D e p a r t m e n t of L a n d C o n s e r v a t i o n and D e v e l o p m e n t 
635 Capitol Street, Suite 150 
Salem, OR 9730 1-2540 
(503) 373-0050 
Fax (503) 378-5518 
www. lc d. s tat e. or. us 
/Bra 
06/25/2012 
TO: Subscribers to Notice of Adopted Plan 
or Land Use Regulation Amendments 
FROM: Plan Amendment Program Specialist 
SUBJECT: City of Hubbard Plan Amendment 
DLCD File Number 001-12 
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. 
Appeal Procedures* 
DLCD ACKNOWLEDGMENT or DEADLINE TO APPEAL: Monday, July 09, 2012 
This amendment was submitted to DLCD for review prior to adoption 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 Acknowledgment or 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 than it was mailed to 
DLCD. As a result, your appeal deadline may be earlier than the above date specified. NO LUBA 
Notification to the jurisdiction of an appeal by the deadline, this Plan Amendment is acknowledged. 
Cc: Suzanne Dufner, City of Hubbard 
Gordon Howard, DLCD Urban Planning Specialist 
Gary Fish, DLCD Transportation Planner 
Angela Lazarean, DLCD Regional Representative 
NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENT 
<paa> YA 
JÜ 5 2 DLCD 
Notice of Adoption 
This Form 2 must be mailed to D L C D within 5-Working Days after the Final 
Ordinance is signed by the public Official Designated by the jurisdiction 
and all other requirements of ORS 197-615 and OAR 660-018-000 
• In person CI electronic O mailed 
DEPT OF 
JUN 1 9 2012 
LAND CONSERVATION 
AND DEVELOPMENT 
F o r O f f i c e I K 0 , i , y 
Jurisdiction: City of Hubbard Local file number. LA 2012-01 
Date of Adoption* 6/12/2012 Date Mailed: 6/18/2012 
Was a Notice of Proposed Amendment (Form 1) mailed to DLCD? H Yes • No Date' 2/14/2012 
• Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment • Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 
Land Use Regulation Amendment Zoning Map Amendment 
CI New Land Use Regulation Other: TSP Amendments 
Summarize the adopted amendment. Do not use technical terms. Do not wriie "See Attached". 
The proposed amendments include the adoption of a new Transportation System Plan and related policy and 
code amendments. The TSP includes the adoption of revised transportation goals and policies, updated 
transportation findings, a Preferred Transportation Plan, a Fiscally Constrained Alternative Plan, and a 
transportation finance plan, Proposed amendments to the Hubbard Development Code, intended to implement 
the updated TSP; include Sections 1.200, 2.200,2.207,2,208, 3 105, and 3.107 
Does the Adoption differ from proposal? Yes, Please explain below: 
Language was added regarding ODOT funding levels (Section 7) and changed Pedestrian Improvement Project 
#19 to Project #20 in the Financially Constrained Alternative. 
Plan Map Changed from to 
Zone Map Changed from: to: 
Location- Acres Involved: 
Specify Density. Previous: New: 
Applicable statewide planning goals: 
1 2 3 - 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 
Was an Exception Adopted? • YES | E I NO 
[ ,;d DLCD receive a Notice of Proposed Amendment 
45-days prior to first evidentiary hearing? Yes No 
If no, do the statewide planning goals apply? • Yes J No 
DLCD File No. 001-12 (19184) [17087] 
If no, did Emergency Circumstances require immediate adoption? • Yes • No 
DLCD file No. 
Please list all affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: 
Local Contact; Suzanne Dufner , City Planner 
Address : M W V C O G , 105 High Street SE 
City: Salem Zip: 97301-
Phone: (503) 540-1616 Extension 
Fax Number : 503-588-6094 
E-mai l Address : sdufner@mwvcog .org 
ADOPTION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 
This Form 2 must be received by DLCD no later than 5 working days after the ordinance has been signed by 
the public official designated by the jurisdiction to sign the approved ordinance(s) 
per ORS 197.615 and OAR Chapter 660. Division 18 
1. This Form 2 must be submitted by local jurisdictions only (not by applicant). 
2. When submitting the adopted amendment, please pi it a completed copy of Form 2 on light green 
p a p e r if avai lable. 
3 Send this Form 2 and one complete paper copy (documents and maps) of the adopted amendment to the 
address below. 
4. Submittal of this "Notice of Adoption must include the final signed ordinance(s), all supporting finding(s), 
exhibit(s) and any other supplementary information (ORS 197.615 ). 
5 Deadline to appeals to LUBA is calculated twenty-one (21) days f rom the receipt (postmark date) by DI.CD 
of the adoption (ORS 197.830 to 197.845 ). 
6. In addition to sending the Form 2 - Notice of Adoption to DLCD. please also remember to notify persons who 
participated in the local hearing and requested notice of the final decision. (ORS 197.615 ). 
7 Submit one complete paper copy via United States Postal Service, Common Carrier or Hand 
Carried to the DLCD Salem Office and stamped v/ith the incoming date stamp. 
8. Please mail the adopted amendment packet to: 
ATTENTION: PLAN A M E N D M E N T SPECIALIST 
D E P A R T M E N T OF LAND CONSERVATION AND D E V E L O P M E N T 
635 CAPITOL STREET NE, SUITE 150 
SALEM, O R E G O N 97301-2540 
9. Need More Copies? Please print forms on 8*4 -1/2x11 green paper only if available. If you have any 
questions or would like assistance, please contact your DLCD regional representative or contact the DLCD 
Salem Office at (503) 373-0050 x238 or e-mail plan.ainendments@state.or.us. 
http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/forms.shtml Updated April 22 ,2011 
Memorandum 
MID-WILLAMETTE VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 
1 0 5 HIGH STREET S. E . SALEM, OREGON 9 7 3 0 1 - 3 6 6 7 
TELEPHONE: (503)588-6177 FAX: (503)588-6094 
TO: Hubbard City Council 
FROM: Suzanne Dufner, City Planner 
RE: Ordinance 324-2012 - Transportation System Plan 
DATE: June 1 ,2012 
On May 8, 2012, the Council held a public hearing to consider adopting an updated 
Transportation System Plan and related amendments to the Hubbard Development Code 
(Legislative Amendment 2012-01). At the close of the public hearing, the Council directed staff 
to prepare an ordinance to adopt the updated TSP and related code amendments with the 
following changes: 
• Pg. 28, Fig. 3.3 replace Truck Route map, 
• Pg. 38, Table 3.2 update Woodburn transit schedule, 
• Pg. 124, Table 6.9 delete Pedestrian Improvement Project #19 (D Street sidewalks over 
railroad) in the Financially Constrained Alternative Plan and replace it with Project #20 
(OR 99E/G Street pedestrian crossing), and 
• Pg. 125, Table 6.11 update the Financially Constrained Transportation Improvement 
Costs. 
The changes noted above have been incorporated into the revised TSP document attached as 
Exhibit A to Ordinance 324-2012. 
Memorandum 
MID-WILLAMETTE VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 
1 0 5 HIGH STREETS. E. SALEM, OREGON 9 7 3 0 1 - 3 6 6 7 
TELEPHONE: (503)588-6177 FAX: (503)588-6094 
TO: Hubbard City Council 
FROM: Suzanne Dufner, City Planner 
RE: Legislative Amendment 2012-01 - Transportation System Plan Update 
DATE: April 30, 2012 
Background 
In 2010, the City of Hubbard obtained a Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Grant from the 
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to update the Hubbard Transportation System Plan (TSP). 
Since the grant was awarded, City staff and the project consultant have been working with the Planning 
Commission and the Project Advisory Committee (PAC) to update the Hubbard TSP, The Planning 
Commission and the PAC reviewed updates to the TSP during a series of work meetings held over the 
last nine (9) months. The planning process for the TSP update also included a Community Workshop that 
was held on July 18, 2011 and a public opinion survey that was conducted in November. The purpose of 
the Community Workshop and survey was to obtain public input on the updated TSP and list of 
transportation improvement projects. 
On February 21, 2012, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint work session on the 
Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update. The work session included a review of the key findings found 
in the updated TSP, in addition to a review of the draft Transportation Systems Development Charges 
(TSDC) needed to help fund transportation improvement projects identified in the TSP. 
On April 17, 2012, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider adoption of the updated 
TSP and related code amendments (Legislative Amendment 2012-01 attached). Upon close of the public 
hearing, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt the updated TSP and related 
amendments to the Hubbard Development Code. 
On May 8, 2012, the Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing to consider adopting Legislative 
Amendment 2012-01. A public hearing to consider adopting the new TSDC ordinance is scheduled for 
June 12, 2012. 
Overview of the Updated TSP 
The updated TSP includes revised transportation goals and policies; existing and future conditions 
findings; an alternatives analysis to address the transportation system deficiencies; preferred and 
1 
financially constrained transportation system plans, and a transportation finance plan. An overview of the 
main results of the updated TSP is provided as follows: 
- Transportation Goals and Policies - The updated TSP includes nine (9) transportation goals that 
address all modes of transportation found in Hubbard including: street network, rail, bicycle, pedestrian 
and public transit. The goals include developing a safe and efficient street system that can handle future 
traffic demands; minimizing the negative impacts of the rail system with adjacent land uses; providing 
safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian facilities; and ensuring all Hubbard residents have access to 
a regionally coordinated public transit system. The transportation goals are further defined and 
supported by specific transportation policies. 
- The updated TSP includes a Transportation System Inventory, which includes an updated inventory of 
the various modes of transportation (e.g. streets, pedestrian, bicycle, public transit, rail, air, water and 
pipeline systems). The results of the inventory help inform and identify transportation needs and 
deficiencies in the Existing and Future Conditions analysis. 
- The Existing and Future Conditions analysis identifies deficiencies in the city's transportation system 
for the roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, transit, rail, air, water and pipeline/transmission modes of 
transportation. Roadway deficiencies identified include: many roadways do not meet the existing street 
design standards or access spacing standards; the 1999 TSP does not identify the needed transportation 
facilities in recent UGB expansion areas; and D and G Street intersections on Pacific Highway 99E will 
exceed ODOT performance standards in the future. 
Bicycle and pedestrian deficiencies include: there are no bicycle lanes in the city, and many streets do 
not have sidewalks. Rail crossing opportunities are restricted and there are no grade separated crossings 
of the Union Pacific railroad in Hubbard. These conditions impede emergency response capabilities 
and focuses traffic on a limited number of roadway segments. 
- The Alternatives Analysis includes a review and evaluation of alternatives to address the transportation 
system deficiencies identified in the Existing and Future Conditions analysis. The Alternatives 
Analysis focuses on the review of five alternatives to determine the appropriate cross section of Pacific 
Highway 99E through Hubbard needed to meet future demand. The five alternatives include: (1) 
Extending the 3-lane cross section north from D Street to the UGB; (2) Extending the 3-lane cross 
section north from D Street to the UGB and adding a traffic signal at OR 99E/G Street; (3) Constructing 
a 5-lane cross section through the entire length of Hubbard; (4) Extending the 3-lane cross section north 
from D Street to the UGB and constructing a 5-lane cross section between D and G streets; and (5) 
Extending the 3-lane cross section north from D Street to the UGB and constructing a southbound 
through/right-turn lane between A Street and Schmidt Lane. 
The total costs to address the deficiencies identified on OR 99E range from approximately $1.4 million 
for Alternative 1 to $6.1 million for Alternative 31. Additional right-of-way would need to be 
purchased under Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 to accommodate sidewalks, bike lanes and landscaping. In 
addition, the 100 foot right-of-way needed for Alternatives 3 and 4 will likely impact multiple 
structures. 
- The Preferred Transportation Plan includes all of the roadway, pedestrian, bicycle and transit 
improvements needed to address the city's transportation deficiencies and meet the city's transportation 
goals. The projects are categorized as high, medium, and low priority based on how they will meet the 
city's needs and the potential order in which they should be pursued. The Preferred Plan includes all 
' Costs for r ight -of -way acquisition are not included in the planning level cost estimates. 
2 
of the roadway improvements needed to construct a 5-lane cross section on OR 99E in the future; 
completing missing sidewalk segments on arterials and collector roadways in Hubbard; installing 
crosswalks at A and G on OR 99E; constructing a multi-use path along Mill Creek; installing bike lanes 
and shared roadway facilities on major roadways; constructing a bus pull-out and transit shelter; and 
conducting a grade-separated rail crossing feasibility study in the vicinity of Schmidt Lane. The total 
estimated cost to implement the transportation improvements identified in the Preferred Plan is $14 
million. With a future transportation funding forecast of $6 million, there is a funding gap of 
approximately $8 million between the Preferred Plan and the future transportation funding forecast. 
- The Financially Constrained Alternative further prioritizes transportation improvement projects 
identified in the Preferred Transportation Plan, upon considering forecasted funds for future 
transportation improvements. The Financially Constrained Alternative includes all of the high priority 
roadway improvements (provide center turn lane on OR 99E from D Street to north UGB and construct 
southbound through/right turn lane). Fifteen of the pedestrian improvement projects are recommended 
for inclusion in the Financially Constrained Alternative (see Attachment 1, Table 9), and one bicycle 
improvement project to install bike lanes on OR 99E. The estimated cost of the transportation 
improvements contained in the Financially Constrained Alternative fit within the future transportation 
funding forecast of $6 million. 
- Additional elements found in the Preferred and Financially Constrained Plans Section includes: 
updated Roadway Functional Classification and Future Street Plan maps, updated street design and 
access management standards. 
- The Transportation Finance Program provides an overview of existing and anticipated funding 
sources and identifies additional strategies for funding capital projects. 
The TSP update also includes amendments to the Hubbard Development Code that are intended to 
implement the updated TSP. Amendments are proposed to the following sections of the Hubbard 
Development Code (See Exhibit 2.): 
- 1.200 (Definitions), 2.200 (Street Standards), 2.207 (Site and Landscaping Design), 2.208 
(Development Standards for Land Divisions), 3.105 (Site Development Review) and 3.107 
(Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments). 
City Council Action 
A. Move to approve Legislative Amendment 2012-01 and direct staff to prepare an ordinance to 
adopt the proposed amendments: 
1. As recommended by the Planning Commission or, 
2. As recommended by the Planning Commission with modifications by the City Council (state 
revisions). 
B. Continue the public hearing: 
1. To a time certain, or 
2. Indefinitely. 
C. Close the public hearing and take no action on the proposed amendments. 
Exhibits: 1. 2012 Hubbard Transportation System Plan 2. Proposed Amendments to the Hubbard Development Code 
3 
ORDINANCE 324-2012 
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE HUBBARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION 
ELEMENT AND THE HUBBARD DEVELOPMENT CODE, REPEALING ORDINANCE 229-2000, 
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY 
WHEREAS, the City of Hubbard deemed it necessary to update the Hubbard Transportation System Plan 
and the Hubbard Development Code to comply with requirements of Oregon Administrative Rules, 
Chapter 660, Division 12; and 
WHEREAS, the Hubbard Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the 
City of Hubbard Transportation Systems Plan and the Hubbard Development Code on April 17, 2012 at 
which time the public was given full opportunity to be present and heard on the matter; 
WHEREAS, the Hubbard City Council held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the City of 
Hubbard Transportation System Plan and the Hubbard Development Code on May 8, 2012, at which time 
the public was given full opportunity to be present and heard on the matter; and 
WHEREAS, notice of the said public hearings was duly given to the public; 
NOW THEREFORE THE CITY OF HUBBARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: 
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Hubbard does hereby adopt the Hubbard Transportation 
System Plan and related Development Code amendments attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 
Section 2. The City Council for the City of Hubbard deems and desires it necessary for the preservation 
of the health, peace and safety of the City of Hubbard that this Ordinance take effect at once, and 
therefore, an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect 
from and after its passage and approval. 
Section 3. Ordinance No. 229-2000 is hereby repealed. 
PASSED and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hubbard on this 12th day of June, 2012,. 
by the following votes: 
AYES: 3 _ 
HUBBARD 
Transportat on System Plan 
Hubbard, Oregon 
Prepared For: 
The City of Hubbard 
3720 2nd Street - P O Box 380 
Hubbard, Oregon 97032 
(503) 981-963? 
Prepared By: 
Mid-Willamette 
Council of Governments 
105 High Street SE 
Salem, Oregon 97301 
(503) 588-6177 
Susan Wright, PE and Jessica Horning 
Kittelson & Associates, Inc 
610 SW Alder, Suite 700 
Portland, OR 97205 
(503) 228-5230 
This project is partially funded by a grant from the Transportation and Growth 
Management (TGM) Program, a joint program of the Oregon Department of 
Transportation (ODOT) and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation (DLCD) and 
Development. This TGM grant is financed, in part, by federal Safe Accountable Fie ble 
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), local 
government, and the State of Oregon funds. The contents of this document do not 
necessarily reflect views or policies of the State of Oregon. 
May 2012 
EXHIBIT "A1 — ~— 
Acknowledgments 
The following people are acknowledged for their contributions to the development of this 
Transportation System Plan: 
Project Advisory Committee 
Lucy Astorga, Administrative Assistant, City of Hubbard 
Todd Chase, FCS Group 
Chief Dave Dryden, Hubbard Police Department 
Suzanne Dufner, Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments 
Jaime Estrada, Public Works Superintendent, City of Hubbard 
Dan Fricke, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Region 2 
Michael "Swede" Hays, Rail Division, ODOT 
Jessica Horning, Kittelson & Associates 
Eliseo Lemus, Roadway Design Unit, ODOT 
Vickie Nogle, Director of Administration/City Recorder, City of Hubbard 
Karen Odenthal, Marion County Public Works, Transportation Division 
Melinda Olinger, Public Works, City of Hubbard 
Brandon Reich, Marion County Public Works, Planning Division 
Dorothy J. Upton, Transportation Planning Analysis Unit, ODOT 
Susan Wright, P.E., Kittelson & Associates 
Naomi Zwerdling, Oregon Department of Transportation, TGM 
City of Hubbard Planning Commission 
Dan Estes 
Glenn Holum 
Nathan Hurst 
Melodie Rice 
Brad Williams 
City of Hubbard City Council 
Tom McCain, Mayor 
Chip Enbody 
Matt Kennedy 
Bruce Warner 
Angie Wheatcroft 
EXHIBIT "A1 — ~— 
Table of Contents 
Page 
Introduction 8 
Transportation Goals and Policies 14 
Transportation Inventory 20 
Existing and Future Conditions 44 
Alternatives Analysis 74 
Preferred Plan and Financially Constrained Alternative 110 
Implementation of the Transportation System Plan 134 
Glossary 140 
References 146 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 Vi 
EXHIBIT "A" 
List of Figures 
Figure Page 
1.1 Comprehensive Plan Map 10 
1.2 Zoning Map 11 
3.1 Hubbard Road Network and Existing Functional Classification. 23 
3.2 Street Functional Classifications 25 
3.3 Hubbard Truck Route 28 
3.4 Existing Sidewalk Locations 31 
3.5 Existing Bicycle Facilities 34 
3.6 City of Hubbard Mode of Transportation - 1990, 2000 37 
3.7 Map of Canby Area Transit Service Routes 39 
3.8 Oregon Railroad (near Hubbard area) 41 
4.1 Study Intersection Locations 49 
4.2 Lane Configuration 50 
4.3 Average Daily Traffic (OR 99E and D Street) 51 
4.4 2010 Existing Traffic Operations, PM Peak Hour 52 
4.5 2035 No-Build Traffic Operations, PM Peak Hour 61 
5.1 OR 99E Alternative 1: Extend 3-Lane Cross Section 77 
5.2 OR 99E Alternative 2: Extend 3-Lane Cross Section and Add 
Signal 81 
5.3 OR 99E Alternative 3: Adopt 5-Lane Cross Section 85 
5.4 OR 99E Alternative 4: 5-Lane Cross Section Between D and 
G Street 88 
5.5 OR 99E Alternative 5:4-Lane Cross Section Between A Street 
and Schmidt Lane 91 
5.6 Railroad Overpass Evaluation 100 
5.7 Priority Pedestrian Improvements 103 
5.8 Bicycle Network Improvements 106 
5.9 Right-of-Way Needs 108 
6.1 Preferred Plan Improvements 113 
6.2 Financially Constrained Alternative 122 
6.3 Future Street Plan 127 
6.4 Street Cross Section Standards 129 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 iii 
EXHIBIT "A" 
List of Tables 
Table Page 
3.1 Existing Road Network: Allocation by Functional Classification 26 
3.2 Summary of Public Transportation Services in the Hubbard Area... 38 
3.3 CARTS Fares for Route #10 (May 2011) 40 
4.1 Jurisdictional Responsibilities 46 
4.2 Existing Hubbard Street Design Standards 47 
4.3 Existing ODOT Rural Arterial Design Standards 47 
4.4 Access Spacing Standards 48 
4.5 Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Analysis Results 54 
4.6 Queue Length analysis (2010) 55 
4.7 Crash Analysis Summary (2005-2009) 57 
4.8 Intersection Crash Type and Severity (2005-2009) 58 
4.9 Employment Growth Projections (2004-2035) 59 
4.10 Population and Housing Growth Projections (2008-2035) 59 
4.11 Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Analysis Results 
(2035) 6 2 
4.12 Queue Length Analysis (2035) 63 
4.13 Past Transportation Project Funding 71 
4.14 Future Transportation Project Funding 72 
5.1 Alternative 1 (Extend 3-Lane Cross Section) Operational Analysis 
Results (2035) 7 6 
5.2 Alternative 1 (Extend 3-Lane Cross Section) Queue Length 
Analysis (2035) 7 8 
5.3 Alternative 2 (Extend 3-Lane Cross Section and Add Signal) 
Operational Analysis Results (2035) jg 
5.4 Alternative 2 Queue Length Analysis (2035) 82 
5.5 Alternative 3 (5-Lane Cross Section Throughout Hubbard) 
Operational Analysis Results (2035) 84 
5.6 Alternative 3 Queue Length Analysis (2035) 86 
5.7 Alternative 4 (5-Lane Cross Section Between D and G Street) 
Operational Analysis Results (2035) 87 
5.8 Alternative 4 Queue Length Analysis (2035) 89 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 iii 
EXHIBIT "A" 
5.9 Alternative 5 (4-Lane Cross Section Between A Street and 
Schmidt Lane) Operational Analysis Results (2035) go 
5.10 Alternative 5 Queue Length Analysis (2035) 92 
5.11 OR 99E Improvements Planning Level Cost Estimate 93 
5.12 Existing Hubbard Street Design Standards 96 
5.13 Existing ODOT Rural Arterial Design Standards 96 
5.14 Revised Street Design Standards 98 
5.15 Pedestrian Improvements Cost Estimate 104 
5.16 Bicycle Network Improvements Cost Estimate 105 
5.17 Total Planning Level Transportation Improvements Costs 109 
5.18 Future Transportation Program Funding 109 
6.1 Preferred Plan Roadway Improvements 115 
6.2 Preferred Plan Pedestrian Improvements 116 
6.3 Preferred Plan Bicycle Improvements 118 
6.4 Preferred Plan Transit Improvements 119 
6.5 Preferred Plan Railroad Improvements 119 
6.6 Planning Level Transportation Improvement Costs (Preferred 
Plan) 120 
6.7 Forecast Future Transportation Funding 120 
6.8 Financially Constrained Alternative Roadway Improvements 123 
6.9 Financially Constrained Alternative Pedestrian Improvements 124 
6.10 Financially Constrained Alternative Bicycle Improvements 125 
6.11 Financially Constrained Planning Level Transportation 
Improvement Costs 125 
6.12 Street Design Standards 130 
6.13 Hubbard Access Management Standards 131 
7.1 Forecast Future Transportation Funding 133 
7.2 Total Planning Level Transportation Improvement Costs 
(Preferred Plan) 134 
7.3 Financially Constrained Planning Level Transportation 
Improvement Costs 134 
7.4 Existing and Potential Transportation Funding Sources 135 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
Appendices 
(See Appendix Document) 
A. Plans, Policies and Standards Review 
B. Roadway Inventory 
C. Public Transportation Routes and Schedules 
D. Traffic Counts 
E. Methodology Memo 
F. 2010 Existing Operations and Queuing Analysis Worksheets 
G. ODOT Crash Data 
H. Critical Crash Rate Calculations 
I. 2035 No-Build Operations and Queuing Analysis Worksheets 
J. 2035 Preliminary Signal Warrants 
K. Alternative 1 Operations and Queuing Analysis Worksheets 
L. Alternative 2 Operations and Queuing Analysis Worksheets 
M. Alternative 3 Operations and Queuing Analysis Worksheets 
N. Alternative 4 Operations and Queuing Analysis Worksheets 
O. Alternative 5 Operations and Queuing Analysis Worksheets 
P. Cost Estimate Worksheets 
Q. Right-of-Way Needs 
R. Project Prospectus Sheets 
S. Existing and Potential Funding Sources Memorandum 
T. TSP Survey Results 
U. TSDC Update 
V. TSP Code Amendments 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 Vi 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Section 1 
Introduction 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 Vi 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Introduction 
The Hubbard Transportation System Plan (TSP) establishes the City's 
goals, policies and strategies for developing and improving the 
transportation system within the Hubbard Urban Growth Boundary. 
The Hubbard TSP serves as a twenty-year plan to guide transportation 
improvements and enhance overall mobility for vehicles, pedestrians 
and bicyclists throughout the city. 
The purpose of a TSP is to identify a system of transportation facilities 
and services that will provide for local transportation needs and meet 
state and federal transportation planning requirements. 
The TSP serves as an important tool for local officials to make 
informed transportation investments and sound land use decisions, as 
well as allow for protections of right-of-way needed for planned 
transportation improvements'. 
A glossary of transportation terms and acronyms is provided at the end 
of this document. 
Transportation System Planning Requirements 
The Hubbard TSP was developed in accordance with the 
requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 12 - Transportation and the 
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR - OAR 660, Division 12). The 
purpose of Statewide Planning Goal 12 (Transportation) is "to provide 
and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation 
system." 
Statewide Planning Goal 12 is implemented through the Oregon 
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), which requires local governments 
and state agencies to prepare and adopt TSPs. A TSP is defined as 
"a plan for one or more transportation facilities that are planned, 
developed, operated and maintained in a coordinated manner to 
supply continuity of movement between modes, and within and 
between geographic and jurisdictional areas." The TPR encourages 
multi-modal transportation systems to reduce the dependence on auto 
traffic. 
Benefits of a well-planned 
transportation system: 
• Affords residents, businesses, 
and visitors alike, convenient 
and efficient mobility 
throughout the community in 
a safe manner. 
• Encourages economic 
development, in terms of 
both direct construction 
spending, and helping 
reduce the costs of 
transporting goods and 
service through an efficient 
transportation system. 
• Provides individuals and 
households greater choice 
and freedom to access the 
transportation system in 
many different ways. 
• Influences the character and 
appearance of the 
community through the 
design and development of 
transportation facilities. 
Statewide Planning Goal 12 and the TPR provide the following guidelines for developing a TSP: 
"A transportation plan shall (1) consider all modes of transportation including mass transit, air, water, 
pipeline, rail, highway, bicycle and pedestrian; (2) be based upon an inventory of local, regional, and state 
transportation needs; (3) consider the difference in social consequences that would result from utilizing 
differing combinations of transportation modes; (4) avoid principal reliance upon any one mode of 
transportation; (5) minimize adverse social, economic and environmental impacts and costs; (6) conserve 
energy; (7) meet the needs of the transportation disadvantaged by improving transportation services; (8) 
facilitate the flow of goods and services so as to strengthen the local and regional economy; and (9) 
conform with local and regional comprehensive land use plans." 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
Figure 1.1 Comprehensive Plan Map 
l i f i n f o n n i t i o n conitlnr-d hrrr in is proviürd t V «nd 
VSiLhout n p n « n U t J o n o r w i r r « i | . t x p ^ or ü u p l i c d . 
wi th t v ß i r d lu th-f <u.r u n t y thrrrof . Thf Cih- of H a b b i n J 
»fcvJI o o l bc l U b l i for *rrj ( U t t u g n , « o n w q o n t t U J or 
o t h r r w h « , not f o r l a b i p r o f f c o r w r i U n g s of any toft «nd 
doe» niH npmtox Hut tbis p r u d u f l is fH for Any p j t l k uUr 
wir or p u r p « * . 1 H * owtr of tbis jvroduii o v « it his o r h w 
voll« tfck. 
B Public Use 
{ Low OensKy Res iden t» } ( R l ) 
Med ium Densi ty Res ident ia l (R; 
High Dens i ty Res ident ia l <R3} 
Urban Growth Bounda ry 
Ci ty L im i ts 
I B Commerc ia l 
lr>dustnol 
( J Outside City ü m i t s / U G B 
P i e « « Noie; 4253 & 4 3 1 5 
£ 3rd Sirret are w w n t l y part 
of Barfntfcw Park 
CITY OF HUBBARI» 
- Comprehensive Plan 
Population 3140 
C R E A T E D " >1 M f E R 
F l r b b a r d P u b l i c Y V o r f c s 
Lust Revised: A p r i l . 2 0 1 • 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 Vi 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Figure 1-2 Zoning Map 
/ f Legend 
uram cmti bonari 
Q Gommsta 0 
I \ OUW*C«rUnfWJQB MMII CD P««Op»Sp*» 
Q iwDrw/ftHair^fni) Q Mutt« Cmrwa* g j unwi TtwJtan F*m 
• f [ J H^Mjr«acOwaja»» O « w n i » * " 
0 r*g* DmiMocBi ^i O 
) h» £nl44tnuK<nt i (Muiiml Km-in k prnrilW "•« W «li 
tViAoM try rfpM'wntJtiwi *r «r*mnty. m fwplird. 
- Willi >rft*\i to 4u- «KUWI txrtroi. 7ljr City «f HwMwird 
ilvll m>4 b* lublr fat it » m n , iwMpratiil or 
i in, Mr far toa pttfilt « Timmfti of jay »«a* -uni 
i'wi i»3t «r^ ipw^ wt ftwl It»»« ffrtdurt ir fk for am particular 
tin«- t* pt*r$n5i?. Ihr D>ir»of ft)f .prwJi*1iL»riH<U Jil, otter 
CITY OF HUBB ARD 
- Zoning/ Ad dress Map -
Population 5140 
CREATED BY: M.OUNGER 
KtibbanI Public Wor t* 
L l i Revised: April. «Oil 
* MJbASe NOT*. &ml*( «ksfeaatkma 
cw.'Jt ti* Gey Lkaite are muMiioej 
by Marion Cwatt wdt r tpwiW 
v i nurtMy otijy. 
• HXAaXOTt: 4KS3 *4U9 
s u i M m i Me eum*tly p e n 
trSAiKMibtftrk. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 Vi 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Development of the Transportation System Plan 
Since the TSP was adopted by the City in 1999, Hubbard has experienced significant population and employment 
growth, which have resulted in a number of changes to the City's transportation system. The 2012 TSP update 
was initiated in response to recent population and employment changes, and to ensure the transportation system 
can adequately meet the City's needs through the year 2035. The 2012 TSP update was also initiated to address 
key transportation issues identified by the community. Key transportation issues that were identified by the 
community and addressed as part of the 2012 TSP update include the following: 
• UGB Expansion Areas - identify needed system improvements to serve these areas that provides for a 
safe and efficient multi-modal transportation network. 
• Local Street Network Plan - incorporate work done to date to provide well connected, safe and efficient 
local street network to serve the entire community as it continues to grow. 
• Street Functional Classifications and Sections - review all classifications and sections, including street 
width and sidewalk requirements, to ensure they match the needs of the community and provide for 
adequate pedestrian facilities. Work with the ODOT to evaluate transportation improvements needed to 
preserve and enhance the "through movement" of OR 99E. Also work with ODOT to resolve conflicting 
street standards (3-lane versus 5-land section) on OR 99E to provide coordinated and consistent street 
improvements. 
• Bicycle and Pedestrian elements -identify and provide detailed project descriptions and cost estimates 
for an improved system of pedestrian and bicycle routes, including the tie-in to the regional trail system. 
• Transportation Demand Management - identify Transportation Demand Management measures such as 
park and ride facilities and rideshare programs to help reduce emissions from single occupancy vehicles. 
• Rail Crossings - review rail crossing needs with the ODOT Rail Program and update as necessary to 
improve safety of the rail crossing areas. Review the feasibility of having a rail crossing at "J" Street. 
• Capital Improvement Program - update and prioritize list of transportation improvement projects, 
including cost estimates, to guide future transportation investments. Create an effective finance program 
for planned improvements, including the update of the TSDC for adoption. 
• Consistency of TSP Update with other City Documents - Update the applicable sections of the 1999 TSP 
and other applicable City documents to provide for safe, efficient and multi-modal transportation network. 
Planning Area 
The planning area for the Hubbard TSP update is the Hubbard Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The City of 
Hubbard is located in the north central part of the Willamette Valley, a broad lowland area lying between the Coast 
Range and Cascade Mountains in western Oregon. According to the most recent population estimates about 
3,180 people reside in the City of Hubbard (PSU, 2011). Hubbard lies less than one (1) mile north of Woodburn, 
about 20 miles north of Salem, and 28 miles south of Portland. 
Hubbard is one of the many small towns in the Willamette Valley that sprang up along the railroads built in the late 
1860s and 1870s. The first platted streets in Hubbard ran parallel and perpendicular to the railroad. The 
surrounding diverse and productive agriculture was traditionally the mainstay of the local economy. Due in part to 
growing urban centers in Salem and Portland, Hubbard's economy has become more diversified within the last 
ten to twenty years. The City has a small commercia! core in the center of town along Pacific Highway 99E and 
the railroad and an industrial area in the southeast portion of the city. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
Government entities with roadway jurisdiction within the Hubbard UGB include: the City of Hubbard, Marion 
County and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). ODOT has jurisdiction over Pacific Highway 99E, 
which runs in a northeast-southwest orientation through Hubbard, parallel the Union Pacific Railroad. 
Maps of the current Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations within the planning area are shown in Figures 
1-1 and 1-2 
Planning Process 
The 2012 TSP update was prepared with assistance from a Project 
Advisory Committee (TAC), which included members of the Hubbard 
Planning Commission. The PAC consisted of representatives from the 
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Hubbard City staff, 
Hubbard City Council, Marion County Public Works Department, and 
project consultant staff from Kittelson and Associates, and the Mid-
Willamette Valley Council of Governments 
The PAC reviewed updates to the TSP through a series of committee 
meetings held over nine 
(9) months. Updates 
were also provided 
periooically throughout the 
project to the City Council. -
A Community Workshop 
open to the public was 
held on July 18, 2011 to ^ 
obtain feedback on the 
Transportation System Plan update and to help develop the 
preferred Transportation Plan. A public opinion survey was also 
conducted in November 2011 in order to help prioritize the list of 
transportation project improvements (See Appendix T). 
Puture 
Key elements of the planning process for the TSP update include: 
• A review of existing plans, policies and standards (See Appendix A), 
• An update of the City's transportation goals, objectives and policies. 
• An updated inventory of the transportation system, 
• An evaluation of the existing and future transportation system and the laentincation of transportation 
needs and deficiencies 
• The development and evaluation of alternatives to address the City's future transportation needs and 
deficiencies, 
• The development of a preferred plan and financially constrained alternative, and 
• The development of policy and code revisions to implement the transportation system plan. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
Section 2 
Transportation Goals 
and 
Policies 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 iii 
EXHIBIT "A" 
TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND POLICES 
The Transportation Goals and Policies section of the City of Hubbard Transportation System Plan (TSP) 
provide the overall guidance for the future development of the transportation system. 
The following goals and policies were developed based upon a review and update of the 1999 City of 
Hubbard Transportation System Plan. The City's transportation goals and policies address key transportation 
issues identified by the community and requirements of the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The 
following transportation goals and policies were also used during the TSP planning process to evaluate the 
transportation alternatives, select a recommended alternative and prioritize future transportation 
improvements. 
Goals and policies were developed for each of the major transportation modes found in Hubbard: 1) Street 
Network, 2) Rail, 3) Bicycle, 4) Pedestrian, and 5) Public Transit. 
STREET NETWORK 
Goals: 
1) To encourage safe, efficient, convenient, and economic modes of travel that reduces 
reliance upon one form of transportation, minimizes energy consumption and air 
quality impacts. 
2) To develop a safe and efficient street system which will handle the projected needs of 
the community and provide connections to the region. 
Policies: 
1) Support efforts to plan for and construct additional I-5 interchange improvements in the 
north Marion County region. 
2) The designated existing and future major and minor arterials, and collector streets in the 
Street Network Plan of the Hubbard Transportation System Plan will be used to 
prioritize street maintenance and guide the location and design of new streets. 
3) Protect the function of the existing and planned roadways by application of appropriate 
setbacks, land use regulations, exactions, and voluntary dedication. 
4) All development proposals, plan amendments, or zone changes will conform with the 
Hubbard Transportation System Plan. 
5) Consider impacts on existing or planned transportation facilities in all land use decisions. 
6) Work with the Oregon Department of Transportation and property owners to maximize 
safe access to Pacific Hwy. 99E. 
7) Coordinate with the Oregon Department of Transportation and Marion County Public 
Works to implement the improvements listed in the Hubbard Transportation System 
Plan. 
8) Continue to update the Capital Improvement Program to identify, prioritize, and 
construct transportation projects. All sources of funding shall be considered. 
9) Consider the future street network and the land priority system for expanding an urban 
growth boundary (UGB) found in Oregon Revised Statutes 197.298, when evaluating 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 iii 
EXHIBIT "A" 
the need to expand the UGB and the location of the expansion. Construction of the east 
perimeter road to improve circulation and connectivity in east Hubbard will require an 
expansion of the UGB in that area. 
10) Support efforts to plan for and improve safety along the Pacific Hwy. 99E corridor. 
11) Use information in the Transportation System Plan and other sources to evaluate the 
existing System Development Charge for transportation and other sources of local, 
state, and federal funding. 
12) Land uses authorized under Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendments 
must be consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level of service of 
transportation facilities. 
13) Coordinate with the Oregon Department of Transportation regarding transportation 
improvement projects on Pacific Highway 99E that may potentially reduce vehicle-
carrying capacity of the highway to ensure compliance with Oregon Revised Statutes 
366.215. 
RAIL TRANSPORTATION 
Goal: To minimize the rail system's negative impacts on other components of the 
transportation system, adjacent land uses, and quality of life in Hubbard. 
Policies: 
1) Locate protected railroad crossings in a manner that maximizes efficient connection to 
the intra-county road network, timely response to emergencies, and efficient circulation 
and connectivity of the local street network. 
2) Retain existing railroad crossings in Hubbard and ensure that safety measures offer the 
highest level of protection. 
3) Work with the railroad to develop screens that minimize the visual and sound impacts of 
rail traffic. 
4) Support efforts to work with ODOT, the railroads, and emergency response providers to 
minimize the risk of freight and passenger rail crashes and prepare for response to 
crashes where hazardous materials are released or large number of injuries occur. 
5) Continue to zone land adjacent to the railroad for industrial or commercial use and 
minimize the amount of land adjacent to the railroad zoned for residential use. 
6) Work with the railroad and Oregon Department of Transportation to install pedestrian 
facilities on both sides of the street across existing railroad crossings. 
7) Consider conducting a study to determine the feasibility of constructing a grade-
separated rail crossing in the vicinity of Schmidt Lane. 
Goal: To positively encourage a land use pattern which will maximize the use of rail-
based systems or preserve the future opportunity to use rail-based systems. 
Policies: 
1) Zone land along the railroad for more compatible lands uses, such as industrial or 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 16 
EXHIBIT "A" 
commercial. 
2) Notify ODOT Rail regarding development proposals located within 500 feet of a railroad 
track. 
Goal: Support intercity travel via high speed rail while minimizing impacts to the city. 
Policies: 
1) Support public transportation systems that serve as feeder services connecting to high 
speed rail stops. 
2) Support Woodburn's efforts to locate a high speed rail stop in Woodburn or north Marion 
County. 
3) Work with ODOT to ensure that alternative routes located outside the city are evaluated 
in the high speed rail planning process. 
BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION 
Goal: To provide safe, accessible, and convenient bicycling facilities. 
Policies: 
1) Develop a bikeway system which will provide routes and facilities to allow bicyclists to 
travel to and from residential areas to schools, parks, places of employment, and 
commercial areas. 
a) Action: Coordinate with ODOT to develop bike lanes along Pacific Hwy. 99E. 
b) Action: Coordinate with Marion County and private landowners to develop 
bikeway routes to the North Marion Schools. 
c) Action: Coordinate with Woodburn and private landowners to develop 
bikeways in the greenway along Mill Creek if the opportunity arises. 
2) All new arterials and collectors shall include the bikeway facility specified in the street 
design standard. 
3) All major improvements to arterial and collector streets shall include the bikeway facility 
specified in the street design standard. 
4) When traffic volume on existing collector streets (speeds <25mph) exceeds 3,000 ADT 
consider changing the bikeway type from shared roadway to bike lanes. 
PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION 
Goal: To provide safe, accessible, and convenient pedestrian facilities. 
Policies: 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
1) All new arterial, collector, and local streets shall include the pedestrian facility specified 
in the street design standard. 
2) All major improvements to arterial, collector, and local streets shall include the 
pedestrian facility specified in the street design standard. 
3) Low curb crosswalks shall be used at all intersections, consistent with ADA guidelines, 
to facilitate use by all pedestrians. 
4) Provide safe, convenient, and attractive walking environments throughout the city with a 
special emphasis in the Commercial Center. 
5) As feasible, the city shall allow no physical obstruction of sidewalks such as utility poles, 
sign posts or guy wires (consistent with ADA guidelines). 
6) Visibility and unobstructed views shall be promoted for all areas of high pedestrian use. 
7) Bicycle traffic on sidewalks shall be prohibited. 
8) The city will work with interested landowners to explore local funding options for 
sidewalk improvements, for example Local Improvement Districts. 
9) The city supports the development of a well-developed sidewalk system with street 
trees to link the community to downtown, local parks and the Mill Creek trail system as 
recommended in the 2003 Hubbard Downtown Development Resource Team Report. 
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 
Goals: 
1) The City of Hubbard will seek for all its citizens the maximum level of access to 
all social, work and welfare resources. 
2) The City of Hubbard will seek for all its citizens the creation of a customer-based 
regionally coordinated public transit system that is efficient, effective, and 
founded on present and future needs. 
Policies: 
1) The city will support and promote regional planning for public transportation services 
that use innovative technology to maximize efficiency of operation, planning, and 
administration of public transportation. 
2) The city seeks the creation of customer-based regionally coordinated public transit 
system through a regional planning process that is efficient, effective, and adequate for 
present and future needs. The system should provide the maximum level of access to 
area community centers. 
3) The city encourages the use of carpools and park-and-ride lots in the area and other 
strategies to reduce the number of single occupant vehicle trips. 
4) The city shall support existing public transportation services by improving facilities and 
promoting public awareness of the services. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
5) The city will coordinate with other jurisdictions when the need for park-and-ride facilities 
or intercity connections to passenger rail services are studied. 
6) The city shall coordinate with governmental and private agencies in the planning and 
provision of public transportation services and shall ensure that a given level of service 
is adequate for the costs incurred. 
Action: Periodically assess the community's transportation needs and check with existing 
services regarding expansion of service into Hubbard, for example Canby Area Transit, 
Woodburn Transit or SMART in Wilsonville. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
Section 3 
Transportation 
System 
Inventory 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 iii 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Transportation System Inventory 
Transportation is one of the most important aspects of the economic viability and livability for a city. A city's 
transportation system is the foundation on which these opportunities are built. In order to better understand 
constraints, challenges and opportunities associated with the existing transportation system, a comprehensive 
inventory of the transportation system is needed. 
The following section includes an update to the transportation inventory found in the 1999 Hubbard TSP. The 
updated inventory addresses all modes of the transportation system including: street, pedestrian, bikeway, 
public transportation, rail, air, water and pipeline systems. A description of each transportation system is 
provided as follows. 
STREET SYSTEM 
Local Road Network 
The first platted streets in the City of Hubbard were oriented to run parallel and perpendicular to the railroad 
(known as Union Pacific RR today) as part of the original town site that was platted in 1878. The original 
town plat included a series of blocks and streets laid out in a grid iron pattern around the railroad and west 
of Pacific Highway 99E. Block lengths were typically 200-220 feet and mid-block alleys were common. 
The major highway that connects the City of Hubbard to surrounding communities is Pacific Highway 99E. 
The highway runs parallel to the railroad in a northeast-southwest orientation. Nearby communities also 
located along the Pacific Highway 99E Corridor include the City of Woodburn (0.8 miles south of Hubbard) 
and the City of Aurora (3 miles north of Hubbard). The closest accesses to Interstate 5 are in Woodburn (4 
miles distance) and west of Aurora (7 miles distance). 
The railroad and Pacific Highway 99E cut the city into three sections and limit east-west travel through the 
community relative to north-south travel. The city is bounded by Mill Creek to the west, which also runs 
parallel to the railroad. The City completed a Local Wetland Inventory in 2001, which identifies the 
presence of wetlands in the vicinity of Mill Creek. Areas located adjacent to Mill Creek are also located 
within the floodplain as identified on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance 
rate maps (FIRMS). 
Since 1999, expansions to the city street network have primarily been the result of residential subdivision 
development located in the northwest section of Hubbard west of 3rd Street and north of A Street. In 2009, 
the City of Hubbard expanded its UGB to include additional land for commercial and industrial use in the 
southwest portion of the city, along Pacific Highway 99E and Schmidt Lane. In 2010, the City completed a 
second UGB expansion for residential use that included lands located south of Whiskey Hill Road and west 
of Painter Loop Road, in addition to land located south of Broadacres Road and northwest of Front Street. 
A small sliver of land was also brought into the UGB for public use along the section of Mill Creek located 
near the historic Mineral Springs site on Mineral Springs Road. 
Major transportation destinations within the city include commercial services located along Pacific Highway 
99E and the historic commercial core located adjacent the railroad area (2nd and 3rd streets). Additional 
sites include the Hubbard Industrial Park located in south of J Street and east of Pacific Highway 99E 
(Industrial Avenue), Rivenes Park ("D" and 4th streets) and Barendse Park (between 3rd and 5th streets). A 
majority of city streets serve as local access streets for residential areas. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
Inventory 
In 1999, an inventory of the existing city street, sidewalk and bikeway conditions was completed for the 
Hubbard Transportation System Plan (TSP). As part of the 2012 TSP update, this inventory was updated 
to include street and sidewalk improvements completed since 1999, in addition to information on roads 
located in areas included in areas recently included in the city's urban growth boundary (UGB). Conditions 
described in the inventory include: 
street classification and jurisdiction 
street width and right-of-way 
number of travel lanes 
presence of on-street parking, sidewalks, or bikeways 
speed limit; and 
general pavement conditions 
A copy of the complete street system inventory may be found in Appendix B. A map of the existing road 
network may be found in Figure 3.1 (below). 
Street length ranged from 170 to 6,730 feet and Pacific Highway 99E is the longest continuous street inside 
the UGB. Third Street is the longest street entirely under the city's jurisdiction. Speed limit on all streets in 
Hubbard is 25 miles per hour, except for Pacific Highway 99E where the speed limit is 35^40 mph and a 
segment of Mineral Springs Road with a speed limit of 55 mph. 
The average right-of-way (ROW) width is 60 feet, while ROW along Pacific Highway 99E average 80 feet, 
and ROW along D Street, between Highway 99E and 7th Street is 90 feet. Mineral Springs Road (D Street) 
west of city limits has a 40 foot ROW width, and 1st Street has ROW widths between 20-30 feet (south end 
to D Street). Pavement widths on city streets range from 18 feet to 58 feet. Widest pavement widths are 
associated with Pacific Highway 99E and the narrowest widths are located on A Street. Most city streets 
have two lanes except Pacific Highway 99E which has a center turning lane from the south UGB to the 
signalized intersection with D Street. The Highway narrows to two lanes north of D Street. 
The inventory identified certain segments of fair and poor pavement conditions in need of repair. Arterial 
and collector streets with fair pavement conditions include: 
• Pacific Highway 99E south of D Street, 
• J Street west of 4th Street, 
• 2nd Street, between A and J streets, 
• 5<h Street between F and I streets, and 
• 7th Street, between G and 7th Streets. 
Additional street segments in poor pavement condition were identified; however, most poor pavement 
conditions are located in small segments on streets otherwise in fair to good condition. 
Hubbard has one traffic signal with left turn arrows at the intersection of Highway 99E and D Street. 
Flashing yellow caution lights are located at the intersection of Highway 99E and G Street and the 
intersection of Highway 99E and J Street. The signal and caution lights are under the jurisdiction of ODOT. 
Most intersections in Hubbard do not have separate turning lanes, except for the intersection of Highway 
99E and D and J Streets. Pacific Highway 99E has a center left-turn lane at both intersections. D Street 
had a left turn lane for traffic approaching Pacific Highway 99E from the east. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
f iubbard TSP Update June 2011 
oJ 
u. 
I g 
o & 
O 
I 
i 
/BAINES BV 
RIVIERA C 
VA. 
NE BROADAI 
Ç a S ^ T Ì\ N I 
NÉ WHISKEY HILL RD 
Funct ional C lass i i ' Railroad 
Major Arterial HubbardTaxlots 
Mi ar Arterial [ J City Limits 
m ^ m Collector Urban Growth Boundary 
Local Road 
Private Road 
Existing Roadway 
Network & 
Functional Class 
Figure 
3.1 
r r m a ' T '/i' 
State Highway - Pacific Highway 99E 
The City of Hubbard is served by one state highway, Pacific Highway 99E. This highway serves as the major 
route through town with significant commercial and industrial development focused along it. 
In general, Pacific Highway 99E has a three (3) lane roadway section south of D Street and a two (2) lane 
roadway section north of D Street with a 35 mph speed limit. The roadway has intermittent curbs and 
sidewalks that are primarily built as a result of recent commercial and industrial development along the 
Highway over the past ten years. The pavement condition for Pacific Highway 99E is generally in fair to 
good condition with 11-foot travel lanes and 3 to 8-foot shoulders based on the existing street system 
inventory found in Appendix B. There is one stop light on Pacific Highway 99E in Hubbard that is located 
at the D Street Intersection. 
The adopted 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) classifies the state highway system into five categories: 
Interstate Highways, Statewide Highways, Regional Highways, District Highways, and Local Interest 
Roads. In addition to the highway classifications, there are four special purpose designations. These 
special designations include special land use, freight route, Scenic Byway, and lifeline route designations. 
Pacific Highway 99E in Hubbard is identified as a regional highway. According to the 1999 OHP, the 
primary function of a regional highway is to "provide connections and links to regional centers, Statewide or 
Interstate Highways, or economic or activity centers of regional significance. The management objective is 
to provide safe and efficient, high-speed, continuous-flow operation in rural areas and moderate to high-
speed operations in urban and urbanizing areas. A secondary function is to serve land uses in the vicinity 
of these highways. Pacific Highway 99E is designated as a statewide freight route and subject to state 
statutes that prohibit the permanent reduction of vehicle-carrying capacity on identified freight routes. 
Specific exceptions to this prohibition are allowed by statute. Transportation improvement projects that 
may potentially reduce vehicle-carrying capacity of the highway require further evaluation of the project 
design at the time of implementation to ensure compliance with Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 366.215). 
The 1999 OHP defines a performance measure for Pacific Highway 99E as a volume to capacity (v/c) ratio 
equal to or less than 0.85 for areas with a posted speed limit greater than or equal to 35 miles per hour 
(mph) and 0.80 for areas with a posted speed limit greater than 35 mph. This performance measure 
establishes the minimum standard of acceptable operation. A v/c ratio of 0.85 means that 85 percent of 
the capacity of the roadway is utilized based on an established planning level capacity and measured traffic 
volume. 
Road Classification System 
Identification of the roadway functions is the basis for planning roadway improvements and the appropriate 
standards (right-of-way, roadway width, design speed) that apply to each roadway facility. The purpose of 
classifying streets within the TSP study area is to create a balanced system that facilitates mobility for 
vehicles, transit, pedestrians, and cyclists, while providing access to land uses. The functional classification 
defines a street's role and context in the overall transportation system and how it is used within the 
community. Street functional classification identifies the street's intended purpose, the amount and character 
of traffic, the degree to which non-auto traffic is emphasized, and the design standards. 
Basic to the process of classifying streets by function and purpose, is the recognition that individual roads and 
streets do not serve travel independently. Rather, most travel involves movement through a hierarchical 
network of roads. Access tends to increase as volumes and speeds decrease, as seen in Figure 3.2 below. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
Figure 3.2. Street functional classifications 
Arterial 
The functional classification designations derive from guidance in the Transportation System Planning 
Guidelines (2008) and comply with policies within the adopted Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), Oregon 
Administrative Rules (OAR) 660 Division 12 (updated 2006). 
The following definitions serve as a general guide in determining city street classifications: 
Arterials - Intra- and inter-community roadways connecting community centers with major 
facilities. In general, arterials serve both through traffic and local traffic. Access should be partially 
controlled with infrequent access to abutting properties. 
Major arterials should serve the major portion of trips entering and leaving the urban area, the 
majority of through trips, and should carry a high proportion of total urban area travel with the 
least mileage. On-street bicycle lanes and sidewalks should be provided. Because of the nature 
of the travel served by the major arterial system, access is controlled to emphasize traffic flow. 
Major arterials often serve intraurban and interurban bus routes. 
The primary function of minor arterials is to connect major activity centers and neighborhoods 
within the UGB and to support the major arterial system. Minor arterials serve local traffic as it 
enters and leaves the urban area, connecting the City of Hubbard to other urban areas and 
regions. Minor arterials should have a higher degree of access, and lesser traffic volumes than 
major arterials. Like major arterials, emphasis should be on traffic flow and pedestrian and 
bicycle movements. Minor arterials may carry local bus routes. 
• Collectors - Streets connecting residential neighborhoods with smaller community centers and 
facilities as well as access to the arterial system. Property access is generally a higher priority for 
collector arterials; through-traffic movements are served as a lower priority. 
• Local Access Streets - Streets within residential neighborhoods connecting housing (also can be 
commercial, industrial, etc.) with the arterial system. Property access is the main priority; through 
traffic movement is not encouraged. 
Based on the 1999 Hubbard Transportation System Plan (TSP), Hubbard has one major arterial - Pacific 
Highway 99E and the following minor arterials: 
• 3rd Street, 
J Street (G Street to railroad), and 
• D Street (Pacific Highway to 10th Street). 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
The following collector streets exist within Hubbard: 
D Street from Oak Ridge to Pacific Highway 99E, 
• 2nd Street, 
• 5th Street, 
• 7th Street, 
• A Street, 
Baines Boulevard, 
Schmidt Lane from west end to Pacific Highway 99E, 
• G Street from J Street to 2nd Street, and 
• 10th Street. 
Figure 3.1 above shows a map of the existing City of Hubbard road network and the functional 
classification system for public streets located within the Hubbard Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). 
Based upon a review of the updated roadway inventory found in Appendix B, arterials and collectors 
comprise almost half of the existing road network (35,731 linear feet). Table 3.1 summarizes how existing 
streets are allocated among existing functional classes. 
Table 3.1. Existing Road Network: Allocation by Functional Classification. 
Functional 
Classification 
Linear Feet Percent of Network 
Arterial 16,499 22% 
Collector 19,231 27% 
Local 36,111 51% 
Total 70,312 100% 
(13.3 miles) 
Functional classification is typically associated with design and mobility standards, access management 
and other policies. Hubbard currently has no mobility standards based on functional classification for city 
streets. A review of existing design and access management standards may be found in the review of 
existing plans, policies and standards found in Appendix A. 
State and County Functional Classification Systems 
The state designation of functional classification is different than the City's designations primarily due to the 
difference between state and local travel function. The ODOT functional classification map shows Pacific 
Highway 99E as a minor arterial. 
The Marion County functional classification identifies the following county roadway designations in the 
unincorporated area of the Hubbard UGB: 
• J Street - Urban Major Collector, 
• J Street (Industrial Avenue to railroad), and 
• D Street (Pacific Highway to 10lh Street). 
Other Road Facilities 
A review of other existing road facilities including bridges, culverts, railroad crossings, and truck routes is 
summarized below. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
• Bridges: Currently there are no bridges located inside the Hubbard UGB. 
• Culverts: There are approximately six (6) culverts located in the Hubbard area: Highway 99E 
crossing of Little Bear Creek, Industrial Avenue crossing of Little Bear Creek, Railroad crossing of 
Little Bear Creek, 3rd Street crossing of Little Bear Creek, J Street/Broadacres Road crossing of 
Little Bear Creek, and D Street (Mineral Springs Road) crossing of Mill Creek. Ownership is mixed 
between the city, ODOT and Marion County. 
• Railroad Crossings: Hubbard has three, fully-protected at grade railroad crossings located on A, D 
and G streets. 
• Truck Routes: As part of the 1999 TSP, the City designated a truck and hazardous materials route 
to improve safety and capacity. The alignment utilizes the major and minor arterials and is located 
on all of Pacific Highway 99E, 3rd (Front) Street between the southern UGB and D Street, 
Broadacres Road/J Street between the west UGB and Front Street, Whiskey Hill Road/J Street 
between the east UGB and Pacific Highway 99E; and D Street/Mineral Springs Road between 
Pacific Highway 99E and the west UGB (see Figure 3.3). 
The 1999 TSP indicate that if and when the J Street at-grade crossing of the railroad is opened, 
the segment of J Street between Pacific Highway 99E and Front Street would be added to the 
truck route. The 1999 TSP also recommended evaluating the adequacy of the existing roads beds 
for truck traffic and the turning geometry and turning land needs of intersection, in addition to 
implementing need roadway improvements and parking restrictions. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
Figure 3.3 Hubbard Truck Route 
CITY OF HUBBARD 
- Truck Route Map -
Population 3175 
[hp information contained br win is provided "as is" and 
Without any jt pira rotation or wammty, fxprrss or impigli, 
with n-gird to Uir accuracy ifcrmrf. The City of Hubbard 
nhaJI not br liable for any danugr«, < nnsr qurntial or 
Otfirrwts*. nnr for to: t profit- or Minings of m y sort and 
dor« not i t p m c r t that this product is fit for any parttruUr 
u«* or purpose. Tht uvrf of this produci 1 a n it at fcb or 
so if risk. 
 
her 
• Mease Note: 4253 8c 4215 
y d Street are currently part 
oi Barrndse Park 
C R E A T E D B Y : M . O L I N G E R 
H u b b a r d P u b l i c W o r k s 
L a s t R e v i s e d : A p r i l 2 0 1 2 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 Vi 
EXHIBIT "A" 
PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM 
The relatively small size of Hubbard indicates that walking can be employed regularly for short trips to 
reach a variety of destinations. Typically, a short trip taken by a pedestrian is about one-half mile. 
Encouraging pedestrian activities can not only decrease the use of the personal automobile but can also 
provide benefits for retail businesses. Where people find it safe, convenient, and pleasant to walk, they 
may linger and take notice of shops overlooked before. 
Oregon Transportation Planning Rule requirements 
Under Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660-012-0020(2)(d), a TSP must include a pedestrian plan for a 
network of pedestrian routes throughout the planning area. The network and list of facility improvements 
shall be consistent with the requirements of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 366.514. In order to 
implement the TSP, and provide for safe and convenient pedestrian circulation, local governments must 
adopt land use and subdivision regulations that require: 
• On-site facilities to accommodate safe and convenient pedestrian access from within new 
development and to adjacent residential areas and transit stops, and to neighborhood activity 
centers (planned or existing schools, parks, shopping centers, transit stops or employment 
centers) within one-half mile of development. 
• Single family residential development to generally include streets and accessways. 
• Pedestrian circulation through parking lots in the form of accessways. 
• Sidewalks required along arterials, collectors and most local streets in urban areas, but not 
controlled access roadways, such as freeways. 
• Facilities accommodating convenient pedestrian travel, where off-site road improvements are 
required as a condition of development approval. 
• Internal pedestrian circulation within new office parks and commercial developments by clustering 
of buildings, construction of accessways, walkways and similar techniques (OAR 660-012-
0045(3)(e)). 
A safe and convenient facility or improvement is reasonably free from hazards, particularly auto traffic, 
which would interfere with or discourage pedestrian travel for short trips; provide reasonably direct routes of 
travel between destinations; and meet the travel needs by considering the destination and an optimum trip 
length of one-quarter to one-half mile for pedestrians (OAR 660-012-0045(3)(d)). 
In addition, the 1992 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires both the public and private sector to 
provide access for all individuals, and sets minimum standards for walkways and road crossings. 
Existing Pedestrian Facilities 
The street inventory originally completed in 1999 and updated during the 2012 TSP update includes an 
inventory of existing sidewalk facilities (See Appendix B). The sidewalk inventory includes information 
about sidewalk location, width and condition. See Figure 3.4, Existing Sidewalks in Hubbard. 
The inventory shows that sidewalks along both sides of local, collector and arterial streets inside the 
Hubbard UGB amount to about 26 miles (137,280 feet). Hubbard currently has 69,286 feet of sidewalks or 
50 percent of the total requirement. The 2012 inventory of existing sidewalks represents an approximately 
17 percent increase in sidewalk improvements since the last TSP inventory was completed in 1999. 
Arterial and collector streets lack a continuous network of sidewalks, but 3rd Street is the exception with a 
continuous length of sidewalk on the west side between A and J streets. The collector street with the most 
sidewalks is 5th Street. In general, the sidewalks are less than five (5) feet wide and tend to be in fair to bad 
condition. Recent residential developments in northwest Hubbard have sidewalks. Sidewalks are the most 
common in the central part of the city bounded by 3rd, 5th, C and H streets. Sidewalk widths of less than 5 
feet or poor condition sidewalks are considered deficient. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
Pacific Highway 99E has intermittent sidewalks that were primarily built as a result of recent commercial 
and industrial development along the Highway over the past ten (10) years. In 2010, the city received a 
grant from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to install sidewalks on the east side of the 
highway from D Street to the city limits. Upon completion, this project will provide a continuous sidewalk 
network on one side of the highway north of D Street. 
Marked crosswalks are located at the following intersections: 
• 3rd and I Street, west side; 
• 3rd and H Street, west side; 
• 3rd and G Street, north and south sides; 
• 3rd and F Street, west side; 
• 3rd and E Street, west side; 
• F and West Street, west side; 
• F and 7th Street, west side; 
• G and 2nd Street, north and south sides; 
• G and 1st Street, east and west sides; 
• 4th and D Street; 
• 4th and E Street; 
• 5th and D Street; 
• 5th and E Street; 
• 5th and A Street; 
• 5th and Barendse; and 
• 5th and Allan Avenue. 
The intersection of Pacific Highway 99E and D Street has a traffic signal and painted crosswalk. A flashing 
caution light is located at the intersection of Pacific Highway 99E and G Street, but lacks a painted 
crosswalk. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
Hubbard TSP Update June 2011 
Sidewalk Condition/Width -tmtm Urban Growth Boundary 
Good/5+ Feet Hubbard Roads 
= Local Roads 
— i — OR 99E 
HubbardTa*lots 
— — Good/< 5 Feet 
• • • Poor/5+ reet 
= - - - Poor/<5 Feet 
Railroad C.J city Limits 
Existing S dewalk 
Network 
Figure 
3,4 
EXHIBIT "A1 — ~— 
BICYCLE SYSTEM 
The following section includes an overview of state requirements for bicycle planning, in addition to a 
review of bikeway types, standards, and policies; and a description of existing bicycle facilities within the 
Hubbard UGB. 
Oregon Transportation Planning Rule Requirements 
Under OAR 660-012-0020(2)(d), a TSP must include a bicycle plan for a network of bicycle routes 
throughout the planning area. The network and list of facility improvements shall be consistent with the 
requirements of ORS 366.514. 
In order to implement the TSP and provide safe and convenient bicycle circulation, local governments must 
adopt land use and subdivision regulations that require: 
• Bicycle parking facilities as part of new residential development of four (4) units or more, new retail, 
office, and institutional developments, all transit transfer stations, and park and ride lots. 
• On-site facilities to accommodate safe and convenient bicycle access from within new 
development to adjacent residential areas and transit stops and to neighborhood activity centers 
planned or existing schools, parks, shopping centers, transit stops or employment centers) within 
one-half mile of development. 
• Single family residential development shall generally include streets and accessways. 
• Bikeways located along arterials and major collectors. 
• Off-site road improvements, when required as a condition of development approval to include 
facilities accommodating convenient bicycle travel. 
A safe and convenient facility or improvement is reasonably free from hazards, particularly auto traffic, 
which would interfere with or discourage bicycle travel for short trips; provide reasonably direct routes of 
travel between destinations; and meet the travel needs by considering the destination and an optimum trip 
length (OAR 660-012-0045(3)(d)). 
Types of Bicycle Facilities, Standards and Policies 
There are a variety of bicycle facilities that are appropriate for different situations depending on traffic 
volumes, speeds, and whether they are located in urban or rural settings. ODOT categorizes bicycle 
facilities into the following four major classifications: 
• Shared Roadway - Bicycles and vehicles share the same roadway area under this classification. 
The shared roadway facility is best used where there is minimal vehicle traffic to conflict with 
bicycle traffic. Shared roadway facilities are suitable in urban areas on streets with speeds less 
than 25 mph and low traffic volumes (less than 3,000 ADT). 
• Shoulder Bikeways - This bicycle facility consists of roadways with paved shoulders to 
accommodate bicycle traffic. Road shoulders should be paved and four (4) to six (6) feet wide, 
depending on traffic volume. 
• Bike Lanes - Separate lane adjacent the vehicle travel lane for the exclusive use of bicyclists are 
considered bike lanes. Lane is four (4) to six (6) feet wide depending on the edge type, and 
parking. This type of facility is appropriate for use along urban arterials and major collectors where 
speeds are greater than 25 mph and traffic volumes exceed 3,000 ADT. 
• Bike Paths - These bicycle facilities are exclusive bicycle lanes separated from the roadway. The 
typical width for this type of facility is ten (10) to twelve (12) feet wide. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
Existing Bicycle Facilities 
The inventory of bikeways in Hubbard is based upon the street inventory that was completed in 1999 and 
updated in 2012. See Appendix B. 
Hubbard currently has no marked bicycle facilities of any kind. There are existing shoulder roadway 
facilities on the following segments of Pacific Highway 99: 
• Pacific Highway 99E - South UGB to J Street, and 
• Pacific Highway 99E - D Street to north UGB. 
There are existing shared roadway facilities on the following streets: 
• J Street (Broadacres Road) - West city limits to Painter Loop Road, 
• D Street - Mineral Springs Road to east end, 
• Second Street - J to D Street, 
• Fourth Street - J to D Street, 
• Fifth Street - D Street to north city limits, 
• Tenth Street - D Street to north end, 
• A Street - 5th Street to Pacific Highway 99E, 
• Baines Boulevard - 3rd Street to city limits, and 
• Schmidt Lane - Pacific Highway 99E to west end. 
Existing shared roadway facilities were identified on local roadways based upon the 1999 TSP bicycle facility 
inventory and Phase I collector roadways constructed since 1999, with traffic volumes that do not warrant a 
separate bike lane. 
A map of existing shared and shoulder roadway facilities may be found in Figure 3.5 below. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
RIVI5RAC 
^F BROADAfiRFQ 
casteels^ 1 
Hubbard TSP Update June 2011 
Bicycle Faci l i t ies <=*=*= Railroad 
Shared Roadway HubbardTaxlots 
' 'Shoulder Bikeway ( J City Limits 
Hubbard Roads ——— Urban Growth Boundary 
= Local Roads 
OR 99E 
Ex st;ng Bicycle 
Network 
EXHIBIT "A1 — ~ — 
» 
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 
The Public Transportation Services section of the TSP reviews the requirements for public transportation 
planning and describes the number and kind of Hubbard residents that are more likely to rely on public 
transportation services. This section also completes an updated inventory of public transportation facilities 
and services in Hubbard. 
Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) Requirements 
City TSPs are required to include a Public Transportation Plan that addresses the following requirements: 
• Describe public transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged and identify service 
inadequacies. 
• Describe inter-city bus and passenger rail service and identify the location of terminals. 
• For areas within an UGB that have public transit service, identify existing and planned transit trunk 
routes, exclusive transit ways, terminals and major transfer stations, major transit stops, and park-
and-ride stations. Description of stop or station locations may allow for minor adjustments in the 
location of stops to provide for efficient transit or traffic operation or to provide convenient pedestrian 
access to adjacent or nearby uses. 
• For areas within an urban area containing a population greater than 25,000 people, not currently 
served by transit, evaluate the feasibility of developing a public transit system at build-out. 
Oregon Public Transportation Plan 
The Oregon Public Transportation Plan (ODOT, 1997) identifies public transportation system needs through 
the year 2015. It establishes targets for types of transit service and frequencies for cities the size of Hubbard. 
The plan identifies minimum levels of service that provide a range of services intended to keep pace with 
increasing public transportation needs in the State of Oregon. Minimum level of service recommendations 
are based on types of services, size of community, and distance from other major intermodal centers (only 
Portland in Oregon) or urban central cities. The plan divides communities into large urban areas; small 
communities of 25,000 or more; small communities of 2,500 to 25,000; communities of 2,500 or more within 
20 miles of an urban central city, and rural and frontier communities that are less than 2,500 people. 
Hubbard's population was 3,180 in 2011" and projected to be 4,718 in 2030'". Urban central cities 
closest to Hubbard include the City of Salem, located 20 miles to the south, and Portland, located 28 
miles to the north. The cities of Woodburn and Wilsonville, which may also function as "urban central cities," 
are located approximately one (1) mile and seven (7) miles, respectively from Hubbard. Within the planning 
horizon, Hubbard is projected to remain a "small community of 2,500 to 25,000" located within 20 miles of an 
urban central city. 
The Oregon Public Transportation Plan recommends the following minimum levels of service for communities 
with populations of 2,500 to 25,000: 
• Coordinate intercity senior and disabled services with intercity bus and van services open to the 
general public; 
• Connect local public transportation, and senior and disabled service, to intercity bus services; 
• Provide an accessible ride to anyone requesting service; 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
Provide 1.7 annual hours of public transportation service per capita with fixed route, dial-a-ride, or 
other service types; 
• Provide at least one accessible vehicle for every 40 hours of service; 
• Provide one backup vehicle for every 3.5 vehicles; 
• Provide daily peak hour commuter service to the core areas of the central city (Salem and possibly 
Portland); 
• Provide a guaranteed ride home program to all users of the public transportation system and 
publicize it well; 
• Provide park and ride facilities along the transit corridors to meet reasonable peak and off-peak 
demand for such facilities; and 
• Maintain vehicles and corresponding facilities in a cost-effective manner and replace vehicles when 
they reach the manufacturers recommended replacement time. 
Hubbard Service Population 
Information from the most recent Census is used to identify the number of people in Hubbard more likely to 
use, or be more reliant upon, non-auto transportation modes such as sidewalks, bikeways, public 
transportation, or paratransit services. Public transportation services are generally targeted to serve the needs 
of two groups: 
• People who are transit disadvantaged who do not have, or cannot operate, an automobile to obtain 
medical, educational, social or recreational services and employment; and 
• People who presently use a car but would use other transportation alternatives to commute to work. 
People living in Hubbard characterized with mobility limitations in 2000 include: 
• 491 people aged 5 to 14 years; 
• 245 people greater than 60 years old; 
• 139 non-institutionalized people with mobility limitations over the ages of 16. 
The mobility limited portion of Hubbard's population was 875 people in 2000, or 35 percent of the total 
population. The represents a slight increase in the city's mobility limited population in 1990 (34%). 
In 2000, the Hubbard workforce included 1,143 people or about 46 percent of the population. Driving alone 
was the most common way to get to work (72 percent of workforce), followed by carpooling (19 percent). 
This represents an eight (8) percent decrease in the number of workers driving alone to work from 1990. In 
2000, about 1.5 percent of the workforce walked or bicycled to work. About 63 percent of the workforce was 
at their place of employment within 29 minutes of travel and 30.4 percent had travel times between 30 and 59 
minutes. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
Figure 3.6. City of Hubbard Mode of Transportation -1990, 2000 
1990 
2000 
Driving alone Carpooling Walking, bicycling Other 
Inventory of Public Transportation Services and Facilities 
The inventory of public transportation services and facilities includes a review of existing public transit 
service providers, including the type, location and capacity of existing services. A summary of public 
transportation services in and near Hubbard is provided in Table 3.2 below. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
Table 3.2. Summary of Public 7 ransportation Services in the Hubbard Area 
Name Type Clientele Service Local Stops Schedule Contact 1 
Area/General Numbei 1 
Route I 
CAT Commuter Intercity and General public Oiegon City to Hwy 99 E & D Mon-Fri, nine (9) 503-266-
Service intradty fixed Woodburn Street trips, am/pm stops 4022 
route 
CAT Dial-a-Ride Demand Qualified clients Canby Varies Varies 503-266-
Service response unable to use 4022 
fixed route service 
CARTS North Intercily, Paying general Loops including None Several 583-585 
Marion County deviated fixed- public ana Woodburn, routes/schedules 5187 
Flex Route route developmental^ Silverton and Mt. Mon-Fri 
disabled clients Angel 
CARTS Intercity fixer! Paying general Woodburn and None Mon-Fri, foui (4) 503-585 
Woodburn/ route public Salem trips, am/pm stops 5187 or 
Salem Route#10 1-800-
422-7723 
Woodburn Intracity fixed Woodburn Woodburn Single fixed Mon-Fri, 5:45am 503-982 
Transit route and lesidents and Urbar, Growth system, 8:00pm, 5233 
schedule bus. elderly or disabled Boundary covers major 
Includes citizens areas ol 
paratransit Woodburn 
services 
Mid-Valley Regional Generai public Marion, Polk, Based in the 24-nr rideshare 503-371-
Rideshare transportation Yamhill counties City of Salem matching program POOL 
Program demand Willamette carpool & vanpool 
management Valley, select match '¡sts; info & 
vcarpool coastal areas referrals 
program) 
Silverton Demand Elderly ana To and from Not fixed 8:30 am io 5:00 503-982 
Hospital response disabled clients Silverton pm, Mon-Fri. 4878 
CareVan 1 Hospital and Provides medical 
affiliated clinics. rides on a dial-a-
iide basis. 
Woodburn Taxi Demand Paying general Mid-Valley Not fixea 7 days a week, 24 
Services response PUDliC hours a day 
Greyhound Intercity fixed Paying general Portland-San Woodburn 503-981-
route and public Francisco/ stop at 397 6922 oi 1-
schedule bus Sacramento Front Street 800-231-
2222 
HUT Intercity shuttle Paying general Salem to Woodburn 18 inbound and 503-363-
public Portland Airport stop at outbound trips 8059 
Holiday daily Stops in 
Express Inn (1- Woodburn 
5/Hwy 214) between 4:30am 
and 9:30pm 
Amtrak Passenger rail Paying general Coast Starlighl Amtrak 2 inbound and 1-800-
service public (SeatuetoLos Station 12 outbound rail USA-
Angeles); Salem service: RAIL 
Northwest 
Corridor Union Stat'on 
(Eugene to Portland 
Vancouver, BC) 
Canby Area Transit (CAT) 
The City of Hubbard is served by the Canby Area Transit (CAT), which provides fixed route commuter bus 
service five (5) days a week between Oregon City and Woodburn. This service is known as the Orange 
Line and has one (1) stop in Hubbard on D Street off of Pacific Highway 99E See Figure 3.7, Map of 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
Canby Area Transit Service Routes, below. The first southbound bus to Wocdburn departs Hubbard at 
6:16 am and the first northbound bus to Aurora/Canby departs Hubbard at 6:37 am. The Orange Line has 
eight (8) additional bus trips throughout the day Monday through Fridays, with the last southbound bus 
departing Hubbard at 6:27 pm and the last northbound bus departing Hubbard at 6:54 pm. The Orange 
Line makes a connection with the TriMet bus system in Oregon City. A copy of the most recent detailed bus 
schedule may be found in Appendix C. 
The Canby Area Transit (CAT) also provides local fixed route service within the Canby Urban Growth 
Boundary (Green and Blue lines) and commuter service to Wilsonville (Purple Line). The Purple Line 
makes connections with the South Metro Area Regional Transit service (SMART) in Wilsonville 
All buses are equipped with wheelchair lifts and bike ranks Canby transit operates as a fareless sen/ice, 
Canby Transit provides dial-a-ride services to qualified individuals who are unable to use fixed route 
services11. 
Figure 3.7 Map of Canby Area Transit Service Routes 
ehcsoHcin 
¿N 
Green Line ^ ^ > 
"ei l ige Line 
wmm 
Source: Canby Area Transit website: http.</wvw.c..canDv.or.js/iransportìi<ion/CAThomepaae.htm 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
Vi 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Chemeketa Area Regional Transportation System (CARTS) 
The Chemeketa Area Regional Transportation System (CARTS) also provides fixed-route public transit 
service for Marion and Polk counties. Route 10 between Woodburn and Salem includes three (3) stops i 
Woodburn (Woodburn Transit Station, Chemeketa Community College - Woodburn branch, and Mid-
Valley Plaza). The first route departs Woodburn at 6:42 a.m. and arrives at the Salem Transit Center at 
7:20 a.m. Route 10 runs three (3) additional trips throughout the day with the last route departing 
l/Voodburn at 5:10 p.m. and arriving back in Woodburn at 6:30 p.m. See Appendix C for a more detailed 
schedule for Route 10. All buses are wheelchair lift and bicycle rack equipped. 
CARTS transit fares for RoutelO as of May 2011 are listed in Table 3.3 below Discounted fares are 
provided for youth, seniors and disabled individuals. 
Table 3.3. CARTS Fares for Route #10 (May 2011) 
One-way Day Pass Monthly 10 Ticket Book 
5 & under (Free) 
Youth 6-18 $1.25 $2.50 $35.00 $11.25 
Adult 19-59 $2 00 $4 00 $55 00 $18.00 
Senior 60+ $1.25 $2.50 $35.00 $11.25 
Disabled $1.25 $2 50 $35 00 $11.25 
Source- Cherriots Salem Keizer Transit Website http.7/www.cherriots orq/index.htm 
CARTS also provides flexible route service between Woodburn Mt. Angel and Silverton. A reservation 
made twenty four hours in advance is required for this service. 
RAIL SERVICE 
The rail service section of the TSP includes a review of Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) 
requirements and other state plans, policies and standards for rail facility planning. This section also 
provides an inventory of existing rail transportation facilities and services in Hubbard. 
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) Requirements 
The TPR requires transportation plans to include a Rail Transportation Plan that: 
• Describes the intercity bus and passenger rail service and identifies the location of terminals; and 
• Includes an air, rail, water, and pipeline transportation plan that identifies where public use airports, 
mainline and branchline railroads and railroad facilities, port facilities, and major regional pipelines 
and terminals are located or planned within the planning area. 
Inventory of Existing Rail Facilities and Services 
The Union Pacific (UP) Railroad passes through the City of Hubbard in roughly the center of the City in a 
northeast/southwest alignment. This UP owned railroad known as the Valley Main Line s the primary 
north/south line along the Wesi Coast and is used for both freight and passenger rail ser..ces, though 
neither type of service stops in Hubbard (see Figure 3.8 below). South of Portland, the line runs east of the 
Willamette River through the Willamette Valley and continues south to California. This line is heavily used 
for shipping freight and contains long freight trains that run at frequent intervals. The Federal Railroad 
Administration (FRA) classifies the UP rail line in Class 4 condition with a maximum freight speed of 60 
mph and a maximum passenger rail speed of 80 mph. There are no weight or dimensional rest ;tions on 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
Class 4 tracksv. Since the line is used primarily for shipping freight long-distances, this reduces the 
feasibility of serving individual shippers along the travel route. 
UP recently completed the first phase of a three (3) year upgrade of the Eugene-Portland main line. Upon 
completion in 2013, there will be an increase in train speeds that will raise passenger train speeds to 79 
mph and freight trains to 70 mph.vl 
Union Pacific intercity rail passenger service is currently provided by Amtrak for both their Coast Starlight 
long distance train and Cascades corridor trains. The Coast Starlight operates one (1) train per day in 
each direction between Seattle and Los Angeles. The Cascades runs three (3) times per day between 
Portland and Eugene in Oregon. Amtrak also runs bus service to supplement the frequency of service 
provided by the trains along this corridor. The scheduled travel time each way between Portland and 
Eugene is two (2) hours and 35 minutes. On-time performance averaged 68 percent in 2009-2010. 
According to the Oregon Rail Study (2010) significant investment is required to increase passenger 
service from two (2) to six (6) roundtrips per day, increase average speed from 42 to 65 mph, and 
improve reliability from 68 percent to 95 percent on-time performance. 
Figure 3.8 Oregon Railroad (near Hubbard, OR) 
Source: Oregon Rail Study (ODOT, 2010) 
Hubbard Rail Crossings 
The original town plat for the City of Hubbard was platted along either side of the railroad, which was 
known in 1878 as the Oregon and California Railroad. Many City streets today still run parallel to the 
railroad line, including 2nd and 3 Streets. Historically a siding track ran between A and D Streets and the 
depot was located between the lines adjacent to C Street. The City expanded around the railroad line 
today and is bisected by the track. 
Approximately 5,014 feet of single track and three (3) at-grade crossings of public roads are located inside 
the UGB. The three crossings are located at: 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
• A Street, between 2nd and 3rd streets; 
• D Street, between 2nd and 3rd streets; and 
• G Street, between 2nd and 3rd streets. 
These crossings are protected by automatic signals and gates, which provide a high level of warning atthe 
crossings. While automatic signals provide warnings of approaching trains, grade separated crossings 
provide the highest level of protection for all crossing users. 
East-west travel across the railroad in Hubbard is temporarily blocked when trains pass. The local fire 
station, located southeast of the railroad, is delayed in responding to events west of the tracks until trains 
pass. 
AIR SERVICE 
There are no private or public airports within the Hubbard UGB. The nearest airport is Lenhardt Airport, a 
private facility located northeast of Hubbard in Clackamas County. 
The closest public airports include the Aurora State Airport in Aurora and McNary Field in Salem. McNary 
Field in Salem provides for both VHR and instrument flight rules (IFR) operations. 
PIPELINE SERVICE 
Although not often considered as transportation facilities, pipelines carry liquids and gases very efficiently. 
The use of pipelines can greatly reduce the number of trucks and rail cars carrying fluids such as natural 
gas, oil, and gasoline. 
There are currently no regional pipelines in Hubbard. The closest pipelines are located along the east side 
of 1-5 and run parallel to the freeway. The pipelines distribute petroleum and natural gas. 
Palomar Gas Transmission, a joint venture between Portland-based Northwest (NW) Natural Gas 
Company and TransCanada Corp. of Calgary (Alberta, Canada) are in the planning stages of building a 
natural gas pipeline to serve NW Natural customers in northwest Oregon. The project started out as a 217-
mile, 36-inch diameter pipeline stretching from TransCanada's Gas Transmission Northwest Pipeline in 
central Oregon to a point on the Columbia River near Astoria where it could connect to a proposed 
liquefied natural gas terminal. The developers of the proposed project recently withdrew their permit 
applications with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission citing a lack of commercial support for the 
project due to the recent economic recession. The companies are, therefore, not moving forward with the 
proposal at this time. The developers indicated their intentions to refile for a new permit. A future permit 
will propose a shorter pipeline focused only on the eastern portion of the initial route located between Madras 
and Molalla. 
WATER TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND ACTIVITIES 
There are no navigable waterways within the Hubbard UGB and, therefore, no significant water 
transportation services available. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Section 4 
Existing and 
Future 
Conditions 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 iii 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Existing and Future Conditions 
This section includes an overview of the existing and future transportation system conditions within the City of 
Hubbard. Existing and future conditions are identified for each of the following modes of transportation: roadway, 
pedestrian, bicycle, transit, rail, air, water, and pipeline/transmission. Each mode's current performance and 
deficiencies are described. These findings are used to help identify transportation needs and deficiencies. This 
section concludes with an analysis of estimated funding for future transportation projects based on historic funding 
levels. 
POPULATION 
The purpose of the population inventory is to identify the characteristics of the population served by the 
Hubbard transportation network, such as modes of transportation used and number of residents with mobility 
limitations. The population inventory informs the existing and future conditions analyses of the TSP update to 
develop future alternative scenarios that serve residents' needs. 
According to the 2010 U.S. Census, 41% of Hubbard residents have minority status.v" Approximately 36% of 
residents are of Hispanic or Latino origin. In 2000, approximately 17% of Hubbard residents had limited 
English speaking abilities. Four percent of households in Hubbard had no access to a vehicle in 2000. 
In 2010, 28% of Hubbard residents belonged to age groups that are considered to have mobility limitations; 
19% of Hubbard residents were between the ages of 5 and 14 and 9% of residents were greater than 60 
years old. Information about individuals with additional mobility limitations is not available from the 2010 
Census; however, in 2000, approximately 5% of non-institutionalized Hubbard residents between the ages of 
14 and 60 had a disability that limited their mobility. Assuming this figure has remained consistent over the 
past 10 years, the total mobility limited population in Hubbard is approximately 33% of the total population. 
This figure has remained relatively constant overtime (34% in 1990, 35% in 2000). 
In 2000, the Hubbard workforce included 1,143 residents, approximately 46% of the population. Driving alone 
was the most common means of transportation to work (72%), followed by carpooling (19%). Approximately 
7.5% of workers used "other" modes such as transit, and 1.5% walked or biked to work. The percentage of 
Hubbard workers who drive alone decreased by 8 percentage points between 1990 and 2000, while the 
percentage workers who carpool, walk, bike, and take other modes increased. 
ROADWAY NETWORK 
The primary roadway through Hubbard is OR 99E, which passes southwest to northeast through the City. 
The Union Pacific railroad tracks parallel OR 99E approximately 650 feet to the northwest. These two major 
transportation corridors effectively divide the City into three geographical areas: 1) Northwest of the railroad 
tracks; 2) Between the railroad tracks and OR 99E; and 3) Southeast of OR 99E. Within each sub-area there 
is a relatively consistent street grid and connectivity. The remaining roadway network in the City is primarily 
constructed as a grid network parallel to OR 99E and the railroad. 
There are currently three east-west streets that cross the railroad right-of-way and connect each of the three 
geographical areas, including G Street, D Street, and A Street. J Street also provides east-west connectivity 
across OR 99E and becomes Whiskey Hill Road east of city limits, but does not cross the Union Pacific 
railroad tracks. 
MWVCOG conducted an existing street system inventory for all roadways within Hubbard. This inventory is 
documented in Section 3 and included: 
• Street classification and jurisdiction; 
• Street width and right-of-way; 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
• Surface type and condition; 
• Presence of curbs, sidewalks, or bikeways; and 
• Speed limits. 
The following sub-sections provide additional discussion of jurisdictional responsibility and functional 
classification, as well as analysis of existing traffic operations, crash history, and future traffic operations of the 
roadways within the City of Hubbard. 
JURISDICTION 
Public roads within the study area are maintained by the City of Hubbard and the Oregon Department of 
Transportation (ODOT). ODOT is responsible for OR 99E within and beyond the Hubbard city limits. The City 
of Hubbard is responsible for all other roadways within the city limits. Within the unincorporated areas of the 
UGB, Marion County has jurisdictional responsibility for D Street and J Street. 
Table 4.1 summarizes the jurisdictional responsibilities and functional classification of the primary roadways 
within the City of Hubbard. 
Table 4.1 Jurisdictional Responsibilities 
Roadway Jurisdictional Responsibility Functional Classification 
OR 99E ODOT Major Arterial/Rural Minor 
Arterial1 
Elm Street Private Private 
A Street City of Hubbard Collector 
D Street City of Hubbard/Marion County Minor Arterial 
G Street City of Hubbard Collector-3 
J Street City of Hubbard/Marion County Minor Arterial 
Industrial Avenue City of Hubbard Local Street 
Parkway Boulevard Private Private 
3™ Street City of Hubbard Minor Arterial 
5'n Street City of Hubbard Collector 
Hubbard classifies OR 99E as a Major Arterial; ODOT classifies OR 99E as a Rural Minor Arterial. 
2 D Street is a Minor Arterial northwest of OR 99E, and a Collector southeast of OR 99E. 
3 G Street is a Collector between 2nd Street and J Street, and a Local Road northwest of 2nd Street 
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS, STREET DESIGN STANDARDS AND ACCESS SPACING STANDARDS 
Identifying the appropriate functional classification for roadways provides a basis for planning future 
improvements and establishing design standards, such as: access spacing, roadway width, right-of-way 
needs, design speed, and type of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The City of Hubbard's 1999 TSP identifies 
four roadway classifications: Major Arterial, Minor Arterial, Collector, and Local Street. OR 99E is classified as 
a Major Arterial by the City of Hubbard and as a Rural Minor Arterial by ODOT. OR 99E is also identified in 
the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan as a Regional Highway and a designated freight route. 
Table 4.2 summarizes the street design standards corresponding to each of the functional 
classifications adopted in the 1999 TSP. In addition to these standards, the 2003 Hubbard Downtown 
Development Resource Team Report provides streetscape and cross section recommendations for OR 
99E, D Street, and 3rd Street. Table 4.3 summarizes the Rural Arterial design standards in the ODOT 
Highway Design Manual. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
Table 4.2 Existing Hubbard Street Design Standards 
! Functional 
Classification 
ROW 
Width2 
Paved 
Width 
Travel 
Lanes 
Turning 
Lane Parking 
Parkway 
Strip 
Sidewalk 
Width 
Bikeway 
Type and 
Standards 
Arterial 
Major 
100 76 4 12' lanes 
1 
14-16' 
lane 
None 2 5' strips 
2 
6' 
sidewalks 
2 
6' bike lanes 
Minor 
60 483 2 11' lanes None 
Both 
sides of 
street 
None 
2 
6' 
sidewalks 
2 
6' bike lanes 
Collector 
Phase I 
60 344 2 10' lanes None 
Both 
sides of 
street 
2 
4.5' strips 
2 
5' 
sidewalks 
Shared 
Roadway 
Phase II 
60 344 2 11' lanes None None 
2 
'4.5 strips 
2 
5' 
sidewalks 
2 
6' bike lanes 
; Local 
Local Street 
50 283 1 14' lane None 
Both 
sides of 
street 
2 
5' strips 
2 
5 
sidewalks 
Shared 
Roadway 
Cul-de-sac 
50 30 1 14' lane None 
Both 
sides of 
street 
2 
5' strips 
2 
5' 
sidewalks 
Shared 
Roadway 
Cul-de-sac-
bulb 46 40 None 1 5' strip 
2 
5' 
sidewalks 
Shared 
Roadway 
All dimensions in tab'e are in feet. 
2 ROW = right-of-way 
Phase I changes to Phase I1 when traffic volume exceeds 3,000 ADT 
"Greater widths may be required at intersections with turn lanes. 
Table 4.3 Rural Arterial Design Standards 
# o f Design Width of Maximum Stopping I 
Functional Lanes Speed Traveled Shoulder Grade Maximum Sight ij 
Classification Way Width (%) Curvature Distance 
Rural Arterial 
2 70 mph 24' 8' 3 3"15' 730 
4 70 mph 2 x 2 4 ' 8' 3 3° 15' 730 
Table 4.4 summarizes ODOT access spacing standards for Rural Regional Highways and access spacing 
standards corresponding to each of the functional classifications adopted in the 1999 Hubbard TSF 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
Table 4.4 Access Spacing Standards 
Minimum Spacing (feet) 
Between Public Between Private Between Traffic 
Functional Classification Roadways Roadways Signals 
Rural Regional Highway 
(ODOT) 600 -750
1 600 -7501 2,640 
Major Arterial (City) 1,320 300 - 500 1,320-2,640 
Minor Arterial (City) 400 1 5 0 - 3 0 0 -
Collector (City) 400 1 0 0 - 1 5 0 
Local - -
"-" Indicates a minimum access spacing was not specified in the 1999 TSP for that street type. 
1 Standard is 600' in areas with posted speed of 30-35 miles per hour, 750' in areas with posted speed of 40-45 miles 
per hour. 
POTENTIAL FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION, DESIGN STANDARD, AND ACCESS SPACING CHANGES 
Many of the roadways within the City of Hubbard do not currently meet the design standards or access 
spacing standards contained in Tables 4.3 and 4.4. Most notably, OR 99E, the only major arterial in Hubbard, 
currently has a 2 to 3 lane cross-section as opposed to the 5-lane section currently identified in the design 
standards. There are also currently no marked bicycle lanes on any arterials or collectors within Hubbard and 
many streets do not have sidewalks, or have sidewalks narrower than the required 5 to 6 feet. As part of the 
TSP Update, the desire and need for these cross-sections was reviewed. In particular, the recommended 
cross sections for OR99E, 3rd Street, and D Street were assessed to incorporate the recommendations of the 
2003 Hubbard Downtown Development Resource Team Report. 
In addition, the existing Roadway Network Plan in the 1999 Hubbard TSP does not address recent UGB 
expansion areas. The roadway needs of these areas, including functional classifications, design standards, 
and access requirements were addressed as part of the TSP update. The TSP update reevaluated the 
location(s) of and need for new or extended collector streets in these areas in order to increase accessibility 
and create alternative routes to OR 99E. Several areas outside of the UGB, including the agricultural area 
east of OR 99E and the area northwest of Hubbard near Mill Creek, were also evaluated to identify locations 
for future collectors that minimize impacts on prime agricultural land, wetlands, and steep slopes. 
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES 
Existing traffic operations were evaluated to identify current intersection deficiencies on the system in terms of 
delay, available capacity and/or queue lengths. Figures 4.1 and 4.2 show the locations, existing lane 
configurations, and traffic control devices at the study intersections that were evaluated using traffic counts 
obtained from ODOT. The study intersections generally represent the major intersections within the City of 
Hubbard. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
48 
Hubbard TSP Update June 2011 
•pöRserpR N 
/BAINES B V 
.RIVIERA C 
U j , KARILN 
nebroADAi 
OASTt^^ 
i 
g S Ä 
NgWHJSKEY H.ILL RD. 
.riiijifti »mnm WW»» 
f j City Limits Hubbard Roads 
— » Urban Growth Boundary • J = Local Roads 
HubbardTaxlots = OR 99E 
' ' ' ' Railroad 
Study Intersection 
Locations 
Figure 
4.1 
EXHIBIT "A1 — ~— 
City of Hubbard Transportation System Plan Update June 2011 
Parkway Boulevard Elm Street D Street A Street 
OR99E/ 
G Street 
3rd Street/ 
A Street 
OR99E/ 
J Street 
OR99E/ 
Industrial Avenue 
3rd Street/ 
D Street 
5th Street/ 
A Street 
5th Street/ 
J Street 
5th Street/ 
G Street 
ODOT STUDY INTERSECTION 
CITY STUDY INTERSECTION 
STOP SIGN 
TRAFFIC SIGNAL 
Figure Existing Lane 
Configurations and Traffic 
Control Devices 
EXHIBIT "A' 
OR99E/ OR99E/ OR99E/ OR99E/ 
0 -
® -
Figure 4.3 illustrates the daily traffic profile at OR 99E and D Street in Hubbard. The traffic counts indicate that 
the system weekday peak hour occurs belween 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m Traffic counts also indicate that the 
majority of traffic in Hubbard is located on OR 99E and D Street; side street traffic is minimal. Appendix D 
contains the raw 2010 traffic counts. 
Figure 4,3 Average Daily Traffic (OR 99E and D Street) 
1 ,400 
1,200 
1,000 
800 
600 
4 0 0 
200 
• 0R99E (N-S) 
U3SI,J£tWJ . 
8 8 
IN I 
Time ol D»y 
8 S 8 B 8 
Figure 4.4 shows the existing weekday p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at each of the study intersections. 
These volumes have been balanced and seasonally adjusted using the "Commuted trena from ODOT's 
Seasonal Trend Table according to the procedures defined in the ODOT Analysis Procedures Manuai. The 
traffic counts conducted in October 2010 at all study intersections were seasonally adjusted by a factor of 
1.03. The seasonal adjustment factor selection process is described in the Methodology Memo, included in 
Appendix E. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
City ol Hubbard Transportation System Plan Update June 2011 
Parkway Boulevard Elm Street D Street A Street 
3rd Street/ 
A Street 
OR99E/ 
G Street 
OR99E/ 
J Street 
OR99E/ 
Industrial Avenue 
LOS=A 
Del=7.6 
V/C=AWSC 
5th Street/ 
J Street 
5th Street/ 
G Street 
3rd Street/ 
D Street 
5th Street/ 
A Street 
LOS=A 
Del=7.4 
V /C=AWSC 
CRITICAL MOVEMENT (UNSIGNALIZED) 
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE 
(SIGNALIZED)/CRITICAL MOVEMENT LEVEL OF 
SERVICE (UNSIGNALIZED) 
INTERSECTION AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY 
(SIGNALIZED)/CRITICAL MOVEMENT CONTROL 
DELAY (UNSIGNALIZED) 
CRITICAL V0LUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO 
OPERATIONAL STANDARD 
Figure Existing Traffic Conditions 
Weekday PM Peak Hour 
EXHIBIT "A' 
0R99E/ OR99E/ OR99E/ 0R99E/ 
CM = 
LOS = 
Del = 
V/C = 
STD = 
EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 
Traffic operations at intersections are typically gauged using a measure known as "level of service" (LOS). 
Level of service represents the average amount of delay that motorists experience when passing through an 
intersection using a letter grade scale from "A" (best) to "F" (worst). At signalized and all-way stop-controlled 
intersections, LOS is based on the average delay experienced by all vehicles entering the intersection. At two-
way stop-controlled intersections, LOS is based on the average delay experienced by the worst movement at 
the intersection, typically a left-turn from the stop-controlled street. For signalized intersections, LOS "D" 
(drivers experience no more than 55 seconds of average delay) is generally considered to be an acceptable 
operational level. For unsignalized intersections, LOS "E" (drivers experience no more than 50 seconds of 
average delay) is generally considered to be an acceptable level. 
ODOT uses a volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio to evaluate operations at intersections under its jurisdiction (e.g. 
OR 99E). The v/c ratio indicates the percentage of an intersection's or movement's capacity that is being 
used. For example, a v/c ratio of 0.50 indicates that half of the available capacity is used. In order to meet 
ODOT performance standards for a regional highway outlined in the Oregon Highway Plan™, the v/c ratio at 
OR 99E intersections in Hubbard should not exceed 0.85. 
All of the operational analyses described in this report were performed in accordance with the procedures 
stated in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual lxand the ODOT Analysis Procedures Manual* 
Based on current p.m. peak hour traffic volumes, level of service was calculated for the study area 
intersections. The results of the level of service analysis are summarized in Figure 4.4 and Table 4.5. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
Table 4.5 Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Analysis Results 
Intersection 
Traffic 
Control 
Posted 
Speed Standard 
Major 
Approach 
V/C Ratio 
Critical Movement' 
Meets 
Standard LOS 
V/C 
Ratio 
Delay 
(sec/veh) 
1. OR 99E/ 
Elm Street Two-Way Stop 35 mph v/c < 0.85 0.43 E 0.18 40.6 
Yes 
2. OR 99E/ 
Parkway Blvd 
Two-Way Stop 35 mph v/c < 0.85 0.41 C 0.05 22.1 Yes 
3. OR 99E/ 
A Street 
Two-Way Stop 35 mph v/c < 0.85 0.56 E 0.32 44.4 Yes 
4. OR 99E/ 
D Street 
Signal 35 mph v/c < 0.85 - B 0.78 15.3 Yes 
5. OR 99E/ 
G Street Two-Way Stop 35 mph v/c < 0.85 0.42 C 0.29 19.6 
Yes 
6. OR 99E/ 
J Street 
Two-Way Stop 35 mph v/c < 0.85 0.47 C 0.21 19.4 Yes 
7. OR 99E/ 
Industrial Ave Two-Way Stop 40 mph v/c < 0.80 0.48 C 0.06 15.3 
Yes 
8. 3ra Street/ 
A Street All-Way Stop 25 mph LOS "D"
2 N/A A AWSC 7.6 Yes 
9. 3ra Street/ 
D Street All-Way Stop 25 mph LOS "D"
2 N/A A AWSC 8.1 Yes 
10. 5m Street/ 
A Street All-Way Stop 25 mph LOS "D"
2 N/A A AWSC 7.4 Yes 
11. 5,n Street/ 
G Street Two-Way Stop 25 mph LOS "E"
2 N/A A 0.02 9.7 Yes 
12. 5 ,n Street/ 
J Street Two-Way Stop 
25 mph LOS "E"2 N/A A 0.02 9.0 Yes 
Notes: LOS = Level of Service, V/C Ratio = Volume-to-Capacity Ratio 
1 LOS, V/C ratio, and delay for signalized intersections represent operations of the intersection (e.g. intersection LOS and 
intersection control delay). 
2 This intersection is under City jurisdiction and has no adopted standard. For the purpose of identifying existing 
deficiencies, LOS "D" and LOS "E" will be used as performance thresholds for all-way and two-way stop controlled 
intersections, respectively. 
As shown in Table 4.5, all of the study area intersections currently operate at within performance standards 
during the p.m. peak hour. Appendix F provides the 2010 existing conditions operational analysis worksheets 
for each study intersection. 
QUEUE LENGTH ANALYSIS 
A queue length analysis was conducted for each of the study intersections according to the method described 
in the ODOT Analysis Procedures Manual. The 95th percentile queue lengths were identified for each 
approach using the Two-Minute Rule for two-way stop controlled intersections, the HCM equation 17-37 for 
all-way stop controlled intersections, and Synchro for signalized intersections. The Two-Minute Rule suggests 
longer than expected/observed queue lengths for some of the approaches on OR 99E. For comparison 
purposes, both the Two-Minute Rule and HCM queue lengths were calculated for all unsignalized 
intersections. The reported queue lengths for OR 99E study intersections are shown in Table 4.6. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 63 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
Table 4.6 Queue Length Analysis (2010) 
Intersection Approach 
95tn Percentile Queue Length 
(feet)1 Queue 
Storage 
Available 
Adequate 
Storage? 
2-Minute 
Rule HCM Synchro 
1. OR 99E/Elm Street Westbound 25 25 175 Yes 
Southbound 25 25 J Yes 
2. OR 99E/Parkway 
Boulevard 
Westbound 25 25 300 Yes 
Southbound 25 25 j Yes 
3. OR 99E/A Street Eastbound 75 50 300 Yes 
Northbound 25 25 a Yes 
4. OR 99E/D Street Northbound TH/RT 250' 220 No 
Northbound LT 25 120 Yes 
Southbound TH/RT 550" 700 Yes 
Southbound LT 25 120 Yes 
Eastbound TH/RT 100 100 Yes 
Eastbound LT 150 300 Yes 
Westbound TH/RT 75 80 Yes 
Westbound LT 50 80 Yes 
5. OR 99E/G Street Northbound LT 150 25 >300 Yes 
Southbound LT 75 25 >300 Yes 
Eastbound 175 50 200 Yes 
Westbound 75 25 >300 Yes 
6. OR 99E/J Street Northbound LT 25 25 >300 Yes 
Southbound LT 50 25 >300 Yes 
Eastbound 75 25 120 Yes 
Westbound 100 25 • 120 Yes 
7. OR 99E/lndustrial 
Avenue 
Southbound LT 25 25 >300 Yes 
Westbound 50 25 200 Yes 
Reported queue may be longer than existing queue due to use of optimized signal timings in the Synchro model. The 
project team is awaiting signal timing data for this intersection from ODOT. 
3 Turn pockets are not provided, but more than 300 feet of storage is available in the through travel lane. 
As shown in Table 4.6, with the exception of the OR 99E/D Street intersection, the existing 95th percentile 
queue lengths at the study intersections are less than their respective available storage. At the OR 99E/D 
Street intersection, queues for the northbound through and right turn movement currently extend past the OR 
99E/E Street intersection. Queuing analysis calculations for OR 99E and local study intersections are provided 
in Appendix F. 
CRASH ANALYSIS 
Roadway Segment Crash Analysis 
The Oregon 99E Corridor Safety Report (2002) identified a high number of crashes on OR 99E between the 
northern city limits of Salem and the northern city limits of Canby. This segment of OR 99E was noted to have 
higher rates of crashes involving alcohol use and crashes involving pedestrians than the statewide average. 
Findings specific to the segment of OR 99E in Hubbard include: 
• Access control is a problem on Highway 99E in Hubbard, particularly in areas with wide 
shoulders and "open frontage" where driveways are not defined. 
• The crash rate on OR 99E in Hubbard is higher than the state average, which is primarily 
attributed to the high traffic volumes for the number of available lanes. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 64 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Vi 
• Queues from the signal at D Street contribute to rear end crashes and it is difficult for side 
traffic to find gaps to cross or enter the highway, resulting in turning and angle crashes 
A review of ODOT's Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) was also completed. The SPIS is a method 
developed by ODOT for identifying high crash locations on state highways. In 2009, the segment of OR 99E 
through Hubbard was identified as a Category 3 segment (three to five fatal and serious injury crashes in a 
five-mile segment) in the Safety Investment Program (SIP). In 2010, the segment of OR 99E between 
Parkway Boulevard and A Street (mileposts 28.98 to 29.19) was identified as a 95th percentile (top 5 percent) 
SPIS site. Approximately 87% of crashes on this segment are rear end crashes, possibly related to vehicle 
queues from the signal at D Street. Recent improvements at the OR 99E/D Street intersection (signal timing 
changes, addition of flashing yellow arrows, curb radii, and new curb, gutter, and sidewalks) may influence 
future crash rates on this segment and at the OR 99E/D Street intersection. Based on its analysis, ODOT 
recommends installing a two-way left turn lane on this segment of OR 99E. 
The project team has requested historic roadway segment crash records for OR 99E within Hubbard. In 
subsequent tasks of the TSP update, this segment crash data will be reviewed in detail and potential 
mitigations identified for reducing crashes. 
Intersection Crash Analysis 
To identify potential safety deficiencies or conflict points at study intersections within Hubbard, five years of 
crash data, - from 2005 through 2009 - were obtained from ODOT and analyzed. Crash data were reviewed 
at the intersection level in order to identify potential safety issues that should be addressed. 
Typically, intersection safety is evaluated by calculating the intersection's crash rate (the number of crashes 
per million vehicles entering the intersection) and the frequency of crashes (the number of crashes per year). 
These rates are compared to other similar facilities and crash patterns are examined to determine whether a 
safety deficiency exists. 
For this analysis, the critical rate method was used to evaluate each of the study intersections. Appendix G 
contains the raw ODOT crash data and Appendix H contains the critical crash rate calculations. Under this 
methodology, a critical crash rate is calculated for each intersection and compared to each intersection's 
observed crash rate. The critical crash rates are based on the performance of other study intersections with 
the same traffic control device.*' For the purpose of the analysis, the study intersections were divided into two 
groups: 1) intersections located on OR 99E and 2) intersections located off of OR 99E. These two groups 
were used due to the substantial difference in traffic volumes between intersections on OR 99E and local 
intersections. Comparing crash rates between high and low volume intersections can be misleading and over-
represent crashes occurring at low volume intersections. Establishing these two comparison groups creates a 
more valid assessment of existing safety performance. 
Crash rates for intersections were calculated in crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV). The observed 
crash frequency, crash rate, and critical crash rate for each study intersection is summarized in Table 4.7.*" 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
56 
Table 4.7 Crash Analysis Summary (2005-2009) 
Intersection 
Property 
Damage 
Only 
(PDO) 
Crashes 
Injury 
Crashes 
Fatai 
Crashes 
Total 
Crashes 
Crash 
Frequency 
(per year) 
Observed 
Crash 
Rate (per 
MEV) 
Critical 
Crash 
Rate 
Exceeds 
Critical 
Rate? 
1 Elm Street/ 
OR 99E 1 2 0 3 0.6 0.10 0.37 No 
2. Parkway 
Boulevard/ 
OR 99E 
0 3 0 3 0 6 0.10 0.37 No 
3. A Street/ 
OR 99E 0 5 0 5 1 0 0.17 0.37 No 
' 4 D Street/ 
OR 99E 
8 8 0 16 3.2 0.52 0.37 Yes 
5. G Street/ 
OR99E 10 4 0 14 2.8 0.48 0.37 Yes 
6. J Street/ 
OR 99E 6 0 0 6 1.2 0.22 0.38 No 
7 Industrial 
Avenue/ 
OR 99E 
0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 0.38 No 
8. A Street/ 
3rd Street 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 0.59 No 
'i 9. D Street/ 
3rd Streei 
1 0 0 1 0.2 0.14 0.49 No 
I 10. A Street/ 
5th Street 1 0 0 1 0 2 0.30 0.62 Mo 
11 G Street/ 
5th Street 1 0 0 1 0.2 0.58 0.77 No 
12. J Street-' 
5th Street 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 0.65 No 
Of the 12 study intersections, two exceed their critical crash rate: D Street/OR 99E and G Street/OR 99E. The 
majority of crashes at the D Street'OR 99E intersection angle or turn crashes involving vehicles disregarding 
the traffic signal At both intersections, multiple northbound and southbound vehicles were rear-ended while 
stopped at the signal or flashing yellow beacon (all southbound rear-end crashes occurred during the p.m. 
peaK and the majority of northbound crashes occurred during the a.m. peak). The majority of crashes at the G 
Street/OR 99E intersection involved vehicles trying 10 cross OR 99E (six westbound and rour eastboimd 
vehicles) Table 4.7 provides additional detail about the types of crashes that have been reported at each of 
the study intersections. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
57 
Table 4.8 Intersection Crash Type and Severity (2005-2009) 
Intersection Name 
No. of 
Crashes 
Collision Type 
Angle Head-On Rear-End Turning Other 
1. Elm Street/OR 99E 3 0 0 2 1 0 
2. Parkway Boulevard/OR 
99E 
3 0 0 3 0 0 
3. A Street/OR 99E 5 0 0 4 1 0 
4. D Street/OR 99E 16 5 0 4 7 0 
5. G Street/OR 99E 14 10 0 2 2 0 
6. J Street/OR 99E 6 3 0 1 2 0 
7. Industrial Avenue/OR 99E 0 0 0 0 0 0 
8. A Street/3ra Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 
9. D Street/3ra Street 1 0 0 0 1 0 
10. A Street/5m Street 1 1 0 0 0 0 
11. G Street/5,n Street 1 1 0 0 0 0 
12. J Street/5,n Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Total 50 20 0 16 14 0 
All but three of the 50 crashes identified in the crash data are related to the OR 99E corridor. Over half of 
these crashes occurred at the intersections of OR 99E with G Street and D Street. 
Crash data for the two intersections that exceed the critical crash rate were reviewed in detail and potential 
mitigations identified for reducing crashes in Section 5 - Alternatives Analysis. 
FUTURE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 
The following section describes anticipated future growth in the City of Hubbard and surrounding region 
between 2010 and 2035. It also summarizes how the transportation system is anticipated to operate with the 
additional traffic in the "no build" scenario (if no improvements were made to the existing system). Future 
traffic operations were evaluated in accordance with the Cumulative Analysis Procedure identified in the 
ODOT Analysis Procedures Manual*". The detailed methodology for this analysis and development of future 
growth forecasts are included in Appendix E. 
Planned Transportation Improvements 
Appendix A describes the future transportation improvements recommended for the study area in existing 
local and regional planning documents. There are no capacity increasing projects currently planned within the 
study area. Safety improvements to the OR 99E/Young Street intersection and addition of a two-way center 
turn lane at the OR 99E/Belle Passi Road intersection in Woodburn, are included in the draft 2012-2015 State 
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), but are not anticipated to impact traffic in Hubbard. 
The Woodburn Highway 99E Corridor Plan is currently being completed and a corridor plan that addresses 
the section of OR 99E in Hubbard will be developed concurrently with the TSP update. These corridor plans 
will evaluate land use and transportation conditions along the OR 99E corridor and identify specific 
transportation improvements needed to support future growth. The Hubbard TSP update was developed in 
coordination with the upcoming OR 99E Corridor Plan. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
58 
Population and Employment Growth 
Future transportation demand within the City of Hubbard was estimated based on population and 
employment forecasts contained in the Hubbard Comprehensive Plan. The plan reviewed historic trends and 
projected population and employment to forecast years of 2027 and 2030. A straight line projection was used 
to increase this growth from 2027 to 2035. Tables 4.9 and 4.10 illustrate the resultant employment, 
population, and housing growth assumptions. 
Table 4.9 Employment Growth Projections (2004-2035) 
Sector2 2004 20101 2027 20351 
Absolute 
Growth 
(2010-2035) 
Annual 
Growth 
Rate 
Construction 411 451 565 639 187 1.6% 
Manufacturing 349 383 479 541 158 1.6% 
Wholesale Trade, Transportation, and 
Warehousing 78 86 108 122 37 1.7% 
Retail Trade 170 187 234 265 78 1.6% 
Services and Real Estate 276 303 380 430 127 1.6% 
Public Sector Employment 74 82 103 117 35 1.7% 
Total 1,358 1,492 1,869 2,114 622 1.6% 
1 Estimates based on straight-line projection between 2004, 2008, and 2027 data. 
2 Between 2010 and 2035, approximately 329 new jobs are expected in the "Agricultural, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting" 
sector. Per the Hubbard Comprehensive Plan, these jobs are assumed to be located in agricultural land outside the 
UGB. As a result, trips associated with these jobs were assumed to be addressed by new housing and background trip 
growth and were not assigned to TAZs within the City of Hubbard. 
Table 4.10 Population and Housing Growth Projections (2008-2035) 
2008 2010 2030 2035 
Absolute 
Growth 
(2010-2035) 
Population 3,095 3,175
1 4,7182 5,1543 1,979 
Housing Units4 996 1,002
1 1,431 1,563 561 
Single Family 746 750 1,037 1,133 383 
Multi-Family 250 252 394 430 178 
1 -2010 population and housing estimates based on 2010 Census. 
2. - Marion County 2030 Adopted Forecast October, 2009. 
3. - 2035 estimate based on 1.85% adjusted annual growth rate adopted by Marion County for the 2030/2035 forecast. 
4. - 2030 and 2035 estimates based on 2000 US Census average household size of 3.297. (This is a more 
conservative estimate than using the 2010 Census average household size of 3.31.) The projected mix of single family 
and multi-family housing units in 2030 and 2035 is based upon the 2010 Hubbard Comprehensive Plan, which 
estimates that 27.5 percent of new housing units will be multi-family units and 72.5 percent will be single-family units. 
As shown in Tables 4.9 and 4.10, an increase of 622 jobs and 561 housing units (383 single-family/178 multi-
family) are anticipated within the City of Hubbard between 2010 and 2035. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
59 
Traffic Analysis Zones 
In order to evaluate the impacts of anticipated growth, the employment and housing growth was assigned to 
the traffic network according to Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) established as part of the TSP update. The 
proposed TAZ boundaries are intended to aggregate areas that have common access to major transportation 
facilities and similar land use patterns. New jobs and households were assigned to each TAZ based on the 
Hubbard Buildable Land Inventory (MWVCOG, 2008) and planned land uses for UGB expansion areas 
outlined in the Hubbard Comprehensive Plan.xiv Appendix E includes a map of the TAZs utilized to develop 
the future forecast for Hubbard and a detailed summary of how trips were assigned to each TAZ. 
Trip Generation 
Trip generation estimates for the growth sectors shown in Tables 4.9 and 4.10 were prepared based on 
observations found in the standard reference manual, Trip Generation, £>h Edition, published by the Institute of 
Transportation Engineers (ITE)W. The growth sectors were evaluated according to equivalent land uses found 
in ITE, which were identified by considering characteristics of the various land uses and those of the growth 
sectors. Appendix E includes a detailed breakdown of the trip generation estimates by TAZ. 
Trips generated by population and employment growth were assigned to the network according to the trip 
production and attractions probabilities identified through the Cumulative Analysis procedures in the APM. 
Appendix E contains a detailed description of the Cumulative Analysis process and the traffic volumes used in 
this analysis. 
Background traffic growth was calculated using ODOT 2029 volume forecasts for OR 99E projected to 2035. 
The trips generated by future job and housing growth were added to the 2035 background volumes. 
Projected 2035 traffic volumes at study intersections are shown in Figure 4.5. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
60 
City of Hubbard Transportation System Plan Update June 2011 
Parkway Boulevard Elm Street 
CM JVB 
OSJ 
Del=>50 
'WOO. 35 
CM=WB OS=r ")el=>50 
V/">0.16 
H=Efl J 
.OS=F 
n*k>so v/c=>i.n 
5S-0 
rteusn.o 
V/0*>1.0 
OR99E/ 
J Street 
3rd Street' 
A Street 
OR99E/ 
Industrial Avenue 
i CM=WB I r LOS=F * 
. Del=>50 . 
J 
CUmWBr 
~i->50 
CM=WB 
LOS=C 
Del=21-9 
V/C=0.31 
LOS=A 
Del=7.9 
WG=AWSC 
3rd Street/ 
D Street 
5th Street/ 
A Street 
5th Street/ 
G Street 
5th Street/ 
J Street 
1CM=SB' 
LOS=B 
Deis 13.6 
CM»6B 
iOS=B 
-VJ-'O.A 
V/C=0.27 
LOS=/ 
OefcB.B 
V/CsAWC _ 
LOS=A 
Defc7.6 
V/CIAWSC 
CRITICAL MOVEMENT (UNSIGNALIZED) 
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE 
(SIGNALIZEDJ/CRITICAL MOVEMENT lEVEL OF 
SERVICE (UNSIGNALIZED) 
INTERSECTION AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY 
(SIGNALIZEDyCRITICAL MOVEMENT CONTROL 
DELAY (UNSIGNALIZED) 
CRITICAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO 
OPERATIONAL STANDARD 
2035 No-Build 
Traffic Conditions 
Weekday PM Peak Hour 
EXHIBIT "A' 
OR99E/ OR99E/ OR99E/ OR99E/ 
CM 
LOS 
De! = 
V/C = 
STD = 
2035 No-Build Intersection Operations 
The No-Build scenario analyzes traffic operations in the year 2035 assuming the existing transportation 
network is not improved. Table 4.11 shows the level of service and volume-to-capacity ratio for the 
intersections under year 2035 No-Build conditions. Appendix I provides the 2035 No-Build conditions 
operational analysis worksheets for each study intersection. 
Table 4.11 Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Analysis Results (2035) 
Intersection 
Traffic 
Control 
Posted 
Speed Standard 
Major 
Approach 
V/C Ratio 
Critical Movement1 
Meets 
Standard LOS 
V/C 
Ratio 
Delay 
(sec/veh) 
1. OR99E/ 
Elm Street Two-Way Stop 35 mph v/c < 0.85 0.56 F 0.35 >50 Yes 
2. OR 99E/ 
Parkway Blvd Two-Way Stop 35 mph v/c < 0.85 0.56 F 0.16 >50 Yes 
3. OR 99E/ 
A Street Two-Way Stop 35 mph v/c < 0.85 0.77 F >2 >50 No 
4. OR 99E/ 
D Street Signal 35 mph v/c < 0.85 - D 1.06 50.0 No 
5. OR 99E/ 
G Street Two-Way Stop 35 mph v/c < 0.85 0.54 F >2 >50 No 
6. OR 99E/ 
J Street Two-Way Stop 35 mph v/c < 0.85 0.57 F 0.74 >50 Yes 
7. OR99E/ 
Industrial Ave Two-Way Stop 40 mph v/c < 0.80 0.59 C 0.31 21.9 Yes 
8. 3ra Street/ 
A Street All-Way Stop 25 mph LOS "D"
2 N/A A AWSC 7.9 Yes 
9. 3ra Street/ 
D Street All-Way Stop 25 mph LOS "D"
2 N/A A AWSC 8.8 Yes 
10. 5,n Street/ 
A Street All-Way Stop 25 mph LOS "D"
2 N/A A AWSC 7.6 Yes 
11. 5,n Street/ 
G Street Two-Way Stop 25 mph LOS "E"
2 N/A B 0.11 13.6 Yes 
12. 5in Street/ 
J Street Two-Way Stop 25 mph LOS "E"
2 N/A B 0.27 10.8 Yes 
Notes: LOS = Level of Service, V/C Ratio = Volume-to-Capacity Ratio 
1 LOS, V/C ratio, and delay for signalized intersections represent operations of the intersection (e.g. intersection LOS and 
intersection control delay). 
2 This intersection is under City jurisdiction and has no adopted standard. For the purpose of identifying existing 
deficiencies, LOS "D" and LOS "E" will be used as performance thresholds for all-way and two-way stop controlled 
intersections, respectively. 
As shown in Table 4.11, if the transportation network is not improved, side street movements at the majority of 
OR 99E study intersections are forecast to yield level of service "F" and operate below standards during the 
year 2035 weekday p.m. peak hour. All of the City-maintained study intersections are forecast to operate 
within applicable standards and well below their capacity during the year 2035 weekday p.m. peak hour. 
Alternative treatments (e.g. operational and management changes, design improvements, capacity 
expansions) to address deficiencies at OR 99E intersections were developed and reviewed in detail as part of 
the Alternatives Analysis found in Section 5. 
Queue Length Analysis 
Anticipated 95th percentile queue lengths at OR 99E intersections were examined based on the estimated 
2035 traffic volumes, and are shown in Table 4.12. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
62 
Table 4.12 Queue Length Analysis (2035) 
Intersection Approach 
95 th Percentile Queue Length 
(feet)1 Queue 
Storage 
Available 
Adequate 
Storage? 
2-Minute 
Rule HCM Synchro 
1. OR 99E/Elm Street Westbound 125 50 175 Yes 
Southbound 50 25 5 Yes 
2. OR 99E/Parkway 
Boulevard 
Southbound 25 25 6 Yes 
Westbound 25 25 300 Yes 
3. OR 99E/A Street Eastbound 125 725 300 No 
Northbound 75 25 t> Yes 
4. OR 99E/D Street Northbound TH/RT 350 220 No^ 
Northbound LT 50 120 Yes 
Southbound TH/RT 975 700 No 
Southbound LT 25 120 Yes 
Eastbound TH/RT 100 100 Yes 
Eastbound LT 250 300 Yes 
Westbound TH/RT 100 80 YesJ 
Westbound LT 50 80 Yes 
5. OR 99E/G Street Northbound LT 200 50 >300 Yes 
Southbound LT 75 25 >300 Yes 
Eastbound 250 125 200 No 
Westbound 75 575 >300 No 
6. OR 99E/J Street Northbound LT 25 25 >300 Yes 
Southbound LT 150 25 >300 Yes 
Eastbound 75 25 120 Yes 
Westbound 250 175 120 No" 
7. OR 99E/lndustrial Avenue Northbound LT 25 25 >300 Yes 
Southbound LT 75 25 >300 Yes 
Westbound 150 50 200 Yes 
All queue lengths are rounded up to the nearest 25 feet. 
2 Over 500 feet of storage is available, but would block access for eastbound left turns from E Street to OR 99E. 
3 Additional storage available in the approaching lane. 
4 Over 500 feet of storage is available, but would block access for northbound left turns from Industrial Avenue and 
site driveways to J Street. 
5 Turn pockets are not provided, but more than 300 feet of storage is available in the through travel lane. 
As shown in Table 4.12, multiple eastbound and westbound side street queues are expected to exceed 
storage capacity at OR 99E intersections. Northbound and southbound through movement queues at the OR 
99E/D Street intersection are anticipated to extend past adjacent intersections up and downstream, interfering 
with traffic movements at these locations. Appendix I contains the year 2035 queuing analysis calculations for 
OR 99E and local study intersections. 
Signal Warrants 
Preliminary signal warrants for currently unsignalized study intersections on OR 99E were reviewed according 
to the methodology outlined in the APM™ Based on the projected turning movement counts at these 
intersections, preliminary signal warrants are not met. Appendix J contains the year 2035 preliminary signal 
warrants for OR 99E intersections. 
SUMMARY OF ROADWAY DEFICIENCIES 
Based on the level of service and crash analyses, as well as input received from the TSP Project Advisory 
Committee, the following deficiencies in the roadway network were identified: 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
63 
• The existing Roadway Network Plan in the 1999 Hubbard TSP does not incorporate recent 
UGB expansion areas. The roadway needs of these areas, including roadway extensions, 
functional classifications, design standards, and access requirements will need to be addressed 
in the TSP update. The location(s) of and need for new or extended collector streets should 
also be reevaluated in new areas within the UGB and some areas outside of the UGB in order 
to increase accessibility and create alternative routes to OR 99E. 
• There are only three crossings of the Union Pacific railroad providing east-west connectivity 
within the City of Hubbard. This creates discontinuities in the roadway grid network and focuses 
traffic to destinations throughout the City on a limited number of roadway segments. 
• Many roadways within Hubbard do not meet existing design or access spacing standards. 
There are not currently marked bicycle lanes on any arterials or collectors within Hubbard and 
many streets do not have sidewalks, or provide sidewalks narrower than the required 5 to 6 
feet. Roadway functional classifications and cross-sectional standards need to be reviewed to 
determine if there is a desire to achieve these standards over time or if the functional 
classification and/or corresponding design standard should be modified. The review should 
focus on OR99E, 3rd Street, and 5 Street in particular and consider the recommendations of 
the 2003 Hubbard Downtown Development Resource Team Report. 
• OR 99E within Hubbard has been identified in the SIP as a Category 3 segment (three to five 
fatal and serious injury crashes in a five-mile segment) and an intersection in Hubbard was 
identified as a 90th percentile (top 10 percent) SPIS site in 2010. The majority of crashes are 
located at the intersections of D Street and G Street with OR 99E. 
• In the 2035 No-Build scenario, side street movements at the majority of OR 99E study 
intersections are forecast to yield level of service "F" and do not meet standards during the 
weekday p.m. peak hour. 
• Preliminary signal warrants are not met at any of the study intersections on OR 99E due to the 
low traffic volumes on side streets. 
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE NETWORK 
The following sections document the existing and future conditions and deficiencies for the pedestrian and 
bicycle network. 
EXISTING CONDITIONS 
Pedestrian System 
Pedestrian facilities serve a variety of needs, including: 
• Relatively short trips (under a mile) to local destinations and pedestrian attractors, such as 
schools, parks, stores, and public facilities (e.g., libraries, recreation centers, community 
centers); 
• Recreational trips (e.g., jogging or hiking) and circulation within parklands; and 
• Local commute trips, where residents have chosen to live near where they work. 
• Within small communities such as Hubbard, most origins and destinations are within a J4 to 1-mile 
distance, meaning that walking could be employed regularly for a variety of trips. 
Section 3 describes existing pedestrian facilities in Hubbard and provides an overview of pedestrian-related 
goals and policies. Figure 3.4 shows existing sidewalk locations, widths, and conditions in the City of 
Hubbard. Sidewalks currently exist primarily in newer residential developments (the northwestern portion of 
the City), on 2nd and 3rd Streets near the historic downtown, and on the eastern half of OR 99E north of D 
Street. Marked crosswalks are located primarily on 3rd Street and F Street in the downtown area. The D 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
64 
Street/OR 99E intersection has marked crosswalks at each approach. This is the only marked pedestrian 
crossing of OR 99E in Hubbard. 
Pedestrian crossings of the Union Pacific railroad tracks are provided on the south sides of D Street and G 
Street. The crossing at D Street is a relatively new, 6 foot wide sidewalk in good condition with ADA compliant 
curb ramps at both block ends. The crossing at G Street is a less than 5-foot wide asphalt path in poor 
condition that does not meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. No pedestrian crossing 
facilities are provided at the A Street railroad crossing. 
Continuous pedestrian facilities should be provided on collectors and arterials such as OR 99E, 2nd Street, 3rd 
Street, 5th Street, D Street, G Street, and A Street in order to connect neighborhoods within Hubbard to 
employment areas and pedestrian attractors such as downtown, restaurants and stores along OR 99E, 
regional and school bus stops, and Barendse Park. These facilities should separate pedestrians from 
vehicular traffic and provide continuous connections along roadways. Pedestrian facilities should also provide 
safe opportunities for pedestrians to cross roadways and the railroad tracks at reasonable intervals. The 
needs of pedestrians of all ages and abilities should be considered when planning pedestrian facilities (e.g. 
ADA accessibility, "child-friendly" crossings between parks and residential areas). 
Bicycle System 
Similar to pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities can serve a variety of trip purposes, including local errands, 
commute trips, and recreational trips. Section 3 describes existing bicycle facilities in Hubbard and provides 
an overview of bicycle-related goals and policies. Hubbard currently has no marked bicycle facilities of any 
kind; however, several streets are designated as shared roadway facilities. Figure 3.5 shows the location of 
existing shared roadway bicycle facilities in the City of Hubbard. 
A variety of bicycle facilities are feasible within Hubbard and have been implemented in similar small 
communities throughout Oregon. ODOT categorizes bicycle facilities into the following four major 
classifications: 
• Shared roadway - Bicycles and vehicles share the same roadway area under this classification. 
The shared roadway facility is best used where there is minimal vehicle traffic to conflict with 
bicycle traffic. 
• Shoulder bikeways - This bicycle facility consists of roadways with paved shoulders to 
accommodate bicycle traffic. 
• Bike lanes - Separate lane adjacent to the vehicle travel lane for the exclusive use of bicyclists 
are considered bike lanes. 
• Bike paths - These bicycle facilities are exclusive bicycle lanes separated from the roadway. 
Dedicated bicycle facilities such as bicycle lanes should be provided along major streets such as OR 99E 
where automobile speeds are higher than 25 miles per hour, volumes are high, or poor sight distance exists. 
According to the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (Oregon Department of Transportation, 1995), shared 
roadways are acceptable on the majority of Hubbard local streets where the average daily traffic (ADT) is less 
than 3,000 vehicles per day. Shared roadway routes may include "sharrow" pavement markings or other 
signage to alert drivers to the presence of cyclists and to alert cyclists of preferable routes. 
Bicycle facilities should connect residential neighborhoods to schools, retail centers, and employment areas. 
Supporting bicycling as a viable alternative to the automobile also requires support facilities, such as secure 
parking, (particularly at key destinations such as downtown, community centers, and at OR 99E businesses). 
These facilities are necessary before the bicycle trip will be considered a practical alternative by most 
potential users. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
65 
FUTURE CONDITIONS 
Pedestrian System 
As shown in Figure 3.4, multiple gaps currently exist in the pedestrian network that limit pedestrian 
connectivity and impact the comfort and safety of making pedestrian trips within the City. Several pedestrian 
system improvements are needed to address these issues and increase the attractiveness of walking for a 
variety of trip purposes. These improvements include: 
• Creating safe and accessible pedestrian crossings of the Union Pacific Railroad and OR 99E; 
• Developing continuous sidewalks that meet City standards and connect neighborhoods, parks, 
bus stops, shopping, employment, and other destinations; and 
• Establishing marked pedestrian crossing locations of collector and arterial streets. 
The completion of partial sidewalks in the downtown area and along OR 99E would serve major pedestrian 
destinations and increase connectivity between these areas and local neighborhoods. Identifying 
opportunities to implement and/or improve pedestrian crossings through the railroad right-of-way, particularly 
at A Street and G Street, would help improve east-west connectivity through the City. Pedestrian connections 
can be created relatively easily while maintaining future railroad capacity and can help to increase safety by 
encouraging crossing at designated areas with appropriate warning systems. 
New development in the City of Hubbard should provide adequate pedestrian facilities both within the 
development and connecting the development to surrounding neighborhoods. This will result in necessary 
City pedestrian improvements being limited primarily to retrofitting and infilling existing gaps in the pedestrian 
network. 
Discussion of specific pedestrian facility needs, cost estimates, and project prioritization, are discussed in 
Sections 5 and 6 of the TSP. 
Bicycle System 
Similar to the pedestrian system, Hubbard's bicycle system should connect residential areas throughout the 
City with parks, shopping, employment, and other destinations. Support facilities such as bike parking are 
necessary to make cycling a more secure and convenient travel option for local trips such as shopping. 
Facilities should also support the use of bicycling for intra-city trips for commuting and recreation. 
The local bicycle network should generally feature designated bicycle lanes on all arterials and on streets 
carrying more than 3,000 vehicles per day. In Hubbard, this currently includes only OR 99E and D Street. OR 
99E currently has wide shoulders to accommodate cyclists through the majority of Hubbard, but signing and 
pavement markings could be improved to increase awareness of shoulders as a cycling facility. Areas where 
the shoulder narrows or is shared with traffic, such as the right turn lane at OR 99E/G Street should also be 
examined to reduce bicycle/vehicle conflicts. Designated bicycle lanes should also be considered on D Street 
and other collector streets as redevelopment and roadway maintenance occurs. 
The majority of streets within Hubbard are appropriate for shared roadway bicycle facilities. Signage, 
pavement markings, and other features should be considered on shared roadway facilities to create a 
designated bicycle network connecting to destinations throughout the City, improve wayfinding for cyclists, 
and promote cycling as a travel option. 
Off-street bicycle facilities also provide transportation options for pedestrians and bicyclists. The Hubbard 
Parks Master Plan identifies a multi-use path adjacent to Mill Creek that would connect North Marion School 
(approximately 2 miles north of Hubbard near Boones Ferry Road) to Broadacres Road in southern Hubbard. 
This path could serve both recreation and transportation purposes and link existing and planned parks 
throughout Hubbard. Additional opportunities for off-street multi-use paths may exist parallel to the railroad 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
66 
right-of-way (with connections to Barendse Park), Whiskey Hill Road, Broadacres Road, and through future 
development in the UGB expansion areas. 
Working with ODOT and Marion County to extend bicycle facility improvements on OR 99E or multi-use trails 
beyond the city limits could increase inter-city bicycle commuting and bicycle recreation and tourism trips to 
Hubbard. Developing bicycle facilities that connect to existing and future facilities within the City of Woodburn 
would help to leverage both cities' investments in active transportation infrastructure. 
SUMMARY OF PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE DEFICIENCIES 
Based on the inventory of existing facilities, as well as input received from the TSP Project Advisory 
Committee, the following deficiencies in the pedestrian and bicycle networks were identified: 
• There are many areas where sidewalks are missing or deficient within the City of Hubbard. 
Some sidewalks are in poor physical condition or too narrow for City design standards. 
Sidewalks in good condition, at least 5-feet wide should be provided on all collector, arterial, 
and local streets within city limits. Due to cost constraints, improvements should be prioritized 
in areas that provide connections to major pedestrian attractors (e.g. parks, downtown, OR 
99E). 
• D Street is currently the only designated pedestrian crossing of OR 99E. Pedestrian crossings 
of the railroad right-of-way are provided only on the southern side of D Street and G Street, 
however, the G Street crossing is not ADA accessible. Pedestrian crossing improvements and 
additional crossing locations should be evaluated to increase east-west pedestrian connectivity 
• There are currently no marked bicycle facilities in Hubbard. Bicycle lanes are desirable on all 
collector and arterial roadways; however, roadways with traffic volumes greater than 3,000 
vehicles per day (OR 99E and potentially D Street) as well as those that create recreational 
opportunities or connect major destinations should be the priority. 
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 
The following sections document the existing and future conditions and deficiencies for the public 
transportation network. 
Existing Conditions 
Public transportation for Hubbard residents is provided by the Canby Area Transit System (CATS) and 
Chemeketa Area Regional Transportation System (CARTS). CATS provides service to Hubbard via its fixed 
route Orange Line and Dial-A-Ride for customers unable to access the fixed route service. The Orange Line 
extends from Oregon City (northeast of Hubbard) to Woodburn (southeast of Hubbard) with stops in between 
in Aurora and Canby. Service on the Orange Line is provided on weekdays from approximately 5:30 a.m. to 
8:30 p.m.; headways along the Orange Line route vary between 30-minutes to one-hour depending on the 
time of day. 
CARTS has flex routes service provided by Cherriots Salem-Keizer Transit. Reservations 24-hours in 
advance are required to use the service. The service is available Monday through Friday with the exception of 
public holidays. It is a shared ride service, so depending on demand, passengers may share rides with others 
who have made reservations in their area. The service connects to other fixed route services in the region 
(e.g., Cherriots, CATS). 
Section 3 provides a full inventory of public transportation services in the Hubbard area, as well as an 
overview of public transportation-related goals and policies. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
67 
Future Conditions 
Future transit conditions in the City of Hubbard could include expanded regional and intercity commuter 
services (including inter-city rail) and more widespread demand for and awareness of existing transit and 
rideshare services. 
Rail Service 
The following sections document the existing and future conditions and deficiencies for the rail network within 
Hubbard. 
Existing Conditions 
The Union Pacific Railroad bisects the City of Hubbard, running parallel to OR 99E on the west side. This line, 
known as the Valley Main Line, is the primary north/south line along the West Coast and is used for both 
freight and passenger rail services, though neither service stops in Hubbard. This line is heavily used for 
shipping freight and contains long freight trains (-300 - 400 feet) that run at frequent intervals (-20 trips per 
day). The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) classifies the UP line in Class 4 condition with a maximum 
freight speed of 60 miles per hour and a maximum passenger rail speed of 80 mph. 
Intercity rail passenger service is currently provided on the Valley Main Line by Amtrak for both their Coast 
Starlight long distance train and Cascades corridor trains. The Coast Starlight operates one (1) train per day 
in each direction between Seattle and Los Angeles. The Cascades runs three (3) times per day between 
Portland and Eugene in Oregon. 
Approximately 5,014 feet of single track and three (3) at-grade crossings of public roads are located inside the 
UGB. These crossings are located at: 
• A Street, between 2nd and 3rd streets; 
• D Street, between 2nd and 3rd streets; and 
• G Street, between 2nd and 3rd streets. 
These at-grade crossings are protected by automatic signals and gates, which provide a high level of warning 
at the crossings. While automatic signals provide warnings of approaching trains, grade separated crossings 
provide the highest level of protection for all crossing users. 
East-west travel across the railroad in Hubbard is temporarily blocked when trains pass. This blockage 
causes traffic back-ups and inhibits the local fire station's ability to respond to events west of the tracks until 
trains pass (the fire station is located southeast of the railroad tracks on 2nd Street/H Street). 
Section 3 provides a full inventory of rail service in the Hubbard area, as well as an overview of rail-related 
goals and policies. 
Future Conditions 
Future rail conditions in Hubbard will likely include increased freight rail volumes and speeds. According to the 
Oregon Rail Study (2010) significant investment is required to increase passenger service from two (2) to six 
(6) roundtrips per day, increase average speed from 42 to 65 mph, and improve reliability from 68 percent to 
95 percent on-time performance. 
The 1999 Hubbard TSP recommends applying to the ODOT Rail Crossing Section to reopen the J Street at-
grade rail crossing, which was closed when the Public Utilities Commission issued a series of orders between 
1978 and 1980 limiting Hubbard to three at-grade rail crossings (there were previously five at-grade crossings 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
68 
in Hubbard, the existing crossings plus crossings at J and E Streets). Reopening or creating new at-grade rail 
crossings is currently strongly discouraged by ODOT due to safety concerns, increasing train speeds and 
volumes on the corridor, and the limited mobility benefits obtained from new at-grade crossings. Although at-
grade crossings improve connectivity when no trains are present, they would not address traffic backups or 
limited emergency response ability issues that frequently occur when trains are present. 
As a result, railroad over or under-crossings should be considered if additional crossings are necessary in the 
long term. An over or under-crossing would cost significantly more to construct than an at-grade crossing and 
require additional right-of-way for approach ramps and structures, but would provide additional safety and 
mobility benefits for roadway and rail users. Trains are also not required to sound their horns when 
approaching grade-separated crossings. 
Rail crossing alternatives, including crossing locations and types, are presented and evaluated in more detail 
in Section 5 - Alternatives Analysis. 
Air Service 
The City of Hubbard is served by the Aurora State Airport and the Salem Municipal Airport. Portland 
International Airport is the nearest facility for commercial airline travel. Information regarding the Aurora and 
Salem airports is presented below. 
The Aurora State Airport is located approximately 5 to 7 miles northeast of Hubbard. Based on information in 
the Aurora State Airport Master Plan completed in October 2000, it is the busiest State-owned airport and 
overall fifth busiest airport in Oregon. The airport serves a variety of charter, corporate and recreational users 
including a commercial helicopter operation at the northeast end of the airport. It is equipped with one 5,000-
foot runway with a parallel length taxiway making it feasible to accommodate up to 45,000 pound aircraft with 
dual landing gear. The 2000 Aurora State Airport Master Plan forecasted an increase in annual take-
offs/landings of about 1 -2% per year from 2000 to 2020. 
The Salem Municipal Airport is located approximately 25 miles southwest of Hubbard. The Salem Municipal 
Airport is frequently referred to as McNary Field; it is located approximately two miles southeast of downtown 
Salem. The airport is bordered by I-5 to the East and the Pacific Railroad on the West. Currently, the 751 
acre airport serves general aviation aircraft and the Oregon Army National Guard - Army Aviation Support 
Facility. The airport is made up of two jet runways and supporting taxiways. Both runways have recently 
been resurfaced and grooved. The airport is owned and operated by the City of Salem and is organizationally 
structured under the Urban Development Department. The Salem Municipal Airport Plan was last updated in 
1997. 
Pipeline Service and Water Transportation Facilities 
There are no regional pipelines nor are there water transportation facilities in the City of Hubbard. The closest 
pipelines are located along Interstate 5; the pipelines distribute petroleum and gas. The Pudding River is 
located approximately 2 miles northeast of the City of Hubbard, but does not serve as a water transportation 
facility. 
Transportation Funding 
There are a variety of options available for Hubbard to fund its transportation improvements. The following 
section identifies the funding sources that have contributed to projects within the City over the past fifteen 
years and forecasts the future funding availability from these existing funding sources. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
69 
In the future it is likely that the transportation program in Hubbard will be funded by a combination of funding 
sources. The purpose of this section is to provide the City with a reasonable assumption of future funding 
during the development of transportation alternatives. 
Existing Funding 
Table 4.13 provides a summary of the funding that has been used for transportation projects within the City of 
Hubbard over the past twelve years. As shown in Table 4.12 there have been 24 projects completed within 
Hubbard since 2000. The majority of these projects have been maintenance projects, although several 
projects have created additional capacity or added new facilities to existing streets (e.g. sidewalks). The funds 
have been adjusted to year 2010 dollars based on construction cost trends for Oregon™". The total dollar 
value of these projects in year 2010 dollars is approximately $3.6 million. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
70 
Table 4.13 Past Transportation Project Funding 
Year Location Improvements Completed Cost 
2010 
Cost Funding Source 
2011 Barendse Park Walking path project $82,700 $82,700 Local Funds Oregon Parks grant 
2011 4th Street between H-J Pavement overlay and additional pavement width $26,236 $26,236 
Local funds 
ODOT SCA grant 
2011 1st Street between D-A Pavement overlay and some storm drainage $25,108 $25,108 Local Funds 
2010 Hwy 99E between D Street -north city limits Sidewalk, landscaping, lighting $991,000 $991,000 ODOT TE grant 
2010 Hwy 99E and Schmidt Lane Street improvements $453,000 $453,000 ODOT IOF grant Private development 
2010 4th Street between F-H Pavement overlay and additional pavement width $24,323 $24,323 Local Funds 
2010 1st Street between D-G Pavement overlay and additional pavement width and drainage $25,000 $25,000 ODOT SCA grant 
2010 E Street between 2"° -99E Pavement overlay $11,014 $11,014 Local Funds 
2010 G Street between 7,n-3ra Pavement overlay $27,429 $27,429 Local Funds 
2009 Hwy 99E and D Street intersection 
Signal replacement and street 
alignment project $890,000 $881,946 ODOT 
2009 3rd Street between D-F Pavement overlay $19,955 $19,774 ODOT SCA grant Local Funds 
2009 3rd Street between G-J Pavement overlay $35,973 $35,647 ODOT SCA grant Local Funds 
2009 7in Street between E-C Pavement overlay $5,614 $5,563 Local Funds 
2009 D Street between 7,n-9tn Pavement overlay $19,736 $19,557 Local Funds 
2007-08 D, 3rd, 7th, Casteel streets Street improvements $364,325 $331,067 Local funds ODOT SCA grant 
2007-08 3™ -7,n streets Foot/Bike Path improvements $18,738 $17,027 Local funds 
2006 5
tn Street between Baines-
Barendse Full street improvements $176,851 $156,171 
Local funds 
ODOT SCA grant 
2006 D Street between 4
,n -5tn 
and 4lh Street between D-E Half street improvements $74,165 $65,492 Local funds 
2003 B Street between 3rd-6,h Pavement overlay and additional pavement width $31,000 $39,471 
Local funds 
ODOT SCA grant 
2003 E Street between 3ra -5,n Half street improvements $36,200 $46,092 Local funds 
2003 5in Street between D-F Full street improvements $83,600 $106,444 Federal CDBG grant 
2003 5th Street between E-F Full street improvements $95,000 $120,959 Local funds ODOT SCA grant 
2002 D Street between 2nd-99E Half street improvements $53,500 $71,442 Local funds ODOT SCA grant 
2000 5,n Street between A-C Pavement overlay $25,000 $36,993 ODOT SCA grant 
ODOT Funds 
City Funds 
Other 
$2,561,823 
$697,234 
$360,400 
$213,485/yr 
$58,103/yr 
$30,033/yr 
I TOTAL $3,619,458 $301,621/yr f 
CDBG = Community Development Block Grant SCA = Special City Allotment (Dedicated Funds) 
As shown in Table 4.13, an average of approximately $301,000 per year in 2010 dollars has been spent 
within Hubbard on transportation projects since the year 2000. Most of these projects have been 
maintenance-related (e.g. resurfacing and improving existing streets), as opposed to capital projects 
(e.g. building new facilities or expanding roadway capacity). The majority of the funds have been 
provided by ODOT grants. The City of Hubbard has provided approximately $58,000 per year on 
average for transportation projects. Local transportation funds rely on a portion of gas taxes, a special 
allotment grant, and System Development Charges (SDCs) charged during the building and remodeling 
of residences and businesses. A major decline in this revenue over the past 3 years has restricted the 
ability to make major improvements and upgrades to the City's streets, foot/bike paths and storm drain 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
71 
projects. The City has also received some transportation funding from an Oregon Parks grant, private 
developers, and a federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). 
Future Funding 
An estimate of future funding can be made by looking at past funding sources. Table 4.14 provides a 
summary of the potential future project funding (in year 2010 dollars) over the next five, ten, and twenty years 
based on an assumed average funding level of approximately $301,000 per year from state, local, and other 
sources combined. 
Table 4.14 Future Transportation Project Funding 
5-Year 
Forecast 
10-Year 
Forecast 
20-Year 
Forecast 
ODOT $1,067,000 $2,135,000 $4,270,000 
City $291,000 $581,000 $1,162,000 
Other $150,000 $300,000 $601,000 
Total $1,508,000 $3,016,000 $6,033,000 
As shown in Table 4.14, it is anticipated that approximately $6.0 million will be available for transportation 
project funding over the next twenty years (with approximately $1.2 million provided by the City of Hubbard 
and $4.3 million provided by ODOT). This is the amount that can be reasonably assumed to fund the 
transportation plan using existing funding sources. 
Summary 
This section summarizes the existing and future transportation system conditions within the City of Hubbard 
and identifies the performance and deficiencies of each component of the system. Components of the 
transportation system that were evaluated include the roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, transit, rail, air, water, and 
pipeline/transmission networks. 
The findings in this section, combined with the goals, objectives, and plan and policy review contained in 
Section 2, provide a comprehensive overview of Hubbard's anticipated transportation needs. This overview 
was used to describe and evaluate alternative solutions to mitigate identified deficiencies as described in 
Section 5 - Alternatives Analysis. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
72 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Section 5 
Alternatives 
Analysis 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 7 4 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Alternatives Analysis 
The following section summarizes the alternatives analysis completed to address the future transportation 
deficiencies identified for the roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, rail and public transit systems in the Existing and 
Future Conditions Section. This section also includes an evaluation of the various transportation alternatives, 
including cost estimates of the alternative solutions, as compared to projected future transportation funding. 
ROADWAY ALTERNATIVES 
The primary focus of the roadway alternatives analysis included the development of alternatives to determine the 
appropriate street cross section for OR Highway 99E in Hubbard. The roadway alternatives analysis also 
includes an evaluation of existing city roadway functional classifications and cross-sectional standards and 
modifications to enable design flexibility and facilities that better reflect forecast demand. 
OR 99E Cross Section 
Five alternatives were analyzed to determine the appropriate cross-section to serve projected future demand 
on OR 99E within Hubbard. These alternatives include: 
1. Extending the 3-lane cross section north from D Street to the UGB; 
2. Extending the 3-lane cross section north from D Street to the UGB and adding a traffic signal at 
OR 99E/G Street; 
3. Constructing a 5-lane cross section through the entire length of Hubbard. 
4. Extending the 3-lane cross section north from D Street to the UGB and constructing a 5-lane 
cross section between D and G Streets. 
5. Extending the 3-lane cross section north from D Street to the UGB and constructing a 
southbound through/right-turn lane between A Street and Schmidt Lane. 
In the 2035 No-Build operations analysis, minor street movements at the intersections of OR 99E with A St, D 
St, and G St are forecast to exceed capacity (V/C >1.0) and yield a level of service "F" during the p.m. peak 
hour. The alternatives presented below are primarily intended to provide additional capacity for increased 
traffic volumes on OR 99E and to reduce queuing and delay for traffic crossing and entering OR 99E from 
local streets. 
OR 99E is a designated state freight route. ORS 366.215 states the Oregon Transportation Commission may 
not permanently reduce the vehicle-carrying capacity of an identified freight route™'" As a result, all projects 
on OR 99E will be subject to ORS 366.215 review to determine the potential for a reduction of freight 
capacity. Any structures or obstacles in the right-of-way such as signs, guardrails, landscaping, or other 
roadside features and any changes to travel lanes will be subject to a review process before they can be built. 
Although the alternatives described below are intended to increase overall operations and vehicle carrying 
capacity of OR 99E, these planning concepts may potentially reduce freight vehicle-carrying capacity of the 
highway; further evaluation of the project designs will be required at the time of implementation to ensure 
compliance with ORS 366.215. 
Alternative 1: Extend the 3-Lane Cross Section North from D Street to the UGB 
Alternative 1 assumes the existing transportation network is unchanged under 2035 conditions, except for the 
extension of the 3-lane cross section on OR 99E northeast from the OR 99E/D Street intersection to the 
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). 
The roadway inventory indicates 80 feet of right-of-way and 51 feet of pavement on this section of OR 99E. 
The existing right-of-way is adequate to accommodate a 14 to16 foot two-way left-turn lane, consistent with 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
75 
existing ODOT Highway Design Standards and Hubbard Street Design Standards.™ The extension of the 3-
lane cross section could be pursued as a stand-alone project or as a larger retrofit project to bring the 
segment of OR 99E north of D Street up to existing design standards. The existing right-of-way is adequate to 
accommodate the sidewalk, bikeway, and landscaping requirements outlined in the major arterial street 
design standards, assuming a 3-lane cross section.'™ 
Figure 5.1 illustrates the assumed lane configurations, traffic controls, and 2035 operational analysis under 
this alternative. The 2035 traffic operations for this alternative are also summarized in Table 5.1. 
Table 5.1 Alternative 1 (Extend 3-Lane Cross Section) Operational Analysis Results (2035) 
Intersection 
Traffic 
Control 
Posted 
Speed Standard 
Major 
Approach 
V/C Ratio 
Critical Movement' 
Impacted by 
Alternative? 
Meets 
Standard LOS 
V/C 
Ratio 
Delay 
(sec/veh) 
1. O R 9 9 E / 
Elm 
Street 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
35 mph v/c < 
0.85 
0.75 C 0.09 22.1 Yes Yes 
2. OR 99E/ 
Parkway 
Blvd 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
35 mph 
v/c < 
0.85 
0.76 C 0.04 19.1 Yes Yes 
3. OR 99E/ 
A Street 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
35 mph 
v/c < 
0.85 
0.77 D 0.39 33.9 Yes Yes 
4. OR 99E/ 
D Street 
Signal 35 mph v/c < 0.85 -
D 1.06 50.0 No No 
5. OR 99E/ 
G Street 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
35 mph 
v/c < 
0.85 
0.54 F >2 >50 No No 
6. OR 99E/ 
J Street 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
35 mph 
v/c < 
0.85 0.57 
F 0.74 >50 No Yes 
7. OR 99E/ 
Industrial 
Ave 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
40 mph 
v/c < 
0.80 0.59 C 0.31 
21.9 No Yes 
Notes: LOS = Level of Service, V/C Ratio = Volume-to-Capacity Ratio 
1 LOS, V/C ratio, and delay for signalized intersections represent operations of the intersection (e.g. intersection LOS and 
intersection control delay). 
As shown in Table 5.1, the A Street intersection is anticipated to meet ODOT performance standards in 2035 
if the 3-lane cross section is extended north. Operations would also improve at the OR 99E/Elm Street and 
OR 99E/Parkway Blvd intersections. These intersections were forecast to meet ODOT's performance 
standards, but operate at level of service "F" with more than 50 seconds of delay in the No-Build alternative. 
No downstream traffic impacts are anticipated from extending the 3-lane cross section north; the OR 99E/D 
Street and OR 99E/G Street intersections are expected to continue to operate over capacity (v/c > 1.0) under 
Alternative 1. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
76 
LANE 
FIGURATIONS OPERATIONS 
LANE 
CONFIGURATIONS OPERATIONS 
LANE 
CONFIGURATIONS OPERA 
LANE 
CONFIGURATIONS OPERATIONS 
LANE 
CONFIGURATIONS OPERA 
LANE 
FIGURATIONS OPERATIONS 
LANE 
CONFIGURATIONS 
LANE 
FIGURATIONS OPERATIONS 
LANE 
CONFIGURATIONS 
LANE 
CONFIGURATIONS OPERA 
A queuing analysis was also conducted for Alternative 1. Table 5.2 illustrates the anticipated queues at OR 
99E study intersections if the 3-lane cross section were extended. The 95th percentile queue lengths were 
identified for each approach using the Two-Minute Rule and HCM equation 17-37 for two-way stop controlled 
intersections and Synchro for signalized intersections. The traffic operations and queuing analysis worksheets 
for Alternative 1 are also provided in Appendix K. 
Table 5.2 Alternative 1 (Extend 3-Lane Cross Section) Queue Length Analysis (2035) 
Intersection Approach 
95m Percentile Queue Length 
(feet)1 Queue 
Storage 
Available 
Impacted 
by 
Alternative? 
Adequate 
Storage? 
2-Minute 
Rule HCM Synchro 
8. OR 99E/ 
Elm Street 
Westbound 25 25 - 175' Yes Yes 
Southbound LT 25 25 - 300 Yes Yes 
9. OR 99E/ 
Parkway 
Boulevard 
Westbound 25 25 - 300" No Yes 
Southbound LT 25 25 -
300 No Yes 
10. O R 9 9 E / 
A Street 
Eastbound 75 50 - 300" Yes Yes 
Northbound LT 75 25 - 360 No Yes 
11. O R 9 9 E / 
D Street 
Northbound TH/RT - - 350 220" No No" 
Northbound LT - - 50 120 No Yes 
Southbound TH/RT - - 975 700" No No 
Southbound LT - - 25 360 No Yes 
Eastbound TH/RT - - 100 100" No Yes 
Eastbound LT - - 250 300 No Yes 
Westbound TH/RT - - 100 80" No No" 
Westbound LT - - 50 80 No No' 
12. O R 9 9 E / 
G Street 
Northbound LT 200 50 - >300 No Yes 
Southbound LT 75 25 - >300 No Yes 
Eastbound 250 125 - 200" No No 
Westbound 75 575 - >300" No No 
13. O R 9 9 E / 
J Street 
Northbound LT 25 25 - >300 No Yes 
Southbound LT 150 25 - >300 No Yes 
Eastbound 75 25 - 120" No Yes 
Westbound 250 175 - 120" No No5 
14. O R 9 9 E / 
Industrial Avenue 
Northbound LT 25 25 - >300 No Yes 
Southbound LT 75 25 - >300 No Yes 
Westbound 150 50 - 200" No Yes 
All queue lengths are rounded up to the nearest 25 feet. 
2 Turn pockets are not provided, so turning traffic must queue within the through travel lane. 
3 Over 500 feet of through travel lane is available, but queues would block access for eastbound left turns from E Street to 
OR 99E. 
4 Additional storage is available in the approaching lane. 
5 Over 500 feet of through travel lane is available, but queues would block access for northbound left turns from Industrial 
Avenue and site driveways to J Street. 
As shown in Table 5.2, under Alternative 1 the anticipated 95th percentile queues can be accommodated in 
the available storage at the Elm Street, Parkway Boulevard, and A Street intersections. (Under the No-Build 
scenario, queues at the eastbound approach to the OR 99E/A Street intersection were expected to 
significantly exceed storage.) However, queuing is not decreased at any intersections other than OR 99E/A 
Street and OR 99E/Elm Street under this alternative. No downstream impacts are anticipated from extending 
the 3-lane cross section north; queues at the OR 99E/D Street, OR 99E/G Street, and OR 99E/J Street 
intersections are expected to continue to exceed available storage under Alternative 1. 
Alternative 2: Extend 3-Lane Cross Section and Add a Traffic Signal at G Street 
Alternative 2 assumes the existing transportation network is unchanged under 2035 conditions, except for the 
addition of a traffic signal at the OR 99E/G Street intersection and the extension of the 3-lane cross section on 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
78 
OR 99E northeast from the OR 99E/D Street intersection to the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Other 
modifications such as the addition of a southbound right turn lane at the OR 99E/D Street intersection and 
east and westbound left turn lanes at the OR 99E/G Street intersection were also considered under this 
alternative. 
The OR 99E/G Street intersection does not meet ODOT signal spacing standards or preliminary signal 
warrants based on projected 2035 traffic volumes™ Appendix J includes the year 2035 preliminary signal 
warrant for the OR 99E/G Street intersection. In the future this intersection may meet signal warrants due to 
multiple reasons (although meeting warrants does not guarantee a signal will be installed): 
• Poor operations at the OR 99E/D Street intersection or other factors cause vehicles to divert to 
G Street. A 45% increase in 8th highest, 4th highest, or peak hour volumes on this approach 
would likely warrant a signal under "Case 2: Interruption of Continuous Traffic". If a signal were 
installed at G Street, diverted traffic would likely be adequate to meet this warrant. 
• The need for a coordinated signal system to create adequate vehicle platooning (Warrant 6); 
• An increase in crashes at the intersection (five of more crashes in a 12 month period) that 
cannot be satisfactorily reduced through other treatments (Warrant 7); or 
• An increase in future projected traffic volumes or increase in weekend traffic resulting in more 
than 1,000 vehicles entering the intersection per hour (Warrant 8). 
A traffic signal at the OR 99E/G Street intersection would help to control the progression of traffic on OR 99E 
through Hubbard, enabling vehicles to more safely and easily enter or cross OR 99E from G Street and other 
local streets (due to platooning). The signal would provide a second protected OR 99E crossing location for 
pedestrians. It is also likely that a portion of eastbound through and left turn movements that would otherwise 
use the existing signal at D Street will be diverted to the G Street intersection. This will relieve a portion of the 
demand on D Street, which is forecast to operate over capacity (V/C >1.0) with queues exceeding the 
available storage in 2035.xxii 
Turn lane warrants were also reviewed for intersections that are forecast to operate at or near capacity in 
2035 with a 3-lane cross section. The ODOT Analysis Procedures Manual states: "At signalized intersections 
a left turn lane is always desirable, while a right turn lane is generally determined based on signal capacity 
needs." Based on capacity constraints at the D Street signal and projected right turn volumes, a southbound 
right turn lane should be considered at this intersection. In addition, east and westbound left turn lanes should 
be considered with the installation of the traffic signal at G Street.™" 
Figure 5.2 illustrates the assumed lane configurations, traffic controls, and 2035 operational analysis under 
Alternative 2. Year 2035 traffic operations for this alternative are also summarized in Table 5.3. 
As shown in Table 5.3, although traffic diversion to the G Street signal is expected to prevent the D Street 
intersection from operating over capacity (v/c > 1.0) in 2035, the D Street intersection is not anticipated meet 
ODOT performance standards under Alternative 2. Installation of a southbound right turn lane would slightly 
reduce congestion and delay at the intersection and improve level of service. 
Installation of a signal at the OR 99E/G Street intersection is expected to enable the intersection to operate 
under capacity in 2035, but the intersection still would not meet ODOT performance standards. Constructing 
left turn lanes on the eastbound and westbound approaches in conjunction with installation of a signal would 
improve performance significantly and allow the intersection to operate below a v/c ratio of 0.85. Installation of 
a signal at the OR 99E/G Street intersection is also expected to improve performance at the OR 99E/J Street 
intersection due to westbound left turns that will likely be diverted to the signal. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
79 
Table 5.3 Alternative 2 (Extend 3-Lane Cross Section and Add Signal) Operational Analysis Results 
(2035) 
Intersection 
Traffic 
Control 
Posted 
Speed Standard 
Major 
Approach 
V/C Ratio 
Critical Movement' 
Impacted by 
Alternative? 
Meets 
Standard LOS 
V/C 
Ratio 
Delay 
(sec/veh) 
Added Signal Only 
1.0R99E/ 
Elm Street 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
35 mph v/c< 0.85 0.75 C 0.09 22.1 Yes Yes 
2. OR 99E/ 
Parkway 
Blvd 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
35 mph v/c < 0.85 0.76 C 0.04 19.1 Yes Yes 
3. OR 99E/ 
A Street 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
35 mph v/c < 0.85 0.77 D 0.38 33.4 Yes Yes 
4. OR 99E/ 
D Street 
Signal 
(with 3-
lane 
cross-
section) 
35 mph v/c< 0.85 - D 0.98 37.5 Yes No 
5.0R99E/ 
G Street 
Signal 
(with 3-
lane 
cross-
section) 
35 mph v/c < 0.85 - C 0.92 28.9 Yes No 
6. OR 99E/ 
J Street 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
35 mph v/c < 0.85 0.57 E 0.63 47.2 Yes Yes 
7. OR 99E/ 
Industrial 
Ave 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
40 mph v/c < 0.80 0.59 C 0.31 21.9 No Yes 
Added Signal and Turn Lanes 
1. OR 99E/ 
Elm Street 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
35 mph v/c < 0.85 0.75 C 0.09 22.1 Yes Yes 
2. OR 99E/ 
Parkway 
Blvd 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
35 mph v/c < 0.85 0.76 C 0.04 19.1 Yes Yes 
3. OR 99E/ 
A Street 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
35 mph v/c < 0.85 0.77 D 0.38 33.4 Yes Yes 
4. OR 99E/ 
D Street 
Signal 
(with 
added 
SB RT 
lane) 
35 mph v/c < 0.85 - C 0.94 30.2 Yes No 
5.0R99E/ 
G Street 
Signal 
(with 
EB/WB 
LT lane) 
35 mph v/c < 0.85 - B 0.82 18.5 Yes Yes 
6.0R99E/ 
J Street 
Two-
Way 
Stop 35 mph 
v/c < 
0.85 0.57 E 0.62 46.3 Yes Yes 
7.0R99E/ 
Industrial 
Ave 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
40 mph v/c < 0.80 0.59 C 0.31 21.9 No Yes 
Notes: LOS = Level of Service, V/C Ratio = Volume-to-Capacity Ratio 
1 LOS, V/C ratio, and delay for signalized intersections represent operations of the intersection (e.g. intersection LOS 
and intersection control delay). 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
80 
LANE 
FIGURATIONS OPERATIONS 
NO 
CHANGE 
OPERA 
STD: «/ 
LANE 
CONFIGURATIONS OPERATIONS 
LANE 
CONFIGURATIONS 
OPERATIONS 
LANE 
CONFIGURATIONS 
LANE 
CONFIGURATIONS OPERA 
LANE 
FIGURATIONS OPERATIONS 
LANE 
CONFIGURATIONS OPERA 
LANE 
FIGURATIONS OPERATIONS 
LANE 
CONFIGURATIONS OPERA 
!A 
STD: W 
LANE 
Table 5.4 illustrates the anticipated queues at OR 99E study intersections under Alternative 2. The traffic 
operations and queuing analysis worksheets for Alternative 2 are also provided in Appendix L. 
Table 5.4 Alternative 2 Queue Length Analysis (2035) 
Intersection Approach 
95 in Percentile Queue Length 
(feet)1 Queue 
Storage 
Available 
Impacted 
by 
Alternative? 
Adequate 
Storage? 
2-Minute 
Rule HCM Synchro 
Added Signal Only 
1. OR99E/ 
Elm Street 
Westbound 25 25 - 175" Yes Yes 
Southbound LT 25 25 - 300 Yes Yes 
2. OR 99E/ 
Parkway 
Boulevard 
Westbound 25 25 - 300' No Yes 
Southbound LT 25 25 - 300 No Yes 
3. OR 99E/ 
A Street 
Eastbound 75 50 - 300' Yes Yes 
Northbound LT 75 25 - 360 No Yes 
4. OR 99E/D Street 
Northbound TH/RT - - 125 220 Yes Yes 
Northbound LT - - 50 120 No Yes 
Southbound TH/RT - - 1000 700 Yes No 
Southbound LT - - 25 360 No Yes 
Eastbound TH/RT - - 75 100 Yes Yes 
Eastbound LT - - 125 300 Yes Yes 
Westbound TH/RT - - 75 80 Yes Yes 
Westbound LT - - 50 80 No Yes 
5. OR 99E/G Street 
Northbound TH/RT - - 425 550 Yes Yes 
Northbound LT - - 25 >300 Yes Yes 
Southbound RT - - 25 >300 Yes Yes 
Southbound TH - - 325 450 Yes Yes 
Southbound LT - - 25 >300 Yes Yes 
Eastbound TH/RT - - 300 200 Yes No 
Eastbound LT - - 125 125 Yes Yes 
Westbound TH/RT - - 75 >300 Yes Yes 
Westbound LT - - 50 120 Yes Yes 
6. OR 99E/J Street 
Northbound LT 25 25 - >300 Yes Yes 
Southbound LT 175 25 - >300 Yes Yes 
Eastbound 75 25 - 120 No Yes 
Westbound 225 125 - 120 Yes NoJ 
7. OR 99E/ 
Industrial Avenue 
Northbound LT 25 25 - >300 No Yes 
Southbound LT 75 25 - >300 No Yes 
Westbound 150 50 200' No Yes 
Continued on next page. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
82 
Table 5.4 Continued from previous page. 
Intersection Approach 
95™ Percentile Queue Length 
(feet)1 Queue 
Storage 
Available 
Impacted 
by 
Alternative? 
Adequate 
Storage? 
2-Minute 
Rule HCM Synchro 
Added Signal and Turn Lanes 
1. OR 99E/ 
Elm Street 
Westbound 25 25 - 175' Yes Yes 
Southbound LT 25 25 - 300 Yes Yes 
2. OR 99E/ 
Parkway 
Boulevard 
Westbound 25 25 - 300' No Yes 
Southbound LT 25 25 - 300 No Yes 
3. OR 99E/ 
A Street 
Eastbound 75 50 - 300' Yes Yes 
Northbound LT 75 25 - 360 No Yes 
4. OR 99E/D Street 
Northbound TH/RT - - 125 220 Yes Yes 
Northbound LT - - 50 120 No Yes 
Southbound RT - - 25 As built Yes Yes 
Southbound TH - - 925 700 Yes No 
Southbound LT - - 25 360 No Yes 
Eastbound TH/RT - - 75 100 Yes Yes 
Eastbound LT - - 125 300 Yes Yes 
Westbound TH/RT - - 75 80 Yes Yes 
Westbound LT - - 50 80 No Yes 
5. OR 99E/G Street 
Northbound TH/RT - - 425 550 Yes Yes 
Northbound LT - - 50 >300 Yes Yes 
Southbound RT - - 25 >300 Yes Yes 
Southbound TH - - 350 450 Yes Yes 
Southbound LT - - 25 >300 Yes Yes 
Eastbound TH/RT - - 100 200 Yes Yes 
Eastbound LT - - 125 As built Yes Yes 
Westbound TH/RT - - 50 >300 Yes Yes 
Westbound LT - - 50 As built Yes Yes 
6. OR 99E/J Street 
Northbound LT 25 25 - >300 No Yes 
Southbound LT 175 25 - >300 Yes Yes 
Eastbound 75 25 - 120 No Yes 
Westbound 225 125 - 120 Yes NoJ 
7. OR 99E/ 
Industrial Avenue 
Northbound LT 25 25 - >300 No Yes 
Southbound LT 75 25 - >300 No Yes 
Westbound 150 50 - 200' No Yes 
All queue lengths are rounded up to the nearest 25 feet. 
2 Turn pockets are not provided, so turning traffic must queue within the through travel lane. 
3 Additional storage is available in the approaching lane. 
As shown in Table 5.4, under Alternative 2 the anticipated 95th percentile queues can be accommodated in 
the available storage at the G Street intersection. Southbound queues at the D Street signal are expected to 
continue to exceed storage capacity, blocking access to A Street. Westbound queues at the J Street 
intersection will also continue to exceed available storage, blocking access to Industrial Avenue. 
The roadway inventory indicates 60 feet of right-of-way on G Street with 24 feet of paved width east of the 
highway and 48 feet of paved width west of the highway. The existing right-of-way is adequate to 
accommodate a 12 foot turn lane; however, additional right-of-way would be required to accommodate 
sidewalks, bike lanes, and landscaping per the existing Hubbard Street Design Guidelines for Phase II 
collectors.™" 
The roadway inventory indicates 80 feet of right-of-way and 51 feet of pavement on the section of OR 99E 
north of D Street. The existing right-of-way is adequate to accommodate a 14 foot right-turn lane. However, 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
83 
additional right-of-way would be required to accommodate sidewalks, bike lanes, and landscaping per the 
existing Hubbard Street Design Guidelines for major arterials.xxv 
An alternative mitigation measure that was recommended at the Project Advisory Committee meeting was 
installing a "pork chop" median at the OR 99E/A Street intersection to limit movements to right-in/right-out/left-
in. The project team reviewed this option, but the eastbound left turn movements diverted to the D Street 
signal would cause the intersection to exceed capacity and worsen existing queuing issues. 
Alternative 3: Construct a 5-Lane Cross Section through the Entire Length of Hubbard 
Alternative 3 assumes the adoption of a 5-lane cross section on OR 99E within the Hubbard UGB. No 
additional traffic signals or minor street turn lanes are assumed in this alternative. A 5-lane cross section is 
consistent with existing Hubbard Street Design Standards for major arterials. Under this alternative, all study 
intersections meet ODOT performance standards and there are no queue storage issues. 
The roadway inventory indicates 80 feet of right-of-way and 44 to 58 feet of pavement on OR 99E within 
Hubbard. The existing ODOT Highway Design Standards and Hubbard Street Design Standards require a 
100 foot right-of-way to accommodate four 12 foot travel lanes, a 16 foot two-way left-turn lane, sidewalks, 
bike lanes, and landscaping.XXVI The existing right-of-way is not adequate to accommodate this alternative. 
Figure 5.3 illustrates the assumed lane configurations, traffic controls, and 2035 operational analysis under 
Alternative 3. Year 2035 traffic operations for this alternative are also summarized in Table 5.5. 
Table 5.5 Alternative 3 (5-Lane Cross Section Throughout Hubbard) Operational Analysis Results 
(2035) 
Intersection 
Traffic 
Control 
Posted 
Speed Standard 
Major 
Approach 
V/C Ratio 
Critical Movement1 
Impacted by 
Alternative? 
Meets 
Standard LOS 
V/C 
Ratio 
Delay 
(sec/veh) 
1. OR 99E/ 
Elm Street 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
35 mph v/c < 0.85 0.38 C 0.07 16.5 Yes Yes 
2. OR 99E/ 
Parkway 
Blvd 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
35 mph v/c < 0.85 0.38 B 0.02 12.6 Yes Yes 
3. OR 99E/ 
A Street 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
35 mph v/c < 0.85 0.45 D 0.28 22.6 Yes Yes 
4. OR 99E/ 
D Street Signal 35 mph 
v/c < 
0.85 - B 0.69 15.3 Yes Yes 
5.0R99E/ 
G Street 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
35 mph v/c < 0.85 0.36 C 0.16 19.2 Yes Yes 
6. OR 99E/ 
J Street 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
35 mph v/c < 0.85 0.37 D 0.51 27.6 Yes Yes 
7. OR 99E/ 
Industrial 
Ave 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
40 mph v/c < 0.80 0.30 C 0.22 21.9 Yes 
Yes 
Notes: LOS = Level of Service, V/C Ratio = Volume-to-Capacity Ratio 
1 LOS, V/C ratio, and delay for signalized intersections represent operations of the intersection (e.g. intersection LOS 
and intersection control delay). 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
84 
LANE 
CONFIGURATIONS OPERA 
w 
LANE 
FIGURATIONS OPERATIONS 
LANE 
CONFIGURATIONS OPERATIONS 
LANE LANE 
LANE 
FIGURATIONS OPERATIONS 
V e : 
A «3 
STD: v/ 
LANE 
CONFIGURATIONS OPERA 
LANE 
FIGURATIONS OPERA 
W 
OPERATIONS 
LANE 
CONFIGURATIONS 
LANE 
As shown in Table 5.5, all study intersections on the OR 99E corridor are expected to meet ODOT 
performance standards in 2035 if a 5-lane cross section is constructed. A queuing analysis was also 
conducted for Alternative 3. This is summarized in Table 5.6. The traffic operations and queuing analysis 
worksheets for Alternative 3 are also provided in Appendix M. 
Table 5.6 Alternative 3 Queue Length Analysis (2035) 
Intersection Approach 
95 in Percentile Queue Length 
(feet)1 Queue 
Storage 
Available 
Impacted 
by 
Alternative? 
Adequate 
Storage? 
2-Minute 
Rule HCM Synchro 
1. OR99E/ 
Elm Street 
Westbound 25 25 - 175 Yes Yes 
Southbound LT 25 25 - 300 Yes Yes 
2. OR 99E/ 
Parkway 
Boulevard 
Westbound 25 25 - 300 No Yes 
Southbound LT 25 25 - 300 No Yes 
3. OR 99E/ 
A Street 
Eastbound 75 50 - 300 Yes Yes 
Northbound LT 75 25 - 360 No Yes 
4. OR 99E/ 
D Street 
Northbound TH/RT - - 175 220 Yes Yes 
Northbound LT - - 50 120 No Yes 
Southbound TH/RT - - 350 700 Yes Yes 
Southbound LT - - 50 360 Yes Yes 
Eastbound TH/RT - - 100 100 No Yes 
Eastbound LT - - 175 300 Yes Yes 
Westbound TH/RT - - 75 80 Yes Yes 
Westbound LT - - 50 80 No Yes 
5. OR 99E/ 
G Street 
Northbound LT 200 25 - >300 Yes Yes 
Southbound LT 75 25 - >300 No Yes 
Eastbound 25 50 - 200 Yes Yes 
Westbound 25 25 - >300 Yes Yes 
6. OR 99E/ 
J Street 
Northbound LT 25 25 - >300 No Yes 
Southbound LT 175 25 - >300 Yes Yes 
Eastbound 25 25 - 120 Yes Yes 
Westbound 100 75 - 120 Yes Yes 
7. OR 99E 
/Industrial Avenue 
Southbound LT 75 25 - >300 No Yes 
Westbound 75 25 - 200 Yes Yes 
1 All queue lengths are rounded up to the nearest 25 feet. 
As shown in Table 5.6, under Alternative 3 the anticipated 95th percentile queues can be accommodated in 
the available storage at all OR 99E study intersections. 
Alternative 4: Extend the 3-Lane Cross Section North of D Street and Construct a 5-Lane Cross 
Section between D and G Streets 
Alternative 4 assumes expansion of the 3-lane cross section on OR 99E north of D Street to the Hubbard 
UGB and construction of a 5-lane cross section between D and G Streets. No additional traffic signals or 
minor street turn lanes are assumed in this alternative. Under this alternative, all study intersections meet 
ODOT performance standards and there are no queue storage issues, except at J Street. 
As discussed for Alternative 1, there is adequate existing right-of-way north of D Street to accommodate a 3-
lane cross section with the sidewalk, bikeway, and landscaping required in the major arterial street design 
standards """ The roadway inventory indicates 80 feet of right-of-way and 51 feet of pavement on OR 99E 
between D and G Street. As discussed for Alternative 3, the existing right-of-way is not adequate to 
accommodate the 100 foot major arterial cross section in the existing Hubbard Street Design Standards 
which includes pedestrian and bicycle facilities."™'" 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
86 
Figure 5.4 illustrates the assumed lane configurations, traffic controls, and 2035 operational analysis under 
Alternative 4. Year 2035 traffic operations for this alternative are also summarized in Table 5.7. 
Table 5.7 Alternative 4 (5-Lane Cross Section between D and G Street) Operational Analysis Results 
(2035) 
Intersection 
Traffic 
Control 
Posted 
Speed Standard 
Major 
Approach 
V/C Ratio 
Critical Movement1 
Impacted by 
Alternative? 
Meets 
Standard LOS 
V/C 
Ratio 
Delay 
(sec/veh) 
1. OR 99E/ 
Elm Street 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
35 mph v/c < 0.85 0.75 C 0.09 22.1 Yes Yes 
2.0R99E/ 
Parkway 
Blvd 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
35 mph v/c < 0.85 0.76 C 0.04 19.1 Yes Yes 
3.0R99E/ 
A Street 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
35 mph v/c < 0.85 0.77 D 0.39 33.6 Yes Yes 
4. OR 99E/ 
D Street Signal 35 mph 
v/c < 
0.85 - B 0.69 14.3 Yes Yes 
5. OR 99E/ 
G Street 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
35 mph v/c < 0.85 0.46 C 0.20 23.9 Yes Yes 
6. OR 99E/ 
J Street 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
35 mph v/c < 0.85 0.57 F 0.74 >50 No Yes 
7. OR 99E/ 
Industrial 
Ave 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
40 mph v/c < 0.80 0.59 C 0.31 21.9 No Yes 
Notes: LOS = Level of Service, V/C Ratio = Volume-to-Capacity Ratio 
1 LOS, V/C ratio, and delay for signalized intersections represent operations of the intersection (e.g. intersection LOS 
and intersection control delay). 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
87 
LANE 
FIGURATIONS OPERATIONS 
LANE 
CONFIGURATIONS OPERATIONS 
LANE 
CONFIGURATIONS OPERA 
LANE 
CONFIGURATIONS OPERATIONS 
U N E 
CONFIGURATIONS 
LANE 
FIGURATIONS OPERATIONS 
LANE 
CONFIGURATIONS 
K V < 
A y 
> A A 
LANE 
FIGURATIONS OPERATIONS 
LANE 
CONFIGURATIONS 
LANE 
CONFIGURATIONS OPERA 
As shown in Table 5.7, all study intersections on the OR 99E corridor are expected to meet ODOT 
performance standards in 2035 under Alternative 4. A queuing analysis was also conducted for Alternative 4. 
Table 5.8 illustrates the anticipated queues at OR 99E study intersections under this alternative. The traffic 
operations and queuing analysis worksheets for Alternative 4 are also provided in Appendix N. 
Table 5.8 Alternative 4 Queue Length Analysis (2035) 
Intersection Approach 
95,n Percentile Queue Length 
(feet)1 Queue 
Storage 
Available 
Impacted by 
Alternative? 
Adequate 
Storage? 
2-Minute 
Rule HCM Synchro 
1. OR99E/ 
Elm Street 
Westbound 25 25 - 175 Yes Yes 
Southbound LT 25 25 - 300 Yes Yes 
2. OR 99E/ 
Parkway 
Boulevard 
Westbound 25 25 - 300 No Yes 
Southbound LT 25 25 - 300 No Yes 
3. OR 99E/ 
A Street 
Eastbound 75 50 - 300 Yes Yes 
Northbound LT 75 25 - 360 No Yes 
4. OR 99E/ 
D Street 
Northbound TH/RT - - 125 220 Yes Yes 
Northbound LT - - 50 120 No Yes 
Southbound TH/RT - - 250 700 Yes Yes 
Southbound LT - - 25 360 No Yes 
Eastbound TH/RT - - 100 100 No Yes 
Eastbound LT - - 200 300 Yes Yes 
Westbound TH/RT - - 75 80 Yes Yes 
Westbound LT - - 50 80 No Yes 
5. OR 99E/ 
G Street 
Northbound LT 200 25 - >300 Yes Yes 
Southbound LT 75 25 - >300 No Yes 
Eastbound 25 50 - 200 Yes Yes 
Westbound 25 25 - >300 Yes Yes 
6. OR 99E/ 
J Street 
Northbound LT 25 25 - >300 No Yes 
Southbound LT 175 25 - >300 Yes Yes 
Eastbound 25 25 - 120 Yes Yes 
Westbound 100 175 - 120 Yes No 
7. OR 99E/ 
Industrial Avenue 
Southbound LT 75 25 - >300 No Yes 
Westbound 75 50 - 200 Yes Yes 
1 All queue lengths are rounded up to the nearest 25 feet. 
As shown in Table 5.8, under Alternative 4 the anticipated 95th percentile queues can be accommodated in 
the available storage at all OR 99E study intersections, except the westbound approach at J Street. Additional 
through lane space is available to accommodate queuing at this approach, but 95th percentile queues may 
interfere with northbound left turns from Industrial Avenue. 
Alternative 5: Extend the 3-Lane Cross Section North of D Street and Construct a southbound 
through/right-turn lane between A Street and Schmidt Lane 
Alternative 5 assumes expansion of the 3-lane cross section on OR 99E north of D Street to the Hubbard 
UGB and construction of a second southbound through/right-turn lane between A Street and Schmidt Lane. 
No additional traffic signals or minor street turn lanes are assumed in this alternative. Under this alternative, all 
study intersections meet ODOT performance standards and there are no queue storage issues, except at the 
northbound approach to OR 99E/D Street and westbound approach to OR 99E/J Street. 
As discussed for Alternative 1, there is adequate existing right-of-way north of A Street to accommodate a 3-
lane cross section with the sidewalk, bikeway, and landscaping required in the major arterial street design 
standards. The roadway inventory indicates 80 feet of right-of-way and 51 feet of pavement on OR 99E 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
89 
between D Street and Schmidt Lane. As discussed for Alternative 3, the existing right-of-way is not adequate 
to accommodate a 92 foot 4-lane major arterial cross section with pedestrian and bicycle facilities """ 
Figure 5.5 illustrates the assumed lane configurations, traffic controls, and 2035 operational analysis under 
Alternative 5. Year 2035 traffic operations for this alternative are also summarized in Table 5.9. 
Table 5.9 Alternative 5 (4-Lane Cross Section between A Street and Schmidt Lane) Operational 
Analysis Results (2035) 
Intersection 
Traffic 
Control 
Posted 
Speed Standard 
Major 
Approach 
V/C Ratio 
Critical Movement1 
Impacted by 
Alternative? 
Meets 
Standard LOS 
V/C 
Ratio 
Delay 
(sec/veh) 
1. OR 99E/ 
Elm Street 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
35 mph v/c < 
0.85 0.75 C 0.09 
22.1 Yes Yes 
2. OR 99E/ 
Parkway 
Blvd 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
35 mph 
v/c < 
0.85 0.76 C 
0.04 19.1 Yes Yes 
3. OR 99E/ 
A Street 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
35 mph 
v/c < 
0.85 0.77 D 
0.39 34.3 Yes Yes 
4. OR 99E/ 
D Street 
Signal 35 mph 
v/c < 
0.85 - B 
0.75 17.3 Yes Yes 
5. OR 99E/ 
G Street 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
35 mph 
v/c < 
0.85 0.46 C 0.20 
24.1 Yes Yes 
6 . 0 R 9 9 E / 
J Street 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
35 mph 
v/c < 
0.85 
0.52 E 0.67 46.5 Yes Yes 
7. OR 99E/ 
Industrial 
Ave 
Two-
Way 
Stop 
40 mph 
v/c < 
0.80 0.59 C 0.31 21.9 No 
Yes 
Notes: LOS = Level of Service, V/C Ratio = Volume-to-Capacity Ratio 
1 LOS, V/C ratio, and delay for signalized intersections represent operations of the intersection (e.g. intersection LOS 
and intersection control delay). 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
90 
LANE LANE LANE 
OPERATIONS 
LANE 
CONFIGURATIONS OPERA 
LANE 
CONFIGURATIONS 
STD: V/ 
LANE 
FIGURATIONS OPERATIONS 
LANE 
CONFIGURATIONS OPERA 
K 
Ä r 
u A 
ì CM= 
T LOS 
. DEL=: 
STD: V/ 
LANE 
FIGURATIONS OPERATIONS OPERA 
LANE 
CONFIGURATIONS 
W 
LANE 
As shown in Table 5.9, all study intersections on the OR 99E corridor are expected to meet ODOT 
performance standards in 2035 under Alternative 5. A queuing analysis was also conducted for Alternative 5. 
Table 5.10 illustrates the anticipated queues at OR 99E study intersections under this alternative. The traffic 
operations and queuing analysis worksheets for Alternative 5 are also provided in Appendix O. 
Table 5.10 Alternative 5 Queue Length Analysis (2035) 
Intersection Approach 
95 tn Percentile Queue Length 
(feet)1 Queue 
Storage 
Available 
Impacted by 
Alternative? 
Adequate 
Storage? 
2-Minute 
Rule HCM Synchro 
8. OR 99E/ 
Elm Street 
Westbound 25 25 - 175 Yes Yes 
Southbound LT 25 25 - 300 Yes Yes 
9. OR 99E/ 
Parkway 
Boulevard 
Westbound 25 25 - 300 No Yes 
Southbound LT 25 25 - 300 No 
Yes 
10. OR99E/ 
A Street 
Eastbound 75 50 - 300 Yes Yes 
Northbound LT 75 25 - 360 No Yes 
11. OR99E / 
D Street 
Northbound TH/RT - - 375 220 Yes No' 
Northbound LT - - 50 120 No Yes 
Southbound TH/RT - - 250 700 Yes Yes 
Southbound LT - - 25 360 No Yes 
Eastbound TH/RT - - 100 100 No Yes 
Eastbound LT - - 225 300 Yes Yes 
Westbound TH/RT - - 75 80 Yes Yes 
Westbound LT - - 50 80 No Yes 
12. OR99E/ 
G Street 
Northbound LT 200 25 - >300 Yes Yes 
Southbound LT 75 25 - >300 No Yes 
Eastbound 25 50 - 200 Yes Yes 
Westbound 25 25 - >300 Yes Yes 
13. OR99E / 
J Street 
Northbound LT 25 25 - >300 No Yes 
Southbound LT 175 25 - >300 Yes Yes 
Eastbound 25 25 - 120 Yes Yes 
Westbound 100 150 - 120 Yes No 
14. OR99E / 
Industrial Avenue 
Southbound LT 75 25 - >300 No Yes 
Westbound 75 50 - 200 Yes Yes 
All queue lengths are rounded up to the nearest 25 feet. 
2 Over 500 feet of through travel lane is available, but queues would block access for eastbound left turns from E Street to 
OR 99E. 
As shown in Table 5.10, under Alternative 5 the anticipated 95th percentile queues can be accommodated in 
the available storage at all OR 99E study intersections, except the northbound approach at D Street and the 
westbound approach at J Street. Additional through lane space is available to accommodate queuing at D 
Street, but 95* percentile queues may interfere with eastbound left turns from E Street. Additional through 
lane space is also available to accommodate queuing at J Street, but 95th percentile queues may interfere 
with northbound left turns from Industrial Avenue. 
OR 99E Improvement Cost Estimates 
Table 5.11 provides planning level cost estimates for the OR 99E improvements under each of the 
alternatives. The planning level cost estimate worksheets for Alternatives 1-5 are provided in Appendix P. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
92 
Table 5.11 OR 99E Improvements Planning Level Cost Estimate 
Roadway 
Segment 
Improvement 
Length (feet) Planning Level 
Cost Estimate3 
ROW 
Available? From To Lane Taper" 
Alternative 1: Extend 3- _ane Section 
OR 99E Northern UGB D Street 
Provide center left-
turn lane 2,450 285 $1,549,000 Yes 
Total $1,549,000 
Alternative 2: Extend 3-Lane Section, Add Signal & Turn Lanes 
OR99E 
Northern 
UGB D Street 
Provide center left-
turn lane 2,450 285 $1,549,000 Yes 
- -
Provide southbound 
right-turn lane at D 
Street 
50 285 $58,000 No4 
G Street 
OR99E OR99E Install traffic signal N/A N/A $488,000° Yes 
- -
Provide eastbound 
left turn lane at OR 
99E 
125 125 $55,000 No4 
- -
Provide westbound 
left turn lane at OR 
99E 
50 125 $21,000 No4 
Total $2,171,000 
Alternative 3: Construct 5-Lane Section Through Entire Length of Hubbard 
OR 99E Northern UGB 
Southern 
UGB 
Provide 5-lane cross 
section 6,680 570 $6,255,000 No
4 
Total0 $6,255,000 
Alternative 4: Construct 5-Lane Section between D and G Street and Extend 3-Lane Section to North UGB 
OR99E Northern UGB D Street 
Provide center left-
turn lane 2,450 285 $1,549,000 Yes 
OR 99E D Street G Street Provide 5-lane cross section 1,050 570 $866,000 No
4 
Total0 $2,415,000 
Alternative 5: Extend 3-Lane Section, Add Southbound Through/Right-Turn Lane 
OR 99E 
Northern 
UGB D Street 
Provide center left-
turn lane 2,450 285 $1,549,000 Yes 
A Street Schmidt Lane 
Provide southbound 
through/right-turn lane 2,240 285 $1,257,000 No
4 
Total0 $2,806,000 
1 Pavement Area = length x 16-foot lane width (turn lanes) or 12-foot lane width (travel lanes) 
2 Taper length = (lane width x speed2)/60 
Pavement area of taper = V* x taper length x lane width 
3 All cost estimates include mobilization (10%), erosion control (5%), traffic control (5%) contingencies (30%), 
architectural/engineering fees (15%), and construction management (10%) 
4 Additional right-of-way would be required to accommodate sidewalks, bike lanes, and landscaping per the existing 
Hubbard Street Design Guidelines. 
5Estimate based on typical ODOT signal design. 
6 Cost estimates do not include acquisition of necessary right-of-way or impacts to existing buildings and utilities. 
Alternatives 3 and 4 would impact several existing buildings and require acquisition of approximately 66,800 and 10,500 
square feet of right-of-way, respectively. 
As shown in Table 5.11, the total planning level cost of the OR 99E improvements range from $1.5 million to 
$6.3 million. Additional right-of-way would need to be purchased under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 to 
accommodate sidewalks, bike lanes, and landscaping as outlined in the existing Hubbard Street Design 
Guidelines. 
Costs for right-of-way acquisition are not included in the planning level cost estimates in Table 5.10. Further, 
cost estimates for sidewalk and bikeway projects are included in the "Pedestrian and Bicycle Network" section 
of this memo and are also not reflected in Table 5.11. Right-of-way acquisition costs can vary widely 
depending upon property zoning and other factors. A review of aerial photography indicates that obtaining the 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
93 
91 foot right-of-way on G Street for Alternative 2 or the 100 foot right-of-way on OR 99E for Alternatives 3 or 4 
will likely impact multiple structures. 
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION CHANGES 
A review of existing roadway functional classifications was completed as part of the Existing and Future 
Conditions review found in Section 2. Based on that review, the following roadways were upgraded from local 
streets to collector classification: 
• G Street from 2nd Street to 7th Street; 
• NE Cedar Drive east of OR 99E; 
• NE Dunn Road from Whiskey Hill Rad to the UGB; and 
• NE Painter Loop from Whiskey Hill Road to the UGB. 
These recommendations are based on forecast travel volumes, the connectivity these streets provide to 
arterials, and the access they provide to recent UGB expansion areas and the future street network. 
In addition, the following roadways within recent UGB expansion areas were assigned a functional 
classification of minor arterial (all segments are continuations of existing minor arterials): 
• Whiskey Hill Road from G Street to Painter Loop 
• Broadacres Road from 7th Street to the UGB. 
• D Street from 10th Street to the UGB. 
There is no cost associated with these changes; however, additional right-of-way will be required on Cedar 
Drive, Dunn Road, and Painter Loop to accommodate the 60 foot collector street cross section outlined in the 
Hubbard Street Design Standards (all three roads currently have a 40 foot right-of-way). The resultant design 
and access standards would be applied as new development occurs and as roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle 
improvements are made. The proposed future functional classification map is shown in Figure 6.3. 
Future Street Network 
The Future Street Network plan identifies future right-of-way that the City of Hubbard may need in order to 
build and maintain a balanced street network (to the extent possible) that is in accordance with the Oregon 
Transportation Planning Rule. The Future Street Network Plan designates: 
• Where existing collectors/arterials could be extended or added; 
• Where new local access streets and/or pedestrian ways could be located to provide better 
connection between existing streets; and 
• Where new local access streets could be located to provide adequate connections for both 
automobiles and pedestrians to significant local destinations and new development (particularly 
within recent UGB expansion areas). 
Locations for the right-of-way and improvements were identified based on review of the existing street grid, 
existing parcel boundary locations, physical constraints (e.g. the railroad corridor, steep slopes, or floodplains 
that might preclude economical road construction) and applicable access management guidelines. 
Figure 6.3 shows a conceptual map of potential future extensions of the local and collector street network. All 
of the proposed future roadways are anticipated to be local roadways with the exception of one extension of 
an existing collector street and several collectors serving the UGB expansion areas. They include: 
• 10th Street extension north from B Street to 9th Street""; 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
94 
• A Street extension west from 7,h Street to 10th Street; 
• Future "loop road" along eastern UGB boundary from Cedar Drive to Whiskey Hill Road*""; 
• Cedar Drive extension east from OR 99E to UGB and future loop road; 
• A Street extension east from OR 99E to future loop road; 
• Future 4th Street extension north and west from 3rd Street into UGB expansion area; 
• Future street extension south from Broadacres Road into UGB expansion area. 
One proposed future roadway, NE Public Road, would widen an existing alley into a local street.100"1 
Proposed rights-of-way for potential future street locations have been placed along existing parcel boundaries 
to the extent possible in order to facilitate dedication as development occurs. Where it is necessary to cross 
existing parcels, the proposed right-of-ways are configured in a manner that should be conducive to future 
development (e.g. at 90 degree angles) and provide suitable pedestrian access. The grid sizes vary to 
accommodate existing structures, property lines, and the level of access appropriate for surrounding land 
uses. 
The proposed street network, particularly in the southern UGB expansion areas, is conceptual and will vary 
based on future development patterns and lot sizes. For example, additional local roads may be needed if 
smaller lots are developed. The layout of internal roads should remain flexible and the future street plan 
should continue to be refined, as development occurs, to suit market conditions and the constraints and 
opportunities of each property. The plan is intended to provide some flexibility in alignments and to define the 
desired level of connectivity in each area. Adopting maximum block length and perimeter standards would 
provide the City a consistent tool to evaluate modifications to the future street plan as development occurs. 
For example, the typical block length in the historic downtown and residential areas of Hubbard is less than 
300 feet. Adopting maximum block length and perimeter standards of 600 and 1,800 feet, respectively, would 
allow for some flexibility in block size and length, but would not allow for development of large, poorly 
connected blocks. 
Consideration was given to the potential for a grade-separated railroad crossing in the long-term future. 
Potential railroad crossing locations and associated issues are discussed further in the "Railroad Crossings" 
section of this memo. 
Consideration was also given to potential impacts on Mill Creek and Little Bear Creek. Three creek crossings 
are proposed in the southwestern UGB expansion area, but the actual number and location will depend upon 
how the large parcels in this area are subdivided and developed. The street network plan in this area should 
be refined as development occurs to provide logical connections with the existing Hubbard street grid, while 
limiting negative impacts on the creek. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
95 
Street Design Standards 
Table 5.12 shows the existing Hubbard Street Design Standards corresponding to each of the functional 
classifications adopted in the 1999 Hubbard TSP (MWVCOG, 1999). Table 5.13 summarizes the Rural 
Arterial design standards (for OR 99E) as identified in the ODOT Highway Design Manual. 
Table 5.11 Existing Hubbard Street Design Standards1 
Functional 
Classification 
ROW 
Width2 
Paved 
Width 
Travel 
Lanes 
Turning 
Lane Parking 
Parkway 
Strip 
Sidewalk 
Width 
Bikeway 
Type and 
Standards 
Arterial 
Major 
- O R 9 9 E 100 76 4 12' lanes 
1 
14-16' 
lane 
None 2 5' strips 
2 
6' 
sidewalks 
2 
6' bike lanes 
Minor 
- D Street 
- J Street 
- 3rd Street 
60 483 2 11' lanes None 
Both 
sides of 
street 
None 
2 
6' 
sidewalks 
2 
6' bike lanes 
Collector'3 
Phase I 
-Baines Blvd 
- A Street 
- Schmidt 
Lane 
- 2nd Street 
- 5th Street 
- 7th Street 
- 10,h Street 
60 344 2 10' lanes None 
Both 
sides of 
street 
2 
4.5' strips 
2 
5' 
sidewalks 
Shared 
Roadway 
Phase II 
- G Street 
(2035) 
60 344 2 11' lanes None None 
2 
'4.5 strips 
2 
5' 
sidewalks 
2 
6' bike lanes 
Local 
Local Street 
50 283 1 14' lane None 
Both 
sides of 
street 
2 
5' strips 
2 
5' 
sidewalks 
Shared 
Roadway 
Cul-de-sac 
50 30 1 14' lane None 
Both 
sides of 
street 
2 
5' strips 
2 
5' 
sidewalks 
Shared 
Roadway 
Cul-de-sac-
bulb 46 40 None 
1 
5' strip 
2 
5' 
sidewalks 
Shared 
Roadway 
All dimensions in table are in feet. 
2 ROW = right-of-way 
3 Phase I changes to Phase II when traffic volume exceeds 3,000 ADT. 
4Greater widths may be required at intersections with turn lanes. 
Table 5.13 Existing ODOT Rural Arterial Design Standards1 
Functional 
Classification 
#o f 
Lanes 
Design 
Speed 
Width of 
Traveled 
Way 
Shoulder 
Width 
Maximum 
Grade 
(%) 
Maximum 
Curvature 
Stopping 
Sight 
Distance 
Rural Arterial 
2 70 mph 24' 8' 3 3° 15' 730 
4 70 mph 2 X 24' 8' 3 3°15' 730 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
96 
In addition to the design standards shown in Table 5.13, the ODOT Highway Design Manual indicates that a 
16 foot two-way left-turn lane should be used on rural arterial highways with design speeds greater than 60 
miles per hour. 
Major Arterials (OR 99E) 
The current Hubbard design standard for major arterials includes a 5-lane cross section with 6-foot sidewalks 
and bike lanes on both sides of the street, resulting in a 76-foot paved width and 100-foot right-of-way. OR 
99E is currently a 3-lane highway with a 14-foot center left turn lane south of D Street, 2-lanes north of D 
Street, and has incomplete sidewalks and shoulder bikeways. In addition, only 80 feet of right-of-way currently 
exists on the OR 99E corridor, meaning significant right-of-way acquisition and improvements would be 
required to bring OR 99E up to the existing standard. An alternative three-lane (Phase 1) major arterial 
standard was adopted in the TSP update to be consistent with current conditions and to provide phased near-
term and long-term (Phase II) cross-section options on OR 99E. 
Minor Arterials 
The current design standard for minor arterials includes two 11-foot travel lanes with 6-foot bike lanes, 6-foot 
sidewalks, and on-street parking on both sides of the street. The paved width and right-of-way standards for 
minor arterials are 48 feet and 60 feet, respectively. None of the existing collector streets in Hubbard (D 
Street, J Street, 3rd Street) currently have bike lanes or meet the paved width standard. The current minor 
arterial standards could be revised to provide flexibility regarding provision of on-street parking and bike lanes 
(particularly in the historic downtown area). Recommendations to provide this flexibility are outlined in the 
"Revised Cross Sections" section below. 
Collectors 
There are currently two design standards for collectors. Both standards include a 34-foot paved width and 60-
foot right-of-way. The "Phase I" standard for collectors with less than 3,000 ADT includes two 10-foot travel 
lanes, on-street parking, and a shared roadway with bicycles. The "Phase II" standard for collectors with more 
than 3,000 ADT includes two 11-foot travel lanes with two 6-foot bike lanes and no on-street parking. There 
are currently no collectors in Hubbard with traffic volumes greater than 3,000 ADT and no collectors are 
anticipated to serve more than 3,000 ADT in 2035 except G Street (currently classified as a local street 
between 2nd Street and 7th Street). As part of the TSP update, the City eliminated the Phase II collector 
designation. 
Local Streets 
There is currently only one design standard for local streets in Hubbard. The current standard recommends 
one 14-foot travel lane with on-street parking and parkway strips. The City has received comments that the 
paved width of this cross section is too narrow, as well as requests for additional flexibility in provision of and 
minimum widths of parkway strips. As part of the TSP update, the City increased the travel lane width of its 
current local street standard. 
Revised Cross Sections 
Table 5.14 and Figure 6.4 show several alternative cross sections to those in the 1999 TSP. These 
alternatives are consistent with ODOT Rural Arterial design standards and the streetscape recommendations 
contained in the Hubbard Downtown Revitalization Plan. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
97 
Table 5.14 Revised Street Design Standards1 
Functional 
Classification 
ROW 
Width2 
Paved 
Width 
Travel 
Lanes 
Turning 
Lane Parking 
Parkway 
Strip 
Sidewalk 
Width 
Bikeway 
Type and 
Standards 
Major Arterial 
Phase I 80 52 2 12' lanes 
1 
16' lane None 
2 
5' strips 
2 
6' sidewalks 
2 
6' bike 
lanes 
Phase II 101 64 
3 
12' 
lanes7 
1 
16' lane None 
2 
5' strips 
2 
6' sidewalks 
2 
6' bike 
lanes 
Phase III 101 76 4 12' lanes 
1 
16' lane None 
2 
5' strips 
2 
6' sidewalks 
2 
6' bike 
lanes 
Minor Arterial 
Downtown 
(3rd Street) 
60 42 2 11' lanes None 
8' 
West 
side 
6' 
East side 
12' 
West side 
2 
6' bike 
lanes 
Other 60 483 2 11' lanes None 
7' 
Both 
sides 
None 2 6' sidewalks 
2 
6' bike 
lanes 
Collector 
Collector4 60 343 2 10' lanes None 
7' 
Both 
sides 
2 
4.5' strips 
2 
5' sidewalks 
Shared 
Roadway 
Local 
Local Street or 
Cul-de-sac 50 30
3 1 
16' lane None 
7' 
Both 
sides 
2 
5' strips 
2 
5' sidewalks 
Shared 
Roadway 
Cul-de-sac-
bulb 46 40 None 
1 
5' strip 
2 
5' sidewalks 
Shared 
Roadway 
All dimensions in table are in feet 
2ROW = right-of-way 
3 Greater widths may be required at intersections with turn lanes. 
4 Collectors should be considered for reclassification as minor arterials when traffic volumes exceed 3,000 ADT. 
5Parking allowed on both sides if driveways are staggered or if additional right-of-way permits. 
6 Parkway strips allowed where right-of-way permits. 
7Two southbound and one northbound lane. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
98 
OR 99E is the only major arterial in Hubbard. The revised street design standard is intended to provide a 
design alternative that fits within the existing right-of-way and that provides options for the future development 
of the corridor. 
D Street, J Street, and 3rd Street comprise the minor arterial network in Hubbard. The revised minor arterial 
design standards incorporate the recommendations of the Downtown Revitalization Plan and acknowledge 
the unique character of 3rd Street and the historic downtown area.'00"" These standards provide a 12-foot 
sidewalk and on-street parking fronting buildings on the western side of 3rd Street, and a landscaped buffer on 
the eastern side of the street fronting the railroad right-of-way. 
The Phase II collector standard is eliminated because no collectors other than G Street are anticipated to 
meet the 3,000 vehicle per day threshold.. 
Railroad Crossings 
As noted in Section 4 - Existing and Future Conditions, the Public Utilities Commission previously limited the 
City to three at-grade rail crossings, and ODOT approval of additional at-grade crossing is unlikely due to 
safety concerns and increasing train speeds and volumes on the corridor. The Union Pacific main line that 
travels through Hubbard is part of the designated High Speed Rail Corridor. As a result, the number of grade 
crossings permitted in Hubbard could possibly be reduced again in the future, depending upon how the 
corridor project develops. In addition, the existing railroad crossings are "humped" which can cause additional 
safety problems such as low vehicles and trucks with trailers becoming "hung-up" on the tracks. The absence 
of a grade-separated crossing (overpass or underpass) of the Union Pacific railroad poses significant 
challenges for the City's transportation network. Limited rail crossing opportunities impede the City's 
emergency response capability, limit east-west connectivity, and focus traffic on a limited number of roadway 
segments within Hubbard. 
Potential locations for a grade-separated railroad crossing were considered for the long-term (>20 year) 
planning horizon. Based on typical overpass geometry, a 1,035 foot approach ramp would be needed on 
each side of a railroad overpass. '00"v Figure 5.6 illustrates the approximate ramp lengths required for a grade-
separated railroad crossing at various locations in Hubbard. The ramp lengths shown in Figure 5.6 take into 
account the issue that if there is not adequate distance to accommodate the ramp between the railroad and 
OR 99E, an overpass or underpass of OR 99E will also be required. 
As shown in Figure 5.6, the close proximity of the railroad and OR 99E may limit the number of locations 
where a grade-separated crossing can be constructed in Hubbard; however, many over or underpass ramp 
design options could be considered to accommodate a specific preferred crossing location. For example, the 
ramp length could be shortened if the approach grade was increased to 5 percent (the maximum grade 
allowed by the Americans with Disabilities Act) or the crossing could be built at an angle. A grade-separated 
undercrossing, as opposed to an overcrossing, may also require a shorter approach ramp, since the existing 
tracks are slightly elevated above the surrounding area. Drainage issues may impact the feasibility of a 
railroad underpass, but this should be factored against the average lower cost and level of neighborhood 
disruption of undercrossings relative to overcrossings. 
Of the potential grade separated crossing locations considered for this preliminary analysis, Schmidt Lane 
provides the most space to accommodate the ramp necessary for a grade-separated crossing. It should be 
noted, however, that a portion of any crossing in this location would be outside of the Hubbard UGB and 
would require a goal exception. A grade separated crossing of the railroad is likely to cost in the range of $25 -
$40 million. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
99 
. J V 
TORSE^dr 'V 
I /¡BAINEg BV 
RIVIERA C 
WEBSOADA' 
ugymsy EYjjiLkEg 
Hubbard TSP Update June 2011 
t 
• • Estimated Overpass Approach Length 
Hubbard Roads Urban Growth Boundary 
• Local Roads HubtardTaxlots 
• -, OR 99E £ j City Limits 
'—'—'— Railroad 
Potent al 
Railroad Overpass 
Evaluai on 
Figure 
5 6 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks 
Current street design standards require sidewalks on all local, collector, and arterial roadways within the city 
limits. Bicycle lanes are required on all arterial roadways and collectors with over 3,000 vehicles per day, 
which includes only OR 99E and G Street in the year 2035 horizon. There are many roadways without 
sidewalks, sidewalks in poor condition or with critical gaps. There are currently no bicycle lanes provided 
within the city limits on any facilities with the exception of shoulder lanes on portions of OR 99E. The Existing 
and Future Conditions analysis found in Section 4, prioritized the need for sidewalks based on system 
connectivity needs and identified roadways that warrant exclusive bicycle lanes based on their projected 
vehicle traffic volumes. The following section identifies pedestrian and bicycle network projects that have been 
identified as potential priorities. It also provides planning level cost estimates to complete all of the identified 
projects. The planning level costs provided are for stand-alone pedestrian and bicycle projects and do not 
account for full road reconstruction or potential cost savings of implementing multiple projects together. 
Project costs were refined to account for these factors once the preferred list of improvements were identified 
and additional feedback was received from City staff. 
Pedestrian Projects 
For the purpose of this analysis, priority sidewalk project locations were identified based on arterials and 
collectors without sidewalks, system connectivity needs, and gaps in existing sidewalks on local streets. 
Based on this analysis, the following locations were identified as potential sidewalk priorities: 
• OR 99E 
o West side between the northern UGB line and Schmidt Lane 
o East side between D Street and the southern UGB line 
• D Street 
o North side between 3rd Street and OR 99E 
o South side between 10th Street and 7th Street 
o Both sides between OR 99E and Oak Street 
• J Street 
o Both sides between the western UGB Line and OR 99E 
o Both sides between G Street and the eastern UGB line 
• 3rd Street - West side between Moonbeam Court and E Street 
• A Street - Both sides between the western terminus (past 7th Street) and OR 99E 
• G Street - Both sides between 7th and 2nd Street, and between OR 99E and J Street 
• 2nd Street - Gaps between A Street and J Street 
• 5th Street - East side between A Street and J Street 
• 7th Street - Both sides between A Street and J Street 
In addition to sidewalks, pedestrian railroad crossing improvements are a potential priority at the following 
locations: 
• A Street (both sides) 
• G Street (both sides) 
• D Street (north side) 
• J Street (pedestrian only crossing) 
Pedestrian crossing improvements such as a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB), HAWK signal, 
signing, or striping could also be considered at the following locations'00": 
• OR 99E/G Street 
• OR 99E/A Street 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
101 
This list of potential pedestrian priority projects will be refined based upon feedback received from the Project 
Management Team and others. Figure 5.7 illustrates the potential pedestrian network improvements. Table 
5.15 provides planning level cost estimates for the pedestrian projects identified above. 
The total cost to complete all of the identified pedestrian priorities is approximately $2.1 million. In addition, 
high visibility crosswalks at any location in Hubbard are estimated at $7,465 each. The planning level cost 
estimates do not include additional costs for right-of-way acquisition in areas where the existing right-of-way is 
not adequate to accommodate the cross section outlined in the Hubbard Street Design Standards. Right-of-
way acquisition needs are address in more detail in the "Right-of-Way Issues" section of this memo. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
102 
Hubbard TSP Update June 2011 
h*oit?HiidJ CTBSSTTTg Iff lpiovemenis 
OR 99E 
RR 
New Sidewalk Project 
Sidewalk Repair Project 
Existing Sidewalks 
Kaiiroaa 
Urban Growth Boundary 
nnsuard Ri -=>ds 
Local Roads 
OR 99E 
— " " HubbardTaxlots 
_ City Limits 
Proposed 
Pedestrian Network 
Improvements 
Figure 
5.7 
U'l'meii r 'fl 1 
0 0.05 0.1 Miles I , 
LJL-L-J-J—I—L-1—I 
Table 5.15 Pedestrian Improvements Cost Estimate 
Improvement 
Location New Length 
(ft)1 
Retrofit 
Length (ft)1 
Curb & 
Gutter (ft)1 
Cost 
Estimate2 
ROW 
Available? Street Side From To 
Sidewalks 
Hwy 
99E East D Street UGB 2,267 1,255 $162,757 Yes
3 
Hwy 
99E West UGB 
Schmidt 
Lane 3,891 2,877 $290,195 Yes
3 
D Street North 3rd Street OR 99E 590 590 $46,309 Yes 
D Street South 10th Street 7th Street 1,141 1,141 $89,557 No 
D Street Both OR99E Oak Street 822 822 $64,519 Yes 
J Street Both UGB Line OR99E 2,111 261 2,111 $182,263 Yes 
J Street Both G Street UGB 2047 2047 $160,669 Yes 
3rd 
Street West 
Moonbeam 
Court A Street 992 992 $77,862 Yes 
3rd 
Street West J Street UGB 647 647 $50,783 Yes 
3rd 
Street West A Street H Street 985 589 $71,373 Yes 
A Street Both Western end OR99E 3,037 221 3,037 $229,860 Yes 
G Street Both 7th Street 2nd Street 725 1,210 993 $124,358 Yes 
G Street Both OR99E J Street 1356 1356 $97,049 Yes 
2nd 
Street Both A Street J Street 823 823 $58,902 
Yes 
5th 
Street East A Street J Street 1,645 1,195 $110,983 
Yes 
7th 
Street Both A Street J Street 3,630 3,630 
$259,799 No 
Total $2,077,237 
2 Assumes Hubbard average cost per linear foot for a 5-foot wide sidewalk ($56.57) adjusted to average cost per linear foot for a 6-foot sidewalk ($63.49) plus $15 per 
linear foot for curb and gutter. Assumes replacement of existing 'poor1 quality sidewalks for same price as installation of new sidewalk. 
3 Sufficient right-of-way assuming 3-lane cross section is selected as the recommended alternative for OR 99E. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 104 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Hubbard TSP Update June 2011 
oi 
S 
Ì 
•a 
I 
o 
o 
I S 
Ï 
Potential Crossing Improvements l I 1 Railroad 
I OR 99E • Urban Growth Bouncary 
^ RR 
Hub ard Ro Is 
Local Roads 
New Sid alk Proj [ = OR 99E 
• m Sidewalk Repair Projec* HubbardTaxlols 
Existing Sidewalks City Limits 
Proposed 
Pedestrian Network 
Improvements 
EXHIBIT "A 
Figure 
5 7 
BRQADAi 
CASTEEJ^j 
Hubbard TSP Update June 2011 
Figure 
5.8 
Proposed Improvements Hubbard Roads 
- Marked Shared Roadway = Local Roads 
— Bicycle Lane = O R 99E 
C^Existing Shoulder Bikeway HubbardTaxlots 
«Railroad .iJCity Limits 
— Urban Growth Boundary 
Proposed Bicycle 
Improvements 
EXHIBIT'A 
* 
PUBLIC TRANSIT 
The Oregon Public Transportation Plan (ODOT, 1997) describes the preferred state of public transportation 
in 2015 to respond to state and federal goals. The plan identifies minimum levels of public transportation to 
provide a range of services intended to keep pace with Oregon's changing and increasing public 
transportation demand needs. Minimum levels of service recommendations are given by types of services, 
size of community, and distance from other major urban central cities. The population of Hubbard was 
3,175 in 2010 and is projected to be 5,154 in 2035; so Hubbard will remain a small community during the 
20-year planning horizon. 
According to the Oregon Public Transportation Plan, the goals for communities between 2,500 and 25,000 
population and over 20 miles from an urban center city should include: 
• Public transportation service to the general public based on locally established service and 
funding priorities. 
• An accessible ride to anyone requesting service. 
• A coordinated scheduling system. 
• Phone access to the scheduling system at least 40 hours weekly between Monday and 
Friday. 
• Respond to service requests within 24 hours, not necessarily provide a ride within 24 hours. 
The existing public transit system - described in Sections 3 and 4 - meets each of these goals. The 1999 
TSP identifies constructing bus pull-outs on OR 99E as an additional public transportation recommendation. 
The goal of this recommendation is to reduce conflicts between traffic on OR 99E and stopped buses, 
however, even with bus pullouts traffic would be required to stop behind school buses. 
RIGHT-OF-WAY ISSUES 
Right-of-way deficiencies were identified based on a review of the roadway inventory, tax lot data, and the 
proposed Hubbard Street Design Standards. Right-of-way needs mapping was conducted in GIS using 
current tax lot boundaries and street centerlines obtained from Marion County. The proposed future right-of-
way needs were then established based on an offset from the centerline equal to half of the proposed 
roadway cross section in the proposed Hubbard Street Design Standards. 
Figure 5.9 shows a summary map of the right-of-way needs to accommodate the proposed street design 
standards and the identified pedestrian and bicycle projects in the TSP. Appendix Q provides the project 
specific right-of-way needs and identifies each of the properties that would be affected by the acquisition of 
right-of-way necessary to provide the identified improvements in the future. 
There is currently adequate right-of-way to accommodate the proposed cross sections and bicycle 
pedestrian improvements on all of the streets in Hubbard except OR 99E, 7th Street, and D Street. 
• The OR 99E corridor requires an additional 20 feet of right-of-way if a 5-lane section is 
identified as the preferred future alternative. The existing 80-foot right-of-way on OR 99E is 
adequate to accommodate a 3-lane section if this is identified as the preferred future 
alternative. 
• The J Street corridor requires an additional 10 feet of right-of-way in order to accommodate 
the recommended 60-foot cross section (with the exception of the segment between D Street 
and E Street). 
• An additional 10 to 20 feet of right-of way is also needed on the southern side of D Street 
west of 7th Street in order to accommodate the recommended 60 foot cross section. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
107 
m,0È m f w M : ^ 
: 3 p i Ä 
mm mt 
• J'S'T.. ¿-WS&S, 
mg« u t i l I Jl I _ ' 
Right-of-Way (ROW) Needs •=*= Railroad 
ROW Deficiency (all alternatives) — Urban Growth Eoundary 
™ ROW Deficiency (Alternative 3) HubbardTaxlots 
Hubbard Roads f. jCitV Limlts 
— Locai Roads 
= OR 99E 
Right-of-Way 
Deficiencies 
Figure 
5.9 
c i u i p i T 1 
Hubbard TSP Update June 2011 
REVENUE FORECAST AND PREFERRED PLAN 
Five alternatives were identified for the OR 99E corridor and desired improvements for the pedestrian and 
bicycle networks were identified. The total costs to address the deficiencies identified on OR 99E total 
approximately $1.4 million for Alternative 1, $2.0 million for Alternative 2, $6.1 million for Alternative 3, $2.3 
million for Alternative 4, and $2.8 million for Alternative 5. The alternative selected to address OR 99E 
deficiencies may impact the number of additional bicycle and pedestrian improvements that can reasonably 
be completed within the 20-year horizon based on funding constraints. The total estimated transportation 
costs depending upon which OR 99E alternative is selected are shown in Table 5.17. 
Table 5.17 Total Planning Level Transportation Improvement Costs 
Improvement 
s Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 
OR 99E $1,600,000 $2,200,000 $6,300,000 $2,400,000 $2,806,000 
Pedestrian 
Priorities $2,100,000 $2,100,000 $2,100,000 $2,100,000 $2,100,000 
Bicycle 
Priorities $1,900,000 $1,900,000 $1,900,000 $1,900,000 $1,900,000 
Total $5,600,000 $6,200,000 $10,300,000 $6,400,000 $6,806,000 
Transportation Funding 
The end of Section 4 - Existing and Future Conditions includes a forecast of the amounts of transportation 
funding for the 20-year planning horizon, as shown in Table 5.18. The estimated 20-year forecast funds are 
significantly below the estimated transportation costs for Alternative 2 through 5, but are adequate to 
address the deficiencies identified in Alternative 1. 
Table 5.18 Future Transportation Project Funding 
5-Year 
Forecast 
10-Year 
Forecast 
20-Year 
Forecast 
ODOT $1,067,000 $2,135,000 $4,270,000 
City $291,000 $581,000 $1,162,000 
Other $150,000 $300,000 $601,000 
Total $1,508,000 $3,016,000 $6,033,000 
Preferred and Financially Constrained Plans 
The improvements identified as part of the Transportation Alternatives Analysis were reviewed by the TSP 
Project Advisory Committee and the Hubbard City Council to determine which OR 99E alternative was the 
Preferred Plan for Hubbard, to prioritize and confirm the additional roadway and multimodal improvements 
which are desired as part of the Preferred Plan, and to confirm the future street plan and street design 
standards. The results are presented in Section 6 - Preferred Plan and Financially Constrained Alternative. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
109 
Section 6 
Preferred Plan 
And Financially 
Constrained 
Alternative 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 110 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Preferred Plan and Financially Constrained Alternative 
The previous section identified various alternatives to address the city's future transportation needs and 
deficiencies for the roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, rail and public transit networks. These alternatives were 
reviewed to determine which alternative related to improvements on Pacific Highway 99E was the 
recommended alternative, to prioritize the timeframe for completing additional multi-modal improvements 
included in the Preferred Transportation System Plan (Preferred Plan). The Preferred Plan described in this 
section is the city's preferred transportation system plan that will "establish a coordinated network of 
transportation facilities adequate to serve state, regional and local transportation" as required by the Oregon 
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). 
In addition to the Preferred Plan, the city also developed a "revenue forecast" transportation scenario, known as, 
the Financially Constrained Alternative. The Financially Constrained Alternative considers project priorities 
under a constrained financial scenario, where project costs are matched to the city's projected future 
transportation funds. The Financially Constrained Alternative provides further guidance on how to prioritize 
transportation projects listed in the Preferred Plan in the event that additional funding sources cannot be 
obtained to fill the funding gap between the financial forecast and the projected costs of the Preferred Plan. In 
the event that additional funding sources become available to complete projects included in the Preferred Plan 
but not in the Financially Constrained Alternative, the city may complete these projects before completing all of 
the projects listed in the Financially Constrained Alternative. 
The Preferred Plan and the Financially Constrained Alternative presented in this section were developed based 
upon input from the project advisory committee, City Council, the public, and to meet the city's transportation 
goals and objectives. The city's transportation goals, as identified in Section 2, include the following: 
• Street Network: 
1) To encourage safe, efficient, convenient, and economic modes of travel that reduces reliance upon 
one form of transportation, minimizes energy consumption and air quality impacts. 
2) To develop a safe and efficient street system which will handle the projected needs of the 
community and provide connections to the region. 
• Rail Transportation: 
1) To minimize the rail system's negative impacts on other components of the transportation system, 
adjacent land uses, and quality of life in Hubbard. 
2) To positively encourage a land use pattern which will maximize the use of rail-based systems or 
preserve the future opportunity to use rail-based systems. 
3) Support intercity travel via high speed rail while minimizing impacts to the city. 
• Bicycle Transportation: 
To provide safe, accessible, and convenient bicycling facilities. 
• Pedestrian Transportation: 
To provide safe, accessible, and convenient pedestrian facilities. 
• Public Transportation: 
1) The City of Hubbard will seek for all its citizens the maximum level of access to all social, work and 
welfare resources. 
2) The City of Hubbard will seek for all its citizens the creation of a customer-based regionally 
coordinated public transit system that is efficient, effective, and founded on present and future 
needs. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
111 
This section also describes the city's updated Roadway Functional Classification Map, Future Street Plan, street 
design standards, and access control standards. 
PREFERRED PLAN 
The Preferred Plan identifies roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, and other improvements needed to address the 
city's transportation deficiencies and meet the city's transportation goals. The projects are categorized as 
either high-priority, medium-priority, or low-priority based on how they will meet the city's needs and the 
order in which the projects could potentially be pursued. These improvements are presented as three 
project lists: 
• Level 1 (High-priority) - Projects in this list mitigate declining infrastructure conditions and 
maximize the existing system through operational improvements, where possible. These 
projects are generally recommended for implementation in the short-term (5 to 10 years). 
• Level 2 (Medium-priority) - Projects in this list maintain the basic transportation infrastructure 
within the city. Although they address some bottlenecks, they do not include major capacity 
enhancements. These projects are generally recommended for implementation in the 
medium-term (10 to 15 years). 
• Level 3 (Low-priority) - Projects in this list maintain the system, meet growth and economic 
activity needs, and lessen congestion through strategic investments in capacity. These 
projects are generally recommended for implementation in the long-term (15-20 years). 
Figure 6.1 provides a map of the Preferred Plan. Tables 6.1 through 6.4 summarize the improvements by 
mode and priority. Appendix R provides prospectus sheets for each project. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
112 
Hubbard TSP Update October 2011 
S 
R# - Roadway Improvement Project # 
P# ^Pedestrian Improvement Project # 
B# - Bicycle Improvement Project # / 
:T# - Transit Improvement Project # 
S# - Rail Improvement Project 
R o a d w a y I m p r o v e m e n t s 
Center Turn Lane 
* —>SB Through/Turn Lane 
«^•ZDS-Lane Option 
Multi-Use Path 
* • " Bike Lane 
— Shared Roadway 
• N e w Sidewalk Project 
Sidewalk Repair Project 
C r o s s i n g I m p r o v e m e n t s 
' OR 99E 
Railroad 
Railroad 
Urban Growth Boundary 
HubbardTaxlots 
City Limits 
Preferred Alternative 
Planned 
Improvements 
E-.XHIBIT A1 
Figure 
6.1 
Preferred Plan Roadway Improvements 
Table 6.1 Identifies the roadway improvements in the Preferred Plan and each improvement's priority. 
Because the proposed OR 99E improvements are driven by future volume projections and funding 
availability, the Preferred Plan presents a phased approach to roadway improvements. This phased 
approach involves expanding the OR 99E three-lane section in the short-term and preserving adequate 
right-of-way during the development process for a five-lane section throughout the city in the long-term 
(potentially beyond 20 years) as warranted by growing traffic volumes. 
Roadway improvements in the Preferred Plan were prioritized as high-, medium-, and low-priority as 
follows: 
• High priority projects were identified as projects that could be constructed in the short-term 
with projected funding levels and available right-of-way. This phase includes extending the 3-
lane cross section of OR 99E north to the UGB to improve safety and serve moderate traffic 
growth. The city would also begin to preserve right-of-way through the land development 
process for future expansions of OR 99E to a 5-lane cross section. 
• Medium-priority improvements are those that are necessary to serve projected 2035 traffic 
volumes and meet ODOT performance standards on OR 99E. This phase includes 
constructing a continuous southbound through/right-turn lane from A Street to approximately 
800 feet south of Schmidt Lane.^'Under this configuration, all study intersections are 
expected to meet ODOT performance standards in 2035.To complete this phase, the city and 
ODOT would need to acquire approximately 10 feet of right-of-way on the west side of OR 
99E. At least one building would be impacted. See Appendix Q for approximate right-of-way 
impacts. The resultant operations for these improvements are included in Appendix O. 
• Low-priority projects were identified as those that would serve projected 2035 traffic 
volumes and provide capacity to accommodate additional growth and economic activity 
beyond a 20-year horizon. This phase includes construction of a 5-lane cross section on OR 
99E through Hubbard and would be constructed if justified by future traffic volumes. This 
widening would require additional funding from ODOT or another source. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
114 
Table 6.1 Preferred Plan Roadway Improvements 
Project 
Number Location Description 
Capital 
Cost1 
ROW 
Cost2 
Priority 
R1 OR 99E (D Street to Northern UGB) 
Provide center left-turn 
lane $1,549,000 N/A High 
R2 OR 99E (A Street to Schmidt Lane) 
Construct southbound 
through/right-turn lane3 $1,256,000 $537,600 Medium 
R3 OR 99E (Southern to Northern UGB) 
Acquire/preserve 101-
foot ROW4 N/A 
$2,134,400 or 
Development 
Driven4 
Medium 
R4 OR 99E (Southern to Northern UGB) 
Construct 5-lane cross 
section5 $3,449,000 N/A Low 
Total $6,254,000 $2,672,000 
ROW = Right-of-Way 
1 All cost estimates include mobilization (10%), erosion control (5%), traffic control (5%) contingencies 
(30%), architectural/engineering fees ( 15%), and construction management (10%). 
2 Planning level cost of right-of-way estimated at $20 per square foot. Actual right-of-way acquisition cost will 
vary. 
3 Cost is in addition to the cost of project R1. Assumes a 92 foot cross section between A and J Streets, 
which will require 26,880 square feet of additional right-of-way. (12' lanes x 2) + 14' right turn lane + 16' left 
turn lane + (6' sidewalk x 2) + (6' foot bike lane x 2) + (5' parkway strips x 2) + (2' curb x 2) = 92 feet 
4A portion of these costs could be covered through the development process (e.g. easements as new 
businesses develop). A 5-lane cross section would require acquisition of approximately 106,720 square feet 
of additional right-of-way (133,600 - 26,880). Likely impacts to several existing buildings within the right-of-
way are not included in the above cost estimates. 
5Cost is in addition to the cost of projects R1 through R3. 
Preferred Plan Pedestrian Improvements 
Table 6.2 identifies the pedestrian improvements in the Preferred Plan and each improvement's priority. 
Pedestrian improvements in the Preferred Plan were prioritized as high-, medium-, and low-priority 
according to their relative importance to the transportation system. Improvements that establish important 
connections between major pedestrian attractors and have the potential to improve safety were given the 
highest priority. For example, pedestrian improvements on OR 99E, 3rd Street, and A Street would 
strengthen connections to major attractors, such as destinations in the historic downtown, OR 99E, 
Barndese Park, and residential areas. Pedestrian crossing improvements on OR 99E and the Union Pacific 
railroad were also given a higher priority, as they can improve pedestrian safety along the busiest roadway 
in the City, and improve east/west connectivity. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
115 
Table 6.2 Preferred Plan Pedestrian Improvements 
Project 
Number Location Description 
Capital 
Cost1 
ROW Cost2 
Priority 
P1 OR99E (D Street to UGB) Install sidewalks $162,757 N/A3 High 
P2 OR 99E (UGB to Schmidt Lane) Install sidewalks 
$290,195 N/A3 High 
P3 D Street (3
rd Street to 
OR99E) 
Install sidewalks $46,309 N/A High 
P4 D Street (10
th Street to 7th 
Street) Install sidewalks $89,557 
$142,560" Low 
P5 D Street (OR 99E to Oak Street) Install sidewalks $64,519 
N/A Medium 
P6 J Street & Broadacres Road (UGB to OR 99E) 
Install sidewalks $182,263 N/A Medium 
P7 J Street& Whiskey Hill Road (G Street to UGB) Install sidewalks 
$160,669 N/A Medium 
P8 3rd Street (Moonbeam Court to A Street) 
Install sidewalks $77,862 N/A High 
P9 3rd Street (J Street to UGB) Install sidewalks $50,783 N/A High 
P10 3rd Street (A Street to H Street) Install sidewalks 
$71,373 N/A High 
P11 A Street (OR 99E to terminus)9 Install sidewalks $229,860 
N/A High 
P12 G Street (7
th Street to 2nd 
Street)10 
Install sidewalks $124,358 N/A Medium 
P13 G Street (OR 99E to J Street) Install sidewalks $97,049 
N/A Medium 
P14 2nd Street (A Street to J Street) Install sidewalks 
$58,902 N/A Low 
P15 
5th Street (A Street to J 
Street) Install sidewalks $110,983 N/A Low 
P16 
7th Street (A Street to J 
Street) Install sidewalks $259,799 $275,520
5 Low 
P17 A Street railroad crossing (both sides)9 
Conduct engineering study 
and install sidewalks at the 
existing railroad crossing 
$66,5117 N/A8 High 
P18 G Street (both sides)10 
Conduct engineering study 
and install sidewalks at the 
existing railroad crossing 
$66,5117 N/A8 Medium 
P19 D Street (north side) 
Conduct engineering study 
and install sidewalks at the 
existing railroad crossing 
$45,7557 N/A8 Low 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A1 
116 
Project 
Number Location Description 
Capital 
Cost1 
ROW Cost2 
Priority 
P20 OR 99E/G Street High-visibility crosswalks and flashing beacon6 $49,860 
N/A Medium 
P21 OR 99E/A Street9 High-visibility crosswalks and flashing beacon6 $49,860 
N/A High 
P22 Mill Creek 
Construct Multi-Use Path 
identified in the Parks 
Master Plan 
Development 
Driven 
Development 
Driven Medium 
Total $2,355,734 $418,080 
ROW = Right-of-way 
1Assumes Hubbard average cost per linear foot for a 5-foot wide sidewalk ($56.57) adjusted to average 
cost per linear foot for a 6-foot sidewalk ($63.49) plus $15 per linear foot for curb and gutter. Assumes 
replacement of existing "poor" quality sidewalks for same price as installation of new sidewalk. 
2 Planning level cost of right-of-way estimated at $20 per square foot. Actual right-of-way acquisition cost 
will vary. 
Available right-of-way is adequate under the 3-lane scenario. Right of way necessary to accommodate 
sidewalks under a 5-lane scenario is included in the cost estimate for projects R2 and R3. 
4 Cost estimate assumes 7,128 square feet of right-of-way acquisition to accommodate a 1,188 foot long, 
6 foot wide sidewalk. Constructing the standard 60 foot cross section for a minor arterial on this segment 
would require 20,160 square feet of right-of-way acquisition. Slopes in the area will also likely add to 
construction costs. 
5 Cost estimate assumes 13,776 square feet of right-of-way acquisition to accommodate a 2,296 foot 
long, 6 foot wide sidewalk. Constructing the standard 60 foot cross section for a collector street on this 
segment would require 22,960 square feet of right-of-way acquisition. 
6 Assumes $7,465 per crosswalk (one on each intersection approach) and $20,000 for installation of two 
rectangular rapid flashing beacons (one on each side of the road). A raised median could also be 
constructed to provide a pedestrian refuge. This treatment would involve additional costs for a third 
beacon, median design and construction, and coordination with ODOT to ensure compliance with Oregon 
Revised Statutes (ORS 366.215). 
7 Assumes $25,000 for engineering study to evaluate grade issues associated with the "humped" railroad 
crossing (e.g. mitigation to maintain 5% maximum sidewalk slope per ADA requirements and prevent 
grade separation between the sidewalk and adjacent roadway).Sidewalk cost estimate includes 
constructing sidewalk from 2nd to 3rd Street and accounts for ODOT Rail requirement that inside edge of 
sidewalk must be constructed at least 5 feet from railroad crossing signal mast. See Note 1 for sidewalk 
cost estimate approach. 
8 Adequate right-of-way is available on roadway approaches. Additional costs may be associated with 
mitigating issues identified by the engineering study and developing and implementing a Construction and 
Maintenance Agreement between the City and Union Pacific Railroad. 
9 Sidewalk and crossing improvement projects on A Street (P11, P17, P21) should be implemented 
concurrently. 
10 Sidewalk and crossing improvement projects on G Street (P12, P18) should be implemented 
concurrently. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
117 
Pedestrian improvements on OR 99E will have to be implemented with consideration for the phased 
highway expansion approach described in the Preferred Plan Roadway Improvements section. In order to 
reduce the amount of sidewalk reconstruction needed, sidewalks on the western side of OR 99E between A 
Street and J Street should be constructed assuming a five-lane cross section to accommodate the 
southbound through/right-turn lane proposed as a medium-term roadway improvement. All other sidewalks 
can be constructed assuming a three-lane cross section, but will need to be replaced if traffic volumes 
warrant expansion of OR 99E to a five-lane cross section in the long-term future (potentially beyond 20 
years). 
Preferred Plan Bicycle Improvements 
Bicycle priorities identified in Table 6.3 were based on timing, safety benefits, and their relative importance 
to the transportation system. OR 99E, D Street, and 3rd Street were given highest-priority to coincide with 
the high-priority pedestrian projects along the same corridors. 
Table 6.3 Preferred Plan Bicycle Improvements 
Project 
Number Location Description 
Capital 
Cost1 
ROW 
Cost Priority 
B1 Hwy 99E Install bike lanes $161,400 N/A High 
B2 D Street Install bike lanes $392,580 $285,1202 Medium 
B3 J Street Install bike lanes $451,380 N/A Low 
B4 3rd Street Install bike lanes $554,220 N/A Medium 
B5 G Street Install bike lanes $282,360 N/A Medium 
B6 A Street Shared Roadway $1,508 N/A Low 
B7 2nd Street Shared Roadway $2,011 N/A Low 
B8 5th Street Shared Roadway $4,278 N/A Low 
B9 10th Street Shared Roadway $764 N/A Low 
B10 Dunn Road Shared Roadway $1,135 N/A Low 
B11 Painter Loop Shared Roadway $1,153 N/A Low 
Total $1,852,789 $285,120 
foot; $48 pavement, $1 striping, and $11 cut and fill. For shared roadways, assumes $60 
each for shared roadway markings ("Sharrows") every 250 feet and $250 per sign for 
bike route/directional signage every 750 feet. 
2 Cost estimate assumes 14,256 square feet of right-of-way acquisition to accommodate 
two 1,188 foot long, 6 foot wide bike lanes. Constructing the standard 60 foot cross 
section for a minor arterial on this segment would require 20,160 square feet of right-of-
way acquisition. Slopes in the area will also likely add to construction costs. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
118 
Preferred Plan Transit Improvements 
The list of transit system improvements for the Preferred Plan are identified in Table 6.4. Building a bus 
pull-out or bus shelter on OR 99E is identified as a low priority as it will be driven by development in the 
City. 
Table 6.4 Preferred Plan Transit Improvements 
Project 
Number Type Description Cost Priority 
T1 Bus Pull-Out Construct bus pull-out on OR 99E1 $163,600 Low 
T2 Transit Stop Construct transit shelter on D Street/OR99E $10,000 Medium 
Total $173,600 
1 OR 99E currently meets multiple ODOT Highway Design Manual criteria for where bus pull-outs are 
appropriate: traffic in the curb lane exceeds 250 vehicles per hour during the peak hour and history of a 
high rate of crashes (particularly rear-end crashes). The exact location of potential bus pull-outs will be 
determined by the City through conversations with ODOT and bus service providers. 
Preferred Plan Rail Improvements 
In addition to the enhanced pedestrian and bicycle facilities across the existing railroad crossings identified 
in Table 6.2, the City of Hubbard should conduct a study to determine the feasibility of constructing a grade-
separated railroad crossing in the vicinity of Schmidt Lane. The current lack of a grade separated crossing 
in Hubbard impedes emergency response capabilities and limits east-west connectivity. 
As shown in Table 6.5, building a grade-separated crossing (overcrossing or undercrossing) of the Union 
Pacific railroad is identified as a low priority as it will be a very long term improvement (> 20 years) driven by 
development in the City and development of the High Speed Rail Corridor. It is likely that at least one at-
grade crossing would be required to be closed as part of this improvement. 
Table 6.5 Preferred Plan Railroad Improvements 
Project 
Number Type Description Cost Priority 
S1 Feasibility Study 
Conduct a study to determine the feasibility 
of constructing a grade-separated rail 
crossing in the vicinity of Schmidt Lane 
$35,000 
Timing 
determined 
by future 
growth1 
Total $35,000 
1 Included as low priority costs in Table 6.6 
Project Prospectus Sheets 
Appendix R includes a prospectus sheet for each project listed in the Preferred Plan. The prospectus sheets 
provide a summary of each project, which includes information such as: a description of each project, the 
estimated project cost, a map and aerial photograph of the project location, right-of-way acquisition needs, 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
119 
and a figure of the typical street cross-section (if applicable). The prospectus sheets provide valuable 
information needed for further project planning and design, and can help evaluate what additional steps are 
needed to make a project ready for development. 
Transportation Improvement Costs 
The total cost of the transportation improvements contained in the Preferred Plan is approximately $14 
million, as shown in Table 6.6. 
Table 6.6 Planning Level Transportation Improvement Costs (Preferred Plan)1 
Type High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority Total 
Roadway $1,549,000 $3,928,000 $3,449,000 $8,926,000 
Pedestrian $1,045,510 $724,473 $1,003,832 $2,773,815 
Bicycle $839,100 $836,580 $462,229 $2,137,909 
Transit N/A $10,000 $163,600 $173,600 
Rail N/A N/A $35,000 $35,000 
Total $2,755,910 $6,176,753 $5,113,661 $14,046,324 
Costs include estimated right-of-way acquisition costs. 
The transportation improvement costs in Table 6.6 include all projects identified in the Preferred Plan 
and represent an ideal scenario. The costs in Table 6.6 can be compared to Table 6.7, which 
illustrates the total projected funds available within the 20-year forecast. Details on how the forecast 
future funding scenario was developed are documented in Section 4. The approximately $6.0 million 
identified in Table 6.7 leaves a funding gap of approximately $8 million between the financial forecast 
and the projected costs of the Preferred Plan alternative. 
Table 6.7 Forecast Future Transportation Funding 
5-Year 
Forecast 
10-Year 
Forecast 
20-Year 
Forecast 
ODOT $1,067,000 $2,135,000 $4,270,000 
City $291,000 $581,000 $1,162,000 
Other $150,000 $300,000 $601,000 
Total $1,508,000 $3,016,000 $6,033,000 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
120 
FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINED ALTERNATIVE 
The estimated costs to construct the Preferred Plan far exceed projected future transportation funding 
amounts. To describe a more likely future transportation system, a Financially Constrained Alternative for 
future improvements was also identified. The Financially Constrained Alternative considers project 
prioritization and costs and attempts to match them to the projected transportation funding flows while 
addressing as many of the city's transportation needs as possible summary of current and future funding 
sources and recommendations to increase local funding for transportation facilities are addressed in the 
Transportation Financing Program found in Section 6. 
The Financially Constrained Alternative identifies the near-term, mid-term, and long-term roadway, 
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvements that can be achieved within the transportation funding 
forecast. The Financially Constrained Alternative was developed by the project team with guidance from the 
Project Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, City Council, and results of a public survey. The 
timelines were identified based on the project priorities identified for the Preferred Plan above, project costs, 
city needs, and the projected funding flows. For example, if the projected funding was only sufficient to 
accomplish the high-priority projects, those projects were divided into near-term, mid-term, and long-term 
projects based on the assumption that the forecast funding would be spread out evenly among the next 
twenty years. 
All priority roadway improvements were included in the Financially Constrained Alternative. The remaining 
funding was allocated to pedestrian and bicycle projects. These specific, non-auto projects were selected 
based on the project priorities identified for the Preferred Plan. Figure 6.2 provides a map of the Financially 
Constrained Alternative. Tables 6.8 through 6.11 summarize the proposed Financially Constrained 
Alternative projects by mode and time-frame. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
121 
Hubbard TSP Update May 2012 
— 
jr 
\\ 
/ / 
4 
ï 
i 
— £ 
Roadway Improvement Project # 
P# Pedestrian Improvement Project # 
B# - Bicycle Improvement Project # 
/ /¿T# • Transit Improvement Project # 
S# - Rail Improvement Project # y 
aiUSiSEYj 
Roadway Improvements Crossing Improvements 
Center Turn Lane 
• I ; 'OR 99E 
<— >i>b inrougnrtum Lane 
« • >5-Lane Option W W Railroad 
™ S h o u l d e r Bikeway 
I J < Railroad 
New Sidewalk Project 
Urban Growth Boundary 
Sidewalk Repair Project 
HubbardTaxlots 
¿ J City Limits 
EXHIBIT "A" 
F inancially 
Constrained 
Alternative 
Improvements 
Table 6.8 Financially Constrained Alternative Roadway Improvements 
Project 
Number Location Description Cost Timeframe 
R1 OR 99E (D Street to Northern UGB) Provide center left-turn lane $1,549,000 0-5 years 
R2 OR 99E (A Street to Schmidt Lane) Construct southbound through/right-turn lane1 $1,793,600 5-10 years 
R3 OR 99E (Southern to Northern UGB) Preserve 100-foot ROW Development Driven 0-20 years 
Total $3,342,600 
1 Cost is in addition to the cost of project R1. Assumes a 92 foot cross section between A and J Streets, 
which will require 26,880 square feet of additional right-of-way. (12' lanes x 2) + 14' right turn lane + 16' 
left turn lane + (6' sidewalk x 2) + (6' foot bike lane x 2) + (5' parkway strips x 2) + (2' curb x 2) = 92 feet 
The Financially Constrained Alternative for roadway improvements identified in Table 6.8 includes a phased 
approach to OR 99E improvements that preserves right-of-way for five-lanes (potentially needed beyond 
the 20 year planning horizon) through the redevelopment process. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
123 
Table 6.9 Financially Constrained Alternative Pedestrian Improvements 
Project 
Number Location Description Cost Timeframe 
P2 OR 99E (UGB to Schmidt Lane) Install sidewalks $290,195 0-5 years 
P1 OR 99E (D Street to UGB) Install sidewalks $162,757 5-10 years 
P22 Mill Creek 
Construct Multi-Use Path 
identified in the Parks 
Master Plan 
Development 
Driven 
5-20 years 
P11 A Street (OR 99E to terminus) Install sidewalks $229,860 10-20 years 
P17 A Street railroad crossing (both sides) 
Conduct engineering 
study and install sidewalks 
at the existing railroad 
crossing 
$66,511 10-20 years 
P21 OR 99E/A Street High-visibility crosswalks and flashing beacon $49,860 
10-20 years 
P3 D Street (3rd Street to OR 99E) Install sidewalks $46,309 10-20 years 
P20 OR 99E/G Street High-visibility crosswalks and flashing beacon 
$49,860 10-20 years 
P5 D Street (OR 99E to Oak Street) Install sidewalks $64,519 10-20 years 
P8 3rd Street (Moonbeam Court to 
A Street) Install sidewalks 
$77,862 10-20 years 
P9 3rd Street (J Street to UGB) Install sidewalks $50,783 10-20 years 
P10 3rd Street (A Street to H Street) Install sidewalks $71,373 10-20 years 
P6 J Street & Broadacres Road (UGB to OR 99E) 
Install sidewalks $182,263 10-20 years 
P7 J streets Whiskey Hill Road (G Street to UGB) 
Install sidewalks $160,669 10-20 years 
P12 G Street (7th Street to 2nd Street) Install sidewalks $124,358 10-20 years 
P18 G Street (both sides) 
Install ped/bike facility 
across the railroad at the 
existing crossing 
$66,511 10-20 years 
P13 G Street (OR 99E to J Street) Install sidewalks $97,049 10-20 years 
P16 7th Street (A Street to J Street) Install sidewalks $535,319 10-20 years 
P15 5th Street (A Street to J Street) Install sidewalks $110,983 10-20 years 
Total $2,486,901 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
124 
The Financially Constrained Alternative for pedestrian improvements is identified in Table 6.9 and includes 
as many improvements as possible while balancing the needs of the other modes, according to priorities 
identified in the Preferred Plan. 
Table 6.10 Financially Constrained Alternative Bicycle Improvements 
Project Number Location Description Cost Timeframe 
B1 Hwy 99E Install bike lanes $161,400 0-5 years 
Total $161,400 
1 Additional right-of-way will need to be acquired to extend a bike lane on D Street 
west of 7th Street. The cost estimate includes right-of-way acquisition for this 
segment. 
Bicycle improvements identified in Table 6.10 were chosen based on priorities in the Preferred Plan while 
balancing costs with other modes. Only the bicycle improvements on OR 99Ewere included. OR 99E has 
the highest traffic volumes, vehicle speeds, and heavy truck volumes in Hubbard; therefore creating the 
greatest safety and comfort concerns for bicyclists. 
The total cost of the transportation improvements contained in the Financially Constrained Alternative have 
been constrained to the financial forecast of approximately $6 million, as shown in Table 6.11. 
Table 6.11 Financially Constrained Planning Level Transportation Improvement Costs 
Type 0-5 Years 5-10 Years 10-20 Years Total 
Roadway $1,549,000 $1,793,600 Development Driven $3,342,600 
Pedestrian $290,195 $166,862 $2,029,844 $2,486,901 
Bicycle $161,400 $0 $0 $161,400 
Total $2,000,595 $1,960,462 $2,029,844 $5,990,901 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
125 
ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS AND FUTURE STREET PLAN 
A review of existing roadway functional classifications was completed as part of the Existing and Future 
Conditions analysis found in Section 3. As part of the review, changes to existing roadway classifications 
and the location of potential future local and collector roadways were identified. The revised Roadway 
Functional Classification Map is shown in Figure 6.3. 
The Future Street Network plan identifies future right-of-way that the City of Hubbard may need in order to 
build and maintain a balanced street network (to the extent possible) that is in accordance with the Oregon 
Transportation Planning Rule. The Future Street Network Plan designates: 
• Where existing collectors/arterials could be extended or added; 
• Where new local access streets and/or pedestrian ways could be located to provide better 
connection between existing streets; and 
• Where new local access streets could be located to provide adequate connections for both 
automobiles and pedestrians to significant local destinations and new development 
(particularly within recent UGB expansion areas). 
Figure 6.3 shows the Future Street Plan. The Future Street Plan illustrates the location of future extensions 
of the local and collector street network. Depending on future lot sizes, additional local road(s) may be 
needed to access all of the lots. Layout of local roads should remain flexible and be performed by 
developers to suit market and site constraints. 
The Future Street Plan should also continue to be refined, as development occurs and the site constraints 
and opportunities of each property are addressed. The plan is intended to provide some flexibility in 
alignments and primarily serve to define the desired level of connectivity in each area. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
126 
Hubbard TSP Upaate October 2011 
I 9-
Future Street Plan 1—1—1—1—1 Railroad 
• ™ • huture Collector Urban Growth Boundary 
C = ) C = I C D Future Local Road HubbardTaxlots 
— Major Arterial r_ City L imi t i 
Minor Arterial 
Collector 
Local Road 
Pnvate Road 
Future 
Street Plan 
EXritBf *A'~ 
Figure 
6 3 
STREET CROSS-SECTION STANDARDS 
Figure 6.4 illustrates the Street Cross-Section Standards developed as part of the 2012 Transportation 
System Plan update. These standards are consistent with ODOT Rural Arterial design standards and the 
streetscape recommendations contained in the Hubbard Downtown Revitalization Plan. 
OR 99E is the only major arterial in Hubbard. The addition of "Phase I" and "Phase II" major arterial 
standards provides flexibility for a phased expansion of OR 99E to accommodate growth and development 
on the corridor as it occurs. 
D Street, J Street, and 3rd Street comprise the minor arterial network in Hubbard. The proposed minor 
arterial design standards incorporate the recommendations of the Downtown Revitalization Plan and 
acknowledge the unique character of 3rd Street and the historic downtown area.xxxv" These standards 
provide a 12-foot sidewalk and on-street parking fronting buildings on the western side of 3rd Street, and a 
landscaped buffer on the eastern side of the street fronting the railroad right-of-way. 
The existing "Phase II" collector standard has been eliminated because no collectors other than G Street 
are anticipated to meet the 3,000 vehicle per day threshold. 
Table 6.12 summarizes the roadway cross-section standards. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
128 
Hubbard Transportation System Plan January 2012 
SIDEWALK PAHKWAY 
STRIP 
BIKE 
LANE 
TRAVEL 
LANE 
TRAVEL 
LANE 
CENTER 
TURN 
LANE 
TRAVEL 
LANE 
TRAVEL 
LANE 
BIKE 
LANE 
PARKWAY 
STRIP 
SIDEWALK 
1' 6' 6' 12' 12' 16' 12' 12' 6' v 6' 1' 
76' 
SIDEWALK PARKWAY 
STRIP 
BIKE 
LAN^ 
TRAVEL 
LAN 
SB 
TRAVEL 
LANE 
SB 
CENTER 
JRf 
LANE 
TRAVEL 
LANE 
NB 
BIKE 
LANE 
PARI V A v 
STRIP 
SIDEWALK 
1' 6' $ ' 12' 12' 1$' 12' 6' V 6' V 
76' 
V, 
I 
SIDEWALK PARKWAY 
STRIP 
BIKE 
LANE 
TRAVEL 
LANE 
CENTER 
JRN 
LANE 
TRAVE" 
LANE 
BIKE 
LANI-: 
PARKWAY 
STRIP 
SIDEWALK 
2.S' 6' 
5 / j 
6' 12' 16' 12' 6' 
w : 1 
6' 2 5'" 
40' 
SO' 
Proposed Street Design Standards 
H:\projfile\11454 • Hubbard TSP Update\dwgs\figs\cdrfiles\11454^ 903.cdr 
I ITTELSON & ASSOCIATES INC 
Hubbard Transportation System Plan January 2012 
SIDEWALK PARKING BIKE 
LANE 
TRAVEL 
LANE 
SB 
TRAVEL 
LANE 
NB 
BIKE 
LANE 
PARK 
WAY 
STRIP 
6 0 ' 
Minor Ar ter ia l — Other * 
Minor Ar ter ia l — D o w n t o w n (3rd St reet ) 
r . ft 
¥ 
J_ 
SIDE 
WALK 
PARKING BIKE 
LANE 
TRAVEL 
LANE 
TRAVEL 
LANE 
BIKE 
LANE 
PARKING SIDE 
WALK 
6' 7' 6' 11' 11' 6' 1 7' 6' 
48' 
60' 
Col lector 
' P a r k w a y str ip a l lowed 
where R igh t -o f -Way exists. 
1 î 
SIDE 
WALK 
PARK 
WAY 
STRIP 
PARKING TRAVEL 
LANE 
TRAVEL 
LANE 
PARKING PARK 
WAY 
STRIP 
SIDE 
WALK 
3.5 5' 4.5' 7' 10' 10' 7 ' 4.5' 5' 3.5' 
¿5' 
' S h a r e d R o a d w a y Mark ings 
( "Shar rows") r e c o m m e d e d 
Local Street 
SIDE 
WALK 
PARK 
WAY 
STRIP 
PARKING TRAVEL 
LANE 
PARKING PARK 
WAY 
STRIP 
SIDE 
WALK 
5' 5' 7' 16' 7' 5' 5' 
30' 
50' 
' S h a r e d Roadway Mark ings ( "Sharrows") op t iona l 
V Proposed Street Design Standards 
II 
hXIIIUII "A"-
m 
K I T T E L S O N & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 
Table 6.12 Hubbard Street Design Standards 
Functional 
Classification 
ROW 
Width2 
Paved 
Width 
Travel 
Lanes 
Turning 
Lane Parking 
Parkway 
Strip 
Sidewalk 
Width 
Bikeway 
Type and 
Standards 
Major Arterial 
Phase I 80 52 2 12' lanes 
1 
16' lane None 
2 
5' strips 
2 
6' sidewalks 
2 
6' bike 
lanes 
Phase II 101 64 
3 
12' 
lanes7 
1 
16' lane None 
2 
5' strips 
2 
6' sidewalks 
2 
6' bike 
lanes 
Phase III 101 76 
4 
12' lanes 
1 
16' lane None 
2 
5' strips 
2 
6' sidewalks 
2 
6' bike 
lanes 
Minor Arterial 
Downtown 
(3rd Street) 
60 42 2 11' lanes None 
8' 
West 
side 
6' 
East side 
12' 
West side 
2 
6' bike 
lanes 
Other 60 483 2 11' lanes None 
7' 
Both 
sides 
None 2 6' sidewalks 
2 
6' bike 
lanes 
Collector 
Collector4 60 343 2 10' lanes None 
7' 
Both 
sides 
2 
4.5' strips 
2 
5' sidewalks 
Shared 
Roadway 
Local 
Local Street or 
Cul-de-sac 50 30
3 1 
16' lane None 
7' 
Both 
sides 
2 
5' strips 
2 
5' sidewalks 
Shared 
Roadway 
Cul-de-sac-
bulb 46 40 None 
1 
5' strip 
2 
5' sidewalks 
Shared 
Roadway 
All dimensions in table are in feet. 
2ROW = right-of-way 
3 Greater widths may be required at intersections with turn lanes. 
4 Collectors should be considered for reclassification as minor arterials when traffic volumes exceed 3,000 ADT. 
5Parking allowed on both sides if driveways are staggered or if additional right-of-way permits. 
6 Parkway strips allowed where right-of-way permits. 
7TWO southbound and one northbound lane. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
131 
ACCESS MANAGEMENT 
Access management is the process in which access to land development is balanced with the need for safe 
and efficient traffic flow of the roadway system. Access management standards area closely associated 
with the functional classification of a roadway. Typically, along state highways and arterials, the frequency 
of driveways and intersecting streets is more restrictive because the movement of traffic usually takes a 
higher priority. Along collector streets, access standards are less restrictive than along arterials and state 
highways to allow a greater balance between access and mobility. Access standards along local streets 
are restricted by safety considerations, as property access is the primary function of these streets. 
Table 6.13 summarizes the access spacing standards for each roadway classification. 
Table 6.13 Hubbard Access Management Standards 
Minimum Spacing (feet) 
Between Public Between Private Between Traffic 
Functional Classification Roadways Roadways Signals 
Rural Regional Highway 
(ODOT) Per ODOT standards Per ODOT standards 
Per ODOT 
standards 
Major Arterial (City) 1,320 300 - 500 1,320-2,640 
Minor Arterial (City) 400 1 5 0 - 3 0 0 -
Collector (City) 400 1 0 0 - 1 5 0 -
Summary 
The Preferred Plan provides a comprehensive set of projects to address the city's needs for the 
Transportation System Plan. However, the total costs of the Preferred Plan far exceed the projected 
transportation funding over the twenty year horizon of the plan. The Financially Constrained Alternative 
uses the identified project priorities to establish a set of projects that is a more likely future scenario based 
on projected funding, while still addressing as many of the city's needs as possible. 
Additional elements of the TSP include, an updated Roadway Functional Classification Map, Future Street 
Plan, Street Design Standards, and Access Management Standards. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
132 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Section 7 
Implementation of the 
Transportation 
System Plan 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 134 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Implementation of the Transportation System Plan 
This section includes a description of the actions needed to implement the Transportation System Plan (TSP). 
These actions include the development of a Transportation Financing Program that identifies funding sources 
and strategies to complete the transportation improvement projects included in the TSP. These actions also 
include the development of transportation policies and land use regulations that are designed to enable and 
carry out the requirements of the TSP. 
TRANSPORTATION FINANCING PROGRAM 
The previous section identified a list of planned transportation facilities and major improvements, provided a 
general estimate of the priority and timing of improvements, and provided conceptual capital cost estimates. 
The following section provides an overview of existing and anticipated funding sources and identifies additional 
strategies for funding capital projects. 
Projected Transportation Funding 
The Existing and Future Conditions Section documented the funding sources of transportation projects 
within the City of Hubbard over the previous twelve years. The total dollar value of the 24 projects 
completed between 2000 and 2011 is approximately $3.6 million (2010 dollars). None of the past funding 
sources have been from dedicated funds. The majority of transportation projects were funded by grants 
administered by ODOT. Funding for transportation improvements have also utilized local transportation 
funds and funding from an Oregon parks grant, private developers, and a Community Development Block 
Grant (CDBG). 
An average of approximately $301,000 per year in 2010 dollars has been spent within Hubbard on 
transportation projects over the past twelve years; approximately $213,500 per year of which has 
historically been provided by ODOT and ODOT Grants. The City of Hubbard has provided approximately 
$58,100 per year on average for transportation projects while other sources have provided approximately 
$30,000 per year. An estimate of future funding was based on past funding trends. 
Table 7.1 provides a summary of the estimated future project funding (in year 2010 dollars) over the next 
five, ten, and twenty years based on an assumed average funding level of approximately $301,000 per year 
(the forecast numbers are cumulative). As shown in Table 7.1, approximately $6.0 million is projected to be 
available over the next twenty years for transportation projects based on historic funding levels from the 
City, ODOT, and other sources. 
Table 7.1 Forecast Future Transportation Funding 
5-Year Forecast 10-Year Forecast 20-Year Forecast 
ODOT $1,067,000 $2,135,000 $4,270,000 
City $291,000 $581,000 $1,162,000 
Other $150,000 $300,000 $601,000 
Total $1,508,000 $3,016,000 $6,033,000 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
135 
Preferred Plan Costs 
Table 7.2 provides an overview of the transportation improvements identified for the Preferred Plan. As 
shown, the total cost of the Preferred Plan is approximately $14 million. 
Table 7.2 Total Planning Level Transportation Improvement Costs (Preferred Plan)1 
Type High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority Total 
Roadway $1,549,000 $3,928,000 $3,449,000 $8,926,000 
Pedestrian $1,045,510 $724,473 $1,003,832 $2,773,815 
Bicycle $839,100 $836,580 $462,229 $2,137,909 
Transit N/A $10,000 $163,600 $173,600 
Rail N/A N/A $35,000 $35,000 
Total $2,755,910 $6,176,753 $5,113,661 $14,046,324 
Costs include estimated right-of-way acquisition costs. 
Financially Constrained Alternative 
Between the projected transportation funding levels (Table 7.1) and Preferred Plan (Table 7.2), there is an 
approximately $8 million funding gap. Projected future funding levels were used to create the Financially 
Constrained Alternative presented in the previous section. The Financially Constrained Alternative identifies 
the near-term, mid-term, and long-term improvements that can be achieved within the transportation 
funding forecast. Table 7.3 identifies the funding by project type for the short-term (0-5 years), medium-term 
(5-10 years), and long-term (10-20 years) horizons. 
Table 7.3 Financially Constrained Planning Level Transportation Improvement Costs 
Type 0-5 Years 5-10 Years 10-20 Years Total 
Roadway $1,549,000 $1,793,600 Development Driven $3,342,600 
Pedestrian $290,195 $166,862 $2,029,844 $2,486,901 
Bicycle $161,400 $0 $0 $161,400 
Total $2,000,595 $1,960,462 $2,029,844 $5,990,901 
As shown in Table 7.3, additional funding will be needed to fund the high-priority short and medium-term 
projects identified in the Financially Constrained Alternative. A portion of this gap could be financed by 
increasing the TSDC rate or pursuing new transportation funding sources that Hubbard has not used in the 
past. See Appendix S for information on each of the above funding sources. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
136 
Additional Funding and Financing Sources 
Hubbard has several options for enhancing transportation revenues for project construction activities. 
Potential options include revisions to the current street utility fee and transportation SDC methodology, 
which could result in additional revenues. These and other funding sources are listed in Table 7.4. A brief 
description of local considerations for each funding options is provided in Appendix S. Appendix S also 
includes a list of ODOT and Business Oregon contacts for current grant and loan funding opportunities. 
Table 7.4 Existing and Potential Transportation Funding Sources 
Funding Source 
May Be Spent on Usually 
Requires 
Voter 
Approval Operations Capital 
Street Fund (existing) • 
Street Construction Fund (existing) • 
General Fund (existing) • • 
Transportation Utility Fee • • 
Transportation System Development Charges • 
Local Option Taxes (i.e., property or fuel tax) • • • 
Local Improvement District • 
Reimbursement District • 
Economic Improvement District • • 
Urban Renewal District • 
Parking Districts • • 
General Obligation Bonds • • 
Revenue Bonds • 
Grants and Loans • 
ODOT Funding Levels 
The transportation projects on the ODOT transportation system are not guaranteed funding or 
implementation through inclusion in the TSP. However, a variety of relatively smaller projects for which 
either ODOT or Hubbard will have primary funding responsibility are identified for implementation over the 
20-year TSP planning horizon. The mobility standards for OR 99E are based on future operational 
performance forecasts that assume that these actions can be completed within the planning horizon using 
some combination of federal, state, local, and private funds. The recommended alternative meets the 
mobility standard threshold in the Oregon Highway Plan. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
137 
Order-of-magnitude cost estimates (also called planning-level cost estimates) were created for each of the 
TSP's recommendations. This section provides a summary of these cost estimates, with tables organized 
by modal plan and approximate time frame. The recommendations are organized by approximate time 
frame: short term is assumed to be 0-5 years from plan adoption; medium-term is assumed to be 5-10 
years; and long-term is assumed to be 10-20 years These recommendations and time frames do not 
constitute a binding commitment for implementation within any time frame, but are simply a reflection of the 
time frame within which the need for the improvement becomes acute. 
ODOT considers the construction of a five-lane cross section on OR 99E (Southern to Northern UGB) 
identified in this document as not reasonably likely to be constructed during the 20-year planning horizon. 
For recommended projects to be considered reasonably likely to be funded during the identified planning 
horizon, they must either be selected for inclusion in the STIP, associated with a specific source of funding 
that is supported by ODOT in writing. The STIP is a scheduling and funding document. 
Unlike project lists contained in the STIP, the TSP project list is not required by federal or state law to be 
"fiscally constrained." Fiscal constraint is defined as a "demonstration of sufficient funds (federal, state, 
local, and private) to implement proposed transportation system improvements, as well as to operate and 
maintain the entire system, through a comparison of revenues and costs." (Source: Federal Highway 
Administration web page: http://www.fhwa.dot.qov/planninq/fcdef62805.htm ) This means that this plan 
can provide a single comprehensive list of regional transportation improvements needs and associated 
costs without having to provide a fiscal rationale as to how the respective projects will be funded. With this 
rationale, however, the projects cannot be used to support local land use changes. 
The TSP recommendations, therefore, act only as a reference for regional and local officials to consult 
when (1) considering projects to propose to the State for inclusion in the STIP; (2) developing priorities for 
local funding; (3) determining project needs associated with private development proposals; and (4) 
determining projects needed to support publicly or privately initiated plan comprehensive amendments and 
zone changes. Because the cost of needed transportation improvements across the state far exceeds 
available funds, state officials must decide what projects to fund on the state system, through inclusion in 
the STIP, based on a thorough evaluation of all projects proposed statewide. 
Transportation System Development Charges (TSDC) 
As part of the TSP Update, the City of Hubbard updated its TSDC to incorporate projects from the updated 
TSP. SDCs are one-time fees imposed on new development or certain types of "major redevelopment." 
They are intended to recover a fair share of the costs of existing and planned facilities that provide capacity 
to serve growth. Consequently, TSDC revenues may only be used as a funding source for projects that add 
capacity to the system. TSDCs cannot be used for operation or routine maintenance. Hubbard originally 
adopted its transportation TSDC in June 2005, and has made annual escalation adjustments since then. 
The current Hubbard transportation SDC applies to new development within the city for which a building 
permit is required, unless it is otherwise exempt. The current TSDC per dwelling unit charge was $3,572 as 
of February 2008. Non-residential TSDCs are based on calculated rates per unit of development in 
accordance with Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) land use classifications. The current basis for 
Hubbard's transportation TSDC is an estimate of the "cost per new trip-end for SDC eligible capital 
improvement." Hubbard's current TSDC methodology is appropriate for local collector and arterial street 
projects, but cannot be applied to pedestrian/bicycle facilities that are not part of major street projects. 
As part of the TSDC update, the city updated its TSDC methodology to include a "person trip" basis for 
determining both a street TSDC and pedestrian/bicycle TSDC component allowing pedestrian and bicycle 
projects to be incorporated into the TSDC. This entailed an updated list of eligible capital improvement 
projects, which reflect the capacity-increasing share of roadways, pedestrian, and bicycle facility 
improvement costs. A copy of the updated TSDC report may be found in Appendix U. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
138 
IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES 
Transportation implementing ordinances are needed to enable the construction of planned TSP facilities and 
protect planned transportation facilities. TSP implementing ordinances are also needed to ensure consistency 
with other adopted local policy and regulator documents, and to comply with the Oregon Transportation 
Planning Rule (TPR). The TPR requires cities to adopt policies and land use regulations for implementing the 
TSP as provided in OAR 660-12-045. 
A review of Hubbard's Transportation goals and policies and related development ordinances, including the 
Hubbard Development Code was completed as part of the 2012 TSP update. Revisions and changes to 
existing policy statements and code requirements may be found in Appendix V. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
139 
Glossary 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 1 4 0 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Glossary of Transportation Terms and Acronyms 
Access Management: Measures regulating access to streets, roads, and highways from public streets or 
roads and private driveways. Measures may include, but are not limited to, restrictions on the siting of 
interchanges, restrictions on the type and amount of access to roadways; and the use of physical controls, such 
as signals and channelization including raised medians to reduce impact of approaching traffic on the main 
facility. 
ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Federal legislation requiring that public facilities and commercial 
buildings have doorways, corridors, accessways, elevators, seating, and other facilities that are accessible to 
the handicapped population. 
Arterial Highway: A highway primarily for through traffic, usually on a continuous route. 
Average Daily Traffic (ADT): The annual average two-way traffic volume. It represents the total traffic for the 
year divided by 365. 
Bikeway: A bikeway is created when a road has the appropriate design treatment for bicyclists, based on 
motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds: shared roadway, shoulder bikeway, bike lane or bicycle boulevard. 
Another type of facility is separated from the roadway: multi-use path. 
Bikelane: A portion of the roadway which has been designated by striping and pavement markings for the 
preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. 
Comprehensive Plan: A local document that guides a community's land use, conservation of natural 
resources, economic development, and public services. Plans contain data and information called the 
inventory, and the policy element. The policy element sets forth the community's long-range objectives and the 
policies by which they will be achieved. The plan in adopted by ordinance and has the force of law. 
Demand Management: Actions which are designed to change travel behavior in order to improve 
performance of transportation facilities and to reduce need for additional road capacity. Methods may include 
but are not limited to the use of alternative modes, ridesharing and vanpool programs, and trip reduction 
ordinances. 
Demand Response Service: Non-fixed route service route utilizing vans or buses with passengers boarding 
and alighting at prearranged times at any location within the system's service area. Sometimes referred to a 
"dial-a-ride", it is designed to carry passengers from their origins to specific locations on an immediate basis or 
advanced reservation basis. 
DLCD: Department of Land Conservation and Development, the State of Oregon's land use planning agency. 
Divided Highway: A two-way highway on which traffic traveling in opposite directions is physically separated 
by a median. 
Frontage Road (Local Service Road): A local street or road located parallel to an arterial highway for service 
to abutting properties for the purpose of controlling access to the arterial highway. 
Functional Classification: (see Table below). 
Implementing Measures: The mechanisms used to accomplish the goals, policies, and objectives contained 
in a comprehensive plan. There are a variety of measures and two common examples are zoning and land-
subdivision ordinances. 
Intermodal: Connecting individual modes of transportation and/or accommodating transfers between such 
modes. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
141 
ISTEA: the federally enacted Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 which provided 
authorizations for highway, highway safety, and mass transportation for the following six years. 
Level of Service: A quantitative measure of the effect of a number of factors on transportation service 
including speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom of movement, safety, driving comfort, and 
convenience (see Table below). 
Mobility: Being able to move easily from place to place. 
Modes of Transportation: Mass transit, air, water, pipeline, rail, highways, bicycle, pedestrian types of travel 
and transport. The terms "modes", mode connectivity", and intermodal refer to these types of travel. 
Multimodal: Involving several modes of transportation. 
Paratransit: A general term for various types of transit service which differ (in one or more ways) from the 
standard fixed-route, large-bus service usually provided by transit agencies. Examples include demand-
response and contracted fixed route service, among others. Paratransit services usually use smaller vehicles, 
such as vans, taxicabs, or small buses. 
Periodic Review: A broad réévaluation of the comprehensive plan that occurs every four to ten years. 
Public Transit: Bus, van, light rail and other surface transportation systems open to the general public which 
operate frequently and on predetermined routes and schedules. 
PDIA: Potential Development Impact Analysis: Estimates existing and potential development for residential, 
commercial, and industrial land based on U.S. Census data, local zoning ordinances, and aerial photos. 
Designed to help answer the question, "How many vehicle trips would be produced if every vacant, buildable 
parcel of property were developed at maximum density?". 
OAR: Oregon Administrative Rules. A body of law that describes how legislation and other laws will be 
implemented. 
ODOT: Oregon Department of Transportation 
Rural: Any area not included in a business, industrial, or residential zone of moderate or high density, whether 
or not it is within the boundaries of a municipality. 
Shared Roadway Bikeway: A type of bikeway where bicyclists and motor vehicles share a travel lane. 
Shoulder Bikeway: A type of bikeway where bicyclists travel on a paved shoulder. 
SOV: Single-occupant vehicle 
STIP: Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 
Structures: A bridge, retaining wall, or tunnel. 
Transportation Disadvantaged: A term used to denote individuals without the ability or capability to use 
personal conveyances to travel. For example, these individuals may be the working poor, students, physically 
or mentally challenged people. 
TPR: The Transportation Planning Rule contained in Oregon's Administrative Rule, Chapter 660, Division 12, 
which implements the statewide planning Goal 12: Transportation. 
Urbanizable area: Area between the Urban Growth Boundary and city limits that will eventually be developed. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
142 
UBA: Urban Business Area 
UGB: Urban Growth Boundary. A line drawn around a geographic area that separates urban use lands from 
resource, or rural, use lands; and shows where the city intends to grow. 
Urban: Any territory within an incorporated area or with frontage on a highway which is at least 50 percent built-
up with structures devoted to business, industry, or residences for a distance of a quarter mile or more. 
Urbanizing: Areas within an urban growth boundary that are undeveloped. 
Variance: An authorization issued by the Department that allows a deviation from the Department's access 
management standards. 
V/C ratio: Volume-to-capacity ratio, a measure of roadway congestion, calculated by dividing the number of 
vehicles passing through a section of highway during the peak hour by the capacity of the section (see Table 
1.7). 
VMT: Vehicle miles of travel, Miles traveled per vehicle multiplied by the total number of vehicles. 
FUNCTIONAL CLASS CRITERIA 
Classification Primary Function Typical 
Spacing 
Typical Trip 
Length 
Typical Projected 
Traffic Volume 
Principal Arterial Provides for trips passing 
through community and 
connecting regional 
centers. 
2-3 miles Over 5 miles 30,000 ADT+ 
Major Arterial Serves as primary route 
between major urban 
activity areas and to 
access principal arterials. 
1-2 miles 2 - 5 miles 15,000-30,000 ADT 
Minor Arterial Serves as the primary 
travel routes within 
community system and to 
augment and connect the 
arterial system. 
1 mile Over 1 mile 7,500-25,000 ADT 
Major Collector Channels traffic from 
minor collectors and local 
streets to arterials and 
provides limited property 
access. 
1/2 - 1 mile Under 1 mile 5,000-10,000 ADT 
Minor Collector Channels traffic from local 
streets to major collectors 
and arterial streets and 
provides property access. 
V* -1/2 mile 
1/2 - 1 mile 1,500-7,000 ADT 
Local Street Provides direct access to 
individual properties. 
300-500 feet Under 1/4 mile 1,500 ADT or less 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
143 
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA 
Service 
Level V/C 
Typical Traffic Flow Conditions 
A 0.00-0.10 Motorists are able to drive at their desired speed. 
B 0.11-0.20 Stable traffic flow with slight delays at signalized or stop sign controlled 
intersections. Average speed would vary between 25 and 30 miles per hour. 
C 0.21-0.35 Stable traffic flow but with delays at signalized or stop sign controlled intersections. 
Delays are greater than at level B but still acceptable to the motorist. The average 
speeds would vary between 20 and 25 miles per hour. 
D 0.36-0.50 Traffic flow would approach unstable operating conditions. Delays at signalized or 
stop sign controlled intersections would be tolerable and could include waiting 
through several signal cycles for some motorists. The average speed would vary 
between 15 and 20 miles per hour. 
E 0.51-0.90 Traffic flow would be unstable with congestion and intolerable delays to motorists. 
The average speed would be approximately 10 to 15 miles per hour. 
F 0.91-1.00 Traffic flow would be forced and jammed with stop and go operating conditions and 
intolerable delays. The average speed would be less than 10 miles per hour. 
Note: the average speeds are approximations observed at the various levels of service but could differ 
depending on actual conditions. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
144 
This page left intentionally blank 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 145 
EXHIBIT "A" 
Reference Section 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 146 
EXHIBIT "A" 
REFERENCES 
j Source: ODOT TSP Guidelines 2008; online at: http://www.oreqon.qov/ODOTrrD/TP/ 
" Source: PSE Population Research Center(PRC)November,2011. 
'" Source: Marion County 2030 Adopted Forecast October, 2009. 
IV Source: City of Canby website 2011: http://www.ci.canbv.or.us/transportation/CAThomepaqe.htm 
v Source: ODOT, 2001. Oregon Rail Plan. 
vl Source: Correspondence with ODOT Rail Division. May 2011. 
"" 2010 census data is not yet available at the census tract or block level, so analyzing the spatial 
distribution of the Hubbard population is not possible at this time. In addition, there is only one census 
tract and four partial census blocks located in Hubbard. 
um ODOT. Oregon Highway Plan. 1999. 
Ix Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual. 2000. 
x Oregon Department of Transportation. Analysis Procedures Manual. 2006. 
*' More information on the method can be found in American Association of State Highway Officials' 
(AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual, (Reference 4, see Chapter 4 Network Screening). 
x" Not all crashes that occur at an intersection are reflected in the reported data. Some crashes are not 
reported by motorists or do not exceed the property damage limit necessary to be reported and 
classified. 
Xl" Oregon Department of Transportation. Analysis Procedures Manual. 2006. 
XIV For the consistency with the Hubbard Comprehensive Plan, employment forecasts were allocated 
into the following two (2) land use categories: 
© Commercial: Retail Trade; Real Estate and Services. 
© Industrial: Construction; Manufacturing; and Wholesale Trade, Transportation, 
Communications and Utilities. 
This analysis assumes growth in public sector employment will occur on existing public lands and that 
growth in agriculture, forestry and fishing industries will occur primarily on adjacent agricultural lands 
outside the urban area. 
xv Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, Sfh Edition. 2008. 
m TPAU uses Signal Warrants 1, Case A and Case B (MUTCD), which deal primarily with high 
volumes on the intersecting minor street and high volumes on the major-street. Meeting preliminary 
signal warrants does not guarantee that a signal shall be installed. Before a signal can be installed a 
field warrant analysis is conducted by the Region. If warrants are met, the State Traffic Engineer will 
make the final decision on the installation of a signal. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
147 
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) provides extensive information on 
construction cost trends of several States (Washington, California, Colorado, Oregon, South Dakota, 
and Utah) and is referenced on the FWHA construction cost website. 
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/construction/constructioncosts.cfm 
""" Specific exceptions to this prohibition are allowed by statute. 
XIX The existing two-way left-turn lane on OR 99E in Hubbard is 14 feet. The ODOT Highway Design 
Manual indicates that a 16 foot two-way left-turn lane should be used on rural arterial highways with 
design speeds greater than 60 miles per hour. 
** (12' lanes x 2) + 16' turn lane + (6' sidewalk x 2) + (6' foot bike lane x 2) + (5' parkway strips x 2) + (2' 
curb x 2) = 78 feet 
The desirable spacing of signalized intersections on regional highways is 0.5 mile. D Street 
and G Street are only 0.15 miles apart and D Street and J Street are approximately 0.28 miles 
apart, however, the State Traffic Engineer can approve installation of a traffic signal at locations 
where 1/2-mile spacing is infeasible due to a variety of reasons. 
The OR 99E/J Street intersection was also considered as a potential signal location, G Street was 
selected as the preferred location despite its close proximity to the existing D Street signal due to G 
Street's higher total and turning movement volumes, history of crashes involving vehicles crossing OR 
99E, and connection to a railroad crossing. 
xx" For the purpose of this analysis, it was assumed that eastbound left turn and through movements 
would redistribute evenly between the D Street and G Street intersections after installation of a traffic 
signal causing the G Street intersection to meet preliminary signal warrants. This amount of diversion is 
considered likely based on a review of historic traffic volumes and the current unbalance between traffic 
volumes entering OR 99E at D Street and exiting OR 99E at G Street. 
xx'" For the purpose of this analysis, it was assumed that westbound left turn movements would 
redistribute evenly between the G Street and J Street intersections after installation of a traffic signal 
and left turn lanes. 
XXIV Existing Hubbard Street Design Standards for collector streets require a 60 foot right of way, but do 
not include a turn lane. (11' lanes x 2) + (12' turn lane) + (5' sidewalk x 2) + (6' foot bike lane x 2) + (4.5' 
parkway strips x 2) + (2' curb x 2) = 69 feet 
xxv (12' lanes x 2) + 14' right turn lane + 16' left turn lane + (6' sidewalk x 2) + (6' foot bike lane x 2) + (5' 
parkway strips x 2) + (2' curb x 2) = 92 feet 
X)0" (12' lanes x 4) + 16' turn lane + (6' sidewalk x 2) + (6' foot bike lane x 2) + (5' parkway strips x 2) + 
(1' curb x 2) = 100 feet 
xxv" (12' lanes x 2) + 16' turn lane + (6' sidewalk x 2) + (6' foot bike lane x 2) + (5' parkway strips x 2) + 
(2' curb x 2) = 78 feet 
XXVI" (12' lanes x 4) + 16' turn lane + (6' sidewalk x 2) + (6' foot bike lane x 2) + (5' parkway strips x 2) + 
(1' curb x 2) = 100 feet 
XXIX (12' lanes x 2) + 14' right turn lane + 16' left turn lane + (6' sidewalk x 2) + (6' foot bike lane x 2) + (5' 
parkway strips x 2) + (2' curb x 2) = 92 feet 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
148 
m The 1999 Hubbard TSP proposed connecting 10th Street to Baines Boulevard, this alignment is not 
financially feasible due to slopes, wetlands, riparian, and floodplain constraints. The alternative 
connection of 10th Street to 9h Street avoids these obstacles. 
XX)" This "loop road" was proposed in the 1999 Hubbard TSP in order to create an alternative to OR 99E 
for some local trips. 
>00<" Widening the existing 20-foot alley cross section to a 50-foot local street cross section may impact 
several existing properties. 
XX)"" The proposed cross section has been modified from that recommended in the Downtown 
Revitalization Plan to include two 6-foot bike lanes as opposed to one. In areas where only one bike 
lane is provided, cyclists may tend to ride both directions in the bike lane, causing conflicts with other 
cyclists and vehicles at intersections. 
XX)"V (24 foot clearance between the top of the railroad track and the bottom of the bridge structure + 7 
foot bridge structure) / 3% typical maximum design grade = 1,035 feet 
xo™ Pedestrian crossing improvements on OR 99E will need to be considered and approved by ODOT. 
XXXVI The western half of OR 99E between J Street and 800 feet south of Schmidt Lane has already 
been constructed at a sufficient width to accommodate two southbound travel lanes. On this segment 
only striping and shoulder improvements are needed. 
xxxv" The proposed cross section has been modified from that recommended in the Downtown 
Revitalization Plan to include two 6-foot bike lanes as opposed to one. In areas where only one bike 
lane is provided, cyclists may tend to ride both directions in the bike lane, causing conflicts with other 
cyclists and vehicles at intersections. 
City of Hubbard TSP, 2012 
EXHIBIT "A" 
149 
AMENDMENTS TO THE HUBBARD DEVELOPMENT CODE 
New language is shown in bold underline. Deleted language is shown in strikeout. 
CHAPTER 1 
GENERAL ORDINANCE PROVISIONS 
1.200 DEFINITIONS 
Clear-Vision Area: See Vision Clearance. A triangular area on a lot at the 
intersection of two streets or a street and a railroad, two sides of which are lines 
measured from the corner intersection of the right of way lines for a distance of 
twenty (20) feet. The third side of the triangle is a line across the corner of the lot 
joining the ends of the other two sides. Where the lines at the intersections have 
rounded corners the right-of way lines will be extended in a straight line to a point 
of intersection-
Level of Service ("LOS"): A quantitative standard for transportation facilities 
describing operational conditions. Level of Service may be described for 
intersections (signalized or unsignalized) or street segments (between 
signalized intersections). 
Parkway Strip: A landscape area for street trees and other plantings within 
the public right-of-way, usually a continuous planter area between the street 
and a sidewalk. 
Street: The entire width between the boundary lines of every way of travel which 
provides for public or private use for the purpose of providing ingress and egress 
for vehicular and pedestrian traffic and the placement of utilities to one or more 
lots, parcels, areas or tracts of land. A private way is excluded that is created to 
provide ingress and egress to land in conjunction with the use of such land for 
forestry, mining or agricultural purposes. 
A. Alley: A narrow street through a block used primarily for access by service 
vehicles to the back or side of properties fronting on another street. 
B. Arterial, minor/major: The highest order classification of streets; includes 
highways and other major streets with limited or no direct access from 
adjoining properties. A street of considerable continuity which is used 
primarily for through traffic and interconnection betwoon major areas of the 
Cityr 
C. Collector: Type of street that serves traffic within commercial, industrial, 
and residential neighborhood areas. Connects local neighborhood or 
district streets to the arterial network. A street supplementary to the arterial 
street system, used partly by through traffic and partly for access to abutting 
properties. 
ORDINANCE 324-2012 EXHIBIT B Page 1 of 21 
D. Cul-de-sac (dead-end): A short street with one end open to traffic and the 
other terminated by a vehicle turn-around. 
E. Half Street: A portion of the width of a street, usually along the edge of a 
subdivision, where the remaining portion of the street could be provided in 
another subdivision. 
F. Frontage Road, Marginal Access Road: A service road parallel and adjacent 
to a major arterial street providing access to abutting properties, but protected 
from through traffic. 
G. Local Street: A street intended primarily for access to abutting properties, but 
protected from through traffic. 
Vision Clearance: Those areas near intersections of roadways and motor 
vehicle access points where a clear field of vision is necessary for traffic safety 
and to maintain adequate sight distance. A triangular area at the street 
intersection corner of a corner lot, or at the corner at any alley and street 
intersection. The triangular area is defined by a diagonal line connecting points on 
the right of-way lines a prescribed distance from corner formed by the intersecting 
streets. 
Sight distance: The unobstructed viewing distance measured from one object 
or location to another object or location, usually required the purpose of traffic 
safety. 
ORDINANCE 324-2012 EXHIBIT B Page 2 of 21 
CHAPTER 2 
HOW LAND MAY BE USED AND DEVELOPED 
2.202 STREET STANDARDS 
2.202.01 Purpose 
A. The purpose is to provide for safe, efficient, convenient multi-modal movement 
in the City of Hubbard; 
B. to provide adequate access to all proposed and anticipated developments in the 
City of Hubbard; and 
C. to provide adequate area in all public rights-of-way for sidewalks, bikeways, 
parkway strips, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, water lines, natural gas lines, 
power lines and other utilities commonly and appropriately placed in such 
rights-of-way. 
D. Preserve and protect the existing and intended function of the road and other 
transportation facilities. 
E. Ensure that land uses authorized under Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning 
Map amendments are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level 
of service of transportation facilities. 
For purposes of this section: 
1) "adequate access" means direct routes of travel between destinations, such 
as between residential neighborhoods and parks or commercial 
developments. 
2) "adequate area" means space sufficient to provide all required public 
services to standards defined in this code, such as sidewalks, bikeways or 
storm sewers. 
2.202.02 Scope 
The provisions of this Section shall be applicable to: 
A. the creation, dedication or construction of all new public or private streets, 
pedestrian facilities, and bikeways in all subdivisions, partitions or other 
developments in the City of Hubbard; 
B. the extension or widening of existing public or private street rights-of-way, 
easements or street improvements including those which may be proposed by an 
individual or the City, or which may be required by the City in association with 
other development approvals; 
ORDINANCE 324-2012 EXHIBIT B Page 3 of 21 
C. the construction or modification of any utilities, sidewalks, or bikeways in 
public rights-of-way or private street easements; and 
D. the planting of any street trees or other landscape materials in public 
rights-of-way (parkway strip). 
2.202.03 General Provisions 
The following provisions shall apply to the dedication, construction, improvement or other 
development of all public streets in the City of Hubbard. These provisions are intended to 
provide a general overview of typical minimum design standards. All streets shall be designed 
in conformance of the specific requirements of the most current Public Works Design and 
Construction Standards and the Transportation System Plan of the City of Hubbard. 
The standards sections contained in the Public Works Design and Construction 
Standards in the City of Hubbard and the Transportation System Plan are minimum 
requirements only and shall not be construed as prohibiting the City Engineer from 
requiring thicker sections or engineer designed pavement sections in lieu of standards 
sections where conditions warrant. 
A. The location, width and grade of streets shall be considered in their relation to 
existing and planned streets, to topographical conditions, to public convenience 
and safety, and to the proposed use of the land to be served by the streets. 
B. Development proposals shall provide for the continuation of all streets, 
bikeways and pedestrian facilities within the development and to existing and 
planned streets, bikeways, and pedestrian facilities outside the development. 
C. Alignment. All streets other than local streets or cul-de-sacs, as far as practical, 
shall be in alignment with existing streets by continuation of the centerlines 
thereof. The staggering of street alignments resulting in "T" intersections shall, 
wherever practical, be avoided. However, when not practical, the "T" 
intersections shall leave a minimum distance of 200 feet between the center 
lines of streets having approximately the same direction and otherwise shall not 
be less than 100 feet. 
D. Future Extension of Streets and Location of New Streets. Where necessary to 
give access to, or permit a satisfactory future development of adjoining land, 
streets shall be extended to the boundary of a tract being developed and the 
resulting dead-end streets may be approved without turn-a-rounds, upon 
approval by emergency service agencies. Reserve strips and street plugs may be 
required to preserve the objectives of street extensions. 
Street locations shall conform to the Hubbard Transportation System Plan 
and an approved street plan or subdivision plat. Where the location of a 
street is not shown in an existing street plan, the location of streets in a 
development shall either: 
ORDINANCE 324-2012 EXHIBIT B Page 4 of 21 
1) Provide for the continuation and connection of existing streets in the 
surrounding areas, conforming to the streets standards of this Chapter, 
or 
2) Conform to a street plan adopted by the City if it is impractical to 
connect with existing street patterns because of particular topographic 
or other existing conditions of the land. Such a plan shall be based on 
the type of land use to be served, the volume of traffic, the capacity of 
adjoining streets, and the need for public convenience and safety. 
The Transportation System Plan indicates the conceptual location of arterial 
and collector street extensions and new collector streets in order to preserve 
street function and promote the development of an efficient network of City 
streets and connections to state and county roads. 
E. Radius at Street Intersections. The property line radius at street intersections 
that have a designated right-of-way width of 30 feet or more shall be governed 
by the interior angle at the intersection and will be based on the square root of 
the interior angle formed at the intersection of the property lines which equals 
the radius in feet. The distance shall be increased to the next full foot above the 
figure established by said formula. 
The minimum angle of the intersection shall be 40 degrees. 
F. Existing Streets. Whenever existing public streets adjacent to, or within a tract 
are of inadequate width, additional right-of-way shall be provided at the time of 
subdivision, partitioning or development. 
1. Full street improvements to all existing streets adjacent to, within or 
necessary to serve the property shall be required at the time of land division 
or development unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 
City Engineer that the condition and sections of the existing streets meet the 
City standards and are in satisfactory condition to handle projected traffic 
loads. 
Storm water drainage shall be provided for on the non-curbed side of the full 
street improvements as required by the City Engineer. In cases where the 
property with a land division or development fronts both sides of an existing 
street, full street improvements shall be required. The party paying the costs 
for improvements may require buyers along the improved area to reimburse 
improvement costs for up to ten (10) years. Each lot should pay a 
proportional amount of the total improvement costs if reimbursement is 
pursued. 
Reserve strips and street plugs shall be dedicated, deeded, and installed to 
preserve the objectives of the full street prior to street construction. 
2. The City may allow the applicant to record an approved "Waiver of Rights 
to Remonstrate for Street and Public Utility Improvements" in lieu of street 
improvements where the following criteria are met. 
ORDINANCE 324-2012 EXHIBIT B Page 5 of 21 
Alternatives include: 
a. The contiguous length of the existing street to be improved (including 
the portion of the existing street which must be improved to serve the 
development) is less than 250 feet, and 
b. The existing roadway conditions and sections are adequate to handle 
existing and projected traffic loads, and 
c. Existing public utilities (water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer) located 
within the existing roadway are adequate, or can be improved without 
damaging the existing roadway surface. 
3. In lieu of the street improvement requirements outlined in Section 2.204.03 
(F) (I) above, the Planning Commission, under a Type II procedure, may 
elect to accept from the applicant moneys to be placed in a fund dedicated to 
the future reconstruction of the subject street(s). The amount of moneys 
deposited with the City shall not be greater than 100 percent of the estimated 
cost of the full street improvements (including associated storm drainage 
improvements). Cost estimates shall be based from a preliminary design of 
the reconstructed street provided the applicant's engineer and shall be 
approved by the City Engineer. If the City Council elects to accept these 
moneys in lieu of the street improvements, the applicant shall also record 
against all lots or parcels a "Construction Deferral Agreement and Waiver of 
Rights to Remonstrate for Street and Storm Drainage Improvements" 
approved by the City Attorney. The construction deferral agreement should 
be worded such that the subject properties will be responsible for paying a 
minimum of 50 percent of the costs of the future street and storm drainage 
improvements to the subject street minus the value (at the time the street is 
constructed) of the money deposited with the City by the applicant plus an 
accumulated interest, e.g. (50 percent minus (deposit plus interest)). A 
separate "Waiver of Rights to Remonstrate" may be required for future 
improvements or other public utilities. 
4. All required public utilities shall be installed as part of the street 
construction process. 
G. Cul-de-sacs. The use of cul-de-sacs and other dead-end streets shall be 
discouraged and shall only be approved upon showing by the applicant of 
unusual or unique circumstances justifying the use of such a street. In cases 
where cul-de-sacs are determined to be justified they shall only be permitted 
subject to the following conditions: 
1. There shall be no cul-de-sacs more than 400 feet in length. 
2. All cul-de-sacs shall terminate with circular turn-arounds, except where the 
Planning Commission finds that a "pear" or "hammerhead" turnaround is 
more appropriate given the topography, natural, or built features, and 
ORDINANCE 324-2012 EXHIBIT B Page 6 of 21 
expected use. Such variations shall be approved by the City Engineer and 
emergency services providers. 
3. An accessway shall be provided consistent with the standards as determined 
by the Planning Commission to be necessary to insure safe, efficient, and 
convenient multi-modal access. 
For the purpose of this section, "unusual or unique circumstances" exist 
when slopes are 8 percent or more, wetlands or a body of water are present, 
existing development on adjacent property prevents a street connection. 
For the purpose of this section "accessway" means a walkway that provides 
pedestrian and/or bicycle passage either between streets or from a street to a 
building or other destination such as a school, park, or transit stop. 
Accessways generally include a walkway and additional land on either side 
of the walkway, often in the form of an easement or right-of-way, to provide 
clearance and separation between the walkway and the adjacent uses. 
Accessways through parking lots are generally physically separated from 
adjacent vehicle parking or parallel vehicle traffic by curbs or similar 
devices including landscaping, trees, and lighting. Where accessways cross 
driveways, they are generally raised, paved, or marked in a manner that 
provides convenient access for pedestrians. 
H. Street Names. Street names and numbers shall conform to the established 
pattern in the City and shall be subject to the approval of the Planning 
Commission, City staff, and emergency service agencies. 
I. Grades and Curves. Grades shall not exceed 8 percent on public or private 
streets. To provide for adequate drainage, all streets shall have a minimum 
slope of 0.5 percent. On arterials there shall be a tangent of not less than 100 
feet between reversed curves. 
J. Marginal Access Streets. If a development abuts or contains an existing or 
proposed arterial street or railroad right-of-way, the Planning Commission 
may require marginal access streets, reverse frontage lots with suitable depth, 
screen planting contained in a non-access reservation along the rear or side 
property line, or such other treatment as may be necessary for adequate 
protection of residential properties and to afford separation of through and local 
traffic. Consideration shall be given for pedestrian routes. 
K. Clear Vision Areas. Clear vision areas shall be maintained on corner lots at the 
intersection of all public streets and at the intersections of a public street with a 
private street, alley or drive which serves more than three parcels. No structure 
or planting shall be permitted within a clear vision area which would impede 
visibility between a height of 36 inches and 9 feet above the curb grade of the 
intersecting streets. 
Clear vision areas are as defined in Section 1.200 (definitions), 2.203.07(K) and 
2.209.07. 
ORDINANCE 324-2012 EXHIBIT B Page 7 of 21 
L. Driveways and points of access. Approaches shall be constructed according to 
City standards for residential and commercial users and shall meet the minimum 
separations of five (5) feet between residential driveways, 22 feet between 
commercial, industrial, and institutional driveways, and 20 feet from an 
intersection for local streets. Spacing standards for private driveways onto 
major and minor arterial, and collector streets shall conform to the standards 
established in the street design section of the Hubbard Transportation System 
Plan. The separation shall be measured between the nearest outside edges of 
each access lanes and the edge of the radius on the street. 
Adjoining properties are encouraged to combine accesses. For public safety 
purposes and wherever possible, driveways shall align with the access points to 
properties across the street and other street intersections. Where impractical due 
to lot configuration, driveways shall be as approved by the City's Public Works 
Superintendent. 
M. Access onto arterial streets. 
1. The following uses will be permitted direct access to major arterial streets 
based on compliance with the spacing requirements: 
a. Commercial uses; 
b. Major public or private developments; and 
c. High schools. 
2. The following uses will not be permitted direct access to major arterial 
streets: 
a. Residential development; 
b. Elementary or middle schools; and 
c. Parks. 
3. The following uses will be permitted direct access to minor arterial streets 
based on compliance with the spacing requirements: 
a. Commercial uses; and 
b. Major public or private developments. 
4. The following uses will not be permitted direct access to minor arterial 
streets: 
a. Residential development. 
N. Spacing Between Public Road Intersections. Spacing between public road 
intersections for each functional class of road shall conform to standards 
established in the street design section of the Transportation System Plan. 
ORDINANCE 324-2012 EXHIBIT B Page 8 of 21 
O. Parkway Strip Landscaping. Landscaping and plant materials used in the 
parkway strip is subject to the provisions of 2.207. Maintenance of parkway 
strips in the right-of-way is the continuing obligation of the adjacent 
property owner. 
2.202.04 General Right-of-Way and Improvement Widths 
The following standards in the Street Design Standards Table are general criteria 
for all types of public streets, bikeways, parkway strips, and sidewalks in the City of 
Hubbard. These standards shall be the minimum requirements for all streets, 
bikeways, and pedestrian facilities except where modifications are permitted under 
Section 2.202.05. 
The Street Design Standards Table lists several options for local streets. The street 
design section of the TSP establishes guidelines for selection of the appropriate 
local street option. The TSP identifies the conceptual location of some new 
collector streets that shall be built as specified by Phase 2 design standards. 
ORDINANCE 324-2012 EXHIBIT B Page 9 of 21 
STREET DESIGN STANDARDS TABLE 
Functional 
Classification 
ROW 
Width2 
Paved 
Width 
Travel 
Lanes 
Turning 
Lane Parking 
Parkway 
Strip 
Sidewalk 
Width 
Bikeway 
Type and 
Standards 
Major Arterial 
Phase I 
80 52 
2 
12' lanes 
1 
16 ' l ane 
None 
2 
5 ' strips 
2 
6 ' 
sidewalks 
2 
6 ' bike lanes 
Phase II 
101 64 
3 
12' 
lanes7 
1 
16' lane 
None 
2 
5 ' strips 
2 
6 ' 
sidewalks 
2 
6 ' bike lanes 
Phase III 
101 76 
4 
12' lanes 
1 
16' lane 
None 
2 
5 ' strips 
2 
6 ' 
sidewalks 
2 
6 ' bike lanes 
Minor Arterial 
Downtown 
(3rd Street) 60 42 
2 
11 ' lanes 
None 
8 ' 
West 
side 
6 ' 
East side 
12' 
West side 
2 
6 ' bike lanes 
Other 
60 483 
2 
11 ' lanes 
None 
7 ' 
Both 
sides 
None 
2 
6 ' 
sidewalks 
2 
6' bike lanes 
Collector 
Collector4 
60 343 
2 
10 ' l anes 
None 
7 ' 
Both 
sides 
2 
4.5' strips 
2 
5 ' 
sidewalks 
Shared 
Roadway 
Local 
Local Street 
or Cul-de-sac 50 303 
1 
16' lane 
None 
7 ' 
Both 
sides 
2 
5 ' strips 
2 
5 ' 
sidewalks 
Shared 
Roadway 
Cul-de-sac-
bulb 46 40 None 
1 
5 ' strip 
2 
5 ' 
sidewalks 
Shared 
Roadway 
All dimensions in table are in feet. 
2 ROW = right-of-way 
3 Greater widths may be required at intersections with turn lanes. 
4 Collectors should be considered for reclassification as minor arterials when traffic volumes exceed 3,000 
5 Parking allowed on both sides if driveways are staggered or if additional right-of-way permits. 
6 Parkway strips allowed where right-of-way permits. 
ADT. 
Two southbound and one northbound lane. 
ORDINANCE 324-2012 EXHIBIT B Page 10 of 21 
Street Typel 
ROW 
Width 
Paved 
Width Lanes 
Turning 
Lune Parking Parkway Strip 
Sidewalk 
Width3 
Bikoway Type and 
Standards 
Utility 
Easement 
Width 
Example 
ARTERIAL 
Major WG-ftr Té-ftr 4 @12 ft. 1 @ 14 16 ft. 2 @ 5 ft.* X @ 6 ft. Bike lane», 2 @ 6 
ftr 
@ 8 ft. 
Minor éO-fe 48-fe4 : @ 11 ft. 2 @ 6 ft. Bike lanes. 2 (g: 6 ft. 2 @ 8 ft. Street 
COLLECTOR 
Phase 1 6 0 - f e 54 - f t r 4 
street (a; 7 ft. 
2 @ 4.5 ft. 2 (ffj 8 ft. Street 
Phase : 6 0 - f e 34-ft-' @ll f t . Bike lanes. 2 @ 6 fit. 2 @ 8 ft. G-St, 
LOCAL 
A 1 @ 16 ft. None Both sides of 
street (d) 7 ft. 
2 @ 5 ft. 2 @ 5 ft. @ 8 ft. 
Cul de sac S M , 1 @ 14 ft. 2 @ 5 ft. 2 @ 5 ft. Shared roadway 
street @ 7 ft. 
Cul de sac 
hiilh UU1U radius 
40-ftr 2 (a] 5 ft. Shared roadway 
—See Appendix D for drawings of street designs 
3r.—The city will be responsible for landscape maintenance in the parkway strip 
Z-.—Includes 0.5 ft. curb 
4-,—Greater widths may be required at intersections to accommodate turn lanes 
—Phase I changes to Phase II when traffic volume exceeds 3,000 ADT, or safety' issues become a concern. 
11 
2.202.05 Modification of Right-of-Way and Improvement Width 
The Planning Commission, pursuant to the review procedures of Section 3.203, may allow 
modification to the public street standards of Section 2.202.04, when both of the following 
criteria (A. and B.) are satisfied: 
A. The modification is necessary to provide design flexibility in instances where: 
1. unusual topographic conditions require a reduced width or grade 
separation of improved surfaces; 
2. parcel shape or configuration precludes accessing a proposed development 
with a street which meets the full standards of Section 2.202.04; 
3. a modification is necessary to preserve trees or other natural features 
determined by the Planning Commission to be significant to the aesthetic 
character of the area; or 
4. a Planned Unit Development is proposed and the modification of street 
standards is necessary to provide greater privacy or aesthetic quality to the 
development. 
B. Modification of the standards of Section 2.202.04 shall only be approved if 
the Planning Commission finds that the specific design proposed provides 
adequate vehicular access based on anticipated traffic volumes. 
Construction specifications for all public streets shall comply with the criteria of the most 
recently adopted Public Works Design and Construction Standards /street standards and 
Transportation System Plan of the City of Hubbard. 
2.202.07 Private Streets 
A. Private streets shall only be allowed where the applicable criteria of Section 
2.208.03 (C) are satisfied. Private streets shall comply with the following 
minimum standards, unless a greater width is required by the Uniform 
Fire Code1: 
No. of Potential Dwellings Served Easement or Tract Width Surface Width 
2.202.06 Construction Specifications 
1-3 
4 
More than 4 
25 feet 
25 feet 
30 feet 
18 feet 
24 feet 
28 feet 
Contact the local Fire District Office regarding Uniform Fire Code requirements. 
12 
*Note: If narrower streets are developed as part of Section 2.202.04 of the Code, more on-site parking is 
required. 
B. The Planning Commission may require an increased surface width if deemed 
necessary to provide adequate access to commercial or industrial uses. Prior 
to any requested private street or drive adoption, the City requires the private 
drive or street to meet minor street standards as put forth in Section 2.202.04 
of the Code. 
C. All private streets serving more than one ownership shall be constructed to the 
same cross-sectional specifications required for public streets. Provision for 
the maintenance of the street shall be provided in the form of a maintenance 
agreement, home owners association or other instrument acceptable to the 
City Attorney. 
D. A turn-around shall be required for any private residential street in excess of 
150 feet long, which has only one outlet and which serves more than three 
residences. Non-residential private streets serving more than one ownership 
shall provide a turn-around if in excess of 200 feet long and having only one 
outlet. Turn-arounds for private streets shall be either a circular turn-around 
with a minimum paved radius of 35 feet, or a "tee" turn-around with a 
minimum paved dimension across the "tee" of 70 feet. 
E. The Planning Commission may require provisions for the dedication and 
future extension of a public street. 
F. The City does not accept transfer of private streets to public streets unless the 
private street meets the City's construction standards at the time of acceptance 
and the construction inspected by the City Public Works Department and City 
Engineer during construction. Streets constructed to City standards, or those 
that provide evidence of compliance with City standards, (such as, but not 
limited to, providing core samples), inspected, and approved by the City and 
public emergency services agencies, may be eligible for transfer to public 
ownership if approved by the Planning Commission during a public hearing. 
13 
2.207 SITE AND LANDSCAPING DESIGN 
2.207.01 Purpose 
A. The purpose is to guide the planting and maintenance of landscaping 
materials; 
B. to enhance the appearance of the City, providing areas for outdoor recreation 
and to: 
1. provide shade and windbreaks where appropriate to conserve energy in 
building and site design; 
2. buffer and screen conflicting land uses; 
3. provide for the landscaping of parking areas to facilitate vehicular 
movement and break up large areas of impervious surface; and 
4. promote public safety through appropriate design principles; and 
5. encourage provision of screening and buffering to mitigate for visual and 
sound impacts related to the railroad. 
C. to prevent or reduce erosion potential within developments by providing 
appropriate landscape materials. 
2.207.02 Scope 
All construction, expansion or redevelopment of structures or parking lots for 
commercial, multi-family, or industrial uses shall be subject to the landscaping 
requirements of this Section. Landscaping plans shall be submitted as required by 
the Site Development Review procedures of Section 3.105 and reviewed by the 
Planning Commission, subject to Type II review procedures set forth in Section 
3.200. 
The construction of new streets containing parkway strips shall also be 
subject to the landscaping requirements of this chapter. 
2.207.07 Recommended Street Trees 
A. Street trees shall be planted for all developments that are subject to 
Subdivision or Site Development Review, unless otherwise waived by the 
Public Works Superintendent for utility purposes. Plantings of street 
trees shall generally follow construction of curbs and sidewalks, however, 
the City may defer tree planting until final inspection of completed 
dwellings to avoid damage to trees during construction. The planting and 
14 
maintenance of street trees shall conform to the following standards and 
guidelines and any applicable road authority requirements: 
1. Caliper Size. The minimum diameter or caliper size at planting, as 
measured 4 feet above grade shall be two (2) inches. 
2. Spacing and Location. Street trees shall be planted within the street 
right-of-way within existing and proposed parkway strips, except 
when utility easements occupy these areas. Street tree spacing shall 
be based upon the type of tree(s) selected and the canopy size at 
maturity and, at a minimum, the planting area shall contain 16 square 
feet, or typically, 4 feet by 4 feet. In general, trees shall be spaced no 
more than 30 feet apart, except where planting a tree would conflict 
with existing trees, retaining walls, utilities and similar physical 
barriers. All street trees shall be placed outside utility easements. 
3. Soil Preparation, Planting and Care. The developer shall be 
responsible for planting street trees, including soil preparation, 
ground cover material, staking, and temporary irrigation for two 
years after planting. 
4. Assurances. The City shall require the developer to provide a 
performance and maintenance bond in an amount determined by the 
City Engineer, to ensure the planting of the tree(s) and care during 
the first two years after planting. 
B. Recommended Street Trees. 
The following tree species are recommended for use as street and parking lot 
trees. Other tree species may be approved by the City based on climate 
zone, growth characteristics and site conditions, including available 
space, overhead clearance, soil conditions, and exposures 
Any trees planted within the right-of-way of the Oregon Department of 
Transportation (ODOT) requires prior approval from ODOT. 
1. Trees maturing to small mature stature (generally 30 feet or less in height): 
15 
Common Name Latin Name Mature Height 
Amur Maple Acer ginnala 20 feet 
Trident Maple Acer buegeranum 20-25 feet 
Hedge Maple Acer compestre 30 feet 
Globe Norway Acer platanoides 15-20 feet 
Bradford Pear Pyrus calleryana 15-25 feet 
(varieties: "aristocrat", "chanticleer", etc.) 
Golden Rain Tree Koelreuteria paniculata 20-35 feet 
Redbud (needs protection from Cercis canadensis 25-35 feet 
Southwest sun) 
Kwanzan Cherry Prunus serrulata 30 feet 
Crape Myrtle Lagerstroemia indica 6-30 feet 
Flowering Plum Prunus cerasifera 30 feet 
(Flireiana, Thundercloud, etc.) 
Ray wood Ash Fraxinus oxycarpa 25-35 feet 
Flame Ash Fraxinus oxycarpa 30 feet 
Snowdrift Flowering Crabapple Malus 'snowdrift ' 20-25 feet 
Japanese Crabapple Malus floribunada 20 feet 
Washington Hawthorne Crataegus phaenopyrum 25 feet 
Profusion Crabapple Malus 'profusion' 15-20 feet 
2. Trees maturing to medium (generally 30 to 50 feet) or tall (generally taller 
than 50 feet) stature: 
mmon Name Latin Name Mature Height 
European Hornbeam Carpinus betulus 40 feet 
Sargent Cherry Prunus sargentii 40-50 feet 
Sweet Gum Liquidamber styraciflua 60 feet 
Marshall's Seedless Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 30-40 feet 
Kimberly Blue Ash Fraxinus excelsior 60-80 feet 
Rosehill Ash Fraxinus Americana 80+ feet 
Flowering Ash Fraxinus ornus 40-50 feet 
Norway Maple Cultivars Acer platinoides 50-60 feet 
Red Maple Cultivars Acer rubrum 40+ feet 
Scarlet Oak Quercus coccinea 60-80 feet 
Red Oak Quercus rubra up to 90 feet 
Canyon Live Oak (evergreen) Quercus chrysolepis 20-60 feet 
Holly Oak (evergreen) Quercus ilex 40-70 feet 
English Oak Quercus robur up to 90 feet 
Chinese Pistachio Pistacia chinensis 60 feet 
Variegated Boxelder Acer negundo 60 feet 
Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba 35-50 feet 
Grecian Laurel Laurus nobilis 12-40 feet 
Japanese Zelkova Zelkova serrata 60+ feet 
Amur Cork Tree Phellodendron amurense 30-45 feet 
Thornless Honey Locust Gleditsia triancanthos inemis 35-70 feet 
16 
C. Prohibited Street Trees 
The following trees are not allowed within public rights-of-way except under 
special circumstances and with the approval of the Staff Advisor. As street trees 
they cause one of more of the following problems: 1) Their roots damage sewer 
lines or pavement; 2) They are particularly subject to disease or insects; 3) They 
cause visibility problems along streets or intersections; 4) They create messy 
sidewalks and pavements, usually due to fruit drop. 
Common Name Latin Name 
Evergreen Conifers 
Poplar & related species 
Black Locust 
Box Elder (except variegated) 
Sycamore 
Siberian Elm 
American Elm 
Walnut 
Weeping Willow 
Commercial Fruit Trees 
Catalpa 
Tree of Heaven 
Big Leaf Maple 
Fruiting Mulberry 
Osage Orange 
Weeping varieties of various tr 
numerous species 
Populus tricocarpa 
Robinia psuedoacacia 
Acer negundo 
Platanus species 
Ulmus pumila 
Ulmus americana 
Juglans species 
Saxix babylonica 
numerous species 
Catalpa speciosa 
Ailanthus altissima 
Acer macrophyllum 
Morus alba 
Maclura pomifera 
ees: i.e. cherry, mulberry, crabapple 
2.207.06 Planting and Maintenance 
A. No sight-obscuring plantings exceeding thirty (30) inches in height shall be 
located within any required clear-vision area as defined in Section 1.200 of 
this Ordinance. 
B. Plant materials shall not cause a hazard. Landscape plant materials over 
walks, pedestrian paths and seating areas shall be pruned to a minimum height 
of eight (8) feet and to a minimum height of fifteen (15) feet over streets and 
vehicular traffic areas. 
C. Landscape plant materials shall be selected which do not generally interfere 
with utilities above or below ground. 
D. Landscape plant material shall be installed to current nursery industry 
standards. 
17 
E. Landscape plant materials shall be properly guyed and staked to current 
industry standards as necessary. Stakes and guy wires shall not interfere with 
vehicular or pedestrian traffic. 
F. Except for when a developer is required to provide a performance and 
maintenance bond to ensure the planting of street trees during the first 
two years after planting, all landscape material shall be guaranteed by the 
developer for a period of one year from the date of installation. A copy of the 
guarantee shall be furnished to the City by the developer. 
G. Plant materials shall be suited to the conditions under which they will be 
growing. As an example, plants to be grown in exposed, windy areas which 
will not be irrigated should be sufficiently hardy to thrive under these 
conditions. Plants should have vigorous root systems, and be sound, healthy, 
free from defects, diseases and infections. Landscaping plans shall be 
submitted to the City by a licensed landscaping professional. 
H. Except for street trees, which require a minimum caliper size at planting 
of two (2) inches, deciduous trees should be fully branched, have a minimum 
caliper of one and one-quarter (1 1/4) inches, and a minimum height of eight 
(8) feet at the time of planting. 
I. Evergreen trees shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in height, fully branched. 
J. Shrubs should be supplied in one (1) gallon containers or eight (8) inch burlap 
balls with a minimum spread of twelve (12) to fifteen (15) inches. 
K. Ground cover plants shall be spaced in accordance with current nursery 
industry standards to achieve covering of the planting area. Rows of plants 
are to be staggered for a more effective covering. Ground cover shall be 
supplied in a minimum four (4) inch size container or a two and one-quarter (2 
1/4) inch container or equivalent if planted eighteen (18) inches on center. 
L. Irrigation requirements. 
1. All developments are required to provide appropriate methods of irrigation 
for the landscaping. Large landscape areas, exceeding 400 square feet, 
shall be irrigated with automatic sprinkler systems to insure the continued 
health and attractiveness of the plant materials. 
2. Sprinkler heads shall not cause any hazard to the public. Hose bibs and 
manually operated methods of irrigation may be appropriate for 
cumulative landscaping areas totaling under 400 square feet. 
3. Xeriscaping may be used as a landscaping option. All Xeriscaping plans 
shall be submitted to the City by a licensed landscape professional. 
18 
4. Irrigation shall not be required in existing wooded areas, wetlands, 
floodplains or along natural drainage channels or stream banks. 
M. Appropriate methods of care and maintenance of landscaped plant material 
shall be provided by the owner of the property. 
N. Landscape plant material shall be protected fi'om damage due to heavy foot 
traffic or vehicular traffic by protective tree grates, pavers or other suitable 
methods. 
2.208 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR LAND DIVISIONS 
2.208.04 Standards for Blocks 
A. General. The length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with regard 
to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated; consideration of 
needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic 
including pedestrians and bicyclists; and recognition of limitations and 
opportunities of topography. 
B. Sizes. Blocks in residential and commercial districts shall not exceed 1,600 
600 feet in perimeter length between street lines, except blocks adjacent to 
major arterial streets, or unless the previous adjacent development pattern or 
topographical conditions justify a variation. The recommended minimum 
distance between intersections on major arterial streets is 1,320 feet or more. 
Blocks that exceed 600 feet in length shall be requiraased to provide 
additional pedestrian and bikeway accesses. 
CHAPTER 3 
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES 
3.105 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 
3.105.05 Submittal Requirements 
A. The following information shall be submitted as part of a complete application 
for Site Development Review: 
1. Site Analysis 
a. existing site topography; 
b. identification of areas exceeding 10% slopes; 
c. site drainage, areas of potential flooding; 
d. areas with significant natural vegetation; 
e. classification of soil types; 
f. existing structures, roadway access and utilities; 
g. existing and proposed streets, bikeways, and pedestrian facilities within 
200 feet; and 
h. a traffic impact analysis if requested by the City Engineer. 
3.107 SUBDIVISIONS AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS 
3.107.02 Submittal Requirements 
A. The following submittal requirements shall apply to all Preliminary Plan 
applications for subdivisions and PUDs. 
1. All applications shall be submitted on forms provided by the City to the 
City Recorder along with the appropriate fee. It shall be the applicant's 
responsibility to submit a complete application which addresses the review 
criteria of this Section. 
2. In addition to the information listed in Subsection 3.106.03 of this 
Ordinance, applicants for subdivisions and planned unit developments 
shall submit the following: 
a. the name, address and phone number of the applicant engineer, land 
surveyor or person preparing the application; 
b. name of the PUD or subdivision; 
c. date the drawing was made; 
d. vicinity sketch showing location of the proposed land division; 
e. identification of each lot or parcel and block by number; 
f. gross acreage of property being subdivided; 
20 
g. direction of drainage and approximate grade of abutting streets; 
h. streets proposed and their names, approximate grade, and radius of 
curves; 
i. any other legal access to the subdivision or PUD other than a public 
street; 
j. contour lines at two foot intervals if 10% slope or less, five foot 
intervals if exceeding 10% slope, and a statement of the source of 
contour information;-an4 
k. all areas to be offered for public dedication; and 
1. a traffic impact analysis if requested by the City Engineer. 
21 
MID W I L L A M E T T E V A L L E Y 
COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 
105 High Street S.E. 
Salem, OR 97301-366? 
FIRST CU\SS 
DEPT OF 
JÜN 1 9 2012 
LAND CONSERVATION 
AND DEVELOPMENT 
Attn: Plan Amendment Specialist 
DLCD 
635 Capitol St NE, Ste 150 
Salem OR 97301-2540