CITY OF CENTRAL porNT - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System
Plan] 2008 to 2030
DRAFT
7/18/2008
Table ofContents
Chapter 1 - Introduction 1
1.1. Introduction 1
1.2. The Transportation Planning Rule 1
1.3. The Regional Transportation Plan 2
1.4. Values, Guiding Principles, Goals and Policies .3
1.5. Public Involvement & Plan Approval Process 4
1.6. Plan Organization 4
1.7. The Action Program .5
1.8. Program Compliance 5
Chapter 2 - Plan Compliance 6
2.1. Introduction 6
2.2. Plan Compliance, Scope ofReview 6
2.3 Central Point Forward, Fair City Vision 2020 7
2.4 Oregon Transportation Planning Rule 8
2.5. Plan Conformity, Other 9
2.6. Other Plans 12
2.7. Conclusion 13
Chapter 3 - Land Use & Transportation Planning 14
3.1. Introduction 14
3.2. The Land Use Element 14
3.3. Buildable Land Inventory (BLI) 15
3.4. Growth Projections 15
3.5. Transit Oriented Development 15
3.6 Land Use Goals and Policies 17
Chapter 4 - Existing Transportation Conditions 18
4.1. Introduction 18
4.2. Street System 18
4.3. Transportation Corridor Studies 27
4.4. Bicycle System Existing Conditions 31
4.5. Pedestrian System, Existing Conditions 35
4.6. Rail System, Existing Conditions 35
4.7. Transit, Existing Conditions 35
Chapter 5 - Transportation Management. .37
5.1. Introduction 37
5.2. Transportation System Management (TSM) 37
5.3. Mobility Standards 38
5.4. Access Management (AM) 41
5.5. Transportaion Demand Management (TDM) .44
5.6. Transportation Management Goals, Objectives, and Policies .49
Chapter 6 - Parking Management 51
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
6.1. Introduction 51
6.2. Current Parking Inventory 51
6.3. Parking Performance Measures 51
6.4. Parking Strategies 51
6.5. Regional Transportation Plan 57
6.6 Current Parking Code and Policy Changes 58
6.7. Parking Management Goals and Policies 61
Chapter 7 - Street System, 2008-2030 62
7.1. Introduction 62
7.2. Street System 62
7.3. Recommended Street System Improvements 71
7A. Street System Goals, Objectives and Policies 75
Chapter 8 - Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan 77
8.1. Introduction 77
8.2. Bicycle System Hierarchy 77
8.3. The Bicycle System 78
804. Infill Project Priorities & Implementation / Improvement Strategies 78
8.5. The Pedestrian System 81
8.6. Priority ofPedestrian Improvements 83
8.7. Public Awareness 84
8.8. Bear Creek Greenway 84
8.9. Bicycle and Pedestrian Goals, Policies & Actions 85
Chapter 9 - Public Transit System 88
9.1. Introduction 88
9.2. 2005 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) 88
9.3. Rogue Valley Transportation District 90
904. Strategies to Improve Transit Service 91
9.5. Transit Goals and Policies 94
Chapter 10 - Railroad & Aviation System 95
10.1. Railroad System- Introduction 95
10.2. Railroads - Existing Conditions 95
10.3. Aviation System - Introduction 103
lOA. Railroad and Aviation Goals and Policies l04
Chapter 11 - Truck Freight System 105
11.1. Introduction 105
11.2. Land Use 105
11.3. Truck Freight - Existing Conditions 105
11.4. Central Point Truck Freight - Issues & Concerns 11 0
11.5. Out-of-Direction Travel 11 0
11.6. Truck Freight Goals and Policies 111
Chapter 12 - Transportation System Financing System Program 112
12.1. Introduction 112
12.2. Project Prioritization Policies 112
12.3. Project Classification System 113
12.4. Transportation Funding Sources 114
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
12.5. Transportation System Revenue Projections 119
12.6. Transportation Program Costs 119
12.7. Transportation Financing Goals, Objectives, and Policies 125
Chapter 13 - Implementation Policies 127
13.1 Introduction 127
13.2 Implementation Goals and Policies by Chapter 127
City ofCentral Point
Transportation Plan, 2008?2030
Chapter 1 .. Introduction
1.1. Introduction
Throughout hidnrv traillsportati(m has been a major factor in the eccmOlnlC
cities, and nations. The a to enlCl(~ntJly
one place to another, competitive ad'{anita~~e
limited traltlSportatlc)n s,rstems.
trade routes to ....."'.... "" hill'hwaIVS. raiilwalVS. Wl'llt~rwl'lv(: with
economic and improved quality and transportation
related expenditures constitute a ofthe eC(lin9Iny, are as
important for the economic development and quality of COlnlTlUIllitic;::s as transportation.
This TSP has been prepared within
context ofan urban area consisting of2,880
acres, Planning
Rule (TPR), the Re~~ion:al TJrans:portatic)n
Plan (RTP) as developed by Rogue
Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization
(RVMPO) and other local transportation
plans and as in detail in
Chapter 2. This will serve as
Transportation ofthe
Comprehensive Plan.
The City ofCentral Point reCC)gniLzes
network oftransportation tac:Hlt:ies
1.2. The Transportation Plan.ning Rule
In recognition ofthe role that transportation plays in the economic success and livability ofthe
state and the magnitude ofthe cost to provide and maintain a transportation system,
Oregon has included it as an element ofthe statewide planning process. Goal 12? Transportation
provides and encourages the planning and implementation ofa convenient, economic, and safe
transportation system that integrates local, regional, state and inter?state transportation systems.
This goal recognizes the necessity, at all levels ofgovernment, ofhaving, and a
cornpl~ehienslve transportation planning program that serves statewide transportation . The
preferred means to achieving this objective is through the preparation oftransportation system
I Oregon Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
Page I of141
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
plans (TSP). A TSP is a plan for one or more transportation facilities that are planned, developed,
operated, and maintained in a coordinated manner to assure continuity ofmovement between
modes and geographic and jurisdictional boundaries.
(a) Promote the development oftransportation systems adequate to
serve statewide, regional andlocal transportation needs andthe mobility
needs ofthe transportation disadvantaged;
The following objectives ofthe TPR have been incorporated in the
guiding principles, goals, and policies presented in this TSP:
(b) Encourage andsupport the availability ofa variety of
transportation choicesfor movingpeople that balance vehicular use with
other transportation modes, including walking, bicycling andtransit.
(c) Providefor safe andconvenient vehicular, transit, pedestrian,
and bicycle access andcirculation;
To facilitate implementation ofGoal 12, the state adopted rules governing the preparation and
coordination oftransportation system plans (OAR 660-12). These rules are collectively referred to
as the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The TPR acknowledges the significance in the
relationship between transportation and land use planning, and defines transportation systems
planning as a mandatory element ofa community's comprehensive
planning process.r-T~~-~~por~;ti~n \tran(t)s-
I
p~r-'tii.-shen\ n I: an act,
process, or instance of
I transporting or being
)
transported.
Transport \tr3O(t)s-
, 'po(~)rt, 'tran(t)s-,\ VI I:i
to transfer or convey from
"
one place to another.
System \'sis-t~m\ n I: a
I regularly interacting orI
interdependent group of
I
I items forming a unified
whole. 2: an organized set
! ofdoctrines, ideas, or
principles usually
intended to explain the
I arrangement or workingi
ofa systematic whole.L ...!
(d) Facilitate the safe, efficient and economicflow offreight and
other goods andservices within regions andthroughout the state through a variety ofmodes
including road, air, rail and marine transportation;
(e) Protect existing andplannedtransportationfacilities, corridors andsitesfor their
identifiedfunctions;
(j) Provide for the construction andimplementation oftransportation facilities, improvements
andservices necessary to support acknowledged comprehensive plans;
(g) Identify how transportationfacilities are providedon rural lands consistent with the
goals;
(h) Ensure coordination among affected local governments andtransportation service
providers andconsistency between state, regional andlocal transportation plans; and
(i) Ensure that changes to comprehensive plans are supportedby adequate planned
transportation facilities.
1.3. The Regional Transportation Plan
In accordance with the TPR, the RVMPO is charged with the preparation, management, and
maintenance ofthe RTp2? The RVMPO covers the urbanized area ofJacksoll County, including
the cities ofCentral Point, Ashland, Eagle Point, Jacksonville, Medford, Phoenix, Talent, the
2 OAR 660-012-001 5(3)(a)
CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION
Page 2 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
unincorporated area of White City and surrounding Jackson County which in 2007 had an
estimated population of] 28,780. The Rogue Yalley Council ofGovernments (RYCOG) serves as
the MPO for the Rogue Yalley area. The MPO Policy Committee, the organization's decision 
making board, consists ofelected officials from the member cities and Jackson County, plus the
Rogue Yalley Transportation District (RVTD), Jackson County, and the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT).
1.4. Values, Guiding Principles, Goals
and Policies
In 2007, Central Point Forward, Fair City
Vision 2020 (Vision 2020) was adopted by the
City Council3? Preparation ofVision 2020
included considerable citizen involvement in
defining the future ofthe City, including the
role transportation will playas the vision
unfolds. Vision 2020 adopted the following
statement as a core value for the planning and
development ofthe City's transportation
system:
'The City a/Central Point values a system a/transportation and
infrastructure that is modern, efficient andsensitive to the
environment. "
In addition to this core transportation value, the citizens ofCentral Point developed a series of
transportation related principles. The term "principle" refers to the community's fundamental
position to be used throughout the preparation and implementation ofthis TSP. The use of
principles is intended to serve as a point ofreference and a philosophical system ofway~finding as
the City navigates its way through the goals, policies, and implementation strategies necessary to
attain the City's transportation vision. The following represents the principles that will guide the
preparation and implementation ofthis TSP:
1. To strike a balance between accessibility andconnectivity ofpeople and goods, while
keeping the system safe, attractive andwell-maintained.
2. To advocate landuse patterns, such as transit-oriented development and in-jill strategies,
that support the continuedenhancement ofmulti-modal transportation.
3. To increase street system safety andfunction through the adoption and implementation of
access management standardsfor the purpose ofmaintaining andpreserving the existing
investment in transportationfacilities.
4. To design streets in a manner that: maximizes the utility ofpublic right-oj-way; is
appropriate to theirfunctional role, andprovidesfor multiple travel modes. while
minimizing their impact on the character andlivability ofsurrounding neighborhoods,
business districts andthe environment.
In addition to guiding principles the City has adopted a series oftransportation related goals. The
3 City ofCentral Point Resolution No. 1143
CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION
Page 3 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?203Q
term "Goals" is defined as the City's major desire, or intent, determined necessary for the
attainment ofits preferred transportation system. The goals are written to focus attention, to
energize the community to action, and to instill the resolve necessary to attain the goal during the
life ofthe Plan.
Goal implementation is generally enforced through what is referred to as policies. The term
"Policy" identifies the preferred course ofaction determined appropriate to the successful
attainment ofa related goal. Where appropriate each policy is followed with actions related to the
implementation ofthe policy. Actions are typically associated with events such as code
amendments, capital improvement plans, etc.
1.5. Public Involvement & Plan Approval Process
In accordance with the Statewide Planning Goal, 1 the preparation and adoption ofthis TSP
included a citizen involvement component that included the following:
Central Point Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC). Throughout development ofthe
TSP the CAC served as a reviewing authority, providing input and forwarding
recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council. The CAC draft TSP was
the first released to the public and to other agencies for review (Oregon Department of
Transportation and the Department ofLand Conservation and Development). Throughout
the CAC review all meetings were noticed to encourage the public to participate in
preparation ofthe draft TSP.
The Central Point Planning Commission. The draft TSP, as recommended by the CAC,
was forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation to the
City Council. All Planning Commission meetings were noticed to encourage the public to
provide input on preparation ofthe final draft ofthe TSP, and City Council meetings at
which the TSP was considered
Central Point City Council. Based on recommendations from the CAe and the Planning
Commission, the City Council reviewed the TSP and after conducting public hearings the
City Council on , 2008 adopted the TSP as presented in this
document. The City Council meetings were noticed to further encourage the public to
provide final input on TSP
1.6. Plan Organization
In acknowledgement ofthe relationship between the TPR, the RTP, and this TSP, the organization
ofthis document closely follows the format described in the TPR - Elements ofTransportation
System Plans4? Central Point's TSP has been developed through a series oftechnical evaluations
ofthe City's transportation system as it currently exists and as it will be expanded and used
through the year 2030. In addition, the technical analysis preparation ofthis TSP has included
systematic input and review by the city staff, the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), a Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC), the Planning Commission, and the citizens ofCentral Point. In its
entirety, this TSP contains thirteen (13) chapters as follows:
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. Plan Compliance
4 OAR 660-0 12~0020(2)
CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION
Page 4 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 3. Land Use and Forecasting
Chapter 4. Existing Conditions and Needs
Chapter 5. Transportation Management
Chapter 6. Parking System & Management
Chapter 7. Street System
Chapter 8. Bicycle and Pedestrian System
Chapter 9. Public Transit System
Chapter 1O. Aviation and Rail System
Chapter 11. Freight System
Chapter 12. Transportation System Financing
Chapter 13. Implementation Policies
Each ofthese chapters has been prepared in compliance with the TPR and tested for consistency
with federal, state, regional, and local transportation plans.
1.7. The Action Program
During the preparation ofthis TSP, there were numerous occasions where it was determined that
the current standards and regulations were in need ofmodification or that entirely new provisions
were required to bring the City's transportation program into compliance with the TPR. Changes
to the City's zoning and public works standards are presented in the Implementation subsection of
Chapter 13, Implementation Policies. The Implementation subsection identifies required actions,
the lead department responsible, the document needing modification, and a schedule for
completion ofthe action throughout the planning period. The design ofthe Implementation
subsection fully expects that as actions are completed that they are noted in the Action Program
and that this section will be periodically updated to reflect the action. These periodic updates ofthe
Action Program are not considered amendments to this TSP, but merely reflect an accounting of
progress in attaining the objectives ofthe TSP throughout its life.
1.8. Program Compliance
In collaboration with the TPR and the RTP, the City ofCentral Point has prepared this TSP.
Central Point's TSP is consistent with, and complements, other related transportation system plans,
including local, regional, state, and federal transportation policies and programs. The goals,
policies, and plans set forth in this TSP represent the City's vision for maintaining and advancing
its transportation system in coordination with its land use planning program. The ultimate
objective is to efficiently, and effectively provide for the transportation needs ofthe community
while improving the quality oflife ofits citizens.
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION
PageS of141
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 2 - Plan Compliance
2.1. Introduction
The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires that all local transportation system plans be
consistent with the regional transportation system plan and adopted elements ofthe state
transportation system plans. Local transportation system plans are also required to be coordinated
with affected federal and state agencies, local governments, special districts, and private providers
oftransportation services. The purpose ofthis chapter is to verity coordination, and where
appropriate, compliance with applicable transportation plans and programs and to address the
consistency ofthis Transportation System Plan (TSP) with affected state, federal and local
transportation plans and programs.
2.2. Plan Compliance, Scope ofReview
Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines, Goa1I2: Transportation serves as the principal
document governing the preparation and implementation ofstate, regional and local transportation
plans. Goal 12 requires that transportation system plans:
IZl Consider all modes oftransportation;
III Be based upon an inventory oflocal, regional and state transportation needs;
o Consider the differences in social consequences that would result from utilizing differing
combinations oftransportation modes;
III Avoid principal reliance upon anyone mode oftransportation;
III Minimize adverse social, economic and environmental impacts and costs;
o Conserve energy;
o Meet the needs ofthe transportation disadvantaged by improving transportation services;
bZI Facilitate the flow ofgoods and services so as to strengthen the local and regional
economy; and
b2l Confonnity with local and regional comprehensive land use plans.
While Goal 12 establishes the state's overall transportation goal, it is the TPR that defines the
minimum requirements for the preparation oflocal transportation system plans, including
compliance with other federal, state and regional transportation plans. The goals, policies and
plans presented in this TSP have been reviewed for compliance with the following transportation
plans and other documents:
III Central Point Fonvard. Fair City Vision 2020 - A review ofthe City's updated long 
tenn vision for the City ofCentral Point, with an emphasis on the community's vision for
their transportation needs.
SOAR 660-012-0015(3)(a)
CHAPTER 4 - EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
Page 6 ofl41
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
121 Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) - The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) was
adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission in 1991 and sets forth
the requirements for preparation oflocal transportation system plans. The City ofCentra]
Point's TSP is based on, and complies with, the most recent amendments to the TPR as set
forth in OAR 660, Division 12 dated October 30,2006.
I2l Plan Conformity, Other - Preparation ofthis TSP included a review ofthe goals and
policies ofapplicable state, regional, and local transportation plans, as well as the City's
Comprehensive Plan and development ordinances. Other plans considered in the
preparation ofthis TSP included:
? Oregon Transportation Plan
? 1999 Oregon Highway Plan
? Oregon Rail Plan, 2001 [ODOT]
? Regional Freight Study
? Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
? Oregon Access Management Rules (OAR 734-051)
? Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
? Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
? Jackson County Transportation System Plan, March 2005
? Jackson County Bicycle Master Plan
? Transit Oriented Design (TOD) and Transit Corridor Development Strategies for
the Rogue Valley
? Rogue Valley Transit District Plan
? City ofCentral Point Comprehensive Plan
? City ofMedford Transportation System Plan
? City ofCentral Point Zoning Ordinance
? City ofCentral Point Subdivision Ordinance
? City ofCentral Point Public Works Standards
? Other plans
2.3 Central Point Fonvard, Fair City Vision 2020
Over the course oftime, there are many documents and plans that are used in guiding the
development practices ofany community. The most significant ofthese documents is the one that
identifies a community's long-term vision for its future. The City ofCentral Point has developed
such a vision plan, Central Point Forward, Fair City Vision 2020. Preparation ofthis plan was
based on considerable citizen involvement in defining the preferred future ofthe City, including
the role transportation will playas the vision unfolds. Within the scope ofthe visioning process,
citizens defined a system ofvalues, goals, strategies, and actions to be applied over the course of
the next thirteen years. When completed, there was six categories defining the City's vision and
strategies for attaining that vision. One ofthose categories included Transportation.
For transportation, the citizens ofCentral Point defined as a core value the planning and
development ofa st'stem oftransportation and infrastructure that is modem, efficient, and sensitive
to the environment. For transportation, the Vision Plan identified three goals, thirteen strategies,
6 Central Point Forward, Fair City Vision 2020, April 26, 2007, page 6
CHAPTER 2 - PLAN COMPLIANCE
Page 7 of 141
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
and eight actions. Each ofthese goals, strategies, and actions has been addressed in this TSP.
2.4 Oregon Transportation Planning Rule
The need to update the TSP is driven by the requirements ofthe Oregon TPR. In accordance with
the TPR, local transportation plans at a minimum must:
I2l Establish a system oftransportation facilities and services adequate to meet identified local
transportation needs and shall be consistent with regional TSPs and adopted elements of
the state TSP;
I;ZI Be adopted as part ofthe City's comprehensive plan (Comprehensive Plan); and
I;ZI Be coordinated with affected state and federal agencies, local governments, special
districts, and private providers oftransportation services (Plan Conformity).
The goals and policies ofthe City's TSP have also been reviewed for consistency with the
Planning and Implementation Guidelines established by Goal 12, Transportation, and modified as
necessary to address the following key provisions ofGoal 12:
I;ZI Planning - To the fullest extent possible transportation systems should be planned to
utilize existing facilities and rights-of-way;
I;ZI Planning - Population densities and peak hour travel patterns ofexisting and planned
developments should be considered in the choice oftransportation modes for trips taken
by persons. While high density developments with concentrated trip origins and
destinations should be designated to be principally served by mass transit, low-density
developments with dispersed origins and destinations should be principally served by all
transportation modes, including automobiles, multiple use trails, public transportation,
bicycles, etc,;
III Planning - Plans providing for a transportation system should consider as a major
determinant the carry capacity ofthe air, land, and water resources ofthe planning area.
The land conservation and development actions provided for by such plans should not
exceed the carrying capacity ofsuch resources;
I;ZI Implementation - The number and location ofmajor transportation facilities should
conform to the applicable state or local land use plans and policies designed to direct
urban expansion to areas identified as necessary and suitable for urban development;
III Implementation - Plans for new or for improvement ofmajor transportation facilities
should identify the positive and negative impacts on:
??
?
?
?
Local land use patterns;
Environmental quality;
Energy use and resources;
Existing transportation systems; and
Fiscal resources in a manner sufficient to enable local governments to rationally
consider the issues posed by the construction and operation ofsuch facilities.
CHAPTER 2- PLAN COMPLIANCE
Page 80fl41
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
121 Implementation - Lands adjacent to major mass transit stations, freeway interchanges, and
major air, land and water terminals should be managed and controlled so as to be
consistent with and supportive ofthe land use and development patterns identified in the
comprehensive plan ofthe jurisdiction within which the facilities are located; and
f2J Implementation - Plans should provide for a detailed management program to assign
respective implementation roles and responsibilities to those governmental bodies
operating in the planning area and having interests in carrying out the goal.
Additionally, the TSP goals and policies were reviewed to confirm that the following required
elements have been addressed:
bZI A coordinated network oftransportation facilities adequate to serve state, regional, and
local transportation needs;
IZl A determination oftransportation needs;
!ZI A road plan for arterial and collector streets and standards for the layout oflocal streets
and other non-collector street connections; and
IZl An inventory and general assessment ofexisting and committed transportation facilities
and services by function, type, capacity, and condition;
121 A public transportation plan;
!ZI A bicycle and pedestrian plan;
121 An air, rail, water and pipeline transportation plan;
IZl A transportation system management plan and demand management plan (for areas greater
than 25,000 persons)
121 A parking plan;
IZl Policies and land use regulations for TSP implementation; and
121 A transportation financing program.
2.5. Plan Conformity, Other
The objective ofthe state's transportation program is to assure that the preparation and content of
local transportation system plans support other local, regional and state transportation plans. The
following identifies each ofthe local, regional and state plans, the City's Comprehensive Plan, and
land development regulations, including a summary ofchanges required for conformity.
2.5.1. Oregon Transportation Plan, 2006 (OTP): With the exception ofthe
designation ofHwy. 99 as noted below, the TSP goals and policies are consistent with the
OTP goals and policies.
2.5.2. 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (OHP): As its name implies the OHP is the state's
twenty year plan for managing and improving its highway system. The OHP sets forth the
CHAPTER 2 - PLAN COMPLIANCE
Page90fl41
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
state's guiding vision for the future ofthe state highway system, and sets forth goals,
policies and actions (the Policy Element) necessary to attain its vision. The OHP also
includes an analysis ofsystem needs, revenue forecasts, investment and implementation
strategies, and perfonnance measurements.
The goals and policies ofthis TSP are consistent with the OHP, with one exception
resulting from a jurisdictional exchange affecting the District Highway designation of
Hwy.99. On May 14,2004, by City ofCentral Point Resolution No. lOIS the jurisdiction
ofHwy. 99 from Mile Post .1.64 to Mile Post 2.18 was transferred to the City and re 
designated as a Major Arterial. Within the City's urban area there remain two short
sections, one north ofMile Post I.64 and one south ofMile Post.063 that retain the
District Highway designation. The City's Street Classification Map has been modified to
reflect these changes.
2.5.3. 2001 Oregon Rail Plan: The goals, policies and actions set forth in the Air & Rail
chapter ofthe TSP are consistent with the Oregon Rail Plan.
2.5.5. Regional Freight Study: The Regional Freight Study identified Pine Street as a
freight route. As stated in the City's 2000 TSP and its Vision 2020, the preference is that
freight be diverted from that section ofPine Street within the Central Business District.
2.5.6. Statewide Transportation Improvement Program: The goals, policies and
actions set forth in the TSP are consistent with the Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program.
2.5.7. Oregon Access Management Rules (ORS 734-015): The goals, policies and
actions set forth in the Access Management chapter ofthe TSP are consistent with ORS
734-015.
2.5.8. Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: The goals, policies and actions set forth in
the Bicycle and Pedestrian chapter ofthe TSP are consistent with the Oregon Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan.
2.5.9 Regional Transportation Plan 2005-2030 (RTP): Aside from Goal 12 and the
TPR, the RTP is the most significant contributing document with regards to preparation of
this TSP. Many ofthe findings and compliance statements contained in the RTP are relied
upon for compliance ofthis TSP, particularly in reference to state and federal plans and
programs. The goals, objectives and policies ofthis TSP were compared against, and
detennined to be consistent with, those ofthe RTP, with the exception ofthe following
two items as follows:
I. Hwy. 99 Classification - As discussed, subsequent to the adoption ofthe OHP
and the RTP, Hwy. 99 was transferred to the City and downgraded from District
Highway to Major Arterial Street. When the OHP and RTP are updated they will
reflect the change in designation ofHwy. 99 to Major Arterial Street.
2. Regional Freight Study - In the Regional Freight Study, the RTP designates Pine
Street, from Front Street to Hamrick Road as a freight route. The freight
designation conflicted with goals and policies ofthe prior TSP (2000) and the
City's Vision Plan.
CHAPTER 2 - PLAN COMPLIANCE
Page lO of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
In addition to the goals and policies, the RTP also included seven performance measures.
The purpose ofthe performance measures is to provide assurances that a reduction in the
region's reliance on the automobile would be achieved. The City ofCentral Point's TSP
acknowledges these performance measures and has included similar supporting
performance measures for the City. The RTP performance measures are presented in
Table 2. I: Alternative RTP Performance Measures.
Table 2.1 Alternative RTP Performance Measure
Transit; 3.0
bike/ped.:
Il.O
49%
60%
. Bellchiils.rk ..???>2020
% daily trips
41%
48%
Transit; 2.2
bike/ped.: 9.8
Benchmark
2015>
% daily trips
Transit: 1.6
bike/ped.: 8.4
26%
37%
BClu:bniark?2010?
% daily trips
28%
9%
Transit: 1.2
bike/ped.: 84
% daily trips
0%
21%
% daily trips
Transit: 1.0
bike/ped.: 8.2
Current 2000 . Benchmiirk?</2005 .
Measure 1:
Transit &
bicycle/pedestrian
mode share
Measure 5:
Percentage
mixed-use
DU's in new
development.
Measllre2:PerCent
of
DwdlingUnits
(DU's)withiri~
. rrtilewatkto30 
..???niiil.trilrisitserviCe
Measure 3:
Collectors &
arterials
wlbicycle
facilities
.?Measure
Measure 6:
... Percentage
m:ixed-use
etnployment in
new
development.
The percent oftotal
daily trips taken by
transit and the
combination of
bicycle and walking
(non-motorized)
modes. Determined
from best available
data (e.g., model
output and/or
transportation survey
data).
Deteririil1cilthrough
?G1S111apping????.?.??.>.>??<.?i?
Current estimates are
?.that .J2%6fDtJ'sare
wilhinJ~mi1e< ?......?....
?... walJdl1g<listfutCeof ..... RvtD
transitroiites.
Determined through
GIS Mapping.
Current estimates are
that 21% of
collectors and
arterials in the City
have provisions for
bicyclists.
Measure 4: .... . DeteirriIl1ed .....
Perceritage of . through dIs ..>.?.....?..
oolleetorsand ..>.. ??mappil'lg.(Current .
arteria1SIn .. estimafesaiethat
??Tbbat~as,vith4~%otc61leCt{)rs .
.?.. sidewalks. >.. and arterialsin
Tol)ateashaYe ...
sidew3.J.kS ..???????
Detennined by
tracking building
pennits - the ratio
between new DU's
in TODS and total
new DU's in the
region.
Estimated from
annual .
efuployllli::htfiles
from State';:' ...
.representstherati6
ofriew
CHAPTER 2 - PLAN COMPLIANCE
Page 11 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Measure 7:
Alternative
Transportation
Funding
erriploYtnerttini .
>TODs over total.?.....
regionali.??.?.? i?? ?...
??.employment;?
Estimated from NIA
annual
employment files
from State-
represents the ratio
ofnew
employment in
TODs over
regional
employment.
$950,000 $2.5 million $4.3 million $6.4
million
2.5.10. Jackson County Transportation System Plan 2005: The goals and policies of
this TSP have been reviewed against Jackson County's TSP and detennined to be
consistent. No changes were required.
2.5.11. Jackson County Bicycle Master Plan: The goals, policies and actions set forth
in the Bicycle and Pedestrian chapter ofthe TSP is consistent with the Jackson County
Bicycle Master Plan.
2.5.12. Rogue Valley Transit District Plan: The goals, policies and actions set forth in
the Transit chapter ofthe TSP is consistent with the Rogue Valley Transit Plan.
2.5.13. City ofMedford Transportation Plan: Similar to Jackson County, the City's
transportation network interfaces in several locations with that ofthe City ofMedford.
Central Point's TSP was compared with Medford's TSP and found to be consistent on all
levels. The functional classification ofstreets, particularly the arterials system, is
consistent as they traversejurisdictional lines. Similarly the bicycle and pedestrian
systems facilitate inter~jurisdictional movement. No changes were required to assure
consistency between the two TSPs.
2.5.14. City ofCentral Point Comprehensive Plan: This TSP has been prepared based
on the land use classifications and distribution as presented in the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
2.5.15. City ofCentral Point Zoning Ordinance: As a result ofthe preparation ofthis
TSP, numerous incidents were revealed requiring amendment ofthe City ofCentral Point
Municipal Code, Title 17, Zoning.
2.5.16. City ofCentral Point Subdivision Ordinance: As a result ofthe preparation of
this TSP, numerous incidents were revealed requiring amendment ofthe Central Point
Municipal Code, Title 16, Subdivisions.
2.6. Other Plans
Over the course ofthe past five years, the City has completed three significant transportation
studies for Hwy. 99, East Pine Street, and the Twin Oaks Transit Oriented Development district.
The findings and recommendations from these two plans have been reviewed and incorporated in
this TSP. The following is a briefdescription ofeach study and its relationship to the TSP.
CHAPTER 2 - PLAN COMPLIANCE
Page 12 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
2.6.1. Highway 99 Corridor Plan: This plan was prepared in 2005 for the purpose of
identifYing improvements to Hwy. 99 consistent with commercial revitalization of
the Hwy. 99 corridor through Central Point. The findings and recommendations
ofthe Highway 99 Corridor Plan have been incorporated in this TSP.
2.6.2. East Pine Street Transportation Plan: This plan was prepared in 2004 by JRH
Transportation Engineering. The purpose ofthis plan was to provide an
assessment ofthe future transportation infrastructure ofthe East Pine Street
corridor area to accommodate regional and local traffic growth. The plan forecast
traffic growth through the year 2023 and recommended improvements necessary
to maintain an acceptable level ofservice. The findings and recommendations of
the East Pine Street Transportation Plan have been updated and incorporated in
this TSP.
2.6.3. Central Point Transit Oriented Development Traffic Impact Study: This
study was completed in August 2000 by JRH Transportation Engineers to evaluate
the traffic impacts ofCentral Points Transit Oriented District. The findings and
recommendations have been incorporated in this Plan.
2.7. Conclusion
The TSP as presented in this document is found to be consistent with all applicable federal, state,
regional and local transportation plans. It is the City's intent, throughout the duration ofthis TSP,
to continue monitoring and managing the TSP as necessary to maintain compliance with federal,
state, regional, and local transportation system plans and changing transportation and land use
needs.
CHAPTER 2 - PLAN COMPLIANCE
Page 13 of141
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 3 - Land Use & Transportation Planning
3.1. Introduction
By the year 2030, it is expected that the City ofCentral Point's population will approach 26,000,
making Central Point the second largest city in the Rogue Valley. To accommodate the City's
projected growth, land will be needed for housing and jobs as well as other supporting land uses.
Improvements to the City's transportation system will be needed to accommodate continued
growth. The amount, use, and distribution offuture development, and the policies governing land
use and development will determine the need for improvements to the transportation system.
Consequently, the ability ofthe City to effectively incorporate transportation planning as an
element ofits land use planning process is critical to the continued enhancement ofthe quality of
life offered to the citizens ofCentral Point.
The purpose ofthis chapter is to acknowledge the relationship within the City's Comprehensive
Plan between land use and transportation planning. The findings, goals, and policies presented in
the TSP have been integrated with the findings, goals, and policies ofthe City's land use program
as presented in the Comprehensive Plan. It is not the purpose ofthis chapter to restate the City's
land use program, but instead to reference those elements ofthe Comprehensive Plan that most
directly determine the transportation needs ofthe City.
Within the City's Comprehensive Plan there are four elements that have a noticeable impact on
transportation planning. Those elements are the Land Use Element, the Population Element; the
Housing Element; and the Economic Element. Together these elements affect the rate, character,
and location ofdevelopment within the City's urban area, which then determines the need for
transportation services. Each ofthese elements and their role in the City's transportation planning
process will be discussed and noted as a reference to the TSP.
3.2. The Land Use Element
Currently, within the City's urban area there are 2,890 acres ofland distributed over eleven (II)
land use classifications. Included in the land use classifications is a Transit Oriented Development
(TOO) overlay zone. The land use classifications identified in the Land Use Element are
supported by fourteen (14) zoning districts, with nine (9) residential zones and five (5)
commerciaVindustrial zones. Development within each zoning district is regulated by standards
set forth in the City's Land Development Code. Collectively, this system ofland use
classifications, zoning districts, and development standards establish the limits and tools for the
development ofan efficient and timely transportation system.
Land Use Classifications: The land use classifications are the basis for determining
traffic generation/services. The transportation modeling used in the preparation and
maintenance ofthe TSP relies on the land use classifications defined in the Land Use
Element. Changes in the City's land use classifications should be accompanied by
supplemental traffic analysis to identifY any impacts and mitigation measures necessary to
maintain a balanced transportation system.
Zoning Districts: Zoning districts are a higher order refinement ofthe land use
classification system. Zoning districts must be compatible with the underlying land use
designation. For each zoning district, specific types ofuses are identified and regulated in
accordance with the standards set forth in the City's Land Development Code. Allowed
CHAPTER 4 - EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
Page 14 ofl41
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan
uses within a zoning district are consistent with the underlying land use classification.
Development Standards: Throughout the City ofCentral Point Municipal Code (CPMC)
there are codified standards that control improvements to the City's transportation system.
Most ofthese development standards are contained in the City's Land Development Code
(Chapter 17). Another source ofdevelopment standards can be found in the City of
Central Point Public Works Standards. The City's development standards are designed to
support and implement the multi-modal goals and policies ofthe TSP.
3.3. Buildable Land Inventory (BLI)
One ofthe significant considerations in preparation ofthe TSP is the availability and distribution
ofvacant lands within the City's urban area. The BLI provides an accounting ofbuildable lands
by land use designation, zoning, and Transportation Area Zones (TAZ) making it possible to
determine the location and type ofnew development, and the future impact ofthat development on
the City's transportation system. The BLI is a support document to the Land Use Element.
3.4. Growth Projections
The rate ofdevelopment ofthe City's buildable lands and its impact on the transportation system is
a function ofthe rate ofpopulation and employment growth. The Population Element and
Housing Element ofthe Comprehensive Plan addresses the City's projected population growth and
housing needs throughout the planning period, while the Economic Element addresses the City's
expected employment growth. Together these three Comprehensive Plan elements will, in
conjunction with the BLI, provide the basis for identifying the rate, location ofnew development,
and the impact ofthat development on the City's transportation system.
3.4.1. Population Element: The Population Element identifies the City's projected
population growth and population characteristics throughout the planning period. It
is expected that by the year 2030 the City's population will be approaching 29,000
people.
3.4.2. Housing Element: The demand for housing is a function ofpopulation
growth and household characteristics such as housing type, vacancy rate, and
persons per household. The Housing Element evaluates the housing needs ofthe
City throughout the planning period. The Housing Element, in conjunction with
the Land Use Element, detennines the mix and distribution ofhousing within the
urban area. As evidenced in the Housing Element, the City is encouraging use of
the TOD overlay to encourage mixed residential development and the use ofmulti 
modal transportation opportunities.
3.4.3. Economic Element: Similar to the Housing Element, the Economic
Element, using population projections, estimates job creation throughout the
planning period. Together with the Land Use Element, the Economic Element
provides infonnation on the rate and location ofjobs.
3.5. Transit Oriented Development
Any discussion ofland use and transportation planning is not complete without the inclusion of
transit oriented development (TOO). As used in this chapter, the term "TOO" refers to mixed-
CHAPTER 3 - LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
Page 15 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan
use, pedestrian friendly development7. Transit-oriented design is a general description ofa set of
development strategies designed to create an atmosphere that is safe, convenient, and easily
accessible by foot, bicycle and transit users.
With the completion ofthe Transit-Oriented Design and Transit Corridor Development Strategies
Study (TOD 1999 Study), cities within the metropolitan area have been successfully applying
transit-oriented development (TOD) as a land use strategy. The City ofCentral Point is an
excellent example ofthe application ofTOD strategies. Shortly after completion ofthe TOD 1999
Study the City adopted TOD standards and in December of2000, a final plan for the Twin Creeks
Transit-Oriented Development, a 230-acre TOD project was approved, and development
commenced. Today the Twin Creeks TOD is a successful representation ofapplied TOD
strategies. The Twin Creeks TOO has been a positive influence on the land use planning for the
City and has set the standard for new, in-fill and redevelopment standards throughout the City.
Today the City has a TaO designation for the City's Central Business District and for the
commercial area along Highway 99. Most recently the citizens ofCentral Point have reasserted in
Vision 2020 their continued endorsement ofland use policies that support and enhance the City's
transit oriented land use program.
49%
Determined thrOugh .?...?
GIS mappiiIg.Current
.estiritates ate that 12%
ofDUsiu'e withiiIJ,4
mile walking distance
.ofRVTDtransit??. routes: ...
Determined by
tracking building
permits - the ratio
between new DUs
in TODs and total
new DU's in the
region.
EStimatedfroll'l?.....
?. anhualell1p1oyll1eIlt
files from State-:- ...??.
?.representStheratio?.
?ofriewemployment .
inTODsovertotal?
regional
employment
The use ofTaD strategies has been endorsed on the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and is
represented in three ofthe seven RTP performance measures identified in Chapter 2. These
performance standards have been acknowledged by the City and included in the TSP as land use
performance measures for the City. The RTP performance measures are presented below and
included in the TSP as future performance benchmarks for the City.
Table 3.1 RTP Alternative Performance Measures
Measure How Measured
MeaStlre1:
Pereentof
DWelling Units
(DUs) within'4
.milewaik to:30~ .
niin. transit?
service?
MeasureS:
Percentage
mixed-use DUs
in new
development.
Measure 6:
Percentage
mix.ed-use
emp10ymehfin ..
new
.?development...
7 Transportation Planning Rule
CHAPTER 3 - LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
Page 16 ofl4I
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan
3.6. Land Use Goals and Policies
GOAL 3.1: TO EFFECTIVELY MANAGE THE USE OF LAND WITHIN THE CENTRAL
POINT URBAN AREA IN A MANNER THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH, AND
THAT SUPPORTS, THE SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN.
Policy 3.1.1. The City shall manage the land use element ofthe Comprehensive Plan in
a manner that enhances livabilityfor the citizens oiCentral Point as set
forth in the Transportation System Plan.
Policy 3.1. 2. The City shall continuously monitor and update the LandDevelopment
Code to maintain bestpractices in transit orienteddesign consistent with
the overall land use objectives ofthe City.
CHAPTER 3 - LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
Page 17 ofl41
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
Chapter 4 - Existing Transportation Conditions
4.1. Introduction
Section 660-012-0020(3) ofthe Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires that all
transportation system plans include an inventory ofexisting transportation facilities and services
by function, type, capacity and condition. In accordance with the TPR, this chapter will inventory
the condition ofthe City's existing transportation system. The City's transportation system is
comprised offive (5) transportation modes:
I. Street System
2. Pedestrian System
3. Bicycle System
4. Transit System
5. Rail System
An inventory ofeach ofthese transportation modes has been completed as part ofthe 2008 TSP
planning process. The inventory data comes from a variety ofsources including the City's physical
inventory ofits street, pedestrian, and bikeway systems. For the transit system, the facilities
inventory infonnation was provided by the Rogue Valley Transportation District. For the rail
system, the inventory infonnation was provided by Central Oregon Pacific Railroad (CORP).
4.2. Street System
The City's street system is comprised ofover 60 miles ofroadway serving a variety offunctions
from arterial and collector streets to local residential and commercial streets. Each street type
within the City has a specific functional classification.
4.2.1. Functional Classification: Streets, whether public or private, do not operate
independent ofone another but as a network ofroadways. The City's street system is
comprised ofa hierarchy ofstreet types, each designed and constructed with the objective
ofserving a specific function within the City's street system, the regional street system,
and the state roadway system.
The City's street classification system is derived from the Federal Highway
Administration's (FWHA) functional classification definitions, which consists offoUT (4)
basic street types: principal arterials, minor arterials, collector streets, and local streets.
Each street classification describes the role ofthat classification in serving the flow oftrips
through a community's street network, as well as how it interfaces with regional, state, and
national street networks. The following describes each ofthe City's street classifications:
Principal Arterials. The City's principal arterial system is designed to link major
activity centers within the metro area. Principal arterials have the highest traffic
volumes, serve the longest trip desires, and should be integrated with local and
regional arterial systems.
To effectively serve its design objective, principal arterials are either partially, or
fully, access controlled. In order to preserve the identification ofcontrolled access
facilities, the principal arterial system is further classified as interstate freeways (I 
S), principal arterials, or minor arterials.
CHAPTER 4 - EXISTrNG TRANSPORTAnON CONDITIONS
Page 180fl41
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Changes to this classification require amendment to the TSP and would be based
on factors such as changes in land use, including expansion ofthe urban growth
boundary.
Minor Arterials. The minor arterial street system includes all arterials not
classified as a principal arterial, contains facilities that place more emphasis on
land access than principal arterials, and offer a lower level oftraffic mobility.
Minor arterials may carry local bus routes and provide intrawcommunity
connectivity but ideally should not penetrate identifiable neighborhoods.
Changes to this classification require an amendment to the TSP and would be
based on factors such as changes in land use, including expansion ofthe urban
growth boundary.
Collector Streets. As their name implies, collector streets collect and distribute
traffic from principal arterials and minor arterials to the local street system or
directly to local destinations. Collector streets differ from the arterial system in
that the collector system may penetrate residential neighborhoods, distributing
trips from the arterials through the area to their ultimate destination.
Changes to this classification require an amendment to the TSP and would be
based on factors such as changes in land use, including expansion ofthe urban
growth boundary.
Local Streets. The local street system consists ofall streets not classified as one
ofthe other higher order streets. As their name implies local streets provide
adjacent residential, commercial, and industrial land uses with access to the City's
higher order streets. Local streets typically offer the lowest level ofmobility.
Residential Streets. Residential streets provide direct access from the arterial
network to local land uses. Residential access streets provide access to low and
medium density residentially zoned lands.
Changes to this classification require an amendment to the TSP and would be
based on factors such as changes in land use, including expansion ofthe urban
growth boundary.
Commercial Streets. Commercial streets provide direct access from the arterial
network to local land uses. Commercial access streets provide access to
commercial and industrial land uses and provide localized traffic circulation.
They serve commercial, manufacturing, and industrially zoned lands.
Changes to this classification require an amendment to the TSP and would be
based on factors such as changes in land use, including expansion ofthe urban
growth boundary.
Private Streets. Privately owned streets provide direct access from the arterial
network to local land uses. Private streets may serve both residential and
CHAPTER 4 - EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
Page 19 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
commercial land uses and provide localized traffic circulation. Private streets are
no longer permitted by the City.
Changes to this classification require the streets to be brought to public street
standards and dedicated to the City without modification to this TSP.
Figure 4.1 Functional Classification System Map, illustrates the City's existing arterial and
collector street classification system.
4.2.2. Jurisdictional Responsibility: Several jurisdictions, including the Oregon
Department ofTransportation (OOOT) and Jackson County, are responsible for portions
ofthe existing street system within the study area. Figure 4.2 Jurisdictional
Responsibilities Map identifies thejurisdictions responsible for each street within the City.
State Maintained Facilities. Within the planning area, OOOT maintains
Interstate 5 (1-5) as well as portions ofPine Street near the Central PointlI-5
Interchange and portions ofHighway 99. Each ofthese roadways is identified in
the I~5 as a four-lane divided interstate freeway with posted speeds of55 and 65
miles per hour in the Central Point area. It is classified in the 1999 Oregon
Highway Plan as having interstate significance and serves as the primary north
and south route for traffic traveling through the area. Highway 99 serves as
another north-south access through Central Point. In 2004, ajurisdictional
transfer was completed conveying to the City ofCentral Point the section of
Highway 99 from M.P. 1.64 to M.P. 2.18 and reclassifying this section of
Highway 99 from District Highway to Local Arterial Street8?
County Maintained Facilities. Jackson County has jurisdiction over many roads
within the Central Point UGB, including many sections ofthe City's arterial and
collector street system such as East and West Pine Street, Hanley Road, Beall
Lane, Grant Road, Taylor Road, Freeman Road, North 10th Street, Upton Road,
Beebe Road, and Gebhard Road. As a result ofthe loss ofTimber Revenue
Sharing funds, the County has declared that it will no longer maintain or
otherwise compensate for jurisdictional exchange ofroads within a city's
jurisdiction. The County does not anticipate any short-term solutions to this
situation.
City Maintained Facilities. As illustrated in Figure 4.2., the City maintains the
majority ofthe streets within the Central Point urban area. The cross-sections
range from two lane local streets to five lane arterial streets with posted speed
ranges between 20 and 40 mph.
Privately Maintained Facilities. Throughout the City there are a limited number
ofprivately owned and maintained streets. The City no longer allows the creation
ofprivate streets.
8City ofCentral Point Resolution No. 10 I5/Jurisdictional Transfer Agreement No. 746
CHAPTER 4 - EXISTING TRANS PORTATlON CONDITIONS
Page 20 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Plan,2008?20JO
???
11II11II11II1 'II'""'V,'",
11I11I11I11II11I11I111
CHAPTER 4 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDlTlONS
Page 21 ofl41
City ofCentral Point
Tl1lnsportadon System Plan. 1008-1030
POINT
IIIIIIIIIIIIII S_(OOOTj
City
2008?2030
CHAPTER 4 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
Page 22 ofl41
City of Central Point
Transportation S}'stem Plan, 2008?2030
4.2.3. Traffic Safety Analysis: The crash histories on the major intersections within
the City were reviewed to identifY potential intersection safety concerns. Crash records
were obtained from the ODOT Crash Summary Books9 and the City ofCentral Point
Police Department for the period on January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2006.
Table 4.1 provides a summary ofthis crash data for each ofthe study intersections. As
illustrated in Table 4.1, all study area intersections are currently operating at less than
1.0 accidents per Million Entering Vehicles (MEV), indicating that there are currently
no apparent safety issues within the City's street system.
Table 4.1. Accident Rate, City ofCentral Point, 2006
Intersection Threshold Used in 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 ADT Crash
Evaluation Raie
(MEV) (MEV)
Beall & Freeman 1.0 0 0 0 1 0 5,629 0.10
Beall & Bursell 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 4,810 0.00
Beall & Grant 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 3,360 0.00
Beall & Hanley 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 7,000 0.00
Beall & Hwy. 99 1.0 0 0 4 2 I 18,480 0.21
Taylor & Grant (south) 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 1,550 0.00
Taylor & Grant (north) 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 1,740 0.00
Bursell & Hopkins 1.0 2 1 0 1 I 4,490 0.61
Wilson & Table Rock 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 14,960 0.00
Vilas & Table Rock 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 23,870 0.00
New Haven & Hamrick 1.0 0 1 0 1 0 11,850 0.09
Gebhard & Wilson 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 1,860 0.00
Grant & Scenic 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 1,710 0.00
Scenic & Hwy. 99 1.0 0 1 0 1 0 9,660 0.11
Haskell & Taylor 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 2,840 0.00
Haskell & West Pine 1.0 1 2 2 3 2 11,320 0,48
Upton & Peninger 1.0 0 1 1 0 0 4,590 0.24
Freeman & Hopkins 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 7,650 0.00
Meadowbrook & East Pine 1.0 0 0 0 1 0 13,540 0.04
Beebe & Hamrick 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 12,960 0.00
Peninger & East Pine 1.0 10 3 3 5 4 27,340 0.50
Hamrick & East Pine 1.0 2 0 3 1 3 24,550 0.20
Hwy. 99 & East Pine (Front) 1.0 4 7 2 4 4 22,230 0.52
2nd & East Pine 1.0 3 3 5 3 2 15,420 0.57
3rd & East Pine 1.0 5 4 4 4 5 14,070 0.86
41h & East Pine 1.0 2 4 4 1 2 13,430 0.53
6th & East Pine 1.0 3 1 1 I 2 15,430 0.28
Joth & East Pine 1.0 12 9 8 10 8 25,960 0.99
1-5 NB & East Pine 1.0 2 2 2 2 1 26,960 0.18
1-5 SB & East Pine 1.0 2 2 2 2 I 23,460 0.21
Table Rock & East Pine 1.0 I 0 0 0 0 16,060 0.03
Hazel & 3rd & 2nd 1.0 3 0 1 0 0 3,160 0.69
9 http://www.oregon.gov/ODOTITDITDATA/car/CAR]ublications.shtml
CHAPTER 4 - EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
Page 23 of 141
City ofCentraI Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
4.2.4. Mobility Measures and Standards: There are two methods for determining the
quality ofa street system's mobility: Level ofService (LOS) and Volume-to-Capacity Ratio
(VIC Ratio). The City uses the LOS methodology, while ODOT and Jackson County uses the
VIC Ratio methodology. Jackson County uses the VIC Ratio to provide for consistent traffic
analysis with ODOT and because the VIC Ratio is conceptually simpler making is somewhat
easier to use in a public hearing format.
Level ofService (LOS)
The LOS methodology was developed to quantify the quality ofservice of
transportation facilities. LOS quantifies the degree ofcomfort (including such
elements as travel time, number ofstops, total amount ofstopped delay and
impediments caused by other vehicles) afforded to drivers as they travel through
an intersection or along a roadway section. In general, level ofservice is based on
total delay. This parameter is defined as the total elapsed time from when a
vehicle stops at the end ofa queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line.
LOS ranges from "A" to "F", with LOS "A" indicating the most desirable
condition and LOS "F" indicating an unsatisfactory condition. The Highway
Capacity Manual (HeM) LOS designations for signalized and stop~controlled
intersections are provided in Tables 4.2 and 4.3 respectively.
The City uses LOS as a performance standard for its traffic facilities. The
maximum level ofservice for Central Point facilities is level ofservice "D".
Table 4.2. Highway Capacity Manual Level ofService Designations for Signalized
Intersections
>55 and <= 80
>20 and <'" 35
Delay Range'"
<""]0
Stable
Unstable
Stable
TraffiCFlow Comments
Traffic flows freely with minimum or no delay. Drivers can
maneuver easily and find freedom in operation.
Trafficstill flows smoothlyWithfew delays. Somedrivers
feel somewhat restncted within groups ofvehiCles.
Traffic generally flows smoothly but occasionally vehiCles
may be delayed through one signal cyCle. Desired urban area
design level. Backups may develop behind turning vehicles.
Most drivers feel somewhat restricted.
.. ?.. . . .....??.... ...?? . Trafticdelaysmaybemoretharioriesignal cycle duringpeak
...? Apptoachinghollcibutexcessive ba.ck-upsdonoto~ur.>Consideredi .....
.. . ??>Urlstable . ...acceptilbleurbandesigrtlevel.Mlirleu'Yerabilityislimited..??.../.
?... ..>duiing shortperiodsduetotemporary back-ups. .. ... .
Delay may be great and up to several signal cycles. Short
period ofthis level may be tolerated during peak hours in lieu
ofthe cost and disruption attributed to providing a higher
level ofservice. There are typically long queues ofvehicles
waiting upstream ofthe intersections.
?. ExCessive delay.causes reducedcaPaCity.?AlwaysCOriSidered
unsatisfactory. Maybe tolerated in recreational areas where
occurrence?israre. Trafficisbacked up from otherlotations
and mayrestrict or prevent movement ofvehicles at the
.intersettion.
C (Desirable)
E (Unsatisfactory)
A (Desirable)
B(Desirable)
Level ofService
CHAPTER 4 - EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
Page 24 of 141
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio
Volume~to-capacity (vic) ratio is another measure ofeffectiveness that is used to
describe the level ofoperation ofsignalized intersections, stop-controlled
movements, and roadway segments. A volume~to-capacity ratio measures
indicates the percentage ofavailable capacity that is used by traffic demand during
a given time period. When the volume-to-capacity ratio exceeds 1.0 traffic queues
will fonn and continue to lengthen until demand reduces to below the capacity.
ODOT has jurisdiction over the signalized 1-5 ramp terminal intersections at East
Pine Street, as well as the intersections ofHwy. 99 & Beall Lane & Hwy. 99,
Hwy. 99 & Scenic Avenue and Peninger Road & East Pine Street. OOOT does
not employ LOS methodology. The 1999 Oregon Highway Plan lists maximum
volume-to-capacity ratios for all Oregon highways based on their level of
importance within the statewide highway system. Volume-to-capacity ratio
provides an indication ofcapacity sufficiency. The higher the volume-to-capacity
ratio, the more congested the facility. The Highway Mobility Standards Policy
established standards for mobility that are reasonable and consistent with the
directions ofother Highway Plan policies.
The 1999 Oregon Highway Plan volume~to~capacity ratio standard for 1-5 and its
interchange components is 0.80. Action IF.1 ofthe plan states that the maximum
volume-to-capacity ratio for the ramp terminals ofinterchange ramps shall be the
smaller ofthe values ofthe volume-to-capacity ratio for the crossroad, or 0.85.
All other ODOT intersections within the City ofCentral Point must operate at a
volume-to-capacity ratio less than orequal to 0.90.
Table 4.3. Highway Capacity Manual Level ofService for Stopped Controlled
Intersections
.Level ofService Delay Range*
A (Desirable) <=10
B(Desira.ble) .. >10 and <=15
C (Desirable) >15 and <= 25
D (Acceptable) .. >25 and <= 35
E (Undesirable) >35 and <= 50
.F(Unsatisfactory) >50?
Delay Range related to the fange ofaverage vehicle delay (in seconds per vehicle) that falls within the associated
level ofservice.
4.2.5. Existing Operational Analysis: In 2007, the City completed an operational
analysis ofthe City's existing street systemlO, With the exception ofthe intersection of
Beebe Rd. and Hamrick Rd., the City's arterial and collector street system is currently
operating at an acceptable level ofservice. The LOS at the intersection ofBeebe Rd. and
Hamrick Rd. is operating at a LOS ofElf (am/pm). All ODOT facilities are operating
within their minimum 0.90 volume~to~capacity ratio standard. The existing operational
levels ofintersections within the study area are summarized in Table 4.4.
10 City ofCentral Point Transportation Plan, Existing Conditions Technical Traffic Report, JRH
Transportation Engineering, January 24, 2007
CHAPTER 4 - EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
Page 25 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Table 4.4. Level ofSenrice and Vehicle-to-Capacity Ratio
Intersection Control LOS & VIC Year 2006 A.M. Year 2006 P.M.
Type Standard Performance Performance
WESTSIDE
Beall & Freeman Stopl1Jnsignalized LOS 0 LOSC LOSC
Beall & Bursell StopfUnsignalized LOS 0 LOSB LOSB
Beall & Grant StopfUnsignalized LOS 0 LOSB LOSB
Beall & Hanley StopfUnsignalized LOS 0 LOSB LOSB
Beall & Hwy. 99 Signalized VIC 0.90 VIC 0.81 VIC 0.76
Taylor & Grant (south) StopfUnsignalized LOS 0 LOS A LOS A
Taylor & Grant (north) StoplUnsignalized LOS 0 LOS A LOS A
BurseH & Hopkins StopfUnsignalized LOS 0 LOSB LOSe
Hwy. 99 & East Pine (Front) Signalized VIC 0.90 VIC 0.61 VIC 0.69
2nd & East Pine StopfUnsignalized LOS 0 LOSe LOS 0
3fd &East Pine Signalized LOS 0 LOS A LOS A
4th & East Pine Signalized LOS 0 LOS A LOS A
6th & East Pine StoplUnsignalized LOS 0 LOS 0 LOS 0
10th & East Pine Signalized LOS 0 LOSD LOSC
Grant & Scenic StoplUnsignalized LOS 0 LOS A LOS A
Scenic & Hv,y. 99 Stopl1Jnsignalized VIC 0.90 VIC 0.23 VIC 0.64
Haskell & Taylor StopfUnsignalized LOS 0 LOS A LOS A
Haskell & West Pine Signalized LOS 0 LOSB LOS A
Freeman & Hopkins StopfUnsignalized LOS 0 LOSB LOSC
Hazel & 3fd & 2nd StoplUnsignalized LOS 0 LOSB LOSB
Haskell & Beall Stop/Unsignalized LOSO LOSC LOSC
EASTSIDE
Meadowbrook & East Pine StopfUnsignalized LOSD LOSB LOSC
Beebe & Hamrick StopfUnsignalized LOS 0 LOSE LOSF
Peninger & East Pine Signalized VIC 0.90 VIC 0.61 VIC 0.82
Hamrick & East Pine Signalized LOS 0 LOSB LOSC
Upton & Peninger StoplUnsignalized LOS 0 LOS A LOSB
1-5 NB & East Pine Signalized VIC 0.90 VIC 0.51 VIC 0.77
1-5 SB & East Pine Signalized VIC 0.90 VIC 0.72 VIC 0.65
Table Rock & East Pine Signalized LOSD LOSB LOSe
Wilson & Table Rock StoplUnsignalized LOS 0 LOS 0 LOSD
Vilas & Table Rock Signalized LOSD LOSB LOSe
New Haven & Hamrick StoplUnsignalized LOSD LOSC LOSC
Gebhard & Wilson Stopl1Jnsignalized LOSD LOS A LOSB
4.2.4. Freight Senrice.
Truck freight transportation within the Central Point UOB is primarily concentrated along
the truck routes designated in the Regional Transportation Plan. Figure 4.3 illustrates the
City's truck routes, which include Interstate 5 (I-5) and Highway 99 (Front Street). 1-5 is
the most important freight route in the region carrying approximately 4,000 to 5,000 trucks
per day through the area. 1-5 not only serves freight heading to destinations within the
Central Point UGB, but also serves trucks passing through the region to destinations
throughout the West Coast. Currently, the combined volume offreight transported over
CHAPTER 4 - EXISTING TRANSPORTAnON CONDITIONS
Page 26 of141
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
highway and rail modes in the 1~5 corridor through the Rogue Valley Metropolitan
Planning Region is estimated at 25 million tons annually, with the majority ofthis freight
carried on the highway systemI [. Additional Central Point Freight Routes as identified in
the RVMPO Freight Study (2006) include Table Rock Road, Hamrick Road, East Vilas
Road, Pine Street, and Hanley Road.
The Freight Study finds that the freight system is in need ofimprovements to maintain
adequate levels ofservice to remain competitive and safe. The Freight Study
recommended twenty-nine (29) projects that would improve the region's freight system.
Ofthese twenty-nine projects, ten were within Central Point's urban area. This projects
and their scoring are listed in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5. RVMPO Freight Study Recommended Projects, City ofCentral Point
78
53
40
50
10
18
30
30
6
o
o
o
10
10
10
30
30
30
20
Impc)l1anceto .Create&Multi~Relllove ......?..? Toful
????iiF'l'eig~f. ?.?.SllSt~iJli ..Modal ???iB~r ..i~rs ?.????. ?Store. ??????Jc)bs
i ? .
14 0 30 80
West Vilas Rd.
Intersection
Table RockRd. & ??.........
Hamriclc.:kd; ..
?.???lnterseCfioll
Improve EastlWest
Flow on Pine Street
?.??IfIlproveTraffjc.Flow
at Centtal Point I~5
Interchange?
Repair Hamrick Rd.
South ofPine St.
?EastPil1c8t.&
.. Pcnil1gerlnterseetioil
Table Rock Rd.: Bear
Creek to Pine
St.lBiddle Rd.
6
10
7
9
27
21
23
4.3. Transportation Corridor Studies
Within the City, there are two major transportation corridors: Hwy. 99 and Pine Street. Over the
years each ofthese transportation corridors have had studies prepared addressing the transportation
role ofeach in the community and preferred design solutions.
Pine Street Transportation Corridor. Pine Street serves as the City's primary
east/west major arterial and is also the primary street serving the Central Business
District. Additionally, Pine Street is a designated freight route. Because ofits
II 1-5 State ofthe Interstate Report, ODOT, 2000.
CHAPTER 4 - EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
Page 27 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
history and abutting land uses, Pine Street has been segregated in to two unique
sections: East Pine Street and West Pine Street.
CHAPTER 4 - EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
Page 28 of 141
City ofCentraiPolnt
Transportation System Plan, 20011-2030
CHAPTER4-EXiSTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
29 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
East Pine Street Plan (JRH Transportation Engineering, October 2004) 
East Pine Street serves as a typical major arterial with limited access. In
2005, the City completed an East Pine Street Corridor Study. This study
identified limitations on East Pine Street due to continued growth in the
area. The study also identified mitigation measures needed to maintain an
acceptable level ofservice along East Pine Street. Recommended
improvements have been incorporated in this TSP as part ofthe roadway
improvements presented in Chapter 7.
West Pine Street serves the Central Business District and is considered
an urban arterial through the downtown with on-street parking, curb 
extension, and other design features to emphasize the pedestrian nature of
the downtown. Because West Pine Street traverses the downtown, it is
critical that the design standards for West Pine Street be formalized as a
by-product ofa downtown master plan. Although West Pine Street is
classified as a major arterial, it is imperative that on-street parking
continue to be a part ofthe design for West Pine Street through the
downtown.
Highway 99 CorridorPlan (OTAKlDKS, June 13, 2005). Historically Hwy. 99
has been a north/south state highway that runs through Central Point. As is typical
ofthe State's old highway system, business developed and received direct access
from Hwy. 99. Although a major arterial street, there are many businesses that
have direct access to Hwy. 99. Through a Transportation Growth Management
(TGM) grant, the City has prepared a corridor plan for Hwy. 99 that will serve as a
blueprint for future private and public development along the highway using
Smart Growth techniquesl2? It is the objective ofthis plan to provide an
aesthetically pleasing and safe multi-modal environment along the corridor.
In 2005, the City and the State agreed on ajurisdictional transfer conveying to the
City the jurisdiction ofHwy. 99 between Mile Post 1.64 and Mile Post 2.] 8.
During that same period the City; after considerable community and ODOT input,
adopted the Highway 99 Corridor Plan. The acknowledged function ofHwy. 99 is
as a major arterial with a posted speed of45 mph. The proposed design ofHwy.
99 intends to slow the traffic through the inclusion ofthe following:
? Gateway medians
? Frontage improvements to Fire Station No.3
? Enhanced pedestrian crossings
? Continuous pedestrian sidewalks and pathways
? Narrower curb-to-curb distances and travel widths
? On-street parking
? Landscape improvements to the street edges, e.g., street trees and
landscape planter strips
12 Smart Growth is an urban planning and transportation theory that concentrates growth in the center ofa
city to avoid urban sprawl; and advocates compact, transit-oriented, walkable, bicycle-friendly land use,
including mixed-use development with a range ofhollsing choices.
CHAPTER 4 - EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
Page 30 of141
City ofCentral Point
TransJlortation System Plan, 2008-2030
These design components have been compiled into a boulevard design standard
that addresses the unique character ofHwy. 99. Figure 9.2 illustrates the City's
typical cross-section as applied to Hwy. 99. The primary challenge in managing
the redevelopment ofHwy. 99 will be access management. Typical access
management regulations will be difficult to apply to Hwy. 99 as a result of
existing land use pattems and driveways. An access management plan unique to
Hwy. 99/Front Street should be prepared and adopted by the City.
The recommendations presented in each ofthese studies are discussed in other chapters ofthis
TSP, such as Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Streets.
4.4. Bicycle System Existing Conditions
The City's existing bicycle system is illustrated in Figure 4.4. While existing bicycle facilities are
located on a few ofthe arterial and collector streets in Central Point, much ofthe City's arterial
and collector systems lack bicycle facilities. The bicycle facilities that do exist cover only a limited
geographic area and, in some cases, are disconnected from each other. Many ofthe City's public
schools and parks are poorly connected with surrounding neighborhoods, reducing the opportunity
for convenient and safe bicycle travel for students and employees. What follows are descriptions
ofthe status ofbicycle facilities on arterial and collector streets. The focus is on these streets
because they provide the essential connectivity needed to develop an effective bicycle facilities
system. The most significant arterial and collector streets with limited or no bicycle facilities are:
Front Street: There are no bicycle facilities located on Front Street. The
Highway 99 Corridor Plan was completed in June 200513 and recommended that
adding bike lanes to Front Street is not a recommended improvement. Within the
current curb-to-curb distances, the bicycle lanes would be substandard and the
differential between the average vehicle speeds and bike speeds are too great to
support a convenient and safe bicycle system. It was proposed that safe and
continuous north to south bicycle lanes could be provided along two parallel
routes:
Second Street (north bound), with bikes and vehicles sharing a travel lane;
and
- A multi-use pathway west ofthe existing railroad tracks and connecting
Crater High School with the Twin Creeks TOO and the future Snowy
Butte TOD (south bound). A fence separating the railroad lines and the
pathway will be required.
East Pine Street (Freeman Road to Front Street). This section ofEast Pine
Street has limited bicycle facilities located near the 1-5 Interchange and Front
Street. While East Pine Street may be designated as a bicycle route, due to issues
related to traffic flow, parking and access to shopping areas, bicycle lanes may not
be located on the street. Since this is the case, Manzanita Street andlor Oak Street
have been designated as bikeways.
Biddle Road (Table Rock Road to Hamrick Road). From Hamrick Road to
Table Rock Road, bicycle facilities are not available. This section ofBiddle Road
]3 Central Point Highway 99 Corridor Plan, OTAKJDKS, May 24, 2005
CHAPTER 4 - EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
Page 31 of 141
City of CentraI Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
(Biddle Road changes to East Pine Street at the intersection ofHamrick Road) is
designated as a bicycle route consistent with the City ofMedford's designation of
Biddle Road.
Upton Road - 1-5 Overpass: The Upton Road - I-S overpass provides one of
only two means for crossing I-S in Central Point. A new overpass was completed
in 2008 which provides both bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Bicycle lanes were
also added to the west side ofUpton which now connects to 10th Street/Scenic
Avenue providing improved connectivity to the existing bicycle system.
4.4.2 Links to Other Existing Regional & Municipal Bicycle Facilities and Plans
The City's Bicycle Plan as illustrated in Figure 8.1 provides connectivity to other local and
regional bicycle facilities and plans. These links should be included to the Bear Creek
Greenway, and the City ofMedford TSP, and Jackson County TSP which are described
below.
Bear Creek Greenway Plan: The Bear Creek Greenway is a narrow corridor of
publicly-owned land that follows the Bear Creek streambed from Ashland to
Central Point. Development ofthe Bear Creek Greenway bicycle and pedestrian
path began in 1973 when the Oregon Department ofTransportation built the first
3.4 mile stretch ofthe pedestrian/bicycle path through Medford. The Greenway
currently includes two primary sections:
Pine Street in Central Point to Barnett Road in Medford; and
Blue Heron Park in Phoenix to Nevada Street in Ashland.
When complete, the Greenway will provide a 20-mile, multi-use path from the I 
S/Seven Oaks Interchange in Central Point to Nevada Street in Ashland. It will
serve as an important facility for intercity travel in the I-S/OR 99 corridor.
Additionally, a Rogue River Greenway is currently in the planning stages. This
greenway will connect the communities ofGrants Pass, Rogue River, and Gold
Hilt and would eventually be linked to the Bear Creek Greenway at the Seven
Oaks Interchange.
In tenus ofthe bicycle component ofthe Central Point TSP, the Bear Creek
Greenway not only offers a relatively safe and efficient means oftransportation
but also provides an essential connection to other communities located along the
path. The links from the Central Point bicycle system to the Bear Creek
Greenway are via Upton Road / Peninger Road and East Pine Street near the I-S
Interchange.
TheJackson County Transportation System Plan (March 2005): Jackson
County adopted its Bicycle Master Plan, which identified conditions, needs, and
projects in ]997. The current Jackson County Transportation Plan adopted in
March 200S incorporates the projects identified in the master plan that have not
yet been completed. The plan also adds projects that were not in the Master Plan
where traffic volumes are expected to exceed 3,000 Average Daily Traffic Count
(ADT) and adequate shoulders or bike lanes are not provided.
The primary connections that need to be considered as Central Point bicycle
facilities are planned, developed, and improved are Hanley Road, Beall Lane, and
CHAPTER 4 - EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
Page 32 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Taylor Road. The Jackson County section ofTaylor Road from Grant Road to
Old Stage Road has been scheduled for improvement, including bicycle facilities.
Once completed, Taylor Road will provide an additional link from Central Point
to Old Stage Road. The county section ofBeall Lane from Hanley Road to Old
Stage Road has bicycle facilities.
City ofMedford Transportation System Plan (April 2003). The City of
Medford Transportation System Plan - Bicycle Plan identifies the existing and
planned bicycle system within the Medford urban area. On arterial and collector
streets, it is important that Medford's and Central Point's bicycle systems be
coordinated and supportive. The primary connections described in Medford's
Bicycle Plan that need to be considered as Central Point bicycle facilities are
planned, developed, and improved are Merriman Road via Beall Lane, Front
Street connection to North Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), West Vilas Road via
Hamrick Road, and E. Pine Street connections to Biddle Road. Within the City of
Medford these streets have, or are planned to have, bicycle lanes.
CHAPTER 4 - EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
Page33 of141
ofCentral Point
Transporta.tion System Plan, 2008-2030
POINT
CHAPTER4 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
Page 34 ofl41
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
4.5. Pedestrian System, Existing Conditions
The City's existing pedestrian system is illustrated in Figure 4.5. The City has been aggressively
constructing sidewalks within activity centers, Le. schools, shopping, etc. The City's current
development standards require sidewalks along all public streets.
4.6. Rail System, Existing Conditions
A single rail line runs through the City parallel to Hwy. 99. The rail line is operated by Central
Oregon Pacific Railroad (CORP) and is used for freight purposes only. Throughout the City's
urban area, there are three (3) public at-grade railroad crossings and one (I) proposed crossing.
Table 4.5. Central Point Railroad Crossings and Controls
Crossing Name
Beall Lane
W. Pine Street
Scenic Avenue
Twin Creeks Crossing
Crossing No.
U.S. DOT #756030T
U.S. DOT #756050T
U.S. DOT #756051A
Proposed
Crossing Control
Full
Full
Full
Full
4.7. Transit, Existing Conditions
The Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) serves most ofthe urbanized area in Jackson
County with public transit and paratransit services. It also serves other roles such as
providing medical-purpose transportation for Medicaid clients, coordination with other
government agencies for transportation planning and houses the region's rideshare
program. Central Point is currently served by Route 40 (Figure 4.6) and has very strong
ridership. Based on the City's GIS mapping, Route 40 is within a Y4 mile walk of
approximately 40% ofthe City's residential population. Route 40 travels from Medford to
Central Point and has received increased frequency from one hour to 30-minute headways.
CHAPTER 4 - EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
Page 35 of 141
ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan
CHAPTER 4 - EXISTING CONDITOINS & NEEDS
Page 36 oflo$1
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
Chapter 5 - Transportation Management
5.1. Introduction
The Transportation Management chapter addresses transportation management best practices.
There are three basic components to transportation management:
? Transportation System Management
? Access Management
? Transportation Demand Management
The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires that cities over 25,000 population include in
their Transportation System Plan (TSP) strategies for Transportation System Management, Access
Management, and Transportation Demand Management. With a current population ofless than
25,000, the City ofCentral Point is not required by the TPR to include these elements in its TSP.
However, because ofthe significance ofthese elements in maximizing the efficiency ofa
transportation system, coupled with the fact that during the life ofthis TSP the City will exceed
25,000, the City has elected to include these transportation management techniques as a part ofits
TSP. Additional infonnation on these elements is provided in the Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP).
In this chapter, it is the City's objective to establish, as a guiding principle, the use of
transportation management strategies that maximizes the utility ofpublic right-of-way; is
appropriate to the functional classification ofeach street; and provides for multiple travel modes,
while minimizing their impact on the character and livability ofsurrounding neighborhoods,
business districts, and the general environment.
5.2. Transportation System Management (TSM)
The TPR defines TSM as ''techniques for increasing the efficiency, safety, and capacity or level of
service ofa transportation facility without increasing its size." TSM strategies are aimed at
making the most efficient and timely use ofthe existing transportation infrastructure, thus reducing
the need for costly roadway capacity expansions. Techniques include, but are not limited to:
? Intersection and signal improvements:
o Signal timing optimization
o Controller/cabinet and signal head upgrades
o Vehicle detectors repair/replace
o Communication with central system
o Turning lanes
o Grade separations
o Pavement Striping
o Lane assessment changes
o Signage and lighting
o Using one-way streets
o Signal prioritization for mass transit
? Freeway bottleneck removal programs
? Data Collection to monitor system perfonnance
? Special events management
CHAPTER 5 - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Page 37 of 141
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
TSM strategies emphasize policies that can guide implementation ofsolutions to problems when
they are discovered. Specific TSM measures most applicable to the City's transportation system
are presented below. The listing and discussion ofTSM strategies below does not represent any
priority order. The broad range ofTSM strategies must be considered for the individual problems
associated with traffic operations at each location.
5.3. Mobility Standards
5.3.1. Update Existing Tramc Signals: Local governments traditionally base their decisions
on the installation oftraffic signals on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Central Point has a history ofsuccessfully using signals to achieve optimum traffic flow, and
will continue to give priority to improving existing traffic signals and signal systems. Such
improvements should include regular signal maintenance, updating the signal equipment and
signal timing plan improvements.
The need for traffic signal equipment modernization, timing plan improvements, and traffic
signal removal should be evaluated based on detailed analyses oftraffic operations at the
existing intersections where signals are in place. Recent advances in signal technology and
acceptance have led to installation ofsignals that offer a broader menu oftraffic movement
options, such as protective~permissive left turns. Depending on the traffic and the precise
characteristics ofindividual intersections, installation ofsuch equipment may prove desirable.
The Pine Street traffic calming project, which is a part ofthis TSP, includes the replacement of
the mechanical downtown Pine Street signals with protective-permissive left tum signals.
Signal evaluations must be made on a case-by-case basis and can be more easily evaluated
using software packages such as, but not limited to, TRANSYT, SYNCHRO, and Passer II.
5.3.2. Coordinate Tramc Signals: The coordination ofnew traffic signals through
interconnection with existing traffic signals is a management technique that has demonstrated
mobility improvements in corridor level traffic operations. Experience in other communities
has shown an eight to ten percent improvement in travel time along arterials after
interconnected systems have been installed. Reduction ofsome types ofautomobile-generated
emissions is also cited as a possible benefit ofimproved signal systems.
Whenever additional intersections are signalized, Central Point needs to consider how they can
be best integrated with nearby signalized intersections. In some cases, signals operate most
efficiently as independent signals, but in other cases, they are best integrated into a signal
system. Some ofthe existing systems may need to be expanded to attain maximum benefit
with the addition ofmore signals.
The RTP identifies East Pine Street between the 1-5 interchange and Rogue Valley Highway in
Central Point as a candidate corridor for consideration, or for re-evaluation, ofexisting traffic
signal systems. The East Pine Street signal needs were evaluated and recommendations
presented in the East Pine Street Transportation Plan, October 2004. The recommendations
from the East Pine Street Plan have been included in this TSP. Installation ofmaster
controllers, interconnection systems, and other equipment may help to achieve increased
efficiency and reduce congestion ofthe street system. The Pine Street traffic calming project
includes the coordination ofthe downtown Pine Street signals.
CHAPTER 5 - TRANSPORTAnON SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Page 38 of 141
City of Centrat Poi nt
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
5.3.3. Eliminate Unnecessary Tramc Signals: Intersection traffic control improvements
such as traffic signals are generally based on identified traffic congestion and safety problems.
Over time, a change in the surrounding land use and/or street system may reduce travel
demand at the signalized intersection, or roadway and intersection geometric improvements
may mitigate the safety problems at the intersection. Such changes in travel demand and
safety at the intersection may make the signal unnecessary, thereby requiring that the signal be
removed for optimum system perfonnance.
Intersections requiring removal oftraffic signals may be converted to two-way stop control
with free flow in the major direction oftravel, or they may be converted to all-way stop
control. The placement oftraffic signals in downtown Central Point is likely to be re 
evaluated during the Pine Street traffic calming project.
5.3.4. Intersection Geometric Improvements: Intersection improvements such as the
provision oftuming lanes, traffic islands, channelization, and improved design can generally
be implemented at relatively modest cost depending on their complexity. The benefits,
though, in terms ofimproved vehicular traffic flow and pedestrian safety are substantial.
Central Point should consider following recognized national standards for geometric
improvements at intersections. The following are guidelines established by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers in designing and improving arterial intersections at grade:
? Reduce the number ofconflicts among vehicular movements.
? Control the relative speed ofvehicles both entering and leaving the intersection.
? Coordinate different types oftraffic control devices used with the traffic volume at the
intersection.
? Select proper types ofintersections to serve the traffic volume. Low volumes can be
served with minimal control, whereas higher volumes require turning lanes and
sophisticated actuated signal operations.
? Use separate left- and right-tum lanes at high volume intersections.
? Avoid multiple and compound merging and diverging maneuvers. These require
complex driver decisions and create additional conflicts.
? Separate conflict points. Intersection hazards and delays are increased when
intersection maneuver areas are too close together or overlap.
? Favor the heaviest and fastest flows.
? Reduce areas ofconflict by channelization (striping, islands, etc.).
? Segregate non-homogenous flows. Separate lanes should be provided where
appreciable volumes oftraffic are traveling at different speeds (e.g. turning lanes for
slowing vehicles).
? Consider the needs ofpedestrians and bicyclists.
Geometric improvements at qualifying intersections are included in this TSP's project list (see
Chapter 7- Street System).
5.3.5. One-Way Streets: Streets carrying high traffic volumes in major activity centers,
such as in the central business district (CBD) areas ofcities, are often regulated to carry
traffic in only one direction. The one-way designation increases the vehicle carrying
capacity ofthe street by offering additional lanes for travel in the same direction and
increases capacity ofsignalized intersections along the highway through improved signal
CHAPTER 5 - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Page 39 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2630
progression and reduction in the number ofsignal phases (turning movements). The
increased capacity along the corridor can result in reduced delays thereby providing
significant travel time savings.
One~way streets can also result in increased safety by reducing vehicle-pedestrian and
vehicle-vehicle conflicts; preventing the entrapment ofpedestrians between opposing
traffic streams; and improving the driver's field ofvision at intersection approaches.
Along with increasing capacity and safety, one-way streets can help meet community
objectives by saving sidewalks, trees, and other valuable frontage assets that would
otherwise be lost because ofthe need to widen existing two-way streets. Additionally, the
one-way designation can also permit improvements in public transit operations such as
routings without turn-back loops. Overall, one-way streets provide a cost-effective
operational solution to busy streets in highly developed areas, such as CBD or other
activity centers, without requiring large capital expenditures.
One-way street systems must be adequately signed and enough cross-connections must be
provided for adequate accessibility. Without such provisions, traffic congestion and
vehicle miles oftravel could actually increase.
One-way streets are not universally accepted. Where one-way streets have been proposed
or implemented, many business owners object; fearing that access by customers will be
lost. Many communities where one-way streets have been implemented have
subsequently reversed their direction or have changed them back to two-way operation.
Such changes make it clear that implementation ofone-way street systems must be
carefully considered; requiring involvement ofall parties including business owners,
motorists, and all other transportation system users.
Several alleys in Central Point are one-way alleys. Currently, no streets are identified in
for being changed to one-way.
5.3.6. Install New Traffic Signals at Intersections: Traffic signal improvements
generally provide the most cost-effective solution to improving traffic congestion on
existing arterial and collector streets. The need for traffic signal control at intersections
that are currently under two-way or four-way stop-control has been evaluated as part of
this rsp and the need for new traffic signals has been identified in Chapter 7 - Street
System Plan.
5.3.7. Ramp Metering: Ramp meters are employed at freeway on-ramp entrances with
the objective ofoptimizing throughput capacity on the mainline freeway. The
optimization is achieved by regulating the entry ofvehicles onto the freeway during the
peak hours ofoperation through the use oframp signals at the on-ramps. Very often,
optimization offreeway throughput capacity is achieved at the expense ofadditional
delays at the metered on-ramps. Another key consideration is the ability to provide
adequate queuing or storage capacity for the stopped vehicles on the ramps leading to the
through road.
Ramp metering has proven to be one ofthe most cost-effective techniques to improve
traffic flow on the freeway. A Federal Highway Administration study ofseven ramp
metering sites in the United States and Canada revealed that average highway speeds
increased by 29 percent after installing ramp metering. An analysis ofthe system in
CHAPTER 5- TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Page 40 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Seattle revealed that in addition to speed and corresponding travel time improvements,
highway volumes increased between 12 and 40 percent as a result oframp metering. Also,
accident rate reductions between 20 and 58 percent have been recorded as a result of
improved merging operations associated with ramp metering at freeway and on~ramp
merge points.
The need for metering on-ramps to 1-5 should be evaluated by ODOT in cooperation with
local governments as the region grows and travel demands increase along 1-5. Although I 
S and the ramps are under the jurisdiction ofODOT, it will be important for agencies to
work cooperatively to balance the competing demands on the interstate system.
The ramps at the Central Point interchange are forecast to be operating at an acceptable
level ofservice through 2010, but by 2020 the northbound ramp is forecast to exceed
ODOT's minimum acceptable VIC ratio. By 2030, it is forecast that the southbound ramp
will have similar capacity problems. Whether ramp metering is a solution to the capacity
limitations ofthese two 1-5 ramps is a question to be answered by ODOT. This TSP does
not identifY any projects for meter installation at the 1-5 interchange.
5.3.8. Goods Movement Management: The efficient movement ofgoods into and out
ofurban areas is essential for the economic vitality ofthe region. Goods movement
management strategies are aimed at improving congestion and safety conditions along the
arterials. Strategies include restricting truck deliveries and pick~ups to off-peak periods,
using alleys for loading and unloading, and providing additional curb space for loading
and unloading operations. Such strategies should be investigated in commercial areas
along heavily congested roads.
In preparation ofthis TSP the issue offreight movement has resulted in a chapter
dedicated to freight. Chapter 11 - Freight will discuss the role offreight movement,
issues, and solutions.
5.4. Access Management (AM)
An effective tool for maximization ofthe City's street system is through Access Management.
Access Management is an effective and rational approach to coordinating transportation with land
development. As its name implies, access management regulates access to land development
while simultaneously preserving the flow oftraffic on the surrounding road system in terms of
safety, capacity needs, and speed. To be effective, access management requires that land use
planning and development be coordinated with transportation planning, which is the primary
objective ofthe State's transportation planning rule. Access management calls for land use
controls and incentives that are keyed to development policies and transport system capabilities.
The product ofan effective access management program is a street system that is safe, accessible,
and viable. The challenge is to develop effective access standards that find a balance between land
development plans and the functional integrity ofthe roadways that serve the developments and
the region.
Access issues can be highly controversial since access management often regulates and limits
access to individual businesses or requires access from side streets or frontage roads. The key
elements to a successful access management program include:
? Defining allowable access levels and spacing for various classes ofroadways;
CHAPTER 5 - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Page 41 ofl41
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
? Providing a mechanism for granting variances when reasonable access cannot be provided;
and
? Establishing a means ofenforcing standards.
Without an access management program along arterials and collectors, roadways may need to be
periodically widened to accommodate demands ofnew development. This cycle is a result of
continually trying to satisfY traffic demands, which are often a result ofincreased business activity,
which is influenced by improved traffic conditions, which leads to further traffic demands. The
number ofconflict points among vehicles rises as a result ofan increase in the number of
driveways, causing capacity to diminish. Vehicle delay increases and safety and comfort are
reduced. The following are some ofthe more important elements ofan access management
strategy that are applicable in the Central Point area:
? Regulate minimum spacing ofdriveways.
? Regulate maximum number ofdriveways per property frontage.
? Require access on adjacent cross-street (when available).
? Consolidate access for adjacent properties.
? Encourage connections between adjacent properties that do not require motorists to
traverse the public streets.
? Require adequate internal site design and circulation plan.
? Regulate the maximum width ofdriveways.
? Improve the vertical geometries ofdriveways.
? Optimize traffic signal spacing and coordination.
? Install raised median divider with left-tum deceleration lane.
? Install continuous two-way left-tum lane.
Access management standards associated with state facilities are a required component of local
transportation system plans. Table 5. I identifies the access management standards the City of
Central Point utilizes along state facilities. Table 5.2 identifies access management guidelines for
all other facilities within Central Point.
Table 5.1: Access Management Spacing Standards for District Highway
Posted Speed Urban
Highway
Urban
Business
District
Special Transportation Area
350 feet
350 feet
700 feet
550 feet
500 feet
400 feet
400 feet
>= 55 mph
50 mph
40 and 45 mph
30 and 35 mph
>=25 mph
Existing block spacing specified in Comprehensive
Plan or other spacing as permitted. See complete
description in 1999 Oregon Highway Plan.
J1999 Oregon Highway Plan, Appendix C: Access Management Standards, Table 15.
21999 Oregon Highway Plan, Policy Element, Policy IB: Land Use and Transportation (definitions)
CHAPTER 5 - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Page 42 of 141
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
Table 5.2: Access Management Guidelines
Functional Minimum Minimum Spacing Appropriate Adjacent Land Use
Classification Posted Spacing between
Speed between Intersections
Driveway
and/or Streee
Major Arterial 35-50 mph See Table 5.1 See Table 5.1 0+ Community/neighborhood
commercial near major
intersections.
0+ IndustriaJloffice/low volume
retail and buffered medium or
higher density residential
between intersections.
Minor Arterial 35~50 mph 300 feet Y4 Mile 0+ Light industry/offices and
.buffered medium or low
density.0+.
Neighborhood commercial
near some rnajor intersections.
Collector 25?35 mph 50 feet 300 feet -+- Neighborhood commercial
near some major intersections.
-+- Medium or low density
residential.
0+ Primarily lower density
residential.
-+- Primarily industrial.
Local 25 Access to each 300 feet -+- Primarily low density
lot permitted residential.
-+- Primarily industrial.
Desirable design spacing (existing spacing will vary).
5.4.1. Access Management Planning: In recognition ofthe value ofaccess
management, the City ofCentral Point has prepared access management plans and
standards for its arterial and collector street system.
Access Management Plan for Front Street (Highway 99)/Pine Street. This plan
was prepared in 2003 to identify access management strategies for the section of
Highway 99 generally defined as Front Street. The Plan also included the section of
Pine Street from Haskell Street to First Street. Both short?term and long-term access
strategies were developed. The findings and recommendations ofthe Access
Management Plan for Front Street (Highway 99)/Pine Street Plan are incorporated in
this TSP by reference.
Central Point Highway 99 Corridor Plan. This plan was prepared in 2005 and
addressed the land use and transportation needs ofHighway 99 as a major
transportation corridor. This plan differed from the 2003 Access Management Plan
for Front Street (Highway 99)/Pine Street Plan only to the extent that its purpose was
broader in scope, including roadway geometry options, bicycle and pedestrian
systems, urban design solutions, etc. The access management recommendations in
both plans are consistent for the section ofHighway 99 referred to as Front Street.
CHAPTER 5 - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Page 43 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
The findings and recommendations ofthe Central Point Highway 99 Corridor Plan are
incorporated in this TSP by reference.
5.5. Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
The objective ofTransportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies is to reduce the number of
single-occupant vehicles using the road system while providing a wide variety ofmobility options
to those who wish to travel. In accomplishing this objective, TDM measures increase the carrying
capacity ofthe transportation system, without the expense and inconvenience ofadding capacity to
the system. Ifimplemented on an area-wide basis and actively supported by agencies, businesses,
and residents, TDM strategies may be able to reduce or delay the need for street improvements as
well as reduce energy consumption and air quality problems. TDM strategies are aimed at
reducing travel demand by influencing people's travel behavior in one oftwo ways: (1) by
reducing the need to travel or (2) by encouraging travel by a mode other than a single-occupant
automobile.
To manage the demand upon a transportation system, there are a number ofbasic approaches that a
community may take. First, decreasing peak demand either by shifting person-trips from the peak
hour ofdemand or by eliminating person-trips. Person-trips represent the number oftrips made by
an individual, while vehicle trips account for multiple person-trips depending upon the number of
people traveling in the vehicle. Second, for the person-trips that are necessary during the peak
hour ofdemand, a community may encourage non-vehicular and vehicular alternatives to single 
occupant vehicles (SaVs). Non-vehicular alternatives such as bicycling and walking are most
applicable for short trips, while vehicular alternatives such as ridesharing and transit are necessary
for intermediate and long trips. Finally, a community may reduce the demand on its surface
transportation system by decreasing the distances traveled by vehicle trips through different
methods including, but not limited to, transit-oriented type development and increasing the
attractiveness ofalternative modes oftransportation such as transit, bicycling, and walking. There
is an important inter-relationship between the TDM element and land use.
The major effect ofthe TOM programs would be on the home to work and return trips, which
comprise about one-fifth ofthe total daily trips and about halfofthe peak hour traffic. Although
other types oftrips may be impacted, the effect would be considerably less because the trips are
not as regular (e.g., shopping or business trips), often have a higher vehicle occupancy (e.g., school
trips), and sometimes involve the transfer ofgoods (e.g., shopping trips).
TDM strategies recommended for the Rogue Valley metropolitan area focus on the home to work
and return trips. These include establishing alternative work arrangements, promoting
telecommuting and ridesharing, and adopting a trip reduction ordinance. TDM strategies are also
closely tied to the provision ofadequate pedestrianlbicycle facilities and transit services and
modifying parking requirements. The following describes the recommended plan for alternative
work arrangements, telecommuting, ridesharing, and a trip reduction ordinance. RVTO houses the
"Way to Go Program" which is Transportation Demand Management programs for the entire
Rogue Valley. Programs focus on bicycle and pedestrian safety, carpools and vanpools, etc.
5.5.1. Alternative Work Arrangements: Local governments and major employers can
encourage work arrangements providing an alternative to the 8-to-5 work schedule. These
arrangements could include, but not be limited to, employee flex-time programs, staggered
work hours, and compressed work weeks as described below:
CHAPTER 5 - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Page 44 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Employee Flex-Time Programs. One opportunity employers have to affect total trip
demand is through influencing their own employees' peak versus off-peak travel
behavior. A flexible schedule may allow employees to match their work hours with
transit schedules, make carpool arrangements, or merely avoid peak congestion times.
Active promotion ofalternative schedules might slightly decrease total peak hour
traffic.
Flex-time is most useful in offices, particularly for administrative and information
workers. It may not be as applicable for non-office employers since their employees
often have to work hours that are not during the peak hour oftraffic demand anyway
(e.g., retail employers) or because their work requires continuous communication
between workers. In addition, flex-time may be difficult to implement for small
employers.
Staggered Work Hours. Staggered work hours is a policy ofestablished starting and
finishing times for different groups ofemployees. Unlike flex-time, the employer,
rather than the employee, determines the staggered work hours. Like flex-time, this
tool has greater applicability to employees oflarge offices, since many non-office
employees already work staggered work hours or work in a highly interdependent
manner.
Government agencies can take a lead by establishing a standard work schedule that
differs from the historic 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. schedule. For example, employees can
be encouraged to work a 7-to-4 or 9-to-6 five-day work schedule. This is often done
for the street and parks crews in public works situations because ofsummer hours and
weather conditions. It might also be established for other employees, although some
agencies and local governments have encountered opposition from employee groups
claiming they should have additional compensation for unusual work hours.
Staggered work hours have to be considered in light ofthe need to have service desk
hours that meet the needs ofcitizens. Staggered work hours could actually increase
the opportunities for citizen contact.
Compressed Work Week. Compressed work weeks involve employees working
fewer days and more hours per day. One common form ofthis policy is the 4-day/40 
hour week where the employee works four 10-hour days. A second common form is
the 9-day/80 hour schedule in which the employee works 9 days and 80 hours over a
two-week period. With the 4/40 schedule, the employee gets one business day off
each week; with the 9/80 schedule, the employee gets one business day offeach two
weeks.
Because ofthe extended hours, both policies usually shift one "leg" ofa work trip per
working day (either the arriving or departing "leg") out ofthe peak hours. The 4/40
policy additionally eliminates an entire work trip every five business days (1/5 ofthe
work trips). The 9/80 policy eliminates an entire work trip every ten business days
(1/10 ofthe work trips).
One ofthe problems with any ofthe compressed work schedules is the potential for
increases in non-work trips during the "offday." Increases from non-work travel may
CHAPTER 5- TRANSPORTAnON SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Page 4S of 14J
City ofCeotrsl Point
Transportation S)'stem Plan, 2008-2030
off-set gains made from the shift in employee schedule. Such trips, however, may not
be taken during peak periods and could still produce benefits related to peak hour
congestion and air quality.
5.5.2. Telecommuting: Local governments and major employers can encourage
telecommuting. Telecommuting is another opportunity available to employers to affect
total trip demand. It is similar to work-at-home policies, except that the employee
connects to the workplace via a computer and fax/modem. Telecommuting arrangements
can also involve more than one employee, e.g., when an employer provides a satellite
work center connected to the principal work center. Another telecommuting alternative is
a neighborhood work center operated by more than one employer, or by an agency.
Recent advances in communications technology (e.g., Internet capabilities) should greatly
enhance telecommuting options. Telecommuting for even one or two days per week could
save significant trip miles and still reap the benefits ofworking at the central work site.
5.5.3 Ridesharing: Local governments and major employers can encourage ridesharing
by subsidizing ridesharing or by making ridesharing more convenient. Ridesharing
includes two principal categories: carpooling and vanpooling. Carpooling involves the use
ofan employee's private vehicle to carry other employees to work, either using one car
and sharing expenses or rotating driving responsibilities and vehicles. Vanpooling
involves the use ofa passenger van driven by one ofthe employees with the fixed and
operating costs at least partially paid by the other riders through monthly fares. A
common feature ofvanpooling is that the van is often owned by the employer, a public
agency (such as a transit district), or a private, non-profit corporation set up for that
purpose.
Ridesharing can be greatly influenced by special treatment at the work place. Participation
can be increased by employer actions, which make ridesharing more convenient through
incentives such as providing guaranteed ride home services, preferential car/vanpool
parking, and area-wide and employer-based commuter matching services:
Guaranteed ride. A guaranteed ride home often makes ridesharing more
attractive. Surveys have shown that many employees drive to work because they
feel they need their automobile during the day or because they may work late. In
some cases, they need their automobile for work trips or errands. In other cases,
they do not use their automobile but simply want it available for emergencies.
Provision ofdaytime and emergency transportation by allowing use ofa company
vehicle or employer-sponsored free taxi can encourage ridesharing by eliminating
some ofthe barriers. On the other hand, ridesharing also reduces individual
"freedom" and is not widely accepted until there is real congestion or financial
benefits.
Preferential car/vanpool parking. Preferential carpool and vanpool parking is a
simple, inexpensive way for an employer to encourage employees to rideshare by
increasing the ease ofaccess to the workplace. Generally, preferential carpool and
vanpool parking spaces are provided close to the building entrance. This makes it
convenient for the employees to access the building, particularly during inclement
weather conditions.
CHAPTER 5 - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Page 46 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Commuter matching services. Commuter matching services, whether area-wide
or employer-based, permit those who wish to rideshare to find others with similar
locations and schedules. An employer-based matching service offers the
advantage ofa shared destination, but presents the disadvantage oflimiting the
pool ofpotential riders. A carpool matching service can be one-time or
continuous. The Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) serves as the
carpooling agency and performs a wide variety ofservices to support and
encourage the use ofcarpools, including matching ofpotential riders.
5.5.4. Trip Reduction Ordinance: Local governments can encourage major
employers to adopt trip reduction goals designed to reduce site vehicular trip
generation. A voluntary Trip Reduction Ordinance (TRO) is recommended for the
Rogue Valley metropolitan area, applicable to major employers with more than 50
employees. The ordinance would apply to both existing and proposed development,
thereby distributing the responsibility equitably between existing and future
development.
A TRO is not a TDM strategy itself, but is a device by which TDM measures are
implemented. TROs typically require employers and developers to share some ofthe
responsibility for reducing single-occupant automobile use by their employees. Some
communities place the burden on the initial developers ofoffice parks or other major
employment centers, including obligating them to fund a transportation management
organization. The developer then passes these costs on to tenants ofthe facilities.
TROs identifY specific trip reduction targets, such as the percentage reduction of
commuter vehicle trips. The decrease in trip generation can be achieved by decreasing
auto trips and by increasing ridesharing and transit trips and trips by other alternative
modes.
Ordinances are usually slowly phased into many communities as a way ofeasing the
compliance burden. A voluntary compliance period is initially implemented for
employers to voluntarily adapt to the requirements and learn the various demand
management tools, such as promoting ridesharing, subsidizing transit passes, and
developing parking incentives. During this period, studies are conducted to determine
ifvoluntary compliance is meeting the community trip reduction goals. Ifthe goals
are not met, then a community may choose to make the trip reduction goals mandatory
for major employers and/or expand it to smaller ones.
5.5.5. Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Programs: Bicycle, pedestrian, and transit
are often treated as TOM measures because promotional programs aimed at
encouraging their use are a major part ofan area plan. The Central Point TSP project
improvement list calls for facilities as well as operational or promotional programs for
all three modes. Because ofthe importance ofthese modes to the overall
transportation strategy for the region, these modes are addressed in separate plan
elements.
5.5.6. Park-and-Ride Facilities: Local governments should consider the
development ofpark-and-ride facilities as a cost-effective means ofincreasing the
CHAPTER 5- TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Page 47 of 141
City orCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
efficiency ofthe existing transportation system. Park-and-ride facilities are one of
many TDM tools designed to increase efficiency, reduce energy consumption, and
provide options to the single occupant vehicle trip. Park-and-ride facilities increase the
effectiveness oftransit service by expanding the area from which transit draws.
Patrons living outside ofwalking distance ofan established transit stop can drive or
bike to the park-and-ride and use transit instead ofdriving or cycling long distances to
their destination. Ease ofaccess, security and safety, easy to understand layouts and
good, direct pedestrian and bicyclist connections make use ofpark-and-ride lots
desirable.
Park-and-rides are frequently located near freeway interchanges or at transit stations
and may be either shared use, such as at a church or Transit Oriented Development
(TaD) center, or exclusive use. Shared use facilities are generally designated and
maintained through agreements reached between the local transit operator and nearby
businesses, churches, or other entities.
The Rogue Valley Council ofGovemments completed The Park-and-Ride
Feasibility/Location Study in January 2001 for the RVTD service area. Feasible
locations for park-and-ride sites were one ofthe tasks ofthe study. For Central Point,
it was suggested that a park-and-ride site could be located at East Pine Street and
Freeman Road in the Albertson's parking lot located on Route 40 (Medford to Central
Point). This site could be accessed by southbound 1-5 commuters or those coming
from within Central Point. This site would be most logical ifit could be served by an
express transit line running on the 1-5 corridor. Current routing would require buses to
slightly deviate on their in-boundjoumey. In most other respects, this lot would work
well as a park-and-ride facility14.
14 Park and Ride FeasibilitylLocation Study. Rogue Valley Council ofGovemments, January 2001
CHAPTER 5 - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Page 48 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
5.6. Transportation Management Goals, Objectives, and Policies
GOAL 5.1: TO MAXIMIZE, THROUGH TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT
TECHNIQUES, THE EFFICIENCY, SAFETY, AND CAPACITY OF THE
CITY'S EXISTING TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND SERVICES.
Policy 5.1.1. The City shall make every effort to maintain mobility standards that result in a
minimum level ofservice (LOS) "D." The City defines LOS D as the equivalent to
a volume-capacity ratio of0.9.
Policy 5.1.2. The City shallfacilitate implementation ofbus bays by RVTD on transit routes as
a means offacilitating traffic flow during peak travel periody. The feasibility,
location anddesign ofbus bays shall be developed in consultation between the
City andRVTD.
GOAL 5.2: TO EMPLOY ACCESS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO ENSURE SAFE
AND EFFICIENT ROADWAYS CONSISTENT WITH THEIR DESIGNATED
FUNCTION.
Policy 5.2.1. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain, either within the zoning ordinance or
the Public Works Standards and Details manual, access management standards
based on best practices.
Policy 5.2.2. The City shall implement the access management strategies presented in the
Access Management Plan for Front Street (Highway 99)/Pine Street and the
Central Point Highway 99 Corridor Plan.
GOAL 5.3: TO REDUCE THE DEMANDS PLACED ON THE CURRENT AND FUTURE
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM BY THE SINGLE-OCCUPANT VEHICLE.
Objective 5.3: The City ofCentral Point shall encourage the use ofalternative travel modes by
serving as an institutional modelfor other agencies and businesses in the
community.
Policy 5.3.1 The City shall serve as a leading examplefor other businesses andagencies by
maximizing the use ofalternative transportation modes among City employees
through incentiveprograms. The City shallprovide information on alternative
transportation modes andprovide incentivesfor employees who use alternatives
to the single-occupant automobile.
Policy 5.3.2. The City shall offerflexible schedules andcompressedwork-week options
wheneverfeasible, as a way ofreducing travel demand. The City shall encourage
employees to telecommute, wheneverfeasible.
Objective 5.4: The City shall work towards reducing the vehicle miles traveled (VMTj in the
Central Point Urban Area by assisting individuals in choosing alternative travel
modes.
Policy 5.4.1 The City shall encourage major employers to promote work arrangements
CHAPTER 5 - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Page 49 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation S}'stem Plan, 2008-2030
providing an alternative to the 8-to-5 work schedule. These arrangements shall
include, but are not limited to, employeeflex-time programs, staggered work
hours, andcompressed work weeks.
Policy 5.4.2 The City shall encourage major employers to promote telecommuting where
feasible.
Policy 5.4.3 The City and major employers shall encourage ridesharing by making ridesharing
more convenient.
Policy 5.4.4 The City shall encourage major employers to work with RVTD to adopt trip
reduction goals designed to reduce site vehicular trip generation.
Objective 5.5: Transportation demand management (TDM) measures promotedby the City shall
be consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan strategies aimedat reducing
reliance on the single occupant vehicle (SOV) and reducing vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) per capita.
CHAPTER 5 - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Page 50 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
Chapter 6 - Parking Management
6.1 Introduction
The Oregon State Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) encourages and promotes a variety of
transportation choices that balance vehicular use with other transportation modes, including the
reasonable management ofvehicular parking spaces. In accordance with OAR 660-012 
0045(5)(c), the City ofCentral Point has elected to prepare, as part ofits Transportation System
Plan (TSP), a chapter addressing management ofon-street and off-street parking within the City's
urban area. The primary goal in regulating parking is to responsibly reduce auto dependence, and
to encourage use ofalternative modes oftransportation where they are available. This chapter will
address objectives and strategies for the management ofthe City's parking supply that integrates
land use planning and best practices for on-street and off-street vehicular parking consistent with
the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the TPR. The contents ofthis chapter are intended to
provide a basis for the development and implementation ofparking regulations for the City of
Central Point.
6.2. Current Parking Inventory
The TPR defines the term "parking space" as on-street and off-street parking spaces designated for
automobile parking in areas planned for industrial, commercial, and institutional or public use.
Based on this definition, a parking inventory for the City was completed in 2008 with a count of
4,585 parking spaces located within the City's urban area. The City o/Central Point Parking
Space Inventory (Parking Inventory) is in Table 6.3. The Parking Inventory will be maintained on
an annual basis.
6.3. Parking Performance Measures
The primary means ofmeasuring the City'S progress in attaining its parking objectives will be
determined using a per capita parking ratio (Parking Ratio). The Parking Ratio is measured by
dividing the parking inventory by the most current population. Over the course ofthis TSP, it is
the City's objective to reduce parking spaces per capita by 10%. Currently, the City's Parking
Ratio is 0.27. A 10% reduction will reduce the Parking Ratio to 0.24 by the year 2030. The
parking performance benchmark is defined in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1. Transportation System Plan Parking Performance Measures
Measure How Measured Current Benchmark Benchmark Benchmark Benchmark
2008 2010 2015 2020 2030
Measure 6-1: Ratio of Calculated based on the City of
parking spaces to Central Point Parking Inventory
population within the and annual population estimates
urban area. from Portland State University. 0.270 0.265 0.260 0.250 0.240
6.4. Parking Strategies
There are many parking strategies addressing a wide variety oftechniques that manage parking
supply and demand. The appropriateness ofany individual parking strategy is dependent on the
needs ofthe community. Not all parking strategies are appropriate for a community at any
CHAPTER 6 - PARKING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
PageS! ofl41
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
particular period in time, but may be appropriate during later stages ofa community's
development. Consequently, the list ofpotential parking strategies includes strategies that may not
be appropriate at this time, but may be appropriate within the planning period.
In Table 6.2, a comprehensive listing ofparking strategies are identified and cross referenced to
both the RTP and TSP. A discussion ofeach ofthe strategies and their and applicability to the
City is included in this section. There are two categories ofparking strategies presented in Table
6.2: Parking Facility Efficiency and Reduce Parking Demand. As their names imply, strategies
that address Parking Facility Efficiency are intended to maximize the use ofparking spaces
(supply) while strategies to Reduce Parking Demand are directed to reductions in the demand for
parking.
Table 6.2 City ofCentral Point Parking Plan Strategies
STRATEGY TSP RTP
POLICY CHAPTER
???. p~~~A:G1l:J.I'1;'YE~m()IEN(j?)/???)/?????????
Shared 6 NA
Accurate & Flexible Standards 6 6.B-2
R~mo!e ~~rkillg&r .. S~?ttleService 6Sll1aft(j"oMb];l()licies /?? .. .
<)j .....
\Vanting&.BicycleAlternati~es 8
I~c"~aSe?.(:;~p~citY()t?E~isijllg~#"@lJ.g??? ... ????????i6/? .
6.B~6????????6.:a:..Si????
NA???>?NA?????????
REDUCE PARKING DEMAND
?MobmtYM~~~getll.~lJ.f.???????????? .
Price Parking
IDipr()y~~ricingMethodsi.?
Financial Incentives
????i<s???? ??.I3-j,6.13-4?
6 NA
. ????????.6./??.?..????.??.????????<???.??.????????? ????NA?.???.??.?.??????????????6 NA
Pa~ki~gTaxes 6 NAInip..
9yea:Jlicycl~?1f~cilH:i~/???.??? .??????????????????/.S/??i ???./1'1A//?>.
UserInfo~D1~tion~~ar~eting 6 NA
.E~rorcemellf&eolJ.trol.????????? . . ... ????????????>.< ?.?14A????????????
T~~nsportati?n~anagementAssoc~ 6 NA?.
()y~l-f10W~~tkirig~la#s.?? .. .. ... .. . ..... ??i6i<.i14A
SpilloverProb.l.el11s 6 NA:Pa..
kihg.Fa:cilitYDesigh&Oper~ti6ni.i6.?.??????? ?????????????.6.:a:.5???????
6.4.1 Shared Parking: The term "shared parking" refers to a parking facility that serves
multiple destinations/uses. The key to the effective use ofshared parking relies on the mix
ofuses sharing the parking facility. The use ofshared parking is most effective in a mixed
use development where there is a variety ofuses that have different peak hour parking
demands.
Traditionally, parking lots have been sized to accommodate 90 percent ofpeak hour and
peak month usage, typically the Christmas season, and serve a single development. For
CHAPTER 6 - PARKING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Page 52 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
the most part, these lots are operating at levels considerably less than the number ofspaces
provided. Shared parking standards allow different uses with different peak period
parking demand to share parking facilities.
For example, a series ofbuildings may include such land uses as restaurants, theaters,
offices, and retail, all ofwhich have varying peak use times. A restaurant generally
experiences parking peaks from 6 to 8 p.m., while offices typically peak around 10 a.m.
and again around 2 p.m. on weekdays. Some retail establishments have their peak usage
on weekends. Theaters often peak from 8 to 10 p.m. Without a shared parking plan, these
uses would develop parking to serve each oftheir individual peaks. This generally results
in each lot being heavily used while the other lots operate at far less than capacity.
Depending upon the combination ofuses, a shared parking plan may allow some
developments to realize a parking reduction of10-15 percent without a significant
reduction in the availability ofparking at anyone time, due solely to the different peak
periods for parking.
One ofthe major stumbling blocks to implementing shared parking standards is local
jurisdictions themselves. Quite often, parking codes are written to express parking
minimums as opposed to maximums. In some cases, the implementation ofshared
parking strategies may require changes to the minimum parking requirements contained in
the parking policies.
Other issues surrounding shared parking are liability, insurance, and the need for
reciprocal access agreements allowing patrons ofone establishment to cross land owned
by another.
The City zoning ordinance currently contains some provisions permitting sharedparking,
andwill continue efforts to expandthe use ofsharedparking. It is acknowledged that the
success ofsharedparking is in the understanding ofa peakparking demandandthe mix of
uses to assure different peakparking demand.
6.5.2. Regulate Parking: Parking regulations refer to the adoption ofcontrols regulating
who can use parking, when the parking can be used, and for how long a vehicle may park
in a given location. As an example the establishment ofloading zones is a parking
regulation, as is handicapped parking, time limits, no parking zones, etc. The primary
objective ofregulating parking is to ensure that parking is available to a specific user
group.
The City's parking regulations follow conventionalpractices andlaws. Since the City
already employs parking regulations, it is only necessary that the Cityperiodically
evaluate the efficiency ofits parking regulation program and update as necessary to
maintain optimal efficiency.
6.5.3. Accurate and Flexible Standards: Generally referred to as efficiency-based
parking standards, this strategy refers to the use ofparking requirements adjusted to a
location's needs based on parking demand and supply that addresses the demographic,
geographic, and management factors unique to the area. The use oflower parking
standards for retirement housing is an example ofaccurate and flexible parking standards.
CHAPTER 6 - PARKING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Page 53 of141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
The City will continue efforts to establish lower minimum parking requirements in the
current zoning districts to encourage in-fill development andthe use ofalternative travel
modes. This is particularly true ofcommercial and industrial zoning. Lowerparking
minimums could have an impact on the totalparking inventory, but there is no guarantee
that development would choosefewer parking spacesfor their developments. Lower
minimum parking requirements, however, might encourage some in~fill development. In~
fill development can be encouraged to increase densities andremove landfrom its
temporary status as parking lots. Both the reduction ofexistingparking and increasing
building densities will help lead to a more pedestrianfriendly environment and encourage
transit ridership ~ a primary goal ofthe TPR.
6.5.4. Parking Maximums: Most often zoning regulations address parking in tenns of
the minimum parking required for any given use. This often leads to an over abundance of
parking, particularly in retail environments. As its name implies, maximum parking
standards establish a maximum amount ofparking allowed per use or area. Depending
upon how the zoning regulation is structured, the amount ofparking built in connection
with new development could be reduced by as much as 30 percent. The exact levels of
parking pennitted for new development would be figured on the rate ofexpected
construction by land use type.
The City does not currently regulate the maximum amount ofparking allowed. The
adoption ofmaximum parking standards is an effective means ofreducing excessive
parking and is a statedpolicy ofthe City. As a product ofthis TSP, the City will be
updating the parking regulations in its LandDevelopment Code to provide maximum
parking requirements for all uses anddevelopment (new, in-fill, redevelopment).
6.5.5. Remote Parking and Shuttle Service: Remote parking typically involves off~site
parking, and is very similar to shared parking. Remote parking essentially addresses
parking needs by providing parking in outlying areas. Consequently, users ofremote
parking are required to walk further, or use transit/shuttle services to reach the intended
destination.
The City's current zoning regulations support remote parking, providedthat it is located
within a minimum specifieddistance. With respect to transit/shuttle service, the City does
support efforts by ODOTand RVTD to develop shuttle service andpark~and~ride
facilities.
6.5.6. Smart Growth: Smart growth is a term that represents land use planning
techniques that encourage compact, mixed-use, and pedestrian friendly, and transit 
oriented development. Smart growth techniques are aimed at reducing reliance on the
automobile by providing an environment that encourages walking and bicycling.
The City has been very aggressive in its pursuit ofsmart growth techniques, with projects
such as Twin Creeks TOD, SnOlty Butte Station, andthe adoption oftransit oriented
development standards.
6.5.7. Walking and Bicycle Alternatives: To the extent that they reduce reliance on use
ofthe automobile, walking and bicycle policies are an effective parking strategy. An
effective and connected pedestrian and bicycle system will reduce the demand for parking.
CHAPTER 6 - PARKING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Page 54 ofl41
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
In Chapter 8, the City's policies andplansfor development ofa convenient andsafe
pedestrian and bicycle system are stated.
6.5.8. Capacity ofExisting Parking Facilities: Increases in the capacity ofexisting
parking facilities applies to both on-street and off-street parking. It is not unusual for older
parking facilities to have areas ofwaste, or paring dimensions which can yield additional
parking. Many cities also have parking requirements that don't allow flexibility in
dimensional standards, i.e. compact parking.
The City will continuously evaluate its parking standards to maintain use ofbestpractices
for parking management.
6.5.9. Mobility Management: Mobility management, more commonly referred to as
transportation demand management (TDM) addresses strategies that increase the
efficiency ofa transportation system by changing travel behavior. This change in behavior
can be in the form ofroutes use, transportation mode, time oftravel, etc., or a combination
thereof. An effective TOM program can cause a reduction in the demand for parking.
Chapter 5 ofthe TSP discusses the City's use ofTDMstrategies. When successfully
implemented, many TDMstrategies will also result in a reduction in the parking demand
6.5.10. Price Parking: Another approach to reducing the supply ofparking is to impose a
fee on the use ofparking spaces, particularly within commercial areas. There are a
number ofresponses, both positive and negative, to pricing parking. One ofthe negative
responses is to work, shop, or visit other destinations that are not subject to pricing of
parking.
At this time, the pricing ofparking is not considered a reasonable parking reduction
technique for the City. However, it is acknowledged that it is merely a matter oftime
before the pricing ofparking will be a viable strategy, this will be particularly true ofthe
succes.iful revitalization ofthe downtown.
6.5.11. Improve Pricing Methods: Improvements to pricing methods relates to the actual
means by which motorists pay for parking, i.e. meters, parking passes, debit cards, etc.
These payment systems are often an aggravation to the motorist, because ofthe general
inconvenience they cause versus the preferred free parking that they have become
accustomed to.
The improvement in pricing methods strategy requires that a pricing system be in place
(6.5.10). As notedabove, it is not expectedthat the City will generate sufficient demand in
parking to supportprice parking andpricing methods. However, when consideringplans
for the downtown, price parking andpricing methods will be a consideration.
6.5.12. Financial Incentives: Financial incentives refer to strategies that encourage
motorists to use alternative means ofcommuting to work/shopping. Examples include,
discounted transit passes, rideshare incentives, and what is referred to as cash-out which is
a direct cash incentive to employees to use an alternative travel mode less reliant on
parking.
CHAPTER 6 - PARKING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Page 55 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
In theforeseeablefuture, the City does not anticipate its direct use ofthis strategy but
does support its use by R VTD.
6.5.13. Unbundle Parking: The tenn "unbundle parking" refers to the leasing or sale of
parking spaces separate from the building space. The objective is to allow users to
purchase only the parking that is needed. Because ofthe administrative sophistication
(legal) ofunbundled parking, its use is primarily limited to metropolitan, high density
environments with very high parking demand.
At this time unbundledparking is not an appropriate parking strategyfor the City of
Central Point. Parking demand andgeneral land use characteristics do not support
consideration ofthis strategy.
6.5.14. Parking Taxes: The taxation ofparking is another strategy for managing the
supply ofparking. Parking taxation strategies refer to a wide range oftaxation related to
parking, including the actual taxation ofparking, stonn water management fees, etc.
Through its storm water systems developmentfee andmaintenancefees the City does
indirectly tax parking basedon the impervious surface areaparking creates. The use ofa
parking tax, other than the storm development andmaintenancefee, is not a realistic
consideration until it becomes a common practice throughout the metropolitan area.
6.5.15. User Information and Marketing: Often parking is available, but the location of
that parking is unknown. Proper signage and marketing can improve the efficiency of
parking use.
Parking information andmarketing willprimarily apply to the City's downtown area. As
the downtown revitalizes, parking will become a premium and the location and
availability ofparking will be afunctional component ofthe downtown revitalization
process.
6.5.16. Enforcement and Control: As its name implies, this parking strategy addresses
improvement in the efficiency ofa City's parking enforcement and control program. This
strategy is primarily a management strategy focusing on the attainment ofa City's parking
objectives.
Until the City has an enforcement orformal parking management program, this strategy is
premature. It is probable that over the next twenty years revitalization ofthe downtown
will result in the needforparking management. When a parking managementprogram is
developed, it is important to define the mission ofthe program.
6.5.17. Parking Management Association: Parking management and parking
management associations (PMAs) are mechanisms that can facilitate shared parking
among non~adjacent land uses by providing off~site centralized parking facilities. These
facilities can be large parking structures or surface lots. Parking management can employ
a wide range oftechniques that will result in the more efficient use ofexisting parking
facilities.
CHAPTER 6 - PARKING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Page 56 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
PMAs are entities responsible for conducting this management and providing access to
resources that will ease the burden on the parking supply. Often PMAs are non~profit
groups supported by retail or business district associations.
With the exception ojthe downtown, it is not anticipated that during the planningperiod
covered by this TSP that the intensity ojdevelopment within the City will be such as to
support a PMA. Currently, within the downtown, development is not intense enough to
support a PMA. However, as the downtown's revitalization efforts mature there will be a
definite roleJor the creation oja PMA. This is particularly true considering the many
smallproperties lacking current parking andthe cost ojdeveloping new parking within
the downtown.
6.5. Regional Transportation Plan
The Regional Transportation Plan 2005-2030 (RTP) contains six (6) parking related policies. The
policies adopted in the RTP address some, but not all, ofthe strategies noted above. The RTP
parking policies are as follows:
RTP Policy 6.B-l: Local Governments shall consider the adoption ofmaximum parking
requirements (or parking caps) in their zoning codes to reduce excessive off-street parking
supply.
RTP Policy 6.B-2: Local governments should establish low minimum parking
requirements in their zoning codes to encourage in-fill development.
RTP Policy 6.B-3: Local governments should re-designate existing, general use parking
spaces to a different, special use as to encourage the use ofalternative transportation
modes.
RTP Policy 6.B-4: Local governments are required to manage roadway space as
necessary to provide for bike lanes, bus stops, turn lanes, no parking zones, and other such
uses that promote use ofalternative transportation modes. On-street parking can be
eliminated as required to provide for these facilities. The management ofroadway space
also includes the use ofnarrower streets. Management ofthe roadway space and the
allocation for these uses can have a measurable impact on the amount ofon-street parking.
Bike Lanes: In limited locations, the removal ofon-street parking and re-striping
for a bicycle lane is a possibility, rather than by widening the roadway. However,
since most arterial and collector streets currently do not include on-street parking,
elimination ofa significant number ofparking spaces is unlikely.
Bus Stops: From time-to-time throughout the planning period, the placement of
bus stops will be needed as the Rogue Valley Transportation District's expands
routes and service.
Turn Lanes: Re-striping for tum lanes is a transportation system management
strategy that can be used to increase the capacity ofintersections. In many cases,
queuing distances at stop signs or traffic signals wilt require that no~parking zones
be extended for more than 100 feet from the intersection. This could require
CHAPTER 6 - PARKING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Page57ofl41
City ofCentral Point
Transponalion System Plan, 2008?2030
removal ofparking that is sometimes permitted as close as 20 feet from a cross 
walk at an intersection.
No-Parking Zones: Designating larger no-parking zones to increase sight
distances at intersections is already implied in the code. Parking is not permitted
within 50 feet ofa stop sign, yield sign, or other traffic control device where such
parking hides it from view. A blanket prohibition on parking within 50 feet ofa
comer would have a measurable impact on the number ofparking spaces and
would have other benefits related to sight distance.
Street Standards: Adopting street standards for residential streets could include
reducing street width to the extent that on-street parking would be pennitted only
on one side or eliminated completely. This technique needs to be carefully
considered and managed through strict design controls to assure that residential
neighborhoods have adequate parking for visitors.
RTP Policy 6.8-5: Local governments shall utilize and encourage appropriate parking
policies and strategies to reduce auto dependence and discourage auto use where other
alternative modes ofaccess are possible. Where appropriate, parking needs to be oriented
to the back or side ofbuildings with entrances to the front for pedestrian access.
The TPR presented two techniques in this category: Shared Parking; and Parking
Management
RTP Policy 6.8-6: Local government and ODOT shall plan park-and-ride facilities near
transit routes and major transportation connections to encourage transit and shared rides to
discourage single occupancy vehicles.
The parking strategies presented in this chapter have been prepared in coordination, and are
compliant with, the parking policies adopted in the RTP.
6.6. Current Parking Code and Policy Changes
The City's current parking standards were last updated in 1998. Current parking regulations
specify only minimum standards, resulting in some developments, such as retail stores, to provide
an excess ofparking supply. It is the City's policy that parking regulations as set forth in the Land
Development Code be periodically reviewed against best practices, and the Land Development
Code appropriately amended.
CHAPTER 6 - PARKING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Page 58 of141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
Table 6.3 Central Point Parking Space Inventory by Transportation Area Zone (TAZ)
TAZ
-57
,...:-:~
Pllrl'oing "
Pcpulnti(>ll
R;,!'io (City
:.imit$:'
305.00 6.33% 1.79%
????..???3S5:'Of)???.?.??.?.?,f",,911% ?.??.?.?.i.2,27";.,?.
12.01) O.2~% 0.07%
228 GOO 000 CWO coo 0.00 0.00 a.oci lOG O.DG% 0.00','0
231 ~3l.00 000 0.00 531.0CI O.OJ 0.00 O.OCI 63LOO 13.D!% 3.71%
233 31';'.00 200(1 0.00 334.00 0.0) 0.00 O.OJ 33-+.00 6.9J% 1.96%
235 :1'.00 ;0(1 0.00 124.00 O.W 0.00 0.00 IKO!) 2.5?% 0.73%
241
?? ..?.?243.?.??
244 nOG
CHAPTER 6- PARKING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Page 59 ofl41
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
252 0.00 om om 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 000 O.OG% 0.00%
254 62.00 0.0:1 O.O~I 62.00 000 000 0.0:1 62.00 l.2eN~ 0.36%
256 67.00 0.0:1 O.C,zJ 67.00 000 0.00 0.0:1 67.00 j.33% 0.38%
No:e: All Figures E.>:elwde R"'siden:i"'l Parking
11cludes Fan,ing ...;ithin Citylin1i:s and UG3
City Population as. ofJune, 2008 17,02.5
CHAPTER 6 - PARKING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Page 60 of J41
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
6.7. Parking Management Goals and Policies
GOAL 6.1: TO MANAGE AUTOMOBILE PARKING WITHIN THE CENTRAL
POINT URBAN AREA AS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE
REDUCTIONS IN PARKING SPACES CONSISTENT WITH STATE AND
REGIONAL GOALS.
Policy 6.1.1. The City shall manage the supply, operation, enforcement anddemandforparking
in the public right~of~way to encourage economic vitality, traffic safety,
transportation system efficiency, andlivability ofneighborhoods.
Policy 6.1.2. Except within the Central Business District, where on-street parking is considered
an element ofthe Central Business District's economic vitality, the provisionfor
on~street parking is second in priority to the needs ofthe travel modes (i.e.,
vehicle, transit, bicycle, pedestrian) using the street right-ofway, and shall be
removed when necessary tofacilitate street widening.
Policy 6.1.3. In those areas where demand exists, an adequate supply ofoff-street calpool and
vanpoolparking spaces shall be provided. The location ofthese spaces shall have
preference over those intendedfor generalpurpose off-streetparking.
GOAL 6.2: TO PROMOTE AND MANAGE THE PARKING NEEDS OF THE
CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA IN A MANNER THAT REASONABLY
BALANCES THE DEMAND FOR PARKING AGAINST THE USE OF
TRANSIT, BICYCLE, AND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION MODES,
WHILE MAINTAINING THE ECONOMIC VITALITY AND
NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY.
Policy 6.2.1. The City shallprepare, adopt andmaintain parking standards that reflect best
parkingpractices thatfurther the parking goals ofthe City..
Policy 6.2.2. The City shallprepare, adopt, andmaintain effective development standardsfor
pavedoff-streetparking areas to include provisionsfor landscaping, planting
strips, pedestrian walkways, curbs, andsidewalks.
CHAPTER 6 - PARKING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Page 61 of 141
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 7 - StreetSystem, 2008~2030
7.1. Introduction
The City ofCentral Point's street system contains over sixty miles ofroadways serving a variety
offunctions ranging from local streets, collectors and arterials providing a broad range of
transportation services for the City's residential, commercial, and industrial needs. Within in this
system there are thirty-five key intersections, which by the year 2030, these intersections and
their related street segments will require both modernization and extension to accommodate the
City's projected growth as discussed in Chapter 3. In anticipation ofthis growing demand the
City has completed the four major traffic studies. These studies and their objectives are:
Central Point Transit Oriented Development Traffic Impact Study, JRH Engineers,
Planners & Project Managers, August 1, 20.0.0.
Central Point Highway 99 corridor.})I~~,6T AKlDKS Associates, 2005.
.... ::,:,,:.:-.'....,.,.
East Pine Street Transportation Pla~"(;~I1tral Point,Oregon, JRH Transportation
Engineering, July 2004. Mostofthe City's\l~cantlatldjsserved by E. Pine Street, a
major arterial. The City re~Wti~s the impactof4~ye1opment on the service level ofE.
Pine Street and commissione4ari;affic study to evaluate future growth impacts and
mitigation options.
City ofCentr~lg()i[lt,.TransP~~~~iO~;I~ri,Existing~~~ture Conditions Technical
Traffic Repl)rt,JRH'I'~a.nsportatiOtlFngin~ting;lPl1~30, 2007. In preparation ofthis
TSP the Cit.Ycommissi()~~4. a more c(JI11pn~hetlsive traffic analysis that took into
consideration prior findirigsof prior traffic studies ..
? ':.'.'",'. _"C"-,''- ...." .?
7.2. Street System .i'i iiiii\).>......>
The 9itY'S 2630StreetSysteIftlS ilIustnltedlllF.igure7.1, which provides an overview ofthe
City~sexisting and plat'1n~d artefi~l~nd collectoT.street system.
?????7.2.1. Future Corlditi(}ns</
Il1.C~~pter 4, the exis~iJ1g conditions ofthe City's street system were discussed, including
currel1tdeficiencies. A.~pf2008 the City's street system is operating at an acceptable
level ofS6ryice. In ord~fto maintain this level ofservice it will be necessary that the
street system bemonitored and improved to meet the City's growing demand for
transportationsrryicesi In recognition ofthis challenge the City has prepared, as part of
this TSP, forecastsdffuture demands on the City's arterials and collectors for the years
2010,2020, and 2()30. The purpose ofthese forecasts is to determine improvements
necessary to accommodate growth while maintaining an acceptable level ofmobility
(LOS D) throughout the City's street system.
CHAPTER 7 - STREET SYSTEM PLAN
Page 62 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2036
CHAPTER 7 STREET SYSTEM PLAN
Page 63 ofl41
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
7.2.2 Operational Analysis and LOS "D": For each ofthe forecast years (2010,2020,
and 2030), an operational analysis was conducted for each ofthe thirty-five intersections.
The City's policy is to maintain a minimum level ofservice (LOS) of"D" or better.
Based on land development forecasts, development volume scenarios were prepared for
each ofthe forecast years. These volume scenarios included growth in regional traffic
volumes and traffic resulting from local development. The future year projections are
based on the availability, probability, and location ofvacant lands within the Central
Point urban area as discussed in Chapter 3. If, throughout the planning period, the
average rate ofdevelopment changes from that used in the model, project timing will
similarly change through either acceleration, or postponement ofthe project. Throughout
the duration ofthis TSP, the rate ofland use development and level mobility (LOS)
should be continuously monitored and forecasts and project timing adjusted as
appropriate.
7.2.2.1. Year 2010 Roadway Deficiencies: By 2010, it is projected that nine (9)
intersections will approach, or exceed, minimum performance standards during one or
both peak hours without any improvements. This represents 26% ofthe City's key
intersections. Table 7.2 summarizes the results ofthe operational analysis for the Year
2010 scenario are summarized in Table 7.2. The table lists each intersection within the
study area separately with the corresponding mobility standard for A.M. and P.M.
conditions.
Additionally, the fourth railroad crossing and intersection improvement for Twin Creek
Crossing Drive will be needed to accommodate the continued development ofthe Twin
Creeks TOD. Without this improvement, the recently upgraded intersections ofFront St.
& Pine and Pine & Haskell will exceed acceptable levels ofservice. The following
identifies each ofthe nine intersections and a general description ofthe improvements
needed to meet a minimum LOS "0":
1. Scenic Avenue & Hwy. 99. Install a traffic signal when signal warrants are
met. The intersection is shown to exceed minimum performance standards by
the year 20 lOin the P.M. peak hour. Although the level ofservice will exceed
minimums the criteria for preliminary signal warrants will not be met. Planning
and engineering should proceed in the short-term in preparation ofconstruction.
The intersection should be monitored until such time that signal warrants are met.
2. 2nd Street & East Pine Street. Install a new traffic signal. The intersection
is shown to exceed performance standards by the year 2010 during the P.M. peak
hour. The existing signal at 3rd Street & East Pine Street is planned for removal
when the signal is constructed at 2nd Street & Pine Street. Preliminary signal
warrants are not met in the year 2010. The intersection should be monitored and
signalized when signal warrants are met.
3. 6th Street & East Pine Street. Install a traffic signal. The intersection is
shown to exceed performance standards by the year 2010 during the A.M. and
P.M. peak hours. Preliminary signal warrants are not met in the year 2010. The
intersection should be monitored and signalized when signal warrants are met.
CHAPTER 7- STREET SYSTEM PLAN
Page 64 of 141
Plan, 1008?1030
CHAPTER 7- STREET SYSTEM PLAN
Page 65 of141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
Table 7.2 Year 2010 PM Peak Hour LOS, ofCeutral Poiut
WESTSIDE
BeaU & Freeman LOS 0 LOSC LOSC
BeaU & BurseU LOS 0 LOSB LOSC
Beall & Grant LOS 0 LOSB LOSB
Beall & LOS 0 LOSB LOSB
Beall & 99 VIC 0.90 VIC 0.85 VIC 0.90
& Grant (south) LOS 0 LOS A LOS A
Grant LOS 0 LOS A LOS A
Bursell & Hopkins LOS 0 LOSB LOSC
99 & East Pine VIC 0.90 VIC 0.67 VIC 0.84
& East Pine LOS 0 LOSC LOS
& Pine LOS 0 LOS A LOSB
& East Pine LOS 0 LOS A LOSB
& East Pine LOS 0 LOSE LOSE
loth & East Pine LOS 0 LOS 0 LOSC
Grant & Scenic LOS 0 LOS A LOS A
Scenic & Hwy. 99 VIC 0.90 VIC 0.27 VIC 0.93
Haskell & LOS 0 LOS A LOS A
Haskell & West Pine LOS 0 LOS A LOSB
Frceman& LOS 0 LOSB LOSC
Hazel & & StoplUnsignalized LOS 0 LOSC LOSB
Haskell & Beall LOS 0 LOSC LOS 0
EASTSIDE
& East Pine LOS 0 LOS FIB restricted LOS FIB restricted
Beebe & Hamrick LOS 0 LOS FIB LOS FIB
& East Pine VIC 0.90 VIC 0.67 VIC 0.94
Hamrick & East Pine LOS 0 LOSC LOS 0
& LOS 0 LOSB B
}-,NB & East Pine VIC 0.90 VIC 0.74 VlCJ.OO
1-5 & Bast Pine VIC 0.90 VIC 0.76 VIC 0.77
Table Rock & East Pine LOS 0 LOSC LOS 0
& Table Rock LOS 0 LOSF LOSF
Vilas & Table Rock Signalized LOS 0 LOSC LOS 0
Haven & Hamrick LOS 0 LOSE LOSF
Gebhard & Wilson LOS 0 LOSB LOSB
4. Wilson Road & Table Rock Road. Install a signal or movements to
right-inJright-outileft-out. The intersection is shown to performance
standards by the year 2010 during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour. Preliminary
signal warrants are not met at the intersection in the 2010. The intersection
should be monitored and signalized when signal warrants are met or restricted by
median control when the intersection begins to excessive delays
and/or an in accidents as an unsignalized intersection.
5. New Haven Road & Hamrick Road. Install a signal or restrict with median
control. The intersection is shown to performance standards by the year
2010, but preliminary signal warrants are not met by the year 2010.
CHAPTER 7- STREET SYSTEM PLAN
Page 66 ofl41
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
intersection should be monitored and signalized when signal warrants are met or
restricted by median control when the intersection begins to experience excessive
delays and/or an increase in accidents as an unsignalized intersection.
6. Beebe Road & Hamrick Road. Install a new signal. The intersection is
shown to exceed performance standards under existing year 2006 conditions;
however, preliminary signal warrants are not met under existing conditions. The
intersection should be monitored and signalized when signal warrants are met
when the intersection begins to experience excessive delays and/or an increase in
accidents as an unsignalized intersection.
7. Meadowbrook Drive & East Pine Street. Restrict intersection movements
to right-in/right-outlleft-in movements. The intersection is shown to exceed
performance standards when the development to the south (Hamrick Business
Park) is developed. Seventy-five (75) percent ofthe Hamrick Road Business
Park project is estimated to be developed by the year 2010, with the remaining
twenty-five (25) percent being developed by the year 2020. Median control
prohibiting northbound and southbound left-turn movements will mitigate the
intersection through the year 2030.
8. Peninger Road & East Pine Street. Remove signal and restrict intersection
movements to right-in/right-out through median controL The close proximity of
this intersection to the northbound 1-5 off-ramp intersection will necessitate the
need to remove the signal and convert the intersection to a right-in/right-out stop 
controll~4i'1tersection. The success ofthis improvement is contingent on its
coordi118,ti9t1:,\"itl1 improvements to the connectivity ofPeninger Road north and
s()nWofEast PineStreet as illustrated in Figure 7.1, which will necessitate the
crossillg ofBeafGreek in two locations.
>.The P~~~~S~<l iI11P"~V~l11.~ntwill impact the use ofthis intersection for freight
<Burpo~es. TijesignificancepfP1is intersection on the City's freight system
reinfor?~s thesitllllltaneous rieedt(}improve the extensions ofPeninger as noted
above;???,.-::.-,;-:
9. 1-5 N:~t~~()und~~Il1PS & East Pine Street. Initial improvements will add
((capacity to the I10rthboundoff-ramp to accommodate the high right-tum volume
???demand forecastby the year 2010. Eventually, the left-turn lanes onto the ramps
wiU(pe removep.and replaced with loop ramps. Additional capacity
imprQyementsare also needed to accommodate local development traffic.
.... ,\::::::...;::::::.'.:,:..-::'.'.::'.,.:::-:.::.:.
This impfClVement is listed in the RVMPO Freight Study as a priority freight
system improvement.
10. Twin Creeks Crossing Drive & Hwy. 99. Construct the three-way
signalized intersection at Hwy. 99 and the easterly extension ofTwin Creeks
Crossing Drive. The extension ofTwin Creeks Crossing Drive will also require
installation ofa railroad crossing.
CHAPTER 7- STREET SYSTEM PLAN
Page 67 of 141
City ofCentral Poi nt
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
7.2.2.2 Year 2020 Roadway Deficiencies: By 2020 it is projected that sixteen (16)
intersections will exceed perfonnance standards during one or both peak hours without
any improvements. This represents 46% ofthe City's key intersections. The results of
the operational analysis for the Year 2020 scenario are summarized in Table 7.3. The
table lists each intersection within the study area separately, with the corresponding
mobility standard for A.M. and P.M. conditions. The following identifies each ofthe
sixteen intersections and a general description ofthe improvements needed to meet a
minimum LOS "0":
1. Table Rock Road & Vilas Road. Widen to increase capacity. The
intersection is shown to exceed performance sta'.ndards by the year 2020. Adding
an eastbound lane to allow a dual eastboundJefttllrn movement and shared
through-right tum movement mitigates t~tj#t.~r?ection in the year 2020.
Additional widening is required to mitiga.teiforth?future year 2030 conditions.
2. EastPine Street, Table RO~}{~()a~:o I~5.~~~dditional westbound
through lane will eventually b~)r?qtijred based on projected traffic volumes.
3. Gebhard Road Extensio~,~~YX ear 2020~it is forec~sttl1~tGebhard Road
will be extended to intersect with E;~iIle StJ'~tilpproximately70qf~et west of
Hamrick Road. Inad<iition to the exteIl~ioIlPfGebhard Road, its intersection
with East Pine Streef",byl<ineed to be signalized.
4. Beall Lane & H~.(~~.~adBf()tected-~gffui~~ive phasing to the eastbound
and w~stbound left tum nl()yements''"l"ff~jntersetti9njs shown to exceed
perfPrrnantesmndards by't'li?iyear2{)6{)iQh~n?ing'toprotected-permissive
ph*siIlgmitig~te~tl1e intersebti9~.~hr()Ugh rUfUI'~year 2030 conditions duringbotllj\,M. and P.:r.,.tpeak houfK> .' . " .
<5.'" ~~.~?~~~~~?S! ...~~t~ ~~J~IIPine Street. The intersection exceeds
'.' ??????????perf'0rmancei~t~ndardsbyth.~?'~ar 2020. Possible improvements at that time
inClud? stripingtl1t eastbound Jiloyements to include an exclusive left tum and
two thf()u~Ianesy.,i~h a shared right-tum, as well as adding protected 
permissivej)l1asingtOthe eastbound and westbound left~tum movement.
?/i/ 6. Hamri~~)~oad &i~?t Pine Street & Table Rock RoadlBiddle Road.
'/Major capacitYil11Provements are necessary for these intersections to
accpn:lmodateh~a.vy left-tum volume demand and added traffic due to
developlpeHtsalong East Pine Street that will use existing and proposed cross 
streetsv~rsllsdirect access to East Pine Street.
CHAPTER 7 - STREET SYSTEM PLAN
Page 68 of141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan. 2008?2030
Table 7.3 Year 2020 PM Peak Hour LOS, City ofCentral Point
LOS FIB
LOS BIF (um;igmlled)
LOS A
LOS FIB
LOS 0
LOS A
VIC 0.99
LOS A
LOSB
LOSC
LOSB
LOS 0
LOSC
LOSC
B
LOSC
VIC 0.90
LOS A
LOS A
LOSC
LOS FIB
VIC 0.80 (uns:ignBlled)
LOSF
LOSB
VIC 1.23
VIC 0.99
LOSE
LOSF
LOSF
F
LOSB
WESTSIDE
LOS 0 LOSB
LOS 0 LOSB
LOS 0 B
LOS 0 LOSB
VIC 0.90 VIC 0.98
LOS 0 LOS A
LOS 0 LOS A
LOS 0 LOSB
LOS 0 LOS FIB
LOS 0 LOS BID
LOS 0 LOSB
LOS 0 LOS FIB
LOS 0 LOS 0
LOS 0 LOS A
VIC 0.90 VIC 0.27
LOS 0 LOS A
LOS 0 LOS A
LOS 0 LOSB
LOS 0 LOSB
LOS 0 LOSC
EASTSIDE
LOS 0 LOS FIB
VIC 0.90 V/CO.S6
LOS 0 LOSC
LOS 0 LOSB
VIC 0,90 VIC 0.72
VIC 0.90 VIC 0.79
LOS 0 LOSC
LOS 0 LOSF
LOS 0 LOSC
LOS 0
LOS 0 LOSB
2nd & East Pine
& East Pine
4th & East Pine
& Pine
loth & East Pine
Grant & Scenic
Scenic & 99
Haskell &
Haskell & West Pine
Freeman & HOIPkillS
Hazel& &
Haskell & Beall
Beebe & Hamrick
Bast Pine
Hamrick & Bast Pine
&Penilllzer
1-S NB & Bast Pine
1-S SB & Bast Pine
Table Rock & East Pine
Wilson & Table Rock
Vilas & Table Rock
Haven & Hamrick
Gebhard & Wilson
B.P
7.2.2.3 Year 2030 Roadway Deficiencies: By 2030, it is projected that nineteen (19)
intersections will perfonnance standards during one or both peak hours without
any improvements. This represents 54% ofthe City's key intersections. The
ofthe operational analysis for the Year 2030 scenario are summarized in Table
The table intersection within the study area separately with the
corresponding mobility standard and type ofcontrol listed.
CHAPTER 7- STREET SYSTEM PLAN
Page 69 of141
City orCentral Point
l'rallsportatloll System Plan, 2008-2030
The following identifies ofthe nin,eteEm il1ltersectiOIIS and a gellenfll description of
the needed to meet a miIlimum LOS
Table 7.4 Year 2030 PM PeakHour LOS, City ofCentral Point
WESTSIDE
BeaU & LOS 0 LOSC LOSC
Beall & Bursell LOS 0 LOSB LOSC
Beall & Grant LOS 0 LOSB LOSB
Beall & LOS 0 LOSB LOS 0
Beall & 99 VIC 0.90 VIC 1,01 VIC 0.92
& Grant (south) LOS 0 LOS A LOSB
& Grant LOS 0 LOSA B
Bursell & Hopkins LOS 0 LOSB LOSC
& East Pine StoplUnsignalized LOS 0 LOSF/C
& East Pine LOS 0 LOSBIF
& East Pine LOS 0 LOSH LOSH
& East Pine LOS 0 LOS FIB LOS FIB
10lh & East Pine LOS 0 LOS 0 LOSE
Grant & Scenic LOS 0 LOS A LOS A
Scenic & Hwy. 99 VIC 0.90 VIC 0.31 VIC 1.82
Haskell & LOS 0 LOS A LOS A
Haskell & West Pine LOS 0 LOSB LOSB
Freeman & LOS 0 LOSB LOS 0
Hazel & & StoplUnsignalized LOS 0 LOSH LOSH
Haskell & Beall 0 LOSC LOS 0
EASTSIDE
Beebe & Hamrick LOS 0 LOS FIB LOSF/C
East Pine VIC 0.90 VIC 0.56 VIC 0.80
Hamrick & East Pine Signalized LOS 0 LOSC LOSF
& LOS 0 LOSB LOSC
1-5 NB & East Pine VIC 0.90 VIC 0.93 VIC 1.45
1-5 SB & East Pine VIC 0.90 VIC 0.88 VIC 1.26
Table Rock & East Pine Signalized LOS 0 LOSC LOSF
Wilson & Table Rock: LOS 0 LOSF LOSF
Vilas & Table Rock Signalized LOS 0 LOS 0 LOSF
New Haven & Hamrick LOS 0 LOSF LOSF
Gebhard & Wilson LOS 0 LOSH LOSB
Gebhard Rd. & E. Pine ized LOS 0 LOSC LOSF
St.
CHAPTER 7- STREET SYSTEM PLAN
70ofl41
City ofCentrill Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
1. 10th Street & Pine Street & Freeman. Signal timing improvements. The
intersection is shown to exceed performance standards by the year 2030 during
the P.M. peak hour, but can be mitigated with signal timing.
2. New Signal on East Pine Street. A new north-south public street is
proposed between the existing Peninger Road and Hamrick Road. The new
roadway will extend from Beebe Road to a new east-west street south ofEast
Pine Street. The new east-west street will allow Peninger Road traffic to use the
new signalized intersection at East Pine Street. A new east-west street is also
proposed north ofEast Pine Street to accommodate traffic to and from the
Fairgrounds site once the Peninger Road and ~s,tRine Street signal is removed.
The new public streets will relieve traffic dem~#aon East Pine Street to facilitate
the regional function ofthis roadway whilej;l9commodating local access.
3. 1-5 & East Pine Street Interc~~n~~j;i~i~i:fitllProvements will add capacity
to the northbound off-ramp to acp?rhmodate the right~tpryt volume demand.
Eventually, the leftAurn lanes9Ilto.the ramps will be ie~(j'Ved and replaced with
loop ramps. Additional capacitY improvements are also ne~(}~<:i to accommodate
added local development traffic.? . . ...
.....::::'::-::.,...:::-.. :::.
7.3. Recommended Street Syst~lrrImproveme~ts?iii.?
Based on the above, a listing ofrec0h1r#~m(}~4street projebtsllas been prepared and presented in
Table 7.1. Projects are presented by shc.lrt-terin(:top8-2012),tn~dium (2013-20), and long-term
(2021-2030) implementation. It is imp0t'tililt to>rlOtethat the recommendations in this table are
based on the most rec~I1tgr()}Yth forecasts,>\fhroughoptitllTipJanning>period 2008-2030, the City
needs to continuou~IYmOhitoritsneeds andfuake~l(ijristmetltst9thisTSP as justified, both on a
need basis and a fihanbial basis. Gircumstancesy,rilrchangearidsh will street improvementneeds. . .... .. .
It is 'IS?j~.~?'1!'!1!to:~~gl~!ll!1~m~!C??rt\~!Rf th;ril~ projects are dependent on other projects
to either}").red:~deJhem ?.or to beJ.l~'\Ielopedcd#?u'Tent1y. Ifdeveloped alone, they will not resolve
anyitt":iffic capacityis~~~~nd mos,tlikely would aggravate existing levels ofservice. An example
ofsric~.<lproject wouldb~.Temovirigt~e signals atPeninger Road and East Pine Street. Without
new bridge. crossings ofBeafSreekandtl1e extension ofHamrick Road and Beebe Road an
unacceptable)evel ofservice:\ypuld immediately occur.
Tables 7.2 a~J9'?Jist JaCkSO~~()Unty and ODOT projects within the City's urban area that have
been identified asn?gessary tgs4pport the City's transportation objectives. These listed projects,
although a part ofthis'I'?P.~~>tlot included in Chapter 12 Transportation System Financing
Program, as a financialtespollsibility ofthe City. It is expected that as the County and state
update their transportation plans that the projects listed in Tables 7.2 and 7.3 will be included in
those plan updates.
CHAPTER 7- STREET SYSTEM PLAN
Page 71 of141
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
TAbl.7.1
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
TRANSPORTATION PLAN PROJECTS 20Q8.203Q
c
I I~ ~ 1 i~ G " j e.!I " ~~ .. .. b j j ~ i ~ ? ,. 1I " ?. { ! .f ! i
~ ~ ? ~
Iittr.NCI. Projrtt L?:1tkHl- ? Prok<cl><><rin<lon :;: e ~ ~ .? J! 5 ;.
II1I:mo;, ~~~I fQl' r-:&=~ri;:r1
201 NewH~\'rn Rd. & }hrnrid,: Rd, in:[m:?lion ....?;u,..l1wl~?tj';lITi~ 20" ?
po:&:nri~lI
Nc\\" si~N.lilN in~tioro~t
"" H'o\.':>'_ 99.&. T",... C~d:~ Dti\~ RR,?Xil"lS,lf1tO:-Ii<.-">::Ii?! @jl;J-t :h~,?. 99.& 'h~nCm:b Dr, And 2i'i12 . ? ?lil:'u'noillW<l rn:t"o~.ng II T",irc
lO) H.....~?_99.ProjwNQ l. TreOi~C:e.ll"J'I;<18 mi~t 201~ ?
"."'" S. Huj;('lISI,: f'inc
Sl.tClh~:SI. Wic!ro~o Ihl'? Ilnt~ "ilh cucb, "'''' ?gutler. !'Iilc b.ro &. sidev...:I:ks.
Add proIC'l:li\"Cop<Tmiul\'t'
<05 10000SL&PiI'lo?S\ &F~nRd.iMC"l'5o:ctj.on mioor rM'ing we.ul.oouOO 100 <0'" ?
w:stbo-und kn HIm mo\~g
f'J:*t:!<.i~noC;'t'~S;(IV. ~$.lll'tt
206 Hw)".99.?roj?tNo.2.1rAfficCJ,lmi.t11! rartirlf-< m?Ucdf'C ? "'''' ?imp~,,,"Cm:n!:i, &. tnffic wmil1-e:
ill vicini1)' ofthc: Roguc Cn:-ame!')'.
:lin 101b SI.. Hud Sl, 'Eo Lalbl'op \l,'io:kn 1.0 add tl,If;Ill~ ",j.lh :!:li'(~ ? ? 20lI ?14f1oe5&dd'C'\uU..
1i
208 IAkSI.:~?Third& FirnS1: Mu.,.1ni!-!:?LaUI't"! Imp"o-\'(-all~IC'ld~~l'I$ ? 2012 ?filcilit)'
"'" IJecl:.c- Rd,~ G=lM.ud R<t lo-HImrick Rcl W$drnl()-ooll?t(lt~nhwilh ? -I 2011 ?:s:i<!C"\Ir,"IIkl:ltbfkc:Ltlle1
". E. Pi:l'l<' Sot & Meadawtll'ook Dr 01'" ? ? 2012 ?
211 B?-t-:- Rd. & H.;~('k Rd, iMt~ioo AMtrdlil.' Iigl\1l for po:dc-~rilUl 2012 ?0I'~1'08-
m fh~y_ 99. f'roj=cNo 4 o..~pSft"m 0ll"=""1I)'. ? ? ~Ol'l' ?
il:l TlbkR{X'!; Rd.JI:. So~JlI_mri<:k Rd_ln.!(:~on AM Tn,ffio:: S_SN-I 2011 ?
Z'4 Sttn;oC Al'.: M.a~'>s Way10 SoeT.X: Middle SChool. Widen 3 lanes. b1k.<: lanc:~. ? -I 20JO ?side....:a:Ik-s.
ZlS H'\\y. 99. Pro:i?l NQ.::t ~1l1C1OS-s:i"P.>3t.r:d.sai"'C ? ? lOW ?im;mwcrr.:-nu& IrarrK?lmi~.
Widt11 .....~Md$OI.IUl:e.~
loAd" ~ S?lOI"rl.1-(.MI'bQvOO lo:i1ml1\
tan<:.nd-wxmd reoehi~ lan.:,
Rntl'ipc noribboun-d 1lp('!l'N(h 10
21~ E_ Vi~ S~ & Ib/Ylfi..."-: Ro:I.lnlo:-n.m;l)n mioor iD<:~U'k6~1 kn tum~-!OOI ,,;~k ? ? 2012 ?
1brough-1Jur?l.n.e-ht tum
Re-Wip:lOlIthbouoolioppro-xhw
i-nclook II Itil MO. 'throlJih. ~nd
o;dl,i:Y'"'e n?tK Will ~~
Tn-Ole c.&lmilj~.l'C'mo\"(-4!hSt. I?
m E. f'tl'K S~. & 2M SI.&6l.!1 81. t.. 3rdSt. A~MI ?.ddJKVo? Ji~I'L'!.Is-s12r.:1-md , :2(1)2 ?6111 SI.,I'I:I'Il\),-.e 3rd. Sl. ~j~rI'l ~r.d
i:MUl=lmoxlie.I'l'OOlltr?l. i
". E. Pino:SI. /'.:. TlbI-c: ROCK Rd. m~nof Widen 'wU'Ilppmacll 'CO lick! 2012- ? ? ?I
wifM.':l't':uc<:-!p?"it'f.add".
Uto~c-R<x:l;ll:d_& Vll~Rd. b~tioo wjor bll?.k~l:dlhn)l.lg'IJ. 20lZ ? ? ?
mQ\"'~~
R-e:&Ji$o. \\id~ lo3 ~~.bil<;e
220 Gcbturd Rd.~ UGB10 Beebe Rd. J:I~.~ioo\.\~lh .. ~11-'\INl'\Ick , 2017 ?
~lectOf 5Undud~
22' I-1....J'. 99& I:k3.Il Ln, illlcm:c1~oo m"ljor ~ligl1-&upg~'l,l~8~l~& ? ? , ;2"Cl-1"I ?l'ZlIl'03dl.'I'Ms:i~.Ilrb.\nlJP'SrM"
222 3rd SI.: E, Pi~ S~. to Hu.cl $1. A~b1la:IIl''IC:S.andsXI<:'l\''III;-5. , ,.'" ?
m 1~1 Sl~ Third I\l' 100ttSl PH'? 1.00 imp,~\'C. iddil1~ , 2030 ?siokv.".IIIkl-.
224 S~k Av.~ T?I\h Sl.l" S~io: Mi-rJdk SCl'OO Willen3ldt'>e$.b':';c l.irll:~, ?~de""'IIn:~(.c:cll('(~o, moo."flh).
llS H\\)?. 99: J1u'S': 3 "" Willcnwpro\i'lkbikcl!fI(:'I;&:: ? "'30 ?sidev...:lh.
216 E. Piric':SI.-.I.SloProm~er Rd. miool AdJ righllum bne .....i.lh 203(l . ?side'\\"Ilb.
WiclC1l3lB~{~I,:nI:o'l\i$lllm
211 w. Pinc-S!.~ B1J"llc~' Rd.lo 1u.\'kr:1l,Sl. 11.n<:). hi!;c II~. sidev."Ilh. U1'mn iQ30 ?
Uf'lll-radc.
M~se, en!u.~s ~'IJ(:h as bulb-
1
2030h.c1c,tIul ? ?esltitrn
(tI\"iroorno.'mllloI'4-Pifk' S~I
CHAPTER 7 - STREET SYSTEM PLAN
Page 72 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transporlation System Plan, 2008-2030
Table7.!
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
TRANSPORTATION PLAN PROJECfS 2008-2030
t?f
5 1 I,:: i .. ~
~ Ii:"
~ ~ ~ ?
.. ,.. '"
~. :; 1!
~ 'Ii ~ j ~. I 1 0 ? :;'j ~1; ~. ~ g ~.!:
Pro (OC"I Do,:,;-rrl Uoll to .!: ;;; :l!
Add bike l~/i::. ~idcJo,"iIIk~.
pO ~tew-onc."'-lir ? ? 20)0 ?
scul1Jl;?und.
m:<jOt lJ1~pll (t lrnfficsi~Il;[l:l "'hen ?I 2M2 ? ?~gn81 wantLnt~ ere met
WIdal.3l..me:\bi1:.c~.
lridcv.'aEh. lk;l-x c;uh"a1 w-elop;r . ? 10)~l ? ?
M\"m
Widal3bDC"S,bilt:c~.
~~-a'!b.. when Up;I:~, Cuh'a! . lOll ? ?
,"ro~$/1
2,.,
2JS FnXlllan Rd.: Uc-pk:irn. Rd, 10 B<:cliln
pb WKkn for da:cl!accd ~ ..&ddlJ.ik<:~.m:l~dcao.-all:.s
E.... Fbmid: Rd. \\~!)?1O
int~l ....il1lrcnn.i~R.::I
ClIIl6::lor~~
?
? i .???.1? ..... , ~03l +
2l"l)1
2012
?
?
?
ph lon ?
B7 ?
??
2O.~1 ? ? ?
20Jl ?
2031 ?
2031 ?
20.ll ?
10:}1 ?
2{)-~1 ? ?
20)1 ?
20J1 ?
20Jl ?
20)1 ?
2031 ?
203~ ?
~OH ?
20)l ?
iojl ? ? ?
?
?
?
?
?
?
C.cmWOCl ~a1ks. rtpeiit 1:w1:l
&.@:utlct.
C~ sklo:\\~IJ;;$.Tl:'pO~ turo
&:'!lul1?c
C(lJJ.Sl'ro(:l~<!Jlks.l"CjXlir(W'tJ
&'gUl:lCf.
C(Jl'-LSlJ\J(:l:!>io:lo.'1;\~lks.fl.1XIirl:w-b
ksut:l..,.
COMtnlct ~KIl:T."e.lb .. f-qxllr I;'urh
kjlLttt<r
C~~?.rtp:li:r("u;t
kgll'tll'% "."
Co1'\SitUC1 ~i4=wsfi;s.. f~ ~mb
&$utt:r.
'.
~' ..'..'
.
$a-.:bwy Dr,; BrW W". To Rochd Dt'.
24D-
24l
246
2$0
1.,
lSI
g.
W~E_Pir.c-SI_I-O 8dd third
wjOt =~~~=:::7.~~ ?
c-1T.raml".
LEGEND'
Ull"'urmnupg.~
ill'" rore.l unm&: 
~ -:;; ~~fL!tli1.lltion
p'~
!:t"'-bicyd,:
pb =p?k:M.mky(:Jc
miMr" miMT cap1l;~:ty hlJpro~'?fTlCfI1
nujc-r "" rnajOf cerneil)" impn;l\"~l
~"I)CV>'(QtlSJ.roctio.>l
CHAPTER 7 - STREET SYSTEM PLAN
Page 73 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
Table 7.2
JACKSON COUNTY/CITY OF CENTRAL POIl'<T
TRANSPORTATION PLA-"" PROJECTS 2008--2030
l1! ~ .ii~~
~ II t.
j; .. ~ 1.. " ~. ~ 1!1 E !' t . ~ .. ~
1; i- Ii ~ ~ 1 ~ jj ~PI'I:I?1Dncrtll-tkr:n .. ~ J:
\....."idCllloadd-<:o,,~inuol1.~ lltJ'T'llllJio:: ? ?
~ll~ I ?~iEh bike bne5 and slocb'31ls
W"XJaiIO add c(JIlLi~uo"ll! Iwn I~ ? ? ? 1(fll ?
.,.,.ith bike LmC$> &. .o;idcwlIlls
Wkl.er.loClfi....eleli?S',l.ilh
l:~&:v.lllksandbJl.:t:l~~ inSUln./i
s:i~rt.:I~ .... ~ ....vrnnlro orf~c:ri.;:~ ? 2011 ?
mO\?~L'l to right?iTl. -ri.E!h~,"?l,It
kfl.-in
Add hike I.:InC$ &. $~l:Ilks. ii 20!! ?
WW:li!f1 J~. Mko:o 1Me$. ? ? i ...... 2tm ?
~lok\l'.(I!k'$.
',ii ::
?.ii/i???'??: .:..?./.'....i'i
ii ..
%j,~! Ii i/i ~s ~ .ii? .. il..: t t.
:l:: Iii f. E " ~. ~ 1!E ~ i ? t ..~ .. ~ .. ~
Pm Kto?crtl'lllon:-:'?'?"-::::.'?:::': i~ l? ~ ! ~ g ! i
E:\lc1d-ewdch:umdiz.e i"
":. ...??:? .. Ii i 1ol<J ?
'.= ~CTQ:xmfigUnlli'Cm. ? .:......:'.' ... 1/ .>: ... 20jO :.
NrirthbbiiDd'k-i::a.'I:tbound UJUCie:t" ? ". ". ? 20)1 ?
?ra,:ri"~'??-?? ???
:.'.': .>...:... :.... ..... :
mioor
Il'Iejor
majO't'
802 lkall Ln_. Uwy. 9"9 to.Merri:J:nan Rd.
&1.3 TllbkRoc!,; Rd.& Wioon Rd
816 E. Pine St.TaM: Rock Rd to Hemrick. Rd
Table 7.3
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
TRANSPORTATION PLAN PROJECTS 200s.2030
R~f. No.
917 !?5 CCfltraI Poin~ Inl,.crdwll:!c (fxil :':\J
00'" W'h:u'tupg.l'JI.ck
ro "- Nral ujJgrOOoC
s '" s-j~nalil.Ltlit>Il
p' p<d?1ri.>l
h=:NH.;!e
pb"'~~)c~'de
mino; "'- mioor (l1pa.o:cily impro\?t1l'ta1~
fll.'l-jQf '" ma~or (op.xil~' impro\?art/:tll
IK:=: 1K""'~(lnAAl(li0-fJ
CHAPTER 7- STREET SYSTEM PLAN
Page 74 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?20JO
7.4. Street System Goals, Objectives and Policies
GOAL 7.1:
Policy 7.1.1
Policy 7.1.2
Policy 7.1.3
Policy 7.1.4
Policy 7.1.5
PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE STREET SYSTEM THAT SERVES THE
PRESENT AND FUTURE MOBILITY AND TRAVEL NEEDS OF THE
CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA, INCLUDING PROVISIONS FOR
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES.15
The City shallfulfill its system wide travel capacity needs through the use of
multiple travel modes within the public rights-oj-way.
The City's street system shall contain a network ofarterial andcollector streets
and highways that link the central core area andmajor industry with regional
andstatewide highways.
The City shallprepare, adopt, andmaintain street design standards consistent
with the policies ofthis TSP.
The City shallprepare, adopt, and maintain standards thatpromote connectivity
ofthe street system consistent with the Functional Classification Map.
The City shall activelypursue construction of1-5 interchange improvements at
Pine Street.
Policy 7.1.6
Policy 7. 1. 7
The City shallprepare, adopt, andmaintain design standardsfor its streets to
safely qcgopfl1wdate pedestrian, bicycle andmotor vehicle travel as has been
acccJ1,jp!i~ft~gi';llthe TOD Districts
Tft~~i~ Stan;:~g$and Details shall be the basisfor all street design within the
CentldlPoint urbdn area.
Policy(ljttJ fifi;tfJ:!;~re::~~'tftll~~!]~iiJ;s'JpH incorporate sqfely designed, aestheticfeatures
intoth.?~treetscqpeof its publiqtigbts-oj-way. These features may include:
street tfeff,shrubs;andgrasses/Planting strips andraised medians; meandering
sidewalk$q1Jiprterial~tl:eets; and, in some instances, streetfurniture, planters,
speciallighti"ng, public art, or non-standardpaving materials.
Policy 7.1. 9"Jfben eXistini;~iteets arewidened or reconstructed they shall be designed to the
ddiJpled stree(i:!ehgn standardsfor the appropriate street classification where
praCtfspI.4[(j#stments to the design standards may be necessary to avoid
eXisting~iJpographical constraints, historic properties, schools, cemeteries,
problems With right-oj-way acquisition, existing on-street parking andsignificant
culturalfeatures. The design ofthe street shall be sensitive to the livability ofthe
surrounding neighborhood
Policy 7.1.10 The City shall work withfederal, state andlocal government agencies to promote
traffic safety education andawareness, emphasizing the responsibilities and
courtesies required ofdrivers,cyclists, andpedestrians.
15 OAR 660-012-0020(2)(b)
CHAPTER 7 - STREET SYSTEM PLAN
Page 75 of141
City ofCentraI Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
Policy 7.1.11 The City shallplace a higherpriority onfunding and constructing streetprojects
that address identified vehicular, bicycle, andpedestrian safety problems than
those projects that solely respond to automotive capacity deficiencies in the
street system. Exceptions are those capacity improvements that are designed to
also resolve identifiedsafety problems.
Policy 7.1.15
Policy 7.1.13
Policy 7.1.14
Policy 7.1.12 The City shall select street improvementprojectsfrom those listed in the Central
Point Transportation System Plan when making significant increases in system
capacity or bringing arterial or collector streets up to urban standards. The
selection ofimprovementprojects should be prioritizedbasedon consideration of
improvements to safety, reliefofexisting conge~t!9'!' response to near-term
growth, system-wide benefits, geographic equlfy,tmdavailability offunding.
To maximize the longevity ofits caPitali~t~j~Si~tf,the City shall design street
improvementprojects to meet eXisti~lFtfi1vel de;;t~tland, wheneverpossible to
accommodate anticipatedtravelcje"Xcmdfor the ne~t2p.years for thatfacility.
The City shall involve represefti~fi~~:Of affectedneigh~~~W~dtjassociations,
citizens, developers, surveyors,eirgill~ering a~gplanning pf()les~lonals in an
advisory role in the design ofstreet41nprOVelllpltprojects. .....
The City shall require'1rf1ffis/mpact ~:~lW~~~~spart oflanduse ;e;elopment
proposals to assess tHe.ll1fpactthet a developm~nt will have on the existing and
plannedtransportation8)Jstemantf~9identifyreitsonable on-site and offsite
improve.,ne.!Jts necessaryto]nitigatcfinipCicts. .
The.(;i~~~;~44ire new ;;tilOP"J#~f?t~;~dhprg~;towards the mitigation of
sysWI1l~wide transportation in1"jJtlgtscreated by1tew growth in the community
throiigh.e.{tablish1.~Street Syste~IJevelopment Charges (SDCs) andany other
streetfeesrJ;Cit/!f~e4'lClk!ished bytije.City.
Policy 7.1.16
CHAPTER 7- STREET SYSTEM PLAN
Page 76 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
Chapter 8 - Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan
8.1. Introduction
The provision and adequacy offacilities and programs that support and promote the needs of
bicyclists and pedestrians is an important transportation strategy in promoting alternatives to the
automobile. The goal ofthis chapter is to provide guidance in developing transportation
alternatives through the design and implementation ofa comprehensive, convenient, accessible
and safe system ofbike and pedestrian ways throughout the City. It is the City's goal to
continually seek improvements to the bicycle and pedestrian systermthat will encourage the
increased use ofthe bicycle and pedestrian system for journe)(~!Q7y.r6rk trips as well as the non 
work/recreational trip. Increases in bicycle and pedestriap~~er~i11 reduce the City's reliance on
automobile use through reductions in vehicular miles tray~ledati(fparking demand.
8.2. Bicycle System Hierarchy ..},X??i,X ..
There are two basic uses for bicycles: as a melll1~()ttransportation, and{ofrecreational purposes.
The focus ofthis TSP is on the use ofbicycles.~?llmeans oftransportati()n;}yith the recreational
use ofbicycles a secondary consideration. It isth~<::ity's positiop that a well#lllIl~ed and
maintained bicycle transportation system will also eff'ectiveIY~~r:ve the needs ofiheFecreationalbicyclist. .. . . .
..:":",': ,:: '.-.. ":," ~' .._..:-::: '-.,- .
As a means oftransportation, the bicyclist relies on a netw2flcithllt links local neighborhood use
ofthe bicycle with intra-city and inter-city uses. In order to l11eettllis objective an effective
bicycle system will offer connectivity from neighborhoods to sc!1o(jls, recreation and employment
centers, commercial districts, transit centers, institutions and recreational destinations. The most
common means ofaccomplishing this objective is through the provision ofdedicated bikeways
on arterial and collector streets. Because ofthe traffic volumes and speeds on arterial and
collector streets, it is prudent to set aside travel lanes dedicated to the use ofbicyclists.
Additionally, by their very nature, arterial and collector streets offer connectivity between intra 
city and inter-city activity centers.
In recognition ofthis means ofimproving the connectivity and safety ofthe bicycle system, the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) has established as a performance measure (Measure 3) the
provision ofbicycle facilities on all collector and arterial streets with targeted percentages.
Measure 3 is presented in Table 8.1.
60%
Table 8.1. Regional Transportation Plan Bicycle System Performance Measures
2000 Benchmark Benchmark Benchmark BenchmarkMeasure 3 How Measured 2005 2010 2015 2020
Detennined through
GIS Mapping.
Current estimates are
that 21 % ofcollectors 21 %
and arterials have
provisions for
bicyclists.
Measure 3:
Collectors
& arterials
wlbicycle
facilities
CHAPTER 8 - BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PLAN
Page 77 of141
Cit)' ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
8.3. The Bicycle System
As discussed in Chapter 4 approximately] 7% ofthe City's current arterial and collector street
system contain bike lanes. As illustrated in Figure 8.1 City aiCentral Point Bicycle Plan, it is the
objective ofthe City to provide bicycle lanes along all arterial and collector streets, linking the
City's major activity centers such as schools, shopping centers, community parks, etc. Over the
course ofthe next twenty years, it is the City's goal to increase the presence ofbicycle lanes on
arterial and collector streets by 40%. Table 8.2 presents the City's benchmarks to the year 2030.
Table 8.2. City ofCentral Point Bicycle System Performance Measures
Measure 8.1 How Measured 2008 Benchmark Benchmark Benchmark2010 2020? 2030
Collectors & Determined through Street
arterials Inventory and GIS. Current
w/bicycle estimates are that 16% of l6% 21% 48% 70%collectors and arterials that have
facilities provisions for bicyclists.
8.4. Infill Project Priorities & ImPlementlti?1l1 Impr~v~ment Strategies
The City's current street standards for arterial and cbl1~tor~i.nclude provisions for bike lanes.
Since 2000 all new arterial and coH~ptorstreets have be~#l'~tiired to include bike lanes as a
standard provision. However, on th?Ciiyrsolder arterial#ttdcollector streets, there are gaps
where bike lanes do not currently exisi.overtirne,it is expect~~that these street sections will be
modernized to include bike lanes. ShorH~J1TI andlopg-tenn strat~~ies for closing these gaps are
presented in Table 8.3.'Ih~~hort-tenn stt~t~gies foc~s{)ncreatingfritical linkages for
developing a moreitlt~gr~itedl)i~ycle facilifi?$syst~llltlsirigflIierial anH collector streets. The
long-tenn strategie~aieprimariIyXocused onpt<lyiding safeantl.efficient linkages to the City's
major activity centef~. . . . . .... . ..
Short?Term
Strategy
Fill in Gaps
Long-Term
Strategy
Focus on
Schools
Description
Improve/construct facilities linking
existing and planned bikeways
(filling in "missing
links")
Description
Provide bikeways to/from all public
schools where none exist (emphasis
on arterials and collectors)
Objectives of the Strategy
? Increase percentage ofbicycle facilities on arterial
and collector streets
? Improve connections to employment centers,
commercial districts, transit centers, institutions,
and recreational destinations when possible
? Increase percentage ofdaily trips made via bicycle
Objectives ofthe Strategy
? Primarily improve connections to schools
? Secondarily improve connections to employment
and commercial districts, transit, institutions and
recreation
? Encourage and facilitate safe and convenient bicycle
transportation for younger riders
? Increase percentage ofdaily trips made via bicycle
? Secondarily increase percentage ofbicycle facilities
on arterial and collector streets
CHAPTER 8 - BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PLAN
Page 78 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Focus on Parks
and other
Activity Centers
Connect to
Transit Routes
Provide bikeways to/from
commercial and neighborhood
employment centers and parks
where none exist(emphasis on
arterials and collectors)
Provide bikeways to/from major
transit stops where none exist
(emphasis on arterials and
collectors)
?
??
?
??
?
?
Primarily improve connections to employment and
commercial districts, transit, institutions, and
recreation
Increase percentage ofdaily trips made via bicycle
Increase percentage ofbicycle facilities on arterial
and collector streets
Encourage and facilitate safe and convenient bicycle
Primarily improve connections to transit
Secondarily improve connections to employment
and commercial districts, institutions and recreation
Increase percentage ofdaily trips made via bicycle
and transit
Encourage and facilitate safe and convenient
bicycle transportation
As described in Table 8.3, the short-term strategy for developing an effective bicycle facility
system will focus on filling in existing gaps in the system. While this approach will eventually
help to meet bicyclist's needs for a comprehensive bicycle system, there is also a need to
prioritize critical projects. Table 8.4 provides a prioritized short-term (5 to 10 years) list ofthose
projects that are essential for needed connectivity and bicycle safety.
Table 8.4, Prioritized Bicycle Facility Projects - Short-Term (5 -10 years)
Priority
1
2
3
4
5
6
Project
Front Street
East Pine Street
Taylor Road
Bursell Road
N. 3rd Street
S. 3rd Street
Comments
Front Street is the primary north-south route through Central Point, but it is
very unlikely that bicycle facilities will be developed along Front Street due
to a lack ofright-of-way and general driveway conflicts. The Central Point
Highway 99 Corridor Planl6 evaluated bike lanes along Front Street and
recommended alternative bike routes using the west side ofthe railroad right 
of-way (south bound) and Second Street (north bound). This alignment is
illustrated in Figure 8.1.
East Pine Street is the primary east-west route through Central Point. The
designation ofbicycle lanes on Pine Street would negatively impact parking
and access to local business. To preserve the character ofthe downtown it is
suggested that E. Pine Street be designated a bicycle route through the
downtown area. Traffic speeds through the downtown should be reduced
through traffic calming, on-street parking, and other site design strategies that
make this section ofPine Street compatible with bicycle users. Under no
circumstance should on-street parking on Pine Street, within the downtown,
be removed to accommodate bicycle lanes.
Taylor Road provides access to Mae Richardson Elemental)' School, Twin
Creeks Development, and is an important connection to the Jackson County
Bicycle System along Grant Rd.
Bursell Road is an important north-south link in the Central Point System,
providing connectiviZ between Beall Lane and Scenic Avenue via to
Hopkins/Freeman/IO .
N. 3rd Street from Hazel Street to N. 10th Street provides a critical north-south
connection and also an important link to both Crater High School and Scenic
Middle School.
There is currently no connection from existing Hazel Street bicycle facilities
to East Pine Street. Bicycle lanes need to be improved along South 3rd Street.
16 Central Point Highway 99 Corridor Plan Preferred Plan, OTAK, May 24, 2005
CHAPTER 8 - BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PLAN
Page 790fI4J
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
8.4. Bicycle Parking, Safety Programs, and Facility Maintenance
While developing and implementing a bicycle facilities improvement program is a priority,
consideration must also be given to bicycle amenities such as parking and safety. Also, once
bicycle facilities are completed, there is a need to maintain them so that bicycling is both safe and
convenient.
8.4.1. Bicycle Parking: Currently, the City does not have standards for bicycle parking.
The City needs to develop standards in its zoning ordinance requiring bicycle parking,
along with other amenities to help meet bicyclist needs. Bicycle parking should include
short-term parking for customers or visitors and all-dayg~rking for employees or
students. Safe, convenient and secure bicycle parki~~ispfirticularly important if
bicycling is to become a viable mode oftransporta#pn., .
Bicycle parking requirements can be speci~~dihf~~':~Wi~ip~lcode as a percentage of
automobile parking, or building square ~?p~ge. For some use~/r.~latively little bicycle
parking needs to be provided, but the~~~~very few land uses f()tYj~ich no bicycle
parking can be justified. The code cah;il.sg specify locations whidipTpvide for safe,
convenient and secure bicycle parking.F8r~xample, iti~preferablefoi'Bicycle parking
to be located in high-visibility areas near high:traffic<pe4estrian entrancesi() buildings.
8.4.2. Bicycle Promotion &Safe'ty!,rograms:the.~se ofthe media, bicycle
committees, and other methoclstifeeffective tools forthepromotion ofbicycling for
transportation purposes. Promotipnal ca.mp~igns and ()th~r~trategies that encourage the
use ofbicyclingfor.transportatioh9.~n haveapp~itive impa.ct?.Encouraging major
employers to provide amenities su2h*~ shp}Y~rs,lopker~, andrelated facilities that
encouragei~i(:yclists to commute to Vv9r~;.~icycle suitability maps or bicycle system
maps can hetp<;yclists choOse the mostappropriate route and can also be used for
educational purp()ses. ... . ..
Along with prom:ti~~~i~~~l~~idirig,the~itjfcentral Point needs to promote safe
bicycle riding practices;.8Nldren shOul<l?e taught at an early age basic bicycle riding
skills and safety. The Ceiitt*lj>oint Police Department is developing a Dare-like program
for 5th Grade students that wiItprovide basic bicycle safety education and a free helmet as
well. A consistent problem facoohy the police department is that citations/warnings for
not wearing helmets have not proved to be effective in increasing helmet use. Bicycle
safety programs may also be planned in conjunction with summer Parks and Recreation
programs.
Educating drivers as to the rights ofbicyclist is also a critical issue. Areas ofparticular
concern are those locations where bicycle lanes end and bicyclist enter traffic. This
situation exists throughout Central Point where street improvements have occurred and
short sections ofbicycle lanes have been added. Areas ofcritical concern are located on
East Pine Street near the 1-5 Interchange and the Front Street Intersection. In both cases,
once through these intersections bicyclists enter the flow oftraffic without warning
provided to drivers. Another area ofconcern is the bicycle lanes located on the 1-5 / Pine
Street overpass. Drivers moving from Pine Street onto the freeway entrance ramp may
not be aware ofbicycle riders. Visible signage and stripes would be an effective means
ofeducating the public on their obligation to share the road with bicyclists.
CHAPTER 8- BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PLAN
Page 80 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
8.4.3. Bicycle Facilities Maintenance: Once bicycle facilities are developed, they need
to be maintained on a regular basis in order to remove broken glass, mud, vegetation, etc.
Because most ofthe bicycle system is located within the street system, routine
maintenance can be accomplished in conjunction with regularly scheduled street
maintenance. The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan includes the following bicycle
facility maintenance recommendations:
? Establish a seasonal sweeping schedule;
? Sweep walkways and bikeways whenever there is an accumulation ofdebris on
the facility;
? In curbed sections, sweepers should pick up debris; on open shoulders, debris
can be swept onto gravel shoulders;
? Pave gravel driveway approaches to reduce loose gravel on paved roadway
shoulders; and
? Provide extra sweeping in the fall in areas where leaves or pine cones
accumulate in bike lanes.
8.5. The Pedestrian System
In 2008 approximately 30% ofthe City's arterial and collector street system contained sidewalks.
The Oregon TPR requires sidewalks along all collector and arterial streets within a city's urban
area. The City's currelltstatlclards for development are consistent with the TPR, and also include
standards for sidewfilks6li.tillpuplic streets. As a sidewalk perfonnance measure (Measure 4)
the RTP sets benchmarks for thep~rcentage ofarterial and collectors that contain sidewalks.
Table 8.5 describestheRTP performance objectives for sidewalks.
Tabk8..~.R~gi?J:l~ITransp? ..taHonJ)Ia.JlJ.l~destrian System Performance Measures
Measure
Measure 4:
Collectors &
arterials
w/sidewalks
How Measured
Determined through GIS
Mapping. Current
estimates are that 47%
ofcollectors and
arterials that have
sidewalks.
2000 2005
47% 50%
Benchmark
2010
56%
Benchmark
2015
64%
Benchmark
2020
75%
CHAPTER 8 - BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PLAN
Page 81 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation Plan, 2008-2030
CHAPTER 8 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PLAN
820fl41
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
In recognition ofthe RTP perfonnance Measure 4 the City has established its own perfonnance
measure for the improvement ofsidewalks on the arterial and collector street system. Table 8.6
presents the City's benchmarks over the course ofthe next twenty years.
Table 8.6. City ofCentral Point Pedestrian System Performance Measures
2008 Benchmark BenchmarkMeasure How Measured 2010 2015 Benchmark2020
Measure 8.2:
Collectors &
arterials
w/sidewalks
Detennined through GIS
Mapping. Current estimates
are that 30% ofcollectors and
arterials that have sidewalks.
30% 56% 64% 75%
Within the TOD districts, the City has adopted additional~~a~f~~ addressing the design of
sidewalks within commercial areas, including provision~f{),rJallgs(:aping, lighting, delineation,
and on-site connectivity between adjacent developmtlpts.cThe pUl"pgstl ofthese design standards
is, through both land use and urban design, provid~a:I1environmenrthatencourages walking.
...-.:.":':.".':::::::::",::::,:,':(-:"-."
8.6. Priority ofPedestrian Improvement~i/
The City's most significant pedestrian challenge is. the infilling {)f areas wher~~ipewalks do not
exist, which is generally the older neighborhoods> Asystematicapproach to filling~aps in the
sidewalk system and an annual allocation for constructi{)nisreoommended. Theprimary
consideration in the infill ofsidewalks is safety, particu!arlyofschool age children.. Excluding
new development, which is required to construct sidewalks,thepriority for sidewalk infiII
construction should be based on the following considerations:
Street Upgrade: As the City upgrades the
existing street system, it will do so to the
standards for city streets, which includes the
provision ofsidewalks.
Pedestrian Connections to Schools: Many
ofthe streets servicing the schools within the
City are lacking sidewalk improvements,
resulting in not only an inconvenience, but
also a safety concern for students walking to
and from school.
Pedestrian Connections with Transit: Central Point should provide sidewalks and other
amenities to make pedestrian access to bus stops easier. Current efforts at providing
pedestrian access to transit could be significantly expanded by providing better walkways
to commercial centers and providing walkways from subdivisions to bus stops on arterials.
It is vitally important to RVTD that its riders or potential riders have safe, convenient
access to bus stops and passenger shelters. The provision ofsidewalks is expected to
significantly increase the ability ofRVTD to attract riders. RVTD needs the cooperation
ofother area governments with infrastructure improvements, especially sidewalks, to
implement high quality transit service between activity centers.
Pedestrian Connections to Commercial Activity Centers: Commercial Activity
Centers are defined as commercial, civic, and to a lesser extent industrial areas, that
CHAPTER 8 - BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PLAN
Page 83 of141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
attract large numbers ofemployees, customers, visitors, etc. For these areas convenient
access throughout the area, to transit and to adjacent neighborhoods is important.
8.7. Public Awareness
The use ofthe media, pedestrian committees, pedestrian plans, and other methods to promote use
ofwalking as a mode oftransportation is an important strategy in facilitating the community's
awareness ofthe pedestrian system and its many transportation and recreational opportunities.
Promotional campaigns and other strategies that encourage the use ofwalking for transportation
can have a positive impact.
8.8. Bear Creek Greenway
The Bear Creek Greenway is a project that has been in progress for more than 25 years. When
complete, the Greenway will provide a 20~mile, multi-use path from the I-5/Seven Oaks
Interchange in Central Point to Nevada Street in Ashland. In addition to its recreational use, the
Bear Creek Greenway will serve as an important f~gili.ty for intercity pedestrian and bicycle travel
along the I-5corridor. Within the City, the Gree?:?'ily:is divided into two sections:
1. East Pine Street in Central Point,s$4th to Barnett Road in Medford; and
:/,~: :::,-: :-: :'::::.:,":-.:
t~~East Pine Street, north section is
andIJpton Road) has been designed
2. limits ofth~lJrban'Gf6Wth Boundary.
The East Pine Street south section
unimproved. Part ofthis section (be:twleeh basfl?ine S:tl
and approved for construction but not fUl1ideld.
CHAPTER 8 - BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PLAN
Page 84 of 141
City of Central Point
Transporlation System PllIn, 2008?2030
8.9. Bicycle and Pedestrian Goals, Policies & Actions
GOALS.I: TO PLAN FOR AND FACILITATE THE INCREASED USE OF
BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION IN THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN
AREA BY ASSURING THAT CONVENIENT, ACCESSIBLE AND SAFE
BICYCLE FACILITIES ARE PROVIDED17.
Policy 8.1.1.
Policy 8.1.5.
Policy 8.1.3.
Policy 8.1.4.
Policy 8.1.2.
The City ofCentral Point recognizes bicycle transportation as a necessary and
viable component ofthe transportation system, both as an important
transportation mode, andas an air quality improvement strategy.
The Bicycle Element ofthis plan shall serveas:>'i~~Central Point Bicycle MasterPlan. ...
The City ofCentral Paint ..hallpr~lf[flf~F~':~~l?l!'~ /inked bicycle network,
focusing on, but not inclusive totJu!,cf/;terial andcollegt?r street system, and
concentrating on the provisiolJojrpfcycle lanes, to be c01J1pleted within the
planningperiod (20 years). fh~ikikeway network will setv~bJcyclists needsfor
travel to employment centers, c<Jm1fu!rcial districts, transit ceitters, schools,
institutions andrecreational destinations. .. .. .
The City ofCentr~r~1i1!{s,~all use :d:~kgtf::ities to add bike ;~;, in
conjunction with J'Oadteconstt;lJction andre-stt:iping projects on collector andarterial streets. ... .. ... . . ....
Thel5i~~ig~~rral POi:;ifirq!' m:;::l~~Nt5;~J!P),tement standards that
assyr~that tlJeije,s'ign ofallf{(!%%fs.ilPtFpublfcilnlJrovement projectsfacilitate
bicY?!il1g byproVtcling properpi.ly/hg, lane width, traffic control, storm drainage
grates.$fr'iping, 4{t11age, lighting,parking, etc.
POliCYli.1.6'TJzeCl~;~JQeh~~;~glhi@}zilIIPr~~br(!, adopt, and maintain on~site development
sial1i!W'ds th(]tils~we the prOVisign.ojbicycle access, parking, racks and/or
sheltetsl~kusines~rj(!velopmeni.s,institutions, duplexes andmultifamily
developlneitt~and other.locations where bicycle parkingfacilities are required.
Policy 8.1.7:;The City of6~btral POi~t~hall support the local transit provider in their efforts
/iiJ!acilitate "brk:?s on buses" andbicyclefacilities at transit stations andstops.
~~~~Pt?:lthi11;%:central Business District, the City ofCentral Point shall give
prioritytbklcycle traffic overparking within public rights-ofway designated on
the BicycleMaster Plan or otherwise determined to be important bicycling
routes.
Policy 8.1.8.
Policy 8.1.9. The City shall require pedestrian andbicycle easements to provide neighborhood
connectors andreduce vehicle trips. The City shall modify the street vacation
process so pedestrian and bicyclist through access is maintained.
17 OAR 660.012.0020(2)(d)
CHAPTER 8 - BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PLAN
Page 85 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
GOAL 8.2: THE CITY WILL PROMOTE BICYCLE SAFETYAND AWARENESS.
Policy 8.2.1. The City ofCentral Point shallactively support and encourage local andstate
bicycle education andsafety programs intended to improve bicycling skills,
observance oflaws, and overall safetyfor both children andadults.
Policy 8.2.2. The City shall consider the use ofthe media, bicycle committees, bicycle plans
andother methods to promote use ofbicyclingfor transportation pwposes.
GOAL 8.3: TO FACILITATE A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF CONVENIENT~
ACCESSIBLE AND SAFE SIDEWALKS AND WALKWAYS THAT
WILL ENCOURAGE AND INCREASE PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL
THROUGHOUT THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA.18
Policy 8.3.1. The City shall establish andmaintain a Sidewalk Construction Program to
complete the pedestrianfacility network.
Policy 8.3.2. Sidewalks andwalkways shall complement access to transit stations/stops and
multi-use paths. Activity centers, schools andbusiness districts shouldfocus
attention on and encourage pedestrian travel within theirproximity.
Policy 8.3.3 The City ofCentral Point shall maintain standards that require sidewalk and
pedestrian access andstandardsfor improvement, i.e. crosswalks at signalized
intersections andhigh volume pedestrian areas such as the Central Business
District. Allroadconstruction or renovation projects shall include sidewalks.
Policy 8.3.4. The City shall require pedestrian and bicycle easements to connect
neighborhoods andreduce vehicle trips. The City shall modify the street vacation
process sopedestrian andbicyclist through~access is maintained
Policy 8.3.5. Pedestrian walkway or accessway connections shall be required between
adjacent developments when roadway connections cannot be provided
Policy 8.3.6. The City shallprepare a plan and implement a multi-use trail system, using
linear corridors including, but not limitedto: utility easements, rail lines, Bear
Creek, Griffin Creek, Jackson Creek andother creeks that complement and
connect to the sidewalk system.
GOAL 8.4: TO ENCOURAGE EDUCATION SERVICES AND PROMOTE SAFE
PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
INVOLVING PEDESTRIANS.
Policy 8.4.1. The City ofCentral Point shall encourage schools, safety organizations, andlaw
enforcement agencies to provide information and instruction on pedestrian safety
issues thatfocus on prevention ofthe most important accidentproblems. The
programs shall educate all roadway users oftheir privileges andresponsibilities
when driving, bicycling andwalking.
18 OAR 660-012-0020(2)(d)
CHAPTER 8 - BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PLAN
Page 86 of 141
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Policy 8.4.2. The City shall include in the Sidewalk Construction Program (Policy 9.1.1)
inclusion oja street lighting system.
Policy 8.4.3. The City shallprepare, adopt, andmaintain standardsfor the separation oj
pedestrian trafficfrom auto traffic on streets and, where determined appropriate,
in parking lots.
CHAPTER 8- BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PLAN
Page 87 of 141
Cit)' ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 200S-2030
Chapter 9 - Public Transit System
9.1. Introduction
Public transportation services fulfill two roles. First, these services provide transportation for
those who cannot or choose not to drive their own automobile. The majority ofCentral Point
transit riders would likely fall into this category. Secondly, the provision ofa comprehensive
local transit service is a key measure ofquality oflife within a community. In concert with
walking and bicycling, transit provides an alternative to driving. Transit is also an important
component in the toolbox ofstrategies that can support Smart Growth through higher density,
mixed use development, and a more compact form ofurban development where the dependency
on automobile use is minimized. . ..
:".-",.-,:",:>.":.::<'.c<"
9.2. 2005 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)i.>;iji'/:;
The RTP Transit System Element provides a comprehen~ive revie~i8fthe region's transit system
and future potential for growth. The primary con~~#int confrontingtrilnsit service is the limited
amount offunds available to service the current~yst~tn, not to mentiori~~funds needed to
support expansion ofridership. i) ???ii
The RTP includes nine (9) transit related goals6J)~lthrough 6.0-9 focusing <:mfunding, market
demographics, and increased ridership. Ofthe nitH~p()liciesfi,,~apply to local'g()yernments.
Those policies include: ... .. . . .
. -:-: >.,,-: _. , '--,:.:.,-~--:,.- ''''':.,:." " .
Policy 6.D~1 Localfundingact{o1t~should be ta~~h;(Jensure a long term stable
operating and capital-fundingbdsisjdrRVID. .
This policy.iS~geheraIstatementiegardin~ldq~ffttn4inga~aSource ofincome for
RVTD. T~etertrl "local"4oes not speci~l::~llY feferto;i~9ividual cities, but rather to the
region as 6pp()sed to state~nd federaIfttrging. The City6fAshland was used as an
example ofone city in thetegion that contributes annually to RVTD for transit services.
Policy 6.D-2 L:c~igovePn111Jhgi~h(JJl,. th!g~gh RVTD, continue provision of
transportation services(:l1Y:lfacilitMsthCJt~nhance mobility/livability andquality oflife
optionsfor the transportf1tion-disadvaniaged.
<: .':~: ': :)":i':',:
The City ofCentral Point sup#8[tsthis policy as evidenced in this TSP.
Policy 6.D-4 Localgovernments, RVTD, and ODOTwhere appropriate, shall consider
the development ofpark-and-ridefacilities as a cost-effective means ofincreasing the
efficiency ofthe existing transportation system.
The City ofCentral Point supports this policy as evidenced in this TSP. The Parking
Plan presented in this TSP sets forth as a parking reduction strategy the appropriate use of
park-and-ride facilities (see Chapter 6).
Policy 6.D-8 Local governments, ODOTwhere appropriate, and RVTD shouldsupport
transit-friendly design including appropriate inclusion ofbus-only lanes on arterial
streets, bus bays or turnouts on district level State highways, arterial andcollector
streets as a means of trafficflow duringpeaktravel periods, andshould
revise building codes that enhancepedestrian access to major destination buildings. This
CHAPTER 9 - PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Page 88 of 14 I
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
transit-friendly design approach will also encourage connectivity to transit by enhancing
pedestrian, wheelchair andbicycle access to bus stops.
The City acknowledges the importance ofincluding transit needs in its development and
street standards. This acknowledgement is not only limited to functional design needs
but also design standards that improve the attractiveness and convenience ofthe transit
system.
Policy 6.D-9 Where warranted by traffic speeds, volume, andaverage bus schedule
dwell time; where consistent with maintaining a positive pedestrian environment; and
where approved by RVTD, local governments, and ODOTwhere appropriate, shall
facilitate implementation ofbus bays on congested arterial streets as a means of
facilitating trafficflow during peak travelperiods.
The appropriateness ofbus bays on congested major streets is a justifiable design
consideration, but one that is time sensitive and dependent ofthe presence ofstable bus
routes. The City will work with RVTD in identifying the need and timing ofbus bays on
arterial streets and the development ofacceptable bus bay standards as part ofthe City's
street standards.
In addition to the above policies, the RTP also includes a performance measure for transit service.
Table 9.1 represents Measure 2 ofthe RTP. In support ofthe RTP Measure 2, the City as part of
this TSP establishes a similar performance measure. Table 9.2 represents the City's transit
perfonnance measure. It is important to note that attainment ofthis performance measure relies
on the expansion oftransitservice to the eastside ofthe City and other planned transit oriented
development areas. .
Table 9.1. RegioJ1~lTransporta:tion Plan Public Transportation System PerformanceMeasures .
Measure How Measured Current2000 Benchmark2005 Benchmark2010 Benchmark2015 Benchmark2020
Measure 2:
Percentage of
DU's within
y. mile walk
to 30-minute
transit service
Determined
through GIS
Mapping.
Current
estimates are that
12% ofDU's are
within 1;4 mile
walking distance
ofRVTD transit
routes.
12% 20% 30% 40% 50%
How Measured
Table 9.2. City ofCentral Point Transportation System Plan Performance Measures
Current Benchmark Benchmark Benchmark
2008 2010 2020 2030
Measure 2:
Percentage of
DU's within 1;4
mile walk to 30 
minute transit
service
Determined through GIS
Mapping. Current
estimates are that 35% of
DU's are within 1;4 mile
walking distance of
RVTD transit routes.
38% 45% 60% 70%
CHAPTER 9-PUBLICTRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Page 89 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation Plan, 2008?21130
9.3. Rogue Valley Transportation District
The Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) providces
Central Point, a combination a nXlea-rollte. tlxled-sctledule
system, and paratransit (Valley Lift) - a with disabiHtices
that them Additionally, RVTD ope:ratles the Valley Ridlestlare and
Vanpool programs which provide ride commuter van l::f\rvjc~f\ to emplclyers
and their employee:s.
of
would provide
oint as well as increased headways and weekend The
support additional to Central Point. During Phase II of
n Update, the Valley MPO will be investigating methods
Currently, ridership is than one percent
oftotal daily and peak-hour vehicular
Although not unusual for a small metropolitan area,
Public transportation the of
accommodating a greater portion oftotal daily trips
the provided RVTD is adequately timded
as to transit including
enhancements that will make transit more
COlIVel1iell1t to who use auto
Transit's ability to serve an wou
sigil1itlcarltly enhanced by other elements ofthis
including the TDM, bi
elements. Access to transit routes
improved by development
Pedestrian Ele:me:nt.
use activity c
adjacent to major
in land use el
between
With the sUPJPort
Central
RVTD. The
for an additiona
pre:serlt financial
the Regional Transp
increasing transit serv
9.3.1. Rogue Valley Transportation District..Ten-Year Long Range Plan (2007 
2017): The RVTD Ten-Year Plan 2007?2017 is a multi?modal document focused on
enhancing ridership through appropriate best The Plan is designed to address
the community's public transportation needs, with the realization that there will
revenue constraints to be addressed throughout Plan's implementation.
CHAPTER 9 - PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Page 90 of141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-203Q
Priorities and Immediate Needs:
? Service along Hwy 99;
? Detennine location for transfer station and
major bus stops
Downtown reverse service (S~tf?htly only the
north side ofPine receivesseryi6e);
Expanded hours and incr~:i~dfr~quency; .."
Service to the Twin Creeks TaD \A"l",U''-'
Provide Saturday service;
'::.::':-:':,::::>'.:-::.:.:',".
Express route that connects all City Ceriters;
~d .....
?
?
?
?
?
Central Point is currently served by Route 40 ofRVTD
(Figure 9.1), which has a very strong ridership. Route 40
travels from Medford to Central Point and has received
increased frequency from one hour to 30-minute
headways. South ofRoute 40 the City has created a TaD
overlay District for the Twin Creeks area. Within this
overlay district, future transit facilities have been planned.
The long-range plan proposes the following priorities and
future needs:
Future Needs:
? East Central Point; and
? Area near South Haskell St. and Ash St.
9.4. Strategies to Improve Transit Service
The growth oftransit service, in terms ofridership, will necessitate
a variety ofstrategies that need to be simultaneously employed.
These strategies include a variety ofdisciplines such as
economics, land use and transportation planning, and urban design
that when considered collectively will provide a solid
infrastructure to build future transit ridership. The following is a
listing ofactions that will facilitate growth in transit ridership:
? Additional site plan standards can be incorporated into
the land development code to encourage transit
oriented development.
? Prepare code amendments that provide standards and incentives fostering
enhancements to parking lot design, integration oftransit facilities, flexibility to
support various uses over time, such as temporary parking zones, or parking areas
that convert to plazas to support programmed activities; shared parking facilities;
CHAPTER 9 - PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Page 91 ofl4J
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Transportation infrastructure can be designed to suppOli redevelopment offuture
building construction.
Provide clear pathways to transit vehicles from shelters.
Sidewalks should be constructed to the nearest intersection or to the nearest section
ofexisting sidewalk from all urban transit faci lities.
Provide suitable and universally accessible waiting areas for transit users.
Coordinate locations ofcrosswalks with placements ofway-finding signage and
shelters.
On streets with parking, consider curl?.'~*tensiol1s at near-side bus stops so passengers
can board transit directly from thep~t!:>Without stepping onto the street and to
comply with ADA universal accessibility standards.
CHAPTER 9 - PUBLIC TRANSPORTAnON SYSTEM
Page 92 of 141
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
POINT L
l1lil1lil1li111
l1lil1lil1li ???
2008,.2030
CHAPTER 9 - PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Page 93 ofl41
9.5. Transit Goals and Policies
GOAL 9.1: IN COOPERATION WITH TRANSIT PROVIDERS FACILITATE THE
PROVISION OF A TRANSIT SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES CONVENIENT
AND ACCESSIBLE TRANSIT SERVICES TO THE CITIZENS OF THE
CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA.19
Policy 9.1.1. The City shall work with RVTD to encourage transit services that meet the City's
transit needs.
Policy 9.1.2. To encourage accessibility and increasedridership, the City shall continue to
encouragefuture transit-supportive landuses, such as mixed uses, multiple 
family, andemployment centers to be located on or near transit corridors.
Policy 9.1.3. The City shallprepare, adopt, andmaintain development standards and
regulationsfaciUtating accessibility to transit services through transit-supportive
streetscape, subdivision, andsite design requirements that promotepedestrian
andbicycle connectivity, convenience andsafety.
GOAL 9.2: INCREASE OVERALL DAILY TRANSIT RIDERSHIP IN THE CENTRAL
POINT URBANAREA, TO MITIGATE A PORTIONOF THE TRAFFIC
PRESSURESEXPECTED BYREGIONAL GROWTH.
Policy 9.2.1. Through Transportation DemandManagement efforts, the City shall work with
Central Point employers and other government agencies to increase commuter
transit ridership.
190AR 660-012-0020(c)
CHAPTER 9 - PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Page 94 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation Plan, 2008?2030
Chapter 10 - Railroad & Aviation System
10.1. Railroad System.-Introduction
In February 1976, passed the Railroad Re'viulliz,atioln and Keigul:atolry Reform
Act (the Act), which set up a nationwide local and a
rail planning process. a for a state was
required to establilsh:
".....An adequate for rail ~Pt"Vjt"P(;:
for all transportation in such
updating, revising and amending
administered and coordinated by a de5;igt1atc~d
equitable distribution resources."
??????CO.PUneStllClon
Pori
Central Orelon &.
P.t~ifte Railroad
alone is esti.mated
annuaHy. The
accounts for bet'we~m 10 percent of
this total the 1-5 corridor.2?
purpose ofthe rail tr81l1sp!ortati()n
elemell1t is to both and
pas:sen:ger components railway
system relative to The long-
term potential both and
pas:senger ""'MT;"'" for VaHey
1Yrf'!:Atf'!r than present service
is particularly true as the
inclreas,ing cost ofl~asiolirle
legllUII. The cOITlbinied hiigh,rvay
10.2. Railroads - Existing
Conditions
The railroad has a long history in Central Point and was one ofthe driving behind the
founding ofthe city. The Southern Pacific railroad came to the vaHey 1885, four prior to
incorporation ofCentral Point 1889.
20 Re~~ional Transportation Plan 2005 - Rail Transportation Element, Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning
Org,ani.~ticln, 2005
CHAPTER 10 RAILROAD AND AV1AT10N SYSTEMS
950f141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Today within the City ofCentral Point's transportation inventory, there is a single north-south
railroad track operated by the Central Oregon Pacific Railroad (CORP). This trackage is part of
CORP's Siskiyou Line which provides connections from Eugene-Springfield to Cottage Grove,
Roseburg, Glendale, Grants Pass, Medford, Ashland and on into Califomia (Figure 10.1).
CORP is Oregon's second largest short line railroad, operating on 378 route miles and 8 miles of
trackage rights in Oregon. Its route miles comprise 13.8 percent ofall route miles statewide21 ?
CORP is strictly a freight line that carries local forest and agricultural products. Steep grades and
tight turns limit operating speeds, which mostly fall in the range of25 to 35 miles per hour.
Forty-three miles oftrack is limited to an operating speed ofonly ten miles per hour. In recent
years, CORP carried approximately 28,000 cars on the Siskiyou Line.
10.2.1. Land Use: The CORP line through Central
Point is generally bound predominantly by
residential and commercially zoned properties with
some industrial properties south ofPine Street. With
the exception ofthe Grange Co-op, which does have
a spur and occasionally uses the rail for shipment of
materials, the City's commercial/industrial use ofthe
railroad is non-existent.
The speed (low) and frequency (very limited) ofthe
rail traffic is not a cause for concern at this time.
Along much ofthe rail line adjacent land uses are
effectively buffered from rail traffic impacts such as
noise and vibration. With the exception ofthe
commercial lands along the west side ofFront Street,
the remaining lands are buffered by either Hwy. 99
on the east and planned open space/landscaped berms along the west side ofthe tracks.
These buffering systems are anticipated to be sufficient to mitigate any increases in rail
speed and frequency that may occur in the future. Within the City's urban area, there are
three existing (3) and one (l) proposed public at-grade railroad crossings (Table 10.1).
Each ofthese crossings is located on one ofthe City's arterial streets.
Table 10.1. Central Point Railroad Crossings
Crossing Name Crossing No.
Beall Lane U.S. DOT #756030T
W. Pine Street U.S. DOT #756050T
Scenic Avenue U.S. DOT #75605IA
Twin Creeks Crossing Proposed
Crossing Control
Full
Full
Full
Full
10.2.2. Rail Freight- Existing Conditions: Currently, the CORP line is used only for
freight, which can be divided into two major segments: I. A large wood products
operation at Dillard, south ofRoseburg, contributes most ofthe traffic on the northem
end ofthe line. 2. Shippers south ofGrants Pass (Timber Products, Boise Cascade, and
Sierra Pine, Ltd.) are the major source ofbusiness on the southern end ofthe line. While
the railroad operates a through train between Medford and Roseburg, most ofthe traffic
21 2001 Oregon Rail Plan, An Element ofthe Oregon Transportation Plan. Oregon Dept. ofTransportation,
November 2001.
CHAPTER 10 - RAILROAD AND AVIATION SYSTEMS
Page 96 ofl41
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
heads either north out ofRoseburg or south out ofMedford. CORP's line south from
Medford is one ofthe most rugged rail lines in the western part ofthe United States with
gradients that approach 3.25 percent. The portion ofthe line south from Ashland to
Black Butte, California has no weight restrictions but has height and length restrictions in
the Siskiyou Mountains due to size limitations related to tunnels.
In 2002, the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO) undertook a
survey entitled Strengths and Weaknesses ofthe Current Freight Transportation
System. As relates to rail freight, the survey asked shippers ifthey were interested in
improving their connections with rail. While there was interest among some
manufacturers in increasing their use ofrail for inbound raw materials and outbound
finished product, it was very selective. Shippers with the greatest interest tended to have
a spur either on their property or one nearby and were producing heavy, bulk products or
needed large quantities ofbulk raw materials.
The reasons shippers gave for not using rail more extensively had to do with the length of
time it takes to move freight by rail and concerns ofthe reliability ofdelivery times. Rail
freight is typically carried by more than one railroad company before reaching its
destination, which means that the originating company loses hands-on control ofthe
freight in the process. Local rail personnel point to the inconsistency ofschedules as an
important issue that they have been working to correct.
The findings ofthe 2002, Strengths and Weaknesses oftlte Current Freight
Transportation System, particularly as it pertains to timely and cost effective rail service,
have been reinforced by CORP's most recent cutbacks. Any increased shipping times
and costs will ultimately result in increases in demand for motor freight services.
In September 2007, CORP discontinued operations between Vaughn, OR and Coquille,
OR due to unsafe tunnel conditions. CORP estimates the cost for repairing the tunnels at
$23 million and is seeking federal financial assistance for this purpose. Additionally, in
December 2007, CORP notified shippers south ofEugene that the railroad's Siskiyou
Line would be closed to train service into California. Effective January 2008, no freight
trains will be allowed south ofAshland. Instead, companies that want to ship cargo by
rail south into California will have their products loaded onto railcars bound for Eugene.
From Eugene, railcars will be directed to Klamath Falls and then into California. This
change will have a direct impact on businesses using the Siskiyou Line by increasing
shipping times and, potentially, shipping costs.
Based on recent events, the future role ofrail freight service to and from the Rogue
Valley is questionable. Based on the most recent actions by CORP it appears that the
market share ofproducts shipped by rail will decline in the near future.
10.2.3. Passenger Rail Service - Existing Conditions: Passenger rail service to and
from Southern Oregon was terminated in 1958. Currently north-south rail passenger
service in the California?Oregon-Washington corridor is provided through Klamath Falls,
bypassing the Rogue Valley region on the way to Eugene. State sponsored thruway bus
service with one daily round trip via the 1-5 freeway between Eugene and Ashland started
in May 2000. This bus connects with the mid-morning Amtrak Cascades train departure
from Eugene.
CHAPTER 10- RAILROAD AND AVIATION SYSTEMS
Page 97 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
10.2.4. Passenger Rail Sen'ice - Future Feasibility: The primary advantage ofrail is
its ability to move larger numbers ofpassengers at approximately the same cost as a
small number ofpassengers and to move them in a comfortable, time~competitive
manner. Passenger service also can provide peaking capacity parallel to congested
highway corridors. Because ofthe high infrastructure cost, rail works best where
passenger volumes are high enough to justifY the investment, and generally this means
where multiple frequencies can be operated.
Rail's advantage declines where the available rail route is not competitive with driving
times, either due to a circuitous route or to poor track conditions that limit operating
speeds. Nevertheless, there is a general perception that rail service is more reliable, more
comfortable, and safer because the railway cars provide more passenger space and travel
over a fixed guideway that is not affected by highway congestion.
Recently, interest has been expressed in bringing passenger rail service to southwestern
Oregon. Several studies have been completed providing various scenarios that could
potentially reintroduce passenger service to the area, but in all cases, the cost would be
prohibitive and federal and state support at this time is very limited. These studies
include:
The 2001 Oregon Rail Plan. The 2001 Oregon Rail Plan provided an analysis
ofpotential rail passenger service between Medford and Eugene. In the Plan, it
was stated that rail service is disadvantaged in southern Oregon by an antiquated
rail line alignment built in the 1880s, twisting track alignment, slow speeds, and
relatively light population. The line is maintained to Class 2 standards with
maximum speed over the route of25 mph, with many segments limited to 20
mph. A passenger rail service would be unable to match highway times. Rail
running time on the present 205~mile rail route between Eugene and Medford
would require over 8 hours, and the improvements necessary to reduce the rail
running time to competitive levels would require major reconstruction.
Southern Oregon Commuter Rail Study~ 2001. The 1999 session ofthe
Oregon Legislature instructed the Oregon Department ofTransportation to
examine the potential for local passenger service (commuter rail) between Grants
Pass and Ashland, a distance ofapproximately 45 miles. The operation being
contemplated would operate on trackage owned by CORP. The Southern
Oregon Commuter Rail Study was ajoint effort ofthe Rail Division ofthe
Oregon Department ofTransportation, the Rogue Valley Transportation District
(RVTD) and the Rogue Valley Council ofGovemments (RVCOG). The overall
goal ofthe study was to define costs, benefits, and impacts ofthe project to allow
regional partners to compare the feasibility ofcommuter rail against other
regional transportation options.
The plan presented a highly visionary concept ofrail service in the Rogue Valley
that was determined to be infeasible under current, or foreseeable, levels of
financial support for rail improvements. Key findings and are below:
1Zl With substantial upgrading ofthe track and signal system, the rail line
connecting the eight Rogue Valley communities is well suited to serve as
the backbone ofan effective commuter transportation system for the
region.
CHAPTER 10 - RAILROAD AND AVIAnON SYSTEMS
Page 98 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
IZI With top speeds ofup to 60 miles per hour, commuter trains can travel
the 45-mile corridor from Ashland to Grants Pass in about 80 minutes,
making seven (7) intermediate stops.
I2l The estimated costs for upgrading the rail infrastructure, including track,
ties, switches, a new I.S-mile track through Medford Yard, new sidings,
a modern train movement signaling system, grade crossing safety
improvements, acquiring passenger equipment, and operating the system
at three potential levels ofservice are summarized in Table 10.2 below:
Table 10.2. Level ofService Explained
Service Level Elements
LEVEL 1 Full service (six (6) round trips in the morning and six (6) in the
evening) between Ashland and Central Point.
LEVEL 2 Levell, plus limited service (two (2) round trips in the morning and
two (2) in the evening) between Central Point and Grants Pass.
LEVEL 3 Full service (six (6) round trips in the morning and six (6) in the
evening) between Ashland and Grants Pass.
Commuter and Inter-Urban Corridors Plan. The focus ofthis rail plan was
primarily on intercity service, rather than commuter service. However, the Plan did
discuss commuter service, which is getting increasing attention nationwide, both in
major urban centers and in less populous communities where increasing traffic
congestion encourages people to look for transportation alternatives. The recent
introduction ofsuch service between Seattle and Tacoma shows that this trend has
moved to the Pacific Northwest. Several Oregon communities have conducted
commuter rail feasibility studies, and others continue to show interest. The discussion
that follows is intended to provide a perspective on these efforts.
Once considered viable only as a means to move suburban residents into major
downtown employment centers, many communities are now investigating commuter
service potential between suburban areas where employment and housing patterns are
more diverse. Lightly used or abandoned rail lines are seen as having commuter
service potential with minimal or no conflicts with freight operations. A
determination ofcommuter rail feasibility depends on a number offactors that vary
widely from community to community, but ultimately the viability ofcommuter rail
hinges largely on a calculation ofthe balance between its costs and ridership, which
translates to revenue. A number ofindicators can be used to measure the potential
success for a commuter service. The checklist below covers the primary attributes
that affect a viable commuter operation:
r.zJ Direct Rail Link: An existing rail line with a reasonably direct route
between the communities to be served and with sufficient unused capacity to
accommodate relatively frequent rush hour passenger service.
[2j Supporting Regional Goals: Land use and transportation system goals that
seek to reduce motor vehicle trips, concentrate commercial and residential
development in and near the urbanized areas in the corridor, and to promote
CHAPTER 10 - RAILROAD AND AVIATION SYSTEMS
Page 99 of141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
higher-density development within the corridor and specifically, near rail
station sites.
IZJ Population Growth and Density: Continuing moderate to rapid growth in
population within and along the corridor, with a high concentration of
residences and/or business/commercial activity close to proposed station
sites.
lZl: Limited Funding for Highway Projects: Difficulty in raising funds for new
highway projects which would increase traffic capacity in the corridor.
lZl Commuting within the Corridor: A high level ofdaily commuting within
the rail corridor.
I2l Traffic Congestion: Growing traffic congestion on highways paralleling the
rail line.
III Limited Parking: Limited and expensive parking at commuter destination
points.
lZl Competitive Transit Times: Ability to provide rait commuter service
competitive with auto commute times.
I2l Availability to Funding: Ability to provide rail commuter service at a cost
competitive with auto commuting.
IZI Willingness to Use Transit: Daily commuters in the corridor with a
relatively high propensity to use transit. A number ofcommuter or localized
(interurban) rail services have been proposed in Oregon during the past
decade. The status ofeach service is summarized below.
Rogue Valley CommuterRail Project. 2006. In 2006, the RVMPO examined an
additional option for bringing commuter rail service to the Rogue Valley. This study
was brought about as a result ofthe availability ofseveral self-propelled rail diesel
cars (RDC) owned by onOT Rail Division. Under this scenario, these RDCs would
be purchased or leased and would provide service to Central Point, Medford, Bear
Creek Orchards, Phoenix, Talent, and Ashland. The operation would be less
extensive and require less capital and operating costs than the concept developed as
part ofthe 2001 Southern Oregon Commuter Study. The estimated costs for required
infrastructure improvements would be approximately $12,500,000, while the cost of
the Southern Oregon Commuter would approach $38,000,000.
Funding for the Rogue Valley Commuter Rail Project was limited, and additional
information is required before it can be seriously considered, particularly information
related to travel market demand.
While these studies have, for the most part, focused on infrastructure needs, questions
that need to be answered in future service assessments include:
o Will the service attract sufficient ridership and revenues to justify the service?
CHAPTER 10 - RAILROAD AND AVIAnON SYSTEMS
Page 100 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
o What are the potential costs and revenues?
o What are the economic and social benefits to the state and local communities?
o Can a service be provided at an affordable cost?
o What are the alternatives to providing the service?
o How does the service satisfy Oregon's transportation goals?
o Will the service contribute positively to other services through connections?
o Does the service accommodate disabled travelers and comply with the Americans
with Disabilities Act?
In summary, the feasibility ofpassenger rail service must take into consideration not only
infrastructure requirements, but also the following key operational thresholds:
Patronage: To justify rail service, a train should have a minimum average occupancy of
about 75 passengers per train. Occupancy might be lower at the extreme end ofa run, but
average occupancy should justify the operation ofa train with at least 180 seats (typically
a three car train). The economic efficiency ofrail is significantly reduced ifusage falls
below this level, and bus operation often may provide more effective use of
transportation dollars. Most ofOregon's current trains meet this threshold.
Cost Recovery: Typical train operating costs are about $26 per mile. A new rail service
should be expected to attain a 30?40 percent fare box recovery ratio (the proportion of
operating costs covered by fare revenue) to be viable. With a lower cost recovery, the
amount ofsubsidy per passenger becomes excessive and alternative transportation by bus
becomes a more attractive option. Oregon's long term goal is to achieve or exceed 100
percent operating cost recovery on its rail services.
Running Time: Rail service has to be reasonably competitive with auto driving times to
be successfuL Unfortunately, some branch lines that otherwise might have passenger
service potential drop out ofconsideration because they follow alignments that cannot be
upgraded to provide time?competitive service at a cost commensurate with the potential
service level. Many ofOregon's branch lines fall into this category. Freight service levels
are insufficient tojustify major capital investment in track upgrades or curve reductions
that would also benefit passenger operations, so the entire cost ofimprovements would be
a passenger-related responsibility. Parallel highways, however, have been improved to
the extent that driving times (and potential bus times) have been significantly reduced
over time, rendering establishment ofrail service more difficult to justify.
Other Factors: In certain situations, rail service may be warranted even though it would
not meet the general parameters given above. Justifications may include rail service that
contributes substantially to the patronage ofother trains, service that provides special
benefits to the area served or operations that assist in the mobility ofcertain travelers (i.e.
handicapped).
CHAPTER 10 - RAILROAD AND AVIATION SYSTEMS
Page 101 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation Plan, 2008?2030
CHAPTER 10 ..RAILROAD AND AVIATION SYSTEMS
Page 102 of141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
10.3. Aviation System - Introduction
Although the City ofCentral Point does not
provide aviation service, it is fortunate to have
convenient access to the Rogue Valley
International-Medford Airport. The airport is
located to the east ofthe City just outside the
urban area. The Rogue Valley International?
Medford Airport is the third largest commercial
service airport in Oregon providing air
passenger and air freight services to seven
counties in Southern Oregon and northern
California. The airport provides national and
international connections to the region with commercial air service provided by Horizon Airlines
and United AirlineslUnited Express. Because ofthe airport's proximity to the City, it is
considered as a transportation asset.
The governing planning document for the Airport is the Medford-Jackson County Airport Master
Plan Update, which will continue to serve as the airport's guiding document governing
anticipated development ofthe airport, including the on-site facilities. It is the City's goal,
through this TSP, to maintain convenient and efficient vehicular transportation access to the
Rogue Valley International?Medford airport
CHAPTER 10-RAILROAD AND AVIATION SYSTEMS
Page 103 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
10.4. Railroad and Aviation Goals and Policies
GOAL 10.1. TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT, SAFE, AND EFFECTIVE MOVEMENT OF
GOODS AND PASSENGERS BY RAIL VIA WHILE MAINTAINING THE
QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE CITIZENS OF THE CENTRAL POINT
URBAN AREA.
GOAL 10.2. TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT, SAFE, AND EFFECTIVE MOVEMENT OF
GOODS, SERVICES AND PASSENGERS BY RAIL WHILE MAINTAINING
THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE CITIZENS OF THE CENTRAL POINT
URBAN AREA.22
Policy 10.2.1. The City shall encourage bothfreight andpassenger service as part ofstatewide
rail transportation planning efforts.
Policy 10.2.2. The City shallprepare, adopt, andmaintain site development standards that
mitigate railroad noise andvibration.
GOAL 10.3: TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT, SAFE, AND EFFECTIVE MOVEMENT OF
PEOPLE AND GOODS VIA INTER~MODAL CONNECTIONS WITH THE
ROGUE VALLEY INTER-NATIONAL-MEDFORD AIRPORT.23
Policy 10.3.1 The City shall support the Rogue Valley Transportation District efforts to
provide service to the Rogue Valley International Abportfrom established routes
serving Central Point
22 OAR 660-012-0020(2)(e)
23 OAR 660-012-0020(2)(e)
CHAPTER 10 - RAILROAD AND AVIATION SYSTEMS
Page 104 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
Chapter 11 - Truck Freight System
11.1. Introduction
Efficient truck movement plays a vital role in the economical transportation ofraw materials and
finished products. The establishment ofthrough truck routes provides for this efficient movement
while at the same time maintaining neighborhood livability, public safety, and minimizing
maintenance costs ofthe roadway system. The significance offreight movement is supported by
the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the Transportation
Planning Rule (TPR). Most recently the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization
(RVMPO) completed a freight study addressing the freight needs ofthe Rogue Vallel4? As a
result ofthe findings presented in the RVMPO Freight Study (2006), truck freight movement
warrants a special chapter in the Transportation system Plan (TSP) in order to maintain focus of
truck freight issues.
11.2. Land Use
The safe and efficient movement ofgoods is a common goal for both truck and rail freight, but
trucks use different infrastructure, have different land use implications, and must be integrated
with other modes in the broader transportation system. Commercial trucks have specific travel
needs such as adequate lane widths, adequate turning at intersections, and adequately designed
loading and unloading areas. Truck services also need roadways operating at an adequate level of
service so that goods and services can move efficiently through the city, the region, and the state.
Most ofthe Central Point's freight intense land uses are located on the eastside ofthe freeway
with access predominantly via East Pine Street and Table Rock Road. The downtown and the
area along Highway 99 also contribute but to a lesser degree. Aside from these areas most ofthe
City is residential in character with limited freight needs.
11.3. Truck Freight - Existing Conditions
Truck freight transportation within the Central Point urban area is primarily concentrated along
the truck routes designated in the Regional Transportation Plan. Figure 11.1 illustrates the truck
routes within the City as identified in the RVMPO Freight Study. The major truck routes include
Interstate 5 (1-5) and Highway 99 (Front Street). 1~5 is the most important freight route in the
region carrying approximately 4,000 to 5,000 trucks per day through the area. 1-5 not only serves
freight heading to destinations within the Central Point UGB, but also serves trucks passing
through the region to destinations throughout the West Coast. Currently, the combined volume of
freight transported over highway and rail modes in the 1-5 corridor through the Rogue Valley
Metropolitan Planning Region is estimated at 25 million tons annually, with the majority ofthis
freight carried on the highway system25? Additional Central Point Freight Routes as identified in
the RVMPO Freight Study (2006) include: Table Rock Road, East Vilas Road, Pine Street, and
Hanley Road. As part ofthe RVMPO Freight Study, the Rogue Valley Council ofGovemments
conducted a series ofinterviews with major freight shippers and carriers providing issues and
concerns related to specific Central Point freight routes. Table 11.1 lists the freight issues that
affect facilities within the City's urban area.
24 Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization Freight Study, 2006
251-5 State ofthe Interstate Report, OOOT, 2000.
CHAPTER II -TRUCK FREIGHT SYSTEM
Page 105 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
The four corners intersection at Table Rock and Vilas is very tight. Turning
lanes on Vilas are needed.
Hwy.99/Pine
Street
Table Rock
Road
East Vilas
Road
Table 11.1. Central Point Truck Freight Issues and Concerns
Freight Route Issues & Concerns
1-5 General concerns expressed about the capacity ofthe interchange and the
Interchange potential for continued growth in the area around the interchange which will
increase congestion in the future.
East Pine Street through downtown Central Point is congested and relatively
narrow for truck freight traffic.
Table Rock Road deliveries are difficult due to the lack ofturning lanes.
CHAPTER ll-TRUCK FREIGHT SYSTEM
Page 106 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Pla.n, 2008?2030
1I1111111111111!
CHAPTER 11 -TRUCK FREIGHT SYSTEM
107ofl41
City ofCennl Point
Transportatioll Plan. 2008?2030
CHAPTER 11 -TRUCK FREIGHT SYSTEM
Page 1080041
TrllnSllortllti(ln S:ystl!m Pllln,.1008?1030
CHAPTER 11 -TRUCK FREIGHT SYSTEM
Page 109 of141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
11.4. Central Point Truck Freight ~ Issues & Concerns
As presented in the RVMPO Freight Study, the City ofCentral Point's capacity to accommodate
truck freight has numerous challenges ranging from capacity and land use conflicts, to
inappropriate route designations.
East Pine Street/Central Point Interchange: Freight trucks moving south on 1-5 often
choose to connect with 1-5 via the East Pine Street/Central Point Interchange, rather than
face the congestion on Highway 62 en route to the North Medford Interchange. USF
Reddaway, the largest bulk facility in the Rogue Valley, is located offPine Street on
Hamrick Road. Counting just Reddaway traffic, 300 trucks per day exit from 1-5 and
another enter 1-5. Gordon Trucking, a long haul company, is likely to relocate near this
interchange. East Pine Street connects freight on Highway 99 with Table Rock Road, the
route to industrial sites in White City. Issues include the high levels ofcongestion
leading to and occurring within the area. Freight companies are concerned that conditions
at the Central Point Interchange are starting to mirror those at the north and south
Medford interchanges. This is troublesome, since the Central Point Interchange is
currently their only viable alternative south ofthe Seven Oaks Interchange26?
Hamrick Road. In the RVMPO Freight Study, Hamrick Road was identified as part of
the MPO freight system. This section ofHamrick Road is predominantly residential in
character and has been eliminated from the City's freight route map as illustrated in
Figure 11.2. As presented in this TSP, it is proposed that the section ofHamrick Road
from East Pine Street to Table Rock Road be removed as a designated truck freight route
from the RVMPO regional freight route map. Table Rock Road is adequate to serve the
designated freight needs.
East Pine Street (Downtown Core). By its very nature, the downtown core has always
been, and will continue to be, a less than desirable truck route. This is particularly true
given the City's plans for revitalization ofthe downtown, which includes pedestrian
oriented uses and traffic calming along East Pine Street27? To avoid the downtown
section ofEast Pine Street, truck drivers often travel out-of-direction to the Seven Oaks I 
S interchange.
11.5. Out-of-Direction Travel
Out-of-direction travel is defined as drivers taking an indirect non-designated route rather than a
more direct designated route. The use ofout-of-direction routes typically occurs as a result of
regular routes being blocked during construction, drivers avoiding bottlenecks and congestion,
and restrictions that prevent oversized freight. According to the RVMPO Freight Study, there has
been an increase in out-of-direction traveL The result is that manufacturers and shippers are
using alternative routes to Hwy. 99 and 1-5 placing significant burdens on the Central Point
Interchange, Table Rock Road, and Vilas Road.
26 2005-2030 Regional Transportation Plan, April 2005
27 City ofCentral Point Downtown Revitalization Plan, 2000
CHAPTER 11 -TRUCK FREIGHT SYSTEM
Page JIO of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
11.6. Truck Freight Goals and Policies
GOAL 11.1. To identify and maintain a truck freight system within the City that serves the
City's and region's freight needs in an efficient and safe manner, with minimal
adverse impacts on adjacent land uses.
Policy 11.2.1. The City shall cooperate with the RVMPO, Jackson County, ODOTandthe City
ofMedford in the coordination ofdesign, funding, and improvement ofthefreight
system within the City that enhancesfreight movement, while improving the
overall capacity ofthe City's street system.
Policy 11.2.2. The Freight System Map presentedin Figure 11.2 shall be considered by the City
as the officialfreight route systemfor the City ofCentral Point. The design and
improvement ofthe street system designated on the Freight System Map shall
accommodate large vehicles typical offreight movement.
Policy 11.2.3. The City shall ensure access to truckfreight via the local street system, with
emphasis on maintaining andefficient andsafe designated truck route system.
CHAPTER II-TRUCK FREIGHT SYSTEM
Page III of141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 12 - Transportation System Financing System
Program
12.1. Introduction
In accordance with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPRi8, this chapter presents the City of
Central Point's financing program for its transportation system. By definition the financing
program shall include:
1. Policies that guide the selection oftransportation facilitY<~rid improvement projects for
funding in the shortMtenn that meet the standards a?4~richmarks established pursuant to
the TPR. ...
2. A list ofplanned transportation facilities at1dtn~l~;im;:i~~fuMts;
3. An estimate ofthe timing for Planned~~~ii~~ation facilitie~~~am~jor improvements;and .
4. A detennination ofrough cg~testimate8;~tihe1raIl~p?~~tion faciliti::ih4tnajor
improvements identified in:m~[:?p. .. . .. .. .. ...
In Chapter 7, a list oftransportation~~~r~~~~~~ts~ere id~~fifj~. These are projects that are
forecast to be needed during the planningp~riod&ftlli~J'SP, Intll~~~gregate, the total cost ofall
projects approaches $],12jriii,lign. Thesec?sts do notjtlcl~cle the costpfCounty and ODOT
projects as identifi~4iijfabtes7;?and 7.3 o(ihis'I'$~;'TheQi,1:)'readily acknowledges that it is
beyond the realm orfeasibility t0f!:tnd all proJe?~Qver the ndttwenty years, and not all projects
are necessary to mainta.illan acce~11tble level ofs~rvice throughout the planning period.
Consequently,it is thepul])gse of.th.1~fBapter to prioritize the projects based on need, and to
reconcile#1?CQstofthe pr()j?~tsWithth~Qjty' s abHlty to fund.
Devel~B:~~t'?~;?~~isi~H~Pter?'i~i6~eg ...on t~~Y;~IJ6Win~????~ocuments:
? '<fIle RVMPO R~~igijClITr~~~'~grtation Plan 2005-2030 dated April 5, 2005 and draft
inf()fI1)~tion for the 20q2-2034 RTP;
? Cityotg;~rtral Point's;l);y 2007 M08 Budget
? City ofCeJ1tI'lll. Point)~iye- Year Capital Improvements Plan 2008M 12
? Statewide trait~pOI:tati()fi Improvement Program, 2008 - 2011
All expense and reven::~~~il~ates presented in this chapter are in tenns of2008 dollars. Funding
has been estimated over the duration ofthis TSP.
12.2. Project Prioritization Policies
The TPR requires that the selection oftransportation projects be based on policies that establish
standards and benchmarks for project selection. To this end the City relies on its Strategic Plan,
the Comprehensive Plan, the RTP, the STIP.
28Transportation Planning Rule, Section 660-012M 0040
CHAPTER 12 - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FfNANCING PROGRAM
Page 112 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Initially, one ofthe standards to be achieved in local TSPs was a 5% reduction in vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) during the planning period ofthe TSP. On April 3,2002, the Land Conservation
and Development Commission (LCDC), by Order 02~LCDC-026, approved alternative standards
to accomplish reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as required by OAR 660-012-0035(5).
LCDC's approval was conditional subject to completion ofcertain tasks. The RVMPO
completed the necessary tasks in 2004. The 2005-2030 RTP contains the LCDC approved
alternative measures. In total seven (7) alternate measures were approved. These alternative
measures have been incorporated in this TSP. Where applicable these alternate measures have
been used in developing the standards and benchmarks for prioritization oftransportation
projects.
Project prioritization is based on the following criteria:
1. Safety. Projects that improve the safety ofthe City's transportation system. This
includes all modes oftransportation;
2. RTP Benchmarks. Projects that facilitate compliance with the RTP Benchmarks;
3. Economic Development. Projects that reinforce the City's economy, either through
improvements to freight routes, or improvements that facilitate development of land uses
that support the City's employment base;
4. Regional Coordination. Projects undertaken in coordination with the State, County,
and/or City ofMedford;
5. Livability. Projects that improve the City's livability through maintenance ofminimum
levels ofservice, connectivity, and modal choice.
6. Cost/Benefit. Projects that demonstrate cost effectiveness in relationship to benefits
.>d6Hv~d;>?
:":::,:.:.":/.:.:":.:,:;,,..:-,,. .""-.":'-:"."'::,:"',::::.<.::'-',-:':,'-,-,.
12.ji;rroject Classit.c~tion System
The trdrtsP9rtation projeetsptesented in this TSP have been assigned to one oftwo classifications
referred tO~~~ither Tier 1 or:ti~r 2 projects.
Tier IPI'()j~cts. By defillition, Tier 1 projects are financially constrained. Financially
constrained projects are projects that can be reasonably funded within the next twenty
years. Tier 1pt()jectsare further classified as either: short, medium and long-term
projects. These time periods correspond to the years 2008 - 2012 (short-range), 2013  
2017 (medium-range) and 2018 - 2030 (long-range).
Tier 2 Projects. Tier 2 projects are those projects identified as having an eventual need
beyond the timeframe ofthis TSP, and for which funding is unavailable. Tier 2 projects
can advance to Tier 1 as funds become available, or priorities change. Advancing Tier 2
projects requires an amendment to the TSP with justification ofthe advancement and the
impact on the timing and funding ofdesignated Tier 1 projects.
CHAPTER 12 - TRANSPORTAnON SYSTEM FINANCING PROGRAM
Page 113 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
12.4. Transportation Funding Sources
Revenue for transportation system projects predominantly comes from three sources: federal,
state, and local. The Federal, State, and local revenue sources that are used to fund street system
projects are described in the RTP. This section will provide a summary ofthe different funding
sources available to the City. A more comprehensive discussion ofeach funding source is
available in the RTP.
12.4.1. Federal Revenue Sources: There are numerous federal programs that fund
transportation projects. The forecast federal figure in Table 12.1 is derived from some of
the following programs:
Federal Earmarks: Earmarks are funding~II~A~Hons that are tied directly to a
project through the legislative process'1Q?~llWle offederal earmarks is
Congressional authorization ofTEA 21t.()iillcltld~i~t million offunding for Unit
I ofthe Bear Creek Greenway and.$1.25mil1ionfqr~idewalk projects in
Medford. Although additional e~J:t11a.rks may be awa.rd~?in future years, no such
assumptions have been madeiQ[9Tecasting revenues forth~City ofCentral
~~. . ....
Surface Transport~tion Program (st;P):l'~?iSfP, is a f1exibl~i#t~r~modal
block grant-type prpgralllthat provides~tJ.gsfor a broad range ofthlnsportation
uses. Projects can ifJcl~d~J.1igl1way and trahSi~.fapital projects, carpool projects,
bicycle and pedestrianf~cllitie~,pl~nning, ahdl"~~earch and development. STP
funds areallocated to tlle?tateandiS~1J~allocated?tB.~ities and counties on a
fonnllla1J~isby the Oreg()11!ransP~rtati91l.~omfhi~~ion. The RVMPO is
exp?Rt~dt(Jr~?7ive $51.5mVli()IlitiS'rPf1lIlgs through 2034, ofwhich
$4.11nillion li~been progtai11t'n.ed for projects in the RTP and $250,000
fortih,"programl11~d short-teriIl\2009-13) projects through the short-term
[RVMP()];. Ha'lfofthe $51.1rnilIion in SFT funds will be allocated to?????>RVTD. '.' ..
Congestloll Mitigation andAir QUality Improvement Program (CMAQJ: The
Inter-modal?urfaceTransportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) created the CMAQ
>i>'" program tod~al with tran~portation related air pollution. States with areas which
i.are designated~$ non-attainment for ozone or carbon monoxide (CO) must use
!h~ir CMAQ f((#~s in those non~attainment areas. The City is within a non~
attiiinlllent ar~'The projects and programs must either be included in the air
qualltYState,Irhplementation Plan (SIP), or be good candidates to contribute to
attainment()f'the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
STP TrallSportation Enhancements Program: Each state must set aside 10% of
its yearly STP revenues for Transportation Enhancement Activities, which
comprise a broad range ofprojects. Enhancement funds are allocated to local
jurisdictions throughout the state on a competitive basis. Eligible transportation
enhancement projects include pedestrian and bicycle facilities; preservation of
abandoned railway corridors; landscaping and other scenic beautification; control
and removal ofoutdoor advertising; acquisition ofscenic easements and scenic
or historic sites; scenic or historic highway programs; historic preservation;
rehabilitation and operation ofhistoric transportation buildings, structures, or
CHAPTER 12 - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FINANCING PROGRAM
Page J14 of J4J
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
facilities; archaeological planning and research; and mitigation ofwater pollution
due to highway runoff. Enhancement projects require a 20 percent non-federal
match.
STPSafety FUllds: Each state must set aside 10 percent ofits base STP funds
for safety programs (hazard elimination, rail-highway crossings, etc.). The match
rate for safety projects is 80 percent federal, 20 percent state or local.
Highway Bridge Replacement alld Rehabilitatioll Program (HBRR): The
HBRR Program provides funds to replace or maintain existing bridges; new
bridges are not eligible for funding under this prg~?m. Currently, Bridge
Replacement and Rehabilitation funds are dis~~uted through the STIP process.
In the future, these funds will be distribut~<.f~~?6rding to the Unified Bridge
Program, a rating system that indicates.~h~icoilditign and traffic level on eachbridge in the State. .. . . .....
Timber Receipts: The U.S. F9r?s.t'Service (USFS) shafuS.gS percent ofnational
forest receipts with counties. Byigregon law (ORS 294.0(jO);.9.ounties then
allocate 75 percent ofthe receipts!<:.lthe roadtyl1d and 25 perc~rttto local school
districts. The availa?ility oftimbertep~iptfl;:y~rilies is no longerart;:liable sourceoftransportation fu@i
l1g. .. .... . ... .. .. .
12.4.2. State Revenue sou;~~:/?6dI()r~sast fo;s~i~fullding is illustrated in Table
12.1 and is derived from some ofJpe fo116",iIlgprogramS:\i
State Highway FUlld: Thel11ajor.s~til"6e6(fljnciing for transportation capital
improvements and activities stitteWide is the State Highway Fund. The Highway
Fund derives its revenue throughIuel taxes, licensing and registration fees, and
weight-mile taxes assessed on freight carriers. Revenues have historically been
divided as follows: 15.57% to cities,@438% to counties, and 60.05% to ODOT.
Revenue from increased tax rates wHlbe shared on a 20-30-50% basis,
respectively. Allocations to the cities are based on population.
Special Public Works Fund (SPWFj: The State ofOregon allocates a portion of
state lottery revenues for economic developmenf9. The Oregon Economic
Development Department provides grants and loans through the SPWF program
to construct, improve and repair infrastructure in commercial/industrial areas to
support local economic development and create newjobs. While primarily a loan
program, grants are available for projects that will create or retain trade-sector
jobs. A traded-sector industry sells its goods or services in nationally or
internationally competitive markets. The SPWF provides a maximum grant of
$500,000 for projects that will help create or retain a minimum of50 jobs.
OT/A III- Oregon Transportation Investment Act: The 2003 Legislation
continued its prior commitments toward solving Oregon's highway infrastructure
problems. House Bill 3415, also referred to as the Oregon Transportation
Investment Act III (OTIA III), committed to the funding of$3.3 billion in bonds
to increase lane capacity and improve interchanges, repair and replace bridges,
290RS 285BA19 and OAR 123.042.0010, Division 42
CHAPTER 12 - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FINANCING PROGRAM
Page lIS of J41
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
and preserve road pavement. Cities are allocated shares ofthis fund based on
percentage share ofstatewide population. For the planning period it is estimated
that Central Point will be allocated .636 %, or roughly six tenths ofone percent.
For purposes ofthis TSP the City percentage ofstatewide population will remain
constant.
Traffic Control Projects (TCP): The State maintains a policy ofsharing
installation, maintenance, and operational costs for traffic signals and luminar
units at intersections between State highways and city streets/county roads.
Intersections involving a State highway and a city street/county road, which are
included on the state~wide priority list, are eligible to participate in the cost
sharing policy. OOOT establishes a statewide priority list for traffic signal
installations on the State Highway System. The priority system is based on
warrants outlined in the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Local
agencies are responsible for coordinating the statewide signal priority list with
local road requirements.
State Highway FundBicyclelPedestrian Program: ORS 366.514 requires at
least 1% ofthe Highway Fund received by OOOT, counties, and cities shall be
expended for the development offootpaths and bikeways. OOOT administers its
bicycle/pedestrianmtig~,handles bikeway planning, design, engineering and
construction, and ptoyidest~chnical assistance and advice to local governments
concerning bikeways.ii? ..
et(!gf!~. TransPdrt~tion ~111,4~e~ment Program: The
.?.?...... ?.??Transp9rtation EnhaI1cem.eIlt prbf#amprovides federal highway
funds fofprojects thaf~trengthen the cultural, aesthetic, or
ellviron:niental value bf:?ur transportation system. The funds are
aV~ila[)17f9r"t)yelve "transportation enhancement activities"
speCif"isallYidk~111i?~dintheTransportation Equity Act for the 21 st
/Centrity.(IEA~21).111e~~activities fall into four main groups:
????~74estrlaIl~d Bicycle Projects, Historic Preservation related to
sillfa.ge transportation, Landscaping and Scenic Beautification, and
EnVir()nmentalty1itigation (highway runoffand wildlife protection
only){/il'he intent ofthe program is to fund special or additional
activiti6s not normally required on a highway or transportation.?i...
proj~~!2ii
iJ'fegon Department ofTransportation - Pedestrian andBicycle
Grant Program: The Pedestrian and Bicycle Grant Program is a
competitive grant program that provides approximately $5 million
dollars every two years to Oregon cities, counties and ODOT
regional and district offices for design and construction of
pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Proposed facilities must be within
public rights-of-way. Grants are awarded by the Oregon Bicycle
and Pedestrian Advisory Committee.
CHAPTER 12 - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FINANCING PROGRAM
Page 116 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Immediate Opportunity Fund (lOF): The JOF is intended to support economic
development in Oregon by funding road projects that assure job development
opportunities by influencing the location or retention ofa finn or economic
development project. The fund may be used only when other sources offunding
are unavailable or insufficient, and is restricted to job retention and committed
job creation opportunities. To be eligible, a project must require an immediate
commitment ofroad construction funds to address an actual transportation
problem. The applicant must show that the location decision ofa firm or
development depends on those transportation improvements, and the jobs created
by the development must be "primary" jobs such as manufacturing, distribution,
or service jobs.
Safe Routes to School: This prograt11tsi()a~sist communities in
identifying and reducing barriers an~i~#ardsit()children, K-12, walking
or bicycling within two miles of~~ schoo1. it#l~y provide grants for
education, engineering and el}f?h~efuent; however~if.grants are to be
awarded, the program mustaqbpt. Administrative Rul~?specifying criteria
that will be used in awardinggi"ants. In addition, HB 1'it~.fequires that
School Districts have a Safe Rout~?to S~4gpl Plan (as despriped in 2001
Oregon legislati0l1,pRS 195 .115}iJ11?1a.c~as the prerequisite!or potentialfunding. .. . .
Oregon Departme~ii~i;Yi~fit~rf'ttio~~iillJf:Grants: The Community
Cyclil1gS~pter (CCC)~~ funding~()ugh ODPT for grants up to $5,000
forpr(jgram.?i~hat encourage bicyclesafety by educating program
pat}ipipants..Tli~CCC is th~l%gest non-pr?fit organization in the country
thafgsesthe bi~ycle as a toolifor teaching positive life skills to youth.
Childrellin our,.'pr()gr~ms learn bicycle safety and maintenance and earn
ith~ir ownRiry?les,l()c??~d helmets. CCC uses the bicycle as a tool for
.... ?learnillg beca~s~no chadcal1resistthe draw ofa bicycle. Funding has
beeriay~ilablefor)'outh and tldlilt programs, with a focus on programs
that incorp9rate aStt'gng educational element.
12:4.3,I:0cal Revenu~Sources:From the local perspective there are numerous sources
ofreveri~ethat can be#s.ed to fund local transportation projects. The forecast in Table
12.1 is bdse<J()n the f()IIowing local revenue sources:
Stree(Sys{emDeve!opment Charges (SSDCs): Street Systems Development
Chargesa.re fees paid by developers, and are structured to recover the increased
capital costs incurred by a jurisdiction or utility as a result ofreal property
development. The SDC typically varies by the type ofdevelopment, i.e.
residential, commercial, and industrial.
The City ofCentral Point has in place a system's development charge program
for street funding. Table 12.1 includes SSDC projections through the year 2030.
The SSDC estimate is based on household formation and employment
projections presented in Chapter 3 - Land Use.
CHAPTER 12 - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FINANCING PROGRAM
Page J17 of141
City ofCentral Poi nt
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Street Utility Fees (SUFs): A Street Utility Fee is a use fee paid by all residents
and businesses ofa city, and is used to maintain the existing street system. SUFs
are assessed to all businesses and households in the city based on the amount of
traffic typically generated by a each use category. Most city residents pay water
and sewer utility fees to maintain and operate these utility systems. Street utility
fees apply the same concepts to city streets. Street utility fees differ from water
and sewer fees because usage cannot be easily monitored. Street user fees are
used to pay for operation and maintenance ofthe City's transportation system.
On February 28, 2008 the City ofCentral Point adopted its first transportation
utility fee program to assist in the funding oftr~~portation planning and
management, and the construction maintenaIlse#fthe City's transportation
system. The Transportation Utility Fee wilj;s:?n.set on February 28, 2011 unless
extended by action ofthe City Council~Ta~I~:12.1 includes the SUF through
fiscal year 2011.???
Revenue andGeneral Ohligation Bonds: Revenu~~'3tl~~tan be used for a
variety oflocal transportation projects. Revenue bonds a~~nanced by user
charges, such as street system development charges and stree(:M~ility fees, local
gas tax, or any other transportation-related revenue source thafprgyides a stable
stream ofrevenue. General obligation bonds are supported by a CitY's property
tax base, and must be approved by a majority ofa city's voters.
SpecialAssessments/Local Improvement Districts (LID)/Urhan Renewal
Agency: Special assessments are charges levied on property owners for
neighborhood public facilities and services, with each property assessed a portion
oftotal project costs. Special assessments are commonly used for such public
works as street improvement, drainage, parking facilities, and sewer lines. The
justification for such levies is that many ofthese public works activities provide
services to or directly enhance the value ofa defined area ofbenefit, thereby
providing direct financial benefit to the owners.
Local Improvement Districts (LID) are similar to special assessment districts.
An LID is a legal entity established by local governments to levy special
assessments to fund improvements that have local benefits. Through an LID,
streets and other transportation improvements can be constructed and a fee
assessed to adjacent property owners.
Urban renewal agencies are essentially a fonn ofa special assessment district that
uses tax increment financing as a funding tool (ORS 457). The use oftax
increment financing has a successful track record offunding infrastructure
improvements within blighted areas.
Developer PaidImprovements
To an increasing degree developers are funding all, or a major portion, of
transportation improvements required to make a specific development project
possible. Many ofthe Tier 2 projects listed in Table 12.2 rely on future
developer financing for advancement to Tier I.The availability revenues from
this category are identified in the "Other" column in Table 12.1.
CHAPTER 12 - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FINANCING PROGRAM
Pagel18of141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
12.5. Transportation System Revenue Projections
Projecting revenues over long periods - in this case, 20 years - necessarily involves making
several assumptions which may, or may not, prove valid over time. For example, changing social,
economic and political conditions cannot be predicted, yet these factors play important roles in
determining future funding levels for Street System projects. The Tier I revenue projections
presented in this plan are based on the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization's
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), with adjustments based on recent changes in the City's SDC
and SUF fees. As illustrated in Table 12.1 it is forecast that there will be approximately $64
million in revenue will be available to fund the City's transportation projects, both non-capital
and capital needs, in the shorHerm, medium-term, and long term.
It is important to remember that the revenues identified in Table:J%~J are forecasts. It is
recommended that annually the revenue figures be re~evaluatedartd appropriately adjusted.
Tabl. 12.1 )1~W1U;1~1~, ..
City ofCentral Point Projected Transportation~r?~nlm CapfOllFunding
2009 - 2030 (measured in 2008 dollars x 1,000?." .'....
??????????????????????????? Revenue~????
Time Frame
Tier 1 Short (FY2009-13) $2;506 $ 4,357:11)'2,604 $ 1,004
'. '.' 4. Other
$ ?????????????1,424
Total
Rennue
$ 11,895
Tier 1 Medium (FY2014-19)
Tier 1 Long (FY2020-2030
. 2
$ 2,900$>16,590 $>9;670 $"$..." ':::.-' ..
$ 443
$ 12,653.
.
$ 10,446
$ 41,813
.?.???? ?~ .?..i???
64.154
I ?..? ri?ii ?????????????i.
Source Rogue Valley Metrolpolitan Planning Orgatlization
2 City ofCentral Point with 3%annual inflation factor
J City ofCentral Point SUF thro~ih2010only ?.??
4 Deve]operooritributions, .urban rene\vaJ i ..?.
12.6~4ra:sportatio~.?i>rog;~ffi ???~osts??? .
Chaptets7presented a cotllptehensiveIistoftransportation projects identified as necessary to
address th?City's transportiiticmneedsbettveen 2009-and 2030. Table 12.2 summarizes project
costs; including an estimate ofn(m~capitalcosts, for City sponsored projects. The costs presented
in Table 12.2ar~.estimates and$1iould be updated annually to reflect budgeted and actual
expenditures. Thetotal estimateqcost for Tier 1 projects is approximately $35 million, while non?
capital costs are approxi01at?llY$27 million, for a total of$62 million. When combined with Tier
2 projects ($50 million) thetotal transportation program is estimated to cost in excess of$112million. .. .'
Tables 12.3A through 12.3D categorizes each project as either a Tier 1 project, or a Tier 2
project. Tier I projects are financially constrained, i.e. it is necessary that sufficient revenues are
available to complete these projects by 2030. Tier 1 projects are further prioritized by short-term
(FY2009-013), medium-term (FY2014~19), and long~term (FY2020~30). Included in Table 12.3
is an estimate ofthe cost ofeach project.
Table 12.4 provides a comparison offorecast revenue against total costs. Based on forecast
revenues and estimated project costs there is sufficient revenue to fund the Tier I projects. As
CHAPTER 12 - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FINANCING PROGRAM
Page J19 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
with forecasted revenues, it is recommended that the project costs be re-evaluated annually and
modified as necessary.
$350,000
$938,160
5717,0011
SI,540,500
S376,072.00
Total Pmj?t C-IlIt
Titf I. ? ?
Short
Ticr I. ?
SOOn
Ticr I. ?
Shon
Tier I, ?
Short
x Tin- I. ?Shon
TiCI' 1, +
Soon
Tiet 1, ?
Soon
Tier :l. ?
Soon
TIER 1 SHDRTTERM COSTS
I?i??
?
?
?
?
?
?
..?? ii,..?.?
.i, . ?
~ ~ .ii
.lI ~ ~ ~ t'." 1 ! e ... '"
~. ] 'E11 1 ~ 1 ~. ! 1 i & ! o!
~~' ,l:' -< ;;: ! n., 0 ~ ~
Tltf Ii +
Soon
?
?
?
?
?
~?~,medllm~. cross....:;;tks.
olT~~<)~'$, bike leoes,
dJ'o:~ liihtiDi-'& c:onlrol fcnc:tl'!8
Widcrl ~Q l1t.re;: lMo:-s \Io1th cwb.
8-Ul1cr. bike Ut1C1:& ~dc'\"3lb~.
Improve: al~'s tiM p;"Stl:i!"l8
f~?~]iIY
Widen 10 eoUc.:tor1:lllndsrw with
si&w';tlb & bik(-I,,~ ?
26,903 $
.?..'...?..",. ????"1, ???.?. ',.,.?
....(ii ????i .~
??.?.????,.'i?.??.??. .... Dc.<ti llo,ii "'~
::W~
205
209 Beebe Rd.: Gc:bbardRd.l0 Harwick Rd
lOR Ckck St.: Secord ~Thir<l.& f~r.t:l St: :MM2Jlnlla?umn:1
Tier 1 Medium (FY2014-19)
Tier 1 Long (FY2020-2030
Tier 2
Total
Time Frame
Tier 1 Short (FY2009-13)
Table 12.2
City ofCentral Point Projected Transportation Program Capital Funding
2009 - 2030 (measured in 2008 dollars x 1,000)
1 Source Rogue Valley Metrolpolitan Planning Organization
2 City ofCentral Point with 3% annual inflation factor
3 City ofCentral Point SUF through 20 I0 only
~ Developer contributions, urban renewal
Table 12.3A?.?i:i;,...
CITY OF CENTRAL POINTiii,
TRANSPORTATION PLAN PROJECTS2(}OG;201Oi ii;
:".::.'.',.. :",.:.:.:.:.:::'::::::',:'.:__::'-:' ~ri<tncr-os-si~$.O!l--strte~
2-06 HIl)". 9-9. Pr",jecl No_ 2. TrnOie: CRhnll1.@. f'3rkin~ Sln:'C~~PC S39~,OOO
1-_-+ -[__{nl"O''''''.''''.&~.ffi' ..Imi_"_'~._j. -t-+--t-+-+-+-I-+-+.......,f---f----[-+-+--t-+-+-----
207 Wth St. Hrl1_d St_loLt.thl'np bll?$& $?deU'3U:.$. hike-. ? SJ/i78,371
CHAPTER 12 - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FINANCING PROGRAM
Page 120 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
Table 12.38
CITV OF CENTRAL POINT
TRANSPORTATION PLAN PROJECTS 2008-203(1
~ ~ .i
~ ... ~ ,!: ~ t. TObJProJ?1C.ClLf! l t i E ;;> ;;. i 'Ei i ! ;;. ]
~ ~ ~ .s ~t '"
~ 5 jj '2;: .. ., .l: TI<, ~
? Ti-et 1+ ? 5135,100
? ? ? Titt I, ? S647,179
? ? Tie:> I, ? 5375,000
? Ti(:.I, ? 5350,000
? I ? ? Tlcr I. ? 55&4,416I Medium
? ? ? TKT I. ? 5175,000Pcdcwicn CfOliJ.l1"l(l5, 5'Cm:l~p: calmi.ll:J:t
Wjdcrl J ~\\~. bike !~fIo:'~.
sidewalks.
Curl" Stl'eel Gateway
Add tflllTI? si~l fM redc~lt:inn
c;o:;"<:J"!!.
Rcsirici inlet'SC<:~ion ftK'f\"Cn;ent 10
ri,ilh~??n. ri#lt"<lul. kfHn
f I
<;
~!
210 E PincSt&MciiOOllbmokDr
2L~ Table R(K';I; Rd, & South H9..n'U'iei: Rd_lntctse<:ti... n
111 ll?-~ Rd. $; H~nvick Rd. inl(-fKclion
Wido:m \\o;s~ 8nd ~(Hl1b 8pprOOC~$
1-0 add iI Sd:Dnd t.a5l'bound len.
l\lmtaOl:';md~lldr~i\if12
laoe-. Rcs:tri~ oorthoound
:=::~~~: ~=~~~~;s .
'Nm, RcsU"ipc sotitllboW"Jd
approo,e:h {a :in:looc l'; len tum,
thro~ll.l'Idi:":ich.l..-tiwrig.hltulTl
boo,
? ? 55B2,OlB
1'lER 1 M[,DJUM TER.M COSTS S2,B4B,713
CHAPTER 12 - TRANSPORTAnON SYSTEM FINANCING PROGRAM
Page 121 ofl41
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Table 12.3C
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
TRANSPORTATION PLAN PROJECTS 2008-203GI
Rd.NI). J>tomlkurintlon
E -8 il! "c
-" E ~ ?. .e TO~II Prcjt-ct ':-0.(! E .. e 'E
~ ~ ~ ~. I ~ c " ~c .!i
~ e i E ~" TJ"
SlOO.920
sm.600
SlIQ,()(I(l
S"2,20.
$?U!l'7.612
Tl<'11. ?
I tong, I
TlC'fl. ? ? ?
" long,1
licr ~, ? ? ?
long
Ticrt. ?
1.(J.~'i'
Tjcrl. ?....
long", "I
Tit'l'"l. ?
LonE!i
., Tia-I? ?long
." , :Ti.cfl. ?
'.1'",1. ?.u;,;g:,
.
..
?
...
?????
"...,
W!&.'n .......-s.Il1'ppro?h 1,0 ~
~nd ~'i1:ho"LIDd lcill181l !me.
RCXllj~n. ""XIen 10 3 ~ bile
I..:lncs.. side.....'aJ:h. urbon upgrade
-coOlkr,;lQ.rl1.m1s:rili-.
Rc:di~n &. upgJW.k .A~h " 
railroad crossing. u:rha.nu,nr&:i:c
WKknto ir.crC"A..o;c ClEpox'"il)",!tdJ
"",bo=llon<".tw<d ~
righl nrn ffiOi"Cl't'Oll
W.id.:njt.m.:s.hll.-.::~.
si~'3tb{coll?lotstmdard.s}
Wid-CIllo pro\cj&bike Iane:o; k
~iLrU.
Tfl'lm~ calm.i:n8. r(:fl).'low4!Jl::>t 
:slgn..1~ Md J1C\\.~~ ~ 2ro~
6th St, n:ntO\'C- 3:d_ 31 l:i~n:ll Md
msWlI median control
h-\",~ impro\'e>~iP:a
!tii~1'I);$
nujor
nujor
Oc-bb:ud Rd.: UGB 10 Bc.:h.: Rd
$(:.?nit Av,: Tcntl1SI.ICo &:<:nicMiddk: &;0001
Hal:d St ~ Th:lrd Ie) H/lh Sl.
217 E.Pinc-SL&2ndSt &.6thSUUrdSt
2111: ? ViI): St &. !ltblc Roc~ Rd
~1.
no
222
22~
.........?...... i.??.??? i ..?.......? /ii.?????..ii??.??.??????? i.?..??. '.............................ii??i.
???????.i.
$~2.8]7
S!lS,912
S2l<>.OOO
$2.137+300
SI.5OO.000
Tl(";f I:" '.. i?/I?. ??.. ?
1..0..
Ticrl.
"". +Lm"
Ti-crl. ?
Lon,
Tier}. ?
long
Tier ~, ? ?
,"0'
rierl, ?
Loo,
Tlefl. ? ?
Lon,
TIER ELOSG T.ERM COSt'S
... ~. I ..
...
>1"I' ,
?1?..?....'.'..A<ld righlwm 1m: ",;~h~~~Ib.
W, Pmo: ::a.; Hank... Rd, 10 liaskdl St
E. p~ Streel tmffic cu.lm.ins
T./l~ 10, Rd. Gl:.a>l1 Rd.loCl Sih-ttCrtO;
2~7
22'
HI
CHAPTER 12 - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FINANCING PROGRAM
Page 122 of141
Cit)' ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
T.ble12.3D
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
TRANSPORTATION PLAN PROJEcrs 2008-2030
Rl'r.No-.
I ~ ~ .i!~ .!< j ~ II i. Totll Pro}?1 C:)II.. i ..
j .. '"' " ~. ] "EI ? I .. E 2 ~' 1 1 ~ ~ g ~ ~t? ~ ~ e "flo, =ill '"
WKkrl {'M dccd!~-eI ~ Bdd
blkcl&:ne'lIa:;d:siOc'J,<i:ll:5 ? ~.OOO
S3UOO
SI1S.000
S46S.800
S250.1lOO
11'5.800
1186.800
1120.(Jll(l
1261,l9J
12SO.000
11l7,81S
S1.321.62I
S1.000.000
1I,200.1lOO
SI.~".7<l?
17,321.629
SIG566.Hl8
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
??
?
?
?
?
?
?
T",.'
Tkf2
Ti<:r].
Ti~l
Ti-er2
Tial
her 2
Ticr2
lia2
TiCl'2
Tio:::!
Tia2
Tia2
Ti.-:-:;.'
Tia:l:
Tio-2
110-2
.. , ..... "
'/ '.
......:
.. 1,' '.
...... : .
.,' .. " .
'. .' I .Ii
? I????.
?
I?
?
.1
!.'.. ,
'" .
?
... ..
W:Kkn rorlum IAA.::5...biL:e-:bncs.
lIddsjrk,.,'3I"L<:. AndthlnllllnC
Widen) ~(("on'[rnoo'll5M"l1
(m,,:).h1}:<,,~.sl~~<l.l"k,s.~ ?
R('i!I~n. ~i~ 1-0 3l.Rnes. bik?
~:;;iokv.'alk";,lKbEin~
Wi&cntorddeol1i.inuo\.t5.t~
1m:. bile:lm::s &. ~~i!ll:.~
L:x1cl'ldl-hllnrick.Rd \\-.::<:\.1:11,.-10
imCJ!iX< I'loith ]>amin,ecr R~
(~I"""""r .~lJ!rd1rd~
WidcnIDJIm:x::o;.bikc1a.ncs<
~'Il.lb,.mh:m~fad.::
f,,1(l;".:I Pam~ Rd. from E.
PiPe S1_ oo[Fl,hocro~ Bo::;!.,rCrod;
~o Hamrid.; Rd: .& tQ~H~\\?
bridE.c:~~B<wCrcd;.
COMl'n.Jct~\::Jl~.rep.'ti>'c-urb
kgtllkr.
Wi&mE_ PinilSt lQ./Idd'lhtrd
~undthrm.'8lll..rmo: from~
$)d?. Rock Rd, 'EO k~ SIl ?
olf-ounp
CO'l'dl'roCt~ ....alks..n.j):lif-c:urb
&.guoo.
COJl,sl:rUct~alk:;, TCJXIir ,urn
&~I;Ia.
CO'l'OO"\)("L~,:c'qlUil',taU
&F\il\.er.
ICoI\:SU?t ~llil.:s., ttpIl.it(:urouner.
minor
PcningcrRd,E~"m,.Smrth
B~l ltd: !krill Ln '10 Hopl.:in:s.Rd
240
239
235
fr?'m.'l!l Rd.: O:U; :51.10 llcpl.:in:; Roi
101]1 SI,: E. Pin? St to Bll.7.cl 51.
'"
24; p~ Rd. Proj?l:l
246 :F~l'l Rclli:. Ho-pki~R(l '''~k111
247 J..J St,~ E, Pir.:-Sl_loA~SI
2" ~i.'I:pk S'I-; f1~y- 99"00 lOOt S\
24"9 4IhSl~A:sh&.IOCcda:rSl
l50 AmSt~ H.,.,~'. 9916 fm:mm Rd.
251 0Ilk S~_: H"y. 991;1) FlX'?I"I"OO.R,J.
2S2 R.M:h.::c Or,: sa.\'bury Dr.I-Q- W. Pin4 s"
2S~ Sa.\bu:)' Dt.~ Brad \\'~'. To P..Ilch:J Dr.
2So1 B!1!d Wy.; J8)'k.r Rd to &ro:ba1' Dr.
m E Pin? 81.; ~?5 tf} T8bk: Rox:k Rd.
TOTAL TJER ~ COSTS
CHAPTER 12 - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FINANCING PROGRAM
Page 123 of 141
City of Central Point
Transportation System PllIn, 2008-2030
Table 12.4
City ofCentral Point Projected Transportation Program Capital Funding
2009 - 2030 (measured in 2008 dollars x 1,000)
Revenues Tier 1
Capital Projects Tier 2Local
Total Non-Capital Funds (financially Projects Revenue
Time Frame Federall State! SDCs2 FeesJ Other4 Revenue Expenses Available constrained) unfunded) Surplus/Weficit)
Tier I Short (FY2009-13) $ 2,506 $ 4,357 $ 2,604 $ 1,004 $ 1,424 $ 11,895 $ 3,705 $ 8,190 $ 7,875 :.:.: :Ii 315
Tier I Medium (FY2014-19) $ 735 $ 5,687 $ 3,581 $ - $ 443 $ 10,446 $ 5,233 $ 5,213 $ 4,682 ?:i $ 531
Tier I Long (FY2020-2030 $ 2,900 $ 16,590 $ 9,670 $ - $ 12,653 $ 41,813 $ 17,965 $ 23,848 $ 22,029 \: $ 1,820
Tier 2 ."': $ 49,986 $ (49,986)
Total $ 6,141 $ 26,634 $ ]5,855 $ 1,004 $ ]4,520 $ 64,]54 $ 26,903 $ 37,25] $ 34,586 $ 49,986 $ (47,32]
I Source Rogue Valley Mctrolpolilan Planning Organization
'City ofContra1 Point with J% annual inflation factor
'City ofConttal Point SUF through 2010 only
.t Developer contributions, urban renewal
CHAPTER 12 - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FINANCING PROGRAM
Page 124 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2Q3Q
12.7. Transportation Financing Goals, Objectives, and Policies
GOAL 12.1: A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA
THAT IS ADEQUATELY FUNDED TO MEET THE CITY'S CURRENT AND
FUTURE CAPITAL, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS NEEDS.
Objective 12.2.1:Meet the current andjuture capital improvement needs ofthe transportation systemfor
the Central Point urban area, as outlined in this plan, through a variety ofjunding
sources basedon the principal ofcooperativefundiflglvith afair allocation between
local, county, state anddeveloperfunding. ...
:,:.-.-,:'<,:,:':'>:>::':;.::.\':":--.
Policy 12.1.1. Transportation system development charge~?($f/E~)'i:Jsdefined by Oregon Revised
Statutes andCity ordinances, will be c(J/t~etedby the QUJl!O offset costs ofnew capacity
development. The City will continuet,p;collect SDCs asai1.t,!portant and equitable
funding source to payfor transpor/a/foltcapacity improvem~}its.,
Policy 12.1.2. For all Tier 2 projects the City s~;;i~~qllire thoser~sponsibl:j:?r&~lf development to
mitigate their development's impacts t()tb~.transporiation system, aS~Ylhorized in the
Central Point Zoning QfiiJ1jR?ce and Oreg()it<!J?v/sed Statutes, conCUrri!llt with the
development ofthe prope,r}Y'i?. . .
Policy 12.1.3. The City shall continue t;i~~r~;sidJ6itetPercent'j;'t~BllOCatiOn ofState Highway Fuel
Tax fundsfOT;(:T;eation ofon;;Sl7;eet bicycle,Pfclestricin a.ncl transit capitalfacilities.
Policy 12.1.4. Whenlb~i'lJ1:;;~JJ~t(J vacati~~()J;t:lJiil~li;;i~hti&f;w;;t the request ofa property
owner,cb1jditions ojsu(;h agreemel1.(shall include payment by the benefittedproperty
owner ojfairllwrketvqluefor the liiit4being convertedto private ownership. Funds
..... receivedforvqcptecl!ands?hqll be placed in a trustfundfor the acquisition offuture
>rig~s~o*way. .... ... ... .. .. .. .
ObjeCti~~l~.;: secu;e;de4ugteju~dih~<t.(J imp;:;Jl~izi~ street maintenance program that will sustain a
/ .. maximum servk:glifefdrpgyement surface andother transportationfacilities.
Policy12.2.1.
Policy 12.2.2
?As~uming no changes in Statljunding mechanisms, the primaryfunding sourcesfor
sireetsystem maint#itance activities shall be the City's allocation ofthe State Highway
FuelTaxandallocation offees supplemented by street maintenancefees.
The Ci:;sk(Jlr~?'eicadditiOnalfunding sources to meet the long~termfinancial
requirementsOjsustaining a street maintenance program, including alternative modes of
transportation.
Policy 12.2.3. The City shall continue to participate in cooperative agreements with other State andlocal
jurisdictionsfor maintenance andoperation activities based on equitable determinations
ofresponsibility andbenefit.
CHAPTER 12 - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FINANCING PROGRAM
Page 125 ofl41
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Objective 12.2: Secure adequatefundingfor the operation ofthe transportation system including
advance planning, design engineering, signal operations, system management,
illumination, andcleaning activities.
Policy 12.3.1 Assumingno changes in Statefunding mechanisms, transportation system operations
shall be fundedprimarilyfrom the City's allocation ofthe State Highway Fuel Tax.
Otherfunding sources should be pursuedto augment thefinancial requirements of
providing adequatefuture system operations.
Policy 12.3.2. The City shall continue to pursuefederal, state nn,ijiril'iv.(J!p grants to augment operations
activities, especially in the planning anden,gi1lte?;~il1gjiml'.:ticms.
CHAPTER 12 - TRANSPORTAT10N SYSTEM FINANCfNG PROGRAM
Page 126 of 141
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
Chapter 13 - Implementation Policies
13.1 Introduction
The transportation system goals and objectives listed below are broad statements of
philosophy that describe the hopes ofthe people ofthe City ofCentral Point for the future
oftheir community and its transportation system. Goals and objectives have been
developed around each TSP chapter. A goal and/or objective may never be completely
attainable but is used as a point toward which to strive and should be used to monitor
future transportation strategies and improvements. Policies are statements that provide a
specific course ofaction moving the community toward the attainment ofits goals and
objectives. Each new capital improvement project, land use application, or
implementation measure must be consistent with the policies. Once adopted, the goals,
objectives, and policies, as well as the project lists, will become part ofthe City of
Central Poines Comprehensive Plan.
13.2 Implementation Goals and Policies by Chapter
Chapter 3 - Land Use & Forecasting
GOAL 3.1: TO EFFECTIVELY MANAGE THE USE OF LAND WITHIN THE
CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA IN A MANNER THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH,
AND THAT SUPPORTS, THE SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN.
Policy 3.1.1. The City shall manage the land use element ofthe Comprehensive Plan in a
manner that enhances livabilityfor the citizens ofCentral Point as set
forth in the Transportation System Plan.
Policy 3.1.2. The City shall continuously monitor and update the LandDevelopment
Code to maintain bestpractices in transit oriented design consistent with
the overall land use objectives ofthe City.
Chapter 5 - Transportation System Elements
GOAL 5.1: TO MAXIMIZE, THROUGH TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES, THE EFFICIENCY, SAFETY, AND
CAPACITY OF THE CITY'S EXISTING TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
AND SERVICES.
Policy 5.1.1. The City shall make every effort to maintain mobility standards that result in a
minimum level ofservice (LOS) "D." The City defines LOSD as the equivalent
to a volume-capacity ratio of0.9.
Policy 5.1.2. The City shallfadUtate implementation ofbus bays by RVTD on transit routes as
a means offacilitating trafJicjlow duringpeak travel periods. The feasibility,
location anddesign ofbus bays shall be developed in consultation between the
CHAPTER 13 - IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES
Page 127 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
City and RVTD.
GOAL 5.2: TO EMPLOY ACCESS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO ENSURE SAFE
AND EFFICIENT ROADWAYS CONSISTENT WITH THEIR DESIGNATED
FUNCTION.
Policy 5.2.1. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain, either within the zoning ordinance or
the Public Works Standards and Details manual, access management standards
based on best practices.
Policy 5.2.2. The City shall implement the access management strategies presented in the
Access Management Plan for Front Street (Highway 99)/Pine Street and the
Central Point Highway 99 Corridor Plan.
GOAL 5.3: TO REDUCE THE DEMANDS PLACED ON THE CURRENT AND FUTURE
TRANSPORTAnON SYSTEM BY THE SINGLE-OCCUPANT VEHICLE.
Objective 5.3: The City ofCentral Point shall encourage the use ofalternative travel modes by
serving as an institutional modelfor other agencies and businesses in the
community.
Policy 5.3.1 The City shall serve as a leading examplejar other businesses andagencies by
maximizing the use ofalternative transportation modes among City employees
through incentive programs. The City shallprovide information on alternative
transportation modes andprovide incentivesfor employees who use alternatives
to the single-occupant automobile.
Policy 5.3.2. The City shall offerflexible schedules andcompressed work-week options
wheneverfeasible, as a way ofreducing travel demand. The City shall
encourage employees to telecommute, wheneverfeasible.
Objective 5.4: The City shall work towards reducing the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the
Central Point Urban Area by assisting individuals in choosing alternative travel
modes.
Policy 5.4.1 The City shall encourage major employers to promote work arrangements
providing an alternative to the 8-to-5 work schedule. These arrangements shall
include, but are not limited to, employeeflex-time programs, staggered work
hours, andcompressed work weeks.
Policy 5.4.2 The City shall encourage major employers to promote telecommuting where
feasible.
Policy 5.4.3 The City andmajor employers shall encourage ridesharing by making
ridesharing more convenient.
Policy 5.4.4 The City shall encourage major employers to work with RVTD to adopt trip
reduction goals designed to reduce site vehicular trip generation.
CHAPTER 13 - IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES
Page 128 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
Objective 5.5: Transportation demand management (TDM) measures promoted by the City
shall be consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan strategies aimed at
reducing reliance on the single occupant vehicle (SOV) and reducing vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) per capita.
Chapter 6 - Transportation System Elements
GOAL 6.1: TO MANAGE AUTOMOBILE PARKING WITHIN THE CENTRAL
POINT URBAN AREA AS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE REDUCTIONS IN
PARKING SPACES CONSISTENT WITH STATE AND REGIONAL GOALS.
Policy 6.1.1 The City shall manage the supply, operation, enforcement anddemandfor
parking in the public right-ofway to encourage economic vitality, traffic
safety, transportation system efficiency, andlivability ofneighborhoods.
Policy 6.1.2 Except within the Central Business District, where on-streetparking is
consideredan element ofthe Central Business District's economic vitality,
the provisionfor on-streetparking is second in priority to the needs ofthe
travel modes (i.e., vehicle, transit, bicycle, pedestrian) using the street
right-ofway, andshall be removed when necessary to facilitate street
widening.
Policy 6.1.3 In those areas where demand exists, an adequate supply ofoff-street
carpool andvanpoolparking spaces shall be provided. The location of
these spaces shall have preference over those intendedfor general
purpose off-streetparking.
GOAL 6.2: To promote and manage the parking needs ofthe Central Point Urban
Area in a manner that reasonably balances the demand for parking against the use of
transit, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation modes, while maintaining the economic
vitality and neighborhood livability.
Policy 6.2.1. The City shallprepare, adopt andmaintain parking standards that reflect
bestparkingpractices thatfurther the parkinggoals ofthe City..
Policy 6.2.2. The City shallprepare, adopt, andmaintain effective development
standardsfor paved off-streetparking areas to include provisionsfor
landscaping, planting strips, pedestrian walkways, curbs, andsidewalks.
Chapter 7 - Streets System
GOAL 7.1: PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE STREET SYSTEM THAT SERVES
THE PRESENT AND FUTURE MOBILITY AND TRAVEL NEEDS OF THE
CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA, INCLUDING PROVISIONS FOR BICYCLE AND
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES.
Policy 7.1.1 The City shallfulfill its system wide travel capacity needs through the use
CHAPTER 13 - IMPLEMENTAnON POLICIES
Page 129 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
ofmultiple travel modes within the public rights-o,Fway.
Policy 7.1.2 The City's street system shall contain a network ofarterial andcollector
streets and highways that link the central core area and major indust,y
with regional andstatewide highways.
Policy 7.1.3 The City shallprepare, adopt, and maintain street design standards
consistent with the policies ofthis TSP.
Policy 7.1.1 The City shallprepare, adopt, and maintain standards thatpromote
connectivity ofthe street system consistent with the Functional
Classification Map.
Policy 7.1.5 The City shall activelypursue construction of1-5 interchange
improvements at Pine Street.
Policy 7.1.6 The City shallprepare, adopt, and maintain design standardsfor its
streets to safely accommodate pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle travel
as has been accomplished in the TOD Districts
Policy 7.1.7 The City Standards andDetails shall be the basisfor all street design
within the Central Point urban area.
Policy 7.1.8 Wherever possible the City shall incorporate safely designed, aesthetic
features into the streetscape ofits public rights-o,Fway. These features
may include: street trees, shrubs, andgrasses; planting strips andraised
medians; meandering sidewalks on arterial streets; and, in some
instances, streetfurniture, planters, special lighting, public art, or non 
standardpaving materials.
Policy 7.1.9 When existing streets are widened or reconstructed they shall be designed
to the adoptedstreet design standardsfor the appropriate street
classification where practical. Aetjustments to the design standards may
be necessary to avoid existing topographical constraints, historic
properties, schools, cemeteries, problems with right-o,Fway acquisition,
existing on-streetparking and significant culturalfeatures. The design of
the street shall be sensitive to the livability ofthe surrounding
neighborhood.
Policy 7.1.10 The City shall work with federal, state and local government agencies to
promote traffic safety education and awareness, emphasizing the
responsibilities and courtesies required ofdrivers, cyclists, and
pedestrians.
Policy 7.1.11 The City shallplace a higher priority onfunding andconstructing street
projects that address identified vehicular, bicycle, andpedestrian safety
CHAPTER 13 - IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES
Page 130 of 141
Cil)' ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
problems than those projects that solely respond to automotive capacity
deficiencies in the street system. Exceptions are those capacity
improvements that are designed to also resolve identified safetyproblems.
Policy 7.1.12 The City shall select street improvement projectsfrom those listed in the
Central Point Transportation System Plan when making significant
increases in system capacity or bringing arterial or collector streets up to
urban standards. The selection ofimprovement projects should be
prioritized based on consideration ofimprovements to safety, reliefof
existing congestion, response to near-term growth, system-wide benefits,
geographic equity, andavailability offunding.
Policy 7.1.13 To maximize the longevity ofits capital investments, the City shall design
street improvementprojects to meet existing travel demand and, whenever
possible to accommodate anticipated travel demandfor the next 20 years
for thatfacility.
Policy 7.1.14 The City shall involve representatives ofafficted neighborhood
associations, citizens, developers, surveyors, engineering andplanning
professionals in an advisory role in the design ofstreet improvement
projects.
Policy 7.1.15 The City shall require Traffic Impact Analyses as part ofland use
developmentproposals to assess the impact that a development will have
on the existing andplanned transportation system and to identify
reasonable on-site and off-site improvements necessary to mitigate
impacts.
Policy 7.1.16 The City may require new development to pay charges towards the
mitigation ofsystem-wide transportation impacts created by new growth
in the community through established Street System Development Charges
(SDCs) and any other streetfees that are established by the City.
Chapter 8 - Bicycle and Pedestrian System
GOAL 8.1: TO PLAN FOR AND FACILITATE THE INCREASED USE OF
BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION IN THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA BY
ASSURING THAT CONVENIENT, ACCESSIBLE AND SAFE BICYCLE
FACILITIES ARE PROVIDED30?
Policy 8.1.1. The City ofCentral Point recognizes bicycle transportation as a necessary
andviable component ofthe transportation system, both as an important
transportation mode, andas an air quality improvement strategy.
Policy 8.1.2. The Bicycle Element ofthis plan shall serve as the Central Point Bicycle
30 OAR 660-012-0020(2)(d)
CHAPTER 13 - IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES
Page l31 of ]41
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
Master Plan.
Policy 8.1.3. The City ofCentral Point shallprogressively develop a linked bicycle
network, focusing on, but not inclusive to the arterial and collector street
system, and concentrating on the provision ofbicycle lanes, to be
completedwithin the planningperiod (20 years). The bikeway network
will serve bicyclists needsfor travel to employment centers, commercial
districts, transit centers, schools, institutions and recreational
destinations.
Policy 8.1.4. The City ofCentral Point shall use all opportunities to addbike lanes in
conjunction with road reconstruction andre-stripingprojects on collector
andarterial streets.
Policy 8.1.5. The City ofCentral Point shall maintain public improvement standards
that assure that the design ofall streets andpublic improvement projects
facilitate bicycling by providingproperpaving, lane width, traffic control,
storm drainage grates, striping, signage, lighting, parking, etc.
Policy 8.1.6. The City ofCentral Point shallprepare, adopt, and maintain on-site
development standards that assure the provision ofbicycle access,
parking, racks and/or shelters in business developments, institutions,
duplexes andmulti-family developments and other locations where bicycle
parkingfacilities are required.
Policy 8.1. 7. The City ofCentral Point shall support the local transitprovider in their
efforts to facilitate "bikes on buses" and bicyclefacilities at transit
stations andstops.
Policy 8.1.8. Except within the Central Business District, the City ofCentral Point shall
give priority to bicycle traffic over parking within public rights-of-way
designated on the Bicycle Master Plan or otherwise determined to be
important bicycling routes.
Policy 8.1.9. The City shall require pedestrian andbicycle easements to provide
neighborhood connectors andreduce vehicle trips. The City shall modifY
the street vacation process so pedestrian and bicyclist through access is
maintained.
GOAL 8.2: The City will promote bicycle safety and awareness.
Policy 8.2.1. The City ofCentral Point shall actively support andencourage local and
state bicycle education andsafety programs intended to improve bicycling
skills, observance oflaws, andoverall safetyfor both children and adults.
Policy 8.2.2. The City shall consider the use ofthe media, bicycle committees, bicycle
CHAPTER 13 - IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES
Page 132 of141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Pilln, 2008?2030
plans and other methods to promote use ofbicyclingfor transportation
purposes.
GOAL 8.3: TO FACILITATE A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF CONVENIENT,
ACCESSIBLE AND SAFE SIDEWALKS AND WALKWAYS THAT WILL
ENCOURAGE AND INCREASE PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL THROUGHOUT THE
CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA.31
Policy 8.3.1. The City shall establish andmaintain a Sidewalk Construction Program to
complete the pedestrianfacility network.
Policy 8.3.2. Sidewalks andwalkways shall complement access to transit stations/stops
and multi-use paths. Activity centers, schools and business districts
shouldfocus attention on and encourage pedestrian travel within their
proximity.
Policy 8.3.3 The City ofCentral Point shall maintain standards that require sidewalk
andpedestrian access andstandardsfor improvement, i. e. crosswalks at
signalized intersections andhigh volume pedestrian areas such as the
Central Business District. All road construction or renovation projects
shall include sidewalks.
Policy 8.3.4. The City shall require pedestrian andbicycle easements to connect
neighborhoods andreduce vehicle trips. The City shall modifY the street
vacation process so pedestrian and bicyclist through-access is maintained.
Policy 8.3.5. Pedestrian walkway or accessway connections shall be required between
adjacent developments when roadway connections cannot be provided.
Policy 8.3.6. The City shallprepare a plan and implement a multi-use trail system,
using linear corridors including, but not limited to: utility easements, rail
lines, Bear Creek, Griffin Creek, Jackson Creek and other creeks that
complement and connect to the sidewalk system.
GOAL 8.4: To encourage education services and promote safe pedestrian travel to
reduce the number ofaccidents involving pedestrians.
Policy 8.4.1. The City ofCentral Point shall encourage schools, safety organizations,
andlaw enforcement agencies to provide information and instruction on
pedestrian saftty issues thatfocus on prevention ofthe most important
accidentproblems. The programs shall educate all roadway users oftheir
privileges and responsibilities when driving, bicycling and walking.
Policy 8.4.2. The City shall include in the Sidewalk Construction Program (Policy
9.1.1) inclusion ofa street lighting system.
31 OAR 660-012-0020(2)(d)
CHAPTER 13- IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES
Page 133 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Policy 8.4.3. The City shallprepare, adopt, and maintain standard.'ifor the separation
ofpedestrian trafficfrom auto traffic on streets and, where determined
appropriate, in parking lots.
Chapter 9 - Public Transit System
GOAL 9.1: IN COOPERATION WITH TRANSIT PROVIDERS, FACILITATE THE
PROVISION OF A TRANSIT SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES CONVENIENT AND
ACCESSIBLE TRANSIT SERVICES TO THE CITIZENS OF THE CENTRAL POINT
URBAN AREA,32
Policy 9.1.1. The City shall workwith RVTD to encourage transit services that meet the
City's transit needs.
Policy 9.1.2. To encourage accessibility and increased ridership, the City shall
continue to encouragefuture transit-supportive land uses, such as mixed
uses, multiple:family, andemployment centers to be located on or near
transit corridors.
Policy 9.1.3. The City shallprepare, adopt, and maintain development standards and
regulationsfacilitating accessibility to transit services through transit 
supportive streetscape, subdivision, andsite design requirements that
promote pedestrian andbicycle connectivity, convenience andsaftty.
GOAL 9.2: Increase overall daily transit ridership in the Central Point urban area,
to mitigate a portion ofthe traffic pressures expected by regional growth.
Policy 9.2.1. Through Transportation Demand Management efforts, the City shall work
with Central Point employers and other government agencies to increase
commuter transit ridership.
Chapter 10 - Rail and Aviation System
GOAL 10.1. TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT, SAFE, AND EFFECTIVE MOVEMENT OF
GOODS AND PASSENGERS BY RAIL VIA WHILE MAINTAINING THE
QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE CITIZENS OF THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN
AREA.
GOAL 10.2. TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT, SAFE, AND EFFECTIVE MOVEMENT OF
GOODS, SERVICES AND PASSENGERS BY RAIL WHILE MAINTAINING THE
QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE CITIZENS OF THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN
AREA.33
320AR 660-012-0020(c)
33 OAR 660-012-0020(2)(e)
CHAPTER 13 -IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES
Page 134 of 141
City ofCentral Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
Policy 10.2.1. The City shall encourage both freight andpassenger service as part of
statewide rail transportation planning efforts.
Policy 10.2.2. The City shallprepare, adopt, and maintain site development standards
that mitigate railroad noise and vibration.
GOAL 10.3: TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT, SAFE, AND EFFECTIVE MOVEMENT OF
PEOPLE AND GOODS VIA INTER-MODAL CONNECTIONS WITH THE ROGUE
VALLEY INTER-NATIONAL-MEDFORD AIRPORT,34
Policy 10.3.1 The City shall support the Rogue Valley Transportation District efforts to
provide service to the Rogue Valley International Abportfrom established
routes serving Central Point.
Chapter 11 - Freight System
GOAL 11.1. To identify and maintain a truck freight system within the City that serves
the City's and region's freight needs in an efficient and safe manner, with minimal
adverse impacts on adjacent land uses.
Policy 11.2.1. The City shall cooperate with the RVMPO, Jackson County, ODOTand
the City ofMedford in the coordination ofdesign, funding, and
improvement ofthe freight system within the City that enhancesfreight
movement, while improving the overall capacity ofthe City's street
system.
Policy 11.2.2. The Freight System Map presentedin Figure 11.2 shall be considered by
the City as the officialfreight route systemfor the City ofCentral Point.
The design andimprovement ofthe street system designated on the
Freight System Map shall accommodate large vehicles typical offreight
movement.
Policy 11.2.3. The City shall ensure access to truckfreight via the local street system,
with emphasis on maintaining andefficient andsafe designated truck
route system.
Chapter 12 - Transportation System Financing
GOAL 12.1: A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR THE CENTRAL POINT
URBAN AREA THAT IS ADEQUATELY FUNDED TO MEET THE CITY'S
CURRENT AND FUTURE CAPITAL, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS
NEEDS.
Objective 12.2.1Meet the current andfuture capital improvement needs ofthe
transportation systemfor the Central Point urban area, as outlined in this
34 OAR 660-012.0020(2)(e)
CHAPTER 13 - IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES
Page 135 of 14]
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008?2030
plan, through a variety offunding sources based on the principal of
cooperativefunding with afair allocation between local, county, state and
developer funding.
Policy 12.1.1. Transportation system development charges (SDCs), as defined by Oregon
RevisedStatutes and City ordinances, will be collected by the City to offset
costs ofnew capacity development. The City will continue to collect SDCs
as an important and equitable funding source to payfor transportation
capacity improvements.
Policy 12.1.2. For all Tier 2 projects the City shall require those responsiblefor new
development to mitigate their development's impacts to the transportation
system, as authorized in the Central Point Zoning Ordinance and Oregon
RevisedStatutes, concurrent with the development ofthe property.
Policy 12.1.3. The City shall continue to set-aside one-percent ofits allocation ofState
Highway Fuel Tax funds for creation ofon-street bicycle, pedestrian and
transit capitalfacilities.
Policy 12.1. 4. When the City agrees to vacation ofa public right-of-way at the request of
a property owner, conditions ofsuch agreement shall include payment by
the benefittedproperty owner offair market value for the land being
converted to private ownership. Funds receivedfor vacated lands shall be
placed in a trustfundfor the acquisition offuture rights-of-way.
Objective 12.2Secure adequate funding to implement a street maintenance program that
will sustain a maximum service life for pavement surface andother
transportationfacilities.
Policy12.2.1. Assuming no changes in Statefunding mechanisms, the primaryfunding
sourcesfor street system maintenance activities shall be the City's
allocation ofthe State Highway Fuel Tax and allocation offees
supplemented by street maintenanceftes.
Policy 12.2.2 The City shall seek additionalfunding sources to meet the long-term
financial requirements ofsustaining a street maintenance program,
including alternative modes oftransportation.
Policy 12.2.3. The City shall continue to participate in cooperative agreements with
other State and localjurisdictionsfor maintenance andoperation
activities basedon equitable determinations ofresponsibility and benefit.
Objective 12.2Secure adequatefundingfor the operation ofthe transportation system
including advance planning, design engineering, signal operations, system
management, illumination, andcleaning activities.
CHAPTER 13 -IMPLEMENTAnON POLICIES
Page 136 ofl41
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Policy 12.3.1. Assuming no changes in State funding mechanisms, transportation system
operations shall befundedprimarilyfrom the City's allocation ofthe State
Highway Fuel Tax. Otherfunding sources should be pursued to augment
thefinancial requirements ofproviding adequatefuture system operations.
Policy 12.3.2. The City shall continue to pursuefederal, state andprivate grants to
augment operations activities, especially in the planning and engineering
functions.
CHAPTER 13 -IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES
Page 137 ofl41