CITY OF PORTLAND FREIGHT MASTER PLAN Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council February, 2006 CITY OF PORTLAND OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT A Cover photos: Courtesy of the Port of Portland and Tidewater Barge Lines 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 funds provided by the federal Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), the City of Portland, and the State of Oregon. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect views of policies of the State of Oregon. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Portland City Council Tom Potter, Mayor Sam Adams, Commissioner Randy Leonard, Commissioner Dan Saltzman, Commissioner Erik Sten, Commissioner Gary Blackmer, City Auditor City of Portland Planning Commission Ingrid Stevens, President Paul R. Schlesinger, Vice President Timothy W. Smith, Vice President Christine Caruso Don Hanson Larry Hilderbrand Gail Shibley City of Portland Offi of Transportation Sam Adams, Commissioner of Public Utilities Sue Keil, Director Paul Smith, Transportation Planning Division Manager Offi ce of Transportation Project Staff John Gillam, Policy Section Manager Deena Platman, Project Manager Jeanne Harrison, Senior Transportation Planner Lewis Wardrip, Senior Engineer Peter Mason, Traffi Engineering Associate Joseph Neilson, GIS Technician Samy Fouts, Graphics Support Sumi Malik, Staff Assistant Judith Fouts, Administrative Support Past Assistance Jim Francesconi, former Public Works Commissioner Brant Williams, former Director Laurel Wentworth, Transportation Planning Division Manager Steve Gerber, Senior Transportation Planner Consultant Team Sorin Garber Consulting Group PB Consulting David Evans & Associates CITY OF PORTLAND FREIGHT MASTER PLAN Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council RANSPORTATIONOFFICE OF PTORTLANDCITY OF The Freight Master Plan was developed with the dedicated and valuable assistance from the following people: Portland Freight Committee Committee Members Steve Bates Linda Braden William D. Burgel Corky Collier Tom Dechenne Gary Eichman, Committee Vice-Chairperson David Eveson Jan M. Frost Ann Gardner, Committee Chairperson Peter George Jerry Grossnickle Bruce Halperin Chris Hammond Marion Haynes Wayne Kingsley Lee Johnson Bill Maris Greg Miller Thomas Rowe Robert Russell Bob Short Marsden Smith Dick Swennes Dan Spahr Charles Tindall John Trumbull Elizabeth Wainwright Howard Werth Tracy Ann Whalen Associate Members Nick Fortey, Federal Highway Administration Shelli Romero, Multnomah County Steve Kountz, Portland Planning Bureau Colin Sears, Portland Development Commission Susie Lahsene, Port of Portland Laurel Wentworth, Portland Offi e of Transportation Jason Tell, Oregon Department of Transportation Bridget Wieghart, Metro Thomas Picco, Oregon Department of Transportation Randy Evans, Portland Development Commission Technical Advisory Committee Rob Barnard, Project Management April Bertelsen, Interim Pedestrian Coordinator Rob Burchfield, Traffi Operations Mike Coleman, Traffi Design Ramon Corona, Parking Control Sorin Garber, Consultant John Gray, Metro Roger Geller, Bicycle Coordinator Bill Kloos, Signals and Street Lighting Dave Hutson, Bureau of Maintenance Mark Lear, Traffi c Investigations Steve Kountz, Bureau of Planning David O?Longaigh, Bridges and Structures Lidwien Rahman, ODOT Lewis Wardrip, Traffi c Design Ning Zhou, Transportation Planning For more information about the City of Portland Freight Master Plan, contact: John Gillam Portland Offi e of Transportation 1120 SW Fifth Ave, Room 800 Portland OR 97204 Phone: 503-823-5185 (use our main line) Fax: 503-823-7609 TDD: 503-823-6868 Website: www.portlandtransportation.org click on Freight Master Plan under Projects and Planning TABLE OF CONTENTS Freight Master Plan 1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Rivers, Rails, Runways and Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 West Coast Freight Hub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Freight Moves Portland? Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Trends Influencing Freight Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Planning Ahead for Freight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Portland? reight Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan and the Transportation System Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Coordination With Other Freight Mobility Plans and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2. SETTING THE COURSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Assessing the Freight System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 A Course of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3. POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Policy Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Relationship to Portland Transportation? System Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Relationship to Other City Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Comprehensive Plan Policies for Freight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 The Freight System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4. IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Actions and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Moving Ahead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Monitoring Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5. FREIGHT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 What is a Freight Improvement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Types of Freight Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Setting Infrastructure Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Freight Infrastructure Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Funding the Freight System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 6. TRUCKS AND STREET DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Planning for Trucks in the Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 ?Design For? Versus ?Accommodate? Approaches to Addressing Truck Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Considering Trucks in Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Freight Master Plan APPENDICES Appendix A: Comprehensive Plan Policies for Freight Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 Appendix B: Freight System Infrastructure Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 Appendix C: Federal, State, Regional, and Local Transportation Financing in Portland and Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 Appendix D: Preparing the Plan ? Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1 Appendix E: References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Industry Share of Employment in Portland Region as Percent of Average Share in U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table 2 1997 ? 2030 Growth in Freight Tonnage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Table 3 Freight Classifications by Activity Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 4 Freight System Performance Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Table 5 Prioritization Criteria for Highway and Street Infrastructure Improvements for Freight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Table 6 Truck Design Vehicle Characteristics and Turning Movement Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Waterways and Terminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Figure 2 Railroad Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Figure 3 Freeway and Highway Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Figure 4 Freight Centers by Tonage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Figure 5 Oregon? Major Freight Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Figure 6 Commodity Share in Portland Region as % of Tonnage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Figure 7 Fred Meyer? Patio Furniture Finished Product Distribution Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 8 Freight Network Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 9 Highway Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 10 Street Improvements ? N & NW Portland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 11 Street Improvements ? NE Portland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 12 Street Improvements ? Central Eastside Portland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 13 System Management Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 14 Bridge Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 15 Rail Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 16 Marine Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 17 Dimensions of Typical Design Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 18 Illustration of Large Truck at Four-Lane Intersection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 19 Illustration of Large Truck at Two-Lane Intersection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 20 Examples of ?Design For? and ?Accommodate? in Truck Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 5 F REIGHT S YSTEM I MPROVEMENTSF REIGHT S YSTEM I MPROVEMENTS Freight Master Plan 1 1 Freight Master Plan 1 F rom its early days, Portland has been a center of trade and commerce in the Paci?c Northwest. The city?s growth has been driven by its role in the movement of commodities. At the turn of the 21 st century, Portland has established strong international trade connections. The regional economy has shifted from one focused on processing and shipping raw materials to one that builds consumer electronics, designs apparel, and serves as a gateway for imported automobiles. River commerce has grown into a network of intermodal terminals connected to the Paci?c Northwest and rest of the nation by a superior rail and interstate highway network. Portland?s international airport is used to ship high value cargo to Asia and is poised for substantial growth. Today, Portland is a competitive gateway for international and domestic trade. It is a ?trans-shipment? center, where freight is handled on the way to somewhere else. In fact, more goods move through its transportation network to national and international destinations than are consumed here in the region. The economy of the Portland metropolitan region relies on the movements of goods, ideas and people. The ability to move these goods e?ciently is critical to regional competitiveness and a?ordability, not only for businesses but also for all citizens. RIVERS, RAILS, RUNWAYS AND ROADS A combination of geography and multimodal freight infrastructure assures Portland?s role as a center for goods distribution to and from the Paci?c Northwest and throughout the world. Portland?s freight system is comprised of waterborne, rail, air, pipeline, and truck transportation networks. The city lies at the con?uence of the navigable waters of the Columbia and Willamette rivers. The Columbia River links Portland to both Paci?c Rim trade opportunities and the rich agriculture and resource lands of the interior Northwest. The 40-foot deep channel allows ocean-going vessels to navigate upstream to Portland?s deep-water port. Barges carry agricultural and wood products, metals, and containers from upriver ports as far east as Lewiston, Idaho to Portland?s marine terminal facilities. Portland Harbor, a twelve-mile stretch of the Willamette River and two miles along the Columbia River, provides maritime access for the industrial uses situated along its banks. The Port of Portland operates several deep-water marine terminal facilities along the Columbia and Willamette rivers. I NTRODUC TIONNTRODUC TION Figure 1 - Waterways and Terminals Freight Master Plan Two Class I railroads, the Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) and the Union Paci?c Railroad, connect Portland with national rail services and markets along the west coast and to major Midwest and Eastern United States markets. The city is also served by several branch rail lines, which distribute freight to and from the Class I railroads, as well as between local customers. The North Portland Junction is where Union Paci?c trains enter and leave the BNSF main line bound for Vancouver, Washington, Kalama/Longview, Washington, and the Puget Sound area. The BNSF Columbia Rail Bridge provides the only river crossing in the region. The nearest Columbia River crossing for trains is in The Dalles, Oregon. Four main line rail routes converge in Portland: ? BNSF north to Seattle and Vancouver, British Columbia ? BNSF east to Chicago via Kansas City ? Union Paci?c south to Oakland and Los Angeles, then across the Southwest to New Orleans ? Union Paci?c east to Chicago via Salt Lake City and Denver For travel to and from the east, the BNSF and Union Paci?c routes through the Columbia Gorge are the preferred route for transcontinental trains as the tracks run at-grade with the Columbia River through the Cascade Range avoiding the steep grades of the Stampede Pass and Stevens Pass routes in Washington state. Union Paci?c operates two large rail yards in the City ? Brooklyn Yard in Southeast Portland and Albina Yard in North Portland. BNSF operates two rail yards in Portland, Lake Yard and Willbridge Yard in the Northwest Industrial district, as well as its Vancouver Yard in Vancouver WA. Portland International Airport, located entirely within the city of Portland, provides passenger and air cargo service for the Portland metropolitan area, including southwest Washington. Many air carriers provide domestic and international cargo transport in and out of the region. Without local petroleum re?neries, all of the Portland/Vancouver metropolitan region?s fuel must be imported from Puget Sound re?neries. The Olympic pipeline is the primary mode for transporting gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel to the region. This 400-mile common carrier pipeline transports approximately 12.3 million gallons of fuel per day ? the daily equivalent of 1,500 tanker trucks traveling Interstate 5. Portland is also the terminus for the Kinder Morgan pipeline, which distributes fuel products from Portland into the Willamette Valley. The link to all these modes is the network of freeways, highways, streets that connect the City?s various modes of freight transport to their destinations. Two interstate freeways intersect in the heart of Portland. I-5 is the primary West Coast truck freight route linking urban centers between Canada and Figure 3 - Freeway and Highway Network Figure 2 - Railroad Network Freight Master Plan 3 Mexico. Portland is the terminus for I-84, a primary freight route between the Paci?c Northwest and Salt Lake City, where it merges with I-80 to the East Coast. I-205, I-405, US 26, US 30, and McLoughlin Blvd (OR 99E) are highways that facilitate intra-regional truck freight movement. Portland?s streets are the ?rst and last mile connections for trucks moving freight to and from marine terminals, rail yards, the airport, and industrial businesses. Trucks also use city streets to deliver goods and services to local businesses and residents. WEST COAST FREIGHT HUB The Portland/Vancouver region is the fourth largest freight hub on the West Coast behind Los Angeles/Long Beach, Seattle/Tacoma and San Francisco/Oakland. As shown in Figure 4, the region?s tonnage levels are approximately the same as those in Phoenix, Denver and San Diego, areas with larger economic markets and population. Portland also serves as Oregon?s freight hub. Figure 5 shows how the State?s most vital highway, railroad and marine freight routes converge in Portland. Portland?s freight hub is further characterized by its 12,500 acres of industrial land surrounding the Portland Harbor and the Portland International Airport. Most of the parcels in these industrial districts have multimodal freight access. Heavy industrial activities ? marine terminals, rail yards, and large manufacturers ? are the primary occupants of the industrial properties. When compared with other U.S. cities, Portland demonstrates a relatively centralized landscape of regionally signi?cant industrial land, freight infrastructure, and industry clusters (distribution, metals, transportation equipment). The key economic advantages of the Portland freight hub are that it provides access to the global economy, generates thousands of permanent family-wage jobs, and reduces transportation costs for Portland manufacturers, carriers, and shippers. 1 Figure 4 Freight Centers by Tonnage Figure 5 Oregon?s Major Freight Corridors 1 According to the Port of Portland Marine Economic Impact Study : Container Transportation Cost-Bene?t Analysis (prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. and John Martin & Associates for the Port of Portland, December 2000), the Port of Portland?s container facilities save Portland shippers $67.9 million annually. Source: Sur face Transpor tation Board Waybill Sample, ODOT Transpor tation Data Section, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce of U.S. ??????? ?????? ?? ???????????????? ??????? ? ?????? ?????? ???? ????????? ??????? ???????????????????? ???? ? ????? ?????????? ????????? ??????? ?????? ??????????? ????????? ???????????? ??????? ????????? ????????? ??????? ???? ??????? ???????? ????????????? ?????????? ??????? PORTLAND Freight Master Plan FREIGHT MOVES PORTL AND ?S ECONOMY Portland?s investment in its transportation infrastructure has contributed directly to its importance as a transportation distribution center and has provided access to jobs in the region. In fact, transportation investments in the region have contributed to a 37 percent increase in industrial jobs in the Portland-Vancouver area between 1980 and 2000, compared to a national growth rate of 12 percent during the same period. 2 More than most U.S. cities, Portland?s economy is dependent on freight movement. Table 1 illustrates that Portland?s regional employment in transportation-related industries far exceeds the US average for these sectors. According to the Oregon Department of Employment data, the transportation sector accounted for one out of every nine jobs in the Portland metro region in 2000. Figure 6 identi?es the type of goods moved in the region by tonnage levels. Eight commodity categories account for 74 percent of all tons shipped on all freight modes. This is only part of the story. As Portland?s economy grows in the high-tech manufacturing sector, more high-valued, low-weight goods are being shipped. These types of commodities tend to move by truck and air. Source: Commodity Flow Forecast Update and Lower Columbia River Cargo Forecast, Por t of Por tland, Figure 2.1, 2002. Air Transpor tation 120% Trucking and Warehousing 128% Wholesale Trade 138% Water Transpor tation 169% Table 1 Industry Share of Employment in Portland Region as Percent of Average Share in U.S. Source: Planning Bureau, Por tland Harbor Industrial Lands Study, 2003. ?????????????? ?? ????????????? ?? ? ??????????? ????????????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?????????? ??? ??? ??? ? ???? ????????????? ?? ???????? ????? ? ??? ???????????? ?? ??????????? ?????????????? ?? ?? ? ? ?????????? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ?????????? ??? Figure 6 Commodity Share in Portland Region as % of Tonnage 2 Industrial Districts Atlas, Por tland Bureau of Planning, 2005, page 12. WHAT IS FREIGHT? The term ?freight? is used generically throughout this plan to mean the commercial transpor t of goods. ?Freight? encompasses di?erent types of movement from the transpor t of bulk items such as grain, lumber, and fuel to deliver y of products and ser vices to local businesses and residences. The term ?goods? is also generically used in the plan to refer to all items, except ser vices, that can be moved commercially. ?Goods? are transpor ted by multiple and often interconnected freight modes ? waterborne, air, rail, pipeline, and truck ? as they move between origin and destination. While goods and ser vices can also be moved on foot, by bike and by car, this plan is focused on the transpor t of goods by large commercial vehicles. Freight Master Plan 5 ? ??? ?? ?? C l a c k a m a s ? ??? ?? ?? ? ??? ?? ?? ? ??? ?? ?? C h ehalis ? ??? ?? ?? ? ??? ?? ?? Travels on the ocean on Hanjin ships Arrives at the P ort of P ortland where unloads from the vessel Arrives at distribution centers in Chehalis and Clackamas Arrives at F red Meyer retail stores Originates in Asia (China, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia) Arrives at the P ort of P ortland where unloads from the vessel At T erminal 6 transfers to trucks F inally gets to our homes Fr ed Meyer Fr ed Meyer Fr ed Meyer Fr ed Meyer Fr ed Meyer Fr ed Meyer Figure 7 Fred Meyer ?s Patio Furniture Finished Product Distribution Story TRENDS INFLUENCING FREIGHT MOVEMENT Changes in the national economy and business practices are triggering shifts in how goods are moved. With fewer industries storing goods and materials on-site, and the global demand for goods changing at a dramatic rate, the region is witnessing a growing emphasis in the use of logistics strategies to bring supplies to manufacturers for assembly, packaging and delivery. These strategies are linked to ?supply chains? connected to a reliable and e?cient transportation network that links origins and destinations, in many cases using multiple combinations of transport. The ?global supply chain? includes all of the activities associated with the ?ow and transformation of goods from raw materials to the end consumer. Figure 7 shows a portion of Fred Meyer?s patio furniture supply chain, the distribution of the ?nished product. Even this small slice of the total supply chain re?ects the complexity of the global movement of goods. Freight Master Plan PL ANNING AHEAD FOR FREIGHT According to the Commodity Flow Forecast, 3 demand for freight tonnage into, out of, and within the Portland region will grow from 260 million tons with a total value of $352 billion in 1997 to 522 million tons with a combined value of $827 billion by 2030. 4 Overall, tonnage volume demand will grow at an annual compound rate of 2.1 percent, led by the increase (in percentage terms) in use of air cargo (3.77%/year), trucks (2.53%/year), and rail (2.47%/year). The share of tonnage carried by truck will increase from 64 percent in 1997 to 73% in 2030; while tonnage by water modes (ocean and barge) will decline from a combined 15 percent to 10 percent, and tonnage by pipeline will decline from 11 percent to 6 percent over the 1997-2030 timeframe. 5 Tons carried by rail will increase by 1 percent and by 0.5 percent for air cargo. Freight movement is expected to continue to be a central element of Portland?s economy. Increasing freight volumes will put pressure on all elements of its freight transportation system ? roads, rail, pipelines, and marine and air terminals. Many parts of the freight transportation system in Portland are managed by other public agencies and private operators. Coordination and partnership on e?orts to accommodate the growth in freight movement will include individuals and organizations in both the public and private sectors. The Freight Master Plan covers the broad range of freight transport modes but has a primary focus on truck freight mobility due to the City?s jurisdiction over the street network. Trucks use city-owned roads to transport goods and services throughout the community. The share of trucks on our roads is anticipated to increase in the future, particularly in Freight Districts and on freeways and highways. Strategies for e?cient, safe, and reliable movement of trucks will help manage this growth in a way that maintains Portland?s community livability. 3 Commodity Flow Forecast Update and Lower Columbia River Cargo Forecast Final Repor t , prepared for the Por t of Por tland, Metro, Oregon Depar tment of Transpor tation, Por t of Vancouver, Regional Transpor tation Council, prepared by DRI-WEFA, BST Associates and Cambridge Systematics, Inc., June 30, 2002 http://www.por tlandairpor tpdx.com/pdfpop/MTMP_LCR_Cargo_Forecast_Final_Final_Repor t.pdf. 4 Ibid., page 44. 5 Commodity Flow Forecast combined freight tons and values using ocean and barge modes into one single ? Water ? mode. Source: Commodity Flow Forecast Update and Lower Columbia River Cargo Forecast, Por t of Por tland, June 2002. Table 2 1997 - 2030 Growth in Freight Tonnage (in millions of short-tons) 1997 2030 Annual Change 2030 Share Truck 166.6 380.0 2.53% 73% Pipeline 28.1 31.2 0.31% 6% Ocean 25.3 34.8 3 0.97% 7% Rail 26.4 59.2 2.47% 11% Barge 14.1 15.5 0.29% 3% Intermodal 11.8 n/a n/a n/a Air 0.3 1.1 3.77% >1% Total 260.8 521.8 2.12% 100.0% Freight Master Plan 7 PORTL AND ?S FREIGHT MASTER PL AN Plan Objectives The Freight Master Plan provides a road map for managing freight movement and commercial delivery of goods and services in Portland, today and into the future. The goal is to foster a freight system that works for the community. The Freight Master Plan objectives center around three main themes: mobility, livability, and healthy economy. Preparing the Plan Portland completed its ?rst Transportation System Plan (TSP) in 2002. During this process, the City recognized the need to better understand and plan for freight movement. The TSP identi?ed a study to ascertain freight transportation system needs and de?ciencies, and develop solutions. The development of the Freight Master Plan occurred in two phases. The ?rst phase of planning began in January 2003 and accomplished the following: ? Completion of the Freight Master Plan - Interim Report, which built the case for freight planning and identi?ed the Plan?s objectives. ? Adoption of a City Council resolution that acknowledged the importance of goods movement to Portland?s economy, established the Portland Freight Committee, directed Portland O?ce of Transportation to develop a Freight Master Plan, and identi?ed short-term opportunities for freight mobility improvements. ? Evaluation of existing freight policies, identi?cation of freight-related issues, development of freight mobility project prioritization criteria, compilation of previously identi?ed freight projects, and research on freight street design considerations. FREIGHT MASTER PL AN LIVABILIT Y P Develop strategies for reducing community impacts from freight movement. P Look for ways to balance truck movement needs with those of other transpor tation modes. MOBILIT Y P E nsure Por tland?s transpor tation system can meet increased freight and goods movement demand. P Understand where we need to invest in system improvements for all modes of freight. ECONOMY P Recognize role of goods deliver y in suppor ting healthy, vibrant industrial districts, mixed-use centers, and main streets. P Use strategic investments in freight transpor tation to bene?t existing businesses and attract new ones. Freight Master Plan The second phase of the Plan began in July 2004. In this phase, a set of technical analyses of needs and de?ciencies, and identi?ed solutions in the form of policy revisions, infrastructure improvements, and implementation activities was completed. The supporting technical documentation for the Freight Master Plan is contained in a series of technical memoranda prepared by sta? with support from a consultant team. The technical memoranda covered the following subjects: ? Innovations & Trends Report explores the array of innovations and trends in the transport of freight and highlights communities that are using creative approaches to address freight mobility issues. ? Synthesis of Data Report summarizes and compiles the data used to complete the Existing Conditions and Assessment of Needs reports. ? Existing Conditions Report provides the most current analyses of performance, regulations and policy that govern freight mobility in Portland, including origin and destination patterns, trip demand by all freight modes, distribution of truck volumes, congestion points, and other physical and regulatory impediments. ? Needs Assessment Report presents analyses of existing and future year (2020) system-wide freight conditions including mobility, policy, programmatic, and regulatory issues. ? Solutions and Strategies Report presents recommendations for addressing freight?s existing and future mobility needs and issues. ? Freight Performance Measures and Indices Report proposes measures and indices to evaluate how the City?s transportation system is performing for freight?s movement. ? Freight Coordination within the Portland O?ce of Transportation Report outlines a process for accomplishing the implementation activities identi?ed in the Plan. Public involvement for the Plan?s development began in February 2003 as a conversation between the City Commissioner in charge of Transportation, representatives from the freight community, and other public agency sta? interested in freight mobility. This group evolved into the Portland Freight Committee, an advisory group on freight transportation issues. The committee includes a diverse mix of representatives from the transportation and logistic industry as well as participation from the federal, state, regional, and City agencies that oversee freight mobility issues. The Portland Freight Committee served as the steering committee for the Freight Master Plan?s development, providing guidance on Plan objectives, system needs, and priorities. A Technical Advisory Committee comprised of key Portland O?ce of Transportation engineering and planning sta?, Oregon Department of Transportation, Metro, and the project consultant guided the technical analysis. Freight Master Plan 9 Opportunities for broad community input were provided in the form of three community open houses held at key points in the Plan?s formulation. The open houses were designed to share information and gather input used to craft the Plan. Additionally, sta? made numerous presentations to interested community groups and advisory committees. A listing of these presentations is provided in Appendix D. The Freight Master Plan web page serves as an important public communication tool. The page provides general information about the planning process and notice of upcoming community meetings. Downloadable versions of the technical reports are available. The ?Virtual Open House? section allows citizens who missed the public events access to the presentation materials, providing the opportunity to review and comment electronically. Organization of Document The Freight Master Plan is organized around ?ve major elements: freight-related policies and objectives, freight system classi?cations, implementation actions and strategies, freight system infrastructure improvements, and design guidelines for trucks. Chapter Two summarizes the assessment of freight system needs and the Plan?s approach for addressing the needs. Chapter Three includes a summary of the freight-related Comprehensive Plan policies and classi?cation map for the freight system. Chapter Four describes the implementing actions and strategies for managing the movement goods in the community and how successful implementation is measure. Chapter Five lists the freight infrastructure improvements. Chapter Six focuses on planning for trucks in the right-of-way by providing a summary of the design guidelines for trucks. Appendices include Comprehensive Plan policies, a detailed infrastructure improvements list, and a discussion paper on transportation funding sources for freight, a description of the public involvement process, and references used in the Plan?s development. REL ATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PL AN AND THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PL AN Portland?s Comprehensive Plan is the policy guide for city growth and development. The Transportation System Plan (TSP) is covered under the umbrella of the Comprehensive Plan. It serves as the City?s public facility plan for transportation and it contains the transportation policies found in Goal 6, Transportation and Goal 11B, Public Rights-of-Way. The Freight Master Plan is the base document for the freight element of the TSP. The Freight Master Plan is approved by City Council ordinance and functions as the detailed guide for the freight mode. Portions of the Freight Master Plan are also incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and the TSP including: ? Changes to Comprehensive Plan policies The Freight Master Plan includes revisions to Goal 5, Economic Development, Goal 6, Transportation, and Goal 11B, Public Rights-of-Way. Goal 6 includes both freight policies and classi?cation maps. Freight Master Plan ? Changes to the Public Facilities Plan for Transportation The Freight Master Plan infrastructure improvements list updates the current list of major system improvements for transportation. ? Changes to the Transportation System Plan The Freight Master Plan informs future updates to the Truck and Air-Rail-Water-Pipeline modal plans and re?nes the performance measures used to monitor the function of the City?s freight system. COORDINATION WITH OTHER FREIGHT MOBILIT Y PL ANS AND PROGRAMS The Portland Freight Master Plan has been prepared in coordination with other plans, programs and studies of freight mobility in the region. The Portland Planning Bureau and the Portland Development Commission have prepared the Industrial Districts Atlas 6 and the Target Industrial Plan for the Distribution and Logistics Industries 7 , respectively, which identify the current land uses and employment in the City?s industrial districts, and make projections of the potential future growth of these districts. The Port of Portland has produced essential data and plans for its marine terminals, airports, and overall ground transportation needs, 8 which have been incorporated fully into the Freight Master Plan. Moreover, the Port?s information for the Columbia River Channel Deepening Project 9 and the Commodity Flow Forecast Update/Lower Columbia River Cargo Forecast 10 have provided fundamental data for the current and future products that ?ow into and out of the region, and the modes that will be used to move them. Metro?s Emme2 model output provided transportation data on truck volume and level-of-service during PM peak periods that was used to re?ne the truck street network. Finally, the Oregon and Washington departments of transportation have produced the I-5 Rail Capacity Study , 11 and the working data and proposals for the Columbia River Crossing 12 project (formerly known as the ?I-5 Trade and Transportation Corridor?), which have provided the regional level data on the major highway and railroad freight routes through Portland. In 2006, Metro is anticipated to begin its Regional Freight Plan which is intended to develop projects and guidance that support freight mobility, and the Columbia River Crossing Project is anticipated to complete discrete analysis of freight conditions in the I-5 Corridor between Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA. 6 Industrial Districts Atlas , Por tland, OR 2004, Por tland Bureau of Planning, 2005, www.por tlandonline.com/planning 7 Target Industry Plan: Distribution and Logistics , Por tland Development Commission 2004, http://www.pdc.us/bus_ser v/target_industries/distribution.asp 8 Including the Por t ?s 2020 Marine Terminals Master Plan (2004), the Por tland International Airpor t Master Plan (2000), and the Por t of Por tland Transpor tation Improvement Plan (2005), all of which can be viewed at: http://www.por tofpor tland.com/POP_home.aspx 9 Columbia River Channel Deepening Project , Por t of Por tland, ongoing. http://www.por tofpor tland.com/ch_home.aspx 10 Commodity Flow Forecast Update/Lower Columbia River Cargo Forecast , Por t of Por tland, 2002, http://www.por tofpor tland.com/PDFPOP/Trade_Trans_Studies_LCR_ Cmdty_Flw_Rpt.pdf 11 I-5 Rail Capacity Study , I-5 Trade and Transpor tation Corridor Par tnership, 2003, http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/RAIL/capstudy.shtml 12 Columbia River Crossing , jointly sponsored by the Washington State Depar tment of Transpor tation and the Oregon Depar tment of Transpor tation, 2005, http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org 2 S ETTING THE C OURSES ETTING THE C OURSE Freight Master Plan 11 INTRODUC TION H istoric investments in Portland?s transportation infrastructure have contributed directly to its importance as a center for commerce in the region. Portland?s transportation system is an economic engine for the state, moving both people and commerce by a variety of transport modes. Maintaining freight mobility within Portland is a key element in sustaining the vitality of the local, regional, and statewide economy. Reliability and e?ciency are measures of a well-functioning freight transportation system. A reliable system is predictable and dependable for businesses that plan freight movement in hours and minutes. An e?cient system is cost e?ective in terms of time, energy consumption, and infrastructure needs. When a system is unreliable and ine?cient, it has real consequences for the economy and the community: ? Freight assets like trucks and trains become less productive. ? Businesses put more trucks on the road to meet customer needs. ? Costs increase when businesses have to warehouse inventory. ? Financial and operational pressure increases for companies competing in a competitive, global market. 13 Understanding and improving freight transportation with these basic performance measures is imperative. Portland?s freight system is owned and operated by a variety of public and private entities that are often interdependent. For example, private barge operators travel to the Port of Portland marine terminals to transfer cargo to privately owned steamship operators, rail companies and motor carriers. The Oregon Department of Transportation and the City of Portland manage the road network used by motor carriers to move freight to customers. Maintaining a well-functioning system in this dynamic environment depends on good coordination and partnership. 13 Reliability: Critical to Freight Transpor tation , Public Roads, November/December 2004. 14 The Regional Travel Forecast Model de?nes medium truck as having two axles, less than six tires, and less than 40,000 lb GT W. Heavy truck is de?ned as having two or more axles, six or more tires, and a GT W over 40,000 lbs. Evening rush hour on I-5. ASSESSING THE FREIGHT SYSTEM Growth and Congestion in the Freight System The region?s travel forecast model estimates that between 2000 (base year) and 2020 (future year), the number of medium and heavy truck trips nearly double. 14 Not surprisingly, arterials that serve the Portland?s industrial areas have the highest volume of medium and heavy truck trips today and in the future. Along with the growth in truck movement, tra?c congestion is also increasing on Portland?s street system. Analysis of the travel forecast model data indicates that locations that experience peak hour vehicle congestion today will have increased levels of congestion in the future. The locations that demonstrate the greatest increases in travel delay for freight movement occur on roads approaching the Portland International Airport and surrounding industrial area, along the US 30 industrial corridor, and on all of the freeway corridors in the city. Freight Master Plan Growth challenges are not con?ned to Portland?s street system. The projected growth in freight moved by water, rail, and air is signi?cant. 15 ? Air cargo is anticipated to increase at a rate of 5 to 9 percent per year over the next 15 years. ? Marine tra?c is expected to grow by 7 percent per year between 2000 and 2020. ? Freight rail tra?c increases by 3.5 to 4 percent per year. According to recent technical studies, the Portland region?s rail infrastructure contains critical bottlenecks along several main line segments and rail yards operated by Burlington Northern-Santa Fe and Union Paci?c. The delays experienced on the local freight network are equivalent to those experienced in the nation?s largest rail hub ? Chicago ? which has 3.7 times the freight train tra?c and 42 times the passenger train tra?c of Portland. 16 In addition, branch line rail operations to and from rail yards and intermodal terminals are also highly congested. Rail capacity and service is also impacted by the need to expand and redesign some rail yards in the region. Infrastructure Barriers to Freight Mobility Congestion is not the only challenge facing freight mobility in Portland. Physical barriers due to inadequate infrastructure also hamper the e?cient and reliable movement of freight in the city. Some of the more signi?cant obstacles include: Weight-Restricted Bridges A number of bridges on truck routes in Portland are weight-restricted to a single-unit truck weight of 50,000 pounds and 80,000 pounds for a combination truck, and in some instances less than 80,000 pounds. Industry e?ciencies have led to an increase in the size of trucks since these bridges were constructed. Modern-day truck weights routinely exceed the design weight of these aging facilities. The result is that over-weight trucks are detoured from direct routes, increasing fuel consumption and operating costs. There is also the potential for diversion of trucks to streets that are not intended for frequent truck trips. Bridges with Low Vertical Clearance Also an issue are bridges with sub-standard clearance for trucks passing under them. The legal height for trucks operating on highways and city streets is 14 feet but many trucks operating by permit exceed this standard height. As many as 24 bridges in Portland have clearance between 14 feet and 17 feet, with most located on highways or priority truck routes. Like weight-restricted bridges, this barrier also results in detours from direct routes. 15 Commodity Flow Forecast Update and Lower Columbia River Cargo Forecast Final Repor t , prepared for the Por t of Por tland, Metro, Oregon Depar tment of Transpor tation, Por t of Vancouver, Regional Transpor tation Council, prepared by DRI-WEFA, BST Associates, and Cambridge Systematics, Inc, June 30, 2002. 16 I-5 Rail Capacity Study , prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc, Februar y 2003, page 2-5. Ber tha Blvd. underpass at Capitol Hwy. Truck detour at weight-limited MLK Jr. Blvd. Viaduct. Freight Master Plan 13 At-Grade Railroad Crossings With the predictions of substantial increases in train tra?c in the Paci?c Northwest over the next twenty years, con?icts between train and truck tra?c will likely rise. Safety at locations where roads and rails intersect has long been a concern. More recently, the concern has focused on longer delays. Crossings near intermodal facilities, ports, major rail yards, and classi?cation and switching areas will experience higher volumes of train and truck tra?c due to growth in domestic and foreign trade. 17 In Portland, most at-grade crossings are located in industrial areas. At some crossings, stopped delay time for trucks and other tra?c can be as high as four hours in a 24-hour period creating congestion and increasing operating costs. Pavement Condition Portland is facing a growing pavement maintenance backlog. Declining revenues and increasing costs have reduced the miles of city streets maintained on a regular basis. Between 1980 and 2004, the backlog has grown from 285 miles to 586 miles. Regular maintenance of pavement increases its longevity, extending the time before major reconstruction is needed. Large trucks accelerate the deterioration of paved surfaces. With forecasts of increasing truck volumes, the pavement on Portland?s streets will certainly be subjected to increased wear and tear. The result of poor pavement conditions is decreased fuel economy, increased vehicle operation and maintenance costs, and the potential for damaged cargo. 18 Lift and Swing Spans Over the Columbia River A more unique freight barrier in the region is the misalignment of two adjacent bridge spans. Travel by river tow boats and barge vessels is complicated during high water periods by the indirect alignment of the high span of the Interstate Bridge and the swing span of the BNSF rail bridge over the Columbia river. Captains maneuver their vessels under the mid-section of the I-5 bridge to avoid I-5 bridge lifts that delay interstate tra?c. Once clear of this bridge, captains maneuver their vessel to the northern river channel to clear the swing span of the rail bridge. During periods of high water, about six months of the year, this maneuver becomes far more di?cult, increasing the potential for an accident. 17 Status of Nation?s Highways, Bridges and Transit:2002 Conditions and Performance Repor t to Congress , U.S. Depar tment of Transpor tation, Federal Highway Administration, Pg. 26-1. 18 www.transpor tationca.com, Transpor tation California, April 28, 2004. I-5 bridge over the Columbia River, with the rail bridge in the distance.. At-grade railroad crossing in SE Por tland. Deteriorating pavement on N. Bradford. Freight Master Plan Road Design Most of Portland has a mature arterial street system, designed to accommodate vehicle tra?c of a former era. Today, many of the trucks that use these older streets to deliver goods and services to the community are much larger than the street design is intended to support. At times, the needs for e?cient truck movement are in con?ict with other desired design features on the same street such as median islands or curb extensions. In other cases, trucks bene?t from a design feature such as bike lanes that provide more space for turns. Balancing the needs of the di?erent truck types using the streets with the needs of other users presents a challenge, especially in mixed- use centers and along main streets. Parking and Loading A critical element of the supply chain is the ability to e?ciently transfer goods and materials between shippers, trucks, and customers. Portland provides commercial on-street loading zones along many of its streets. The zones are assigned by request from individuals who receive and/or make truck deliveries. Portland?s zoning code has requirements for o?-street loading spaces in commercial, employment and larger residential developments. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the existing supply of and demand for loading spaces is mismatched. The result is that drivers either double-park in travel lanes, blocking tra?c, or park illegally. Currently, there is no comprehensive method to ensure that on- and o?-street loading is adequate to meet business needs. Over-Dimensional Truckloads Some loads carried by trucks are not practically divisible, meaning that they can not be reduced to meet legal limits for weight, height, length, and/or width set by the State of Oregon. The State requires that trucks exceeding legal dimensions obtain a permit when traveling on public roadways. Portland also regulates over-dimensional loads and writes permits based on criteria established in Title 16 of the City Code. The most common type of over-dimensional load in Portland is construction equipment such as cranes and excavators but other manufactured items such as steel slabs and bridge girders require over-dimensionsal moves. These are an infrequent but an important type of freight movement in the city. There is a need to identify and maintain a primary network of over- dimensional routes, with a focus on connections in and between Freight Districts. Hawthorne Boulevard in SE Por tland. On-street loading in downtown Por tland. Truck hauling over-dimensional load of construction equipment. Freight Master Plan 15 Industrial Lands and Freight Compared to other cities, Portland has a relatively large number of industrial parcels available for development. Portland has a natural advantage for ?rms seeking an industrial location adjacent to aviation, marine, rail and highway networks. However, analyses by Portland Development Commission and the Bureau of Planning found that demand for development-ready industrial land will outstrip supply. The challenge is that available industrial land has limitations to being readily developed, including: ? Lack of good access to the street and highway network. ? Environmental and ownership constraints. ? Many of the parcels are previously developed and are more expensive to redevelop. A COURSE OF AC TION The Freight Master Plan will provide an overall strategy of investment and management of the City?s transportation system including connections to other public and private facilities as a catalyst for improved mobility, livability and economic health. The Plan strives to achieve its goals in a way that is supportive of and consistent with the community?s transportation values encapsulated in the Transportation System Plan including: ? Maintain a healthy economy and a thriving community. ? Manage transportation assets in a ?scally-responsible way to ensure the region?s limited dollars are available for a wide range of solutions. ? Provide transportation choices. ? Look for ways to reduce environmental impacts of transportation. ? Emphasize coordination and partnership in planning the transportation system. Investments in multimodal transportation infrastructure have historically contributed directly to Portland?s importance as an economic center. But a changing global business environment means Portland must be more strategic to maintain its economic vitality and competitiveness. The closer the relationship between transportation investment and siting of industrial and commercial facilities, the greater the bene?t to the overall economic health of the community. To accomplish this, Portland must be more deliberate in integrating economic development activities with land use and transportation planning for industrial sectors. The Plan?s implementation framework relies on a three-pronged approach of policy guidance, programmatic actions and strategies, and infrastructure improvements. The following chapters provide the details of how the Plan will achieve the City?s freight mobility goals and objectives. Freight Master Plan 3 P OLICIES AND O BJEC TIVESP OLICIES AND O BJEC TIVES Freight Master Plan 17 INTRODUC TION T he City of Portland relies on its Comprehensive Plan to guide decision making for the City?s future growth and development. The Plan contains a coordinated set of goals, policies and objectives that together set a direction for choices about programs, capital investments, and funding priorities. ? Goals are the broadest expression of a community?s desire and aspirations for a particular focus area. ? Policies are statements that set a preferred course of direction. ? Objectives are speci?c actions that carry out the intent of the goal and policy. The Comprehensive Plan goals relevant to freight movement include Goal 5, Economic Development, Goal 6, Transportation, and Goal 11B, Public Rights-of-Way. Following is a brief description of these goals. Goal 5, Economic Development, promotes a multimodal transportation system that encourages economic development. Goal 6, Transportation, provides overall guidance on how Portland?s transportation system should function over the 20- year life of the Comprehensive Plan. The goal re?ects the multiple functions of a balanced transportation system, which distributes transportation bene?ts and e?ects fairly across a diverse population of system users. Goal 11B, Public Rights-of-Way meets the state of Oregon?s requirements on jurisdictions to maintain public facility plans. Goal 11B policies and the Transportation System Plan project list comprise the public facility plan for transportation. The goal intends to improve the quality of Portland?s transportation system by carrying out projects to implement the 2040 Growth Concept, preserving public rights-of-way, implementing street plans, continuing high-quality maintenance and improvement programs, and allocating limited resources to identi?ed needs of neighborhoods and businesses. POLIC Y FRAMEWORK Portland?s Comprehensive Plan establishes policies for freight in the context of a larger regulatory framework of federal, state, and regional goals and policies. Portland?s policies are required to be compatible with and complement the framework established at higher levels of governance. Intermodal Sur face Transportation Act of 1991 (ISTEA) Landmark federal transportation legislation that initiated national policy for the development of a national intermodal transportation system that is economically and energy-e?cient and environmentally sound in the movement of people and goods. National Highway System (NHS) Established under ISTEA legislation, the NHS is a 161,000 mile national network of interconnected roadways that link primary intermodal facilities including: airports, international border crossings, maritime ports, rail-truck terminals, intermodal passenger facilities, and major travel destinations. These roadways are the most critical connections in the national transportation network. In Oregon, the NHS is comprised of three classes of designation: Interstate Highway ? NHS, State Highway ? NHS, and NHS Intermodal Connectors, which are primarily attached to county-and city-owned roadways. Freight Master Plan National Network The Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982 requires states to allow larger vehicles on a national network of roadways comprised of the Interstate Highway System and non-Interstate Federal Aid Primary System. The act also speci?es the legal limits for height, length, width, and weight of trucks using the National Network roadways. Jurisdictions are required to provide reasonable access for STAA legal-sized vehicles on their networks. Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 12 Statewide Planning Goal 12, Transportation is Oregon?s policy umbrella for transportation planning at the state, regional, and local level. Goal 12 directs jurisdictions to ?provide for and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.? The goal states implementing directives that include: considering all transportation modes in planning; identifying system needs; avoiding reliance on a single mode of transportation; minimizing adverse impacts; conserving energy; meeting the needs of the transportation disadvantaged; and strengthening the economy by facilitating the ?ow of goods and services. Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) The TPR is the implementing rule for Goal 12, Transportation. It establishes mandates for linking land uses and transportation planning activities including the identi?cation of needs for movement of goods and services to support planned industrial and commercial development. Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) The OTP is the transportation system plan, providing guidance for policy and long-range planning for the multimodal transportation system. It directs that Oregon?s transportation system be modally balanced, e?cient, accessible, environmentally responsible, connect places and modes, safe, and ?nancially sustainable. Speci?c to freight movement, Goal 3: Economic Development supports a balanced and e?cient freight system, e?ective transportation links to markets, cooperation on expanding system capacity, and promotion of intermodal hubs. Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) The OHP is a subset of the encompassing Oregon Transportation Plan. It focuses speci?cally on Oregon?s state highway system and includes policies and objectives that direct how the system should function for freight. The plan also identi?es a freight system network, which incorporates the National Highway System designations. 2040 Growth Concept and Regional Framework Plan The 2040 Growth Concept de?nes how the region should grow and develop over a 50-year planning horizon. The concept directs growth into higher density mixed-use centers and corridors supported by a multi-modal transportation system. Industrial areas are a primary component of the concept and are maintained as sanctuaries for long-term industrial activities. The Regional Framework Plan provides speci?c policies and guidelines for concept implementation. Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) The RTP is the Portland metropolitan area?s policy and investment guide for the multimodal transportation system. The plan recognizes the importance of a sound multimodal freight system to support the region?s economic and livability goals. The RTP identi?es and de?nes a regional freight system. Freight Master Plan 19 REL ATIONSHIP TO PORTL AND ?S TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PL AN Portland?s Transportation System Plan (TSP) is the 20-year guide for planning and investment in the multimodal transportation system. The TSP includes the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, consisting of Goal 6, Transportation and Goal 11B, Public Rights-of-Way policies and objectives. The Freight Master Plan is a focused guide for managing freight activities. It details the speci?c policies, infrastructure needs, street design, and management actions that lead to an integrated and well-functioning freight transportation system. Through incorporation of freight policies and objectives, freight network map, and infrastructure improvements, this more detailed plan integrates into the TSP. Future updates to modal plans for trucks and air-rail-water-pipeline are informed by the Freight Master Plan. As part of the TSP, implementation of the Freight Master Plan is combined and balanced with the needs of all transportation modes. REL ATIONSHIP TO OTHER CIT Y DOCUMENTS Community and Neighborhood Plans The City has numerous neighborhood and community plans with policies, strategies, and action items for improving local areas. Many of these plans speci?cally address freight. All existing neighborhood and community plans were reviewed for freight-related issues. Better management of truck activity in neighborhoods was the primary directive from these plans. Policy objectives and action items are addressed in the Freight Master Plan. Portland Code and Charter Title 16: Vehicles and Tra?c 16.20.220, Truck Loading Zone regulates truck loading zones. Truck loading zones are established to prevent double parking and other illegal parking by designating a supply of parking spaces dedicated to the delivery of merchandise by trucks to commercial properties. The regulations specify the types of vehicles that may park in a truck loading zone, the duration (30 minutes), frequency and where the truck loading zone should be located in relation to an intersection for tra?c safety reasons. 16.20.530,Temporary Truck Loading Area Permit regulates the issuance of a temporary truck loading permit to any person proving a need for the permit. The temporary truck loading area must be designated by portable signs or parking meter hoods or as otherwise designated by the administrative instructions of the permit. 16.70.600, Over Dimensional Vehicles generally prohibits the driving or movement of vehicles of excessive weight; those dragging a log, pole, or other thing; and a vehicle that is constructed or loaded so as to allow its contents to drop, sift, leak or escape, among other general prohibitions. The section de?nes exemptions to the general prohibitions, which include the operation of government vehicles and vehicles permitted by the Tra?c Engineer. 16.70.630, Permits stipulates permitted use of over-dimensional vehicles. 16.70.640 Limits of Authority to Issue Variance Permit de?nes the circumstances for which an over-dimensional permit may not be issued. Title 18: Noise Control 18.10.020, Motor Vehicles regulates excessive noise from motor vehicles including trucks. Section B (3) speci?cally prohibits the use of a dynamic braking device on trucks over 10,000 GCWR within any residential zone of the City or within 200 feet of residences, school, hospital, or library, expect to avoid imminent danger. Freight Master Plan Title 33: Planning and Zoning Code 33.266.310, Loading Standards speci?es the minimum number of loading spaces required to ensure adequate loading areas for larger uses and developments. The regulations ensure that access to and from loading facilities will not have a negative e?ect on the tra?c safety or other transportation functions of the abutting right-of-way. The section regulates the number of loading spaces based on land use and speci?es where the regulations apply. It also regulates loading space size, their placement, setback and landscaping. Regulations state that the design of a facility allows vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward motion, except in the Central City plan district. 33.130.255, Trucks and Equipment regulates parking and storage of trucks and equipment to ensure that it will be consistent with the desired character of the commercial zones and to limit adverse e?ects on adjacent residential lands. The section sets truck and equipment parking standards for business vehicles (light, medium and heavy trucks) that park regularly at a site. Section 33.140.250, Trucks and Equipment regulates truck and equipment parking for business vehicles that park regularly at a site. The regulations do not apply to pick-up and delivery activities, the use of vehicles during construction or other intermittent, short-term activities. The regulations di?erentiate between light and medium trucks and heavy trucks. COMPREHENSIVE PL AN POLICIES FOR FREIGHT Goals, policies and objectives are the common link between the Freight Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. Development of the Freight Master Plan identi?ed revisions to policies to better address freight movement needs and impacts. Following is a summary of policies and objectives that guide freight activity in Portland. Appendix A includes the complete text of the freight-related Comprehensive Plan policies. Goal 5 Economic Development Policies Goal 5, Economic Development, promotes a multimodal transportation system that encourages economic development. Goal 5.4, Transportation System, Objectives A, B, and H address the connection between the City?s transportation system and economic development by enhancing the multimodal freight transportation system for competitive access to global markets, supporting development of industrial- and employment-zoned properties, and reinforcing the link between transportation investment and thriving industrial districts. Goal 6 Transportation Policies Goal 6, Transportation, provides overall guidance on how Portland?s transportation system should function. The goal re?ects the multiple functions of a balanced transportation system, which addresses the needs of the many types of users. Many Goal 6 policies and objectives pertain directly to freight mobility including: Policy 6.3 Transportation Education, Objective B supports a public-private partnership for implementing educational programs about freight movement in the City. Policy 6.9 Freight Classi?cation Descriptions, Objectives A ? I describe the various elements of the City?s Freight System including roadways, railways, freight districts, and freight facilities. Policy 6.13 Tra?c Calming, Objective C encourages vehicular tra?c, including trucks, to use streets with higher classi?cations consistent with their function to avoid non-local tra?c from in?ltrating residential neighborhoods. Policy 6.15 Transportation System Management, Objective B directs the City to give preference to projects that add system capacity through operational improvements such as signal upgrades, ITS, and intersection design that bene?t all modes of transportation. Freight Master Plan 21 Policy 6.29 Multimodal Freight System, Objectives A ? E supports the development of a safe, reliable, and e?cient freight system that includes truck, rail, air, marine, and pipeline transport modes. The objectives emphasize public-private coordination and partnership in planning, prioritizing and funding freight infrastructure improvements. They also stress the need to work cooperatively to minimize adverse impacts cause by freight movement. Policy 6.30 Truck Mobility, Objectives A ? G provides guidance for developing, maintaining and managing the street network that supports truck movement. The objectives guide investment priorities, design for legal and over-dimensional loads, appropriate use of streets by trucks, and operational improvements to reduce delay. Policy 6.XX Truck Accessibility, Objective A ? F addresses truck access and circulation needs through objectives that focus on such actions as eliminating bridge weight and height restrictions, improving at-grade rail crossings to limit delay and increase safety, managing on-street loading zones for e?cient loading and unloading, and considering truck needs in street design. Policies 6.34 ? 6.40, Transportation District Policies and Objectives detail and clarify issues and needs speci?c to a Transportation District. There are eight transportation districts in Portland ? North, Northeast, Far Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, Far Southeast, Southwest, and Central City ? many of which have policy and objectives that address freight mobility. Goal 11B Public Rights-of Way Goal 11B policies and objectives are intended to improve the quality of Portland?s transportation system by guiding project development to implement the 2040 Growth Concept, preserve public rights-of-way, implement street plans, continue high-quality maintenance and improvement programs, and allocate limited resources to identi?ed needs of neighborhoods, commerce and industry. Policy 11.10 Street Design and Right-of-Way Improvements, Objective E directs the City to use the collection of right-of-way design resources including the Design Guide for Trucks (in progress) when developing and designing street improvements. THE FREIGHT SYSTEM Portland relies on a multimodal classi?cation system to describe the design and function of a street or other transportation facility. There are seven classi?cation categories: Tra?c, Transit, Pedestrian, Bicycle, Freight, Emergency Response, and Street Design. When funding, designing, or operating a facility all modal classi?cations are considered. Portland?s freight system is comprised of streets, rail lines, and freight facilities including marine terminals, intermodal rail yards, airports, and pipeline terminals. Policy 6.9 describes each of the freight system classi?cations in the hierarchy. The classi?cations correspond to land use activities. For classifying network features, freight movement is divided into two broad categories: industrial-serving and commercial delivery of goods and services. Industrial-serving freight moves by a combination of modes ? truck, rail, air, pipeline, and marine vessel. Origins and destinations for this type of movement are primarily in Portland?s industrial sanctuaries. E?cient and reliable access to terminal facilities and the regional/interstate freight network is paramount for this category of freight. High truck volumes and tractor-trailer activity characterize industrial-serving freight movement. Commercial goods and services delivery relies largely on trucks. This category of truck movement has varied origins and destinations, which can be industrial, commercial or residential. Truck size varies depending on the type of delivery or service. E?cient circulation and access between distribution centers and customer locations is important. Table 3.1 describes the type of freight movement and land uses that correspond to the freight classi?cations. Freight Master Plan Table 3 Freight Classi?cations by Activity Type Mapping the Freight System Figure 6 Recommended Freight Network displays Portland?s freight system including the highway and street network, rail network, and major freight facilities. The mapped network, in combination with the classi?cation descriptions, is part of Goal 6 of the Comprehensive Plan. FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION PRIMARY ACTIVITY Land Use Connection Routes for interregional and interstate movement of freight. Serves both industrial and commercial land uses via access ramps. Principal route for truck mobility in Freight Districts, and between Freight Districts, and Regional Truckways. Provides truck access and circulation to industrial and employment land uses. Principal route for truck mobility between commercial centers and corridors. Provides truck access and circulation to regional main streets. Route for distribution of truck trips in neighborhoods. Provides truck access and circulation for delivery of goods and services to commercial and residential uses. Routes for local truck access and circulation to residents and businesses outside of the freight districts. Freight districts are determined by the presence of industrial sanctuary zoning (IG1, IG2 & IH). Streets within a Freight District provide local truck circulation and access. Applies to all streets unless classified with a higher designation. Transports freight cargo and passengers over long distances as part of a national rail network. Transports Freight cargo over short distances or distributes it to and from railroad main lines. The major marine terminals, airport, railyards, and intermodal facilities located in Freight Districts.Freight Facilities Heavy Freight Goods Delivery Services Regional Truckway Priority Truck Street Major Truck Street Truck Access Street Local Truck Street Freight District Railroad Main Lines Primary Activity Secondary Activity Limited Activity Railroad Branch Lines Freight Master Plan 23 N E S A N D Y B L V D S E P O W E L L B L V D S E 8 2 N D A V E S E S T A R K S T S W B A R B U R B L V D N E 8 2 N D A V E N E 1 2 2 N D A V E S E 1 2 2 N D A V E S E 1 2 T H A V E N E M A R T I N L U T H E R K I N G J R B L V D S E W A S H I N G T O N S T N W B R I D G E A V E N E G R A N D A V E S W M A C A D A M A V E S W B E R T H A B L V D R O S S I S L A N D B R G N W F R O N T A V E N E 1 2 T H A V E B R O A D W A Y B R G N W 1 6 T H A V E S W M A C A D A M A V E N M A R I N E D R N E A I R P O R T W A Y N C O L U M B I A B L V D N E C O L U M B I A B L V D N W F R O N T A V E N E L O M B A R D S T N L O M B A R D S T N P O R T L A N D R D N W S T H E L E N S R D N E C O R N F O O T R D N G O I N G S T N E 8 2 N D A V E S E 1 7 T H A V E N G R E E L E Y A V E N E K I L L I N G S W O R T H S T N E 1 2 2 N D A V E N W 2 6 T H D R N H A Y D E N I S L A N D B R I D G E N L O M B A R D S T S E D I V I S I O N S T N L O M B A R D S T N E H A L S E Y S T S E 3 9 T H A V E N E G L I S A N S T N E 3 3 R D A V E S E 5 2 N D A V E N E 1 0 2 N D A V E N I N T E R S T A T E A V E S E W O O D S T O C K B L V D N E F R E M O N T S T S E 1 6 2 N D A V E S W M U L T N O M A H B L V D N E 4 2 N D A V E S E H O L G A T E B L V D N E B R O A D W A Y S T E B U R N S I D E S T N E A L B E R T A S T S E B E L M O N T S T S E F O S T E R R D S E 1 2 2 N D A V E S E M I L W A U K I E A V E S E 5 0 T H A V E S W B O O N E S F E R R Y R D S W S H A T T U C K R D N E 3 9 T H A V E N E 6 0 T H A V E N E 1 6 2 N D A V E N K E R B Y A V E S W 6 T H A V E S W 1 3 T H A V E S W C A P I T O L H W Y K E R R R D S W C A P I T O L H W Y N E H A L S E Y S T S E D I V I S I O N S T S E F O S T E R R D 2 6 5 5 5 8 48 4 8 4 2 0 5 2 0 5 2 0 5 2 1 7 F R E I G H T M A S T E R P L A N ( 9 / 9 / 0 5 ) B r o o k l y n Y a r d E a s t P o r t l a n d C e n t r a l P o s t O f f i c e G r a h a m W i l l b r i d g e T e r m i n a l - 4 L i n n t o n B a r n e s Y a r d K e n t o n S o u t h R i v e r g a t e T e r m i n a l - 5 N o r t h R i v e r g a t e T e r m i n a l - 6 F i r P D X C o r n f o o t P o r t l a n d I n t . A i r p o r t F r e i g h t C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s R e g i o n a l T r u c k W a y P r i o r i t y T r u c k S t r e e t M a j o r T r u c k S t r e e t T r u c k A c c e s s S t r e e t F r e i g h t D i s t r i c t S t r e e t L o c a l S e r v i c e T r u c k S t r e e t M a i n R a i l L i n e B r a n c h R a i l F r e i g h t F a c i l i t i e s F r e i g h t D i s t r i c t U r b a n S e r v i c e A r e a N W F R O N T A V E N W F R O N T A V E N W S T H E L E N S R D N W N I C O L A I S T N G O I N G S T N W 2 6 T H D R T e r m i n a l - 2 L a k e Y a r d A l b i n a Y a r d N W C o n t a i n e r S e r v I n s e t I n s e t Figure 8 RECOMMENDED FREIGHT NETWORK Freight Master Plan 4 I MPLEMENTING THE P LANI MPLEMENTING THE P LAN Freight Master Plan 25 INTRODUC TION S uccess of the Plan?s goals, policies, and objectives depends upon e?ective implementation and monitoring of progress. The combination of engineering, education, and enforcement strategies described in Chapters 4 and 5 are intended to enhance the movement of freight in Portland. This chapter describes the follow-up actions and on-going activities to manage goods movement in the community. Chapter 5, Freight System Improvements, lists the infrastructure improvements that address freight network de?ciencies. Together, these chapters provide a complete strategy for achieving the City?s freight policies and objectives. Many of the implementation actions, activities, and capital improvements described in this plan require coordination and partnership with other City bureaus such as the Planning Bureau and Portland Development Commission and with regional agencies including the Oregon Department of Transportation, METRO, the Port of Portland, and Multnomah County. Some may require endorsement and support from the private sector, while others require the involvement of neighborhood and business associations. AC TIONS AND AC TIVITIES The three themes of the Plan ? Mobility, Livability, and Healthy Economy ? provide the framework for organizing the follow-up actions and on-going activities. Mobility The mobility theme focuses on improving reliability and e?ciency on the network of roads, railroads, rivers, and runways that move freight in Portland. Following are the actions and activities targeted at freight mobility: ? Coordinate with Metro and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to develop a strategy for the transfer of US 30 Bypass designation to N. Columbia Boulevard in North Portland. The strategy will identify improvements to Columbia Boulevard to better meet the needs of over-dimensional truck movement. ? Identify a strategy for truck routes that serve the movement of over-dimensional loads throughout the City. Coordinate this e?ort with the existing Continuous Operations Variance Permit program activities. ? Develop a local street plan for the Northwest Industrial District to address access and circulation issues. ? Designate freight classi?cations for Central City sub-districts including Downtown, Lloyd District, Pearl District, South Waterfront, and Central Eastside streets as part of the Central City Transportation Management Plan update. ? Implement Intelligent Transportation System projects to manage congestion on key truck routes in order to provide better information about tra?c delays and improved signal operation to control ?ow of tra?c for certain situations. ? Coordinate with ODOT to provide truck-only queue lanes at freeway ramps in freight districts. Investigate the use of di?erent ramp meter timing for truck-only lanes. ? Investigate implementation of exclusive trucks lanes including use of high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes by trucks when not in use for HOV tra?c. ? Optimize signal timing in freight corridors including Columbia Boulevard, Airport Way, Powell Boulevard, and McLoughlin Boulevard. ? Work in partnership with ODOT and private rail service providers to improve crossing protection safety and reduce at-grade rail crossing delays for trucks and trains. Strategies include construction of grade-separated rail crossings at key Freight Master Plan locations, consolidation and/or elimination of at-grade rail crossings, and deployment of ITS communication system technology to provide real-time information about tra?c delays due to train activity. ? Coordinate with the Columbia River Crossing Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) process on the evaluation of freight mobility issues in this segment of the I-5 Trade Corridor. ? Institute transportation demand management strategies in Freight Districts to provide travel options that help reduce single-occupancy vehicle use and increase street capacity for trucks. ? Support other freight modes such as rail or short sea shipping as alternatives to moving freight by truck. ? Initiate a North Willamette River Crossing Study to assess the feasibility of new bridge between Rivergate and US 30. ? Develop a freight mobility web page that provides up-to-date information on City truck routes, advisories about construction detours and work zones, over-dimensional permits and routing, and general information about the City?s freight system management. Livability The livability theme looks at ways to manage the aspects of freight movement that impact a community?s quality of life. Following are the actions and activities that address livability: ? Work with local businesses and the Oregon Trucking Association to establish ?good neighbor agreements? to address truck delivery issues including circulation plans and delivery schedules. ? Coordinate with the Portland Police Bureau through programs like Strategic and Focused Enforcement (SAFE) to identify opportunities for improving truck safety, education, and enforcement. ? Complete and implement the Portland Design Guide for Trucks. ? Develop and implement a signage program to direct trucks to appropriate routes. ? Evaluate and update on-street and o?-street truck loading regulations and operations. ? Use the Transportation Safety and Livability Hotline as a tool to monitor neighborhood con?icts with freight movement. Work with the stakeholders to resolve neighborhood con?icts as they arise. ? Implement Share the Road, a public education program to distribute information about the characteristics and operational needs of the various transportation modes to improve safety on City streets. ? Partner with railroad operators and ODOT to institute ?Quiet Zones? to reduce train whistle noise and improve track safety. ? Support e?orts to foster environmentally-friendly goods movement practices such as the use of cleaner fuels and the reduction of truck and train idling. ? Monitor and enforce over-dimensional truck activity through the Continuous Operations Variance Permit Program (COVP). Healthy Economy Promoting a multimodal transportation system that stimulates and supports long-term economic development and business investment is the focus of the healthy economy theme. Following are the actions and activities targeted at building and maintaining a healthy economy: ? Identify and improve site-speci?c-obstacles to access and circulation in Freight Districts. ? Collaborate with agency partners on public investment strategies to stimulate economic development associated with freight movement and the industries that rely on the e?cient movement of freight. ? Partner with Portland Development Commission and Port of Portland to identify and implement transportation improvements that enhance marketability of industrial opportunity sites. ? Work with businesses in centers and along main streets to address truck access and loading issues. ? Identify and prioritize pavement maintenance needs in industrial areas. ? Participate in the development of workforce strategies for freight service providers. Freight Master Plan 27 MOVING AHEAD A plan is only as successful as the time and e?ort given to supporting its realization. Responsibility for carrying out the actions, activities, and projects identi?ed in the Plan is spread across a number of work units in the Portland O?ce of Transportation. The O?ce of Transportation?s Freight Coordinator will manage the implementation of the plan in coordination with these various work units. Moreover, the City of Portland will continue to work closely with its agency partners to better address regional freight mobility. Partners include the Oregon Department of Transportation, Metro, Port of Portland, Multnomah County, Washington State Department of Transportation, SW Regional Transportation Council, and the other local cities, counties, and service districts within the Portland/Vancouver region. Additionally, the City?s advisory committee on freight mobility matters ? the Portland Freight Committee ? continues to be an important forum for discussing the City?s freight issues and providing advice to City leaders and sta? on all topics related to improving freight movement. MONITORING SUCCESS An important component to any plan is the establishment of methods for measuring progress in achieving the plan goals and objectives. Performance measures have great value in technical assessment of change over time, evaluation of planned improvements, and as a tool for communication about the state of the system. The City uses performance measures to monitor its achievements and progress toward goals for transportation system performance and in meeting the transportation needs of its citizens. The City?s TSP already includes several performance measures applicable to truck mobility. The Freight Master Plan enhances these existing performance measures and augments them with additional measures. Freight Master Plan Table 4 Freight System Per formance Measures Source Measure Description TSP Hours of truck delay in the PM Peak and Mid-day Tracks delay as a result of congested roadways. The current baseline data compares hours of truck delay for the entire City street system with regional delay. Enhancements to current measures include truck delay at key intersections and along freight corridors, and distinguishing between causes of congestion by re -occurring vs. non-reoccurring events. Intersections and truck streets should be selected based on their direct accessibility to freight terminals and transfer facilities. TSP Travel time in ITS Corridors for average PM Peak, AM Peak, and O?-peak Evaluates the travel time per formance in corridors using ITS technology to manage system operations. Expand the current selection of corridors to include those critical for freight movement including Rivergate, Airpor t Way, Columbia Blvd, US 30, and interstate freeways in Por tland. Track travel time for truck trips in addition to auto trips, as is current practice. TSP Assessment of unmet pavement need Tracks success in reducing pavement maintenance backlog. Assess and repor t on pavement condition in Freight Districts and along major freight corridors. TSP Employee par ticipation in Transpor tation Management Associations ( TMA) Tracks progress in expanding the use of and par ticipation in TMA programs to encourage use of alternatives to the single -occupancy vehicle for work commute trips. TSP Annual truck collisions/million vehicle miles of travel Measures the number of repor ted collisions that involved trucks and other modes, including rail, as repor ted for all City locations. TSP Elimination of weight-restricted bridges on truck streets Tracks progress in rehabilitating or replacing weight-restricted bridges. TSP Assessment of truck compliant resolution Evaluates the number of freight-related complaints received by PDOT and status of resolution. Table 4 lists both the established TSP measures and additional recommended measures. Re?nement of the performance measures, development of baseline data, and on-going reporting of the data will occur as part of plan implementation. 5 F REIGHT S YSTEM I MPROVEMENTSF REIGHT S YSTEM I MPROVEMENTS Freight Master Plan 29 INTRODUC TION O ver the last decade, many area plans and corridor studies have identi?ed needed freight infrastructure improvements in the City. The set of freight infrastructure improvements described in this chapter draw from multiple sources including: ? Portland Transportation System Plan ? Regional Transportation Plan ? Port of Portland Transportation Improvement Plan ? I-5 Rail Capacity Study ? I-5 Trade Corridor Study ? Central Eastside Transportation Study ? Columbia Corridor Transportation Study ? St. Johns Truck Strategy ? South Portland Circulation Study ? Intelligent Transportation System Implementation Plan ? Freight Master Plan technical analysis and community input WHAT IS A FREIGHT IMPROVEMENT? An infrastructure improvement is deemed ?freight-related? if it meets the following criteria: ? Improves a freight route of signi?cance, as de?ned by a Transportation System Plan, Regional Transportation Plan, Oregon Highway Plan, and/or National Highway System freight route designation or is located on or improves access to properties zoned for industrial or employment land uses. ? Includes project elements that improves or facilitates freight movement. ? Demonstrates consistency with state, regional, and local transportation policies. T YPES OF FREIGHT IMPROVEMENTS The freight infrastructure improvements included in the plan are presented in six categories: ? HIGHWAY Infrastructure improvements on Portland?s freeway system such as interchange upgrades and auxiliary lanes. ? STREET Infrastructure improvements on Portland?s arterial street system such as intersection upgrades, access management, and new road connections. ? SYSTEM MANAGEMENT Installation of Intelligent Transportation System infrastructure such as closed circuit TV cameras and variable message signs to provide real-time information to dispatchers and truck drivers. ? BRIDGE Upgrading load-limits, improving clearances, seismic upgrades, and new structures. Freight Master Plan ? RAIL Infrastructure improvements, such as signalization upgrades, bypass tracks, and high-speed turnouts, to improve rail capacity and reduce bottlenecks. ? MARINE Infrastructure improvements, such as longer berths, channel dredging, and adequate bridge clearances, to upgrade river operations and marine terminal facilities. SET TING INFRASTRUC TURE PRIORITIES All of the infrastructure improvements presented later in this chapter meet an identi?ed need. However, ?nite resources for funding and implementing transportation projects require that priorities be set to direct limited resources to gain the greatest value for the dollar spent. Priority Tiers The freight infrastructure improvements are classi?ed into four priority tiers by improvement category. The four tiers include: ? Funded ? Projects with identi?ed partial or full funding, an indication that the project is advancing towards implementation in the near term. ? Tier 1 ? Near-term advancement for funding and implementation, within ?ve years. ? Tier 2 ? Mid-term advancement for funding and implementation, within ten years. ? Tier 3 ? Long-term advancement for funding and implementation, within twenty years. Project Priority and Selection Criteria The criteria used to develop priorities are shown in Table 5. Improvements with the highest priority demonstrate the following characteristics: ? Bene?ts multiple modes of freight transportation and may have bene?ts for non-freight modes, particularly transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. ? Bene?ts a key freight corridor by improving system reliability, safety and/or access. ? Improves access to freight facilities. The criteria was applied to the infrastructure improvements listed under Highway, Street, System Management and Bridge categories to establish relative priority in each category. Priority for Rail and Marine improvements have been established in other planning e?orts. FREIGHT INFRASTRUC TURE IMPROVEMENTS The following pages identify Portland?s freight infrastructure improvements by category and include a location map. The list of improvements is inclusive of the needs identi?ed to date. Future improvements may be added as additional needs are uncovered through further evaluation and study of freight movement. Many of the infrastructure improvements identi?ed here will require further study, more neighborhood input, and additional City Council review prior to construction. As further evaluations are made of the projects in this Plan, the projects may be modi?ed. Appendix B includes the list of infrastructure improvements with detailed descriptions and estimated costs. Freight Master Plan 31 Table 5 Prioritization Criteria for Highway and Street Infrastructure Improvements for Freight Criteria Score Rating Policy Metrics Will this project bene?t multimodal freight transpor tation movement? High, Medium, or Low Freight modes include trucks, rail, air, marine, pipeline ? Low ? bene?ts one mode ? Medium ? bene?ts 2 modes ? High ? bene?ts 3 or more freight modes Is this project located on freight routes of signi?cance? High, Medium, or Low ? Low ? Por tland freight system only ? Medium ? Por tland and Regional freight system ? High ? all the above plus Oregon Highway Plan and National Highway System Operational Metrics Will this project improve reliability on the freight system? High or Low ? Low ? Minimal or no impact on system reliability ? High ? Improves freight travel time in a corridor through operation improvements, or removes a system bottleneck, or improves a congested intersection/roadway Will this project improve freight system connectivity? High or Low ? Low ? Minimal or no impact on system connectivity ? High ? Removes barriers such as load limits, clearance restrictions, or improves street connectivity Will this project improve safety on the freight system? High or Low ? Low ? Minimal or no impact on system safety ? High ? Reduces vehicle/rail con?icts, reduces risk of catastrophic failure, improves intersection turn movements at high accident locations Will this project improve access to the airpor t, marine terminals or intermodal rail facilities? High or Low Does this project improve primary access to airpor t, marine terminals, or intermodal facilities? ? Low ? No ? High ? Yes Public Bene?t Metrics Will this project contribute to improved air quality? High or Low ? Low ? Does not reduce idling or travel time ? High ? Reduces idling or travel time Will this project also bene?t transit, walking, bicycling? High, Medium, or Low ? Low ? Bene?ts 1 alternative mode ? Medium ? Bene?ts 2 alternative modes ? High ? Bene?ts 3 or more alternative modes Freight Master Plan 2 6 5 5 5 5 8 4 8 4 2 0 5 2 0 5 2 0 5 4 0 5 2 1 7 H - 1 3 H - 1 0 H - 5 H - 9 H - 1 2 H - 8 H - 6 H - 7 H - 3 H - 1 H - 4 H - 1 1 H - 2 Funded Map ID Project Name H7 I-5, N (Expo Center - Lombard): Widening Freeway H10 I-5/Nor th Macadam Access Improvements, SW Tier 1 Map ID Project Name H6 I-5, N (at Columbia Blvd): Interchange Improvements H8 I-5, N (Lloyd District/Rose Quar ter): Reconstruction and Widening Tier 2 Map ID Project Name H3 I-205, NE (I-205/Airpor t Way) Interchange Improvement at NB On-ramp H4 I-205, NE (I-205/Airpor t Way) Interchange Improvement at SB O?-ramp H5 I-405/US 26/Ross Island Bridge, SW: Access Improvements H13 Ross Island Bridge Interchange, SW Figure 9 Highway Improvements HIGHWAY Tier 3 Map ID Project Name H1 Airpor t Way, NE: Braided Ramps H2 I-205 ,NE (Columbia Blvd - Airpor t Way): Auxiliar y Lane H9 I-5/ McLoughlin, SE: Construct Access Ramps H11 I-84/I-205, NE: Auxiliar y Lane H12 McLoughlin (99E), SE (Ross Island Bridge - Clatsop): Multi-modal Improvements Freight Master Plan 33 N M A R I N E D R N G R E E L E Y A V E N L O M B A R D S T N E B R O A D W A Y N P O R T L A N D R D N E F R E M O N T S T N P O R T L A N D B L V D N E P R E S C O T T S T N E K I L L I N G S W O R T H S T 5 S - 1 1 S - 4 2 S - 3 9 S - 3 8 S - 2 9 S - 2 1 S - 2 6 S - 2 7 S - 2 8 S - 6 S - 3 5 S - 2 4 S - 4 1 S - 4 6 Figure 10 Street Improvements - N & NW Portland STREET ? NORTH AND NORTHWEST PORTL AND Funded Map ID Project Name S27 Leadbetter, N (Marine Dr Loop): Street Extension/Overcrossing S28 Lombard, N (Rivergate - T-6): Multi-modal Improvements S29 Lombard/St. Louis/Ivanhoe Multimodal Improvements, N S41 Terminal 4 Driveway Consolidation S42 US 30 at Lake Yard Hub Facility, NW: Access Improvements Tier 1 Map ID Project Name S26 Heineman, N: Road Connection S21 Columbia Blvd/Por tland Rd, N: Intersection Improvements S24 Going/Greeley, N: Climbing Lane and Interchange Improvements S38 St Helens Rd (US 30), NW, (in Willbridge area): Tra?c Improvements Tier 2 Map ID Project Name S11 112th Ave/US 30, NW: Intersection Improvements S35 River Ave, N (Por t Center Way - River Ave): Street Extension S39 St. Helens Rd (US 30), NW (at Saltzman & Balboa): Intersection Realignment Tier 3 Map ID Project Name S6 14/16th Connections, NW S46 Ivanhoe/Philadelphia, N: Intersection Improvements Freight Master Plan N E M A R I N E D R S E D I V I S I O N S T S E P O W E L L B L V D N E G L I S A N S T S E H O L G A T E B L V D S E S T A R K S T E B U R N S I D E S T N E C O L U M B I A B L V D N E H A L S E Y S T S E 3 9 T H A V E N E 1 2 2 N D A V EN E F R E M O N T S T N E K I L L I N G S W O R T H S T N E 1 4 8 T H A V E N E S A N D Y B L V D S E 9 2 N D A V E S E 1 2 2 N D A V E N E P R E S C O T T S T N E 3 3 R D A V E N E 1 0 2 N D A V E N E 3 3 R D D R N E L O M B A R D S T N E B R O A D W A Y S W N A I T O P K Y N M A R I N E D R S E 1 6 2 N D A V ES E H A W T H O R N E B L V D N E M A R T I N L U T H E R K I N G J R B L V D S E 1 1 2 T H A V E S E 1 3 6 T H A V E S E 1 7 T H A V E N L O M B A R D S T N G R E E L E Y A V E S E W A S H I N G T O N S T N W N A I T O P K Y N E 8 2 N D A V E N C O L U M B I A B L V D S E 6 0 T H A V E N P O R T L A N D B L V D N W 1 8 T H A V E S W B R O A D W A Y N E P R E S C O T T S T N E 8 2 N D A V E N E H A L S E Y S T 2 0 5 S - 2 0 S - 3 1 S - 1 7 S - 5 S - 3 7 S - 2 2 S - 1 6 S - 1 5 S - 1 9 S - 8 S - 1 3 S - 1 4 S - 3 3 S - 9 S - 1 0 S - 3 0 S - 2 3 S - 3 4 S - 1 2 S - 4 5 S - 4 7 Figure 11 Street Improvements - NE Portland STREET ? NORTHEAST PORTL AND Funded Map ID Project Name S7 47th, NE (Columbia - Cornfoot): Roadway & Intersection Improvements S8 82nd Ave/Alder wood Rd, NE: Intersection Improvements S22 Cornfoot, NE (47th-Alder wood): Road Widening & Intersection Improvements S23 East End Connector, NE S47 82nd/Columbia, NE: Intersection Improvements Tier 1 Map ID Project Name S5 11th/13th, NE (at Columbia Blvd): Roadway Connector S9 87th/Columbia, NE: Intersection Improvement S15 Alder wood/Columbia Blvd/Cully, NE: Intersection Improvements S16 Alder wood/Cornfoot Road, NE: Intersection Improvement S20 Columbia Blvd/MLK Jr & Lombard/MLK Jr, NE: Intersection Improvements S33 Mt St Helens Ave, NE (Cascades Parkway ? Alder wood Rd): Street Extension Tier 2 Map ID Project Name S10 92nd Ave, NE, (Alder wood - Columbia Bl): Street Improvements S13 Airpor t Way, NE (82nd - PDX Terminal): Street Widening S14 Airpor t Way, NE: Access Road S19 Columbia Blvd, NE (60th - 82nd): Road Widening S30 Marx Dr, NE (82nd-87th): Street Extension S31 MLK Jr, NE (Columbia - Lombard): Widen Street S37 Southwest Quad, NE (at 33rd): Access to PDX Proper ties Tier 3 Map ID Project Name S12 158th, NE (Columbia Slough - Sandy Bl): Street Improvements S17 Argyle, NE (14th - MLK): Street Extension S34 Parkrose Connectivity Improvements, NE S36 Southern Triangle Circulation Improvements, SE S45 Sandy Bl, NE (122nd - City Limits): Multimodal Improvements Freight Master Plan 35 S E 3 9 T H A V E S E S T A R K S T E B U R N S I D E S T S E B E L M O N T S T S E P O W E L L B L V D S E 1 2 T H A V E S E 1 1 T H A V E S E H A W T H O R N E B L V D S E G R A N D A V E S E H O L G A T E B L V D S E 7 T H A V E S E 1 7 T H A V E S E M O R R I S O N S T S E M I L W A U K I E A V E S E 2 0 T H A V E S W N A I T O P K Y S E 2 6 T H A V E B U R N S I D E B R G H A W T H O R N E B R G S E D I V I S I O N S T S E 2 0 T H A V E 5 S - 4 0 S - 1 S - 3 2 S - 1 8 S - 4 4 S - 2 5 S - 2 S - 4 3 S - 3 6 S - 3 S - 4 Figure 12 Street Improvements - Central Eastside Portland STREET ? SOUTHEAST PORTL AND Funded Map ID Project Name S32 Morrison Bridge at Water Ave Ramp, SE: Ramp Realignment Tier 1 Map ID Project Name S2 4th Ave, SE (Caruthers ? Ivon): Multi-modal Street Improvements S3 7th/8th Ave, SE: New Street Connection S25 Grand Ave, SE: Bridgehead Improvements S43 Water Ave, SE (Caruthers ? Division Pl): Street Extension Phase II Tier 2 Map ID Project Name S4 11th/12th/Railroad Crossing, SE (West of Division): Intersection Improvements S18 Belmont Ramp, SE (Eastside of Morrison Bridge): Ramp Reconstruction S40 Stark St, SE (2nd - Grand): Safety & Capacity Improvements S44 Water Ave, SE (Stark - Clay): Reconstruction Tier 3 Map ID Project Name S1 1st Ave, SE (Stark - Clay): Railroad Mainline Access Improvements Freight Master Plan S M 5 S M 1 0 S M 1 S M 1 2 S M 1 6 S M 1 3 S M 8 S M 1 1 S M 6 S M 9 S M 1 5 S M 2 S M 3 S M 7 S M 4 S M 1 4 N L O M B A R D S T N E C O L U M B I A B L V D N M A R I N E D R N W S T H E L E N S R D S W B E A V E R T O N H I L L S D A L E H W Y S W M A C A D A M A V E N E M L K J R B L V D N E S A N D Y B L V D S E M C L O U G H L I N B L V D N W 1 4 T H A V E N E A I R P O R T W A Y N E 1 2 2 N D A V E S E 8 2 N D A V E Figure 13 System Management Improvements SYSTEM MANAGEMENT Funded Map ID Project Name SM2 82nd, NE/SE: ITS Tier 1 Map ID Project Name SM4 Airpor t Way, NE (I-205 - 158th): ITS SM6 Columbia Blvd, N/NE(I-205 - Burgard): ITS SM8 Going, N (Interstate - Greeley): ITS SM14 Rivergate ITS, N SM16 Yeon/St. Helens, NW: ITS Tier 2 Map ID Project Name SM3 122nd, NE/SE (Airpor t Way - Powell): ITS SM10 Macadam, SW (Bancroft - Sellwood Br): ITS SM11 Marine Dr, N/NE (Por tland Rd to 185th): ITS SM12 McLoughlin, SE: ITS SM13 MLK Jr, N (Columbia Bl - CEID): ITS SM17 Powell Blvd, SE (Milwaukie ? 122nd): ITS Tier 3 Map ID Project Name SM1 14th/16th, NW/SW & 13th/14th, SW, Glisan - Clay: ITS, Clay to Glisan SM5 Beaver ton-Hillsdale Hwy, SW: ITS SM7 Foster Rd, SE: ITS SM9 Lombard, N/NE (MLK Jr - Philadelphia): ITS SM15 Sandy Bl, NE (82nd - Burnside): ITS Freight Master Plan 37 B - 1 3 B - 1 4 B - 1 7 B - 1 1 B - 1 6 B - 7 B - 9 B - 1 B - 2 B - 3 B - 5 B - 6 B - 4 B - 1 2 B - 1 8 B - 1 0 B - 1 5 B - 8 N L O M B A R D S T N E S A N D Y B L V D N M A R I N E D R N E M L K J R B L V D S E 3 9 T H A V E N E B R O A D W A Y N E 8 2 N D A V E N E G L I S A N S T S E S T A R K S T N L O M B A R D S T N E C O L U M B I A B L V D N E 3 3 R D A V E S E F O S T E R R D S W B A R B U R B L V D B - 1 9 Figure 14 Bridge Improvements BRIDGE Funded Map ID Project Name B3 33rd, NE (at Columbia Slough): Bridge Replacement B4 33rd, NE (at Lombard): Bridge Replacement B8 Foster Rd, Bridge at Johnson Creek: Bridge Replacement B9 Going St Bridge, N: Bridge Rehabilitation B10 Grand/ MLK Jr Viaduct, SE: Reconstruct Viaduct B11 I-5, N (Columbia River - Columbia Bl): Bridge Widening B13 Lombard at Columbia Slough Overcrossing (Rivergate), N: Rehabilitation B14 Lombard St. (Burgard), N: Bridge Replacement B18 Willamette River Bridges, NE/NW/SE/SW: Rehabilitation for Broadway, Burnside, Morrison, and Sauvie Island (Phased improvement program) Tier 1 Map ID Project Name B7 Denver Viaduct, N: Reconstruct Viaduct (Identi?ed as Phase 2 B15 Sellwood Bridge, SE/SW: Bridge Replacement B16 Vancouver BNSF Rail Bridge Project (Columbia River) B19 Vancouver Bridge, N (at Columbia Slough): Bridge Replacement Tier 2 Map ID Project Name B1 21st, NE (at Columbia Slough): Bridge Replacement Tier 3 Map ID Project Name B2 33rd Ramps, NE, (at Columbia Bl/Lombard): New Ramps B5 42nd Bridge, NE (at Lombard): Bridge Replacement B6 82nd/Airpor t Way, NE: Overcrossing B12 Interstate, N, Bridge at Larrabee: Bridge Rehabilitation B17 West Hayden Crossing, N: New Bridge Freight Master Plan N E M L K J R B L V D N E C N M A R I N E D R N C O L U M B I A B L V DN W S K Y L I N E B L V D N E 3 3 R D A V E N W C O R N E L L R D N E 3 3 R D D R S E S T A R K S T N W I L L A M E T T E B L V D N G R E E L E Y A V E N E M A R I N E D R N E B R O A D W A Y N E L O M B A R D S T N E F R E M O N T S T N L O M B A R D S T W B U R N S I D E R D N W T H O M P S O N R D W B U R N S I D E S T N P O R T L A N D R D N E K I L L I N G S W O R T H S T N P O R T L A N D B L V D N W N A I T O P K Y N W S T H E L E N S R D N E G L I S A N S T N D E N V E R A V E N W G E R M A N T O W N R D N G O I N G S T N U N I O N C T N E P R E S C O T T S T N L O M B A R D S T R - 1 3 R - 1 4 R - 3 R - 6 R - 5 R - 2 R - 1 1 R - 1 6 R - 1 5 R - 1 2 R - 1 R - 8 R - 7 R - 9 R - 1 0 R - 1 7 Figure 15 Rail Improvements RAIL Tier 1 Map ID Project Name R7 Ramsey Rail Complex, N (south of Columbia Slough Bridge): Capacity Improvements R8 Rivergate Rail Yard Expansion, N R10 T-5 Unit Rail Loops #3 & #4 R11 T-6 Intermodal Third Lead R16 West Hayden Island/Rivergate, N: Rail Access R17 Barnes to Terminal 4, N: Truck Expansion Tier 2 Map ID Project Name R1 Barnes Rail Yard - Bonneville Rail Yard, N: Track Expansion R2 BNSF Line @ Columbia Bridge, N: Track Improvements R5 Nor th Por tland Junction, N: Rail Improvements R6 Penn Junction, N, UP/BNSF Main Line: Track Realignment R12 Terminal 6 A&B Yards R13 UP Line Connection, SE (Brooklyn line - Graham line) R14 UP Line UPgrade, SE (Albina Yard - East Por tland) Tier 3 Map ID Project Name R3 Kenton Rail Line, NE: Additional RR Tracks R4 Marine Dr, N (at Rivergate West): Rail Crossing, Phase II R9 Slough Rail Bridge, N R15 West Hayden Island Rail Yard Expansion, West Hayden Island Freight Master Plan 39 N M A R I N E D R N C O L U M B I A B L V D N L O M B A R D S T N P O R T L A N D R D N W G E R M A N T O W N R D N S M I T H S T N W I L L A M E T T E B L V D S T J O H N S B R G N L O M B A R D S T M - 1 , M - 3 , M - 4 , M - 1 2 , M - 1 3 , M - 1 4 , M - 1 5 , M - 1 6 , M - 1 7 T E R M I N A L 6 M - 5 , M - 6 , M - 7 , M - 8 , M - 9 , M - 1 0 , M - 1 1 T E R M I N A L 4 M - 2 Figure 16 Marine Improvements MARINE Funded Map ID Project Name M2 Columbia River Channel Deepening - Regional Share, N/NE M3 Container Crane - Terminal 6 M4 Honda Facility Upgrade, N M10 Terminal 4 Pier 2 Rail Yard Improvements, N M13 Terminal 6 Ber th Deepening M14 Terminal 6 Computer System Upgrades, N Tier 1 Map ID Project Name M1 Access Tunnel at Hyundai/Kia Facility, N M5 Hyundai Auto Terminal Expansion, N M6 Mar Com Nor th Facility, N M7 Optional Terminal Lower Lot Access, N M8 Terminal 4 Grain Elevator Barge Conveyor Rebuild, N M9 Terminal 4 On-site Overcrossing, N M15 Terminal 6 Container Dock Extension, N Tier 2 Map ID Project Name M11 Terminal 4, N: Access Improvements M16 Terminal 6 Dock Structural Upgrades, N Tier 3 Map ID Project Name M12 Terminal 6 Additional Post-Panamax Cranes, N M17 Terminal 6 - Marine Dr, N: Overcrossing Freight Master Plan FUNDING THE FREIGHT SYSTEM Appendix C includes an in depth discussion of the federal, state, regional and local transportation ?nancing options for freight infrastructure improvements. 6 T RUCKS AND S TREET D ESIGNT RUCKS AND S TREET D ESIGN Freight Master Plan 41 INTRODUC TION S uccessful implementation of the freight mobility improvements and policies for trucks described in this document are based on the expectation that appropriate and consistent design practices are used for safe and convenient truck travel on city streets. Planning and designing for truck circulation and access is essential for all environments and districts in the city. Streets within industrial areas as well as those that provide direct connections between industrial areas and the regional freeway system need to fully accommodate truck movements without impeding their mobility. In mixed-use areas, lane widths and corner radii may be narrowed to compel trucks to travel more slowly in order to provide a streetscape that supports signi?cant pedestrian travel. In residential areas, all vehicle travel is limited to slower speeds, and streets in these areas are intended for local truck deliveries. Accommodating truck travel in these and other environments requires careful design practices that balance the needs of all users of the street. This chapter provides a general overview of street design for trucks. The Portland Design Guide for Trucks , a companion document to the Freight Master Plan, is an in-depth look at street design and trucks. D i m e n s i o n s o f T y p i c a l D e s i g n V e h i c l e s PL ANNING FOR TRUCKS IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY Trucks come in many shapes and sizes, dictated by the goods or materials being hauled and the distance that the goods travel. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation O?cials (AASHTO) have developed a classi?cation system that identi?es trucks by their approximate overall vehicle height, width, and length. This classi?cation ranges from the SU-30 Single Unit truck (e.g., cement trucks, large rental trucks, local delivery trucks) up to the WB-67 Interstate truck (large semi-trailer with sleeper cab equipped tractor; this class also includes double and triple trailer combinations). Figure 15 shows the typical dimensions of the AASHTO standard vehicles referenced in these guidelines, and Table 6 lists the speci?c characteristics of each vehicle type. Additional information on these and other design vehicles can be found in the AASHTO ?Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets?. 19 While procedural guidance can be developed to provide general direction for design of intersections for trucks, the ?nal con?guration and best overall design of an intersection must still be completed by experienced designers. Basic geometric considerations, such as the angle at which the roads intersect, the presence of buildings abutting the right of way, and use of right-turn lanes will vary from intersection to intersection. Moreover, the surrounding land use, existing development, and many other factors could in?uence speci?c decisions about intersection design. 19 Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets , American Association of State Highway and Transpor tation O?cials, 2004. Figure 17 Dimensions of Typical Design Vehicles Freight Master Plan Portland?s Street Classi?cation Designations Streets within the City of Portland are designated by functional classi?cations on the basis of the tra?c they are intended and expected to carry and the desired performance of tra?c on those streets. With each designation comes a set of design principles to accomplish those functions. For example, Regional Truckways carry high volumes of intercity and interstate truck tra?c on limited access highways with high speed limits, while Local Truck Streets are intended to accommodate local deliveries on streets with relatively slow travel speed limits. Trucks in Freight Districts Priority Truck Streets and local streets in Freight Districts should be designed to provide for good truck mobility, access, and circulation. Because trucks measure about 10.5? wide (including side mirrors) it is important to provide adequate roadway lane width for a truck to travel without encroaching into an adjacent lane, where another vehicle could be struck or forced to take evasive action. In addition, most trucks require a minimum vertical clearance of at least 14? between the roadway and overhead ?xed objects. In addition to lane width and vertical clearance, other items to consider when designing a corridor for high truck activity include corner and median island radii, location of signs, utility and signal poles, street trees, and other roadside items. Table 6 Truck Design Vehicle Characteristics and Turning Movement Information Design Vehicles Symbol Trailer Wheelbase Overall Length Minimum Design Turning Radius Truck Widths* (without mirrors) Minimum Inside Radius** Automobile P none 11? 19? 24? na 14.4? Bus Bus none 25? 40? 42? 8.5? 24.5? Signal Unit Truck SU-30 none 20? 30? 42? 8.5? 28.3? Intermediate Semi -Trailer WB-40 33? trailer 40? 45? 40? 8.5? 19.3? Intermediate Semi -Trailer WB-50 42.5? trailer 50? 55? 45? 8.5? 17.0? Intermediate Semi -Trailer WB-62 48? trailer 62? 68.6? 45? 8.5? 7.9? Intermediate Semi -Trailer WB-67 53? trailer 65? 73.5? 45? 8.5? 4.4? Source: AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets , 2001, Four th Edition. * Mirrors on trucks extend between 12? and 18? from the frame of the truck. ** For a 180-degree turn. Truck exiting T-6 in Rivergate Industrial District. Truck activity on N. Marine Dr. Freight Master Plan 43 Trucks in Mixed-Use Neighborhoods Portland?s mixed-use pedestrian and bicycle-friendly neighborhoods are hubs of activity hosting a variety of commercial and retail shops, restaurants, and residences and are referred to as ?Centers? and ?Main Streets?. Common features that bene?t pedestrians, such as narrow streets, curb extensions, and parked cars, are the toughest challenges for trucks and can impact the ability of trucks to maneuver, particularly compared to the streetscape provided in Freight Districts. In most instances, deliveries to businesses in these locations can be completed with smaller trucks. Their compact size and tight turning radius make them suitable for narrow street geometries and local deliveries. Typical trucks include the SU-30 and WB-40 truck types. However, on occasion larger trucks, such as a WB-50 truck or a WB-67 truck, must circulate in a Center or Main Street area to make a delivery. The key design elements that need to be considered for the occasional large truck is intersection design. Figure 18 illustrates how a WB-67 truck would negotiate a right-hand turn onto a 4-lane street with a 15? turning radius. Note that the truck has to position to the left and use as much space as possible to turn the trailer into the desired direction. Figure 19 illustrates how a WB-67 truck completes a right-turn into a two- lane street. This is one of the most di?cult street conditions a truck driver might face. Note how much of the on-street parking space the truck needs to complete the turn. Trucks in Residential Areas Portland?s residential neighborhoods are principally designed for automobile, pedestrian and bicycle movements, and very low volumes of truck activity. While occasional large delivery trucks and moving vans travel in these areas, the more common truck type is smaller-sized delivery trucks. The streets serving residential areas are classi?ed for local truck deliveries, and they are not intended for through truck trips. Trucks in these areas travel at relatively slow speeds and trucks conduct loading from on-street or even residential driveway locations. Lane widths on streets within residential areas are often relatively narrow and may feature on-street parking on one or both sides of the street. The combination of these elements leads to slow posted speeds (typically under 25 mph), and in many instances, tra?c calming devices (such as raised center islands, landscaping treatments, rumble strips, and speed bumps) to reinforce the speed limits and improve pedestrian safety. The minimum width for streets in residential neighborhoods with parking on both sides is 32?, but many streets are as narrow as 20?. Similar to Centers and Main Streets, truck movements are complicated by limited curb radii, narrow roadways, and often, parked vehicles near intersections. Figure 18 Illustration of Large Truck at Four-Lane Intersection Right-hand turn by a WB-67 truck into a four-lane street with 15? curb radius. Right-hand turn by a WB-67 truck into a two-lane street with 15? curb radius. Figure 19 Illustration of Large Truck at Two-Lane Intersection Deliver y trucks on Hawthorne. Freight Master Plan ?DESIGN FOR? VERSUS ?ACCOMMODATE? APPROACHES TO ADDRESSING TRUCK ACCESS In the design of an intersection, it is essential to anticipate the type and size of trucks that will be accessing the intersection. Current and future use of adjacent property, roadway classi?cation, truck route designation, and the need for a truck to turn at a particular intersection versus taking another more accessible route are some of the pertinent information needed to assess the level of truck activity. With an understanding of the expected truck type, the designer evaluates the turning track maneuvers of a vehicle using AASHTO turning templates or specialized computer software such as AutoTURN, 20 including the path followed by the corners of the vehicle body or trailer, as well as the inside rear wheels. For a typical passenger vehicle, the path followed by the rear wheels is very nearly the same as that of the front wheels. With larger vehicles, the swept area becomes much larger as the inside rear wheels track substantially inside of the path of the front wheels. This becomes the most critical factor in sizing the intersection. When developing designs to fully accommodate truck movements through an intersection, the designer establishes a travel path that allows the selected vehicle to remain entirely within its designated lane or lanes as it completes its turn. With respect to accommodating a truck in a tight street environment, the designer assumes more latitude for the vehicle path, including encroachment on adjacent lanes approaching and/or departing the intersection. (See Figure 18) When seeking to accommodate larger vehicles in tight street environments, the designer often assumes a truck driver will shift to the left, hugging the lane line, before beginning a right turn, and will use all available lanes moving in their direction to begin and complete the turn. This can produce interference with other tra?c during the times when trucks are turning. This is sometimes referred to as ?operational accommodation? since the compromise is some loss of operational e?ciency of tra?c movements. If this maneuvering by large trucks is infrequent or if the general tra?c volume is low, the interference from the encroachment into adjacent lanes moving in the same direction as the trucks is considered acceptable. If physical constraints, such as limited right of way, restrict the ability for all trucks to conveniently complete a turn, the designer may be forced to further compromise the intersection operation with regard to large trucks. At a minimum, the designer seeks to assure ?physical accommodation? of large vehicles. In such cases, the designer tries to design the intersection such that there are no permanent physical features that prevent a large vehicle from negotiating a corner. For example, the designer could assume that the entire street width is available for truck maneuvering. This maneuvering may require that trucks use opposing travel Figure 18 Examples of ?Design For ? and ?Accommodate? 20 AutoTURN is a registered trademark of Transoft Solutions. Figure 1b: Designing for Minimal and Optimal Truck Circulation at Intersections. Note: This is just one example of how a designer might accommodate truck movements in a low traffic volume situation. This is just one example of how a designer might accommodate truck movements in a low tra?c volume situation. Freight Master Plan 45 lanes normally used by oncoming tra?c, and could require pilot cars, ?aggers, or permits. Designing for minimal truck circulation and access may not be a desirable condition; however, if truck tra?c is infrequent and tra?c volumes are low, it is a workable operation and would have little e?ect on an overall streetscape concept. In addition, the designer seeks to keep tra?c signal poles, ?re hydrants and other street features outside the obstruction free zone of a street corner so that in extreme cases, trucks might even drive over the curb to complete a turn. Over-Dimensional Load Considerations Over-dimension variance permits are required by the Oregon Department of Transportation when truck width exceeds 8.5? (excluding side mirrors) or when truck height exceeds 14?. Pilot cars are required according to the segment of highway being traversed. On some highways, pilot cars may be required for loads as narrow as 9?, but on other highways loads of 12? or even 14? may be permitted without pilot cars. The City?s Continuous Operating Variance Permit Map provides guidance on designated pilot car routes. The Manual on Uniform Tra?c Control Devices (MUTCD) speci?es that tra?c signals be mounted with the bottom no less than 17? and no more than 19? above the pavement. In actual practice, some tra?c signals in the Portland area fall outside these parameters. As indicated in the previous paragraph, trucks higher than 14? require permits, so that the placement of tra?c signals, even those mounted lower than the standard speci?ed in the MUTCD, do not interfere with regular loads. Since over-dimensional loads are an important form of freight, it is important to give these types of movements some consideration. CONSIDERING TRUCKS IN DESIGN This section provides a list of design considerations and suggested design practices for accommodating trucks in Centers and Main Street areas for use by engineers, architects, designers, and planners involved in the design and planning of street design concepts, land developments, and streetscapes that require access by trucks. Coordination with Street Classi?cations Streets in the City are classi?ed according to their function in the transportation system. Higher-classi?ed routes such as I-5 and US 26 carry high volumes of tra?c over long distances, and have a signi?cant number of larger vehicles. Lower- classi?ed streets such as Neighborhood Collectors carry primarily passenger car tra?c to and from residential areas. Policy language describes the desired function and design priorities for street classi?cations. The ?design for? approach should be applied to Regional Truckways, Priority Truck Streets, Major Truck Streets, and in Freight Districts. The ?accommodate? approach should be applied to Truck Access Streets. In the case of Major Truck Streets, the ?design for? approach must be balanced with other street design considerations when there streets are also designated as City Walkways or located in Pedestrian Districts. Plan for Trucks Early in the Process Truck circulation should be considered early in the conceptual development of street design, as well as in the conceptual stages of a land use development proposal. During street design, consideration should be given to the level of truck activity along a street and access to and from adjacent properties. Street characteristics such as lane width, area and design of existing intersections need to be evaluated for their suitability to the types of trucks that are needed for businesses in the area. This is particularly important in existing urbanized areas outside of Freight Districts where con?icts with trucks are more likely to occur. Other land uses in the area that use trucks should also be noted. Freight Master Plan During the conceptual design/design development stages of street design and land use actions, trucks need to be carefully considered in the design of loading facilities. Access to loading facilities (on- or o?- street) and to properties on those streets need to be considered. A PPENDIX A A Freight Master Plan A-1 COMPREHENSIVE PL AN POLICIES FOR FREIGHT MOBILIT Y Appendix A includes the Comprehensive Plan policy and objectives pertaining to freight mobility. Refer to the Comprehensive Plan or Transportation System Plan for the complete set of transportation policies and objectives. An asterisk (*) next to the policy or objective indicates that no changes to the current language have been proposed. Goal 5 Economic Development Goal 5.4, Transportation System* Promote a multimodal regional transportation system that stimulates and supports long term economic development and business investment. Objective A Support multimodal freight transportation improvements to provide competitive regional access to global markets and facilitate the e?cient movement of goods and services in and out of Portland?s major industrial and commercial districts. Ensure access to intermodal terminals and related distribution facilities to facilitate the local, national, and international distribution of goods and services. Objective B Use transportation system improvements as a catalyst for attracting industrial and employment development. Objective H Pursue transportation and parking improvements that reinforce commercial, industrial and residential districts and promote development of new districts. Goal 6 Transportation Policy 6.3 Transportation Education* Implement educational programs that support a range of transportation choices and emphasize safety for all modes of travel. Objective B* Implement educational programs that recognize the need for developing and maintaining a multimodal transportation system that supports the movement of freight as well as people. Policy 6.9 Freight Classi?cation Descriptions Designate a system of truck streets, railroad lines, and intermodal freight facilities that support local, national, and international distribution of goods and services. Objective A. Freight Districts Freight Districts are intended to provide safe and convenient truck mobility and access in industrial and employment areas serving high levels of truck tra?c and to accommodate the needs of intermodal freight movement. ? Land Use. Support locating industrial and employment land uses that rely on multimodal freight movement in Freight Districts. ? Function. Freight District streets provide local truck access and circulation to industrial and employment land uses. ? Connections. In Freight Districts, streets not classi?ed as Regional Truckways or Priority Truck Streets are classi?ed as Freight District streets. Freight District streets connect individual properties to Priority Truck Streets. ? Design. Freight District streets should be designed to facilitate the movement of all truck types and over-dimensional loads, as practicable. Freight Master Plan Objective B. Regional Truckways Regional Truckways are intended to facilitate interregional and interstate movement of freight. ? Land Use. Support locating industrial and employment land uses with high levels of truck activity near Regional Truckway interchanges. ? Function. Provide for safe and e?cient continuous-?ow operation for trucks. ? Connection. Provide Regional Truckway interchanges that directly serve Freight Districts and connect to Priority Truck Streets and other streets with high levels of truck activity. ? Design. Design Regional Truckways to be limited access facilities and to standards that facilitate the movement of all truck types. Objective C. Priority Truck Streets Priority Truck Streets are intended to serve as the primary route for access and circulation in Freight Districts, and between Freight Districts and Regional Truckways. ? Land Use. Support locating industrial and employment uses that generate high truck activity on corridors served by Priority Truck Streets. ? Function. Priority Truck Streets accommodate high truck volumes and provide high-quality mobility and access. ? Connections. Priority Truck Streets connect Freight Districts to Regional Truckways. ? Design. Priority Truck Streets should be designed to facilitate the movement of all truck classes and over-dimensional loads, as practicable. Bu?er adjacent residential uses from noise impacts, where warranted. Objective D. Major Truck Streets Major Truck Streets are intended to serve as principal routes for trucks in a Transportation District. ? Land Use. Commercial and employment land uses that generate high levels of truck activity should locate along Major Truck Streets. ? Function. Major Truck Streets provide truck mobility within a Transportation District and access to commercial and employment uses along the corridor. ? Connections. Major Truck Streets connect Transportation District-level truck trips to Regional Truckways. Trucks with no trip ends within a Transportation District should be discouraged from using Major Truck Streets. ? Design. Major Truck Streets should accommodate all truck types, as practicable. Objective E. Truck Access Streets Truck Access Streets are intended to serve as an access and circulation route for delivery of goods and services to neighborhood-serving commercial and employment land uses. ? Land Use. Support locating commercial land uses that generate lower volumes of truck trips on Truck Access Streets. ? Function. Truck Access Streets should provide access and circulation to land uses within a Transportation District. Non-local truck trips are discouraged from using Truck Access Streets. ? Connections. Truck Access Streets should distribute truck trips from Major Truck Streets to neighborhood-serving destinations. ? Design. Design Truck Access Streets to accommodate truck needs in balance with other modal needs of the street. Objective F. Local Service Truck Streets Local Service Truck Streets are intended to serve local truck circulation and access. ? Land Use. Local Service Truck Streets provide for goods and service delivery to individual commercial, employment, and residential locations outside of Freight Districts. ? Function. Local Service Truck Streets should provide local truck access and circulation only. ? Connections. All streets, outside of Freight Districts, not classi?ed as Regional Truckways, Priority Truck Streets, Major Truck Streets, or Truck Access Streets are classi?ed as Local Service Truck Streets. Local Service Truck Streets with a higher Tra?c classi?cation are the preferred routes for local access and circulation. ? Design. Local Service Truck Streets should give preference to accessing individual properties and the speci?c needs of property owners and residents along the street. Use of restrictive signage and operational accommodation are appropriate for Local Service Truck Streets. Freight Master Plan A-3 Objective G. Railroad Main Lines Railroad Main Lines transport freight cargo and passengers over long distance as part of a railway network. Objective H. Railroad Branch Lines Railroad Branch Lines transport freight cargo over short distances on local rail lines that are not part of a rail network and distribute cargo to and from main line railroads. Objective I. Freight Facilities Freight Facilities include the major marine, air, rail, and pipeline terminals that facilitate the local, national and international movement of freight. Policy 6.13 Tra?c Calming* Manage tra?c on Neighborhood Collectors and Local Tra?c Streets, along main streets, and in centers consistent with their street classi?cations, classi?cation descriptions, and desired land uses. Objective C*. Encourage non-local tra?c, including trucks, to use streets of higher tra?c and truck classi?cation through design, operations, permitting, and signing. Policy 6.15 Transportation System Management* Give preference to transportation improvements that use existing roadway capacity e?ciently and improve the safety of the system. Objective B. Employ transportation system management measures, including coordinating and synchronizing signals and intersection design, to improve mobility and safety for all modes. Policy 6.29 Multimodal Freight System Develop and maintain a multimodal freight transportation system for the safe, reliable, and e?cient movement of freight within and through the City. Explanation: The relationship between the movement of freight, goods and services is also addressed by objectives under Policy 5.4, Transportation System, of the Economic Development goal of the Comprehensive Plan. Objective A Support a well-integrated freight system that includes truck, rail, marine, air, and pipeline modes as vital to a healthy economy. Objective B Coordinate with private and public stakeholders to identify improvement and funding strategies for multimodal freight mobility needs. Objective C Participate with inter-jurisdictional partners in the development of corridor plans, master plans, and regional facility plans that impact freight mobility. Objective D Address freight access and mobility needs when conducting multimodal transportation studies or designing transportation facilities. Objective E Work with community stakeholders to minimize adverse impacts of freight activity on the environment and residential and mixed-use neighborhoods. Policy 6.30 Truck Mobility Develop, manage, and maintain a safe, e?cient, and reliable freight street network to serve Freight Districts, commercial areas, and neighborhoods. Freight Master Plan Explanation: This policy recognizes the City?s role in managing truck movement on its street system. Objective A Prioritize transportation investments in the freight street network that improve connections between Freight Districts and Regional Truckways. Objective B Accommodate truck travel on designated truck streets through improvements to facility design and operations that address the dimensional needs of trucks. Objective C Encourage through-truck tra?c to use Regional Truckways, Priority Truck Streets, and Major Truck Streets for mobility and Truck Access Streets and Local Service Truck Streets to access local destinations. Objective D Develop and implement street connectivity plans for Freight Districts to improve truck circulation and access to industrial land uses. Objective E Develop and implement a signage plan for designated truck routes and major freight destinations. Objective F Designate and maintain preferred routes to accommodate over-dimensional freight movement. Objective G Employ intelligent transportation system measures to reduce delays and improve travel time on Regional Truckways, Priority Truck Streets and Major Truck Streets. Policy 6.XX Truck Accessibility Improve truck access to and from intermodal freight facilities, industrial and commercial districts, and the regional freight system. Objective A Evaluate and improve locations where inadequate roadway design creates barriers for truck access in Freight Districts and on designated truck streets. Objective B Upgrade bridges to remove load limits and vertical clearance restrictions on designated truck streets. Objective C Use public-private collaboration to identify and implement measures to minimize delays and improve safety at at-grade rail freight crossings. Objective D Provide adequate o?-street loading areas for larger employment, commercial and multi-family developments. Objective E Manage supply, operations, and demand of on-street truck loading spaces to ensure e?cient, reliable and safe loading and unloading activities. Objective F Implement design guidelines for truck streets that meet the dimensional needs of trucks, particularly for Freight Districts, while balancing the needs of other transportation modes in the right-of-way. Policy 6.34 North Transportation District* Reinforce neighborhood livability and commercial activity by planning and investing in a multimodal transportation network, relieving tra?c congestion through measures that reduce transportation demand, and routing non-local and industrial tra?c along the edges of the residential areas. Freight Master Plan A-5 Objective A* Improve truck and freight movement in North Portland through changes to the street system, street classi?cations, and signing to enhance the economic vitality of the area and minimize impacts on residential, commercial, and recreational areas. Objective B* Support the e?cient functioning of the N Marine Drive/N Lombard Street (west of N Philadelphia)/N Columbia Boulevard loop as the truck and commuter access to the Rivergate industrial areas and adjacent industrial areas. Objective C* Direct industrial tra?c onto N Columbia Boulevard, while allowing limited access from residential neighborhoods and mitigating for unacceptable tra?c impacts. Objective D* Re-evaluate the need for a truck designation on N Argyle when improvements to the I-5/Columbia interchange are constructed or other improvements are made that make the N Argyle/Interstate truck connection redundant. Objective E* Work with the Federal Highway Commission and ODOT to remove the US 30 Bypass designation from Philadelphia and Lombard, west of Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, and relocate it to more appropriate streets to minimize impacts on the St. Johns town center and the Lombard main street. Objective P Encourage the use of Columbia Boulevard as the primary route for over-dimensional truckloads while ensuring the role of N Lombard (west of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard) as an interim route until such time as improvements are completed that allow N Columbia to accommodate all types of over-dimensional truckloads. Policy 6.35 Northeast Transportation District Support the e?cient use of land in Northeast Portland by focusing on development and redevelopment where there will be a reduction in reliance on the automobile. Objective A* Encourage automobile and truck through-tra?c to use major arterials near the edges of the district to reduce peak-period tra?c impacts and to preserve neighborhood livability. Objective I* Implement the projects recommended in the Columbia Corridor Transportation Study that improve vehicle and transit access, safety for all modes, and local connections. Objective J* Balance the needs of adjacent land uses (located in a design zone) at the NE Lombard and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard intersection with the need for truck movement. Policy 6.36 Far Northeast Transportation District* Support transportation choices by focusing transit and tra?c movement on a well-de?ned system of arterials, implementing demand management measures, and encouraging walking and bicycling in the Far Northeast. Objective A* Enhance the arterial street system by improving connections between Neighborhood Collectors and District Collectors and eliminating bottlenecks, such as narrow rail viaducts, that contribute to intrusions into residential neighborhoods by commercial, industrial, and non-local tra?c. Policy 6.37 Southeast Transportation District* Reduce travel demand and reliance on the automobile in Southeast Portland to protect residential areas and industrial sanctuaries from non-local tra?c, while maintaining access to established commercial areas. Freight Master Plan Objective G Encourage regional and interdistrict truck tra?c to use Regional Truckways, Priority and Major Truck Streets in Southeast Portland by establishing convenient truck routing that better serves trucks, while protecting Southeast neighborhoods. Objective O Address the safety and access needs of pedestrians and bicyclists as part of freight-related street improvements for SE Holgate between SE 26th Avenue and McLoughlin Boulevard. Explanation: SE Holgate is a Priority Freight Street that provides an important truck access function to the Brooklyn freight district. However, street improvement plans for SE Holgate developed for the purpose of facilitating freight movements should not overwhelm the other modal uses of the street, especially the safety and access needs of pedestrians and bicyclists . Policy 6.38 Far Southeast Transportation District* Address transportation issues in the Far Southeast District by encouraging the use of transit and demand management measures, improving pedestrian/bicycle access, creating a more connected street system, and improving the functioning of arterials. Policy 6.39 Northwest Transportation District* Strengthen the multimodal transportation system in the Northwest District by increasing public transit use, encouraging transportation demand management measures, and improving pedestrian and bicycle access. Objective B* Route non-local tra?c, including non-local truck tra?c, on Major City Tra?c Streets and Regional Tra?cways in order to minimize con?icts between modes. Objective I* Improve access to NW 14th and 16th to support their function as connections to the commercial and industrial areas in Northwest Portland and to reduce impacts of non-local tra?c on residential areas. Objective L Preserve and enhance freight mobility, and industrial access in the Freight District, by maintaining or improving truck operations on Front Avenue, Yeon Avenue, Nicolai Street, St Helens Road, and the 14th and 16th Avenues couplet. Policy 6.40 Southwest Transportation District* Address outstanding transportation issues in the Southwest District through studies and multimodal improvements, and use the transportation policy and objectives in the Southwest Community Plan to evaluate potential changes to the street system. Goal 11B Public Rights-of Way Policy 11.10 Street Design and Right-of-Way Improvements* Design improvements to existing and new transportation facilities to implement transportation and land use goals and objectives. Objective E Use a variety of transportation resources in developing and designing projects for all City streets, such as the City of Portland?s Pedestrian Design Guide, Bicycle Master Plan-Appendix A, Design Guide for Truck Streets, and Design Guide for Public Street Improvements. A PPENDIX B B Freight Master Plan B-1 B-1 APPENDIX B FREIGHT SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS HIGHWAY H1 Airport Way, NE: Braided Ramps Construct braided ramps between the I-205 interchange and Cascade interchange to maintain capacity and improve safety on Airport Way and freeway interchanges. Est. Cost: $30 M Tier 3 H2 I-205 ,NE (Columbia Blvd - Airport Way): Auxiliary Lane New auxiliary lane on I-205 connecting Columbia Blvd and Airport Way ramps to reduce slowdowns and help improve safety for merging vehicles. Est. Cost: $20 M Tier 3 H3 I-205, NE (I-205/Airport Way) Interchange Improvement at NB On-ramp New I-205 NB on-ramp at Airport Way interchange to provide additional capacity for anticipated growth at interchange. Est. Cost: $23 M Tier 1 H4 I-205, NE (I-205/Airport Way) Interchange Improvement at SB Off-ramp Widen I-205 SB on-ramp at Airport Way interchange to provide additional capacity for anticipated growth at interchange. Est. Cost: $550 K Tier 2 H5 I-405/US 26/Ross Island Bridge, SW: Access Improvements Construct new freeway access from Ross Island Bridge to I-405 and US 26 to improve connections between regional facilities and separate traffic from neighborhood streets. Est. Cost: $50 M Tier 2 H6 I-5, N (at Columbia Blvd): Interchange Improvements Construct full direction access interchange based on recommendations from I-5: Delta Park to Lombard Environmental Assessment to improve connections between the Columbia Corridor industrial area and I-5. Est. Cost: $56 M Tier 1 H7 I-5, N (Expo Center - Lombard): Widening Freeway Widen I-5 to three lanes in each direction from Lombard to the Expo Center exit to improve safety and repair a system bottleneck. Est. Cost: $41 M Tier 1 - Funded H8 I-5, N (Lloyd District/Rose Quarter): Reconstruction and Widening Modernize freeway and ramps between I-84 interchange and Fremont Bridge. Project improves safety, access to the Lloyd District and Rose Quarter, and reduces delay. Est. Cost: $92 M Tier 1 Freight Master Plan B-2 H9 Ii-5/McLoughlin, SE: Construct Access Ramps Construct new ramps from McLoughlin to I-5NB near Division to improve connections. Est. Cost: $20M Tier 3 H10 I-5/North Macadam Access Improvements, SW Construct new off-ramp at NB I-5 to NB Macadam Ave to add capacity and improve safety. Est. Cost: $60.0 M Funded H11 I-84/I-205, NE: Auxiliary Lane New auxiliary lane from I-84 to I- 205 NB before Columbia Blvd to reduce slowdowns and help improve safety for merging vehicles. Est. Cost: $5 M Tier 3 H12 McLoughlin (99E), SE (Ross Island Bridge - Clatsop): Multi- modal Improvements Provide access management, reversible travel lane from Ross Island Bridge to Harold, widen to six lanes from Harold to I-205 and construct pedestrian and bike facilities. Project reduces vehicle delay and improves corridor access for pedestrian and bicycles. Est. Cost: $96.5 M Tier 3 H13 Ross Island Bridge Interchange, SW US 26 Interchange improvement on east approach to Ross Island Bridge. Est. Cost: $4.4 M Tier 2 STREET S1 1st Ave, SE (Stark - Clay): Railroad Mainline Access Improvements Construct limited roadway access improvements, such as one-way vehicle circulation loops or loading zones, along the east side of the ROW adjacent to, but protected from, the railroad mainline. $750 K Tier 3 S2 4th Ave, SE (Caruthers - Ivon): Multi-modal Street Improvements Improve geometrically constrained 4th and Caruthers intersection to facilitate truck turning movements. Construct urban standard street improvements for traffic, and pedestrian and bike facilities connecting the Springwater Corridor to Caruthers. $250 K Tier 1 S3 7th/8th Ave, SE: New Street Connection Construct new street connection from SE 7th to 8th Avenue at Division Street to improve local street connectivity for industrial properties. $500 K Tier 1 Freight Master Plan B-3 B-3 S4 11th/12th/Railroad Crossing, SE (West of Division): Intersection Improvements Reconstruct intersection to upgrade traffic signalization and establish bike and ped routes to improve safety and reduce delay at intersection. $400 K Tier 2 S5 11th/13th, NE (at Columbia Blvd): Roadway Connector New three lane roadway and bridge over rail line to connect Lombard and Columbia. Provides space for double tracking of rail line. Improves freight mobility through additional rail capacity, new street connection, and grade separation. $8 M Tier 1 S6 14/16th Connections, NW Improve or create connections to W. Burnside, Yeon, and Vaughn and provide directional signage to route non-local traffic to 14th/16th couplet. $200 K Tier 3 S7 47th, NE (Columbia - Cornfoot): Roadway & Intersection Improvements Widen and reconfigure intersections to better facilitate truck turning movements to the cargo area located within the airport area. Project includes sidewalks and bikeway improvements. $4.1 M Tier 1 - Partially Funded S8 82nd Ave/Alderwood Rd, NE: Intersection Improvements Construct right turn lane on SB 82nd Ave; modify traffic signal and construct second right turn lane on Alderwood westbound. Project improves access to industrial properties. $200 K Tier 1 - Partially Funded S9 87th/Columbia, NE: Intersection Improvement Widen intersection to accommodate large truck turning movements (53' trailer). Project includes r-o-w acquisition, retaining walls, bike lanes and sidewalks, and stormwater facilities. Project improves access to industrial properties. $454 K Tier 1 S10 92nd Ave, NE, (Alderwood - Columbia Bl): Street Improvements Extend 92nd to Alderwood to improvement better facilitate circulation in the Portland International Center development. Scope of project not fully defined. $1.5 M Tier 2 S11 112th Ave/US 30, NW: Intersection Improvements Add traffic signal to improve safety and property access. $135 K Tier 2 S12 158th, NE (Columbia Slough - Sandy Bl): Street Improvements Reconstruct street to industrial standards, add sidewalks, stripe bike lanes, curb and storm drainage, and construct bridge to replace culverts at main slough crossing. $480 K Tier 3 Freight Master Plan B-4 S13 Airport Way, NE (82nd - PDX Terminal): Street Widening Widen to three lanes in both directions to improve traffic flow. $10 M Tier 2 S14 Airport Way, NE: Access Road Construct Airport Way East Terminal access road to improve access to properties. $8 M Tier 2 S15 Alderwood/Columbia Blvd/Cully, NE: Intersection Improvements Reconstruct intersection to provide left turn pockets, enhancing turning radii and improving circulation for trucks serving expanding air cargo facilities south of Portland. $350 K Tier 1 S16 Alderwood/Cornfoot Road, NE: Intersection Improvement Add signal and improve turn lanes at Alderwood Road/Cornfoot Road to improve safety, circulation, and access to PDX and Portland International Center properties. $350 K Tier 1 S17 Argyle, NE (14th - MLK): Street Extension Extend NE Argyle to provide better street grid. Will serve as a collector/distributor for industrial businesses & reduce traffic congestion at MLK/Columbia intersection. $480 K Tier 3 S18 Belmont Ramp, SE (Eastside of Morrison Bridge): Ramp Reconstruction Reconstruct ramp to provide better access to the Central Eastside. $1.5 M Tier 2 S19 Columbia Blvd, NE (60th - 82nd): Road Widening Widen Columbia Blvd to five lanes in this segment to address a system bottleneck and improve property access. $15 M Tier 2 S20 Columbia Blvd/MLK Jr & Lombard/MLK Jr, NE: Intersection Improvements Widen turn lanes at MLK Jr. intersections with Columbia and Lombard to facilitate truck turning movements. $700 K Tier 1 S21 Columbia Blvd/Portland Rd, N: Intersection Improvements Redesign of intersection could include realignment of travel lanes, channelization, signalization, signage, and new sidewalks and curbs. Project reinforces through-truck movements on truck streets and minimizes neighborhood cut- through traffic. $700 K Tier 1 Freight Master Plan B-5 B-5 S22 Cornfoot, NE (47th- Alderwood): Road Widening & Intersection Improvements Road widening project including lighting and landscaping, left turn lanes, and bike lanes (47th - Airtrans Way). Signalize Cornfoot/Airtrans intersection and reconfigure traffic flow. Stripe bike lanes (Airtrans - Alderwood). Project improves traffic flow to air cargo facilities in airport area. $2 M Tier 1 - Partially Funded S23 East End Connector, NE Construct an at-grade intersection connection from Columbia Blvd at 82nd to US 30 Bypass/I-205 interchange and widen I-205 southbound on-ramp at Columbia Bl. Project resolves an existing safety and capacity problem at terminus of Columbia Blvd at 92nd. Adds capacity to Lombard. With completion of project, Killingsworth replaces Columbia Blvd as NHS intermodal connector east of new connection. $26.5 M Tier 1 - Funded - Construction begins 2006 S24 Going/Greeley, N: Climbing Lane and Interchange Improvements Redesign Go ing/Greeley interchange including climbing lane on Going to improve truck movement between Swan Island, Lower Albina, and I-5. $2 M Tier 1 S25 Grand Ave, SE: Bridgehead Improvements Reconstruct west edge of SE Grand at bridgehead to provide sidewalks and urban standard turn lanes for vehicles. Improves truck safety and access. $4.1 M Tier 1 S26 Heineman, N: Road Connection Construct new street to provide access to developing Port of Portland industrial property. $570 K Tier 1 S27 Leadbetter, N (Marine Dr Loop): Street Extension/Overcrossing Extend Leadbetter to Terminal 6/Marine Drive, vig a new rail overcrossing to provide access to developing Port property and address delay from at-grade rail crossing. $10.8 M Tier 1 - Partially Funded 1 - 5 Years S28 Lombard, N (Rivergate - T-6): Multi-modal Improvements Widen N Lombard to include two travel lanes, a non-continuous center turn lane, medians, bike lanes, and sidewalks to improve safety and access to industrial properties. $3.6 M Tier 1 - Partially Funded 1 - 5 Years Freight Master Plan B-6 S29 Lombard/St. Louis/Ivanhoe Multimodal Improvements, N Restripe, construct curb extensions, realign, and signalize as needed to improve pedestrian and bicyclist amenities while not impeding truck movements. Project maintains truck movement and minimizes conflicts with bicycles and pedestrians in town center. $1.4 M Tier 1 - Funded S30 Marx Dr, NE (82nd-87th): Street Extension Extend NE Marx Dr west from 87th and signalize at 82nd Ave to provide better street connectivity for industrial properties. $315 K Tier 2 S31 MLK Jr, NE (Columbia - Lombard): Widen Street Expand roadway to provide better connection between streets for improved freight movement in and through the area. $12.6 M Tier 2 S32 Morrison Bridge at Water Ave Ramp, SE: Ramp Realignment Realign and separate the Morrison Bridge off-ramp to Water Avenue from the I-5 off-ramp by moving it north approximately 100' from the Yamhill/Water intersection. Construct a sidewalk and bike lane along the south side of the realigned ramp. $1.75 M Tier 1 - Funded - Construction begins 2005 S33 Mt St Helens Ave, NE (Cascades Parkway - Alderwood Rd): Street Extension Construct two-lane road extension to provide traffic access for developing properties. $1.5 M Tier 1 S34 Parkrose Connectivity Improvements, NE Supplement access route for commercial properties in Parkrose by creating a loop road connection (102nd and 109th, NE, Killingsworth - Sandy; Killingsworth, NE, 109nd - 102nd) serving truck access functions, pedestrian, and bike connections. $500 K Tier 3 S35 River Ave, N (Port Center Way - River Ave): Street Extension Evaluate econdary access road from Swan Island connecting to the Lower Albina Overcrossing at River. Improvements include roadway, drainage, pedestrian path & bike routes. Project improves street connectivity for industrial properties. $165,697 Tier 2 S36 Southern Triangle Circulation Improvements, SE Improve local street network and regional access routes in the area between the Powell/12th, Willamette River, railroad mainline and Hawthorne Bridge. Improve freeway access route from CEID to I-5 SB via the Ross Island Bridge. $2.5 M Tier 3 Freight Master Plan B-7 B-7 S37 Southwest Quad, NE (at 33rd): Access to PDX Properties Provide street access from 33rd into the SW Quad property to provide access to developing Port properties. $1.5M Tier 2 S38 St Helens Rd (US 30), NW, (in Willbridge area): Traffic Improvements Install center turn lane to NW Front to improve safety and property access $300 K Tier 1 S39 St. Helens Rd (US 30), NW (at Saltzman & Balboa): Intersection Realignment Realign intersections to correct two offset intersections. $600 K Tier 2 S40 Stark St, SE (2nd - Grand): Safety & Capacity Improvments Improve safety and capacity at the Stark/Grand intersection by restriping street to add eastbound lane, revising Stark to one-way eastbound between King-Grand, or implement a Stark-Oak one- way couplet between 2nd and Grand. $50 K Tier 2 S41 Terminal 4 Drivew ay Consolidation Consolidate driveways at Terminal 4 and Schnitzer Steel to improve industrial property access. $1 M Tier 1 - Funded S42 US 30 at Lake Yard Hub Facility, NW: Access Improvements Provide an access lane on US 30 for trucks entering and/or exiting the site, add a signal at the entrance, and if needed construct an on-site access road and realigning tracks to improve access to intermodal yard and improve corridor safety. $2 M Tier 1 - Funded S43 Water Ave, SE (Caruthers - Division Pl): Street Extension Phase II Provide new roadway connection with sidewalks, bike lanes, landscaping, access to Willamette Greenway to improve access and circulation for industrial district. $250 K Tier 3 S44 Water Ave, SE (Stark - Clay): Reconstruction Reconstruct street to meet industrial needs and provide pedestrian enhancements. $900 K Tier 2 S45 Sandy Bl, NE (122nd - City Limits): Multimodal Improvements Widen street to three or five lanes with sidewalks and bike lanes. $5.75 M Tier 3 S46 Ivanhoe/Philadelphia, N: Intersection Improvements Redesign intersection to improve traffic and pedestrian circulation. $107 K Tier 3 S47 82 nd /Columbia, NE: Intersection Improvements Widen and reconfigure intersection to improve access to air cargo areas. $2M Tier 1 Freight Master Plan B-8 SYSTEM MANAGEMENT SM1 14th/16th, NW/SW & 13th/14th, SW, Glisan - Clay: ITS, Clay to Glisan Closed-circuit TV (CCTV) camera at Everett. Changeable message signs at Glisan, Everett, Burnside, Taylor, Jefferson and Clay intersections. $175 K Tier 3 SM2 82nd, NE/SE: ITS Implement ITS infrastructure to allow monitoring & control of traffic flow incl uding circuit TV cameras & variable message signs to improve safety, reduce neighborhood intrusion, & help buses. $350 K Tier 1 - Funded - Construction begins 2006 SM3 122nd, NE/SE (Airport Way - Powell): ITS CCTV at Powell, Division, Stark, I-84 eastbound ramp, Halsey, Sandy and Airport Way intersections. Changeable message signs at I-84 ramp, Sandy and Airport Way. Traffic monitoring stations at Powell, Division, I-84 and Airport Way. $200 K Tier 2 SM4 Airport Way, NE (I-205 - 158th): ITS CCTV at I-205 and 122nd intersections. Variable sign at I- 205. Monitoring stations at 122nd and 158th. $220 K Tier 1 SM5 Beaverton-Hillsdale Hw y, SW: ITS CCTV at Terwilliger, Bertha and Shattuck intersections. Changeable signs at Bertha/Capitol Highway and 56th. $90 K Tier 3 SM6 Columbia Blvd, N/NE(I-205 - Burgard): ITS CCTV at I-205 ramps, NE 82nd, NE 47th, NE 33rd ramps, MLK, Jr., I-5 southbound ramps, N Portland Rd, and N Burgard Rd. Changeable message signs at NE 82nd, MLK, Jr., and I-5 southbound ramps, N Portland Rd. Monitoring at I-205, NE 33rd, MLK, Jr.,and I-5 southbound ramps. $310 K Tier 1 SM7 Foster Rd, SE: ITS CCTV at 50th/Powell, 82nd, 92nd, I-205, 112th, 122nd and Jenne Rd intersections. Changeable signs at 50th/Powell, 92nd/ Woodstock, 112th, 122nd, Jenne. Monitoring at 50th, 82nd, I-205. $145 K Tier 3 SM8 Going, N (Interstate - Greeley): ITS CCTV at Greeley/Interstate intersections. Variable message sign for eastbound traffic at Greeley. Changeable message sign for eastbound traffic at Interstate. Monitoring station at Greeley. $255 K Tier 1 Freight Master Plan B-9 B-9 SM9 Lombard, N/NE (Philadelphia MLK, Jr): ITS CCTV cameras at intersections with MLK Jr, Inte rstate, Greeley, Portsmouth, Philadelphia/ Ivanhoe. Changeable message signs at Interstate, Portsmouth and Lombard. $210 K Tier 3 SM10 Macadam, SW (Bancroft - Sellwood Br): ITS CCTV at Hood/Bancroft, Taylors Ferry and Sellwood Bridge. Variable sign at Hood/Bancroft. Changeable sign at Taylors Ferry. Monitoring at Bancroft and Sellwood Bridge. $290 K Tier 2 SM11 Marine Dr, N/NE (Portland Rd to 185th): ITS CCTV at N Portland Rd. Changeable message signs at Portland Rd, Vancouver and 185th. $750 K Tier 2 SM12 McLoughlin, SE: ITS CCTV at Holgate, 17th, Bybee, Johnson Creek/Tacoma. Variable sign at Holgate. Monitoring at Holgate and Bybee. $250 K Tier 1 SM13 MLK Jr, N (Columbia Bl - CEID): ITS CCTV at Hawthorne ramp, Clay, Belmont, Morrison, Burnside, Lloyd, Broadway, Fremont, Killingsworth, Lombard, Columbia, I-5/and Marine Dr. Changeable message signs at Madison, Morrison, Burnside, Lombard, I-5/Marine Dr. traffic monitoring stations at Clay, Burnside. $550 K Tier 2 SM14 Rivergate ITS, N Connect real-time information about the Rivergate road system to ODOT?s Highway ITC systems. $200 K Tier 1 SM15 Sandy Bl, NE (82nd - Burnside): ITS CCTV at 12th, 37t h, 39th, 57th, 72nd, 82nd, I-205 northbound ramp, and 122nd intersections. Variable signs at 37th, 102nd intersections. Changeable signs at 12th, 82nd, and 102nd. Monitoring stations at 12th, 57th, 82nd, I-205, 122nd and 162 nd . $340 K Tier 3 SM16 Yeon/St. Helens, NW: ITS CCTV at Nicolai, Kittridge, St. John?s Bridge, I-405/Vaughn/ 23rd intersection. Changeable signs at Nicolai/I-405, Kittridge and I-405/Vaughn/23rd. Monitoring at Nicolai and Kittridge. $193 K Tier 1 SM17 Powell Blvd, SE (Milwaukie ? 122 nd ): ITS CCTV at 39 th , 50 th , 82 nd , I-205 Ramp, 122 nd . Variable signs at Milwaukie. Changeable signs at 39 th , 50 th , 82 nd , I-205 ramps. $395 K Tier 2 Freight Master Plan B-10 BRIDGE B1 21st, NE (at Columbia Slough): Bridge Replacement Replace weight restricted bridge. $5 M Tier 2 B2 33rd Ramps, NE, (at Columbia Bl/Lombard): New Ramps New ramp system connecting Columbia and Lombard at 33rd Ave to facilitate truck movement. $12 M Tier 3 B3 33rd, NE (at Columbia Slough): Bridge Replacement Replacement of side-by-side bridges carrying NE 33rd Drive over Columbia Slough. $3 M Tier 1 - Funded - Construction starts 2006 B4 33rd, NE (at Lombard): Bridge Replacement Lengthen and replace main span carrying NE 33rd Ave over Lombard St. Project will improve bridge clearance and load rating. $3.5 M Tier 1 - Funded - Construction starts 2005 B5 42nd Bridge, NE (at Lombard): Bridge Replacement Replace 42nd bridge over Lombard to remove weight restriction and improve vertical clearance under bridge. $3 M Tier 3 B6 82nd/Airport Way, NE: Overcrossing Construct grade-separated overcrossing to improve efficiency of traffic flow to PDX properties. $11 M Tier 3 B7 Denver Viaduct, N: Reconstruct Viaduct Rebuild viaduct and add pedestrian walkway/bikeway. Project improves truck access to I-5. $2 M Tier 1 - Identified as Phase 2 alternative in I-5 Delta Park to Lombard project B8 Foster Rd, Bridge at Johnson Creek: Bridge Replacement Replace southern bridge span. Bridge is currently weight restricted. $1.4 M Tier 1 - Funded - Construction begins 2007 B9 Going St Bridge, N: Bridge Rehabilitation Replace bridge over UPRR. Bridge is currently weight restricted. $3 M Tier 1 - Partially- funded - OTIA B10 Grand/ MLK Jr Viaduct, SE: Reconstruct Viaduct Reconstruct viaduct between Stephens & McLoughlin Blvd. Existing structure is deficient and requires capacity and structural design improvements. $22 M Tier 1 - Funded - Construction begins 2005 B11 I-5, N (Columbia River - Columbia Bl): Bridge Widening Improve I-5/Columbia River bridge (local share of joint project) based on recommendations in I-5 Trade Corridor Study. Project addresses a high congestion location. $200 M Tier 1 - Funded - Alternative analysis underway as part of Columbia River Crossing project Freight Master Plan B-11 B-11 B12 Interstate, N, Bridge at Larrabee: Bridge Rehabilitation Rehabilitate Interstate overcrossing of Larrabee to remove weight restriction. $1.2 M Tier 3 B13 Lombard at Columbia Slough Overcrossing (Rivergate), N: Bridge Rehabilitation Strengthen Columbia Slough bridge and add sidewalks and bike lanes. $4.9 M Tier 1 - Funded - Construction begins 2010 (est.) B14 Lombard St. (Burgard), N: Bridge Replacement Upgrade structure at entrance to Terminal 4 and Schnitzer Steel to eliminate load reconstructions on the bridge. $1.5 M Tier 1 - Funded - Construction begins 2005 B15 Sellwood Bridge, SE/SW: Bridge Replacement Replace weight restricted bridge. $75 M Tier 1 B16 Vancouver BNSF Rail Bridge Project (Columbia River) Replace existing swing span with lift span and relocate position to mid-river channel. Project creates wider and quicker opening, reduces I-5 Fwy lifts, eases river navigation, and could accommodate a third rail track. $42 M Tier 1 B17 West Hayden Crossing, N: New Bridge New four-lane bridge from Marine Drive to Hayden Island to serve as the primary access to marine terminals on the island. $49 M Tier 3 B18 Willamette River Bridges, NE/NW/SE/SW: Rehabilitation Provide for long-term rehabilitation and structural needs of the Broadway, Burnside, Morrison, and Sauvie Island bridges. $113 M Tier 1 - Funded - On- going B19 Vancouver Bridge, N (at Columbia Slough): Bridge Replacement Replace deteriorating bridge to improve safety and remove weight restriction. $8.5 M Tier 1 RAIL R1 Barnes Rail Yard - Bonneville Rail Yard, N: Track Expansion Construct additional unit train trackage between Bonneville and Barnes Yards to support unit train movement between South Rivergate and the Columbia Corridor. Addresses limited Rivergate staging area for unit trains approaching the marine terminals. Solves switching bottlenecks, te rminal access limitations, and other operational conflicts. $11.9 M Tier 2 R2 BNSF Line @ Columbia Bridge, N: Track Improvements Improve rail track conditions on approaches to movable spans over the Columbia River to increase track speeds in this section of the north/south main line. $8 M Tier 2 Freight Master Plan B-12 R3 Kenton Rail Line, NE: Additional RR Tracks Upgrade single track sections to double tracks built to mainline standards with new sidings from Peninsula Junction to I-205. Provides additional rail tracks for staging of Pacific Northwest unit trains. Expands capacity and reduces delays $25.4 M Tier 1 R4 Marine Dr, N (at Rivergate West): Rail Crossing, Phase II Reroute rail tracks and construct an above-grade rail crossing at Rivergate West entrance to improve safety and reduce vehicle and rail traffic conflicts. $18 M Tier 3 R5 North Portland Junction, N: Rail Improvements Upgrade rail track with revised crossovers, centralized traffic control tie-in and increased turning radius to accommodate higher rail speeds and capacity. $5 M Tier 2 R6 Penn Junction, N, UP/BNSF Main Line: Track Realignment Realign track configuration, double track, and upgrade signaling to improve mainline capacity over the Columbia River bridge and allow greater train turnaround speed. $3.5 M Tier 2 R7 Ramsey Rail Complex, N (south of Columbia Slough Bridge): Capacity Improvements Construct six tracks and one mainline track and lead into complex. Adds 46,000 linear feet of rail storage separate from the main line tracks. Improves regional heavy rail system efficiency. Solves storage capacity issues, bottlenecks, terminal access limitations, and other multimodal inefficiencies. $13.2 M Tier 1 ? Partially funded R8 Rivergate Rail Yard Expansion, N Expand railroad capacity in the Rivergate industrial area to increase bulk capacity for mineral and agricultural products and improve train flows within the industrial area. $6 M Tier 1 R9 Slough Rail Bridge, N Potential for future rail bridge across Columbia Slough to provide rail connection to south Rivergate from Terminal 6. $4.5 M Tier 3 R10 T-5 Unit Rail Loops #3 & #4 Construct two additional loop tracks to increase rail storage and rail handling capability of existing bulk terminal. $2.8 M Tier 1 ? Partially Funded Freight Master Plan B-13 B-13 R11 T-6 Intermodal Third Lead Construct a dedicated lead for the T-6 intermodal yard. Removes bottleneck at T-6 for unit trains, auto carriers, box cars, and tank cars. $4.5 M Tier 1 ? Partially funded, construction expected in 2006 R12 Terminal 6 A&B Yards Connect A and B rail yards to increase Terminal 6 rail capacity. $3 M Tier 2 R13 UP Line Connection, SE (Brooklyn line - Graham line) Add rail connection between the Brooklyn and Graham lines in Southeast Portland to increase rail capacity. $11 M Tier 1 R14 UP Line Upgrade, SE (Albina Yard - East Portland) Upgrade existing track to second main track to increase track speeds in this section of the north/south main line. $8.8 M Tier 1 R15 West Hayden Island Rail Yard Expansion, West Hayden Island Construct 7 track rail yard connected to facility trackage to advance rail-dependent development. $9.5 M Tier 3 R16 West Hayden Island/Rivergate, N: Rail Access Rail access from Rivergate to Hayden Island development to support development. $3 M Tier 1 R17 Barnes to Terminal 4, N: Track Expansion Provide a dedicated track for Terminal 4 through Barnes Yard and add a new track from Barnes Yard to Terminal 4. $1 M Tier 1 MARINE TERMINAL M1 Access Tunnel at Hyundai/Kia Facility, N Access tunnel to Rivergate from Terminal 6 to allow auto facility access to facility expansion in Rivergate. $3 M Tier 1 M2 Columbia River Channel Deepening - Regional Share, N/NE Deepen the Columbia River channel to 43 feet from Astoria and Portland to better serve the new class of larger container ships. $150.5 M Tier 1 - Phase 1 Funded M3 Container Crane - Terminal 6 Purchase post-panamax container crane to permit the efficient handling of larger container ships. Includes electrical upgrades to dock and addition of related yard equipment. 12.5 M Tier 1 - Funded - Delivery in 2006 Freight Master Plan B-14 M5 Hyundai Auto Terminal Expansion, N 40 acre expansion of import auto terminal to allow capacity improvements to include paving, lighting, and storm water management. $8 M Tier 1 M6 Mar Com North Facility, N Acquisition, design, permitting, and development of 6.54 acre brownfield site adjacent to south side of Terminal 4 to provide additional auto storage capacity. $2. M Tier 1 M7 Optional Terminal Lower Lot Access, N Regrade hill slope to provide two- lane truck access to provide alternative access to lower lot. $3 M Tier 1 M8 Terminal 4 Grain Elevator Barge Conveyor Rebuild, N Rebuild conveyor connecting T4 grain elevator to Berth 405 barge unloader. Current conveyor will be removed with warehouse 1 and 2 demolition project. Barge facility use to transport Oregon wheat. $1.5 M Tier 1 M9 Terminal 4 On-site Overcrossing, N Construct overcrossing for trucks to improve access between lower T-4 and Lombard. $2.5 M Tier 1 M10 Terminal 4 Pier 2 Rail Yard Improvements, N Construct new yare with capacity of 200 loaded rail cars and 60 empty cars, replacing current capacity. Project will provide stormwater management for rail yard and upgrade riparian edge along Willamette R. $54 M Tier 1 - Funded - Completion by 2005 M11 Terminal 4, N: Access Improvements Provide terminal overpass - two lane hwy bridge and driveway improvement. Provide bulk terminal access via single lane tunnel under rail tracks. Project maintains domestic trucking access inside the rail loop and accommodates emergency vehicle access inside the bulk rail loop. $10 M Tier 2 M12 Terminal 6 Additional Post- Panamax Cranes, N Acquisition of three add'l post- panamax cranes to make T6 a two berth post panamax facility. $33.4 M Tier 3 M13 Terminal 6 Berth Deepening Provide design, permitting, and construction to deepen T6 container berths in conjunction with Channel Deepening project. $1.25 M Tier 1 - Funded - Completion by 2007 M14 Terminal 6 Computer System Upgrades, N Increase efficiency at the T6 container terminal with improved cargo tracking systems. $2 M Tier 1 - Funded - Completion by 2006 A PPENDIX C C Freight Master Plan C-1 FEDERAL, STATE, REGIONAL AND LOC AL TRANSPORTATION FINANCING IN PORTL AND AND OREGON HISTORY BRIEF OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDING NATIONALLY Historically, ?nancing of public roadways has come directly from the users of the transportation system ? through taxation of gas and gasoline derivative products. The retail fuel companies on behalf of the State and Federal government collect the taxes. Each state determines its own taxing level. The federal tax is ?xed nationwide. Traditionally, State taxes are to be used for construction and maintenance of State-designated highways that serve as connections between the Interstate system (now known primarily as the National Highway System) and the web of highways linking cities and towns around the State. There are three distinct eras of transportation infrastructure building in recent history: Pre-WWII ?Up and Out of the Mud?; ?Post-WWII Interstate Highway Building? and ?Flexible Multimode Financing?. With the advent of production automobile manufacturing in the early 1900?s, dirt trails and roads crisscrossing the landscape provided nothing but a quagmire for the new conveyances. As a matter of necessity cars had to get ?Up and Out of the Mud? to be able to perform their intended duties. Plank roads like the original Canyon Road (now Sunset Highway) provided some traction but the trip still remained slow. Not until the advent of Macadam pavement did the roadway network really begin to be a reliable way to get products from farm to market, connecting burgeoning cities and people to places of beauty. The early road building era made State highway engineers in Oregon into early visionaries who could see that roadways were an economic necessity to bring goods to market and to attract people to populate the State. They were also the early ?nanciers of the modern roadway. For example, the Columbia Gorge highway was envisioned as both a critical accessway through the Cascade Mountains as well as a unique architectural and engineering opportunity to allow residents to enjoy the natural scenic beauty of the Columbia Gorge. This early highway was constructed on the premise that it bene?ted private enterprise and the general public. Hence a partnership between the public and private sector was struck to ?nance the vision. The tradition continues today. Of note, however, is that during this era cities were still based on streetcars, walking and compact form. All that was about to change. The Post-World War II Interstate Highway Building The post-WWII era in the early 1950?s set out to accomplish several goals: build an interconnected system of free public roadways of high quality and standards for national defense, and fast and reliable transport of goods to far reaching markets, further urbanizing cities and unifying the nation. In order to pay for such a system, the Highway Trust Fund was established by Congress and the precursor to today?s United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), the Department of Public Roads, was created. The Highway Trust fund was, and is, fed by the federal tax on gasoline. Funds were granted to the individual State highway departments to design and construct the Interstate Freeway System based on a formula and through congressional appropriations. States also taxed fuel purchases based on their needs to provide for their own state highway system and to match the federal dollars for the Interstate system. Cities sprawled outward, enabled by personal travel freedom a?orded by the auto. Buses (private) replaced streetcars. Walking was too di?cult as the distances between activities grew longer. Freight Master Plan The Interstate Highway construction era, which started in the early 50?s, reached its peak in the mid-1960?s. By the end of the decade not only was the majority of the system constructed, but the public?s attitude about its impact on communities was changing. The advent of environmental consciousness, displacement of people and businesses, and social disruption of communities all led to reshaping the direction of public policy, ?nance and engineering standards for the national roadway networks. The 1969 National Environmental Policy Act changed the way in which all federal, state and local agencies assure that any expenditure of federal dollars for most manmade public facilities of any type are not a detriment to the environment in which they are constructed. In the early 1970?s, the pendulum moved away from freeway building to multimodal highway and transportation system construction. Limitations on the legislative mandate of federal, state and local funding programs did not allow gas tax dollars to be spent for non-highway purposes, such as transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The Highway Trust fund could not be ?busted? for these purposes. Legislation in the late 1970?s followed the crisis of inner cities to maintain diesel bus services. Since World War II, City buses had been private in many locations. With the advent of suburban development many went bankrupt, leaving a void in the transportation system. Congress created the Urban Mass Transit Administration to step in to provide traditional ?xed-route bus services and assistance for aging heavy rail systems. Financing from the federal government to operate, maintain and grow these systems was established. A chink in the Highway Trust Fund armor was created. Multimodal ?nancing was on the horizon. The Congressional passage of Intermodal Surface Transportation E?ciency Act or ISTEA in 1991 began the modern ?Flexible MultiMode Finance? era. As has been tradition, transportation ?nancing legislation has a six-year life. ISTEA and its successor TEA-21, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century, provide for the Highway Trust Fund to be used for all modes of surface transportation. Each Congressional bill has speci?c provisions for di?erent modal categories of money that can be expended by states, counties and cities based on prescribed formulas. Transportation system ?nancing has been expanded to integrate modes, encourage the public?s use of alternatives to single-occupant vehicles and to diminish environmental impact. Congress is currently negotiating the third generation of ?exible funding transportation bills or TEA-LU, the Transportation Equity Act a Legacy for Users. This pending TEA-LU bill should have been enacted in September 2003 to enable the six-year extent of its authority. Due to disputes between the Administration, House and Senate over funding dollar amounts and provision of the new bill, the date of enactment remains unclear. Extensions of the previous TEA- 21 Bill are evoked monthly and quarterly to allow transportation agencies to proceed with projects. FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PROGRAMS Of the myriad highway and multimode funding programs in the existing Six Year TEA-21 Bill, this overview discusses only those that are relevant to the City of Portland, O?ce of Transportation, Metro, and in part to the Oregon Department of Transportation and TriMet. Since federal transit dollars are largely allocated to TriMet they are not discussed in detail here. The following major highway program funds are available as part of the TEA -21 Bill. ? National Highway System (NHS) ? Surface Transportation Program (STP) ? Congestion Management Air Quality (CMAQ) ? Transportation Enhancement (TE) ? High Priority (Demonstration) Projects (HPP) ? Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) ? Intelligent Transportation Systems Program (ITS) Within each of the program categories are speci?c sub-categories that may be relevant to the City and region. Freight Master Plan C-3 N ATIONAL H IGHWAY S YSTEM (NHS) Program purpose: funding for improvements to rural and urban roads that are part of the NHS, including the Interstate System and designated connections to major intermodal terminals. In some instances NHS funds may be used for transit improvements in NHS corridors. Distribution of funds based on the following formula: ? 25% based on total lane miles of principal arterials ? excluding the Interstate System ? in each state as a percent of total such principal arterial lane miles in all states. ? 35% based on total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on lanes and principal arterials (excluding Interstate System) in each State as a percent of total VMT or lanes of such principal arterials in all states. ? 30% based on diesel fuel used on all highways in each state as a percent of diesel fuel used on all highways in all states ? 10% based on total lane miles of principal arterials in each state divided by total population in each state as a percent of such ratio for all states. ? Up to 50% of apportionments can be transferred to IM, STP, CMAQ and/or bridge programs or 100% may be transferred to STP on approval of the Secretary of Transportation. Funds may also be used for intercity and intracity bus terminals, natural habitat mitigation and ITS improvements. How NHS funds Are Used in the Portland Region Candidate projects are programmed through the ODOT STIP during a public process, which includes the local transportation agencies. The STIP is coordinated with the Metro MTIP process. Typically, NHS funds are used for Interstate Freeway, primary state routes and freight-intermodal and bridge projects. As an example, NHS funds are being used to fund the I-5 Bridge in?uence area analysis and design work. Match requirements are 10.27%. S UR FACE T RANSPOR TATION P ROGRAM (STP) Program purpose: To provide ?exible funding that may be used by states and localities for projects on any Federal-aid highway (FAH), including the National Highway System (NHS), bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities. Distribution of federal highway funds based on formula: ? 25% based on total lane miles of Federal-aid highway (FAH) in the State as a percent of total FAH lane miles in all states. ? 40% based on total vehicle miles (VMT) in lanes of FAH in the State as a percent of total VMT on lanes of FAH in all states. ? 35% based on estimated tax payments attributable to highway users in the State paid into the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) in the latest ?scal year for which date are available, as a percent of total such payments by all states. Freight Master Plan State sub-allocations of apportioned funds set-asides including: ? 10% set aside for safety improvement projects including railway/highway crossings. ? 10% set aside for transportation enhancements (TE) up to 25% of the di?erence between the amount set aside for TE for the ?scal year and the amount set aside for the TE for FY 97 may be transferred to IM, NHS, CMAQ or the Bridge Program. ? Set aside for urbanized areas over 200,000 population. ? States are required to make available obligation authority to urbanized areas over 200,000 population in two ? three year movements over the life of the Bill. How STP Funds Are Used in the Portland Region STP funds are ??exible federal funds? meaning they can be used to ?nance a variety of modal projects. ? ODOT programs STP funds through their statewide transportation improvements program (STIP) which is updated every two years and delivers funds over a four-year timeframe with minor realignments every year. A portion of ODOT ?s STP funds are to provide elderly and disabled services as well as a small allocation to the public transit division. ? Metro distributes STP funds to all agencies in the Portland region as a part of the ?Transportation Priorities MTIP? process undertaken every two years for funds programmed for a four-year timeframe. Although a four-year look is provided, funds are programmed for the last two of every four-year timeframe. For example, for the current 2006-09 MTIP process, Metro is programming new projects only for years 2008 and 2009. In the intervening years like 2005, only minor adjustments to existing programmed projects will be made. The 2006-09 MTIP will be integrated into the ODOT STIP timeline so that from this year forward the ODOT STIP and MTIP process will be coincidental. Typically STP funds in this region are used for highway-related improvements like main streets, freight, reconstruction and bridge project types. As an example STP funds are being used for the Rivergate Rail Overcrossing project. They are also ?nancing NW 23rd Avenue reconstruction. Match requirements are 10.27% from a local source. C ONGESTION M ITIGATION AND A IR Q UALITY I MPROVEMENTS P RORAM F UNDS (CMAQ) Program purpose: Provides funding for projects and programs in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas for ozone, carbon monoxide and small particulate matter that reduce transportation related emissions. Distribution of funds according to the following formula: ? New weighting factors for ozone and CO maintenance areas. ? Up to 50% of the di?erence between the original program level of $1.35 billion annually and the actual annual program level can be transferred to STP, NHS, IM and/or Bridge. ? States may allocate funds to private and non-private entities for land, facilities, vehicles and project development activities. How CMAQ Funds Are Used in the Portland Region ? Approximately $11.5 million in CMAQ dollars are available to the Portland region on an annual basis. Note: Portland is now a CO attainment or maintenance area. CMAQ funding levels in the pending TEA-LU Bill may change. ? CMAQ is part of the METRO administered ??exible federal funds? allocated every two years through the ?Transportation Priorities? MTIP process. Freight Master Plan C-5 ? Examples of projects funded by this program include bicycle, pedestrian and transit system (both rail and bus) improvement projects, main streets, transit-oriented developments. ? Match requirements are 10.27% from a local source. T RANSPOR TATION E NHANCEMENTS F UNDS (TE) Program purpose: Provides transportation-related activities that are designed to strengthen the cultural, aesthetic and environmental aspects of the nation?s intermodal transportation system. Provides for the implementation of a variety of non-traditional projects including restoration of historic transportation facilities, bike and pedestrian improvements, landscaping, landscaping and beauti?cation, mitigation of water pollution from highway run-o?, and the establishment of transportation museums. Ten percent allocation of STP funds go to TE funds. How TE Funds Are Used in the Portland Region ? Approximately $4 million in TE funds are available statewide. The Portland region historically receives approximately $1 ? 1.5 million every two years for one, or possibly two projects. ? ODOT administers this program through a public solicitation process that is semi-coincidental with the Metro MTIP process. ODOT uses the Metro TPAC and JPACT advisory boards to screen candidate projects. ODOT assesses a select list of potential projects statewide and determines a ?nal list based on speci?c program criteria. ? Examples of projects selected for funding through this program include parts of the Springwater Trail for bicycles and pedestrians and the preliminary design for reconstruction of the Union Station. ? Match for these projects is usually 10.27%. However, states may apply funds from other Federal agencies to the non- Federal share of the project. The local match can also be calculated on a project, multiple project or program basis. Therefore, it is possible that no local match may be required. H IGH P RIORITY (D EMONSTRATION ) P ROJEC TS Program purpose: This program provides funding for projects identi?ed by Congress with a speci?c amount of funding over the six years of TEA-21. The designated funding can be used only for the speci?ed project. This is commonly known as earmarked funds. Allocation of funds authorized for each project are to be made available for obligation over the six year period in roughly a 1?6 split in each year of the TEA 21 Authorization Bill. It also establishes advance construction, which permits states to construct High Priority projects without the aid of Federal funds and then be reimbursed as the Federal funds become available in accordance with the distribution schedule. How High Priority Funds Are Used in the Portland Region: Typically these requests come directly from transportation agencies and are coordinated generally both at the formulation states of a new Transportation Bill and annually through JPACT as annual Appropriation requests are made of the Oregon Congressional delegation. Metro, through TPAC and JPACT, prepares a regional, adopted appropriations project list which is submitted as part of the Oregon Congressional delegation visit by JPACT members in March of each year. During the formulation of both programmatic and project requests for a new Six-Year Transportation Bill, TPAC and JPACT will begin to formulate a position paper one year in advance of a new bill?s authorization. The region currently has a JPACT-adopted position paper and project request list that has been presented to the Oregon Congressional delegation in March 2003 and 2004. Annual appropriations requests are coordinated through the City of Portland?s Intergovernmental Relations o?ce. A Freight Master Plan comprehensive list of annual appropriations citywide is submitted to City Council by Resolution to ensure coordination where federal ?nance opportunities could potentially be piggybacked. I NTELLIGENT T RANSPOR TATION S YSTEMS P ROGRAM (ITS) Program purpose: provides for research, development and operational testing of Intelligent Transportation Systems aimed at solving congestion and safety problems, improving operating e?ciencies in transit and commercial vehicles, and reducing the environmental impact of growing travel demand. Allocation of funds is the same as other federal aid programmed funds. ITS program elements fall into two categories: research and development and deployment incentives. The latter allowing for implementation of those concepts developed on the research and development side of the program. How the ITS Funds Are Used in the Portland Region ? Examples of projects that use this funding source are the corridor-wide ITS projects on Powell Boulevard that provide improved signal timing for bus advantage at intersections. ? Match requirements for these programs and deployment are 10.27% local funds. H IGHWAY B RIDGE R EPLACEMENT AND R EHABILITATION P ROGRAM (HBRRP) Program purpose: provides funds to assist the states in their programs to replace or rehabilitate de?cient highway bridges and to seismically retro?t bridges on any public road. Allocation of funds: ? Bridge discretionary funds are $100 million; $25 million of that total must be spent on seismic retro?t. ? Funds are distributed according to each state?s relative share of the total cost to repair or replace de?cient highway bridges. ? Up to 50% of apportionments can be transferred to IM, NHS, STP and/or CMAW programs. ? Federal dollars guarantee a minimum of 25% of HBRRP funds to each state; no state shall receive more than 10% of the federal total. How HBRRR Funds Are Used in the Portland Region ? Examples of projects that use this funding source include the Bybee Bridge project and the Martin Luther King, Jr Viaduct. ? Match requirements for this source of funds is 10.27% local funds. STATE FUND TRANSPORTATION FINANCING F EDERAL F UND ?P ASS T HROUGH ? TO S TATES /L OCALS As described above, many federal USDOT funds are passed through the State via ODOT to the local jurisdictions. Federal funding programs including NHS, ITS, HBRRP, and some STP allocations are ?passed through? the State to locals. To request funds from any of these sources the request must be submitted and approved in the four-year STIP. H OW S TATE G AS T AX IS A PPOR TIONED State collected gas taxes are apportioned to counties and cities based on unique formulas for each jurisdiction. The City receives a share of the 15.57% of motor fuels tax based on its population size relative to all other cities in the state, vehicle registration fees and weight mile tax on trucks. The annual dollar amount totals about $21 million. In addition, through an agreement, Multnomah County and the City share in the pooled dollars available to the County. That sum totals about $21 million annually. Freight Master Plan C-7 Revenue sources administered by ODOT that are available to local jurisdictions through the ODOT Statewide Improvement Program process: ? Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA) I through III. ? OTIA I and II authorized by the legislature in 2001 and 2002, provides for $500 million in state bonding proceeds for modernization and preservation of Oregon?s transportation system. Local matching funds statewide of $146 million bring the total to $646 million. Those funds are apportioned generally $250 million for moderization; $175 million for bridge and rehabilitation and $75 million for preservation. ? OTIA I and II funds are competitive statewide and have stringent criteria by which prospective projects are judged. They are generally committed to ?shovel-ready? projects. Local projects funded through OTIA I and II are the East End Connector and Sandy Boulevard projects. ? OTIA III, passed by the Legislature in 2003, provides for $ 1.3 billion. ? in replacement and repair of state bridges; $300 million in replacement of local bridges and $300 million in modernization funds. ? ODOT has established program criteria appropriate to the category judged. Prospective projects are submitted by a statewide transportation agencies committee including municipalities, counties, and port authorities. The committee make a recommendation on a list of projects, based on technical and public review, to the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC). The OTC is the ?nal decision-maker. O REGON B IC YCLE AND P EDESTRIAN P ROGRAM Administered by ODOT ? commonly known as the ?Ronkin? fund. Michael Ronkin is the ODOT administrator for bicycle and pedestrian programs. One percent of statewide gas tax is allocated to these facilities. This is a competitive program that is on the same two-year cycle as the Metro MTIP. It is slightly out of synch with the MTIP ?Transportation Priorities? MTIP timetable. For example, for the year 2008-09, the State is requesting that all submissions for review are submitted in July 2004 for lengthy scrutiny over the summer and incorporation into the draft STIP in September 2004. T RANSPOR TATION S AFETY P ROGRAM Supports safety programs throughout the state at approximately $5 million per year. R AILROAD C ROSSING S AFETY I MPROVEMENT P ROGRAM As the title implies this program funds improvements to unsafe crossings with signals, crossing hazard signage and placement of crossing arms. Approximately $2 million per year available statewide. T RANSPOR TATION D EMAND M ANAGEMENT P ROGRAM ODOT ?nances programmatic opportunities that provide transportation travel options to the private automobile and assist in achieving air quality in urban areas. An example, is the Portland Travelsmart program that educates communities about travel options available to them. $2 million is available statewide annually. O REGON P LAN FOR S ALMON A ND W ATERSHEDS A culvert restoration program exists for streams with historic ?sh runs and where barriers to ?sh movement can be mitigated. The annual amount available statewide is $3 million. THE LOCAL FUNDING PROCESS Metro Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) ? Transportation Priorities? Process Regional ?exible federal funds that are administered by Metro, the regional federally recognized metropolitan planning Freight Master Plan organization for the Portland region. ?Flexible? funds may be spent on a wide variety of transportation projects or programs. These funds constitute about four percent of the total annual spending on transportation in the Portland region. Allocation of ?exible funds occurs every two years as denoted in the TEA 21 Authorization Bill. As an example, funds are currently being programmed for 2008-09 speci?cally and adjustments made to projects programmed in 2006-07, hence the entire program years are de?ned as 2006-09. Two sources of regional ?exible funds are: ? Surface Transportation Program (STP) which may be used for any transportation improvement with the exception of local streets. The region receives approximately $17.63M annually for allocation to local transportation agencies. ? Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) funds may be used for projects, which demonstrate that some improvement in air quality will result from building or operating a program. CMAQ funds represent approximately $11.25 million of the total $28.88 million available annually in ?exible federal funds. How regional ?exible funds are allocated as a part of the Transportation Priorities Process also known as the ?Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program or MTIP?: Project applications are submitted to Metro on behalf of eligible public sponsors (like the City of Portland). These applications address speci?c questions regarding project cost, and ability to meet the objectives adopted by the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation ( JPACT) and the Metro Council to guide the allocation of funds. The primary objective for the Transportation Priorities 2006-09 program is to leverage economic development in priority 2040 Framework Plan land use areas through investments that support: ? 2040 Tier I and II mixed use areas (central city, regional and town centers, main streets and station communities). ? 2040 Tier I and II industrial areas (regionally signi?cant industrial areas and other industrial areas). ? 2040 Tier I and II mixed-use and industrial areas within the urban growth boundary expansion areas with completed concept plans. Other policy objectives include: ? Emphasis on modes that do not have other sources of revenue. ? Completion of gaps in the modal systems. ? Development of a multimodal transportation system with a strong emphasis on funding bicycle, boulevard, freight, green street demonstration, pedestrian, regional transportation options, transit-oriented development and transit projects and programs. ? Meet the average annual requirements of the State Implementation Plan for air quality for the provision of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Process for Selection of Projects 1. An initial screening process is done by Metro sta? using the selection criteria outlined above. Project applications are ranked considering those criteria and a draft list of projects 150% over the total dollar amount available to allocate is submitted for public review. The candidate list must comply with elements 2-9 below. 2. Candidate projects must be consistent with regional street design guidelines for its designated design classi?cation. 3. Candidate projects must be in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and in the local Transportation Systems Plan Freight Master Plan C-9 and be consistent with the regional functional classi?cations described in the RTP. 4. Candidate projects must be included in the Financially Constrained system of the 2004 RTP or otherwise eligible for consideration as an amendment of the ?nancially constrained system. 5. The total cost of submitted projects must be consistent with established cost targets for each jurisdiction. For Portland in 2008-09, $33.1 million. 6. The applicant is in compliance with the Metro functional plan. 7. The applicant must make a statement that the project is deliverable within the funding timeframe and prepare a brief summary of the anticipated project development schedule. 8. Projects of less than $200,000 are not encouraged because administrative costs of bringing a project to bid is relatively high. 9. Public involvement is conducted by Metro through public meetings held by JPACT. This committee, along with the Metro Council, recommends projects for further consideration and public comment, narrowing the candidate list of projects to 150% of available funding. JPACT and the Metro Council may direct sta? to develop a technical recommendation on a ?nal list of projects and programs for the Council and JPACT ?s consideration. 10. Metro sta? and TPAC recommend a ?nal selection of projects to JPACT and the Metro Council within available funding revenues. 11. Air quality model analysis is provided on the list of projects to meet air quality conformity regulations. 12. The Metro Council adopts the ?nal package and funds are ready for disbursement. The City of Portland?O?ce of Transportation?s ? Transportation Priorities? MTIP and State Funding Coordination Process The O?ce of Transportation (PDOT) coordinates the City?s regional, state and federal solicitation of transportation funds for all city agencies and bureaus, as well as supports candidate projects for the Port of Portland and Multnomah County in the MTIP process. PDOT has responsibility for coordinating the following discreet funding processes: ? Biennial Metro ?Transportation Priorities MTIP? process for regional ?exible funds. ? Birnnial ODOT Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) in concert with the MTIP. ODOT requests that local transportation agencies submit requests for projects on the state?s highway system that are funded by the STP, ITS, and HBRPR programs. ? Biennial Transportation Enhancements (TE) program. ? Biennial ODOT Pedestrian and Bicycle Project statewide allocation. ? Annual High Priority federal demonstration projects commonly known as Congressional Appropriations earmarks. Coordination occurs formally through resolution at TPAC and JPACT. ? Every six years, Congressional reauthorization of the Transportation Bill occurs. Coordination of project earmarks (High Priority) and programmatic changes through resolution at TPAC and JPACT. Process Speci?c Timelines for Funding Process Coordination PDOT uses the process outlined below for all of its transportation funding coordination responsibilities with other agencies and bureaus. Transportation Planning sta? acts as the inter and intra bureau list coordinators. Note that this process is currently under review by the PDOT Directors Team and is subject to some revision. Most funding programs are on a two-year cycle. For those that are on annual cycles, projects are chosen from the larger two-year cycle project listings compiled for the ?Transportation Priorities MTIP Process?, JPACT federal project list or the Transportation Systems Plan Transportation System Improvements or Reference Lists. Anomalous situations arise that have to be accommodated. If that situation occurs, the same general process principles, eg. the same committee structure and processing requirements are adhered to. Freight Master Plan The following schedule applies to the ?Transportation Priorities? MTIP Process and serves as the guide for all other funding source list production. Note that this process starts on even numbered years: ? January? two meetings ? PDOT Directors Team (bureau managers, director and division managers from ?nance and planning) provides project list development criteria and policy emphasis complementary to Metro section criteria as the basis for the PDOT Capital Oversight Committee (COC) review and re?nement of prospective project lists. The Directors Team may advance di?erent policy perspectives for selection of projects from year-to-year based on the type, scope, local match availability, need and location of the city?s transportation infrastructure at a given point in time. ? End of January through May? The COC (represented by bureau and division managers and modal coordinators) meets monthly to provide internal review of a prospective project list. ? End of January? Transportation Planning re-establishes an inter-agency committee of participating bureaus and other agency representatives of process schedule and selection criteria. ? February through May? The inter-agency committee meets monthly to review their individual list production and that of PDOT ?s COC. ? June? The PDOT COC and inter-agency committees merge lists (in the MTIP process) to reach consensus on a draft list of project totaling 200 % of regional ?exible dollars available for distribution. ? July?The draft list is ?nalized. Transportation Planning sta? develops a Council Resolution for adoption detailing the policy rationale for the 200% list of projects. ? July through early November? Transportation Planning provides internal project managers and inter-agency managers with a comprehensive list of projects for which applications must be provided. All agencies and bureaus are responsible for providing their own applications, including cost estimates, unless prior arrangements are made with PDOT. ? Early November? One month prior to project application submission to Metro, PDOT COC and MTIP application managers set two meetings with agency sta? to review project applications. The purpose for the meeting is to determine if project cost estimates are on target, and if projects require re-scoping or must be dropped to comply with target dollar allocation. ? Mid December? Two days prior to the project submission deadline, the Transportation Planning coordinator collects paper and electronic copies of all projects to be submitted to Metro. Transportation Planning sta? bundles all projects from city bureaus, the Portland Development Commission, the Port of Portland and Multnomah County and hand delivers the package to Metro. ? Mid December through February? Metro provides technical rankings and a draft environmental justice analysis is released. Public hearings are held by Metro on the draft list. ? February-March? The 150% cut list recommendation is released by Metro. ? March-April? Public hearings are held by Metro on the 150% list. Final recommendations are approved. ? May-June? Air quality conformity determination is completed by Metro. A public hearing is held and STIP reporting and documentation is completed. ? July? Full MTIP adoption before TPAC and JPACT and Metro Council occurs in July. ? October? Obligation of federal ?scal year funding begins. ? End of process. Notes: No discussion is included in this document about federal ?nancing for transit programs and projects primarily because Federal Transit Administration administered funds are the primary, but not the sole responsibility of TriMet both from a ?nancing and operational viewpoint. Note that CMAQ and STP funds can be used for most transit capital projects. Federal ? Section 5309? transit operating funds are used by TriMet for the stated purpose and not for highway related capital investments. A PPENDIX D D Freight Master Plan D-1 PREPARING THE PL AN ? PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Following is a description of the community involvement and outreach activities for the Freight Master Plan. Community Events February 4, 2004 Community Open House Montgomery Park, NW Portland Event introduced the freight planning process to the community and gather input on needs and de?ciencies. January 27, 2005 Public Workshop Oregon Assoc. Minority Entrepreneurs, N Portland Event participants reviewed existing conditions information and provided input on freight-related issues. June 9, 2005 Community Open House OMSI, SE Portland Event provided an opportunity to review and comment on draft elements of the Freight Master Plan. Community Presentations Date Audience 2/4/2003 Columbia Corridor Association - Transpor tation Committee 4/1/2003 Central Eastside Industrial Council 9/10/2003 Por tland City Council Hearing - Resolution and Interim Freight Master Plan 10/2/2003 Oregon Planning Institute Conference 10/4/2004 Cascadia Convergence Conference 11/3/ 2004 Transpor tation Association of Por tland 2/8/2005 Por tland Planning Commission Brie?ng 2/28/2005 Por tland Citywide Land Use Group 3/4/2005 Nor th Por tland District Coalition 3/9/2005 NWDA and NW District Coalition 3/10/2005 Oregon Trucking Association - Highway Committee 3/14/2005 Arlington Heights Neighborhood Association 4/7/2005 Lloyd District Association 4/18/2005 SE Uplift - Transpor tation Committee 5/16/2005 NWDA Transpor tation Committee 5/18/2005 Pearl District NA ? Transpor tation Committee 7/13/2005 Brooklyn NA Board Meeting 7/20/2005 Pearl District NA - Transpor tation Committee 7/20/2005 Brooklyn NA General Meeting 7/25/2005 Citywide Land Use Group 8/1/2005 SE Por tland Rotar y Club 9/12/2005 St. Johns Neighborhood Association 9/13/05 Friends of Cathedral Park 9/14/05 East Por tland Land Use Committee 9/14/2005 Kenton Neighborhood Association 9/15/05 Arbor Lodge Neighborhood Association 9/26/05 University Park Neighborhood Association 10/4/05 Por tsmouth Neighborhood Association Freight Master Plan Date Audience 2/12/2003 Por tland Bicycle Advisor y Committee 2/20/2003 River Industrial Economic Advisor y Group 2/21/2003 Oregon Freight Advisor y Committee 2/26/03 Por tland Freight Committee Kick-o? 3/25/2003 Por tland Freight Committee 5/15/2003 Por tland Freight Committee 6/17/2003 Por tland Pedestrian Advisor y Committee 8/20/2003 Por tland Freight Committee 9/25/2003 Por tland Freight Committee 12/4/2003 Por tland Freight Committee 1/8/2004 Por tland Freight Committee 2/5/2004 Por tland Freight Committee 2/25/2004 Oregon Freight Advisor y Committee 3/4/2004 Por tland Freight Committee 4/1/2004 Por tland Freight Committee 5/6/2004 Por tland Freight Committee 5/18/2004 Por tland Pedestrian Advisor y Committee 6/3/2004 Por tland Freight Committee 7/8/2004 Por tland Freight Committee 8/5/2004 Por tland Freight Committee 9/1/2004 Freight Technical Advisor y Committee 9/2/2004 Por tland Freight Committee 9/24/2004 Freight Technical Advisor y Committee 10/7/2004 Por tland Freight Committee 10/12/2004 Por tland Bicycle Advisor y Committee 10/26/2004 Freight Technical Advisor y Committee 11/4/2004 Por tland Freight Committee 12/2/2004 Por tland Freight Committee 12/21/2004 Freight Technical Advisor y Committee 1/6/2005 Por tland Freight Committee 2/1/2005 Freight Technical Advisor y Committee 2/3/2005 Por tland Freight Committee 2/23/2005 Freight Technical Advisor y Committee 3/3/2005 Por tland Freight Committee 3/31/2005 Freight Technical Advisor y Committee 4/7/2005 Por tland Freight Committee 4/14/2005 PDOT Leadership Team 5/5/2005 Por tland Freight Committee 5/20/2005 Multimodal Street Design Workshop 5/24/2005 Freight Technical Advisor y Committee 6/2/2005 Por tland Freight Committee 6/2/2005 Bureau of Planning District Liaisons 6/21/2005 Freight Technical Advisor y Committee 6/21/2005 Por tland Pedestrian Advisor y Committee 7/12/2005 Bicycle Advisor y Committee Advisory Committee Presentations A PPENDIX E E Freight Master Plan E-1 REFERENCES Following is the list of references used to develop the Freight Master Plan. Mobility Break don?t Bend your Supply Chain, by Perry Trunick, Logistics Today: The Publication for Logistics Leaders, November 21, 2004. Columbia Corridor Transportation Study, City of Portland O?ce of Transportation, adopted by the Portland City Council in 1999. Express - Oregon Trucking Associations Newsletter, ortruck@ortrucking.com Freight Planning Support System, Final Summary Report, prepared for the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority by the National Center for Transportation and Industrial Productivity at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, July 2003 I-5 Rail Capacity Study, I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership, Oregon Department of Transportation, February 2003. Identifying High Priority Freight Mobility Projects: Summary of the Oregon Freight Advisory Committee Approach, Oregon Freight Advisory Committee, 2/2004, http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/FREIGHT/docs/FAC_Recommendations_High_ Priority_Freight_Mobility_Projects.pdf Implementing a Statewide Goods Movement Strategy and Performance Measurement of Good Movement in California, Daniel Barber and Lisa Grobar, California State University, Long Beach, June 2001 Key Freight Transportation Challenges: Congestion and Capacity, Federal Highway Administration, O?ce of Freight Management and Operations, Washington, DC, January 2005. Managed Lanes, Jon Obenberger, Public Roads, November/December 2004. Maritime Transportation Service Report to Congress: Trends and Competitive Pressures, USDOT Maritime Transportation Service, Washington, DC, 2004, page III-2. Measuring Improvements in the Movement of Highway and Intermodal Freight, Federal Highway Administration, March 2000, Contract No. DTFH61-97-C-00010, BAT 99-021 Public Roads, Operational Solutions to Tra?c Congestion, FHWA, November/December 2004 Quick Response Freight Manual, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, September 1996. http://tmip.fhwa.dot. gov/clearinghouse/docs/quick/appf.stm Regional Transportation Plan, Metro, 2004, http://www.metro-region.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=137 Reliability: Critical to Freight Transportation, Scott Johnson and Joanne Sedor, Public Roads, November/December 2004. St. Johns Truck Strategy, City of Portland O?ce of Transportation, adopted by the Portland City Council in 1999. Statewide Congestion Overview for Oregon, Oregon Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Analysis Unit, Salem, OR, February 2004. Summary of the Vancouver BNSF Rail Bridge Project: A Presentation to JPACT ( Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation for the Portland/Vancouver region), by the Ad-Hoc Steering Committee for the Vancouver Rail Bridge Upgrade Project, January 15, 2004. Truckline, A Publication of the American Trucking Associations, http://www.truckline.com/legislative/regulatory/ PRESS%20RELEASE-HOS%20Rules%20Vacated.doc. Trucks and Transportation, Michigan Department of Transportation, February 1998 Freight Master Plan Economics Bene?t-Costs Analysis of Highway Improvements in Relation to Freight Transportation: Microeconomic Framework, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC February 2001 Citywide Industrial Land Inventory and Assessment, Portland Development Commission, July 2003, http://www.pdc.us/pubs/ inv_detail.asp?id=100&ty=23 Commodity Flow Forecast Update and Lower Columbia River Cargo Forecast, prepared for the Port of Portland, METRO, Oregon Department of Transportation, Port of Vancouver and Regional Transportation Council, by DRI-WEFA, BST Associates and Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Cambridge, MA June 2002 Economic & Bridge Options Report, Oregon Department of Transportation ? Transportation Planning Analysis Unit, Salem, OR, December 2002. http://www.odot.state.or.us/tddtpau/modeling.html#Gen1 Freight Analysis, Challenges, Concerns and Future Directions, Federal Highway Administration, O?ce of Freight Management and Operations, Washington, DC, April 2004. Freight Informatics: 21st-Century Data Just in Time, Catherine T. Lawson, ITE Journal, December 2004 Freight Performance Measures: A Yardstick for Minnesota?s Transportation System, Recommendations of the Minnesota Freight Advisory Committee, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minneapolis, MN, November 1999. Freight Rail and the Oregon Economy, Port of Portland, March 2004, http://www.portlandairportpdx.com/Pdfpop/Freight_ Rail_OR_Econ.pdf. Freight Transportation Improvements and the Economy, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, July 2004, http:// www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/improve_econ/index.htm Freight Transportation Planning for Urban Areas, Arun Chatterjee, ITE Journal, December 2004 Measuring the Economic Costs of Urban Tra?c Congestion to Business, Glen Weisbrod et al, presented at TRB 2003 Annual Meeting Occupational Employment Projections to 2012, David Hecker, U.S. Department of Labor, Monthly Labor Review, February 2004, Washington, DC http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2004/02/art5abs.htm. Operational Solutions to Tra?c Congestion, Je? Paniati, Public Roads, November/December 2004. Paid On-Street Loading Zones: Final Project Proposal, Portland O?ce of Transportation, May 26, 2000 Perceived Value of Time for Truck Operators, Kazuya Kawamura, presented at TRB Annual Meeting, 1/13/2000 Railroads Raise Rates Despite Long Waits for Delivery Dates, David Greenberg, Los Angeles Business Journal August 16, 2004. Regional Economic E?ects of the I-5 Corridor/Columbia River Crossing Transportation Choke Points, Oregon Department of Transportation, April 2003 Systems Management and Operations: A Culture Shock, Steve Lockwood, ITE Journal, May 2005. Regional Industrial Lands Study Market Demand Analysis, prepared for the City of Portland Bureau of Planning by ECONorthwest, July 2003, http://www.pdc.us/pdf/bus_serv/mkt-demand-analysis.pdf The Freight Story: A National Perspective on Enhancing Freight Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, November 2002. Toll Truckways: A New Path Toward Safer and More E?cient Freight Transportation, Reason Public Policy Institute, Los Angeles, CA, 2002, http://www.rppi.org/ps294.pdf Livability City of Portland Auditor?s Service, E?orts and Accomplishments Report, Published 2004 District of Columbia Motor Carrier Management and Threat Assessment Study ? Preliminary Findings, U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration, October 2003, http://app.ddot.dc.gov/information/studies/ Motor_carrier_study/pdf/Preliminary_Draft.pdf Industrial Districts Atlas (in progress), Portland Bureau of Planning, January 19, 2005. Freight Master Plan E-3 Integrating Freight Facilities and Operations with Community Goals, NCHRP No. 320, National Highway Cooperative Research Program, Washington, DC 2003 Railroads: Building a Cleaner Environment, American Association of Railroads, July 2004 Web Sites American Association of Railroads web site, http://www.aar.org/ American Trucking Associations web site, http://www.truckline.com/index Columbia River Crossing web site, http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/ Freight Action Strategy for Seattle-Tacoma (FAST) web site http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mobility/fast/ FHWA O?ce of Freight Management and Operation web site, http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/ I-5 to Delta Park Project web site, http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/REGION1/I-5DeltaPark/index.shtml Keep Portland Moving website: http://www.keepportlandmoving.org/ Marine Exchange of Southern California web site, www.mxsocal.org Oregon Motor Carrier Division web site, http://egov.oregon.gov/ODOT/MCT/ Oregon Freight/Rail Trucking web site, http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/rail_truck_freight.shtml Portland O?ce of Transportation Freight web site, http://www.portlandtransportation.org/Projects/FMP/default.htm Port of Portland Channel Deepening web site, http://www.?ypdx.com/ch_home.aspx Port of Portland Marine Terminals Master Plan web site, http://www.?ypdx.com/MTMP_Overview.aspx Port of Portland Transportation and Trade Studies web site, http://www.?ypdx.com/Trade_Trans_Studies.aspx Sustainable Transportation Monitor Newsletter, www.cstcd.org U.S. Dept of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis web site, http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/data.htm Washington State Department of Transportation O?ce of Freight Mobility web site, http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/freight/default.htm Data 2002 Commodity Flow Survey, U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Washington, DC, 2004. 2003 Tra?c Monitoring Program, Port of Portland, 2004. Commodity Flow Forecast Update and Lower Columbia River Cargo Forecast, prepared for the Port of Portland, METRO, Oregon Department of Transportation, Port of Vancouver, and the Regional Transportation Council by DRI-WEFA, BST Associates and Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Cambridge, MA, June 2002. The Women?s Shipping Club of Portland, OR Newsletter Plans Freight Master Plan Framework Plan Draft, City of Portland O?ce of Transportation, 5/25/2004 Freight Master Plan: Truck Access and Circulation Analysis, Portland O?ce of Transportation, September 10, 2003 Freight Mobility Strategic Action Plan, Seattle Department of Transportation, April 2004, http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/ transportation/docs/FMSAP.pdf Intelligent Transportation System Implementation Plan, DKS Associates for City of Portland, June 1997 Oregon Transportation Plan Update: Background Paper ? Transportation Security, prepared by Rose Gentry, ODOT, Salem, OR http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/docs/otpSafety/Security.pdf Oregon Transportation Plan, Oregon Department of Transportation, adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission in 1992 Freight Master Plan Portland-Astoria (US 30) Corridor Plan Volume I, Oregon Department of Transportation, Regions 1 and 2, Portland and Salem, adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission in 1999 Portland-Cannon Beach (US 26) Corridor Plan Volume I, Oregon Department of Transportation, Regions 1 and 2, Portland and Salem, OR adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission in 1999 Portland International Airport Master Plan, Port of Portland, 2000 Portland International Airport Master Plan, Port of Portland, 2002 Portland O?ce of Transportation Financial Plan, 2005-2010 Portland Transportation System Plan, by the City of Portland O?ce of Transportation, adopted by Portland City Council, 1999 Standards and Regulations AASHTO Guide for the Geometric Design of Highways, American Association of State Highway and Transportation O?cials(AASHTO), 2001 Laws and Regulations Guidelines for Uniform Laws and Regulations Governing Truck Size and Weight among WASHTO States, adopted by WASHTO Policy Committee, January 2000 ODOT Highway Design Manual, Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, OR Regulation of Weights, Lengths, and Widths of Commercial Motor Vehicles -- Special Report 267 Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2002 (TRB) http://books.nap.edu/books/030907701X/html/212.html#pagetop WSDOT Design Manual, Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA