the date of the final decision on the amendment. 
4. Submittal of this Notice of Adoption must include the text of the amendment plus adopted findings 
and supplementary information. 
5. The deadline to appeal will not be extended if you submit this notice of adoption within five working 
days of the final decision. Appeals to LUBA may be filed within TWENTY-ONE (21) days of the date, 
the Notice of Adoption is sent to DLCD. 
6. In addition to sending the Notice of Adoption to DLCD, you must notify persons who 
participated in the local hearing and requested notice of the final decision. 
7. Need More Copies? You can now access these forms online at http://www.lcd.state.or.us/. Please 
print on 8-1/2x11 green paper only. You may also call the DLCD Office at (503) 373-0050; or Fax 
your request to: (503) 378-5518; or Email your request to inara.ulloa@state.or.us - ATTENTION: 
PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIALIST. 
http://www.lcd.state.or. us/LCD/forms .shtml Updated November 27, 2006 
(S 
V ' - ' 
s . w iS6(1 
• • tûijhJ 
•V 
•ïsrmf j 
Table of Contents 
Preface vi 
Executive Summary vii 
Overview vii 
TSP Process vii 
Public Involvement viii 
Plan and Policy Review viii 
Existing Conditions viii 
Future Transportation Conditions ix 
Alternative Analysis ix 
Roadway Connectivity ix 
Transit ix 
Planned Transportation Facilities/Major Improvements x 
Priority/Timing of Planned Facilities/Improvements x 
Transportation Financing and Funding Overview x 
Introduction xi 
Element 1: Transportation Goals and Policies 1 
1.1 Introduction I 
1.2 Goals and Policies I 
Element 2: Plans, Regulations, and Standards 4 
2.1 Introduction 4 
2.2 State of Oregon 4 
2.3 Regional and County Plans 10 
2.4 City Plans and Studies 14 
Jacksonville TSP i 
Element 3: Transportation Facilities and Services Inventory 19 
3.1 Introduction 19 
3.2 Facilities and Services 19 
Element 4: Current Condit ions and Deficiencies 38 
4.1 Introduction 38 
4.2 Summary of Findings 38 
4.3 Existing Conditions 39 
Elementó: Future Demand, Deficiencies and Needs 46 
5.1 Introduction 46 
5.2 Summary of Findings 46 
5.3 2030 Forecast Methodology 47 
5.4 Intersection and Roadway Segment Evaluation 51 
Elementó: System Alternatives 56 
6.1 Introduction 56 
6.2 Special Tourist Needs 56 
6.3 Roadway Alternatives 62 
6.4 Other Future Planning Objectives 65 
Element 7: Preferred Alternative and Planned Projects 68 
7.1 Introduction 68 
7.2 Roadway Improvement Alternative 68 
7.3 Transportation System Management Alternative 69 
7.4 Transportation Demand Management Alternative 70 
7.5 Transit Alternative 70 
Jacksonville TSP ii 
7.6 Land Use Alternative 71 
7.7 No-Build Alternative 71 
Element 8: Transportation Funding Plan 72 
8.1 Introduction 72 
8.2 Planned Transportation Facilities and Major Improvements 72 
8.3 Financing for Capital Projects 73 
8.4 Financing for Non-CapitaJ Projects 75 
8.5 Alternative Funding Costs 75 
Appendices: 
Appendix A: Audit for Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan 
Appendix B: Documentation of Traffic Counts & Seasonal Adjustments 
Appendix C: Intersection Geometries and Traffic Controls 
Appendix D: Intersection Photographs 
Appendix E: Intersection Analysis Worksheets 
Appendix F: Future Volume Data 
Appendix G: 2030 Intersection Analysis Worksheets (No Build) 
Appendix H: 2030 Intersection Analysis with Transit/Bicycle Loss 
Jacksonville TSP iii 
List of Figures 
Figure xii Street Connectivity Map xiii 
Figure 3.1 Study Area Street System Inventory 22 
Figure 3.2 Sidewalk and Bike Lane Inventory 29 
Figure 3.3 Public Transportation Inventory 32 
Figure 3.4 Parking Inventory Map 37 
Figure 6.1 Off-Street Parking Master Plan 67 
List of Tables 
Table 2.1: Jacksonville Regional Transportation Plan Projects, Tier 1 & 2 11 
Table 3.1: Street System Inventory 23 
Table 3.2 RVTD Bus Stop Schedule in Jacksonville, Spring 2007 31 
Table 3.3 RVTD Bus Stops in Jacksonville 31 
Table 3.4.A Parking Inventory, North City 36 
Table 3.4.B Parking Inventory South City 36 
Table 4.1 Medium/Heavy Truck Traffic During PM Peak 40 
Table 4.2 Truck Traffic AM Hours at California/Oregon Streets 41 
Table 4.3.a. Truck Traffic 6:00 a.m. - Noon at California/Oregon Streets 42 
Table 4.3.b. Truck Traffic 8:00a.m. - Noon at California/Oregon Streets 42 
Table 4.4 Peak Hour Bicycle Traffic at Key Intersections 42 
TabJe 4.5 Peak Hour Pedestrians at Key Intersections 43 
Table 4.6 Max. Volume to Capacity (v/c) Ratio at Peak Periods 43 
Table 4.7 Level of Service Definitions 44 
Table 4.8 Existing (2007) 30,h Highest Peak Intersection Traffic Operations 45 
Table 5.1 Summary Comparison of Intersection Performance 2007 & 2030 47 
Table 5.2 Max. v/c for Peak Hour Operations for District Highway 49 
Jacksonville TSP iv 
ff 
Table 5.3 20year Design-Mobility Standards Ratio for District/Local Rds. 49 
Table 5.4 Level of Service Definitions 50 
Table 5.5 Future (2030 No-Build) 30lh Highway Peak Intersection Traffic 54 
Table 5.6 Future (Transit/Bike Mode Loss) 30th Highway Peak Traffic 55 
Table 6.1 Comparison of Sample Parking Requirements, non-residential 61 
Table 8.1 Fees and Expenditures 76 
LIST OF ACRONYMS USED IN THIS TSP (alphabetical order): 
A T R : Automatic Traf f ic Recorder (stations with traffic counters) 
CORP: Central Oregon and Pacific (Railroad) 
D L C D : Department o f Land Conservation and Development 
HARC: Historic and Architectural Review Commission 
H D M : Highway Design Manual 
ITS: Intelligent Transportation System 
ILUTP: Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plans 
LOS: Level o f Service 
LTP: Long-Term Potential 
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act 
N W I : National Wetlands Inventory 
OAR: Oregon Administrat ive Rule 
O D O T : Oregon Department o f Transportation 
OHP: Oregon Highway Plan 
ORS: Oregon Revised Statutes 
O A R : Oregon Administrat ive Rule 
OTC: Oregon Transportation Commission 
OTP: Oregon Transportation Plan 
PMio: Particulate Matter: 10 parts per mi l l ion (air quality term) 
ROW: Right o f Way 
RRVR: Rogue River Valley Rai lway 
RTP: Regional Transportation Plan 
RVCOG: Rogue Valley Counci l o f Governments (also: COG) 
RVMPO: Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (also MPO) 
RVTD: Rogue Valley Transit District 
SDC: Systems Development Charge 
SOV: Single Occupancy Vehicle 
STA: Special Transportation Area 
STIP: Statewide Transportation Improvement Program or TIP: not statewide 
T A C : Technical Advisory Committee 
T D M : Transportation Demand Management 
T M A : Transportation Management Association 
T O D : Transit Oriented Development 
T P A U : Transportation Planning and Analysis Unit (branch o f ODOT) 
TPR: Transportation Planning Rule 
TSM: Transportation System Management 
TSP: Transportation Systems Plan (this document) 
UGB: Urban Growth Boundary 
U G B M A : Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement 
V /C Volume to Capacity Ratio (also used as: v/c) 
V M T : Vehicle Mi les Traveled 
Jacksonville TSP v 
PREFACE: 
This project was conducted under funding from the Oregon Department of Transportation 
(ODOT) and the Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG). 
The progress of this plan was guided by a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) 
comprised of City of Jacksonville staff, ODOT staff, RVCOG staff, Rogue Valley Transit 
District (RVTD) staff, Jackson County staff, Department of Land Conservation and 
Development (DLCD) staff, Medford School District staff, Parametrix (who performed 
the engineering study) and a representative of the Jacksonville business community. 
Members of the TAC: 
Jacksonville City Manager 
Jacksonville Director of Public Works 
DLCD 
ODOT 
RVTD 
Medford School District 
Jackson County 
Jackson County 
Jacksonville Businesses 
Parametrix 
RVCOG staff: 
Vicki Guarino Program Manager 
Dick Converse Principal Planner 
Eric Heesacker Associate Planner 
The above-mentioned people spent a large amount of time and effort in developing the 
Jacksonville Transportation System Plan (TSP), and their participation was essential to 
develop the recommendations that are presented in this report. 
The consultant team consisted of several individuals who work at Parametrix and 
Greenlight Engineering, the firm that provided the traffic counts/studies utilized to 
complete this TSP. 
Paul Wyntergreen 
Jeff Alvis 
John Renz 
John McDonald 
Paige Townsend 
Mark Button 
Mike Kuntz 
Susan Lee 
Linda Graham 
Anne Sylvester 
Jacksonville TSP vi 
i? 
Executive Summary 
Overview 
The City of Jacksonville, in conjunction with ODOT and RVCOG, initiated a study of the 
City's transportation system in 2007. This TSP will assist in guidance of management 
and development of existing/future transportation facilities within Jacksonville. The TSP 
incorporates visions of the community and is consistent with all applicable plans and 
statutes applicable to TSP creation. This TSP provides the necessaiy elements for the 
City of Jacksonville to incorporate the TSP as a part of the city's comprehensive plan 
while at the same time provides recommendations which can be utilized by ODOT and 
Jackson County. 
Contents of this TSP are guided by Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 197.712 and DLCD's 
administrative rule: The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). These laws and rules 
dictate that Oregon jurisdictions develop the following: 
• a road plan for the network of arterial and collector streets; 
• a public transit plan; 
• a bicycle/pedestrian plan; 
• an air, rail, water, and pipeline plan; 
• a transportation financing plan; and, 
• policies/ordinances to implement the TSP. 
Oregon's TPR dictates that alternative travel modes be considered equally with 
automobiles and that effort be applied to development/enhancement of these alternative 
modes in preparation of a TSP. Findings in this TSP indicate a lack of automobile 
capacity issues in Jacksonville. Alternative travel modes are therefore an emphasis of 
this TSP. Oregon's TPR also requires local jurisdictions to adopt land use/subdivision 
ordinance amendments to protect transportation facilities and to provide alternative 
transportation links between differing land uses. Local communities are further required 
to coordinate local plans with applicable county, regional, and state transportation plans. 
TSP Process 
Jacksonville's TSP was developed by identifying transportation needs, by developing and 
analyzing proposed projects that address those needs, and by developing a fundable TSP 
which includes those projects best addressing Jacksonville's needs. The following steps 
were involved in this process: 
• A review of applicable state, regional, county, and local transportation 
plans/policies with which the Jacksonville TSP must comply. 
• Provision of public open houses to distribute applicable information and to 
collect feedback from the public. The development of transportation goals 
and objectives, and the establishment of a TAC was essential, 
• Evaluation of existing transportation needs. 
Jacksonville TSP vii 
• Evaluation of transportation needs required by future growth of the 
community. 
• Development of different alternatives/planned projects intended to address 
Jacksonville's future transportation needs. 
• Estimating revenue available, and required, to fund those future 
transportation needs. 
• Compilation of results of this work into a TSP document for review, 
amendment, and adoption by the Jacksonville City Council. 
Public Involvement 
Public and agency involvement was secured by holding public meetings and creation of a 
TAC to guide creation of the TSP. The TAC was made up of staff of applicable agencies 
that provided essential guidance for TSP creation. Interested individuals and groups were 
including on mailing lists and meeting notifications. At least two public meetings and 
five TAC meetings were held for TSP review and the city's Transportation Committee, 
Planning Commission, and City Council all provided review before final adoption of the 
document. 
Plan and Policy Review 
All Oregon TSP's are required to be consistent with state, regional, county, and local 
plans. ODOT, Jackson County, and the City of Jacksonville all own roads within the 
city. The Jacksonville Development Code and Comprehensive Plan were reviewed for 
compliance/consistency with applicable state and county documents. 
Existing Conditions 
• Public Transportation: RVTD currently serves the Jacksonville area. 
The Route 30 line currently has a 45 minute headway and serves riders 
from downtown Jacksonville to the West Medford Transit center. 
• Pedestrian: Element #4 provides a brief description of pedestrian activity 
within the city center and on those streets where sidewalks are provided. 
• Bicycle: There are bike lanes painted on the state facilities running 
through the city. Details regarding bicycle traffic can be found in Element 
#4. 
• Pipelines/Transmission Systems: Electric, water, natural gas, and sewer 
lines current serve the city; sewer and gas do not serve the northwest 
quadrant however. No issues have been identified with these services. 
• Rail: While no rail systems currently serve the city, there are future plans 
for a trolley service, and there is an existing right-of-way (ROW) from a 
defunct railroad that connects Jacksonville with Medford. Current plans 
call for utilizing this ROW as a public pedestrian, bicycle easement. 
• Air: There are no public airports located in Jacksonville. Medford 
international is located about six miles to the east. 
Jacksonville TSP viii 
• Marine: There are no marine facilities/waterways in Jacksonville. 
• Roadway Operations/Safety: State Highway 238 traverses Jacksonville 
and operates well below capacity for all hours except late-morning 
Sundays when large volumes of traffic traverse Jacksonville from west to 
east. Traffic volumes then cause delays in the LOS "F" range for about 90 
minutes at the California/Oregon Streets intersection. Recommendations 
in the TSP suggest how to mitigate this 90 minute condition. There are no 
other safety or capacity warrants in Jacksonville. 
• Truck Movement: There are several quarries located to Jacksonville's 
northwest. There have been numerous complaints about trucks hauling 
aggregate through the city on Highway 238. To alleviate this problem, 
Jacksonville does have a vision to construct an arterial connector around 
the north edge of the city which would reroute most of this truck traffic 
around the town's center. This arterial connector is discussed at length in 
the TSP. 
Future Transportation Conditions 
As explained in the "Planned Projects" element of the TSP, there are plans to enhance the 
city's pedestrian, bicycle, and automotive transportation systems. While there are no 
safety or capacity warrants for roadways in the city, Jacksonville has a vision for how the 
future transportation network will look. There are plans to create more bike paths, more 
pedestrian pathways ("C" and "Bybee" streets and Main Street) and plans to create an 
arterial connector to take truck traffic north of the city center. These detai ls are all 
discussed in Elements 6, 7, and 8 of the TSP. 
Alternative Analysis 
This analysis turns out to be very brief in the form that local decision makers are 
informed that they do not have to act upon any of the planned projects out of necessity. 
The planned projects are planned to enhance and facilitate the city's desire to be a more 
pedestrian friendly city and to maintain its historic ambiance. 
Roadway Connectivity 
There are plans to enhance some local connectivity (see Connectivity Map: Appendix I) 
for automobiles while other improvements are conceptualized to provide more 
connectivity for bicycles and pedestrians. 
Transit 
While Jacksonville is currently served with RVTD's transit service, there are currently no 
long range plans to enhance the service. There are some concepts being discussed to 
enhance service during BRITT festivals (a local summer music festival that attracts 
visitors from outside Jacksonville) and RVTD does have some long range plans for 
service expansion but funding for expansion has not been identified. 
Jacksonville TSP ix 
Planned Transportation Facilities and Major Improvements 
The most significant planned improvement is for an arterial connector that will remove 
truck traffic from Jacksonville's downtown core and reroute this traffic to the north edges 
of the city. This project has been studied locally and is included in the previous 
Jacksonville TSP, Jackson County's TSP, and is also included in the Regional 
Transportation Plan (RTP) as an 'unfunded, Tier 2' project. Prior to any final 
construction plans for this connector is a determination regarding which design standards 
will apply to the connector. Also, all environmental concerns will need to be addressed 
in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 
Other major improvements are centered on bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as well as a 
few minor improvements to local roadways to enhance auto circulation within 
Jacksonville. Elements 6, 7, and 8 discuss these improvements and their funding sources. 
Priority and Timing of Planned Facilities and Improvements 
There are an estimated $2,600,000 in costs that Jacksonville will be responsible for 
(based on planned projects) over the planning horizon but does not include conceptual 
projects. The TSP prescribes this schedule, based on input from Jacksonville for project 
implementation. 
0-5 years: $2,599,000 (100%) 
5-10 years: $0 (0%) 
10-15 years: $0 (0%) 
* 15-20 years: $Unknown(percentage unknown) 
* Reflects two conceptual projects; see Elements 6-8 for explanation 
As shown above, all but one project (arterial connector) are proposed to be completed 
within the first ten years of the planning horizon. In 1998 total cost of the arterial 
connector was projected to approach $26 million. 
Transportation Financing and Funding Overview 
To meet TPR requirements, Jacksonville's TSP must have a transportation financing 
program which includes: 
A list of planned transportation facilities and major improvements. 
Estimates regarding timing of improvements. 
Determination of rough conceptual capital cost estimates. 
Narrative regarding existing and potential funding sources. 
Alternative funding strategies for capita! projects. 
Brief descriptions of funding sources are provided in Element 8 of the TSP. Alternative 
funding sources include state motor vehicle, bicycle-pedestrian funds, street utility fees 
and gas taxes. 
Jacksonville TSP x 
INTRODUCTION 
Study Area and Context 
The City of Jacksonville is located about six miles west of Medford and 1-5 in Jackson 
County, located in Oregon's southwest comer. The city has a population of 2,655 
according to 2008 figures provided by Portland State University (PSU). This represents a 
3.1% increase over Figures provided by PSU for 2006. 
Jacksonville's beginnings can be traced to a gold rush in 1851. The town, then called 
Table Rock City, quickly grew to include more than 2000 people, most of whom were 
seeking the elusive yellow metal, while the remainder made a living from ancillary 
activities. 
From 1852-1884. Jacksonville flourished as southwestern Oregon's largest commercial 
center. By 1927 most of the valley's growth took place in Medford and the county seat 
was reestablished there from Jacksonville, By this time, Jacksonville was quickly 
becoming an agricultural center. 
Jacksonville was designated a national historic landmark district in 1966 and the town 
has managed to remain an historical resource for southwest Oregon, The visions for 
transportation improvements contained in this TSP reflect that desire to remain an 
historical destination through design and implementation of nonmotorized transportation 
improvements. 
Public Involvement Process 
Public input to this TSP process has occurred on more than one occasion with two public 
meetings being held to discuss the TSP and what it is designed to accomplish. The city's 
existing TSP was adopted in 1995 and this TSP update is sorely needed. Through funds 
provided by ODOT and RVCOG. COG staff have prepared this TSP in conjunction with 
private consultants (Parametrix and Greenlight Engineering) and through solicitation of 
input from many different entities and agencies. 
Jacksonville TSP xi 
\ Jacksonville Street Connectivity 
Ncwnetery Ret/-/ 
* r ^ -- r T 
; . i f { 
{ ' Huer/- : \ i • \ L 
: A f e " " 
—- f ' > ; # / V v ^ i J 
i ) )0! ß 
I g . 
: a / j 
Bib <$\ v f -
\ Viò \ v i 
t ¡0 / 
Existing Streets City of Jacksonville 
Proposed Street Connections Urban Growth Boundary 
™ Right-of-Way to be Vacated Taxlots 
•=x Outside City Limits - Al ignment not Determined 
(Not a Planned Project) 
Trail System (Bunul 
Figure xii 
Element 1 
Jacksonville Transportation Goals & Policies 
1.1 Introduction 
The Transportation System Plan is the legal basis and policy foundation for decisions 
Jacksonville makes regarding transportation. The goals and policies guide the 
development of the plan and can be used to evaluate how well the plan reflects the 
community's values. 
The Goals and Policies were developed with guidance from the TSP's Technical 
Advisory Committee and Jacksonville's Transportation Committee, the City's citizen 
advisory committee on transportation and citizen advisory committee for this TSP update. 
Additionally, the goals reflect comments gathered during a community Open House, 
which was the forma) kick-off for this project. 
1.2 Goals and Policies 
The Goals and Policy shown below are not printed in any order relative to their 
importance. 
Goal/Policy 
Goal 1 Preserve and enhance public safety and security. 
Policy 1-1 Provide a transportation system that will promote safety, including 
pedestrian safety and awareness. 
Policy 1-2 Provide a transportation system that will promote security. 
Goal 2 Support increased travel options. 
Policy 2-1 Provide for bicycle (especially Class I pathways), pedestrian, mass transit 
and other travel alternatives that include preservation of the RRVR 
easement for bicycling. 
Policy 2-2 Pursue measures to reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and 
use of single-occupancy vehicles (SOV) through transportation demand 
management (TDM) strategies and maintain consistency with "Alternative 
Measures" in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 17 
Policy 2-3 Use design elements and road treatments for a safe, convenient, 
pedestrian-friendly environment. 
Policy 2-4 Support incentives for walking, carpooling, bicycling, parking in the 
municipal parking lot. 
Policy 2-5 Where possible, design land divisions to provide pedestrian and bicycle 
connectivity among neighborhoods. 
Policy 2-6 Locate transit stops to facilitate safe transit ridership. 
GoaJ 3 Support accessibility and mobility 
Policy 3-1 Plan, develop, maintain, and secure financing for a balanced multi-modal 
transportation system that will address existing and future movement of 
people and goods throughout the city. 
Policy 3-2 Provide for appropriate street, pathway and sidewalk standards. 
Policy 3-3 Maintain a comprehensive street classification system to support various 
land use densities, travel needs, and community expectations. 
Policy 3-4 Maintain a parking plan that addresses visitors' needs, provides park-and-
ride options, and encourages options to single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) 
travel. 
Policy 3-5 Maintain a traffic-control plan that is consistent with the city's historic 
status. 
Policy 3-6 Establish Long-Term Potential (LTP) corridor areas as necessary where 
future road connections beyond the planning horizon of the TSP are 
probable. 
Goal 4 Support livability and community identity 
Policy 4-1 Preserve unique historic and scenic resources. 
Policy 4-2 Promote a sense of cooperation and respect within our community and 
with our neighbors and visitors. 
Policy 4-3 Complete an acoustic study to determine the effect of heavy truck traffic 
traversing the town's historic core. 
Goal 5 Encourage economic vitality 
Policy 5-1 Use transportation investments to foster economic opportunities. 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 2 
í 
Policy 5-2 Complete an economic study to ensure future transportation improvements 
(i.e.: the arterial connector around the town's north edge) do not decrease 
the economic viability of commercial uses located on California and 5th 
Streets. 
Policy 5-3 Promote energy conservation and efficiency. 
Policy 5-4 Explore the need for an economic study to ascertain impacts to downtown 
businesses as a result of rerouting traffic. 
Goal 6 Support efficiency and good stewardship 
Policy 6-1 Maximize the efficiency of the transportation system through means 
including effective land use planning consistent with benchmarks in the 
"Alternative Measures" of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). 
Policy 6-2 Prioritize transportation funds to address safety and operation needs of the 
transportation system. Prior to allocating money to increase capacity, 
efficiency of the existing system will be maximized through 
Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand 
Management (TDM) measures. 
Policy 6-3 Prioritize projects that add capacity based on securing funds, improving 
safety, relieving congestion and responding to growth. 
Policy 6-4 Encourage where appropriate to achieve TSP goals, the use of cost-
effective emerging technologies. 
Goal 7 Assure accountability 
Policy 7-1 Provide an open, balanced and credible process for planning and 
developing a transportation system that complies with state and federal 
regulations, 
Policy 7-2 Encourage Jackson County officials to evaluate the effect on traffic 
circulation of significant new or expanded uses west of Jacksonville. If 
impacts are determined to be significant, the county should work with the 
city to impose appropriate conditions to reduce the impact. 
Policy 7-3 Continue expanding, as the town's UGB is expanded, the dense and mixed 
use development (TOD) located at the northern edges of the city. 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 3 
Element 2 
Plans, Regulations, and Standards 
2.1 Introduction 
This section summarizes plans and policies at the state, Metropolitan Planning 
Organization (MPO), county, and local level that directly impact transportation planning 
in the City of Jacksonville. Although each document reviewed contains many policies, 
only those sections most pertinent were chosen for this examination. The purpose of this 
review is to provide a policy context for Jacksonville's Transportation System Plan. New 
policies introduced during the city's TSP process should be consistent with the adopted 
policies in this chapter. 
Applicable standards and policies where possible are printed verbatim or paraphrased as 
necessary. A conclusion regarding relationship to Jacksonville's TSP is provided. The 
conclusions are meant to emphasize important aspects of policies. 
Three jurisdictions own the public roads in the city: City of Jacksonville, Jackson County 
and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The policies, plans, and 
standards governing each jurisdiction's roadway responsibilities are discussed below with 
a focus toward identifying impacts and influences on Jacksonville's TSP. Additionally, 
Jacksonville is within the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO) 
planning area. The RVMPO coordinates transportation planning for federally funded, 
regionally significant transportation projects. This section begins with State of Oregon 
policy documents, followed by the RVMPO, Jackson County and Jacksonville. 
2.2 State of Oregon 
2.2.1 Transportation Planning Rule 
The rule (Oregon Administrative Rules, Division 12, Section 660-012) implements 
Statewide Planning Goal 12, to provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic 
transportation system, and provisions of other statewide planning goals related to 
transportation planning. The purpose is to direct transportation in coordination with land 
use planning and development. The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) was most 
recently amended in November 2006. 
The TPR requires cities, counties, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and 
ODOT to adopt TSPs, addressing the following: 
• A determination of transportation needs; 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 4 
• A plan for a network of arterial and collector roads; 
• A public transportation plan; 
• A bicycle and pedestrian plan; 
• Plans for air, rail, water and pipeline transportation; 
• Plans for transportation system management and demand management; 
• A parking plan; 
• A financing program; and, 
• Polices and land use regulations to implement TSP provisions. 
In MPO areas, local TSPs are to be designed to increase transportation choices and 
reduce reliance on the automobile. Key points that must be addressed to implement a TSP 
are noted below. 
Protection of transportation facilities, corridors. Regulations to protect transportation 
facilities include: 
• Access controls: 
• Standards to protect future operations; 
• A coordinated review of land use decisions that affect transportation facilities; 
• A process to apply conditions on development to minimize transportation 
impacts; 
• Regulations to provide notice of potential impacts to affected agencies; and 
• Regulations assuring that land use, density and design decisions are consistent 
with function and performance standards in the TSP. 
Land use and subdivision regulation. Provisions for safe and convenient movement of 
pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles that are consistent with street function, including: 
• Bicycle parking for retail office, and institutional development, and multi-family 
residential development of four or more units; and, 
• Sidewalks and bicycle paths within new developments, and connecting to nearby 
neighborhoods, transit stops and activity centers. 
Support for transit. Regulations that encourage transit service and ridership, carpooling. 
• Provision of pull-outs, shelters and other amenities; 
• Walkways connecting to transit stops from retail, office and institutional uses; 
• Preferential parking for carpools and vanpools; and, 
• Designation of densities and land uses to support transit service. 
Adopt land use and subdivision regulations to reduce reliance on the automobile. The 
RVMPO audit for an Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan for Jacksonville 
(discussed below and submitted as Appendix A) contains measure(s) to help reduce 
reliance on the automobile and contribute toward meeting the RVMPO Alternative 
Measures, which are noted in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) discussion below. 
The Alternative Measures set standards for meeting the TPR requirement to reduce 
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the RVMPO area. Other measures include: 
• A parking plan; and, 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 5 
• Provide the most direct possible access for pedestrians and bicyclists. 
Minimum width standards for local streets. Establish street standards that minimize 
pavement width and rights-of-way consistent with operational requirements. Such 
measures reduce cost and discourage inappropriate traffic volumes and speeds, white 
providing adequate access for all emergency vehicles. 
2.2.2 Access Management 
The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires local governments to adopt land use or 
subdivision ordinance regulations, consistent with applicable federal and state 
requirements, to protect transportation facilities, corridors and sites for their identified 
functions. Regulations include access control measures such as driveway and public road 
spacing, median control and signal spacing standards, which are consistent with 
functional classification. 
California and Fifth streets (Hwy. 238) are classified as a state District Highway, and 
designated a Special Transportation Area (STA). Planning standards for the STA are 
discussed below. Access on state roadways must be consistent with OAR Chapter 734, 
Division 51 rules (revised in 2000). Division 51 rules are to provide a safe and efficient 
transportation system through the preservation of public safety, the improvement and 
development of transportation facilities, the protection of highway traffic from the 
hazards of unrestricted and unregulated entry from adjacent property, and the elimination 
of hazards due to highway grade intersections. The rules establish procedures and criteria 
used by the ODOT to govern highway approaches, access control, spacing standards, 
medians and restriction of turning movements in compliance with statewide planning 
goals and in a manner compatible with acknowledged comprehensive plans. The rules 
may not be used to deny reasonable access to adjacent properties. Criteria used to 
evaluate approaches may include project traffic impacts, crash history and the project's 
internal traffic circulation plan. Generally, minimum access management spacing for 
public road approaches is the existing city block spacing, or the city block spacing 
identified in the city comprehensive plan. Public road connections are preferred over 
private driveways and driveways are discouraged in STAs. However, where driveways 
are allowed and where land use patterns permit, the minimum access management 
spacing for driveways is 175 feet or mid-block if the current city block spacing is less the 
350 feet. Most city blocks in the historic downtown area are 200 feet long. 
2.2.3 Oregon Highway Design Manual 
The manual, last revised in April 2005, provides uniform standards and procedures, and 
guidance for the location and design of new construction, major reconstruction, and 
resurfacing, restoration or rehabilitation projects. It is to be used for all projects that are 
located on state highways. Local planners use the manual in determining design 
requirements as they relate to state highways in TSPs. It is relevant here for addressing 
issues relative to Hwy 238. 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 6 
More generally, the manual contains policies that are relevant to various project types. It 
provides uniform, general information about design processes and different design 
strategies. Specific design information is provided by area type, such as rural, urban, 
intersection, bicycle and pedestrian. Acceptable design standards are identified. 
2.2.4 Oregon Highway Plan 
The plan establishes long-range policies and investment strategies for the state highway 
system. The Oregon Transportation Commission adopted the Oregon Highway Plan on 
March 18, 1999 and amended through August, 2006. 
The plan contains the following elements: 
• Vision - presents a vision for the future of the state highway system, describes 
economic and demographic trends in Oregon and future transportation 
technologies, summarizes the policy and legal context of the plan, and contains 
information on the current highway system. 
• Policy - contains goals, policies and actions in five areas: system definition, 
system management, access management, travel alternatives and environmental 
and scenic resources. 
• System - contains analysis of state highway needs, revenue forecasts, 
descriptions of investment policies and strategies, implementation strategy and 
performance measures. 
The Oregon Highway Plan classifies Hwy. 238 as a District Highway. The plan describes 
District Highways as facilities of county-wide significance, which function largely as 
county and city arterials or collectors. These highways provide connections between 
small urbanized areas, rural and urban centers, and serve local traffic and access needs. 
Highway classification establishes the standards for mobility and access spacing. The 
maximum volume to capacity ratio (v/c) for a District Highway having a speed of less 
than 45 mph in an urban area, but outside an MPO or Special Transportation Area, is .85. 
Additionally, the segment of Hwy. 238 within city limits (0.61 mile, from mile post 33.6, 
California Street at W. Main Street, mile post 33.97, North Fifth Street at Shafer Lane) 
was designated a Special Transportation Area (STA) by the Oregon Transportation 
Commission on January 14, 2004, pursuant to the highway plan's land use and 
transportation policy (more discussion on pg.66). The policy addressed the relationship 
between state highways and adjacent development patterns. The STA designation 
recognizes the dual purposes of the roadway to serve through travelers and be the main 
street of a community. Within STAs the need for appropriate local access outweighs the 
consideration of highway mobility. Management of STAs is to be governed by a memo 
of understanding between the city/ODOT, however no such agreement has been drafted. 
2.2.5 Oregon Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 
The Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is a four-year construction 
(2006-2009), multi modal program that fulfills federal requirements. It is a compilation of 
projects utilizing various federal and state funding programs, and includes projects on the 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 7 
state, city and county transportation systems, and projects in the National Parks, National 
Forests, and Indian Reservations. Also included are projects fully funded by the 
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) that are of regional interest or significance. 
The ST1P is not a planning document; it is a project prioritization and scheduling 
document developed through various planning processes involving local and regional 
governments, transportation agencies, and the interested public. Through the STIP, 
ODOT allocates resources to the highest priority projects in these plans. 
There are projects in the STIP located in Jacksonville. 
2.2.6 Executive Orders on Quality Development and Sustainability 
Executive Order No. EO-OO-23: Use of state resources to encourage the development of 
quality communities. The order adopted by the governor in August 2000 is intended to 
ensure that state programs and activities contribute to building and maintaining quality 
communities that are environmentally sound, offer affordable housing and a balance of 
jobs and housing to reduce transportation needs and the cost of providing services 
including transportation. The order has seven objectives, which state agencies should use 
in combination with state and local partnership principles and local development 
objectives. Objective 4 most closely relates to the TSP update. It reads: "Support 
development that is compatible with a community's ability to provide adequate public 
facilities and services." 
Executive Order No. E0-03-03: A sustainable Oregon for the 21st century. The order 
recognizes that Oregon's economic recovery will be aided by establishing a commitment 
to lasting solutions that simultaneously address economic, environmental and community 
well-being. One aspect of well-being should not be traded against another. The order 
supports the goals of the Oregon Sustainability Act of 2001. 
Executive Order No. EO-06-14 establishing the Transportation and Tourism Task Force 
to synchronize tourism and transportation enhancement efforts statewide, including 
traveler information. 
2.2.7 Oregon Transportation Plan 
The Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) adopted the Oregon Transportation Plan 
(OTP) in 1999 and in September 2006 adopted a completely updated multi-modal plan. 
This Plan supersedes the 1992 Oregon Transportation Plan. The 1992 OTP established a 
vision of a balanced, multimodal transportation system and called for an expansion of 
ODOT's role in funding non-highway investments. With fourteen years of experience 
and technological advances, the 2006 OTP provides a framework to further these policy 
objectives with emphasis on maintaining the assets in place, optimizing the existing 
system performance through technology and better system integration, creating 
sustainable funding and investing in strategic capacity enhancements. 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 8 
The OTP has four sections: (1) Challenges, Opportunities, and Vision; (2) Goals, Policies 
and Strategies; 3) Summary of Financial and Technical Analyses; and (4) 
Implementation. The OTP meets a legal requirement that the OTC develop and maintain 
a plan for a multimodal transportation system for Oregon. The OTP also implements the 
federal requirements for a state transportation plan. The OTP also meets land use 
planning requirements for State agency coordination and the Goal 12 Transportation 
Planning Rule. This rule requires ODOT, the cities, and the counties of Oregon to 
cooperate and to develop balanced transportation systems. 
2.2.8 Oregon Public Transportation Plan (1997) 
The Public Transport plan focuses primarily on public transportation in metropolitan and 
urban areas. The following optimum (plan Level 3) public transportation level of service 
standards for urban areas envisions increased funding and applies for conditions in the 
year 2015. Level 3 standards include: 
• Increase services to enable metropolitan areas to respond to TPR requirements for 
per-capita reduction in vehicle miles traveled; 
• Provide services to all parts of the urbanized area; 
Provide service frequencies for all routes at no less than one-half hour at peak 
periods; 
• Provide service at no less that one-hour frequencies for off-peak services on all 
routes, or make a guaranteed ride home program available; 
• Provide park-and-ride facilities along major rail or bus corridors to meet reasonable 
peak and off-peak demand for such facilities; 
• Provide services with regular, convenient connections to all intercity modes and 
terminals; and 
• Provide sufficient service levels to public transportation-oriented development to 
achieve usage goals of the development. 
Level 2 service standards would allow transit service to expand at pace with population; 
and Level 1 would maintain existing service. In addition to public transportation, the 
plan also describes rail standards and minimum level of service standards for intercity 
bus service. 
2.2.9 Oregon Bike and Pedestrian Plan (1999) 
The goal of this plan is to provide safe, accessible and convenient bicycling and walking 
facilities and to support and encourage increased levels of bicycling and walking. The 
plan identifies policies, classification ofbikeways, construction and maintenance 
guidelines, and suggested actions to achieve these objectives. These actions are: (1) 
provide bikeway and walkway systems that are integrated with other transportation 
systems; (2) create a safe, convenient, and attractive bicycling and walking environment, 
and (3) develop education programs that improve bicycle and pedestrian safety. 
2.2.10 Freight Moves the Oregon Economy Report (1999) 
This document addresses concerns and needs of those who move goods and services 
within and through the state. It summarizes a variety of information about freight 
transport in the state including an in-depth look at issues and needs surrounding 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 9 
movements by road, rail, waterways, aircraft and pipelines. It is intended to help 
implement the Oregon Transportation Plan, especially that plan's economic development 
goals, and the Oregon Highway Plan, which includes highway designations for freight 
movement. 
There are no state-designated freight routes (per Oregon Highway Plan) in Jacksonville. 
2.2.11 Intersection Operations—Fifth and California Streets 
ODOT in early 2007 began a study of "stop" and through traffic at the intersection of 
Fifth and California streets, considering whether to require traffic in all directions except 
east-bound California through traffic to stop. Further study of this intersection should be 
pursued with ODOT staff to ensure the continued safe multi-modal traffic flow here, in 
accord with Policy 1-2 on Page l. 
2.3 Regional and County Plans 
Jacksonville is in the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning organization and is 
surrounded by land under the jurisdiction of Jackson County, so planning at the county 
and regional level impacts the city. City transportation projects that are federally funded 
and of regional significance must be part of the RVMPO planning process. 
2.3.1 Regional Transportation Plan, Rogue Valley Metropolitan 
Planning Organization (RVMPO) 
The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is the long-range, multimodal transportation 
plan for the Rogue Valley metropolitan area. A result of the 2000 U.S. Census was the 
expansion of the Med ford urbanized area to include the City of Jacksonville. Jacksonville 
formally joined the RVMPO in March 2003, and participated in the drafting and adoption 
of the 2005-2030 RTP. The plan meets federal mandates by meeting standards for air 
quality and by being fully funded. 
The RTP serves as a guide for managing existing transportation facilities and for the 
design and implementation of future transportation facilities. It provides the framework 
and policy foundation for decision making. The plan's Guiding Principles rely heavily on 
increasing facility efficiency, supporting alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles and 
balancing competing demands for services and resources. The plan's projections include 
forecasts for population and employment, and expectations based on results of travel-
demand modeling. 
Projects listed in the RTP are either Tier I (funded) or Tier 2 (no funding identified). 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 10 
Table 2.1: Jacksonville Regional Transportation Plan projects, Tier 1 & 2 (subject to change) 
RTP# Location Description Timing Cost Cost by 
Phase 
Funds 
Avail 
n/a C Street Bike/ped improvements short $238,500 $238,500 $238,500 
402 Jacksonville Street sweeper purchase short $199,240 $199,240 $241,000 
No projects identified 
in medium range 
Medium $0 $671,000 
No projects identified 
in long range 
Long $0 $1,935,000 
Jacksonville Arterial Connector Tier 2 Appox$30million unknown $0 
No projects are identified in the currently drafted RTP (2009-2034) in Jacksonville 
except for the purchase of street sweeper. Later in this report are other projects that 
Jacksonville proposes to enhance the livability of the community. However, since these 
projects are neither federally funded, nor regionally significant, they are not shown in the 
above table. A project that would probably fit within Tier 2 guidelines is so conceptual at 
this point, it is not in the RTP. This is the proposed arterial connector routing through 
and commercial traffic north of the city and away from the historic downtown core. 
Under discussion in the community for more than 40 years, the connector would run just 
north of existing city limits, connecting Pair-a-Dice Ranch Road with Hwy. 238 north of 
the city, creating an alternative to going through the city via California and Fifth streets. 
The alignment would cross resource land outside an acknowledged urban growth 
boundary. As of this writing, Jacksonville is pursuing an urban growth boundary 
expansion that would include lands to be crossed by the alignment. A task in this project 
will be to review previous studies, analyze traffic volume and safety issues, examine 
alignment and other issues and development of a plan level purpose and need statement 
for the connector. As noted in the RTP, facility construction is not expected to be 
necessary within the planning horizon, however, preservation and recognition of the 
connection is important now to protect what is likely to be a critical connection in the 
future. 
The plan's Alternative Measures section meets state planning requirements for MPOs 
contained in the Transportation Planning Rule. Alternative Measures set benchmarks for 
urban areas that, in general, encourage development of compact, pedestrian friendly 
development. The measures were adopted after travel-demand modeling for the 2000 
RTP showed that the region could expect at 2.5 percent per capita reduction in vehicle 
miles traveled, falling short of the required 5 percent reduction. Measures address the 
following: 
1. Increase bicycle, pedestrian and transit use; 
2. Increase percentage of dwelling units within '/4-mile of transit; 
3. Increase percentage of arterials and collectors with bicycle facilities; 
4. Increase percentage of housing and jobs in mixed-use development near activity 
centers; and, 
5. Increase transit funding on a regional (RVMPO) basis. 
Jacksonville TSP I I 
2.3.2 Transportation Improvement Program 
The RVMPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) identifies transportation 
projects in the planning region that are expected to be funded in the federal fiscal years 
2008-2011. Projects in the TIP are drawn from the RTP. The TIP, like the RTP meets air 
quality conformity requirements. 
2.3.3 Air Quality Conformity 
Jacksonville is within the Medford-Ashland Air Quality Maintenance Area and under 
state Department of Environmental Quality rules, the region must show conformity with 
emission standards for particulates, specifically PMjo. The Rogue Valley Metropolitan 
Planning Organization performs a conformity determination for all federally funded, 
regionally significant projects in the RTP and TIP. Therefore, Jacksonville projects listed 
in those documents must meet air quality standards. 
2.3.4 Baseline Environmental Data 
2.3.4.1 RVMPO Environmental Review In late 2006 and early 2007, the RVMPO 
conducted a survey of environmental features within the MPO planning area to conform 
to new federal requirements. The survey used available local, state and federal 
conservation plans, maps, and inventories of historic and natural resources. 
• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Class 1 and 2 soils, which have the least amount 
of restrictions to their use and are considered most valuable for agriculture and 
conservation. None in the urban area. 
• Wetlands, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), and Jackson County's Goal 5 
Inventory of Natural Areas. (NWI) wetlands were identified in the vicinity of 
Singler Lane at the eastern edge of the city. 
• Critical wildlife habitats, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife areas for 
deer, elk, Coho salmon and vemal pools. None in the urban area; sensitive area 
for deer and elk winter range identified outside the urban growth boundary on the 
south. 
• Clean Water Act directive 303(d) listing of impaired waters lists Jackson Creek, 
mouth to headwaters (flows through northern portion of urban area), monitored 
for bacteria and temperature. 
• National Parks Service National Register of Historic Places, identifying the city 
limits as the Jacksonville National Historic Landmark District, and sites at the 
southwestern edge of the urban area as being on the National Register of Historic 
Places. 
2.3.4.2 Statewide Land Use Goal 5 Goal 5 addresses many of the same features 
addressed in the previous two sections by the RVMPO and the City of Jacksonville. The 
Goal covers more than a dozen resources including wildlife habitats, historic places and 
aggregate. It contains measures intended to avoid duplication with other state or federal 
programs that address resources. The goal sets up a planning process to protect resources 
that includes: an inventory; identification of potential conflicts with existing or proposed 
uses; analysis of the consequences of the conflicts; a decision on protections needed; and 
adoption of measures to put protection policies into effect. Goal 5 resources not 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 12 
addressed in the programs described above include options for local governments to 
designate open space and scenic views and sites. 
Aggregate sites are protected under the goal. Although there are no aggregate sites within 
the urban area, traffic from sites north and west of the city have impacts on the city's 
transportation system because haul routes follow state and county roads through the 
center of the city. 
2.3.5 Jackson County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Transportation 
System Plan 
The Jackson County Comprehensive Plan is the official long-range land use policy 
document for Jackson County. The plan sets forth general land use planning policies and 
allocates land uses into resource, residential, commercial and industrial categories. The 
plan serves as the basis for the coordinated development of physical resources, and the 
development or redevelopment of the county based on physical, social, economic and 
environmental factors. The Board of County Commissioners updated the 1989 plan in 
early 2004, and the revised plan took effect in March 2004. For the most part, the 
Comprehensive Plan guides rural development in Jackson County, but some policies 
affect cities as well. 
Urban Lands Element: 
GOAL: TO PROVIDE FOR AN ORDERLY, EFFICIENT AND 
ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND PLAN FOR URBAN LAND USES WITHIN 
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES. 
Policy #1: Jackson County shall maintain a long-range commitment to the 
implementation of urban centered growth. 
Transportation Element: 
Jackson County updated its Transportation System Plan in 2004. The TSP is the county's 
long-range guide to managing and developing multi-modal transportation facilities within 
the county. It sets system goals and policies for livability, the modal components and 
integration with land use planning, financial and environmental planning. County roads 
providing access to Jacksonville are Old Stage Road (Oregon Street in Jacksonville) on 
the north, linking to Central Point, and South Stage Road on the southeast, linking to 
South Medford area. The TSP, like the RTP, includes a discussion of Jacksonville's 
proposed arterial connector. Land on which the connector would be built (north of 
Jacksonville) is resource land under county jurisdiction, although the city currently is 
seeking to have the area brought within its urban growth boundary. The count)' TSP notes 
both the expense and state land-use goal considerations raised by the connector proposal. 
The TSP notes the city's desire to protect its unique historic downtown core from the 
detrimental effects of through traffic. The county identified a need to coordinate with 
Jacksonville, and that through truck traffic in downtown Jacksonville is an important 
livability problem for the city. It suggests that the planning process for the connector 
would likely include an Environmental Impact Statement under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The county TSP's analysis of future conditions 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 13 
(2023) notes queuing due to trucks - an operational deficiency - on Hvvy. 238 between 
Ruch and Jacksonville. 
The county TSP contains two policies relating to Jacksonville and the arterial connector: 
• Policy 4.3.3-C: Support planning of an alternative transportation route to move 
regional through traffic, particularly logging, agriculture and aggregate generated 
truck traffic, out of historic downtown Jacksonville. Work with the city of 
Jacksonville to expand its (Urban Growth Boundary) UGB to include the areas 
proposed for its "north arterial connector" as the preferred alternative to address 
the city's trough-traffic issues. 
• Policy 4.2.1-M: Jackson County establishes Long-Term Potential (LTP) 
Comprehensive Plan corridor areas where planning for future road connections 
beyond the planning horizon of the TSP are probable. (The north arterial 
connector was one of the corridor areas established.) 
2.4 City Plans and Studies 
2.4.1 Jacksonvil le Comprehensive Land Use Plan 
Jacksonville's Comprehensive Plan includes 13 chapters. Each chapter includes a review 
of existing conditions and establishes goals and policies for future uses. Chapters that 
contain provisions pertinent to this review are: The Historic Element (Chapter 2), 
Transportation element (Chapter 5), Economic Element (Chapter 6), Public Facilities 
Element (Chapter 9), Housing Element (Chapter 11), and Land Use (Chapter 12). Each is 
briefly discussed below. 
Historic Element: Goal - To preserve the integrity of the past, while guiding the 
evolution of the future. The Historic Element divides Jacksonville into neighborhoods, 
and each neighborhood is described using topography, transportation, streetscape, 
landscape, land use, and architecture. 
Transportation Systems: Goal - To provide comprehensive, long-range Transportation 
Systems for the City of Jacksonville that include (1) providing for optimal public safety 
and services, (2) providing for appropriate street, pathway, and sidewalk standards, (3) 
preserving historic and scenic resources and values while recognizing the economic 
values of Hwy. 238. 
Other development policies include the following: 
• (A) Provide adequate, safe, and legal access to and from all property; 
• (C) Meet the diverse transport needs of the community by striving to balance the 
competing needs of the various road user groups, including residents and those 
traveling through the City. Pedestrian movements, non-motorized vehicles (i.e. 
bicycle) movements, and truck deliveries shall be accommodated and conflict 
points between transportation modes shall be minimized. 
• (G) Provide, promote, improve, and maintain a safe, convenient and pleasurable 
pedestrian and bicycling environment through increasing connectivity, continuity, 
and ease of crossings. 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 14 
• (H) Provide a network of pedestrian and cycle paths, tracks and linkages that 
develop pedestrian/bicycle links from transit stops and give priority to 
pedestrian/bicycle access. 
• (I) Moderate use of private vehicles and their impacts and encourage alternative 
modes of travel by encouraging the development of housing and activity centers 
near the public transport network. 
The plan includes discussion of an arterial connector that would detour state highway 
through traffic north of the historic downtown. The new route could be built in phases: 
one phase to extend westerly from Highway 238 to Old Stage Road, and an additional 
phase that would connect Old Stage Road with an upgraded section of Pair-a-Dice Ranch 
Road by arcing north of Autumn Lane, combined with a new road north of Westmount 
Drive (see Element 6 of this TSP for more detail). 
This project will update the Transportation Element. It will include amending the goals; 
updating the inventory, traffic counts, finance plan and forecasts; developing a Purpose 
and Need statement for the proposed arterial connector north of existing city limits; and 
examining street standards. 
Economic Element: Goal: - To provide for and enhance the economic viability and 
vitality of the City of Jacksonville and to make provisions for expanding and 
diversifying its economic base in balance with the community's unique historical 
character and cultural attractions. 
Policies include 
• (B) Improve and maintain public services and facilities to enhance existing and 
future commercial activity. Prepare, utilize, monitor, and update a Capital 
Improvement Plan that will provide for visitors' services, parks, and parking in 
balance with financial constraints and tax base impacts. Explore grants to 
facilitate and augment funding. 
The Economic Element includes an analysis of the city's strengths and weaknesses that 
identifies "transportation issues" as a serious weakness. Specifically, the city's distance 
from Interstate 5, the region's most important travel corridor, increases cost of moving 
goods to and from the city and hampers tourism - especially impulse stops. (As a 
positive, however, the distance preserves a quiet, isolated atmosphere that strengthens the 
city's historic character.) Other weaknesses noted include the following: 
• Conflicts between highway traffic, including trucks, and the 
pedestrian-oriented downtown area, 
• Narrow streets that hamper deliveries to local businesses; 
• Event associated parking shortages and a lack of bus and RV parking 
impact residential areas, 
® Growth in the existing tourist-based economy would lead to increased 
traffic, further straining existing facilities, and 
• The distance to key services located outside Jacksonville (medical, 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 15 
auto repair, large retail, etc.) that require city residents to travel to 
Medford or Ashland. 
Housing Element: Goal: - To provide a range of safe, sanitary and affordable housing 
by type, location and density without regard to race, age, sex, income or marital status, 
balanced by the need to maintain the character and historical integrity of Jacksonville. 
Implementation Strategy (1) Remain receptive to and provide for new and innovative 
land development and housing techniques and opportunities. 
Land Use: Goal: - To provide for a compatible, orderly and efficient arrangement and 
distribution of land uses to meet the needs of the community while guiding the physical 
development to complement the historic character and livability of the city. Pertinent 
policies include the following: 
• Policy 2: Developing commercial areas along major transportation corridors 
should provide ample off-street parking, internal circulation, and reasonable, yet 
limited access and traffic control. 
• Policy 3: Residential and commercial development should be enhanced and 
strengthened through sensitive but functional site layout and design, recognizing 
tradeoffs inherent among the various design variables. 
Access Management Plan: Apply access controls along arterials and major collectors to 
reach the desired balance between accessibility and mobility and achieve the planned 
function of these streets. 
Public Transportation Element: Weekday service is provided by Rogue Valley 
Transportation District with a single bus route from Medford along Hwy. 238 (N. Fifth 
Street) to California, turning back on C Street and returning to Medford on N. Fifth 
Street, with bus stops near Shafer Lane, D Street, and at the west end of C Street. 
Appendix C (current TSP): Highway 238 Facilities Management Plan: This 
appendix to the current TSP was adopted by the City Council in 1996, eight years before 
the Oregon Transportation Commission reclassified the section of highway within city 
limits as a Special Transportation Area (STA). The designation is consistent with the 
purpose of Appendix C (current TSP) - recognition that the road serves both through 
traffic and "Main Street" functions in the city. Within STAs, the state recognizes that the 
need for appropriate local access outweighs the consideration of highway mobility. In 
STAs, this appropriate local access might include extra lighting, additional landscaping, 
and extra signage, among other amenities. Management of STAs is to be governed by a 
memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the city and ODOT, however no such 
agreement has been drafted. 
Appendix C (current TSP) focuses on construction of an arterial connector route that 
would take Hwy. 238 through traffic west and north of the city. On the western end, 
through traffic would be routed on a rebuilt Pair-a-dice Ranch Road, curve eastward on a 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 16 
new road north of existing city limits, cross Old Stage Road (N. Oregon Street) north of 
Autumn Lane, and continue west to Hwy. 238 (Jacksonville Hwy.) northeast of existing 
city limits. Appendix C notes that previous traffic studies determined that the connector 
would route at least 30 percent of traffic away from downtown (California and Fifth 
streets), and offers the best solution to problems of safety and congestion on Hwy. 238 
within the city. Appendix C envisions that the section of state highway within the city 
would move from state to city jurisdiction. The appendix re-affirmed a 1995 City Council 
decision to select the 'northern' arterial connector corridor as a long-range project. The 
appendix contains strategies for protecting the corridor and managing access to preserve 
rural areas around the city. 
Other corridor strategies include: 
• Limiting Conflict Points, and consolidate accesses where feasible. Some of the 
properties may be adequately served with one or two accesses instead of two or three, 
respectively. 
• Limit vehicles to right-in/right-out turning movements where feasible 
• City and RVTD should consider constructing bus turn out bays at each of the stops 
along Highway 238. 
Improve safety - Fifth and Shafer is the intersection with the highest accident record in 
the city. As additional development occurs, it should be considered for a traffic control 
device. 
2.4.2 Jacksonville Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance 
City ordinances governing transportation facilities generally are found in the municipal 
code in Title 16, Land Division Regulations, and Title 17, Zoning (defining uses that 
require traffic and parking plans); and Title 18, Historic Protection. 
Title 16: Land Division Regulations - enacts subdivision and land partition regulations 
including standards for public and private streets, including engineering and construction 
standards. 
Title 17: Zoning - Defines city land use zones, overlay districts and Downtown Core 
Enhancement area. Section 17.24.055 sets standards and requirements for performance 
standards including standards for: traffic plans, to provide adequate vehicle circulation in 
and around a proposed project; load plan, to provide for truck turning and access; parking 
plan, for off-street parking; and pedestrian plan, to provide compacted, lighted walkways 
and entrances suitable for the handicapped within and in the vicinity of a project. 
The Jacksonville Core Enhancement Plan resulted from a series of meetings held in 1998 
and 1999. It recommends design standards for uses along C Street, California Street, and 
Main Street, stretching from 5lh Street to the west city limits. Although the area affected 
by this plan does not extend to the study area, certain elements of the plan may be 
adaptable. 
Title 18: In recognition of Jacksonville's designation as a National Historic Landmark, 
Title 18 establishes historic protection and design regulations. It sets both procedural 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 17 
requirements and design criteria, and establishes the Historic and Architectural Review 
Commission (HARC), which reviews applications for compatibility with established 
uses. Detailed requirements control placement of structures, construction materials, and 
decorative features, outlining what is allowed and specifically excluding elements that are 
inconsistent with the city's historic designation. The requirements complement the 
guidelines contained in the Design Guidelines for Jacksonville, Oregon, prepared by The 
Architectural Resources Groups. This title contains standards for parking, access, and 
sidewalks. 
2.4.3 RVMPO Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan 
The RVMPO in 2004 conducted audits of development regulations in several cities 
including Jacksonville to determine the steps participating jurisdictions would need to 
take to achieve an integrated land use and transportation plan, as required by the TPR. In 
Jacksonville, the audit identified several provisions that support the integrated planning 
requirement. It also made recommendations and proposed specific code changes. 
Recommendations included: 
• Establish maximum lot sizes; 
• Increase the amount of residential land having densities at a minimum of ten 
units per acre; 
• Increase lot coverage [and building height?] where transportation facilities and 
public safety measures can be achieved; 
• Consider requiring a portion of a commercial building to be at the property line, 
with entrances oriented to street to encourage pedestrian use; 
• Provide measures for evaluating proximity of transit to commercial uses; 
• Consider narrowing required street widths. To be consistent with the goal of 
providing narrower streets, evaluate the standards in the Model Code when 
updating the Transportation System Plan; and 
• Consider permitting density transfers to preserve valuable characteristics 
(woodland, open space) while maintaining higher density overall. 
2.4.4 Traffic Capacity Analysis, Greenlight Engineering 
City of Jacksonville asked Greenlight Engineer, Tualatin, to evaluate specific traffic 
conditions, based on traffic counts obtained in summer 2006. Greenlight reported in 
February, 2007, on the following: 
1. Existing operation of the California and Oregon streets intersection at Sunday 
peak hour (examining impacts of traffic generated west of town), 
2. Existing operation of the California and Oregon streets intersection at peak Britt 
Festivals performance night, 
3. Existing operation of the California and Oregon streets intersection alternative 
truck route volumes, and 
4. Future operation of the California and Oregon streets intersection. 
The study found the intersection performing adequately during weekday afternoon and 
Britt peak traffic hours, but inadequate performance at Sunday peak. Detailed findings 
appear in Chapter 4: Current Conditions and Deficiencies, and chapters examining future 
performance. 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 18 
Element 3 
Transportation Facilities and Services Inventory 
3.1 Introduction 
This element is a catalog of the city's existing transportation facilities and services. 
Although it generally addresses facilities within the city's urban growth boundary (UGB) 
it also extends to areas expected to be urbanized in the near term. 
Sections in this element describe in detail Jacksonville's transportation system, including 
roadways, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, transit, rail, air, water, freight movement and 
pipeline/transmission modes. Each mode's current condition and purpose are described. 
3.2 Facilities and Services 
The following sections describe the present-day transportation system in the TSP study 
area by mode. As noted above, the study area includes the existing UGB area, plus other 
areas on the study area map, which are the mostly likely locations for future urban 
expansion and mostly likely to play a role in future transportation connectivity. Maps of 
the study area and existing streets appear on pages29, 32, and Appendix 1. 
3.2.1 Street Network, with Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 
Roads in the study are owned by the city, Jackson County and the state. Additionally, 
several roads are in private ownership. Generally, the city owns the smaller, local streets 
inside city limits. 
County and state roads provide access to the city. County roads serving Jacksonville are: 
• Old Stage Road, from the north, connecting to Central Point, becomes Oregon 
Street in the city. Road is under city jurisdiction inside city limits. 
• South Stage Road, from the east, connecting to South Medford, becomes East 
California Street in the city. East California Street between Stagecoach Drive and 
Sixth Street is in county jurisdiction. West of Fifth Street, and continuing to city 
limits, the road is in city jurisdiction. 
• Cady Road (a county road) from the south, connects to state Hwy. 238 (Ruch and 
Applegate communities), and becomes Applegate Street inside the city. 
State Hwy. 238, the only state route in the study area, links Jacksonville to North 
Medford, providing the most direct link to the region's most significant road, Interstate 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 9 
5. Hwy. 238 is classified as a District Highway in the Oregon Highway Plan. The plan 
describes District Highways as facilities of county-wide significance, which function 
largely as county and city arterials or collectors. These highways provide connections 
between small urbanized areas, rural and urban centers, and serve local traffic and access 
needs. Hwy. 238 follows a north-south route that tracks west through western Jackson 
County and eastern Josephine County. The southern terminus is Interstate 5 at North 
Medford, and the northern terminus is US 199 in Grants Pass. The route from Medford 
approaches Jacksonville from the north, becoming North Fifth Street inside the city. At 
the junction with South Stage Road (East California Street) in the central downtown 
area, Hwy. 238 makes a 90-degree turn to the west. West of the intersection, the road 
becomes West California Street. Beyond the western city boundary, Hwy. 238 turns to 
the south, passing through Ruch, Applegate and then north to Grants Pass, where it 
connects with US 199. 
Hwy. 238 within city limits (0.81 mile, from mile post 33.J 6, West California Street at 
West Main Street, to mile post 33.97, North Fifth Street at Shafer Lane) is designated a 
Category 1 Special Transportation Area (STA) by the Oregon Transportation 
Commission (OTC). The OTC made the designation on January 14, 2004, pursuant to the 
highway plan's land use and transportation policy. The policy addresses the relationship 
between state highways and adjacent development patterns. The STA designation 
recognizes the dual purposes of the roadway to serve through travelers and be the main 
street of a community. Within STAs the need for appropriate local access outweighs the 
consideration of highway mobility. As stated in the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP), "the 
primary objective of an STA is to provide access to and circulation amongst community 
activities, businesses and residences and to accommodate pedestrian, bicycle and transit 
movement along and across the highway." 
Jurisdiction, or ownership, of a roadway is significant in that it determines responsibility 
for the following: 
• Determining the road's functional classification, which sets the road's role in the 
transportation system and design features including width, access and sidewalk 
and bicycle lane requirements; 
• Maintenance; and 
• Approving access permits 
The functional classification follows a hierarchy, with each class of street serving a 
particular function and relationship to other types of streets. Classification is based on 
two distinct street functions - provide local land access and movement of vehicles - and 
the balance that is struck between them, 
• Arterial: the highest class, serving greater traffic volumes than other categories, 
usually at higher speeds. Arterials in Jacksonville are North Fifth Street and West 
California Street - Hwy. 238 - under state jurisdiction. ODOT classifies the route 
from Medford through Jacksonville as a Principal Arterial. Generally, arterials 
also serve truck movements and should emphasize traffic movement over local 
access. However, because Hwy. 238 in the city is designated a Special 
Transportation Area, local needs receive greater attention. Jacksonville's existing 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 20 
standards call for 4- to 5.5-foot bike lanes on both sides and sidewalks on one or 
both sides separated by a 3- to 5.5-foot buffer strip. 
• Collectors: are an intermediate class, drawing traffic from the lower class local 
streets and funnel ing it to the higher class arteria Is. Collectors support traffic 
circulation but balance traffic needs with local land access. North and South 
Oregon streets in the downtown area, East California Street and Applegate Street 
are Jacksonville's collector streets. Existing standards vary, and collectors may or 
may not have bicycle lanes, sidewalks or parking. 
• Local: By far the largest category of streets in Jacksonville, local streets are 
designated to provide land access. They carry traffic at low speeds to facilitate 
access and optimize safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. They should be 
designed to provide traffic circulation within small, neighborhood areas and not 
encourage "short-cut" uses that should be routed to collectors. Local streets feed 
the collectors. Parking generally is permitted on both sides of the street, and a 
pedestrian path or sidewalk may be provided on one side. Street standards 
depend on which of four zones a street is located. Local street standards very 
depending on the zone: Standard are intended primarily to protect historical 
resources. In some areas, decomposed granite is the standard sidewalk surface. 
The inventory of street network facilities shows all arterial s, collectors and local streets. 
This section includes the inventory of public parking and pedestrian and bicycle facilities 
as they exist within the street-system rights-of-way. 
The inventory is presented in maps that begin on the next page, followed by table 3.1, 
which contains additional facility information. Traffic counts appear in Chapter 4. 
Intelligent Transportation System Planning 
The Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization has an Intelligent Transportation 
System Plan for the region that includes medium- and long-range projects in 
Jacksonville. Projects are: 
• Automatic Traffic Recorder and Closed Circuit Television, Fifth Street at 
California Street, proposed for 2011-2015; and 
• Parking Management System, visitor information, associated with event 
management, at municipal parking lot at end of West C Street. 
Regarding pedestrians, the city has a system of pedestrian trails separate from the street 
system. The trail system is discussed in a separate bicycle-pedestrian section that follows 
the street system section. 
The parking inventory is discussed in section 3.2.5. 
The street system map appears on the next page. The street inventory begins on the 
following page. Traffic count data is contained in Element 4. 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 21 
— • Jji ».»oiivtilr ODOT Citv of Jyk cannile 
JxV.vojj fVuniti •——*•• Tnul Symhii 1'ilukii Gur,;tli BoipttLiiv 
a r * i j —. i — • — -
=igure 3.1: Study Area Street System Inventory 
Jurisdictional Owners] lip 
DRAFT Jacksonvil le T S P 22 
o 
a UT 
CT. •X" oí CD 
o C-. OJ oo 
o-OJ OJ 
l o 
UJ 
vol o r— rO LO 
T 
y ¡Ti •'i o 
I'-J •--
LO OJ 
S 
C~> 
LJ1 
co lo : o ! a • o 
OJ 
OJ OJ 
--Î OJ OJ 
o 
OJ 
O Ijj •X) 
3 70
27
21
 
'jD OI co 
LO 'O 
CO 
co o-> u-» "«í 
o <J> •a ' j 
OJ 
'i' 
ñl 
io' 
o O O io IV. 
o o f» o r--
O fO O r--
iO O O O 
CTl OJ Líl IX, y T Bf, S 
OJ 
p 
s 
s 
f--'X) O CO UT LO 
UT 
3 
OI OJ to 
O O m 
3 
ro o OI o r*» 
O r--f •T> 
O o co <n to 
LU 
CD 
« UJ E 
3 o Z o 21 O S o x o X O ^ o Z o Z O Z O Z O Z o o z O z o ^ 2 O o o z: O z: o z: o Z o Z O Z O ^ O z O z _o o z: O z: O z o Z o O O z: O z O O z o X O X o z ífí >- O Z o o z 
Ul si > 
to o¡ 
> -
10 ai >- s > 
to <D >- S > a> >- S >-
en 
CDÌS Q < 
« 5 O Z O O z o z £ o z O z 
fi aj > O z O z o Z c z o z o ^ O c o z 
to cu >-
« û> > 
•CA <11 
>-
10 cu >-
to ai >- o z O z O z o z o z 
i/) tb > 
to <u >- o Z o z O z: o Z O z c z o z O X o z o z o z o X o z 0 z O Z o z O X o X o X o X O z O z <u > 
</} aj>-
LU 
O O 
K 
m 
o o o C3 CÌ o a o o o o o Q o c o o o O o O o o a o o •o o O o o o o o o o L J L o CJ CJ o o o o o o 
to m 
o o o O o o o o o o o 
J. co 
S c ) O O 
iL UJ 
CE O 1- Ol 
o c o o c o c. o c o c O c o c o c o c o c o c o c O o c o c o c o cz O c o o c o c o c o c o £1 o c o c o c O O c o c O c O c o c o c: o c o c o c O c o c O c o c O c O c >- ai >-
VI o lfl ai >-
trt ai >-
v> cu >-
Of. OJ > 
•sí-a» 
> 
Ó ci 
o LO o LO o LO o LO o o (O o LO LO TT cu LO o LD o o LO o LO u-> OJ Lfl o Ol o o LO o LO o LO o LO o LO a LO o LO o to o i_n O LO o UT o -er o o LO ^ L3 LO o o LO o <•£> o LO o LO o LO o o CJ IO LO LO LO LO LO <o LO LO LO ai LO 
S Í 
ce <: O O J 0 01 o Fi C> OJ o r » Q J O OJ r— CO OJ CO OJ co r-j ÓC r-j ÖO OJ 
Ô? 
rO 
ço a 
cO r' Líl 
"ÎJ 
in ío ro ÎO <T| ÖO rn ro • "i LO o OJ OJ OI Oí Oí Óí Oí co CO ÖI OJ f--Ol OJ OJ Ö to O Öl ÖJ co co co 03 CO CO oo ÖJ PO ÓJ O ÖJ OI rrj Oí rO ÒI ÒJ ro OI rO 
X i— 
O 1-
2 UJ UJ UJ _l u_ 
oO cu r--r-- S -
'-i O • LO O cr> r-- to tv •=1 o LO OI 
f-OJ OJ 
Ol 
T 
Ï- C Oí c OJ i-n Ti h— rö u-, ÍM « ro S LO co OJ Ol O OI OJ OJ tíí fo 0Û 1 LJ Oí C^J en OJ n OJ OJ LO UJ OI to OJ tO OI to OI LO to CO F»- C7i LO -•r OJ T o. Oí to OJ <x> Oí iO OJ 
Q LU UJ CL CO 
UT oí UT OI UT OJ 'O OJ LO ÍN u
-) OI Líl OJ u! OJ uì OJ LO Oí LO Ol ir? OJ LO OI O Oí o u oj r ul OJ Lfl OJ LO r j lO OJ LO OJ LO OJ LO OJ ul OJ LO OJ LO OI LO Oí io OJ LO r-í OJ s i-O OJ LO OJ LO OJ LO Oí ul Oí LO Oí LO OJ ul OI U"j OI LO OJ LO OJ ul OJ LO OI UT OJ 0 01 o OJ O OJ O OJ O r\f CD Oí o OJ o OJ 
CO UJ z 
Ol Oí Oí OJ OI OJ Ol Oí Ol l-^ í Ol OJ OI Oí r-t OJ OJ OJ OI OI OI o. OJ OJ OJ Oí OI OJ OJ OI OI OI OJ OI OJ OJ OJ OJ OI OJ (~-J OJ OJ OJ Oí OI OJ OJ 
UJ o < 
LL. or D co 
•o Ül 
> ra Q. 
•O «11 
> ra CL 
x> Qi 
? O 
CL 
t j a> 
re CL 
-a o > •TD-a 
•o Oí > ro n 
•Q Ü> > n CL 
"O to a CL 
TU CU 
> 
CL 
•O ÙJ 
> n CL 
"g 
> nj a 
TD a> 
> ra a 
"O (U > O} CL 
TD QJ 
> ra a 
i ] 
í i 
1 
GL 
Tv ÛJ > ra CL 
TJ QJ > ra 0. 
"O 
QJ í.-ra CL 
TJ Oí > ra a 
S 
> ra CL 
"O ai 
> ra Ú. 
? ra CL 
•O a< 
> ra Q. 
> ra a 
•o QJ 
> ra CL 
-o ÛJ > ra a 
T3 > 
ra CL 
•O a> > ra a 
•O Oí > ra CL 
> ra CL 
•O QJ > ra Q-
•O ai > ra 
CL 
? tLi CL > ra CL 
T3 <J  > ra 
CL 
TJ QJ > ra a 
ÜJ > ra a. 
•O CJ 
> re a 
XI QJ > ra 
XI QJ 
ra CL 
•O QJ 
> ra CL 
üj 
> 
ra 
Ó 
"qj 
> ra 
e? 
73 
> ra CL 
TD ill 
> CS CL 
•xa ÍU 
> ra CL 
"O cu 
> ra CL 
"O QJ > ra a 
x> QJ 
> ra n. 
"8 
> re 
CL 
^ a 
•ZL 
O h-C-
o CO a. => 
O el .ac <j rt 
0> 
i o «/> 
o (TJ —;> 
<P > 
c o 
<J ra -J 
» 
1 Z; 
o o — 
5 y) 
o o 
A' 
i-if.-JUL V O —J 
> c o to 
<J -> 
> C O to 
s ca —f 
> c o •Ji 
fìj 
o 
> c. o 
<fl 
u ra —> 
• > c o io 
o ra - i 
JÜ > 
c o vi u c¡ —i 
Q> > 
c O 
t> O -> 
OJ 
> c o to 
o ra —j 
c o 
Jí u ra 
-
> c O •/I O ra - i 
o? 
c O 
u ra 
à' 
o u> 
o ra -> 
i-
Je u o 
^ 
5 
to 
u ra —> 
OJ 
> c o to Jí 
ra 
> C O to LJ ra 
0) 
• > c o 10 
LJ ra —j 
0) > a 0 01 
LJ ra — 
a? > 
c O 
•fí 
ra —j 
J?? 
S c o i/i 
o ra -1 
c o Y' o ra —J 
QJ > 
LI O to <_> ra 
• > c o « 
u ra -i 
<¿> 
' > 
c o tft o< re —¡ 
> c o to 
ra —> 
> c o m 
o ra 
> 
c 
1 ra — 
JJ > 
c o t^  u 
ra — 
_0> 
c 
O trt LJ ra —i 
tz o to (J ra —i 
ä 
1 
U ra 
à 
c o 
"o ra —> 
> c o 
!/> 
LJ re 
! 
QJ 
• > C O 1/1 J¿ o ra 
JJ 
> c o to 
ra •i 
QJ 
' > C O to 
LJ fS 
J! > 
c O UÌ 
O ra —> 
> c o l/í 
o ra — 
D O O c Q </. 
LI ra —J 
C n o o 
c o l/> 
o ra —ï 
c U O O c o to 
V ra —> 
c 
O o c o to 
"d ra 
c ^ o o c o to Jí o ra 
—/ 
c rj O O c o 
(A 
<J ra 
i— O Q O 
1-o o O 
vi co 
5 o 
O 
O! 
S 
% <v 
S 
8 A3 
O O 
o 
C OJ 
o O 
O XJ aj 
ö O 
O ü _ÛJ 
Ö O 
O 
0} 
3 s o _J 
"m u o Tv u o _j 
"ra o O 3 O 3 O 1 
03 u O 
"ra 7 o o -i _ 
ra 
O _J 
ra o o _i 
"ra 
o _J 
3 o . J 
"ra o o i 
"rä U o ^j 
ra LJ O 
ra LJ C5 ra o o _i 3 o _l 
L • O 3 O J^ 
"ra o c 
"ñ u 
: 
"ra o 
• 
3 O 
"ra u o 
ra o o _J 
"ra <_> 
o _i 
3 o 3 o _1 
3 o 3 o _l 
"ra o O J 
"ra o o 
"ra U O 
"ra o o 
"ra o o 3 o 
O U 
o O 
O tj QJ O 
O 
O o _aj 
"5 O 
O C QJ 
3 
o 
ai 
3 
o o 
S 
"ra 'C 0J t: 
< 
"ra 
i < 
Q t-
í 
1 
Π
J> 
0Ç 
S 
í 
.o 
S 
LO 
> -<f 
i 
Î o 
i— ffi 
T) 
•f O 
i— w 
J 
t-
¡n 
O 
—i LÏ ui I— « 
Cr; 
1— 
S 
,i i 
1-v> < 
-Z. et o IL. 
o 
ni 
1— CO UJ _I 
Z or 
1-
UJ 
1 Le. O 'XI 
o 
S 
5 ^ 
S 
r 
s 
E V7 
21 CL 3 1— 
;LJ OJ i L? 
S lO 
• 
U— 
Z 
'Ti ZU 
5 ü - 1-j. L il 
i Í c 
Gf < 
o 
z 
•LTl 
LU z UJ Zi X 
1 O 
UJ 
< 
Ci r/ < 
O 
"r 
O 
UJ O < 
t— Z > 
Ct 
ü 
LU O < 
1— Z 
1— CO 
UJ 
? 
i-
00 
z 
o 
o LL, cu 
O 
z 
fe 
u 
m 
UJ 
CL O 
O < 
O o 
y < 
1-'n 
o: o 
< <£> O I— CO • 
z 
o o 
CSL Q >-
LU CL CL 
</> 
1— en 
cc O 
5-
< i— 
Q Z UJ J— LO < 
UJ 
DC O LU 
O Cfi X UJ LU CC O 
1-o 
UJ o 
« 
UJ LÜ DC O 
Z i 
> -LU 
< o 
i— CO O CL p-i 
CO 
J— 
S 
< 
< CL O 
Q Z ui 
r K— 
L£ 
O X 
s ¡B i i— n O co 
o z .IJ 
r H Cí 
o •Z. 
h-Oi 
< 
n: 
â o
1— 00 X 1— LO 
z 
J— 
00 
X 
X 
i— 
tO 
O 
CL 
co 
Z 
•>3 
t-(fi 
O 
J— co 
X 
T 
X 
</) X J— o-X 
i— co 
X 1— co 
1— co 
X H-
or 
X 
CO ^ 
S 
È o 
cc 
û 
X 
o < 
o u LU o < 
1— co 
I— i/) E f— •TD 
a co 
X < 
iL UJ LU CO 
a o 
Q o 
o Jj 
LU •L n 
3 
1-60 r 1-
L O 
CO OÖ 
I-G0 X 1— lo 
z 
}— 
CO 
X i— 
V) 
oíí 
1— 
co 
X •r-
•>4 
X 
1— co < 
z cc o UL < 
<J 
1— 10 o a 
o 
co 
e-5 
1— CO 
o a 
n 
Z 
r 
o 
a * 
a 
u 
s 1—, S u. 
£ 
— 
LI -U 
S 
i 
Î 
o 
u 
Vi 
<'fi 
t— 
d 
X 
8 
I 
« 
IXJ 
s 
! 
% 
5 it o ••.i "í 
S L
1 
• 
s 
UJ • 
JT 
z: i •Ji j j 
±i => 
X 
^ 
LJ LJ LL O 
S 
o •T» 
S 
¿: —i L£ UJ —i o 3 
iÜ 
t-
X i i-n 
Z 
• 
1- 4 
co : 
LL -
u 5 
. 
I r (3 
J_ 
tí 
Cr: a: < 
at ' j 
<ji 
i— 
> 
IX u 
LLI 
? 
> 
z —i 
Qf 
Lu i-
< X o z LLI 
in fe 
< Q c; 
S 
=1 en 
iX Û >-
lU 
S n en 
CE 0 
1 
CL Cî 
3 o — 
en j_ 
c¡ 
z 
UJ 
I— •y.' LU 
> 
CL 
O Cl £ --U 
> -< 
ê 
S 
0 i": 
1 T1 
g 
t-
•/i 
... 
L1 
r; 
Jj 
D 
S 
i u 
H-eo 
J— 
LU 
t 
LU 
a < 
î 
-r 
< o: is 
1 
X < o. <3 
z 
J J 
X 
O u> 
s 
X 
fe 
1 
p X • 
7 
•0 X t— U'l 
z 
i— 
co 
E 
to 
J— 
</> 
X 
X 
Q Z UJ Í— Í/J 
a 
CE 
Ù 
X o < 
o u UJ 
o < 
1— OO 
CL o 
o 
o CL < 
u_ 
írt _i 
LU 
CO 
• 
t 
O 
1X o Û o o 
. 
CE 
< 
-n 
c 
1-LO 
¡n 
Z 
í— co 
<-i 
z 
co 
X 
io 
to 
• • E 
0 « 
• 
X 
z iV 
<L 
t/V 
i 
UJ 
l i 
< z 
• r> Ùf 
S l f 
< i< 
ñ o* a 
ÉL < 
•7Ï 
O; ra 
2. < 
(f\ 
a¡ 
n 
CL. < 
•Tí 
E -
r 
ì •z 
•/•i 
V -
B Z-LL • : 
<% 
c 
L 
î iTl 
t 
I in 
V 
ï 
à 
t 
ï 
i 
í: 
$ 
i 
» 
£ < 
i-i 
1 •H 
i i < -
E 
Tri 
t tj\ n 
! 
-
í j 
e 
I 
E 
â 
E n 
i r 
n O 
S 
i 
? 
o 
"O o: 
a-
ï 
S c:. 
< TI Z 
€ 
c 
a 
s 
^ 
rr • 
J 
C. 
R 
1 
Ü o 
-ï « 
I 
ÍS 
f!J 
•X 
L' 
5T 
i o 
••• : 
B ÍÍ • 'j> 
U 
u 
X! 
f 
Ò 
Q % 
•i! 
u 
Q •li o ¡3 "í ffi r_i s ra • fi i 
í 
i 
S 
• 
a> O 
Ü5 
iJ 
Ul 
L> 
IjJ 
<75 
u 
.1; 
• o u 
LU 
'7Í 
UJ 
íñ U 
_J 
<f) 
o 
UJ 
75 O 
LU 
¿0 
ó 
5 
a 
LU 
fO 
o 
"ra r_> 
¡JJ 
-y-
c _o 
ra O 
UJ 
C/l 
^ 
ÍJ 
Ul 
r. 
i 
ra 
C.Î 
UJ 
Jó 
r. 
C 
S 
3 
s • 
H 
1-1 
Ü " i " 
"i fT - m •il r- * Ti OJ •cj r - lT> - p. ; s, r-j ft oí Í5 l-l OJ Kfl LP DO "i s o "J M" TT 'O r--T CO <r> -rr Cl u UT » -Iii 
rn 
CN 
CL 
00 E-
> 
c o 
o 
ra 
O 
o 
3 
3 
U? 
f O 
'-D 
O 
OJ 
t o 
M") 
O 
CCJ • : 
1=9 O") u-> •-¿> 
O 
LO U"3 r -
CD 
<T' 
u-J 
f M 
UT <JD 
0 
CO 
t u 
0"> 
-J) 
U") 
CT' 
vT, 
O 
f i 
r— 
0 
f O 
O 
T 
eo 
0 
Li-
0 
LO 
O 
OJ 
O í 
O 
m 
LO 
0 
c u ^ 
0O 
u l 
OJ 
0 -
o - . 
0 
O 
S 
r--
. 
r - j • o 
OJ 
u~l 
r - . 
Oí 
- r 
--r 
-
O 
O 
lTJ 
OJ 
r-~ 
LO 
CO 
04 
LO 
CO 
LO ^t 
r - -
s 
LO 
? 
CD 
r— 
CD 
1--
K . 
<-t> 
h -
CO 
r— 
r o 
OJ 
o j 
•«i 
r— 
OJ 
' D 
O 
r - j 
"vT 
CD 
-7i 
"íT 
- í 
3 g 
TT 
r i 
en 
v 
¡ O 
U i 
a 
LO 
Ó 
CJ 
LO 
r - . 
LO 
u j 
^ ? 
CQ _ J 
•A 
<11 o O 
z 
o O 
z 
O 
Z 
O 
z : 
0 
21 
O 
Z 
0 -z. 0 2 : O Z 0 z O z 0 z O Z O z 0 z O z 0 z 0 z O Z O Z O Z O Z 0 3 0 z O z 0 Z 0 z O z O z O z 0 Z _ o O z 0 ^ O zr O Z 0 Z O z 0 Z 0 Z O Z O z 0 Z 0 z O z 0 z O z O z 0 Z O Z 
S
ID
E
/ 
: 
W
A
L
K
S
 
O 
z 
o 
2 Z 
O 
Z 
1.0 
Or > • O z 
0 
z 
M 
aj > -
V) 
<u > o» > -
V» 
<u > - O z 
0 ^ 0 z 
0 
Z 
O z 0 z 0 z 0 ^ 0 z 0 z O z O z O z 0 z 
v> 
a> > 
LO 
a> > • 
LO 
a> 
5 -
<ñ 
ai 
> 
tO 
OI > - > -
(O 
Qj 
> 
V) 
> 0 
z 
0 
z 
O 
z 
0 
z 
0 
2 : 
0 
2 
O 
2 
O 
2 
0 
2 
O 
2 
O 
2 
O 
z 
0 
z 
O 
z 
O 
z 
0 
z 
s > 
1ft 
ai 
V 
(A 
Qj > -
y> 
ai > -
VI 
•JJ > -
B
R
ID
G
E
 o o o CJ CD 0 0 0 0 CJI 0 0 a 0 0 o - 0 a CD O 0 0 0 O 0 0 Cü 0 a C.J C J O 0 0 C3 0 0 0 0 0 a CJ CJ CJ 
V) 
LU 
o o o 0 0 0 0 0 « d <_> c—> í—> CJ CJ <_l LJ> O CJ 0 0 0 C_) ^ •O 0 0 0 0 0 ' O 0 O CJ 0 O 0 0 0 0 <z> 0 0 0 0 CZ3 
« 
S o 
O P 
T
R
U
C
K
 i
 
R
O
U
T
E
 1
 
» 
su > -
o 
c 
o 
c 
o 
u 
O 
u 
0 
c 
0 
cz 
0 
c 
0 
c 
0 
c 
0 
c 
0 
c 
0 
c 
O 
tz 
O a 0 c O í ^ 0 c O c 0 c 0 c O c 0 c O c O c 0 c O c O c 0 c 0 t r 0 O c_ 0 e 0 c 0 c O c 0 c O c O c O c O c 0 O c O c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 e O 0 c 0 c O c O c O c 
- v 
o 
o 
o? 
o 
LO 
o o 
CD 
o 
CO s 
0 t£> O (£> 0 <~o s s s a ÍD O <r> O O s O <¿> g s 0 (X- 0 -r» O O LO CD ) -O 0 t o 0 LO 0 t o 0 <£> 0 «LO 0 <JD S 0 co O <x> 0 co 0 CD 0 t D 0 ' O 0 CD 0 a LO 0 co 0 <D 0 CD 0 CO 0 T 0 "T 0 T O O CD L£i 0 0 CD 0 CD 
R
O
A
D
 
W
ID
T
H
 
Í N 
r i 
r o 
r"> 
f n 
r O 
r o 
fO r"> 
?o 
i O 
•ir. CO co co 0 
r - j 
Ö 0 i-M 
0 
f N 
0 N rv j 
(NI 
0 
r - j 
0 
OJ 
cr> en LO LTI LO N 
OJ O I 
*T 
O í 
y r 
O I 
VT 
O I a 
co c o CO 
OJ 
ÜO 
OJ 
co oj CO co öo co S à en OJ O OJ O OJ O OJ ÒJ LO O I LO O í LTi OJ LO a LO OJ 
L
E
N
G
T
H
 
F
E
E
T
 
r - . 
CO 
t.f> 
r o 
LO 
OJ 
c o CD 
fSÍ 
CD 
O-j 
U"| 
r - j 
o > 
- J 
r - í 
QO 
rN 
rS> 
f N 
r— 
0 
00 
r~j r - j 
n ~ j 
P I 
c o 
LO 
r - j 
CD 
r - j 
OJ 
OJ 
ro 
Of 
3 
OJ 
e n LO 
' O 
O 
OJ 
f * l N 
O I 
CO 
O 
CO 
r o 
g 
<•_! o> 
OJ 
O I 
0 
r-J 
0 
0 1 
o-» 
rr> 
cr> 
•TO 
t D 
LO 
- J 
r - j 
rO 
r j 
1-0 
•<T OJ 
OJ 
•tj 
rv j 
r -
00 
cr» 
c o 
t o 
10 CT> 
OJ 
CO 
OJ 
'Xi 
U"í 
OJ 
r-~ 
LO 
00 
T 
«o 
rO 
CJ» 
'-O 
<XI 
0 
O"» 
OJ 
' X 
Í - -tr> 
S
P
E
E
D
 O 
f \ l 
•-O 
r j CN 
UT 
f N o j 
1 0 
r í 
U-J 
r j 
U'l 
OJ 
U•) 
r - j 
U"l 
OJ 
LO 
í -J 
u - j 
C J^ 
U") 
r j OJ 
U"l 
n 
t o 
<N 
10 U"l 
r - j 
MTJ 
1~-J 
M"l 
O I 
VÍJ 
r-J 
I O 
i-si 
LTi 
O Í 
10 
r-J 
i O 
r - i 
LT/ 
O í 
uT> 
O j 
O 
f M 
LO 
r - j 
t i l 
OJ 
LO 
OJ 
0 
OJ 
LO 
ov 
U") 
OJ 
l O 
OJ 
LO 
OJ 
lT i 
OJ 
LO 
OJ 
U"1 
0 1 
U") 
r - j 
LO 
r - j LO OJ 
•J-l 
OJ 
• 0 
OJ 
U l 
OJ 
tO 
r j 
LO 
OJ 
LO 
r - j 
LO 
OJ 
O 
r - j 
0 
r - i 
LO 
OJ 
LO 
O I 
U l 
OJ 
L
A
N
E
S
 OJ r g o j OJ O Í oí Í M i-^g l"N O ) rvf •r-j r - j r - j rsf 0 1 OJ O j O j rv j OJ O j O l r - j OJ OJ OJ O I r OJ OJ r - j OJ r-J r-g 0 j OJ O í OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ 0 1 OJ OJ O I O j O j O j 
UJ 
O « 
Li-
ei ; 
—! 
co 
"O 
ro 
Q_ 
"O 
ra 
LL 
"O 
ro 
Ü -
O 
a¡ 
ra 
CL 
• o 
ÜJ 
> 
ro 
CL 
"O 
UJ 
Si 
o_ 
"O 
OJ 
> 
ra 
CL 
•O 
<b > ra 
Q. 
"O 
cu 
> 
ra 
CL 
• 0 
a: 
> 
ÍÜ 
Cu 
• 0 
UJ ra 
Q . 
" O 
a> > 
0 
Q_ 
•Q 
QJ 
> 
ra 
D . 
"O 
Q> 
TI 
CL 
"O 
ÜJ 
> 
C3 
O-
"O 
0J 
ZL 
"O 
OJ 
> 
ra 
Q. 
"O 
OJ 
> 
C3 
CL 
"O a> 
> n 
CL 
"O 
> 
ÍTJ 
CL 
t r 
Q 
"O 
tu 
> 
ra 
CL 
"OÍ 
> 
E? 
O 
"q) 
> ra 
<5 
t r 
b 
"O 
> 
ra 
CL 
•Q 
Q> 
> 
ra 
a 
"äj > 
ro 
Ò 
• 0 
i» > 
ra 
CL 
• 0 
LL> >• 
ra 
CL 
"O 
cu 
> 
ra 
CL 
"O 
OJ 
> 
ra 
CL 
•O 
cu 
> 
ro 
CL 
i r 
b 
t 
O 
"O 
cu 
> 
ra 
Q_ 
"O 
CU 
> ra 
CL 
"C 
QJ > 
ra
CL 
"O 
i i 
> 
ra 
0 . 
" 0 
OJ 
> ra 
CL 
" S > 
ra 
a . 
1 
ra 
OL 
1 
ra 
CL 
•0 
ai 
ra 
C L 
TD 
ai 
ra 
(X 
TJ 
a> > 
ro 
Q. 
• 0 
a> 
ro 
CL 
• 0 
a i 
ra 
CL 
• 0 
ai 
> 
ra 
CL 
XJ 
a> 
ra 
CL 
"U 
OL« > 
ra 
CL 
* o 
111 
> 
ro 
CL 
*Ü¡ > ra 
Ò 
XD <l: > ra 
CL 
J
U
R
IS
D
IC
T
IO
N
 £ a Zi 
o 
o 
c 
o 
to 
O ra 
a' 
> 
c 
o 
tO 
O os —> 
<1> 
c: 
o « 
o 
ra —> 
ai 
> 
5 
cft 
u 
re 
—3 
•V 
c 
o 
</) 
- Í Í 
o 
ro 
a> 
> 
c= 
i/» 
r5 ~> 
<1> 
C 
O iA 
rt - » 
> 
c 
0 
tfl 
0 ra 
O 
> 
c 
O 
Vi 
-a i 
ra 
di 
c 
O 11¡ 
ra -•> 
4) 
> 
c 
0 <A 
J í ra 
'D 
C 
O 
to 
J í ra 
•U 
> 
c 
O 
to 
ra —> 
> 
c 
0 
to 
0 ra —> 
0) 
c 
0 
ra —> 
•1> 
c 
0 
to 
J< ra —> 
a> 
> 
c 
0 
to 
0 
0 
- í 
•n 
c 
0 to 
J í 
co —> 
1> 
^ 
O V) 
-SC 0 
ro —> 
a> 
> 
c 
0 
10 
->; 
ra - j 
a> 
> 
c 
0 tít 
- id ra —> 
a> 
> 
c 
O 'A 
ra 
a 
c 
0 tf: 
ra —5 
di 
> 
c 
O 
tf l 
ra 
tu 
> 
c 
0 
10 
u 
ra 
- i 
Ú> 
> 
c 
O Vt V 
ra 
- i 
Q> 
> 
c 
0 
ra 
a> 
> 
c 
0 
to 
u ra —5 
a> 
> 
c 
O 
tr» 
u ra —> 
I' 
> 
C 
O 
tO 
ra —> 
> 
ÍT 
O 
ra 
•u 
> 
c 
O 
ul 
-Ü 
ra - > 
¡D 
> 
c 
O 
0 
ra - > 
•i< 
> 
c 
0 <fl 
ra 
Oí 
> 
c 
0 
co 
JC 
ra 
CU 
> 
e 
0 
</> 
0 
ra 
<li 
> 
c 
O </> 
ra - > 
<¡J 
> 
c 
O <r, 
ra 
- i 
<L> 
> 
C 
O Vr 
<~> 
ra - > 
<D 
C 
O 
to 
u ra —¡ 
a-
> 
c 
0 
íO 
u 
ra —i 
CD 
c 
0 </l 
0 
ra — ) 
m 
> r 
0 
to 
ra —> 
a» 
> 
c 
0 
co 
LI 
ra —> 
a> 
> 
c 
O v> 
0 
ra 
- i 
a« 
> 
c 
O 
10 
0 ra —3 
a> 
> 
c 
O 
to 
• 3 ra 
«11 
> 
c 
O 
V. 
CJra 
a> 
> 
5 10 
0 
ra —> 
a> 
> 
c 
O v> 
•u ra 
~3 
a> 
> 
c 
O IA JJÍ 
O ra —> 
> 
e 
0 'A 
ra 
" 3 
Oí 
c 
0 
t/l 
ra - > 
1) 
> cz 
0 y 
O 
ra 
~3 
C
L
A
S
S
. O 
o 
as 
¿s 
"ra 
o 
o 
i 
"ra 
o 
o 
1 
"ra 
o —i 
1 5 
o 
o 
_J 
O 0 
_ i 
0 
0 
3 
O 
3 
0 
1 
n j 
O 
1 
3 
O 
1 
0 
3 
0 
i 
ra 
0 
j 
"ra 
0 
T5 
0 
1 
ra 
0 j 
3 
O 
3 
O 
1 
3 
O 
—1 
"ra 
0 1 O 1 
15 
O 
0 
O 
<_> 
O 
_J 
"ra 
0 
O 
"ra 
0 
0 _ j 
ra 
0 
a 
—i 
"ra 
0 
0 
_J 
I 
O 
_ f 
ra 
0 
3 
O 
"ra 
0 —i 
3 
O l 
O 
3 
O 
1 
"ra 
O 
"ra 
u 
O 
_ i 
"ro 
u 
O 
—i 
"ra 
0 
O 
_ i 
"ra 
o 
O 
_J 
ra 
0 
0 —i 
"ra
0 „ j 
"ra 
CJ 
0 
"ra 
o 
0 
"ra 
0 
0 
1 
ra <J 
0 
3 
0 » 
"ra 
0 
1 
"ra 
0 
Tz 
0 
1 
"ra 
O 
"ro 
L> 
O 
_ l 
c -V 
L— « 
I 
1 
GD 
I ; 
CO 
X 
i -
X> 
2 
> < 
> 
> 
_J 
c t 
UJ 
LU aü 
1— 
c o 
o 
•Ö 
O 
3 X 
P*> 
Z 
y— in 
X 
1 
z 
t— 
a -
E 
- i 
'XI 
'JJ 
a 
0 
> -
c o 
< 
3 
h -
c o 
LU 
\ -
f / j 
C i a 
C i 
y-
'Ji 
•JTi 
V) 
n 
1 -
ce: 
o 
UJ 
LU cu 
0 
z 
0 
C/3 
O < 
—¡ 
cO 
í— 
CO 
0 
a : 
^ 
z 
i— 
••/i 
LL 
»— 
co 
H • 
i J 
h -
CO 
X 
1— 
LO 
z 
k— 
t O 
X 
t— 
••n 
h 
( / 
C 
Or 
c <í. 
»— 
co 
i 
t o 
oC5 
1— 
CO 
z 
< 
1 -
<J 
X 
't 
CO 
00 
X 
t— 
- J 
<0 
y— 
v> 
Q 
a : 
r o 
CO 
> -
00 
X 
1— -a U) 
1— 
(/> 
LU 
Z 
CL. 
< 
O 
ce: 
r " . 
CO 
7) 
C • 
QC 
r -1 
GO 
h -
</> 
O 
Z 
L¿ 
LU 
1— 
CO 
=0 
1 -
co 
LU 
1— 
• í . 
0 
11: 
LL < 
h -
c / l 
2 Í 
S 
ÜJ CL 
O 
r / j 
cc 
0 
1— 
z 
c n 
te • 
i 
0 
3 : 
J J 
LU 
r> £ 
c o 
CfT 
O 
> -
< 
Q 
UJ 
i— 
CO 
1 
1— 
U l 
Z 
Z _ J 
> -
'XJ 
j 
< > 
- J 
c o 
c e 
UJ 
LU 
=3 
X 
t— 
0 
LU 
^ 
Q 
cr: 
< 
0 
2 1 
< 
I 
Q -
O 
</> 
Q 
CE 
X 
O 
z < 
cc 
UJ 
0 
< 
c r 
< 
CL 
cc 
Q 
O 
1 
UJ 
Li-
c e 
< 
u_ 
1— 
< 0 
2 
O 
a 
LU CC 0 
z 
z 
—J 
>• 
cc cu 
IX-
, T 
y— 
CO 
UJ 
> 
0 
c c 
0 
CO 
0 
cu 
UJ 
1— 
c o 
03 
!— 
CO 
Q 
CC 
f O co 
5 -< 
S 
i— 
CC 
UJ 
UJ 
0 
SL - j 
UJ 
o r ZD < 
_ i 
< 
Z 
O 
CO 
<: < 
0 
o: 
Q 
UJ 
O 
é al 
UJ 
1— 
0 
—! 
O 
0 
o r 
0 
UJ 
a < 
Dí 
c e 
LU 
h -
O 
_ J 
O 
> -
O 
CC 
r o 
CO 
j 
_ i 
O 
2 
< 
O 
Z 
1 
c¿ 
LU 
Li_ 
i— « 
U-í 
1 -
< 
T ' 
: 1 
i ' J— Í O 
0 
> -—j < 
UJ 
Z 
¡5 
co n 
0 
3 
üü 
j 
? 
c 
LU 
CJ 
Lj; 
> 
< 
< 
> 
È 
r e 
O 
0 
nc O 
U -
LL 
O 
F
R
O
M
 
o 
i j < 
i_ i 
. . j 
. r i 
V 
I Ü 
LU 
¡ i ' '.J 
en 
. i 
•v: 
X 
i— 
J Í 
Z 
O 
r 
c o 
? 
X 
1 -
-1' 
^ 
-.5 1 -
H 3 1 
- i / 
>-< 
LU 
0 
1 
O < 
_J 
LC 
v> 
r 
• " 
X 
^ 
< .JJ 
O 
0 
- J < 
j 0 
•O 
X 
1 
z 
te 
t 
' 1 0 
i— 
JL 
- í 
••• 
^ 
11 
LU 
t r 
Í 
^ Ü\ 
< 
o r 
1— 
CI 
O 
0 
z < 
UJ ijJ 
ÍTJ 
a ö 
1— 
ffi 
-
Í O 
</ 
c¡ 
I /? 
r 
1— 
»o 
w 
c 
z 
LU 
O 
^ 
í ? , 
L L Y— < ' 
U 
ex 
CL 
- i 
r j r j 
z 
iZE 
LL Y -
. . . 
•ro 
z 
0 
t i i 
U. I 
X 
0 
1— 
Í— 
Í O 
i ^ i 
V-
• t 
Ö • • 
i r 
LU 
1 
« / i 
[7 . 
: r 
-LJ 
UJ 
t > 
z 
s 
l í 
- 1 
O 
_ J 
UJ 
Q 
JL 
" í 
'I. 
X 
i -
s 
i— 
C¿ 
O 
> -
<c 
t— 
Z 
\¡> 
i 
.L-
UJ 
=s 
i/ì 
5 ? 
M 
= 1 = 
71 
> -
UJ 
I X 
L J 
O 
LL 
u . CL <í 
IX 
z $ 
>• 
< 
/ 
> -
cu lY. 
UJ 
S 
0 
0 
1 " 
c o 
LU 
0 
>-< 
£ 
z 
D 
0 
- i : 
-C 
J— 
CO 
< 
0 
( . 1 
a l 
LL 
< 
5 
i 
i— 
UJ 
LU 
z 
i 
UJ 
c c 
Z ) 
i r 
< 
• i 
_ j 
c r 
c 
fe 
< cc 
a 
u . 
1 -
O 
0 
0 
i 
JL 
< 
O 
; 
UJ 
I L 
O 
C j 
i 
W 
•••• 
a 
• i j 
X 
0 
_ j 
<1 
1— 
f l 
1— 
u. 
UJ 
1 
X j 
Cj 
z 
_ l 
UJ g 
ÜÜ -J 
u 
1 -
l O 
l U 
z 
0 
."•> 
-T: 
- i 
U t 
< 
r. 
7> 
ü 
l LI 
C i 
. ! 
•Tí 
o 
j 
XJ 
UJ 
í i 
Q 
UJ 
y> 
U l 
¿Tí 
LU 
U J 
JJ 
X I 
<Ti 
ÜJ 
UJ 
•75 
LL 
l i . 
c o 
.1 
. 1. 
75 
- L 
XJ 
7" 
^ u 
ù 
u 
UJ 
CO 
LU 
' n 
i 
ÌS\ 
0 
UJ 
t 
• r 
a j j 
r7¡ 
•jj 
C 
£ 
L I 
£ 
LU 
vi-
E 
UJ t u 
1-
T 
l ì " 
È 
"O 
í 
ra I L 
M ü 
i í L.0 O 
c7¡ 
O 
/ . rZ 
L rJ 
! I 
L J 
ti) 
¡z 
•3: 
1 -
" a 
5 
i 
tr. £ 
0 
r f i 
Ò 
X 
" a 
" 
•Ti ¡ 
J 
E 
0 jr. 
•• 
05 
•= 
"3 
JT 
T3 
O 
co 
£ !f! 
a-
D 
a 
•f) 
oj 
O 
<7 
<1 
9 « 
r -
s 
í 
CT 
fi 
r 
-
g 
c 
E 
(T 
C 
(T I 
-
ra 
£ 
0 
c n 
1 
¿Tr 
X 
r 
Oj C •i; 
X 
r 
i 
c * 
T 
c 
i 
r 
c 
_ í 
!f! 
u: 
C 
ti; 
J J 
vO 
'S 
c 
O *J LTI L u-i E 0 ¡r» 'J 0 s> •^r LT» 0 . '.": (Ti r- (*-, I - - rr LTI r-- •XI r— S3-r-- s >c [ ü ,j¿ i r . • '.4' : 
— 
B : 
x> 
T ' s 5 
ö x - 3 £ 
i ? £ 
' 0 
• J 
<N 
CL 
CO 
f -
<L> 
> 
c 
o 
CJ 
ta 
L/"ì 
(N 
CU 
(/) 
H 
> 
c o tji 
o ro 
Q 
ö 
"vT 
o 
CO 
o 
LO 
o 
r ~ 1 cz> 
- - S 
«-C' 
CO 
O l 
Ci? 
r— 
O 
oc? r-. 
o 
1
4
2
7
0
 
1
4
0
7
9
 
| 
7
0
3
0
2
I 
o c 
OJ 
-it 
r O 
0 
0 1 
o 
r— 7
0
3
0
6
 
LO 
CO 
OJ 
•X' 
1
3
9
7
9
 O 
CO 
CTi 
r O 
1
2
5
5
6
 
CO 
T'J 
o 
1
4
0
2
6
 
T 
OJ 
LO 
CO 
O J 
LO 
1
1
3
1
7
 O J 
a 
CC' 
c o 
^J 
O J 
c o 
CN 
CTì 
CO 
3 
¡'J-! 
O 
CO 
c o 
>.-.:> 
r--
O 
c o 
O J 
CD 
CT) 
LO 
OJ 
LO 
I O 
I 
1
0
G
0
6
I 
OJ 
I - -
u n 
CD 
O -
< o 
a o 
JD 
LO 
r^. 
OJ <Q 
•^ T 
CT 
CT 
CT 
CD 
CT 
CD CO 
o 
CJ 
CO 
CD 
CO 
LO 
OJ 
OJ 
O l 
OJ 
IO 
•^ T 
CO 
c n 
c o uì O J C3 CO 
c n 
UT 
a > 
o 
c o 
c o 
ü 5 Z 
to 
<u > -
L-Ì 
•1' 
> -
'li > - •1 
to 
j 
>-
O) > 
Wì 
ai > - o z 
O 
z 
o 
Z 
o 
z 
o 
Z 
o 
z 
o 
z 
o 
z 
o 
z 
o 
z 
O 
z z 
O 
z 
o 
z 
o 
z 
o 
z z 
o 
z 
o 
z 
o 
Z 
o 
z 
o 
Z 
o 
z 
o 
z 
O 
z 
o 
z 
O 
Z 
O 
z 
O 
z 
o ^ O S 
o o 
z 
o 
z 
O 
z 
O 
z 
O 
Z 
o 
z 
o 
z 
o 
z 
O 
z 
o 
x : 
O 
z 
o O 71 o 3 " 
c o 
a Ì 5 
Q < 
c o S 
<J 
Z 
Q 
Z 
Q 
Z 
V' 
ai 
V 
a E >• o Z : 
o 
z 
OJ > 
y> 
QJ > 
LO 
CI) > -
co 
ai > 
10 
a« > 
t/) 
tv o 
z 
•JÌ 
OJ > -
o 
z 
o 
z 
o 
z 
o 
Z 
e 
z 
D 
z 
O 
z 
o 
z 
o 
z 
o 
z 
o 
z 
o 
z 
o 
z 
o 
Z 
o 
z 
o 
z 
o 
z 
o 
z 
o 
z 
o 
z 
o 
z 
o 
z 
O 
z 
o 
z 
V) 
CJ > - O z 
o 
z 
o 
z 
o 
Z 
o 
z 
o 
z 
o 
z 
o 
z 
o 
z 
o 
z 
o 
Z 
O 
z 
O 
z 
B
R
ID
G
E
 C i LJ O o O C J CD o c u O o o a o o o c o o o o o O - o o o CT C J C J CT CT CD o o CJ CD o CT CT CT o o o CT CJ CT CT 
C
R
A
S
H
E
S
 
0
0
 
o o CJ o >_> o o c o CD o • o CJ o <ZJ o • o CJ o x > CJ o CD 
o 
c 
C J CJ CJ o o L J O CJ ÌZJ d j CJ o CD o o o CT CT CT CT o C J CT CD CT CT CT 
T
R
U
C
K
 
R
O
U
T
E
 
o 
c 
V) 
a> > 
to 
u 
> 
\f! 
a> > -
«fi 
ai 
> 
</> 
a> 
V 
to 
a i 
10 
ai > -
o 
e 
o 
c 
O 
c 
o 
e 
o 
c 
o 
c 
o o 
c 
o 
c 
O o 
c_ 
o o o 
c : 
o 
c 
o 
c 
o 
c 
o o 
c 
o 
c 
o 
c 
o 
c 
o 
c 
o 
c 
o 
L_ 
O 
c 
O 
C 
O 
o 
C P 
o 
e 
o o 
c 
o 
c 
o 
c 
o 
c 
O 
c 
O 
C 
o 
c 
o 
IZ 
o 
c 
o 
e 
O 
CI 
O 
c 
O 
c 
O 
e 
O 
c 
6 
e t 
O o 
CD 
o 
LO 
o 
t O 
o 
c o 
o 
t o 
o 
< o 
o 
LO 
o 
LO 
o 
t o 
o 
<.o 
o 
LO 
LTI 
O l 
LO 
OJ 
o 
LO 
CT 
LO 
o 
CO 
CT 
CO 
CT 
CO 
CT 
Li> 
CT 
I O 
CT 
LT 1 
o 
s 
o 
CD 
o 
X ' 
ci> 
CO 
c p CT 
LD 
CT 
LO 
CT 
CO 
CT 
t O 
CT 
CO 
CT 
S 
CT 
IO 
o CT 
CC' 
CT 
CC' 
o 
c o 
CJ 
LO 
CT 
CD 
CT 
CD 
o 
LO 
CT 
LO 
CT 
LO 
CT 
LO 
CT 
CP 
CT 
CD 
CT 
CD 
o C J 
CD 
o 
CD 
g Ì 
S s 
CE: ì Oil 
'-O 
CN r - i 
'•0 
O l 
i o 
OJ 
i o 0 1 ö o ÖO ó o - L - Ö 
r-g 
f o 
r O 
ÖJ 
OJ 
Ö J 
C-I 
Ö J 
O J 
Ol 
O l 
CD f O 
O l 
r o 
OJ 
i o 
O l 
r o 
" J a 
Ù1 C o LO u ì ÒJ 
O J 
ÖJ 
OJ 
ÖJ 
O l 
Ki 
OJ 
ÒJ 
O J 
O) 
r - j 
O J 
O J 
O l 
r-J 
O J 
OJ a 
ÒJ 
OJ 
OJ 
O l 
Ò J 
O J 
Ò J 
O J OJ OJ OJ ÒJ O J T J 
-•r 
OJ 
^ J 
O J 
-cf 
OJ 
L
E
N
G
T
H
 
F
E
E
T
 
h-
CTi È 
f -
a i 
LO 
•D 
OJ O J 
I O 
O J 
Ì O 
OJ 
P J 
. j j f ' I 
O J 
-O 
• o 
c o OJ 
o en LO TT O J r o c o 
OJ 
r o 
'JD 
T 
a j 
OJ 
o 
i o 
CL' 
CU 
r o 
o <S> OJ C J 
T 
CO r-> 
CJ 
' X 
<x> 
c » 
'JD 
TT 
c o 
« o 
r - . 
OJ 
c o 
U"l 
- i l 
CO 
o 
IO 
LO 
OJ 
CO 
O J 
c o 
r o 
r - . 
c o 
c o 
co 
r - -
OJ 
•Ti 
r o 
O l 
c o 
r o 
OJ 
' D 
r o 
LT) 
rO 
OJ 
OJ 
r o 
Li! 
r O 
CT 
CC' 
O l 
LO 
r - . 
O J 
c n 
OJ 
r - -
OJ 
c o 
LO 
L73 
CD 
r o 
1—-
CO 
r o 
a 
c o 
s 
OJ 
K 
Li 
O . 
CT 
^ 
c n 
CO 
r O 
3 
r o 
CD 
m 
OJ 
S
P
E
E
D
 LO 
OJ 
t O 
OJ 
LO 
O J 
LfJ 
O J 
LO 
O J 
LO 
O J 
LO 
O J 
uri 
O J 
i o 
O J 
LO 
OJ 
LO 
O J 
LO 
OJ 
1J-) 
O J 
U"l 
OJ 
LO 
M 
U-) 
O J 
LO 
OJ 
LO 
OJ O l 
LO 
Osi O J 
u") 
O J 
t o 
O J 
LO 
OJ 
i O 
OJ 
LO 
O J 
LO 
OJ 
LO 
OJ 
LO 
O J 
LO 
O J 
I O 
OJ 
I O 
r - j 
l O 
O J 
I O 
OJ O l 
t O 
OJ 
LO 
OJ 
LO 
O J 
t O 
O J 
LJ"! 
OJ 
t O 
OJ 
I O 
O J 
LO 
Ol 
LO 
Ol 
LO 
OJ 
LO 
O J 
LO 
OJ 
LO 
OJ 
LO 
O J 
I O 
OJ 
LO 
O J 
LO 
OJ 
LO 
OJ 
cO 
OJ 
L
A
N
E
S
 OJ O l OJ TN OJ O J OJ OJ OJ O J OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ r N OJ OJ O J O J OJ OJ O J O J OJ O J O l OJ O J O J O J O J O J OJ O J OJ i--J OJ O J O J OJ O J O J OJ OJ O J OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ 
S
U
R
F
A
C
E
 
x> 
tt> > 
£ 
TJ 
> 
O 
a . 
"O 
<u 
> 
o 
a 
T3 
CU 
> 
f-3 
a 
•O 
a t 
> 
ro 
c_ 
• a 
OJ 
> 
CO 
CL 
"O 
a> 
> 
ro 
a 
• o 
ai 
ro 
CL 
•O 
ai 
> 
P3 
CL 
T3 
ai 
> 
co 
c_ 
•D 
o> 
> 
ro 
CL 
"O 
ai 
> 
ro 
CL 
• a 
ai 
> 
ro 
CL 
•O 
a> 
> 
ro 
CL 
TJ 
a> 
> 
ro 
CL 
•D 
a> 
> 
ro 
CL 
u 
o 
T3 
a j 
> 
ro 
CL 
T3 
a> 
> 
ro 
CL 
"O 
<u 
> 
ro 
CL 
"O 
Cu 
> 
ro 
CL 
• o 
tu 
> 
ro 
0 -
"O 
ai 
> 
ro 
CL 
•O 
ai 
> 
ro 
Q . 
S 
ro 
CL 
u 
OJ 
> 
ro 
CL 
TJ 
OJ 
ró 
a 
TJ 
03 
> ro 
a 
• a 
a j 
> ro 
CL 
•O 
a> 
> 
ro 
a 
T3 
a> > 
ro 
CL 
• a 
ai 
> 
ro 
CL 
T3 
ai 
> 
ro 
CL 
T3 
CU 
> 
ro 
CL 
•O 
cu 
ro e x 
• o 
a i 
p-
ro 
CL 
•Ö 
OJ 
ró 
n . 
"O 
QJ 
ró 
Q_ 
•O 
a» > 
ro 
CL 
Xi 
QJ 
> 
ro 
CL 
"O 
OJ 
> 
ro 
CL 
- O 
GJ 
> 
ro 
a 
• D 
GJ > 
ro 
a 
T5 
> ro 
CL 
" S > 
CJ 
ù_ 
• o 
CD > ro 
CL 
•O 
ai 
ró 
CL 
"O 
ai 
ro 
CL 
•O 
ai > 
ro 
e x 
"O 
0) 
> 
ro 
CL 
•O 
•QJ 
3-ro 
Q . 
"O 
a j 
ro 
CL 
"O 
U 
> 
ro 
CL 
•Q 
GJ > 
o 
CL 
JU
R
IS
D
IC
T
IO
N
 
jflj 
o « 
o 
J 1 
1 
U 
rs 
.3} 
¿f 
c 
CO 
J Ì 
c 
ro 
? C 
0 
1 
> 
c 
o 
to 
JC 
o ro 
J J 
o 
-X. 
<J 
ro 
jOJ 
c 
o 
{/> 
Jc: 
o 
o 
c 
Ü <s> 
J i 
o 
03 —> 
a i 
> 
c 
o 
to 
n ! 
1 
to 
03 
> 
c 
o 
</> 
J 2 
O 
CÌJ —> 
> 
c 
o 
óo 
L> ro —> 
> 
c 
o 
to 
O ro —> 
> 
c 
a 
to 
<J 
ro 
- 3 
JM 
" > 
e 
o in -< 
o 
Cd 
> 
c 
o v> 
o 
03 ~> 
ai 
> 
CT 
o m 
J Ì ro 
~3 
JIJ 
> 
e 
o 
to 
tJ 
ro 
~3 
> 
e 
o 
to 
V 
ro 
- 3 
> 
c 
O 
V) 
ty» 
CJ 
> 
e 
o Vi 
CJ ro —> 
JS > 
c 
o 
u 
o 
- i 
> 
o '/> 
CJ 
ro —> 
c 
o tf> 
o 
ro 
~3 
1 
CJ 
ro 
> 
c 
1 
1-1 
ro ~3 
j y 
> 
c 
1 
c i 
ro 
" J 
JÜ 
> 
c 
o •Ti 
L> ro 
-3Ì 
> 
c 
o 
to 
• 5 
r> 
> C 
o 
to 
JC 
o 
ro 
> 
c 
o 
LO 
J £ 
CI ro 
J J 
> 
c 
o 
to 
ro 
OJ 
ö 
O ro 
QJ 
> 
5 
to 
ro —> 
a> 
s 
to 
CJ 
ro 
~3 
ai 
1 
to 
CJ ro 
~3 
a> 
6 
e; 
o 
co 
c 
o 
IJ 
ro 
~3 
> 
c 
o 
co 
u 
ro 
~3 
_a> 
> 
c 
8 
c ro —> 
03 
> 
c 
8 
o ro 
—J 
j y 
> 
c 
8 
CJ ro —J 
a> 
> 
c 
1 
c i 
ro 
" J 
QJ 
" 5 
c 
o 
tiO 
JC 
o 
ro 
c. 
1 
5 
to 
u 
ro - > 
c 
o 
v> Di ro 
—> 
ùt 
? 
c 
o 
to 
ro —> 
_0J 
> 
c 
o 
to 
ro 
~3 
ai 
> 
e 
o <A 
• J ro 
~3 
> 
c 
o 
w> 
o ro —> 
o> 
> 
c 
o v> 
e 
ro 
ä 
5 « 
CJ 
OJ —> 
L: 
8 
CJ ro 
~ 3 
> 
c 
1 
CJ 
ro 
—i 
C
L
A
S
S
-
ro < j 
o 
O 
~Q 
O 
O 
a i 
3 
o 
^ 
o 
O 
o 
a> 
§ 
b 
o 
OJ 
o 
O 
o 
o 
^ 
O 
O 
_a> 
O 
o 
"TO 
o 
3 
O 
J 
o j 
ro 
L3 
O 
^ J 
"rö 
o 
"ro 
<J 
o 
. . j 
ro 
o 
o 
1 
o 
. 1 
o j 
"rö 
o 
i 
"ro 
o 
i 
3 
O 
"ro 
o 
_ i 
"ro 
o 
"ro 
<j 
O 
_ J 
"ro 
u 
O 
"ro 
CJ 
O 
_ i 
ro 
<J 
O 
_ J 
"ro 
c i 
o _ j 
"rö 
CI 
o j 
ro 
o 
o 
"ro 
o 
o 
.1 
"ro 
o 
o 
_ l 
ro 
o 
o 
. ) 
"rö 
o 
J 
"rö 
L> 
O 
J 
3 
O 
1 
3 
o 
1 
ro 
s j 
"55 
u 
o 
, i 
"ro 
D 
o 
. 1 
"55 
u 
o 
"ro 
LI 
O _ j 
"ro 
LJ 
a 
"ro 
o 
a 
"ro 
CJ 
o 
"ro 
o 
i 
"rö 
LJ 
o 
"rö 
o 
o 
3 
O 
" H 
o 
j 
"rò 
u 
O 
^ J 
3 
O 
—1 
"ro 
CJ 
O 
_ J 
"ro 
LJ 
O 
_ J 
p 
1 -
w 
C i 
1 1 
— 
V) 
? 
< z 
J 
2 
at 
c e 
J ; 
y-j 
•J 
1-.J tr. 
Zf. j j 
UJ 
U J 
1— Cft 
l l 
5 
CO 
1 J 
e r 
o 
LU 
0 < 
1 
• 
l 
CK 
a 
^ 
UJ 
UJ 
c e 
u 
z 
o 
c o ^ 
O < —> 
CO 
z 
o 
CD 
UJ OL 
O 
Z 
c c 
c . 
^ r 
LU 
LU 
CC 
o 
o 
c o ^ 
o < 
—> 
Q 
Z 
LL. 
>-
i 
< 
z 
O 
' O 
O < 
—> 
> -
< 
Z < 
z 
Z 
>• < 
Z < 
o 
z < 
X 
_ J 
« 
Q : 
U J 
^ 
U J 
o 
2 : 
>-< 
z 
o }— cu 
o 
s 
o d 
CO 
OJ 
> < 
X 
o 
X 
c e 
o 
j— 
z 
o 
s 
fo 
> < 
Z 
LU 
O 
LU 
2 " 
LU 
1 
o 
i -
CO 
a 
c e 
n 
c o 
c e 
n 
> -
U J 
c e tr 
X j 
c o 
c e 
Ì ' . 
t— 
z 
o 
c o 
!» ' 
g 
g 
« 
r r 
LÌI 
O 
O 
i3£ < 
c o 
>— 
CO 
5 
< 
c e >— 
c e 
UJ 
—i 
o 
OJ 
ÖO 
— 
c o 
UJ 
z 
CL 
)— 
< 0 
z 
< 
0 
a 
LL 
•• 
c e 
t— CS> 
s 
X 
s 
5 
cO 
h -
CO 
E 
a : 
. 1 
c / j 
:— 
L J 
c o •i 
iXl 
k— 
CO 
c e 
IX 
LU 
1— <J ' 
o 
L J 
h— 
LU 
i— 
c o 
o 
3 
•1 
J 
> < > 
Z 
< 
<3 
Z < 
X 
co 
z 
< 
> 
t-J 
LO 
z 
< 
LU 
h -
c o 
C i 
c e 
r o 
Z 
cO 
t— 
CO 
LL 
1 
< 
o 
UJ 
oO 
1— 
CO 
< 
CC 
o 
u _ 
_ J < 
o 
^ 
1— 
CO 
UJ 
Z 
CL 
LU 
1— 
CO 
LU 
z 
CL 
I - -
O" 
(XI 
CL 
< 
> -
< 
£ < 
c o 
O 
I X 
••: 
z 
o 
CL 
i— 
CO 
c e 
LL 
LU 
i— 
c o 
< 
O 
LU 
1— 
CO 
c o 
UJ 
1 
1— 
c o 
z 
< 
LU 
1— 
c o 
X 
1— 
t r 
CO 
h— 
c o 
X 
(— 
-TT 
z 
1— 
CO 
< 
z 
c e 
O 
u _ 
< 
U 
UJ 
1— 
CO 
U J •21 
CL 
U J 
1 
S 
i— 
Q . 
O 
O 
_ i 
< 
LU 
UJ 
m 
OC 
u j 
t— 
CO 
i C < 
0 
LÜ 
« a 
1 
i— 
CL 
O 
O 
z 
< 
v 
LU 
U J 
CD 
CO 
c o 
è 
UJ 
O CU 
Li— 
•-LJ 
•J. 
• 
• o _ 
l y 
— 
n 
: 
a 
U J 
0 < 
tx 
1 
O 
• 
*— 
!Ll 
>«l u 
- J 
IEJ 
S -
1— 
< 
7 
Z . 
Z 
ì •fi re 
z 
CO 
z : 
< 
z 
z 
c r 
e . 
i l 
i 
c e <_ 
a 
c 
c / 
ì ; 
* 
f} 
z 
< 
z 
z 
z 
O 
c o ^ 
" ) 
Z 
<< 
z 
z 
H-
(CO 
z 
< 
z • 
c e Lj h-
Z 
" 
l— VJ 
ì 
< 
z 
- J 
l j 
z 
X I 
. - 1 ? 
; 
z 
o 
l— 
• l 
i" • 
c e Ci 
LL Q 
V I 
-JÜ 
U J 
LU 
CU 
i - J 
s 
g 
i i 
— . 
r o 
1— 
CO 
cu 
l i , 
£ 
c e 
« 
CO 
IX 
• 
CL 
1—1 
IX 
3 
d 
o 
s ; 
< 
a 
a 
W: 
i 
t 
c 
0 
o 
c e _ j 
j 
.> 
CL 
f— 
c o 
< 
o 
LL 
V) 
7 ? 
, j 
i_J 
f— 
Vi 
UJ 
< 
-
2 
a t 
H 
< 
"J i 
• o 
T i 
p 
• 7 
c 
* 
• 
1—• 
• o 
z 
i 
n 
. 1 
F . 
< 
</-. 
è 
1— 
< o 
z 
• c 
5 
LU 
ì— 
CO 
c e 
u _ 
U J 
-
i 
5 
LU 
J ' 
O 
i 
? 
o 
r T 
1— 
c o 
x : < 
o 
UJ 
I— 
CO cn 
Ü J 
K 
U J 
J 
w 
.LI 
J J 
n . 
mJ 
z < 
a 
m 
C-J 
1— 
y j 
>— 
«j-i 
CO 
E » 
Z. 
i 
-
1— 
< o 
C i 
Ixl 
IN 
JL 
<t 
3 
LU 
• J 
f . 
z 
< 
LL 
. . . 
m 
M 
CO 
71 
c 
o 
c o 
D 
-
UJ 
< 
z 
3 3 
r 
ffi 
Z 
•Ö 
0 
1 
O 
D_ 
r-
G 
7 
•7; 
5 
a 
! c 
o 
o 
i 1 
7" 
LÖ 
iL 
a 
£ 
O 
7 
CJ 
e 
'J> 
i r 
o 
7 -
di 
¡1 
z 
C 
o 
c, 
^ 
7) 
c 
Cy 
c 
z 
f ? j 
c : ro 
c 
Z 
tr 
C 
Z 
<7 
z 
a; 
> 
" 5 
. c : 
• 
• t 
O 
c i 
^ 
o r 
3 
"C-
CL 
z 
ra 
c e 
" j 
i i 
Cl 
JZ 
c 
ro 
c : 
LJ 
TÜ 
? 
rö 
n 
fl 
a 
s 
X 
a 
CL 
D 
É 
e 
€ 
i -
s. 
1 , 
l i 
; 
> 
-1 
•TT 
a 
l ì 
I 
T? 
i o 
CÖ 
LO 
c o 
^ 
ZÖ 
CO 
7. 
W. 
« 
crt 
55 
ri 
ro 
W 
^ Io 
'i 
5 5 
TJ 
c o 
LO 
!/> 
ó ' J 
c o 
<7V 
• o 
CÖ 
CO 
L'3 ¿ri 
5 
o . 
Ù : 
—> 
FI-
TF> 
Ö' 
T 
. 
c o 
• g 
I—, • 
00 
« 
¿0 
-C • X c o 
•*r: 
y 7) 
CO 
X 
i i 
LO 
•io 
'-0 
S i 
JZ, 
CO 
-il 
m 
CJO 
JZ 
LO 
to O 
O 
r". >X> 5 •x 'i o, "O n L.
ri 
r-- : 
CL 
r -
Q 
O 
Ol 
. ¿ Ì 
rO 
ali » £ a - T 1 5 G ì •Ti CT' s . • _ C4 O l X' . J r O CT OJ 3 ••••I « • É « . o "N ctiIct " r * O J OJ o j r o r^ j 
(N 
Cu 
GO 
E— 
> 
e 
O c/i 
O P3 
o 
0~i f-. o oj 
rO uO 'S LO 
O 
s 
r-. LO OJ co 
BI
KE
 
LA
N
ES
 
o X o X O 2: 0 2: 0 X 
SI
D
B
 
W
AL
KS
 
o 2: o X O X 0 X 0 2 
BR
ID
G
E o o O 0 0 
CR
AS
H
ES
 
'00
 
o o O 
"R
UC
K
 
RO
UT
E 
o c o c O c 0 c 0 c 
RO
W
 o LO o LO Q LO 0 LO CD LO 
RO
AD
 
W
ID
TH
 
co co CO Ò"> OJ LO OJ 
LE
N
G
TH
 
FE
ET
 
CO en LO 
ro 
m 
or CO OJ 
un 
co LO LO -Trr 
SP
EE
D
 LO oj LO OJ lO 04 LO OJ LO Osi 
cr> Osi Osi OJ OJ Osi 
5 
SU
RF
AC
E 
tr 
ö 
T7 <K > TO CL 
•C 111 > 
CL 
no cu > 
CL 
-O QJ > Ci O-
JU
RI
SD
IC
TI
O
N
 
_a> 
> c 
-SC o r j Ja
ck
so
nv
ille
 jQ> 
c. O v> 
•s C5 —} 
CT 0 « -Mi Ü C5 —J 
> e 0 w JÉ 0 ra 
CL
AS
S.
 
(j O _i 
s o —I 
1 0 J 0 1 
"Ö 0 0 1 
TO
 
n: 
i_J 
Q i LLJ 
U_ a: < 
LI- I M
AR
Y 
AN
N
 D
R
 >-< 
Q 
CL 
<£ 
DC 
O 
CL 
X —1 ai 
CL LLI X LU X> X 
2: 
J 
X 0 1 y j 
CL 
Q 
FR
OM
 
CE: o 
z 
< 
>-CL < 
cr 
Q 
2: 
x < 
> -a: <t 
X 1 
co CL LU 
:J : X X 
O 
è CL LU 1— 
O _l 
O <S> 
O O c 
c _i 
LLJ 
< X 
c 
£ « 
<u 
c q 
To ai $ 
r: 0 E 
(A JU 
e a <v "O 
<i> -O T7 O 
0 
iS 
o O-J OJ 
fO r-~ r-J 
TT h-OJ 
LO r-~ OJ 
LO r—. o j 
3.2.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 
The city figures prominently in the Southern Oregon pioneer history, but its contribution 
to bicycle safety has statewide - and, some say, national - significance. A modem day 
pioneering legislator and Jacksonville resident Donald Stathos championed a state law for 
funding bicycle lane construction in 1971. Stathos' activism was prompted by his 
concern about the perils of riding a bike along Hwy. 238 between Jacksonville and 
Medford. His Oregon Bicycle Bill tapped state highway funds to finance bikeways and 
pedestrian paths. A 4-mile stretch of bicycle lane on Hwy. 238 was constructed under the 
state legislation and dedicated to Stathos in 1979. Advocates for such facilities 
subsequently set off a national movement for similar legislation, which now dedicates 
federal highway funds for pedestrian and bicycle improvements. Other roads around 
Jacksonville have wide shoulders and are popular with cyclists. The city is a popular stop 
for recreational cyclists using regional bike routes such as South Stage and Old Stage 
roads. As noted in the street network section, bicycle and pedestrian facilities that are 
within street system rights-of-way are included in the street network inventory, Table 3.1. 
All pedestrian and bicycle facilities are illustrated on the map on the following page: 
Jacksonville Sidewalk and Bike Lane Inventory. 
Beyond the street network, the city has two woodland pathway networks: the largest trail 
network includes the Peter Britt Festival Grounds, city-owned woodlands and U.S. 
Bureau of Land Management woodlands; the second weaves through city-owned 
woodland between South Fifth Street and Laurelwood Drive. The pathways also are 
shown on the sidewalk and bike lane map. 
Although these facilities serve a wide range of users, no facility expressly serves 
equestrians or two non-traditional vehicles that are growing in popularity—Segways 
(battery-powered personal mobility devices) and golf carts. Under state law, Golf carts 
are permitted only in limited locations associated with golf courses. The only lawful use 
of a golf cart in Jacksonville would be by disability permit. Under ORS 807.210(3), a 
Disability Golf Cart Permit "grants driving privileges for the operation of golf carts or 
substantially similar vehicles on roads or streets in an area with a speed designation not 
greater than 25 miles per hour." Golf carts also could be permissible on a multi-use path 
specifically developed for golf carts and not connected with the street network; Segway 
use is new, and has been governed by state law only since 2004. Operators must be at 
least 16 years old. The vehicles are permitted on bicycle lanes and paths, sidewalks, and 
roads with posted speed of 35 miles per hour or less. Operators must yield to pedestrians 
and warn then when they are about to be overtaken. Operators are exempt from license 
and helmet requirements, unless otherwise required by local government. Local 
jurisdictions may impose additional restrictions. 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 28 
-•Silici. L 
Bdp Lane 
Legend 
N V i t i i r i X i i U - i r a l k 
« H i k e L a n e 
' J ' t . l l i S \ t ( M l l 
C i t y 
U l f r i l l G t o i r t h B o m u L u v 
Figure 3.2: Sidewalk and Bike Lane Inventory 
Sidewalk and Bike Lane Inventory 
DRAFT Jacksonvil le T S P 29 
3.2.3 Public Transportation 
Public transportation in Jacksonville is provided by Rogue Valley Transportation District. 
Under guidelines contained in the Oregon Public Transportation Plan for service level 
standards transit service is at Level I. RVTD meets Level 1 standards by providing the 
following services: 
1. Senior and disabled public transportation 
2. Intercity bus service 
3. Serve citizens dependent on public transportation 
4. Serve citizens using public transportation by choice 
5. Offer rideshare and transportation demand management 
6. Thruway bus service (provide by connection to Greyhound bus line) 
The basic services provided by RVTD are: 
• Fixed-route bus service - 13 or 14 hours each weekday, generally at Vi hour 
intervals. 
• Paratransit service - available to persons with disabilities traveling to and from 
points within % mile of fixed bus routes. 24-hour advance reservations are 
required. 
• Multi-modal incentive programs. 
Fixed-Route Service 
The district's fixed-route bus service has six bus routes totaling about 100 miles, serving 
seven communities and a number of rural county residents. Hours of operation are 
weekdays, 5 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. The route circulation is a "spoke and wheel" system, 
meaning that buses for all routes depart, from the downtown station at the same times 
each hour, thus facilitating transfers between lines. This type of route design maximizes 
destination choices for passengers by ensuring that a rider can get to any stop in the 
system with no more than one transfer. However, it increases travel time for some 
passengers. 
Paratransit Service 
RVTD provides the Valley Lift paratransit service to people whose disabilities prevent 
them from using regular buses. By federal law, the paratransit service area extends to all 
locations within 3/4 mile of any fixed-route bus line. Hours of operation also mirror the 
fixed route service. Valley Lift provides users with curb-to-curb transportation upon 
request. Reservations must be received at least 24 hours prior to departure. 
Multi-Modal Incentives 
RVTD has a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program that administers fare 
discount programs and works with employers to provide transit incentives to members of 
the region's workforce, including group fare discounts. One aspect of this effort is a 
Transportation Management Association (TMA) program, in which groups of employers 
work together with RVTD to provide transit incentives, reduce parking constraints, and 
provide infrastructure for non-automotive transportation modes. 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 30 
Ridership and Trends 
• RVTD ridership has more than doubled since 2000. 
• RVTD ridership is expected to more than double over the next ten years. 
In Jacksonville, weekday service to Medford is provided by Route 30, linking passengers 
to the Front Street, Medford, station, which provides connections to all other RVTD 
routes. Route 30 has the smallest ridership of all routes. Ridership figures from RVTD for 
2005-06 show 19,415 riders annually on the route. As of June 2007, buses make nine 
round trips daily. The first bus arrives at the Jacksonville Post Office at 7:47 a.m., and 
that bus returns to Medford at 8:07 a.m. The last bus arrives in Jacksonville at 6:17 p.m., 
and that bus returns to Medford at 6:37 p.m. Table 3.2 shows the bus schedule at two 
Jacksonville locations. 
Table 3.2: RVTD bus stop schedule in Jacksonville, Spring 2007 
Location Time 
JVP.O. 7:47 a 8:32 a 11:47a 12:32 p 3:17 p 4:02 p 4:47 p 5:32 p 6:17 p 
Museum 7:49 a 8:34 a 11:49 a 12:32 p 3:19 p 4:04 p 4:49 p 5:34 p 6:19 p 
The bus approaches Jacksonville from the north, traveling southbound on Fifth Street, 
turning westbound on C Street to the post office, turning and traveling eastbound on 
California Street. The bus loops around the Jackson County Historical Society Museum 
(to North Sixth Street), and returns north to Medford on Fifth Street. Details about 
Jacksonville bus stops are shown on Table 3.3. 
Table 3.3: RVTD bus stops in Jacksonville 
StOD Location 
Sign 
Status Sheller Seating 
Trash 
Can 
Bike 
Rack 
Wheelchair 
Accessible 
From Medford to Jacksonville 
on Hwy 
238 
84' south of Royal 
Mobile Estates driveway Yes No None No No No 
5th St. 
248' north of "G" St. 
(Pioneer Village) Yes Yes Bench No No Yes 
5th St. 
102' north of Blackstone 
Alley (Back Porch BBQ) Yes No None No No uncertain 
5th St. 
107' south of "F" St. 
(Ray's Market) Yes No None No No Yes 
From Jacksonville to Medford 
C St. 
inside new parking lot 
(behind Post Office) Yes No None No No Yes 
C St. west of 4th Si. Yes uncertain 
D St. 
Jacksonvil le Museum / 
27' east of 5th St. Yes No None No No uncertain 
5th St. 
150' north of Blackstone 
Alley near 35 mph sign Yes No None No No uncertain 
5th St. 
248' south of Shafer Ln. 
(Stage Lodge) Yes Yes Bench No No Yes 
A map illustrating RVTD's bus service to and around Jacksonville is on the following 
page. 
DRAFT Jacksonvil le TSP 31 
R\TD 
Bil i Houli SO 
3 Bu> Slupl 
l'i .il! Spirili 
Lc^end 
<7LÌ', urj-uiwn.iik. 
1 fi lui [ GioiTlh Doimdjji 
The bus route passes through a growing commercial and residential area along Fifth 
Street, which includes some of the highest-density housing and mixed commercial-
residential housing in the city. These uses are cited in the Regional Transportation Plan's 
Alternative Measures as development patterns that encourage transit use and other 
alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) use. By stopping at the post office, transit 
also accesses the adjacent municipal parking lot, enabling park-and-rjde service to the 
Jacksonville area. 
A chal lenge to providing transit service in Jacksonville is the sparsely populated area 
between Jacksonville and Medford. Buses travel across a three-mile stretch of rural 
farmland between the city limits/urban growth boundaries of both cities. Jacksonville is 
surrounded by rural farm and forest land, so there is no opportunity to reroute buses 
through more densely developed areas. The distance to Jacksonville contributes to Route 
30's high cost. The cost per ride on Route 30 was $6.89 in 2005-06, compared to the next 
highest cost per ride of $3.70. (Highest cost-per-ride route, Route 4, was discontinued in 
2006 because of its high cost and low ridership.) 
3.2.4 Air, Water, Rail and Pipeline Inventory 
There are four public airplane facilities in Jackson County. The closest facility to 
Jacksonville is the Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, located approximately 6 
miles northeast of Jacksonville, off Biddle Road, Medford. Bus transport via RVTD is 
available during weekday hours of operation. It is classified as a non-hub facility serving 
roughly eight counties in southwestern Oregon. The airport serves eight hub airports in 
the Western states. Four air carriers currently serve the airport, with approximately 56 
arriving and departing flights daily. The other three public airports are: Ashland Muni-
Sumner Parker Field, Pinehurst State Airport, and Prospect State Airport. 
The Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport has just been upgraded with a major 
expansion. Construction is finished on a new terminal and will soon be completed on a 
new control tower. Work is being done in phases, with the final phases being completed 
in 2009. 
Rail 
Central Oregon and Pacific (CORP) operates a shortline route through the region 
connecting to national Union Pacific line in Eugene. The CORP line passes through 
Medford, roughly 5 miles from Jacksonville. 
In the past few years, some interest has been expressed in recreating the former Rogue 
Valley Railroad, which ran between Jacksonville and Medford from 1891 to the 1920s. 
Conceptual service would run to the C Street train station, where a section of rail still is 
visible embedded in the pavement. The line would make a loop out to the Little League 
fields on Jacksonville Highway, where it could pick up Britt passengers at a proposed 
parking lot at the back of the park, or proceed toward Medford across private property on 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 33 
the northeast side of town. Within city limits, only a remnant of the oJd rail right-of-way 
exists today in public ownership—owned as a tax lot. It is a narrow, 1.48-acre strip 
approximately 1,300 feet long running south and roughly parallel to Hueners Lane. 
Between the city and Medford, the county owns an easement for rail purposes, which is 
largely intact; the intent is to preserve the easement for nonmotorized travel. 
Pipeline 
The only pipeline facility in the city is owned by natural-gas provider Avista Utilities. 
Avista makes natural gas available to most households in the city (not the northwest 
quadrant). Natural gas is transmitted from the north via the Williams Pipeline generally 
located along the 1-5 corridor. 
Water 
There are no navigable waterways in or serving the city. 
3.2.5 Parking Inventory 
Most of the parking supply is on-street parking, although three parking lots - one private 
and two city-owned - help meet the surge in parking demand associated with the Britt 
Festivals' series of outdoor summer concerts. 
The Britt concerts, coupled with the seasonal increase in tourism, tends to tax the supply 
of parking, in particular parking close to popular destinations. Those destinations are the 
core business district shops along or just off East California Street, and the Britt grounds 
at First and West Fir streets. On the afternoon-evening of a concert, Jacksonville can 
expect roughly 880 Britt-bound vehicles. This estimate is based on the capacity of Britt 
grounds - 2,200 people - and an average vehicle capacity of 2.5 people. The estimate 
assumes that concertgoers will arrive by motor vehicle as public transportation is not 
available. Festival grounds capacity is reported by Britt Festivals, and assumes sold-out 
concerts. The average vehicle capacity of 2.5 was established for outdoor summer 
concerts in the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization area by the 2001 
Jackson County Expo & Fair Amphitheater Traffic Control Plan. Although Jacksonville 
offers overnight accommodations and a few Britt attendees could stay in the city and 
walk to the concert, accommodations are very limited and are not likely to significantly 
impact traffic. 
Inventory 
A parking inventory was conducted, focusing on the availability of parking surrounding 
the downtown area, where parking often is perceived of being in short supply. The 
inventory identified 603 on-street parking spaces and 485 off-street spaces. The only 
public off-street parking is the 180 spaces in the city-owned lots at the end of West C and 
West D streets. The largest area of off-street parking—about 250 spaces - is owned by 
Bigharn Knoll, which makes the lot available to Britt concert-goers. The inventory 
appears in Table 3.4A and B, on the following page. The area covered in the inventory is 
identified by the numbered blocks shown on Figure 3.4, following the inventory counts. 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 34 
The inventory is a rough calculation because most of the on-street parking is not paved or 
marked, allowing motorists to leave their vehicles where convenient, but not necessarily 
where most efficient, i.e. one car taking up what could be two spaces. The inventory 
reflects an optimal use of unmarked space. Additionally, the city has a considerable 
amount of parking in the neighborhoods surrounding the Britt grounds where on-street 
parking is reserved for residents by permit from June 1 to September 30 (shown as 
Restricted Parking in inventory tables). The restriction helps mitigate the impacts of 
concerts on nearby households, and the area involved is too far from other points of 
interest to impact other visitors. 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 35 
ui o « Ol CO to 
T
o
ia
l 
C
ap
ac
i 
R
es
tr
ic
te
d 
P
ar
ki
ng
 
® ^ o 
CO V™ cO 
«9 a 
t « 
O U 
O
n
-S
tr
ee
l. 
C
ap
ac
it
y 
co h- 0£ ?g cr> 
O
n
-S
tr
ee
l. 
C
ap
ac
it
y 
* 
DC 
O o co OI 
o 
m 
c o ra % 
s o - c 
ri <C 
o s 
<11 c 
qI 
oj 
c 
(0 
2 
¡g 
8 
«a 
01 
t 
ÌCL 
T CO OJ r^j i— 
CO 
CO TT tN 
<M Cl 
'J' T T 
ro 
O 
ed 
i_ 
UL 
Jc <D 
O 
g 
a 
o 
•C 
•c 
o z 
>, L_ 
0 +J 
c 
01 > 
D1 
c 
ro 
CL 
< 
ro 
O 
JD 
(5 
U <D C9 
V> a <D Cl a: 
<? a 
t « 
o <-> 
3 
£ u 
<5 a 
c ° 
n <-> 
o 
(Ù 
S 
o 
Ci 
<11 
<11 
hi u w 
<n 
i - n CO CO CN CO f— CM T— T— i— 
o CO cn to CM on • T CM T— T— 
co t «1 CO CO n> OJ CVJ CM CM CM <M CM 
Ul 
5 dj ^ .11 
• £5 
" P 
Ì - S £ £ & w £ Ji 
U) ra « 
E £ 
° J 
5 o 
O) e 
= S 
O L- -n ra w CL a) 
in £ 
1 - E 
1= </) 
TO ( j 
c ra 
j i Q. 
7 3 
0) 
( j ra 
•Z CL 
1 1 
~ d) 
a» ™ 
0) ra 
£; <d 
V s 
i t - c 
o •= 
o i 
c 
e ro 
o i 
" • D 
>< aj 
o o 
O) "EI 
a> ^ (/) 
ra m 
O k-
> , <U 
x : 
Dl U) 0) -
o .E 
cn x 
£ LLI 
JC • u CD 
ra n a 
14- d) 
O -0 
p Ol 
S S •-
ECl > - , i o 
c « o _ .c >«-
ra 
£ o 
<u TO ro 
Q. 
cn cu XL 
C 
o 
1 = S <fl - , 3 
ID r OI > E il 
o o U t C 
ra O tn <J> i : c 
a> a> > 
-o 5 J3 Ì; 
ra o 
I - £ 
Oh 
GO 
f -
_cu 
' > 
c 
o co 
U 
CJ 
Figure 3.4: Parking Inventory Map 
\\ U- . {S S / . „« . ; 
\\ 
1 # S 
S.' 
\\ 
0 -ft. 
k ffflTfllBT / " V - ^ ( / \ 
- . v , • ->.< * . - M , .-•-«#*' 
11 
' HCiiO«' 
- ^ ^ / ^ W / ' v / K ^ S ^ b U 
* ^ ^ / r ^ f u r f r ^ Z 
^ % / a 
. / S " . . - " ' ( ' / ( i 
/ V, > ' ' V 
f v 
- M i " - A ' T V j , / / ' V 
^ J W / o 7/^A 
« / 
/ n u 
// 
/ M 
^ / / 
> ^ 7 
/ / 
,«9 
v y 
v Cfcvpiàiici st,/'. „ ';--
a / 7 fl y q ^ a ^ - i i y 
i i / / 
/ k ? 
<t i 
JJ 
\ a n i 
The numbers on the blocks shown above correspond to the block numbers in the inventory 
on the previous page. 
D R A F T Jacksonvil le T S P 37 
Element 4 
Current Conditions and Deficiencies 
4.1 Introduction 
This element describes the current operating condition of the street network and identifies 
where and to what extent deficiencies exist. The findings of the existing conditions analysis 
serve as a baseline to which future conditions can be compared and evaluated. 
This element is, essentially, a fact-finding document. It combines the information from 
Element 3's inventory with traffic counts at key intersections to create a picture of the 
transportation system. The analysis includes examination of traffic controls and road 
geometries, and addresses bicycle and pedestrian activities. It determines current (2006) 
intersection level of service (LOS) and volume to capacity (V/C) ratios. 
The findings are based on analysis by traffic engineering staff at Parametrix, using a 
standardized method for determining traffic flow by adjusting for variations in traffic hourly, 
daily and seasonally. In addition, a second engineer's analysis looks at traffic conditions 
during two times of high activity: Britt Festivals' concert nights and Sunday mornings due to 
traffic volumes generated from parcels west of the townsite. This second analysis also 
identifies and evaluates potential alternatives, which will be taken up in Element 6: System 
Alternatives. 
4.2 Summary of Findings 
All 12 intersections examined in this review were found to be operating within generally 
acceptable levels. Lowest-performing intersections were found along North Fifth Street: the 
west-bound left turn movement from Shafer Lane, and all travel eastbound from West E 
Street. Both performed at a service level (LOS) of C, which is adequate according to city 
standards and means that the delay for motorists making these movements is not excessively 
long. All other intersections in the city were LOS B. V/C ratios, which compare traffic flow 
to a roadway's capacity, also were well within acceptable standards. Details are provided 
below. 
Findings regarding traffic flow during special events are contained in section 4.3.4. 
D R A F T Jacksonville TSP 38 
4.3 Existing Conditions 
The purpose of this section is to establish the existing conditions (2006) of the study area 
roadways and intersections. This section does not include a comprehensive assessment of all 
existing conditions, but focuses solely on traffic analysis. 
4.3.1 Study Area 
The analysis of existing traffic conditions within the Jacksonville study area focuses on 
twelve key intersections located primarily along Hwy. 238 (Jacksonville Highway) through 
the City. Five other local intersections are also included in the study area. All study area 
intersections are unsignalized and include the following: 
1. Hwy. 238 at Shafer Lane; 
2. Hwy. 238 (Fifth Street) at E Street; 
3. Hwy. 238 (Fifth Street) at California Street; 
4. California Street at Sixth Street; 
5. California Street at Eighth Street; 
6. California Street (South Stage Road) at Wells Fargo Road; 
7. Hwy. 238 (California Street) at Third Street; 
8. Hwy. 238 (California Street) at Oregon Street; 
9. Oregon Street at F Street; 
10. Oregon Street at C Street; 
11. Hwy. 238 at Pair-a-Dice Road; and, 
12. Hwy. 238 at Old Ore 238 (Bybee Corner, outside city urban growth boundary) 
Each of the unsignalized intersections is stop-controlled on the minor street approach. 
Existing traffic volumes for the 12 study area intersections (traffic counts with seasonal 
adjustments) are shown in Appendix B. Existing lane configurations and traffic control are 
shown in Appendix C and photographs of the study area intersections are presented in 
Appendix D. Posted speeds in the vicinity of study area intersections are as follows: 
• Hwy. 238 at Old Hwy.238 (Bybee Corner) - 45 mph; 
• Hwy.238 at Shafer Lane - 30 mph; 
• Hwy.238 from north of E Street through west of Oregon Street - 20 mph; 
• Hwy.238 at Pair-a-Dice Road - 45 mph; 
• California Street from Fifth Street to Wells Fargo Road - 25 mph; 
« Oregon Street from California Street through C Street - 20 mph; and, 
• Oregon Street at F Street - 25 mph. 
4.3.2 Existing Traffic Counts 
Peak Period Turning Movement Counts 
ODOT and the Rogue Valley Council of Governments provided turning movement counts 
for Jacksonville study area intersections. For most intersections, the counts were conducted 
for three hours between 3 and 6 p.m., and included vehicle classification by movement. At 
the intersections of Hwy. 238 with Old Hwy. 238 (Bybee Corner), and Fifth Street with 
California Street data was collected for 16 hours between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. At the 
intersections of Hwy. 238 (California Street) with Oregon Street, and Hwy. 238 with Pair-a-
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 39 
Dice Road, data was collected for 14 hours between 6a.m. and 8 p.m. Data for each 
intersection was disaggregated into 15-minute time increments for the PM peak travel 
periods to facilitate analysis. 
A review of traffic count data indicated that average traffic activity in the study area over the 
entire peak period was highest from 4:45 p.m. to 5:45 p.m. Data presented in Table A-l of 
Appendix C illustrates how this determination was made from the raw count data provided 
by ODOT. Table A-2 shows the total volumes for each movement and intersection during 
the identified peak hour. 
Hwy. 238 (No. 272) traffic can be characterized as both commuter and recreational with 
significant seasonal variation occurring between summer and winter months. Accordingly, 
adjustments are required for the counts taken outside of the peak season to ensure that they 
reflect an appropriate level of traffic for use in assessing design/improvement options. Since 
there is no Automatic Traffic Recording station (ATR) close by or representative of the study 
area the ATR Seasonal Trend Table was used to determine adjustment factors. Adjustment 
factors were calculated averaging summer and commuter seasonal factors. The factors to 
seasonally adjust the peak hourly traffic counts are presented in Table A-3 of Appendix B. 
The seasonally adjusted peak hour turning movement traffic counts that formed the basis of 
the existing conditions traffic operations analysis are summarized in Table A-2 of Appendix 
B. These volumes represent 30th highest hourly volumes that can be used as the basis for 
evaluation of improvement options. 
Medium and Heavy Duty Truck Counts 
Table 4.1 summarizes the percentage of total traffic on various roadway segments in the City 
of Jacksonville during the PM peak hour that is attributable to medium and heavy duty 
trucks. This data was collected for ODOT during August of 2006. 
As indicated in the table, average percentages for medium and heavy duty trucks vary from 
0.6 percent on California Street east of Wells Fargo Road to 3.1 percent along Hwy, 238 in 
the vicinity of Pair-a-Dice Road. 
Table 4-1: Medium and heavy-duty truck traffic as percent of total traffic during p.m. peak 
hour at selected locations. 
Medium and Heavy 
Duty Trucks Heavy Duty Trucks 
Location and Time Period 
Total 2-Way 
Traffic Volume Percentage Volume Percentage 
Hwy. 238 north of Shafer Lane 689 5 0.7% 3 0.4% 
Hwy. 238 north of E Street 596 8 1.3% 5 0.8% 
Hwy. 238 east of Third Street 706 7 1.0% 4 0.6% 
Hwy. 238 east of Oregon Street 613 12 2.0% 3 0.5% 
Hwy. 238 east of Pair-a-Dice Road 556 17 3.1% 8 1.4% 
Hwy. 238 west of Pair-a-Dice Road 544 17 3.1% 8 1.5% 
California Street east of Wells Fargo Road 618 4 0.6% 3 0.5% 
Note: Medium duly trucks include single units with three or four axles, heavy duty trucks include double or multiple units wi ih 
four to more lhan 6 axles. 
D R A F T Jacksonvil le T S P 40 
Heavy duty truck percentages also vary throughout the study area with the higher 
percentages near Pair-a-Dice Road. However, overall percentages of heavy duty trucks are 
relatively small during the PM peak hour ranging from 0.4 percent north of Shafer Lane to 
1.5 percent west of Pair-a-Dice Road. Heavy duty trucks typically affect intersection and 
roadway traffic operations more significantly than do smaller trucks and are always 
considered as a part of a traffic operations analysis. 
A possible shortcoming to addressing traffic only in terms of overall p.m. peak hour traffic 
conditions is that the peak of truck traffic associated with quarry activity off Pair-a-Dice 
Ranch Road is missed. The greatest number of trucks to and from the quarry area passes 
through the city during the morning hours. A one-day "snapshot" of truck traffic serves as an 
example of this truck traffic through the city. 
This snapshot captures trucks traveling north and south on Hwy. 238 between Pair-a-Dice 
Ranch Road, north of the city, and the intersection of California and Oregon Streets. Pair-a-
Dice Ranch Road is the only access to a granite quarry. There are no intersections on Hwy. 
238 between Pair-a-Dice Ranch Road and Oregon Street, so all southbound trucks at the 
Pair-a-Dice Ranch Road/Hwy. 238 intersection must pass through the California/Oregon 
intersection. Likewise, all northbound trucks at the Pair-a-Dice Ranch Road/Hwy. 238 
intersection had to have passed through the California/Oregon intersection. In other words, a 
count of trucks entering and exiting Pair-a-Dice Ranch Road at Hwy. 238 from Jacksonville 
represents truck traffic in the city at California and Oregon streets. Table 4.2, below, shows 
the numbers of trucks, 3-axle and greater, counted in one day in mid-August, 2006. The 
count showed that for the remainder of the day (through 8 p.m.), a total of seven trucks 
passed California and Oregon streets intersection to and from Pair-a-Dice Ranch Road. 
Aggregate hauling activity is determined by market needs and business strategies. Volumes, 
therefore, are subject to significant change, short term and long term. 
Table 4.2: Truck traffic a.m. hours at California and Oregon Streets, to and from Pair-a-Dice 
Ranch Road. 
Trucks North-Bound Trucks South-Bound 
(Jacksonville to Pair-a- (Pair-a-Dice Ranch Road Total Trucks @ California 
Hour Dice Ranch Road) to Jacksonville) & Oregon streets 
7 a.m. 7 5 12 
8 a.m. 3 4 7 
9 a.m. 2 4 6 
10 a.m. 1 0 1 
11 a.m. 0 2 2 
Noon 1 0 1 
Table 4.2 reports the number of trucks on Pair-a-Dice Ranch Road that also travel through the 
intersection of California and Oregon streets, thereby impacting Jacksonville's historic 
downtown core area. Morning hours typically are the hours of highest truck volumes. 
Hwy. 238 is a local route linking Interstate 5 at North Medford and US 199 in Grants Pass. 
As such it carries regional commercial traffic to and among the two cities and smaller 
communities along its route. This north-south through truck traffic also impacts Jacksonville. 
Table 4.3 shows the total number of through trucks, 3-axle and greater, at California and 
Oregon streets in the same period as table 4.2 above. Truck traffic is identified as medium-
duty (3 to 4 axles) and heavy-duty (more than 4 axles). Comparing the total volume of trucks 
in 4.3, to the totals in table 4.2 shows the impact of regional truck traffic in the city. An 
D R A F T Jacksonville TSP 41 
unknown percentage of the trucks in Table 4.3 are locally generated (i.e. deliveries to and 
from Jacksonville locations). 
Table 4.3.a.: Truck Traffic at California and Oregon streets. 
Medium and Heavy 
Duty Trucks Heavy Duty Trucks 
Hour Total Traffic Volume Percentage Volume Percentage 
6 a.m. 444 17 3.8% 12 2.7% 
7 a.m. 676 20 2.9% 20 2.9% 
8 a.m. 684 15 2.1% 5 0.7% 
9 a.m. 666 18 2.7% 10 1.5% 
10 a.m. 612 14 2.2% 10 1.6% 
11 a.m. 712 28 3.9% 17 2.4% 
Noon 861 8 0.9% 6 0.6% 
Table 4.3.a. reports the number percentage of trucks at CA/OR streets compared to all classes 
of traffic passing through the intersection. Morning hours typically are the hours of highest 
truck volumes. 
Table 4.3.b.: California/Oregon Streets truck traffic, unadjusted for peak hour 
Hour 7/10/2008 7/16/2008 
8arn-9am 129 141 
9am-10am 163 128 
10arn-11am 151 113 
11arn-12pm 112 111 
Table 4.3.b. reports counts as of 7/10/2008 & 7/16/2008 submitted by a Jacksonville citizen. 
Counts have been aggregated to show the total number of tractor-trailer trucks passing 
through the CA/OR intersection at the times indicated. 
Bicycle Counts 
Table 4.4 presents a summary of bicycle travel at key study area intersections based on traffic 
count data collected for ODOT during August, 2006. As indicated by this summary, bicycle 
travel currently constitutes a relatively low percentage of total traffic during the peak travel 
hour of the day. The counts, taken on a weekday, don't reflect the city's position that it is a 
popular stopping point for recreational cyclists using regional bike routes such as South 
Stage and Old Stage roads. 
Table 4.4: Peak Hour Bicycle Traffic at Key Intersections 
Location 
Total Traffic 
Approaching 
Intersection 
Total Bicycles 
Approaching 
Intersection 
Bicycle Traffic 
percent of total 
Hwy. 238 at Shafer Lane 762 14 1.8% 
Hwy.238 at E Street 703 11 1.5% 
Hwy.238 at California Street 821 2 0.2% 
California Street at Wells Fargo 
Road 
640 14 2.1% 
Hwy.238 at Third Street 731 12 1.6% 
Hwy.238 at Oregon Street 914 0 0 
Hwy.238 at Pair-a-Dice Road 572 0 0 
Hwy.238 at Main St. (Bybee 
Corner) 
1,035 0 0 
D R A F T Jacksonvil le TSP 42 
Pedestrian Counts 
Table 4.5 presents a summary of pedestrian activity at key study area intersections based on 
traffic count data collected for ODOT during August of 2006. 
Table 4.5: Peak Hour Pedestrians at Key Intersections 
Location 
Total Pedestrians Crossing at 
Intersection 
Hwy.238 at Shafer Lane 0 
Hwy.238 at E Street 7 
Hwy.238 at California Street 0 
Hwy.238 atThird Street 94 
Oregon Street at F Street 4 
Oregon Street at C Street 1 
Hwy.238 at Main Street (Bybee Corner) 0 
4.3.3 Existing Traffic Operations 
Operational Standards 
Within the state of Oregon traffic operations are evaluated based on two sets of criteria or 
standards. For state highways, the operative standard is expressed in terms of a ratio between 
traffic volumes and the roadway or intersection's capacity (or V/C ratio). For many local 
communities, the quality of traffic performance is assessed in terms of intersection or 
roadway levels of service (LOS) which is based on average delay. These two operational 
standards are described below. 
Volume to Capacity Ratios 
As adopted in the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (OHP), ODOT uses volume-to-capacity (V/C) 
ratios to measure state highway performance rather than intersection or roadway levels of 
service. Various V/C thresholds are applied to all state highways based on the OHP defined 
highway classification of these facilities. Oregon Highway 238 (Jacksonville Highway) is 
classified by the OHP as a district highway. The peak hour maximum V/C standards for 
Hwy. 238 locations and are summarized in Table 4.6. 
Table 4.6: Maximum Volume to Capacity Ratios for Peak Hour Operating Conditions 
District Highway Designation 
Maximum V/C 
Ratio 
Outside Urban Growth Boundary -Rural Lands 0 75 
Inside MPO, outside STA boundary. 0.90 
STA: Main Street to Shafer Lane (MP33.16 to 33.97) 0.95 
Source: Oregon Highway Plan, Policy 1F Mobility Standards, Table 6. 
Intersection Levels of Service 
Another measure of intersection operating performance during peak travel periods is based 
on average control delay per vehicle entering the intersection. This delay is calculated using 
equations that take into account turning movement volumes, intersection lane geometry and 
traffic signal features, as well as characteristics of the traffic stream passing through the 
intersection, including time required to slow, stop, wait, and accelerate to move through the 
intersection. Various levels of delay are then expressed in terms of levels of service (LOS) 
D R A F T Jacksonvil le TSP 43 
for either signalized or unsignalized intersections. The various levels of service range from 
LOS A (which reflects free-flow conditions) through LOS F (which reflects operational 
breakdown). Between LOS A and LOS F progressively higher LOS grades reflect 
increasingly worse intersection performance, with higher levels of control delay and 
increased congestion and queues. Characteristics of each LOS are briefly described below in 
Table 4.7. 
Table 4.7: Level of Service Definitions 
Average Delay/Vehicle (sec.) 
Level of Service Signalized Unsignalized Description 
A (Desirable) <10 seconds <10 seconds Very low delay; most vehicles do not stop. 
B (Desirable) >10 and <20 
seconds 
>10 and <15 
seconds 
Low delay resulting from good progression, short 
cycle lengths, or both. 
C (Desirable) >20 and <35 
seconds 
>15 and <25 
seconds 
Higher delays with fair progression, longer cycle 
lengths, or both. 
D (Acceptable) >35 and <55 
seconds 
>25 and <35 
seconds 
Noticeable congestion with many vehicles 
stopping, individual cycle failures occur. 
E (Unsatisfactory) >55 and <80 
seconds 
>35 and <50 
seconds 
High delay w/ poor progression, long cycle lengths, 
high V/C ratios, and frequent cycle failures. 
F (Unsatisfactory) >80 seconds >50 seconds Very long delays, considered unacceptable by 
most drivers. Often results from over-saturated 
conditions or poor signal timing. 
Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Transportation Research Board. 
Summary of Existing Traffic Operations 
The analysis of existing PM traffic operations was conducted using a Synchro traffic 
simulation model which was developed specifically for study area intersections. This model 
includes geometries, other relevant physical data, and existing traffic control for each 
intersection that were identified from field reconnaissance. Analysis procedures follow the 
ODOT Transportation Planning and Analysis Unit's (TPAU) guidelines. 
Table 4.8 summarizes existing (2007) traffic operations for the PM peak hour at the twelve 
intersections in the Jacksonville study area. Data in this table includes the overall intersection 
volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios, average intersection delay, and intersection levels of 
service. The V/C ratio relates the magnitude of traffic traveling through an intersection with 
its theoretical capacity. Ratios above 1.0 often accompany LOS E and LOS F conditions 
indicating inadequate capacity for one or more major movements. At intersections operating 
at LOS D or better, V/C ratios above 1.0 are useful indicators of potential concerns such as 
sub-optimal signal timing or inadequate turn lane storage. The 2007 intersection analysis 
worksheets are included in Appendix E. Currently the intersections generally experience 
minimal delays and operate within the acceptable V/C standards. 
D R A F T Jacksonvil le TSP 44 
Table 4.8: Existing (2007) 30th Highest Hourly (Peak) Intersection Traffic Operations 
Critical Control Delay 
Unsignalized Intersections Movement V/C Ratio (secs./vehicle) LOS 
Hwy.238 @ Shafer Lane WB Left 0.02 15.7 C 
Hwy.238 (5th Street) @ E Street EB All 0.18 15.5 c 
WB All 0.07 14.3 B 
Hwy.238 (5th Street) @ Hwy.238 (California 
Street) 
3-way Stop 0.72 10.2 B 
California Street @ Sixth Street SB All 0.11 13.2 B 
California Street @ Eighth Street SB All 0.07 13.8 B 
California Street @ Wells Fargo Road NB All 0.06 14.2 B 
Hwy.238 (California Street) @ Third Street NB All 0.07 11.3 B 
SB All 0.02 10.7 B 
Hwy.238 (California Street) @ Oregon 
Street 
All-way 
Stop 0.55 10.4 B 
Oregon Street @ F Street WB All 0.10 10.2 B 
Oregon Street @ C Street EB All 0.12 11.7 B 
WB All 0.10 12.3 B 
Hwy.238 @ Pair-a-Dice Road SB All 0.04 13.9 B 
Hwy.238 @ Old Hwy.238 (Bybee Corner) NB Left 0.46 17.4 c 
WB Left 0.05 8.0 A 
Note 1: LOS means intersection level of service. 
Note 2: "Critical Delay" and "Critical LOS" refers to the delay or LOS experienced for the specific intersection traffic movement 
listed. 
Note 3: NB means northbound. SB means southbound, EB means eastbound, WB means westbound. 
4.3.4 Special Event Operations 
Two recurring special events create a rush of traffic to and through the city: Britt Festivals' 
summer concert series in Jacksonville, and heavy Sunday traffic generated by parcels to the 
southwest of town. Traffic and pedestrian counts were taken in August 2006 on a Sunday 
morning and an evening of a Britt concert to identify impacts at the intersection of West 
California and Oregon streets. Greenlight Engineering, Tualatin, reviewed the counts and 
found that while the intersection works adequately during a Britt concert, it does not work 
adequately when Sunday morning through traffic reaches a peak. The analysis found that 
traffic operations at the intersection are compromised for a brief time on Sunday midday. 
With a delay of 53 seconds, the intersection performed at LOS F. During the peak of Britt 
traffic, the delay was no longer than typical for the intersection, LOS B. 
D R A F T Jacksonvil le T S P 45 
Element 5 
Future Demand, Deficiencies and Needs 
5.1 Introduction 
This element looks at the city's transportation system in terms of how well or poorly in can be 
expected to function through 2030. It describes anticipated travel demand and the capacity of the 
transportation network, and identifies deficiencies and needs that might exist. Deficiencies, in 
this case, are defined as the differences between the characteristics of the future transportation 
system and the performance standards that are already in place to measure performance of those 
characteristics. Needs are defined as the kind of transportation improvements or changes that will 
be necessary to correct or mitigate the deficiencies. 
The element begins with a description of the procedures and methodologies used to forecast 
demand, the standards used to determine whether there will be any deficiencies and needs, and 
the information and data used to make the traffic forecasts. The element concludes with the 
analysis of future (2030 peak period) transportation conditions under two scenarios. Beyond 
offering a window into the future performance of Jacksonville's transportation system, the 
analysis serves as the basis for evaluating the benefits various land development and 
transportation alternatives. The identification and analysis of potential alternatives will be taken 
up in Chapter 6: System Alternatives. 
5.2 Summary of Findings 
The analysis showed that by 2030, no intersections in Jacksonville are expected to exceed the 
applicable intersection traffic operation standard, and therefore, no needs are identified. This was 
true under a No Build scenario, which considered development and transportation system 
changes as identified in current planning documents, and a Mode-Loss scenario, which 
considered impacts of the loss of transit service and bicycling. Tables 5-5 and 5-6 at the end of 
this chapter detail these findings. 
Future-year findings echo analysis of present day performance. Intersections examined for 2007 
performance (Element 4) were found to be operating within generally acceptable levels. Lowest-
performing intersections were along North Fifth Street: the west-bound left turn movement from 
Shafer Lane, and all travel eastbound from West E Street. Both performed at a Level of Service 
(LOS) of C, which is adequate according to city standards and means that the delay for motorists 
making these movements is not excessively long. Under the two 2030 scenarios, service declined 
to LOS C on several streets, with an LOS D (still within city standards) on the west-bound left 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 46 
turn movement from Shafer Lane. A summary comparison of current and future intersection 
performance is shown in table 5-1 below. 
Table 5.1: Summary Comparison of Intersection Performance, 2007 and 2030 
Unsignalized Intersections Critical Movement 2007 LOS 2030 LOS 
Hwy. 238 @ Shafer Lane WB Left C D 
Hwy.238 (5th Street) @ E Street 
EB All C C 
WB All B C 
Hwy.238 (5th Street) @ Hwy.238 (California 
Street) 
3-way stop 1 yield B B 
California Street @ 6th Street SB All B C 
California Street @ 8th Street SB All B c 
California St @ Wells Fargo Rd NB All B c 
Hwy.238 (California St) @ 3rd St NB All B B 
SB All B B 
Hwy.238 (California Street) @ Oregon Street All-way Stop B C 
Oregon Street @ F Street WB All B B 
Oregon Street @ C Street EB All B B 
WB All B B 
Hwy.238 @ Pair-a-Dice Road SB All B C 
Hwy.238 @ W. Main (Bybee Corner)* 
NB Left (W. Main) C E 
WB Left A A 
*Outside study area/Jacksonville UGB, but import to understanding city travel 
5.3 2030 Forecast Methodology 
This section describes the forecasting methodology employed to prepare future year traffic 
volumes for the Jacksonville Transportation System Plan update. It includes discussion of the 
following: 
• A brief discussion of the data sources and analysis process employed to prepare future 
link and intersection turning movement projections to be used in assessing the traffic 
implications of population growth and land development within the study area and the 
surrounding community; 
• A synopsis of the standards used to assess needs and deficiencies; 
• A summary of planned city, county and/or ODOT roadway improvement projects in the 
study area; and 
• A brief discussion of traffic model output at the street segment or link level to identify 
any locations that are anticipated to exceed planned capacity during the planning period. 
As appropriate, data would be stratified in 5 year increments to assist in determining the 
priority and timing of future recommended improvements. 
5.3.1 Traffic Forecasting Process 
Traffic forecasts for the Jacksonville study area were developed to compare and assess the 
anticipated roadway system improvement needs associated with the future peak hour No-Build 
condition and an array of transportation system alternatives. A multi-step process was 
undertaken to prepare these forecasts which relied on the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 47 
Organization's (RVMPO) travel demand model developed and maintained for the Jacksonville 
urbanized area by the ODOT Transportation Planning Analysis Unit (TPAU). For purposes of 
this study the future planning horizon year was assumed to be 2030, consistent with other 
transportation planning activities currently underway within the region. 
The travel demand model uses current and projected land use to estimate travel demand. 
Estimates were prepared for two land use/transportation system alternative scenarios, a base year 
of 2005 and future year of 2030. it should be noted that the RVMPO model includes the entire 
area within the Jacksonville Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), as well as expansion areas 
currently located outside the UGB. 
The travel demand forecasting process used to obtain future intersection level traffic volumes 
included the following steps: 
1. Using traffic volume assignment output from the RVMPO model as supplied by TPAU, 
2005 and 2030 peak hourly traffic volume estimates were prepared for street segments 
approaching key intersections throughout the Jacksonville study area. These estimates 
are based on land development consistent with the local city and Jackson County 
comprehensive plans and on the transportation system improvements anticipated to be in 
place by 2030 as denoted in the 2005-2030 Rogue Valley Regional Transportation Plan 
(RTP). 
2. 2030 peak hour trip assignments from the model were compared with 2005 trip 
assignments to determine the extent of traffic growth anticipated on each roadway link in 
the study area. The roadway segment volumes for 2005 were subtracted from the 2030 
volumes to determine the net difference in trips. The net difference was then divided by 
25 years to yield an annual increase in trips. The annual trip increase was multiplied by 
23 year to determine the increase in trips from 2007 to 2030. 
3. Future traffic growth on each link approaching a key intersection was added to existing 
turning movement traffic counts using the methods specified in NCHRP Report #255 to 
produce smoothed 2030 PM peak hour turning movement projections. This involved 
proportioning the additional link volume entering each intersection to each turning 
movement according to the 2007 turning movement data. The turning movement 
estimates for each of the scenarios were rounded to the nearest 5 trips and balanced 
between each of the study intersections to be less than 10 percent of the link volume. 
5.3.2 Operational Standards 
Within the state of Oregon traffic operations are evaluated based on two sets of performance 
measures or standards. For state highways, the operative standard is expressed in terms of a ratio 
between traffic volumes and the roadway or intersection's capacity. For local street intersection 
within the City of Jacksonville, the quality of traffic performance is assessed in terms of 
intersection or roadway levels of service (LOS). These two operational standards are described 
below. 
Volume to Capacity Ratios 
As adopted in the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (OHP), ODOT uses volume-to-capacity (V/C) 
ratios to measure state highway performance rather than intersection or roadway levels of 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 48 
service. Various V/C thresholds are applied to all state highways based on functional 
classification of these facilities. Hwy. 238, (Hwy No. 272) or Jacksonville Highway, within the 
study area is classified by the OHP as District Highway inside the boundaries of a Metropolitan 
Planning Organization (MPO). A segment of Hwy. 238 in Jacksonville, from Shafer Lane to 
Main Street has also been designated as a special transportation area (STA) which 
accommodates higher levels of congestion than would otherwise be the case along a highway of 
this type. The adopted v/c standards for OR 238 are presented in Table 5-2. 
Table 5.2: Maximum Volume/Capacity for Peak Hour Operating Conditions for District Highway 
Locat ion Designat ion Max imum V/C Ratio 
Outside Urban Growth Boundary Rural Lands 0.75 
Within Urban Growth Boundary STA (Shafer Lane to Main Street) 0.95 
Within Urban Growth Boundary <_35 mph • 0.90 
Within Urban Growth Boundary MPO(i) 0.90 
Source: Oregon Highway Plan, Policy 1F Mobility Standards. Table 6 
Highway Design Manual 
The Highway Design Manual (HDM) prescribes v/c ratio standards for all major highway 
improvements. It is different from the OHP standards in that the OHP standards are for planning 
purposes, and the HDM standards are used when considering any design alternatives. If the 
acceptable v/c ratio cannot be met, it is necessary to seek a design exception. Table 5-3 lists the 
acceptable v/c ratios for future design options for Hwy. 238. 
Table 5.3: 20 Year Design-Mobility Standards (Volume/Capacity [V/C]) Ratio for District/Local 
Interest Roads 
Locat ion Designat ion Max imum V/C Ratio 
Outside Urban Growth Boundary Rural Lands 0.70 
Within Urban Growth Boundary STA (Shafer Lane to Main Street) 0.95 
Within Urban Growth Boundary MPO 0.85 
Source: Oregon Highway Design Manual, Transportation Analysis Table 10-4 
Intersection Levels of Service 
Another measure of intersection operating performance during peak travel periods is based on 
average control delay per vehicle entering the intersection. This delay is calculated using 
equations that take into account turning movement volumes, intersection lane geometry and 
traffic signal features (no traffic signals exist within the study area), as well as characteristics of 
the traffic stream passing through the intersection, including time required to slow, stop, wait, 
and accelerate to move through the intersection. Various levels of delay are then expressed in 
terms of levels of service (LOS) for either signalized or unsignalized intersections. The various 
levels of service range from LOS A (which reflects free-flow conditions) through LOS F (which 
reflects operational breakdown). Between LOS A and LOS F progressively higher LOS grades 
reflect increasingly worse intersection performance, with higher levels of control delay and 
increased congestion and queues. Characteristics of each LOS are briefly described below in 
Table 5-4. The City of Jacksonville has adopted LOS C as its operative standard for local 
intersection traffic performance and LOS D for collector and arterial intersections. 
DRAFT Jacksonvil le T S P 49 
Table 5.4: Level of Service Definitions 
Average Delay/Vehicle (sec.) 
Level of Service Signalized Unsignalized Description 
A (Desirable) <10 seconds <10 seconds Very low delay; most vehicles do not stop. 
B (Desirable) >10 and <20 
seconds 
>10 and <15 
seconds 
Low delay resulting from good progression, short 
cycle lengths, or both. 
C (Desirable) >20 and <35 
seconds 
>15 and <25 
seconds 
Higher delays with fair progression, longer cycle 
lengths, or both. 
D (Acceptable) >35 and <55 
seconds 
>25 and <35 
seconds 
Noticeable congestion with many vehicles 
stopping. Individual cycle failures occur. 
E (Unsatisfactory) >55 and <80 
seconds 
>35 and <50 
seconds 
High delay with poor progression, long cycle 
lengths, high V/C ratios, and frequent cycle 
failures. 
F (Unsatisfactory) >80 seconds >50 seconds Very long delays, considered unacceptable by 
most drivers. Often results from over-saturated 
conditions or poor signal timing. 
5.3.3 Funded Transportation Improvement Projects 
As noted in section 5.3.1: a key component of the Traffic Forecasting Process was to identify 
and factor in the transportation system improvements anticipated to be in place by 2030, as 
denoted in local, state and regional plans. There are very few roadway or intersection 
improvement projects currently identified and funded in the short-range plans and programs of 
ODOT, the City of Jacksonville or Jackson County within the study area. Projects that have 
been identified include the following: 
Oregon Department of Transportation Projects 
The current State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for 2006-2009 includes one 
project in the City of Jacksonville. The project, on Elm and M Streets, will pave and improve the 
streets, adding sidewalks and bike lanes. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2008. 
Regional and County Projects 
The Rogue Valley Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as published in 2005 by the Rogue 
Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization includes a wide variety of regional and local agency 
projects throughout the urbanized area. It should be noted, however, that the time frame for 
implementation of these projects could stretch longer than the short-range future. The first 
project listed below (Pair-a-Dice Ranch Road: OR 238 to Westmont) is on the RTP Tier 1 
(financially-constrained) project list, meaning that construction could be accommodated within 
the existing anticipated financial resources of the area. The second project would require a new 
and not presently identified funding source, and is listed in the RTP as Selected Regional Project 
with Long Term Potential. These projects in detail: 
• Pair-a-Dice Ranch Road: OR 238 to Westmont - a fully funded project to install walkways 
along this roadway segment. 
Jacksonville TSP 50 
• Pair-a-Dice Ranch Road: OR 238 to City Limits - this project is currently unfunded and 
would involve construction of an arterial connector around the central, historically-significant 
portion of the city. This new/improved facility would provide an alternative to traversing the 
core area for existing and anticipated vehicular traffic, particularly trucks, which are not 
conducive to supporting the ambiance of the historic downtown. Also, significant traffic 
congestion is experienced on Sundays from traffic generated on parcels located west of the 
townsite.1 
As noted in the Jackson County TSP, diversion of through truck traffic away from the 
downtown core area is an important problem affecting the general livability of the City of 
Jacksonville and that development of an alternative connector around the north edge of town 
should be closely coordinated with the county. 
City of Jacksonville Projects 
No street or roadway improvement projects have been identified as fully funded. 
5.3.4 Potential Future Congestion Locations 
An assessment was made of roadway segments in the study area to determine whether future 
congestion problems may occur and, if so, the approximate timing of these problems in five-year 
increments between 2005 and 2030. To accomplish this assessment, traffic volume projections 
produced by the RVMPO model were reviewed and compared with estimated roadway capacities 
(also as determined by the model) for both 2005 and 2030 peak hours of travel. The intent of 
this assessment was to: 
1. Identify locations where a volume-to-capacity ratio of greater than 0.80 (or 80 percent of 
theoretical roadway segment capacity) would be experienced; and 
2. If such segments were identified, to then work backward to determine the point between 
2005 and 2030 at which this v/c threshold would be exceeded. 
Based on the assessment that was conducted, no roadway segments were identified where 2030 
peak hourly v/c ratios of 0.80 or greater would occur. Section 5.4 provides further analysis. 
5.4 Intersection and Roadway Segment Evaluation 
This section contains the analysis of future (2030 peak period) transportation conditions in 
Jacksonville, documenting future traffic-volume growth at key intersections and identifying 
impacts and infrastructure requirements associated with future growth. The standards described 
in the preceding sections were applied to the volume forecasts to assess the impacts. Because the 
standards applied (v/c and LOS) to projected volumes are the same as standards applied to 
current (2007 volumes) in Element 4, it's possible to compare existing system performance to 
future performance. The information is intended to be used to support further development of the 
city's TSP by providing the basis for evaluating various land development or transportation 
1 Letter from Greenligbt Engineering to Paul Wyntergreen o f the City o f Jacksonville dated, February, 2007 
documenting traff ic operations analysis at the intersection o f California and Oregon Streets for various peak time 
periods. 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 51 
alternatives in the study area. The expected traffic operational conditions that could be associated 
with each scenario will be identified and discussed in detail in Element 6. 
The section begins with description of the development of future 2030 traffic volumes. It 
continues with the results of intersection traffic operations analysis for two scenarios. One 
scenario - the No-Build scenario - is based on assumed improvements identified in the 2005-
2030 Rogue Valley Regional Transportation Plan, which articulates not only a variety of 
roadway improvement projects, but also anticipates a level of person travel via transit, walking 
or bicycling. The second scenario assumes that the availability of transit, walk and/or bicycle 
trip-making is reduced due to the cessation in a particular type of service. It should be noted that 
this analysis is based on anticipated traffic volumes during the normal peak traffic operating 
period (typically a weekday late afternoon). Analysis does not reflect summertime weekend peak 
travel activity and impacts associated with Sunday traffic generated west of the townsite. 
5.4.1 Study Area 
Analysis of future traffic conditions within the Jacksonville study area focuses on the same 12 
key intersections that were initially addressed in Element 4: Existing Conditions. The 
intersections are located primarily along Hvvy. 238 (Jacksonville Highway) through the city. Five 
other local intersections are also included in the study area. The 12th intersection listed below 
(Bybee Corner) is outside the study area, but an understanding of its traffic flows are necessary 
for an accurate analysis of many of the other intersections. All intersections are unsignalized, 
with stop-control on the minor street approach, and full stop at California and Oregon streets 
(state district highway and county road respectively. The intersections are: 
1. Hwy 238 at ShaferLane; 
2. Hwy 238 (Fifth Street) at E Street; 
3. Hwy 238 (Fifth Street) at California Street; 
4. California Street at Sixth Street; 
5. California Street at Eighth Street; 
6. California Street (South Stage Road) at Wells Fargo Road; 
7. Hwy 238 (California Street) at Third Street; 
8. Hwy 238 (California Street) at Oregon Street; 
9. Oregon Street at F Street; 
10. Oregon Street at C Street; 
11. Hwy 238 at Pair-a-Dice Road; and, 
12. Hwy 238 at West Main Street (Old Hwy 238) — Bybee Comer. 
5.4.2 Development of Traffic Volumes 
In order to determine the implications of community growth and associated increases in traffic 
volumes, peak period traffic forecasts were developed for each of the study area intersections. 
For purposes of this study, the future planning horizon year was assumed to be 2030, consistent 
with other transportation planning activities currently underway within the Rogue Valley region. 
Two scenarios were developed as follows 
• Scenario 1-2030 No Build; and 
• Scenario 2-2030 Modal Option—loss of transit service. 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 52 
Both scenarios were based on the population, households and employment assumptions inherent 
in the existing RVMPO travel demand model developed and maintained by the ODOT 
Transportation Planning Analysis Unit (TPAU). Population, household and employment 
assumptions were developed by the RVMPO with local agency consultation using an assessment 
of buildable lands. The buildabie lands analysis represents future development potential within 
the Jacksonville area consistent with both Comprehensive Plan land use designations and the 
availability of property that could reasonably be expected to develop or redevelop over the 
planning horizon. Therefore, No Build in this instance means nothing built in terms of 
development and transportation improvements beyond what is already in an acknowledged plan. 
Scenario 2 assumes changes in multi-modal choices that could occur with existing zoning. 
Specifically, it assumes the loss of transit service and bicycle use. 
The three-step process for forecasting travel demand at key intersections, described in section 
5.3.1, was used to develop the volume projections. The 2030 p.m. peak hour turning movement 
traffic volume projections that resulted from these calculations are presented in Appendix G. 
5.4.3 2030 Traffic Operations Analysis 
Results of the analysis of future traffic performance of key Jacksonville intersections under two 
scenarios - No Build and Multi-Modal Loss (no transit service) are described below. 
2030 No Build Scenario 
The analysis of projected 2030 p.m. traffic operations was conducted using a Synchro traffic 
simulation model which had originally been updated for the existing conditions analysis 
described in Element 4. As indicated in the discussion of existing traffic operations analysis, this 
model includes geometries, other relevant physical data, and existing traffic control for each 
intersection. 
Table 5-5 summarizes future 2030 traffic operations for the design hour at the study 
intersections. Data in this table includes the overall intersection volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios, 
average intersection delay, and intersection levels of service. The v/c ratio relates the magnitude 
of traffic traveling through an intersection with its theoretical capacity. Ratios above 1.0 
typically accompany LOS E and LOS F conditions indicating inadequate capacity for one or 
more major movements. At intersections operating at LOS D or better, v/c ratios above 1.0 are 
useful indicators of potential concerns such as sub-optimal signal timing or inadequate turn lane 
storage. 2030 intersection analysis worksheets for the No-Build Alternative are included in 
Appendix G. 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 53 
Table 5.5: Future (2030 No Build) 30th Highway Hourly (Peak) Intersection Traffic Operations 
Unsignalized Intersections 
Critical 
Movemen 
t 
V/C 
Ratio 
Control Delay 
(sec/vehicle) 
LOS 
Applicable 
Standard 
Hwy. 238 @ Shafer Lane WB Left 0.07 27.2 D 0.95 
Hwy.238 (5th Street) @ E Street 
EB All 0.31 21.0 C 0.95 
WB All 0.09 17.0 C 0.95 
Hwy.238 (5th Street) @ Hwy.238 
(California Street) 
3-way 
stop 1 
yield 
0.84 12.7 B 0.95 
California Street @ 6th Street SB All 0.16 15.3 C D 
California Street @ 8th Street SB All 0.14 17.1 C D 
California St @ Wells Fargo Rd NB All 0.07 16.0 c D 
Hwy.238 (California St) @ 3rd St 
NB All 0.16 13.7 B 0.95 
SB All 0.02 11.7 B 0.95 
Hwy.238 (California Street) @ 
Oregon Street 
All-way 
Stop 
0.63 15.4 c 0.95 
Oregon Street @ F Street WB All 0.16 11.5 B D 
Oregon Street @ C Street EB All 0.12 12.3 B D 
WB All 0.11 13.1 B D 
Hwy.238 @ Pair-a-Dice Road SB All 0.10 16.1 c 0.90 
Hwy.238 @ W.Main (Bybee Corner) NB Left 
(W. Main) 0.77 36.2 E 0.90 
WB Left 0.07 8.3 A 0.90 
Note 1: LOS means intersection level of service. 
Note 2: "Critical Delay" and "Critical LOS" refers to the delay or LOS experienced for the specific intersection traffic movement listed. 
Note 3: NB means northbound. SB means southbound, EB means eastbound, W B means westbound-
By 2030, no intersections are expected to exceed the applicable intersection traffic operational 
standard (e.g., either the ODOT V/C standard or the City's operational standard for intersection 
level of service). 
2030 Scenario with Loss of Multi-Modal Transportation (Transit and Bicycle) 
A sensitivity analysis was conducted of the 2030 No-Build traffic forecasts and operations 
analysis to determine potential street and intersection impacts associated with the loss of multi-
modal transportation system opportunities. In particular, this analysis focused on potential 
increases in vehicular traffic that might be experienced if existing transit services were 
discontinued and/or if no further bicycle facilities were provided to/from and within Jacksonville 
urban area. A reduction in walking was not assumed to occur. 
Future peak hour traffic volumes for this analysis were developed by adjusting the volumes 
developed for the No-Build scenario as described above. Review of mode share estimates 
developed with the RVMPO travel demand model indicates regional transit and bicycle travel 
constitutes about l percent of all person travel within the Rogue Valley Metropolitan region. 
Additionally, review of 2005 Census survey data as published in the American Community 
Survey, indicates that approximately 2 percent of commuters in the greater Medford Urbanized 
Area (including Jacksonville) currently use transit or bicycles to travel to/from work. 
Accordingly, the 2030 peak hour volumes for the No-Build scenario were adjusted up by 2 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 54 
percent to reflect the potential loss of these alternative modes. Results are presented in Table 5-6. 
Worksheets for the mode-loss scenario are contained in Appendix 1. 
As indicated in Table 5-6, there would be little change in projected 2030 peak hour intersection 
operations with the loss of transit and bicycle mode share. No intersection is anticipated to 
exceed its applicable performance standard*. 
Table 5.6: Future (Transit/Bicycle Mode Loss) SO"1 Highway Hourly (Peak) Intersection Traffic 
Operations 
Unsignalized Intersections 
Critical 
Movement VIC Ratio 
Control Delay 
(sec/vehicle) LOS 
Applicable 
Standard 
Hwy. 238 @ Shafer Lane WB Left 0.07 28.1 D 0.95 
Hwy.238 {5th Street) @ E Street 
EB All 0.32 21.8 C 0.95 
WB All 0.09 17.4 C 0.95 
Hwy.238 (5th Street) @ Hwy.238 
(California Street) 
3-way stop 
1 yield 0.86 
13.2 B 0.95 
California Street @ 6th Street SB All 0.16 15.6 C D 
California Street @ 8th Street SB All 0.14 17.5 C D 
California St @ Wells Fargo Rd NB All 0.07 16.3 C D 
Hwy.238 (California St) @ 3rd St NB All 0.16 13.9 B 0.95 
SB All 0.02 11.8 B 0.95 
Hwy.238 (California Street) @ 
Oregon Street 
AII-way 
Stop 
0.65 16.5 C 0.95 
Oregon Street @ F Street WB All 0 17 11.6 B D 
Oregon Street @ C Street EB All 0.13 12.4 B D 
WB All 0.11 13.3 B D 
Hwy.238 @ Pair-a-Dice Road SB All 0.10 16.4 C 0.90 
Hwy.238 @ W. Main St. (Bybee 
Corner) 
NB Left 
(W. Main) 0.80 39.7 E 0.90 
WB Left 0.07 8.4 A 0.90 
Note 1: LOS means intersection tevel of service. 
Note 2: "Critical Delay" and "Critical LOS" refers to the delay or LOS experienced for the specific intersection traffic movement listed. 
Note 3: NB means northbound, SB means southbound, EB means eastbound, WB means westbound. 
* Transportat ion model runs have been completed Tor the entire M P O that foreeast condit ions through the year 2030. Addi t iona l 
analysis extends to 2050, beyond the hor izon o f (he TSP. 2050 model ing by O D O T shows congestion around the Jacksonvil le 
area in "no -bu i l d " model ing scenarios. However, when an "enhanced" model ran is performed, w i th placement o f the 
anticipated northerly i i r t t r ia l connector and other major roadway improvements throughout the R V M P O area, congestion 
around Jacksonvil le is not found. 
DRAFT Jacksonville T S P 55 
Element 6 
System Alternatives 
6.1 Introduction 
Traffic engineering analyses conducted to identify long-term (2027) system deficiencies found 
that there are no deficiencies relative to traffic. Both volume/capacity (v/c) and Level of Service 
(LOS) levels for key intersections in the study area are within state and city standards. This 
element will identify other potential transportation projects identified by stakeholders, and 
present solutions for further evaluation and decision making. 
6.2 Special Tourist Needs 
Due to Jacksonville's historic amenities, the town has special transportation needs related to its 
tourism. There are further needs associated with the city's historic heritage and its livability for 
local residents. These needs are detailed below. 
6.2.1: Special Transportation Area (STA) 
Hwy. 238 within city limits (0.81 mile, from mile post 33.16, West California Street at West 
Main Street, to mile post 33.97, North Fifth Street at Shafer Lane) is designated a Category 1 
Special Transportation Area (STA) by the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC). The OTC 
made the designation on January 14, 2004, pursuant to the highway plan's land use and 
transportation policy. Upon completion and adoption of this TSP, officials from Jacksonville 
and ODOT shall meet to discuss creation of a management agreement related to STA designation 
of Hwy. 238 through the city. This designation prescribes greater flexibility for state highway 
standards, including design standards. These features can include wider sidewalks, adding or 
retaining on-street parking, allowing more flexibility for signage and crosswalks, adding street 
trees and other measures. Recognition of the incompatibility of thru-freight traffic and a tourist 
destination center is part of this designation. The designation may help the community's main 
street projects qualify for funding such as Oregon Livability Initiative and Federal Transportation 
Enhancement Funding. Jacksonville would thus have the ability to provide improvements in the 
STA area in accord with an approved management agreement for STA standards. Upon 
adoption of this TSP, approval of a management agreement for the STA designation shall be 
reserved as a future planning objective. See page 66 for more discussion. 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 56 
6.2.2: First and Main Streets Enhancement Project 
The First and Main Streets enhancement project will connect the downtown core business area of 
Jacksonville National Historic Landmark to the acclaimed recreational and cultural facilities of 
the Britt Gardens and the Woodland Trails system. The streetscape project, a partnership 
between the City of Jacksonville and the Peter Britt Gardens Music and Arts Festival Association 
(Britt Festivals), will install sidewalks, streetlights, bicycle parking, landscape plantings and 
street trees, benches, and other hardscape treatments in two sloped sections, one 400 foot section 
along Main Street between Oregon Street & Highway 238 and 650 feet of First Street between 
Main and Fir Streets. Two pedestrian plazas will anchor the ends of the walkway, one enhancing 
and protecting the 1855 Brunner Building in downtown Jacksonville and the other creating an 
attractive focal shelter feature at the entrance into the Britt Concert Grounds and the trails 
beyond. Additional connections will tie to points south and to Highway 238 and the City's 
Intermodal Center on its north side. 
The Historic Core and the portion of Highway 238 to which the project will connect have been 
designated as a Special Transportation Area (STA). An STA management agreement will be 
pursued upon TSP adoption. In coordination with the project, on-street parking (particularly 
performers' bus parking) which obstructs the potential pedestrian facilities will be relocated, 
storm drainage will be provided, and the slopes adjacent to the roadway will be stabilized and 
landscaped. All activities will be within the public right-of-way, County-owned, or City-owned 
property. 
6.2.3: 'C' Street Enhancement 
C Street connects the City's Intermodal Center with the Jacksonville Museum (Jackson County 
Historical Society museum). C Street Corridor Enhancement project has been planned to include 
construction of separated or shared, pathways for pedestrians, such as "sharrows" or bicycle 
boulevards, bicyclists, motorists and possibly a trolley line on 'C' Street. These improvements 
will span the distance between the museum and the City's Intermodal center (Library parking 
lot), and points beyond. Trolley development would require study of the preservation and 
adaptive reuse of the historic Rogue River Valley Railway (RRVR: Troiley) corridor. Creation 
of distinctly separate pathways will be achieved through the planning, detail design, and 
construction and/or improvement of, and/or placement of: 
• Approximately 1100' of six-foot-wide, historically-appropriate, scored concrete 
sidewalks, to resemble the circa 1920's concrete work that is prevalent in this area, on the 
north side of 'C' Street, along with colored and stamped asphalt crosswalks for 
pedestrians. 
• A segment of the officially designated bicycle route from Medford to the Applegate, 
through the use of five-foot-wide colored, stamped, and stenciled asphalt. 
• A bicycle shelter in the vicinity of the Jacksonville Museum. 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 57 
• Interpretative signage regarding the prominent transportation history along 'C ' Street and 
signage regarding parking. 
• Aesthetically-pleasing landscape treatments to both sides of CC' street, to include 
pedestrian-scaled lighting, for the creation of a safe, scenic, and inviting gateway for 
pedestrians. 
• Although there are no specific treatments selected at this time, it is intended that "C" 
street become a "bike boulevard" in lieu of cyclists riding on busy California Street. 
Enhancements for cyclists may include signage, very smooth street overlay, and possibly 
some curb extensions, all intended to foster the circulation of bicycles. Improvements to 
facilitate this bike boulevard concept can complement those improvements made for 
pedestrians. These improvements shall comply with all ODOT/AASHTO requirements. 
• Jacksonville staff have expressed interest in pursuing a "woonerf concept along *C* 
street. The basic concept is to foster multi-modal traffic flow along the same routes of a 
transportation network. In the case of 'C' street, cyclists, pedestrians, and motorized 
vehicles will all be promoted to share the proposed improvements. Future endeavors 
would find transit routing as yet another mode of shared use. The current situation finds 
these more pedestrian-type modes of travel competing for roadway space with 
automobile and heavy truck traffic. A goal of Jacksonville's would be to find a way to 
safely combine these modes of travel while promoting them to tourists interested in the 
historic amenities the town has to offer. 
6.2.4: Rogue River Valley Railway (RRVR) 
Separation of distinctive modal spaces would also allow for the potential, historically-appropriate 
reconstruction of the RRVR, running in its original corridor along 'C ' Street. 
This project would require an overall feasibility study to include a benefit/cost analysis of the 
RRVR (from Jacksonville to Med ford); especially since most of the reserved RRVR easement is 
located outside of Jacksonville city limits. Creation of a detailed plan, determining the standards 
and regulations regarding design specifications, might include street typicals and rail 
crossings/traffic controls for Phase I (C Street) of the RRVR Concept Plan, to be located on this 
corridor. Much of the length of this entire easement is unencumbered by structures and the 
majority of the entire length has been reserved as an easement. The County and City of Medford 
need to establish a policy whereby new developments are required to reserve the easement for 
future bicycle/pedestrian transportation needs via the RRVR right-of-way (ROW). Along with 
hopeful creation of many Class I bike paths in/around the tovvnsite, Jacksonville conceptualizes 
the RVRR-ROW as being a future commutable six-mile bike path between Jacksonville and 
Medford providing an alternative means of transportation (along with transit) between the two 
cities. While long range plans look at this easement to be restored as some kind of trolley 
system, immediate plans call for utilizing the easement as a bicycle commuting trail and 
pedestrian pathway. The city has identified the feasibility study a high priority. 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 58 
Population and tourism growth projections indicate a need to provide alternative modes of travel 
between communities, to stage vehicular traffic outside of the historic downtown, and to promote 
a pedestrian friendly historic core. There is merit to planning for this growth (and potentially a 
pedestrian/bicycle greenway) now while the public has time to carefully protect the corridor 
instead of reacting to it later when market forces could drive the intervening lands to be 
developed more aggressively. The City of Jacksonville shall adopt the following policy: 
The City shall encourage Jackson County and City of Medford to protect the Rogue River 
Valley Railway right-of-way from incompatible development (see Policy 2-1, Page 1). 
The concept could be developed in three phases: a tourism feature between downtown 
Jacksonville and the city's edge; an urban feature between downtown Medford and the Medford 
West Main Transit-Oriented Development; and, then a final connection between the two cities. 
Initially, the connection would be focused on a bicycling commute and pedestrian corridor, and 
eventually the restoration of some sort of trolley system. 
The feasibility study shall include a review of the funding sources available for capital and 
operational needs, a comparison of the operational structures to be considered, an analysis of the 
required level of ridership to make the concept feasible during each phase, along with probability 
of attaining those levels, and finally, an analysis of the need for public subsidy, if any. 
6.2.5: Parking 
Jacksonville continues to improve the town's parking situation in order to accommodate tourists 
visiting the historic center and the popular Britt music festivals. Combined with this effort is the 
desire to accommodate those tourists arriving in their larger vehicles. Figure #1 is a master 
parking plan indicating those areas of town that are currently being investigated and/or finalized 
as areas where tourists and/or Britt patrons may park. 
A proposal for additional parking, especially during busy BRITT festivals in the summer, is to 
have expanded parking occur in Medford and somehow utilize RVTD transit services to ferry 
people back and forth. While these services cannot be provided to a private entity, such as 
BRJTT, the festival managers and city officials may be able to enter into some soil of joint 
arrangement to provide parking and bus service in conjunction with BRITT ticket sales. 
This sort of proposal then lends itself well to Transportation Demand Management (TDM) 
programs which are designed to reduce overall traffic flow. While Jacksonville itself is not of 
sufficient size to warrant a full-blown TDM program, there is no reason why Jacksonville cannot 
pursue TDM measures, like combined bus trips and extra parking in Medford, with flex-time, 
staggered work hours, and overall parking space reduction. These are things that city officials 
can pursue in order to maintain Jacksonville's livability without adding more parking spaces that 
merely accommodates more cars. 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 59 
6.2.5.A. RV Parking 
Another aspect of the town's special tourist needs includes the need for parking; day or hourly 
parking for tourists' recreational vehicles (RV) as they shop on foot through town; and overnight 
parking for RV's. There are currently no internal solutions for this second problem. RV's are 
now directed (when possible) to communities outside Jacksonville, requiring visitors to make a 
second trip into Jacksonville by means other than their RV. It is an objective of Jacksonville to 
begin planning for placement of this kind of amenity for tourists arriving via RV. 
6.2.5.B. Auto Parking 
A parking study, detailed in the Inventory Element, found a total of 1,220 on-street and off-street 
parking spaces in Jacksonville. This inventory includes counts for parking spaces at the 
intermodal parking lot by the library and includes spaces at the Bigham Knoll/Old Schoolhouse 
Historic Site. Due to change in ownership, the Bigham Knoll parking agreement will have to be 
renewed. Parking concerns for Jacksonville center on the town's Britt Music festivals. The 
Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires a 10 percent per-capita reduction in 
parking of the duration of this plan (20 years). Jacksonville historically has limited parking, 
specifying less parking for development than other jurisdictions in the region, as shown in 
Appendix H. 
The city supports the intent of this particular part of the state rule, recognizing the importance of 
reducing the total numbers of vehicles (especially Single Occupancy Vehicles - SOVs) on the 
transportation network, Additionally, alternative forms of transportation (i.e. contracts with 
RVTD for Britt Festivals) should be pursued in order to reduce the total number of parking 
spaces required for Britt Festivals. Indeed, RVTD's Long Range Plan calls for enhanced service 
to, and within Jacksonville. On March 10, 2006, the town administrator received a letter from 
DLCD staff indicating a possible exemption that could reduce the required amounts of parking 
from 1990 standards; this reduction is further acknowledged in Appendix J. A parking inventory 
of existing spaces is included as part of this TSP's inventory. Figure 6.1 is a Jacksonville parking 
master plan that indicates where spaces may be acquired from within the townsite and how many 
spaces each area may accommodate. Note this Figure includes construction of a second tier at the 
intermodal parking lot for 60 spaces; funding will be needed. In summary, these areas are: 
NAME: NUMBER OF SPACES: SPACES SECURED? 
D Street & 3™ Street 
Brook & Gordon 
Hay Property 
Main Street near Lumberyard 
Wayside Britt Grounds 
Bigham Knoll 
Intermodal Second Tier 
Calvary Church 
rd 
12 
26 
Yes 
No 
No 
Yes 
Yes 
15 (Private non-profit) 
22 
15 
150 (approx.) 
60 
Yes (temporary) 
No 
No 40 (Britt to pursue) 
Jacksonville TSP 6 0 
NAME: NUMBER OF SPACES: SPACES SECURED? 
City property on 5lh Street 3 Yes 
Parallel Parking Imps. D Street 25 Yes 
Rasmussen Service Station 20 (Private non-profit) No 
Ray's Market 20 (Britt to pursue) No 
Creekside 20 (Britt to pursue) No 
Pioneer Village 30 (Britt to pursue) No 
TOTAL SPACES: 458 
The table below compares Jacksonville's parking requirements for new development to other 
cities in the county and the Oregon model development code. The table shows that Jacksonville 
historically has limited parking to meet the Transportation Planning Rule, specifying less parking 
for development than other jurisdictions in the region and the model code. 
Table 6.1: Comparison of Sample Parking Requirements, non-residential 
USE Jacksonville Medford Central Pt. Ashland Model 
Code 
Hotel 1/ room 1/ room & 
1/ 3 employees 
1/ room & 
1/2 employees 
.75/ room 
Care home 1/ 1,000 sq.ft. 1 /6 beds & 
1/ employee 
1/2 beds 1/3 beds .5/ 4 rooms 
Church 1/ 4 seats 1/ 4 seats 1/4 seats 1/4 seats 1/75 sq. ft. 
Library, museum 1M00 sq. ft. 1/400 sq. ft. 1/400 sq. ft. 1/400 sq. ft. 1/200 sq. ft. 
Preschool 2/ teacher 1/ teacher 1/ employee & 
1/5 kids 
1/2 
employees 
1/500 sq.ft. 
Elem/m.school 2/ class rm 3/ class rm 1.5/ class rm 1/ class rm 
High school 6/ class rm 1/ employees 
1/ 5 non-buses 
students 
1/ 5 students 1.5/ class rm 
& 1/10 
students 
7/ class rm 
Aud./theater 1 / 4 seats 1/ 3 seats 1/ 4 seats 1/4 seats 1/6 seats 
Retail store 1/400 sq. ft 1/200 sq.ft 1/200 sq ft 1/ 350 sq ft 1/500 sq ft 
Repair shop 1/800 sq.ft 1/ 300 sq. ft 1/300 sq.ft 1/ 350 sq ft 1/500 sq. ft 
Bank/office 1/ 400 sq.ft 1/200 sq ft 1/300 sq. ft 1/350 sq ft 1/500 sq ft 
Medical office 1/200 sq. ft — 1/200 sq ft 1/ 350 sq ft 1/500 sq ft 
Restaurant/bar 1/ 4 seats, or 
1/100 sq. ft 
1/3 seats 1/ 3 seats 1/4 seats 8/1,000 sq. 
ft. 
Open air market 1/ 1,500 sq. ft — 1/2000 sq.ft 1/1,000 sq. 
ftI 
1/ 1,000 sq. 
ft/ 
Storage warehse 1/employee 2/ 3 employees 1/ 1,000 sq. 
ft. 
.5/1,000 sq. 
ft. 
Wholesaler 1/ employee & 
1/700 sq ft 
1/1,000 sq. 
ft. 
6.2.5.C. Parking Lot Signage 
Along with the necessary parking, signs need to be placed directing tourists to various locations 
in town. As parking improvements are made, parking lot amenities may be necessary that could 
contain signs in the form of maps showing tourists where walking tours might be located and/or 
show locations of historic destinations. The goal would be to get tourists efficiently into the 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 61 
townsite, without having to dodge large trucks, to available parking spaces. The focus would 
then be to efficiently get these people to the special/historical tourist facilities. It is hoped that 
tourists could utilize any number of transportation modes (or combinations thereof) such as: 
walking, cycling, segways, trolleys, horse-drawn buggies, or pedal-powered taxis. 
Recommendations for signage from the Jacksonville Transportation Committee are included as 
follows: 
* Develop two distinct types of parking signage: one for automobiles and one for 
oversized vehicles such as RVs and buses. Consider differing colors and potentially 
reflective materials. This may require an approved deviation from State standards 
through the STA agreement. 
* Place an Oversize indicator with right arrow on South Stage Road westbound 
approximately 50 feet east of 6lh Street. 
* Place an 'Auto Parking Only' indicator with straight arrow on South Stage Road 
westbound approximately 50 feet west of 6th Street. 
* Place an 'Auto Parking Only' & 'Bicycle Route' indicator with left arrow on Fifth 
Street northbound approximately 50 feet south o f ' C ' Street. 
* Place an 'Auto Parking Only' & 'Bicycle Route' indicator with right arrow on Fifth 
Street southbound approximately 50 feet north o f ' C ' Street. 
* Place an 'Overflow Auto Parking' indicator with right arrow on Fifth Street northbound 
approximately 50 feet south o f ' E ' Street, if Bigham Knoll agreement signed. 
* Place an 'Overflow Auto Parking' indicator with left arrow on Fifth Street southbound 
approximately 50 feet north of 'E' Street, if Bigham Knoll agreement signed. 
* Remove 'Bus Parking' indicator with right arrow on Fifth Street southbound 
immediately north o f ' F ' Street. 
* Place a combination indicator with straight arrow on Old Stage Road southbound 
approximately 50 feet north of Nunan Drive. 
6.3 Roadway Alternatives 
In efforts to accommodate tourists, daily traffic flows, and maintain the "historic flavor" of the 
town, alternatives to current traffic circulation patterns are being sought. These alternatives are 
discussed below. 
6.3.1: California/Oregon Street Options 
Traffic counts show that the worst delays occur at the California/Oregon Street intersection at 
midday on Sunday when traffic generated to the southwest of Jacksonville experiences a sharp 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 62 
rise. For a brief period, the intersection experiences a Level of Service (LOS) F. Although 
motorists are delayed at the intersection, LOS F is within the range of acceptable performance 
for Jacksonville, and most other cities in the state. The city has options to improve intersection 
performance as identified in a 2007 review by Greenlight Engineering. Any intersection 
enhancements related to striping (see below) will alleviate problems with truck traffic everyday 
of the week and not just on Sundays when the problem is noted to occur. 
1) A flagger/traffic monitor, A flagger could direct traffic for one or two 
hours on Sunday. Funding for any necessary flagger should come from 
those responsible for causing the traffic problem. Jacksonville shall alert 
Jackson County staff (with jurisdiction over those parcels west of town) to 
notify Jacksonville officials of any future development requests on those 
subject parcels. Any future development plans shall investigate any 
needed conditions to provide, and fund, a flagger at Jacksonville's 
problem intersection on Sundays. 
2) Roadway Restriping: The radius of the NW corner of California 
Street/Oregon Street is not sufficient for southbound right turning trucks. 
Appendix F contains two options that accommodate turning radii for a 
WB50 truck. In Option One, the radii of the NW corner is increased to 25 
feet. Option Two contains a six foot striped median that could be used by 
right turning trucks. Both options are sufficient for left turning trucks from 
California Street to Oregon Street. It is recommended to construct both 
options, the larger radius and the median. The increased radius with the 
median will accommodate larger trucks always (not just on Sundays) and 
provide additional shy distance for the typical truck that will traverse the 
intersection. 
Traffic analysis shows all other intersections within the city will perform at an LOS of C or 
better through the 20-year planning horizon.. 
6.3.2: Arterial Connector 
Jacksonville's Comprehensive Plan, Jackson County's Comprehensive Plan, and the Urban 
Growth Boundary Management Agreement (UGBMA: incorporated into the Jacksonville 
Comprehensive Plan) all include discussion of an arterial connector that is proposed to detour 
state highway truck traffic around the historic downtown. Although not required for safety and/or 
capacity reasons, the proposed connector is needed for reasons of livability and historic 
preservation. Concerns have been raised by stakeholders about the number of trucks that traverse 
the city's historic downtown. Greenlight Engineering calculated that truck traffic accounts for 
about 1.5% of the total traffic traversing the historic area. 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 63 
The arterial connector is proposed to be built in two phases, include a new roadway (the 
connector itself) and an upgraded section of Pair-a-Dice Ranch Road. Current description of this 
proposal is as follows: 
Phase I construction of the arterial connector will include a 90-degree intersection at 
Hwy. 238 a little more than !4 mile west of the Hwy. 238-HanIey Road intersection. The 
connector would then continue northwesterly, coming into alignment with the existing 
utility easement, then westward towards another 90 degree intersection with Old 
Stage/North Oregon Street. The two 90 degree intersections are then needed to 
accommodate larger vehicles. This will also require improvements to North Oregon 
Street. 
Phase II of the project then has three options: 
Option 1: The connector would continue westerly/northwesterly from the new 
intersection at Old Stage across the Buena Vista Subdivision, possibly 
utilizing a portion of the Autumn Lane roadway alignment, then 
westerly/southwesterly to a proposed 90 degree intersection with Pair-A-Dice 
Ranch Road. Upon making that connection, Phase II construction would then 
continue south on Pair-A-Dice Ranch Road to an improved intersection at 
Hwy. 238 west of the townsite. 
Option 2: The second possibility shows that after intersecting Old Stage Road, the arterial 
connector would continue southwesterly onto Oregon Street, then turn right 
(west) onto E Street and go through (westerly) the existing "intermodal, Britt" 
parking lot, either utilizing the Cemetery Road alignment, or running parallel 
to/south of, Cemetery Road, then continue west to a point intersecting Hwy. 
238 at the west edge of town 
Option 3: Swing north after intersecting Old Stage Road to Livingston/Walker Creek 
Road, as recommended by the County Engineer. 
Intersection improvements would be made wherever the arterial connector intersects existing 
roadways. Over the years, a broad array of other alignments have been considered and now the 
focus of these efforts is the routing north of the city. The intended financing mechanism is 
through the collection of System Development Charges on new development and through 
development assemblage. Development assemblage is a term referring to the way public 
improvements are made on a parcel by parcel basis. As development is approved on individual 
parcels, right-of-way is dedicated, sidewalks get extended, or streets get built or widened, or 
traffic safety signals get further warranted. In other words, as development gets approved, 
associated public improvements take place. 
Jacksonville shall pursue design/construction of the arterial connector and the Oregon 
Department of Transportation (ODOT) will be the appropriate approval body to approve any 
decisions regarding any connector or rerouting of Hwy. 238 traffic out of downtown 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 64 
Jacksonville. The currently proposed connector route traverses lands zoned exclusive farm 
(EFU) outside of the city's UGB, which would require an exception to Goal 3. Bringing the 
connector route inside the city's UGB may simplify land-use processes. Much of the proposed 
alignment is currently within Jackson County's jurisdiction, and Jackson County's TSP contains 
discussion of the proposed connector. 
6.4: Other Future Planning Objectives 
Understanding that times change and the future almost always brings growth to urban areas, the 
following are also identified as needs that should be addressed. 
6.4.1: Hueners Lane 
Jacksonville proposes modifying and "smoothing" the connections of the two offset ends of 
Hueners Lane. This improvement is proposed to be made through physical improvements such 
as the construction of a flattened "S" curve or through placement of regulatory signs and/or 
signals to ensure safer transition from one leg of Hueners Lane to the other. 
6.4.2: Bybee Drive 
A proposed new 700' long connection between the existing bridge over Daisy Creek and 
Hueners Lane terminus. Improvements are stormwater, pedestrian pathways, and landscaping. 
6.4.3: Third Street Improvements 
Proposed right-of-way (ROW) purchase and road widening on South 3rd Street from Daisy Lane 
to 1060 So. 3rd Street. The existing ROW is 40 feet and will need to be expanded to 60 feet and 
the road itself will be widened and overlaid for approximately 1400 linear feet. 
6.4.4: Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) 
As mentioned in Element 2 of this TSP, there is a proposal for an automatic traffic recorder and 
closed circuit television to be place at the intersection of 5lh/Califomia Streets. Proposed 
placement is somewhere between 201 I and 2015. 
6.4.5: Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) 
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) is a land use planning method providing a means to place 
people near transit services, decreasing their automobile usage. The currently popular "sprawl" 
of land use development patterns necessitates the use of vehicles on almost every trip taken from 
home. Through creative change in land use decisions to opt for higher density development, 
mixed use development, and pedestrian districts, TODs and the associated use of public transit 
reduce automobile dependency. 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 65 
Jacksonville has implemented such a development at the north "gateway" to the city and this 
TOD is slated to occur as the city expands its UGB to the north of the city. Focusing on 
transportation and land use issues affecting a group of commercial parcels, including a senior 
housing project, the project is pedestrian oriented and has the potential to expand with any expansion 
of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) near that location. A future planning objective is the study of 
expanding Jacksonville's TOD as UGB expansion occurs in the future. This policy shall be adopted: 
As the Jacksonville Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expands, the dense and mixed use 
development (TOD) located at the north edge of the city shall be expanded accordingly. 
6.4.6: Intermodal Parking: Second Tier: 
As mentioned in the table on pg. 60, and referenced in Figure 6.1 on pg.67, a second tier of 60 
parking spaces is proposed over the existing intermodal municipal parking lot. 
6.4.7: STA Designation: 
As mentioned on pgs.7 and 56 of this TSP, a management agreement between Jacksonville and 
ODOT for the city's STA area on Highway 238 should be pursued. Along with this agreement, 
Jacksonville should request that the STA designation of Highway 238 be extended northeasterly to 
encompass all of Highway 238 within city limits. This extension would then include the mobile 
home park located at the north edge of the city where a need exists for transit stops and crosswalk on 
Highway 238. These features would enable pedestrian and transit patron movement to/from the 
mobile home park to the east side of Highway 238 and beyond via the transit stops. Additionally, 
any/all existing/future pedestrian and bicycle connections to/from and across Highway 238 should be 
evaluated as a part of this agreement/extension process. 
6.4.8: Jacksonville Livability Issues: 
Jacksonville's livability is mentioned elsewhere in this TSP. The town's historic designation is 
important to residents and is tied economically to tourism. Because of this, three additional issues 
need to be examined here: roadway safety due to aggregate hauling, an acoustic study, and economic 
considerations. 
Safety: As noted on page 41 of this TSP existing traffic counts referenced within this 
document are a 'snapshot' in time; the figures may not reflect accurate counts from day to 
day. Also, safety issues may be associated with aggregate hauling in the downtown core. 
Further studies are required. 
Acoustic Studies: Acoustic studies are also warranted to determine if noise associated with 
heavy trucking is negatively impacting the livability and historic designation of Jacksonville. 
A seismic study has been completed and no negative impacts were noted. 
Economic Considerations: While a proposed connector around the city may take some 
business away from the town center, the improved livability of the downtown core without 
the heavy truck traffic may increase tourist and resident business. An economic study may 
be warranted for livability issues as well. 
DRAFT Jacksonvil le T S P 66 
J 
c I 
Li» § 
! fl C ¡S3 
IS® 
's 
's 
5S± 
» « C 
*>SA 
t, «I 
o 
U/ 
e -
= ' p ° < 
1Í 
V , 
'< I ' 
v A. 0 Q <fl ^ 
« <1 
/ 
<9 ¡Ú 
E" 
Q. öi 8 
o w o 
'S 
(3 O 
O 
HS 
Q 
O i 
c7 
fi £ 
J S J 
r" ® Q 8 5 s as 
Q u i i 
« 
l i 
I S i i 
i i/ 
9 ™ t a o e 
Mí 
S O IS BieBejddv 
A> o » ¡ a ? Û ÔV5 1Û •• TU 8" 
V 
a ar D i/i 00 
Ì a i Q <f> CÜ 
c 
JH 
Q . 
U ) 
c 
o s 
Q _ 
_Q> 
• • • • 
> 
C 
O 
o 
( 0 
c 
.ï 
Element 7 
Preferred Alternatives and Planned Projects 
7.1 Introduction: 
While no issues are identified requiring mitigation, the City proposes three measures to enhance 
the transportation system and the city's livability: I) place a flagger at the at the California 
Street/Oregon Street intersection on Sundays to mitigate traffic problems experienced there; or, 
2) restripe California Street at that same intersection to promote left turn movements; and, 3) 
construct an arterial connector around the north edge of town to enhance the town's livability by 
having truck and most thru-traffic routed away from the town center. 
7.2 Roadway Improvement Alternative: 
Two roadway improvement alternatives are mentioned above: 1) restriping of California Street at 
Oregon Street; and, 2) constructing an arterial connector around the northern edge of the town. 
Only the restriping of California Street is warranted to alleviate LOS problems identified by the 
traffic engineer. While construction of the connector is not warranted, it is a desired potential 
improvement to enhance the city's transportation network and overall livability as the connector 
would serve to divert some traffic away from downtown. 
Other improvements to the town's transportation network include: 
* By bee Drive: improvements include a 700' connection between the existing bridge over 
Daisy Creek and the terminus of Huener's Lane. The Bybee Drive improvements will 
include enhancements to transportation, storm water, and pedestrian networks, and new 
landscaping. 
* C Street Enhancements: improvements include a new 850' bike and pedestrian 
connection, a 'Multi-Modal Mall', with landscaping and storm drain work between N. 
Oregon Street and 5lh Street. This will require some modification to street surfacing to 
accommodate the new facilities. Element 6 contains more detail. 
* Third Street: improvements to South 3rd Street include the purchase of right-of-way and 
road widening of 3rd Street from Daisy Lane to 1060 South 3rd Street. The existing right-
of-way width is 40 feet and is to be expanded to 60 feet. The roadway itself will need to 
widened and overlaid over 1400' linear feet. 
* Huener's Lane: along with improvements associated to Huener's Lane with Bybee Lane 
improvements, there are plans to smooth a sharp "S" curve at 'G' Street. 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 68 
First/Main Streets: this project will connect the downtown core business area to the 
BRJTT festivals in the form of added pedestrian connections, enhancing pedestrian 
circulation in these areas. 
* Third/Main Streets: associated improvements to South 3rd Street include the purchase of 
right-of-way and road widening of 3rd Street from Daisy Lane to 1060 South 3rd Street. 
The existing right-of-way width is 40 feet and is to be expanded to 60 feet. Main Street 
is to be improved with pedestrian facilities. 
* As mentioned in Element 2, there are plans for an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) 
project for Fifth/Main street. Included will be an automatic traffic recorder and a closed 
circuit television. 
* Rogue Valley Rail Road (RVRJR.): The old RVRR right-of-way (ROW) is to be 
preserved as an easement fostering a potential trolley service which may operate on C 
Street serving future tourists. An added benefit of preserving the entire easement of the 
old RVRJR.-ROW is that this area could be preserved to be utilized by those who 
commute back/forth to Medford by bicycle. A pedestrian pathway could also be 
constructed with the RVRR-ROW and the trolley service could potentially be extended to 
connect Jacksonville and Medford. Preserving this easement is also another TDM 
measure that can eventually serve to reduce cars going to/from the historic Jacksonville 
area. Construction of other Class I bikepaths is encouraged (see Policy 2-1 on Page 1). 
7.3 Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative: 
TSM strategies emphasize improving efficiency, capacity, and safety of existing transportation 
networks through alternatives like: facility design modifications; access management; creation of 
new lanes; incident response plans; traffic enforcement that is targeted at specific situations; and, 
use of intelligent transportation systems (ITS). 
For Jacksonville, the only TSM strategy identified as being needed throughout the analysis 
period is the restriping of California Street at Oregon Street. This restriping is not necessary to 
alleviate traffic problems during peak hours, but is necessary to avoid an LOS of F around mid-
morning to mid-afternoon on Sundays when a large volume of traffic traverses the townsite from 
west to east. This large volume of traffic occurs weekly causing an approximate 53 second delay 
at the California Street/Oregon Street intersection for about an hour every Sunday, resulting in an 
LOS ofF . This is the only identified failure in Jacksonville's entire transportation network, 
according to the traffic engineer. As detailed in Element 6 of this TSP, there are two alternatives 
which can alleviate this LOS problem: restripe the road to facilitate left turn movements from 
California Street to Oregon Street, or place a flagger/traffic flow monitor at the intersection for 
about an hour each Sunday afternoon. 
Parcels generating this traffic are within Jackson County's jurisdiction. Jacksonville officials 
therefore propose this policy: 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 69 
The city strongly encourages Jackson County officials to evaluate the effect on traffic 
circulation of significant new or expanded uses west of Jacksonville. If impacts are 
determined to be significant, the county should work with the city to impose appropriate 
conditions to reduce the impact (see Policy 7-2 on Page 3). 
Jacksonville encourages this policy and possibly the placement of a flagger at the California 
Street/Oregon Street intersection for two hours each Sunday morning to alleviate the traffic 
problem - OR - the possible establishment/maintenance of the necessary striping as 
recommended by Greenlight Engineering to improve intersection circulation. 
While a flagger could prove to be an unreliable solution due to sickness or other issues, the more 
permanent, and maybe less expensive solution (due to the possible need to pay a flagger) would 
be the restriping of California Street as the traffic engineer suggests. 
Policy 1-1 (Page 1) is also included to ensure continued cooperation with ODOT to maintain a 
safe traffic circulation pattern at the problematic 5th Street/California Street intersection. 
7.4: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Alternative: 
TDM strategies focus on reducing travel demand to alleviate congestion. So, rather than 
increasing capacity through construction or modification of transportation network design, as 
with TSM strategies, TDM would recommend alternatives like: ride sharing; flextime 
alternatives in workplaces; the increased use of transit; pedestrian activities; and, promotion of 
riding bikes and other modes of travel. 
As mentioned in Element 6, a viable TDM measure would be for BRITT Festivals and the city to 
enter into an agreement with RVTD to provide transit during festivals between Jacksonville and 
Medford. This transit service would ferry concert-goers from one city to the other, alleviating 
the need for Jacksonville to continually provide more parking spaces in an historic city where 
more parking spaces are undesired. Combined with this strategy, other TDM strategies the city 
may wish to consider promoting flex-time, staggered work hours with some of the city's larger 
public/private employers, as well as a provision of a cap on how many parking spaces the city 
can provide. Sixty new spaces are proposed in a second tier above the current municipal lot. 
The town of Jacksonville is well set for pedestrian-oriented activities, use of Segways (there is a 
Segway rental shop in town), golf carts, skateboards, and bicycle riding. Although it has been 
noted that most cycling occurs while people recreate on the weekend, the townsite is small 
enough to invite the use of bicycles throughout. Proposed connectivity enhancements to 'C' 
Street, and Medford via the RVRR-ROW have been mentioned in this Element and in Element 6; 
use of this easement will enhance the 'Multi-Modal' opportunities in and around Jacksonville. 
7.5: Transit Alternative: 
The local Rogue Valley Transit District (RVTD) provides limited service throughout its entire 
system. As stated in the meeting, scheduling needs to be more conducive to reliable 8-to-5 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 70 
commuting to Medford and points beyond. Services generally start around 6:00a.m. and end 
around 6:00p.m. Throughout the day, RVTD averages about a 45 minute headway for 
Jacksonville riders. RVTD's budget does not currently allow for an expansion of service; 
however, future service enhancements are being studied. Because Jacksonville's system fails 
only on Sunday, and that is a day of the week that RVTD does not currently operate, relying on a 
transit alternative as a preference is not possible at this time. A transit stop relocation study may 
be warranted to increase RVTD safety and ridership (see Policy 2-6 on Page 2). 
7.6: Land Use Alternative: 
In terms of a land use alternative. Jacksonville has created a Transit-Oriented Development 
(TOD). A TOD is a land use planning method providing a means to place homes (built at higher 
than normal densities), and some businesses, near transit services thus decreasing automobile 
usage. Nationwide, the currently pervasive "sprawl" of land use development patterns 
necessitates the use of vehicles on almost every trip one takes from the home. Tools such as 
higher density development, mixed use development, multi-modal malls, TODs, and the 
associated use of public transit, reduce automobile dependency. A TOD in and of itself also 
promotes the further expansion of multi-modal malls. 
Jacksonville has implemented such a development at the north "gateway" to the city. Focusing 
on transportation and land use issues affecting a group of commercial parcels, including a senior 
housing project, the project is pedestrian oriented and has the potential to expand with any 
movement of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) from that location. 
Virtually the entire townsite is designated as a Historic Landmark District. Land use 
rules/regulations are very specific to development in such a District, so no other land use 
alternatives are being recommended at this time. 
7.7: No-Build Alternative: 
While this alternative emphasizes Jacksonville's choice to build nothing, this TSP points out the 
benefits of building the planned projects which will enhance Jacksonville's livability. As a 
specific example, construction of the additional connector will serve the Northwest Quadrant of 
the community, along with the exception lands along Old Stage Road. Travel from these parcels 
currently must go back into the center of town at 'F' Street in order to get a straightforward 
connection to Highway 238 and to reach destination points in Medford. The proposed arterial 
connector will alleviate this condition. 
As identified throughout this TSP, there is a livability desire to construct the arterial connector 
around the north edge of the townsite. This route remains an identified option not only in 
Jacksonville's Comprehensive Plan, but in this TSP, in Jackson County's TSP, and in the 
Regional Transportation Plan. It would thus seem that a no-build alternative is not favored and 
while construction of the arterial connector may not happen, it is at least identified in the 
appropriate documents to "reserve the town's right" to pursue construction of such a roadway. 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 71 
Element 8 
Transportation Funding Plan 
8.1 Introduction: 
In compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule, the Jacksonville Transportation System 
Plan (TSP) has a transportation financing program that includes the following: 
• A list of planned transportation facilities and major improvements; 
• A general estimate of the priority or timing of planned facilities and improvements; 
• Determination of rough conceptual capital cost estimates; 
• A discussion of existing and potential financing sources; and, 
• Alternative funding strategies for capital projects. 
8.2: Planned Transportation Facilities and Major Improvements: 
8.2.1: Capital Improvements 
The following projects are proposed as planned projects and/or desired improvements to enhance 
Jacksonville's transportation network and livability: 
PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT TIMING PROJECT COST ESTIMATE 
(ITS) Intelligent Transportation 
Systems: as mentioned in 
Element 2 of the TSP this 
proposal is for an automatic 
traffic recorder and closed circuit 
television at 5lh Street and 
California 
Somewhere between 2011-2014 $50,000 
First/Main Enhancement Project: 
pedestrian connection between 
the downtown area and the 
BRITT festivals area. Project will 
include pedestrian and bicycle 
amenities. 
2010-2011 $1,100,000 
"C" Street Enhancements: a 
detailed description of this 
project is contained in Element 6. 
2009 $238,500 
California/Oregon intersection, 
either a flagger on Sunday 
afternoons or a restriping of the 
intersection to accommodate left 
turns. 
2009-2011 $2000 to restripe 
A flagger may include no cost to 
the city. 
Bybee Drive at Daisey Creek 2011 $350,000 
Third Street Improvements; 
detailed description in Element 6. 
2011 $738,000 
Hueners Lane: smooth S curves 2014 $120,000 
Sixty parking spaces(2nd Tier) 2030 $5,000,000 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 72 
8.2.2: Non-Capital Improvements (Potential Future Alternatives): 
8.2.2.A: Arterial Connector: 
Based on plans for construction of an arterial connector around the north edge of town, current 
estimates for construction of the entire facility exceed $15 million. The town of Jacksonville 
would be responsible for the all construction within the town's limits. Estimates put this amount 
at about $6 million. A detailed analysis of the connector is contained in Element 6 of this TSP. 
Since there are so many unknowns related to and regarding this arterial connector, it is 
mentioned here in the TSP only as a 'facility requiring further study'. 
The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) may require the connector to be constructed 
to state highway standards. These standards are strict and require more construction costs than 
those of a typical local connector. Costs of the arterial connector outside Jacksonville's city 
limits may be shared by others; however, no entity has stepped forward to say exactly what sort 
of financial commitment this might be. As mentioned above, any planning, design, and 
construction of this facility will require future study. 
8.2.2.B.: Rogue River Valley Railroad (RRVR) Easement: 
As discussed in Element 6 of this TSP, it is the city's desire to begin preserving, utilizing 
portions of the RRVR easement for tourist uses (C Street Trolley) and for use as an approximate 
six-mile commutable bicycle path connecting Jacksonville with Medford. Like the proposed 
arterial connector, these desires are mentioned in the TSP as 'improvements requiring future 
study'. While these are designs for future study, it is Jacksonville's intent to begin preserving 
portions of this easement now. 
8.3: Financing for Capital Projects: 
8.3.1.: Revenues 
Funding sources for capital improvements are shown in Table 8.1 in the columns headed SDC 
(system development charge), and Franchise fees. As shown on this table, totals generated over 
the short-term planning period (2009-2014) are $50,000 and $689,000 from Franchise Fees. 
In addition to these revenues, the City of Jacksonville is going to receive an as yet undetermined 
amount of money for a federal stimulus package that has been granted in light of the nation's 
current bleak economic outlook. Some of these funds will be utilized to begin construction on 
one, or more of the capital projects being proposed. 
As mentioned in Element 6 of the TSP, it is possible that parcels to the southwest of Jacksonville 
may be responsible for costs of provision of any required flagger associated with the late Sunday 
morning traffic issue. If restriping of the CA/OR intersection is the preferred (and more 
permanent) method of traffic mitigation, restriping costs are fairly minimal. For the town, the 
cheapest/most cost effective way to deal with the Sunday LOS problem would be the provision a 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 73 
flagger/trafflc monitor during those hours when the traffic problem materializes. The idea that 
the County mandate a flagger as a condition of any future approvals on parcels to the southwest 
has been mentioned as a possibility. A flagger would possibly be provided on late Sunday 
mornings. Although the intersection operates the remainder of the week with no identified 
problems, now, or during the period this study covers, the traffic engineer has indicated that 
roadway restriping will solve the problem at least as efficiently as the presence of a flagger in the 
intersection. The cost for roadway striping is minimal; the treatment to the pavement is much 
more permanent than a traffic monitor/flagger; and, funding for restriping can come from the 
town's coffers without the need for implementing a systems development charge (SDC). 
Regarding other capital improvements mentioned above, Jacksonville will rely on System 
Development Charges (SDCs). An SDC is a method to fund transportation improvements by 
assessing developers a cost associated with the impacts to infrastructure that would normally 
result from approved development. As development occurs in Jacksonville an SDC will be 
levied on new development for transportation purposes (as allowed by Oregon law). In accord 
with SDC requirements, the "transportation purpose" required for SDC implementation, would 
be the proposed enhancements to *C' Street that would be constructed to encourage walking and 
cycling, both viable forms of transportation. It is a goal of the Rogue Valley Metropolitan 
Planning Organization (RVMPO) that nonmotorized methods of travel be provided 
wherever/whenever possible. Implementing "pedways" furthers RVMPO and state goals to 
reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles. 
Jacksonville Public Works staff detailed the estimated costs associated with each desired 
improvement contained in Section 8.2.1. Expected funding/revenue sources in the form of 
Systems Development Charges (SDCs) and Franchise Fees-are outlined in Table 8-1, along with 
expected expenditures. 
Table 8.1: Fees and Expenditures: (numbers shown are in thousands) Trans. SDCs currently 
generate about $9,750 per year and franchises about $ 137,000 per year. There is also a one-time 
$50,000 available for street improvements from Urban Renewal in 2010. What is not shown on 
Table 8.1 are federal and state funding that Jacksonville is expecting through 2034. Those 
figures are: 
8.3.2.: Expenditures 
Table 8.1 shows expenditures forecast for Jacksonville through the year 2034. This table 
indicates that administration and maintenance costs for the city will exceed $9,000,000 through 
2034. These are costs associated with maintaining those roads and transportation facilities that 
currently exist in Jacksonville. Table 8.1 and the figures contained thereon then demand more 
discussion regarding funding. 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 74 
STATE FUNDING FEDERAL FUNDING 
$197,000 
$735,000 
$2,900,000 
SHORT (2009-2013) 
MED(UM(2014—2019) 
LONG (2020-2034) 
$677,000 
$882,000 
$2,566,000 
8.4.: Financing for Non-Capital Projects 
Two non-capital projects have been mentioned for further study: an arterial connector that would 
arc around the north edge of the city, and acquisition of an easement that would serve as a 
bicycle commuter pathway between Jacksonville and Medford. Since these are items mentioned 
as projects for future study only, it is currently unknown what costs may be associated with each 
project. An estimate of $6,000,000 (Jacksonville's share) has been included in this TSP for 
funding for the arterial connector, but an actual amount is unknown. There is no cost estimate 
for RRVR easement preservation. 
8.5.: Alternative Funding Sources 
Many federal and state experts have suggested that the current economic downturn is the worst 
since the Great Depression. Note that they are not saying things today are as bad as they were 
during The Depression, but the worst 'since' that time. 
In light of this economic fact facing the entire globe, SDC charges on Table 8.1 have been 
greatly deflated to reflect the current economy; this matches what is seen in the current update of 
the 2009-2034 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The SDC rate remains 'flat' for 
Jacksonville as it does for every municipality in the nation and the RVMPO; there simply is no 
development occurring. Without the economic stimulus (discussed above) being handed out to 
every state by the federal government, very few of the nation's jurisdictions would be currently 
acquiring any funding for transportation improvement projects. This current and very bleak 
outlook aside, nobody expects the economic crisis to continue much past another 24 months. 
There is therefore no reason to expect Jacksonville's SDCs to remain as flat as shown. It is 
therefore reasonable to conclude that 'alternative funding' may come in the form of increased (or 
normal) SDCs. 
Other alternative funding sources may come as increases to SDCs and/or to Franchise/utility 
fees. While the size of Jacksonville is not likely to find huge increases to these fees, it is 
possible that they can increase some amount. 
A tax levy is another source of possible funding. These funding sources are typically not popular 
with voters, but if transportation enhancement projects are highly desired, voter approval of 
levies is much easier to accomplish. 
Local, state, and federal loan and grant programs are available on a project by project basis and 
could be utilized as an additional source of alternative funding. 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 75 
Table 8.1 : City Revenue Sources and Expenditures 
City o f J a c k s o n v i l l e 
Year 
City Revenue Sources Non-Capital Expenses 
S DC 
Sub-
Total 
S DCs 
Franchise 
Fees 
Sub-
Total 
Fees 
Urban 
Renewal 
Total 
Other Admin Maintenance 
Total 
Non-
Cap 
2009 $10 $135 $33 $228 
2010 $10 $136 $50 $34 S234 
2011 $10 $138 $35 $240 
2012 $10 $139 $36 $246 
2013 $10 $50 $141 $689 $50 $36 $252 $1,372 
2014 $10 $142 $37 $258 
2015 310 $144 $0 $38 $264 
2016 $10 $145 $39 $271 
2017 $11 $147 $40 $278 
2018 $11 $148 $41 $285 
2019 $11 $63 $150 $876 $42 $292 $1,886 
2020 $11 $151 $43 $299 
2021 $11 $153 $44 $307 
2022 $11 $154 $45 $314 
2023 $11 $156 $47 $322 
2024 $11 $157 $48 $330 
2025 $11 $159 $49 $338 
2026 $12 $161 $50 $347 
2027 $12 $162 $51 $356 
2028 $12 $164 S53 $364 
2029 $12 $165 S54 $374 
2030 $12 $167 $0 $55 $383 
2031 $12 $169 $57 $393 
2032 $12 $170 $58 $402 
2033 $12 $172 $60 $412 
2034 $13 $175 $174 $2,434 $61 $423 $6,141 
Totals $288 $288 $4,000 $4,000 $50 $50 $1,188 $8,211 $9,399 
A
ss
um
pt
io
ns
 
1.0% annual 
increase 1% annual increase 
2.5% 
annual 
increase 
2.5% annual 
increase 
DRAFT Jacksonville TSP 76 
APPENDIX A: AUDIT FOR INTEGRATED LAND USE & TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
Rogue Valley 
^ ^ ^ ^ Metropolitan Planning Organization 
; Regional Transportation Planning 
• 1 I Ashland • Central Point • Eagle Point • Jacksonville * Medford • Phoenix • Talent • White City Jackson County • Rogue Valley Transportation District • Oregon Department of Transportation 
1 . w m 
^^ JM 
DATE: June 14,2005 
TO: Jacksonville Planning Commission and City Council 
FROM: Dick Converse and Vicki Guarino, Rogue Valley Council of Governments 
SUBJECT: Final Report: Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan 
Jacksonville is a member of the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO), 
which has adopted measures to reduce reliance on the automobile. The state requires these 
measures when a metropolitan area is unable to demonstrate through its Regional Transportation 
Plan that per capita vehicle miles traveled will be reduced by at least five percent over the 
planning period (for the RVMPO the timeframe is 2000-2020). 
Another requirement is that cities and counties within the metropolitan area prepare and adopt 
integrated land use and transportation plans (ILUTP). This ILUTP final report contains results of 
an audit of Jacksonville's land use regulations. It also contains recommendations to increase 
densities in residential and commercial areas. 
Discussion 
In February, the RVMPO staff made an initial presentation on the ILUTP to the city, including 
results of the ILUPT audit (checklists charts at the back of this report) and an audit of 
development from 2000-03. These audits showed that Jacksonville largely supports the aims of 
the ILUTP. There were questions from City Council members, however, about flexibility in 
adopting recommendations contained in this report. In a report issued last fall by the Department 
of Land Conservation and Development on the status of ILUTPs around the state, it was noted 
that the adoption of requirements for ILUTPs marked a shift from measuring results, such as a 
reduction in per capita vehicle miles traveled, to measuring efforts toward achieving the result. 
The state requires that an ILUTP contain changes to land use designations, densities and design 
standards that: 
• Increase residential densities along transit lines and near major employment and shopping 
areas; 
• Increase allowed densities in office and retail developments in centers; 
• Designate land for neighborhood shopping within convenient walking and cycling 
distance of residential areas; 
• Designate land to provide a better balance of jobs and housing. 
RVMPO is staffed by Rogue Valley Council of Governments • 155 N, First St. • PO Box 3275-Central Point OR 97502- 541.664-6674 
In February 2003, the Department of Land Conservation and Development conducted a 
workshop with the RVMPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to present information about 
the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requirements for and benefits of integrated land use and 
transportation planning. At that time, the TAC recommended that RVCOG staff assist 
communities in conducting assessments to determine what each RVMPO jurisdiction needs to do 
to comply with the TPR requirements. 
The purpose of the ILUTP project is to audit existing plans, policies, and ordinances with the 
specific intent of identifying opportunities and constraints to integrate land use and transportation 
planning consistent with the TPR. The audits provide each jurisdiction with a planning direction 
to enable land use choices and transportation opportunities that work together to reduce VMT per 
capita. 
Other Measures 
In addition to the ILUTP, the RVMPO is working to meet the requirements of seven Alternative 
Measures. These measures, which the Land Conservation and Development Commission 
approved December 13, 2001, are to be followed within the RVMPO in place of the Vehicle 
Miles Traveled (VMT) reduction standard contained in the state Transportation Planning Rule. 
Several Alternative Measures relate to land use and, therefore, are closely linked with the 
ILUTP. In particular, two measures set benchmarks for the percentage of new dwelling units and 
employment growth that must occur within compact, mixed-use, pedestrian- and transit-friendly 
neighborhoods. By 2005, this kind of development must account for 9 percent of development in 
the RVMPO. Jacksonville has exceeded both the residential and employment benchmarks so far, 
with 21 percent of homes and all of the business growth (100 percent) meeting the standards. 
The requirements will grow more demanding in the years to come, however, necessitating 
ILUTP provisions. By 2020, nearly half of all development occurring since 2000 will have to 
meet the benchmarks. 
Other RVMPO Alternative Measures set benchmarks for bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and houses 
near transit lines. This ILUTP project addresses all of these standards and offers RVMPO 
member cities suggestions for zoning ordinance changes that can help the region meet state 
requirements 
ALTERNATIVE MEASURES 
Measure How Measured 
Current 
2000 
Benchmark 
2005 
Benchmark 
2010 
Benchmark 
2015 
Target 
2020 
Measure i: 
Transit and 
bicycle/pedestr ian 
mode share 
The percent of total daily trips taken by 
transit and the combinat ion of bicycle 
and walk ing (non-motor ized) modes. 
Determined from best available data 
(e.g., model output and/or 
transportat ion survey data). 
% daily trips 
t ransi t ; 1.0 
bike/ped: 8.2 
% daily trips 
transit: 1.2 
bike/ped: 8.4 
% daily trips 
transit: 1.6 
bike/ped: 8.0 
% daily trips 
transit: 2.2 
bike/ped: 9.8 
% daily trips 
transit : 3.0 
bike/ped: 11 
Measure 2: 
% Dwelling Units 
(DU's) w/in X mile 
walk of 30-minute 
transit service 
Determined through GIS mapping. 
Current est imates are that 12% of 
DU's are within mile walk ing 
distance of RVTD transit routes. 
12% 20% 30% 40% 50% 
A p p e n d i x A p g . 2 
Measure 3. 
% Collectors and 
arterials w/bicycle 
facilities 
Determined through GIS mapping. 
Current estimates are that 21% of 
collectors and arterials in the MPO 
have provisions for bicyclists. 
21% 28% 37% 48% 60% 
Measure 4: 
% Co/lectors and 
arterials in TOD 
areas w/ sidewalks 
Determined through GIS mapping. 
Current estimates are that 46% of 
collectors and arterials in TOD areas 
have sidewalks. 
47% 50% 56% 64% 75% 
Measure 5 
% Mixed-use DUs 
in new development 
Determined by tracking building 
permits - the ratio between new DUs in 
TODs and total new DUs in the region. 
0% 9% 26% 41% 49% 
Measure 6: 
% Mixed-use 
employment in new 
development 
Estimated from annual employment 
files from State - represents the ratio of 
new employment in TODs over total 
regional employment. 
0% 9% 23% 36% 44% 
Measure 7: 
Alternative 
Transportation 
Funding 
Funding committed to transit or 
bicycle/pedestrian/TOD projects. 
Amounts shown represent V4 of the 
MPO's estimated accumulation of 
discretionary funding (STP*). 
N/A $950,000 $2.5 Million 
$4.3 
Million 
$6.4 
Million 
Jacksonville ILUTP 
This ILUTP notes several strengths of Jacksonville's current land use regulations as they relate 
to supporting the transportation system. It also suggests some revisions or changes that could be 
made to some zones, and applied in some areas of the city. 
In addition, this report contains the audit of exiting land use regulations to gauge the extent to 
which city measures support transportation efficiencies. The audit was developed as a checklist 
by RVCOG staff based on Oregon's Model Development Code & User's Guide for Small Cities. 
The checklist identifies features that support conditions under which motor vehicle use may be 
reduced. City zones reviewed are grouped by category: residential, commercial and industrial. 
The audit also examined city design standards that relate to transportation. The audit 
distinguishes whether a feature is permitted outright in a particular zone (P), or is allowed 
conditionally (C). Jacksonville audit results are attached at the end of this memo. 
Strengths 
Historically, Jacksonville has supported innovative designs that have led to compact, pedestrian 
and transit-friendly, mixed-use development. These efforts include the pedestrian network that 
links important city destinations, and the Nunan Square development. 
Other city regulations that support an efficient transportation system include: 
• Opportunities for mixed-use development, including industrial-residential mix in the Cottage 
Industry zone 
• Flaglots to achieve infill 
• Commercial zones permit mixed-use residential 
• Sidewalks are required to connect with existing sidewalks, even beyond project boundary. 
• Industrial and commercial zones provide buffers from incompatible uses 
• Street access issues 
Access consolidation recommended in residential and commercial zones 
A p p e n d i x A : p.10 
Shared driveways recommended in residential and commercial zones 
400-foot maximum block length 
Traffic calming provided in land division regulations 
• Pedestrian access 
Required to connect with adjacent lots 
The Core Enhancement goal is to enhance the pedestrian environment 
• Landscaping required in land division regulations 
Street trees 
Landscape conservation 
Landscape buffers 
• Parking 
Shared parking permitted 
Bicycle parking required 
In Core Enhancement area, parking must be to the side or rear of buildings 
• Nunan Square is recognized statewide as an example of Smart Development. 
Recommendations: Achieving the benchmarks adopted for the MPO will require concerted 
effort on the part of all member jurisdictions. The Model Code and Development Guide for 
Small Cities suggests several measures that Jacksonville has not yet incorporated into its 
regulations: 
• Establish maximum lot sizes. While most zoning ordinances include minimum parcel sizes, 
they do not have maximum parcel sizes. The model code recommends that single-family zones 
have a maximum size of 120 percent of the minimum size; e.g., 7,200 square feet in an SF-6 
zone. In multi-family zones, the recommendation is 150 percent of the minimum. 
• The alternative measures recommend increasing the amount of residential land having 
densities at a minimum of ten units per acre. Currently, only the MF zone provides for this 
density in Jacksonville. Medford, for example, has an SFR-10 district that permits 10 dwelling 
units per gross area, and Central Point's TOD district permits densities of at least 10 dwelling 
units per acre in its mixed residential zones. Nunan Square comes close, but doesn't entirely 
achieve the 10 dwelling units per acre goal. 
• Increase lot coverage [and building height?] where transportation facilities and public safety 
measures can be achieved. Current coverage requirements for single-family and multi-family 
districts are in the middle of the ranges suggested by the Model Development Code. For 
example, the SF zone limits coverage to 35 percent, while the model code suggests a range from 
30-40 percent. The MF zone limits coverage to 50 percent, while the model code suggests 40-60 
percent. Jacksonville could increase its coverage, but it is clearly consistent with current 
standards. 
• Consider requiring a portion of a commercial building to be at the property line, with 
entrances oriented to street to encourage pedestrian use. The North 5lh Street planning area has at 
least two examples of this. 
• Provide measures for evaluating proximity of transit to commercial uses in other than the 
North Fifth Street planning area. 
• As in many communities, Jacksonville's street design standards call for wider streets than the 
Model Code recommends. To be consistent with the goal of providing narrower streets, evaluate 
the standards in the Model Code when updating the Transportation System Plan. 
• Consider permitting density transfers to preserve valuable characteristics (woodland, open 
space) while maintaining higher density overall. 
A p p e n d i x A : p.10 
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Revisions: 
Because of Jacksonville's traditional downtown development pattern, coupled with its Smart 
Development principles embodied in such areas as Nunan Square, there are few specific 
suggestions for changes. General proposals are in the previous discussion, including the need to 
evaluate street, sidewalk, and bike lane widths. 
If the City decided to include maximum lot sizes to ensure that zones achieve their desired 
residential densities, new sections could be added as follows: 
CHAPTER 17.20 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ( S R DISTRICT 
17.20,055 Maximum Lot area 
Maximum lot areas fn the SF zone shall be as fol lows: 
Maximum Lot Size 
Zope Square Feet 
SF-6 7,200 
F-8 9,500 
F-10 12,000 
F-12 14,400 
CHAPTER 17.24 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IMFIPISTRICJ 
17.24.045 Maximum Lot Area 
Maximum lot area shall be 7,500 feet for two family dwell ings; for each 
addit ional dwell ing unit , the Sot area shall be increased by 3,600 feet. 
A p p e n d i x A: p.10 
Residential Zones city: Jacksonville dale : October 2004 
FEATURE ZONE 
BR* 
P* CU 
ZONE 
HR* 
* P CU 
ZONE 
SF* 
P CU 
ZONE 
MF* 
P CU 
ZONE ZONE 
PUD* 
P CU 
B-PUD* 
P CU 
^ Zero lot line ~ — — — / r r „ „ „ 1 
2 Accessory dwelling A X A 
3 Attached townhome X X X X 
4 Two-, three-family homes X X X X 
5 Multi-family — — X 
6 Care home (< 15 adu Its) X X X X 
7 Family daycare X X X X 
8 Home occupations *1 X X X X 
9 Public/institutional X X X X 
10 Churches X X X X X X 
11 Clubs, lodges X X - - — X X X 
12 Govt, facilities X X X X X X 
13 Library, museum, com. cntr X X X X X X 
14 Parks, rec. facilities X X X X X X 
15 Schools X X X X X X 
16 Child Care (12+) 
17 Food service (non-auto) 
18 Laundry 
19 Lt. Manufacturing 
20 Retail goods/services 
21 Medical office/lab 
22 Personal Service (barber/etc.) 
23 Professional office 
24 Repair services 
25 Mixed use 
26 B&B Inn 
*2 
*2 
*2 
X 
27 Maximum lot size No No No No No No 
28 Density <0.1 ac max No No No *3 Yes Yes Yes 
29 Encourage infill Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
30 a. Flag lots Yes Yes Yes Yes 
31 b. Mixed Use/density/design Yes Yes 
32 Max. lot coverage (enter %) 35% 35% 40% 50% 
33 Building height (enter feet) 35' 35' 35' 35' 
34 Proximity to transit — Yes 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
A p p e n d i x A: p.10 
Commercial Zones city: Jacksonville date: October 2004 
FEATURE ZONE OVERLAY ZONES 
Special Gen. Com Core Historical 
*4 Enhance Core Protection 
•!' . ¡P-r >' "H "MB1 
P CU P CU P CU P CU 
1 Accessory dwellings X X 
2 Mixed use residential X X 
3 Single-fam. attached townhse X X 
4 Two- & three-family housing X X 
5 Multi-family housing X X 
6 Care home/facility X X 
7 Day care (<12 children) X 
8 Home occupations X 
9 B&B Inns, vacation rental X 
10 Churches/temples X X 
11 Clubs, lodges X X X 
12 Gov't offices X X X 
13 Library, museum, com. cntr. X X 
14 Public parking X X 
15 Parks/recreation facilities X X 
16 Schools X X X 
17 Auto-oriented X 
18 Entertainment X 
19 Hotel/motel X 
20 Medical office/lab X X 
21 Office X X 
22 Professional services X X 
23 Repair services (fully enclsd) X 
24 Retail/service (non-auto) X X X 
25 Lt. Ind. only with retail X 
ZONE ZONE 
CU P CU 
26 Setbacks 
27 a. No min. setback (y/n) 
28 b. Max. distance (#ft.) 
29 Floor area ratio 
30 a. Min. ratio (y/n) 
31 b. Floor/lot ratio (%) 
32 Street entrance (y/n) 
33 Ped./transit amenities 
34 a. Plaza/park 
35 b. Sitting area 
36 c. Canopy (Bike Parking) 
37 d. Art 
38 e. Bus shelter 
39 f. Connect w/adjacent lot 
40 Proximity to transit 
41 
Yes 
No 
No 
No 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
No 
No 
5 0 % 
Yes 
*6 
No 
No 
No 
4 0 % 
Yes 
A p p e n d i x A: p.10 
IndustriaJ/Employmeut Zones city: Jacksonville date: October 2004 
FEATURE 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
Light manufacturing 
Research 
Warehousing/distribution 
Mini-storage 
Commercial uses 
Auto-oriented 
Entertainment 
Hotel/motel 
Medical facility 
Outdoor sales 
Professional services 
Laundry 
Repair services 
Civic uses 
Gov't facilities 
Utilities 
Special dist. Facilities 
Vocational schools 
Residential uses *6 
Retail *6 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
ZONE ZONE ZONE ZONE ZONE ZONE 
Cottage 
P CU P CU P CU P CU P CU P CU 
X 
X 
X 
X 
Commercial use by CU only 
a. Max. sq. ft. (enter #ft.) 
Setbacks 
a. Buffers 
b. Neighborhood access 
Street orientation 
Pedestrian-scale entry 
Ped ./transit amenities 
a. Plaza/park 
b. Sitting area 
c. Canopy (Bicycle parking) 
d. Art 
e. Bus shelter 
Yes 
No 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
No 
No 
Yes 
A p p e n d i x A: p.10 
Design Standards city: Jacksonville date: October 2004 
FEATURE 
Residentia] 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
Street-access permit 
a. Conditions for approval 
b. Access consolidation 
c. Shared driveways 
d. Max. block length 600 ft. 
(400ft.) 
Traffic calming 
Pedestrian access 
a. Path grade separated 
b. Marked crosswalks 
c. Connect w/adjacent lot 
Landscaping 
a. Street trees 
b. Landscape conservation 
c. Buffers 
Parking 
a. Set max. for off-street 
b. Shared parking 
c. Bicycle prkng required 
d. Protected walkways 
e. Street-like features 
ZONE ZONE ZONE ZONE Land 
Downtown Commercial Industrial Division 
Regs. 
Yes No Yes No _Yes No Yes Y e s No_. 
x " X X 
X 
X X X X X 
X X X X X 
X X X X X 
X X X X X 
X X X X X 
• M H ^ • w m m 
X 
X 
X X 
1 H B H 
X X X X X 
X X X X X 
X X X X X 
X X X X X 
X X X X X 
Street Design Standards 
" cîsë .'• "OA* 
17.5 ft. 
16ft. 
l i f t . 
DESIGN STANDARDS 
21 Motor Vehicle Travel Lane 
22 a. Blvd.: 11 ft. max. 
23 b. Avenue: 10.5 ft. max. 
24 c. Residentia], without parking: I 1 ft. max. 
25 d. Residential, with parking: 10 ft. max. 
26 e. Commercial: 10 ft, max. 
27 f. Parking one side: 17 ft. max. (2-way, 24' total width) 
28 g. Parking both sides: 14 ft. max (28' total width) 
29 Bike Lanes: 6 ft. wide, on both sides 5.5 ft. 
30 On-street parking 
31 a. 8-foot bays 
32 b. Residential: 7-ft. lane(s) 
33 c. Commercial: 8-ft. lane(s) 
34 Sidewalks (on both sides) 
35 a. 6-10 feet wide 
36 b. Residential: 5-6 feet wide 
STREET CATEGORY 
Arterial Collector Local 
Yes No Yes No Yes No 
X 
No Parking 
8ft. 
5ft. 
5ft. 
-
X 
X 
X X 
A p p e n d i x A: p.10 
I n t e g r a t e Land Use and T ranspo r ta t i on Plans 
Aud i t of Exist ing Plans 
Jacksonv i l le , Aud i t Notes 
*The following typography elements apply in all instances: 
A. The double dash (—) indicates feature is not allowed, or discussed in the city's 
documents. 
B. Items in bold italic type are from city documents. They include features not 
contained in the ILUTP checklist. 
C. P=Permitted Use; CU=Conditional use 
Zones: 
BR Border Residential 
HR Hillside Residential 
SF Single-Family Residential 
MF Multiple-Family Residential 
PUD Planned Unit Development 
B-PUD Border Planned Unit Development 
Gen Com General Commercial (C-l) 
Cottage Cottage Industrial (CI) 
1. Where allowed, use is conditional if pick-up and delivery service is needed. 
2. Ordinance limits use to tenants only. Allowing these uses as small businesses would 
reduce residents' need to drive. 
3. May meet standard if developed as PUD, which permits density increase by up to 35 
percent. 
A p p e n d i x A: p . 1 0 
4. All uses in the General Commercial zone are controlled by performance standards to 
ensure compatible development and protect the prevailing pattern of differentiation and 
uniqueness. 
5. Sets front, side and rear yard minimum setbacks. 
6. Uses permitted outright, but subject to space limitations. 
The city has several overlay districts addressing various needs and uses that were not 
addressed in the review. These districts address specific concerns, such as future growth 
areas and use of manufactured homes, and do not contain provisions pertinent to the 
requirements triggered by the Regional Transportation Plan's Alternative Measures. 
A p p e n d i x A: p.10 
Appendix B 
Documentation of Traffic Counts & Seasonal Adjustments 
gSWrtTipvcg^tioo 
dtí_d 
^ LO H. UO O) CO ^ io 1 n ^ (Ç w ' t O N W ¿I (O fl) 
CO UO io it) LO co 
Oû. 
n in (N T-CÎ w s - , 
O 
O) 
> - o to g to o N 
OD-^T— OJ — — — —I 
l i 
<S * 
4 Pk ni q <£ X í P O lo fl c s •o 
Tt CJ qp i ¿ n o n io ' « 
£ ë 
oj N e> — cj O oj OJ 6J 
io co <ç çn en A io 
LO O <xi h- I"--
— çO A çp <û cr> oí œ w (o w S e «j 
£ 0 
Ul 
- - - - rj - -
< 
0 t 0 
E 
E 
. f t CO flj O O Tf O 
1 CO IO LO LO OJ IO H-
a i 
S 2 o ö 
uì o o lo e; m 
T- ri ç; •- n Tt rt rt « -i Tt -i 
8mo« O «)Q - « t 9 — fi rt fi ri -í -if' -if' 
rt KJ -) , I'- N 
2 S « Ri 
® CT. (Ö LI); - - Al 
s s : 
s a i s 
— ^ e* Uli 
Q ' i n i ^ 
ci fj ÌJ 
FH, Fh fe 
•t OI fi <U 1 t i •> - -
Ml 
3 o ÇD ^ í-j fy S h'i 
: : m O - CÎ -t u? «i ij) « 
•1 U1 ú) ú> 
X ) 
C 01 
O, 
O, < 
I a 
Ti-œ-çi-uiçomco^cÇ 
Tt S N CT' N tj) ü3 tj) tjJ 
5 -
Œ CÛ 
5 
ci> tn r-
*t co m 
h. O in I". C' OD tp ^ r-, ^ ^ Ü) OD f l Tt In co T- CO CM CM r) cO 
•m tp og m O O O iß n o 
Π
m 
£ in ^ m Oí t;10 -où 
p i r t i n o c y i Q i / i i o i n o m o ug 
¡a 
X •rH •o tí Q) CU Qi < 
m 
5 
£m EM i n o o f> 
m 
m m i c\j in ' er ™ -m 
8 S ' 
û u i i n i o o ç e o o 
oio^jf^apççcDino o o c? 
Π
m Í/5 
O te in CM 
t o c o 
•*- oç> O O O in ÍD O 
Si fc 
oc m co 
ooouoLoooao h-. r^  CM 
m un Q 
£o c o T _ 
ÇPOOC'OOuluOÔ 
CM «> OJ R--. 
m tf) 
LO T CM — — — 
er CD 
O J^- CM CM 
CD UO T— 
CM CM 
CM ÇO O O C? 
Πm 
UO O O •uí U") — 
CM CM 
O Ö tfj Ù O O g g 1 
-d" ö O Co O O m m m uo o 
*— OJ CM CO 
UO CM 
C L Û L 
2 
C L 
S 
CL Û L 
S 
C L 
S 
CL 
S 
CL 
S 
CL CL CL 
2 
LL 
M LO LO LO LO 
^T 
LO ? LO TF LO rt ? !? 
ÜRJ LO ÙO IO LIO LIO ¿ 0 I H LIO lio LTÍ LTÍ 
S - > - > ^ S 
CL CL C L CL C L Q 51 C L C L C L C L C L 
5 
m 'i- uo LO T LO LO uo uo UO LO UO LO UO •rf-
L - TT' TT TT" *.ì h V TT" Tt 
^ CM 
CP 
8 
.O-J 
¡P 
8 8 S ^ 8 8 
.CM .CM 
§ 8 
A L 
cp 
8 Q 
«P 8 
LU ci K K h-. r--K K K r-
Q •i> C« AI 'Ä1 ÔJ "RTL rtl RFI 
Q - CM co -f-•T) <y? c» O CJ 
'ù 
E 
"S O ffl 
< _a¡ •Q 
i <r> cS cri S1 
e 
1 
« o tz 
i 
(o 8» ® 
à' í o co CM Œ O i 1 
w •O Ä <r> 
<ï CD ri & a ¿0 CJ LU io o O rO O o r-j C\J CM C\J oj 
ΠCC CC CC O O O O 
3 o 0 
5 
, CL 
i B 8 a- g 
E S < tu S o c c: ë=se p o t 
s s s 
CL_ Û_ CL. 
tfl m irî * Tt 
¿ri in in 
CL a. CL 
tp m 8 g 8 
.CM .O-J .CM 
r--! r-^  d> 
ó1? es 
CM co 
Û_Û_Û_CLCLÛ_CLÛ3 
in in in ID ir ir ir in 
CLCLÔ_Ô_C L C L Û -Û-
• ^ • • Ï T l - T j - T l - ^ - ^ - ^ -
«p <p «j iß iîi te « t í 
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 g 
.OJ .CM .ÇJ .CM „OJ .CM CM .CM SNISISNNsÎ 
05 fl? <Ñ3 ¿5 n3 ¿5 ôfl rirt 
(fi N ® (fi o r m 
t. 
i a — ô ; & ¿ç _ e 
» S- S a 
; £ - — ft , á> vi io . 2 Í « "Cj O LL. Q 
; s & S i :. c¿ üj b"i C/l • i: ci c, I n> > o j" ° ° ÍTí 
75 • j £ S CC 
I O R/I O O O 
0 > 
1 3 
8 o tí: h ¿s O •a çy -o S í « 
CC O 
t a: 2 o 
- PE fili 
(.5 m 
o o - . C-í 
c - j ÍM CJ 
cc cc cc o o o 
i 8™ 
i« a ! ® rtOj 
o í oB 2 
C/5 
«S »i m ® — — .-i Tu 
a a 
U} en 
r m «Ö 
- E 9 
«i .jj o n ' cy w en en 'íi o o u 
S I È I « 
S .j 55 f7í ^ 
« O Li- 4 
i à * * t 
* » I § s. v> in ifl c « 
.2 E 
'f3 Sgscc (J in O O O 
WJ Ol ' 
tí> 
•ö e (11 O, o. < 
E <D 
Ein „ ai ir, io 3 v-
•o < 
5 •a- co •ir cvj 5 5 3 ó R ^ 
R— I— 
q q o q q q q o 
o ce oo LT) co CO C D oo tx> co œ œ ó q q q q q q q q q q O q T-" i - » - > -
§ 
O u) 05 « 
oonr^c t cococococococo 
j ¿ q q q q q q o q q q q q 
— IL •o < 
NO)tûlDtûU3CDUÎÛ)(jDCDÛJ . O O O O O O Ö Ö O O O O l l I O C J O o o o o o o o o o h-cvjcvjcvjcvjc\jc\icvjcvjcvjcvjç\jçvi 
^ o t o o o ì o t c d c S C O T O S ò S O Ò 
cvjco<íu5cor-.ooa>!E! 
in 
0) 
E 2 o > 
o 
o 
C 
U) 
< 
n « e 
o V </> (ti 
£ Ä 
CP co 
C\i 
CE 
O 
;o 
O w « «2 co < « 
z cvj 
5 O 
¡= 
,_ « O) «> 
W S 
en uj 
« j OC 
8 
00 .. co Cvj CVJ 
DC IX 
O O 
Oí 
W 
<5 
E œ 
O » 
ra 55 y s CQ rt CJ „ Cvj tí 
oc ® 
o J 
oS w 
I I 
55 | j 
£ ra 
® y co 00 rt RT 
CVJ OJ cc cc 
o o 
tu s> Î0 £= ó en 2? 
O g, 
«B & 
£0 05 
rt od 
£ cS o 2 
ra 55 O ra 
ro c C) ^ CVJ .Q 
<D 
n 
g cc 
en g sz > 
<* 'S ~ ta 
(U <u a> aj i= 
co c/i 
y u. 00 ofl 
03 CC 
Q 
(Ó 
SB £ = = i 
CC « 
o o 
en « 
"c ío 
I f ra ô o oí 
v¡ (n od 
3 C O Q 
ç o e n t M CD Œ) Q-
o Ò o 
E 
E ° » ^ Tó <J 
T3 < 
« E 
OJ 
£ 
S 
-o < 
15 c Q </> (C 
c o 
u o ra O 
S» S e S <u co 
<D 
5 
E 
E 
o 
o 
q> co E r--
¡ S 
5 ° 
O m cr. 
r-m co o 
c? có Cvj o 
OJ 
oü 
S 
O) 
00 
cñ co 
o O 
tí> o m TÍ-(M 0J o o 
en -3-
'T ai A> 
O Cvl O CvJ O Oí CJ> 
o o o o 
o -T o en <SJ IT> 
OD i- M CO CD en O) 
LT) CU <M <M kf) en co do 1 1 o o o o 
o Ï-' 
o S (S u 
LL 03 
^ £ t ! £ B £ M ut T- m i - uì T-
O (C 
s g 
Si s 
•gÄ 
® s 
a> g D- o 
~ cT ï r <D 
^ « S -R co D £ ° 
CD 
W XI 
* I S = S 
"<U ¿5 o < Cl U- CL Q> ai 
CL 
Si 
O 
"tä 
C 
q ö 
-d-
O U) g IX ai O 
« g s s 
(M n 
t O O O 
OJ 3 
vi 
CL CM 
S 
« 
r <M S 
i Ca a 
E . E 
« l o 
"D < er O 
2 co ^ 
i - i CD 
Ë (AI 
5 CC E 
o ° 5 
c Ö o 
3 o 
m O 
Appendix C 
Intersection Geometries and Traffic Control 
Appendix C - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
LANE GEOMETRY 
Date: 
Time: 
Intersection Name: 0 & '¿JJL M . e A t ^ L - a n t . 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
¿3 A- 2-35" t 
# of lanes: 
Speed zone; 3 O 
II 
trw^^c* V ( 
Site ts/rfv» 
f'-'ir./ 
Phase 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
# of lanes: 
Speed zone: 3 0 
A 
f 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
5V««-:' 
« /-y • 
1 
Sidewalk 
I 
X 
SÂa/Ç. 
g ZT 
D 
ro N 
TD O <13 
Cl-eo 
O/L T^g 
Pan'kmg v, 
M V M M M K W A f l U m i • - . . [«T 
i l Sidewalk 
Stag-
[TfLCAnt / /Voui r 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
Staging: Saturation Flow Check 
1 
Queuing Problems: 
Direction Vehicles Seconds Lanes | 
1 • 1 
• 
M i 
1 
ROR per cycle 
Cycle Length 
Cycle Length 
Cycle Length 
Perceived LOS 
A B C D E F 
A p p e n d i x C : p . 109 
Appendix C - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
LANE GEOMETRY 
Date: 
Time: , 
Intersection Name: (L Z j £ ( jV^c.ch ) 
Adjacent 
Land Use á fí~ 2, 
& .'Oc-ci 
7VW e. S'< U) 
m 
B a s - i 
Sidewalk 
S a; So c if E C3 p™ 
¡i> N ra fln —** s a » 
CU 
t 
# of lanes: 
Speed zone: 
EC 
/N 5 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
¡~fo w f e 
4. Parking 
co 
»4. « Îï" O 
Q. ^ n ta 0 3 3 ni 01 Í/1 
£ J A « / 
B&w-Lans 
Parking 
I H Sidewalk 
asEi+d 
Park ing 
A _ 
iPhaee-
Sidowolk 
Sifs 
¿f ÍA-etr 
01 Q) / m c l\V c o M n n ^ i — -o ^ ^ o q) M. aj * CL co 
Diifro Lane 
Parking 
ra SOLÍ 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
/J-¿> U 
in 2 m 
í c 
i, r fc r 
— ' en C «s = « 
£ s 5= « ^ î 2 . CG 
i n 
t 
# of lanes: 
Speed zone: 
I '¿C 
I i m SidowQik 
I H K &Ö-S. 
-olSfi 
fN 
Ad/'acenl 
Land Use 
Staging: Saturation Flow Check ROR per cycle 
I 
1 
Queuinq Problems: 
Direction Vehicles Seconds Lanes 
• • 1 
• 1 
•i 
i 
• 
"V 
r 
Cycle Length: 
Cycle Length: 
Cycle Length: 
Perceived LOS 
A B C D H F 
A p p e n d i x C: p . 2 
Appendix C - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
LANE GEOMETRY 
Date: 
Time: i r 
Intersection Name: O A - ò ^ J 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
/ W <f 
/Unì' 
n r 
Adjacent 
Land Use S^SA-c. 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
Staging: Saturation Flow Check 
1 
; 
Queuinq Problems: 
Direction Vehicles Seconds Lanes 
H H I H B 
M B 
1 • 
ROR per cycle 
Cycle Length: 
Cycle Length: 
Cycle Length: 
Perceived I D S 
A B C D E F 
A p p e n d i x C: p . 3 
Appendix C - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
LANE GEOMETRY 
Date: 
Time: i ; • 
Intersect ion Name: J g W e T ; ^ 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
Oft- Sf&f 
Ht tz e es i^uxe, 
s s I * f 
CS Ä i i : B) <7 7 IE > TO f 
° fF Ie- Ä \ ^ $ 
i Srctewatk * 
V 
t 
# of lanes: 
Speed zone: ^ 
y, . J », ÜJ s CD. -aaSfî 
3tke Lane 
-•ft> p 
CO 
OJ i t it o 
N 5" 
^ ? D ft « 
T 
itzpiòàS 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
CKU.scL 
[h I j j f % 
Hp ^ 
j P ; (J® &S5-
! Sit+cwstk 
1 &arióag 
Bike Lane 
a I 
sr. 
i s 
C-b-l ' fon-, 
^ Bike Lane 
<= O < \ \ 
— M I 
— T3 ^ 
O 01 
D-« 
Sidewalk 
Ji O) 
itì 
' Çs 
Ni 
? 
: /Vòt / i t" 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
Spegnane: 
Bike Lane 
Baffetag f.. 
Sidewalk 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
Staging: Saturation Flow Check 
1 
Queuinq Problems: 
Direction Vehicles Seconds Lanes 
1 | 
| | | • 
I I 
1 • • 1 I 
Cycle Length: 
Cycle Length: 
Cycle Length: 
A p p e n d i x C: p . 4 
Appendix C - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
LANE GEOMETRY 
Date: 
Time: 
Intersection Name: OjV fa * 1 (K 5?, •J T/'c 
Staging: 
Queuing Problems: 
Direction Vehicles Seconds Lanes 
H I 
I • • 
r 
Cycle Length 
Cycle Length 
Cycle Length A B C D E F 
A p p e n d i x C: p . 5 
Appendix C - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
LANE GEOMETRY 
Date: 
Time: 
Intersection Name: 
H. SSz 
fCUJif, yit I r. .ÇnrmJ'i 2 USQMI fe^c, 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
3tre 
\ Stetewaìk f ~ — . . —-" 
Bike Lane 
CO 
* o o 
I— = J -1 N D) 
v i O D n> m w 
# oWànes: 
Speeji-zone: 
/ j , 
t-
C'-tT.s^ Â 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
Si^ewallt ;is 
u 
ér-
fäewkmtj X 
Sike Lane 
Ç ¿Ttf /' fr> / a. 
J ? , / 
i"/. <-',.- r A-O^J 
(J 
~ > 
V 
Bike Lane 
S P -a f4éng 
UÏ A> a) c c o _ro N — "o 
O OJ 
tt D r i 
Rulse 
r? f 
I Sttìewafk pSgj | 
Hb'JIt 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
H of lanes: 
Speed zone: 
i 
v 
\ 
-¡-S (/) 
I I I R £5" » S '-I Sì 
e ; 
Bike Lane i ^ 
S i a e w ü i 
Ekts: 
VûCAnT 
üjtJU Adjacent 
Land Use 
Staging: Saturation Flow Check 
• 
1 
1 
1 
! 
i 
1 I 
Queuinq Problems: 
Direction Vehicles Seconds Lanes 
1 • 
• • 
1 
RPR per cycle 
i 
I 
I 
Cycle Length 
Cycle Length 
Cycle Length A B C D E FI 
A p p e n d i x C •. p . 6 
Appendix C - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
LANE GEOMETRY 
Date : 
Intersection Name: O fi- iM. (^M^a^ Sfrezr) ^ j^i 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
i Parking 
» 
o 
ST XJ (D « 
¿¿l/I ( / " 
5 / x c c f B i k o ' b a s v f r 
].• Parking 
\ Sidewalk M ; 
PtlÄBft 
SA E. 
Parking Vj 
B i i ç e ^ s ^ e 
C-x-i ,'ftrrïie.. 
Cr ryv e1 
Parking 
l/> <u c y c o r-i ra N 
•o 
o <1J 
i t tu CL 
w 
J 
vu f.'Oi rosc<ir 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
4 / 
# of lanes: 
Speed zone: 
2o" i 
c-X 
^ Sidewalk 
[) r t/Cj Sfù / 
J 
/ /«V Adjacent Land Use 
Staging: Saturation Flow Check 
1 
1 
1 
! 
1 
! j 
1 
i 
! 1 
! 
Queuinq Problems: 
Direction Vehicles Seconds Lanes 
| 1 
1 
I I 1 
1 I I 
• m 
Cycle Length; 
Cycle Length: 
Cycle Length: 
ROR per cycle 
Perceived UOS 
A B C D E F 
A p p e n d i x C : p . 1 
Appendix C - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
LANE GEOMETRY 
Date: 
Time: 
Intersection Name: 
Staging: 
1 
1 
1 
1 
Queuing Problems: 
Direction Vehicles Seconds Lanes 
1 
1 
1 
1 
Cycle Length: 
Cycle Length: 
Cycle Length: A B C D E F 
A p p e n d i x C: p . 8 
Appendix C - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
LANE GEOMETRY 
Date: f f e o f o 
Time: 
Intersection Name: Q - C l ^ r x 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
ermi 
¡B ^ ^ 
\ S f r i y ç M ' l k 
5fct£" 
! Î 
t 
# of ianes: 
Speed zone: 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
s ' ¡1) tynJw I 
/Jòfi*«r 7 w 
: situ/ 
i ii) Ûrt J v. 
ù u r e 
IO SCJ'J 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
# of lanes: 
Speed zone: 2.Ì 
I 
/ / t i r U I 
"A" 
•"A, 
1 
S p CO 
Î } S.' « Ï 
r £ s tu f M ^ to (£i iïr 
B j k & j t i a r r & 
L, 
r-i 
B & e - L s w e 
B i t r i i i n g 
S K i g w a i k 
M 
l/i 0) D C C O 
K M ( 
Z 73 
O ai 
* CL 
w 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
S t a g i n g : Saturation Flow Check 
1 î î 
i 
i 
î 
1 
1 
1 
Queuinq Problems: 
Direction Vehicles Seconds Lanes 1 
1 -] 
î ; i 1 
1 
R O R p e r c y c l e 
II 1 
k f 
Cycle Length: 
Cycle Length 
Cycle Length: A E C D E F 
A p p e n d i x C: p . 9 
Appendix C - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
LANE GEOMETRY 
Date: i h o fa'*-
Time: 
Intersection Name: ¿Ve S r r c t d J Sr'r-c-z? 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
H. i? US e 
ftœy- s 
frws- / m ® 
à S i d e w a l k [ m ! I 
\ Parking 
c/> TJ 
(!• i t 
tt> 0 Q. 
N ÔT D r> a i l « 
V 
¿3-
i . 
—Vw t-
Parking 
R L- • H-I J^ AA 
v Sid&walk 
•v ftf^tv,^/ 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
M a uf r 
A / d / Î / ( ¡-,./?S 
r 
Bu-s-
Sidewalk • 
Parking 
à 
tn qj 
ai c 
t o 
RO N 
o o) 
ft <" 
CO 
O 
; en 1 cci : tz 
S : j.y 
M: l i? '31 J® i ? 
CO f i 
B i t t s : SPB£ : 
Park ina, 
W t t n a i f a t e a i V-- * ,- A c 
i S ie teMSfk * 
, u c/? A s t ^ S 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
ft of lanes: 
Speed zone:? ' 0 
I 
? a . . i n ® 
£• § • • ! ? 
Ji c r ; 
(D ~ 
. W 5 / v , 'P 
\ 
L-Of..Är Ji r 
¿t> nr 
!"'Ï rn-r-
Adjacent 
Land Use 
Staqinq 
i 
r • 
i 
f 
Queuing Problems: 
Saturation Flow Check R Q R pe r c y c l e 
Direction Vehicles Seconds Lanes 
1 
1 
1 1 
[ j 
Cycle Length: 
Cycle Length: 
Cycle Length: 
1 
I 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
i 
¡ - v ! 
! < 
i 
m 
A E C D E F 
A p p e n d i x C: p . 10 
Appendix C - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
LANE GEOMETRY 
Date: 
Time: 
Intersection Name: Ôft- lì? & A ir- ' Ò>C< 
0 
Adjacent 
Land Use -••if-A 
H l>M.f <L 
l ì S i d e w a l k • ! 1 
t 
# of lanes: 
Speed zone: 
EJ 
r a 
r^ [,',/• e, ft-ÂÇ-
Adjacent 
Land Use 
f 
— -p 
(3 
\//k (-(S. kT 
B S ; -
Ü SH-kwvafe h 
% P d t -K ing 
B t t r e ^ a f t e -
w u n> « rt> o Q. 
M 
-V- o 
(B CD <fl 
g ^ S F i ; 
P a r t a m i 
ai J 
<= o i k 
— w î 
>- 13 
O 0J-
cu 
CL tn 
« 
PUasè 
P i a n ^ œ g 
\ S ì t f e w a t k -
e» 
•j r-: TT" 
i ì <5 
î' 
0) 
i / 7 k ^ 
/ ^ v - / 
S 
S 
I 
as 
# oWanes: 
Spâed^bne: 
- y . fil C Q. — 
HI1 
I 
Jf 
I 
3 g f r 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
Staging: Saturation Flow Check RPR per cycle 
1 
1 
! 
i 
! 1 
: 1 
Queuinq Problems: 
Direction Vehicles Seconds Lanes 
I J 
1 
î 1 1 
T J 
î 1 
î 1 ! r 
1 
">1 
Cycle Length: 
Cycle Length: 
Cycle Length: A B C D E F 
A p p e n d i x C: p . 11 
Appendix C - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
LANE GEOMETRY 
Date: 
Time: ^ , • / ;> 
Intersection Name: à fl_ Of/i 'Li ,•'' f i ~ f V f " c 
£,a J VO 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
Sfetewa-lk 
P a r k i n g 
Bike Lane 
« 
CP * 
en o 
imm ^ — 
r- O 3 r i 3 n» (t in 
C S Acri 
¿= ' 
Bi kr 
Bike Lane 
R - a r & e c i 
Ï S t ó e w s J k "fri 
Bue 
-Xi aj 
£ re 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
/JpU-Scf Vi?1 
t 
# of lanes; 
Speed zone: 
# of lanes: [ 
Speed zone: 
| v r : , ÙU, 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
mi S i e t e w s i k 
Bike Lan s 
JfiLsj 
it, QJ ^ 
« c v 1 1= o J-
n j N 
CL œ 
/ Bike Lane CsA 
S i â e w s i k 
rh ? 
/ h 
sr. 
Q> 
ns A 
^ 
Sp 
ij 
»a 
S 
. ! 
' / (T\A {-<-/ 
Adjacent 
Land Use 
Staging: Saturation Flow Check RQR per cycle 
1 
! 
! ! 
. 
1 
Queuinq Problems: 
Direction Vehicles Seconds Lanes 
1 
• 
Cycle Length 
Cycle Length 
Cycle Length 
1 
i 
1 
1 
-j 
1 
r 
A B C D E F 
A p p e n d i x C: p . 12 
Appendix D 
Intersection Photographs 
Appendix D - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
PARAMETRIX Form 01-CN-68/Rev. 10/04 
OR 238 (5th Street) @ Shafer Lane: 
Look ing w e s t t h r o u g h in te rsec t ion f r o m 
no r theas t co rne r . 
OR 238 (5th Street) @ Shafer Lane: 
Look ing n o r t h w e s t t h r o u g h in te rsec t ion f rom 
s o u t h e a s t co rne r . 
OR 238 (5th Street) @ Shafer Lane: 
Look ing w e s t t h r o u g h in te rsec t ion f r o m 
sou theas t c o m e r . 
OR 238 (5th Street) @ E Street: 
Look ing eas t t h r o u g h in te rsec t ion a l o n g 
nor th s ide of E St ree t . 
Parametrix 274-2395-051 Phase 07 - January, 2007 J a c k s o n v i l l e , O r e g o n 
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S y s t e m P lan 
A p p e n d i x D: p . l 
Appendix D - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
PARAMETRIX Form 01-CN-68/Rev. 10/04 
OR 238 (5th Street) @ E Street: 
L o o k i n g s o u t h e a s t t h r o u g h in te rsec t ion 
f r o m n o r t h w e s t co rne r . 
OR 238 (5th Street) @ E Street: 
L o o k i n g s o u t h t h r o u g h in te rsec t ion a long 
w e s t s ide of 5 th S t ree t . 
OR 238 (5th Street) @ E Street: 
Look ing no r t hwes t t h r o u g h in te rsec t ion f r o m 
s o u t h e a s t co rne r . 
OR 238 (5th Street) @ E Street: 
L o o k i n g nor th t h r o u g h in te rsec t ion a l o n g 
eas t s ide o f 5 th S t ree t . 
Parametrix 274-2395-051 Phase 07 - January, 2007 Jacksonville, Oregon 
Transportation System Plan 
A p p e n d i x D: p.l 
Appendix D - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
PARAMETRIX Form 01-CN-68/Rev. 10/04 
OR 238 (5th Street) @ E Street: 
Look ing w e s t t h rough in te rsec t ion a l o n g sou th 
s ide of E St ree t . 
OR 238 (5th Street) @ California Street: 
Look ing w e s t t h r o u g h in te rsec t i on a l o n g nor th 
s ide of Ca l i fo rn ia S t ree t . 
OR 238 (5th Street) @ California Street: 
L o o k i n g no r th t h r o u g h in te rsec t ion f r o m 
sou th leg (5 th St reet ) . 
OR 238 (5th Street) @ California Street: 
Look ing no r t hwes t t h r o u g h in te rsec t ion f r o m 
sou th leg (5 th St reet ) . 
Parametrix 274-2395-051 Phase 07 - January, 2007 Jacksonvi l le , O r e g o n 
Transpor ta t ion S y s t e m Plan 
A p p e n d i x D: p.l 
Append i x D - Chapter 4, Jacksonv i l le T S P 
PARAMETRIX Form 01-CN-68/Rev. 10/04 
OR 238 (5th Street) @ California Street: 
Look ing w e s t t h r o u g h in te rsec t ion f r o m 
s o u t h e a s t co rne r . 
OR 238 {5th Street) @ California Street: 
L o o k i n g n o r t h w e s t t h r o u g h in te rsec t i on f r o m 
sou theas t co rne r . 
OR 238 (5th Street) @ California Street: 
Look ing nor th a c r o s s i n te rsec t i on f r o m 
s o u t h w e s t co rne r . 
OR 238 (5th Street) @ California Street: 
Look ing e a s t t h r o u g h in te rsec t ion a long sou th 
s ide o f Ca l i fo rn ia S t ree t . 
Parametrix 274-2395-051 Phase 07 - January. 2007 Jacksonville, Oregon 
Transportation System Plan 
A p p e n d i x D: p . 4 
Appendix D - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
PARAMETRIX Form 01-CN-68/Rev. 10/04 
OR 238 (5th Street) @ California Street: 
Looking nor theas t th rough in tersect ion f rom 
sou thwes t corner . 
OR 238 (5th Street) @ California Street: 
Look ing south ac ross intersect ion f rom 
nor thwest corner . 
OR 238 (5th Street) @ California Street: 
Look ing south ac ross intersect ion f rom 
nor thwest corner . 
California Street @ 6th Street: 
Look ing south into intersect ion f rom north leg 
(6th Street). 
Parametrix 274-2395-051 p h a s e 0 7 - J a n u a r y , 2007 J a c k s o n v i l l e , O r e g o n 
Transpor ta t ion S y s t e m Plan 
A p p e n d i x D: p.11 
Appendix D - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
PARAMETRIX Form 01-CN-68/Rev. 10/04 
rtutJimniu 
RIGHT 
OF WAY 
STRICTLY 
ENFORCED 
California Street @ 6th Street: 
Look ing w e s t t h r o u g h in te rsec t ion a l ong nor th 
s ide of Ca l i fo rn ia S t ree t . 
California Street @ 8th Street: 
Look ing w e s t t h r o u g h in te rsec t ion a long no r th 
s ide of Ca l i fo rn ia St reet . 
California Street @ 8th Street: 
Look ing n o r t h e a s t t h rough in te rsec t ion f r o m 
sou th s ide of Ca l i fo rn ia St reet . 
California Street @ 8th Street: 
Look ing sou th into in te rsec t ion f r o m nor th leg 
(8th Street ) . 
Parametrix 274-2395-051 Phase 07 - January, 2007 Jacksonvi l le , O r e g o n 
Transpor ta t ion S y s t e m Plan 
A p p e n d i x D: p.l 
Appendix D - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
PARAMETRIX Form 01 -CN-S8/Rev. 10/04 
South Stage Road (California Street) @ Wells 
Fargo Road: 
Look ing nor th in to in te rsec t ion f rom s o u t h 
leg (We l l s F a r g o Dr ive) . 
OR 238 (California Street) @ 3rd Street: 
L o o k i n g s o u t h t h r o u g h in te rsec t ion a long 
w e s t s ide of 3 rd S t ree t . 
South Stage Road (California Street) @ Wells 
Fargo Road: 
Look ing w e s t at Ca l i fo rn ia St reet a p p r o a c h i n g 
in te rsec t ion f r o m s o u t h e a s t co rne r . 
OR 238 (California Street) @ 3rd Street: 
Look ing s o u t h e a s t t h r o u g h in te rsec t ion f r o m 
no r thwes t co rne r . 
Parametrix 274-2395-051 Phase 07 - January. 2007 Jacksonvi l le , O r e g o n 
Transpor ta t ion S y s t e m Plan 
A p p e n d i x D: p.10 
Appendix D - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
PARAMETRIX Form 01-CN-68/Rev. 10/04 
OR 238 (California Street) @ 3rd Street: 
Looking sou thwes t th rough intersect ion f rom 
nor theast corner. 
OR 238 (California Street) @ 3rd Street: 
Look ing south th rough intersect ion a long 
east s ide of 3rd Street. 
OR 238 (California Street) @ 3rd Street: 
Looking southwest through intersect ion f rom 
nor theast corner. 
OR 238 (California Street) @ 3rd Street: 
Look ing nor thwest th rough intersect ion f rom 
south s ide of Cal i fornia Street. 
Parametrix 274-2395-051 phase 07 - January. 2007 J a c k s o n v i l l e , O r e g o n 
Transpor ta t ion Sys tem Plan 
A p p e n d i x D: p.11 
Appendix D - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
PARAMETRIX Form 01-CN-68/Rev. 10/04 
Parametrix 274-2395-051 Phase 07 - January. 2007 J a c k s o n v i l l e , O r e g o n 
Transpor ta t ion Sys tem Plan 
A p p e n d i x D: p.11 
OR 238 {California Street) @ 3rd Street: 
Look ing wes t th rough intersect ion a long south 
side of Cal i forn ia Street. 
OR 238 (California Street) @ 3rd Street: 
Look ing north th rough intersect ion a long west 
s ide of 3 rd Street. 
OR 238 (California Street) @ Oregon Street: 
Look ing west th rough intersect ion a long 
north s ide of Cal i forn ia Street. 
OR 238 (California Street) @ Oregon Street: 
Look ing sou thwes t th rough intersect ion f rom 
nor theast corner. 
Appendix D - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
PARAMETRIX Form 01 -CN-S8/Rev. 10/04 
OR 238 (California Street) @ Oregon Street: 
L o o k i n g sou th t h r o u g h in te rsec t ion f r o m 
no r t heas t co rne r . 
OR 238 (California Street) @ Oregon Street: 
L o o k i n g w e s t t h r o u g h in te rsec t ion f r o m 
s o u t h e a s t co rne r . 
OR 238 (California Street) @ Oregon Street: 
Look ing no r t heas t t h rough in te rsec t ion f r o m 
s o u t h w e s t co rne r . 
OR 238 (California Street) @ Oregon Street: 
Look ing eas t t h r o u g h in te rsec t ion a l ong 
s o u t h s i d e of Ca l i fo rn ia St reet . 
Parametrix 274-2395-051 Phase 07 - January. 2007 Jacksonvi l le , O r e g o n 
Transpor ta t ion S y s t e m Plan 
A p p e n d i x D: p . 1 0 
Appendix D - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
P A R A M E T R I X Form 01-CN-68/Rev. 10/04 
Parametrix 274-2395-051 Phase 07 - January. 2007 Jacksonvi l le, Oregon 
Transportation System Plan 
A p p e n d i x D : p . 1 1 
OR 238 (California Street) @ Oregon Street: 
Looking east through intersection along 
north side of California Street. 
OR 238 (California Street) @ Oregon Street: 
Looking south through intersection from 
northwest corner. 
OR 238 (California Street) @ Oregon Street: 
Looking southwest through intersection from 
north leg (Oregon Street), 
Oregon Street @ F Street: 
Looking north through intersection along west 
side of Oregon Street. 
Append i x D - Chap te r 4, Jacksonvi l le T S P 
PARAMETRIX Form 01-CN-68/Rev. 10/04 
Oregon Street @ F Street: 
Looking east through intersection at F Street. 
Oregon Street @ F Street: 
Looking southeast through intersection at south 
leg and F Street. 
Oregon Street @ F Street: 
Looking south through intersection along west 
side of Oregon Street. 
Oregon Street @ C Street: 
Looking south through intersection along west 
side of Oregon Street. 
Parametrix 274-2395-051 phase 07 - January, 2007 Jacksonvil le, Oregon 
Transportation System Plan 
A p p e n d i x D: p . 1 2 
Appendix D - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
PARAMETRIX Form 01 -CN-68/Ftev. 10/04 
Oregon Street @ C Street: 
Looking southeast through intersection at C 
Street. 
Oregon Street @ C Street: 
Looking east along C Street through intersection 
at Oregon Street. 
Oregon Street @ C Street: 
Looking north through intersection along east 
side of Oregon Street. 
Oregon Street @ C Street: 
Looking west by northwest on C Street through 
intersection with Oregon Street. 
Parametrix 274-2395-051 Phase 07 - January, 2007 Jacksonville, Oregon 
Transportation System Plan 
A p p e n d i x D: p . 1 3 
Appendix D - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
PARAMETRIX Form 01-CN-6ß/Rev. 10/04 
Oregon Street @ C Street: 
Look ing wes t b y s o u t h w e s t on C S t ree t t h r o u g h 
in te rsec t ion at O r e g o n St ree t . 
OR 238 @ Pair-a-Dice Road: 
Look ing sou th in to in te rsec t ion f r o m nor th leg 
(Pa i r -a -D i ce Road ) . 
OR 238 @ Pair-a-Dice Road: 
Look ing w e s t t h r o u g h in te rsec t ion f r o m no r th 
s ide of O R 238 . 
Parametrix 274-2395-051 Phase 07 - January, 2007 Jacksonville, Oregon 
Transportation System Plan 
A p p e n d i x D: p . 1 4 
Appendix E 
2007 Intersection Analysis Worksheets 
Appendix E - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
2: Shafer Lane & OR 238 
2007 
137 HV Balanced 
— > < A A 
Movement EST E BR WBL WBT NBL NBR 
Lane Configurations t f t f 
Sign Control Free Free Stop 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 
Volume (veh/h) 135 155 55 180 225 90 
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 147 168 60 196 245 98 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 315 462 147 
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 315 462 147 
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 
pO queue free % 95 54 89 
cM capacity (veh/h) 1245 531 900 
Direction, Lane if EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WI3 2 NB 1 NB2 
Volume Total 147 168 60 196 245 98 
Volume Left 0 0 60 0 245 0 
Volume Right 0 168 0 0 0 98 
cSH 1700 1700 1245 1700 531 900 
Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.10 0.05 0.12 0.46 0.11 
Queue Length (ft) 0 0 4 0 60 9 
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 17.4 9.5 
Lane LOS A C A 
 R B p i g ' t » ^ ) 0.0 15.2 
Approach LOS C 
Irtlefsection Summary 
Average Delay 6.2 
intersection Capacity Utilization 32.9% ICU Level of Service A 
Parametr ix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
4/25/2007 
A p p e n d i x E: p.2 
Appendix E - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
2: Shafer Lane & OR 238 
2007 
30 HV Balanced 
< t A V I 
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT 
Lane Configurations ? Tt 4 
Sign Control Stop Free Free 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 
Volume (veh/h) 5 25 265 15 30 375 
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 6 28 301 17 34 426 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 804 310 318 
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 804 310 318 
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 
pO queue free % 98 96 97 
cM capacity (veh/h) 343 730 1242 
Direction. Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 
Volume Total 6 28 318 460 
Volume Left 6 0 0 34 
Volume Right 0 28 17 0 
cSH 343 730 1700 1242 
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.04 0.19 0.03 
Queue Length (ft) 1 3 0 2 
Control Delay (s) 15.7 10.1 0.0 0.9 
Lane LOS C B A 
Approach Delay (s) 11.1 0.0 0.9 
Approach LOS B 
Intersection Summary 
Average Delay 1.0 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.6% ICU Level of Service A 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametr ix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
4 /25/2007 
A p p e n d i x E: p . 2 
Appendix E - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
3: 'E' St & OR 238 
2007 
30 HV Balanced 
> — > < < ^ t A V 1 V 
Movement EBL EBT EBft WBl WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SET SBR 
Lane Configurations 4* 4* 4* 4* 
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 
Volume (veh/h) 15 20 30 0 15 10 35 250 10 10 305 25 
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.92 0.88 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.92 0.88 0.88 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 17 22 34 0 16 11 40 284 11 11 347 28 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 771 757 361 797 766 290 375 295 
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 771 757 361 797 766 290 375 295 
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 
pO queue free % 94 93 95 100 95 99 97 99 
cM capacity (veh/h) 291 323 684 266 319 750 1183 1266 
Direction. Lan s # EB 1 WË 1 NB 1 SB 1 
Volume Total 73 27 335 386 
Volume Left 17 0 40 11 
Volume Right 34 11 11 28 
cSH 415 414 1183 1266 
Volume to Capacity 0.18 0.07 0.03 0.01 
Queue Length (ft) 16 5 3 1 
Control Delay (s) 15.5 14.3 1.3 0.3 
Lane LOS C B A A 
Approach Delay (s) 15.5 14.3 1.3 0.3 
Approach LOS C B 
Intersection Summary 
Average Delay 2.5 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.4% ICU Level of Service A 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametr ix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
4/25/2007 
A p p e n d i x E: p . 3 
Appendix E - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
4: OR 238 & Cal i fornia St 
2007 
30 HV Balanced 
> — > < A t A V I 
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 
Lane Configurations 4* 4» t f 4» 
Sign Control Yield Stop Stop Stop 
Volume (vph) 170 145 5 10 190 90 0 10 5 45 20 270 
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.92 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 202 173 6 12 226 98 0 12 6 54 24 321 
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 MB 2 SB 1 
Volume Total (vph) 381 336 12 6 399 
Volume Left (vph) 202 12 0 0 54 
Volume Right (vph) 6 98 0 6 321 
Hadj (s) 0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.7 -0.4 
Departure Headway (s) 5.7 5.3 7.0 6.3 5.4 
Degree Utilization, x 0.60 0.49 0.02 0.01 0.60 
Capacity (veh/h) 609 564 432 477 639 
Control Delay (s) 10.7 9.6 8.9 8.1 10.4 
Approach Delay (s) 10.7 9.6 8.6 10.4 
Approach LOS B A A B 
Intersection Summary 
Delay 
HCM Level of Service 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 
10.2 
B 
70.2% 
15 
ICU Level of Service C 
Analysis Period (min) 
Parametr ix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
4/25/2007 
A p p e n d i x E: p . 4 
Appendix E - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
2007 
5: O R 2 3 8 & 3rd St 30 HV Balanced 
> - > < ^ t A V 1 V 
Movement EBL EBT EBK WBL WBT WBR NBL NET NBR SBL SET SBR 
Lane Configurations 4» 4* 4* 4* 
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 
Volume (veh/h) 5 265 5 55 370 10 5 0 35 0 0 10 
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 285 5 59 398 11 5 0 38 0 0 11 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 409 290 831 825 288 858 823 403 
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 409 290 831 825 288 858 823 403 
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
IF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 
pO queue free % 100 95 98 100 95 100 100 98 
cM capacity (veh/h) 1150 1271 273 292 751 253 293 647 
Direction. Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 
Volume Total 296 468 43 11 
Volume Left 5 59 5 0 
Volume Right 5 11 38 11 
cSH 1150 1271 617 647 
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.05 0.07 0.02 
Queue Length (ft) 0 4 6 1 
Control Delay (s) 0.2 1.4 11.3 10.7 
Lane LOS A A B B 
Approach Delay (s) 0.2 1.4 11.3 10.7 
Approach LOS B B 
Intersect ion Summary 
Average Delay 1.6 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.6% ICU Level of Service A 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametr ix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
4 /25/2007 
A p p e n d i x E: p . 5 
Appendix E - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
2007 
6: OR 238 & Oregon St 30 HV Balanced 
> — > < - ^ Î A V I 
Movement ËBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 
Lane Configurations 4» 4» 4» 
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop 
Volume (vph) 45 170 5 60 270 45 5 35 45 50 60 170 
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 50 189 6 67 300 50 6 39 50 56 67 189 
Direction. Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 
Volume Total (vph) 244 417 94 311 
Volume Left (vph) 50 67 6 56 
Volume Right (vph) 6 50 50 189 
Hadj (s) 0.1 0.0 -0.3 -0.3 
Departure Headway (s) 5.8 5.8 6.0 5.6 
Degree Utilization, x 0.39 0.67 0.16 0.48 
Capacity (veh/h) 581 562 515 619 
Control Delay (s) 9.7 11.4 9.3 9.8 
Approach Delay (s) 9.7 11.4 9.3 9.8 
Approach LOS A B A A 
Intersection Summary 
Delay 
HCM Level of Service 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 
Analysis Period (min) 
10.4 
B 
55.0% 
15 
ICU Level of Service A 
Parametr ix , Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
4/25/2007 
A p p e n d i x E: p . 6 
Appendix E - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
7: California St & 6th St 
2007 
30 HV Balanced 
> V V V 
Movement EEL EB' f WBT SVBR SBL SBR 
Lane Conf igurat ions 4 V 
Sign Control Free Free Stop 
Grade 0% 0% 0 % 
Vo lume (veh/h) 5 200 295 50 45 5 
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 217 321 54 49 5 
Pedestr ians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Wa lk ing Speed (ft/s) 
Percent B lockage 
Right turn f lare (veh) 
Median type None 
Median s torage veh) 
Upst ream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, confl ict ing vo lume 375 576 348 
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 375 576 348 
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
t F ( s ) 2.2 3.5 3.3 
pO queue free % 100 90 99 
cM capacity (veh/h) 1183 477 695 
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 
Vo lume Total 223 375 54 
Vo lume Left 5 0 49 
Vo lume Right 0 54 5 
cSH 1183 1700 492 
Vo lume to Capaci ty 0.00 0.22 0.11 
Queue Length (ft) 0 0 9 
Control Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 13.2 
Lane LOS A B 
Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 13.2 
Approach LOS B 
Intersection Summary 
Average Delay 1.2 
Intersect ion Capaci ty Util ization 28.6% ICU Level of Service A 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametr ix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
4 /25/2007 
A p p e n d i x E: p . 7 
Appendix E - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
8: California St & 8th St 
2 0 0 7 
30 HV Balanced 
> — V. V V 
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR 
Lane Configurations 4 V V 
Sign Control Free Free Stop 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 
Volume (veh/h) 10 255 345 30 25 5 
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 11 271 367 32 27 5 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 399 676 383 
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 399 676 383 
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 
pO queue free % 99 94 99 
cM capacity (veh/h) 1160 415 664 
Direction, Lane ft ES 1 WB 1 se 1 
Volume Total 282 399 32 
Volume Left 11 0 27 
Volume Right 0 32 5 
cSH 1160 1700 443 
Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.23 0.07 
Queue Length (ft) 1 0 6 
Control Delay (s) 0.4 0.0 13.8 
Lane LOS A B 
Approach Delay (s) 0.4 0.0 13.8 
Approach LOS B 
Intersection Summary 
Average Delay 0.8 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.5% ICU Level of Service A 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametr ix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
4/25/2007 
A p p e n d i x E: p . e 
Appendix E - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
2007 
9: S. Stage Rd & Wells Fargo Rd. 30 HV Balanced 
> < \ A 
Movement EBT EBR W B L W B T NBL NBR 
Lane Conf igurat ions * 4 V 
Sign Control Free Free Stop 
Grade 0% 0 % 0% 
Vo lume (veh/h) 260 10 20 355 15 5 
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 
Hourly f low rate (vph) 302 12 23 413 17 6 
Pedestr ians 
Lane Wid th (ft) 
Wa lk ing Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None 
Median storage veh) 
Upst ream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, confl ict ing vo lume 314 767 308 
vC1, s tage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 314 767 308 
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 
pO queue free % 98 95 99 
cM capacity (veh/h) 1246 363 732 
Direct ion, Lane ft EB 1 W B 1 MB 1 
Vo lume Total 314 436 23 
Vo lume Left 0 23 17 
Vo lume Right 12 0 6 
cSH 1700 1246 416 
Vo lume to Capacity 0.18 0.02 0.06 
Queue Length (ft) 0 1 4 
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.6 14.2 
Lane LOS A B 
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.6 14.2 
Approach LOS B 
Intersection Summary 
Average Delay 0.8 
Intersection Capacity Util ization 45.0% ICU Level of Service A 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametr ix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
4/25/2007 
A p p e n d i x E: p . 9 
Appendix E - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
2007 
1 0 : ' C ' S t & Oregon St 30 HV Balanced 
> - > < - < t A V 1 V 
Movement EiBL EBT ÉBR W B L W B T W B R NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 
Lane Conf igurat ions & 4> * 
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 
Vo lume (veh/h) 10 15 35 15 15 15 20 95 15 10 225 10 
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 
Hourly f low rate (vph) 12 18 41 18 18 18 24 112 18 12 265 12 
Pedestr ians 
Lane Wid th (ft) 
Wa lk ing Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn f lare (veh) 
Median type None None 
Median storage veh) 
Upst ream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, confl ict ing vo lume 488 471 271 512 468 121 276 129 
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 488 471 271 512 468 121 276 129 
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
IF (s) 3.5 4 .0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 
pO queue free % 97 96 95 96 96 98 98 99 
cM capacity (veh/h) 458 478 768 426 480 931 1286 1456 
Direct ion, Lane % EB I W B 1 NB 1 SB 1 
Vo lume Tota l 71 53 153 288 
Vo lume Left 12 18 24 12 
Vo lume Right 41 18 18 12 
cSH 607 545 1286 1456 
Vo lume to Capaci ty 0.12 0.10 0.02 0.01 
Queue Length (ft) 10 8 1 1 
Control Delay (s) 11.7 12.3 1.3 0.4 
Lane LOS B B A A 
Approach Delay (s) 11.7 12.3 1.3 0.4 
Approach LOS B B 
Intersect ion Summary 
Average Delay 3.2 
Intersect ion Capaci ty Util ization 25.6% ICU Level of Service A 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametr ix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
4/25/2007 
A p p e n d i x E: p . 1 0 
Appendix E - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
2007 
1 1 : 'F' St & Oregon St 30 HV Balanced 
f t f V i 
Movement W B L W B R NBT NBR SBL SBT 
Lane Conf igurat ions Y 4 
Sign Control Stop Free Free 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 
Vo lume (veh/h) 35 35 120 5 15 175 
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0.96 0.96 
Hourly f low rate (vph) 36 36 125 5 16 182 
Pedestr ians 
Lane Wid th (ft) 
Walk ing Speed (ft/s) 
Percent B lockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None 
Median storage veh) 
Upst ream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, confl ict ing vo lume 341 128 130 
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, s tage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 341 128 130 
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
l F ( s ) 3.5 3.3 2,2 
pO queue free % 94 96 99 
cM capacity (veh/h) 648 922 1455 
Diceclion, Lane # W B 1 NB 1 SB 1 
Vo lume Total 73 130 198 
Vo lume Left 36 0 16 
Vo lume Right 36 5 0 
cSH 761 1700 1455 
Vo lume to Capaci ty 0.10 0.08 0.01 
Queue Length (ft) 8 0 1 
Control Delay (s) 10.2 0.0 0.7 
Lane LOS B A 
Approach Delay (s) 10.2 0.0 0.7 
Approach LOS B 
Intersection Summary 
Average Delay 2.2 
Intersection Capacity Util ization 30 .7% ICU Level of Service A 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametr ix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
4/25/2007 
A p p e n d i x E: p . 1 1 
Appendix E - Chapter 4, Jacksonville TSP 
12: OR 238 & Pair-A-Dice Rd 
2007 
30 HV Balanced 
> — V. V V 
Movement EBL EBT W B T W B R SI3 l SBR 
Lane Conf igurat ions h V 
Sign Control Free Free s top 
Grade 0 % 0% 0% 
Vo lume (veh/h) 0 185 385 15 15 0 
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 
Hourly f low rate (vph) 0 215 448 17 17 0 
Pedestr ians 
Lane Wid th (ft) 
Walk ing Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None 
Median storage veh) 
Upst ream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, confl ict ing vo lume 465 672 456 
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, s tage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 465 672 456 
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 
pO queue free % 100 96 100 
cM capacity (veh/h) 1096 421 604 
Direction, Lane # EB 1 W B 1 SB 1 
Vo lume Total 215 465 17 
Vo lume Left 0 0 17 
Vo lume Right 0 17 0 
cSH 1096 1700 421 
Vo lume to Capaci ty 0.00 0.27 0.04 
Queue Length (ft) 0 0 3 
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 13.9 
Lane LOS B 
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 13.9 
Approach LOS B 
Intersect ion Summary 
Average Delay 0.3 
Intersect ion Capaci ty Uti l ization 31 .2% ICU Level of Service A 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametr ix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
4 /25/2007 
A p p e n d i x E: p . 1 2 
Appendix F 
Future Volume Data 
Revised Draft Element 5, July 25, 2007 I 
CO 
-T—> 
CO 
Q 
CD 
E 
o > 
CD 
L _ 
=3 
-I—» 
=3 
LL 
LL 
X 
TJ 
C 
CD Q . 
Q . < 
W
B
R
 
o 00 o CO 
CM 
o o 00 CO 
W
B
T
 
O
S o o 
<32 
CM O) 
CM r-. 
00 
CO 
T— 
IO 
CM 
CO o O CN h-
W
B
L
 
LO 
CN o CM 
-si-T— CD o o CO o 00 o 
E
B
R
 
CD 
LO o 
CM t— o o CN o o 
E
B
T
 
o> 
o 00 
CN 
CO 
00 
"fr 
CO CD 
CO CO 
00 ^ o 
m 
E
B
L
 
o o CD CO 
T-
O o o 
S
B
R
 
lO 00 CD o 
00 
o CO T— O o 
S
B
T
 
CD 
CD 
CD LO o CO o o 
oo 
CM 
CM 
00 o 
S
B
L
 
a> CO o LO o 
CO 
T— oo LO 
N
B
R
 
•sr 
CN LO CM O 
CO CD 
o o CM 
N
B
T
 
o 
CO 
00 CM XT o o o o 13
8 
N
B
L
 
F— 
CD 00 CD o CN CM o o o 
2
0
3
0 
A
d
d
e
d
 V
o
lu
m
e
s 
IN
T
N
A
M
E
 
|0
R
 2
3
8
 &
 O
ld
 O
R
 2
3
8
 
[O
R
 2
3
8
 &
 S
h
a
fe
r 
La
ne
 
O
R
 2
38
 &
 E
 S
tr
ee
t 
|0
R
 2
3
8
/5
th
 S
tr
e
e
t 
&
 O
R
 2
3
8
/C
a
!if
o
rn
ia
 S
tre
«j
 
[O
R
 2
38
/C
al
ifo
rn
ia
 S
tr
e
e
t 
&
 3
rd
 S
tr
e
e
t 
O
R
 2
38
/C
al
ifo
rn
ia
 S
tr
e
e
t 
&
 O
re
g
o
n
 S
tr
e
e
t 
1 C
a
lif
o
rn
ia
 S
tr
e
e
t 
&
 6
th
 S
tr
e
e
t 
C
a
lif
o
rn
ia
 S
tr
e
e
t 
&
 8
th
 S
tr
e
e
t 
1 S
o
u
th
 S
ta
ge
 R
oa
d
 &
 W
e
lls
 F
ar
go
 D
ri
ve
 
1 O
re
g
o
n
 S
tr
e
e
t 
&
 C
 S
tr
e
e
t 
O
re
g
o
n
 S
tr
e
e
t 
&
 F
 S
tr
e
e
t 
O
R
 2
38
 &
 P
ai
r-
a-
D
ic
e
 R
a
n
ch
 R
oa
d
 
W
B
R
 
i n o 
o TT- LO 
CN 
LO 
LO o CD 
LO 
CO 
IO IO o 
^r 
W
B
T
 
LO 
CO 
CM 
LO 
LO 
CO 
CN 
o CD ^ 
O 
Xt-
co 
LO 
LO 
CO 
io IO 
CM LO 
o 
r-. 
^r 
W
B
L
 
O o O lO ^ m t--
o 
co 
LO in 
¡E
B
R
 
o 
o 
CM 
LO 
CN 
o 
IO LO LO 
LO IO 
CO 
E
B
T
 
m 
CD m 
CN 
in 
00 
o 
CN 
C0 
o 
CM 
LO 
LO 
CM 
LO 
o 
CO 
LO 
CO 
LO 
o 
CM 
CM 
E
B
L
 
LO o CM 
o T 
CN IO 
LO 
io 
O LO O 
S
B
R
 
O 
CM 
LO 
CO 
LO 
•Si-
co 
O T— 
o 
o 
CN 
O 
in 
LO 
S
B
T
 
i n o 
o IO 
CM 
LO 
IO 
O 
CD 
CM 
o 
CO 
CN 
S
B
L
 
o m IO 
CD 
o 
CD 
IO 
•«t 
IO 
CO 
LO O 
CN 
O 
CO 
N
B
R
 
o 
CM o 
CM 
o 
LO 
O 
CD 
o 
CD IO 
O in 
N
B
T
 
i n 
T— 
CO 
o 
o 
CO 
O LO 
LO 
CN 
o 
CD 
IN
B
L
 
o 
o 
oo 
o 
oo 
in 
"sT 
|0
R
 2
38
/5
th
 S
tr
e
e
t 
&
 O
R
 2
3
8
/C
a
lif
o
rn
ia
 S
tr
e
e
t O io 
LO LO 
CM 
20
30
 N
o
 B
ui
ld
 B
a
la
n
ce
d
 V
ol
um
es
 
IN
T
N
A
M
E
 
O
R
 2
3
8
 &
 O
ld
 O
R
 2
3
8
 
|0
R
 2
3
8
 &
 S
h
a
fe
r 
La
ne
 
O
R
 2
3
8
 &
 E
 S
tr
e
e
t 
|0
R
 2
38
/5
th
 S
tr
e
e
t 
&
 O
R
 2
3
8
/C
a
lif
o
rn
ia
 S
tr
e
e
t 
O
R
 2
38
/C
al
ifo
rn
ia
 S
tr
e
e
t 
&
 3
rd
 S
tr
e
e
t 
O
R
 2
38
/C
al
ifo
rn
ia
 S
tr
e
e
t 
&
 O
re
g
o
n
 S
tr
e
e
t 
[C
a
lif
o
rn
ia
 S
tr
ee
t 
&
 6
th
 S
tr
e
e
t 
C
a
lif
o
rn
ia
 S
tr
e
e
t 
&
 8
th
 S
tr
e
e
t 
1 S
ou
th
 S
ta
g
e
 R
oa
d
 &
 W
e
lls
 F
a
rg
o
 D
riv
e
 
1 O
re
g
o
n
 S
tr
e
e
t 
&
 C
 S
tr
ee
t 
1 O
re
g
o
n
 S
tr
e
e
t 
&
 F
 S
tr
e
e
t 
O
R
 2
38
 &
 P
ai
r-
a-
D
ic
e
 R
a
n
ch
 R
oa
d
 
T3 
C 
a; 
a 
a ft 
Appendix G 
2030 Intersection Analysis Worksheets (No Build) 
Appendix H - Chapter 5, Jacksonville TSP 
Jacksonville TSP 2030 No-Build 
OR 238 @ Shafer Lane 30lh Highest Hourly Volume 
> - > < - A t A V \ V 
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL W B T WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT S8R 
Lane Configurations •it- ? 4 
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 
Volume (veh/h) 5 0 25 10 0 45 30 315 20 40 475 20 
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 6 0 29 12 0 53 33 350 22 44 528 22 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (il) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Righ! turn flare (veh) 
Median type None None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 1108 1067 539 1085 1067 361 550 372 
VC1, stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 1108 1067 539 1085 1067 361 550 372 
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF(s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 
pO queue free % 96 100 95 93 100 92 97 96 
cM capacity (veh/h) 164 207 543 174 207 683 1020 1186 
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 W B 2 NB 1 SB 1 
Volume Total 35 12 53 406 594 
Volume Left 6 12 0 33 44 
Volume Right 29 0 53 22 22 
cSH 391 174 683 1020 1186 
Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.03 0.04 
Queue Length (ft) 7 5 6 3 3 
Control Delay (s) 15.1 27.2 10.7 1.0 1.0 
Lane LOS C D B A A 
Approach Delay (s) 15.1 13.7 1.0 1.0 
Approach LOS C B 
Intersection Summary 
Average Delay 2.2 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.4% ICU Leve! of Service A 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametrix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
6/22/2007 
A p p e n d i x G : p . 1 1 
Appendix H - Chapter 5, Jacksonville TSP 
Jacksonville TSP 2030 No-Build 
O R 2 3 8 @ E St ree t 30th Highest Hourly Volume 
> - > - A t A V i V 
Movement E8L EBT EBR WBL WBT •WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT S.BR 
Lane Configurations 4 * 
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 
Volume (veh/h) 20 25 40 0 15 10 45 300 10 15 400 35 
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 24 29 47 0 18 12 50 333 11 17 444 39 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 957 942 464 998 956 339 483 344 
v C l , stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 957 942 464 998 956 339 483 344 
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 
pO queue free % 89 88 92 100 93 98 95 99 
cM capacity (veh/h) 211 247 598 178 243 703 1079 1215 
Direction, Lane # EB 1 W B 1 NB 1 SB 1 
Volume Total 100 29 394 500 
Volume Left 24 0 50 17 
Volume Right 47 12 11 39 
cSH 323 329 1079 1215 
Volume to Capacity 0.31 0.09 0.05 0.01 
Queue Length (ft) 32 7 4 1 
Control Delay (s) 21.0 17.0 1.5 0.4 
Lane LOS C C A A 
Approach Delay (s) 21.0 17.0 1.5 0.4 
Approach LOS C C 
Intersection Summary 
Average Delay 3.3 
Interseciion Capacity Utilization 54.8% ICU Level oi Service A 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametrix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
6/22/2007 
A p p e n d i x G : p.11 
Appendix G - Chapter 5, Jacksonville TSP 
Jacksonvil le TSP 
OR 238 @ 5th Street 
2030 No-Build 
30th Highest Hourly Volume 
t A V I V 
Movement EBL E BT EBR WBL W B T WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL S BT SBR 
Lane Configurations 4> 4 * f f 4* 
Sign Control Yield Slop Stop Stop 
Volume (vph) 210 185 5 10 235 110 0 10 5 65 25 345 
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 
Hourly How rale (vph) 233 206 6 11 261 122 0 11 6 72 28 383 
Direction, Lane # EB 1 W B 1 NB 1 NB.-2 SB 1 
Volume Total (vph) 444 394 11 • 6 483 
Volume Lelt (vph) 233 11 0 0 72 
Volume Right (vph) 6 122 0 6 383 
Hadj (s) O.t -0.1 0.0 -0.7 -0.4 
Departure Headway (s) 6.2 5.7 7.8 7.1 5.8 
Degree Utilization, x 0.76 0.63 0.02 0.01 0.79 
Capacity (veh/h) 561 548 384 421 600 
Control Delay (s) 13.5 11.0 9.7 8.9 13.4 
Approach Delay (s) 13.5 11.0 9.4 13.4 
Approach LOS B B A B 
Intersection Summary 
Delay 
HCM Level of Service 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 
Analysis Period (min) 
12.7 
B 
84.1% 
15 
ICU Level o) Service E 
Parametrix, inc. Synchro 6 Report 
6/22/2007 
A p p e n d i x G: p . 3 
Appendix G - Chapter 5, Jacksonville TSP 
Jacksonville TSP 
California Street @ 6th Street 
2030 No-Build 
30th Highest Hourly Volume 
V V 
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR 
Lane Configurations T> ¥ 
Sign Control Free Free Stop 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 
Volume (veh/h) 10 255 355 60 45 10 
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0,85 
Hourly flow rale (vph) 11 283 394 67 53 12 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed ( f fs ) 
Percent Biockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 461 733 428 
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 461 733 428 
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 
pO queue free % 99 86 98 
cM capacity (veh/h) 1100 384 627 
Direction, Lane fif EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 
Volume Total 294 461 65 
Volume Left 11 0 53 
Volume Right 0 67 12 
cSH 1100 1700 413 
Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.27 0.16 
Queue Length ((t) 1 0 14 
Control Delay (s) 0.4 0.0 15.3 
Lane LOS A C 
Approach Delay (s) 0.4 0.0 15.3 
Approach LOS C 
Intersection Summary 
Average Delay 1.4 
Inlersection Capacity Utilization 32.3% ICU Level of Service A 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametrix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
6/22/2007 
A p p e n d i x G: p . 4 
Appendix G - Chapter 5, Jacksonville TSP 
Jacksonville TSP 
California Street @ 8th Street 
2030 No-Build 
30th Highest Hourly Volume 
> — v V V 
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR 
Lane Configurations 4 V 
Sign Control Free Free Stop 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 
Volume (veh/h) 15 305 415 35 35 5 
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 17 339 461 39 41 6 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (fl/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 500 853 481 
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 500 853 481 
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 
pO queue free % 98 87 99 
cM capacity (veh/h) 1064 324 585 
Direction, Lane it EB 1 W B 1 SB 1 
Volume Total 356 500 47 
Volume Left 17 0 41 
Volume Right 0 39 6 
cSH 1064 1700 344 
Vofume to Capacity 0.02 0.29 0.14 
Queue Length (ft) 1 0 12 
Control Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 17.1 
Lane LOS A C 
Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 17.1 
Approach LOS C 
Intersection Summary 
Average Delay 1.1 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.3% ICU Level of Service A 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Paramet r i , Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
6/22/2007 
A p p e n d i x G ; p . 5 
Appendix G - Chapter 5, Jacksonville TSP 
Jacksonville TSP 
California Street @ Wells Fargo Road 
2030 No-Build 
30th Highest Hourly Volume 
— > — A 
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR 
Lane Configurations t> V 
Sign Control Free Free Stop 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 
Volume (veh/h) 315 15 30 425 15 5 
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 350 17 33 472 18 6 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Righl turn flare (veh) 
Median type None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 367 897 358 
vC I , stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 367 897 358 
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 
pO queue free % 97 94 99 
cM capacity (veh/h) 1192 302 686 
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 
Volume Total 367 506 24 
Volume Left 0 33 18 
Volume Right 17 0 6 
cSH 1700 1192 351 
Volume to Capacity 0.22 0.03 0.07 
Queue Length (ft) 0 2 5 
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.8 16.0 
Lane LOS A C 
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.8 16.0 
Approach LOS C 
Intersection Summary 
Average Delay 0.9 
Intersection Capacily Utilization 54.8% ICU Level of Sen/ice A 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametrix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
6/22/2007 
A p p e n d i x G: p . 6 
Appendix G - Chapter 5, Jacksonville TSP 
Jacksonville TSP 
OR 238 @ 3rd Street 
2030 No-Build 
30th Highes! Hourly Volume 
> — > t A V i V 
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 
Lane Configurations 4> 4* 4» 
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 
Volume (veh/h) 5 320 5 75 460 25 10 0 60 0 0 10 
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.85 
Hourly flow rale (vph) 6 356 6 83 511 28 11 0 67 0 0 12 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 539 361 1073 1075 358 1128 1064 525 
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 539 361 1073 1075 358 1128 1064 525 
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 
pO queue free % 99 93 94 100 90 100 100 98 
cM capacity (veh/h) 1029 1198 183 203 686 155 206 552 
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 
Volume Total 367 622 78 12 
Volume Left 6 83 11 0 
Volume Right 6 28 67 12 
cSH 1029 1198 492 552 
Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.07 0.16 0.02 
Queue Length (ft) 0 6 14 2 
Control Delay (s) 0.2 1.8 13.7 11.7 
Lane LOS A A B B 
Approach Delay (s) 0.2 1.8 13.7 11.7 
Approach LOS B B 
Intersection Summary 
Average Delay 2.2 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.2% ICU Level of Service C 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametrix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
6/22/2007 
A p p e n d i x G: p . 7 
Appendix G - Chapter 5, Jacksonville TSP 
Jacksonville TSP 2030 No-Build 
OR 238 @ Oregon Street 30th Highest Hourly Volume 
T a V j v 
Movement EBL ÈBT E BR W B L WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL S BT SBR 
Lane Configurations ^ 4 * 4* 
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop 
Volume (vph) 55 210 5 75 340 55 5 45 60 60 55 200 
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 61 233 6 83 378 61 6 50 67 67 61 222 
Direction, Lane ft EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 
Volume Total (vph) 300 522 122 350 
Volume Lett (vph) 61 83 6 67 
Volume Right (vph) 6 61 67 222 
Hadi (s) 0.1 0.0 -0.3 •0.3 
Departure Headway (s) 6.5 6.7 7.0 6.4 
Degree Utilization, x 0.55 0.97 0.24 0.62 
Capacity (veh/h) 523 539 457 545 
Control Delay (s) 11.4 21.3 10.6 11.8 
Approach Delay (s) 11.4 21.3 10.6 11.8 
Approach LOS B C B B 
Intersection Summary 
Delay 
HCM Level of Service 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 
Analysis Period (min) 
15.4 
C 
63.5% 
15 
ICU Level ol Sen/ice B 
Parametrix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
6/22/2007 
A p p e n d i x H : p . 9 
Appendix H - Chapter 5, Jacksonville TSP 
Jacksonville TSP 2030 No-Build 
Oregon Street @ F Street 30th Highest Hourly Volume 
< t A V \ 
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT 
Lane Configurations V 
Sign Control Stop Free Free 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 
Volume (veh/h) 45 45 160 5 20 230 
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90 0,90 0.90 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 53 53 178 6 22 256 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 481 181 183 
vC t , stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 481 181 183 
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 
1C, 2 slage (s) 
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 
pO queue free % 90 94 98 
cM capacity (veh/h) 536 862 1392 
Direction, Lane it W B 1 NB 1 SB 1 
Volume Total 106 183 278 
Volume Left 53 0 22 
Volume Right 53 6 0 
cSH 661 1700 1392 
Volume to Capacity 0.16 0.11 0.02 
Queue Length (ft) 14 0 1 
Control Delay (s) 11.5 0.0 0.7 
Lane LOS B A 
Approach Delay (s) 11.5 0.0 0.7 
Approach LOS B 
Intersection Summary 
Average Delay 2.5 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.2% ICU Level of Service A 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametrix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
6/22/2007 
A p p e n d i x G : p.11 
Appendix G - Chapter 5, Jacksonville TSP 
Jacksonville TSP 2030 No-Build 
Oregon Street @ C Street 30th Highest Hourly volume 
> > < - -N t A V 1 V 
Movement EBL EBT E BR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 
Lane Configurations 4* 4* 4* 4* 
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 
Volume (veh/h) 10 15 35 15 15 15 25 125 10 15 260 15 
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 
Hourly llow rate (vph) 12 18 41 18 18 18 28 139 11 17 289 17 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 557 536 297 581 539 144 306 150 
VC1 , stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 557 536 297 581 539 144 306 150 
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF(s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 
pO queue free % 97 96 94 95 96 98 90 99 
cM capacity (veh/h) 408 436 742 379 434 903 1255 1431 
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 
Volume Total 71 53 178 322 
Volume Left 12 18 28 17 
Volume Right 41 18 11 17 
cSH 566 496 1255 1431 
Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.11 0.02 0.01 
Queue Length (ft) 11 9 2 1 
Control Delay (s) 12.3 13.1 1.4 0.5 
Lane LOS B B A A 
Approach Delay (s) 12.3 13.1 1.4 0.5 
Approach LOS B B 
Intersection Summary 
Average Delay 3.2 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.2% ICU Level of Service A 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametrix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
6/22/2007 
A p p e n d i x G: p . 10 
Appendix H - Chapter 5, Jacksonville TSP 
Jacksonville TSP 2030 No-Build 
OR 238 @ Pair-a-Dice Road 30th Highest Hourly Volume 
S - V V 
Movement E8L EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR 
Lane Configurations 4 X* Y 
Sign Control Free Free Stop 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 
Volume (veh/h) 0 220 470 40 30 0 
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 
Hourly tlow rate (vph) 0 244 522 44 35 0 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 567 789 544 
v C l , stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 con! vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 567 789 544 
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 
pO queue free % 100 90 100 
cM capacity (veh/h) 1005 360 539 
Direction, Lane it EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 
Volume Total 244 567 35 
Volume Left 0 0 35 
Volume Right 0 44 0 
cSH 1005 1700 360 
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.33 0.10 
Queue Length (ft) 0 0 8 
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 16.1 
Lane LOS C 
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 16.1 
Approach LOS C 
Intersection Summary 
Average Delay 0.7 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.2% ICU Level of Service A 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametrix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
6/22/2007 
A p p e n d i x G : p . 1 1 
Appendix G - Chapter 5, Jacksonville TSP 
Jacksonville TSP 2030 No-Build 
OR 238 (§> Old OR 238 (Bybee Corner) 30th Highest Hourly Volume 
> < - A 
Movement EBT EBR W B L W B T NBL NBR 
Lane Configurations t ? + \ f 
Sign Control Free Free Stop 
Grade 0% 0 % 0% 
Volume (veh/h) 165 200 70 235 300 120 
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 183 222 78 261 333 133 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) ' 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 406 600 183 
VC1 , stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 406 600 183 
tC, single (s) 4 . 1 6.4 6.2 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF (s ) 2.2 3.5 3.3 
pO queue free % 93 23 84 
cM capacity (veh/h) 1153 433 859 
Direct ion Lane U EB 1 EB 2 W B 1 WB :2 NB1 NB2 
Volume Total 183 222 78 261 333 133 
Volume Left 0 0 78 0 333 0 
Volume Right 0 222 0 0 0 133 
cSH 1700 1700 1153 1700 433 859 
Volume to Capacity 0 . 1 1 0.13 0.07 0.15 0.77 0.16 
Queue Length (ft) 0 0 5 0 165 14 
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 36.2 10.0 
Lane LOS A E A 
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1 . 9 28.7 
Approach LOS D 
Intersection Summary 
Average Delay 11.6 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.2% ICU Level of Service A 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametrix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
6/22/2007 
A p p e n d i x G: p . 1 2 
Appendix H 
2030 Intersection Analysis (Transit/Bike Loss) 
Appendix H - Chapter 5, Jacksonville TSP 
Jacksonville TSP 2030 Modal Cessation 
OR 238 @ Shafer Lane 30th Highest Hourly volume 
> > r A t A V i V 
Movement . EBL EBT EB.R WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT •SBR 
Lane Configurations 4V ? fr 
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 
Volume (veh/h) 5 0 25 10 0 45 30 315 20 40 475 20 
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 6 0 30 12 0 54 34 357 23 45 538 23 
Pedestrians 
Lane Widlh (It) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (It) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 1131 1088 550 1107 1088 368 561 380 
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 1131 1088 550 1107 1088 368 561 380 
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 
IC, 2 stage (s) 
tF(s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 
pO queue free % 96 100 94 93 100 92 97 96 
cM capacity (veh/h) 157 200 535 168 200 677 1010 1179 
Direction, Lane II EB 1 W B 1 W B 2 . NB 1 SB 1 
Volume Total 36 12 54 414 606 
Volume Lefl 6 12 0 34 45 
Volume Right 30 0 54 23 23 
cSH 382 168 677 1010 1179 
Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.03 0.04 
Queue Length (fl) 8 6 6 3 3 
Control Delay (s) 15.4 28.1 10.8 1.1 1.0 
Lane LOS C D B A A 
Approach Delay (s) 15.4 13.9 1.1 1.0 
Approach LOS C B 
Intersection Summary 
Average Delay 2.3 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.3% ICU Level of Sen/ice A 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametrix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
6/22/2007 
A p p e n d i x G : p.11 
Appendix H - Chapter 5, Jacksonville TSP 
Jacksonville TSP 2030 Modal Cessation 
O R 2 3 8 @ E S t r e e t 301h Highest Hourly Volume 
> > f - < A t A V I 
Movement EBL E BT '. EBR WBL WBT .WBR. : NBL NBT; NBR SBL S BT SBR 
Lane Configurations 4» 4> 4* 
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 
Volume (veh/h) 20 25 40 0 15 10 45 300 10 15 400 35 
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 24 30 48 0 18 12 51 340 11 17 453 40 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (tt/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 976 960 473 1018 975 346 493 351 
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 976 960 473 1018 975 346 493 351 
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF(s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 
pO queue free % 88 88 92 100 92 98 95 99 
cM capacity (veh/h) 203 241 591 171 236 697 1071 1207 
Direction, Lane # EB 1. W B 1, NB 1 . SB 1 
Volume Total 102 30 402 510 
Volume Left 24 0 51 17 
Volume Right 48 12 11 40 
cSH 315 321 1071 1207 
Volume lo Capacity 0.32 0.09 0.05 0.01 
Queue Length (ft) 34 8 4 1 
Control Delay (s) 21.8 17.4 1.5 0.4 
Lane LOS C C A A 
Approach Delay (s) 21.8 17.4 1.5 0.4 
Approach LOS C C 
Intersection Summary'. 
Average Delay 3.4 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.7% ICU Level of Service B 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametrix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
6/22/2007 
A p p e n d i x G : p.11 
Appendix H - Chapter 5, Jacksonville TSP 
Jacksonville TSP 2030 Modal Cessation 
OR 238 @ 5th Street 30th Highest Hourly Volume 
> > < A t A V 1 V 
Movement EBL E BT EBR- WBL . WBT WBR . .NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT S8R 
Lane Configurations 4+ t ? 4* 
Sign Control Yield Stop Stop Stop 
Volume (vph) 210 185 5 10 235 110 0 10 5 65 25 345 
Peak Hour Facior 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 238 210 6 11 266 125 0 11 6 74 28 391 
Direction,-Lane # EB.1 WB 1 NB 1 . NB 2 SB 1 
Volume Total (vph) 453 402 11 6 493 
Volume Lei 1 (vph) 238 11 0 0 74 
Volume Right (vph) 6 125 0 6 391 
Hadj (s) 0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.7 -0.4 
Departure Headway (s) 6.3 5.8 7.9 7.2 5.9 
Degree Utilization, x 0.79 0.65 0.02 0.01 0.81 
Capacity (veh/h) 556 546 381 418 595 
Control Delay (s) 14.1 11.3 9.8 9.1 14.0 
Approach Delay (s) 14.1 11.3 9.5 14.0 
Approach LOS B B A B 
Intersection. Summary 
Delay 13.2 
H CM Levei of Service B 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.5% ICU Level of Service E 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parameirix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
6/22/2007 
A p p e n d i x H: p . 3 
Appendix H - Chapter 5, Jacksonville TSP 
Jacksonville TSP 2030 Modal Cessation 
Calitornia Street @ 6 t h Street 30th Highest Hourly Volume 
> - V V 
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR 
Lane Configurations *T 1+ Y 
Sign Control Free Free Stop 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 
Volume (veh/h) 10 255 355 60 45 10 
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 
Hourly ffow rate (vph) 11 289 402 68 54 12 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn ilare (veh) 
Median type None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 470 748 436 
VC1 , stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 470 748 436 
IC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 
pO queue free % 99 86 9 8 
cM capacity (veh/h) 1091 3 7 6 620 
Direction, Lane # EB V W B 1 SB 1 
Volume Total 300 470 66 
Volume Lefl 11 0 54 
Volume Right 0 68 12 
cSH 1091 1700 405 
Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.28 0.16 
Queue Length (ft) 1 0 14 
Control Delay (s) 0.4 0.0 15.6 
Lane LOS A C 
Approach Delay (s) 0 . 4 0.0 15.6 
Approach LOS C 
Intersection Summary 
Average Delay 1.4 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.8% ICU Level of Service A 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametrix, Ine Synchro 6 Report 
6/22/2007 
A p p e n d i x H : p . 4 
Appendix H - Chapter 5, Jacksonville TSP 
Jacksonville TSP 2030 Modal Cessation 
California Street @ 81 h Street 30th Highest Hourly Volume 
> < V V 
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR . 
Lane Configurations 4 Î* Y 
Sign Control Free Free Stop 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 
Volume (veh/h) 15 305 415 35 35 5 
Peak Hour Faclor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 17 346 470 40 42 6 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn Hare (veh) 
Median type None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 510 870 490 
VC1 , stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 510 870 4 9 0 
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 
pO queue free % 9 8 87 99 
cM capacity (veh/h) 1055 3 1 7 578 
Direction, Lane tt . -. EB 1 W B 1 . SB 1 
Volume Total 363 510 4 8 
Volume Left 17 0 42 
Volume Right 0 40 6 
cSH 1055 1700 336 
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.30 0.14 
Queue Length (ft) 1 0 12 
Control Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 17.5 
Lane LOS A C 
Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 17.5 
Approach LOS C 
Intersection Summary 
Average Delay 1.1 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.8% ICU Level of Service A 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametrix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
6/22/2007 
A p p e n d i x G : p.11 
Appendix H - Chapter 5, Jacksonville TSP 
Jacksonville TSP 2030 Modal Cessation 
California Street @ Wells Fargo Road 30th Highest Hourly Volume 
— > r ^ a 
Movement . EBT . EBR WBL W B T NBL NBR 
Lane Configurations 4 V 
Sign Control Free Free Stop 
Grade 0% 0 % 0% 
Volume (veh/h) 315 15 30 425 15 5 
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 357 17 34 482 18 6 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (fi/s) 
Percent 8 lockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 374 915 366 
VC1 , stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 374 915 366 
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF (s ) 2.2 3.5 3.3 
pO queue free % 97 94 99 
cM capacity (veh/h) 1184 294 680 
Direction,.Lane,# EB 1 W B 1 NB 1 
Volume Total 374 516 24 
Volume Lefl 0 34 18 
Volume Right 17 0 6 
cSH 1700 1184 343 
Volume to Capacity 0.22 0.03 0.07 
Queue Length (ft) 0 2 6 
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.8 16.3 
Lane LOS A C 
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.8 16.3 
Approach LOS C 
Intersection Summary 
Average Delay 0.9 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.7% 1CU Level of Service B 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametrix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
6/22/2007 
A p p e n d i x H : p . 6 
Appendix H - Chapter 5, Jacksonville TSP 
Jacksonville TSP 2030 Modal Cessation 
O R 238 @ 3 rd St reet 30lh Highest Hourly Volume 
> - > ^ < Î A W V 
Movement : EBL E BT EBR. WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL S.BT SBR 
Lane Consignations 4 > 4 » 4 » 4 » 
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 
Volume (veh/h) 5 320 5 75 460 25 10 0 60 0 0 10 
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.85 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 6 363 6 85 521 28 11 0 68 0 0 12 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (fl/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 550 368 1094 1096 366 1150 1085 536 
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 
vG2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 550 368 1094 1096 366 1150 1085 536 
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 
pO queue free % 99 93 94 100 90 1 0 0 100 98 
cM capacity (veh/h) 1020 1190 176 197 6 8 0 148 200 545 
Direction, Lane # EB.1 WB 1 NB.1 SB 1 , 
Volume Total 374 635 79 1 2 
Volume Left 6 85 1 1 0 
Volume Right 6 28 68 12 
cSH 1020 1190 483 545 
Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.07 0.16 0.02 
Queue Length (11) 0 6 15 2 
Control Delay (s) 0 . 2 1.9 13.9 11.8 
Lane LOS A A B B 
Approach Delay (s) 0 . 2 1.9 13.9 1 1 . 8 
Approach LOS B B 
Intersection. Summary 
Average Delay 2.3 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.2% ICU Level of Service C 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametrix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
6/22/2007 
A p p e n d i x G : p.11 
Appendix H - Chapter 5, Jacksonville TSP 
Jacksonville TSP 2030 Modal Cessation 
OR 238 @ Oregon street 30th Highest Hourly Volume 
> > < - ^ t V 1 
Movement EBL EBT E BR WBL WBT . WBR NBL NBT NBR SB.L SBT SBR 
Lane Configurations & 4» 4> 4» 
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop 
Volume (vph) 55 210 5 75 340 55 5 45 60 60 55 200 
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 62 238 6 85 385 62 6 51 68 68 62 227 
Direction, Lane # EB 1 W B 1 NB 1 SB 1 
Volume Total (vph) 306 533 125 357 
Volume Left (vph) 62 85 6 68 
Volume Right (vph) 6 62 68 227 
Hadj (s) 0.1 0.0 -0.3 -0.3 
Departure Headway (s) 6.7 6.8 7.2 6.5 
Degree Utilization, x 0.57 1.00 0.25 0.64 
Capacity (veh/h) 519 537 453 539 
Control Delay (s) 11.7 23.6 10.8 12.2 
Approach Delay (s) 11.7 23.6 10.8 12.2 
Approach LOS B C B B 
Intersection Summary -
Delay 16.5 
HCM Level of Service C 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.5% I CU Level of Service C 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametrix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
6/22/2007 
A p p e n d i x G : p.11 
Appendix H - Chapter 5, Jacksonville TSP 
Jacksonville TSP 2030 Modal Cessation 
Oregon Street @ F Street 30th Highest Hourly Volume 
< < t A V I 
Movement WBL WBR -NBT : NBR SBL SBT 
Lane Configurations Y 4 
Sign Control Stop Free Free 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 
Volume (veh/h) 45 45 160 5 20 230 
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 54 54 181 6 23 261 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 490 184 187 
v C l , stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 490 184 187 
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 
pO queue free % 90 94 98 
cM capacity (veh/h) 529 858 1387 
Direction, Lane # W B 1 NB 1 SB 1 
Volume Tola! 108 187 283 
Volume Left 54 0 23 
Volume Right 54 6 0 
cSH 654 1700 1387 
Volume to Capacity 0.17 0.11 0.02 
Queue Length (ft) 15 0 1 
Control Delay (s) 11.6 0.0 0.7 
Lane LOS B A 
Approach Delay (s) 11.6 0.0 0.7 
Approach LOS B 
Intersection Summary 
Average Delay 2.5 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.7% ICU Level ol Service A 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametrix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
6/22/2007 
A p p e n d i x H : p . 9 
Appendix H - Chapter 5, Jacksonville TSP 
Jacksonville TSP 2030 Modal Cessation 
Oregon Street @ C Street 30ih Highest Hourly Volume 
> < - A t A V 1 V 
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT. • NBR SBL SBT SBR 
Lane Configurations 4 * A* 4> 
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 
Volume (veh/h) 10 15 35 15 15 15 25 125 10 15 260 15 
Peak Hour Factor 0-85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0 85 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 12 18 42 18 18 18 28 142 11 17 295 17 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 568 547 303 592 550 147 312 153 
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 568 547 303 592 550 147 312 153 
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 
IC, 2 stage (s) 
1F(s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 
pO queue free % 97 96 94 95 96 98 98 99 
cM capacity (veh/h) 400 429 737 371 428 900 1249 1428 
Direction,'Lane # EB 1. W B 1- NB 1 . SB 1 
Volume Total 72 54 181 329 
Volume Left 12 18 28 17 
Volume Right 42 18 11 17 
cSH 559 488 1249 1428 
Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.11 0.02 0.01 
Queue Lenglh (ft) 11 9 2 1 
Control Delay (s) 12.4 13.3 1.4 0.5 
Lane LOS B B A A 
Approach Delay (s) 12.4 13.3 1.4 0.5 
Approach LOS B B 
Intersection Summary 
Average Delay 3.2 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.6% ICU Level of Service A 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametrix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
6/22/2007 
A p p e n d i x G : p . 1 1 
Appendix H - Chapter 5, Jacksonville TSP 
Jacksonville TSP 2030 Modal Cessation 
OR 238 @ Pair-a-Dice Road 30th Highest Hourly Volume 
> - < V 
Movement EBL . ebt WBT \WBR SBL ,SBR 
Lane Configurations 1+ Y 
Sign Control Free Free Stop 
Grade 0% 0% 0% 
Volume (veh/h) 0 220 470 40 30 0 
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0,85 0,85 
Hourly llow rate (vph) 0 249 533 45 36 0 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 578 805 555 
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 578 805 555 
IC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 
pO queue free % 100 90 100 
cM capacity (veh/h) 996 352 531 
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 .. ; .. ;. .. 
Volume Total 249 578 36 
Volume Left 0 0 36 
Volume Right 0 45 0 
cSH 996 1700 352 
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.34 0.10 
Queue Length (ft) 0 0 8 
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 16.4 
Lane LOS c 
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 Ì6.4 
Approach LOS c 
Intersection Summary 
Average Delay 0.7 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.7% ICU Level of Service A 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametrix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
6/22/2007 
A p p e n d i x H : p . 1 1 
Appendix H - Chapter 5, Jacksonville TSP 
Jacksonville TSP 2030 Modal Cessation 
OR 238 @ Old OR 238 (Bybee Corner) 30th Highest Hourly Volume 
> A A 
Movement EBT, EBR WBL WBT • NBL NBR 
Lane Configurations t ? t r 
Sign Control Free Free Stop 
Grade 0 % 0 % 0 % 
Volume (veh/h) 1 6 5 2 0 0 7 0 2 3 5 3 0 0 1 2 0 
Peak Hour Factor 0 . 9 0 0 . 9 0 0 . 9 0 0 . 9 0 0 . 9 0 0 . 9 0 
Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 8 7 2 2 7 7 9 2 6 6 3 4 0 1 3 6 
Pedestrians 
Lane Width (ft) 
Walking Speed (ft/s) 
Percent Blockage 
Right turn flare (veh) 
Median type None 
Median storage veh) 
Upstream signal (ft) 
pX, platoon unblocked 
vC, conflicting volume 4 1 4 6 1 2 1 8 7 
VC1 , stage 1 conf vol 
vC2, stage 2 cont vol 
vCu, unblocked vol 4 1 4 6 1 2 1 8 7 
tC, single (s) 4.1 6 . 4 6 . 2 
tC, 2 stage (s) 
tF(s) 2 . 2 3 . 5 3 . 3 
pO queue free % 9 3 2 0 8 4 
cM capacity (veh/h) 1 1 4 5 4 2 5 8 5 5 
Direction, Lane it E B 1 . ÉB 2 W B 1 -WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 
Volume Total 1 8 7 2 2 7 7 9 2 6 6 3 4 0 1 3 6 
Volume Lefl 0 0 7 9 0 340 0 
Volume Right 0 2 2 7 0 0 0 136 
cSH 1 7 0 0 1 7 0 0 1145 1 7 0 0 425 855 
Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.13 0 . 0 7 0 . 1 6 0 . 8 0 0 . 1 6 
Queue Length (ft) 0 0 6 0 179 14 
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 39.7 1 0 . 0 
Lane LOS A E B 
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.9 3 1 . 2 
Approach LOS D 
Intersection Summary 
Average Delay 12.6 
Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.8% 1CU Level of Service A 
Analysis Period (min) 15 
Parametrix, Inc. Synchro 6 Report 
6/22/2007 
A p p e n d i x G : p . 1 1 
Appendix I 
Jacksonville Street Design Standards 
a 
V ) 
V 
V i 
Ih 
i s 
0 
f v \ 
r-
4 
S V 
J C A 
¿ o ^ 
o 
\ 
v . 
5 s