June 1999
0' RRI D 0 R
Land Use & TranspOliation Study
Clackamas County
,
,
•,
:.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•t
•:.
•
•t
t
t
t
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•:.
•
•
•
•c
The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect views or policies of the State of
Oregon.
JYI.. lOUGHliNCORRIDOR
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 and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development.
This TGM grant is financed, in part, by federal Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act, local government, and State of Oregon funds.
,
,
,
,
:.
It
It
•
•
•
•
•
•
•t
t
•
•
•
•.,
•
•
•
•:.
•t
•
•
•t
,
,
,
~
,
I
•
Contract Information
Project Name:
Intergovernmental
Agreement No.
Contract No.
TGM File
Date:
Amended
Clackamas County, -McLoughlin Corridor
Land Use and Transportation Plan
16023
16024
1Z·97
July 30,1998
May21,1999
FINAL REPORT
PREFACE
Project Management Team Participants
ODOT·
Lidwien IWunan
Thomas Picco
Clackamas County
Kar= Buehrig
Margaret Dickerson
Lorraine Gonzales
Cherie McGinnis
Scott Pemble
Dick Van Ingen, Project Manager
W & H Pacific, Inc.
Frank Angdo, Project Manager
Catherine Corliss
DKS AssociateS
Robert Schulte
Hobson Johnson
Steve Ferrarini
Pacific Rim~rces
DougZenn
£2 &
FINAL REPORT
PREFACE
II
•
•
•
McLoughlin Corridor Work Group Participants
,
•
•,
I'
I' •
•
•t
t '
t
•
•
•
•t
•
•
•
•
•I
•
•
•I
:.
•I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•I
•
•I
I
•
•:.
•
•
•
•
•
Ai Sheakley
Ben Baldwin
Bob Bailey
Brenda Durbin
Brian Runyan
ChuckGode
Dan Bartlet
Darlene Maddux
Dave Church
/DickJones
Doris Grolberr
/EdGronke
/Edith Coulter
Edward Hacmac
v'Frank Budwell
George Schneider
'-'Jerry Foy
'-"jimJustice
John Heppler
John Hudson
John Kraxberger
Leo Thomton
Mike McManus
Milo Haas
Neal Butler
Paul Koch
/PaulSavas
Rob Wheeler
Ted Leybold
'0m Picco
j Winston Kurth
FINAL REPORT
PREFACE
Printer, Jennings Lodge
Tn-Met
DLCD, commuter on McLougWin
Clack. Co. Social Service Agency
Clack. Co. Ped/Bike Committee
Citizen
City of Milwaultie
ODOT Bike/ped Program
North Clackamas School District
Citizen, Oak Lodge Comm. Council
Clack. Co. Library, Oak Grove
Citizen, Jennings Lodge
Citizen, Oak Grove
North Clack. Chamber of C.
Citizen, Jennings Lodge
Milwaukie Elks Lodge
Commercial Land Development
Auto repair, Vinyard/McLougWin
Citizen, VIneyard Place
Landowner, Courtney/McLougWin
Real Estate Broker
West Evangel Campground
Auto Sales
Fire District #1
Clack. Co. Sheriff's Office
Auto, Real Estate, M.H.Patks
Auto tuning,Jennings Lodge
North Clack, Chamber of Commerce
Metro
ODOT Corridors Program
Citizen, Oak Grove
2.
III
Table of Contents
D. Implementation Strategies D-l
A Introduction : .'.' ; , A-l
Organization A-1
The Planning Process to Date A-2
Summary ofRecommendations ·.. ·· ·..· AA
IV
FINAL REPORT
PREFACE
C. Zoning Proposal ····.. ······ CoOl
Current Land Use Policies · · ·..·..· Cl
Parking Requirements ·..·..· ·..·..·.. ·· .. · CA
Parking Lot Connectivity C-5
Sign Ordinance Implementation Issues ·..·.. ·· ·..·.. ·· .. ·C-6
Land Use Evaluation Criteria ·.. ·· ·.. ·· · ·..·.. ·· .. · C8
B. Street Design Proposal and Circulation Plan B-l
Transportation Policies ·..· B-l
Street Design ·..·..· · B-2
On-Street Parking B-19
Street Lighting B-20
Access Management · ·..· B-22
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and Circu1ation B-25
Transit Facilities and Circulation B-28
Street Classification · B-30
Transportation System Evaluation Criteria ·· ··B-32
•
•
•,
•
•••
•
•
.'•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•,
•
•
•
•
•
•
•:.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•t
•
•
•t
•t
t
•
•:.
•
•
•
•
•
Figure B-1
Figure B-2
Figure B-3
Figure B-4
Figure B-S
Figure B-6
Figure D-l
Table B-1
Table B-2
Table C-l
eM.laUGHliNORRIDOR
List of Figures
Recommended Cross-section Applications
Street Design Option - McLoughlin Blvd. at Oak Grove Blvd.
Street Design Option - McLoughlin Blvd. at Jennings Ave.
Street Design Option - McLoughlin Blvd at Concord Rd.
illustration of Redesigned Pedestrian Island
Recommended Pedestrian Island Design
Parking Bay
List of Tables
Recommended Clackamas County Street Functional Classification
Transportation Design Alternatives Criteria Mattix, Year 2017
Land Use Criteria Mattix, Year 2017
J
•
•
•
FINAL REPORT
PREFACE v
••
•
INTRODUCTION
o The Zoning Proposal - includes the EMf's recommendation and analysis ofland use issues.
Organization
This final report presents the Preferred Alternative as developed 'by the Project Management
Team (PMT). The Preferred Alternative includes two main sections:
A-1
- £
o The Smet De.fign and Circulation Plan - includes recommended cross-sections and other
street design and transportation improvements to enhance all modes of travel in the
McLoughlin Corridor.
The Street Design and Circulation Plan begins with a summary of the pMf's transportation
recommendations. These recommendations are divided into seven elements: Transportation
Planning Policies, Street Design, On-Street Parking, Street Lighting, Access Management,
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and Circulation, Transit Facilities and Circulation, and Street
Classification. In the sections that follow, the specific recommendations associated with each
element are then discussed and analyzed The Street Design and Circulation Plan concludes with
an assessment of the pMf's recommendations in light of the Transportation System Evaluation
Criteria, which were originally used in Workbook No.2 to compare the alternatives.
FINAL REPORT
INTRODUCTION
The Zoning Proposal begins with a summary of the pMf's land use recommendations. These
recommendations are divided into four elements: Land Use Policies, Parking Requirements,
Parking Lot Connectivity, and Sign Ordinance Implementation Issues. In the sections that
follow, the specific recommendations associated with each element are then discussed and
analyzed The Zoning Proposal concludes with an assessment of the pMf's recommendations in
light of the Land Use Evaluation Criteria, which were originally used in Workbook No.2 to
comparatively evaluate the alternatives.
..
•
•
•
•:.
•
•
•
•
•
•
'.i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•:.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•:.
•
•
•
•
•
~10UGHliN
CORRIDOR
The Planning Process to Date
Phase 1- Exinng Conditions
Phase I of the project evaluated the existing land use and transportation conditions and focused
on identifying key issues and priorities. This was addressed in the first Workbook, Work Group
meeting and Open House.
Phase 11- Alternatives Analysis
The next step (phase II) was to develop and evaluate alternative solutions to the issues and
problems identified in the first phase. The Alternatives Analysis (Workbook No.2) included two
general categories to be considered (land use and transportation) with choices to be made in each
category. Instead of grouping the different land use and transportation approaches into stand-
alone alternatives, they were presented as a menu from which discrete components could be
evaluated and combined to fonn a recommendation for the preferred alternative.
In the case of land use, the alternatives focused on meeting the requirements of Metro's Tide 1
and on improving the appearance and livability of the McLoughlin Corridor. The land use
alternatives considered in the Alternatives Analysis included:
• Land Use Alternative 1: Existing Land Use Regulations
• Land Use Alternative 2: Promote More Employment Intensive Uses
• Land Use Alternative 3: Create a More Pedestrian-Oriented Environment
• Land Use Alternative 4: Establish Higher Intensity Nodes
The Transportation Design Alternatives considered in the analysis included the following.
• Transportation Design Alternative 1: Existing Street Design
• Transportation Design Alternative 2: Access Management (including a raised center
median, no on-street parking, and reducing the number of driveways)
• Transportation Design Alternative 3: Separating Through and Local Traffic
• Transportation Design Alternative 4: Automobile Connectivity Solutions
• Transportation Design Alternative 5: Bicycle/Pedestrian Enhancements
a
I
•
•
•
FINAL REPORT
INTRODUCllON A.2
•
~LOUGHlIN
CORRIDOR
Phase 11I-Plerened AItemative
Phase IV-Final~ and Implementation Sbategy
Final Report
• Street Design Proposal and Circulation Plan
• Zoning Proposal
In addition, the PMT developed implementation strategies for each of the recommendations
presented in the final preferred alternative. These were presented in Section D of Work Book 4,
Implementation Strategies.
Section B of this report
Section C of this report
Section D of this report
• Street Design Proposal and Circulation Plan
• Zoning Proposal
• Implementation Strategies
In this phase of the project the PMI' considered all of the input received to date from the Work
Group, interested citizens and affecteq agencies. In addition, the PMI' conducted a technical
assessment of many of the transportation design issues. Based on this information, the PMI'
prepared a series of recommendations regarding the street design, circulation and land use within
the McLoughlin Conidor. These recommendations and accompanying analyses represented the
PMT's recommendation given available information and planning level of analysis. The
recommendations were draft and were changed based on further comment from the Work
Group, public and affected agencies and additional technical information.
FINAL REPORT
INTRODUC11ON
In this phase of the project, based on comments received, the PMT revised the draft preferred
alternative presented in Work Book 3 to prepare the final recommended preferred alternative.
The final preferred alternative includes two main components:
The final report incorporates many of the suggestions and comments received from the Work
Group during their final meeting on June 19, 1999. It also includes the additions and corrections
to the Work Book noted in the memorandum to the PMI' and Work Group from W&H Pacific,
Inc. dated July 14, 1999. The final report includes the final preferred alternative, which is
comprised of two main components, and the Implementation Strategies:
)
•
I
I
•I.
I
•
•
•
•~
•:.
•
•
•t
t
t
t
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•t
t
•:.
•
•
•
•
•..
Summary of Recommendations
Street Design and Circulation Plan
The Street Design and Circulation Plan is one of two main sections that fonn the final Prefened
Alternative. The Street Design and Circulation Plan includes seven elements: Transportation
Planning Policies; Street Design; On-Street Parking; Street Lighting; Access Management;
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and Circulation; Transit Facilities and Circulation; and Street
Classification. The final recommendations for each element are summarized below.
Transportation Planning Policies
'l The existing trnnsportation policies have been retained.
Street Design
o Designs (cross-sections) identifying recommended standard widths for utility easements,
sidewalks, bike lanes, landscaping, travel lanes, and tum lanes are recommended for inclusion
in the County's Urban Transportation System Plan (!'SP).
'l Optional boulevard intersection designs have been developed and evaluated at the three
designated boulevard intersections: Oak Grove Blvd., Concord Rd and Jennings Ave. These
designs are recommended for further study in order to address side street and access issues.
o Improvements to the pedestrian islands at Risley, Vineyard, Boardman and Hull
o Improved advance warning signage.
On-Street Parking
o The elimination of on-street parking on McLoughlin Blvd
Street Lighting
'l The addition of street lights along both sides ofMcLoughlin Blvd.
•
•
•
FINAL REPORT
INTRODUCTION A-4
•
•
•,
:.
It
It
It
It,
It
It
it
it
it
it
it
•it
•
•
•
•
•
•:.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•:.
•
•
•
•
•..
~10UGHliN
lORRIDOR
Access Management
0' Continued implemenrntion of existing Access management polici,es, inclucling:
• Property access approval from ODOT,
• Comer property access on secondary or subordinate road,
• Limirntions on new roadway accesses.
o Work with ODOT to evaluate the suirnbility of the UBA (Urban Business Area Overlay)
designation for McLoughlin. as a mechanism to address access management issues.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and Circulation
o Complete and continuous sidewalks on both sides of the street.
o Landscape buffer between the sidewalk and the curb.
o Continuous bike lanes.
o Continued implemenrntion of Clackamas County Bicycle and Clacl=nas County Pedestrian
Master Plans including sidewalks on selected side streets, new pedestrian pathways connecting
Silversprings, Torbank and Westview roads, a new multi-use trail along the Portland Traction
right-of-way.
Transit Facilities and Circulation
o Improved pedestrian facilities to assist transit users in the pedestrian leg of their trip at and to
bus stops.
o Work with Tn-Met to improve bus service in SE Metro Area (Bus Rllpid Transit).
o Recommend Tn-Met consider ways to improve east-west access within and to the
McLoughlin corridor and local shuttle service in the neighborhoods.
Street Classification
o Recommendations regarding street classifications for future inclusion in the urban
Transpomtion System Plan (currently in progress).
• Change Oak Grove from a Collector to a Minor Arterial from River Rd. to Oarfield
Rd.
• Change Concord from and Minor Arterial to a Collector from River Rd. to
McLoughlin Blvd.
FINAL REPORT
INTROOUCTlON
Summary of the Zoning Proposal •
The Zoning Proposal is the second main sections of the final Preferr~ ,Alternative. The Zoning.
Proposal includes recommendations regarding the current land use policies, parking lot
connectivity and sign ordinance implementation. The final recommendations for each element
are summarized below.
Current Land Use Policies
o Retain existing zoning and continue implementation of Transit Oriented Devdopment
Standards.
Parking Requirements
o Continued implementation of the existing loading and parking requirements of the Zoning
and Devdopment Ordinance.
Connections between Parking Lots
o Encourage connections between parking lots.
Sign Ordinance Enforcement
o Explore opportunities to more effectivdy enforce the existing sign ordinance.
•
•
FINAL REPORT
INTRODUCTION A-6
••
•
ST. DESIGN & CI~C. PLAN
!
B-1
•
•
•,
•
••,
•,
•,
•
•,
•
•
•
•
•
•
•,
•
•
•I
:.
•
•
•
I
I
I
I
:.
I
I
I
•
•
Transportation Planning Policies
Recommendation
The final recommendation is to retain the existing tran~portation pLuming policies in the
Comprehensive Plan for McLoughlin Blvd. The ratiorulle f+r this recominendation is discussed
in detail in the "Discussion and Analysis" section.
Discussion and AnaJysis
The Work Group generally supported retaining the existing portation pLuming policies in the
Comprehensive Plan. Based on this recommendation, M ughlin would remain a designated
''Boulevard'' in the County's Comprehensive Plan and M tro's "Regiorull Street" designation
would be implemented through these standards. Thus, the . ting provisions for boulevards in
the County's Comprehensive Plan would continue to pply. These provisions are for
environmentally-sensitive designs; people-oriented uses; and . ual amenities such as street trees,
landscaped medians, landscaped right-of-way edges, tum ba rather than continuous tum lanes,
bus tum outs, pedestrian and transit-supportive features' the right-of-way; and aesthetically
designed fixtures such as lights and road signs. The stri control of signs, and access for
developments and subdivisions still would be policy. Enfo cement efforts for all of the above
policies would continue as at present
The County's Comprehensive Plan would continue to iden¥y the need to develop continuous
sidewalks and bikeways along both sides of McLough!if, improve pedestrian access and
pedestrian crossings, and provide additiorull capacity thro~hout McLoughlin. McLoughlin
would continue to be designated as a "transit trunk route" (' ajor Transit Street" is the modem
t= used In the Zonmg and Development Ordinance). e ComprehensIVe Plan also would
continue to note the need to restrict curbside parking and visfal obstructions. Street lights would
continue to be requited.
-----~--­FINAL REPORT
STREET DESIGN PROPOSAL AND CIRCULATION PLAN
Street Design .
Recommendations
Following are the final recommendations for the street design of McLoughlin Blvd. The rationale
for these recommendations is discussed in detail in the "Discussion and Analysis" section.
o Include the McLoughlin Blvd Cross-sections and Corridor Design Plan as shown in Figure
B-1 in the final street design recommendation for McLoughlin Blvd
o Recommend ODOT conduct further study of the design recommendations for the following
intersections as shown in Figures B-2 through B-4 in the final street design recommendation
for McLoughlin Blvd. Further analysis of side street and access issues is recommended prior
to making a final recommendation.
•
o Incorporate the street design recommendation for McLoughlin Blvd. into the Urban
Transportation System Plan (TSP) currently under developtuent with acknowledgement that
the boulevard intersection design recotumendation is pending further study.
• McLoughlin Blvd at Oak Grove Blvd.
• McLoughlin Blvd atJennings Ave.
• McLoughlin Blvd at Concord Rd.
Figure B-2
Figure B-3
Figure B-4
•
o Establish an understanding between ODOT and Clackamas County to assure that the
recommended street design is fully and consistendy implemented
o Provide improved advanced warning signage (I.e., "Next Signal" signs).
& &
FINAL REPORT
STREET DESIGN PROPOSAL AND CIRCULATION PLAN B-2
•
11
It §!~~ ~
*==='it-,t.eI!1
oo
r ~~ c ,,;,CZlIlg:c ,g lllWOZ"t~ :l ,g u CDCi=Q~• "'Zu...,-1 ~~ u t• .'!l ::IWw<t.'!l " .2'::ElIlO()o 0 ~ " ." LL.:::E I -• • Olll..J." li ~~~ • u lll 8:J;:1 • <:c• .2> ]' wo<c
"
0::0::~'E 2> c" " '" u
0 ~ aD 0(,)
II
..
It
Figure B-2
Optional Street Design
cLoughlin Blvd at Oak Grove Blvd
, ,
Figure B-3
Optional Street Design
McLougtllin Blvd at Jennings Ave
Figure 8-4
Optional Street Design
McLoughlin Blvd at Concord Ave
Disnu;sion and Analysis
These cross-sections would be applied to new development or redevelopment, as well as State or
County improvement projects, with the goal that over the 20-year planning period the corridor
would achieve a consistent appearance within the 120' right-of-way.
o Standard ArteriJl.l Segment
o Topographically Constrained Segment
o Standard Intersection without Right Tum Lane
o Standard Intersection with Right Tum Lane
o Boulevard Intersection (Optional)
o Pedestrian Island Intersection
8-7
Recommended Cross-Sections
As discussed in the follow-up to Workbook No.1, the State owns a consistent 120 feet of right-
i ' '
of-way the length of the study area, with the exception of a weOge between Maple and Oak
Grove Boulevard, on the west side near Taco Time, where the taper extends to a maximum of
220 feet. However, over the length of the Corridor the curbs are variable from property to
property, with an assortment of street designs from no curb, curb but no sidewalk, sidewalk
adjacent to the curb, sidewalk at the outside edge of the right-of-way, and everything in between.
One of the primary objectives of this study was to establish a set of standards that could be
implemented over time. A set of six cross-sections (illustrated in Figure B-1) for McLoughlin
Blvd. are recommended: two which apply to those arteriJl.l segments of the highway that are
outside of intersections and four which apply to the different types of intersections. These cross-
sections, when implemented, will help improve safety and provide a consistent appearance within
the Corridor:
FINAL REPORT
STREET DI!SIGN PRDPOSAL AND C1RCULAnON PLAN
•
•
•
•
•:.
•
•
•
I •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
'.t
•
•t
t
•
•t
t
~
•I
I
I
•I
,
I
~
I
:.
•
•
I
•
I
Standard Arterial Segmmt Cross-section - As shown in Figure B-1, the standard segment is the
dominant cross-section type along McLoughlin Blvd. This cross-section represents the
recommended cross-section for those sections of McLoughlin Blvd. outside of intersections. It
uses the entire 120' of existing ODOT right-of-way and includes the following features:
Standard Arterial Segment Cross-section
Center Tum Lane 1 @ 14 It 14 ft
Travel Lanes 4 @ 12 It 48 ft
Bike Lanes 2@61t 12 ft
Landscaped Buffer and Curb 2 @ 10 It 20 It
Sidewalks 2 @ 8 It 16 It
Utility Easements 2 @ 5 It 10 It
TOTAL 120 It
o Topographicaf!y Constrained Segmmt Cross-section - If topographic constraints prevent the use
of the full standard cross-section, then a constrained cross-section with no buffer may be
used. Measurable criteria, such as the height of the required retaining wall or the amount
of cut-and-fill required, should be u~ed to detennine the extent of "topographic
constraint" Reduction of the buffer should be minimum necessary to meet the criteria.
If additional reductions are detennined to be necessary, above and beyond those
identified in this cross-section, they should be taken pursuant to ODOTs standards for
deviations and exceptions from the standard for urban arterials. The "constrained" cross-
section mcludes the following features:
Topographically Constrained Segment Cross-section
Center Tum Lane 1 @ 14 It 14 It
Travel Lanes 4 @ 12 It 48 ft
Bike Lanes 2 @61t 12 It
Landscaped Slope/Retaining Wall 2 @ 10ft 20 It
Sidewalks and curb 2 @ 8 ft 16 It
Utility Easements 2 @ 5 It 10 It
TOTAL 120 It
£
FINAL REPORT
STREET DESIGN PROPOSAL AND CIRCULATION PLAN
•
•
• o Standard Intersection without Right-Turn Lone - This intersection cross-section is identical to thestandard arterial segment cross-section except that the center tum lane would be striped and
signed as a left tum lane. Simila.r to the topographically constrained cross-section described
previously, the bufFer could be reduced or deleted in a topograph\cal!y constrained situation.
Standard Intersection with Right Tum Lane
FINAL REPORT
STREET DESIGN PROPOSAl. AND ClRCULA110N PLAN 11-9
o Standard Intersection with Right Turn Lone - This intersection cross-section provides a right turn
lane for vehicles approaching the intersection. On the exiting legs of the intersection, the
shoulder treatment would return to a standard 10 foot landscaped buffer. Alternatively, the
utility easement could be narrowed to 3 feet and a 12 foot bus pull-out could be provided
Figure B-1 shows the intersection from the view of a driver approaching the intersection
heading northbound.
Standard Intersection without Right-Tum Lane
Left Tum Lane 1 @ 14 ft 14 ft
Travel Lanes 4 @ 12 ft 48 ft
Bike Lanes 2 @6ft 12 ft
Landscaped Buffer and curb 2 @ 10ft 20 ft
Sidewalks 2 @ 8ft 16 ft
Utility Easements 2 @ 4 ft 10ft
TOTAL 120 ft
1 @ 14 ft 14 ft
1 @ 15 ft 15 ft
4 @ 12 ft 48 ft
1 @6ft 11 ft
1 @5ft
1 @ 10 ft 10 ft
2@8ft 16 ft
1 @1ft 6ft
1 @5ft
120 ft
Landscaped Buffer and Curb
Sidewalks and Curb (curb adjacent to sidewalk on one side only)
Utility Easements (5 ft easement can be reduced to 3 ft. help
accommodate a bus pull if needed)
Left-Tum Lane
Right-Tum Lane
Travel Lanes
Bike Lanes
TOTAL
o Boulevard Intersection Metro has designated three McLoughlin Blvd. intersections as
"Boulevard" intersections: Oak Grove Blvd., Concord Road and Jennings Avenue. This
optional intersection cross-section provides a right-turn lane and a left-turn pocket for
vehicles approaching the intersection. On the exiting legs of the intersection, the shoulder
treatment would return to a standard 10 foot landscaped buffer. Alternatively, the utility
easement could be narrowed to 1 foot and a 12 foot bus pull-out could be provided. Figure
B-1 shows the intersection from the view of a driver approaching the intersection heading
L .§ _. SL._.
I
I
r
I
I
•
•,
:.
t
•
•
•
•
•
•It
t
t
t
•t
•
•
•
•
•
•:.
•
•
•
•
•ill
northbound As shown in detail on Figures B-2 through B-4, raised medians were considered
for these intersections and are recommended for further study. A more detailed discussion of
the recommended improv=ents at these three intersections is included in the following
section entitled "Boulevard Intersections." The optional Boulevard Intersection cross-section
I ( " • i
includes the following features:
Boulevard Intersection (optionaO'
Left Tum Lane
Raised Median (6 ft.) and Shy Distance- (1 It. per side)
Right Tum Lane
Travel Lanes
Bike Lanes
Landscaped Buffer and Curb
Sidewalks and Curb (curb adjacent to sidewalk on one side only)
Utility Easements
1 @ 12 ft
1 @8ft
1 @ 12 ft
4 @12ft
1 @5ft
1 @5ft
1 @ 10 ft
2@8ft
1 @ 1 ft
1 @3ft
12 ft
8ft
12 ft
48 ft
10 ft
10 ft
16 ft
4ft
TOTAL 120 ft
.. This cross-section should be considmd an option.for these intersections. Further anafysis of.ride street
and access issues is recommendedprior to making afinal recommendation.
.... Whenever barriers such as curbs are introdziced into the roadscape it is desirahle to provide a biifJer
space. This biifJer helps improve safety ofthe users, traffic jkJw and operational <fficieng. This biifJer is
often referred to as S!?y Distance.
o Intersection with Pedestrian Island - There are existing pedestrian refuge islands on McLoughlin
Blvd. at four intersections: Risley Avenue, Vineyard Road, Boardman Avenue and Hull
Avenue. The issues surrounding the pedestrian islands are discussed in more detail in the
section of this Workbook entitled, "Existing Pedestrian Island Intersections."
Intersection with Pedestrian Island
Left Tum Lane 1 @ 12 ft 12 ft
Pedestrian Island (6 ft.) and Shy Distance' (1 ft. per side) 1 @ 10 ft 10 ft
Travel Lanes 4 @ 12 ft 48 ft
Bike Lanes 2 @6ft 12 ft
Landscaped Buffer and Curb 2 @ 6 ft 12 ft
Sidewalks 2 @ 8 ft 16 ft
Utility Easements 2 @ 5 ft 10ft
TOTAL 120ft
.. Whenever bamers such as curbs are introduced into the roadscape it is desirable to provide a bt1fer
space. This biifJer helps improve safety ofthe users, trafficjkJw and operational<fficiengo This bt1fer
is often referred to as S!?y Distance.
•
•
FINAL REPORT
STREEr DESIGN PROPOSAL AND CIRCULAnON PLAN 8-10
These three intersections also have been identified as high accident locations based on their Safety
Priority Index System (SPIS) rating (see discussion in Workbook 1 Follow up, page 33). In order
to determine whether a median could successfully address some of the vehicular traffic safety
problems at these intersections, ODOT prepared a more detailed analysis of the accidents at each
intersection. The results of this analysis are swnmarized in Workbook No.3.
Optional Boulevard Intersections
As shown in Figures B-2 through B-4, nrisedmedians are recommended for further study on
McLoughlin Blvd at its intersection with Oak Grove Blvd, Jennings Avenue and Concord Road
Metro has desigrulted these intersections as "Boulevard" intersections. Metro's suggested design
elements for ''Boulevard'' intersections are intended to impr;ve mobility and safety for
pedestrians and bicycles, and transit access. These design elements include the following:
The dimensions for the boulevard intersection cross-section described above were determined
based upon ODOTs draft design guidelines for urban highways and medians. Initial application
of the guidelines resulted in a total cross-section width greater than the available 120 foot right-of-
way. Therefore, ODOT staff recommended that the widths of specific cross-section elements
should be reduced in accordance with the rationale contained in the draft urban highway design
guidelines for constrained right-of-way sections. The rationale define the priority to be followed
in reduciug the cross-section elements and the minimum allowable width for each element
8-11
2
o Place crosswalks prior to cutb returns to reduce crossiug widths. (NOTE: We do not
,.commend that crosswalks should beplaced this "'0/ bect11lse it increases the distana between vehicles
turning right from the cross street onttJ McLoughlin and pedestrians using the crosswalk on
McUJughlin. This ntlulZS the visibility '!f the pedestrians to the driver and '!fthe pedestrians to the
right-turning vehicle, creating a potential s'!!ety haZard. ALro, mitigation '!f this problem for
intersections designed in this w~ has in some cases ,.qumda separate signalphase to be includedfor
pedestrians, ,.ducing the copacity and '!IJicieng '!fthe intersection).
o Add raised median (preferred width of 6 feet, minimum width of 4 feet) for
pedestrian refuge at crosswalks on regional streets. Plant trees on medians.
Transition median to the predominant median treatment on regional streets, a painted
two-way left-turn lane.
o At intersections with exclusive right-turn lanes and far-side bus stops, avoid extending
the right-turn lane through the intersection to create a bus pull-out Instead, provide
a nonna! cutb return and create a bus turnout downstream from the intersection.
o Provide pedestrian connections from the comer to adjacent land uses to minimize
walking distances.
FINAL REPORT
STREET DESIGN PROPOSAL AND ClRCULAnON PLAN
,
•
•
•
•:.
•
•
•
•
•
•I
I
I
•
•
•
•
•I
•It
I
•II.
I
I
I
I
•
•I
•I
I
I
•I
I
I
I
I
I
•I
:.
I
•I
•I
Unless pedestrian circulation is an identified project goal, the first two elements to be reduced are
sidewalks and the roadside buffer area between the curb line and sidewalk. However, since the
concept of boulevard intersections emphasizes pedestrian circulation, these two elements could
not be modified Therefore, the following changes were identified:
• Reduction in median shy distances from 2 feet to 1 feet
• Reduction in bike lane widths from 6 feet to 5 feet
• Reduction in the right-tum lane width from 15 feet to 12 feet
In addition, the median width was reduced from eight feet to six feet. These changes brought the
total right-of-way width to within the available 120 feet. Metro has stressed the importance of
using landscaped buffers to create a good pedestrian environment at boulevard intersections.
However, in order to accommodate a right-tum lane and travel lanes widths appropriate to a
designated freight route, landscaped buffers are proposed to be tapered off on one side of the
intersection.
As shown in Figures B-2 through B-4, the major modifications that would occur at the boulevard
intersections as a result of the recommended cross-section design are:
• Instal1ation of raised medisns, extending from the cross-walks to 200 - 300 feet upstream of
the intersections
• Limitation of allowable turning movements ill and out of driveways adjacent to the
intersections
• Instal1ation of landscaped buffers
• Construction ofbus pullouts at the existing far-side bus stop locations
The median lengths were determined based on the estimated future queue lengths for left-turning
vehicles at the intersections. The medians will serve several functions as a pedestrian refuge
within the intersection crosswalk, channelizing left-turning traffic on the intersection approaches,
and improving traffic operations and safety related to driveways near the intersections. As
mentioned above, the three boulevard intersections have been identified as high accident
locations. An analysis of accidents occurring at driveways near the intersections by ODOT staff
indicated that a high percentage of the accidents involved vehicles turning left into or left out of
the driveways. Instal1ation of the raised medians will prevent these maneuvers, limiting driveway
access/egress to right-in, right-out tums only. This should not only improve safety conditions at
these locations, but also increase the efficiency of traffic flow. These turning movement
2 _
•
•
FINAL REPORT
S'T1lEET DESIGN PROPOSAL AND C1RCULAnON PLAN 8-12
Existing Pedestrian Island Intersections
Three important objectives in the design of pedestrian islands are:
restrictions already exist to a large extent, in fact, due to the difficulty of turning left through the
long traffic queues on the intersection approaches.
8-13
2
Landscaped buffers will be provided on the near sides of the int~ectionsprior to the right-turn
lanes and on the far sides of the intersections in areas not occupied by driveways or bus pullouts.
The bus pullouts were designed in accordance with Tti-Met guidelines and will result in improved
traffic operations in the intersection areas. Where possible, the pullouts were designed with
normal curb returns in order to minimize pedestrian crossing distances.
As noted, further study of the impacts on side street performance and function and on access for
affected businesses should be conducted prior to making a final recommendation regarding these
improvements. Additionally, because Tri-Met is considering the cotridor for Bus Rapid Transit
improvements (see Transit Facilities and Circulation section), further design changes to these
intersections may be necessary to accommodate needed transit improvements.
The function and value of the existing pedestrian refuge islands on McLoughlin Blvd. at its
intersection with Risley Avenue, VIneyard Road, Boardman Avenue and Hull Avenue was a
major issue raised during the planning process. Three options were assessed with regard to these
intersections: removing the islands, installing new traffic signals, and redesigning the islands.
There was considerable support from the Work Group and public in support of removing the
islands entirely as opposed to redesigning them. However, as discussed in Workbook No.3,
given concerns about pedestrian safety and liability, and the fact that the intersections are not
expected to meet signal warrants within the 20 year planning period, the final preferred alternative
is to redesign the pedestrian islands.
Redesigned Pedestrian Islands
Given that the islands appear to be effective and new signals at these locations are not likely to be
an option during the 20-year planning period, the opportunities to redesign the islands in order to
make them more acceptable to the driving public were considered.
o To create an area that is perceived by pedestrians as a desirable location to cross
o Enhance the visibility of the island to motorists
o Minimize the obstructiveness of the island to traffic flow
FINAL REPORT
STREET DESIGN PROPOSAL AND CIRCULATION PLAN
•
•
•
•
•
•••
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•,
•
•,
•,
•
•
•
•
•:.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•&
•
•
•
•
•
•
•t
•r.
•:.
•
•
•
•
•
By improving the desirability of the islands as crossing locations, pedestrian £lows can be
channelized, thereby reducing the number of t31ldom crossing points along the boulevard. As
shown in Figures B-S and F-6, eight features Mve been included in the recommended redesign to
increase the perceived safety (and desirability) of the existing islanch: .
D Increasing the island width from six feet to eight feet
D Installation of barrier curbs
D Provision of one foot of "shy" distance between the travd lanes and both sides of the island
(striped)
D Installation of island landscaping
D Setting the islands back slightly (approximatdy 6 feet) from the intersection
D Realigning the islands so tru.t the opposing left-tum bays on McLoughlin Blvd. to improve
sight distance
D Pedestrian-scale illumination and signage at the island to increase pedestrian and driver
visibility
D Advanced pedestrian crossing warning signs for vehicle traffic
•
•
FINAL REPORT
STREI!T DESIGN PROPOSAL AND CIRCULATION PLAN 8-14
'. Figure B-5, Redesigned Pedestrian Island
8-15
.2 L
.2 ...
FINAL REPORT
STREET DESIGN PROPOSAL AND ClRCULATlON PLAN
concern about
ability to make
Ieft-1Llm from
sdestreet
Crocem ciJout visblUty
from Ieft-nm~
The installation of landscaping and barrier rutbs will also increase motorists' awareness of the
islands, helping them anticipate the possibility of pedestrian activity at these locations. This may
also result in increased "shying" distances between passing vehicles and the islands, creating a
larger buffer between traffic and pedestrians.
Street I,g,tng
for better viSbllrty
Increasing the island width and the provision of shy distance will provide more separation
between pedestrians and the adjacent traffic stearns and will create a perception of improved
·safety. Barrier rutbs as a replacement for the existing mountable rutbs are also recommended to
provide a better sense of separation between the islands and passing traffic. The added ''bulk'' of
the landscaping will not only increase the perceived safety of the islands, but will also make them
mote recognizable from a distance as desigm.ted crossing locations.
•
•
•,
I
I
,
,
,
,
•:.
•I
I
I
t
t
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
..
..
..
..
..
..
:.
•t
t
t
•
-,
!
r t: ~
•
:•e" :::: '0:i~ .c:~
!
~CI)
I:(JU 0 a
III
";:
-
.,J~
UI
QI~ 'E
'C
QI
1:1.1:
0
'Cel .
(,)
QI--CD
'CUI0
I: QI
c
co QI'Ci ~ I E~mi5 c
E E'C~ i o I:
•
:l o III
(I)
0
el QI-
~
~ u::: ~.!!!\ (I)~v
~
-
•
0
c:0
E'6
-
c
8t,,~ ~ 1~I'---- , r1
Co
_1~b~
l- ....
Installation of marked crosswalks at the pedestrian islands was considered as an improvement
alternative. This proposal was not supported by 0 DOT Region 1 staff, however, who cited
Another possible cause of this problem may be that vehicles waiting to tum left from the opposite
side of the intersection pull too far forward, thereby creating a sight obstruction for the other left-
turning vehicles. This difficulty could be mitigated by the installation of stop bars for the left-tum
lanes on both sides of the intersection.
The obstructiveness of the islands will be minimized through two design modifications. The first
will be to change the existing rounded nose of the islands to the shape shown in Figure B-8. This
will make it easier for vehicles turning left out of the side street to maneuver around the island and
into the travel lanes on McLoughlin Boulevard and should redU:ce the likelihood of vehicles
striking the curb. The second modification is the provision of one foot of shy distance between
the islands and the inside travel lanes along the boulevard, providing motorists with a greater
sense of maneuverability between the island and the adjacent travel lane.
8-17
2
Additionally, shifting the pedestrian islands back from the intersections would address the
problem of left-turning vehicles from the side streets having difficulty maneuvering around the
islands, especially trucks. This improvement would provide a larger turning radius, making it
easier for vehicles to merge into the southbound through lanes. ODOT Region 1 staff indicated
that this proposal was not unreasonable, but that more detailed analyses would have to be
performed prior to implementing this improvement to detennine, for example, exacdy how far
back to shift the islands. One consideration would be to not shift the islands too far back, so that
drivers turning right from the side street would not lose sight of crossing pedestrians.
Two other recommended features for the intersection redesign address another current problem
in which drivers turning left from both the northbound and southbound approaches on
McLoughlin Boulevard have difficulty seeing on-coming through traffic through the opposing
left-tum queues..This problem is caused in part by drivers lining up too far to the right of the left-
tum lane, so that their line-of-sight is obstrucred by vehicles waiting to tum left from the other
direction. Although the pavement is currendy striped to guide drivers to the left side of the left-
tum lane, the painted striping frequendy wears off so that drivers are unaware of where they
should be. One possible solution suggested by ODOT staff would be to replace the painted
striping with a thermoplastic material that would provide permanent channelization marking.
FINAL REPORT
ST1lEET DESIGN PROPOSAL AND C1RCULAnON PLAN
•
•
•
•,
•
•••
•
•
•,
•
•
•
•
•
•
•,
•,
•,
•
•,
,
•,
,
,
,
,
:.
,
•,
•,
previous research' in the San Diego area which found that marked crosswalks were associated
with an even higher pedestrian accident experience than similar unmarked crosswalks. As
summarized in the Design and SafelY of Pedestrian Facilities/ the San Diego study found that
pedestrians may "feel safer" within a marked crosswalk and expect motorists to act more
cautiously. fu reality, crosswalk rn"rki~gs are not as visible to mot~rists as they are to ped~strians,
and the lines cannOF stop an inattentive or impaired driver. While the study did not conclude that
marked crosswalks were hazardous, it did indicate that inappropriate use and overuse of crosswalk
markings was of little benefit
q:wo other studies were also identified in the Design and SafelY ofPetiestrian Facilities.' A more recent
study than the San Diego research had different results indicating that marked crosswalks were as
safe or safer than unmarked crosswalks for all conditions studied. The case studies e.'<atIlined
indicated that insrallation of crosswalk markings had little effect on driver speeds but were
successful in attracting pedestrians to cross within the markings, minimizing their exposure times
in the stteet4 A current study for the Federal Highway Administration is re-examining the
conttoversy of the safety of marked vs. unmarked crosswalks. This study is attempting to
determine conditions where it is safer to provide marked crosswalks and conditions that justify no
crosswalk markings.
Due to the uncettainty regarding the appropriateness of marked crosswalks at unsignaJized
intersection locations, insrallation of marked crosswalks at the four pedestrian island intersections
along McLoughlin Boulevard is not recommended at this time. This issue should be re-examined,
however, when further information is available.
Improved Advanced Warning Signage
Advanced warning signs give drivers time to prepare and make necessary lane changes in a safe
and orderly fashion. Advanced warning is particularly important on fast moving, high volume
roadways like McLoughlin Blvd. Signs such as "Roethe Road Next Signal" should be installed
both north and southbound in advance of each of the eight signalized intersections within the
study area.
1 HerTT1$, B.F. -Pedestrian Crosswalk Study: Acddents in Painted and Unpainted Crosswalks" (HRR 406).
Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1972.
2 Institute of Transportation Engineers. -Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities, A Recommended Practice of
the Institute of Transportation Engineers". Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., 1998.
3 Institute ofTransportation Engineers.
, Knoblauch, RL.. Tustin, B.H.. Sm"h, SA, and Pietrucha, M.T "Investigauon of E>cposure Based Pedestrian
Areas: Crosswalks, Sidewalks, Local Streets and Major Arterials" (Report No. FHWAlRD-881038). Federal
~~h~l~~~n~~~~, =~~_~r ~~~~._ .£
FINAL REPORT
STREET DESIGN PROPOSAL AND C1RCULAnON PLAN 8-18
•
•
•
Recomlllet !dation
On-Street Parking
Discussion and Analysis
8-19
L
Follo"-mg is the final recommendations for on-street parking on McLoughlin Blvd The rationale
for this recommendation is disOlSsed in det:a.il in the "Discussion and Analysis" section.
There was general support by the Work Group and attendees at the Open Houses to prohibit on-
street parking along McLoughlin Blvd Clackamas County requires that businesses provide
sufficient off-street parking. On-street parking can decrease the capacity of adjacent travel lanes,
block visibility, increase the potential for conflict by increasing the number of turning movements
and create a hazard for bicyclists. For these reasons, on-street parking is typically prohibited on
regional streets with speeds of 45 mph or greater.
o Prohibit on-street parking on McLoughlin Blvd
The draft ODOT Highway Design Manual states that ''Most developed areas are inappropriate
for on-street parking due to the higher traffic speeds and type of development. In most
developed areas, buildings are set back from the highway and separated by parking lots. This type
of developed area is not a situation which would benefit from on-street parking."
A discussion of how this recommendation might be implemented is provided ill the
Implementation Strategies, Section D.
FINAL REPORT
STREET DI!SIGN PROPOSAL AND CIRCULATION PLAN
•
•
•
•
•:-
•
•I
•
•
•
•
•I
I
I
I
I
I
•
•I
•I
II-I
I
•
•
•
•I
I
I
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•:-I
I
•
•
•
Street Lighting
RecOmmendations:
Following are the final recommendations for street lighting on McLoughlin Blvd The rationale
for these recommendations is discussed in detail in the "Discussion and Analysis" section.
i:J Provide continuous street lighting on both sides of McLoughlin Blvd
i:J A systematic plan to provide street lights should:
• Be designed to provide complete and continuous lighting (not piece-meal).
• Include an intergovernmental agreement between ODOT and Clackamas County, as well
as Gladstone, Milwaukie and Oregon City, ifappropriate.
• Include, in the project area, approximately 175 new 400 watt flat lens cobra street lights
on 40 foot tall aluminum davit poles with a 6 or 8 foot arm placed two feet behind the
curb at approximately ZOO foot intervals on both sides of McLoughlin Blvd. Extended
arms might be necessary at those locations where there is no landscaped buffer and the
stteet lights must be placed on the far side of the sidewalk in the utility easement
• Locate street lights along McLoughlin Blvd. as shown in the cross-sections (see Figure B-
1). As shown these would be installed so as not to block the sidewalk.
Include ·pedestrian-scale lighting at boulevard intersections and pedestrian island
crossmgs.
i:J Evaluate in the Implementation Repott how best to fund the street lighting program on
Discussion and Analysis
McLoughlin Boulevard remains substantially without stteet lighting, from the Milwaukie City
limits on the north to the Gladstone City limits on the south, for a number of reasons.
McLoughlin is a State Highway but does not meet Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOl) guidelines for lineal illumination (street lighting between traffic signal poles), although
ODOT does provide illumination on most traffic signals and at a few non-signalized intersections
where there are frequent pedestrian crossings on McLoughlin. The County has waived
instalIation of street lighting as a condition of approval for new development on McLoughlin
because a discontinuous, piece-meal approach to lighting a major arterial road is not desirable
from a safety or aesthetic standpoint, and there is currendy not a means to generate adequate
&
•
•
•
FINAL REPORT
STREET DESIGN PROPOSAL AND C1RCULAnON PLAN 8-20
revenue to pay for the operation and maintenance costs of this lighting if it were installed In
addition, the inconsistency of frontage improvements on McLoughlin would make a uniform
installation of street lights difficult if they were to be installed as individual properties devdop. A
.systematic plan to light McLoughlin will have to consider a numbe~ of factoIS.
Existing Conditions
• There are 26 street lights existing on McLoughlin (within the study area), primarily at
signalized intersections with a few at other un-signalized intersections. Approximatdy 165
additional lights (for a total of 190 lights) will be required to fully hght McLoughlin on both
sides from the southern city limit of Milwaukie to the northern city limit of Gladstone.
• Frontage improvements along McLoughlin are not unifonn, which presents an obstacle to
placement of light poles.
• Existing wood power poles can be used in lieu of new street hghting poles in many situations.
On McLoughlin, existing wood poles are neither uniformly spaced nor uniformly distribured
on both sides of the street and are inadequate. Many of the existing wood poles have
numerous utility connections to them, and there is physically not adequate room at the
optimal height from the ground to mount street lights.
• Unless installation and operation and maintenance costs are absorbed entirdy by ODOT,
installation of street lighting on McLoughlin will require an Inter-Governmental Agreement
between ODOT and the County to clarify jurisdictional responsibilities. Participation of
adjoining municipalities, Milwaukie, Gladstone and Oregon City, needs to be considered for a
complete deSign.
• Clackamas County Service District No.5 is the agency responsible for street lighting in un-
incorporated urban areas of the County. All lighting in neighborhoods and on collector and
arterial streets in the District is provided by PGE. The District pays for this service with
annual assessments it collects on the property tax statements of benefiting property owners.
No County General Fund or Road Fund money is used for street lighting; the District is
entirely self-supporting.
•
•
•
•
•:.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•••
•
•
•
•
••
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•:.
•
•
•
•
•
FINAL REPORT
STREET DESIGN PROPOSAL AND CIRCULATION PLAN
L
11-21
Access Management
Recommendation
Following is the final recommendation for the access management on McLougWin Blvd. The
rationale for this recommendation is discussed in detail in the "Discussion and Analysis" sectioIL
Q Retain and continue to implement applicable access management policies and standards.
Q Work with ODOT to evaluate the suitability of the DBA (Urban Business Area Overlay)
designation for McLougWin. as a mechanism to address accesS management issues.
Disc"ssion and Analysis
As discussed in Workbook No.2, large numbers of driveways create opportunities for confusion,
conflict and congestion on roadways. ODOTs established access management policies for its
facilities in order to prevent the proliferation ofprivate access points. As noted in the Workbook
1 (Corrections, page 3), under ODOTs current access management program McLoughlin Blvd.
has an Access Management Category of 4 -5. A Category 4-5 roadway has the following
characteristics:
• Spacing ofat grade intersections with public roads no closer than one-quarter mile apart,
Spacing ofboth left and right tums into private drives no closer than 300-500 feet apart,
• Signal spacing that is every one-quarter to one-halfmile, and
• Either no median control or partial median control.
ODOT is currently revising its access management standards in conjunction with the adoption of
the new 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (OHP). Under the new access management standards,
McLoughlin Blvd., as an "Urban District Highway", would have an access spacing standard of
500 feet. Policies in the new OHP address concerns about existing driveways, infill and
redevelopment and recognize that meeting the spacing standards may not always be possible.
Additionally, the new OHP includes new designations and classifications which may be applicable
to portions of McLougWin Blvd. including "Urban Business Areas" (DBA). The primary
objective of the state highway in an DBA "... is to maintain existing speeds while balancing the
access needs of abutting properties with the need to move through traffic."S The designation of a
, OooT,."&;;jnationsand C,aSSificati0"'1 in the 1~99O[;on Hiiwhwar Plan. Qeril 23, 1999.
•
•
•FINAL REPORT
STREET DESIGN PROPOSAL AND C1RCULAnON PLAN 8022
••
'lbHi.
'Ibid.
, Ibid.
8-23
• Bicycle lanes and sidewalks and other pedestrian accommodations, especially
in commercial centers and community use areas.
• Convenient and safe pedestrian crossings, especially at transit stops and other
high-use generators.
• Intersections designed to address the needs ofpedestrians and bicyclists.
• Measures for addressing pedestrian crossing safety. These may include stop
signs, traffic signals and medians designed to serve as pedestrian refuges.'
DBA must be made through a conidor plan and/or local transportation system plan with
agreement ofboth ODOT and the affected local government.6
DBAs are located as follows:
1. DBAs are located within urban growth boundaries.
2. DBAs may be located on District or Regional Highways where speeds are 35
miles per hour or less. (NOTE: At40 mph, MclJJlIghJin Blvd. within the stllrfy area does
have a somewhat higher speed limit).
3. DBAs may be located on Statewide Highways where speeds are 35 miles per hour
or less under specific circumstances.'
DBAs have the following design characteristics:
1. DBAs may vary in size.
2. Existing areas of commercial activity may constitute an DBA.
3. New buildings in an DBA should be clustered in centers or nodes so that the
facilities encourage people who arrive by car or transit to find it convenient to
walk from place to place within the area.
4. DBAs should have:
Currendy, the 1997 Clackamas County Roadway Standards includes the following standards for
access, entries and driveways:
• Access and driveway entrances to State highways shall require approval from ODOT and
a roadway approach permit issued by 0 DOT. Access shall conform to the policies and
procedures set forth in the 1991 Oregon Highway Plan and Access Management Manual
or more recent updates.
On comer propetties, access shall be taken on the secondary or subordinate classification
roadway.
L
FINAL REPORT
STREET DESIGN PROPOSAL AND CIRCULATION PLAN
I
;.
I
I
~
,
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
,
I
•,
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Arterials: Only collector roadways shall be pennitted access onto arterial roadways at a
separation distance of 600 feet from the nearest intersections when addressing minor
arterials and 1,000 feet of separation on major arterials. Alternate access types and
. spacing intervals may b~ allowed if an access~~t plan which maintains the
function and service of the arterial can be ensured
Reducing the number of driveways also benefits pedestrian and bicyclist safety by reducing the
potential opportunities for conflict as vehicles cross sidewalks and bike lanes to pull out into
traffic. ODOTs Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan notes that having many uncontrolled accesses to a
busy road decreases pedestrian crossing opportunities. 'W'hen a gap is created in the traffic stream,
motorists entering the road fill the gap. Pedestrians seeking refuge in a center tum lane are
unprotected. By implementing the existing access management policies and standards through
the review of new development or redevelopment, the County and ODOT will continue to
improve the overall operation and function ofMcLoughlin Blvd.
•
•
•
FINAL REPORT
STREET DESIGN PROPOSAL AND CIRCULATION PLAN 8-24
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and Circulation
Recommetldations
Following :u:e the final recommendations for pedestrian facilities and circulation on McLoughlin
Blvd. The rationale for these recommendations is discussed in detail in the "Discussion and
Analysis" section.
o Provide a complete and continuous sidewalk and bikeway system on both sides of
McLoughlin Blvd.
o Where possible provide a landscaped buffer between the sidewalk and the curb.
•
Discussion and Analysis
o Bike lane widths should be as shown in Figure B-1.
o Sidewalk widths and buffers should be as shown in Figure B-1.
8-25
3
FINAL REPORT
STREET DESIGN PROPOSAL AND CIRCULATION PLAN
The Work Group and public generally supported providing a complete system of sidewalks and
bike lanes on McLoughlin Blvd. Existing Comprehensive Plan policies also support street
lighting, street trees, pedestrian amenities and complete sidewalks on designated boulev:u:ds (e.g.,
McLoughlin Blvd). However, the location of the sidewalk relative to the street has not been
treated consistently under current policy. The 1997 Clackamas County Roadway StandaIds
require that all sidewalks be located adjacent to the curb unless otherwise approved by the
County, and allows planting strips and street trees when required by Design Review. In order to
improve the pedestrian environment, the recommendation would require a 10' landscaped buffer
between the 8 ft. sidewalk be developed consistendy along McLoughlin, as shown in Figure B-1.
o Provide sidewalks and bike lanes on side streets and new pedestrian connections as desctibed
in the adopted 1996 Clackamas County Pedestrian Master Plan and the adopted 1996
Clackamas County Bicycle Master Plan, respectively.
o Include in the Implementation Report amendments to the 1997 Clackamas County Roadway
StandaIds needed to implement the recommended cross-section, including requiting a
landscaped buffer between the curb and the sidewalk.
I
I
•
t
:.
I
I
t
t
•,
J
t
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•t
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
This 10' landscaped buffer could be superseded by a right tum lane at congested intersections, or
by parking bays or bus tum outs as needed However, right tum lanes should be used only where
warranted by a traffic study since they create additional problems for bicyclists and pedest:ti=s.
. The Work Group generally supported a somewhat narrower sidewalk wi<;lth (6 feet); however,
given the speed and volume of traffic on McLoughlin Blvd, the recommendation is for the
County to retain its existing standard of 8 foot sidewalks.
The recommendation is also in compliance with ODOTs Bicycle and Pedest:ti= Plan, adopted in
1995. This Plan states that sidewalks must be provided on both sides of all urban arterial and
collector streets, unless physical limitations and land use characteristics render a sidewalk
unsuitable on one side. In these situations, safe and convenient crossing opportunities must be
provided to allow pedestrians to proceed on the side with sidewalks. Also, according to ODOTs
Bicycle and Pedest:ti= Plan, the standard sidewalk width is 6' with greater sidewalk width needed
in high pedest:ti= use areas. Well-designed streets include planting strips (landscaped buffers),
which have several advantages:
Planting strips provide room for street trees, sign posts, utility and signal poles, mailboxes,
parking meters, fire hydrants, etc.
• When wide enough planting strips create a section of the driveway where a motor vehicle
to wait out of the stream of traffic after crossing the sidewalk and provide additional
room for tum movements.
• Planting strips provide the opportunity to line up sidewalks, curb cuts and cross-walks at
intersections.
• Planting strips enhance the environment for wheelchair users, as sidewalks can be kept at
a constant side slope, with the slope for driveways built into the planting strip section.
• Planting strips provide an opportunity for aesthetic enhancements such as landscaping.
Additionally, ODOTs Bicycle and Pedest:ti= Plan states that on high speed corridors sidewalks
must not be placed direcdy adjacent to a high-speed travel lane (design speed 45 mph and above).
In terms of connectivity to McLoughlin Blvd., the County's 1996 Pedest:ti= Master Plan Map
(Figure B-4 of Workbook No.2) establishes a system of essential pedest:ti= pathways, including
new connections on Silversprings, Torban!<, and Westview roads, and a new multi-use trail along
the PoIrland Traction Right-of-Way. Also, currendy, development often forms a barrier to
pedest:ti= access by placing fences, he<;lges and other obstacles between residential and
commercial uses (e.g., the Albertson's shopping center). This forces nearby residents who might
otherwise be within easy walking distance of the store to get in their automobiles to drive around
&
•
•
FINAL REPORT
STREET DESIGN PROPOSAL AND CIRCULATION PLAN 8-26
the block via the major anerial, further adding to the congestion. Alternately, developments such
as the Fred Meyer Shopping Center provide rear-access for both pedestrians and vehicles.
The County's adopted Pedestrian Master Plan includes the following 'Strategy: "Require t1ut new
development provide pedestrian connections within and between adjacent developments to
increase the non-motorized mobility". The County's Comprehensive Plan includes the following
policy: ''Require, where appropriate, pedestrian/bicycle access out of cul-de-sacs or through long
blocks." These policies should continue to be used to encourage new development to connect to
public rights-of-way to the rear of the development when available.
•
•
•,
,
'.,,
,
,
•
•,
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•:.
"•
"
"
"
,
•,
"ItIt
t,
,
•
•It
•!it
•:.
•,
•
•
•
.L
FINAL REPORT
STREET DESIGN PROPOSAL AND CIRCULATION PLAN 8-27
Transit Facilities and Circulation
Recomrrlendations:
Following are the final recommendations for transit facilities and cireulation on McLoughlin Blvd.
The rationale for these recommendations is discussed in detail in the "Discussion and Analysis"
secnon.
'l Improve pedestrian facilities and circulation in ordet to assist transit users in the pedestrian leg
of their· trip pursuant to the recommendations of the pedestrian and bicycle facilities and
circulation recommendations.
a Work with Tri-Met to adopt and implement a plan to improve bus service in the Southeast
Metro area, including the McLoughlin corridor.
'l Recommend Tri-Met consider ways to improve east-west access within and to the
McLoughlin corridor and local shuttle service in the neighborhoods.
DiSC"5Sion and Analysis
Tri-Met has developed a discussion draft for southeast bus improvements (dated 4/7/99)
According to that draft the package of transit service and facilities improvements in the southeast
would be developed around three Bus Rapid Transit routes. Bus Rapid Transit emulates light rail
transit operating speeds, stations and park & ride lots. Faster operating speeds are achieved
through a combination of exclusive lane and signal priority treatment and limited stops.
Improvements in service and ridership would occur in the corridor as operating and capital
investments are made OVet a multi-year period. Corresponding investments by others would be
needed to improve pedestrian access and traffic circulation.
Phase I: Service Quality Improvements (Fall 1999-2001)
o Increase service on the corridor trunk routes - initially Line 33 - McLoughlin and then
Line 31 - Estacada (via Clackamas Town Centet).
o Increase off-peak service on local southeast routes - midday, evenings and weekends.
o Improve bus stop amenities - pavement, shelters,lighting
o Create new shared use park & ride lots.
o Expand the Clackamas Town Center Transit Centet.
•
•
FINAL REPORT
STREET DESION PROPOSAL AND CIRCULATION PLAN 11-28
••
•
Phase II: Bus Rapid Transit Devdopment (Fall 1999-2001)
• Upgrade Line 33 and 31 trunk routes to Bus Rapid Transit. Devdop prominent bus
stattons, work with the cities, Oaeb.truts County and ODO,T to devdop preferential
treatments that speed up opetations.
• Devdop an off street Milwaukie Transit Center.
• Construct three new park & ride lots (NOTE: IWm are proposed within the McLoughlin 5tuc!Y
Area)
• Add new east-west local service in Milwaukie and Gladstone.
Phase III: Upgraded Bus Rapid Transit with introduction ofHOV Lines (Fall 2004)
• Construct HOV or exclusive bus lanes on McLoughlin Blvd. from eastside Portland ro
Tacoma St.
• Construct an east Portland ttansit center.
• Adjust bus schedules to capture op=ting efficiencies.
Phase IV: Bus Rapid Transit devdopment Oregon City to Gateway (Fall 2005)
• Bus Rapid Transit development Oregon City to Gateway (Fall 2005)
• Construct Bus Rapid Transit stations at Foster Rd., Division St., other locations to be
determined
• Construct a new park & ride lot at Foster RdjI-205 interchange.
• Operate .Bus Rapid Transit on existing freeway lanes with stops at the Oregon City,
Clackamas Town Center and Gateway Transit Centers as well as the new freeway stops.
A concern frequently raised by the both the Work Group and the public was a lack of sufficient
east-west transit access through the McLoughlin Corridor. Additionally, a number of people
supported the recommendations of the 1995 Oak Grow Communi!y Plan (draft) which called for a
shuttle bus that would zigzag through the Oak Grove area in various "figure 8" patterns to serve
more than major streets. The area west of River Rd. and north of Oak Grove Blvd. was identified
as having trouble accessing transit. A survey conducted in conjunction with the Oak Grove
Community Plan found that residents in these areas had more difficulty accessing transit because
ofhills and distance.
FINAL REPORT
STREET DESIGN PROPOSAL AND CIRc:ULATlON PLAN 8-29
Street Classification
Recoml11elldations
Following is the final recommendation for street classification of McLoughlin Blvd. and side
streets. The rationale for these recommendations is discussed in detail in the "Discussion and
~ys~') section.
D As part Urban Transportation System Plan, amend the County Street Classification map to
change the classification ofOak Grove Blvd. from a Collector to a Minor Arterial and the
classification of Concord Rd. from a Minor Arterial to a Collector.
D Retain the existing street classifications (or equivalents) for all other streets within the study
area and include in Urban Transportation System Plan (TSP), which is currendy being
developed.
Table B-1
Recommended Clackamas County Street Functional Classification
Facility From To Existing Recommended
Classification Classification
McLoughlin Blvd.. Gladstone city limits Milwaukie city limits Major Arterial Major Arterial
Park Ave. River Rd. Oatfield Rd. Collector Collector
Courtney Rd. River Rd. Oatfield Rd. Collector Collector
Oak Grove Blvd. River Rd. Oatfield Rd. COllector Minor Arterial
River Rd. Willamette River Collector Local
Concord Rd. River Rd. McLoughlin Blvd. Minor Arterial Collector
McLoughlin Blvd. Oatfield Rd. Minor Arterial Minor Arterial
NaefRd. River Rd. Oatfield Rd. Local Local
Roethe Rd. River Rd. Oatfield Rd. Collector Collector
Jennings Ave. River Rd. Oatfield Rd. Minor Arterial Minor Arterial
River Rd. Gladstone city limits Milwaukie city limits Minor Arterial Minor Arterial
Oatfield Rd. Gladstone city limits Milwaukie city limits Minor Arterial Minor Arterial
FINAL REPORT
STREET DESIGN PROPOSAL AND CIRCULATION PLAN
•
•
•
••
DiscuS'i;on and Analysis
Two changes to the existing Clackamas County street classifications within the McLoughlin
Corridor study area appear to be appropriate.
• Oak Grove Blvd. - change from a Collector to a Minor Arterial
• Concord Rd. - change from a Minor Arterial to a Collector
Concord is currendy classified as a "minor arterial". According to the Clackamas County
Comprehensive Plan, Minor arterials are intended to ronnect rollecf(m to the arterial system. Thry carry
moderate volumes uftreiffic at moderat, speeds. Oak Grove is currendy classified as a "collector" street.
According to the Comprehensive Plan, Collectors are the principle canier wzthin neighborhoods or single land
use areas. Thry link neighborooods with major activity centers or arterinls and aregeneraljy notfor through treiffic.
However, given that Oak Grove has higher traffic volumes and more commercial development
than Concord, it is appropriate that the designations on these two streets be reversed, with Oak
Grove Blvd. designated as a Minor Arterial and Concord designated as a Collector. This
amendment to the County's street classification map can be accomplished through the update of
the County's Urban Transportation System Plan, which is currendy under development
The proposed amendment to the street classification system is in recognition of existing travel
patterns in the area and is not expected to have an impact on traffic volumes. Additioruilly, it is
not expected to significandy alter the design cross-section for either facility. Both will continue to
include two travel lanes, sidewalks and bike lanes. Also, as development adjacent to both streets is
generally complete, there would not likely be any change in access management The amendment
may, however, affect the prioritization of improvements, (e.g., Minor Arterials typically have a
higher funding priority than Collectors).
Additioruilly, the reclassification of Naef to "collector" was considered, but would not be
appropriate because it is direcdy parallel to Roethe, which is already designated as a collector and
should be serving this function within the neighborhood. According to the Clackamas County
Comprehensive Plan, Roadway Classification and Guidelines (fable V-l), "collectors" are the
principle carrier within neighborhoods or single land use areas.I
I
I
I
I
:.
•
•
•
•
•
.L
FINAL REPORT
STREET DESIGN PROPOSAL AND CIRCULA110N PLAN
.'" j
11-31
Transportation System Evaluation Criteria
The evaluation criteria below wereo~ included in Workbook 2"to provide a consistent bilsis
for the comparative analysis of the alternatives. In this section, they are provided to help evaluate
the preferred alternative. The criteria are based on the following:
•
o Project objectives
o Policy requirements of the project
o Previous workshop discussions
o Open house comments
(Wotkbook 2 Section B, page 1)
(Workbook 1, Section B-1)
(Workbook 1 Follow up, page 2)
(Workbook 2, Section A).
While including many of the main points from the workshop and open house, the project team
attempted to avoid value judgements in the selection of the ctiteria. As such, some of the criteria
may conflict with other criteria.
The criteria for the ttansportation design altetruitives are divided into nine general topic areas that
cover the policy requirements of the project, previous workshop discussions and open house
comments. Topic areas are:
o Performance-The ctiteria under this area pertain to the design's level of service, safety
and conriectivity effectiveness for areas and modes of transportation along McLoughlin
Blvd.
o Oregon Highway Plan-TIlls includes criteria related to meeting applicable policies
Qevel of importance and access management) of Oregon's Highway Plan. TIlls plan helps
guide the operating and fiscal activities of the Oregon Highway Department
McLoughlin Boulevard, classified as a district highway, has a primary function of serving
local traffic and land access. More detailed information about the Oregon Highway Plan
is included in Workbook 1 Section B, page 6.
o Title 1-TIlls includes ctiteria related to meeting applicable requirements of Metro's
Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Tide 1, which is designed to minimize
increases in the urban growth boundary by making more efficient use of land within it
through zoning changes. Details about Tide 1 are included in Workbook 1 Section B,
page 9.
•
•
FINAL REPORT
STREET DESIGN PROPOSAL AND ClRCULATlON PLAN 8-32
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
•I
•I
I
I
•
•
•
•
•••
•
•
•
•
•
o Tide 6--Tbis includes criteria related to meeting applicable requirements of Metro's
Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Tide 6, which covers levels of service,
connectivity and street design guidelines. Details about Tide 6 are included in Workbook
1 Section B, page 13.
o Comprehensive PIan--Clackamas County's Comprehensive Plan cites transportation
goals applicable to this project in the areas of natural resource protection, residential
development, commercial development, and energy efficiency. Details about the
Comprehensive Plan are included in Workbook 1 Section B, beginning on page 17.
o Economic Impacts-The criteria in this topic area addtess what will happen to various
types of jobs and employment. The criteria are based on the project's economic analysis
and public concerns raised at the workshop and open house.
o Land Use Impacts-The criteria in this section generally addtess the transportation
aff~cts on potential land uses. In this topic area, it is particularly important to evaluate
transportation options with consideration of how this option might affect the land use
alternatives.
o Additional Citizen Issues-Thtough the previous workshop and the open house, the
project team received numerous comments and concerns. Most of these are covered in
other to\,ic areas. The criteria in this topic area represent the most frequent comments
not covered thus far in other topic areas.
Table B-2:
TraJ ISpOl1aIion Design AIlemaIives Criteria Matrix, Year 2017
Criteria Street Design Proposal and Circulation Plan
OVei'lillpeifOrmarice:,,~·, . ---: .'.., "" . "
C,.
Does the altemative improve the Under the Preferred A1temative, arterial LOS is expected to
Arterial Level of Service compared either remain the same or decrease slighijy from the current
to making no changes? LOS on the various segments of McLoughlin. The
recommended changes may have a minor positive impact
on operations; however, this is expected to be off-set by
forecast traffic increases.
Does the altemative improve the The Preferred Altemative is not expected to have a
Intersection Level of Service significant impact on intersection LOS. Similar to taking no
compared to making no changes? action, under the Preferred A1temative intersection LOS is
expected to decrease from the current LOS B-C to C-F at the
various signalized intersections on McLoughlin.
FINAL REPORT
STREET DESIGN PROPOSAL AND CIRCULATION PLAN
Criteria Street Design Proposal and Circulation Plan
Does the a~emative improve bicycle The Preferred Altemabve includes complete sidewalks,
and pedestrian safety? buffers and bike lanes, as well as re-designed pedestrian
islands.
Does the a~mawe improve The Preferred'Altemabve includes the option of raised
vehicular safety? medians at the three high accident locabons that could
reduce potential vehicle conflicts and improve safety if
implemented.
Does the a~emative negatively Existing trends would continue with traffic volumes on River
impact traffic volumes on parallel and Oatfield increasing as McLoughlin becomes more
routes (e.g. River and Oatfield Rds.) congested. The access management improvements are
expected to produce some operations improvements on
McLoughlin; however, these are likely to be off-set by
increased volumes.
Does the altemative improve Under the Preferred Altemawe most of McLoughlin would
vehicular connectivity? retain its exisbng center tum lane. However, ~ does include
the option for raised medians at three intersecbons, which
will reduce opportunities to tum left from some driVeways if
implemented. However, left tums from these driveways are
already lim~ by existing congestion and the left tum
queue at the intersecbons, and as VOlumes increase this is
Iikelv to be further exacerbated. .
Does the altemative improve bicycle The Preferred Altemative includes complete sidewalks,
and pedestrian connectivity? buffers and bike lanes, as well as re-designed pedestrian
islands.
ClilcJUunas',COiintY'.;:Conilii'8N"nslV.':PJan~~~~J:f.{~~;,~;:;t>~~·!J~:;:':},':"'<::~'!';::+\~':f~r'<;:'::b~':':',~:~~:":"';~;';J;'''{!;'{l$:VT<':,:nH~;:'::
Does the a~emawe provide for the The Preferred Altemative includes the option for raised
safe, efficient and economical medians at the three high accident locations that should
movement of vehicles? reduce potential vehicle conflicts and improve safety. It also
includes access management standards that also should
reduce potental conflicts and improve operational
efficiencv.
Does the altemative require parking The Preferred Altemative retains existing policies including
be oriented in a manner convenient the Major Transit Street Guidelines requirement that future
to pedestrians and users of transit? buildings be oriented toward the sidewalk.
Does the altemative provide parking The Preferred Altemawe would remove all on-street
that minimizes interference with parking from McLoughlin Blvd.
traffic flow?
Does the altemative provide for The Preferred Altemative retains existing policies including
efficient use of land and public the Major Trans~ Street Guidelines requirement that future
facilities, including greater use of buildings be oriented toward the sidewalk.
Dublic trans~
ODG'T!tJH" " ··:,P.Jatl:'::H:\;:~,~~,"b:'~"::""",~;c; ., • ,. "c.'" ,'''' '... ',' ........' .•.....-:'.~ •.• :•. i'. :" ..'
Does the altemative comply with the The predominant configurabon under the Preferred
"Districr Highway Standards? Altemative of four lanes with a center tum lane is
acceptable for a District level highway. With the Preferred
Altemative, McLoughlin would likely meet ODOT's LOS E
operating standard at most intersecbons. The raised
median treatment proposed as an option for three
intersecbons also appears to meet ODOT guidelines for a
District level hiahwav.
FINAL REPORT
STREET DESIGN PROPOSAL AND CIRCULATION PLAN
I
•
•
•
Criteria Street Design Proposal and Circulation Plan
Does the altemative address the The center tum lane and proposed partial median option
Access Management Category 4 - are acceptable for Access Mgt. Category 4-5 facilities.
5 standards? • However, many existing driveways are spaced more closely
than 30b'. The proposed Access Management standards
would helo address this issue.
~ ntlei1·Of.tIie)Eliilc:tiOlitil.f!IlIn'!i't'~,): ,~i±~:\ft~'~~'~J!:;']:~~~~~.G' .·F.> .,., ',., .
Does the attemative help implement The Preferred Altemative retains existing poiicies regarding
the "Corridor" design type pedestrian and bike facilities, and access to transit, which
(densities, high quality pedestrian are supportive of the Corridor design type.
environment, convenient access to
transit'?
ntle6·OftlieFiiric:tiOnalpllIiJ.':::';:·"·' ' ,:;.":',i,:";;;?~r;:~~~~,"f'~r~Z:?'·:~/:1);':~~?~:r:"~~"r~:'L'7~;' ~':,§lF',' ·';''''1'~:''~~(:.:'>~:~7~ 'j:,',::"
.
"
Does the altemative help implement The policies do not appear to be inconsistent with the
the "Regional Streef' criteria? Regional Street Criteria.
Does the altemative help implement The Preferred Altemative Includes the option of a
the "Possible Boulevard landscaped center median at the designated "Boulevard
Intersection" criteria? Intersections," as well as landscaped buffers between the
sidewalk and curb and comoete sidewalks and bike lanes.
Does the altemative meet LOS for Under the Preferred Altemative, McLoughlin would likely
urban regional streets? meet the LOS standard for urban regional streets (LOS E
based on 2 hour oeakl.
CltizenlsSUe8riilatecltoTiilrill ~;;";';:;., •.,j.e;' ;,:.:..",!1(,;'........ ; ".,,;.;.•,: · ...f\;.:.·
Does the attemative respect the Existing traffic congestion on McLoughlin has led to
character of nearby residential increased traffic on Oatfieid and River roads, as well as on
neighbcrhoods? local streets. The Preferred Attemative would not
significantly change LOS on McLoughlin; however, some
improvement could result from Improved access
manaoement.
Does the alternative provide The Preferred Altemative inciudes complete sidewalks,
comfortable and safe pedestrian buffers and bike lanes, as well as re-designed pedestrian
travel and a complete sidewalk isiands.
svstem?
Does the altemative provide easy Under the Preferred Altemative, most of McLoughlin would
vehicular access to business? retain its existing center tum iane. However, it does include
the option for raised medians at three intersections, which
will reduce opportunities to tum left from some driveways.
Left tums from these driveways are already limited by
existing congestion and the left-tum queue at the
intersections. As volumes increase, this is likely to be
exacerbated.
Does the altemative provide more The Preferred Altemative does not increase the number of
pedestrian crossing opportunities? pedestrian crossing opportunities; however, by redesigning
the oedestrian islands it mav make them more user-friendiV.
Does the attemative reduce traffic The Preferred Altemative would not modify the posted
speeds? speed limit, atthough travel speeds are expected to
decrease as congestion increases due to expected
increases ""lional traffic volumes.
Does the altemative provide more The Preferred Altemative includes a wide landscaped buffar
street landscaping? between the sidewalk and the curb and landscaped
medians at the three boulevard intersections.
•
•
•
•
•
•••
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•,
,
,
,
•,
,
I
,
,
•••
•I
•
•,
•,
,
•
•
I
I
I
,
•,
,
•,
,
•,I
•
•
I
•
FINAL REPORT
STREET DESIGN PROPOSAL AND CIRCULATION PLAN 11-35
Criteria Street Design Proposal and Circulation Plan
Does the attemative address the The Preferred A1temabve includes an option for a raised
danaerous center tum lane? median at the three hiah accident locabollS.
Does the a~emative provide •The Preferred A1temabve ircludes a proposal to provipe
attractive street lighbng? street lighting on McLoughlin.
FINAL REPORT
STREET DESIGN PROPOSAL AND CIRCULAnON PLAN
•
•
•
••
•
ZONING PROPOSAL
sectlon.
Recommendations
Current Land Use Policies
Disclission and Analysis
C-1
D Continued implementation of transit-otiented development standarda.
D Retain existing zoning with no changes to current land use policies and regulations.
Following are the final recommendations for land use policy within the McLoughlin corridor.
The rationale for these recommendations is discussed in detail in the ''Discussion and Analysis"
J"110UGHliNl ORRIDOR
The recommendation generally represents Land Use Alternative 1, the "Existing Land Use
Regulations" Alternative (see Workbook No.2). It assumes that there will be no changes to the
current land use policies and regulations. Existing Comprehensive Plan and implementing
ordinances will remain in effect As shown in the Existing Zoning Map (Workbook 1, Figure B-
2.1), zoning immediately along McLoughlin Blvd would remain General Commercial, which
would continue to allow a wide range of uses (see Workbook 1, Appendix A). Over the 20-year
planning period it is assumed that property values would continue to increase at present trends;
therefore, redevelopment and intensification of uses will continue to occur incrementally. As
areas near bus stops redevelop, the regulations regarding transit-oriented development will be
applied; thus, the pedestrian and transit environment along McLoughlin is expected to become
somewhat improved.
Metro Tide 1 Compliance
Metro has established household and employment targets for all jurisdictions. The Metro targets
for unincorporated Clackamas County are 19,530 new households and 42,685 new jobs.
According to the requirements of Tide 1, Clackamas County must amend it Comprehensive Plan
and implementing ordinances to accommodate these targets. If proportionate shares' of these
targets are allocated to the Tier 1 Study Area, the approximate targeted increase of households
between 1994 and 2017 will be approximately 277 dwelling units and approximately 1,583 new
employees.
FINAL REPORT
ZONING PROPOSAL
,
•
•
•
•:.
•
•
•,
•
•
•
•
•
•,
,
,
•I'
••,
,
,
,
:.
•
•
•
•,
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•,
•,
:.
•
•
•
•
•
Within the study area, the 2017 capacity analysis demonstrates that the area has the capacity to
provide for sufficient dwelling units (within the 10% 'substantial compliance' margin)tn. The
potential for providing sufficient opportunity for employment in this area, however, is not as
sttaight forward The potential capacity was estimated usiI:lg three different sets of assumptions: a
, .
market-based demand projection, a 2017 Capacity Estimate using conservative square foot per
employee factors and a Maximum Capacity without Market Limitations estimate.
Hobson Johnson prepared a demand aoalysis for Workbook No.2 that estimates there will be a
demand for 587 new retail jobs along the McLoughlin Corridor (see Economic Analysis,
Workbook No.2). This analysis does not account for the demand for industrial jobs or the
potential for jobs in residential areas. The potential demand for jobs along the corridor is
significantly less than amount employment targeted by Metto (by approximately 996 jobs).
The initial estimate of the capacity of the existing zoning to allow for the creation of new jobs
along the corridor, completed as a part ofWorkbook 2, indicated that the area would be short of
Metto target by approximately 687 jobs. Revisions to the 2017 capacity methodology have
refined that estimate to a shortfall of approximately 246 jobs. The 2017 Capacity Estimate reflects
a development scenario that may be likely to occur considering the present market dynamics of
the McLoughlin Corridor. This scenario assumes that current ttends and types of development
will continue given the corridor's lack of access to a major freeway.
Base Assumptions for EmplQyment 2017 Capacity Estimate:
• 2.5% of the new jobs in the corridor will be located in residential zones (e.g. jobs in
apartment complexes, schools, churches, home occupations, etc.)
• Commercial development will occur at an average of 650 sq ft per employee
• Industrial development will occur at an average of 1000 sq ft per employee
• 20% of the jobs will be accommodated by infill on developed property
• 7.5% of the new jobs will be accommodated within exist buildings.
Finally, a Potential Capacity estimate without Market Limitations was completed. 1bis analysis
estimated the number of new jobs that could be accommodated by the zoning, without regard for
the market dynamics along the McLoughlin Corridor. Specifically, since the existing C3 zone
does not restrict the height of a building, it could be stated that the McLoughlin Corridor has the
'capacity' for a total of 1,722 new jobs between 1994 and 2017, assuming that the vacant and
redevelopable land is built with 2 stoty development, at 450 square feet per employee (e.g., office
9 Proportionate share based on the Transportation Analysis Zone and grid disbibutions provided by Metro.
10 5ee_~_~~ 2 for~~~il_~,n_a~iS_
FINAL REPORT
ZONING PROPOSAL Co2
.'~
•
•
•
•I
,
,
,
,
,
•
•I
I
I
I
:.
t
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
••••
•
•
•
•
JV1LOUGHliNl. ORRIDOR
type devdoprnent). "Ibis estimate also assumes thlt 20% of the new employees will be
accommochted on properties currendy considered built, for example, new restaurants in the
parking lots of existing devdopment. Under this scenario, McLoughlin Corridor would exceed
the Metro target by 139 jobs..
In summary, it does not appear thlt the existing zoning along the corridor is the limiting faeror,
but rather it is the availability of vacant land and market dynamics within the Corridor which
binder its potential for meeting the 2017 employment targets. At this time, rezoning of the
portions of the McLoughlin Corridor to office or a stricdy mixed use zone could possibly deter'
growth, which may lead to blight (see Workbook 2, Economic Analysis). Since office and mixed
uses are permitred under the C3 zoning, the continued application of this zone will allow for uses
envisioned by the Corridor designation, while also providing the opportunity for new jobs in the
area.
Transit-Oriented pevelopment Standards
As stated in Workbook No.3, McLoughlin Blvd is designated a Major Transit Street. The State
Transportation Planning Rule (IPR) requires thlt new retail, office or institutional buildings at or
near existing or planned transit stops are to provide preferential access to transit by orienting
building entrances to the transit stop or station and by locating buildings as close aspossible to transit
stops. In order to implement this TPR requirement, Clackamas County has defined the phrase
"at or near" as .areas or "boxes" which exist where a transit stop is within 250 feet of an
intersection along a Major Transit Street. The shape of the "box" runs 250 feet along the Major
Transit Street in both directions from the intersection, and along the intersecting street back to the
depth of the commercial zoning. The ''boxes'' are mapped on Figure B-2 of Workbook No.2.
The standard of "as close as possible" is implemented by establisbing a maximum front yard
setback of 20 feet within a ''box''. The Draft Design Guiddines Handbook, A Devdoper's
Guide to Implementing the Transportation Planning Rule in Clackamas County illustrates how
these standards are to be implemented and is included in Appendix B ofWorkbook No.2.
Under the PMT's recommenchtion, these guiddines and adopted provisions in the zoning
ordinance would remain. Because they affect only new devdopment, change on the ground
would occur incrementally.
£ £.
FINAL REPORT
ZONING PROPOSAL
Parking Requirements
Recommendation
Following is the final reco=endation for on-street parking requirements'within the McLoughlin
corridor. The ratiorulle for this reco=endation is discussed in detail in the "Discussion and
Analysis" section.
o Continued implementation of the existing loading and parking requirements of the Zoning
and Development Ordinance.
Discllssion and Analysis
The existing Chckarruts County Zoning and Development Ordinance (ZDO) requires that new
development provide sufficient off-street parking and it sets standards for how much parking
should be provided by each type ofbusiness. Concerns have been raised by the Work Group and
by the general public that auto dealerships are not required to provide sufficient off-street parking,
and are dependent upon on-street parking to meet their parking needs. Furthet research was
conducted by Clackarruts County to determine if the Zoning Development Ordinance should be
amended to require more area for customer parking.
Currendy, the auto sales establishments are required to provide one space per 500 square feet of
floor area. In some instances, auto sales establishments may have relatively small buildings in
relationship to the number of employees and customers they attract. In these cases, a standard
based on total site area may create more off street parking spaces. The City of Gresham, for
instance, uses the following standard for truck, trailer, boat, auto rental or sales - minitnum: 1.0
space per 1,000 square feet of site area - maximum: 1.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of site area.
What was found along Mcl.Dughlin Blvd, is that in most cases, sufficient off-street parking for
employees and customers may have been provided, but is currendy taken up with other uses. The
property owners have chosen to use the space for inventory instead of fot its required purpose.
At this time, it is difficult to assess if requiring more on-site parking will be necessary to address
the problem, since one of the recommendations is to prolubit on-street parking. When the
option of customer parking on the street has been removed, the businesses could be encournged
to return the designated employee and customer off-street parking spaces to their originally
intended purpose.
FINAL REPORT
ZONING PROPOSAL
•
•
•
••
~
~
,
I
•,
'.,I
•I
~
•
Connections between Parking Lots
Recommendation
Following is the firutl recommendation for parking lot connectivity policy within the McLoughlin
corridor. The rationale for this recommendation is discussed in detail in the "Discussion and
Analysis" section.
o Revise the Zoning Development Ordinance to better encourage connecnons between
parking lots.
DiSC"ssk"1 and Analysis:
Currently, shoppers wishing to make multiple stops along McLoughlin generally must exit each
individual parking lot, travel down the arterial, and then tum into the next parking lot, even if the
parking lots are immediately adjacent This increase the number ofvehicles on the arterial and the
number of turning movements generated by that traffic. In order to improve parking lot
connectivity, the County should include the following language in Section 1007 of the Zoning and
Development Ordinance: ''Parking lot connections to adjacent properties may be required to
reduce traffic impacts on McLoughlin."
FINAL REPORT
ZONING PROPOSAL
Sign Ordinance Issues
Recommendations:
Following is the fim.l recommendation for sign ordinance implemenllltion within the McLoughlin
corridor. The ratioruUe for these recommendations is discussed in delllil in the "Discussion and
Analysis" section.
(J More effectively enforce the existing sign ordinance.
Discussion and Analysis:
The existing sign regulations are included in their entirety in Appendix C of Workbook No.2.
Signs visible from SllIte Highways would continue to be subject to approval by the Oregon SllIte
Highway Division pursuant to the Motorist Information Act The County's sign ordinance as it
applies to multifamily, commercial or industrial development would continue to require the
display of street number(s) for the development on the sign or building where it can be seen from
adjacent roads and meet fire district standards. Unless otherwise specified, all signs would be
subject to the yard setback requirements of the districts in which they are located (NOTE: in C-3
the minimum front yard setback is 15 feet "This is measured from the property line). Many
temporary and pomble signs would be prohibited. Unless otherwise provided for by design
review, only one sign would be allowed for a development or complex, even when more than one
tax lot or ownership is included in the development. Further, only three fhgs would continue to
be allowed per site and these would be located on one pole.
The sign ordinance is currently enforced by the Clackamas County Community Environment
Department. Enforcement is complaint-driven (in other words, a citizen complaint initiates the
process). Eight inspectors are currendy working on approximately 2,400 violations. The
violations range from solid waste to mechanical/electrical codes to junk vehicles to sign ordinance
violations. Presently, the Department's priority is ro address those violations that are health and
safety-related first, with sign violations receiving a lower priority.
Implemenllltion of the sign ordinance willlllke continued dedication and perseverance. Previous
sign enforcement experiences reveal that property owners are generally willing to comply with the
regulations if they felt the rules were being applied consistently. Enforcement entails becoming
familiar with each property and photographiog the progress. After the property owners with
violations are conlllcted, follow-up is essential Inaddition, continued monito:: will be needed
FINAL REPORT
ZONING PROPOSAL C-6
•
••
to keep the illegal signs off the street. Last year there where approximately 25-30 complaints
regarding signs, which may have involved up to 500 property owners or signs. Often one
complaint will target a whole road, such as someone complaining about all the signs on
McLoughlin Blvd. In the past some complaints hav~ been sent to mediatiOl:', which can be
effective.
Due to limited to financial and personnel resources, direction from the Board of Commissioners
would be necessary to change the enforcement priorities of the Community Environment
Department.
:.
t
I
I
•
I
FINAL REPORT
ZONING PROPOSAL
C-7
Land Use Evaluation Criteria
The evaluation criteria below were originally included in Workbook 2 to provide a consistent basis
for the comparative analysis of the alternatives. In this section, they are provided to help evaluate'
the final preferred alternative. The criteria are based on the following:
,
•
o Project objectives
o Policy requirements of the project
o Previous workshop discussions
o Open house comments
(Workbook 2 Section B, page 1)
(Workbook 1, Section B-1)
(Workbook 1 Follow up, page 2)
(Workbook 2, Section A).
While including many of the main points from the workshop and open house, the project team
attempted to avoid value judgements in the selection of the criteria. As such, some of the criteria
may conflict with other criteria.
The land use criteria are divided into five general topic areas that cover the policy requirements of
the project, previous workshop discussions and open house comments. Topic areas for the
criteria are:
o Tide 1-This includes criteria related to applicable land use requirements of Metto's
Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 1, which is designed to minimize
increases in the urban growth boundary by making more efficient use of land within it
through zoning changes. Details about Title 1 are included in Workbook #1 section B,
page 9.
o Comprehensive Plan--Clackamas County's Comprehensive Plan cites land use goals
applicable to this project in the areas of natural resource protection, residential
development, commercial development, and energy efficiency. Details about the
Comprehensive Plan are included in Workbook #1 section B, beginning on page 17.
o Economic Impacts-The criteria in this topic area address what would happen to
various types of jobs and employment under each alternative. The criteria are based on
the project's economic analysis and public concerns raised at the workshop and open
house. Additional economic analysis is included in Workbook 1, Section B-4 and
Workbook 2, Appendix D.
FINAL REPORT
ZONING PROPOSAL
•
o T ransportation Impacts-The criteria in this section deal generally with the land use
effects on the aanspomtion system. . In this topic area, it is particulat:ly imPOrtJlnt to
evaluate the land use alternative in combination with the ttanspomtion options.
o Additional citizen issues--Tbtough the previous workshop and the open house, the
project team received numerous comments and concerns. Most of these are covered in
other topic areas. The criteria in this topic area represent the most frequent comments
not covered in othet topic areas.
Criteria Zoning Proposal
Cf8CkaJiJas; ..,.,..,;";.'~ .,.... "-.,- iiiSiJIiiimiili ._'-".,.'t~ '0'/,
Does the altemative protect the character of The Preferred Altemative would retain existing zoning.
existing low density neighborhoods? Existing residential zoning allows some home
occuoations and conditional uses.
Does the altemative provide a variety of The existing zoning provides for a mix of residential
living environments? development types - single family, multi-family, mixed-
use, senior, etc.
Does the aitemative provide for efficient use Existing zoning would allow for denser, transit-
of land and public faciiitles, including greater supportive development Existing design guidelines
use ofpublic transit? would improve transit-orientation of new development
Does the aitemative provide opportunities Existing General Commercial zoning allows for the
for a wide range ofcommercial activities? widest range of commercial activities.
Does the altemative provide attractive Existing General Commercial zoning allows for mixed-
areas for mixed uses, including clean, use development including mUlti-family housing and
employment intensive industrial and office office. However, employment intensive uses are not
uses integrated with housing? required and the market has been for low employment
density retail development.
Does the altemative encourage convenient, Existing General Commercial zoning would allow, but
compact shopping areas offering a wide does not necessarily encourage the development of
range ofservices and goods? compact shopping areas.
ECOnOm/ci.'1m '<:"''';':.,,",.,. ," •./,." ••.••:< c,:.'''i·...''· "C., '::t,,"·"
Does the altemative have a positive Current trends would continue or respond to changes
economic impact on existing uses in the in the market (see Workbook 3, Appendix A)
corridor?
Does the altemative have a positive Current trends would continue with retail uses likely to
economic impact on future retaii continue to dominate the corridor. (See Workbook 3,
development in the corridor? Appendix A)
•,
,
•,
,
,
I
•,
,
•
•,
'.II
,
,
I
•,
I
,
•
•I
,
,
•,
I
•
•
•:.
•
•
•I
,
FINAL REPORT
ZONING PROPOSAL
L L
Table C-1
Land Use Criteria Matrix, Year2017
Cog
Criteria Zoning Proposal .
Does the alternative have a positive Current trends would continue with some Class B
economic impact on future office oIIice developing on sites generaHy less wel!-suited for
development in the corridor? retail. (See Workbook 3, Appendix A)
Does the alternative have a positive impact Current trends would continue with retail development
on when retail uses are likely to and rEH:tevelopment happening incrementally. (See
develooiredeveloD? Workbook 3, Aooendix A)
Does the alternative have a positive impact Current trends would continue with office development
on when office uses are likely to and re-development happening incrementally. (See
developiredeve/oD? Workbook 3, Appendix A)
Does the alternative provide sufficient land The existing zoning provides for the widest range of
for market choices? uses with very few size resbictions. However, the
corridor has very few large vacant parcels lell that
would well-suited to large-scale retail and similar uses.
(See Workbook 3, Appendix A)
on1i1iiiBCtS'iif.the':LBiii:l.:Ustf .' .,~---",' -~ ..'_-
Does the alternative have a positive effect Under the Preferred A1temative, LOS is expected to
on PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of decrease from the current LOS B..c to C-F at the
Service as measured against Altemat/v19 1, various signalized intersections on McLoughlin.
ExistiM Land Use Regulations?
Does the alternative support alternative Existing zoning would allow for denser, transit-
modes of transportation (bikelpedltransit)? suppcrtive development however, the existing
development pattem is low density and auto-oriented.
Existing design guideiines would improve transit-
orientation of new development.
TJt/e,1iif.the FiJm:tiOnaIRkiti~'?J'c'.·'.; .; ,-- :;;-~6;:#:~~~~_;~*'""Utj',~' ;- "t:",:,.: ',:--'h'.:h:' _:-:-~._: -;-;~::i~:;~:::,s'4~E:J:L~::).~;,*diI;::;i~~};,'~:J%9:~"',~~i~ :E~:
Does the alternative implement the The existing zoning does not preclude the 25
"Corridor" design type (densities, high persons/ac. "corridor" density. However it does not
qualitY pedestrian environment, convenient require it. Existing policies, if impiemented, could
access to transit)? create a quality pedesbian environment with
convenient access to transit.
Does the alternative help achieve the The existing zoning does not preclude the
employment target (1,587 newjobs in Tier 1 accomplishment of the employment targets but it does
by 2017)? not require any minimum FAR or employment
densities.
Does the alternative help achieve the The existing zoning does not preclude the
housing target (264 new dwelling units in accomplishment of the residential targets.
Tier 1 by 2017)?
I
•
I
I
FINAL REPORT
ZONING PROPOSAL C-10
••
•
Criteria
Does the alternative provide employment to
support density increases?
Does the alternative retain the eXisung mix
ofuses and linear land use pattern?
Does the alternative provide convenient
vehicular access to destinations?
Does the alternative improve the overall
appearance of McLoughlin?
Does the alternative provide protection from
business encroachment into adjacent
neighborhoods?
Does the alternative preserve/respect the
overall characterofadjacent
neighborhoods?
Does the alternative provide pedestrian
amenities (lighting, benches, signs)?
FINAL REPORT
ZONING PROPOSAL
Zoning Proposal
....;;~
ThePrefened Altemative includes no residential
density in9reases; the existing zonin(j does allow for a
wide range of uses within the corridor inciuding
employment..jntensive uses such as commercial and
industrial.
The Preferred A1temative would retain the existing
zoning. The specific uses and land use pattems may
evolve over time as land re-deveiops, particularly as
the Major Transit Street guidelines are implemented.
Existing development is auto-oriented and proVides
convenient parking in front of most buildings and
under the Preferred A1temative most of McLoughlin
would retain its existing center tum lane. However, it
does inciude optional raised medians at three
intersections, which will reduce opportunities to tum
left from some driveways. Left tums from these
driveways are already limited by existing congestion
and the left tum queue at the intersections, and as
volumes increase this is likely to be exacerbated.
increased parking lot connectivity will increase
convenient vehicular access to ad'oinin destinations.
The Preferred Altemative includes opportunities for
increased landscaping, consistent sidewalks and bike
lanes and improved implementation of the sign
ordinance.
Existing zoning, which allows some home occupations
and conditional uses in residential zones, would be
retained.
Existing zoning map boundaries would be retained.
No policy changes would be adopted as part of this
project; however, the community would continue to
evolve over time.
The Prefened A1temative includes complete and
consistent sidewalks, a landscaped buffer between the
sidewalk and the curb, re-<lesigned pedestrian islands,
optional landscaped medians at the boulevard
intersections, and street Ii htin .
L __..1 2.
e-11
••
•
IMPLEMENTATION
STRATEGIES
• Introduction
The Implementation Strategies presented in the following section are intended to address the
steps 'necessary to move fo.:ward with the policies and projects described' in the final
recommendation. The implementation strategies for the recommendations are organized into five
caregones:
Implementing the Street Design Proposal 'Ibis section addresses implementation strategies
for improving pedestrian facilities and bike lanes,
redesigning the pedestrian islands, and further
analyzing the boulevard intersections as
recommended in the final preferred alternative.
t
I
I
I
~
,
,
••I
•I
I
I
I,
•
•
•
•t
•
•t
t
t
t
t
•:.
•
•
•
•
•
Implementing On-Street Parking Restrictions 'Ibis section addresses opportunities and issues
associated with implernenting the
recommendation to eliminate on-street parking
on McLoughlin Blvd.
Implementing Street Lighting This section includes costs and funding
strategies to implement the recommendation to
provide complete and consistent street lighting
on McLoughlin Blvd.
Implementing Transit Improvements 'Ibis section includes implementation strategies
intended to rake advantage of the opportunities
presented by Tri-Met's recent efforts to develop
improved transit service in the McLoughlin
corridor.
Transportation Funding Options This section summarizes the various funding
programs available and addresses the suitability
of those sources for funding the recommended
improvements.
Implementing the Zoning Proposal 'Ibis section addresses implementation strategies
for improving parking lot connectivity and sign
ordinance implementation.
FINAL REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES D·1
.MlOUGHliN~ ORRIDOR
It should be noted that not all of the recommendations have resulted in implementation
strategies. A number of issues were raised, evaluated and discussed as part of the alternatives
analysis and draft preferred alternative analysis. II) some cases it was found that it would be
contrary to the public interest, ineffective or counter-productive te: recommend a particular
alternative. In these cases the final recommendation has been to retain and implement the
existing policies and programs and no implementation strategy is necessary.
•
•FINAL REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES D-2
Implementing the Street Design Proposal
There are five key components to implementing the street design proposaI:
• Policy Changes
• Pedestrian Facility hnprovements (including sidewalks, landscaped
buffer and curb and gutter),
• Bike Lane hnprovements,
• Redesigned Pedestrian Islands,
• Advanced Warning Signage
• Futther Analysis ofBoulevard Intersections.
In the following section each of these components is discussed in detail. Planning level cost
estimates are provided where applicable. These cost estimates are very preliminary in nature and
are provided only to establish an "order of magnitude" in terms ofproject cost. Potential funding
sources and funding issues are also addressed as well as project timing.
Policy Changes
o In order to begin implementing the street design recommendations, the County should adopt
the recommended cross-sections (Figure B-1) and supporting text into the Urban
Transportation System Plan (TSP). The Urban TSP is proposed to be adopted by reference
into the Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan. Including the McLougWin cross-sections in
the Urban TSP will provide a foundation for future improvements consistent with the
recommendations of this study. The McLougWin Blvd. TSP cross-sections would be utilized
by the County in the same fashion as the standard cross-sections that are included in the TSP.
For example, cross-sections in the TSP provide a guideline for project design and for
development review. Policies and standards should also be adopted in the TSP which would
allow an incremental decrease in the width of the cross-section based on topographic
constraints to achieve the maximum reduction as shown in the Constrained Cross-section
(see Figure B-1). Reductions in the width of the cross-section should be the minimum
necessary and should be allowed only where topography or other physical constraints make
use of the standard cross-section infeasible. Determination of topographic constraints should
be based on measurable criteria such as the height of the required retaining wall or the
amount of cut and fill.
FINAL REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 0.3
o Establish an intergovernmental agreement between ODOT and Clackamas County regarding
landscape maintenance.
o Amend the Clackamas County Zoning and Development Ordipa,nce as follows to require a
landscaped buffer between the =b and sidewalk on McLoughlin Blvd:
[Add underlined section to Ordinance]
1009.03 Genera!Provisions
(E) Street-side landscaping within the right-of-way shall be required when there are no
immediate plans to develop or otherwise diaturb the portion of the right of way between
the road and the property line, and one of the following applies:
1. Street trees are to be provided, under provisions of subsection 1009.09.
2. Landscaping is necessary to present an appearance consistent with the
proposed development as viewed from the road. (8-31-81)
3. Landscaping is necessary to reduce dust, noise, erosion, or fire hazard.
4. The road is designated as a scenic road in the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The street design standards for the road as desctibed in the Transportation
System Plan. include a landscaped buffer between the curb and the sidewalk.
o Amend the Clackamas County Roadway Standards as follows:
• Include the McLoughlin Corridor cross-sections,
• Revise Section 240.1 (Curbs and Sidewalks) and 240.5 (Clear Zone Criteria) to clarify
that pursuant to the Transportation System Plan, a landscaped buffer is a standard
feature on selected streets (e.g., McLoughlin Blvd.).
o ODOT has an ongoing responsibility to maintain, preserve and impro"e McLoughlin Blvd.
This responsibility is partially realized through participation with local jurisdictions, in which
state facilities are located, in the preparation ofTransportation System Plans, Corridor Plans,
and Refinement Plans. In order to assure that the recommendations of this study are taken
into consideration in future projects, ODOT should endorse the recommendations of this
Study to the Board of County Commissioners. Additionally, ODOT should seek
endorsement of the final recommendations of the McLoughlin Land Use and Transportation
Study from the Oregon Transportation Commission through its process for the review and
adoption of Corridor Plans.
FINAL REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
•
I
I
l
l
I
•
•
•
•
•~
~
~
~
t
t
:e
•
•
•It,
)Vl\OUGHliN
lORRIDOR
Pedestrian Facility Improvements (including sidewalks, landscaped buffer, curb
and gutter)
The recommended street design includes the following pedestrian facility improvements:
Q Continuous eight-foot wide sidewalks on both sides of McLoughlin Blvd. the length of the
study area.
Q A ten-foot ",eide landscaped buffer between the curb and the sidewalk on both sides of
McLoughlin Blvd., for most of the length of the study area. As shown in Figure B-1, the
landscaped buffer would be narrower (six feet) at those intersections with pedestrian islands
and would not be required in some locations to allow for right tum lanes.
o Curbs and gutters on both sides of McLoughlin Blvd. the length of the study area, either
adjacent to the buffer or adjacent to the sidewalk.
Planning Level Cost Estimates
The following cost estimat~s are very preliminary in nature and provided only to establish an
"order of magnitude" in terms of project cost. As with any project of this size and nature, there
are many variables and unknowns. Detailed and accurate cost estimates should be prepared as
part of the preliminary engineering process. The study area, from the south 1fllwaukie city limits
(mile post 6.54) to the north Gladstone city limits (mile post 10.51) is 3.91 miles (20,645 feet).
Within the study' area, McLoughlin Blvd. currently has intermittent sidewalks of varying widths
and locations within the right-of-way. it is estimated that less than ten percent of the existing
sidewalk facilities would meet the proposed cross-section standards in terms of width and/or
location. Additionally, sidewalks are not needed at side street crossings. Therefore, the planning
level cost estimates are based on a ninety percent replacement of existing sidewalk facilities or
approximately 37,000 feet.
Similarly, buffers would be narrower (six feet) within approximately two hundred feet of the four
intersections with pedestrian islands and would not be required within two hundred feet of the
seven intersections with right-tum lanes (approach sides only). In those areas where topographic
constraints prevent the installation of a landscaped buffer between the sidewalk and the curb,
landscaping of the slope would be required; in order to account for the cost of this landscaping,
these areas have not be removed from the estimate. Therefore, the planning level cost are based
on landscaped buffers being installed along approximately eighty percent of the length of
McLoughlin Blvd. within the study area or approximately 33,000 feet.
FINAL REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
CM10UGHliNORRIDOR
Curbs and gutters would be installed in all locations where sidewalks are proposed to be installed
whether or not a landscaped buffer is proposed. The installation of curbs and gutters will likely
necessitate the installation of stonnwater management facilities to manage the runoff captured by
the gutters. Preparing detailed stonnwater management plans and cost estimates is outside the
, ,- , {
scope of this report, but should be done as part of preliminary engineering. Therefore only very
general estimates have been used to calculate the cost of these components.
Engineering and Design
Sidewalks
Estimated cost per square foot of sidewalk in 1999 dollars (installed)
Cost per lineal feet for eight-foot sidewalk
Approximate lineal feet of new sidewalk needed (both sides)
Planning level cost estimate
Landscaped Buffer
Estimated cost per square foot of landscaping in 1999 dollars (installed)'
Estimated cost per square foot of irrigation in 1999 dollars (installed)-
Cost per lineal feet for len-feet of irrigated landscaping
Approximate lineal feet of new landscaping needed (both sides)
Planning level cost estimate
$1,300,000
$3.00
$24.00
37,000
$888,000
$2.00
$1.00
$30.00
33,000
$990,000
, Cost of landscaping may be significantly less depending of the type ofplantings used.
- Irngation may be optional depending on the type of landscaping installed.
Curb and Gutter
Estimated cost per lineal foot of curb and gutter in 1999 dollars (installed)
Approximate lineal feet of new curb and gutter needed (both sides)
$8.00
37,000
Planning level cost estimate
Total Planning Level Cost Estimate for Recommendation
including sidewalks, landscaped buffer and curb and gutter"
with grading and stomnwater management improvements
$296,000
$3,474,000
$10,000,000 to $14,000,000
'NOTE: This estimate does not include the cost ofnecessary stormwater management
improvements or grading which can more than triple or quadruple the cost of making
theses improvements. Similar improvements proposed on Highway 212/224 are
expected to cost approximately $6.5 million for appro«imately 2 miles, inclUding curb,
gutter, sidewalk, landscaping and street trees, in-ground storm drainage and street
lighting.
FINAL REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES D·6
•
•
•
•
•:e
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
,Ml0UGHliN
lORRIDOR
Funding
There are !wo general approaches to funding the proposed pedestrian facility improvements:
o Incremental improvements where the cosr to improve pedes~ facilities is proposed to be ,
borne by the developer at the time of development or redevelopment. This is the approach
that is currently being implemented. It would not requite any additional investment by
ODOT or the County; however, pedestrian facilities would continue to be installed
incrementally and it may be many years before a complete, consistent and continuous
pedestrian circulation system is in place.
o Systematic improvements where the cost to improve all or part of the pedestrian facilities is
proposed to be borne by ODOT, the County and/or others as part of an overall
improvement program. An overview of the programs available is provided in the section
entitle Funding Options. Additionally, there may be funding opportunities for pedestrian
improvements completed in conjunction with the transit improvements proposed by Tri-Met.
}Jl transit tiders are pedestrians for a portion of their trip and improved and accessible
sidewalks may be a necessary precursor to installing improved transit shelters.
Landscape Maintenance
A major implementation issue associated with the proposed street design is landscape
maintenance. Most public agencies lack the funding and allocate labor with a low priority to
maintain planter. strips and planted medians \vith any regularity. A key issue in establishing an
attractive landscape is that for the first year of establishment, regular, deep watering is essential for
trees and shrubbery to grow. Volunteer tree planting organizations, such as Friends of Trees, ask
adjacent property owners or tenants to sign a pledge to maintain the tree and to provide a
minimum level of care for at least two years. Without this type of commitment, the growth of a
healthy, attractive planting may be compromised.
\V'hile state law precludes the state from requiting adjacent property owners to rruuntain
landscaping within the right-of-way of facilities on the state system, the state can enter into an
intergovernmental agreement (IGA) in which the state keeps ownership of the facility, but allows
the jurisdiction to maintain the landscaping (an example of an IGA is provided in Appendix B).
Alternatively, the state may cede ownership of the facility, with the local jurisdiction becoming the
responsible parry for maintaining the facility and the landscaping within the right-of-way. In
either case, once the state agrees to let the local jurisdiction assume maintenance responsibility or
ownership/maintenance responsibility, it's up to the jurisdiction how it accomplishes it. The local
jurisdiction may take the responsibility upon itself, or it may requite adjacent property owners to
FINAL REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES D-7
(MClOUGHliNORRIDOR
maintain the landscaping and sidewalks. In Clackamas County maintenance of the planting strip
adjacent to a sidewalk has typically been the resporuribility of the adjacent property owner. The
Clackamas County Zoning and Development Drdinance,Sectign 1009 (Landscaping) requires
that "appropriate methods of care and maintenance of lands~?ed plant materials shall be
provided by the owner of the property".
In some locales, as a matter of community pride, neighborhood associations or business groups
have organized volunteer committees to work on landscape maintenance projects to create a
uniform landscape theme along a roadway. In some cases these groups have voted to charge
themselves a fee that goes toward professional maintenance.
Bike Lane Improvenleillts
The recommended street design includes continuous five to si" foot wide bike lanes on both sides
of McLoughlin Blvd., for most of the length of the study area. The recommended bike lane
dimensions are as follows:
Standard Arterial Cross-section
Topographically Constrained Cross-section
Standard Intersection without right rum lane
Standard Intersection with right rum lane
Optional Boulevard Intersection
Pedestrian Island Intersection
6 feet (both sides)
6 feet (both sides)
6 feet (both sides)
6 feet (one side), 5 feet (one side)
5 feet (both sides)
6 feet (both sides)
Planning Level Cost Estimates
The study area, from the south Milwaukie city limits (mile post 6.54) to the north Gladstone city
limits (mile post 10.51) is 3.91 miles (20,645 feet). Within the study area, McLoughlin Blvd.
currendy has intennittent bike lanes of varying widths and locations within the right-of-way.
However if on-street parking were removed there would be paved right-of-way of sufficient width
to allow for a bike lane as recommended along most of McLoughlin Blvd. If striping for bike
lanes were done in conjunction with resurfacing, costs are expected to be relatively low, given that
no additional right-of-way is required and existing pavement ,-,1.dths are sufficient along most of
McLoughlin Blvd. However, implementation of this recommended improvement is dependent in
some locations upon implementation of the recommendation to eliminate on-street parking.
FINAL REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Redesigned Pedestrian Islands
If an alternate intersection design would achieve simihr or better safety characteristics for
pedestrians and vehicles that design should be considered.
Funding
This project should be funded and implemented in conjunction with regularly scheduled
resurfacing and maintenance by ODOT.
(MClOUGHliNORRIDOR
0.9
• Increasing the island ",idth from six feet to eight feet
• Installation of barrier curbs
• Provision of one foot of "shy" distance between the travel lanes and both sides of the
island (striped)
• Installation of island landscaping
• Setting the islands back slighdy from the intersection
• Adjusting to alignment of the opposing left-rum bay to improve sight distance
• Pedestrian-scale iIlwnination and signage at the ishnd to increase pedestrian and
driver visibility
• Advanced pedestrian crossing warning signs for vehicle traffic
FINAL REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
The recommended street design includes redesigning the four existing pedestrian islands to better
accommodate pedestrian and vehicle circulation. As described in the final recommendations
eight features have been included in the recommended redesign to increase the perceived safety
(and desirability) of the existing islands Oocated at Risley, Vineyard, Boardman and Hull):
Planning Level Cost Estimate
ODOT installed the original pedestrian islands in 1995 at an approximate cost of $3,000 per
island. In addition to adjusting the cost for infhtion the redesigned pedestrian islands would
include additional features, as noted above. The redesigned islands at 8 feet wide and 100 feet
long would be less than 800 square feet in area (with tapering) and would have a perimeter of
approximately 200 feet. Preliminary cost estimates based on these rough estimates is provided
below.
I
I
I
•
•:.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
:e
t
t
t
t
t
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•:~
•
•
•
•
•
Engineering and Site Preparation
Engineering and Final Design
Removal 01 existing islands
Water connection to site
Excavation and site preparation
Planning level cost estimate per island
Curb
Estimated cost per lineal loot 01 curb in 1999 dollars (installed)
Approximate lineal leet 01 new curb needed
Planning level cost estimate per island
(Ml0UGHliN
.ORRIDOR
$5,000
$1,300
$6,000
$5,000
$17,300
$16.00
200
$3,200
•
Landscaping
Estimated cost per square foot 01 landscaping in 1999 dollars (installed)-
Estimated cost per square loot 01 irrigation in 1999 dollars (installed)--
Approximate square lootage of new landscaping needed
Planning level cost estimate per island
Adjusting Alignment 01 On-Coming Left-Tum Lane
Planning level cost estimate per intersection for
dura-striping (thermoplastic)
Pedestrian Crossing Signs
Estimated cost per sign (installed)
Approximate number 01 signs needed
Planning level cost estimate per intersection
Total Planning Level Cost Estimate per Island Intersection
Total Planning Level Cost Estimate lor Recommendation (4 islands)
$2.00
$1.00
800
$2,400
$1500
$300
2
$600
$25,000
$100,000
Landscape Maintenance
As discussed previously, landscape maintenance can be a significant issue. In the case of
landscaped medians and islands the responsibility for maintenance is generally ODOT's. Given
the practical difficulties of maintaining isolated pockets of landscaping in the middle of the
roadway, planting should be extremely low maintenance and easily established.
Funding
Typically state highway improvements, such as islands and medians, are ODOT's responsibility.
However, County participation would improve likelihood that the recommended improvements
•FINAL REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES D-10
Advanced Warning Signage
Further Analysis of Boulevard Intersections
11 Metro, "Creating Livable Streets, Street Design Guidelines for 2040", prepared by Fehr and Peers Associates,
Inc.
D-11
$300
16
$4,800
Planning Level Cost Estimates
Planning level cost estimate per intersection
Advanced Waming Signs
Estimated cost per sign (installed)
Approximate number of signs needed
It is recommended tllitt signs such as "Roethe Road Next Signal" should be installed both north
and southbound in advance of each of the eight sigruilized intersections within the study area.
Funding
As the cost of this improvement is rehtively minor, it should be funded and implemented in
conjunction 'with reguhrly scheduled maintenance or resurfacing projects.
As part of the McLoughlin Corridor Land Use and Transportation Study a number of center
median options were evaluated, including a full raised center median, no raised center median, and
a partial raised ~enter median. Landscaped center median treatments are a key component of
Metro's boulevard intersection design". Therefore, the draft P~IT recommendation presented in
Workbook No.3 was for partial raised hndscaped center medians at the three designated
boulevard intersections, which are also known high accident locations (Oak Grove Blvd.,
Concord Rd. and Jennings Ave.). However, given concems about impacts to level of service and
safety on the intersecting side streets and economic impacts to affected businesses, the final
recommendation is tllitt further analysis of these three intersections should be conducted in order
to fully resolve these issues. The level of detail needed to thoroughly address these issues is
outside the scope of study for this project.
are made in sooner. Porential sources of money to implement this recommendation are ourlined
in the section entitled "Funding Options".
FINAL REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
•
•
•
•
•:.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•:e
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•:.
•
•
•
•
•
(MlOUGHliNORRIDOR
A follow up analysis of these three intersections should include:
• Detailed review ofexisting accessways and easements,
• TJ;ip generation and travel patterns associated with it;tdividual businesses (driveway
traffic counts to determine trip generation and trip distribution patterns of existing
businesses),
• Detailed review of accident history on McLoughlin \vithin the influence of the
intersections including time of day, weather, and other factors affecting travel to
detennine if other improvement (e.g., street lighting, no on-street parking, etc.) might
improve intersection safety mote effectively than medians,
• Detailed teview of accident history on side streets to determine if there are any
existing problems that would be exacerbated or, conversely, mitigated in conjunction
with access improvements.
• Side street safety and level of service impacts resulting from redirected trips, including
impacts on other nearby intersections (e.g., East Ave. at Oak Grove Blvd.),
• Develop alternative access plans,
• Preliminary engineering to detennine the appropriate length and width and design of
the median, including length of left-tum queue, U-tum potential and effect on
intersection LOS, and
• Participation by affected property owners and interested McLoughlin Corridor Work
Group members.
Completion of the detailed analysis described above is recommended before it is detennined
whether a landscaped center median is appropriate in these locations. It should be noted that
proposed improvements to these designated ''boulevard intersections" that are compliant with
Metro's street designs will receive additional consideration in the funding process. However,
depending upon the results of the analysis, the County, together with ODOT, could request that
Metro remove the ''Possible Boulevard Intersection" designation from one or more of these
intersections.
Funding
A detailed analysis of these three intersections as described above should be conducted by
ODOT. This may be done completed in conjunction with other proposed improvements or as a
result of the Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) analysis. Other potential sources of funding for
this analysis include ODOTs Corridor Planning Program and the State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP). In addition, as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the
•
•FINAL REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 0.12
~10UGHliN
lORRIDOR
Porthnd metropolitan area, Metro receives federal funds for planning which might be considered
as a potential source of funding for a portion of such an analysis. Tn-Met might be another
potential source of funding in conjunction with the proposed bus rapid transit project, and other
efforts to improve the use of public t;ransir along this key transportation corridor.
•
•
•
•
•:.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•:e
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
=.
•
•
•
•
•
FINAL REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES D-13
Implementing On-5treet Parking Restrictions
One of the most consistently supported recommendations of this study is the elimination of on-
street patking on McLougWin Blvd. The draft recommendation in Workbook 3 also included a
related recommeneb.tion to allow an exception for businesses that were developed prior to the
requirement that sufficient off-street parking be provided. This recommendation was received
with mLxed reviews. A number of people eq)ressed concern that such an exception might be
over-used. However, its utility is closely tied to how the on-street patking prohibition might be
implemented on McLougWin Blvd.
In general there ate four approaches to eliminating on-street parking on McLougWin Blvd
Option 1 ODOT to install and enforce "no patking" signs,
Option 2 Eliminate on-street patking in conjunction with a systematic implementation
of the recommended street design by removing on-street patking spaces, or
Option 3 Eliminate on-street patking in conjunction with the incremental
implementation of the recommended street design through development or
redevelopment.
Option 4 A combination of Options 1, 2 and 3.
Option 1
The first option, for ODOT to install "no patking signs", could be implemented immediately and
at relatively little cost. However, signs could only be installed where there ate curbs and because
the actual parking spaces would physically remain, the effectiveness of this option would rely
heavily on police enforcement. PotentiaIly this approach could create a hardship for some
businesses and ODOT may wish to consider an exception for those businesses that predate the
off-street patking requirements.
Option 2
Under the second option, the existing on-street patking spaces would be superseded by wider
sidewalks and a landscaped buffer. Thus, this option would not rely on police enforcement for its
effectiveness. However, it is relatively expensive and would require more time to implement. This
approach could also create a hatdship for those businesses with insufficient off-street parking.
Thus, the County and ODOT may wish to consider allowing property owners to request an
exception to the on-street patking prohibition \vith the following limitations and restrictions:
•
•FINAL REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES D-14
. ='/
., ;::::
------
D-15
Figure D-l, Parking Bay
FINAL REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
The on-street parking will be removed when the site is redeveloped and the new use will
provide sufficient off-street parking.
• The property was developed prior to the requirement thar sufficient off-street parking be
provided. -- _ --- -
The on-street parking be provided in a parking bay (see Figure 0-1) that provides
sufficient spacing from access points as to allow clear visibility for vehicles exiting those
access pOlIlts.
---------------
Option 3
Under the third option, the existing on-street parking spaces would also be superseded by wider
sidewalks and a landscaped buffer. Thus, this option would not rely on police enforcement for its
effectiveness. However, because these improvements would only be made at the time of
development or redevelopment of the adjacent properties, this approach would be implemented
incrementally over many years. The improvements to sidewalks and landscaping would be the
responsibility of the developer, thus this approach would not generate additional costs for the
County and OOOT, although the timeframe for full implementation could be very long and in
the interim on-street parking would continue. Additionally, this approach would not create a
hardship for any existing businesses. Under current County standards, businesses must provide
sufficient off-street parking and would have to do so upon development or redevelopment.
•
•
•
•
•:e
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•:.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•:.
•
•
•
•
•
Thus, an exception to the on-street parking prohibition Wlder this option would not be necessary .
or appropnate.
Option 4
TIlls option assumes that the ODOT and the COWlty will impleme~t a combination of Options 1,
2 and 3 as described above. Under this Option, McLoughlin Blvd. could be signed for "no
parking", and incrementally new development or redevelopment could begin to implement the
recommended street design. Additionally, ODOT and the COWlty could work together to seek
funds to apply the new street design srandards to selected sections of the highway in conjWlction
with other highway improvement projects. Similar to Option 1, this option could potennally
create a hardship for businesses and an exception from the "no parking" signage may be
appropriate in some locations. Additionally, ODOT and the COWlty should work with affected
property owners in determining the need for parking bays should funds be made available to
apply the recommended street design to entire sections of the highway.
Policy Changes
o The recommended cross-secrions for McLoughlin Blvd. do not include on-street parking on
l\!cLoughiin Blvd. Bv adopting these cross-sections into the Urban Transportation System
Plan as recommended above, together ,,~th a policy recommending the elimination of on-
street parking on McLoughlin Blvd., the COWlty will establish a policy fOWldation for this
recommendation, which would be appropriate under all of the implementation options
described above.
o The County and ODOT sbould coordinate ,,~th the cities of Milwaukie and Gladstone to
extend the no-parking restrictions further north and south along McLoughlin Blvd., as
appropnate.
Planning Level Cost Estimate
•
•
Option 1 This option would require the installation of approximately 222 new "no parking"
signs and 189 new posts at an approximate total cost of $18,000 to $20,000.
The planning level cost estimates for Option 1 are based on the following
assumptions:
150 foot sign spacing,
10% of signs already in place,
15% of the new signs could go on existing poles.
•FINAL REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES D-16
Typically state highway improvements, such as the purchase and installation of "no parking"
signs, are ODOT's responsibility. County encouragement would improve likelihood that the
recommended improvements are made sooner, Potential sources of money to implement this
recommendation are outlined in the section entitled "Funding Options", Funding mechanisms
for Options 2 and 3, which are based on implementation of the recommended street design, is
addressed in the section entitled "Implementing the Street Design Proposal".
FINAL REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
•
•
•
•
•:.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•:.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•:.
•
•
•
•
•
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Funding
(MlOUGHliNORRIDOR
This option would be implemented at no additional cost as a resua of the full
implementation of the recommended street design.
This option would be implemented at no addttional cost as a result of the
incremental implementation of the recommended ,street design.
This option, similar to Option 1 would require the installation of "no parking" signs
at a total cost of $18,000 to $20,000. Addttional implementation would occur at
no additional cost as a result of a combination of both the full and incremental
implementation ofthe recommended street design.
0.17
Implementing Street Lighting
The final pref=ed alternative includes a recommendation to provide continuous street lighting
on both sides of McLoughlin Blvd.
Planning Level Cost Estimate
Two funding approaches were presented in the draft Preferred Alternative (see Wotkbook No.3):
Option A: ODOT and Clackamas County fund only the estimated installation cost of
approximately $600,000 and PGE provides and installs the lights. The $59,000
needed annually to pay for operations and maintenance and the amortized
equipment costs is paid by property owners with frontage along McLoughlin Blvd.
Annual cost to property owners is $1.75 per lineal foot of McLoughlin frontage.
Option B: ODOT and Clackamas County fund the estimated installation and equipment cost
of approximately $1.56 million as part of an overall streetscape improvement
project. The $26,000 needed annually to pay tor operations and maintenance is
paid by property owners with frontage along McLoughlin Blvd. Annual cost to
property owners is $0.77 per lineal foot of McLoughlin frontage.
In general there was support fot Option A, which requites less money to up front and therefore
might be mote quickly initiated.
Funding
Costs associated with street lighting bteak into thtee major areas.
• Cost fot installation of lights and poles. This is the cost of the pole and lurninaite (lamp and
housing) and for its installation. Currendy, most of the lighting that Service District No.5 has
is PGE Option A. Under this program, PGE owns and installs the pole and lurninaite at no
charge, and the District pays a higher operation and maintenance charge to offset these
amortized installation costs but does not pay up-front installation charges. In the case of
many of the Capital Improvement Projects fot new or expanded roadways that the County
builds with federal or urban renewal funds, the poles and lurninaites and their installation is
paid for by the project. In these instances (pGE Option B), the District is charged a
significandy lower monthly operation and maintenance charge, since PGE does not have to
recoup the pole and lurninaite and installation costs. However, under Option B, at the end of
the lifetime of the pole and lurninaite, the District must have funds to replace them.
Factoring in that some of the existing lights on McLoughlin would have to be replaced fot a
•
•
•FINAL REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES D-18
0.19
..
•I
I
I
:.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•I
I
:.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•I
•
•
•
•
•
•:.
•
•
•
•
•
new unifonn installation, a very rough estimate for installation of 175 lights and poles on
McLoughlin would be $960,000 (roughly $5,500 per pole and luminaire).
• Cost for installation of circuittv. In addition to the cost of the poles and luminaires, there is a
. cost for installation of the circuitry to provide electricity to th~ lights; this includes trenching
and conduit installation, splice box installation and may include a charge for installation of
transfonners. TIlls cost is paid by the customer whether or not PGE owns and installs the
poles. For 175 poles on McLoughlin, the rough estimate for this cost is $600,000.
• Cost for operation and maintenance of street l\ghts. The annual charge for operation and
maintenance of 175 lights under PGE Option A, in which PGE owns and installs the lights,
currendy would be $71,000. If the District purchased and installed the lights, the annual
charge would be approximately $26,000.
• Total installation cost. For PGE owned and installed lights (pGE Option A), the rough
estimate of the total installation charge would be $600,000 and the total installation charge
would be $1.56 million if the County purchased and installed the lights. In addition, funds
would be required to design the installation and co-ordinate with PGE's circuitry design if the
County purchased and installed the lights.
• Revenue available for operation and maintenance. The current assessment mechartism that
Service District No.5 uses for street lighting could generate approximately $26,000 in revenue
annually from properties with frontage on McLoughlin Boulevard for street light operation
and maintenance. This would very closely match the PGE charges under PGE Option B but
would generate a deficit under PGE Option A. Only properties with frontage on
McLoughlin' could be assessed, even though it can be argued that properties off of
McLoughlin receive benefit from lighting on the major arterial serving their neighborhoods.
Forming the assessment area to pay for this lighting will require a petition of the majority of
property owners on McLoughlin Boulevard.
Design Options
• PGE has completed a sample preliminary design for installation of street lights on
McLoughlin Boulevard from Oak Grove Boulevard to Concord Road. This design specifies
400 watt &t lens cobra street lights on 40 foot taIl aluminum davit poles with a 6 or 8 foot
arm placed two feet behind the curb at approximately 200 foot intervals on both sides of
McLoughlin. This is a basic luminaire and pole and a standard design for lighting 4 to 6 travel
lanes with sidewalk and bike lanes on a major arterial roadway. This design has been used to
project the installation, operation and maintenance cost oudined above.
• Placing street light poles behind the sidewalk rather than between sidewalk and curb can,
depending on other landscaping considerations, better illuminate the sidewalk. This design
may sacrifice amount of light in the middle of the street at crossings and in the bicycle lane
FINAL REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
area, where the most immediate danger of lack of visibility of pedestrians stepping off the
curb and into traffic occurs.
• Street plantings between curb and sidewalk or in a median strip can block pedestrian-side and
street-side light depending on placement of light poles. Gener~}" P?les placed in the planting
strip, curb-side provide the best compromise illumination between sidewalk and travel lanes.
• Street lights are sometimes placed dually on standards in a center median strip. This can
decrease installation cost due to fewer pole installations, bur may reduce lighting on the
sidewalk. Generally, street lights also have to be placed at curbside at intersections where curb
lanes come into play and the median ends. Currently, Service District No.5 does not use this
type of installation.
• \Vhen considering boulevard treatments of arterial roadways, there is frequently a desire to
use decorative luminaires and poles, or add extra illumination for pedestrians at the sidewalk.
These considerations can be wide-ranging; there are many non-standard or custom lighting
configurations available, at a price. Previous projects have produced estimates of 25%-50%
higher costs for installation of Custom lighting options and 25%-100% higher operating and
maintenance costs for custom lighting options.
.AJthough McLoughlin has many businesses with illuminated signs, security lighting or area
lighting for parking lots that shed light to the street edge, these should not be considered street
lighting. Good sign, security and area lighting should be positioned to illuminate property
adequately bur to not trespass a great degree onto the roadway, which can distract or temporarily
blind passing motorists and pedestrians. Good street lighting should illuminate the zone with the
most significant potential for interaction of pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles-curbs, crosswalks
and bike lanes-and provide a zone of comfort for pedestrians on sidewalks and some back-
lighting of property frontages.
•
•
•FINAL REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES D-2O
o Approximately $1,5 million has tentatively been identified for the South Corrdor Planning Project
Planning Level Cost Estimates
Implementing Transit Improvements
o Tn-Met esbmates that its Phase I expenditures in the McLoughlin corrdor will be approximately
$300,000 to $350,000 for immediate improvements to bus shelters, bus stops, pads, trash cans
and signage,
D-21
The final recommendations for transir improv=ents include impr~ving pedestrian facilities 'and
circulation in order to assist transit users in the pedestrian leg of their trip (to and from the bus
stop), improving east-west access in the corridor, considering local shuttle service in the
neighborhoods and work with Tri-Met to adopt and impl=ent a plan to improve bus service in
the corridor, Tti-Met's has proposed a four phased program of improv=ents
o Phase I ofTri-Met's Discussion Draft: Service Quality Improv=ents (Fall 1999-2001)
o Phase II ofTri-Met's Discussion Draft: Bus Rapid Transit Development (Fall 1999-2001)
:J Phase III of Tri-Met's Discussion Draft: Upgraded Bus Rapid Transit with introduction of
HOV Lanes (Fall 2004)
o Phase IV of Tri-Met's Discussion Draft: Bus Rapid Transit development Oregon City to
Gateway (Fall 2005)
Jv'110UGHliN
lORRIDOR
Funding
Tti-Met has secured funds available for Phase I implementation of the improvements and to
begin the South Corridor Planning Project. Funding sources for the remaining phases have not
been firuilized. However, once priotities are set, capital projects will likely be funded through the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21" Century (TEA-21) and other federal funding sources.
FINAL REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
..
I
•
•
•:.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•:.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•:.
•
•
•
•
•
,Ml0UGHliN
lORRIDOR
Transportation Funding Options
The recommended improvements could be funded through 'an arr,Iy of sources, depending on
the solution negotiared between the County and ODOT on =nagement of the facility. There are
a variety of funding sources available, depending on how ODOT and the County choose to
structure the improvement. State highway funds may be available from several sources, including
state revenues and TEA-21 apportionments. Local sources may include local fuel taxes, properry
tax levies, local improvement district assessments, bonds, traffic impact fees and system
development charges, road user taxes, general fund transfers, receipts from other local
governments, and other miscellaneous sources.
The following is a summary of possible sources to fund the recommended improvements.
Federal Highway Funding
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) re-authorizes the federal
transportation funding program begun in 1991. Approved in June 1998, TEA.-21 authorizes
highway, highway safety, transit and other transportation programs for the next SL,< years. TEA-21
extends many of the original Federal funding programs, and combines a number of new initiatives
to improve safety, and protect and enhance communities and the natural environment. Most of
the funding in TEA-21 is tied to the Highway Trust Fund. Of the total Highway Trust Fund
revenues over the next six years, estimated at about $218 billion, over $198 billion are guaranteed.
TEA-21 also provides financial support to local communities to leverage Federal funding sources
including direct Federal credit and matching programs.
Within the Portland metropolitan area some TEA-21 money is distributed by Metro. Metro
allocates funds to eligible projects every two years. The selected process for the next two years
was completed in May/June 1999. Approximately 150 projects applied for funding, of which 71
projects were selected. From this process approximately $75.8 million will be distributed.
The $75.8 million are in three funding categories: approximately $33 million are Surface
Transportation Program (STP) funds; approximately $37 million are Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality (GvlAQ) funds; and approximately $5 million are Transportation Enhancement
funds. McLoughlin Boulevard improvements may be eligible for any of these programs, but most
likely the STP and Enhancement programs.
III
,
•
•FINAL REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES D·22
State Funding
The State Highway Fund is composed of gas taxes, vehicle registration fees, and weight-mile taxes
assessed on freight carriers. Revenues are divided as follows: 15.57 percent to cities, 24.38 percent
The next opportunity to apply for Metro allocated TEA-21 funds will oc= in approximately one
year, followed by a year long selecrion process. Future funding is expected to be lower than $75.8
million.
0.23
Additional S11' funds and other federal funds may become available as a result of the South
Corridor Planning Project This project is expected to be approved this month. It will be a 12 to
18 month planning process that looks into transit options along Highway 224 and 99 East from
Portland to Oregon City and Interstate-205. It will consider the recommendations put forth in
this do=nent. A $1.5 million planning process has been outlined. Once priorities are set, capital
projects ",1.11 be funded through TEA-21
FINAL REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Oregon receives its transportation funding from user taxes and fees, National Forest revenue,
tolls, genetal fund appropriations, property taxes, and miscellaneous tax and bond receipts. The
most significant portion of Oregon's highway user taxes and fees come from fedetal fuel and
vehicle taxes, state taxes, and general motor vehicle fees. These categories account for 32 percent,
34 percent, and 25 percent, respectively, of all highway user ta-'{es and fees collected in the state.
During the 1980's, Oregon's transportation budget was bolstered by a series of two-cem annual
gas tax increases. The situation is different today, as the last two Legislatures did not increase the
gas ta-'{. The State Highway Fund is further losing buying power because the gas tax is not
indexed to inflation, and increased fuel efficiency of vehicles reduces overall consumption and
therefore tax revenues.
Category Eligible Uses
Surface Transportation • Roadw.1v transit rehabilitation
Program (5TP)
• Transportation system operational
improvements
,
• Highway construction
• Transit facilities
Congestion t>1itigation and
• Transportation projects that improve air quality
_"ill Quality Improvement (CMAQ) I,
Transportation Enhancement
• Bicycle, pedestrian, transit, landscaping, public
art, or historic projects linked to transportation
It
•
•,
•
'.· ../It
•
•,
•
•
•It
•
•
•It
It
It
•
•
•It
It
It
:e
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
:e
It
It
It
It
It
to counties, and 60.05 percent to ODOT. The County share of the Stare Highway Fund is
allocated based on population and vehicle registration
ORS 366.514 requires at. least one percent of th~ State Highway Fund r~cen,-ed by ODOT,
counties and cities be ",,--pended for the development of footpaths and bikeways. ODOT
administers the bicycle funds, handles bikeway planning, design, engineering and construction,
and provides technical assistance and advice to local governments concerning bikeways. This
funding source may be appropriate for the McLoughlin Boulevard improvements.
Oregon law allows local government, in addition to recffi':ing state highway trust fund revenues,
to levy local fuel taxes for roadway related improvements. Multnomah and Washington Counties,
and some small cities have used this authorization. In Clackamas County this would require a vote
of the citizen. Several attempts have been made by other jurisdictions but have not been
supported by the electorate. As few local governments have implemented this option, non-user
road revenues tend to be relied upon, to supplement the funds received from state and federal
user revenues. Other local funding sources have included property tax levies, local improvement
district assessments, bonds, traffic impact fees and system development charges, road user taxes,
general fund transfers, receipts from other local governments, and other miscellaneous sources.
Cities have relied more than counties on transfers from their general funds to support roadway
improvements. Ballot Measure 5, however, approved by the voters in 1990, reduced the range of
funding and financing options available to both cities and counties. Measure 5 limited the
property tax rate for purposes other than for payment of certain general obligation indebtedness
to $15 per $1000 of assessed value. The measure further divided the $15 per $1000 property tax
authority into two components: $5 per thousand dedicated to the public schools; the remaining
$10 dedicated to other local government units, including cities, counties, special service districts,
and other non-school entities. The tax rate limitation for cities and counties went into effect in
1992. The school portion of the measure is being phased in over a five-year period beginning in
FY 1992. In 1996, voters again approved a property tax limitation measure, Ballot Measure 47/50,
which will further impact the ability of cities and counties to pay for needed infrastructure through
historic or traditional means.
The Oregon Special Public Works Fund (SPWF) Program was created by the 1985 Legislature as
one of several programs for the distribution of funds from the Oregon Lottery to economic
development projects in communities throughout the state. The program provides grant and loan
assistance to eligible municipalities primarily for the construction of public infrastructure which
supports private projects that result in permanent job creation or job retention. To be awarded
•~._-
I
FINAL REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 0.24
Local Improvement Districts
System Development Charges
funds, each infrastructure project must support businesses wishing to locate, expand, or temain in
Oregon.
The McLoughlin Boulevard project would not likely be eligible for this program, as it is oriented
at retrofitting an existing facility in an existing business area and not at creation of new
employment.
D-25
While SPWF program assistance is provided in the form of both l?ans and grants, the program
emphasizes loans in order to assure that funds will return to the state over time for reinvestment
in local economic development infrastructure projects. The ma.ximum loan amount per project is
S11 million and the term of the loan cannot exceed the useful life of the project or 25 years,
whichever is less. Interest rates for loans funded with State of Oregon Revenue Bonds are based
on the rate that the state may borrow through the Oregon Economic Development Department
Bond Bank. The Department may also make loans direcdy from the SPWF (not from revenue
bond proceeds) and the term and rate on direct loans can be structured to meet project needs.
The maximum grant per project is $500,000 but may not exceed 85% of the total project cost.
~lOUGHliN
lORRIDOR
An increasingly common source of transportation funding, which is already being implemented
by Clackamas County, is the collection of system development charges (SDCs) from new
development. These charges are based on a measurement of the demand that a new development
places on the street system and the capital cost of meeting that demand. These are one-time fees
collected as the development comes on line. The need for projects funded by SDCs must be tied
to growth and County SDC's may not be used to fund improvements on state highways. Thus,
the McLoughlin Boulevard improvement would not qualify, unless the County were to assume
ownership of the portion of McLoughlin Blvd.
FINAL REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Local improvement districts (LIDs) may be formed under Oregon Statutes to construct public
improvements such as streets, sidewalks and other improvements. Formation of an LID can be
initiated by property owners or by the County, subject to remonstrance. Local improvement
districts are approptiate for those kinds of improvements that provide primarily local benefits.
When improvements are made within the district, the cost of the improvement is generally
distributed according to benefit among the properties within the district. The cost becomes an
assessment against the property which is a lien equivalent to a tax lien. The property owner may
"It
It
It
It
:.
It
It
It
•It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
:1
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
:e
It
It
It
It
It
pay the assessment in cash or apply for assessment financing according to terms offered by the
County.
ORS 370.610 pr?hibits local improvemen~ districts from being appiied to state highways. Thus,
only if the County assumed ownership of McLoughlin Boulevard, could the recommended
projects be funded through an LID. Additionally, a significant number of property owners would
ha,-e to agree to participate in the LID.
Should an LID be formed, once the benefit and cost have been set, an assessment is levied against
the benefiting properties. They may pay in cash or apply for assessment financing. In Oregon
this means the County will issue bonds and allow the property owners to pay their assessments
over time. Oregon statutes allow the County to pledge its general obligation to the Bancroft
bonds thus making the bonds general obligations of the City but paid by assessment payments.
This lowers the borro'Wmg cost of the benefited property owners. However, because general
obligation improvement bonds are not specifically votet-approved, taxes levied to pay debt
service on such bonds are subject to the limitations of Ballot Measure 5. As a result, local
governments may not issue unlimited ra.x general obligation bonds without a vote of the
electorate. Such limited tax improvement bonds are backed by available revenues of the City,
including the ability to levy a ra.x, provided however, that such tax levy combined with all other
general govemmental tax levies do not exceed the $10.00 per $1,000 ra.x rate limitation.
Conditions of Development
Projects are sometimes paid for by private development. Some private contributions are the
result of a development right exchange of some sort. It is common practice to require a
developer to build a road, to city standards, and then to deed the road to the County as a
condition of development. This practice is used widely throughout the state and may have
applicability to a variety of projects in Clackamas County.
This would result in piecemeal development of the sidewalk project, as implementation would be
tied to new development or redevelopment of existing parcels.
•
I
FINAL REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 0..26
IEffective Enforcement of the Sign Ordinance
Funding
0.27
• Higher prioritization of the need to enforce sign regulations
• Increased financial resources for code enforcement
• Establishment of a 'Corridor Committee' to monitor sign violations
FINAL REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
One issue identified by the general public was the need to improve the appearance of McLoughlin
Blvd. The analysis has concluded that the existing sign ordinance addresses the concerns of the
public and the Workgroup. Signs in violation of the ordinance need to be identified, removed or
brought into compliance with the regulations. Effective implementation of the sign ordinance
could include:
This change could be incorporated into the 2040 Compliance Package, presendy budgeted for the
1999-2000 fiscal year.
Implementing the Zoning Proposal
• Zoning Development Ordinance changes
• Better enforcement of the existing Sign Ordinance.
Planning level costs associated with changing the ZDO are insignificant.
Planning Level Cost Estimates
Zoning Development Ordinance changes
To improve vehicular connectivity, the County should include the following language in Section
1007 of the Zoning and Development Ordinance: "Parking lot connections to adjacent properties
may be required upon redevelopment to reduce traffic impacts onto McLoughlin."
There are ~o key components to implementing the zoning proposal:
In the following section each of these components is discussed in detail.
•t
t
t
t
:.
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
•t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
•t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
•t
t
t
~lOUGHliN
lORRIDOR
Higher Prien ilization of Sign Enforcement
The County must prioritize all of the acriviries of the Code Enforcement Section of the
Departinent of Transportation and Development. It is the recommel1dation of this project that
enforcement of the County's sign regulations be place high enough on the list of priorities to
recei,-e attention. The benefits of a better appearance for McLoughlin Boulevard may include
more incentive for locating businesses that hire larger numbers of workers, such as offices. Land
values may increase, and McLoughlin may become seen as more of a community asset.
Increased financial resources for code enforcement
Code Enforcement comes from the County's General Fund. Fines are returned to the General
Fund but do not come close to paying the cost of enforcement. Therefore, code enforcement
must compete with other programs that are paid for from the same funding source.
Estimated Person Hours
It is estimated that it would take one person 6 to 8 weeks over three months to initiate an
enforcement effort for McLoughlin. Then there would be lingering follow-up on cases of non-
compliance that would be on-going.
Surely the issue of fairness will be raised because there are sign violations along many roads in
Clackamas County. In order to enforce the ordinance equally throughout the County ir would
take a full time person dedicated to this work.
Estimated Cost
A full time person, including benefits, would cost about $52,000 per year.
Establishment of a 'Conidor Committee' to monitor sign violations
A committee of peers, volunteer property and business owners along McLoughlin, could be
helpful in assisting the County with code violations, including sign violations. While these people
would not be expected to enforce County ordinances, they may be able to achieve compliance
through setting a good example, discussion, persuasion, and soliciting compliance in a friendly
way.
•
I
I
FINAL REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES D-28