SUBJECT: City of Toledo Plan Amendment
DLCD File Number 001-13
The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) received the attached notice of adoption.
Due to the size of amended material submitted, a complete copy has not been attached.  A Copy of the 
adopted plan amendment is available for review at the DLCD office in Salem and the local government 
office.  
Appeal Procedures*
DLCD ACKNOWLEDGMENT or DEADLINE TO APPEAL:  Monday, January 13, 2014 
This amendment was submitted to DLCD for review prior to adoption  pursuant to ORS 197.830(2)(b) 
only persons who participated in the local government proceedings leading to adoption of the amendment 
are eligible to appeal this decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). 
If you wish to appeal, you must file a notice of intent to appeal with the Land Use Board of Appeals 
(LUBA) no later than 21 days from the date the decision was mailed to you by the local government.  If 
you have questions, check with the local government to determine the appeal deadline.  Copies of the 
notice of intent to appeal must be served upon the local government and others who received written notice
of the final decision from the local government.  The notice of intent to appeal must be served and filed in 
the form and manner prescribed by LUBA, (OAR Chapter 661, Division 10).  Please call LUBA at 
503-373-1265, if you have questions about appeal procedures.
*NOTE:     The Acknowledgment or Appeal Deadline is based upon the date the decision was mailed by local 
        government. A decision may have been mailed to you on a different date than it was mailed to 
        DLCD. As a result, your appeal deadline may be earlier than the above date specified. NO LUBA  
       Notification to the jurisdiction of an appeal by the deadline, this Plan Amendment is acknowledged.
Cc: Aneta Synan, City of Toledo
Gordon Howard, DLCD Urban Planning Specialist
Patrick Wingard, DLCD Regional Representative
Gary Fish, DLCD Transportation Planner
<paa> YA
NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENT
12/30/2013
TO: Subscribers to Notice of Adopted Plan
or Land Use Regulation Amendments
FROM: Plan Amendment Program Specialist
http:/
DLCD
 
 
 
Loca
no m
comp
amen
inclu
amen
desig
Form
 
Juris
Loca
Date
Was 
 Y
 N
Is the
If ye
    
 
Loca
Phon
Stree
 
PLE
For 
Ident
impl
Com
Plann
For 
Ident
Chan
Chan
Chan
Chan
Loca
 T
 T
/www.oregon
 FORM 2 
l governmen
ore than 20
leted copy o
dment revi
ding over 50
dment over 
nation, or am
 6 with subm
diction: City 
l file no.: PA
 of adoption
Notice of a P
es: Date (us
o 
 adopted ch
s, describe h
  
l contact (na
e: 541-336-2
t address: 20
ASE COMP
a change to 
ify the sectio
ement, if any
prehensive L
ing Goals 2,
a change to 
ify the form
ge from    
ge from    
ge from    
ge from    
tion of affec
he subject pr
he subject pr
.gov/LCD/Pag
ts are requir
 days after t
f this form. 
ewed in the
 acres by a c
100 acres ad
endment to
ittal of an a
of Toledo 
-1-13 
:  December 
roposed Ch
e the date of 
ange differen
ow the adopt
me and title)
247 E-mail:
6 N Main St
LETE ALL
comprehens
ns of the pla
: 
and Use Pla
 12, and 14  
a comprehe
er and new m
   to      
   to      
   to      
   to      
ted property 
operty is en
operty is pa
es/forms.aspx
NOTI
TO A C
LA
ed to send no
he adoption
This notice 
 manner of p
ity with a po
opted by a m
 add over 50
dopted perio
4, 201 Da
ange (Form 
last revision
t from what 
ion differs fr
:  Aneta Syn
 cdcplanner@
reet City: To
 OF THE F
ive plan tex
n that were 
n Articles 12 
nsive plan m
ap designat
.       acres
.       acres
.       acres
.       acres
(T, R, Sec., 
tirely within 
rtially within
 
CE OF A
OMPRE
ND USE
tice of an ad
. (See OAR 
form is not f
eriodic rev
pulation gre
etropolitan 
 acres, by a c
dic review ta
te sent:  12/2
1) submitted
 if a revised 
was describ
om the prop
an, City Plan
cityoftoled
ledo Zip: 97
OLLOWIN
t: 
added or am
and 14 were
ap: 
ions and the 
.  A goal 
.  A goal 
.  A goal 
.  A goal 
TL and addr
an urban gro
 an urban gr
-1-
DOPTED
HENSIV
 REGUL
opted chang
660-018-004
or submitta
iew. Use For
ater than 2,5
service distri
ity with a po
sk. 
3/2013 
 to DLCD? 
Form 1was s
ed in the Not
osal: 
ner 
o.org 
391- 
G SECTIO
ended and w
 amended to
area affected
exception w
exception w
exception w
exception w
ess):      .
wth boundar
owth bounda
 CHANG
E PLAN
ATION
e to a compr
0). The rule
l of a comp
m 4 for an a
00 within th
ct. Use Form
pulation gre
ubmitted): 
ice of Propo
NS THAT A
hich statewid
 adopt a Tra
: 
as required f
as required f
as required f
as required f
y 
ry 
Form u
E
 OR
ehensive pla
s require tha
leted period
dopted urban
e UGB or an
 5 for an ad
ater than 2,5
      
sed Change?
PPLY 
e planning g
nsportation
or this chang
or this chang
or this chang
or this chang
pdated Novem
FOR DLCD 
File No.:  
Received: 
n or land use
t the notice i
ic review ta
 growth bou
 urban growt
opted urban 
00 within th
  Yes 
oals those s
 System Plan
e. 
e. 
e. 
e. 
ber 1, 2013 
USE 
     
      
 regulation 
nclude a 
sk or a plan
ndary 
h boundary 
reserve 
e UGB. Use 
No 
ections 
.  Statewide
 
 
http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/Pages/forms.aspx -2- Form updated November 1, 2013  
If the comprehensive plan map change is a UGB amendment including less than 50 acres and/or by a city with a 
population less than 2,500 in the urban area, indicate the number of acres of the former rural plan designation, by 
type, included in the boundary. 
Exclusive Farm Use – Acres:       Non-resource – Acres:       
Forest – Acres:        Marginal Lands – Acres:       
Rural Residential – Acres:       Natural Resource/Coastal/Open Space – Acres:       
Rural Commercial or Industrial – Acres:        Other:       – Acres:       
If the comprehensive plan map change is an urban reserve amendment including less than 50 acres, or 
establishment or amendment of an urban reserve by a city with a population less than 2,500 in the urban area, 
indicate the number of acres, by plan designation, included in the boundary. 
Exclusive Farm Use – Acres:       Non-resource – Acres:       
Forest – Acres:        Marginal Lands – Acres:       
Rural Residential – Acres:       Natural Resource/Coastal/Open Space – Acres:       
Rural Commercial or Industrial – Acres:        Other:       – Acres:       
For a change to the text of an ordinance or code: 
Identify the sections of the ordinance or code that were added or amended by title and number: 
Toledo Comprehensive Land Use Plan (originally adopted by Ordinance 1285), Article 12 (Transportation) and 
Article 14 (Urbanization and Livability).  
 
For a change to a zoning map: 
Identify the former and new base zone designations and the area affected: 
Change from       to      . Acres:        
Change from       to      . Acres:       
Change from       to      . Acres:       
Change from       to      . Acres:       
 
Identify additions to or removal from an overlay zone designation and the area affected: 
Overlay zone designation:      . Acres added:       . Acres removed:       
Location of affected property (T, R, Sec., TL and address):       
 
List affected state or federal agencies, local governments and special districts: Lincoln County, Port of Toledo, ODOT, 
DLCD 
 
Identify supplemental information that is included because it may be useful to inform DLCD or members of the 
public of the effect of the actual change that has been submitted with this Notice of Adopted Change, if any. If the 
submittal, including supplementary materials, exceeds 100 pages, include a summary of the amendment briefly 
describing its purpose and requirements. 
Toledo Transportation System Plan, City of Toledo Ordinance 1352 
  
http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/Pages/forms.aspx -3- Form updated November 1, 2013  
NOTICE OF ADOPTED CHANGE – SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS 
 
1. A Notice of Adopted Change must be received by 
DLCD no later than 20 days after the ordinance(s) 
implementing the change has been signed by the 
public official designated by the jurisdiction to sign 
the approved ordinance(s) as provided in 
ORS 197.615 and OAR 660-018-0040. 
2. A Notice of Adopted Change must be submitted 
by a local government (city, county, or metropolitan 
service district). DLCD will not accept a Notice of 
Adopted Change submitted by an individual or 
private firm or organization. 
3. Hard-copy submittal: When submitting a 
Notice of Adopted Change on paper, via the US 
Postal Service or hand-delivery, print a completed 
copy of this Form 2 on light green paper if 
available. Submit one copy of the proposed change, 
including this form and other required materials to: 
Attention: Plan Amendment Specialist 
Dept. of Land Conservation and Development 
635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 
Salem, OR 97301-2540 
This form is available here: 
http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/forms.shtml 
4. Electronic submittals of up to 20MB may be 
sent via e-mail. Address e-mails to 
plan.amendments@ state.or.us with the subject line 
“Notice of Adopted Amendment.” 
Submittals may also be uploaded to DLCD’s FTP 
site at http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/Pages/papa_ 
submittal. aspx.  
E-mails with attachments that exceed 20MB will 
not be received, and therefore FTP must be used for 
these electronic submittals. The FTP site must be 
used for all .zip files regardless of size. The 
maximum file size for uploading via FTP is 
150MB. 
Include this Form 2 as the first pages of a combined 
file or as a separate file. 
5. File format: When submitting a Notice of 
Adopted Change via e-mail or FTP, or on a digital 
disc, attach all materials in one of the following 
formats: Adobe .pdf (preferred); Microsoft Office 
(for example, Word .doc or docx or Excel .xls or 
xlsx); or ESRI .mxd, .gdb, or. mpk. For other file 
formats, please contact the plan amendment 
specialist at 503-934-0017 or 
plan.amendments@state.or.us. 
6. Content: An administrative rule lists required 
content of a submittal of an adopted change (OAR 
660-018-0040(3)). By completing this form and 
including the materials listed in the checklist below, 
the notice will include the required contents. 
Where the amendments or new land use regulations, 
including supplementary materials, exceed 100 
pages, include a summary of the amendment briefly 
describing its purpose and requirements. 
7. Remember to notify persons who participated in 
the local proceedings and requested notice of the 
final decision. (ORS 197.615)
 
If you have any questions or would like assistance, please contact your DLCD regional representative or the 
DLCD Salem office at 503-934-0017 or e-mail plan.amendments@state.or.us. 
Notice checklist. Include all that apply: 
 Completed Form 2 
 A copy of the final decision (including the signed ordinance(s)). This must include city and county 
decisions for UGB and urban reserve adoptions 
 The findings and the text of the change to the comprehensive plan or land use regulation 
 If a comprehensive plan map or zoning map is created or altered by the proposed change: 
 A map showing the area changed and applicable designations, and 
 Electronic files containing geospatial data showing the area changed, as specified in OAR 660-018-
0040(5), if applicable 
 Any supplemental information that may be useful to inform DLCD or members of the public of the effect of 
the actual change 











 Toledo, Oregon 
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN 
Adopted by Ordinance #1352 on December 4, 2013 
PREPARED FOR: 
City of Toledo 
 
WITH SUPPORT FROM: 
Oregon Department of Transportation 
 
  
 TOLEDO TSP  I 
Contents 
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... ES‐1 
1.  Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1‐1 
2.  Transportation System Goals and Objectives .................................................................................... 2‐1 
3.  Modal Plans ...................................................................................................................................... 3‐1 
3.1  Street System Plan ........................................................................................................................ 3‐1 
3.2  Transit Plan ................................................................................................................................. 3‐15 
3.3  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan ........................................................................................................ 3‐18 
3.4  Port and Water Transportation Plan .......................................................................................... 3‐25 
3.5  Rail Network ............................................................................................................................... 3‐27 
3.6  Air Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 3‐27 
3.7  Pipeline Network ........................................................................................................................ 3‐28 
4.  Implementation Measures ................................................................................................................ 4‐1 
4.1  Street Standards ........................................................................................................................... 4‐1 
4.2  Funding Sources ......................................................................................................................... 4‐11 
4.3  Recommended Code Language .................................................................................................. 4‐17 
 
Tables 
Table ES‐1 Street System Project Cost Estimates and Prioritization ........................................................ ES‐2 
Table ES‐2 Bicycle and Pedestrian System Project Cost Estimates and Prioritization ............................. ES‐3 
Table ES‐3 Transit Project Cost Estimates and Prioritization ................................................................... ES‐4  
Table ES‐4 Port and Water System Upgrade Cost Estimates and Prioritization ...................................... ES‐5 
Table 3‐1 Street System Project Cost Estimates and Prioritization ......................................................... 3‐14 
Table 3‐2 Transit Project Cost Estimates and Prioritization .................................................................... 3‐16 
Table 3‐3 Bicycle and Pedestrian System Project Cost Estimates and Prioritization .............................. 3‐23 
Table 3‐4 Port and Water System Upgrade Cost Estimates and Prioritization ....................................... 3‐26 
Table 4‐1 Functional Classification Definitions.......................................................................................... 4‐2 
Table 4‐2 Functional Classification Modifications ..................................................................................... 4‐4 
Table 4‐3 Street Design Standards ............................................................................................................ 4‐5 
Table 4‐4 Public Street Intersection Spacing Standards ............................................................................ 4‐9 
Table 4‐5 Private Access Driveway Spacing Standards.............................................................................. 4‐9 
Table 4‐6 Toledo TSP: Level‐of‐Service Criteria ....................................................................................... 4‐10 
 
Contents 
ii  TOLEDO TSP 
Figures 
Figure 3‐1 Traffic Analysis Study Intersections.......................................................................................... 3‐2 
Figure 3‐2 Street Projects .......................................................................................................................... 3‐4 
Figure 3‐3 Freight Truck Route .................................................................................................................. 3‐6 
Figure 3‐4 Project R2a: One Traffic Signal Option ..................................................................................... 3‐8 
Figure 3‐5 Project R2b: Two Traffic Signal Option .................................................................................... 3‐8 
Figure 3‐6 Project R3: A Street Turn Pocket .............................................................................................. 3‐9 
Figure 3‐7 Project R4: Burgess Road Realigment .................................................................................... 3‐10 
Figure 3‐8 Project R5: Sturdevant Road Realignment ............................................................................. 3‐11 
Figure 3‐9 Project R6: A Street Railroad Crossing Improvements ........................................................... 3‐11 
Figure 3‐10 Project R7: Butler Bridge Road and NW 1st Street Changes ................................................. 3‐12 
Figure 3‐11 Toledo Transit Routes .......................................................................................................... 3‐17 
Figure 3‐12 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects ........................................................................................... 3‐20 
Figure 4‐1 Functional Classification System .............................................................................................. 4‐3 
Figure 4‐2 Street Cross Section Arterial .................................................................................................... 4‐6 
Figure 4‐3 Street Cross Section Collector Commercial .............................................................................. 4‐7 
Figure 4‐4 Street Cross Section Local Main ............................................................................................... 4‐8 
 
Appendixes 
Appendix A Plan Assessment 
Appendix B Transportation Funding 
Appendix C Transportation Deficiencies and Needs 
Appendix D Transportation Alternatives 
Appendix E Street Standards 
Appendix F Draft Objectives, Code, and Plan Amendments 
Appendix G Public Involvement Process 
 TOLEDO TSP  III 
Acknowledgements
Project Advisory Committee 
(PAC) 
Nic Dahl, Dahl Disposal 
Jack Dunaway, Toledo City Council 
Dave Enyeart, City of Toledo 
Will Ewing, City of Toledo 
Rick Graff, Port of Toledo 
Julie Kay, Lincoln County Transit  
Anne Learned‐Ellis, Toledo Planning Commission 
Stan Marshall, Georgia Pacific Toledo 
Kirk Mitchell, Mitchell Trucking 
Penny Ryerson, Port of Toledo 
Jerry Seth, Toledo Planning Commission 
Bud Shoemake, Port of Toledo 
Patrick Wingard, Department of Land Conservation 
and Development
Project Management Team 
(PMT) 
Michelle Amberg, City Manager, City of Toledo  
Stuart Cowie, Planner, City of Toledo (through 
February 2013) 
Adam Denlinger, City Project Manager and Public 
Works Director, City of Toledo (through May 2013) 
David Helton, Project Manager, Oregon Department 
of Transportation 
Arlene Inukai, Planning Assistant, City of Toledo 
Allen Stewart, City of Toledo (through August 2012) 
Aneta Synan, Planner, City of Toledo (as of May 
2013) 
 
CH2M HILL Project Team 
Terra Lingley, AICP, Project Manager 
Andra Henriques, PE 
Reza Farhoodi 
Billy Adams, PE 
Brandy Steffen 
Ryan Farncomb
   
Acronyms and Abbreviations 
iv  TOLEDO TSP 
Acronyms and Abbreviations 
CWACT   Cascades West Area Commission on Transportation 
DEQ    Department of Environmental Quality 
DLCD    Department of Land Conservation and Development 
FTA    Federal Transit Administration 
LID    Local Improvement District 
LOS    Level of Service 
MAP‐21  Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 
MNIF    Marine Navigation Improvement Fund 
MPH    Miles per hour 
ODOT    Oregon Department of Transportation 
OHP    Oregon Highway Plan 
OPRD    Oregon Parks and Recreation Department 
ORS    Oregon Revised Statutes 
OTIB    Oregon Transportation Investment Bank 
PAC    Project Advisory Committee 
PNWR    Portland and Western Railroad 
PRLF    Port Revolving Loan Fund 
SAFETEA‐LU  Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users 
SDC    System Development Charge 
STIP    Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 
STP    Surface Transportation Program 
TAP    Transportation Alternatives Program 
TE    Transportation Enhancement 
TGM    Transportation Growth Management 
TIF     Transportation Improvement Fund 
TIFIA    Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Program 
TPR    Transportation Planning Rule 
TSP    Transportation System Plan 
UGB    Urban Growth Boundary 
v/c    Volume to capacity 
   
 TOLEDO TSP   v 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This project is partially funded by a grant from the Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Program, a 
joint program of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Oregon Department of Land 
Conservation and Development (DLCD). This TGM grant is financed, in part, by federal Safe, Accountable, 
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA‐LU), local government, and State of 
Oregon funds. 
The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect views or policies of the State of Oregon. 

 TOLEDO TSP  ES‐1 
Executive Summary 
The City of Toledo initiated the Toledo Transportation System Plan (TSP) in 2012 in partnership with the Oregon 
Department of Transportation (ODOT). The Toledo TSP will guide the management and development of the 
City’s comprehensive multimodal transportation system for the next 20 years. Within, or just outside of, 
Toledo’s Urban Growth Boundary there are local streets, sidewalks, bikeways, multi‐use paths, regional bus 
service, a freight rail line, a working port, a small airport, a major statewide highway, and a paper mill that 
attracts freight trucks. 
This plan supports Toledo’s needs for transportation services and facilities, while remaining consistent with 
local, county, and state plans. The TSP contains the necessary components to be adopted as the transportation 
element of the City of Toledo’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan, first adopted in 2000. This plan also provides 
ODOT, Lincoln County, and other agencies with projects and objectives that should be acknowledged in their 
respective planning efforts. 
ES.1 TSP Projects 
The modal plans within the TSP include objectives and projects to address Toledo’s transportation needs, as well 
as future households and employment centers. The TSP projects are organized by mode and are prioritized 
based on need, complexity, and funding availability.  
ES.1.1 Project Details 
The Toledo TSP includes prioritized projects for the City of Toledo. Community preferences, estimated costs, 
project complexity, and funding availability determine whether a TSP project is identified as a short‐term (0‐5 
years), medium‐term (5‐10 years), or long‐term (10‐20 years) priority.  
Tables ES‐1‐4 provide the cost estimates, priority, possible funding sources, and lead agency/ project partners 
for the TSP road, bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and Port projects. More detailed descriptions of the modal plans 
(an outlined approach for a specific type of transportation) are included in the Modal Plan Chapter. There are no 
rail, air, or pipeline projects in the TSP; only objectives are provided for these systems to support the City’s goals 
and to address transportation deficiencies. 
   
Executive Summary 
ES‐2  TOLEDO TSP 
Street System 
The Street System Modal Plan includes more detail on these projects, in addition to the deficiencies and needs 
the projects address. The jurisdiction in charge of building or studying a project in the future is listed in the lead 
agency/project partners column.  
TABLE ES‐1 
Street System Project Cost Estimates and Prioritization 
Project 
No.  Project Description 
Cost 
Estimate 
(in 2012 $) 
Priority  Funding Source1 
Lead 
Agency/ 
Project 
Partners 
R1  Freight Route Signage Improvements – 
Citywide 
$12,000  Short‐term  Street Fund, STIP, 
LID 
City 
R2a  Western Junction ‐ One Traffic Signal 
Option 
$7,144,000 
Long‐term  STIP, Street Fund, OTIB, Bonds 
ODOT, City 
Lincoln 
County R2b  Western Junction – Two Traffic Signals 
Option 
$8,098,000 
R3  Business Loop 20 ‐ 
Eastbound Right Turn Pocket at A Street 
$449,000  Medium‐term  Street Fund, LID, 
STIP 
City 
R4  Burgess Road Realignment to 90‐Degree 
Intersection at Business Loop 20 
$298,000  Medium‐term  Street Fund, LID, 
STIP 
City 
R5  Sturdevant Road – Road Realignment for 
Siletz Site Freight Access 
$595,000  Long‐term  Street Fund, STIP 
LID, SDC, Bonds 
County, City, 
Siletz Tribe 
R6  A Street Railroad Crossing2  $176,000  Short‐term  Street Fund, 
Bike/Ped Fund, 
LID, PNWR 
City, PNWR, 
ODOT Rail 
R7  Butler Bridge Road and NW 1st Street 
Intersection changes 2 3 
$51,000  Short‐term  Street Fund, LID  City 
R8  Wayfinding signs  $10,000  Short‐term  Street Fund, 
Bike/Ped Fund, 
LID 
City 
Notes:  
1 STIP includes all funded categories. 
2 This project is in the adopted Toledo Waterfront Connectivity Plan (2009) and is included in the TSP. The project team used the 2009 
cost estimates and grew the estimate to 2012 dollars using an ODOT approved annual cost escalation of 4.04 percent.  
3 This project from the Waterfront Connectivity Plan combines pedestrian, street, and rail improvements into one project. The plan did 
not break down the cost of each improvement. 
Funding sources in italics are sources not currently used by the City  
LID – Local Improvement District 
STIP – Oregon Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 
SDC –System Development Charge 
OTIB – Oregon Transportation Infrastructure Bank 
PNWR – Portland and Western Railroad 
Executive Summary 
TOLEDO TSP  ES‐3 
Bicycle and Pedestrian System 
The following is a summary of the projects identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian System Modal Plan. More 
detail on these projects including a discussion of the deficiencies and needs addressed are in the Modal Plan. 
The jurisdiction in charge of building or studying a project in the future is listed in the lead agency/project 
partners column. 
TABLE ES‐2 
Bicycle and Pedestrian System Project Cost Estimates and Prioritization 
 
Project 
No.  Project Description 
Cost 
Estimate 
(in 2012 $) 
Priority  Funding Source1 
Lead 
Agency/ 
Project 
Partners 
BP1  Burgess Road – Fill sidewalk gaps  $172,000  Medium‐
term 
Street Fund, 
Bike/Ped Fund, LID 
City 
BP2  Business Loop 20 Sidewalk (South/East 
Side) – East Slope Road to Sturdevant 
Road 
$1,093,000  Medium‐
term 
Bike/Ped Fund, 
Bonds, LID 
City, School 
District 
BP3  Douglas Street and 3rd Street near the 
Community Center – fill sidewalk gaps 
$63,000  Medium‐
term 
Street Fund, 
Bike/Ped Fund, LID 
City 
BP4  East Slope Road sidewalk extension  $551,000  Medium‐
term 
Street Fund, 
Bike/Ped Fund, LID 
City 
BP5  A Street Sidewalk Rebuild – Business 
Loop 20 to NW 1st Street2 
$105,000  Short‐term  Street Fund, 
Bike/Ped Fund, LID 
City 
BP6  Bay Boulevard Sidewalk – Depot 
Slough to Business Loop 202 
$108,000  Medium‐ to 
long‐term 
Street Fund, 
Bike/Ped Fund, LID 
City 
BP7  Sturdevant Road High Visibility 
Crosswalks at Elementary and 
Junior/Senior High Schools 
$68,000  Short‐term  County, Bike/Ped 
Fund, LID  
City, County, 
School 
District 
BP8  Railroad Pedestrian Crossing 
Improvements to Discourage 
Automobile Use ‐ Butler Bridge Road 
at SE 2nd Street  
$11,000  Short‐term  Bike/Ped Fund, LID  City 
BP9  NW 1st Street Median, Midblock 
Crosswalk, and North Sidewalk/Grade 
Crossing Improvements2 3 
$558,000  Short‐term  Street Fund, 
Bike/Ped Fund, LID 
City 
BP10  Butler Bridge Road Railroad Fencing – 
NW 1st Street to SW 2nd Street2 
$27,000  Short‐term  Bike/Ped Fund, LID, 
PNWR 
City 
BP11  Trail along Bay Boulevard/Yaquina Bay 
Road 
$817,000  Long‐term  STIP, County, 
Bike/Ped Fund, 
Bonds, LID 
County, City 
BP12  Multi‐Use Trail – Sturdevant Road  $4,227,000  Long‐term  Bike/Ped Fund, 
Bonds, LID 
City, County, 
School 
District 
Executive Summary 
ES‐4  TOLEDO TSP 
TABLE ES‐2 
Bicycle and Pedestrian System Project Cost Estimates and Prioritization 
 
Project 
No.  Project Description 
Cost 
Estimate 
(in 2012 $) 
Priority  Funding Source1 
Lead 
Agency/ 
Project 
Partners 
BP13  Business Loop 20 Multi‐use Trail 
(South/West Side) – US 20 to NW 6th 
Avenue 
$2,675,000  Long‐term  STIP, Bike/Ped Fund, 
Bonds, LID 
City 
BP14  Waterfront Path: East Section 
(between NW 1st Street and Butler 
Bridge Road)2 
$278,000  Short‐term  STIP, Bike/Ped Fund, 
Bonds, Port, LID 
City  
BP15  Waterfront Path: West Section 
between Bay Boulevard and NW 1st 
Street (Includes NW 1st Street 
Crossing and Boardwalk)2 
$872,000  Medium‐ to 
long‐term 
STIP, Bike/Ped Fund, 
Bonds, Port, LID 
City 
BP16  Bay Boulevard – Depot Slough 
Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing 
$1,660,000  Medium‐ to 
long‐term 
STIP, Bike/Ped Fund, 
Bonds, LID 
City 
Notes: 
1 STIP includes all funded categories. 
2 This project is in the adopted Toledo Waterfront Connectivity Plan (2009) and is included in the TSP. The project team used the 2009 
cost estimates and grew the estimate to 2012 dollars using an ODOT approved annual cost escalation of 4.04 percent.  
3 This project from the Waterfront Connectivity Plan combines pedestrian, street, and rail improvements into one project. The plan did 
not break down the cost of each improvement. 
Funding sources in italics are sources not currently used by the City  
LID – Local Improvement District 
STIP – Oregon Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 
 
Transit System 
The following is a summary of the project identified in the Transit System Modal Plan. More detail on this 
project including a discussion of the deficiencies and needs addressed are in the Modal Plan. The jurisdiction in 
charge of building or studying a project in the future is listed in the lead agency/project partners column. 
TABLE ES‐3 
Transit Project Cost Estimates and Prioritization 
Project 
No.  Project Description 
Cost 
Estimate 
(in 2012 $) 
Priority  Funding Source1 
Lead 
Agency/ 
Project 
Partners 
T1  Add a bus shelter at the Food Fair Stop  $5,000  Medium‐term  FTA 5310  City, Lincoln 
County 
Transit 
   
Executive Summary 
TOLEDO TSP  ES‐5 
Port and Water System 
The Port and Water System Modal Plan includes more detail on these projects, in addition to the deficiencies 
and needs the projects address. The Port of Toledo would be the lead agency for future projects (shown in the 
lead agency/project partners column).  
TABLE ES‐4 
Port and Water System Upgrade Cost Estimates and Prioritization 
Project Description  Cost Estimate (in 2012 $)  Priority  Funding Source 
Lead 
Agency/ 
Project 
Partners 
Phase 1 projects – New pier and 
replace piles for travel lift, construct 
wash down pad, relocate utilities, 
purchase travel lift 
$3,493,000  Short‐term  Port, ConnectOregon, 
MNIF, PRLF 
Port 
Phase 2 projects – upgrade site access 
road, realign utilities, and develop 
cargo transfer and vessel hard 
moorage areas 
$950,000  Medium‐term  Port, ConnectOregon, 
MNIF, PRLF 
Port 
Phase 3 projects – construct vessel 
work building, new boatyard office 
and restrooms 
$2,050,000  Long‐term  Port, ConnectOregon, 
PRLF 
Port 
Notes:  
Port – General Port of Toledo Revenues 
MNIF – Marine Navigation Improvement Fund 
PRLF – Port Revolving Loan Fund 
 
   
Executive Summary 
ES‐6  TOLEDO TSP 
ES.2 Funding 
There are a number of funding sources for transportation projects included in this TSP; for the more expensive 
or complex projects a number of funding sources could be combined to raise the necessary funds and 
implement the project. Many funding sources require a project to be in an adopted plan. The TSP once adopted 
will help the City apply for funding for the various transportation projects. Transportation funding sources 
include: the federal government, the State of Oregon, and Lincoln County. The City also collects funds locally for 
transportation projects in the Street Fund.  
The project tables above include suggested funding sources for the specific type of project. Funds are available 
based on the type of project and there are specific funding sources for transportation, street projects, highway 
projects, and port projects. The most common existing funding sources applicable to TSP projects include the 
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), the Oregon Transportation Improvement Bank (OTIB), 
the City Street Fund, System Development Charges (SDCs), bonds, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Funds (Oregon 
requires one percent of state street funds to go towards bicycle and pedestrian projects). In addition, the City 
could explore new funding sources such as a Local Improvement District (LID), which would capture increases in 
property values into a fund to help implement projects within a given district.  
A more in‐depth discussion of funding sources is in Chapter 4 and Appendix B: Transportation Funding. 
 
 TOLEDO TSP  1‐1 
1. Introduction 
The Toledo Transportation System Plan (TSP) establishes a long‐range plan for the combination of projects, 
programs, and objectives that will achieve Toledo’s transportation goals. To do this, the TSP looks at the needs 
of its residents, businesses, employees, and visitors – now (2013) and what is expected for the future (2035). 
The TSP considers the needs of all users of the City’s uniquely diverse transportation network, by including 
objectives and projects that will serve the needs of drivers, transit riders, bicyclists, pedestrians, freight traffic, 
rail customers, airport users, and Port customers.  
This plan has been prepared in compliance with state, regional, and local plans and policies, including the 
Oregon Highway Plan (OHP); the state Transportation Planning Rule (TPR); Lincoln County Transportation 
System Plan; the Port of Toledo’s Waterfront Connectivity Plan, Boatyard Buildout Plan, and Waterfront 
Development Strategic Plan; and the City of Toledo’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The TSP presents the 
community’s desire for the future transportation system, while remaining consistent with these state, regional, 
and local plans. Plan elements will be implemented by the City, private developers, and regional or state 
agencies.  
The remainder of this TSP is organized into the following chapters: 
 2. Transportation System Goals and Objectives lists Goals and Objectives for the City’s transportation 
system. 
 3. Modal Plans discusses the condition of the City’s transportation system and projects to address 
identified deficiencies and needs. Chapter 3 is organized into sections by transportation mode: 
 Street System Plan 
 Transit Plan 
 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan  
 Port and Water Transportation Plan  
 Rail Network  
 Air Plan 
 Pipeline Network  
 4. Implementation Measures includes plan elements necessary to implement the TSP:  
 Functional Classification Plan describes the updates to the existing functional classification to 
ensure consistency between City and state classifications.  
 Street Design Standards updates street design standards, including multi‐use paths and boardwalks, 
and establishes standards for the spacing of public streets.  
Introduction 
1‐2  TOLEDO TSP 
 Access Management Standards describes spacing standards for public streets and private accesses 
based on the functional classification of the streets. 
 Traffic Operations Standards includes new City operation standards and ODOT’s mobility targets. 
 Funding Sources identifies potential sources of funding for projects in the TSP and a strategy for 
prioritizing projects and pursuing funding. 
 The appendixes are not part of the TSP document, but contain technical information and 
documentation supporting the TSP and are organized by technical memoranda produced as part of the 
TSP process. They are: 
 Appendix A: Plan Assessment details the policy framework that guided development of the TSP and 
provides a list of planning documents reviewed and their relevance to the TSP.  
 Appendix B: Transportation Funding and Improvement Costs summarizes existing transportation 
funding sources and potential future funding sources that could be considered to fund projects in 
the TSP. This appendix includes planning‐level cost estimates for the TSP projects, with detailed unit 
cost breakdowns.  
 Appendix C: Transportation Deficiencies and Needs documents the current and future street 
conditions and identifies deficiencies in the transportation network. The section also describes the 
study area, a brief inventory of current land uses, a description of existing transportation facilities 
within the Urban Growth Boundary, a traffic operations and safety analysis, and a parking study. 
Existing and future conditions are compared to the appropriate mobility and operations standards. 
 Appendix D: Transportation Alternatives documents the development and selection of TSP project 
and program alternatives by mode. 
 Appendix E: Street Standards documents the street standards for streets and multi‐use paths in 
Toledo.  
 Appendix F: Code Amendments recommends changes to the Toledo Municipal Code that will help 
the City implement the TSP. 
 Appendix G: Public Involvement Process details the public involvement activities that occurred 
throughout the development of the TSP. It provides details on public outreach through the project 
website, stakeholder interviews, community open houses, PAC meetings, and briefings. 
 TOLEDO TSP  2‐1 
2. Transportation System Goals and Objectives 
The Project Team, with input from the Project Advisory Committee, interested residents and stakeholders 
developed the following goals and objectives based upon a review of the unadopted 1995 City of Toledo 
Transportation System Plan and added applicable goals from the City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan. These 
goals and objectives address key transportation issues identified by the community and requirements of the 
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). These goals and policies were used during the TSP planning process to 
evaluate transportation alternatives, select preferred alternatives, and prioritize future transportation 
improvements 
Goals and policies were developed for each of the major transportation modes found in Toledo including the 
street network, rail, bicycle and pedestrians, and public transit. 
2.1 Goals 
1. Provide a safe and efficient, multi‐modal transportation system which provides linkages in a manner that 
enhances Toledo's neighborhoods, environment, economy, and social and scenic values. 
2. Minimize the adverse social, economic, energy, and environmental impact costs of constructing, 
maintaining, and using transportation facilities and services in cooperation with county, state, and other 
public agencies and the private sector.  
3. Encourage safe, efficient, convenient, and economic modes of travel that reduce reliance upon one form of 
transportation, minimize energy consumption and air quality impacts. 
4. Develop a safe and efficient street system that will handle the projected needs of the community and 
provide connections to the region. 
5. Provide safe, accessible, and convenient pedestrian and bicycle facilities while taking into account Toledo’s 
topography, current street use and widths, and current funding levels for major improvements. 
6. The City of Toledo will seek for all its citizens the maximum level of access to all social, work, and welfare 
resources. 
7. The City of Toledo will seek for all its citizens a customer‐based regionally coordinated public transit system 
that is efficient, effective, and founded on present and future needs. 
8. Minimize the negative impact of the rail system on other aspects of the transportation system, adjacent land 
uses, and quality of life in Toledo. 
9. Encourage land use patterns that maximize rail service or preserve the future opportunity to use rail 
transportation. 
10. Support current rail service in Toledo. 
Goals and Objectives 
2‐2  TOLEDO TSP 
2.2 Objectives 
2.2.1 Multimodal System Objectives 
1. Provide a multi‐modal transportation system which provides services for motorized vehicles, bicycles, 
pedestrians, electronic data transmission, mass transit, and air, rail and water transport (including shipping). 
2. Encourage options other than the personal automobile for transportation services through comprehensive 
land use planning policies that would allow reliance upon the automobile and vehicle trips to be reduced. 
a. Improve and support transit services. 
b. Improve and support ride‐sharing opportunities. 
c. Support programs to reduce the single‐occupancy trips for commuters to Newport and other Lincoln 
County and Benton County areas. 
d. Encourage the provision of sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and bicycle paths/lanes. 
3. Support the role of Toledo as a regional center for air, water, rail, and roadway transport connections. 
Within Lincoln County, Toledo has the only sites which provide rail, air, water, and roadway connections for 
moving goods. 
4. Continue to coordinate transportation planning and services with Lincoln County, Oregon Department of 
Transportation, private industry, and others determining transportation policies, programs, and projects. 
5. Maintain a Transportation System Plan which supports and implements these transportation goals and 
objectives, the Oregon Transportation Goal 12, and the requirements of the Oregon Transportation Planning 
Rule. 
2.2.2 Public Works Objectives 
6. Build and maintain roadways and other transportation facilities in a manner that is the most cost effective 
for the life of the road so as to reduce public maintenance costs. 
7. Provide transportation facilities designed to maintain safe conditions over time and in adverse weather 
conditions. 
8. Develop a coordinated approach to the operation, development, and maintenance of transportation 
facilities by linking the construction and maintenance of roadways to the construction and maintenance of 
other public services including wastewater, water, storm drainage, public utilities, and public safety vehicle 
access and to the increased service level demands of new or expanded land within the City and Urban 
Growth Boundary. 
9. Ensure continued, economically viable, and competitive access to electronic data transmission. Maintain the 
Toledo Public Utilities Commission to provide input to the City Council regarding franchises for the operation 
of public utilities within Toledo. 
2.2.3 Development/Land Use Objectives 
10. Assure that minimum, adopted national standards for public safety access are maintained for each property 
and that access lanes are provided as fire breaks and evacuation routes within the community. 
11. Require new development to extend/improve transportation facilities to complete transportation system 
linkages and to mitigate impacts of additional traffic from new development on the existing transportation 
system and neighborhoods. 
12. Maintain standards and procedures to ensure the provision of the desired transportation system as each 
property is developed/redeveloped for more intense uses by coordinating development permits with the 
extension or improvement of streets and other transportation facilities. 
Goals and Objectives 
TOLEDO TSP  2‐3 
13. Develop and maintain a Transportation System Plan and clear and objective local standards for 
transportation facilities construction and maintenance. Incorporate the use of the TSP and local standards 
into application reviews and permits for all new developments and construction projects. 
14. Minimize disturbances of the natural environment or use of natural resources when locating, constructing, 
maintaining, and using transportation facilities and services. Encourage land use patterns which minimize 
environmental impacts from transporting people, goods, and services.  
2.2.4 Street System Objectives 
15. Provide a system of roadways that maintain vehicle capacity and public safety as the community grows. 
16. Provide linkages within the community with a circulation system that is safe and convenient to all areas 
within the community and that links the community to Highway 20, rail, air, and water shipping facilities. 
17. Maintain the character of Toledo’s neighborhoods by encouraging local streets that ensure safe and efficient 
traffic flows but which are designed to encourage low speeds and minimize traffic impacts within the 
residential neighborhoods. 
18. Maintain efficient and safe truck routes to support the transportation of people, goods, and services 
between major employment centers and markets. 
19. Support and work with the Cascades West Area Commission on Transportation (CWACT) to identify funding 
for Western Junction projects that are in line with Toledo’s vision for the intersection. 
20. Work with partners to add wayfinding signs to direct visitors to downtown Toledo, the Arts District, and 
other Toledo attractions for all modes including vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. 
21. Continue to support transportation access including freight to industrial sites in the City ‐ including the Siletz 
Kiln site ‐ to support economic development. 
22. Maintain flexibility with street standards for all modes given the existing topographical and right‐of‐way 
constraints, provide options to minimum standards that provide safe, feasible streets. 
23. The designated Functional Classification of streets in the Toledo TSP will be used to prioritize street 
maintenance and guide the location and design of new streets. 
24. Protect the function of existing and planned roadways by application of appropriate setbacks, land use 
regulations, exactions, and voluntary dedication. 
25. All development proposals, plan amendments, or zone changes will conform with the Toledo Transportation 
System Plan. 
26. Consider impacts on existing or planned transportation facilities in all land use decisions. 
27. Coordinate with the Oregon Department of Transportation and Lincoln County Public Works to implement 
the improvements listed in the Toledo Transportation System Plan. 
28. Continue to update capital plans to identify, prioritize, and construct transportation projects giving careful 
consideration to a constrained budget environment, topographical challenges, and diminishing sources of 
outside funding. 
29. Land uses authorized under Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map amendments must be 
consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level of services of transportation facilities. 
2.2.5 Bicycle and Pedestrian System Objectives 
30. Develop a pedestrian and bikeway system which will provide routes to allow pedestrians and bicyclists to 
travel to and from residential areas to schools, parks, places of employment, and commercial areas. 
Goals and Objectives 
2‐4  TOLEDO TSP 
a. Action: If there are stakeholders in this area, then every effort should be made to involve these 
citizens in selecting prioritized routes to be considered for feasibility, safety, and cost versus use 
practicality. 
b. Action: The same stakeholders should also be encouraged to take an active role in determining 
sources of revenue for funding these improvements above the funds currently being dedicated for 
bike lanes. 
c. Action: Coordinate with Lincoln County and private land owners in the development of bikeways. 
31. All new arterial and collector streets and major improvements1 to arterial and collector streets shall include 
the pedestrian and bikeway facility specified in the street design standard where feasible. 
32. When traffic volume on existing collector streets (speeds <25mph) exceeds 3,000 ADT consider changing the 
bikeway type from shared roadway to bike lanes. 
33. Low curb crosswalks shall be used at all intersections, consistent with ADA guidelines, to facilitate use by all 
pedestrians. 
34. Where feasible, the City shall allow no physical obstruction of sidewalks such as utility poles, sign posts, or 
guy wires (consistent with ADA guidelines). 
35. Provide safe, convenient, and attractive walking environments through the City with a special emphasis in 
the commercial area. 
36. Visibility and unobstructed views shall be promoted for all areas of high pedestrian use. 
37. Bicycle traffic on sidewalks shall be prohibited. 
38. The City will work with interested landowners to explore local funding options for sidewalk improvements 
such as Local Improvement Districts. 
39. The City supports the development of a well‐developed sidewalk system with street trees to link the 
community to downtown, local parks, and the waterfront. 
40. Support efforts by local schools and emergency service organizations to implement a bicycle, pedestrian, 
and driver safety education program to encourage safe walking, cycling, and driving behavior. 
41. Coordinate with rail operators to address rough pavement at railroad crossings to create smooth crossings 
for bicyclists and pedestrians. (This objective is in conjunction with Rail Objectives 61 and 63 to address 
railroad crossings). 
42. Identify ways to improve wayfinding resources to guide pedestrians and bicyclists to explore Toledo and 
provides directions to local attractions in downtown and near the waterfront. 
43. Work with regional partners to determine the feasibility of building an intercity multi‐use trail.  
44. Encourage community partners to explore the possibility of instituting a volksmarch2 route in Toledo for 
programming events. 
2.2.6 Port and Water System Objectives 
45. Work with partners to determine the lifespan of Butler Bridge and explore the rebuilding or altering the 
bridge to accommodate taller barges and boats.  
                                                            
1 “Major improvement” refers to a construction project where the pavement or asphalt of the street is removed down to the base rock foundation and 
rebuilt. 
2 Volksmarching is a form of personal, non‐competitive, fitness walking that originated in Germany and has a popular following in the United States. 
Goals and Objectives 
TOLEDO TSP  2‐5 
46. Support efforts to develop a pier for barge access at the entrance to Depot Slough on Georgia‐Pacific 
property to take advantage of the dredged river channel. 
47. Explore the possibility of a recreational (non‐motorized) boat launch on the waterfront near downtown. 
48. Work with the Port of Toledo and other partners to help identify an appropriate dredge spoils site for Depot 
Slough. 
49. Continue to make the proposed intermodal hub at Tokyo Slough (linking water, rail, and freight truck 
transportation) a high priority. 
2.2.7 Transit Objectives 
50. The City will support and promote regional planning for public transportation services that use innovative 
technology to maximize efficiency of operation, planning, and administration of public transportation. 
51. The City encourages the use of car pools and park‐and‐ride lots in the area and other strategies to reduce 
the number of single occupant vehicle trips. 
52. The City shall support existing public transportation services by improving facilities including adding bus 
shelters at all stops and promoting public awareness of the services. 
53. The City will coordinate with other jurisdictions when park‐and‐ride facilities are needed. 
54. Maintain long‐standing partnership with Lincoln County Transit and the North by Northwest Connector to 
support new investments in transit service and infrastructure, and identify potential new funding sources to 
implement these improvements. 
55. Encourage the Toledo Chamber of Commerce or other organization to explore a citywide transit shuttle or 
circulator that could meet the demand for improved local service for Toledo residents and employees. 
56. Encourage local and regional partners to explore long‐term feasibility of water taxi or ferry service to 
Newport. 
2.2.8 Air Objective 
57. If the airport closes, work with partners (including emergency service providers) to identify an alternate Life 
Flight landing site in the City. 
2.2.9 Pipeline Objective 
58. Continue to support the Georgia‐Pacific plant’s effluent pipeline and work with partners to maintain 
applicable environmental permitting. 
2.2.10 Rail Objectives 
59. Retain existing railroad crossings in Toledo and strive for safety measures that offer the highest level of 
protection. 
60. Work with the railroad to minimize the visual and noise impacts of rail traffic. 
61. Continue to work with the railroad to facilitate pedestrian facility installation at all pedestrian crossings. 
62. Coordinate with regional organizations to emphasize the importance of the current rail system to the 
economy of Toledo and Lincoln County. 
63. Coordinate regularly with ODOT Rail, Lincoln County, Georgia Pacific, and PNWR to work together to address 
the conditions of the crossings. 
64. Develop evaluation criteria to prioritize public crossing investments and generate a list of improvements in 
order of greatest priority. 
Goals and Objectives 
2‐6  TOLEDO TSP 
65. Continue to pursue the proposed intermodal hub at Tokyo Slough with the Port of Toledo to add potential 
freight rail customers.  
66. Work with ODOT Rail and PNWR to develop policies to reduce idling train engines near Downtown 
businesses. 
67. Support efforts that will attract new businesses and support existing businesses and industries that will 
utilize freight and potential passenger rail service between Toledo and the I‐5 corridor.
 TOLEDO TSP  3‐1 
3. Modal Plans 
3.1 Street System Plan 
The street system in Toledo is constrained by the river, slough, and hills that make up the City of Toledo. Narrow 
streets and steep slopes restrict the amount and type of traffic on many streets within the City and reduce 
connectivity on local streets between neighborhoods. The Street System Modal Plan includes projects and 
objectives that work within these constraints, improving the street network to ensure that it meets Toledo’s 
current and anticipated future needs. Appendix C: Transportation Deficiencies and Needs includes full analyses 
of existing and future transportation deficiencies and needs. 
3.1.1 Street Existing and Future Conditions 
Streets 
Most streets in Toledo are limited by steep grades and narrow right‐of‐way; are narrow and winding, with little 
room for shoulders, sidewalks, or bicycle lanes; and some streets are gravel. Collector streets in Toledo are two 
lanes with lower speeds that connect the regional system to the local streets. Sections of the current collector 
and local system are not consistent with the intended use and function of the streets. 
Traffic Generators 
The main traffic generator in Toledo is the Georgia‐Pacific Toledo Pulp and Paper Operations facility (Georgia‐
Pacific) site, though other traffic generators include businesses and services along Main Street, schools and 
parks, the Library, Police Department, and Fire Station. These traffic generators impact the transportation 
system in particular ways:  
 The Georgia‐Pacific site attracts employee trips during shift change hours and freight traffic throughout 
the day 
 City services and businesses attract trips throughout the day, though the grocery store is likely to attract 
the highest traffic volumes in the afternoon as residents stop at the store on their way home or en route 
to other activities.  
Existing and Future Traffic Conditions 
Figure 3‐1 shows a map of the Toledo TSP traffic study intersections. The project team analyzed existing and 
anticipated future traffic levels to determine which intersections are likely to be congested in the 20 year 
planning horizon. The results from the analysis identified congestion issues at US 20 and Business Loop 20 (west) 
that do not meet ODOT mobility targets or proposed City mobility standards. Appendix C: Transportation 
Deficiencies and Needs includes an in‐depth analysis of congestion and vehicle backups. Table 4‐6 in Chapter 4 
includes City mobility standards. 
   
Modal Plans 
3‐2  TOLEDO TSP 
FIGURE 3‐1 
Traffic Analysis Study Intersections  
   
In 2035, without projects to improve conditions, the following intersections will not meet ODOT mobility targets 
or the proposed City mobility standards: 
 US 20 at OR 229 
 US 20 at Business Loop 20 (west) 
There are also a number of places where vehicles back up beyond lanes and start to block driveways and 
intersections. Currently the following streets experience these backups: 
 Business Loop 20 (west) at US 20 – northbound approach 
 Business Loop 20 at Business Loop 20 Spur – westbound approach 
 Business Loop 20 at A Street – east‐ and westbound approaches 
N
KEY 
1. US 20 at Arcadia Drive 
2. US 20 at OR 229 
3. US 20 at Western Loop 
4. US 20 (west) at Business Loop 20 
5. US 20 Spur at Business Loop 20 
6. Business Loop 20 at Bay Boulevard 
7. Business Loop 20 at A Street 
8. Business Loop 20 at Main Street 
9. Business Loop 20 at East Slope Road 
10. Business Loop 20 at Burgess Road 
11. Business Loop 20 at Sturdevant Road 
8 
7 6 
9 
10 
11 
1 
2 
5 4 3 
 Map Source: ODOT 
Modal Plans 
TOLEDO TSP  3‐3 
In 2035, these additional areas will have vehicle backups: 
 US 20 at OR 229 – east‐ and southbound approaches 
 Business Loop 20 (west) at US 20 – northbound approach 
 Business Loop 20 at Business Loop 20 Spur – westbound approach 
 Business Loop 20 at Bay Boulevard – westbound approach 
 Business Loop 20 at A Street – north‐, east‐ and westbound approaches 
Safety Conditions 
Safety conditions at the junction of Business Loop 20 and OR 229 with US 20 were examined in response to 
community concern about safety at this location, known locally as the “Western Junction.” Crash data from 
2006‐2010 show twelve crashes in the Western Junction study area. The project team identified the following 
commonalities between these crashes: 
 Turning and angle crashes, which may be due to the inability of drivers to find appropriate traffic gaps 
from the minor (stop controlled) streets onto busier streets. 
 Majority of crashes occur during the late afternoon/evening, when traffic volumes are generally highest.  
 Crashes associated with behavioral contributing factors, such as “too fast for conditions,” “distracted 
driving,” and “careless driving.”  
 Crashes where an older driver is at fault.  
The crash analysis based on available data does not match the magnitude of stakeholder and community safety 
concerns at the Western Junction. Stakeholder interviews and conversations with the community and PAC 
indicate that there are daily “near misses” at this intersection and it is important for the TSP to address safety at 
this location. An analysis of conditions at the Western Junction found that vehicles on Business Loop 20 and OR 
229 have difficulty finding gaps in traffic on US 20 during peak periods, and that sight distance is limited by the 
angle of the intersections and curvature of the highway. Appendix C: Transportation Deficiencies and Needs 
includes the complete safety analysis at the Western Junction. 
Freight Routes 
There are a number of freight routes serving industrial land within the City, on both arterial and collector 
streets. Stakeholders have indicated that trucks occasionally stray from the signed routes and then get stuck on 
steep or narrow streets not intended for freight traffic. 
Freight Truck Operations 
Toledo has a higher rate of truck traffic than other comparable cities due to the Georgia‐Pacific site and a 
number of other businesses that serve freight truck customers. Trucks take longer to stop and start at stop 
signs/traffic signals which can increase congestion; the additional room needed for the vehicle and slower travel 
speeds, also factor into congestion. Trucks also have an impact on street surfaces and require more room to turn 
at intersections. Business Loop 20 northeast of Sturdevant Road, Sturdevant Road south of Business Loop 20, 
and Bay Boulevard had the highest percentages of truck traffic within the City; between 3 and 40 percent based 
on the street segment and direction.  
3.1.2 Street System Projects 
The following section documents street projects, including the Western Junction options carried forward into 
the TSP. Figure 3‐2 shows the street network in Toledo with the TSP projects, including projects from the 
Waterfront Connectivity Plan. 
   
20
20
BUS
20
BUS
Y
A
Q
U
I
N
A
 
R
I
V
E
R
Depot Slough
O
lalla Slough
A
rcadia
D
rive
Skyline Dr
ive
W
ay
Linco
ln
Burgess
Road
A
St
re
et
Ba
y
Bo
ul
ev
ar
d
Butler 
East
Sl
o
pe
R
o
ad
R
o
ad
St
ur
de
va
nt
R
o
ad
T O L E D O
Bridge 
R4: Realign Burgess Road 
to a 90 Degree 
Intersection at
Business Loop 20
R7: Modify Butler 
Bridge Road and 
NW 1st Street 
Intersection
R3: Add an
Eastbound Right Turn 
Lane at A Street
R6: Improve A Street 
Railroad Crossing
R5: Realign 
Sturdevant Road for 
Siletz Freight Access
R2: Western Junction 
Alternatives
(Insets A & B)
(a) Two Signal 
(b) Modified One Signal
20
Western Junction
Modified One Signal OptionR2a
Note: Projects R1 and R8 
are city-wide.
20
Western Junction 
Two Signal Option
FIGURE 3-2 
Street Projects
City of Toledo TSP
LEGEND
Approximate Scale in Feet
0 2000North
\\ROSA\PROJ\ODOT\437682TOLEDO\7 TOLEDO TSP ADOPTION\TSP DOCUMENT\FIGURES\NATIVE FILES\TOLEDO_PROPOSED_ROADWAY.AI RFARHOODI 7/21/13
Intersection 
Project
Corridor 
Project
New Traffic Signal
R2b
Modal Plans 
TOLEDO TSP  3‐5 
R1: Freight Route Signage 
This TSP does not include any modifications to the City’s existing freight route. The City recognizes the 
importance of freight to the community and economic development within the City.  
 Freight Route Signage: Add signs to reduce the amount of trucks on inappropriate or undesignated 
routes to help direct freight truck traffic to designated routes. This includes additional signs along US 20 
towards Business Loop 20 guiding trucks to the Truck Route and larger signs at the Business Loop 20 and 
Sturdevant Road intersection to directing truck drivers to turn. This includes adding “No Trucks” signs on 
streets frequently mistaken by truck drivers, such as Arcadia Drive and in downtown Toledo.  
Figure 3‐3 shows the freight truck route in Toledo. 
   
UNK \\ROSA\PROJ\ODOT\437682TOLEDO\GIS\MAPFILES\ZONING_PORTRAIT.MXD TLINGLEY 10/7/2013 1:48:07 PM
ÄÆ229
£¤20B
£¤20
N M
AIN
 ST
NE 1ST ST
NW
 A S
T
NE 2ND ST
NE EAST SLOPE RD
NE SKYLINE DR
NE WAG ON RD
SO U TH BAY RD
SE STURDEVANT RD
SE BUTLER BRIDGE RD
NE STURDEVANT RD
YAQUINA BAY RD
Benton
Lane
Lincoln
Polk
Tillamook Yamhill
FIGURE 3-3Truck RoutesToledo TSPToledo, Oregon
VICINITY MAP
NE ARCADIA DR
LEGENDTruck Route
Toledo UGB
´0 1,000 2,000Feet
Modal Plans 
TOLEDO TSP  3‐7 
R2a and R2b: Western Junction Signalization 
The Western Junction refers to the intersection of Oregon Highway (OR) 229 and Business Loop 20 with US 
Highway (US) 20 within the northwest portion of the Toledo Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Stakeholders and 
the existing conditions analysis identified congestion issues, queuing problems, and safety concerns at the group 
of intersections at the Western Junction. Appendix C: Transportation Deficiencies and Needs includes an in‐
depth analysis of operations and safety at the Western Junction intersections in their current configuration, as 
well as alternative improvements considered for the Western Junction during development of this TSP. 
US 20, US 20 Spur, and OR 229 are owned and operated by ODOT, while Business Loop 20 is owned by the City. 
This TSP reflects the City’s preferred measures to improve the Western Junction, but further design and analysis 
will be needed and approval by ODOT will be required to move any project into construction. The City will 
remain an active participant in developing alternatives to improve congestion and safety at the Western 
Junction.  
Two options for signals at the Western Junction are included for future consideration: 
 R2a: One Traffic Signal Option (at OR 229/US 20/US 20 Spur) 
 R2b: Two Traffic Signal Option (at OR 229/US 20 Spur and Business Loop 20/US 20) 
Signals and the associated intersection changes would address the existing and future congestion and vehicle 
backup issues identified in the traffic analysis and would simplify the intersections to reduce driver confusion. 
These two options were modified from a previous one signal option that realigned OR 229 and Business Loop 20 
to one point between the existing OR 229 and Business Loop 20 intersections with US 20. The project team 
refined signalization options for the Western Junction based on PAC recommendations and community feedback 
to avoid potential business impacts  
Both options for the Western Junction would use existing street connections to minimize access and business 
impacts and both options require widening US 20 between Arcadia and Western Junction to create a consistent 
cross‐section, as two lanes in each direction are needed at the signals to accommodate expected future traffic 
volumes. Any new traffic signals will need to meet signal warrant criteria before being implemented. ODOT will 
conduct additional traffic signal warrant analysis when refining these options for design and construction.  
 R2a: The one traffic signal option would add a signal at the existing US 20/OR 229/US 20 Spur 
intersection. The eastbound slip ramp from US 20 to Business Loop 20 would remain, but is modified for 
one‐way traffic while preserving access to the Dairy Queen and trucking business on the south side of 
Business Loop 20. Vehicles making the westbound left turn from Business Loop 20 to US 20 would use 
the signal. This option modifies OR 229 to reduce the angle where it meets US 20. Figure 3‐4 shows the 
one traffic signal option at Western Junction.  
   
Modal Plans 
3‐8  TOLEDO TSP 
FIGURE 3‐4  
Project R2a: One Traffic Signal Option 
 
 R2b: The two traffic signal option would install two coordinated signals on US 20, the first at the OR 
229/US 20 Spur intersection and the second at the Business Loop 20/US 20 intersection; keeping the 
connections in the same configuration as today. Figure 3‐5 shows the two signal option, which was 
developed to provide more flexibility in case design of Project R2a negatively affects business access in 
the vicinity of the Western Junction, as it maintains two‐way traffic on the existing Business Loop 20 
connection from US 20.  
FIGURE 3‐5  
Project R2b: Two Traffic Signal Option 
 
Modal Plans 
TOLEDO TSP  3‐9 
R3: Business Loop 20 at A Street – Turn Pocket 
The eastbound Business Loop 20 leg at A Street will be congested for eastbound lefts and through traffic. The 
westbound left turn lane will also be congested. The northbound leg will also be mildly congested, though the 
project team was concerned that backups will extend beyond the railroad crossing south of Business Loop 20.  
Due to the slopes nearby at this intersection, improvement options are limited. This project lengthens the 
eastbound left turn lane to 200 feet and adds a 150‐foot eastbound right turn lane. Lengthening the left turn 
lane will provide space for vehicles to line up without blocking the through movement on Business Loop 20. The 
right turn lane will help vehicles move through the intersection more quickly and allow for some green time to 
be allocated to other legs. Figure 3‐6 shows the location of the new turn lane. 
FIGURE 3‐6  
Project R3: A Street Turn Pocket 
 
   
N
Modal Plans 
3‐10  TOLEDO TSP 
R4: Burgess Road Realignment 
Burgess Road meets Business Loop 20 at a steep angle, potentially creating a safety issue for vehicles making 
turns onto Business Loop 20. Realigning Burgess to meet Business Loop 20 at a 90 degree angle would reduce 
the angle and address potential safety issues. Realigning Burgess could impact nearby properties at the 
intersection and would require retaining walls or fill because of the hillside and grade of the existing street. This 
project would have only minor impacts to Business Loop 20. This project modifies Burgess Road as shown in 
Figure 3‐7. 
FIGURE 3‐7  
Project R4: Burgess Road Realignment 
 
R5: Sturdevant Road Realignment 
This project reduces the curves on Sturdevant Road south of SE 10th Street to the Siletz Kiln Site along the river. 
Realigning the street would allow larger trucks to access the kiln site to move materials and finished products 
into and out of the site. Currently, Sturdevant Road is narrow and curving; this project would reduce the curves 
and add shoulders to accommodate freight truck traffic. Figure 3‐8 shows the extent of the project along 
Sturdevant Road south of SE 10th Street. 
Reducing curves on Sturdevant Road could have right‐of‐way impacts to the adjacent neighborhoods. During the 
design phase of this project, those impacts should be considered, and the project should be designed to mitigate 
impacts to the neighborhood and maintain or improve the quality of life in the neighborhoods. 
   
N 
Realign Burgess 
Road at Business 
Modal Plans 
TOLEDO TSP  3‐11 
FIGURE 3‐8  
Project R5: Sturdevant Road Realignment 
 
R6: A Street Railroad Crossing Improvements 
The Toledo Waterfront Connectivity Plan includes a project to improve the railroad crossing pavement surface 
for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians by installing concrete panels on A Street south of Business Loop 20. 
Figure 3‐9 shows the location of the railroad crossing improvements. 
FIGURE 3‐9  
Project R6: A Street Railroad Crossing Improvements 
 
R7: Butler Bridge Road and NW 1st Street Changes 
The Toledo Waterfront Connectivity Plan includes a project to improve visibility, increase safety for pedestrians 
and motorists, and reduce conflict points at this intersection. The project converts NW 1st Street from a two‐way 
to a one‐way street westbound between Main Street and Butler Bridge Road. This project removes vehicle 
conflicts and emphasizes the dominant flow of traffic (turning east on NW 1st from A Street and then south on 
Butler Bridge Road, then north on Butler Bridge Road onto NW 1st and north onto A Street) and addresses 
visibility issues for motorists stopped eastbound. Currently rail car storage reduces sight distance at the 
N 
N
Modal Plans 
3‐12  TOLEDO TSP 
intersection. Eastbound drivers would be able to access Main Street one block south at NW Graham Street. The 
project also includes curb extensions at the intersection, a 10‐foot wide ladder style crosswalk across NW 1st 
Street, and directs pedestrians to and improved crosswalk on the north side of the intersection, deterring them 
from crossing on the south side. The eastbound stop sign on NW 1st Street at the railroad tracks would be 
removed, as all traffic would continue south on Butler Bridge Road. Figure 3‐10 shows the modifications from 
the Waterfront Connectivity Plan. This project also includes pedestrian elements, described in the sections 
below. 
FIGURE 3‐10 
Project R7: Butler Bridge Road and NW 1st Street Changes 
 
From the Toledo Waterfront Connectivity Plan 2009. Prepared by Parametrix. 
Modal Plans 
TOLEDO TSP  3‐13 
R8: Wayfinding Resources 
Downtown Toledo is off of US 20 and visitors are not always certain where the City center or other attractions 
are located. Wayfinding resources will help visitors traveling by all modes (vehicles, bicycles, and on foot) from 
Toledo’s outer areas into downtown and to other City attractions.  
 Wayfinding signs: Install wayfinding signs from the edges of the City into downtown and to other areas 
of interest for all modes including vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. 
   
Modal Plans 
3‐14  TOLEDO TSP 
3.1.3 Street System Project Cost Estimates and Prioritization 
Table 3‐1 provides cost estimates and priorities for each of the proposed street and freight projects. Several 
projects are from the Waterfront Connectivity Plan adopted in 2009 and their cost estimates are indexed for 
inflation using ODOT cost escalation rates. 
TABLE 3‐1 
Street System Project Cost Estimates and Prioritization 
Project 
No.  Project Description 
Cost 
Estimate 
(in 2012 $) 
Priority  Funding Source1 
Lead 
Agency/ 
Project 
Partners 
R1  Freight Route Signage Improvements – 
Citywide 
$12,000  Short‐term  Street Fund, STIP, 
LID 
City 
R2a  Western Junction ‐ One Traffic Signal 
Option 
$7,144,000 
Long‐term  STIP, Street Fund, OTIB, Bonds 
ODOT, City, 
Lincoln 
County R2b  Western Junction – Two Traffic Signals 
Option 
$8,098,000 
R3  Business Loop 20 ‐ 
Eastbound Right Turn Pocket at A Street 
$449,000  Medium‐term  Street Fund, LID, 
STIP 
City 
R4  Burgess Road Realignment to 90‐Degree 
Intersection at Business Loop 20 
$298,000  Medium‐term  Street Fund, LID, 
STIP 
City 
R5  Sturdevant Road – Road Realignment for 
Siletz Site Freight Access 
$595,000  Long‐term  Street Fund, STIP 
LID, SDC, Bonds 
County, City, 
Siletz Tribe 
R6  A Street Railroad Crossing2  $176,000  Short‐term  Street Fund, 
Bike/Ped Fund, 
LID, PNWR 
City, PNWR, 
ODOT Rail 
R7  Butler Bridge Road and NW 1st Street 
Intersection changes 2 3 
$51,000  Short‐term  Street Fund, LID  City 
R8  Wayfinding signs  $10,000  Short‐term  Street Fund, 
Bike/Ped Fund, 
LID 
City 
Notes:  
1 STIP includes all funded categories. 
2 This project is in the adopted Toledo Waterfront Connectivity Plan (2009) and is included in the TSP. The project team used the 2009 
cost estimates and grew the estimate to 2012 dollars using an ODOT approved annual cost escalation of 4.04 percent.  
3 This project from the Waterfront Connectivity Plan combines pedestrian, street, and rail improvements into one project. The plan did 
not break down the cost of each improvement. 
Funding sources in italics are sources not currently used by the City  
LID – Local Improvement District 
STIP – Oregon Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 
SDC –System Development Charge 
OTIB – Oregon Transportation Infrastructure Bank 
PNWR – Portland and Western Railroad 
Modal Plans 
TOLEDO TSP  3‐15 
3.2 Transit Plan 
3.2.1 Existing Transit 
The City of Toledo has two transit routes, one operated by Lincoln County Transit and the Coast to Valley 
Express, managed by the Northwest Oregon Transit Alliance, a consortium of transit agencies that includes 
Lincoln County Transit. 
Lincoln County Transit 
Lincoln County Transit’s East County Route connects to Siletz and Newport through Toledo. The East County 
Route operates six days a week with five stops westbound and four stops eastbound in Toledo. The service 
operates six round trips per day. 
The stops are located at the following locations in Toledo, from west to east: 
A. Food Fair (Business Loop 20 east of NW Forestry Road) 
B. NE 1st and Main Street 
C. SE 2nd and Main Street (Westbound only) 
D. JC Thriftway (Business Loop 20 and NE 2nd Street) 
E. Olalla Store (Sturdevant Road and SE 10th Street) 
In addition, Lincoln County Transit accommodates “flag stops” where riders are able to flag down the driver and 
board the bus along the route at safe locations. Riders do not have to be at a stop to be picked up or dropped 
off by a Lincoln County Transit vehicle. The City has recently improved Toledo bus stops; the Park and Ride has a 
gazebo, while all of the East County Route stops have bus shelters and benches with the exception of the Food 
Fair stop on Business Loop 20.  
Riders most commonly request later service hours in the evening and more frequent service during the day for 
riders who work nonstandard hours. Currently, buses arrive an hour and 15 minutes to three hours apart 
depending on the time of day, with the last bus departing Toledo at 7:30 PM westbound and 8:48 PM 
eastbound. The East County Route does not operate on Sundays. 
Coast to Valley Express 
The regional Coast to Valley Express serves the City, connecting Albany, Corvallis, and Newport. The Express runs 
seven days a week with one stop at the Toledo Park and Ride and operates four round trips per day. There are 
two bus runs in both the morning and evening peak period; the last bus leaves at 5:40 PM heading eastbound 
and 7:03 PM heading westbound. Figure 3‐11 shows the transit routes within the City. 
3.2.2 Transit Projects 
There is one transit project in the Toledo TSP. This project would add a bus shelter at the Food Fair Stop, the 
only stop in Toledo that currently does not have a shelter. 
Modal Plans 
3‐16  TOLEDO TSP 
 
TABLE 3‐2 
Transit Project Cost Estimates and Prioritization 
Project 
No.  Project Description 
Cost 
Estimate 
(in 2012 $) 
Priority  Funding Source 
Lead 
Agency/ 
Project 
Partners 
T1  Add a bus shelter at the Food Fair Stop  $5,000  Medium‐term  FTA 5310  City, Lincoln 
County 
Transit 
 
   
 
Example of a bus shelter 
Modal Plans 
TOLEDO TSP  3‐17 
FIGURE 3‐11  
Toledo Transit Routes 
 
Modal Plans 
3‐18  TOLEDO TSP 
3.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 
The City of Toledo has an existing pedestrian and bicycle network that serves local residents and employees, 
downtown visitors, and long‐distance bicyclists. This section describes the potential objectives and projects for 
the Toledo TSP to address current deficiencies and needs. The project team developed these alternatives with 
input from stakeholders and community members, as well as including several projects from the Waterfront 
Connectivity Plan. Figure 3‐12 shows the map of the bicycle, pedestrian, and multi‐use path network. 
3.3.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Existing Conditions 
There are two signed bike routes in Toledo and only one street with striped bike lanes. Steep and narrow streets 
make bicycling and walking difficult, though there are sidewalks in the downtown core and along the central 
portions of Business Loop 20. Stakeholders indicated that there are gaps in the sidewalks network and a need 
for a multi‐use path along Sturdevant Road to serve both Toledo Elementary and Junior/Senior High Schools. In 
addition to these gaps, stakeholders identified that railroad crossings are difficult for bicyclists and pedestrians, 
especially the crossing on NW 1st Street and Butler Bridge Road. 
3.3.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian System Needs 
Overall, Toledo has a number of challenges to providing comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle connections due 
to the City’s geography. Many streets are narrow and have sharp curves and steep grades because of natural 
features such as the river, sloughs, and slopes. The sidewalk network in Toledo is most complete in downtown 
and becomes piecemeal further away from Main Street. Outside of downtown, many arterials and collectors 
lack sidewalks, such as Business Loop 20 outside of the core commercial areas (east of JC Thriftway and west of 
NW 6th Street). Some streets have sidewalks on one side of the street. There are few officially striped pedestrian 
crossings along most streets and the railroad tracks.  
Improved pedestrian access to the Toledo Elementary and Junior/Senior High Schools is a community priority. 
The lack of a path or sidewalk along Sturdevant Road is a major concern due to the 45 MPH speed limit and high 
truck traffic. There are also limited east‐west connections between downtown and Sturdevant Road; some 
students walk along the shoulder of Business Loop 20 from the central neighborhoods to school. In addition, 
community members are concerned with the lack of pedestrian facilities near the Flowerree Community Center 
at SE 3rd and Douglas streets. Another priority for local residents is connecting the existing path along East Slope 
Road to Butler Bridge Road. 
Two bike routes exist in Toledo; Bay Boulevard and East Slope Road between 10th Street and Business Loop 20. 
However, the routes do not provide a continuous route through the City. Bay Boulevard is popular among 
bicycle clubs for the route to and from Newport, though the lack of bicycle lanes and steep grades create safety 
concerns for riders. There are also no wayfinding signs and the steep local streets can also discourage cycling in 
Toledo. 
3.3.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects 
The following projects address the following bicycle and pedestrian deficiencies in the City: sidewalk gaps, 
crosswalks, pedestrian wayfinding signs, trail network, and bicycle wayfinding signs. 
Address Sidewalk Gaps 
There are several gaps in the sidewalk network in Toledo that were identified as major community needs. Filling 
these sidewalks gaps would improve the pedestrian network and enhance access to important destinations.  
 BP1: Burgess Road Sidewalk between Arcadia Drive and Business Loop 20. There is currently a short 
sidewalk on the west side of the street in front of the fire station, but the segment does not connect to 
Arcadia Drive or Business Loop 20. This sidewalk would connect to marked pedestrian crossings on both 
Arcadia Drive and Business Loop 20. 
Modal Plans 
TOLEDO TSP  3‐19 
 BP2: Business Loop 20 Sidewalk from East Slope Road to Sturdevant Road. Currently there is a sidewalk 
on the east side of the street that ends at East Slope Road. Students walk along Business Loop 20 to 
Sturdevant Road to access Toledo Elementary and Junior/Senior High Schools. Runners, walkers, and the 
high school cross country team also use this route. 
 BP3: Douglas Street/SE 3rd Street Sidewalk around Flowerree Community Center. The Community 
Center is surrounded by Beech, Douglas, SE 3rd, and SE 4th Streets in southeast Toledo. This block does 
not have sidewalks except along SE 3rd Street. However, SE 3rd and Douglas Streets both have sidewalks 
on the opposite side of the street.  
 BP4: East Slope Road Sidewalk. Currently, the East Slope Road trail ends at East Slope Park. This project 
would extend a sidewalk on one side of the street to Butler Bridge Road at the Georgia‐Pacific site and 
would improve connections between east Toledo and the downtown waterfront. The current path starts 
at the intersection of SE 10th Street and East Slope Road and runs along the east side of East Slope Road. 
However, the trail does not connect to Butler Bridge Road, ending at the sharp curve near the railroad.  
In January 2013, the Public Works Department received approval from the Toledo City Council to apply 
for a state grant to construct a sidewalk to Butler Bridge Road. This sidewalk could eventually connect to 
the planned Sturdevant Road Trail to create a continuous link on the east side of Toledo for commuting 
and recreational purposes. 
 BP5: A Street Sidewalk between Business Loop 20 and NW 1st Street. The existing sidewalk on the west 
side of the street is narrow and in poor condition. This project would replace and repair existing 
sidewalk with an 8‐foot concrete sidewalk to accommodate higher traffic near Memorial Park. This 
project is from the Toledo Waterfront Connectivity Plan. 
 BP6: Bay Boulevard Sidewalk between Depot Slough Bridge and Business Loop 20. Currently Bay 
Boulevard lacks pedestrian facilities along this section. This project would construct a new 8‐foot 
sidewalk on the east side of Bay Boulevard to provide greater pedestrian access. This project does not 
include a new at‐grade railroad crossing that would connect the sidewalk with a new bicycle/pedestrian 
bridge at Depot Slough and to the Waterfront Path. This project is from the Waterfront Connectivity 
Plan. 
   
* *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Toledo 
Junior/Senior 
High School
Toledo 
Elementary 
School
JC 
Thriftway
Flowerree 
Community 
Center
Toledo Public 
Library
Downtown/ 
Main Street
Olalla 
Store
Georgia-Pacific 
Plant
Port of Toledo/ 
Waterfront Park
Toledo Park 
and Ride
*
Note: For projects in Central Toledo, refer 
to project descriptions located in the 
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan of the TSP.
20
20
BUS
20
BUS
Depot Slough
O
lalla Slough
Y A Q U I N A
R I V E R
A
rcadia
D
rive
Skyline Dr
ive
W
ay
Linco
ln
Burgess
Road
A
St
re
et
B
ay
Bo
ul
ev
ar
d
Butler 
East
Sl
o
p
e
R
o
ad
R
o
ad
St
u
rd
ev
an
t
R
o
ad
T O L E D O
Bridge 
* Pedestrian Attractors
Park
FIGURE 3-12
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Projects
City of Toledo TSP
LEGEND
Multi-Use
Path
Sidewalk
Approximate Scale in Feet
0 2000
North
\\ROSA\PROJ\ODOT\437682TOLEDO\7 TOLEDO TSP ADOPTION\TSP DOCUMENT\FIGURES\NATIVE FILES\TOLEDO_PROPOSED_BIKEPED_V2.AI RFARHOODI 7/9/2013
Road or Rail 
Crossing
BP12: Multi-use 
path along 
Sturdevant Road 
with connection to 
downtown
BP2: Extend 
sidewalk along 
Business Loop 20 to 
Sturdevant Road
BP13: Multi-use 
path near Business 
Loop 20 to US 20  
BP11, BP16: Trail 
connection to downtown 
along railroad line, 
including Depot Slough 
crossing
BP1: Complete
sidewalk on Burgess Road
between Arcadia Drive
and Business Loop 20
BP4: Complete sidewalk on 
East Slope Road to connect 
Butler Bridge Road with 
existing multi-use path
BP6: Bay Blvd 
Sidewalk - Depot 
Slough to
Business Loop 20
BP7: Sturdevant Road 
high visibility crosswalks 
at Toledo Junior/Senior 
High School
BP7: Sturdevant Road 
high visibility crosswalks 
at Toledo Elementary 
School
 S
tr
ee
t
M
ai
n
N
W
1st Ave
Graham St
A
ld
er
St
re
et
B
ee
ch
St
re
et
SE 2nd St
A
  
  
  
B
u
tle
r 
R
d
B
rid
ge
 
NE 6th
D
o
u
gl
as
St
C
ed
ar
SE 3rd
SE
1st
NE 2nd
NE 3rd
5th St
Industrial
Way
Central Toledo
St
St
St
S
t 
  
  
 
EastDepot Slough
20
BUS
BP3
BP8
see inset below
BP
15
BP
14
BP9
BP
10
BP5
0 800
Feet
Modal Plans 
TOLEDO TSP  3‐21 
Example of a paved multi‐use path 
Crosswalks  
Targeted crosswalk improvements help increase pedestrian visibility and safety. The 
following projects would include advisory and warning signage, crosswalk markings, 
and in some cases, flashing lights.  
 BP7: School Pedestrian Crossings. Add high visibility crosswalks at the 
entrance to Toledo Elementary and Junior/Senior High Schools. These 
crossings would be built together with the proposed multi‐use path or 
boardwalk trail along Sturdevant Road (described in the Trail Network 
section below). 
 BP8: Vehicle signs and markings. Discourage vehicles from using the 
pedestrian crossing at 2nd Street and Butler Bridge. The new railroad 
pedestrian crossing can be confusing for drivers; adding signage and 
pavement markings to discourage vehicles from using the pedestrian‐only 
railroad crossing would reduce confusion and maintain the crossing for 
pedestrians only. 
 BP9: NW 1st Street Crosswalk. Install a 10‐foot wide, mid‐block crosswalk on 
NW 1st Street between A Street and Butler Bridge Road. This project was included in the Toledo 
Waterfront Connectivity Plan and includes a new 8‐foot wide median with vegetation on NW 1st Street, a 
rebuilt 6‐foot sidewalk on the north side of NW 1st Street, and new concrete rail panels at the railroad 
crossing. The project includes adding crosswalk and railroad crossing warning signs along NW 1st Street. 
The project would also close the south crosswalk at NW 1st Street and Butler Bridge Road to reduce 
traffic conflicts and safety issues. The new median and crosswalk would create a more visible crossing 
and would reduce overall crossing distance. 
 BP10: Fencing to direct pedestrian traffic. This project would install a 4‐foot cyclone fence on the west 
side of Butler Bridge Road from NW 1st Street to SW 2nd Street. This project, from the Toledo 
Waterfront Connectivity Plan would channel pedestrian traffic to designated railroad crossings to 
prevent unauthorized track crossing. 
3.3.4 Trail Network 
The following is an overview of projects and objectives for a multi‐
use path system in Toledo. These trail projects will accommodate 
both bicyclists and pedestrians; bicycle‐specific projects and 
objectives are included in the next section. Trails are shared‐use 
paths designed for both transportation and recreation purposes and 
are typically between 8 to 14 feet wide.  
 BP11: Construct a trail along Bay Boulevard/Yaquina Bay 
Road. In 2012, Lincoln County submitted a grant application 
to the Oregon Department of Transportation for a new 
multi‐use trail that bypasses the steep and narrow section 
of Bay Boulevard in Toledo. The proposed trail uses the 
nearby former rail bed and would travel through the Port of 
Toledo’s boatyard facility. The project included a new trail along Altree Lane with improvements to a 
nearby railroad crossing before rejoining with Bay Boulevard. The Port of Toledo does not support the 
current trail route, due to safety concerns with bicyclists and pedestrians passing through the active 
boatyard. The narrow property and high traffic area for trucks and heavy machinery create safety 
concerns for trail users and potential impacts to boatyard operations. The City will need to work with 
Lincoln County and Port of Toledo to consider alternatives to the proposed trail that does not impact 
boatyard operations and addresses the safety concerns with the existing proposed route.  
 
Example of a high visibility 
pedestrian crossing 
(FHWA) 
Modal Plans 
3‐22  TOLEDO TSP 
 
Example of a boardwalk 
 BP12: Construct a multi‐use trail along Sturdevant Road. 
A sidewalk or trail would address the lack of pedestrian 
connections between downtown and the Toledo 
Elementary and Junior/High Schools. The freight route 
designation and the location of the two schools attract a 
number of different street users such as freight trucks, 
bicyclists, and pedestrians, many of whom are school 
children. In addition, there is little room next to the street 
to build sidewalks. 
This project includes a multi‐use path and/or boardwalk 
along the west side of Sturdevant Road. This path may be 
constructed as a boardwalk near Olalla Slough in areas 
where there is not enough room to build next to the 
street. The trail would include multiple connections to Sturdevant Road including marked crosswalks 
with signage and lights (the school pedestrian crossing project) at the local schools. An east‐west 
connection across Olalla Slough to NE 2nd Street would be included to allow access between Sturdevant 
Road and downtown. The trail could be designed as a nature walk with interpretive signs and displays to 
educate users about the wildlife and habitat of the Olalla Slough, serving both a transportation and 
education purpose. 
Boardwalks require more funding for maintenance and upkeep than regular asphalt or concrete paths. 
The wood surface and support beams need replacing more often, and the surface will need to be 
cleaned to ensure that it does not get too slippery. The City could work with a volunteer group to help 
with regular maintenance and upkeep to help reduce costs. 
 BP13: Business Loop 20 Trail. Create a continuous bicycle and pedestrian connection along Business 
Loop 20 from US 20 to NW 6th Street. Business Loop 20 does not have room to construct a sidewalk for 
the entire length between NW 6th Street and US 20, this project includes constructing a sidewalk where 
possible and a separate multi‐use trail or boardwalk facility on the west side of the street where there is 
no room for a sidewalk. The trail would be on boardwalk where there are wetlands concerns or near 
Depot Slough and would provide a dedicated facility for bicycles and pedestrians. See Project BP12 for 
information about maintenance and upkeep on boardwalks. 
 BP14: Waterfront Path. The Waterfront Path is a 10‐ to 12‐foot shared‐use asphalt trail that would 
provide a recreational connection from the Butler Bridge Road parking lot to NW 1st Street and then 
from NW 1st Street to the railroad tracks next to Bay Boulevard. The path would provide continuous 
pedestrian and bicycle connections, improve access to the waterfront and downtown from surrounding 
neighborhoods, and provide connections to and from regional bicycle touring routes. The section of the 
path from the railroad/Bay Boulevard east to a point just west of NW 1st Street near of the waterfront 
pavilion is complete. The section between NW 1st Street and the pavilion still needs to be finished. There 
are challenges to connecting to Bay Boulevard, including how to cross the railroad tracks – an at‐grade 
railroad crossing would conflict with railroad operations, and the Waterfront Connectivity Plan 
recommends a bridge or exploring an at‐grade crossing  
 BP15: NW 1st Street and Waterfront Path Crossing. This project is included in the Waterfront 
Connectivity Plan and would cross NW 1st Street at the planned Waterfront Path. The project includes a 
10‐foot wide crosswalk across NW 1st Street, removable bollards at the path/boardwalk intersection at 
NW 1st Street, and a 14‐foot wide boardwalk west of NW 1st Street near the electrical substation with 
metal decking, asphalt surfacing, and railings. The project also includes a 6‐foot wide sidewalk on the 
south/east side of NW 1st Street from the crosswalk to the Port of Toledo office. In addition, the project 
would install speed humps and warning signage in advance of the crosswalk on NW 1st Street. 
Modal Plans 
TOLEDO TSP  3‐23 
 BP16: Depot Slough Crossing. Currently, there are no dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities across 
Depot Slough on Bay Boulevard, which is a signed bicycle route. The Toledo Waterfront Connectivity Plan 
includes a project to construct a new bicycle/pedestrian bridge immediately to the east of the railroad 
bridge. The timber‐framed crossing would be 14 feet wide and would connect with the future 
Waterfront Path. The project also includes a new 6‐foot concrete sidewalk on the east side of Bay 
Boulevard south from Depot Slough and an 8‐foot asphalt shared use path south of the new 
bicycle/pedestrian crossing to Altree Lane and could also connect with the planned Bay Boulevard trail. 
The project includes a fence to separate the path from the railroad tracks, and a new pedestrian 
crossing with concrete panels and signage.  
3.3.5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Cost Estimates and Prioritization 
Table 3‐3 provides cost estimates and priorities for each of the proposed bicycle, pedestrian, and multi‐use path 
projects. Several projects are from the Waterfront Connectivity Plan adopted in 2009 and their cost estimates 
are indexed for inflation using ODOT cost escalation rates. 
TABLE 3‐3 
Bicycle and Pedestrian System Project Cost Estimates and Prioritization 
 
Project 
No.  Project Description 
Cost 
Estimate 
(in 2012 $) 
Priority  Funding Source1 
Lead 
Agency/ 
Project 
Partners 
BP1  Burgess Road – Fill sidewalk gaps  $172,000  Medium‐
term 
Street Fund, 
Bike/Ped Fund, LID 
City 
BP2  Business Loop 20 Sidewalk (South/East 
Side) – East Slope Road to Sturdevant 
Road 
$1,093,000  Medium‐
term 
Bike/Ped Fund, 
Bonds, LID 
City, School 
District 
BP3  Douglas Street and 3rd Street near the 
Community Center – fill sidewalk gaps 
$63,000  Medium‐
term 
Street Fund, 
Bike/Ped Fund, LID 
City 
BP4  East Slope Road sidewalk extension  $551,000  Medium‐
term 
Street Fund, 
Bike/Ped Fund, LID 
City 
BP5  A Street Sidewalk Rebuild – Business 
Loop 20 to NW 1st Street2 
$105,000  Short‐term  Street Fund, 
Bike/Ped Fund, LID 
City 
BP6  Bay Boulevard Sidewalk – Depot 
Slough to Business Loop 202 
$108,000  Medium‐ to 
long‐term 
Street Fund, 
Bike/Ped Fund, LID 
City 
BP7  Sturdevant Road High Visibility 
Crosswalks at Elementary and 
Junior/Senior High Schools 
$68,000  Short‐term  County, Bike/Ped 
Fund, LID  
City, County, 
School 
District 
BP8  Railroad Pedestrian Crossing 
Improvements to Discourage 
Automobile Use ‐ Butler Bridge Road 
at SE 2nd Street  
$11,000  Short‐term  Bike/Ped Fund, LID  City 
BP9  NW 1st Street Median, Midblock 
Crosswalk, and North Sidewalk/Grade 
Crossing Improvements2 3 
$558,000  Short‐term  Street Fund, 
Bike/Ped Fund, LID 
City 
BP10  Butler Bridge Road Railroad Fencing – 
NW 1st Street to SW 2nd Street2 
$27,000  Short‐term  Bike/Ped Fund, LID, 
PNWR 
City 
Modal Plans 
3‐24  TOLEDO TSP 
TABLE 3‐3 
Bicycle and Pedestrian System Project Cost Estimates and Prioritization 
 
Project 
No.  Project Description 
Cost 
Estimate 
(in 2012 $) 
Priority  Funding Source1 
Lead 
Agency/ 
Project 
Partners 
BP11  Trail along Bay Boulevard/Yaquina Bay 
Road 
$817,000  Long‐term  STIP, County, 
Bike/Ped Fund, 
Bonds, LID 
County, City 
BP12  Multi‐Use Trail – Sturdevant Road  $4,227,000  Long‐term  Bike/Ped Fund, 
Bonds, LID 
City, County, 
School 
District 
BP13  Business Loop 20 Multi‐use Trail 
(South/West Side) – US 20 to NW 6th 
Avenue 
$2,675,000  Long‐term  STIP, Bike/Ped Fund, 
Bonds, LID 
City 
BP14  Waterfront Path: East Section 
(between NW 1st Street and Butler 
Bridge Road)2 
$278,000  Short‐term  STIP, Bike/Ped Fund, 
Bonds, Port, LID 
City  
BP15  Waterfront Path: West Section 
between Bay Boulevard and NW 1st 
Street (Includes NW 1st Street 
Crossing and Boardwalk)2 
$872,000  Medium‐ to 
long‐term 
STIP, Bike/Ped Fund, 
Bonds, Port, LID 
City 
BP16  Bay Boulevard – Depot Slough 
Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing 
$1,660,000  Medium‐ to 
long‐term 
STIP, Bike/Ped Fund, 
Bonds, LID 
City 
Notes: 
1 STIP includes all funded categories. 
2 This project is in the adopted Toledo Waterfront Connectivity Plan (2009) and is included in the TSP. The project team used the 2009 
cost estimates and grew the estimate to 2012 dollars using an ODOT approved annual cost escalation of 4.04 percent.  
3 This project from the Waterfront Connectivity Plan combines pedestrian, street, and rail improvements into one project. The plan did 
not break down the cost of each improvement. 
Funding sources in italics are sources not currently used by the City  
LID – Local Improvement District 
STIP – Oregon Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 
 
Modal Plans 
TOLEDO TSP  3‐25 
3.4 Port and Water Transportation Plan 
The City of Toledo’s multimodal transportation system features water transportation facilities including a 
functional port. The Port of Toledo operates west of downtown and provides moorage, ship repair facilities, and 
industrial space to businesses. The Port currently has an 85‐ton travel lift and 200‐ton floating drydock on site at 
the Sturgeon Bend boatyard facility. There is also a boat launch near the Toledo Airport. No freight is unloaded 
or offloaded at the Port, although the Yaquina River is a navigable and dredged waterway. The Port has recently 
completed a transient dock and has just adopted its Boatyard Buildout Plan, which includes a number of projects 
described below.  
3.4.1 Port Projects 
Support efforts by the Port of Toledo to implement elements of the Port 2012 Strategic Business Plan including:  
 A new 300 ton travel lift  
 Construct a new mobile lift pier, replacing the current drydock pier  
 Construct a wash‐down pad  
 Relocate Utilities: move street, power poles, and connect to city sewer  
 Establish Tokyo Slough upland area for hard moorage  
 Construct a vessel sandblast and paint building, to allow year‐round work  
 A rail cargo transfer area adjacent to railroad  
These projects would be implemented in three phases: 
Phase 1 
 Replace piles and construct new pier for travel lift 
 Construct a wash‐down pad 
 Relocate utilities/site preparation 
 Purchase travel lift 
Phase 2 
 Upgrade site access street, realign utilities, and develop cargo transfer and vessel hard moorage areas 
Phase 3 
 Construct vessel work building 
 New boatyard office and restrooms 
Benefits of these upgrades include increased environmental stewardship through new efficient equipment and 
infrastructure improvements, the ability to lift and service larger boats, the ability to handle more than two large 
boats at once, and year‐round ability to sandblast and paint. Table 3‐4 includes the cost estimates and 
prioritization for Port projects. 
3.4.2 Port Project Cost Estimates and Prioritization 
The following is the list of cost estimates, prioritization, and potential funding sources for Port of Toledo projects 
as included in the Boatyard Buildout Plan. The Port has a number of different funding sources beyond 
transportation funding sources. The Port receives and is eligible for a variety of economic development, marine, 
and Army Corps of Engineers funding sources that are not available for street or bicycle and pedestrian projects. 
The Port also has a budget of its own that it can use to fund projects. 
   
Modal Plans 
3‐26  TOLEDO TSP 
TABLE 3‐4 
Port and Water System Upgrade Cost Estimates and Prioritization 
Project Description  Cost Estimate (in 2012 $)  Priority  Funding Source 
Lead 
Agency/ 
Project 
Partners 
Phase 1 projects – New pier and 
replace piles for travel lift, construct 
wash down pad, relocate utilities, 
purchase travel lift 
$3,493,000  Short‐term  Port, ConnectOregon, 
MNIF, PRLF 
Port 
Phase 2 projects – upgrade site access 
road, realign utilities, and develop 
cargo transfer and vessel hard 
moorage areas 
$950,000  Medium‐term  Port, ConnectOregon, 
MNIF, PRLF 
Port 
Phase 3 projects – construct vessel 
work building, new boatyard office 
and restrooms 
$2,050,000  Long‐term  Port, ConnectOregon, 
PRLF 
Port 
Notes:  
Port – General Port of Toledo Revenues 
MNIF – Marine Navigation Improvement Fund 
PRLF – Port Revolving Loan Fund 
 
3.4.3 Water Projects 
There are no projects for water transportation. 
 
   
Modal Plans 
TOLEDO TSP  3‐27 
3.5 Rail Network 
3.5.1 Freight Rail Conditions 
Portland and Western Railroad operates the short‐line track in Toledo, serving the Georgia‐Pacific site which is 
currently the sole customer along the line. Within the City, there are four public crossings of the railroad tracks, 
all of which are rough with degraded pavement and potholes between the rails and the street surface. These 
rough crossings make it difficult for pedestrians and bicyclists, cause damage to vehicles including freight trucks, 
and on occasion cause trains to derail due to the condition of the rails. The derailments could potentially impact 
plant operations by delaying material shipments into and out of the facility. There is also an unprotected 
crossing at Butler Bridge Road where a spur track enters the Georgia‐Pacific site. Train engineers are required to 
use signal flares when using this crossing. The crossing has an advance warning sign, pavement markings, and a 
roadside “Yield” and railroad crossing signs. However, unlike the other rail crossings in Toledo there are no 
flashing lights, bells, and gates. 
There is one roundtrip train per day, and an average of six to 12 switching movements along the track near 
Butler Bridge Road downtown. Most railroad crossings are gated; however, it is possible to cross with a train on 
the tracks from SE 2nd Street onto Butler Bridge Road. Multiple stakeholders indicated that improving rough 
railroad crossings should be a high priority. Motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians have submitted multiple 
complaints that the crossings are not well maintained and pose a safety hazard. Two crashes were reported by 
stakeholders at crossings; a bicycle crash and a vehicle/train crash. 
Since the rails are owned by the railroad, the City is not able to address deficiencies directly. However, the City 
recognizes that freight rail is important to sustaining the local economy and is interested in preserving or 
increasing the amount of traffic using the rail line to access the I‐5 corridor while improving crossing conditions. 
Chapter 2 includes goals and policies to address the rail network within Toledo. 
3.5.2 Rail Projects 
There are no projects for the rail network. 
3.6 Air Plan 
3.6.1 Airport Conditions 
The airport in Toledo accommodates about 22 takeoffs and landings a week for private aircraft (ultralight and 
single‐engine planes) and there are no commercial passenger services. It is also used when foggy weather 
conditions preclude aircraft landings at Newport Municipal Airport. During emergencies, Coast Guard 
helicopters and Life Flight air ambulances use the airport to transport people and supplies. There are no plans to 
expand the airport and no plans to change the amount of aircraft using the facility. 
The state has expressed the desire to sell the airport to the Port of Toledo numerous times in the last 30 years, 
most recently in 2005.3 However, the airport remains in State ownership as the Port is not interested in 
purchasing the airport. The State has no changes planned for the airport within the planning horizon of the TSP, 
with the possible exception of the sale and potential closure if the State is successful. If the airport closes, the 
City will need to determine an alternate site for emergency response aircraft to continue serving Toledo. 
3.6.2 Air Projects 
There are no projects for the airport. 
                                                            
3 Hitchman, James. 2010. The Port of Toledo, Oregon, 1910‐2010. Toledo, OR. p. 57; available online at 
http://www.portoftoledo.org/Hitchman%20History%20for%20Website%20PDF.pdf  
Modal Plans 
3‐28  TOLEDO TSP 
3.7 Pipeline Network 
Water and sewer lines in Toledo are co‐located with City‐owned streets. The Georgia‐Pacific site has a large 
pipeline connecting two activity areas, as well as a pipeline used to discharge effluent in the Pacific Ocean west 
of Newport. Northwest Natural operates a high‐pressure gas transmission pipeline northeast of the City. There 
are no plans to expand any pipelines in the City. 
There are no plans and no need to expand the gas pipeline into Toledo within the 20 year planning horizon of 
the TSP. 
3.7.1 Pipeline Projects 
There are no proposed projects for the pipeline network. 
 TOLEDO TSP  4‐1 
4. Implementation Measures 
TSP project implementation will depend on funding and community priorities. There are a variety of funding 
sources available at the City, County, and State level and each project table above includes applicable funding 
sources. Additionally, the relative importance of TSP projects are identified in the project tables, based on 
community goals, the magnitude of the deficiency or issue that the project addresses, and the ability to secure 
funding, conduct engineering, and build a project. Appendix B: Transportation Funding provides a detailed 
description of transportation funding and improvement costs for all of the TSP’s projects. 
4.1 Street Standards 
The following sections describe the various streets within Toledo and provide standards for traffic operations, 
access management and spacing standards, and street cross sections. 
4.1.1 Functional Classification Plan 
The City’s functional classification plan defines the intended operations and character of streets within the 
overall transportation system, including standards for street and right‐of‐way width, access spacing, and 
pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Streets within the City are classified appropriately for consistency and reflect 
the current and anticipated future function, use, and traffic volumes. The City of Toledo’s functional 
classification system applies to streets owned by the City, the County, and the State; it also includes principal 
arterials, arterials, collectors, commercial, and local streets. Figure 4‐1 presents the functional classification plan 
for the City of Toledo. Table 4‐1 describes the functional classifications and the purpose they are intended to 
serve. 
   
Implementation Measures 
4‐2  TOLEDO TSP 
TABLE 4‐1 
Functional Classification Definitions 
Functional 
Classification  Definition 
Principal 
Arterial 
High traffic volume and limited access street that accommodates long‐distance trips between and through 
urban areas. Principal arterials have little to no local residential and commercial access and prioritize 
through movement, connecting mainly to arterials and collectors. US 20 is the only principal arterial in 
Toledo and is owned and maintained by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 
Arterial  High traffic volume street that accommodates longer‐distance trips and prioritizes mobility over local 
access. In Toledo, no streets are designated as an arterial street.  
Collector  Moderate traffic volume street that accommodates shorter local trips and balances the need for local 
property access and through traffic. Collector streets connect residential traffic on local streets with other 
collector and arterial streets. Within the City of Toledo, collector streets include Business Loop 20, Arcadia 
Drive, Skyline Road, Sturdevant Road, East Slope Road, Butler Bridge Road, and Yaquina Bay Road. 
Commercial  Low speed, low traffic volume street that is within or adjacent to land zoned commercial or industrial with 
a high percentage of freight truck traffic. Commercial streets provide frontage and direct access for 
commercial and industrial uses.  
Main Street  Low speed, moderate traffic volume local street that serves the downtown retail district and has an 
attractive, pedestrian‐oriented streetscape with landscaping, wider sidewalks, and on‐street parking. 
Main Street accommodates local and freight traffic associated with the downtown business district. This 
designation is specific to Main Street in downtown Toledo. 
Local  Low speed, low traffic volume street that connects local traffic to collector and arterial streets and 
prioritizes local access to residences and businesses over through traffic. 
 
Business Loop 20 is an important part of the Toledo street network, as it is one of the only connections to US 20 
besides Arcadia Drive, and provides access into the downtown core, carrying the most traffic in the City. 
Business Loop 20 is currently classified as an arterial street. However, though between A Street and NE 3rd 
Street, Business Loop 20 has lower speeds, a number of driveways and local street access. This segment of 
Business Loop 20 prioritizes local access over higher‐speed through traffic. For this reason, the TSP reclassifies 
Business Loop 20 as a collector street. This designation acknowledges that the priority for Business Loop 20 in 
Toledo is business and local street access and rather than through mobility for vehicles. 
To ensure consistency and a logical functional classification system, the TSP reclassifies five streets within the 
Toledo Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Reclassification does not require upgrades to meet the cross section 
standards of the new classification designations until new development occurs (described in the Street Design 
Standards section below). Reclassifications are based on the current and expected use of the street and to 
create consistency among the City and State Functional Classification. Table 4‐2 summarizes the functional 
classification changes. 
   
NE ARCADIA DR
ÄÆ229
£¤20B
£¤20
£¤20
N M
AIN 
ST
NE 1ST ST
NW
 A S
T
NE 2ND ST
NE EA ST SLOPE RD
NE SKYLINE DR
NE WAG ON RD
SO
UTH 
BAY 
RD
SE STURDEVANT RD
SE BUTLER BRIDGE RD
NE STURDEVANT RD
YAQUINA BAY RD
UNK \\ROSA\PROJ\ODOT\437682TOLEDO\GIS\MAPFILES\FUNCTIONALCLASSIFICATION.MXD TLINGLEY 10/16/2013 9:22:37 AM
Benton
Lane
Lincoln
Polk
Tillamook YamhillVICINITY MAP
FIGURE 4-1Functional Classification Plan Toledo TSPToledo, Oregon
LEGENDRailway
Toledo UGB
City Limits
Principal ArterialArterialCollectorCommercialLocal
Truck Routes
´0 1,000 2,000Feet
Implementation Measures 
4‐4  TOLEDO TSP 
TABLE 4‐2 
Functional Classification Modifications 
Street  Current Classification 
New 
Classification  Justification 
Business Loop 20  Arterial  Collector  The priority for Business Loop 20 is access 
to local businesses and streets, not 
through traffic 
A Street (south of Business Loop 20)/1st 
Street/Butler Bridge Road 
Local  Collector  This is the main truck route within the 
City, and provides access to GP Mill sites 
Arcadia Drive (north of Skyline Drive to 
UGB) 
Local  Collector  Makes Arcadia Drive a collector from US 
20 to the City limits 
Lincoln Way  Local  Collector  Provides a connection to Skyline Drive, an 
existing collector to Business Loop 20 
Main Street  Collector  Local  Does not collect through traffic – provides 
local access to the City’s commercial core 
East Slope Road (north of SE 10th Street to 
Business Loop 20) 
Local  Collector  Is one of the few connections between 
Sturdevant Road and Business Loop 20  
Notes: 
Current classification is based on the City’s existing classification 
 
   
Implementation Measures 
TOLEDO TSP  4‐5 
4.1.2 Street Design Standards 
Table 4‐3 lists the standards for arterial, collector, commercial, Main Street, and local streets. These standards 
are based on the City of Toledo Division 3: Street and Transportation System Design Standards Manual (2009).  
TABLE 4‐3 
Street Design Standards 
Type of Street  Street Width 
with Curbs1 
Travel Lane  Center Median 
or Center Turn 
Lane 
On‐Street 
Parking 
Bike Lane2  Sidewalk 
Arterial: 3 lane  63’  Two 12’ travel 
lanes 
14’  None  6’ on both 
sides 
6’ on both 
sides 
Arterial: 2 lane  49’  Two 12’ travel 
lanes 
None  None  6’ on both 
sides 
6’ on both 
sides 
Collector  45’  Two 12’ travel 
lanes 
None  None  5’ on both 
sides 
5’ on both 
sides 
Commercial  77’  Two 12’ travel 
lanes 
14’  8’ on both 
sides 
5’ on both 
sides 
6’ on both 
sides 
Local: Preferred  55’  Two 14’ travel 
lanes 
None  8’ on both 
sides 
Cyclists share 
the travel 
lane 
5’ on both 
sides 
Local: Minimum  39’  Two 14’ travel 
lanes 
None  None  Cyclists share 
the travel 
lane 
5’ on both 
sides 
Main Street  61’  Two 12’ travel 
lanes 
None  8’ on both 
sides 
None  10’ on both 
sides 
Multi‐Use Path  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  12’ total width (10’ trail with 
1’ shoulders) 
Boardwalk  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  12’ total width with side 
railings;  
10’ if no rails are used 
Notes: 
1Includes six inch curbs on either side 
2Bike lanes could be substituted for a 4’ shared use shoulder where topography or other right‐of‐way constraints exist, at the discretion 
of the Planning Commission. 
 
Figures 4‐2 to 4‐4 show the cross sections for each of the street classifications.  
   
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk 
6’
Bike
Lane 
6’
Bike
Lane 
6’
Travel Lane 
12’
Travel Lane 
12’
Turning Lane 
14’
63’ Right of Way Including Curbs
3-LANE ARTERIAL ROAD
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk 
6’
Bike
Lane 
6’
Bike
Lane
6’
Travel Lane 
12’
Travel Lane 
12’
49’ Right of Way Including Curbs
2-LANE ARTERIAL ROAD
FIGURE 4-2
Arterial Road Standards
City of Toledo TSP
\\ROSA\PROJ\ODOT\437682TOLEDO\4 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES\CROSS SECTIONS\TOLEDO_CROSSSECTION.AI RFARHOODI 1/25/2013
FIGURE 4-3
Collector and Commercial
Road Standards
City of Toledo TSP
\\ROSA\PROJ\ODOT\437682TOLEDO\4 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES\CROSS SECTIONS\TOLEDO_CROSSSECTION2.AI RFARHOODI 1/25/2013
77’ Right of Way Including Curbs
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk 
6’
Bike
Lane 
5’
Bike
Lane 
5’
Travel Lane 
12’
Travel Lane 
12’
Turning Lane 
14’
Parking 
Lane
8’
P
Parking 
Lane
8’
P
COMMERCIAL ROAD
Sidewalk
5’
Sidewalk 
5’
Bike
Lane 
5’
Bike
Lane
5’
Travel Lane 
12’
Travel Lane 
12’
45’ Right of Way Including Curbs
COLLECTOR ROAD
Sidewalk
10’
Sidewalk 
10’
Parking Lane
8’
Parking Lane
8’
Travel Lane 
12’
Travel Lane 
12’
P
61’ Right of Way Including Curbs
Clear Zone
6’
Tree Well
4’
P
Clear Zone
6’
Tree Well
4’
DOWNTOWN MAIN STREET
FIGURE 4-4
Local Road and Downtown
Main Street Standards
City of Toledo TSP
\\ROSA\PROJ\ODOT\437682TOLEDO\4 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES\CROSS SECTIONS\TOLEDO_CROSSSECTION3_V2.AI RFARHOODI 06/25/2013
Sidewalk 
5’
Parking Lane 
8’
Shared Travel Lane 
14’
Shared Travel Lane 
14’
Parking Lane 
8’
Sidewalk 
5’
P
55’ Right of Way Including Curbs
P
PREFERRED LOCAL ROAD 
Sidewalk  
5’
Shared Travel Lane 
14’
Shared Travel Lane 
14’
Sidewalk  
5’
39’ Right of Way Including Curbs
MINIMUM LOCAL ROAD
Implementation Measures 
TOLEDO TSP  4‐9 
4.1.3 Access Management Standards 
Access management is important to maintain traffic flow and ensure safety on the City’s street network, 
including Business Loop 20, Sturdevant Road, and other higher‐traffic routes. Limiting the number of points 
where traffic can enter and exit reduces potential safety concerns and improves traffic flow. These standards are 
for both public streets and private driveway accesses onto public streets. Toledo must coordinate with Lincoln 
County and ODOT to manage access on roads the City does not own, including parts of Sturdevant Road, Bay 
Boulevard, and US 20. Existing streets and driveways are not subject to these standards, only new streets and 
driveways or streets and driveways significantly modified by a new development or redevelopment would be 
subject to these standards. 
Table 4‐4 shows the standards for public intersections are based on the functional classification of the street. 
TABLE 4‐4 
Public Street Intersection Spacing Standards 
Functional Classification  Public Intersection Spacing 
Arterial  100 feet 
Collector†  100 feet 
Local Street*  50 feet 
† Collector street standards will be applied to Commercial Streets 
* Local Street standards will be applied to Main Street 
 
Table 4‐5 shows the spacing standards for private driveways that intersect with public streets. 
TABLE 4‐5 
Private Access Driveway Spacing Standards 
Functional Classification  Driveway Spacing 
Arterial  40 feet 
Collector†  20 feet 
Local Street*  10 feet 
† Collector street standards will be applied to Commercial Streets 
* Local Street standards will be applied to Main Street 
4.1.4 Traffic Operations Standards 
For intersections under City jurisdiction, there are currently no adopted mobility standards. Typically cities use a 
volume to capacity (v/c) standard and a level‐of‐service (LOS) standard. The LOS helps quantify the degree of 
comfort for drivers, through elements such as travel time, number of stops, amount of time spent stopped 
(delay), and impediments caused by other vehicles. Examining both measures is useful since the v/c will indicate 
if there is enough room at the intersection for all the vehicles while the LOS will denote whether those cars are 
moving through the intersection in a reasonable amount of time. Table 4‐6 lists the breakdown of the LOS in 
reference to delay for the City.  
   
Implementation Measures 
4‐10  TOLEDO TSP 
TABLE 4‐6 
Toledo TSP: Level‐of‐Service Criteria 
Level‐
of‐
Service 
Average Vehicle Delay 
(seconds/vehicle) 
General Description 
Signalized 
Intersections 
Stop‐Controlled 
Intersections 
A  0‐10  0‐10  Few or no traffic delays – individual users are virtually unaffected by the presence of other vehicles 
B  10‐20  10‐15  Short traffic delays – traffic flow is stable, but the presence of other users begins to be noticeable 
C  20‐35  16‐25  Average traffic delays – traffic flow is stable, but other traffic begins to significantly affect individual users 
D  35‐55  26‐35  Long traffic delays – traffic flow is dense but stable. Other users restrict individual driver maneuverability 
E  55‐80  36‐50  Very long traffic delays – operations are at or near capacity levels and unstable. Freedom to maneuver is difficult 
F  >80  >50  Extreme traffic delays – operates are at breakdown where demand exceeds capacity. Delays and queuing may cause severe congestion. 
Notes: 
Source: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual 
 
For two‐way stop controlled intersections in Toledo, the standard is an LOS E. For volume to capacity measures, 
in all cases, the standard is a v/c ratio of 1.0 or lower.  
   
Implementation Measures 
TOLEDO TSP  4‐11 
4.2 Funding Sources 
A variety of established and potential federal, state, and local funding sources are available to fund future 
transportation projects in the Toledo TSP, depending on the eligibility requirements.  
4.2.1 Established Federal Funding Sources 
Federal funding currently accounts for approximately 20 percent of total funding for transportation projects in 
Oregon. Toledo is not located within a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and federal funding is instead 
made available through state or county programs via the Cascades West Area Commission on Transportation 
(CWACT). CWACT generally programs federal funding for regional and local projects that affect the state 
transportation system, though some funds are made available directly for local projects.  
Most federal funding is available through the federal surface transportation program, supported by tax revenue 
to the Highway Trust Fund (HTF).  
Federal Highway Trust Fund 
Revenues to the HTF are comprised of motor vehicle fuel taxes, sales taxes on heavy trucks and trailers, tire 
taxes, annual heavy truck use fees, and revenue from the general fund. The fund is split into two accounts – the 
highway account and transit account. Funds are appropriated to individual states on an annual basis. The 2005 
legislation for the federal surface transportation program (Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users, referred to as SAFETEA‐LU) was replaced in July 2012 with 
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP‐21). This new 2‐year program keeps total federal funding at 
the SAFETEA‐LU rate, consolidates the 90 current programs under SAFETEA‐LU into 30, eliminates transportation 
earmarks, and increases funding for the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Program (TIFIA). 
The TIFIA program provides loans to finance transportation projects of regional or national significance, and 
seeks to leverage federal transportation dollars with local funds and private investment. Toledo may be eligible 
to receive funding under the expanded TIFIA program.  
The HTF is used to finance the Surface Transportation Program (STP), among other formula programs, which is 
the primary program that funds local government and non‐highway projects. Projects that receive federal 
funding must be included in the four‐year Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and are 
usually required to be matched with state or local funding. The CWACT is responsible for allocating funding for 
counties and cities under its jurisdiction and will play a central role in prioritizing projects for funding through 
the Enhance‐It STIP.  
Federal Transit Administration grants 
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) manages a number of grants available to transit agencies nationwide. 
The City of Toledo could work with Lincoln County Transit to fund transit projects serving the City.  
 Transit Expansion and Livable Communities Grants. Approximately $2.4 billion in funds was 
appropriated for this program in the current budget year. The goal of this initiative from the Federal 
Transit Administration is to advocate for and support projects and programs that improve the link 
between public transit and communities. Several formula and competitive grant programs are available 
through this initiative. Policy goals include better integrating transportation and land use planning, 
fostering multimodal systems, providing transportation options and improving access, reducing 
emissions, and increasing public participation in transportation decision‐making.  
Toledo and Lincoln County Transit may be eligible for grant funding under this program.  
 Formula Grants for Other than Urbanized Areas (5311). These grants are given to the states for 
distribution to rural (fewer than 50,000 people) communities. This program is intended to enhance 
access to services, assist in development or maintenance of public transportation systems, and assist in 
development of intercity bus service.  
Implementation Measures 
4‐12  TOLEDO TSP 
Lincoln County Transit currently receives operating funds of approximately $350,000 per year from this 
source.  
 Transportation for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities (5310). This formula grant program is 
managed by the state, with funds provided for capital projects that enhance the accessibility of older 
adults and those with disabilities. This funding source could be used to support constructing a transit 
shelter at the Food Fair Stop.  
Lincoln County Transit will receive $660,000 in capital grant through this FTA program this year.  
 Section 319 Non‐Point Source Implementation Grants. Transportation projects that integrate 
stormwater treatment may be eligible to receive federal funding through Section 319 grants. This 
program, administered by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), provides federal 
funds to address non‐point pollution, including stormwater improvement projects. Funding is very 
competitive, with less than $500,000 available statewide in the most recent grant cycle. Projects that 
could be eligible for funding include applications of pervious pavements, stormwater detention and 
retention, and other low impact stormwater development tactics. Funds can be used for all or a portion 
of a project, but require a minimum 40 percent match.  
The Yaquina River is on the Clean Water Act 303(d) list for a number of pollutants and projects within the 
river basin may be attractive for funding.  
4.2.2 Established State Funding Sources 
State funds are distributed via the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC). The State Highway Fund is the 
most significant source of funding for the programs described below. To be eligible for funding, projects must be 
programmed through the STIP.  
State Highway Fund 
State Highway Fund Revenues are received from a combination of fuel taxes, vehicle registration and title fees, 
driver’s license fees, the truck weight‐mile tax and federal monies. Fund revenues may only be used for 
construction and maintenance of state and local highways, bridges, and roadside rest areas. State law (ORS 
366.514) specifies that a reasonable amount of highway funds must be spent on walkways and bikeways and 
that in any given fiscal year, a minimum of 1 percent of State Highway Funds must be spent on these projects by 
funding recipients. However, cities and counties receiving funds may allocate them to a reserve fund, which they 
must expend within a period not to exceed 10 years. All funds must be expended on projects within street or 
highway rights‐of‐way.  
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) 
The STIP is the 4‐year capital improvement program for the State of Oregon. It provides a schedule and 
identifies funding for projects throughout the state. Projects included in the STIP are generally “regionally 
significant” and are prioritized by CWACT. Continuing involvement with the CWACT will ensure the City’s 
priorities, especially the improvements at the Western Junction, are considered in the next few funding cycles.  
All regionally significant state and local projects, as well as all federally‐funded projects and programs, must be 
included in the STIP. About 80 percent of STIP projects use federal funds, most of which will originate from MAP‐
21 programs. This includes the STP, TAP, and National Highway Performance Program funding for preservation 
and improvement of the National Highway System. In addition, Regional Flexible Funds competitive grants 
awarded every two years towards bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) 
projects are now included in the STIP. 
Beginning with the 2015‐18 STIP, the process will be reorganized into two broad categories: “Fix‐it” and 
“Enhance” that encompass the previous funding categories detailed in the 2012‐2015 STIP. “Fix‐it” projects are 
those that fix or preserve the current transportation system; “Enhance” projects are those that enhance, 
expand, or improve the transportation system. The main purpose of this reorganization is to allow maximum 
Implementation Measures 
TOLEDO TSP  4‐13 
flexibility to fund projects that reflect community and state values, rather than those that fit best into 
prescriptive programs.  
 
Applicable “Fix‐it” activities will include:  Applicable “Enhance” activities will include: 
 Bridges (state owned)   Bicycle and/or Pedestrian facilities on or off the 
highway right‐of‐way  
 High Risk Rural Streets   Most projects previously eligible for Transportation 
Enhancement funds 
 Illumination, signs and signals   Bike/Ped, Transit, TDM projects eligible for Flexible 
Funds (using federal STP and CMAQ funds) 
 Safety   Safe Routes to School (infrastructure projects) 
   Transportation Alternatives (new with MAP‐21) 
Under this new STIP organization, there will be one application for all projects eligible under the “Enhance” 
program. Communities will apply for the “Enhance” projects that best serve their community and ODOT will 
determine the appropriate funding mechanism. The OTC will select “Enhance” projects based on 
recommendations developed by local governments, public agencies, and citizen representatives through the 
ACTs. “Fix‐it” projects will be selected with input from infrastructure management systems, supported by 
consultations with the ACTs. This new organization is primarily intended to increase funding flexibility and does 
not represent a fundamental change in the type of projects that will be funded through the STIP. Seventy‐six 
percent of the STIP funding will go to “Fix‐it” projects, while 24 percent will go to “Enhance” projects.  
Federal active transportation funding is now incorporated into the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) in 
MAP‐21, replacing the separate Recreational Trails, Safe Routes to Schools, and Transportation Enhancement 
(TE) Programs from the previous surface transportation program. TAP funds are eligible for a wide variety of 
transportation projects that improve aesthetics, improve safety, and add value to the transportation system, 
and can be used for Recreational Trails, Safe Routes to School, and those projects previously eligible for TE 
including bicycle and pedestrian projects, landscaping, historic preservation, and other projects. However, the 
amount of funding allocated to TAP is significantly reduced from the three previous programs added together. 
Non‐STIP State Funding Sources 
Other sources of funding are available that are not part of the STIP process. This section describes those 
programs that may be applicable to projects in the Toledo TSP. 
 Public Transit Programs: ODOT manages a number of state and federal transit programs. While the City 
does not manage transit service, Toledo could work with Lincoln County Transit to fund transit projects 
important to the City.  
 ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Grants: Most funds in this program are distributed through 
competitive grants to local governments. A minimum of one percent of annual state highway revenues are 
devoted to this program, with about $5 million in funding available every two years. All projects must be 
within public rights‐of‐way; recreational trails outside of the right‐of‐way are not eligible. Grant cycles occur 
every two years and local match is generally expected. Pedestrian and bicycle projects in Toledo within the 
public right‐of‐way are eligible to apply for grants from this program.  
 Immediate Opportunity Fund: This fund is discretionary, and provides funding for transportation projects 
essential for supporting site‐specific economic development projects. These funds are distributed on a case‐
by‐case basis in cooperation with the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department. These 
funds can only be used when other sources of financial support are insufficient or unavailable. These funds 
are reserved for projects where a document transportation problem exists, or where private firm location 
Implementation Measures 
4‐14  TOLEDO TSP 
decisions hinge on the immediate commitment of road construction. A minimum 50 percent match is 
required from project applications. 
 ConnectOregon: ConnectOregon funds are lottery‐backed bonds distributed to air, marine, rail, transit, and 
other multimodal projects statewide. No less than 10 percent of ConnectOregon IV funds must be 
distributed to each of the five regions of the state, provided that there are qualified projects in the 
region. The objective is to improve the connections between the highway system and other modes of 
transportation. 
 Oregon Infrastructure Authority programs: Grant and loan programs such as the Marine Navigation 
Improvement Fund (MNIF) and Port Revolving Loan Fund (PRLF) are managed by the Infrastructure Finance 
Authority (IFA). These programs help ports develop infrastructure and public facilities, as well as address 
their utility and economic needs. The MNIF can be used on federally authorized projects designed and 
operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to improve the Port of Toledo. The PRLF is a loan program to 
assist Oregon ports in the planning and construction of facilities and infrastructure or to assist port‐related 
private business development projects. 
 Special City Allotment Grant: Special City Allotment Grants are made up of $1 million in state gas taxes 
distributed annually among cities with population of less than 5,000. ODOT sets the distribution and dollar 
amount by agreement with the League of Oregon Cities. Half of the funds come from the cities’ share of gas 
tax revenues and half comes from ODOT’s share of the State Highway Fund. Cities can receive half of the 
maximum $25,000 grant amount at the beginning of the project, with the final payment due upon 
completing of the project.  
Oregon Parks and Recreation Local Government Grants 
The Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) administers this program using Oregon Lottery revenues. 
These grants can fund acquisition, development and major rehabilitation of public outdoor parks and recreation 
facilities. OPRD has distributed $4 million annually under this program through a competitive grant process. A 
match of at least 20 percent is required.  
Oregon Transportation Infrastructure Bank (OTIB) 
The OTIB is a statewide revolving loan fund available to local governments for many transportation 
infrastructure improvements, including highway, transit, and non‐motorized projects. Most funds made 
available through this program are federal; streets must be functionally classified as a major collector or higher 
to be eligible for loan funding.  
4.2.3 Established Local Funding Sources 
This section describes existing local funding sources for the City of Toledo. Major local funding sources include 
general fund revenues, road maintenance fees, and system development charges, plus the City’s share of State 
Highway Fund revenue.  
Road Maintenance Fees 
This fee is assessed to all residential and non‐residential properties in the City of Toledo to fund upkeep of the 
City’s street system. Approximately $110,000 in fee revenue was forecast for the fiscal year of 2011. These 
revenues are made available exclusively for street maintenance (TCC 13.40.040). These fees represent a 
significant source of funding for maintenance of existing streets, but are unavailable for new capital 
improvement projects.  
System Development Charges  
System development charges (SDCs) are one‐time fees on new development that compensate for the increased 
traffic associated with new development. The City authorized the collection of system development charges 
(SDCs) for all infrastructure categories in 2010. SDCs cannot be expended on transportation operations or 
maintenance projects, and may be used exclusively for capital improvement projects. These charges are payable 
Implementation Measures 
TOLEDO TSP  4‐15 
to the City when a building or other development permit is issued. In 2011, no transportation SDCs were 
collected and the 2012 budget forecasts approximately $2,000 in SDC revenue. The outlook for SDC revenue is 
very uncertain, given limited development during the current economic downturn.  
Public Utility District Franchise Revenue 
Forty percent of this revenue source is transferred to the streets fund; monies are available for transportation 
capital improvements, maintenance, and operations. Approximately $350,000 in revenue was forecast for the 
2012 budget year from this source, representing a significant share of total local transportation resources.  
4.2.4 Potential Other Funding Sources for Future Projects 
The following funding sources and strategies may be available to the City in addition to the established 
programs listed above.  
Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants (EECBG) 
This program was initially funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The current 
funding authorization expired in April 2012. Future funding for this program is currently uncertain. The program 
provided formula grants to states and competitive grants for projects that reduce fossil fuel emissions, reduce 
total energy use of eligible grantees, and improve energy efficiency of transportation and other sectors.  
Toledo may be eligible for competitive grants if this program is funded in future federal budgets. 
Increased State Highway Fund revenues 
Gas tax revenue to the State Highway Fund has not kept pace with inflation or demands of the state’s 
transportation system. ODOT is exploring new revenue models to meet state transportation needs, which may 
result in increased funds for state transportation programs in coming years. Oregon is actively exploring a 
vehicle miles travelled (VMT) tax to replace the current gas tax, with full implementation of any VMT program 
expected to take up to 20 years.  
Local Improvement Districts (LID) 
LIDs are created by property owners within a district of a city to raise revenues for constructing improvements 
within the district boundaries. LIDs may be used to assess property owners for improvements that benefit 
properties and are secured by property liens. Property owners typically enter into LIDs because of the economic 
or personal advantages of the improvements. The City would work with property owners to acquire financing at 
lower interest rates than under typical financing methods. The formation of LIDs is governed by state law and 
local jurisdictional development codes. LID revenues can only be used on capital projects. LID revenues can be 
combined with other revenue sources to fully fund projects.  
Streets District 
A Streets District is essentially a type of limited LID. Oregon state law (ORS 371) allows for the formation of 
special streets taxing districts for purposes of constructing and maintaining streets within the taxing district 
boundaries. A streets district would be a separate entity from the City of Toledo, with its own property tax levy 
rate and an elected board of commissioners. The creation of a streets district must be voted on by those within 
the potential district boundaries.  
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) 
The City of Toledo must first designate an urban renewal area within the City to implement TIF. The county 
assessor “freezes” the assessed value of properties within the urban renewal area and the property taxes 
collected above those that were collected when the property values were frozen are used to pay for 
improvements within the urban renewal area. TIF assumes that property values within the urban renewal area 
will increase over time. TIF is primarily an economic development tool, but may be useful for targeting areas in 
the City with serious improvement needs.  
Implementation Measures 
4‐16  TOLEDO TSP 
Revenue and General Obligation Bonds 
Bonding allows municipal and county government to finance construction projects by borrowing money and 
paying it back over time, with interest. Financing requires smaller regular payments over time compared to 
paying the full cost at once, but financing increases the total cost of the project by adding interest. General 
Obligation Bonds are often used to pay for construction of large capital improvements and must be approved by 
a vote of the public. These bonds add the cost of the improvement to property taxes over a period of time.  
Toledo could consider issuing a General Obligation Bond to pay for significant transportation improvement 
projects identified within the City.  
Parking Fees 
The City does not currently charge for parking. Income generated by charging parking fees could be used to 
implement a variety of transportation projects. The collection system would require purchase of parking meter 
infrastructure, careful study of where to install meters, and analysis of the appropriate fee amount to charge 
drivers.  
4.2.5 Prioritization 
Prioritization of projects within this TSP is separated into three categories: short‐term, medium‐term, and long‐
term. Short‐term projects are expected to be built within 0‐5 years, while medium‐term projects are 5‐10 years, 
and long‐term projects are expected to be built in the 10‐20 year time frame. Prioritization is determined based 
on a combination of the most important projects to implement first, the ease of implementation, and the 
potential cost – some projects will take a number of years to identify and secure funding. Some projects will also 
need regional coordination and support, which may take time to secure an agreement. Prioritization is an 
estimate: long‐term projects may be implemented sooner than 10‐20 years due to funding becoming available, a 
high degree of community support, or other factors. The suggested priority for projects in this TSP is a general 
guide and not a required timeframe (see tables in Executive Summary).  
   
Implementation Measures 
TOLEDO TSP  4‐17 
4.3 Recommended Code Language 
In preparing implementation measures for the TSP, the project team evaluated the City’s development code for 
compliance with the TPR. These state regulations are intended to increase the amount of coordination between 
public agencies, protect transportation investments, support efficient urban development, and promote the use 
of modes other than single‐occupancy vehicles. The project team found that the TSP and development code 
were largely in compliance with the TPR, but that some updates to objective and code would be needed for full 
compliance. The evaluation findings are included in the TSP as Appendix E: Street Standards. 
The following represent the types of amendments proposed to implement the TSP and comply with state 
regulations: 
 Identifying the development of transportation facilities as appropriate in the land use zones, in order to 
streamline the permitting process. 
 Establishing bicycle parking standards. 
 Providing safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access from within new developments. 
 Transportation facility standards that specify requirements for lane width, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, 
and other right‐of‐way elements. 
These proposed amendments will be carried through the hearings and adoption process after the TSP document 
is adopted. Language for proposed code changes can be found in Appendix F of this TSP. 
4.3.1 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendments 
The goals and objectives in Chapter 2 of this TSP will be included in Article 12 of the Toledo Comprehensive Land 
Use Plan upon adoption of this TSP by the City, and minor changes are included in Article 14 to incorporate 
references to the Transportation System Plan. 
 
 
  
Appendix A 
Plan Assessment
  
  1 
A p p e n d i x  A / T e c h n i c a l  M e m o r a n d u m  # 1  
 
Toledo Transportation System Plan: Plan Assessment
Introduction 
This memorandum identifies the relevant elements of plans prepared for local agencies in the project study area 
for assessing transportation conditions for the city of Toledo, Oregon. The previous unadopted 1995 TSP was also 
reviewed to determine which elements, if any, may be used in the Toledo TSP. The following plans were reviewed 
for applicable goals, policies, performance measures, conditions and alternative improvements analysis, and 
proposed improvement projects through other planning projects: 
 Lincoln County Transportation System Plan 
 City of Toledo Comprehensive Plan 
 Port of Toledo Waterfront Connectivity Plan 
 Port of Toledo Waterfront Development Strategic Plan 
Although each document reviewed contains many policies, only the policies and information most pertinent to 
developing the Toledo Transportation System Plan (TSP) are included. The information in this memorandum will 
help identify which goals, policies, and performance measures will need to be updated or developed as part of the 
TSP project. 
Lincoln County Transportation System Plan (TSP) (2007) 
The TSP includes goals and objectives for the Transportation element of the County’s Comprehensive Plan and 
documents the existing and future transportation system needs in Lincoln County. The document provides 
recommends improvements and financing strategies for roadway, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, air, rail, water, and 
pipeline facilities. The applicable elements from the TSP are included below. 
Goals and Objectives 
There are 11 goals for the TSP though only seven are applicable to the Toledo TSP. Each goal includes a number of 
supporting objectives to help achieve the given goal. Goal statements are broad statements that provide direction 
for the plan, and objectives include measurable outcomes to determine if the goal is being met. The goals and 
objectives applicable to the Toledo TSP are included below. 
Goal 1 Mobility – Provide a safe, convenient, and economic multimodal transportation system that serves the 
travel needs of Lincoln county residents, businesses, visitors, and freight. 
Objectives 
4.   Minimize travel distances and vehicle‐miles traveled.  
5.   Move motor vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, trucks, and trains to and through the county safely, 
efficiently, and economically.  
7.   Recognize and balance freight needs with needs for local circulation, safety, and access.  
8   Promote rail freight transportation between Toledo and the Willamette Valley 
9.   Balance the need for truck access to industrial and waterfront areas with the desire for minimization of 
disruptions to urban areas.  
Goal 3 Coordination – Maintain a transportation system plan that is consistent with the goals and objectives of 
Lincoln County, Lincoln County jurisdictions, and the state. 
Objectives 
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN: PLAN ASSESSMENT 
2  
3.   Ensure adequate notification is given to affected agencies prior to meetings and public hearings on 
transportation planning and development issues. 
6.   Support the maintenance and expansion of port and harbor facilities to keep them a viable part of Lincoln 
County’s economy.  
7.   Support expansion of local boating and shipping activities in the county’s cities and ports.  
Goal 4 Public Transportation – Provide cost‐effective and safe public transportation options and access to 
alternative transportation modes to county residents. 
Objectives 
1.   Ensure an appropriate level of County support for public transportation. 
2.   Support Lincoln County Transit’s efforts to work with ODOT to secure federal funding for the County Transit 
System in a regular and ongoing basis. 
4.   Work to improve the signage and amenities at transit stops and stations.  
5.   Work with Lincoln County Transit to expand transit service as necessary during summer months of peak 
travel.  
6.   Support Lincoln County Transit’s coordination efforts with local jurisdictions to meet the transit needs of 
Lincoln County communities.  
Goal 5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities – Provide for an interconnected system of pedestrian and bicycle facilities 
in Lincoln County to serve residents and recreational users. 
Objectives 
2.   Ensure consistency between county and city plans for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. 
3.   Ensure consistency between county standards and city standards for bicycle and pedestrian facilities within 
UGBs. 
6.   Ensure adequate pedestrian access on all streets in commercial zones.  
8.   Improve public access to the waterfront and trails along the waterfront.  
9.   Establish signage to indicate trail access points and rules.  
10.  Promote multimodal connections where appropriate.  
12.  Support and encourage increased levels of bicycling and walking.  
13.  Develop safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle systems that link all land uses, provide connections to 
transit facilities, and provide access to publicly owned land intended for general public use, such as the beach 
or park facilities.  
14.  Adopt and maintain development standards that support pedestrian and bicycle access to commercial and 
industrial development, including (but not limited to) direct pathway connections, bicycle parking facilities, 
and signage where appropriate.  
   
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN: PLAN ASSESSMENT 
 3 
Goal 6 Accessibility ‐ Provide a transportation system that serves the needs of all members of the community 
Objectives 
1. Coordinate with Lincoln County Transit to encourage programs that serve the needs of the transportation 
disadvantaged.  
2. Provide for the transportation disadvantaged by complying with state and federal regulations and cooperating 
with Lincoln County Transit and other agencies to provide transportation services for the disadvantaged.  
3. Upgrade existing transportation facilities and work with public transportation providers to provide services that 
improve access for all users.  
Goal 7 Environment – Provide a transportation system that balances transportation services with the need to 
protect the environment and significant natural features 
Objectives 
2.   Encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation and encourage development that minimizes 
reliance on the automobile 
5.   Help promote the Lincoln County Public Transit system to increase its ridership. 
Goal 11 Safety – Provide a transportation system that maintains adequate levels of safety for all users. 
2.   Work to improve the safety of rail, bicycle, and pedestrian routes and crossings.  
3.   Identify safe connections for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.  
Relevance to the Toledo TSP:  There must be consistency with Lincoln County TSP goals and objectives. 
Recommended Transportation Projects 
The first project recommendation applicable to the Toledo TSP in the Lincoln County TSP is a refinement plan to 
improve the US 20 and Business Loop 20 (West) and OR 229 Intersection. The project recommends studying the 
realignment of the multiple roadways and determining whether a traffic signal or other traffic control measures 
are appropriate. The objective is to identify a preferred alternative that improves intersection operations and 
safety. Anticipated outcomes of the refinement plan are an intersection study and an identified preferred 
alternative.  
The other recommendations include freight and intermodal improvement projects (Table 1).  
   
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN: PLAN ASSESSMENT 
4  
TABLE 1 
Lincoln County TSP Freight Projects in Toledo 
Project 
Number 
Location and Description  Project Timing  Project Duration  Estimated Cost 
F1  Confederated Tribes of Siletz 
Indians/Toledo – Mill Site rail siding 
restoration. Restore two switches that 
were removed; upgrade siding rail to 113 
lb rail, approximately 250’ 
Short‐term  12 months  $289,800 
F5  Port of Toledo – Intermodal/Industrial 
center. Would enhance and expand an 
intermodal transshipping facility to move 
goods by water, rail, and roadway. Facility 
will be located on a 20‐acre site in Toledo 
on the Yaquina River. Extend the Portland 
and Western Railroad rail spur allowing 
barge/rail transfer. 
Short‐term  24 months  $5,482,000 
F6  Portland and Western Railroad – Toledo 
Branch Upgrade. Would upgrade the line 
to allow the safe and maintainable 
operation of 286,000‐pound (112‐ton) 
freight cars at 25 to 40 mph speeds by 
upgrading existing rail to 132‐ to 136‐
pound rail. 
Medium‐term  60 months  $9,000,000 
Source: Lincoln County TSP. 2007 
Relevance to the Toledo TSP:  Projects listed in the County and located in Toledo will be included, as appropriate, 
in the Toledo TSP. 
2020 Vision for Toledo, Oregon – The 2000 Toledo Comprehensive Land Use 
Plan 
The city of Toledo’s Comprehensive Plan uses a framework of goals and policies to guide future growth and 
development decisions within the urban areas. Additionally, the 2020 Vision includes how the City would like to 
develop by 2020, including the development of: 
 The Toledo Industrial Park, a mixed‐use industrial and commercial center 
 An active waterfront with shipbuilding and dockside repair facilities and marinas 
 A strong retail segment in downtown and along Business Loop 20. 
Other transportation‐related visions for Toledo include: 
 Landscaping and signage “gateway features” at both entrances into town (which are now in place).  
 Businesses along the highway through town are expanded and improved; trees and planters border the 
sidewalk promenade.  
 Main Street is a thriving residential neighborhood with apartments on the upper stories and adjacent 
streets. 
 Modern, efficient, and high quality infrastructure and services.  
Comprehensive Plan Applicable Goals and Objectives 
Article 1: Citizen Involvement – Ensure opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process 
to provide useful guidance to and an understanding of the overall planning process. 
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN: PLAN ASSESSMENT 
 5 
Relevance to the Toledo TSP: The TSP process will include multiple opportunities for citizens to be involved 
throughout the development of the TSP. The Project Advisory Committee, stakeholder interviews, and public 
events will strive to involve a cross‐section of citizens, citizen organizations, and public agencies in all phases of 
the planning process. The project web site will also be a source of information for citizens who would like to be 
more involved in the TSP process, consistent with this Comprehensive Plan goal. 
Article 12: Transportation ‐ Provide a safe and efficient, multi‐model transportation system which provides links 
that enhance Toledo's neighborhoods, environment, economy, social, and scenic values. Minimize the adverse 
social, economic and environmental impact costs of constructing, maintaining, and using transportation facilities 
and services. 
Objectives include: 
 Create a multi‐modal transportation system that provides services for motorized vehicles, bicycles, 
pedestrians, electronic data transmission, mass transit, and air, rail, and water transport (including 
shipping) 
 Encourage options other than the personal automobile including: 
o Improve and support transit services 
o Improve and support ride‐sharing opportunities 
o Support programs to reduce single‐occupancy trips for commuters to Newport and other Lincoln 
and Benton County areas. 
o Encourage sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and bicycle paths/lanes. 
 Provide a system of roadways that maintain vehicle capacity and public safety as the community grows. 
 Provide linkages within the community with a circulation system that is safe and convenient to all areas 
within the community and that links the community to US 20, rail, air, and water shipping facilities. 
 Build and maintain roadways and other transportation facilities in a manner that is the most cost effective 
for the life of the road so as to reduce public maintenance costs. 
  Provide transportation facilities designed to maintain safe conditions over time and in adverse weather 
conditions. 
 Develop a coordinated approach to the operation, development, and maintenance of transportation 
facilities. Link the construction and maintenance of roadways to the construction and maintenance of 
other public services including wastewater, water, storm drainage, public utilities, and public safety 
vehicle access and to the increased service level demands of new or expanded land uses within the City 
and Urban Growth Boundary. 
 Support the role of Toledo as a regional center for air, water, rail, and roadway transport connections. 
Within Lincoln County, Toledo has the only sites which provide rail, air, water, and roadway connections 
for moving goods. 
 Ensure continued, economically viable, and competitive access to electronic data transmission. Maintain 
the Toledo Public Utilities Commission to provide input to the City Council regarding franchises for the 
operation of public utilities within Toledo. 
 Continue to coordinate transportation planning and services with Lincoln County, Oregon Department of 
Transportation, private industry, and others determining transportation policies, programs, and projects. 
 Maintain efficient and safe truck routes and rail services to support the transportation of people, goods, 
and services between major employment centers and markets. 
 Ensure that minimum, adopted national standards for public safety access are maintained for each 
property and that access lanes are provided as fire breaks and evacuation routes within the community. 
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN: PLAN ASSESSMENT 
6  
 Require new development to extend/improve transportation facilities to complete transportation system 
linkages and to mitigate impacts of additional traffic from new development on the existing 
transportation system and neighborhoods. 
 Adopt standards and procedures to ensure the provision of the desired transportation system as each 
property is developed or redeveloped for more intense uses. Employ standards by coordinating 
development permits with the extension or improvement of streets and other transportation facilities. 
 Maintain the character of Toledo's neighborhoods by encouraging local streets that ensure safe and 
efficient traffic flows but which are designed to encourage low speeds and minimize traffic impacts within 
the residential neighborhoods. 
 Adopt a Transportation System Plan which supports and implements these transportation goals and 
objectives (in the Comprehensive Plan), the Oregon Transportation Goal 12, and the requirements of the 
Oregon Transportation Rule. 
 Develop and adopt a Transportation System Plan and clear and objective local standards for 
transportation facilities construction and maintenance. Incorporate the use of those plans and standards 
into application reviews and permits for all new developments and construction projects. 
 Minimize disturbances of the natural environment or use of natural resources when locating, 
constructing, maintaining, and using transportation facilities and services. Encourage land use patterns 
which minimize environmental impacts from transporting people, goods, and services. 
Relevance to the Toledo TSP: The transportation goals and objectives of the City Comprehensive Plan will be 
included in the TSP as part of an evaluation framework that will help the project team and community determine 
which project ideas meet these goals.  
   
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN: PLAN ASSESSMENT 
 7 
Port of Toledo Waterfront Development Strategic Plan (2007) 
The Waterfront Development Strategic Plan is a plan for economic and recreational development of Port‐owned 
and managed waterfront property along Depot Slough. The plan focuses on enhancing waterway use and job 
creation through light industrial and commercial development. There are a number of land use and non‐
transportation project ideas. 
Applicable projects to consider in the TSP include: 
 Depot Slough trail, art, and furnishings – create a paved, accessible trail along the entire frontage of depot 
Slough with linkages to other destinations.  
 Pedestrian Connectivity to downtown – create a safe and direct pedestrian connection at Butler Bridge 
Road (Covered in the Port of Toledo Waterfront Connectivity Plan). The crossing should be ADA accessible 
and will need to match the height of the rails. Signage for both pedestrians and vehicles should also be 
added. 
Relevance to the Toledo TSP: The trail and pedestrian connectivity should be included in the TSP, ensuring that 
the effort from this previous process is included. 
Port of Toledo Waterfront Connectivity Plan (2009) 
The Port of Toledo Waterfront Connectivity Plan identifies measures to improve connections between the 
Waterfront area with downtown Toledo and the greater transportation network. Goals of the plan are to increase 
access for bicycles and pedestrians, including special pedestrian populations (users with wheelchairs, power‐
assisted scooters, and child strollers) while preserving mobility for vehicle, freight, and rail traffic. 
The plan objectives include: 
 Improved pedestrian connections between the study area and surrounding neighborhoods and business 
districts. 
 Improved pedestrian and bicycle circulation within the study area. 
 Improved ADA compliance and accessibility. 
 Continued mobility for passenger vehicles and freight traffic through the study area. 
 Improved vehicular access and circulation for parking at the transient boat dock area. 
 Enhanced aesthetics and visitor information. 
 Increased awareness of the Waterfront as a location for business, cultural, and recreational activities. 
Waterfront Activities 
The Waterfront attracts visitors and community members throughout the year. The Yaquina Pacific Railroad 
Historical Society runs a museum in a former mail railroad car off Industrial Way near the Post Office. Memorial 
Field on A Street and 1st Street is an important regional sports venue adjacent to a playground. The Summer 
Festival, held on the fourth weekend in July is held at Memorial Field. The festival includes a carnival, food booths, 
beer garden, live music, local logging show, fireworks, and the Cub Scout Pine Wood Car Derby. 
In addition to the organized activities, the river and slough offer scenic views and bird watching. The Port of 
Toledo supports public access and enjoyment of the waterways, including a viewing platform over Depot Slough, 
gravel path and benches, a small pavilion, and a boardwalk along the marina. The Port also acquired funding to 
build the gazebo and bathroom facilities. A transient boat dock along the Butler Bridge Road and the main 
Street/2nd Street intersection provides boat moorage opportunities.  
The Port of Toledo also hosts several events in the Waterfront area. The largest is the Toledo Wooden Boat Show. 
Now in its eighth year, the show is held in August. It is a family event with new and vintage wooden boats on 
display, live music, food, boating demonstrations, and races. The event attracts approximately 5,000 visitors 
during the three‐day festival. 
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN: PLAN ASSESSMENT 
8  
Recommended Improvements 
The Plan recommends a number of improvements to address identified deficiencies. These are broken down by 
category below. 
Connectivity Improvements 
 Waterfront Path – 10‐ to 12‐foot wide path. Butler Bridge Parking lot to 1st Street and west of 1st Street to 
railroad tracks 
 A Street – Business Loop 20 to 1st Street – replace and repair existing sidewalk 
 Depot Slough Bike/Pedestrian Crossing – West end of Waterfront Path to Yaquina Bay Drive. Including 
connecting sidewalks and fence between railroad tracks, railroad crossing panels and signage 
 Waterfront Path and 1st Street – Boardwalk, crosswalk at 1st Street, connecting sidewalks, speed bumps 
near crossing, warning signage, and removable bollards 
 Butler Bridge Road – 1st Street to Main Street/2nd Street crossing. Cyclone fence on west side of road 
 Yaquina Bay Road – Slough Bridge to Business Loop 20 – 8‐foot concrete sidewalk on west side of road 
 A Street – Railroad crossing between Business Loop 20 and 1st Street – Improve the railroad crossing 
pavement surface with concrete panels. 
 Amenities and signage throughout the study area – Wayfinding and/or interpretive signage, as 
appropriate. 
 NW 1st Street – A Street to Butler Bridge Road – Median with low height vegetation. 10‐foot wide 
crosswalk, 6‐foot wide sidewalk on north side of 1st Street, signage, and concrete rail panels 
 NW 1st Street – Butler Bridge Road to Main Street – Curb extensions, 10‐foot wide crosswalk across 1st 
Street, angle parking on south side of the street. Revise traffic flow and control – Convert 1st Street from 
two‐way to one‐way between Main Street and Butler Bridge Road. 
 Butler Bridge Road and Main Street – Remove existing crosswalk on Butler Bridge Road, add new 
crosswalk on Butler Bridge Road and through moorage parking lot. New 8‐foot wide concrete railroad 
crossing panel, directional signage to moorage entrance, warning signage for crosswalk 
 Butler Bridge Road and 2nd Street/Main Street (underway) ‐ Realign intersection; add curb extensions, 
new sidewalks, 10‐foot crosswalk. New railroad crossing panel, warning signage at crosswalk 
 Butler Bridge Road and 2nd Street/Main Street ‐ Realign intersection, realign driveway to moorage parking 
lot to align with Butler Bridge Road at 2nd Street/Main Street intersection  
Relevance to the Toledo TSP: The TSP process will consider projects from the Waterfront Connectivity Plan to 
include in this TSP, as appropriate. 
Toledo Transportation System Plan (1995, not adopted) 
The City of Toledo started the last TSP effort in 1994 and produced a TSP in 1995 that was not adopted by the City 
Council. The document was reviewed to determine which elements, if any, are relevant to this TSP process, and 
potentially which goals, objectives, performance measures; analysis of conditions and alternatives, and proposed 
improvement projects should be included.  
TSP Goals 
Transportation Circulation/Safety/Mobility 
 Maintain vehicle capacity and increase safety on Business Loop 20 within the City. 
 Ensure sufficient capacity to accommodate future travel demand (vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, et cetera) 
on Toledo arterials and collectors. 
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN: PLAN ASSESSMENT 
 9 
 Identify potential improvements to the local circulation system in an effort to encourage visitors to come 
into Toledo. 
 Improve safety at the US 20/Business Loop 20 intersections. 
 Identify opportunities for an additional connection between Business Loop 20 and US 20, roughly midway 
between the two existing intersections. 
 Limit the development of new cul‐de‐sac streets to situations where continuation of the road at some 
time in the future is unlikely. 
Coordination 
 Identify methods to ensure future coordination of transportation planning and project development 
activities with Lincoln County and ODOT. 
 Identify the continued role of the public in decision‐making on transportation projects. 
 Develop a coordinated approach to the operation, development and maintenance of facilities jointly 
managed by the represented jurisdictions. 
Community Goals 
 Identify strategies to improve the aesthetic character of Toledo's transportation system and methods of 
implementation. 
 Landscape transportation facilities to complement neighborhood character and amenities. 
 Design transportation facilities to preserve and be consistent with the natural and built environment. 
 Preserve key view corridors. 
Economic Development Goals 
 Identify facility management strategies to balance the need to serve statewide traffic on state highways 
with the need to support local business activities. 
 Identify priority transportation projects needed to support the location of new business, expansion of 
existing businesses, and other community development objectives in Toledo. 
 Maintain existing rail service to commercial and industrial sites. 
 Ensure an adequate truck route network to reduce commercial/neighborhood conflicts. 
Bicycles and Pedestrians 
 Improve the bicycle and pedestrian transportation system for both internal circulation and linkages to 
regional travel. 
 Encourage bicycle storage facilities and parking within development projects, in commercial areas and in 
parks. 
Public Transportation 
 Work with the Lincoln County Council on Aging to meet the needs of the transportation disadvantaged 
including improved dial‐a‐ride service. 
Capital Improvements and Financing 
 Fund growth‐related traffic improvements through development fees or other methods that assign 
growth‐related improvement needs to new development. 
 Pursue a range of funding sources including Federal, State and local sources (e.g. loans, matching funds) 
for transportation improvements. 
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN: PLAN ASSESSMENT 
10  
Existing and Future Conditions 
The TSP analyzed the existing (1995) conditions for traffic, pedestrians, and bicyclists within the City. All study 
area intersections operated at standard. Specifically, the US 20/Western Loop intersection had a Level of Service 
(LOS) of D, and US 20/Business Loop 20 had a LOS of E, both of which are within standards. 
Pedestrian facilities were mostly in the commercial business areas and near City Hall, and there were some 
facilities near the schools and Georgia Pacific Industrial Park. There are limited bicycle paths, and there are no on‐
street bike lanes. The steep terrain and lack of system makes it difficult for commuting and recreational bicycling 
in Toledo.  
Future traffic conditions in 2015 show that two intersections in Toledo would fail to meet standard: US 
20/Business Loop 20 (west) and US 20/OR 229, with a LOS of F. This would be the result of expected population 
growth and anticipated land use development within the City. The TSP used these existing and future conditions 
to develop the recommended improvements discussed below. 
Preferred Transportation System Plan 
Business Loop 20 and A Street Intersection 
The preferred alternative is to modify the phasing of the traffic signal to provide split phasing for A Street 
approaches, providing full protection to all critical movements at the intersection and eliminate the sight distance 
deficiency.  
Business Loop 20/Alder Street/NW 1st Street Intersection 
There are both short‐ and long‐term recommendations at this intersection. The short‐term recommendation is to 
provide signage on the east approach of Business Loop 20 as an advanced warning of a limited sight distance 
intersection. This would include prohibiting southbound cross‐street movements from Alder Street, and providing 
a detection loop on the west approach of 1st Street to Alder Street. There would be warning signs on both sides of 
Alder Street facing the Business Loop 20 intersection with flashing yellow lights.  
The long‐term recommendation at this intersection is to modify NW 1st Street to be one‐way westbound between 
Alder Street and Main Street. This improvement would alleviate the confusion and congestion at the intersection, 
and eliminate the need to stop vehicles on the 20+ percent grade on NW 1st Street between Main and Alder 
Street.  
East Slope Road/10th Street 
The preferred alternative is to formalize the intersection into a four‐legged intersection with stop sign controls on 
two or all four of the legs. This would require minor reconstruction on the south East Slope Road approach to 
align the intersections. Sidewalks and crosswalks would be added to improve the safety for pedestrians crossing 
to and from the park. 
US 20/East Business Loop 20 
There are both short‐ and long‐term alternatives for this intersection. The short‐term recommendation would add 
signage indicating exit/entrance points, yields, and stops. It would also require maintenance of a higher level of 
striping for the intersection so that the channelization can be seen and understood. 
The long‐term recommendation would provide raised channelization, potentially with low‐level vegetation or 
beautification. This would better identify and define the routes for permitted movements at the intersections, 
and allow for safe areas to add signing to improve driver understanding. 
US 20/West Business Loop 20/OR 229/Western Loop 
This is the most complex of the intersections studied in the 1995 TSP, and two alternatives were developed. The 
intention at the time was to forward both concepts as recommendations for ODOT to consider in the near future.  
Alternative A includes adding a traffic signal and reconstructing the south leg of OR 229 to create a 90‐degree 
angle with US 20. Other aspects of the alternative include adding exclusive lanes for the northbound lefts, through 
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN: PLAN ASSESSMENT 
 11 
movements, and rights from OR 229, and restriping the southbound approach to accommodate similar approach 
lanes. The eastbound to northbound free right‐turn lane would be maintained from US 20 to OR 229. This would 
also require a left turn acceleration lane on US 20 for the northbound to westbound left turn from Business Loop 
20. US 20 would need to be widened to provide enough distance to merge the left turning traffic with westbound 
through traffic on US 20. Left turns would be prohibited from Western Loop to US 20, and signs would be added 
on Western Loop to direct traffic to OR 229 for access to US 20 eastbound. 
Alternative B includes the same traffic signal and reconstruction of OR 229; this alternative is different at US 20 
and the Business Loop 20 intersection. The Business Loop 20 approach to US 20 would be modified to serve one‐
way traffic southbound from US 20. Only eastbound traffic from US 20 and southbound left turning traffic from 
Western Loop would have access to this section of Business Loop 20. Business Loop 20 would widen to two 
southbound lands to provide a left turn lane to the Dairy Queen and a left turn lane to OR 229 northbound. South 
of the OR 229 intersection, Business Loop 20 would return to two‐way traffic. This alternative would require 
properties southwest of Business Loop 20 to have a modified driveway entrance located as the fourth leg of the 
Business Loop 20/OR 229 intersection. 
Roadway Classification 
In addition to the roadway project recommendations, the 1995 TSP suggested classification for the roadways in 
Toledo based on the capacity of the system, surrounding land uses, and trip purposes. Roadway classifications 
also include specific design elements, discussed below. 
Principal Arterial (Statewide Highway) 
US 20 is the principal arterial in Toledo. Principal Arterials are intra‐city and provide links to the interstate system. 
Bike lanes should be provided on Principal Arterials. 
Arterial 
Business Loop 20 is recommended as an Arterial. Arterials should provide bike lanes and sidewalks and serve as 
the primary route for travel within and between community subareas. 
Major Collector 
Major Collectors serve traffic from local streets or minor collectors to the arterial system. The recommended 
Major Collectors include: 
 Sturdevant Road (south from Business Loop 20 through town) 
 10th Street (Sturdevant Road to East Slope Road) 
 East Slope Road (10th Street to Butler Bridge Road 
 Butler Bridge Road (south from NW 1st Avenue through town) 
 NW 1st Avenue (Butler Bridge Road to A Street) 
 A Street (NW 1st Avenue to Business Loop 20) 
 Siletz Highway (north from US 20) 
Minor Collector 
Minor Collectors provide access to abutting properties and serve local access needs of neighborhoods, including 
limited through traffic. Sidewalks and bike lanes should be provided consistent with the sidewalks and bicycle 
facility plan. The recommended Minor Collectors include: 
 East Slope Road (Business Loop 20 to 10th Street) 
 Arcadia Drive/Road (US 20 to Business Loop 20) 
 Burgess Road (Arcadia Drive to Business Loop 20) 
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN: PLAN ASSESSMENT 
12  
 Skyline Drive (Arcadia Drive to Business Loop 20) 
 Sunset Drive (Skyline Dr to Business Loop 20) 
 Dundon Road (Sunset Drive to Business Loop 20) 
Local Street 
Local streets provide direct property access, and are not intended to serve through traffic. All other streets in the 
City not mentioned above are recommended as local streets. 
Truck Route 
A Truck Route is signed as the primary access for trucks to the industrial area in Toledo. These routes are meant to 
carry a heavy volume of trucks, will need special considerations for traffic control, road geometry, access during 
construction, and possible traffic, pedestrian, and bicycle conflicts. The recommended Truck Routes include: 
 Business Loop 20 
 Sturdevant Road 
 Butler Bridge Road 
 10th Street (Sturdevant Road to East Slope Road) 
 East Slope Road (10th Street to Butler Bridge Road) 
 1st Street (Butler Bridge Road to A Street) 
 A Street (NW 1st Street to Business Loop 20) 
 Business Loop 20 (A Street to US 20) 
Modal Plans – Transit, Sidewalk, and Bicycle 
The TSP includes modal plans specific to transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists. The recommendations are included 
below. 
Transit 
Transit recommendations are to continue to support Lincoln County’s East Line Feeder and Dial‐a‐Ride systems. 
The City should support the County in efforts to secure funding of transit services. 
Sidewalk Facility Plan 
The goal is to provide a comprehensive sidewalk network by providing continuous facilities between the retail 
area, schools, and entrances to residential neighborhoods. In some areas, sidewalks are recommended on both 
sides of the street, in others, only one side is recommended. Sidewalks along Business Loop 20 need to be 8‐feet 
wide according to the Public Improvement Design Standards, all other sidewalks are 6 feet, with a minimum of 5 
feet. 
Sidewalks are recommended on the following roads: 
 Sturdevant Road 
 Business Loop 20 (where none currently exist) 
 Burgess Road 
 East Slope Road 
 Lincoln Way 
 Altree Lane 
 Olson Road 
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN: PLAN ASSESSMENT 
 13 
 SW 2nd Street 
 Arcadia Drive 
 5th Street 
Bicycle Facility Plan 
The TSP recommends 26 miles of bike lanes to be added to existing streets in Toledo, providing access to major 
business, residential, and institutional areas in Toledo. Sturdevant Road is specifically listed as an important 
location for bike lanes. Bike lanes on Business Loop 20 would be 6‐feet wide, all other bike facilities would be 5‐
feet wide, or a minimum of 4‐feet wide if topographical constraints preclude the 5‐foot width. 
Relevance to the Toledo TSP: While the 1995 TSP was never adopted, the goals and objectives, and existing and 
future conditions, along with some of the suggested alternatives provide good background for the current TSP 
process to build upon. The current TSP will consider the recommendations included in this document and include 
them where appropriate. 
Applicable Goals and Objectives 
Table 2 shows the general categories of goals and objectives in the plans reviewed above. For the most part, these 
goals and objectives should be included in this TSP effort, with consideration of the following additional goals: 
 Equity – Transportation impacts do not harm or benefit one population group disproportionately (low‐
income, transit‐dependent, age groups, etc.). 
 Business and Residential impacts – The effects of transportation projects on existing residential and 
businesses including right‐of‐way acquisition and other impacts. 
 Ability to be Implemented – The transportation project should have community and political support 
and/or a champion to ensure the project is implemented. 
   
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN: PLAN ASSESSMENT 
14  
TABLE 2 
Goals and Objectives from Previous Planning Efforts in Toledo
  Lincoln 
County 
TSP 
2020 Vision for 
Toledo – 
Comprehensive Plan 
Port of Toledo 
Waterfront Development 
Strategic Plan 
Port of Toledo Waterfront 
Connectivity Plan 
Toledo TSP (1995, 
not adopted) 
Accessibility     
No goals included in this 
plan. 
     
Aesthetics         
Citizen Involvement          
Coordination          
Cost‐Effective         
Economic 
Development 
        
Environment         
Freight          
Mobility           
Public Transit          
Pedestrian and 
Bicycles 
         
Safety          
 
Next Steps 
Available funding for roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvements will be determined in Technical 
Memorandum #2, and the Project Advisory Committee reviewed both memoranda at the July 17th meeting. Goals 
from this memorandum will be used to formulate the goals for the Toledo TSP, discussed by the PAC. 
 
  
Appendix B 
Transportation Funding
  
  1 
A p p e n d i x  B / T e c h n i c a l  M e m o r a n d u m  # 2  
 
Toledo Transportation System Plan: Funding for Roadway, 
Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Improvements 
 
This memorandum describes expenditures for transportation improvement projects within the city of Toledo over 
the past 5 to 10 years through various funds and grants. Additionally, this memorandum describes established 
and potential funding sources at the local, state, and federal levels for future transportation projects in Toledo.  
City Budget 
The city of Toledo collects revenue from a variety of sources that can be used to fund roadway, pedestrian, 
bicycle, and transit improvement projects. The funds and expenditures from the City budget between fiscal years 
2007 and 2011 are described below. These funds indicate the types of transportation projects constructed in 
previous years, except for any City participation in Lincoln County Transit projects. Table 1 shows the revenues in 
each of the funds for fiscal years 2007 through 2011. Where revenue originates for these budget line items is 
described further in this memorandum under Local Funding Sources. 
City Street Fund 
The City’s Street Fund accounts for the maintenance, operation, and construction of the City’s streets. Sources of 
revenue for this fund include shared State Highway Funds (from the highway tax), franchise fees, and the street 
utility fee. Totals for the Street Fund vary between $550,000 and $980,000 in budget years 2007‐2011. The City 
received approximately $180,000 from the State of Oregon Highway Tax in FY 2010 (included as part of the total 
street revenue of $919,305 in Table 1), with $204,000 budgeted for the current year (FY 2011) for the Street Fund. 
This revenue is distributed to the City based on formula allocation and varies each depending on State Highway 
Fund revenues. One percent of these funds are devoted to bicycle and pedestrian projects, per state law.  
Transportation Systems Development Fund 
The Transportation Systems Development fund is used to accumulate funds for future road system development 
costs. System Development Charges (SDCs) provide the revenue for this fund, and are charged when land is 
developed in Toledo. The City has collected SDCs in the past, and is currently collecting them, but between fiscal 
year 2009 and 2011, the City did not collect SDCs.  
Footpaths and Bicycle Trail Fund 
The City has a dedicated fund for Footpaths and Bicycle Trails, which is used to account for required expenditures 
of State Highway Funds dedicated to the development and maintenance of footpaths and bicycle trails. Revenues 
in this fund come from state highway taxes. The state requires that one percent of highway funds be spent on 
bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 
Street Reserve Fund 
The Street Reserve Fund is used to accumulate funds for future maintenance, operation, and construction of city 
streets. Revenues in this fund come from transfers from City Street Fund. At the end of fiscal year 2011, there was 
$44,349 in the Street Reserve Fund. 
Projects Fund Capital Outlay 
When Business Loop 20 was transferred from ODOT jurisdiction to the City’s jurisdiction, the City reserved funds 
for upkeep required as part of the transfer. In fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009, $10,000 was set aside. The City 
no longer reserves funds for Business Loop 20.  
   
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN: FUNDING FOR ROADWAY, PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS 
2  
 
  
   
TABLE 1 
Transportation Funds from the Toledo Budget FY 2007 through 2011
Fiscal Year  Fund Category  Revenue 
2007‐2008  Street Revenue  $575,330 
Projects Fund Capital Outlay – Highway 20 improvements  $10,000 
Footpaths and Bicycle Trails Revenues  $10,110 
Street Reserve Revenues  $31,725 
Transportation System Development Revenues  $3,940 
2008‐2009  Street Revenue  $550,800 
Projects Fund Capital Outlay – Highway 20 improvements  $10,000 
Footpaths and Bicycle Trails Revenues  $12,090 
Street Reserve Revenues   $29,745 
Transportation System Development Revenues  $66,010 
2009‐2010  Street Revenue  $633,300 
Projects Fund Capital Outlay – Highway 20 improvements  $8,350 
Footpaths and Bicycle Trails Revenues  $13,655 
Street Reserve Revenues  $34,490 
Transportation System Development Revenues  $4,000 
2010‐2011  Street Revenue  $919,305 
Footpaths and Bicycle Trails Revenues  $15,330 
Street Reserve Revenues  $44,425 
Transportation System Development Revenues  $0 
2011‐2012  Street Revenue  $979,310 
Footpaths and Bicycle Trails Revenues  $17,473 
Street Reserve Revenues  $54,610 
Transportation System Development Revenues  $12 
Source: City of Toledo Budgets 2007‐2008, 2008‐2009, 2009‐2010, 2010‐2011, 2011‐2012 
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN: FUNDING FOR ROADWAY, PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS 
 3 
Funding Sources for Recent Projects 
There were four transportation‐related projects in the past 5‐10 years in the City: 
The most recent roadway project in the City is the Butler Bridge/Main Street/2nd Street realignment and crosswalk 
project finished in early July 2012. This project was funded in part by federal bicycle‐pedestrian dollars ($180,000), 
the City contributed $10,000 from the Street Fund, and the Port of Toledo contributed $10,000.  
The recent transient dock improvements at the Port of Toledo were funded through a combination of Federal and 
state grants including $90,000 from the Oregon State Marine Board, $380,000 from the Federal Boating 
Infrastructure Grant, $20,000 from the state, and $60,000 from the Federal Clean Vessel Act Funds. This project 
will celebrate its opening on July 28, 2012. 
The Downtown Beautification project added hanging flower baskets and upgraded the light poles on Main Street. 
That project was funded through local funds (for the hanging baskets), and the light poles were funded through 
Federal Main Street Rehabilitation funds and a Forest Incentives Grant.  
The Slough was dredged in 2010 and 2011 to continue to allow marine freight traffic into the Port of Toledo. The 
dredging was funded in part from a Marine Navigation Fund ($278,000), a federal earmark of $680,000, stimulus 
funds ($400,000), and $50,000 from the Port of Toledo. 
In addition to these discrete projects, when Business Loop 20 was transferred from ODOT jurisdiction to the City, 
ODOT provided the City with $20 million to make improvements to the roadway. All other transportation projects 
in the last 5 to 10 years were overlay and upkeep, and funded through the City’s Street Fund. 
Established Funding Sources for Future Projects 
A variety of established federal, state and local funding sources are available to fund future transportation 
projects in the Toledo TSP, depending on the eligibility requirements.  
Federal Funding Sources 
Federal funding currently accounts for approximately 20 percent of total funding for transportation projects in 
Oregon. Toledo is not located within a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and federal funding is instead 
made available through state or county programs via the Cascades West Area Commission on Transportation 
(CWACT). CWACT generally programs federal funding for regional and local projects that affect the state 
transportation system, though some funds are made available directly for local projects.  
Most federal funding is available through the federal surface transportation program, supported by tax revenue to 
the Highway Trust Fund.  
Federal Highway Trust Fund 
Revenues to the HTF are comprised of motor vehicle fuel taxes, sales taxes on heavy trucks and trailers, tire taxes, 
and annual heavy truck use fees. The fund is split into two accounts – the highway account and transit account. 
Funds are appropriated to individual states on an annual basis. The 2005 legislation for the federal surface 
transportation program (Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users, 
referred to as SAFETEA‐LU) was replaced in July 2012 with Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP‐
21). This new 2‐year program keeps total federal funding at the SAFETEA‐LU rate, consolidates the 90 current 
programs under SAFETEA‐LU into 30, eliminates transportation earmarks, and increases funding for the 
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Program (TIFIA). The TIFIA program provides loans to 
finance transportation projects of regional or national significance, and seeks to leverage federal transportation 
dollars with local funds and private investment. Toledo may be eligible to receive funding under the expanded 
TIFIA program. Projects using funds from the Highway Trust Fund must be included in the Statewide 
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Most federal funds must be matched with state or local funds; the 
current matching ratio for most projects is 10.27 percent.  
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN: FUNDING FOR ROADWAY, PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS 
4  
Federal Transit Administration grants 
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) manages a number of grants available to transit agencies nationwide. 
The city of Toledo could work with Lincoln County Transit to fund transit projects serving the City.  
Transit Expansion and Livable Communities Grants 
Approximately $2.4 billion in funds was appropriated for this program in the current budget year. The goal of this 
initiative from the Federal Transit Administration is to advocate for and support projects and programs that 
improve the link between public transit and communities. Several formula and competitive grant programs are 
available through this initiative. Policy goals include better integrating transportation and land use planning, 
fostering multimodal systems, providing transportation options and improving access, reducing emissions, and 
increasing public participation in transportation decision‐making. Toledo and Lincoln County Transit may be 
eligible for grant funding under this program.  
Formula Grants for Other than Urbanized Areas (5311)  
These grants are given to the states for distribution to rural (<50,000 people) communities. This program is 
intended to enhance access to services, assist in development or maintenance of public transportation systems, 
and assist in development of intercity bus service. Lincoln County Transit currently receives operating funds of 
approximately $350,000 per year from this source.  
Transportation for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities (5310) 
This formula grant program is managed by the state, with funds provided for capital projects that enhance the 
accessibility of older adults and those with disabilities. Lincoln County Transit will receive $660,000 in capital grant 
through this FTA program this year.  
Section 319 Non‐Point Source Implementation Grants 
Transportation projects that integrate stormwater treatment may be eligible to receive federal funding through 
Section 319 grants. This program, administered by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), 
provides federal funds to address non‐point pollution, including stormwater improvement projects. Funding is 
very competitive, with less than $500,000 available statewide in the most recent grant cycle. Projects that could 
be eligible for funding include applications of pervious pavements, stormwater detention and retention, and other 
low impact stormwater development tactics. Funds can be used for all or a portion of a project, but require a 
minimum 40 percent match. The Yaquina River is on the Clean Water Act 303(d) list for a number of pollutants, 
and projects within the river basin may be attractive for funding.  
State Funding Sources 
State funds are distributed via the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC). The State Highway Fund is the most 
significant source of funding for the programs described below. To be eligible for funding, projects must be 
programmed through the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).  
State Highway Fund 
State Highway Fund Revenues are received from a combination of fuel taxes, vehicle registration and title fees, 
driver’s license fees, the truck weight‐mile tax and federal monies. Fund revenues may only be used for 
construction and maintenance of state and local highways, bridges, and roadside rest areas. State law (ORS 
366.514) specifies that a reasonable amount of highway funds must be spent on walkways and bikeways, and that 
in any given fiscal year, a minimum of 1 percent of State Highway Funds must be spent on these projects by 
funding recipients. However, cities and counties receiving may allocate these funds to a reserve fund, which they 
must expend within a period not to exceed 10 years. All funds must be expended on projects within road, street, 
or highway rights‐of‐way.  
State Highway Funds are appropriated by the OTC on an annual basis. Sixty percent of fund revenues are kept at 
the state level, 24 percent is distributed to counties based on the number of vehicles registered in each county, 
and 16 percent is distributed to cities based on population.  
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN: FUNDING FOR ROADWAY, PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS 
 5 
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) 
The STIP is the 4‐year capital improvement program for the state of Oregon. It provides a schedule and identifies 
funding for projects throughout the state. Projects included in the STIP are generally “regionally significant” and 
have been given a high priority through planning efforts and by the relevant area commission on transportation 
(ACT) and metropolitan planning organization (MPO). For Toledo, the relevant ACT is the Cascades West Area 
Commission on Transportation (CWACT). The current 2010‐2013 STIP has six program categories: modernization, 
safety, preservation, bridge, operations, and special programs. All regionally significant state and local projects, as 
well as all federally‐funded projects and programs, must be included in the STIP. Toledo does not have any 
projects in the 2010 – 2013 or draft 2012 – 2015 STIP.  
The 2010‐2013 STIP includes projects totaling $1.25 billion and covers the period from October 2009 to the end of 
September 2013. The 2012‐2015 STIP is currently drafted and will be approved pending federal endorsement. 
About 80 percent of projects are expected to use federal funds. Federal funding levels projected for the 2010‐
2013 and draft 2012‐2015 STIP are assumed to be at the same annual level distributed under SAFETEA‐LU from 
2005 to 2009.  
Toledo is eligible for funding from four of the six categories listed above – the City is not eligible to directly receive 
pavement preservation dollars, which are distributed to the Oregon Department of Transportation for highway 
pavement maintenance. The City additionally is unlikely to be eligible for the modernization funds, as US 20 
through Toledo is unlikely to experience capacity issues. Projects within the Toledo TSP may fall within the 
following four categories: 
 Safety: improvements to locations on the state highway system where frequent and serious incidents occur.  
 Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation: capital projects that replace or rehabilitate state or local bridges.  
 Operations projects: system management and improvements that lead to more efficient and safer traffic 
operations and greater system reliability.  
 Special Programs: these include bicycle and pedestrian improvements, public transit, and Transportation 
Enhancement program. 
These programs are described in detail below.  
Safety 
Safety funds are devoted to cost‐effective improvements to frequent or severe incident locations. Funding is 
prioritized toward projects with the highest likelihood of reducing fatalities or serious injuries. Project need is 
determined by evaluating specific problem segments and very specific locations on state highways. Projects that 
would improve safety on US 20 may be eligible for funding under this program. Projects addressing intersection 
safety at the junction of US 20 and OR 229 are eligible to receive funding through this program.  
Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation 
The State Bridge Program and Local Bridge Program comprise this funding category. Both programs are potentially 
applicable to the Toledo TSP. These programs fund replacement or rehabilitation of state or locally‐owned bridges 
that have been determined to be structurally deficient, functionally obsolete, or physically deteriorated. The State 
Bridge Program funds bridge projects on state highways, and the Local Bridge Program provides assistance to 
replace or rehabilitate locally‐owned bridges. Bridges must be 20 feet or longer and be subject to National Bridge 
Inspection Standards to be eligible for funding from either program.  
 Operations Projects 
The aim of this program is to improve efficiency of the transportation system through replacement of aging 
infrastructure, or improvements that allow the existing system to meet increased demands. There are four 
subcategories of eligible projects: Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS); Signs, Signals and Illumination; Slides 
and Rockfalls; and Transportation Demand Management (TDM), or the Transportation Options program.  
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN: FUNDING FOR ROADWAY, PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS 
6  
The ITS program funds strategies and technology improvements, including traffic incident management, arterial 
and freeway management, and weather and incident management projects. Signs, Signals and Illumination 
projects include signal replacement, installation of detection loops, signalization, and replacement of deteriorated 
street illumination systems. The state identifies slide and rockfall projects based on potential risk to the travelling 
public, traffic volumes, and the ODOT Rockfall Hazard Rating System. Finally, Transportation Demand 
Management projects are targeted to specific urban areas of the state, and aim to enhance mobility, decrease 
congestion and enhance efficiency. 
Toledo is eligible to potentially receive funds listed above.  
Special Programs 
A number of special programs are included in the STIP. This section describes those programs that may be 
applicable to projects in the Toledo TSP. 
 Public Transit Programs: ODOT manages a number of state and federal transit programs. While the City 
does not manage transit service, Toledo could work with Lincoln County Transit to fund transit projects 
important to the City.  
 ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Grants: Most funds in this program are distributed through 
competitive grants to local governments. A minimum of 1 percent of annual state highway revenues are 
devoted to this program, with about $5 million in funding available every 2 years. All projects must be 
within public rights‐of‐way; recreational trails outside of the right‐of‐way are not eligible. Grant cycles 
occur every 2 years and local match is generally expected. Pedestrian and bicycle projects in Toledo within 
the public right‐of‐way are eligible to apply for grants from this program.  
 Transportation Enhancement Program: The state manages this federal‐aid program that provides funds 
for a wide variety of transportation projects that improve aesthetics, improve safety, and add value to the 
transportation system. There are 12 categories of funding, including bicycle and pedestrian projects, 
landscaping, archaeological planning and research, historic preservation, stormwater mitigation, and 
others. ODOT expects to have $7.4 million available each year from 2012 to 2015 for competitive grants, 
though $20 million in competitive funding was made available this fiscal year. A wide variety of 
transportation projects in Toledo would be eligible for funding from this grant source. A match of at least 
10.27 percent is required for all grants.  
 Immediate Opportunity Fund: This fund is discretionary, and provides funding for transportation projects 
essential for supporting site‐specific economic development projects. These funds are distributed on a 
case‐by‐case basis in cooperation with the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department. 
These funds can only be used when other sources of financial support are insufficient or unavailable. 
These funds are reserved for projects where a document transportation problem exists, or where private 
firm location decisions hinge on the immediate commitment of road construction. A minimum 50 percent 
match is required from project applications. 
 ConnectOregon:  ConnectOregon funds are lottery‐backed bonds distributed to air, marine, rail, transit 
and other multimodal projects statewide. No less than 10 percent of ConnectOregon IV funds must be 
distributed to each of the five regions of the state, provided that there are qualified projects in the 
region. The objective is to improve the connections between the highway system and other modes of 
transportation.  
 Special City Allotment Grant:  Special City Allotment Grants are made up of $1 million in state gas taxes 
distributed annually among cities with population of less than 5,000. ODOT sets the distribution and dollar 
amount by agreement with the League of Oregon Cities. Half of the funds come from the cities’ share of 
gas tax revenues and half comes from ODOT’s share of the State Highway Fund. Cities can receive half of 
the maximum $25,000 grant amount at the beginning of the project, with the final payment due upon 
completing of the project.  
Oregon Parks and Recreation Local Government Grants 
The Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) administers this program using Oregon Lottery revenues. 
These grants can fund acquisition, development and major rehabilitation of public outdoor parks and recreation 
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN: FUNDING FOR ROADWAY, PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS 
 7 
facilities. OPRD has distributed $4 million annually under this program through a competitive grant process. A 
match of at least 20 percent is required.  
Oregon Transportation Infrastructure Bank (OTIB) 
The OTIB is a statewide revolving loan fund available to local governments for many transportation infrastructure 
improvements, including highway, transit and non‐motorized projects. Most funds made available through this 
program are federal, and roads must be functionally classified as a major collector or higher to be eligible for loan 
funding.  
Local Funding Sources 
This section describes existing local funding sources for the city of Toledo. Major local funding sources include 
general fund revenues, road maintenance fees, and system development charges, plus the City’s share of State 
Highway Fund revenue.  
Road Maintenance Fees 
This fee is assessed to all residential and non‐residential properties in the city of Toledo to fund upkeep of the 
City’s road system. Approximately $110,000 in fee revenue was forecast for FY 2011. These revenues are made 
available exclusively for road maintenance (TCC 13.40.040). These fees represent a significant source of funding 
for maintenance of existing roads, but are unavailable for new capital improvement projects.  
System Development Charges  
System development charges (SDCs) are one‐time fees on new development that compensate for the increased 
traffic associated with new development. The City authorized the collection of system development charges 
(SDCs) for all infrastructure categories in 2010. SDCs cannot be expended on transportation operations or 
maintenance projects, and may be used exclusively for capital improvement projects. These charges are payable 
to the City when a building or other development permit is issued. In 2011, no transportation SDCs were collected 
and the 2012 budget forecasts approximately $2,000 in SDC revenue. The outlook for SDC revenue is very 
uncertain, given limited development during the current economic downturn.  
Public Utility District Franchise Revenue 
Forty percent of this revenue source is transferred to the roads fund, and monies are available for transportation 
capital improvements, maintenance and operations. Approximately $350,000 in revenue was forecast for the 
2012 budget year from this source, representing a significant share of total local transportation resources.  
Potential Other Funding Sources for Future Projects 
The following funding sources and strategies may be available to the City in addition to the established programs 
listed above.  
Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants (EECBG) 
This program was initially funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The current 
funding authorization expired in April 2012. Future funding for this program is currently uncertain. The program 
provided formula grants to states and competitive grants for projects that reduce fossil fuel emissions, reduce 
total energy use of eligible grantees, and improve energy efficiency of transportation and other sectors. Toledo 
may be eligible for competitive grants if this program is funded in future federal budgets. 
Increased State Highway Fund revenues 
Gas tax revenue to the State Highway Fund has not kept pace with inflation or demands of the state’s 
transportation system. ODOT is exploring new revenue models to meet state transportation needs, which may 
result in increased funds for state transportation programs in coming years. Oregon is actively exploring a vehicle 
miles travelled (VMT) tax to replace the current gas tax, with full implementation of any VMT program expected 
to take up to 20 years.  
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN: FUNDING FOR ROADWAY, PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS 
8  
Local Improvement Districts (LID) 
LIDs are created by property owners within a district of a city to raise revenues for constructing improvements 
within the district boundaries. LIDs may be used to assess property owners for improvements that benefit 
properties and are secured by property liens. Property owners typically enter into LIDs because of the economic 
or personal advantages of the improvements. The City would work with property owners to acquire financing at 
lower interest rates than under typical financing methods. The formation of LIDs is governed by state law and 
local jurisdictional development codes. LID revenues can only be used on capital projects. LID revenues can be 
combined with other revenue sources to fully fund projects.  
Roads District 
A Road District is essentially a type of limited LID. Oregon state law (ORS 371) allows for the formation of special 
roads taxing districts for purposes of constructing and maintaining roads within the taxing district boundaries. A 
roads district would be a separate entity from the city of Toledo, with its own property tax levy rate and an 
elected board of commissioners. The creation of a roads district must be voted on by those within the potential 
district boundaries.  
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) 
The city of Toledo must first designate an urban renewal area within the City to implement TIF. The county 
assessor “freezes” the assessed value of properties within the urban renewal area, and the property taxes 
collected above those that were collected when the property values were frozen are used to pay for 
improvements within the urban renewal area. TIF assumes that property values within the urban renewal area 
will increase over time. TIF is primarily an economic development tool, but may be useful for targeting areas in 
the City with serious improvement needs.  
Revenue and General Obligation Bonds 
Bonding allows municipal and county government to finance construction projects by borrowing money and 
paying it back over time, with interest. Financing requires smaller regular payments over time compared to paying 
the full cost at once, but financing increases the total cost of the project by adding interest. General Obligation 
Bonds are often used to pay for construction of large capital improvements and must be approved by a vote of 
the public. These bonds add the cost of the improvement to property taxes over a period of time. Toledo could 
consider issuing a General Obligation Bond to pay for significant transportation improvement projects identified 
within the City.  
Parking Fees 
The City does not currently charge for parking. Income generated by charging parking fees could be used to 
implement a variety of transportation projects. The collection system would require purchase of parking meter 
infrastructure, careful study of where to install meters, and analysis of the appropriate fee amount to charge 
drivers.  
Next Steps 
The Project Advisory Committee (PAC) reviewed funding information found in this memorandum at the July 17th 
meeting. Additional funding sources and information were then included. When projects are developed for the 
Transportation System Plan, these existing and potential future funding sources will be revisited. This will help 
determine if the projects in the TSP are eligible for these funding sources. 
  
Appendix C 
Transportation Deficiencies and Needs
  
  1 
A p p e n d i x  C / T e c h n i c a l  M e m o r a n d u m  # 3  
 
Toledo TSP: Transportation Deficiencies and Needs 
 
This memorandum describes the existing (2012) and forecasted future (2035) transportation conditions in Toledo, 
identifies deficiencies in the transportation system, and the need for transportation improvements indicated by 
these conditions. This report evaluates the roadway and freight network, public transportation routes and service, 
bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, rail facilities, airports, and pipelines within the City of Toledo. It also 
examines traffic safety conditions, evaluates local population demographics, reviews land use patterns, and 
analyzes on‐street and off‐street public parking usage on Main Street in downtown Toledo.  
The Project Team gathered information on the existing system and identified deficiencies through various 
methods including a site visit in July 2012; traffic counts collected by the Oregon Department of Transportation 
(ODOT) in June 2012; stakeholder interviews in July 2012; Geographic Information System (GIS) map data analysis; 
review of existing local and regional plans; and evaluation of safety data collected from the City of Toledo and 
ODOT.  
The information in this memo serves as the starting point for a community discussion about the current state of 
the transportation system in Toledo. This information will be used to help inform project ideas and alternatives to 
be developed, reviewed, and included in Toledo’s Transportation System Plan (TSP). 
Introduction 
Purpose of Transportation System Plan 
The Toledo TSP is a long‐range (20 year) plan that identifies ways to improve connectivity and mobility for all 
travel modes, support planned land uses and economic development, and reduce reliance on the automobile. The 
TSP serves as the transportation element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The TSP will establish a system of 
transportation facilities and services to meet state, regional, and local needs, while also providing a rationale for 
making transportation investments and land use decisions. The plan is required by Oregon’s Transportation 
Planning Rule and must be consistent with existing local and state policies, plans, and rules. 
Study Area 
The City of Toledo is located in central Lincoln County, along the Yaquina River and according to the 2010 US 
Census had a population of 3,465. It is roughly five miles east of Newport, the County seat. Figure 1 shows the 
study area in more detail. The City’s transportation network is a diverse collection of multimodal facilities 
including State, County, and City roadways, the Port of Toledo, the Toledo State Airport, and the Portland and 
Western Railroad (PNWR).  
The Toledo TSP study area is based on the Toledo Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The northern City limit 
boundary follows US 20 – Corvallis Newport Highway and Skyline Drive. Wagon, East Slope, and Sturdevant roads 
make up the eastern boundary. The Yaquina River serves as the southern boundary with the exception of a 
portion of land within the City south of the river along South Bay Road. The western study area limits follow Bay 
Boulevard, Depot Slough, and Business Loop 20. 
Table 1 provides selected demographic, commuting, and employment statistics from the 2010 US Census. 
Approximately 25 percent of the population in Toledo under 17‐years‐old and another 12 percent are 65 years old 
or older. These two populations are likely to be transit dependant or have limited ability to drive a car. Generally, 
the racial/ethnic distribution is similar to the County and State percentages. Toledo has more individuals with 
incomes below the poverty line, compared to the County and State; however, the median household income is 
higher than the County average. Individuals living in poverty are more likely to be dependent on public transit, or 
other modes, to get to work or access services due to the high cost of owning and operating a vehicle. 
Employees in Toledo are more likely to drive alone to work and fewer employees take transit or walk compared to 
employees in the County and State. This is important to consider when determining deficiencies and needs for the 
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
2  
TSP: few employees may utilize transit because it does not travel at the needed times or locations. The high rate 
of workers driving alone also has implications on the transportation system; carpooling or increasing the number 
of employees who take transit or other modes could help address congestion within the City. More than 80 
percent of workers have a work commute of less than 30 minutes; indicating that most employees living in Toledo 
work in the City or in nearby communities, such as Newport or Siletz. Employees in Toledo are more likely to work 
in manufacturing or transportation/warehousing industries than employees in either the County or the State. This 
has implications on the transportation system since these jobs are likely to be scheduled in shifts, creating 
demand from commuting employees on the transportation system during very specific times. 
TABLE 1 
City of Toledo Demographic Information  
  City of Toledo  Lincoln County  State of Oregon 
Population:  3,465  46,034  3,831,074 
Age 65 and Over  12%  12%  14% 
Age 17 and Under  25%  17%  22% 
White  90%  88%  89% 
African American  1%  0%  2% 
American Indian  4%  4%  2% 
Asian American  1%  1%  4% 
Pacific Islander  0%  0%  0% 
Two or more races  4%  4%  3% 
Hispanic or Latino*  5%  8%  12% 
Median Household Income  $43,871 $39,738  $49,260 
Poverty Status:       
Individuals Below Poverty  19%  16%  14% 
Workers age 16 and over:       
Drive alone to work  86%  76%  72% 
Carpool  9%  13%  11% 
Public transit  0%  1%  4% 
Walk  2%  6%  4% 
Other  3%  2%  3% 
Work from home  1%  3%  6% 
Workers 16 and over who work outside of home:       
Travel time to work less than 10 minutes  25%  25%  17% 
…10 to 14 minutes  16%  22%  17% 
…15 to 19 minutes  28%  15%  17% 
…20 to 24 minutes  18%  16%  14% 
…25 to 29 minutes  1%  3%  6% 
…30 to 34 minutes  7%  9%  12% 
…35 to 44 minutes  0%  4%  5% 
…45 to 59 minutes  0%  2%  6% 
…60 or more minutes  6%  5%  6% 
Average travel time to work (in minutes)  17  19  22 
Jobs in Toledo (employment by place of work)       
Manufacturing  38%  6%  12% 
Transportation/ Warehousing  13%  5%  4% 
Source: 2010 US Census. Accessed October 2012 
*Hispanic or Latino is considered in addition to the general race categories, the percentage total will equal more than 100% 
 
   
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
 3 
Data Collection 
Members of the Project Team visited Toledo to collect data on the existing conditions. Determining the existing 
conditions provides an understanding of how the network currently operates, what facilities exist, and potential 
gaps or unmet transportation needs. Data gathered for:
 Bicycle lanes 
 Freight routes 
 Multi‐use paths 
 Port facilities 
 Public airports 
 Public parking availability  
 Rail lines and gated crossings 
 
ODOT collected traffic counts to determine traffic operation conditions, including Average Daily Traffic (ADT), 
truck traffic volumes, and bicycle and pedestrian volumes. The team analyzed 11 study area intersections, 
including several along US 20 and Business Loop 20. This memo also includes an assessment of safety conditions 
using crash data provided by ODOT and the City of Toledo. The City’s population forecast and ODOT traffic volume 
trends were used to estimate future baseline traffic conditions for 2035 assuming no improvements to the 
transportation system. 
Stakeholder Interviews 
The Project Team conducted five stakeholder interviews with community members to supplement the technical 
data. Stakeholders included individuals from key organizations (police, fire, and ambulance) and those that who 
may not otherwise participate in the TSP planning process, such as business owners, representatives from 
companies that operate within the City, and community members who are not able to make meetings. 
Stakeholder interviews provided information on safety concerns not recorded in the crash data such as “near 
misses”, concerns with bicycling or walking that would not be reported in the traffic analysis, and other issues 
important to the community. These interviews were vital in identifying critical issues for further evaluation in the 
TSP including traffic safety concerns; issues with freight vehicles deviating from designated freight routes; 
downtown parking usage; and existing deficiencies and needs in the multimodal transportation network. 
Stakeholders were specifically asked about safety concerns, freight traffic in the City, parking availability, events 
that create traffic issues within town, and provided feedback on other transportation‐related issues they felt 
should be addressed in the TSP. Information from the stakeholders is included in the appropriate sections 
throughout this memo. 
   
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
4  
Executive Summary 
This section summarizes the identified deficiencies and needs for the topic areas discussed in this memorandum.  
Roads 
Most roads in Toledo are limited by steep grades and narrow right‐of‐way. Many roads are narrow and winding, 
with little room for shoulders, sidewalks, or bicycle lanes. Collector and arterial roads in Toledo are two lanes with 
lower speeds that connect the regional system to the local street. Based on a review of past documents, some 
changes to the functional classifications of collectors and arterials are recommended to be consistent with the 
current use and function of the roads. 
Freight Routes 
There are a number of freight routes serving industrial land within the City, on both arterial and collector roads. 
Stakeholders have indicated that trucks occasionally stray from the signed routes and then get stuck on steep or 
narrow roads not intended for freight traffic. 
Land Use 
Industrial land is located along the Yaquina River and the Slough on the south side of the City, adjacent to both 
general and low density residential areas. These land uses can create conflicting traffic patterns with heavy freight 
using the same roads as residents. Land use recommendations are not part of the TSP, but are considered from a 
deficiencies and needs perspective.  
Traffic Generators 
The main traffic generator in Toledo is the Georgia‐Pacific Toledo Pulp and Paper Operations facility (Georgia‐
Pacific) site, though other traffic generators include businesses and services along Main Street, schools and parks, 
the Library, Police Department, and Fire Station. These traffic generators impact the transportation system in 
particular ways:  
 The Georgia‐Pacific site attracts trips at very specific hours during shift changes, but also freight traffic 
throughout the day 
 Services and businesses attract trips throughout the day, though the grocery store is likely to attract the 
highest traffic volumes in the afternoon as residents stop at the store on their way home or en route to 
other activities. 
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 
There are two signed bike routes in Toledo and only one road with striped bike lanes. Steep and narrow roads 
make bicycling and walking difficult, though there are sidewalks in the downtown core and along portions of 
Business Loop 20. Stakeholders indicated that there are gaps in the sidewalks network and a need for a multi‐use 
path along Sturdevant Road to serve both Toledo Elementary and Junior/Senior High Schools. In addition to these 
gaps, stakeholders identified railroad crossings are difficult for bicyclists and pedestrians, especially the crossing 
on 1st Street and Butler Bridge Road. 
Transit Routes 
Lincoln County Transit provides six daily round trips through Toledo, with six stops in town on the Siletz to 
Newport route. Benton County also runs the Coast to Valley Express intercity route. Very few employees in Toledo 
take transit to get to work. The limited times and stops in the City may be a barrier to those who would like to 
take transit but are unable due to these issues. 
Freight Rail 
Portland and Western Railroad operates the short‐line track in Toledo, serving the Georgia‐Pacific site. There is 
one roundtrip train per day, and an average of 6‐12 switching movements along the track near Butler Bridge Road 
downtown. Most railroad crossings are gated; however, it is possible to cross with a train on the tracks from SE 2nd 
Street onto Butler Bridge Road. Multiple stakeholders indicated that improving rough railroad crossings should be 
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
 5 
a high priority. Motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians have submitted multiple complaints that the crossings are 
not well maintained and pose a safety hazard. Two crashes were reported by stakeholders at crossings; a bicycle 
crash and a vehicle/train crash. 
Airport 
The airport in Toledo accommodates about 22 takeoffs and landings a week for private aircraft (ultralight and 
single‐engine planes) and there are no commercial passenger services. During emergencies, Coast Guard 
helicopters and Life Flight air ambulances use the airport to transport people and supplies. There are no plans to 
expand the airport and no plans to change the amount of aircraft using the facility. 
Water and Pipeline Facilities 
The Port of Toledo owns and operates a boatyard that provides haul‐out and dry dock services to about 200 boats 
a year. Additionally, 50 boats a year come to Yaquina Boatworks for maintenance. The Port of Toledo also 
provides boat moorage and a transient boat dock for day use on Depot Slough. There is also a boat launch near 
the Toledo Airport. No freight is unloaded or offloaded at the Port, although the Yaquina River is a navigable 
waterway.  
Water and sewer lines in Toledo are co‐located with City‐owned streets. The Georgia‐Pacific site has a large 
pipeline connecting two activity areas, as well as a pipeline used to discharge effluent in the Pacific Ocean west of 
Newport. Northwest Natural operates a high‐pressure gas transmission pipeline northeast of the City. There are 
no plans to expand any pipelines in the City. 
Existing and Future Traffic Conditions 
The existing conditions operational analysis identified that US 20 at Business Loop 20 (west) does not meet ODOT 
mobility targets or proposed City mobility standards.  
The existing conditions queuing analysis identified the following roadways as having intersection queue lengths 
that exceed storage: 
 Business Loop 20 (west) at US 20 – northbound approach 
 Business Loop 20 at Business Loop 20 Spur – westbound approach 
 Business Loop 20 at A Street – east‐ and westbound approaches 
The future no‐build operational analysis identified that the following intersections will not meet ODOT mobility 
targets or the proposed City mobility standards in 2035 (without modifications to the facilities): 
 US 20 at OR 229 
 US 20 at Business Loop 20 (west) 
The future no‐build queuing analysis identified the following roadways as having intersection queue lengths that 
will exceed storage in 2035 (without modifications to the facilities): 
 US 20 at OR 229 – east‐ and southbound approaches 
 Business Loop 20 (west) at US 20 – northbound approach 
 Business Loop 20 at Business Loop 20 Spur – westbound approach 
 Business Loop 20 at Bay Boulevard – westbound approach 
 Business Loop 20 at A Street – north‐, east‐ and westbound approaches 
Freight Truck Operations 
Toledo has a higher rate of truck traffic than other comparable cities due to the Georgia‐Pacific site. Trucks take 
longer to stop and start at stop signs/traffic signals which can increase congestion; the additional room needed 
for the vehicle and slower travel speeds, also factor into congestion. Trucks also have an impact on road surfaces 
and require wider turning radii at intersections. Business Loop 20 northeast of Sturdevant Road, Sturdevant Road 
south of Business Loop 20, and Bay Boulevard had the highest percentages of truck traffic within the City; 
between 3 and 40 percent based on the road segment and direction.  
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
6  
Safety Conditions 
The crashes recorded from 2006‐2010 at the three safety study intersections (2, 3/4, and 5) show twelve crashes 
in the safety study area. Commonalities between the crashes recorded include: 
 Turning movement and angle crashes, which may be due to the inability of drivers to find appropriate 
traffic gaps from the minor (stop controlled) roads onto busier roadways. 
 Majority of crashes occur during the late afternoon/evening, when traffic volumes are generally highest.  
 Crashes associated with behavioral contributing factors, such as “too fast for conditions,” “distracted 
driving,” and “careless driving.”  
 Crashes where an older driver is at fault.  
These types of commonalities can be used to help establish how future changes at these locations may result in 
increases or decreases to crashes on the network.  
The crash analysis based on the data does not indicate the magnitude of the community concern with the safety 
of the Western Junction. Stakeholder interviews and conversations with the community and PAC indicate that 
there are daily “near misses” at this intersection and it is important for the TSP to recommend safety upgrades at 
this location. 
Main Street Parking 
The parking analysis on Main Street showed that on a typical summer weekday, there is adequate parking for the 
demand. On‐ and off‐street parking spaces on Main Street were approximately 23‐39 percent full between 12:00 
pm and 6:00 pm on a weekday. Stakeholder feedback indicated that special events in the City can create parking 
shortages, especially when those events close Main Street to vehicles. 
   
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
 7 
Existing Transportation System 
This section documents the existing roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, transit, air, rail, water, and pipeline conditions 
within the City, as well as system needs and deficiencies.  
Roadways 
Steep hills and narrow ridges in Toledo have led to a narrow and steep transportation network, especially in the 
hills east of downtown and the residential areas between US 20 and Business Loop 20. These narrow, winding 
roads have sight distance limitations from vertical and horizontal curves with vegetation directly adjacent to the 
roads. All roads except for Business Loop 20 and US 20 are two‐lane roads and very few have shoulders or 
sidewalks. In many cases, there is a steep slope on either side of the road and little room to expand or add 
shoulders. 
Functional Classification 
Roadways in Toledo are classified based on the expected and current usage. The classification categories include 
arterials, collectors, and local roads. Arterials are meant to accommodate the longer‐distance trip and generally 
have high speeds with few local accesses. Collectors gather traffic from local roads, and some private accesses, 
and provide a connection between neighborhoods and the regional arterial system. Collectors balance the needs 
of local access with the need for mobility and carry shorter trips. Local roads provide direct access to individual 
properties, have lower speeds, and carry less traffic. 
The classification of each roadway is important to help determine appropriate design standards, pedestrian and 
bicycle facilities, and access to adjacent properties. Arterial and collector roads in the project study area are 
described below and are the primary focus of the TSP. Roadway classifications are from the City’s GIS roadway 
layers. Figure 1 includes a map of these designations. Additionally, the Toledo Public Facilities Plan (1989) cited in 
the previous unadopted Toledo TSP and an ODOT map of functional classification designations from Lincoln 
County in 2009 were analyzed. There are a number of discrepancies as noted in the section below, along with the 
recommendation for a classification based on the current traffic levels and land uses served. Table 2 shows the 
differences between the three data sources, as well as the Project Team’s recommendation. 
UNK \\ROSA\PROJ\ODOT\437682TOLEDO\GIS\MAPFILES\STUDYAREA_8.5X11.MXD ECLARK5 10/4/2012 11:37:22 AM
NE ARCADIA DR
229
20B
20
20
N M
AI N 
ST
NE 1ST ST
NW
 A S
T
NE 2ND ST
NE EAS T SLOPE RD
NE SKYLINE DR
NE WAGO N RD
SO
UTH 
BAY 
RD
SE STURD EVANT RD
SE BUTLER BRIDGE RD
NE STURDEVANT RD
YAQUINA BAY RD
Benton
Lane
Lincoln
Polk
Tillamook Yamhill
FIGURE 1Study Area Toledo TSPToledo, Oregon
VICINITY MAP
LEGENDRailway
Functional ClassificationPrincipal ArterialArterialCollectorLocal
Toledo UGB
City Limits
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
 9 
 
Truck Route Sign on US 20 
Signal at Business Loop 20 and A Street 
Arterial Roads 
The primary function of an arterial roadway is to provide mobility 
for through trips. Arterials typically carry higher traffic volumes and 
allow higher travel speeds while providing limited access to adjacent 
properties. Within the study area, US 20 (Corvallis‐Newport 
Highway) is a principal arterial and Business Loop 20 and Business 
Loop 20 Spur are minor arterials. The City classifications are 
consistent with the State and Toledo Public Facilities designations, 
with the exception of OR 229 which the City designates as an 
arterial but the State and Public Facilities map identify as a collector. 
The Project Team recommends identifying OR 229 as a collector to 
be consistent with the State, as OR 229 is mostly outside of the 
project study area and under ODOT’s jurisdiction. 
US 20 is primarily a two‐lane highway and an important link 
between the Interstate 5 corridor in the Willamette Valley and US 
101 along the Oregon Coast including Newport. This segment of roadway is designated a Statewide Highway 
under the National Highway System and is owned and operated by ODOT. This section is also a state‐designated 
truck route and a safety corridor. The speed limit on US 20 is 45 miles per hour (mph) throughout the project 
study area. East of the western junction of Business Loop 20 and US 20 there is an eastbound passing lane for a 
total of three travel lanes. East of Arcadia Drive, US 20 has two travel lanes in each direction, for a total of four 
travel lanes.  
Business Loop 20 is a minor arterial throughout Toledo. Business Loop 20 is 3.5 miles long, of which 2.6 miles are 
within the Toledo UGB. It is a two‐lane road and makes a loop east‐west, connecting to US 20 at both ends; 
though the east end is outside of the project study area. Business Loop 20 was owned by ODOT until 2004 when it 
was transferred to the City. US 20 followed this alignment until 1971 when ODOT constructed the existing 
alignment north of Toledo.1 The speed limit on Business Loop 20 is 35 mph between the western junction of US 
20 and Dundon Road. From Dundon Road to Ridge Drive it is 25 mph, and east of Ridge Drive the speed limit 
returns to 35 mph. Approximately 400 feet further east, the speed limit is 50 mph until the eastern junction of US 
20. Business Loop 20 has two through travel lanes throughout the City, with turn lanes at six intersections through 
Toledo.  
Business Loop 20 Spur is a small section of minor 
arterial south of US 20 connecting Business Loop 20 
and OR 229 in the northwest section of the City. The 
spur helps facilitate travel between Corvallis or points 
east along US 20 and downtown Toledo along Business 
Loop 20. There is no posted speed on this section, but 
the Project Team assumed 35 mph consistent with the 
speed limit on Business Loop 20. City GIS data 
identifies this as a collector, though ODOT considers 
this segment an arterial. The Project Team 
recommendation is to be consistent with ODOT’s 
classification, as Business Loop 20 Spur is owned by 
ODOT. 
Collector Roads 
Collector roads gather traffic from local streets and 
provide connections to arterial roadways and the 
                                                            
1 Oregon Department of Transportation & Geometronics. 2007. History of State Highways in Oregon. Salem, OR. p. 33‐3. 
ftp://ftp.odot.state.or.us/Region1_Projects/HighwayHistory/HSHO.pdf 
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
10  
regional transportation system. Generally, collectors operate with moderate speeds and provide more local 
access than arterials. The City GIS data, the State, and Toledo Public Facilities information have a number of 
differences, identified by the individual streets below. Within the study area, several roadways are universally 
identified as urban collectors, including Sturdevant Road, Main Street/Butler Bridge Road/East Slope Road/10th 
Street, and Bay Boulevard. Minor collectors are Arcadia Drive/11th Street/A Street, Skyline Drive/Lincoln Way, and 
Burgess Road. All collector roads are two lanes within the study area. 
Sturdevant Road is a north‐south urban collector between Business Loop 20 and Emerald Court in the southwest 
portion of the City, east of Toledo's population center along Olalla Slough. The road is owned and maintained by 
Lincoln County throughout its entire length and is located mostly outside the City limits, but within the Toledo 
UGB. From the north, Sturdevant Road is a 45 mph roadway until it enters the City limits, where the speed limit is 
35 mph. From just north of 10th Street to the City limits, the speed limit is 30 mph. There are two 20 mph school 
zones near Toledo Junior/Senior High School and Toledo Elementary School. All previous functional classification 
maps agree that Sturdevant Road is a collector up to Emerald Court.  
A Street/1st Street/Butler Bridge Road is identified in the Toledo Public Facilities Plan (1989) as an urban collector 
north‐south from Business Loop 20 to the southern UGB limits south of the Yaquina River. For much of the road’s 
length, it travels parallel to the railroad tracks, and serves as a truck route with access from Business Loop 20 to 
Georgia‐Pacific. From the north, A Street runs south from Business Loop 20 until the junction with 1st Street, 
where the collector turns east and then south onto Butler Bridge Road; the speed limit is 25 mph in this area. At 
Catherine Street, the speed limit increases to 35 mph for the remainder of the length within the UGB. There is a 
20 mph speed zone section along Butler Bridge Road from Graham to Catherine Streets. Butler Bridge spans the 
river south towards Toledo State Airport. From Business Loop 20 to Butler Bridge, the streets are City‐owned and 
maintained. At the south end of Butler Bridge, the road name changes from Butler Bridge Road to South Bay 
Road, where it reverts to County jurisdiction. The road continues as a rural major collector outside of the UGB. 
Neither the ODOT map nor the City GIS data identify this roadway as a collector; however, the Project Team 
recommends classifying these streets as collectors in the TSP as they are major thoroughfares and part of the 
truck route. These road segments provide a connection to Business Loop 20 and US 20 and currently function as a 
collector.  
East Slope Road/SE 10th Street is an urban collector connecting Butler Bridge Road to Sturdevant Road in 
southeast Toledo. The road parallels the railroad track for some of its length and crosses the Ollala Slough. The 
City‐maintained road has a 25 mph posted speed limit for its entire length and runs primarily east‐west.  
Bay Boulevard is an urban collector between Business Loop 20 to the southwestern City limits, north and west of 
the Yaquina River. The road is owned and maintained by Lincoln County and provides direct access to the Port of 
Toledo boatyard, crossing over Depot Slough. From the northern limit, the speed limit is 35 mph to just south of 
Altree Lane, where it increases to 45 mph for the rest of its length within the City. The road continues as a rural 
major collector outside of the UGB as Yaquina Bay Road and connects to Newport.  
OR 229 is an urban collector travelling north from US 20 that connects Toledo with the City of Siletz. It is 
maintained by ODOT and has a speed limit of 55 mph north of US 20. Outside of the UGB, the road continues as a 
rural major collector. It is classified as a District Highway under the Oregon Highway Plan. As mentioned above, 
the City GIS data identifies OR 229 from Business Loop 20 to Siletz as an arterial roadway, while the Toledo Public 
Facilities Plan and ODOT identify OR 229 as a collector. The Project Team recommends consistency with ODOT’s 
functional classification and recommends that OR 229 be classified as a collector. 
Arcadia Drive/11th Street/A Street is a minor collector that runs north‐south from US 20 to Business Loop 20 and 
includes a signalized intersection at Business Loop 20. Other than the eastern and western junctions of US 20 and 
Business Loop 20, Arcadia Drive is the only other access into Toledo from US 20. It is City‐owned south of Skyline 
Drive and the north section is owned by the County. The speed limit is 25 mph on A Street heading north, 
transitioning to 35 mph. There is a 20 mph speed zone near Arcadia Elementary School. All three data sources 
agree that Arcadia Drive within the City limits is a collector; however, the ODOT functional classification map 
includes Arcadia Drive as a collector from the northern City limits to US 20. The Project Team recommends 
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
 11 
Arcadia Drive near US 20 
extending the collector classification north to US 20 to 
be consistent with ODOT and recognizing that the 
section outside of the City limits but inside the UGB 
functions as a collector, bringing traffic from US 20 into 
central Toledo. 
Skyline Drive/Lincoln Way is a minor collector that 
travels primarily east‐west from Arcadia Drive to 
Business Loop 20. Lincoln Way and Skyline Drive are 
owned by the City. The speed limit on Skyline Drive 
and Lincoln Way is 35 mph. While all documents show 
that Skyline Drive is a collector, the City GIS data does 
not include Lincoln Way as a collector, while the ODOT 
and Toledo Public Facilities data does. The Project 
Team recommends including Lincoln Way, as it is the 
only way to connect from Business Loop 20 to Skyline 
Drive, as a collector. 
Burgess Road is an east‐west minor collector between Business Loop 20 and Arcadia Drive. It is City‐owned, and 
has a speed limit of 20 mph throughout its entire length.  
Main Street is the north‐south street through downtown Toledo. It connects Business Loop 20 in the north to 
Butler Bridge Road in the south. Many of Toledo’s services such as City Hall, banks, publicly‐owned parking lots, 
and commercial and retail businesses are located in this five block stretch. The speed limit is 25 mph. On ODOT 
and City data maps, Main Street is a collector; however, the Toledo Public Facilities map identifies Main Street as 
a local road. The Project Team recommends that Main Street is consistently labeled as a collector road, 
recognizing the importance of Main Street for connecting downtown to Business Loop 20 and Butler Bridge Road. 
   
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
12  
TABLE 2 
Functional Classification Discrepancies and Project Team Recommendation
Road 
City of 
Toledo GIS 
Data 
Toledo Public 
Facilities Map 
(1989) 
ODOT Functional 
Classification map 
(2011) 
Project Team 
Recommendation 
US 20  Principal 
Arterial 
Principal Arterial  Principal Arterial  Principal Arterial 
Business Loop 20  Arterial  Minor Arterial  Minor Arterial  Arterial 
Business Loop 20 Spur  Collector  Local  Principal Arterial  Arterial 
Sturdevant Road  Collector  Major Collector  Major Collector  Collector 
A Street (north of Business Loop 20)  Collector  Minor Collector  Minor Collector  Collector 
A Street (south of Business Loop 20)/1st Street/ 
Butler Bridge Road 
Local  Major Collector  Local  Collector 
East Slope Road/SE 10th Street  Collector  Major Collector  Major Collector  Collector 
Bay Boulevard  Collector  Major Collector  Major Collector  Collector 
OR 229  Arterial  Major Collector   Major Collector  Collector 
Arcadia Drive (north of Skyline Drive to UGB)  Local  Local  Minor Collector  Collector 
Arcadia Drive (south of Skyline Drive)/11th Street/ 
A Street 
Collector  Minor Collector  Minor Collector  Collector 
Skyline Drive  Collector  Minor Collector  Minor Collector  Collector 
Lincoln Way  Local  Minor Collector  Minor Collector  Collector 
Burgess Road  Collector  Minor Collector  Minor collector  Collector 
Main Street  Collector  Local  Major Collector  Collector 
Source:   City GIS data were obtained from the City of Toledo in July 2012 
  Public Facilities Functional classifications were obtained from the 1995 Toledo TSP, which lists the source as the Toledo Public 
  Facilities Plan 1989 
  ODOT Functional classifications were obtained from the ODOT website and is labeled Lincoln County, 2009. 
Study Area Intersections 
The Project Team analyzed eleven traffic study intersections for the TSP. These intersections include roadways 
that are owned by ODOT and the City. A key focus of the plan is the western junction of US 20 and Business Loop 
20. Four study intersections make up this junction and they were analyzed for operations as well as safety. Figure 
2 shows the extents of the traffic study area and the location of all study intersections. 
TSP study area intersections are: 
1. US 20 at Arcadia Drive 
2. US 20 at OR 229 
3. US 20 at Western Loop 
4. US 20 at Business Loop 20 (west) 
5. US 20 at Business Loop 20 Spur 
6. Business Loop 20 at Bay Boulevard 
7. Business Loop 20 at A Street 
8. Business Loop 20 at Main Street 
9. Business Loop 20 at East Slope Road 
10. Business Loop 20 at Burgess Road 
11. Business Loop 20 at Sturdevant Road 
   
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
 13 
FIGURE 2 
Toledo TSP Traffic Study Intersections 
  
  
1 
2 
3 4 5 
6 7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
KEY 
1. US 20 at Arcadia Drive 
2. US 20 at OR 229 
3. US 20 at Western Loop 
4. US 20 at Business Loop 20 (west) 
5. US 20 at Business Loop 20 Spur 
6. Business Loop 20 at Bay Boulevard 
7. Business Loop 20 at A Street 
8. Business Loop 20 at Main Street 
9. Business Loop 20 at East Slope Road 
10. Business Loop 20 at Burgess Road 
11. Business Loop 20 at Sturdevant Road  Map Source: ODOT 
N
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
14  
Freight Routes 
The previous unadopted 1995 Toledo TSP included a map of freight routes within the City, which included the 
arterial and collector roads, as well as the routes signed as City‐designated truck routes. Business Loop 20 is 
classified as a freight route for its entire length, as is Sturdevant Road up to Emerald Court. A Street/1st 
Street/Butler Bridge Road is designated a freight route from Business Loop 20 to the northern landing of Butler 
Bridge, while East Slope Road/10th Street is also a freight route. Freight routes are shown on Figure 3. The traffic 
operations section below describes the percentages of trucks on these roadways and the effects of freight traffic 
on pavement condition and traffic operations. 
Stakeholders and City staff provided input on the freight routes within the City. Freight trucks often deviate from 
the freight route and become stuck on local City streets, especially turning from steep side streets such as 1st and 
Graham streets onto Main Street. Trucks are unable to make the sharp turn from the side streets onto Main 
Street and the movement is complicated by the steep grade. In the past, trucks have gotten stuck navigating the 
turn and struck light posts or building awnings; they have also high‐centered (where the center of the truck is 
caught on the slope and the wheels are unable to move the vehicle) on roads with steep grades. Stakeholders 
mentioned that truck drivers are likely to follow GPS instead of the posted freight routes and the GPS directions 
do not always consider road width or grade when creating driving directions. The drivers who follow GPS and take 
inappropriate routes are usually drivers who are not familiar with Toledo, are visiting for the first time, or visit 
only sporadically. Drivers who are familiar with the City know and use the truck routes.  
One stakeholder with a business on Alder Street reported that trucks inappropriately use Graham and Alder 
Streets two or three times a week and suggested additional signage or pavement markings to indicate the correct 
route for trucks. Stakeholders suggested improving signage along freight routes to minimize wrong turns. To 
further reduce confusion, one local freight stakeholder recommended directing all trucks to Sturdevant Road via 
the eastern junction to access the Georgia‐Pacific and other industrial sites, and no longer allowing trucks to use 
the western junction except to access downtown businesses. 
Another stakeholder who owns a business on Main Street indicated that the newly constructed intersection of 
Main Street, Butler Bridge Road, and SW 2nd Street is hard for trucks to navigate due to reduction in roadway 
width and additional curbs at the pedestrian crossings. Some large trucks making deliveries to businesses along 
Main Street have difficulty finding a suitable route to Butler Bridge Road or the identified truck route. 
Sturdevant Road provides the only access to the industrial site owned by the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz 
Indians. This portion of Sturdevant Road south of 10th Street is narrow, curvy, lacks shoulders, and serves an area 
that is predominantly residential. If the industrial site develops with a use that generates significant truck traffic, 
improvements to this portion of Sturdevant Road may be needed to adequately serve freight. In addition, one 
stakeholder suggested that the Freight Route designation on Sturdevant Road be extended south to the site 
entrance. 
   
UNK \\ROSA\PROJ\ODOT\437682TOLEDO\GIS\MAPFILES\ZONING_PORTRAIT.MXD ECLARK5 11/21/2012 2:43:14 PM
229
20B
20
C
I
LI
NR
PL
RG
RS
WD
N
 M
A
IN
 S
T
NE 1ST ST
N
W
 A
 S
T
NE 2ND ST
N
E 
E
A
S
T 
S
LO
P
E 
RD
NE SKYLINE DR
NE 
W
A
G
O
N 
R
D
S
O
U
TH 
B
AY 
R
D
SE 
S
TU
R
D
E
VA
N
T 
R
D
S
E 
B
U
TLE
R 
B
R
ID
G
E 
RD
N
E 
S
TU
R
D
E
VA
N
T 
R
D
YAQ
UINA 
B
AY 
R
D
Benton
Lane
Lincoln
Polk
Tillamook Yamhill
FIGURE 3
Zoning and Truck Routes
Toledo TSPToledo, Oregon
VICINITY MAP
LEGEND
Freight Route
Toledo UGB
Truck Route
Zoning Classifications
(Labeled with Code)
General
Residential (RG)
Single-Family
Residential (RS)
Commercial (C)
Light Industrial (LI)
Industrial (I)
Natural Resource (NR)
Public Lands (PL)
Water Dependent
UGB
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
NE ARCADIA DR
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
16  
 
Land Use 
This section provides a general overview of land uses within the City of Toledo’s planning area to inform the TSP in 
identifying which land uses affect existing and future transportation conditions. The descriptions below are based 
on existing zoning designations shown on Figure 3. 
Downtown Toledo, centered on Main Street between Butler Bridge Road and Business Loop 20, is primarily zoned 
for commercial use. Commercial parcels are also located along Business Loop 20 within the study area and along A 
Street (between NW 1st and 9th Streets and US 20 in northwest Toledo). Outside of the downtown core, the 
General Residential (RG) zone is prevalent throughout the Toledo street grid, especially to the north and 
southeast of Business Loop 20. There are also scattered RG zones east of Sturdevant Road and west of downtown 
near Business Loop 20. There are two general Single‐Family Residential zones along curvilinear streets and cul‐de‐
sacs near Sunset Drive, Arcadia Drive, Skyline Drive, and Sturdevant Road. This zone allows lower residential 
density than the RG zone and greater minimum lot sizes. Recreational open space, interspersed in these 
residential areas, as well as school property and the Library, are zoned as Public Land. Wetland areas along Olalla 
Slough and Depot Slough north of industrial areas are zoned as Natural Resource lands. 
The majority of City land immediately adjacent to the Yaquina River and Depot Slough between the western City 
boundary and Olalla Slough are zoned either Industrial or Light Industrial. This includes Georgia‐Pacific and the 
Port of Toledo, as well as the majority of City land south of Yaquina River. In addition, the Lumber Dry Kiln 
operated by the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians further east of Olalla Slough is zoned Industrial. The 
railroad generally serves as the boundary between the heavy industrial areas and the rest of Toledo; however, 
there are some light industrial properties located north of the tracks and some isolated parcels in northwest 
Toledo. Waterfront properties that are suitable for development along Depot Slough, Tokyo Slough, and Yaquina 
River are zoned for Light Industrial or Water‐Dependent Industrial uses. 
Land uses are important considerations for the TSP, as they attract unique types of trips and vehicles. The General 
and Single‐Family Residential areas carry fewer heavy vehicles and less through traffic than the road network near 
Industrial and Commercial areas. The Industrial areas, specifically Georgia‐Pacific, generate freight traffic 
throughout daily operations and employee traffic during shift changes in the morning and afternoon. Areas where 
Residential and Industrial or Commercial lands are adjacent to each other could create conflicts between 
transportation system users and could create concerns with the mix and type of traffic on roadways that serve 
both uses.  
   
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
 17 
Traffic Generators 
Traffic generators are important to consider in the TSP as they impact the transportation system in the City. 
Different traffic generators attract different types of vehicles and experience demand at various times of day. In 
addition to the Georgia‐Pacific site and the Port of Toledo, major traffic generators in the City include the Library, 
Police Department, Fire Station, JC Thriftway supermarket, Toledo Elementary and Junior/Senior High Schools, 
Lincoln County School District’s maintenance facility and bus barn (operated by the Mid‐Columbia Bus Company), 
and the Arts District near downtown. These traffic generators are all situated along or near arterials or collectors, 
including Business Loop 20, A Street, and Burgess Road. The Toledo State Airport and the Western Cascade 
Industries mill are outside of the UGB but also generate some general and freight traffic that passes through 
Toledo along South Bay Road. Additionally, there are at least two trucking companies in the City limits: Henarie 
Trucking and Mitchell Trucking that generate traffic and increase the amount of trucks on roadways in the City. 
The Georgia‐Pacific site is the largest traffic generator in the City and attracts both freight and employee traffic. 
Employees arrive and leave the mill sites at specific times related to their shifts and the mill schedule has 
employees at the mill 24‐hours a day. Georgia‐Pacific has seven entry points, two of which have employee 
parking. The other entries are reserved for freight traffic either entering or leaving the site. The day shift starts 
around 6:00 or 6:30 am and ends around 3:30 pm and is the highest staffed shift at the mill. There is also a swing 
and a graveyard shift that add employee traffic on Butler Bridge Road/1st Street/A Street and Business Loop 20. 
Georgia‐Pacific also attracts freight traffic throughout the day with trucks delivering timber and other trucks 
hauling finished cardboard and other wood products out of town. The Port of Toledo attracts similar, if less, traffic 
than Georgia‐Pacific, with a mix of employee and freight traffic along Bay Boulevard. The Port boatyard facility 
generates 50 vehicles per day currently and at full build‐out is estimated to generate up to 200 per day according 
to the Port Waterfront Development Strategic Business Plan. Both of these traffic generators are located on 
collector streets and City‐designated truck routes. 
Services such as the Library, banks, shops, the Skate Park, the Arcadia Park and Pool, and City Hall attract 
moderate amounts of traffic throughout the day as community members access these services. Traffic patterns 
near these generators are more spread out than employee traffic generated by Georgia‐Pacific, but concentrated 
during hours of operation. The Police and Fire Department operate 24‐hours a day and generate moderate traffic. 
Trips to and from these services are mainly officers and fire trucks responding to emergencies and staff arriving 
and departing. These services are along collector or arterial streets, providing direct and convenient access to the 
rest of the transportation network. 
The JC Thriftway supermarket also attracts trips throughout the day as employees come to work and citizens shop 
for groceries. Trips to the supermarket are often combined with other trips like the trip home from work, but 
some trips will be specifically for the grocery store. Busy times at the supermarket are likely to be afternoons and 
early evenings as shoppers stop by on their way to or from other destinations. Located along Business Loop 20, 
providing easy access to and from the regional network to the residential areas of the City. 
Figure 4 shows traffic generators in the City. 
   
UNK \\ROSA\PROJ\ODOT\437682TOLEDO\GIS\MAPFILES\TRANSIT_BIKE_PED_PORTRAITALT.MXD ECLARK5 11/21/2012 3:37:24 PM
229
20B
20
20
NW SKYLINE DR
BA
Y 
B
LV
D
ELK 
C
ITY 
R
D
Branstiter Park
Arcadia Park
and Pool
Skate Park
Deer
Park
Maple
Street
Park
Yaquina
View Park
Fort Nye Park
Mary Harrison
Elem/Olalla Center
Lincoln County
School District Office
Arcadia Elementary
Toledo Elementary
Toledo
JR/SR High
School
Headstart
N 
M
A
IN 
S
T
N
W 
A 
S
T
NE 1ST ST
NE 2ND ST
NE EAST S
LO
P
E 
R
D
NE SKYLINE DR
S
O
U
T H 
B
AY 
R
D
NE 
W
A
G
O
N 
R
D
S
E 
S
TU
R
D
E
VA
N
T 
R
D
SE 
S
TU
R
D
E
VA
N
T 
R
D
N
E 
S
TU
R
D
E
VA
N
T 
RD
YAQ
U
IN
A 
BAY 
R
D
SE 
BUTLER 
B
R
ID
G
E 
R
D
Toledo Public Library
Toledo
State
Airport
Fire Station
Toledo Police
Department
JC Thriftway
Benton
Lane
Lincoln
Polk
Tillamook Yamhill
LEGEND
Traffic Generator
Schools
Crosswalk
Bus Stop
Gated Railroad Crossing
Sidewalk
Bike Path
Multi-Use Path
Railroad
Street
Park
City Limits
Toledo UGB
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
FIGURE 4
Transit/Bike/Pedestrian 
Toledo TSPToledo, Oregon
NE ARCADIA DR
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
 19 
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 
Non‐motorized facilities are sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi‐use paths that serve pedestrians, bicyclists, 
skateboarders, and mobility devices. There are two signed bike routes on Yaquina Bay Road and East Slope Road 
north of 10th Street and two multi‐use paths within the study area. There are sidewalks along some roads in 
Toledo, mostly near commercial business areas, parks, schools, and public service buildings including City Hall, the 
Fire Station, Post Office, and Library. The remaining pedestrian facilities provide limited access to public schools 
and the Georgia‐Pacific site. Sidewalks are generally 5 to 6 feet wide. Table 3 provides a partial list of facilities on 
citywide arterials and collectors. The previously unadopted 1995 TSP included roadway standards for collectors 
and arterials and recommended including bicycle and pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks and bike lanes on all 
collectors and arterials.  
The City of Toledo Public Infrastructure Design Standards Manual requires sidewalks and bikeways on new arterial 
and collector roads, as well as sidewalks on local streets that serve commercial and multifamily residential 
developments. The City standards also encourage sidewalk retrofitting during rehabilitation or reconstruction 
projects. This requirement may be waived for low‐traffic streets where building new sidewalk is infeasible due to 
right‐of‐way, grade, or other constraints. The City manual specifies that bikeways should be separated from other 
travel modes where possible. In addition, bike lanes must be a minimum of 5 feet wide, while off‐street paths 
must be a minimum of 10 feet wide. 
TABLE 3 
Sidewalk Facilities on Arterials and Collectors 
Toledo, Oregon 
Road  From  To  Sidewalk 
Business Loop 20  French Avenue  Hilltop Lane  Both sides 
Business Loop 20  Hilltop Lane  East Slope Road  South side only 
Butler Bridge Road  Main Street  East Slope Road  West side only 
Butler Bridge Road  NW 1st Street  Main Street  Both sides 
NW 1st Street  A Street  Main Street  Both sides 
A Street  NW 9th Street  NW 1st Street  Both sides 
A Street  NW 11th Street  NW 9th Street  East side only 
NW 11th Street  Arcadia Drive  A Street  South side only 
Arcadia Drive  North of Burgess Road  NW 11th Street  West side only 
Burgess Road  East of Arcadia Drive  West of NW 10th Street  South side only 
SE 10th Street  East Slope Road  Sturdevant Road  North side only 
Sturdevant Road  Chedester Road  NW 10th Street/Fircrest Drive  East side only 
Source: Project Team site visit July 11‐12, 2012 
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
20  
 
Sidewalks on Business Loop 20 near A Street 
Multiple stakeholders indicated that a multi‐use path or a 
sidewalk is needed along Sturdevant Road, especially 
near the Junior/Senior High and Elementary schools. In 
addition, stakeholders suggested that east‐west access 
through Olalla Slough would provide more direct access 
between the schools and downtown. Students, residents 
in the area, and the track teams currently use the narrow 
shoulder on Sturdevant Road to walk or run. Sturdevant 
Road carries a lot of truck traffic at high speeds, creating 
safety concerns for pedestrians who do not have 
sidewalks or designated path. Stakeholders suggested 
that this path could be integrated with a nature 
boardwalk along Ollala Slough with interpretive, 
educational signage and provided multiple access points 
to downtown and Sturdevant Road. Stakeholders were 
also concerned with the pedestrian crossing on NW 1st 
Street and Butler Bridge Road, which is the most direct route between downtown Toledo and the Post Office, 
located on NW 1st Street. The pedestrian railroad crossing is on the opposite side of the road from the majority of 
the pedestrian traffic and there is no stop sign on Butler Bridge Road near NW 1st Street to slow vehicle traffic. 
Another stakeholder suggested posting pedestrian advisory signs warning drivers that pedestrians are likely to be 
present. The sidewalk on one side does not create a comfortable place to walk, though many pedestrians use this 
route between the Post Office and downtown. 
Stakeholders also mentioned the sections of Burgess Road and Arcadia Drive without sidewalks and the sidewalk 
gaps on Business Loop 20, heading east and west from downtown, are problematic. Stakeholders noted that the 
sidewalks on Business Loop 20 near downtown are a nice place to walk, but sidewalks do not connect to US 20 
junction, where there are some services and transit stops. Some sections of these roads lack even shoulders, 
requiring pedestrians to walk in the road (for example, Business Loop 20 north of I Street). This could create a 
safety hazard as most of these roads are narrow and winding, creating sight distance limitations for drivers. 
Several stakeholders suggested building sidewalks and bicycle lanes in this stretch, or providing an alternate route 
for cyclists. Another stakeholder‐identified sidewalk gap is at SE 3rd and Douglas Streets, the gap requires 
pedestrians to cross at Douglas Street. Multiple stakeholders acknowledged that Toledo is very steep making it 
difficult for pedestrians, especially older pedestrians. 
East Slope Road between Business Loop 20 and SE 10th Street is a signed bike route that includes bicycle lanes. 
South and west of SE 10th Street, there is a short multi‐use path along the east side of East Slope Road through 
East Slope Park that dead‐ends near the Portland and Western Railroad tracks. Stakeholders recommended 
extending this path west to connect to the sidewalk on Butler Bridge Road and the Georgia‐Pacific site.  
A potential multi‐use path along the west side of Sturdevant Road was proposed in the previous unadopted TSP to 
facilitate access between Toledo Junior/Senior High School and Toledo Elementary School. According to 
comments on the project website and two stakeholder interviews, a multi‐use path in this section would benefit 
students traveling to and from the schools and those who live in the area. In addition to this proposed multi‐use 
trail, the Port of Toledo has developed and constructed a Waterfront Path which includes a paved multi‐use trail 
along Depot Slough at the Port. The Port has also been working to increase connectivity for pedestrians and 
cyclists between downtown Toledo and the waterfront. Bay Boulevard is also signed as a bicycle route, but the 
steep terrain, narrow roadway, and lack of bicycle lanes do not provide a protected area for cyclists. Further west 
of the City limits, Yaquina Bay Road does include bicycle lanes.  
Stakeholders providing emergency services suggested that a bike route network from the eastern part of town 
into downtown could address bicycle needs in the City. Another stakeholder said that Bay Boulevard/Yaquina Bay 
Road is a good cycling route, though the hill close to town is a large barrier. Previously, bicyclists used the Port 
access road to avoid the hill, though the activities at the Port are incompatible with a bike route due to the high 
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
 21 
amount of truck traffic. Stakeholders suggested that there is a need for expanded paved shoulders to 
accommodate bicyclists or a pedestrian path along the rail line between Bay Boulevard and Main Street, as well as 
more signage directing bicyclists from Bay Boulevard to downtown. Lincoln County has previously submitted a 
grant application to construct a trail on an abandoned rail bed to avoid the hill and provide separation between 
cyclists and motorists. The path would cross Depot Slough and connect downtown Toledo to Bay Boulevard at the 
west edge of the City; however, the County was unable to obtain grant funding for this project. 
Several other bicycle and pedestrian needs were identified by stakeholders. One community member suggested 
an intercity multi‐use trail along US 20 to connect to Newport and Corvallis. Another stakeholder recommended 
improving pedestrian signage in downtown and designating bicycle boulevards with marked sharrows in the 
pavement to assist in wayfinding and encourage drivers and cyclists to share the road. 
Figure 4 shows the sidewalk and bicycle facilities within the study area. 
Transit Routes 
The Lincoln County Transit agency provides fixed‐route bus service between the cities of Newport and Siletz via 
Toledo. The bus runs six roundtrips on the route Monday through Saturday, with no service on Sundays, 
Thanksgiving, or Christmas. The route travels between Siletz and Newport traveling on Business Loop 20, 
Sturdevant Street, Main Street, and others in the downtown core.  
According to Lincoln County Transit, the following six stops serve the City on the East County route (from east to 
west): 
 US 20 at East Exit Business Loop 20 at US 20 (East Junction) * 
 Ollala Store SE 10th Street at Sturdevant Road 
 Toledo JC Thriftway Business Loop 20 at NE 2nd Street 
 SE 2nd and Main Street (Westbound Only) 
 NE 1st and Main Street 
 Food Fair Business Loop 20 at Forestry Road 
*This stop is just outside the Toledo UGB and is served on‐call or as needed. 
In addition, Benton County runs the Coast to Valley Express intercity route, providing service between the cities of 
Corvallis and Newport via Toledo. There are four roundtrips daily, with one stop at the Toledo Park and Ride, 
located at Business Loop 20 and A 
Street. Figure 5 shows these routes 
through Toledo. 
The Valley Retriever bus line also 
offers intercity service between the 
cities of Newport and 
Bend/Portland, with one daily trip 
to Bend and one to Portland in the 
morning and two trips to Newport 
in the afternoon. The Toledo stop 
is located at the Dairy Queen on 
Business Loop 20, at US 20. Few 
people in Toledo ride the bus, but 
it is unclear if it is due to lack of 
demand or if the bus services are 
not convenient, either the time of 
day or in route or destinations. 
Stakeholders would like to see 
improved frequency and expanded 
transit service hours to and from Newport, as well as a local circulator or shuttle to better serve trips within the 
 
Toledo Park and Ride 
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
22  
City and provide connections to the regional bus lines. Other suggestions for improved transit included initiating a 
water taxi or ferry between Toledo and Newport to relieve traffic on US 20 and providing passenger service by rail 
to the Amtrak station in Albany. 
   
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
 23 
FIGURE 5 
Lincoln County and Coast to Valley Express Transit Routes in Toledo 
 
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
24  
Freight Rail 
The Willamette and Pacific Railroad (WPRR) is a subsidiary of the PNWR and provides rail service to Toledo and 
Georgia‐Pacific along the 74.7‐mile single‐track short line railroad. The original Oregon Pacific Railroad line was 
built in 1885 between Corvallis and Yaquina (an abandoned port west of Toledo) as part of the first segment of a 
planned major transcontinental route. When the transcontinental route was not built, Oregon Pacific sold the line 
to the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1907, and WPRR purchased the line in 1993. The railroad has not carried 
passenger service since the early 1900s.  
The line travels along the north shore of Yaquina River from the UGB limits to Georgia‐Pacific, where there is a 
direct track connection. At Depot Slough, the line is situated between the Port of Toledo and downtown. The 
Waterfront Connectivity Plan (2007) looked at ways to improve multimodal connectivity across the tracks and the 
City has completed one recommendation from the Plan with a new pedestrian crossing and intersection upgrade 
at Main Street/SW 2nd Street/Butler Bridge Road. At Depot Slough, the tracks curve around the Port, before 
crossing Depot Slough just south of Bay Boulevard. The line ends at the Yaquina River, adjacent to Tokyo Slough. 
There are four gated railroad crossings within City limits: A Street, NW 1st Street, Butler Bridge Road, and East 
Slope Road. 
According to the 2010 Oregon Rail Study, there is one round trip freight train made up of 10‐15 cars daily except 
for certain holidays between Toledo and Albany. This does not include operations within Georgia‐Pacific, where 
there is 24‐hour a day, 7‐day a week activity servicing the mill which stops traffic at street crossings throughout 
the day. At the Butler Bridge Road crossing there is an average of 6‐12 switching movements per day, with an 
average of 5‐15 cars per train. Georgia‐Pacific is currently the sole customer along the Toledo Branch, although 
the tracks also serve the Port of Toledo and a number of community members have expressed interest in 
expanding rail operations along the corridor. 
Most stakeholders suggested that railroad crossings within the City were rough and hard to cross as a pedestrian 
or bicyclist. The City completed a new pedestrian rail crossing as part of its Main Street/SW 2nd Street/Butler 
Bridge Road project to connect the waterfront and downtown. Most other crossings are difficult for pedestrians 
and vehicles to cross. Stakeholders indicated multiple times that the crossing on NW 1st Street near Butler Bridge 
Road as an especially difficult crossing. The emergency service provider stakeholders indicated that there had 
been a few collisions associated with the railroad crossing, mostly bicycle crashes, but there was one car/train 
collision. As of November 2012, the City and ODOT’s Rail Division are completing a safety audit of Toledo public 
rail crossings, the results of which will be incorporated in the final TSP. 
The rail tracks along the PNWR line are in poor condition, especially at road crossings. Trains serving the Georgia‐
Pacific site have derailed several times in the 
vicinity of Butler Bridge Road and East Slope 
Road. Stakeholders are also concerned about 
the lack of crossing gates where the spur 
track crosses Butler Bridge Road. In addition, 
quiet zones were suggested for the crossings 
in downtown to reduce noise from train 
horns. 
Airport 
The Toledo State Airport is a state‐owned 
Category V (remote access/emergency 
service) facility located outside of the Toledo 
UGB on South Bay Road along the Yaquina 
River south of the City. The airport provides 
access to surrounding recreational areas and 
is sometimes used by aircraft rerouted from 
Newport Municipal Airport due to foggy  Rail Crossing at Butler Bridge Road and 1st Street 
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
 25 
conditions. The airport was built in 1957 on donated land and has one 1750‐foot paved runway that is 40 feet 
wide. According to the Federal Aviation Administration, there were an average of 22 private aircraft takeoffs and 
landings per week in 2010, with 96 percent of traffic from transient general aviation (operations made by aircraft 
not based at the airport) and four percent from local general aviation (that originate and terminate at the airport). 
There are six aircraft based on the field: four single‐engine airplanes and two ultralight craft. During emergencies, 
Coast Guard helicopters and Light Flight air ambulances use the airport to transport people and supplies. There is 
no room to expand the Airport for commercial or commuter service, nor plans to change the number of airplanes 
using the facility since there is little demand for passenger service. Given these circumstances, some stakeholders 
suggested closing the facility if it did not serve an important need. 
Water and Pipeline Facilities 
The Port of Toledo, founded in 1910, is the port authority that oversees the 443‐square mile district. Located 15 
miles upstream of the Pacific Ocean along the Yaquina River, the Port is accessed by a federally‐authorized 10‐
foot deep, 200‐foot wide navigational channel operated and maintained by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The 
hub of port operations is located west of A Street between the railroad tracks and Depot Slough. The Port 
provides support for the local maritime industry and other local businesses by providing moorages, ship repair 
facilities, and industrial space while also accommodating recreational uses (moorage, launch facilities, and a non‐
motorized paddle park).  
The Port was used heavily by the timber industry for shipping, as well as a private boatyard that ceased operation 
in 2008; it has since been purchased by the port authority in 2011 and repurposed as a community boatyard to 
provide local maintenance repair service to commercial, charter, and recreational fleets. In 2010, the Port 
dredged Depot Slough to provide depth for river vessels. The newly constructed Transient Dock and Gangway was 
dedicated in 2012 to provide extra moorage space for short‐term visitors by boat. 
The 2006 Facility Master Plan prepared for the Port proposed an intermodal transshipping hub at Tokyo Slough to 
allow more efficient transfer of cargo between freight vessels, trains, and trucks. The Plan also suggested boosting 
the local economy and providing additional transportation options for local and regional shippers of materials and 
products. The current status of the intermodal hub is uncertain. Several community members were interested in 
additional feasibility studies on the hub and possible collaboration with the PNWR and the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) facility in Newport. The Port’s Strategic Business Plan is currently being 
updated and includes a plan to expand the boatyard facility to accommodate ten boats up to 120 feet long, as 
well as build a new covered work building and mobile lift. 
Allowing river barge access to Toledo was another important topic for local stakeholders, particularly for accessing 
the industrial site in southeast Toledo owned by the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians. However, the 
height of Butler Bridge may restrict this access and the bridge is not likely to need to be replaced within the 
timeframe of the TSP. 
Stakeholders suggested adding a new boat launch ramp at the Port close to downtown Toledo with enough room 
for vehicles with boat trailers. The boat ramp could help spur economic development in Toledo by providing an 
alternate facility for visitors who travel to a popular boat ramp at the Port of Newport. Currently, the closest boat 
ramp to Toledo is located at the Airport, but it is not convenient to US 20 or downtown. 
Water and sewer pipelines are co‐located with City streets throughout Toledo. The Georgia‐Pacific Mill site has a 
pipeline between activity areas within the mill; additionally Georgia‐Pacific uses a pipeline to discharge effluent in 
the Pacific Ocean west of Newport. Northwest Natural operates a high‐pressure gas transmission line that follows 
OR 229 north south to US 20, where it heads east to Newport. There are currently no plans to expand these 
pipelines within the timeframe of the TSP. However, one community member was interested in pursuing future 
gas pipeline service to Toledo. 
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
26  
Existing Traffic Operations  
Performance and Mobility Targets 
For intersections under ODOT jurisdiction, there are ODOT specified mobility targets that vary according to 
functional classification, location, and role within the state highway system. The mobility targets are quantified in 
terms of the relative vehicle demand (volume) versus the capacity of an intersection, termed volume‐to‐capacity 
ratios (v/c). Intersection operations, measured by v/c ratios, are compared to the mobility targets to determine if 
they maintain or fail to meet their appropriate mobility. Acceptable v/c ratios are those less than the target 
standard that is outlined in the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP). 
For intersections under City jurisdiction, there are no adopted mobility standards. Typically cities use a v/c 
standard as well as a level‐of‐service (LOS) standard. The LOS helps quantify the degree of comfort for drivers, 
through elements such as travel time, number of stops, amount of time spent stopped (delay), and impediments 
caused by other vehicles. Examining both measures is useful since the v/c will indicate if there is enough room at 
the intersection for all the vehicles while the LOS will denote whether those cars are moving through the 
intersection in a reasonable amount of time. The City of Toledo does not currently have an adopted TSP, and 
therefore does not have any traffic standards with which to measure congestion. The Project Team has analyzed 
similar Cities and made a recommendation of level‐of‐service appropriate for Toledo. Table 4 gives a breakdown 
of the LOS in reference to delay recommended for use by the City.  
TABLE 4 
Toledo TSP: Level‐of‐Service Criteria 
Signalized and Stop‐Controlled Intersections 
Level‐of‐Service 
Average Vehicle Delay (seconds/vehicle) 
General Description 
Signalized 
Intersections 
Stop‐Controlled 
Intersections 
A  0‐10  0‐10  Few or no traffic delays – individual users are virtually unaffected by the presence of other vehicles 
B  10‐20  10‐15  Short traffic delays – traffic flow is stable, but the presence of other users begins to be noticeable 
C  20‐35  16‐25  Average traffic delays – traffic flow is stable, but other traffic begins to significantly affect individual users 
D  35‐55  26‐35  Long traffic delays – traffic flow is dense but stable. Other users restrict individual driver maneuverability 
E  55‐80  36‐50  Very long traffic delays – operations are at or near capacity levels and unstable. Freedom to maneuver is difficult 
F  >80  >50  Extreme traffic delays – operates are at breakdown where demand exceeds capacity. Delays and queuing may cause severe congestion. 
Source: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual 
Cities of a similar size to Toledo were examined and based on those; a LOS D is proposed for all‐way stop and 
signalized intersections. A LOS E is proposed for two‐way stop controlled intersections. In all cases, a v/c ratio 
standard of 1.0 or lower is proposed, because it is not recommended to have a volume higher than the existing 
capacity.  
The ODOT mobility targets and proposed City mobility standards as applicable for each intersection are shown in 
Table 5.   
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
 27 
TABLE 5 
Recommended Mobility Standards for the City of Toledo
ID  Intersection  Control Type 
No‐Build Recommended Mobility Target 
v/c  LOS 
Major a  Minor b  Major  Minor 
1  US 20 at Arcadia Drive  Stop  0.70  0.75   N/A  E 
2  US 20 at OR 229  Stop  0.80  0.90  N/A  N/A 
3  US 20 at Western Loop  Stop  0.80  0.90  N/A  E 
4  US 20 at Business Loop 20 (west)  Stop  0.80  0.90  N/A  E 
5  Business Loop 20 Spur at Business Loop 20  Stop  0.80  0.95  N/A  E 
6  Business Loop 20 at Bay Boulevard  Stop  1.0  1.0  E  E 
7  Business Loop 20 at A Street  Signal  1.0  D 
8  Business Loop 20 at Main Street  Stop  1.0  1.0  E  E 
9  Business Loop 20 at East Slope Road  Stop  1.0  1.0  E  E 
10  Business Loop 20 at Burgess Road  Stop  1.0  1.0  E  E 
11  Business Loop 20 at Sturdevant Road  Stop  1.0  1.0  E  E 
a Indicates OHP Mobility Standard v/c ratio for uncontrolled roadway approach 
b Indicates OHP Mobility Standard v/c ratio for stop controlled roadway approach 
 
Existing Traffic Analysis Results 
This section describes the results for the 2012 existing conditions traffic operational analysis. Results include the 
v/c ratio, LOS, and 95th percentile queue lengths for each of the 11 study intersections. Queue lengths are the 
measures of vehicle back‐ups at intersections. Queues are measured against available storage, which includes 
turn lanes and/or the distance between intersections available for vehicles to line up as they wait to enter the 
intersection. 
Intersection Operational Analysis Results 
Results from the operational analysis indicate that one of the 11 study intersections does not currently meet 
jurisdictional mobility targets and standards. The intersection of US 20 at Business Loop 20 (west) does not meet 
the ODOT v/c mobility target or proposed City LOS mobility standard. The critical movement (part that is not 
meeting the standards) is the northbound left turn from Business Loop 20 onto US 20. Vehicles making this 
movement are not finding a sufficient number of gaps to allow Business Loop 20 traffic to cross the eastbound 
traffic and merge with the westbound traffic on US 20.  
Table 6 shows the results of the existing conditions intersection operational analysis and the recommended 
mobility target for comparison. Figure A.1 in Attachment A provides the volumes, channelization, and analysis 
results for the study intersections. Attachment B provides the Synchro HCM reports for each study intersection. 
   
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
28  
 
TABLE 6 
Existing Conditions Intersection Operational Analysis Results
2012, 30th Highest Hour Volumes
ID  Intersection 
Control 
Type 
Recommended Mobility Target  Existing (2012) Mobility 
v/c  LOS  v/c  LOS  Delay (sec) 
Major a  Minor b  Major  Minor  Major  Minor  Major  Minor  Major  Minor 
1  US 20 at Arcadia 
Drive  Stop  0.70  0.75  N/A  E  0.12  0.09  A  B  1  12 
2  US 20 at OR 229  Stop  0.80  0.90  N/A  N/A  0.18  0.54  A  E  4  42 
3  US 20 at Western 
Loop  Stop  0.80  0.90  N/A  E  0.35  0.05  A  C  0  23 
4  US 20 at Business 
Loop 20 (west)  Stop  0.80  0.90  N/A  E  0.55  0.92
C  A  F  0  74 
5  Business Loop 20 
Spur at Business 
Loop 20 
Stop  0.80  0.95  N/A  E  0.24  0.24  A  C  0  17 
6  Business Loop 20 
at Bay Boulevard  Stop  1.0  1.0  E  E  0.34  0.23  A  C  1  18 
7  Business Loop 20 
at A Street  Signal  1.0  D  0.55  B  19 
8  Business Loop 20 
at Main Street  Stop  1.0  1.0  E  E  0.01  0.19  A  C  1  15 
9  Business Loop 20 
at East Slope Road  Stop  1.0  1.0  E  E  0.11  0.08  A  B  2  10 
10  Business Loop 20 
at Burgess Road  Stop  1.0  1.0  E  E  0.09  0.06  A  A  2  9 
11  Business Loop 20 
at Sturdevant 
Road 
Stop  1.0  1.0  E  E  0.06  0.14  A  B  4  10 
a Indicates OHP Mobility Standard v/c ratio for uncontrolled roadway approach 
b Indicates OHP Mobility Standard v/c ratio for stop controlled roadway approach 
C Black highlighting indicates intersection does not meet mobility standards 
 
Queuing Analysis Results 
Results from the queuing analysis indicate that three of the 11 study intersections have queue lengths that exceed 
available storage. Those locations are:  
 Business Loop 20 (west) at US 20 – northbound approach 
 Business Loop 20 at Business Loop 20 Spur – westbound approach 
 Business Loop 20 at A Street – east‐ and westbound approaches 
This vehicle queuing analysis supports the v/c and LOS analysis. By 2035, the northbound approach at the 
intersection of US 20 at Business Loop 20 (west) is expected to have the worst queuing of all the study 
intersections. The queue spills back to the next intersection (at Business Loop 20 Spur and Business Loop 20). The 
simulation model shows the queue continuing on Business Loop 20 for over a third of a mile originating at US 20. 
Vehicles wanting to make a left turn onto US 20 are not finding sufficient gaps in the traffic to make the turn and 
end up waiting at the stop sign, causing a backup behind them. A queue buildup of this magnitude in 2035 would 
block access to US 20 eastbound and OR 229 as well as side streets and private driveways leading up to the 
intersection.  
The results also indicate that the queues for the eastbound and westbound left turn movements at Business Loop 
20 and A Street are expected to exceed their storage in 2035 without modifications. For the eastbound approach, 
there is a 60‐foot left turn storage pocket preceded by a two‐way‐left‐turn‐lane that would allow vehicles to spill 
into it and not block the through traffic. This allows more movement along the main roadway, but could block 
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
 29 
entrance and exit for the Toledo Park and Ride, which is located along Business Loop 20. The westbound left turn 
has a short, 15‐foot turn pocket that is currently exceeded by five feet. This spillover is not a big concern for 
existing conditions, but it points to a location that could become an issue in the future.  
During the stakeholder interviews, the Project Team asked stakeholders about congestion and long traffic queues; 
one stakeholder confirmed that there can be a long line of cars on Business Loop 20 waiting to turn left onto US 
20. The line can sometimes extend past Dundon Road, blocking intersections and driveways as shown by the 
analysis above. The most congested times are around 8:00 am when school is in session and employees are 
heading into Newport to work. According to stakeholders, another congested time occurs at 3:00 pm and the 
afternoon peak hour (4:30 to 5:30 pm) as Georgia‐Pacific employees change shifts. 
At all other locations in the study area, queues are accommodated within their dedicated storage length. Table 
C.1 in Attachment C shows the results of the queuing analysis at the study intersections. The SimTraffic Queuing 
Analysis Report is provided in Attachment D of this memo. 
Existing Conditions Methodology 
A description of the existing conditions methodology can be found in Attachment E preceding the raw traffic 
volumes used in this study. Attachment F contains the City of Toledo TSP –Methods and Assumptions Technical 
Memorandum, which describes the process used to obtain the 30th highest volumes. 
Freight Truck Operations 
The City of Toledo experiences higher truck traffic than other cities of comparable size due to the presence of 
Georgia‐Pacific, the Port of Toledo, and commercial trucking companies including Henarie Trucking and Mitchell 
Trucking. Freight truck movements can have several adverse impacts to local traffic operations and built 
environment, including increased wear on pavement, requirements for larger turning radii which may mean the 
inability for trucks to navigate tight turns or changes to design that would require longer pedestrian crossings, and 
congestion caused by higher truck volumes.  
Truck traffic volumes were recorded at the same time as the traffic counts on several roads in the City. Volumes 
were recorded as a percentage of total vehicles during the vehicular peak hour of 4:30‐5:30 pm at study area 
intersections. It is important to note that since these figures are percentages, the total traffic volume on the 
facility has a large influence on the prevalence of freight traffic. The highest incidences of truck traffic were 
observed on Business Loop 20 east of Sturdevant Road, Sturdevant Road south of Business Loop 20, and Bay 
Boulevard. Figure 6 shows all truck traffic 
volumes recorded within the study area.  
 
   
 
Log Truck turning off of Business Loop 20 onto Sturdevant Road 
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
30  
FIGURE 6 
Peak Hour Truck Percentages and Numbers 
 
   
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
 31 
Future (2035) No-Build Traffic Conditions  
This section describes the methodology and results for the 2035 future no‐build condition traffic operational 
analysis. Results include the v/c ratio, LOS, and 95th percentile queue lengths for each of the 11 study 
intersections.  
Future No-Build Traffic Analysis Results 
The v/c ratios, LOS, and 95th percentile queue lengths were collected from the future no‐build Synchro and 
SimTraffic simulation models for the 11 study area intersections. The post processed 2035 balanced volumes for 
each intersection were utilized in the analysis. The operational analysis results are based off optimized signal 
timings at Business Loop 20 at A Street. 
Intersection Operational Analysis Results 
Results from the operational analysis indicate that two of the 11 study intersections may not meet jurisdictional 
mobility targets and standards for the 2035 future no‐build scenario. Those intersections are:  
 US 20 at OR 229 
 US 20 at Business Loop 20 (west) 
Congestion is expected to worsen in 2035 as compared to the 2012 existing conditions, which could lead to delay 
for vehicles traveling within the City, as well as those entering and exiting the City.  
The two intersections estimated to fail the ODOT mobility targets and the proposed City mobility standards are on 
US 20 at the western junction of Business Loop 20. The worst congestion is showing on the side street approaches 
of each of those intersections. The traffic on the highway is flowing so continuously there are few gaps that allow 
the side street traffic time to cross or merge into traffic. The result is a buildup of vehicles on the side streets, as 
demonstrated in the queue analysis results.  
Table 7 shows the results of the 2035 future no‐build intersection operational analysis, including the 
recommended mobility standards and the existing (2012) traffic intersections operational results for comparison. 
Figure G.1 of Attachment G shows the volumes, channelization, and analysis results for all of the study area 
intersections. Attachment H shows the Synchro HCM reports for each study intersection. 
  
TABLE 7 
Toledo TSP: Future No‐Build Conditions Operational Analysis Results
2035, 30th Highest Hour Volumes 
ID  Intersection 
Control 
Type 
No‐Build Mobility Target  Existing Mobility   Forecast Mobility 
v/c  LOS  v/c  LOS  Delay (sec)  v/c  LOS  Delay (sec) 
1  US 20 at Arcadia Drive  Stop  0.70a  0.75 b  N/A  E  0.12  0.09  A  B  1  12  0.18  0.24  A  C  1  16 
2  US 20 at OR 229  Stop  0.80  0.90  N/A  N/A  0.18  0.54  A  E    4  42  0.30  1.71   A  F  4  >6 min 
3  US 20 at Western Loop  Stop  0.80  0.90  N/A  E  0.35  0.05  A  C  0  23  0.50  0.12  A  E  0  51 
4  US 20 at Business Loop 20 (west)  Stop  0.80  0.90  N/A  E  0.55  0.92C  A  F  0  74  0.79  >2  A  F  0  >11 min 
5  Business Loop 20 Spur at Business 
Loop 20  Stop  0.80  0.95  N/A  E  0.24  0.24  A  C  0  17  0.36  0.48  A  D  0  30 
6  Business Loop 20 at Bay Boulevard  Stop  1.0  1.0  E  E  0.34  0.23  A  C  1  18  0.48  0.51  B  D  1  34 
7  Business Loop 20 at A Street  Signal  1.0  D  0.55  B  19  0.79  C  31 
8  Business Loop 20 at Main Street  Stop  1.0  1.0  E  E  0.01  0.19  A  C  1  15  0.03  0.36  A  D  1  25 
9  Business Loop 20 at East Slope Road  Stop  1.0  1.0  E  E  0.11  0.08  A  B  2  10  0.19  0.14  A  B  3  12 
10  Business Loop 20 at Burgess Road  Stop  1.0  1.0  E  E  0.09  0.06  A  A  2  9  0.12  0.12  A  A  2  10 
11  Business Loop 20 at Sturdevant Road  Stop  1.0  1.0  E  E  0.06  0.14  A  B  4  10  0.12  0.18  A  B  4  11 
a Indicates OHP Mobility Standard v/c ratio for uncontrolled roadway approach 
b Indicates OHP Mobility Standard v/c ratio for stop controlled roadway approach 
C Black highlighting indicates intersection does not meet mobility standards   
 
  
Queuing Analysis Results 
The vehicle queue analysis identifies deficient vehicle storage locations and provides key information as this 
project advances into the alternative development stage. Table I.1 in Attachment I shows the 2035 forecast for 
95th percentile vehicle queues (for each movement in the study area), while Attachment J shows the queuing and 
blocking report derived from the model. The queuing analysis results are based off optimized signal timings at 
Business Loop 20 at A Street.  
The movements that are not forecast to have adequate storage in 2035 include those that were shown in the 
existing conditions analysis, along with an additional two intersections. A total of nine movements within five 
intersections are estimated to have queue lengths exceeding the storage. Those locations are listed below and 
described in further detail following.  
 US 20 at OR 229 – east‐ and southbound approaches 
 Business Loop 20 (west) at US 20 – northbound approach 
 Business Loop 20 at Business Loop 20 Spur – westbound approach 
 Business Loop 20 at Bay Boulevard – westbound approach 
 Business Loop 20 at A Street – north‐, east‐ and westbound approaches 
 
US 20 at OR 229. This intersection was not identified as having queuing issues in the existing conditions (2012). 
The southbound through/right movement is estimated to have a queue over one third of a mile long. This is likely 
due to the vehicles trying to cross US 20 and not finding sufficient gaps. The eastbound left turning vehicles also 
exceed the turn pocket storage by a minor amount, but there is a short section of roadway where the left turning 
vehicles can spill over, so it is not likely that the turning vehicle queue will extend into the through lane on the 
highway.  
US 20 at Business Loop 20 (west). This intersection was identified as having a northbound queue over a third of a 
mile in the existing conditions analysis (2012). The future no‐build estimation is that this queue will exceed one 
and a half miles. This is the same queue of vehicles that are reported for the westbound movement at Business 
Loop 20 Spur, at Business Loop 20. This queue would extend past Main Street on Business Loop 20. Under these 
conditions, a significant portion of this traffic is likely to divert to the eastern end of Business Loop 20 or Arcadia 
Drive to access US 20.  
Business Loop 20 at Bay Boulevard. This intersection was not identified as having queuing issues in the existing 
conditions (2012). The westbound left turn movement is estimated to have a queue of 100 feet for future no‐
build. There is a two‐way left turn lane for this queue to spill into; however, the distance to the next intersection 
is only 90 feet, so this queue could potentially block vehicles trying to access Sunset Boulevard. 
Business Loop 20 at A Street. This intersection was identified as having queuing issues for two movements in the 
existing conditions analysis (2012). For the future no‐build analysis, four movements have queues that are 
predicted to exceed storage. Those movements are the eastbound left, eastbound through/right, westbound left, 
and northbound left/through/right. The longest queue is over 1,000 feet on the eastbound approach. This is 
about half way between Forestry Road and Sunset Drive on Business Loop 20. The other concern is the 
northbound queue, which is estimated to be just over 300 feet. There is a railroad crossing on A Street 160 feet 
south of the intersection, so this queue would extend over the railroad crossing. 
Future No-Build Conditions Methodology 
A description of the future no‐build conditions methodology can be found in Attachment E preceding the raw 
traffic volumes used in this memo. 
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
34  
Safety Conditions  
Overall Site Review 
The Project Team requested crash data from the ODOT Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit to complete the existing 
safety assessment for the most recent five year period available (2006‐2010). This assessment focuses on three 
intersections identified by City:  
 US 20/OR 229 (Safety Study Intersection 2) 
 US 20/Western Loop/Business Loop (Safety Study Intersection 3 and 4) 
 Business Loop 20/OR 229 (Safety Study Intersection 5) 
Crash data requests were provided to ODOT in the form of segments, which are identified in Figure 7 below. 
FIGURE 7 
Crash Analysis Study Area  
  
 
The segmented crash data (Attachment K) was then separated into three safety study intersections. Safety study 
Intersections 3 and 4 were combined for the purposes of this study because of their close proximity.  
Twelve collisions were recorded between 2006 and 2010 within the safety study area and shown in Table 8. There 
was one fatal collision (an angle crash in 2010), three injury collisions, and eight property‐damage‐only collisions.  
   
2
5
3/4 
TOLEDO TSP: TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS 
 35 
TABLE 8 
Crash Frequency 2006‐2010 
Collision Type 
Crash Severity 
TOTAL Fatal  Injury  Property Damage Only 
Angle  1  1  1  3 
Rear‐End   ‐  1  3  4 
Turning Movement  ‐  1  2  3 
Fixed/Other Object  ‐  ‐  2  2 
TOTAL  1  3  8  12 
Source: ODOT Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit 
Table 9 includes the distribution of crashes by year, showing some fluctuation around an average of 2.4 crashes 
per year. Each year there are small fluctuations in the number of crashes that are recorded on any given roadway; 
when averaged out, the fluctuation in the number of crashes by year in the safety study area does not indicate 
any statistically significant change in safety.  
TABLE 9 
Crash Frequency by Year 
Year 
Crash Severity 
TOTAL Fatal  Injury  Property Damage Only 
2006  ‐  ‐  2  2 
2007   ‐  2  1  3 
2008  ‐  ‐  1  1 
2009  ‐  ‐  2  2 
2010  1  1  2  4 
TOTAL  1  3  8  12 
Source: ODOT Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit 
2011 ODOT Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) 
Each year ODOT prepares an update to the Safety Priority Index System (SPIS), which is completed in compliance 
with the Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) required by the Federal Highway Administration 
(FHWA). The ODOT SPIS is calculated using a crash frequency indicator (25 percent of the SPIS score), crash rate 
indicator (25 percent of the SPIS score), and crash severity indicator (50 percent of the SPIS score).  
As part of the Toledo TSP efforts the Project Team reviewed the 2011 ODOT top 10 percent SPIS for Region 2. 
There are no SPIS locations on US 20 within the study area. There are no SPIS locations on OR 229 in this area.  
Safety Study Intersection 2: US 20/OR 229 
Crash Data 
Eight crashes were recorded at the safety study intersection of US 20/OR 229 between 2006 and 2010, as listed in 
Table 10. Of these eight crashes, seven occurred in the safety study intersection and one on the north leg. 
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
36  
TABLE 10 
Crash Frequency US 20/OR 229 
Collision Type 
Crash Severity 
TOTAL Fatal  Injury  Property Damage Only 
Angle  1  1  1  3 
Rear‐End   ‐  1  2  3 
Turning Movement  ‐  ‐  1  1 
Fixed/Other Object  ‐  ‐  1  1 
TOTAL  1  2  5  8 
Note: Recorded injury crash was not classified as an incapacitating injury (Injury A). 
Source: ODOT Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit 
 
The crash recorded on the north leg of the intersection occurred in 2006 at 8:00 pm. This crash was a property‐
damage‐only, fixed/other object collision where the driver struck a guardrail. It occurred during clear weather, on 
a dry roadway, and at night (dark) without street lights. The vehicle was driving north, away from the intersection. 
The crash data indicates that the driver was traveling too fast for conditions, but not exceeding the speed limit.  
A property‐damage‐only, angle collision was recorded at the safety study intersection at 3:00 pm in 2006. One 
vehicle was traveling westbound through the intersection, while the other intended to go southbound. The 
records indicate the southbound driver proceeded through the intersection after stopping at the stop sign and 
collided with the through‐moving vehicle. The driver at fault was 18 and had a revoked driver’s license. The driver 
was cited with “careless driving.”  
An injury‐level, angle collision was recorded at 7:00 pm in 2007 at the safety study intersection. It occurred during 
clear weather, dry roadway surface, and “darkness with street lights.” One vehicle was traveling eastbound, while 
the second vehicle was traveling northbound. The vehicle action codes indicate the vehicle at fault stopped at a 
stop sign and then proceeded through the intersection.  
An injury‐level, rear‐end collision at the safety study intersection took place at 10:00 am in 2007. The vehicles 
were traveling southbound through the intersection.  
A property‐damage‐only, rear‐end collision was recorded at the intersection at 2:00 pm in 2009. The vehicles 
were headed southbound through the intersection. This crash is specified as a distracted driving crash, but the 
records do not indicate the source of distraction.  
A rear‐end, property‐damage‐only crash occurred at the intersection at 4:00 pm in 2009. The vehicles were 
traveling northbound through the intersection.  
A property‐damage‐only, turning‐movement collision took place at the safety study intersection at 1:00 pm in 
2010. The turning vehicle was making a southbound left, to travel eastbound on US 20. The second vehicle was 
traveling westbound on US 20. The crash report indicates that the turning vehicle stopped at the stop sign before 
proceeding into traffic. The driver at fault was 74‐years‐old at the time of the crash, which would classify them as 
an “Older Driver.”  
A fatal, angle collision took place at the intersection at 3:00 pm in 2010, involving three vehicles. It was daylight, 
cloudy, and the roadway had wet pavement surfaces. The driver at fault in vehicle 3 was traveling northbound on 
OR 229. Of the vehicles involved on US 20, vehicle 1 (a truck with trailer) was traveling eastbound and vehicle 2 (a 
public vehicle) was traveling westbound. Vehicle 3, the driver at fault stopped at the stop sign on OR 229 before 
pulling out into traffic. Vehicle 1 overturned after the initial angle collision and struck vehicle 2. The driver at fault 
in vehicle 3 was 82‐years‐old at the time of the incident, which makes them an “Older Driver.” The westbound 
driver in vehicle 2 was killed in the crash. The eastbound driver of vehicle 1 received no injury and the driver of 
vehicle 3 received possible injuries (Injury Level C).  
TOLEDO TSP: TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS 
 37 
ODOT Study 
In response to the 2010 fatal collision, ODOT reviewed the intersection of US 20 and OR 229. Part of this study 
included a speed study, which showed an 85 percentile speed of 53 mph and a median speed of 47 mph. To help 
support reduced speeds through the study corridor, ODOT added duplicate speed limit signs on the left side of the 
road, speed 45 ahead signs, and a supplemental speed limit sign inside the speed corridor. These changes were 
done to help support lower speeds, which may help reduce the severity of future crashes should they occur at this 
location. Speed data is not currently available to establish whether these changes have resulted in a reduction in 
travel speeds through the area.  
Safety Study Intersection 3 and 4: US 20/Western Loop/Business Loop 20 
Table 11 shows that safety study intersection US 20/Western Loop/Business Loop 20 has three recorded crashes 
during the study period (2006‐2010). One of these three crashes occurred in the safety study intersection area 
and the other two are recorded on the southwest leg.  
TABLE 11 
Crash Frequency US 20/Western Loop/Business Loop 20
Collision Type 
Crash Severity 
TOTAL Injury  Property Damage Only 
Rear‐End   ‐  1  1 
Turning Movement  1  ‐  1 
Fixed/Other Object  ‐  1  1 
TOTAL  1  2  3 
Note: Recorded injury crash was not classified as an incapacitating injury (Injury A).  
Source: ODOT Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit 
 
The turning movement collision recorded at the safety study intersection occurred in 2010, at 5:00 pm. The crash 
occurred in the dark, without streetlights, and happened during raining conditions. The driver at fault was 82 
years old at the time of the incident, which would classify them as an “Older Driver.”  
One of the two crashes located on the southwest leg of the study intersection was recorded in 2007 and occurred 
at 3:00 pm. This crash was a property‐damage‐only, rear‐end collision involving three vehicles. The crash record 
indicated that one vehicle was forced into a subsequent vehicle due to the force of the impact. All three vehicles 
were heading eastbound towards the intersection of US 20/Western Loop/Business Loop 20.  
The second crash recorded on the southwest leg occurred in 2008 at 3:00 pm. This crash was coded as a property‐
damage‐only, fixed/ other object collision and occurred during daylight and icy conditions. The vehicle struck 
either a cut slope or ditch embankment and then overturned after the first impact. The crash was coded as a 
speeding related crash, where the vehicle was traveling too fast for conditions, but not exceeding the posted 
speed. This vehicle was traveling westbound, leaving the intersection of US 20/Western Loop/Business Loop 20.  
The emergency services stakeholders noted during interviews that they have responded to a number of crashes at 
this intersection, including one fatality that is not reflected in the crash data, likely because it is outside of the 
crash data time period (2006‐2010). According to the police and fire chiefs, the fatality was the result of an earlier 
crash which caused a backup and stopped traffic on US 20. This unexpected stopped traffic resulted in a crash that 
killed an occupant of one of the stopped vehicles when an approaching vehicle failed to stop in time. These 
stakeholders indicated that any congestion or other incident along this stretch of highway is likely to cause similar 
crashes, since drivers do not expect stopped traffic and are likely exceeding the 45 mph speed limit. The Oregon 
State Police and Toledo Police regularly patrol the area and give tickets to speeding motorists, but the area is not 
always monitored for speed. 
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
38  
Safety Study Intersection 5: Business Loop 20/OR 229 
One crash is recorded at the safety study intersection of Business Loop 20 and OR 229 during the study period 
(see Table 12). It is a property‐damage‐only, turning‐movement collision was recorded in 2010 at 11:00 am. It 
occurred during clear weather, dry road surface, and daylight. The vehicle action code indicates that the driver 
“proceeded after stopping.” The record also indicates that the driver was “blinded by the sun,” which may have 
contributed to their selecting an inadequate gap to complete their maneuver.  
TABLE 12 
Crash Frequency Business Loop 20/OR229 
Collision Type 
Crash Severity 
TOTAL Property Damage Only 
Turning Movement  1  1 
TOTAL  1  1 
Source: ODOT Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit 
As part of the stakeholder outreach, the Police and Fire Chief provided information on safety at this location and 
described a fatal crash at this location where a southbound driver on OR 229 collided with a through vehicle on 
Business Loop 20 northbound, resulting in a fatality for the through‐vehicle. This fatality was recent, though 
outside of the time period (2006‐2010) for when the crash data were gathered from ODOT. Both the Fire and 
Police chiefs were concerned with the safety at this intersection and mentioned a number of crashes that have 
occurred here. They are also concerned that the crash data for the study time period do not adequately reflect 
the magnitude of the safety issues at this location, that will likely only get worse as traffic increases and turning 
vehicles are less patient when onto US 20. 
The two chiefs and other stakeholders indicated that they have witnessed or were involved in near misses nearly 
every day at the intersection. Many stakeholders expressed frustration with the amount of safety problems they 
experience at this location and feel it should be a high priority for ODOT. The PAC reported concerns about future 
injuries and fatalities if the intersection is not modified. Stakeholders cited the difficulty of determining if vehicles 
are turning onto Business Loop 20 from eastbound US 20 when there is a queue waiting to turn westbound on US 
20 from Business Loop 20. The intersection angles also create sight distance limitations and require drivers to turn 
their head further than 90 degrees to effectively see oncoming traffic. 
In addition to difficult sight distance, community members were concerned with high speeds and the volume of 
traffic traveling on US 20. The traffic provides few breaks for motorists on Business Loop 20 to turn left at this 
intersection. Stakeholders said it was difficult to go straight through the intersection on OR 229 or turn onto US 20 
due to poor visibility, high speeds on US 20, and confusing intersection design. Some community members felt 
that the speed limit on US 20 should be reduced in this location, while others suggested a signal or roundabout to 
improve safety. 
Additional Stakeholder Safety Concerns 
Stakeholders provided feedback on safety concerns outside of the Western Junction area (US 20/OR 229/Business 
Loop 20 intersections), including areas with limited sight distance that create “near misses” not necessarily 
reported in crash data.  
Multiple stakeholders indicated that the intersection of Main Street and Business Loop 20 is a difficult intersection 
due to the number of roads that come together, the vertical and horizontal curves, and the speed and volume of 
traffic on Business Loop 20. Two stakeholders mentioned that the pillar on the building in the southwest corner of 
the intersection restricts sight distance for vehicles trying to make the northbound left turn onto Business Loop 
20, to access US 20. 
TOLEDO TSP: TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS 
 39 
Another stakeholder mentioned that many of the steep 
and narrow roads in the City are dangerous, especially 
during winter weather conditions where the pavement 
is wet or icy. One stakeholder was concerned about cars 
speeding off of Business Loop 20 onto local residential 
streets with pedestrians and slower traffic, specifically at 
NE Alder Street where NE 1st Street is directly adjacent 
to the intersection and the steep grade makes it difficult 
for drivers turning off of 1st Street onto Alder to see 
oncoming traffic. 
Other identified safety concerns were closer to 
downtown. On Business Loop 20, west of Bay Boulevard, 
several stakeholders suggested adding more lighting and 
a guardrail to prevent vehicles from veering off the road. 
Stakeholders also suggested improving the intersections 
of Business Loop 20 at A Street and Butler Bridge Road, 
at Main Street, and SW 2nd Street.  
Sturdevant Road in east Toledo is another important issue for stakeholders and community members. The main 
public schools in Toledo are located directly on this major freight route, resulting in conflicting travel patterns. The 
road is narrow and winding, with limited sight distance, and few sidewalks. One stakeholder suggested reducing 
the speed limit along the entire length of the road to improve the safety of motorists and pedestrians. Other 
stakeholders suggested a separate multi‐use path to provide safe access for pedestrians and bicyclists to the local 
schools. 
   
 
Vehicle turning left onto Business Loop 20 from Main 
Street. Building pillar restricts sight distance.  
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
40  
Parking on the southern part of Main Street 
Main Street Parking  
The Project Team conducted a parking study, as part of the field visit in July 2012, focused on a City‐designated 
core area extending one block east and west from Main Street, between Business Loop 20 and Butler Bridge 
Road/SW 2nd Street. Project Team members first counted the number of available spaces and then walked the 
same loop at the beginning of every hour for six hours between 12:00 pm and 6:00 pm counting the number of 
vehicles in on‐ and off‐street parking spaces. The purpose of the study was to determine how many parking 
spaces were being used on a typical week day, during peak and nonpeak hours. Full results from the Parking Study 
are included in Attachment L. The results of the study show that on a typical Wednesday afternoon in July, only 
23‐39 percent of the available parking spots were occupied.  
The Project Team also asked stakeholders if there 
was adequate parking in downtown Toledo. Two 
stakeholders noted that while the on‐street 
parking signs indicate that there is a two‐hour 
parking limit, there is no City code that allows the 
Police to enforce the parking limit by issuing 
tickets. On days where there is a lot of demand for 
parking, it can be difficult to find a spot. Two other 
stakeholders did not agree that finding parking on 
Main Street was a problem and suggested that 
only on the highest demand days (such as festivals 
or other events) that finding parking on Main 
Street is a problem. One community member 
suggested adding a handicapped designated 
parking spot on the east side of the road near SW 
2nd Street. The nearest handicapped spot is across 
the street. Another stakeholder indicated that 
when on‐and off‐street parking lots are full on 
Main Street, visitors are less likely to want to park on side streets due to the steep grades east and west of Main 
Street. 
The Project Team asked stakeholders which days were likely to have the highest demand for parking. Most 
stakeholders said that the Summer Festival held the last weekend of July attracts around 30,000 people to Toledo, 
the Antique Car Show and Festival during the first weekend of August, the Labor Day Art Walk, the Summer 
Thursday Markets, and the Wooden Boat Festival all attract visitors to the City. The Antique Car Show and Festival 
closes Main Street to traffic, creating a parking shortage since much of the City’s public parking is located along 
Main Street. The Thursday Market also closes the off‐street lots along Main Street, though on‐street parking is still 
available during the Market. These specific events create more parking demand than there are spots when they 
occur; however, most stakeholders thought that there was enough parking to accommodate the demand on an 
average day. 
Next Steps 
The information included in this memorandum was presented and discussed with the PAC at a meeting on 
October 11, 2012 and the community at a project Open House on November 7, 2012.The Project Team added 
additional information collected at these meetings to the final version of this memo. 
TOLEDO TSP: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #3 TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Attachment A 
Figure A.1 – Toledo TSP: Existing Conditions Operational Analysis Results 
  
 
1 2 3
Count date: 6/11/2012-6/12/2012 Count date: 6/11/2012 Count date: 6/12/2012
Count type: 24-hr tube Count type: 16-hr turning movement Count type: 3-hr turning movement
V/C* Ratio Std: 0.75 LOS Std: D V/C Ratio Std: 0.90 LOS Std: D V/C Ratio Std: 0.90 LOS Std: D
V/C Ratio: LOS: V/C Ratio: LOS: V/C Ratio: LOS:
65 10 20 5 5 5
6% 55 250 6% .
20 10 525 5%
5
3% 280 200
20 25 280
25 60
*V/C = volume to capacity
**LOS = level of service
4 5 6
Count date: 6/12/2012 Count date: N/A*** Count date: 6/11/2012-6/12/2012
Count type: 16-hr turning movement Count type: N/A Count type: 24-hr tube
V/C Ratio Std: 0.90 LOS Std: D V/C Ratio Std: 0.95 LOS Std: D V/C Ratio Std: 0.85 LOS Std: D
V/C Ratio: LOS: V/C Ratio: LOS: V/C Ratio: LOS:
6%
3%
14%
US 20 & Bus. Loop 20 (west) US 20 & Bus. Loop 20 (spur)
US 20 & Western Loop
15
0%
825
US 20 & Arcadia Drive US 20 & OR 229
260
4%
6%
14%
14%
Bus. Loop 20 & Bay Boulevard
1
3
4 5
2
11
.
0.12 B 0.54 0.35 C
0.24 C 0.34 C0.92 F
E
75 75
300 3%
305 5% 230 3%
40
4% 475 4% 355 3% 445
225 5 30 40
355 35
***(volumes determined by nearby intersections)
7 8 9
Count date: 6/12/2012 Count date: 6/12/2012 Count date: 6/11/2012
Count type: 3-hr turning movement Count type: 3-hr turning movement Count type: 3-hr turning movement
V/C Ratio Std: 0.85 LOS Std: D V/C Ratio Std: 0.85 LOS Std: D V/C Ratio Std: 0.85 LOS Std: D
V/C Ratio: LOS: V/C Ratio: 0% LOS: V/C Ratio: LOS:
30 5 5% 20
50 10 5 5 70
25 165 5 5 0% 0 25 0 3%
5 5
5 0 Driveway 25
25 15 5 0
Bus. Loop 20 & A Street Bus. Loop 20 & Main Street
1%
24%
3%
Bus. Loop 20 & East Slope Road
7%
1%
24%
6 7
9
10
. .
0.55 B 0.19 C 0.11 B
75 0
300 5 1% 0
436 270 110
110 5% 40 40 5 0 4%
15
10 11 Legend
Count date: 6/11/2012-6/12/2012 Count date: 6/13/2012
Count type: 24-hr tube Count type: 3-hr turning movement
V/C Ratio Std: 0.85 LOS Std: D V/C Ratio Std: 0.85 LOS Std: D
V/C Ratio: LOS: V/C Ratio: LOS:
5% 50
55 50
15 45 15%
20
10
35 95 75
40 6%
26%
1501% 5
Bus. Loop 20 & Burgess Road Bus. Loop 20 & Sturdevant Road
15
125 5
4%
10%
4%
10
3% 550
EBL 
EBT
EBR 
WBR 
WBT  
WBL 
NBL  NBR 
SBR SBT SBL 
NBT  
Study Intersection 555  Turning Movement Vol
Signalized Intersection Channelization
Stop Controlled Intersection
8
. .
Map Source: Oregon Department of Transportation
0.09 A 0.14 B
HV%  
HV%  
HV%  
HV%  
Notes:
1. The System Peak hour is 4:30-5:30 PM and the 30th highest hour adjustment factor is 1.16
2. Truck Percentages are calculated from raw counts
3. "V/C Ratio Std" and "LOS Std" corresponds to the intersection's mobility standards
4. Mobility Standards are based on Oregon Highway Plan and the recommended City of Toledo standards
5. V/C and LOS reported for signalized intersection is the average for all approaches
6. V/C and LOS reported for unsignalized intersections is the highest approach
7.           A green oval on the map represents an acceptable measured mobility
8.           A red rectangle on the map represents a failing measured mobility
9. Synchro software version 7 was used for the analysis2012 Existing 30th Highest Hour Balanced Volumes
FIGURE A.1 - Toledo TSP: Existing Conditions Operational Analysis Results
 
TOLEDO TSP: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #3 TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attachment B 
Synchro HCM Reports – Existing Conditions 
  
 
Toledo TSP - 2012 Existing Conditions
1: US 20 & Arcadia Drive HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/18/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 - Report ToledoTSP_Existing_MainMod.syn
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 280 25 20 260 20 25
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 3% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.84 0.84
Hourly flow rate (vph) 311 28 23 302 24 30
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 340 522 170
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 340 522 170
tC, single (s) 4.2 7.1 7.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.3 3.6 3.4
p0 queue free % 98 95 96
cM capacity (veh/h) 1188 447 808
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1
Volume Total 207 132 23 151 151 54
Volume Left 0 0 23 0 0 24
Volume Right 0 28 0 0 0 30
cSH 1700 1700 1188 1700 1700 595
Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.08 0.02 0.09 0.09 0.09
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 0 0 7
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.1 0.0 0.0 11.7
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.6 11.7
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Toledo TSP - 2012 Existing Conditions
2: US 20 & OR 229 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/18/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 - Report ToledoTSP_Existing_MainMod.syn
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 200 280 0 10 250 0 0 60 15 0 65 55
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.83 0.83 0.83
Hourly flow rate (vph) 222 311 0 12 291 0 0 87 22 0 78 66
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 291 311 1175 1070 311 1135 1070 291
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 291 311 1175 1070 311 1135 1070 291
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.2 7.2 6.6 6.3 7.2 6.6 6.3
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 2.3 3.6 4.1 3.4 3.6 4.1 3.4
p0 queue free % 82 99 100 49 97 100 56 91
cM capacity (veh/h) 1265 1227 83 172 702 90 178 739
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 222 311 12 291 109 145
Volume Left 222 0 12 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 0 0 22 66
cSH 1265 1700 1227 1700 203 273
Volume to Capacity 0.18 0.18 0.01 0.17 0.54 0.53
Queue Length 95th (ft) 16 0 1 0 70 72
Control Delay (s) 8.5 0.0 8.0 0.0 41.7 32.2
Lane LOS A A E D
Approach Delay (s) 3.5 0.3 41.7 32.2
Approach LOS E D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 10.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Toledo TSP - 2012 Existing Conditions
20: OR 229 & Channelized Turn HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/18/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 - Report ToledoTSP_Existing_MainMod.syn
Movement NBT NBR SBL SBT NWL NWR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 260 0 10 120 0 20
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.83 0.83 0.86 0.86
Hourly flow rate (vph) 289 0 12 145 0 23
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 289 458 289
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 289 458 289
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.5 6.3
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.3 3.6 3.4
p0 queue free % 99 100 97
cM capacity (veh/h) 1250 549 741
Direction, Lane # NB 1 SB 1 NW 1
Volume Total 289 157 23
Volume Left 0 12 0
Volume Right 0 0 23
cSH 1700 1250 741
Volume to Capacity 0.17 0.01 0.03
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 2
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.7 10.0
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.7 10.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Toledo TSP - 2012 Existing Conditions
200: Channelized Turn & US 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/18/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 - Report ToledoTSP_Existing_MainMod.syn
Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 10 0 0 295 260 20
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.86
Hourly flow rate (vph) 12 0 0 328 302 23
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 630 302 326
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 630 302 326
tC, single (s) 6.5 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.6 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 97 100 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 439 737 1228
Direction, Lane # SE 1 NE 1 SW 1 SW 2
Volume Total 12 328 302 23
Volume Left 12 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 0 23
cSH 439 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.19 0.18 0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 13.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B
Approach Delay (s) 13.4 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Toledo TSP - 2012 Existing Conditions
3: US 20 & Western Loop HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/18/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 - Report ToledoTSP_Existing_MainMod.syn
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 5 825 525 5 5 5
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph) 6 938 590 6 6 6
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh) 4
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 590 1542 593
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 590 1542 593
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 99 95 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 976 127 509
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 943 596 12
Volume Left 6 0 6
Volume Right 0 6 6
cSH 976 1700 255
Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.35 0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 4
Control Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 23.4
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 23.4
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.5% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Toledo TSP - 2012 Existing Conditions
4: US 20 (west) & Bus Loop 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/26/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 - Report ToledoTSP_Existing_MainMod.syn
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 475 355 0 305 225 5
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.97 0.97 0.85 0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph) 540 403 0 314 265 6
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 943 1056 741
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 943 1056 741
tC, single (s) 4.1 *5.9 *5.7
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 9 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 715 290 462
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 943 314 271
Volume Left 0 0 265
Volume Right 403 0 6
cSH 1700 1700 293
Volume to Capacity 0.55 0.18 0.92
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 220
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 73.9
Lane LOS F
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 73.9
Approach LOS F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 13.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.2% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
*    User Entered Value
Toledo TSP - 2012 Existing Conditions
5: Bus Loop 20 & US 20 (spur) HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/18/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 - Report ToledoTSP_Existing_MainMod.syn
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 355 230 75 75 0
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.85 0.69 0.83 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 403 271 109 90 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 379 728 325
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 379 728 325
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.6 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 76 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 1168 384 716
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 403 379 90
Volume Left 0 0 90
Volume Right 0 109 0
cSH 1700 1700 384
Volume to Capacity 0.24 0.22 0.24
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 22
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 17.2
Lane LOS C
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 17.2
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Toledo TSP - 2012 Existing Conditions
6: Bus Loop 20 & Yaquina Bay Road HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/18/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 - Report ToledoTSP_Existing_MainMod.syn
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 445 35 40 300 30 40
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.86 0.86 0.86
Hourly flow rate (vph) 536 43 49 349 35 47
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 579 1004 557
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 579 1004 557
tC, single (s) 4.3 6.5 6.3
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.4 3.6 3.4
p0 queue free % 95 86 91
cM capacity (veh/h) 895 248 520
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1
Volume Total 579 49 349 81
Volume Left 0 49 0 35
Volume Right 43 0 0 47
cSH 1700 895 1700 354
Volume to Capacity 0.34 0.05 0.21 0.23
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 4 0 22
Control Delay (s) 0.0 9.3 0.0 18.2
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.1 18.2
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Toledo TSP - 2012 Existing Conditions
7: Bus Loop 20 & A Street HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/18/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 - Report ToledoTSP_Existing_MainMod.syn
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 75 300 110 5 165 30 125 25 5 25 10 50
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750
Lane Width 12 15 12 12 13 12 12 16 12 12 16 16
Grade (%) 0% 0% 10% 0%
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.92
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 0.99
Satd. Flow (prot) 1614 1782 1646 1749 1716 1751
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 0.99
Satd. Flow (perm) 1614 1782 1646 1749 1716 1751
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.86 0.86 0.86
Adj. Flow (vph) 90 361 133 6 192 35 162 32 6 29 12 58
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 15 0 0 7 0 0 2 0 0 52 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 90 479 0 6 220 0 0 198 0 0 47 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 4 6
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 5% 5% 5% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot Prot Split Split
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 4.5 23.4 0.6 19.5 8.8 5.3
Effective Green, g (s) 4.5 23.4 0.6 19.5 8.8 5.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.43 0.01 0.36 0.16 0.10
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 134 771 18 630 279 172
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.27 0.00 0.13 c0.12 c0.03
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.67 0.62 0.33 0.35 0.71 0.27
Uniform Delay, d1 24.1 11.9 26.6 12.7 21.4 22.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 12.5 1.6 10.6 0.3 8.3 0.9
Delay (s) 36.5 13.5 37.2 13.0 29.7 23.5
Level of Service D B D B C C
Approach Delay (s) 17.0 13.6 29.7 23.5
Approach LOS B B C C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 19.2 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 54.1 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c    Critical Lane Group
Toledo TSP - 2012 Existing Conditions
8: Bus Loop 20 & Main Street HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/18/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 - Report ToledoTSP_Existing_MainMod.syn
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 15 270 40 15 150 5 40 5 15 5 5 5
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.75 0.75 0.75
Hourly flow rate (vph) 18 329 49 18 176 6 54 7 20 7 7 7
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 761
pX, platoon unblocked 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
vC, conflicting volume 182 378 615 608 354 629 629 179
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 182 370 608 601 345 622 623 179
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 99 99 86 98 97 98 98 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 1399 1186 385 397 688 374 391 869
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 396 200 81 20
Volume Left 18 18 54 7
Volume Right 49 6 20 7
cSH 1399 1186 434 470
Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.04
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 1 17 3
Control Delay (s) 0.5 0.8 15.2 13.0
Lane LOS A A C B
Approach Delay (s) 0.5 0.8 15.2 13.0
Approach LOS C B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Toledo TSP - 2012 Existing Conditions
9: East Slope Road & Bus Loop 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/18/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 - Report ToledoTSP_Existing_MainMod.syn
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 25 20 110 55 25 70
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 10% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.79 0.87 0.87 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 32 25 126 63 28 78
Pedestrians 9 9 9
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0
Percent Blockage 1 1 1
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 309 176 199
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 309 176 199
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 95 97 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 656 851 1346
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 57 190 106
Volume Left 32 0 28
Volume Right 25 63 0
cSH 730 1700 1346
Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.11 0.02
Queue Length 95th (ft) 6 0 2
Control Delay (s) 10.3 0.0 2.2
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s) 10.3 0.0 2.2
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Toledo TSP - 2012 Existing Conditions
10: Bus Loop 20 & Burgess Road HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/18/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 - Report ToledoTSP_Existing_MainMod.syn
Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 35 95 55 15 10 40
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.90 0.90 0.61 0.61
Hourly flow rate (vph) 40 109 61 17 16 66
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 78 259 69
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 78 259 69
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.5 6.3
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.6 3.4
p0 queue free % 97 98 93
cM capacity (veh/h) 1508 694 972
Direction, Lane # NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SE 1
Volume Total 40 109 78 82
Volume Left 40 0 0 16
Volume Right 0 0 17 66
cSH 1508 1700 1700 899
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.09
Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 7
Control Delay (s) 7.5 0.0 0.0 9.4
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 2.0 0.0 9.4
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 18.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Toledo TSP - 2012 Existing Conditions
11: Sturdevant Road & Bus Loop 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/18/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 - Report ToledoTSP_Existing_MainMod.syn
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 20 50 75 10 45 50
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.61 0.61 0.78 0.78 0.75 0.75
Hourly flow rate (vph) 33 82 96 13 60 67
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 289 103 96
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 289 103 96
tC, single (s) 6.6 6.4 4.4
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.6 3.4 2.4
p0 queue free % 95 91 96
cM capacity (veh/h) 645 918 1360
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 115 109 127
Volume Left 33 0 60
Volume Right 82 13 0
cSH 819 1700 1360
Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.06 0.04
Queue Length 95th (ft) 12 0 3
Control Delay (s) 10.1 0.0 3.9
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s) 10.1 0.0 3.9
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 4.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
 
TOLEDO TSP: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #3 TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attachment C 
Table C.1 – Toledo TSP: Existing Conditions Queuing Analysis Results 
  
 
 TABLE C.1 
Toledo TSP: Existing Conditions Queuing Analysis Results
2012, 30th Highest Hour Volumes
ID  Intersection  Approach  Lane Group 
Existing Storage 
(feet) 
95th % Queue Lengtha 
(feet) 
1  US 20 at Arcadia Drive 
Eastbound  Thru/Right  ‐  ‐ 
Westbound  Left  200  40
b 
Thru  ‐  ‐ 
Northbound  Left/Right  Unconstrained  70 
2  US 20 at OR 229 
Eastbound  Left  130  60 
Thru  ‐  ‐ 
Westbound  Left  320  10 
Thru  ‐  ‐ 
Northbound  Thru/Right  365  100 
Southbound  Left  80  30 
Thru/Right  Unconstrained  160 
3  US 20 at Western Loop 
Eastbound  Left/Thru  Unconstrained  50 
Westbound  Thru/Right  ‐  ‐ 
Southbound  Left  Unconstrained  20 
Right  Unconstrained  0 
4  US 20 at Business Loop 20 (west) 
Eastbound  Thru/Right  ‐  ‐ 
Westbound  Thru  ‐  ‐ 
Northbound  Left/Right  350  1950 (>1/3 mile)c 
5  US 20 (spur) at Business Loop 20 
Eastbound  Thru  ‐  ‐ 
Westbound  Thru/Right  Unconstrained  Same queue as above 
Southbound  Left  365  80 
6  Business Loop 20 at Bay Boulevard 
Eastbound  Thru/Right  ‐  ‐ 
Westbound  Left  90  80 
Thru  ‐  ‐ 
Northbound  Left/Right  Unconstrained  90 
7  Business Loop 20 at A Street 
Eastbound  Left  60  90 
Thru/Right  650  220 
Westbound  Left  15  20 
Thru/Right  700  110 
Northbound  Left/Thru/Right  160 (to RR)  140 
Southbound  Left/Thru/Right  330  70 
8  Business Loop 20 at Main Streetd 
Eastbound  Left/Thru/Right  700  30 
North‐westbound  Left/Thru/Right  300  20 
Northbound  Left/Thru/Right  200  70 
Southbound  Left/Thru/Right  240  40 
9  Business Loop 20 at East Slope Road 
Westbound  Left/Right  Unconstrained  60 
Northbound  Thru/Right  ‐  ‐ 
Southbound  Left/Thru  Unconstrained  30 
10  Business Loop 20 at Burgess Road 
Eastbound  Left/Right  Unconstrained  50 
Northbound  Left  50  30 
Thru  ‐  ‐ 
Southbound  Thru/Right  ‐  ‐ 
11  Business Loop 20 at Sturdevant Road 
Westbound  Left/Right  Unconstrained  100 
Northbound  Thru/Right  ‐  ‐ 
Southbound  Left/Thru  Unconstrained  40 
a Queues are determined using SimTraffic software and calculated using an average of five, one hour simulation runs 
b Queue lengths rounded up to the nearest 10 feet and not reported for free‐flowing and uncontrolled movements 
c Movements in black highlight indicate a vehicle queue length that exceeds the available storage length 
d 3rd Street was not included in the traffic model, but queue is 20’ according to the two‐minute rule 
 
TOLEDO TSP: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #3 TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attachment D 
SimTraffic Queuing Report – Existing Conditions 
 
 
Toledo TSP - 2012 Existing Conditions Queuing and Blocking Report
9/25/2012 CH2M HILL
SimTraffic Report ToledoTSP_Existing_MainMod.syn
Intersection: 1: US 20 & Arcadia Drive
Movement WB NB
Directions Served L LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 54 89
Average Queue (ft) 6 31
95th Queue (ft) 31 69
Link Distance (ft) 917
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: US 20 & OR 229
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L T L T TR TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 87 36 8 32 136 107
Average Queue (ft) 20 2 1 6 37 30
95th Queue (ft) 60 16 4 23 100 87
Link Distance (ft) 530 103 390 110
Upstream Blk Time (%) 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 3
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 130 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Intersection: 3: US 20 & Western Loop
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT L
Maximum Queue (ft) 125 22
Average Queue (ft) 7 3
95th Queue (ft) 42 13
Link Distance (ft) 1992 2050
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Toledo TSP - 2012 Existing Conditions Queuing and Blocking Report
9/25/2012 CH2M HILL
SimTraffic Report ToledoTSP_Existing_MainMod.syn
Intersection: 4: US 20 (west) & Bus Loop 20
Movement NB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 370
Average Queue (ft) 348
95th Queue (ft) 422
Link Distance (ft) 349
Upstream Blk Time (%) 59
Queuing Penalty (veh) 138
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Bus Loop 20 & US 20 (spur)
Movement WB B15 SB
Directions Served TR T L
Maximum Queue (ft) 613 620 89
Average Queue (ft) 425 227 39
95th Queue (ft) 779 743 71
Link Distance (ft) 509 2920 390
Upstream Blk Time (%) 39
Queuing Penalty (veh) 129
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Bus Loop 20 & Yaquina Bay Road
Movement EB WB WB NB
Directions Served TR L T LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 27 104 30 119
Average Queue (ft) 1 22 1 40
95th Queue (ft) 13 72 22 87
Link Distance (ft) 560 1441 1788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 90
Storage Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2
Toledo TSP - 2012 Existing Conditions Queuing and Blocking Report
9/25/2012 CH2M HILL
SimTraffic Report ToledoTSP_Existing_MainMod.syn
Intersection: 7: Bus Loop 20 & A Street
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 136 275 35 150 177 82
Average Queue (ft) 32 96 4 41 73 26
95th Queue (ft) 89 220 19 103 137 62
Link Distance (ft) 1441 658 1226 1460
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 15
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 3 4 13
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 3 8 1
Intersection: 8: Bus Loop 20 & Main Street
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 60 30 81 39
Average Queue (ft) 4 2 30 12
95th Queue (ft) 29 15 61 39
Link Distance (ft) 658 525 1370 305
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: East Slope Road & Bus Loop 20
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LR TR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 71 32 40
Average Queue (ft) 24 1 4
95th Queue (ft) 56 15 24
Link Distance (ft) 1383 1114 765
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Toledo TSP - 2012 Existing Conditions Queuing and Blocking Report
9/25/2012 CH2M HILL
SimTraffic Report ToledoTSP_Existing_MainMod.syn
Intersection: 10: Bus Loop 20 & Burgess Road
Movement NB NB SE
Directions Served L T LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 56 18 74
Average Queue (ft) 5 1 16
95th Queue (ft) 29 13 47
Link Distance (ft) 765 1348
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Intersection: 11: Sturdevant Road & Bus Loop 20
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 128 82
Average Queue (ft) 46 6
95th Queue (ft) 94 36
Link Distance (ft) 2007 2332
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 20: OR 229 & Channelized Turn
Movement NB SB NW
Directions Served T LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 7 107 58
Average Queue (ft) 0 11 15
95th Queue (ft) 5 72 42
Link Distance (ft) 110 1546 41
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Toledo TSP - 2012 Existing Conditions Queuing and Blocking Report
9/25/2012 CH2M HILL
SimTraffic Report ToledoTSP_Existing_MainMod.syn
Intersection: 200: Channelized Turn & US 20
Movement SE SW
Directions Served L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 32 19
Average Queue (ft) 7 1
95th Queue (ft) 28 8
Link Distance (ft) 41
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 284
 
TOLEDO TSP: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #3 TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attachment E 
Traffic Analysis Methodology and Raw Traffic Volumes 
 
 
Existing Conditions Methodology 
This section describes the data collected and the methodology used for the traffic operational and crash analyses.   
Study Intersections and Analysis Time Period 
The existing conditions traffic operational analysis was conducted for 2012 using the 30th highest hour volumes. A 
total of 11 study intersections, all under City or ODOT jurisdiction, were analyzed as part of the study. ODOT 
collected counts on June 11‐13, 2012. ODOT conducted a variety of counts, shown in Table 7.   
Sixteen‐hour turning movement counts were taken at two locations along US 20. The remaining counts were 
either three‐hour turning movement counts that spanned over the PM peak, or 24‐hour tube counts. All counts 
provided full vehicle classification, where truck traffic is divided by axle. Counts were not taken at the intersection 
of the Business Loop 20 Spur and Business Loop 20. The volumes at this intersection were deduced based on the 
nearby counts that were done along US 20. 
Based on the volume counts for all intersections within the study area, a system wide peak hour of 4:30‐5:30 PM 
was determined and used for all 11 study intersections. Table 7 outlines the intersection control type (traffic 
signal versus stop sign), jurisdiction, and count type for each intersection within the study area. Attachment E has 
the raw traffic volumes.    
TABLE 7 
Toledo TSP: Traffic Study Intersections 
ID  Intersection 
Control 
Type  Jurisdiction  Count Date  Count Hoursa  Count Type 
1  US 20 at Arcadia Drive  Stop  ODOT  6/11‐12/2012  9:45 AM – 9:45 AM  Full Class 24‐hr Tube 
2  US 20 at OR 229  Stop  ODOT  6/11/2012  6:00 AM – 10:00 PM  Full Class 16‐hr Turning Movement 
3  US 20 at Western Loop  Stop  ODOT  6/12/2012  3:00 PM – 6:00 PM  Full Class PM Peak Turning Movement 
4  US 20 at Business Loop 20 (west)  Stop  ODOT  6/12/2012  6:00 AM – 10:00 PM  Full Class 16‐hr Turning Movement 
5  Business Loop 20 Spur at Business Loop 20  Stop  ODOT  N/A
b  N/A  N/A 
6  Business Loop 20 at Yaquina Bay Road  Stop  City  6/11‐12/2012  8:30 AM – 8:30 AM  Full Class 24‐hr Tube 
7  Business Loop 20 at A Street  Signal  City  6/12/2012  3:00 PM – 6:00 PM  Full Class PM Peak Turning Movement 
8  Business Loop 20 at Main Street  Stop  City  6/12/2012  3:00 PM – 6:00 PM  Full Class PM Peak Turning Movement 
9  Business Loop 20 at East Slope Road  Stop  City  6/11/2012  3:00 PM – 6:00 PM  Full Class PM Peak Turning Movement 
10  Business Loop 20 at Burgess Road  Stop  City  6/11‐12/2012  9:30 AM – 9:30 AM  Full Class 24‐hr Tube 
11  Business Loop 20 at Sturdevant Road  Stop  City  6/13/2012  3:00 PM – 6:00 PM  Full Class PM Peak Turning Movement 
a System wide peak hour for the study intersections is 4:30 – 5:30 PM  
b No count was collected at Business Loop 20 Spur and Business Loop 20, volumes were used from nearby intersections 
 
Seasonal Adjustments 
ODOT traffic analysis procedures require the 30th highest hour traffic volumes be used for planning, project 
design, and to calculate volume to capacity (v/c) ratios for intersections and roadway segments. The 30th highest 
hour represents the 30th highest recorded traffic volumes during a one‐year period.  
ODOT guidelines require that raw volumes be processed through four steps: 
1. Collect raw traffic volumes and determine individual intersection peak hour. 
2. Consolidate traffic counts and determine a system peak hour for all intersections within the study 
area. 
3. Apply the seasonal adjustment factor to obtain the 30th highest peak hour volumes. The method used 
to calculate the factor is explained in City of Toledo TSP –Methods and Assumptions Technical 
Memorandum. 
4. Balance the 30th highest peak hour volumes for use in the traffic analysis. 
Attachment F contains the City of Toledo TSP –Methods and Assumptions Technical Memorandum, which 
describes the process used to obtain the 30th highest volumes. Intersection counts were collected on three 
different days in 2012 and the resulting seasonal adjustment factors are shown in Table 8. A seasonal factor of 
1.16 was applied to all counts for consistency. This value applied to the June 13 counts will result in more 
conservative volumes than using the seasonal factor calculated for that exact day.  
 Figure A.1 in Attachment A shows the balanced 30th highest volumes for all the study intersections.  
TABLE 8 
Toledo TSP: 2012 Seasonal Trend Adjustment 
Count Date  Seasonal Adjustment Factor 
June 11, 2012  1.16a 
June 12, 2012  1.16 
June 13, 2012  1.15 
a Factor applied to all counts 
Traffic Analysis Software Tools  
A Synchro 7 computer traffic operations model was constructed for the study area based on the collected traffic 
turning movement counts, peak hour factors, truck percentages, posted speeds and field observations. This model 
was used to assess existing traffic operations within the study area. 
The Synchro model uses methodologies in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) to analyze both signalized 
and stop‐controlled intersections. The model also computes the LOS and v/c ratio to determine whether the 
intersection meets the applicable mobility targets and standards. 
SimTraffic, a traffic microsimulation software program, was used to collect vehicle queuing information for all 
signalized intersections. As a microscopic traffic model, SimTraffic models each vehicle as a separate entity with 
its own individual parameters and car‐following logic.  
Vehicle queue results are reported for the expected 95th percentile queue length, which means that 95 percent 
of the time during the peak hour analyzed, the queue length should be less than or equal to the value reported. 
An average of at least five runs of SimTraffic was used to calculate the 95th percentile queue lengths. 
 
   
Future No-Build Conditions Methodology 
The project study area for the 2035 future no‐build traffic analysis is based on the existing traffic analysis covered 
previously in the memorandum and includes the same 11 study intersections, channelization and geometry.  
Analysis Year and Time Period 
The year 2035 was chosen as the horizon analysis year for the future no‐build traffic analysis. This year was 
chosen to provide a 20 year forecast horizon from the completion of the project. The 30th highest hour was 
selected as the future no‐build analysis time period because it is consistent with the existing conditions traffic 
analysis. 
Future No-Build Forecasting 
The analysis uses historical trends to forecast the future volumes, since a transportation model is unavailable for 
the study area. This forecasting process was described as part of the methods and assumptions memorandum in 
Attachment F. The resulting growth factor was 1.53. This number was applied to the existing conditions, balanced 
30th highest hour volumes. Those volumes showed a high concentration of vehicles using Business Loop 20 (west) 
to access US 20. Although that is the preferred route for most drivers, future delay is expected to be high at this 
location and drivers will likely access the highway at alternate locations. Since the exact distribution is unknown, a 
conservative change was made such that five percent of the vehicles were rerouted to US 20 westbound using 
Arcadia Drive and 15 percent were rerouted to US 20 westbound using Business Loop 20 east. The resulting 
volumes were balanced and then used as the 2035 no‐build 30th highest hour intersection turning movements, 
shown in Figure G.1 in Attachment G. 
Performance Mobility Targets 
For the 2035 Future No‐Build conditions, the mobility targets for intersections within ODOT’s jurisdiction vary 
based on roadway classification. The proposed City mobility standards will be carried forward from the existing 
conditions analysis. Table 10 shows the mobility standards for the intersection operational analysis.  
Traffic Analysis Software Tools. 
The future no‐build analysis software tools are consistent with the existing conditions analysis.  
Time of Day N-S S-N TOTAL North South
0:00 0 0 0 0 0
0:15 0 0 0 0 0
0:30 0 0 0 0 0
0:45 0 0 0 0 0
1:00 1 1 1 1 1
1:15 1 1 1 1 1
1:30 0 0 0 0 0
1:45 0 0 0 0 0
2:00 1 1 1 1 1
2:15 0 1 1 0 1
2:30 0 0 0 0 0
2:45 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 0 0 0 0 0
3:15 2 1 3 2 1
3:30 0 1 1 0 1
3:45 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 2 3 4 2 3
4:15 1 1 2 1 1
4:30 0 3 3 0 3
4:45 2 3 4 2 3
5:00 3 3 6 3 3
5:15 6 2 8 6 2
5:30 5 2 7 5 2
5:45 3 11 13 3 11
6:00 5 12 17 5 12
6:15 8 10 18 8 10
6:30 4 21 25 4 21
6:45 13 32 44 13 32
7:00 7 20 27 7 20
7:15 9 18 27 9 18
7:30 12 16 28 12 16
7:45 7 13 20 7 13
8:00 1 9 10 1 9
8:15 8 6 14 8 6
8:30 3 8 11 3 8
8:45 4 7 11 4 7
9:00 4 5 9 4 5
9:15 7 5 12 7 5
9:30 2 6 8 2 6
9:45 4 5 9 4 5
10:00 2 7 9 2 7
10:15 9 4 12 9 4
10:30 3 7 10 3 7
10:45 6 9 15 6 9
11:00 4 7 11 4 7
11:15 10 6 16 10 6
11:30 9 5 13 9 5
11:45 4 9 12 4 9
12:00 8 6 14 8 6
12:15 4 7 11 4 7
County: Lincoln Hours: 6/11/2012 9:45 AM-
Summary of Traffic Count
Transportation Development Division
Site: 21188 Date: 6/11/2012-6/13/2012
Milepoint: 0.05
Location: On Arcadia Drive, 0.05 
mile south of Corvallis 
Newport Highway No. 33 
(US20)
City: RURAL Highway #: 8407
Summary By Movements Entering 
Count Number: 1.00 Weather: Rain
Time of Day N-S S-N TOTAL North South
County: Lincoln Hours: 6/11/2012 9:45 AM-
Summary of Traffic Count
Transportation Development Division
Site: 21188 Date: 6/11/2012-6/13/2012
Milepoint: 0.05
Location: On Arcadia Drive, 0.05 
mile south of Corvallis 
Newport Highway No. 33 
(US20)
City: RURAL Highway #: 8407
Summary By Movements Entering 
Count Number: 1.00 Weather: Rain
12:30 7 7 13 7 7
12:45 6 7 12 6 7
13:00 9 6 15 9 6
13:15 6 7 13 6 7
13:30 5 8 12 5 8
13:45 8 7 15 8 7
14:00 8 7 15 8 7
14:15 9 7 16 9 7
14:30 8 13 20 8 13
14:45 7 8 15 7 8
15:00 11 8 19 11 8
15:15 9 8 17 9 8
15:30 11 12 23 11 12
15:45 5 8 12 5 8
16:00 8 8 16 8 8
16:15 15 10 25 15 10
16:30 11 11 22 11 11
16:45 8 6 14 8 6
17:00 11 10 21 11 10
17:15 9 11 20 9 11
17:30 10 6 16 10 6
17:45 8 2 10 8 2
18:00 7 3 9 7 3
18:15 5 6 10 5 6
18:30 3 4 6 3 4
18:45 7 3 9 7 3
19:00 3 2 4 3 2
19:15 6 2 8 6 2
19:30 7 3 10 7 3
19:45 5 2 7 5 2
20:00 2 3 5 2 3
20:15 2 2 4 2 2
20:30 6 4 9 6 4
20:45 5 1 6 5 1
21:00 1 2 3 1 2
21:15 3 1 4 3 1
21:30 2 1 3 2 1
21:45 1 2 3 1 2
22:00 2 1 2 2 1
22:15 2 1 3 2 1
22:30 1 1 2 1 1
22:45 1 1 1 1 1
23:00 1 0 1 1 0
23:15 1 0 1 1 0
23:30 0 0 0 0 0
23:45 1 0 1 1 0
Total Count 421 498 919 421 497.5
24hr Factor 1 1 1 1 1
24hr Volume 421 498 919 421 498
Time of Day N-E N-S N-W E-N E-S E-W S-N S-E S-W W-N W-E W-S TOTAL North East South West
6:00 7 47 56 4 6 94 16 3 0 9 70 0 312 110 104 19 79
6:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 4 12 26 1 4 44 14 1 0 2 23 0 131 42 49 15 25
7:15 4 13 29 1 1 48 3 0 0 6 16 0 121 46 50 3 22
7:30 9 10 33 4 1 87 5 4 0 12 24 0 189 52 92 9 36
7:45 5 13 30 5 3 88 12 3 0 14 31 0 204 48 96 15 45
8:00 13 9 28 2 4 51 8 3 0 9 32 0 159 50 57 11 41
8:15 5 10 30 4 3 53 5 7 0 7 35 0 159 45 60 12 42
8:30 6 11 34 2 0 52 6 3 0 9 32 0 155 51 54 9 41
8:45 5 8 21 2 4 41 6 3 0 14 26 0 130 34 47 9 40
9:00 12 34 76 5 14 179 30 13 0 37 145 0 545 122 198 43 182
9:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:00 11 29 71 6 16 175 34 12 0 43 152 0 549 111 197 46 195
10:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:00 16 37 63 11 9 143 33 20 0 51 165 0 548 116 163 53 216
11:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:00 11 24 44 10 18 211 42 20 0 51 165 0 596 79 239 62 216
12:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13:00 11 48 58 11 19 164 32 12 0 54 175 1 585 117 194 44 230
13:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14:00 20 39 42 8 18 183 42 16 0 68 180 1 617 101 209 58 249
14:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
County: Lincoln Hours: 6:00 AM-10:00 PM
Summary of Traffic Count
Transportation Development Division
Site: 21012012 Date: 6/11/2012
Milepoint: 5.74 Location: US20 @ OR229 & US20 Bus loop
City: RURAL Highway #: 033
Summary By Movements Entering Volumes
Count Number: 1.00 Weather: Clear
Time of Day N-E N-S N-W E-N E-S E-W S-N S-E S-W W-N W-E W-S TOTAL North East South West
County: Lincoln Hours: 6:00 AM-10:00 PM
Summary of Traffic Count
Transportation Development Division
Site: 21012012 Date: 6/11/2012
Milepoint: 5.74 Location: US20 @ OR229 & US20 Bus loop
City: RURAL Highway #: 033
Summary By Movements Entering Volumes
Count Number: 1.00 Weather: Clear
14:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15:00 4 16 13 4 2 45 12 1 0 25 54 0 176 33 51 13 79
15:15 1 13 21 1 7 76 10 9 0 19 50 0 207 35 84 19 69
15:30 7 8 10 5 2 41 18 4 0 21 57 0 173 25 48 22 78
15:45 1 8 13 6 7 32 21 10 0 23 59 0 180 22 45 31 82
16:00 6 10 19 4 6 66 12 6 0 34 41 0 204 35 76 18 75
16:15 3 14 9 4 4 59 19 8 0 34 70 0 224 26 67 27 104
16:30 4 10 18 4 0 59 5 3 0 34 45 0 182 32 63 8 79
16:45 0 21 12 5 4 49 14 4 0 38 59 0 206 33 58 18 97
17:00 2 10 7 2 1 38 21 3 0 48 53 0 185 19 41 24 101
17:15 3 16 6 8 5 42 13 3 0 40 67 0 203 25 55 16 107
17:30 0 8 18 4 1 44 9 2 0 30 42 0 158 26 49 11 72
17:45 4 15 12 2 0 47 13 4 0 23 33 0 153 31 49 17 56
18:00 11 23 39 13 7 119 40 13 0 84 132 0 481 73 139 53 216
18:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19:00 8 24 24 15 5 77 28 6 0 61 77 0 325 56 97 34 138
19:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20:00 4 17 27 8 4 62 28 3 0 44 68 0 265 48 74 31 112
20:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21:00 8 19 13 9 0 53 12 4 0 33 46 0 197 40 62 16 79
21:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Count 205 576 902 170 175 2522 563 203 0 977 2224 2 8519 1683 2867 766 3203
24hr Factor 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
24hr Volume 226 634 993 187 193 2775 620 224 0 1075 2447 3 9371 1852 3154 843 3524
Time of Day N-E N-W E-N E-W W-N W-E TOTAL North East West
15:00 1 0 0 86 0 69 156 1 86 69
15:15 0 2 0 105 0 62 169 2 105 62
15:30 0 1 0 108 1 67 177 1 108 68
15:45 0 0 1 118 0 67 186 0 119 67
16:00 0 1 1 130 1 62 195 1 131 63
16:15 0 1 0 102 0 82 185 1 102 82
16:30 0 0 0 112 1 94 207 0 112 95
16:45 0 0 0 127 0 96 223 0 127 96
17:00 0 0 0 112 0 109 221 0 112 109
17:15 0 0 0 102 0 109 211 0 102 109
17:30 0 0 0 83 2 76 161 0 83 78
17:45 0 0 0 89 0 77 166 0 89 77
Total Count 1 5 2 1274 5 970 2257 6 1276 975
24hr Factor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
24hr Volume 1 5 2 1274 5 970 2257 6 1276 975
Summary By Movements Entering Volumes
Count Number: 1.00 Weather: Clear
Milepoint: 5.58 Location:
US20 @ Western Loop
Peak hour turning 
movements (3-6pm)
City: RURAL Highway #: 033
County: Lincoln Hours: 3:00 PM-6:00 PM
Summary of Traffic Count
Transportation Development Division
Site: 21022012 Date: 6/12/2012
Time of Day E-S E-W S-E S-W W-E W-S TOTAL East South West
6:00 0 163 1 135 79 77 455 163 136 156
6:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 0 46 0 44 31 16 137 46 44 47
7:15 0 99 0 64 30 26 219 99 64 56
7:30 0 109 1 58 35 20 223 109 59 55
7:45 0 136 1 56 51 51 295 136 57 102
8:00 0 101 1 68 45 40 255 101 69 85
8:15 0 75 0 51 51 24 201 75 51 75
8:30 0 87 0 50 49 27 213 87 50 76
8:45 1 59 0 31 39 21 151 60 31 60
9:00 0 211 2 173 191 122 699 211 175 313
9:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:00 0 258 2 195 182 131 768 258 197 313
10:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:00 0 206 1 181 207 171 766 206 182 378
11:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:00 1 257 5 179 207 183 832 258 184 390
12:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13:00 3 202 4 151 240 188 788 205 155 428
13:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14:00 0 250 5 179 233 174 841 250 184 407
14:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Summary By Movements Entering Volumes
Count Number: 1.00 Weather: Clear;Rain
Milepoint: 5.60 Location:
US 20 at Business Loop 
20 West (Toledo Frontage 
Rd)
City: RURAL Highway #: 033
County: Lincoln Hours: 6:00 AM-10:00 PM
Summary of Traffic Count
Transportation Development Division
Site: 21032012 Date: 6/12/2012
Time of Day E-S E-W S-E S-W W-E W-S TOTAL East South West
Summary By Movements Entering Volumes
Count Number: 1.00 Weather: Clear;Rain
Milepoint: 5.60 Location:
US 20 at Business Loop 
20 West (Toledo Frontage 
Rd)
City: RURAL Highway #: 033
County: Lincoln Hours: 6:00 AM-10:00 PM
Summary of Traffic Count
Transportation Development Division
Site: 21032012 Date: 6/12/2012
14:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15:00 0 41 6 48 51 68 214 41 54 119
15:15 2 58 5 51 63 59 238 60 56 122
15:30 0 51 4 56 66 60 237 51 60 126
15:45 0 62 1 56 67 54 240 62 57 121
16:00 0 86 0 44 62 71 263 86 44 133
16:15 0 50 0 52 83 56 241 50 52 139
16:30 0 68 1 43 94 80 286 68 44 174
16:45 0 68 0 58 96 81 303 68 58 177
17:00 0 67 2 52 108 51 280 67 54 159
17:15 0 62 1 40 110 93 306 62 41 203
17:30 0 50 1 32 76 82 241 50 33 158
17:45 0 52 0 36 78 66 232 52 36 144
18:00 1 163 1 107 207 191 670 164 108 398
18:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19:00 0 95 0 51 131 95 372 95 51 226
19:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20:00 0 101 1 55 106 109 372 101 56 215
20:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21:00 0 72 1 36 70 55 234 72 37 125
21:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Count 8 3405 47 2432 3138 2542 11572 3413 2479 5680
24hr Factor 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
24hr Volume 9 3746 52 2676 3452 2797 12730 3755 2727 6248
Time of Day N-S S-N TOTAL North South
0:00 1 0 1 1 0
0:15 0 1 1 0 1
0:30 0 0 0 0 0
0:45 0 1 1 0 1
1:00 1 2 3 1 2
1:15 0 0 0 0 0
1:30 0 0 0 0 0
1:45 1 0 1 1 0
2:00 1 0 1 1 0
2:15 1 0 1 1 0
2:30 1 0 1 1 0
2:45 1 0 1 1 0
3:00 0 3 3 0 3
3:15 0 2 2 0 2
3:30 4 2 6 4 2
3:45 3 2 4 3 2
4:00 2 0 2 2 0
4:15 2 2 4 2 2
4:30 4 3 6 4 3
4:45 1 1 2 1 1
5:00 4 5 9 4 5
5:15 5 5 10 5 5
5:30 4 3 7 4 3
5:45 6 8 13 6 8
6:00 6 2 8 6 2
6:15 3 3 6 3 3
6:30 9 11 20 9 11
6:45 7 11 18 7 11
7:00 12 5 16 12 5
7:15 13 13 25 13 13
7:30 16 12 28 16 12
7:45 14 12 26 14 12
8:00 15 12 26 15 12
8:15 15 10 24 15 10
8:30 13 10 22 13 10
8:45 11 10 21 11 10
9:00 12 10 21 12 10
9:15 13 12 24 13 12
9:30 13 6 19 13 6
9:45 9 8 17 9 8
10:00 12 15 27 12 15
10:15 13 6 19 13 6
10:30 16 15 30 16 15
10:45 13 12 24 13 12
11:00 10 19 28 10 19
11:15 14 12 25 14 12
11:30 17 12 29 17 12
11:45 7 10 17 7 10
12:00 15 15 30 15 15
12:15 11 8 19 11 8
Summary By Movements Entering 
Count Number: 1.00 Weather: Rain
Milepoint: 13.27 Location:
On Yaquina Bay Rd, 0.02 
mile south of US20 
Business (south of 
sidewalk terminus)
City: Toledo Highway #: 2302
County: Lincoln Hours: 6/13/2012 8:30 AM
Summary of Traffic Count
Transportation Development Division
Site: 21189 Date: 6/11/2012-6/13/2012
Time of Day N-S S-N TOTAL North South
Summary By Movements Entering 
Count Number: 1.00 Weather: Rain
Milepoint: 13.27 Location:
On Yaquina Bay Rd, 0.02 
mile south of US20 
Business (south of 
sidewalk terminus)
City: Toledo Highway #: 2302
County: Lincoln Hours: 6/13/2012 8:30 AM
Summary of Traffic Count
Transportation Development Division
Site: 21189 Date: 6/11/2012-6/13/2012
12:30 12 10 22 12 10
12:45 13 15 27 13 15
13:00 9 12 21 9 12
13:15 14 10 23 14 10
13:30 11 15 26 11 15
13:45 12 12 23 12 12
14:00 13 22 35 13 22
14:15 15 17 31 15 17
14:30 17 8 24 17 8
14:45 11 15 26 11 15
15:00 10 15 25 10 15
15:15 20 14 33 20 14
15:30 16 15 31 16 15
15:45 14 14 28 14 14
16:00 11 13 24 11 13
16:15 16 15 31 16 15
16:30 12 15 27 12 15
16:45 16 17 32 16 17
17:00 16 13 28 16 13
17:15 19 14 33 19 14
17:30 11 14 25 11 14
17:45 11 14 25 11 14
18:00 8 11 19 8 11
18:15 10 10 19 10 10
18:30 11 12 22 11 12
18:45 6 10 16 6 10
19:00 3 8 10 3 8
19:15 7 5 12 7 5
19:30 6 4 10 6 4
19:45 5 7 11 5 7
20:00 2 3 5 2 3
20:15 4 3 7 4 3
20:30 3 6 9 3 6
20:45 1 3 4 1 3
21:00 2 2 4 2 2
21:15 2 3 5 2 3
21:30 3 2 4 3 2
21:45 1 2 3 1 2
22:00 3 2 5 3 2
22:15 0 3 3 0 3
22:30 1 0 1 1 0
22:45 3 0 3 3 0
23:00 0 2 2 0 2
23:15 0 1 1 0 1
23:30 1 1 2 1 1
23:45 0 0 0 0 0
Total Count 705 697 1402 705 696.5
24hr Factor 1 1 1 1 1
24hr Volume 705 697 1402 705 697
Time of Day N-SE N-S N-NW SE-N SE-S SE-NW S-N S-SE S-NW NW-N NW-SE NW-S TOTAL North South-East South
North-
West
15:00 7 4 1 8 2 35 2 0 40 13 50 17 179 12 45 42 80
15:15 3 2 11 5 2 39 4 3 30 15 44 17 175 16 46 37 76
15:30 5 3 5 7 0 43 6 0 55 15 57 26 222 13 50 61 98
15:45 2 2 11 3 4 30 6 1 28 16 54 16 173 15 37 35 86
16:00 4 3 9 7 1 41 4 1 34 14 49 24 191 16 49 39 87
16:15 8 3 15 3 1 35 6 0 22 10 55 17 175 26 39 28 82
16:30 2 2 14 8 0 40 7 1 35 16 52 23 200 18 48 43 91
16:45 3 2 10 4 2 32 2 1 27 12 58 28 181 15 38 30 98
17:00 6 3 11 10 1 39 8 0 24 14 57 20 193 20 50 32 91
17:15 6 2 8 6 1 28 4 1 23 22 76 22 199 16 35 28 120
17:30 4 1 7 9 1 28 5 0 15 15 43 18 146 12 38 20 76
17:45 2 3 7 4 1 29 0 1 9 8 47 16 127 12 34 10 71
Total Count 52 30 109 74 16 419 54 9 342 170 642 244 2161 191 509 405 1056
24hr Factor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
24hr Volume 52 30 109 74 16 419 54 9 342 170 642 244 2161 191 509 405 1056
Summary By Movements Entering Volumes
Count Number: 1.00 Weather: Clear
Milepoint: 6.79 Location:
Toledo Frontage Rd (US20 Bus) @ 
NW A Street
Peak hour turning movement count 
(3 - 6  pm)
City: Toledo Highway #: 8669
County: Lincoln Hours: 3:00 PM-6:00 PM
Summary of Traffic Count
Transportation Development Division
Site: 21042012 Date: 6/12/2012
Time of Day N-E N-SE N-S N-NW E-N E-SE E-S E-NW SE-N SE-E SE-S SE-NW S-N S-E S-SE S-NW NW-N NW-E NW-SE NW-S TOTAL North East South-East South
North-
West
15:00 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 28 1 1 4 6 2 0 37 19 106 2 1 33 12 58
15:15 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 35 1 0 3 9 2 0 47 7 110 1 5 35 13 56
15:30 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 48 0 0 6 4 1 1 49 11 128 2 1 53 10 62
15:45 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 31 0 0 4 4 1 0 50 6 106 1 1 39 8 57
16:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 43 0 0 6 7 0 0 43 15 116 0 0 45 13 58
16:15 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 33 0 0 2 6 1 0 49 12 108 2 0 36 8 62
16:30 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 30 1 1 4 12 3 0 45 9 112 3 2 32 18 57
16:45 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 37 0 1 4 5 2 2 60 7 126 2 2 41 10 71
17:00 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 29 0 2 3 12 3 0 56 8 118 1 1 32 17 67
17:15 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 30 0 0 3 5 3 2 70 11 133 3 2 34 8 86
17:30 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 5 24 3 0 3 9 0 1 41 9 99 2 1 30 15 51
17:45 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 32 0 0 5 3 0 0 43 6 97 3 1 36 8 49
Total Count 6 3 4 9 0 1 3 13 3 0 43 400 6 5 47 82 18 6 590 120 1359 22 17 446 140 734
24hr Factor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
24hr Volume 6 3 4 9 0 1 3 13 3 0 43 400 6 5 47 82 18 6 590 120 1359 22 17 446 140 734
Summary By Movements Entering Volumes
Count Number: 1.00 Weather: Clear
Milepoint: 6.93 Location:
Toledo Frontage Rd (US20 Bus) @ Main St & 3rd St.
3 hour peak movement (3-6pm)
City: Toledo Highway #: 8669
County: Lincoln Hours: 3:00 PM-6:00 PM
Summary of Traffic Count
Transportation Development Division
Site: 21052012 Date: 6/12/2012
Time of Day N-E N-S E-N E-S S-N S-E TOTAL North East South
15:00 4 16 9 18 21 9 77 20 27 30
15:15 4 38 5 4 29 14 94 42 9 43
15:30 3 18 6 11 23 19 80 21 17 42
15:45 5 18 4 1 18 12 58 23 5 30
16:00 8 15 6 4 18 13 64 23 10 31
16:15 1 14 3 9 16 15 58 15 12 31
16:30 6 16 7 5 20 9 63 22 12 29
16:45 6 13 5 7 22 11 64 19 12 33
17:00 3 14 1 5 25 12 60 17 6 37
17:15 6 15 4 4 26 14 69 21 8 40
17:30 7 18 6 5 23 9 68 25 11 32
17:45 7 14 7 10 14 16 68 21 17 30
Total Count 60 209 63 83 255 153 823 269 146 408
24hr Factor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
24hr Volume 60 209 63 83 255 153 823 269 146 408
County: Lincoln Hours: 3:00 PM-6:00 PM
Summary of Traffic Count
Transportation Development Division
Site: 21062012 Date: 6/11/2012
Milepoint: 7.46 Location:
Toledo Frontage Rd 
(US20 Bus) @ East Slope 
 Rd
City: Toledo Highway #: 8669
Summary By Movements Entering Volumes
Count Number: 1.00 Weather: Clear
Time of Day N-S S-N TOTAL North South
0:00 1 0 1 1 0
0:15 0 0 0 0 0
0:30 0 0 0 0 0
0:45 1 0 1 1 0
1:00 0 0 0 0 0
1:15 0 0 0 0 0
1:30 0 1 1 0 1
1:45 1 1 1 1 1
2:00 0 0 0 0 0
2:15 0 0 0 0 0
2:30 0 0 0 0 0
2:45 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 0 0 0 0 0
3:15 1 0 1 1 0
3:30 0 0 0 0 0
3:45 0 1 1 0 1
4:00 1 0 1 1 0
4:15 1 0 1 1 0
4:30 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 0 1 1 0 1
5:00 0 2 2 0 2
5:15 2 2 3 2 2
5:30 1 0 1 1 0
5:45 4 1 5 4 1
6:00 3 3 6 3 3
6:15 2 1 2 2 1
6:30 2 4 5 2 4
6:45 6 5 11 6 5
7:00 5 9 14 5 9
7:15 4 8 12 4 8
7:30 6 21 26 6 21
7:45 18 17 35 18 17
8:00 21 32 53 21 32
8:15 12 23 34 12 23
8:30 11 9 20 11 9
8:45 6 8 14 6 8
9:00 5 7 12 5 7
9:15 5 4 9 5 4
9:30 5 4 8 5 4
9:45 5 3 8 5 3
10:00 7 4 11 7 4
10:15 3 3 6 3 3
10:30 7 5 12 7 5
10:45 3 9 12 3 9
11:00 6 8 14 6 8
11:15 5 8 12 5 8
11:30 8 7 15 8 7
11:45 6 10 16 6 10
12:00 6 4 10 6 4
12:15 11 6 17 11 6
Summary By Movements Entering 
Count Number: 1.00 Weather: Rain
Milepoint: 1.56 Location:
On NE Burgess Rd, 0.02 
mile northwest of US20 
Business (Toledo Frontage 
Rd)
City: Toledo Highway #: 2317
County: Lincoln Hours: 6/13/2012 9:30 AM
Summary of Traffic Count
Transportation Development Division
Site: 21190 Date: 6/11/2012-6/13/2012
Time of Day N-S S-N TOTAL North South
Summary By Movements Entering 
Count Number: 1.00 Weather: Rain
Milepoint: 1.56 Location:
On NE Burgess Rd, 0.02 
mile northwest of US20 
Business (Toledo Frontage 
Rd)
City: Toledo Highway #: 2317
County: Lincoln Hours: 6/13/2012 9:30 AM
Summary of Traffic Count
Transportation Development Division
Site: 21190 Date: 6/11/2012-6/13/2012
12:30 7 8 15 7 8
12:45 6 3 9 6 3
13:00 7 10 17 7 10
13:15 9 7 16 9 7
13:30 5 7 12 5 7
13:45 9 9 17 9 9
14:00 10 7 17 10 7
14:15 15 6 21 15 6
14:30 4 7 10 4 7
14:45 6 10 16 6 10
15:00 16 20 36 16 20
15:15 23 14 37 23 14
15:30 14 13 27 14 13
15:45 9 8 17 9 8
16:00 7 10 17 7 10
16:15 11 10 21 11 10
16:30 7 8 15 7 8
16:45 8 8 16 8 8
17:00 11 12 23 11 12
17:15 18 10 28 18 10
17:30 10 8 18 10 8
17:45 10 5 15 10 5
18:00 5 9 14 5 9
18:15 4 7 11 4 7
18:30 5 8 13 5 8
18:45 6 5 11 6 5
19:00 6 5 11 6 5
19:15 5 6 11 5 6
19:30 3 4 7 3 4
19:45 3 3 6 3 3
20:00 4 6 10 4 6
20:15 4 4 7 4 4
20:30 5 3 8 5 3
20:45 1 3 4 1 3
21:00 4 2 6 4 2
21:15 1 2 3 1 2
21:30 3 2 5 3 2
21:45 2 2 4 2 2
22:00 1 1 2 1 1
22:15 0 2 2 0 2
22:30 3 2 5 3 2
22:45 1 1 2 1 1
23:00 1 1 1 1 1
23:15 0 1 1 0 1
23:30 0 2 2 0 2
23:45 1 1 2 1 1
Total Count 463 498 961 463 497.5
24hr Factor 1 1 1 1 1
24hr Volume 463 498 961 463 498
Time of Day NE-SE NE-SW SE-NE SE-SW SW-NE SW-SE TOTAL North-East
South-
East
South-
West
15:00 7 6 16 10 8 8 55 13 26 16
15:15 9 9 27 19 7 11 82 18 46 18
15:30 9 9 16 15 19 6 74 18 31 25
15:45 5 5 12 3 14 2 41 10 15 16
16:00 7 7 13 5 10 2 44 14 18 12
16:15 14 15 14 6 17 2 68 29 20 19
16:30 8 5 7 6 14 2 42 13 13 16
16:45 9 14 10 2 12 0 47 23 12 12
17:00 9 9 11 11 17 2 59 18 22 19
17:15 7 8 6 1 19 3 44 15 7 22
17:30 10 12 12 1 9 2 46 22 13 11
17:45 11 11 4 1 6 1 34 22 5 7
Total Count 105 110 148 80 152 41 636 215 228 193
24hr Factor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
24hr Volume 105 110 148 80 152 41 636 215 228 193
County: Lincoln Hours: 3:00 PM-6:00 PM
Summary of Traffic Count
Transportation Development Division
Site: 21072012 Date: 6/13/2012
Milepoint: 8.21 Location:
Toledo Frontage Rd 
(US20 Bus) @ NE 
 Sturdevant Rd
City: Toledo Highway #: 8669
Summary By Movements Entering Volumes
Count Number: 1.00 Weather: Clear
TOLEDO TSP: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #3 TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attachment F 
City of Toledo TSP – Methods and Assumptions Technical Memorandum  
 
 
  1  
T E C H N I C A L  M E M O R A N D U M   
 
City of Toledo TSP – Methods and Assumptions 
PREPARED FOR: David Helton/ODOT  
PREPARED BY: Andra Henriques/CH2M HILL  
CC: Adam Denlinger/City of Toledo 
Terra Lingley/CH2M HILL 
DATE: August 29, 2012 
 
This memorandum outlines the traffic analysis and evaluation framework that will be used in 
the City of Toledo Transportation System Plan. Its intent is to state the key assumptions and 
methodologies that will be used as part of the study’s traffic analysis. The analysis years, study 
area limits, travel demand forecasting and modeling methodologies, safety analysis methods, 
and operational parameters will all be discussed in this memo.  
I. Analysis Years & Time Periods 
Transportation analysis will be conducted for the following years: 
 Existing Year (2012) 
 Design Year (2035) 
The traffic analysis will be conducted for the 30th highest hour volume. An overall study area 
peak hour will be determined by two 16-hour intersection turning movement counts located on 
US 20 and numerous other counts taken throughout the City. The counts will be collected by 
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) as a part of this study. 
II. Traffic Study Area Limits 
The project study area consists of the area within the City of Toledo’s Urban Growth Boundary. 
The 11 traffic study intersections are focused on US 20 and Business Loop 20. 
US 20 is under ODOT jurisdiction and is also known at the Corvallis-Newport Highway, 
Number 33. This segment of US 20 is a Statewide Highway on the National Highway System, as 
well as a state designated Freight Route. US 20 is classified as a principal arterial.  
Business Loop 20 connects Toledo to US 20. The City has jurisdiction of Business Loop 20, 
which was formerly a state facility. It is an important freight route for trucks serving businesses 
in Toledo, but is not a part of the state or federal truck route classification system. Business 
Loop 20 is classified as a minor arterial. 
Figure 1 shows the location of each of the study intersections. Table 1 lists the location of each 
intersection with mile point on US 20, where applicable. 
 
CITY OF TOLEDO TSP – METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS 
 2 
 
Figure 1. Toledo TSP Traffic Study Intersections 
  
1 
2 
3 
4 5 
6 7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
KEY 
1. US 20 @ Arcadia Drive 
2. US 20 @ OR 229 
3. US 20 @ Western Loop 
4. US 20 @ Business Loop 20 (west) 
5. US 20 @ Business Loop 20 (spur) 
6. Business Loop 20 @ Yaquina Bay Road 
7. Business Loop 20 @ A Street 
8. Business Loop 20 @ Main Street 
9. Business Loop 20 @ East Slope Road 
10. Business Loop 20 @ Burgess Road 
11. Business Loop 20 @ Sturdevant Road 
N 
 Map Source: ODOT 
CITY OF TOLEDO TSP – METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS 
 3 
TABLE 1 
Toledo TSP – Traffic Study Intersections 
ID # Intersection 
Traffic 
Control 
US 20  
Mile Point Jurisdiction Count Type 
1 US 20 @ Arcadia Drive Stop Controlled 6.64 ODOT 
Tube on  
Arcadia Drive 
2 US 20 @ OR 229 Stop Controlled 5.74/5.78 ODOT 
16-hour turning 
movement 
3 US 20 @ Western Loop Stop Controlled 5.56/5.58 ODOT 
Peak hour turning 
movement (3-6pm) 
4 US 20 @ Business Loop 20 (west) 
Stop 
Controlled 5.59/5.62 ODOT 
16-hour turning 
movement 
5 US 20 @ Business Loop 20 (spur) 
Stop 
Controlled N/A ODOT 
Use surrounding  
counts 
6 Business Loop 20 @ Yaquina Bay Road 
Stop 
Controlled N/A City 
Tube on  
Yaquina Bay Road 
7 Business Loop 20 @ A Street 
Traffic 
Signal N/A City 
Peak hour turning 
movement (3-6pm) 
8 Business Loop 20 @ Main Street 
Stop 
Controlled N/A City 
Peak hour turning 
movement (3-6pm) 
9 Business Loop 20 @ East Slope Road 
Stop 
Controlled N/A City 
Peak hour turning 
movement (3-6pm) 
10 Business Loop 20 @ Burgess Road 
Stop 
Controlled N/A City 
Tube on  
Burgess Road 
11 Business Loop 20 @ Sturdevant Road 
Stop 
Controlled N/A City 
Peak hour turning 
movement (3-6pm) 
Notes: 
Intersections with more than one mile point have split legs intersecting the highway at different locations. 
Table 1 shows the type of counts that will be collected at each intersection. There are three t-
intersections where tube counts will be collected on the minor leg instead of a full turning 
movement count. Turning movements will be determined by the tube count and the nearby 
counts. The turning movements at US 20 and Business Loop 20 (spur) will be determined by the 
nearby counts and the assumption that any vehicle leaving the highway is not going to get 
immediately back on.  
III. Existing and Future Traffic Volumes 
A variety of count types will be collected over a period of time for each of the study area 
intersections (see Table 1 for specific count type at a given intersection). After deciphering the 
overall existing count peak hour, an adjustment will be made for the seasonal effects according 
to ODOT Transportation Planning Analysis Unit (TPAU) Analysis Procedures Manual. For 
consistency, any adjustments to the volumes will be made at all intersections, even those off US 
20. There are no Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) sites within, or close to, the study area; 
therefore, the ATR Characteristic Table method will be used to develop the 30th highest peak 
hour traffic volumes.  
The 2011 ATR Characteristic Table is used to find an ATR with similar characteristics to the 
study area. The table resulted in ATR station 06-004, as shown in Table 2, located on US 101 just 
outside Bandon City Limits. 
CITY OF TOLEDO TSP – METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS 
 4 
TABLE 2 
Toledo TSP – 2011 ATR Characteristic Table 
Categories Characteristics 
Seasonal Traffic Trend Costal Destination 
Area Type Rural Populated 
# of Lanes 2 
Weekly Traffic Trend Weekday 
AADT 6300 
OHP Classification Statewide Highway 
ATR 06-004 
County Coos 
Highway Route, Name, & Location US 101, Oregon Coast Hwy, 1.02 
miles south of 18th S.W. Street 
MP 275.87 
State Highway Number 9 
Source: 
 http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/docs/tools/atr.xls 
The derived 30th highest hour design volumes will be balanced between adjacent study 
intersections, as outlined by ODOT standards. The existing conditions analysis will be 
conducted using the 30th highest hour volumes. The study will assign one peak hour for use in 
the traffic analysis.  
IV. Forecasting/Modeling Methodology 
Travel demand forecasts for study intersections in the Toledo TSP will be determined by 
analyzing the ODOT Future Volume Tables. The latest tables provide 2009 traffic volumes on 
US 20 within the study area, forecast traffic volumes for the year 2030, and a statistical 
descriptor (R-squared value) that provides the reliability of the forecast for all state highways. 
Consistent with ODOT guidelines, growth rates for future forecasts will be developed using 
Future Volume Table estimates with R-squared values above 0.75 for the 23-year planning 
period. The 23-year growth factor of 1.53, calculated in Table 3, will be applied to the balanced 
2012 30th highest hour volumes which will then be balanced again to get the 2035 future 
volumes. 
Based on the scope of work, up to 20 proposed roadway improvements will be developed and 
tested as part of this project.   
CITY OF TOLEDO TSP – METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS 
 5 
TABLE 3 
Toledo TSP – Annual Growth Rate on US 20 
Milepost 2009 ADT 2030 ADT R-Squared 
Overall 
Factor 
1-year 
growth 
5.61 7,000 10,900 0.7763 1.56 2.65% 
5.80 6,100 8,600 0.8914 1.41 1.95 % 
US 20 Average Annual Rate 2.30% 
US 20, 23-Year Factor (2012 to 2035) 1.53 
Notes: 
Source: ODOT 2027 Highway Future Volume Table https://services.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/docs/tools/fvtable.pdf 
The available growth rates are only projected to year 2030; this study assumed the AAGR to continue at the same 
rate through year 2035. 
V. State, Regional, and Local Mobility Targets and Standards 
State highway mobility targets were developed for the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) as a 
method to gauge reasonable and consistent standards for traffic flow along state highways. 
These mobility targets consider the classification (e.g., freeway, regional, district) and location 
(rural, urban) of each state highway. Mobility targets are based on volume to capacity (V/C) 
ratios. The 1999 OHP, with amendments adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission on 
December 21, 2011, will be used in this study. 
Table 4 shows the OHP mobility targets and HDM mobility standards for each highway traffic 
study area. The targets and standards will be applied to the study intersections along US 20 as 
shown in the table.  The intersection mobility requirement is based on its traffic control. For 
signalized intersections, the intersection V/C ratio is reported, while for unsignalized 
intersections, the highest value for major movement and the minor street movement is reported. 
All the intersections in Table 4 are currently unsignalized. Table 4 will be used to identify 
mobility requirements in the existing and future conditions analysis. 
The remaining intersections are under City jurisdiction. The City’s existing and future mobility 
standards will be developed during the TSP process and presented in future memorandums. 
  
CITY OF TOLEDO TSP – METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS 
 6 
TABLE 4 
Toledo TSP – Highway Mobility Targets and Standards  
ID # Intersection 
Mile 
Point 
US 20  
OHP Highway 
Classification 
Mobility  
Category Area Speed
Existing or 
Future 
No-Build 
V/C Target3 
Future  
Build 
V/C Std.4 
1 US 20 @ Arcadia Drive 6.64 
Statewide, 
NHS1, FR2 
FR on a  
Statewide 
Highway 
Rural Lands 55 0.70/0.75* 0.60/0.70 
2 
US 20 @ 
OR 229 
5.74/5.78 Statewide, NHS, FR 
FR on a  
Statewide 
Highway 
Non-MPO 
Outside of 
STA 
45 0.80/0.90 0.70/0.75 
3 US 20 @ Western Loop 5.56/5.58 
Statewide, 
NHS, FR 
FR on a  
Statewide 
Highway 
Non-MPO 
Outside of 
STA 
45 0.80/0.90 0.70/0.75 
4 
US 20 @ 
Business Loop 
20 (west) 
5.59/5.62 Statewide, NHS, FR 
FR on a  
Statewide 
Highway 
Non-MPO 
Outside of 
STA 
45 0.80/0.90 0.70/0.75 
5 
US 20 @ 
Business Loop 
20 (spur) 
N/A Statewide, NHS, FR 
FR on a  
Statewide 
Highway 
Non-MPO 
Outside of 
STA 
35 0.85/0.95 0.70/0.80 
6 
Business Loop 
20 @ Yaquina 
Bay Road 
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A To be determined 
7 Business Loop 20 @ A Street N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A To be determined 
8 
Business Loop 
20 @ Main 
Street 
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A To be determined 
9 
Business Loop 
20 @ East 
Slope Road 
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A To be determined 
10 
Business Loop 
20 @ Burgess 
Road 
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A To be determined 
11 
Business Loop 
20 @ 
Sturdevant 
Road 
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A To be determined 
Notes: 
1 NHS – Nation Highway System 
2 FR – State Freight Route 
3 Existing and No-Build Mobility Source: Adopted Oregon Highway Plan as Adopted in December, 2011 (Table 6) 
4 Future Mobility Source: ODOT Highway Design Manual (Table 10-1) 
* All targets and standards are written as highway / minor approach 
 
  
CITY OF TOLEDO TSP – METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS 
 7 
VI. Traffic Analysis Software and Input Assumptions 
Synchro software, version 7, will be used for the intersection analysis. The reported results will 
be the V/C ratios from the HCM report. The assumptions are listed in Table 5. Consultant will 
work with Region 2 Traffic for timing inputs. Simulation input will be based on TPAU’s 
Analysis Procedure Manual. 
TABLE 5 
Toledo TSP – Synchro Operations Parameters/Assumptions 
Arterial Intersection 
Parameters 
Condition 
Existing (2012) No-Build and Build Alternatives (2035) 
PHF (Peak Hour Factor)  From traffic count. - 0.85 for side street approaches 
- 0.90 for State Highway Minor Arterials 
- 0.95 for State Highway Major Arterials 
If traffic count has higher PHFs than 
default PHFs, then continue using existing 
Conflicting Bikes and 
Pedestrian per Hour  
From traffic count, if not provided, 
assume 10 peds/bikes per approach
From Existing 
Area Type Default From Existing 
Ideal Saturation Flow Rate per 
Lane (for all movements) 
1750 From Existing 
Lane Width  From As-builts, field visit or ODOT 
website, otherwise 12 feet 
From Existing 
Percent Heavy Vehicles  From traffic count or ODOT website, 
otherwise 5% 
From Existing 
Percent Grade  From As-builts, ODOT website or 
field visit, otherwise 0% 
From Existing 
Parking Maneuvers per Hour  If on-street parking allowed, assume 
some maneuvers (approx. 1 
maneuver per stall) 
From Existing 
Bus Blockages  From field visit, otherwise assume 0 From Existing 
Intersection signal phasing and 
coordination 
From field visit and signal timing 
plans 
Optimize phase and cycle length, phase 
sequence and offset (if signals are 
coordinated) 
Intersection signal timing 
optimization limits 
N/A, only performed in future year 
analysis 
60 to 120 seconds depending on the 
number of phases1 
Minimum Green time From signal timing plans For existing signals, same as existing. If 
additional signal warranted, 10 seconds if 
no pedestrian time is required 
Yellow and all-red time From signal timing plans For existing signals, same as existing. If 
additional signal warranted, (Y) = 4 
seconds and (R) = 1 second 
Right Turn on Red  From field visit From existing conditions, if additional 
signal, then “allow” 
Vehicle Queues  
 
95th Percentile, calculated based on 
an average of 25 feet per vehicle. 
SimTraffic will be used for both 
signalized and unsignalized 
intersections (the average of at least 
5 runs of 1 hour length with 15-min 
peak divided out)2 
Same as Existing 
1Assumptions consistent with the Analysis Procedures Manual. 
2The simulation will be for one hour with the peak 15-minutes in the first 15 minutes. The results from this simulation will be 
applied to signalized and unsignalized intersections. Instructions provided by TPAU.
CITY OF TOLEDO TSP – METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS 
 8 
VII. Crash Analysis 
A crash analysis will be conducted at the intersections that make up the US 20 and Business 
Loop 20 (west) junction. Data will be collected from ODOT for the five most recent years 
available at time of project start date. Analysis will include crash rates at both locations, but no 
roadway segment crash rates per scope specifications.  
The future crash analysis will be qualitative in nature and will not include a quantitative future 
predictive analysis. 
VIII. Parking Study 
A parking study will be conducted as a part of the existing conditions analysis. An inventory 
will be made to document existing parking. Then, over the period of six hours on a typical 
weekday, the parking usage will be gathered once every hour. Results will be summarized in 
the existing conditions memorandum.  
TOLEDO TSP: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #3 TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attachment G 
Figure G.1 – Toledo TSP: Future No-Build Conditions Operational Analysis Results  
 
 
1 2 3
V/C* Ratio Std: 0.75 LOS Std: D V/C Ratio Std: 0.90 LOS Std: D V/C Ratio Std: 0.90 LOS Std: D
V/C Ratio: LOS: V/C Ratio: LOS: V/C Ratio: LOS:
100 15 30 5 5 5
6% 85 450 6% .
30 15 810 5%
5
3% 430 305
45 40 430
40 90
*V/C = volume to capacity
**LOS = level of service
4 5 6
V/C Ratio Std: 0.90 LOS Std: D V/C Ratio Std: 0.95 LOS Std: D V/C Ratio Std: 0.85 LOS Std: D
V/C Ratio: LOS: V/C Ratio: LOS: V/C Ratio: LOS:
6%
US 20 & Bus. Loop 20 (west) US 20 & Bus. Loop 20 (spur) Bus. Loop 20 & Bay Boulevard
14%
14% 14%
US 20 & Arcadia Drive US 20 & OR 229 US 20 & Western Loop
6% 0%
450
3% 25 4% 1265
1
3
4 5
2
11
.
0.24 C 0.50
0.48 D 0.51 D>2 F
1.71 F E
115 115
405 3%
535 5% 290 3%
60
4% 725 4% 545 3% 680
280 10 35 75
545 55
7 8 9
V/C Ratio Std: 0.85 LOS Std: D V/C Ratio Std: 0.85 LOS Std: D V/C Ratio Std: 0.85 LOS Std: D
V/C Ratio: LOS: V/C Ratio: LOS: V/C Ratio: LOS:
0%
60 5 5% 35
75 15 10 10 105
40 220 10 10 0% 0 40 0 3%
10 5
10 0 Driveway 35
40 25 10 0
1%
1%
7%
Bus. Loop 20 & A Street Bus. Loop 20 & Main Street Bus. Loop 20 & East Slope Road
24%
3% 24%
6 7
9
10
. .
0.79 C 0.36 D 0.19 B
115 0
470 10 1% 0
436 445 210
170 5% 60 50 5 0 4%
25
10 11 Legend
V/C Ratio Std: 0.85 LOS Std: D V/C Ratio Std: 0.85 LOS Std: D
V/C Ratio: LOS: V/C Ratio: LOS:
5% 75
85 80
25 70 15%
30
20
55 190 170
60
4%
Bus. Loop 20 & Burgess Road Bus. Loop 20 & Sturdevant Road
26%
10% 15
4% 6%
0 85
10
25
2301%3% 170 30
EBL 
EBT
EBR 
WBR 
WBT  
WBL 
NBL  NBR 
SBR SBT SBL 
NBT  
Study Intersection 555  Turning Movement Vol
Signalized Intersection Channelization
Stop Controlled Intersection
8
. .
Map Source: Oregon Department of Transportation
0.12 A 0.18 B
HV%  
HV%  
HV%  
HV%  
Notes:
1. The System Peak hour is 4:30-5:30 PM, the 30th highest hour adjustment factor is 1.16 and the 23-year growth factor is 1.53
2. Truck Percentages are calculated from raw counts
3. "V/C Ratio Std" and "LOS Std" corresponds to the intersection's mobility standards
4. Mobility Standards are based on Oregon Highway Plan and the recommended City of Toledo standards
5. V/C and LOS reported for signalized intersection is the average for all approaches
6. V/C and LOS reported for unsignalized intersections is the highest approach
7.           A green oval on the map represents an acceptable measured mobility
8.           A red rectangle on the map represents a failing measured mobility
9. Synchro software version 7 was used for the analysis2035 Balanced Volumes
FIGURE G.1 - Toledo TSP: Future No-Build Conditions Operational Analysis Results
 
TOLEDO TSP: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #3 TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attachment H 
Synchro HCM Reports – Future No-Build 
 
 
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future No-Build
1: US 20 & Arcadia Drive HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/26/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 -  Report ToledoTSP_Future_NoBuild.syn
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 430 40 30 450 45 40
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 3% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph) 453 42 32 474 53 47
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 495 774 247
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 495 774 247
tC, single (s) 4.2 7.1 7.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.3 3.6 3.4
p0 queue free % 97 82 93
cM capacity (veh/h) 1038 302 717
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1
Volume Total 302 193 32 237 237 100
Volume Left 0 0 32 0 0 53
Volume Right 0 42 0 0 0 47
cSH 1700 1700 1038 1700 1700 415
Volume to Capacity 0.18 0.11 0.03 0.14 0.14 0.24
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 0 0 23
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 16.4
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.5 16.4
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future No-Build
2: US 20 & OR 229 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/26/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 -  Report ToledoTSP_Future_NoBuild.syn
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 305 430 0 15 450 0 0 90 25 0 100 85
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 321 453 0 16 474 0 0 100 28 0 111 94
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 474 453 1750 1600 453 1678 1600 474
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 474 453 1750 1600 453 1678 1600 474
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.2 7.2 6.6 6.3 7.2 6.6 6.3
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 2.3 3.6 4.1 3.4 3.6 4.1 3.4
p0 queue free % 70 99 0 0 95 0 0 84
cM capacity (veh/h) 1083 1087 0 69 583 0 72 583
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 321 453 16 474 128 206
Volume Left 321 0 16 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 0 0 28 94
cSH 1083 1700 1087 1700 85 120
Volume to Capacity 0.30 0.27 0.01 0.28 1.50 1.71
Queue Length 95th (ft) 31 0 1 0 252 389
Control Delay (s) 9.7 0.0 8.4 0.0 360.9 413.1
Lane LOS A A F F
Approach Delay (s) 4.0 0.3 360.9 413.1
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 84.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.4% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future No-Build
20: OR 229 & Channelized Turn HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/26/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 -  Report ToledoTSP_Future_NoBuild.syn
Movement NBT NBR SBL SBT NWL NWR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 395 0 15 185 0 30
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.86
Hourly flow rate (vph) 439 0 17 206 0 35
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 439 678 439
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 439 678 439
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.5 6.3
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.3 3.6 3.4
p0 queue free % 98 100 94
cM capacity (veh/h) 1100 405 610
Direction, Lane # NB 1 SB 1 NW 1
Volume Total 439 222 35
Volume Left 0 17 0
Volume Right 0 0 35
cSH 1700 1100 610
Volume to Capacity 0.26 0.02 0.06
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 5
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.8 11.3
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.8 11.3
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future No-Build
200: Channelized Turn & US 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/26/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 -  Report ToledoTSP_Future_NoBuild.syn
Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 15 0 0 455 465 30
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Hourly flow rate (vph) 18 0 0 479 489 32
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 968 489 521
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 968 489 521
tC, single (s) 6.5 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.6 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 94 100 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 277 579 1040
Direction, Lane # SE 1 NE 1 SW 1 SW 2
Volume Total 18 479 489 32
Volume Left 18 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 0 32
cSH 277 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.28 0.29 0.02
Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 18.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS C
Approach Delay (s) 18.9 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future No-Build
3: US 20 & Western Loop HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11/14/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 - Report ToledoTSP_Future_NoBuild.syn
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 5 1265 810 5 5 5
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 1332 853 5 6 6
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh) 4
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 853 2197 855
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 853 2197 855
tC, single (s) 4.1 *6.3 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 99 89 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 778 53 361
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 1337 858 12
Volume Left 5 0 6
Volume Right 0 5 6
cSH 778 1700 106
Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.50 0.11
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 9
Control Delay (s) 0.3 0.0 48.3
Lane LOS A E
Approach Delay (s) 0.3 0.0 48.3
Approach LOS E
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.6% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
*    User Entered Value
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future No-Build
4: US 20 (west) & Bus Loop 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/26/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 -  Report ToledoTSP_Future_NoBuild.syn
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 725 545 0 535 280 10
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph) 763 574 0 563 329 12
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1337 1613 1050
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1337 1613 1050
tC, single (s) 4.1 *5.9 *5.7
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 0 96
cM capacity (veh/h) 506 144 321
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 1337 563 341
Volume Left 0 0 329
Volume Right 574 0 12
cSH 1700 1700 147
Volume to Capacity 0.79 0.33 2.32
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 718
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 662.7
Lane LOS F
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 662.7
Approach LOS F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 100.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.7% ICU Level of Service G
Analysis Period (min) 15
*    User Entered Value
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future No-Build
5: Bus Loop 20 & US 20 (spur) HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/26/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 -  Report ToledoTSP_Future_NoBuild.syn
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 545 290 115 115 0
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 606 322 128 128 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 450 992 386
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 450 992 386
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.6 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 52 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 1100 268 662
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 606 450 128
Volume Left 0 0 128
Volume Right 0 128 0
cSH 1700 1700 268
Volume to Capacity 0.36 0.26 0.48
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 60
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 30.1
Lane LOS D
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 30.1
Approach LOS D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future No-Build
6: Bus Loop 20 & Yaquina Bay Road HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/26/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 -  Report ToledoTSP_Future_NoBuild.syn
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 680 55 60 405 35 75
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.86
Hourly flow rate (vph) 756 61 67 450 41 87
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 817 1369 786
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 817 1369 786
tC, single (s) 4.3 6.5 6.3
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.4 3.6 3.4
p0 queue free % 91 72 77
cM capacity (veh/h) 723 143 384
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1
Volume Total 817 67 450 128
Volume Left 0 67 0 41
Volume Right 61 0 0 87
cSH 1700 723 1700 250
Volume to Capacity 0.48 0.09 0.26 0.51
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 8 0 67
Control Delay (s) 0.0 10.5 0.0 33.6
Lane LOS B D
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.4 33.6
Approach LOS D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.2% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future No-Build
7: Bus Loop 20 & A Street HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/26/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 -  Report ToledoTSP_Future_NoBuild.syn
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 115 470 170 10 220 60 170 40 30 40 15 75
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750
Lane Width 12 15 12 12 13 12 12 16 12 12 16 16
Grade (%) 0% 0% 10% 0%
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 0.98 0.92
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.98
Satd. Flow (prot) 1614 1783 1646 1733 1697 1748
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.98
Satd. Flow (perm) 1614 1783 1646 1733 1697 1748
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.86
Adj. Flow (vph) 128 522 189 11 244 67 200 47 35 47 17 87
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 0 10 0 0 6 0 0 58 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 128 698 0 11 301 0 0 276 0 0 93 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 4 6
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 5% 5% 5% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot Prot Split Split
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.1 35.6 0.7 27.2 16.2 9.4
Effective Green, g (s) 9.1 35.6 0.7 27.2 16.2 9.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.46 0.01 0.35 0.21 0.12
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 189 815 15 605 353 211
v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.39 0.01 0.17 c0.16 c0.05
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.68 0.86 0.73 0.50 0.78 0.44
Uniform Delay, d1 33.0 18.9 38.5 20.0 29.2 31.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 9.2 8.8 103.2 0.6 10.8 1.5
Delay (s) 42.2 27.7 141.7 20.6 40.0 33.3
Level of Service D C F C D C
Approach Delay (s) 29.9 24.8 40.0 33.3
Approach LOS C C D C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 31.0 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.9 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.7% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c    Critical Lane Group
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future No-Build
8: Bus Loop 20 & Main Street HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/26/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 -  Report ToledoTSP_Future_NoBuild.syn
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 25 455 60 25 220 10 50 10 25 10 15 20
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph) 28 506 67 28 244 11 59 12 29 12 18 24
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 761
pX, platoon unblocked 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74
vC, conflicting volume 256 572 932 906 539 935 933 250
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 256 251 736 700 206 740 737 250
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 98 97 73 95 95 95 93 97
cM capacity (veh/h) 1315 981 218 255 616 220 246 794
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 600 283 100 53
Volume Left 28 28 59 12
Volume Right 67 11 29 24
cSH 1315 981 275 342
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.03 0.36 0.15
Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 2 40 14
Control Delay (s) 0.6 1.1 25.4 17.4
Lane LOS A A D C
Approach Delay (s) 0.6 1.1 25.4 17.4
Approach LOS D C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 4.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future No-Build
9: East Slope Road & Bus Loop 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/26/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 -  Report ToledoTSP_Future_NoBuild.syn
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 35 35 210 85 40 105
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 10% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 41 41 233 94 44 117
Pedestrians 9 9 9
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0
Percent Blockage 1 1 1
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 504 299 337
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 504 299 337
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 92 94 96
cM capacity (veh/h) 497 727 1197
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 82 328 161
Volume Left 41 0 44
Volume Right 41 94 0
cSH 590 1700 1197
Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.19 0.04
Queue Length 95th (ft) 12 0 3
Control Delay (s) 12.1 0.0 2.5
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s) 12.1 0.0 2.5
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future No-Build
10: Bus Loop 20 & Burgess Road HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/26/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 -  Report ToledoTSP_Future_NoBuild.syn
Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 55 190 85 25 20 60
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph) 61 211 94 28 24 71
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 122 442 108
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 122 442 108
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.5 6.3
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.6 3.4
p0 queue free % 96 96 92
cM capacity (veh/h) 1453 535 924
Direction, Lane # NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SE 1
Volume Total 61 211 122 94
Volume Left 61 0 0 24
Volume Right 0 0 28 71
cSH 1453 1700 1700 782
Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.12 0.07 0.12
Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 0 0 10
Control Delay (s) 7.6 0.0 0.0 10.2
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 1.7 0.0 10.2
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future No-Build
11: Sturdevant Road & Bus Loop 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/26/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 -  Report ToledoTSP_Future_NoBuild.syn
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 30 75 170 15 70 80
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 35 88 189 17 78 89
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 442 197 189
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 442 197 189
tC, single (s) 6.6 6.4 4.4
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.6 3.4 2.4
p0 queue free % 93 89 94
cM capacity (veh/h) 515 812 1253
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 124 206 167
Volume Left 35 0 78
Volume Right 88 17 0
cSH 697 1700 1253
Volume to Capacity 0.18 0.12 0.06
Queue Length 95th (ft) 16 0 5
Control Delay (s) 11.3 0.0 4.0
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s) 11.3 0.0 4.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 4.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
 
TOLEDO TSP: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #3 TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attachment I 
Table I.1 – Toledo TSP: Future No-Build Queuing Analysis Results 
 
 
TABLE I.1 
Toledo TSP: Future No‐Build Queuing Analysis Results
2035, 30th Highest Hour Volumes
ID  Intersection  Approach  Lane Group 
Existing Storage 
(feet) 
95th % Queue Lengtha 
(feet) 
1  US 20 at Arcadia Drive 
Eastbound  Thru/Right  ‐  ‐ 
Westbound  Left  200  50b 
Thru  ‐  ‐ 
Northbound  Left/Right  Unconstrained  140 
2  US 20 at OR 229 
Eastbound  Left  130  140 c 
Thru  ‐  ‐ 
Westbound  Left  320  20 
Thru  ‐  ‐ 
Northbound  Thru/Right  365  230 
Southbound  Left  80  60 
Thru/Right  Unconstrained  1950 (>1/3 mile) 
3  US 20 at Western Loop 
Eastbound  Left/Thru  Unconstrained  70 
Westbound  Thru/Right  ‐  ‐ 
Southbound  Left  Unconstrained  20 
Right  Unconstrained  10 
4  US 20 at Business Loop 20 (west) 
Eastbound  Thru/Right  ‐  ‐ 
Westbound  Thru  ‐  ‐ 
Northbound  Left/Right  350  >1 ½ miles  
5  US 20 (spur) at Business Loop 20 
Eastbound  Thru  ‐  ‐ 
Westbound  Thru/Right  Unconstrained  Same queue as above 
Southbound  Left  365  90 
6  Business Loop 20 @ Bay Boulevard 
Eastbound  Thru/Right  ‐  ‐ 
Westbound  Left  90  100 
Thru  ‐  ‐ 
Northbound  Left/Right  Unconstrained  150 
7  Business Loop 20 @ A Street 
Eastbound  Left  60  180 
Thru/Right  650  1040 
Westbound  Left  15  30 
Thru/Right  700  210 
Northbound  Left/Thru/Right  160 (to RR)  310 
Southbound  Left/Thru/Right  330  100 
8  Business Loop 20 @ Main Streetd 
Eastbound  Left/Thru/Right  700  80 
North‐westbound  Left/Thru/Right  300  30 
Northbound  Left/Thru/Right  200  110 
Southbound  Left/Thru/Right  240  60 
9  Business Loop 20 @ East Slope Road 
Westbound  Left/Right  Unconstrained  70 
Northbound  Thru/Right  ‐  ‐ 
Southbound  Left/Thru  Unconstrained  60 
10  Business Loop 20 @ Burgess Road 
Eastbound  Left/Right  Unconstrained  60 
Northbound  Left  50  50 
Thru  ‐  ‐ 
Southbound  Thru/Right  ‐  ‐ 
11  Business Loop 20 @ Sturdevant Road 
Westbound  Left/Right  Unconstrained  110 
Northbound  Thru/Right  ‐  ‐ 
Southbound  Left/Thru  Unconstrained  60 
a Queues are determined using SimTraffic software and calculated using an average of five, one hour simulation runs 
b Queue lengths rounded up to the nearest 10 feet and not reported for free‐flowing and uncontrolled movements 
c Movements in black highlight indicate a vehicle queue length that exceeds the available storage length 
d 3rd Street was not included in the traffic model, but queue is 30’ according to the two‐minute rule 
 
TOLEDO TSP: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #3 TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attachment J 
SimTraffic Queuing Report – Future No-Build 
 
 
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future No-Build Queuing and Blocking Report
11/13/2012 CH2M HILL
SimTraffic Report ToledoTSP_Future_NoBuild_Queue_A.syn
Intersection: 1: US 20 & Arcadia Drive
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR L LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 10 46 174
Average Queue (ft) 0 14 61
95th Queue (ft) 5 41 131
Link Distance (ft) 560 917
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: US 20 & OR 229
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L T L T TR TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 148 169 20 43 288 197
Average Queue (ft) 69 7 1 2 80 171
95th Queue (ft) 132 71 11 19 222 238
Link Distance (ft) 530 208 390 180
Upstream Blk Time (%) 60
Queuing Penalty (veh) 112
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 130 320
Storage Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 5
Intersection: 3: US 20 & Western Loop
Movement EB SB SB
Directions Served LT L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 142 28 4
Average Queue (ft) 8 5 0
95th Queue (ft) 65 19 3
Link Distance (ft) 8862 2050
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future No-Build Queuing and Blocking Report
11/13/2012 CH2M HILL
SimTraffic Report ToledoTSP_Future_NoBuild_Queue_A.syn
Intersection: 4: US 20 (west) & Bus Loop 20
Movement NB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 368
Average Queue (ft) 358
95th Queue (ft) 369
Link Distance (ft) 349
Upstream Blk Time (%) 76
Queuing Penalty (veh) 221
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Bus Loop 20 & US 20 (spur)
Movement WB B15 B16 SB
Directions Served TR T T L
Maximum Queue (ft) 636 3044 3237 115
Average Queue (ft) 579 2331 977 47
95th Queue (ft) 681 3967 3014 88
Link Distance (ft) 509 2920 7815 390
Upstream Blk Time (%) 85 47
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 20: Channelized Turn & OR 229
Movement WB SB
Directions Served R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 66 1010
Average Queue (ft) 22 621
95th Queue (ft) 53 1709
Link Distance (ft) 91 2863
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future No-Build Queuing and Blocking Report
11/13/2012 CH2M HILL
SimTraffic Report ToledoTSP_Future_NoBuild_Queue_A.syn
Intersection: 200: Channelized Turn & US 20
Movement EB
Directions Served L
Maximum Queue (ft) 76
Average Queue (ft) 16
95th Queue (ft) 51
Link Distance (ft) 91
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 337
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future No-Build Queuing and Blocking Report
9/26/2012 CH2M HILL
SimTraffic Report ToledoTSP_Future_NoBuild_Queue_B.syn
Intersection: 6: Bus Loop 20 & Yaquina Bay Road
Movement EB WB WB NB
Directions Served TR L T LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 104 109 126 189
Average Queue (ft) 10 40 4 71
95th Queue (ft) 95 94 76 146
Link Distance (ft) 560 1439 1788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 90
Storage Blk Time (%) 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 6
Intersection: 7: Bus Loop 20 & A Street
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 174 1043 36 256 365 125
Average Queue (ft) 85 471 5 106 172 44
95th Queue (ft) 173 1033 22 206 307 94
Link Distance (ft) 1439 658 6015 3120
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 5
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 15
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 25 8 32
Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 29 22 3
Intersection: 8: Bus Loop 20 & Main Street
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 148 57 149 72
Average Queue (ft) 18 5 53 29
95th Queue (ft) 79 28 109 57
Link Distance (ft) 658 524 3275 305
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future No-Build Queuing and Blocking Report
9/26/2012 CH2M HILL
SimTraffic Report ToledoTSP_Future_NoBuild_Queue_B.syn
Intersection: 9: East Slope Road & Bus Loop 20
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LR TR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 92 51 85
Average Queue (ft) 37 4 12
95th Queue (ft) 66 27 51
Link Distance (ft) 1383 1114 765
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 10: Bus Loop 20 & Burgess Road
Movement NB NB SE
Directions Served L T LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 67 54 82
Average Queue (ft) 9 4 23
95th Queue (ft) 44 33 60
Link Distance (ft) 765 1348
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Intersection: 11: Sturdevant Road & Bus Loop 20
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LR TR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 115 5 102
Average Queue (ft) 58 0 16
95th Queue (ft) 106 4 60
Link Distance (ft) 2007 1886 2332
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 74
 
TOLEDO TSP: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #3 TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attachment K 
Crash Data 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ODOT Crash Data Request 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 CRASHDATAREQ_5-14-12.DOCX  1 
 
M E M O R A N D U M   
 
Crash Data Request 
TO: Sylvia Vogel / ODOT 
FROM: Andra Henriques / CH2M HILL  
DATE: May 14, 2012 
 
Dear Sylvia, 
 
ODOT has contracted with CH2M HILL for the City of Toledo Transportation System Plan. 
To complete the traffic analysis for this project, I am requesting crash data from the ODOT 
Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit. The crash analysis study area includes four 
intersections that are in close proximity to each other, as shown in Figure 1. Since the 
intersections are arranged so closely, the request focuses on the segments instead of the 
intersections. See Figure 2 for a more detailed map of the crash analysis study area. See 
Table 1 for the data request listed by highway or street and mile point. 
 
 
Figure 1. Toledo TSP crash analysis study intersections  
N
CRASH DATA REQUEST 
CRASHDATAREQ_5-14-12.DOCX  2 
 
Figure 2. Toledo TSP crash analysis study area  
 
TABLE 1 
City of Toledo TSP - Crash Analysis Segments 
Map 
Color* 
State Highway 
Number/Street Name 
Route 
Number Begin MP/Cross Street End MP/Cross Street 
red 
Corvallis-Newport 
Highway  
No. 33 
US 20 
5.46 
(0.1 miles west of leg from 
Western Loop) 
5.88 
(0.1 miles east of leg to  
OR 229) 
purple 
Corvallis-Newport 
Highway  
No. 33 
US 20 Intersection with Western Loop Business Loop 20 
 
blue 
Siletz Highway  
No. 181 OR 229 
31.14 
(0.1 miles north of US 20) 
31.24 
(US 20/OR 229) 
pink Western Loop N/A US 20 (at milepost 5.56 and 5.58) 
0.1 miles  
(north of US 20) 
green Business Loop 20** N/A US 20  (at milepost 5.59 and 5.62) 
0.2 miles  
(southeast along US 20) 
* Corresponding with Figure 2. 
** This is a City owned facility, but is included just in case data is collected for this location. 
N
NTS 
CRASH DATA REQUEST 
CRASHDATAREQ_5-14-12.DOCX  3 
 
If possible, please indicate which data applies to the channelized turn lanes (which may be 
assigned to highway ramps in the crash data) and which data is for the mainline roadway. 
Please include the most recent five years of crash data that includes information on the type 
of crash (head-on, angle, turning, rear-end, etc.) and the severity (property damage only, 
injury, or fatality). 
I would also like to request the latest ODOT Region 2 SPIS list, if you can provide that. 
Please provide the data to me at ahenriqu@ch2m.com in electronic Excel, Access, or comma 
delimited format. Also, if the data is available in a georeferenced file, we would like that as 
well.  
Thank you in advance for your help. Please call me if you have any questions, (503) 736-
4001.  
 
Andra Henriques 
Transportation Engineer 
CH2M HILL  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Blue Segment Data 
 
 
   
 
SER#
INVEST
S
P
E
E
D
A
L
C
D
R
U
G
S
S
C
H
L
W
O
R
K
DATE
DAY
TIME
COUNTY
CITY
URBAN AREA
RD#  FC
COMPNT
MLG TYP
MILEPNT
CONN #
FIRST  STREET
SECOND STREET
RD CHAR
DIRECT
LOCTN
INT-TYP
(MEDIAN)  
LEGS
(#LANES)
INT-REL
TRAF-
CNTL
OFFRD
RNDBT
DRVWY
WTHR
SURF
LIGHT
CRASH TYP
COLL TYP
SVRTY V#
SPCL USE
TRLR QTY
OWNER
VEH TYPE
MOVE
FROM
TO P#
PRTC
TYPE
INJ 
SVRTY
LICNS
RES
PED
LOC ERROR ACTN EVENT CAUSE
181 SILETZ
CDS380 5/23/2012 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
   TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT
CONTINUOUS SYSTEM CRASH LISTING
Siletz Highway OR 229 (Hwy 181) MP 31.14 to MP 31.24
January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2010
PAGE: 1 
A
G
E
S
E
X
0700179 N N STRGHT Y FIX OBJY 03/12/2006 01CLRN NONE 043LINCOLN STRGHT01 01
STATE FIX NSun 043 00DRYNUNKNOWN(NONE) PRVTE 000SUN00
PDO 31.188P DARKN PSNGR CAR 18DRVR OR-Y 047,081 0101706 NONE01 M
(02) OR<25
0700469 N N INTER 3-LEG N S-1STOPN 08/23/2009 07CLRN NONELINCOLNN N STRGHT01 01
CITY REAR NSun 00DRYNSTOP SIGN PRVTE 000SUN00
PDO 31.244P DAYN 0 PSNGR CAR 25DRVR OR-Y 043 0700006 NONE01 F
OR<25
NONE STOP02 0
N 00PRVTE 011S
PSNGR CAR 55DRVR OR-Y 000 00000NONE01 M
OR<25
0700783 N N INTER CROSS N S-1TURNN 12/04/2007 07CLRN NONELINCOLN STRGHT011
NONE REAR STue 00DRYNSTOP SIGN PRVTE 000NN00
INJ 31.2410A DAYN 0 PSNGR CAR 41DRVR OR-Y 026 0703806 NONE01 F
OR<25
NONE STOP02
S 00PRVTE 011N
PSNGR CAR 46DRVR OR-Y 000 00000INJC01 M
OR<25
0700381 N N INTER CROSS N S-1STOPN 07/19/2009 27CLRN NONELINCOLNN N STRGHT01 01
STATE REAR SSun 00DRYNSTOP SIGN PRVTE 088NN00
PDO 31.242P DAYN 1 PSNGR CAR 39DRVR OR-Y 016,026 2703806 NONE01 M
OR>25
NONE STOP02 0
S 00PRVTE 011N
PSNGR CAR 61DRVR OR-Y 000 00000NONE01 F
OR>25
02PSNG 000 00000NO<502 M
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Green Segment Data 
 
 
   
 
SER#
INVEST
S
P
E
E
D
A
L
C
D
R
U
G
S
S
C
H
L
W
O
R
K
DATE
DAY
TIME
COUNTY
CITY
URBAN AREA
RD#  FC
COMPNT
MLG TYP
MILEPNT
CONN #
FIRST  STREET
SECOND STREET
RD CHAR
DIRECT
LOCTN
INT-TYP
(MEDIAN)  
LEGS
(#LANES)
INT-REL
TRAF-
CNTL
OFFRD
RNDBT
DRVWY
WTHR
SURF
LIGHT
CRASH TYP
COLL TYP
SVRTY V#
SPCL USE
TRLR QTY
OWNER
VEH TYPE
MOVE
FROM
TO P#
PRTC
TYPE
INJ 
SVRTY
LICNS
RES
PED
LOC ERROR ACTN EVENT CAUSE
033 CORVALLIS-NEWPORT
CDS380 6/21/2012 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
   TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT
CONTINUOUS SYSTEM CRASH LISTING
Business Loop from US 20 to 0.20 miles Southeast
January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2010
PAGE: 1 
A
G
E
S
E
X
0200591 N N INTER 3-LEG N ANGL-OTHN 12/13/2010 02RAINN NONELINCOLNN N STRGHT01 01
STATE TURN EMon 00WETNSTOP SIGN PRVTE 000WCN00
INJ  5.625P DARKN 1 PSNGR CAR 43DRVR OR-Y 000 0000004 NONE01 M
OR<25
NONE TURN-L02 0
W 00PRVTE 015S
PSNGR CAR 82DRVR OR-Y 028 02000INJB01 F
OR<25
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pink Segment Data 
 
   
 
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT
CRASH SUMMARIES BY YEAR BY COLLISION TYPE
PAGE: 1 
Western Loop from US 20 to 0.10 miles North
January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2010
COLLISION TYPE
FATAL 
CRASHES
NON- 
FATAL 
CRASHES
PROPERTY 
DAMAGE 
ONLY
 TOTAL
CRASHES
PEOPLE 
KILLED
PEOPLE 
INJURED
DRY 
SURF
WET 
SURF DAY DARK
INTER- 
SECTION
INTER- 
SECTION 
RELATED
OFF- 
ROADTRUCKS
CDS150  06/21/2012 
YEAR: 
  TOTAL
FINAL TOTAL
Note:  Legislative changes to DMV's vehicle crash reporting requirements, effective 01/01/2004, may result in fewer property damage only crashes being eligible for inclusion in the 
Statewide Crash Data File. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Purple Segment Data 
 
 
 
   
 
SER#
INVEST
S
P
E
E
D
A
L
C
D
R
U
G
S
S
C
H
L
W
O
R
K
DATE
DAY
TIME
COUNTY
CITY
URBAN AREA
RD#  FC
COMPNT
MLG TYP
MILEPNT
CONN #
FIRST  STREET
SECOND STREET
RD CHAR
DIRECT
LOCTN
INT-TYP
(MEDIAN)  
LEGS
(#LANES)
INT-REL
TRAF-
CNTL
OFFRD
RNDBT
DRVWY
WTHR
SURF
LIGHT
CRASH TYP
COLL TYP
SVRTY V#
SPCL USE
TRLR QTY
OWNER
VEH TYPE
MOVE
FROM
TO P#
PRTC
TYPE
INJ 
SVRTY
LICNS
RES
PED
LOC ERROR ACTN EVENT CAUSE
033 CORVALLIS-NEWPORT
CDS380 6/21/2012 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
   TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT
CONTINUOUS SYSTEM CRASH LISTING
Corvallis-Newport Highway connection to Business Loop 20
January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2010
PAGE: 1 
A
G
E
S
E
X
0900494 N N INTER 3-LEG N ANGL-OTHN 110/16/2010 02CLRN NONELINCOLNN N TURN-L01 01
CITY TURN ESat 00DRYNSTOP SIGN PRVTE 015NCN06
PDO  5.8311A DAYN 1 PSNGR CAR 54DRVR OR-Y 028 0202604 NONE01 F
OR<25
NONE STRGHT02 0
E 00PRVTE 000W
PSNGR CAR 57DRVR OR-Y 000 00000NONE01 F
OR<25
01PSNG 000 00000NO<502 F
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Red Segment Data 
 
 
SER#
INVEST
S
P
E
E
D
A
L
C
D
R
U
G
S
S
C
H
L
W
O
R
K
DATE
DAY
TIME
COUNTY
CITY
URBAN AREA
RD#  FC
COMPNT
MLG TYP
MILEPNT
CONN #
FIRST  STREET
SECOND STREET
RD CHAR
DIRECT
LOCTN
INT-TYP
(MEDIAN)  
LEGS
(#LANES)
INT-REL
TRAF-
CNTL
OFFRD
RNDBT
DRVWY
WTHR
SURF
LIGHT
CRASH TYP
COLL TYP
SVRTY V#
SPCL USE
TRLR QTY
OWNER
VEH TYPE
MOVE
FROM
TO P#
PRTC
TYPE
INJ 
SVRTY
LICNS
RES
PED
LOC ERROR ACTN EVENT CAUSE
033 CORVALLIS-NEWPORT
CDS380 5/23/2012 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
   TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT
CONTINUOUS SYSTEM CRASH LISTING
Corvallis-Newport Highway US 20 (Hwy 033) MP 5.46 to MP 5.88
January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2010
PAGE: 1 
A
G
E
S
E
X
0200615 N N STRGHT N S-1STOPN 09/14/2007 07CLRN NONE 092,013LINCOLNN N STRGHT01 11
STATE REAR EFri 00DRYNNONE(NONE) PRVTE 001WUN00
PDO  5.473P DAYN PSNGR CAR 41DRVR OR-Y 043,026 0700003 NONE01 M
(02) OR>25
NONE STOP02 0
E 013 00PRVTE 022W
PSNGR CAR 18DRVR OR-Y 000 00000NONE01 F
OR<25
NONE STOP03 0
E 092 00PRVTE 011W
PSNGR CAR 41DRVR OR-Y 000 00000NONE01 M
OR>25
0200724 N N STRGHT Y FIX OBJY 12/16/2008 01CLDN NONE 124,079,010LINCOLNN N STRGHT01 01
STATE FIX WTue 124,079,010 00ICENNONE(NONE) PRVTE 000ECORV-NEWPORT HWY UNTOLEDO 00
PDO  5.503P DAYN PSNGR CAR 28DRVR OR-Y 047,080,081 0101706WESTERN LP NONE01 F
(02) OR<25
0200591 N N INTER 3-LEG N ANGL-OTHN 12/13/2010 02RAINN NONELINCOLNN N STRGHT01 01
STATE TURN EMon 00WETNSTOP SIGN PRVTE 000WCN00
INJ  5.625P DARKN 1 PSNGR CAR 43DRVR OR-Y 000 0000004 NONE01 M
OR<25
NONE TURN-L02 0
W 00PRVTE 015S
PSNGR CAR 82DRVR OR-Y 028 02000INJB01 F
OR<25
0200355 N N INTER CROSS N ANGL-OTHN 08/06/2010 02CLDN NONELINCOLNN N TURN-L01 01
STATE TURN EFri 00DRYNSTOP SIGN PRVTE 015NCN00
PDO  5.741P DAYN 0 PSNGR CAR 74DRVR OTH-Y 028 0200001 NONE01 M
N-RES
NONE STRGHT02 0
W 00PUBLC 000E
PSNGR CAR 56DRVR OR-Y 000 00000NONE01 M
OR-?
0200514 N N INTER CROSS N ANGL-OTHN 10/25/2010 02CLDN NONE 012,013LINCOLN STRGHT011
STATE ANGL NMon 00WETNFLASHBCN-R PRVTE 015SCN00
FAT  5.743P DAYN 1 PSNGR CAR 82DRVR OTH-Y 028 0200002 INJC01 F
N-RES
NONE STRGHT02 1
E 012,013,010 00PRVTE 000W
SEMI TOW 57DRVR OR-Y 000 00000NONE01 M
OR>25
NONE STRGHT03 1
W 00PUBLC 022E
PSNGR CAR 52DRVR OR-Y 000 00000KILL01 F
OR<25
SER#
INVEST
S
P
E
E
D
A
L
C
D
R
U
G
S
S
C
H
L
W
O
R
K
DATE
DAY
TIME
COUNTY
CITY
URBAN AREA
RD#  FC
COMPNT
MLG TYP
MILEPNT
CONN #
FIRST  STREET
SECOND STREET
RD CHAR
DIRECT
LOCTN
INT-TYP
(MEDIAN)  
LEGS
(#LANES)
INT-REL
TRAF-
CNTL
OFFRD
RNDBT
DRVWY
WTHR
SURF
LIGHT
CRASH TYP
COLL TYP
SVRTY V#
SPCL USE
TRLR QTY
OWNER
VEH TYPE
MOVE
FROM
TO P#
PRTC
TYPE
INJ 
SVRTY
LICNS
RES
PED
LOC ERROR ACTN EVENT CAUSE
033 CORVALLIS-NEWPORT
CDS380 5/23/2012 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
   TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT
CONTINUOUS SYSTEM CRASH LISTING
Corvallis-Newport Highway US 20 (Hwy 033) MP 5.46 to MP 5.88
January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2010
PAGE: 2 
A
G
E
S
E
X
0200430 N N INTER CROSS N ANGL-OTHN 07/30/2006 27,32,10CLRN NONELINCOLNN N STRGHT01 01
STATE ANGL WSun 00DRYNSTOP SIGN PRVTE 000ECN00
PDO  5.743P DAYN 0 PSNGR CAR 27DRVR OR-Y 000 0000004 NONE01 M
OR>25
NONE STRGHT02 0
S 00PRVTE 015N
PSNGR CAR 18DRVR SUSP 052,016,028 27,32,10000NONE01 F
OR<25
01PSNG 000 00000NO<502 M
0200704 N N INTER CROSS N ANGL-OTHN 10/25/2007 02CLRN NONELINCOLNN N STRGHT01 01
STATE ANGL EThu 00DRYNSTOP SIGN PRVTE 000WCN00
INJ  5.747P DLITN 1 PSNGR CAR 59DRVR OR-Y 000 0000004 NONE01 F
OR<25
NONE STRGHT02 0
N 00PRVTE 015S
PSNGR CAR 49DRVR OR-Y 028 02000INJC01 F
OR<25
TOLEDO TSP: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #3 TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attachment L 
Parking Study Results 
 
 
5
 p
a
ra
lle
l 
5
 p
a
ra
lle
l 
8
 p
a
ra
lle
l 
5
 p
a
ra
lle
l 5 lot 
16 lot 
1
5
 p
a
ra
lle
l 
15 lot 
3 angled 18 angled 
18 angled 
3 parallel 
3 parallel 
1 
A 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 8 
9 10 
11 12 
13 
14 
B 
C 
D 
Attachment L 
Toledo TSP – Parking Study 
Location 
Available 
Spots* 
Utilized Spots  
12-1 
pm 
1-2  
pm 
2-3  
pm 
3-4  
pm 
4-5  
pm 
5-6  
pm 
Parking Lots        
A SE corner of Main St. & Hwy 20 Bus 17 4 4 3 5 4 5 
B SW corner of NE 2
nd
 St. & Hwy 20 Bus 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 
C City Hall Lot 16** -- -- -- -- -- -- 
D City Lot 15 13 13 7 4 3 7 
Total for Lots (percent utilized) 37 19(51%) 19(51%) 11(30%) 10(27%) 8(22%) 13(35%) 
Street Parking        
1 Main St. between NE 3
rd
 and 2
nd
 St. 10 6 5 7 7 3 2 
2 Main St. between NE 2
nd
 and 1
st
 St. 13 10 8 3 3 5 3 
3 Main St. between NE 1
st
 St. and Graham 13 8 11 8 9 8 6 
4 Main St. between Graham St. and SE 2
nd
 27 23 18 10 10 11 13 
5 
Butler Bridge Rd. between NW 1
st
 St. 
and Main 
12 3 2 2 1 1 2 
6 
Alder St. between Hwy 20 Bus  
and Elks Lodge  
28 4 4 2 2 4 3 
7 NE 2
nd
 St. between RR and Main St. 6 3 3 1 2 3 2 
8 
NE 2
nd
 St. between Main St. 
and Hwy 20 Bus 
9 6 4 2 4 4 4 
9 
NE 1
st
 St. between Butler Br. Rd.  
and Main St. 
10 9 5 4 4 4 4 
10 NE 1
st
 St. between Main and Alder St. 24 11 10 8 6 7 8 
11 
Graham St. between Butler Br. Rd.  
and Main St. 
9 1 0 1 2 3 4 
12 Graham St. between Main and Alder St. 36 3 5 5 5 5 6 
13 
SE 1
st
 St. between Main St.  
and Elks Lodge 
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 
14 SE 2
nd
 St. between Main and Alder St. 47 6 7 7 6 0 0 
Total for Streets (percent utilized) 253 94(37%) 83(33%) 61(24%) 62(25%) 59(23%) 58(23%) 
Overall Total (percent utilized) 290 113(39%) 102(35%) 72(25%) 72(25%) 67(23%) 71(24%) 
Notes: 
* Number of available spots is an estimate where parking spots were not marked.  
** City Hall lot is excluded from the study because it was temporarily closed for most of the day.  
  
Appendix D 
Transportation Alternatives
  
Appendix D is a compilation of four Technical Memoranda with proposed alternatives for all 
transportation modes within the City of Toledo and is labeled Appendices D1-D5 in the following 
Appendix. 
 Appendix D1 is Technical Memorandum #4: Transportation System Proposed Improvements. 
This section includes alternatives for roadway projects to address identified needs. 
 Appendix D2 is Technical Memorandum #5: Local Pedestrian and Bicycle Systems. This section 
includes bicycle and pedestrian projects to address identified non-motorized transportation 
needs. 
 Appendix D3 is Technical Memorandum #6: Local Transit System. This section includes policies 
and existing conditions for public transportation in Toledo. 
 Appendix D4 is Technical Memorandum #7: Rail, Air, Water, and Pipeline Systems. This section 
includes a summary of needs and alternatives for all other transportation modes within the City. 
 Appendix D5 is Technical Memorandum #8: Costs and Priorities for Transportation System 
Improvements. This includes project priorities and planning level cost estimates for alternatives 
described in Technical Memoranda #4-7. 
  
  1 
A p p e n d i x  D 1 / T e c h n i c a l  M e m o r a n d u m  # 4  
 
Toledo TSP: Transportation System Proposed Improvements 
 
 
This memorandum describes the proposed policies and projects for the Toledo Transportation System Plan (TSP) 
to address deficiencies and needs identified in Technical Memorandum #3 (November 2012). These are 
alternatives for projects and policies and will be reviewed by the Project Management Team (PMT), the Project 
Advisory Committee (PAC), and the general public before they are included in the TSP. Projects and policies will be 
compared against the TSP goals, and those that best meet the goals will be included in the TSP. The project team 
developed these alternatives with input from stakeholders and community members. Once the PMT, PAC, and 
community have reviewed these project alternatives and provided feedback, the project team will carry the 
recommended projects forward into the final TSP document. 
This memorandum describes the street system, road standards, freight route, and intersection concepts along 
with the results of traffic analysis associated with these concepts. Alternatives for bicycle and pedestrian mode, 
transit, rail, air, and water transportation are included in Technical Memoranda #5‐#7. Planning level cost 
estimates for the projects and policies for all transportation modes are included in Technical Memorandum #8.  
Transportation System Needs 
Technical Memorandum #3 outlined the existing transportation system needs. There is one intersection that 
failed to meet congestion targets: US 20 at Business Loop 20, also known as the Western Junction. Additionally, 
there are also long vehicle queues, or vehicle backups at three intersections: US 20 and Business Loop 20 
(Western Junction), Business Loop 20 Spur at Business Loop 20, and Business Loop 20 at A Street. These backups 
are especially problematic as they begin to block driveways and other public streets.  
These needs are also present in the future (2035) conditions, with congestion exceeding the standards at two 
more intersections (US 20 at Western Loop and US 20 at OR 229), beyond the existing congestion at the Western 
Junction intersection. Future traffic backups include the three intersections identified in the existing conditions, 
along with intersections at: US 20 at OR 229, US 20 at Western Loop, and Business Loop 20 at Yaquina Bay Road. 
There are also serious safety concerns for vehicles at the Western Junction; the community is concerned with the 
amount of near‐miss and actual crashes at this location. As traffic and congestion increases on US 20 in the future, 
these safety concerns will increase. The following street alternative projects address these identified 
transportation needs. 
   
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 
2  
Street System Alternatives 
Recommended Road Standards 
Table 1 lists the recommended standards for arterial, collector, commercial, and local roads, as well as the unique 
standards recommended for Main Street in downtown Toledo. The standards shown in Figures 1‐3 include the 
recommended cross sections for each of the classifications. 
TABLE 1 
Recommended Road Design Standards 
Type of Street 
Road Width 
with Curbs* 
       
Sidewalk (ft) Travel Lane 
Center Median or 
Center Turn Lane 
On‐Street 
Parking  Bike Lane 
Arterial 
3‐Lane  63’  Two 12’ travel lanes  14’  None 
6’ on both 
sides 
6’ on both 
sides 
2‐Lane  49’  Two 12’ travel 
lanes 
None  None  6’ on both 
sides 
6’ on both 
sides 
Collector  45’  Two 12’ travel 
lanes 
None  None  5’ on both 
sides 
5’ on both 
sides 
Commercial  77’  Two 12’ travel lanes  14’  8’ on both sides 
5’ on both 
sides 
6’ on both 
sides 
Local 
Preferred  55’  Two 14’ travel 
lanes 
None  8’ on both sides  Cyclists share 
the travel lane 
5’ on both 
sides 
Minimum  39’  Two 14’ travel 
lanes 
None  None  Cyclists share 
the travel lane 
5’ on both 
sides 
Main Street  61’  Two 12’ travel 
lanes 
None  8’ on both sides  None  10’ on both 
sides 
Multi‐Use Path  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  12’ total width (10’ paved trail 
with 1’ gravel shoulders) 
 
Boardwalk  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  12’ total width with side railings; 
10’ if no rails are used 
*Six inch curbs are assumed on either side 
 
  
  3 
FIGURE 1  
Arterial Road Standards 
 
 
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 
4  
FIGURE 2 
Collector and Commercial Road Standards 
 
  5 
FIGURE 3 
Local Road and Main Street Standards 
  
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 
6  
New Streets  
There are no new streets or proposed street extensions recommended in the TSP.  
Recommended Functional Classification 
In Technical Memorandum #3, Existing Conditions Report, the project team identified a number of functional 
classification discrepancies between the City of Toledo’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data, the Toledo 
Public Facilities Plan (1989) referenced in the 1995 unadopted Toledo TSP, and the ODOT functional classification 
map (2011). The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires that the functional classification of roads in local 
TSPs be consistent with state and regional designations. Because Toledo does not currently have an adopted TSP, 
the current TSP process includes recommendations for functional classification changes to create consistency for 
all jurisdictions. Once the current TSP is adopted, ODOT will amend the functional classification map for the City to 
reflect the following recommended changes. 
The project team recommends adjusting the functional classification for five roads within the Toledo Urban 
Growth Boundary (UGB). The proposed designations reflect current function, use, and traffic volumes. Street 
upgrades or land use changes will trigger the requirement to meet the specifications of the proposed classification; 
until these changes take place current roads will not be required to upgrade. Table 2 summarizes these changes. 
Figure 4 shows the updated functional classification system for Toledo. 
Collector - A Street/1st Street/Butler Bridge Road (between Business Loop 20 and Main Street) 
According to the Public Facilities Plan, this road was previously classified as a collector. It is also identified as a 
Freight Route in the previous unadopted Toledo TSP (1995). However, the City’s GIS data and the ODOT map both 
classify these streets as local streets.  
The project team recommends designating this route as a collector due to the industrial character of surrounding 
parcels and existing truck volumes. In addition, the streets provide access to the Port and the Georgia‐Pacific plant 
from other citywide Freight Routes. 
Collector - Arcadia Drive (north of Skyline Drive to UGB) 
ODOT classifies this roadway as a collector, while the City’s GIS data and Public Facilities Plan designates Arcadia 
Drive as a local street north of Skyline Drive. In addition, Arcadia Drive provides one of the only three access 
points to Toledo from US 20. 
The project team recommends classifying all of Arcadia Drive as a collector to match the designation south of 
Skyline Drive. The road’s narrow width, sharp curves, and steep grade make it unsuitable for freight. 
Collector - Lincoln Way 
The City’s GIS data classifies Lincoln Way as a local street, while the Public Facilities Plan and ODOT designates the 
facility as a collector. Lincoln Way is a continuation of Skyline Drive west of Aspen Street and the Lincoln‐Skyline 
route connects Business Loop 20 and Arcadia Drive.  
The project team recommends changing the designation to collector to match the label for Skyline Drive. The 
road’s sharp curves and steep grades make it unsuitable for freight. 
Collector - East Slope Road (north of 10th Street) 
All current documents identify East Slope Road north of 10th Street as a local road. However, the Recommended 
Roadway Classification map in the unadopted 1995 TSP recommends upgrading East Slope Road to a collector 
from Business Loop 20 to Butler Bridge Road. East Slope is one of the only direct connections between the 
Georgia‐Pacific plant and Business Loop 20, and connects the local road network to regional facilities and another 
collector (Butler Bridge Road).  
East Slope Road is not currently a Freight Route due to the steep grade and narrow lanes; future improvements 
recommended in this memorandum may provide a more direct truck route instead of Sturdevant Road to access 
the Georgia‐Pacific plant. 
  7 
Local - Main Street (south of Business Loop 20) 
Street is Toledo’s downtown retail district and has an attractive, pedestrian‐oriented streetscape with on‐street 
parking. Nearby Butler Bridge Road/1st Street/A Street is a more suitable route for north‐south traffic bypassing 
downtown, especially for freight.  
The project team recommends downgrading the ODOT Main Street collector designation to a local street.  
TABLE 2 
Functional Classification Discrepancies and Project Team Recommendation
Road 
City of 
Toledo GIS 
Data 
Toledo Public 
Facilities Map 
(1989) 
ODOT Functional 
Classification map 
(2011) 
Project Team 
Recommendation 
US 20  Principal 
Arterial 
Principal Arterial  Principal Arterial  Principal Arterial 
Business Loop 20  Arterial  Minor Arterial  Minor Arterial  Arterial 
Business Loop 20 Spur  Collector  Local  Principal Arterial  Arterial 
Sturdevant Road  Collector  Major Collector  Major Collector  Collector 
A Street (north of Business Loop 20)  Collector  Minor Collector  Minor Collector  Collector 
A Street (south of Business Loop 20)/1st Street/ 
Butler Bridge Road 
Local  Major Collector  Local  Collector 
East Slope Road/SE 10th Street  Collector  Major Collector  Major Collector  Collector 
Bay Boulevard  Collector  Major Collector  Major Collector  Collector 
OR 229  Arterial  Major Collector   Major Collector  Collector 
Arcadia Drive (north of Skyline Drive to UGB)  Local  Local  Minor Collector  Collector 
Arcadia Drive (south of Skyline Drive)/11th Street/ 
A Street 
Collector  Minor Collector  Minor Collector  Collector 
Skyline Drive  Collector  Minor Collector  Minor Collector  Collector 
Lincoln Way  Local  Minor Collector  Minor Collector  Collector 
Burgess Road  Collector  Minor Collector  Minor Collector  Collector 
Main Street  Collector  Local  Major Collector  Local 
East Slope Road (north of SE 10th Street to Business 
Loop 20) 
Local  Local  Local  Collector 
Shaded rows are recommended functional classification changes 
Source:   City GIS data provided by the City of Toledo in July 2012 
  Public Facilities Functional classifications are from the 1995 Toledo TSP, which cites the Toledo Public Facilities Plan 1989 
  ODOT Functional classifications are from the ODOT website and labeled Lincoln County, 2009. 
 
   
UNK \\ROSA\PROJ\ODOT\437682TOLEDO\GIS\MAPFILES\STUDYAREA_8.5X11.MXD ECLARK5 1/7/2013 10:04:08 AM
NE ARCADIA DR
229
20B
20
20
N M
AI N 
ST
NE 1ST ST
NW
 A S
T
NE 2ND ST
NE EAS T SLOPE RD
NE SKYLINE DR
NE WAGO N RD
SO
UTH 
BAY 
RD
SE STURD EVANT RD
SE BUTLER BRIDGE RD
NE STURDEVANT RD
YAQUINA BAY RD
Benton
Lane
Lincoln
Polk
Tillamook YamhillVICINITY MAP
LEGENDRailway
Functional ClassificationPrincipal ArterialArterialCollectorLocal
Toledo UGB
City Limits
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
FIGURE 4Functional Classification Plan Toledo TSPToledo, Oregon
  9 
Freight Alternatives 
Freight Route Network  
There are no recommended changes to the freight route network in Toledo. However, future improvements to 
East Slope Road (described in the route upgrades section below) could allow a more direct freight route than 
Sturdevant Road to the Georgia‐Pacific plant. However, the City recognizes the importance of freight to the 
community and economic development within the City. The following policy acknowledges freight’s importance 
and includes a City policy to support heavy industrial sites with needed freight connections: 
 Freight Policy 1: The City will continue to support transportation access to heavy industrial sites in the 
City including the Siletz Kiln site to support economic development. 
Wayfinding Signs and Other Route Upgrades  
Adding wayfinding signs would help direct freight truck traffic to designated routes and reduce the amount of 
trucks on inappropriate or undesignated routes. This includes additional signs along US 20 towards Business Loop 
20 guiding trucks to the Truck Route, as well as larger signs at the Business Loop 20 and Sturdevant Road 
intersection to directing truck drivers to turn. This recommendation includes adding “No Trucks” signs on streets 
frequently mistaken by truck drivers, such as Arcadia Drive and in downtown Toledo. 
 In order to create a more direct freight route for trucks accessing the Georgia‐Pacific plant, the project team 
recommends upgrades to East Slope Road between Business Loop 20 and SE 10th Street to improve the steep slope 
on the road, improving the sight distance, and ability for trucks to turn.  
 
Intersection Alternatives 
The project team identified mobility and queuing deficiencies at two of the study intersections in Technical 
Memorandum #3. These are US 20 at OR 229 and US 20 (west) at Business Loop 20. In addition, three locations 
had queuing deficiencies only. These are Business Loop 20 at Business Loop 20 Spur, Business Loop 20 at Bay 
Boulevard and Business Loop 20 at A Street. The project team studied these locations to see what options could 
ensure a good flow of traffic in the future. Most of these locations are discussed in further detail later in this 
memorandum. The intersection of Business Loop 20 and Bay Boulevard will not be discussed. This location has a 
relatively minor queuing issue and based on the forecast volumes, does not warrant any changes to the existing 
configuration. No alternatives are being suggested at this location. 
Figure 5 shows a map of the Toledo TSP traffic study intersections. The alternatives analysis focuses on the 
intersections in the Western Junction (2‐5), and A Street (7) on Business Loop 20. 
   
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 
10  
FIGURE 5 
Traffic Analysis Study Intersections  
  
Western Junction 
Several study intersections make up the intersection of US 20 and Business 20 Loop; referred to as the Western 
Junction. These intersections are: 
Intersection 2 ‐ US 20 at OR 229 
Intersection 3 ‐ US 20 at Western Loop 
Intersection 4 ‐ US 20 (west) at Business Loop 20 
Intersection 5 ‐ US 20 Spur at Business Loop 20  
The project team focused on simplifying the road network when developing alternatives for the Western Junction. 
Fewer access points to the highway mean fewer conflict points where accidents could occur. Reducing access 
points could also help with driver understanding and expectancy, as vehicles travel though the junction.  
N
KEY 
1. US 20 at Arcadia Drive 
2. US 20 at OR 229 
3. US 20 at Western Loop 
4. US 20 (west) at Business Loop 20 
5. US 20 Spur at Business Loop 20 
6. Business Loop 20 at Bay Boulevard 
7. Business Loop 20 at A Street 
8. Business Loop 20 at Main Street 
9. Business Loop 20 at East Slope Road 
10. Business Loop 20 at Burgess Road 
11. Business Loop 20 at Sturdevant Road 
8 
7 6 
9 
10 
11 
1 
2 
5 4 3 
 Map Source: ODOT 
Western  
Junction 
  11 
The project team developed alternatives for the Western Junction intersections for the junction as a whole; 
however, the results are reported for each individual intersection. The project team considered several 
alternatives for the Western Junction, beginning with no‐build and followed by build alternatives listed 
alphabetically. Each alternative includes a short description of the option, the pros and cons of constructing the 
option, and likely effects on safety. For all alternatives, to improve safety, the project team looked at ways to 
reduce or eliminate cross traffic, due to the severity of cross traffic type crashes. In several cases, the project team 
recommends closing vehicle access to Western Loop from US 20. Traffic counts collected at the beginning of this 
project showed very few vehicles turning into or out of Western Loop. Alternatives that close Western Loop 
would redirect traffic to OR 229 to access US 20 and Toledo. 
All alternatives carried forward into the TSP will require further analysis to identify right‐of‐way impacts, potential 
impacts to adjacent wetlands, and policy analysis to determine the best option to carry forward into design and 
construction. All alternatives that modify US 20 are subject to ODOT approval. 
 
No-Build Alternative 
The 2035 future No‐Build alternative is a “do nothing” approach, beyond basic upkeep and maintenance, for the 
Western Junction. Analysis for this alternative is documented in Technical Memorandum #3, Transportation 
Deficiencies and Needs. The operational analysis results can be seen in Table 3 and the queuing analysis results 
can be seen in Table 4. Attachment A shows the No‐Build HCM Synchro reports and No‐Build queuing analysis 
reports. Western Loop at US 20 would remain open under this alternative. 
Pros 
 No additional cost beyond regular maintenance. 
 Western Loop access would remain at US 20. 
Cons 
 The queuing and operational deficiencies remain at both the northbound and southbound 
approaches to US 20. 
Safety 
 Drivers may take more risks because of high traffic volumes and long queues. 
 
Couplet Alternative 
This alternative includes a couplet north of US 20, using Western Loop for the northbound direction and OR 229 
for the southbound direction. The two roads would join together north of US 20 and become a two‐way road.     
Pros 
 Much of the existing infrastructure could be used and costs for new construction could be low.  
Cons 
 Does not reduce access points along US 20. 
 Could be confusing as a couplet, may not be expected by drivers in a rural setting. 
 Would have no major effect on operations. 
Safety 
 Would slightly reduce conflict points, but it would not reduce the number of vehicles crossing US 20; 
it would change their location in some cases.  
Based on the pros and cons listed above, the project team does not recommend this option for further analysis.  
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 
12  
Interchange Alternative 
This alternative would replace the existing Western Junction intersection with a diamond interchange. This 
includes a grade‐separated crossing for the side streets and on/off‐ramp access to US 20. All other access points 
to US 20 within the Western Junction including Western Loop would be closed and traffic would be directed to 
the interchange ramps. US 20 would remain a two lane road, but the overcrossing would be constructed to 
accommodate four lanes in case of a future US 20 widening. This alternative would also realign a portion of OR 
229 and the US 20 spur so that the approach angles to US 20 are less skewed.  
FIGURE 6 
 Interchange Alternative 
  
Pros 
 Would greatly improve traffic operations and reduce queuing.  
Cons 
 Would be difficult to fund due to the high cost.  
 Drivers do not expect an interchange on a rural highway. 
 Would be difficult and expensive to construct due to the wetlands just north of the intersection. 
 Would impact the Dairy Queen. 
Safety 
 Removes all traffic crossing US 20, eliminating vehicle conflict points. 
 Would close Western Loop at US 20 to maintain road spacing standards for the interchange.. 
Based on the high cost of this alternative, the project team does not recommend this option for operational 
analysis. However, based on analysis of the future forecast volumes, no operational issues are expected to occur 
due to the increased capacity associated with the new interchange.  
   
  13 
Low Build Alternative 
This alternative focuses on making short‐term and relatively inexpensive improvements that will affect the most 
congested turn in the Western Junction. The low build alternative would add an acceleration lane for vehicles 
turning left onto US 20 from Business Loop 20. This alternative would also extend the eastbound right turn lane 
for vehicles from US 20 turning right onto Business Loop 20. Lastly, this alternative would modify access to US 20 
from Western Loop to right‐in/right‐out turns. If this alternative is selected and moves forward into design and 
construction, the median could be modified to preserve full driveway access to Dahl’s Disposal, allowing trucks to 
turn into and out of the property in both directions. 
FIGURE 7  
Low Build Alternative 
 
Pros 
 Lowest cost build alternative. 
 Would alleviate congestion and slightly reduce vehicle backups at US 20 (west) and Business Loop 20. 
Cons 
 Even with improvements, traffic backups still exceed one mile for the northbound left queue at US 20 
(west) and Business Loop 20. 
 Does not improve operational (congestion) or queuing at US 20 and OR 229. 
Safety 
 Does not reduce the number of vehicles crossing US 20. Crashes due to cross traffic can be severe, 
thus a reduction of cross traffic is often looked to when trying to improve safety. 
 High traffic volumes and long queues may result in greater risk‐taking by drivers. 
 Access to US 20 from Western Loop would be limited to right‐in/right‐out turns. 
The operational analysis results for the Low Build alternative is shown in Table 3, and the queuing analysis results 
in Table 4. As shown, the Low Build alternative offers some improvements at US 20 (west) and Business Loop 20. 
Attachment B includes the Low Build HCM Synchro reports and queuing analysis reports.  
   
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 
14  
Offset-T Intersections Alternative 
The offset‐T alternative would consolidate Western Junction into two “T” intersections. The southbound leg 
would be near the current OR 229 intersection and the northbound leg would be at the western‐most Business 
Loop 20 connection. Every approach would have a turn pocket, except for southbound which has relatively low 
traffic volumes and little expected congestion. This alternative would also close the Western Loop connection to 
US 20. 
FIGURE 8  
Offset‐T Intersection Alternative 
 
Pros 
 Would reduce access points onto US 20 and decreases conflict points. 
 Would alleviate congestion and reduce backups at US 20 and OR 229 overall. 
 The additional turn pockets at US 20 (west) and Business Loop 20 would create more capacity at the 
intersection.  
Cons 
 The critical backup for traffic ‐ the northbound left from Business Loop 20 at US 20 ‐ would be worse. 
Vehicles turning left onto Business Loop 20 from westbound US 20 would be turning at the same 
intersection as the northbound left‐turning vehicles. The vehicles turning left from US 20 would have 
priority over the turns from Business Loop 20, causing additional delay and backups.  
Safety 
 Would remove cross traffic from US 20, but would still allow left turns out of side street approaches. Long 
northbound queues from Business Loop 20 onto US 20 may result in greater risk‐taking by those drivers 
waiting to turn left. 
 Would close Western Loop at US 20. 
The operational analysis results for the offset‐T alternative are shown in Table 3, and the queuing analysis results 
can be seen in Table 4. As shown, the offset‐T alternative offers some improvements; however, it is also expected 
  15 
to worsen the longest traffic backup in the intersection, already identified in the existing and future traffic 
analysis. Attachment C shows the Offset‐T HCM Synchro reports and queuing analysis reports. 
Roundabout Alternative 
This alternative would construct a roundabout within the triangle that is currently defined by US 20 and Business 
Loop 20. The roundabout would have four legs, and a two‐lane roundabout would be required to meet future 
traffic demand. All approaches except for southbound OR 229 would be two lanes. Due to low traffic on 
southbound OR 229, a single lane approach would accommodate vehicle demand. Access to Western Loop at US 
20 would remain open with this alternative. 
FIGURE 9  
Roundabout Alternative 
 
Note: the location of the roundabout could be shifted to the northeast to avoid impacting the Dairy Queen. 
However, shifting the location of the roundabout would require shifting the access points and could increase 
other impacts and the cost of the project due to topographical constraints. 
Pros 
 Would reduce access points onto US 20 and decreases conflict points. 
 Would greatly improve vehicle backups and congestion for minor street (Business Loop 20, OR 229) 
approaches.  
 Second lowest cost improvement. 
 Would keep Western Loop open at US 20.  
Cons 
 Would slow traffic on US 20. 
 Could impact the Dairy Queen.  
 Would not be consistent with driver expectations on a rural highway.  
Safety 
 Would remove all cross traffic from US 20 at the Western Junction. 
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 
16  
 Roundabouts reduce the severity of vehicle crashes by softening the angle of potential impact. The higher 
risk crossing maneuvers are replaced with lower‐risk merging and diverging maneuvers. 
The operational analysis results for the roundabout alternative can be seen in Table 3 and the queuing analysis 
results can be seen in Table 4. As shown, the roundabout improves the overall intersection operations and 
queuing.  Attachment D shows the results of the ODOT multilane roundabout calculator.  
 
Traffic Signal Alternative 
The traffic signal alternative includes two options (A and B). Option A would reconfigure US 20, OR 229, and 
Business Loop 20 into one signalized intersection while Option B would create two signals; one at the existing OR 
229 intersection and one at the Business Loop 20, Western Loop, and US 20 intersection. Option B includes an 
extra traffic signal, though it would be slightly less expensive to construct than Option A, which would require new 
road sections near wetland areas and would have more impacts to nearby properties. Western Loop at US 20 
would remain open with both options.  
Traffic Signal Option A. This option would consolidate the Western Junction intersections into one signalized 
intersection. US 20 would be widened to a four lanes with two travel lanes in each direction. The widening would 
extend eastward to the existing four lane cross section between the Western Junction and Arcadia Drive. The 
widening would extend westward approximately 700 feet. This option would also realign the southbound OR 229 
approach and northbound US 20 spur approach so that the approaches are perpendicular to US 20. Long turn 
pockets are needed for this alternative to meet the mobility target and reduce vehicle backups. These include 
dual northbound left turn pockets and a northbound right turn pocket, dual eastbound left turn pockets and an 
eastbound right turn pocket, southbound right and left turn pockets, and westbound left and right turn pockets. 
Access to Western Loop at US 20 would remain open under this option. 
FIGURE 10   
Traffic Signal Alternative Option A 
 
Pros 
 Would meet existing volume‐to‐capacity mobility target. 
  17 
 Would create minimal vehicle backups. 
 Western Loop at US 20 would remain open. 
Cons 
 Would not be consistent with driver expectations on a rural highway.  
 Would impact the Dairy Queen. 
 Would be more expensive to construct than Signal Option B. 
 Would stop traffic on US 20 while side street traffic is allowed to cross.   
Safety 
 Would not remove cross traffic from US 20. 
 Drivers may not be prepared for vehicles stopped on the highway at the traffic signal, which may increase 
the potential for rear‐end crashes. Also, the potential for cross traffic conflicts remains, in the case of a 
mainline vehicle not stopping at the signal while a side street vehicle is crossing. 
The cost of the signal alternative is moderate when compared to the other alternatives. This alternative meets the 
preliminary signal warrants as shown in the warrant analysis in Attachment E. The operational analysis results for 
the traffic signal alternative can be seen in Table 3, and the queuing analysis results can be seen in Table 4. 
Attachment E also shows the Traffic Signal HCM Synchro reports and queuing analysis reports. 
Traffic Signal Option B. This option would install two coordinated signals on US 20. The first would be located at 
the OR 229/Business Loop 20 Spur intersection and the second at the Business Loop 20/Western Loop 
intersection. Western Loop and Business Loop 20 would be realigned to create a four‐legged intersection, while 
current the US 20/OR 229/Business Loop 20 Spur would remain in its current location. Operational and queuing 
results would be similar to the single traffic signal alternative discussed above. The main northbound and 
southbound movements would occur at separate intersections and would require fewer turn pockets than Option 
A. The project team did not conduct a separate cost estimate, but Option B  is expected to be slightly less than a 
single signal.   
   
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 
18  
FIGURE 21   
Traffic Signal Alternative Option B 
  
Pros 
 Would meet existing volume‐to‐capacity mobility target. 
 Would create minimal vehicle backups. 
 Would keep Western Loop open at US 20. 
 Would not impact the Dairy Queen. 
Cons 
 Would not be consistent with driver expectations on a rural highway.  
 Would stop traffic on US 20 while side street traffic is allowed to cross.   
Safety 
 Would not remove cross traffic from US 20. 
 Drivers may not be prepared for vehicles stopped on the highway at the traffic signal, which may increase 
the potential for rear‐end crashes. Also, the potential for cross traffic conflicts remains, in the case of a 
mainline vehicle not stopping at the signal while a side street vehicle is crossing. 
 
   
  19 
Western Junction - Analysis Discussion 
Table 3 shows the results of the future build operational analysis at Western Junction, compared with the future 
no‐build analysis taken from Technical Memorandum #3, Transportation Deficiencies and Needs. Results that are 
highlighted black do not meet the mobility targets. Results highlighted grey show areas where there are 
significant improvements compared to the future no‐build, but still do not meet the target. Results that are not 
highlighted meet the mobility target.  
Analysis results show that the traffic signal is the only alternative that meets the ODOT mobility targets. The 
roundabout alternative shows significant improvement at both intersections and slightly lower delay than the 
traffic signal alternative. The offset‐T alternative shows improvement at both intersections, but significant 
improvements are only at US 20 and OR 229. The low build alternative shows improvements only at the 
intersection of US 20 (west) and Business Loop 20.  
As expected, several of the alternatives show an increase in delay on US 20. This is a result of the proposed 
alternatives that improve operations on the side streets. The more successful alternatives that would reduce the 
overall delay significantly (the roundabout and traffic signal alternatives), would also add some delay to the major 
roadway approaches.  
Table 4 shows the queuing results of the future build analysis, as compared with the future no‐build. Results 
highlighted in black show congestion that has worsened from no‐build. Results highlighted in grey show 
congestion that has improved from no‐build.  
As expected, queuing increases with some of the alternatives. Any change from the existing free‐flow condition 
along US 20 will result in some additional queuing on the highway. The low build alternative shows some 
reduction in the critical queue length, specifically the northbound left turn movement at US 20 (west) and 
Business Loop 20, but overall does not result in significant queuing improvements. The offset‐T increases the 
length of the critical queue. The roundabout and traffic signal alternatives offer significant reductions in queuing 
for the most critical movements. 
  
TABLE 3 
Future Build Alternatives Operational Analysis Results: Western Junction 
2035, 30th Highest Hour Volumes 
ID  Intersection 
Mobility 
Measure 
Roadway 
Approach 
Mobility Target  Alternative Forecast (2035) Mobility 
No‐Build  Build  No‐Build  Low Build  Offset‐T  Roundabout  Traffic Signal 
2  US 20 at OR 229 
V/C  Major  0.80  0.70  0.30  0.30  0.41 
consolidated 
to Central 
Intersection  
consolidated 
to Central 
Intersection  
Minor  0.90  0.75  1.71  1.72  0.80 
LOS  Major  N/A  N/A  A  A  A 
Minor  N/A  N/A  F  F  F 
Delay (sec 
unless noted) 
Major  N/A  N/A  4  4  11 
Minor  N/A  N/A  >6 min  >6 min  53 
3  US 20 at Western Loop 
V/C  Major  0.80  0.70  0.50 
eliminated  eliminated  eliminated  eliminated 
Minor  0.90  0.75  0.12 
LOS  Major  N/A  N/A  A 
Minor  E  N/A  E 
Delay (sec 
unless noted) 
Major  N/A  N/A  0 
Minor  N/A  N/A  51 
4  US 20 (west) at Business Loop 20  
V/C  Major  0.80  0.70  0.79  0.45  0.45 
consolidated 
to Central 
Intersection  
consolidated 
to Central 
Intersection  
Minor  0.90  0.75  >2  0.79  1.37 
LOS  Major  N/A  N/A  A  A  A 
Minor  E  E  F  E  F 
Delay (sec 
unless noted) 
Major  N/A  N/A  0  0  0 
Minor  N/A  N/A  >11 min  39  >3 min 
5  US 20 Spur at Business Loop 20 
V/C  Major  0.80  0.70  0.36  0.36 
eliminated 
consolidated 
to Central 
Intersection  
consolidated 
to Central 
Intersection  
Minor  0.95  0.80  0.48  0.48 
LOS  Major  N/A  N/A  A  A 
Minor  E  E  D  D 
Delay (sec 
unless noted) 
Major  N/A  N/A  0  0 
Minor  N/A  N/A  30  30 
NEW  Central Intersection 
V/C  Major 
N/A 
0.70 
N/A  N/A  N/A 
0.87 
0.53 
Minor  0.75  0.53 
LOS  Major  N/A  C  C 
Minor  N/A  B 
Delay (sec 
unless noted) 
Major  N/A  22 
26 
Minor  N/A  12 
Notes: 
No‐Build V/C Mobility Target Source: Adopted Oregon Highway Plan as Adopted in December 2011 (Table 6) 
Future V/C Mobility Target Source: ODOT Highway Design Manual (Table 10‐1) 
LOS Standards taken from the Toledo TSP Technical Memorandum #3, Transportation Deficiencies and Needs 
Italic font indicates intersection has a V/C under 1.0, but does not meet mobility target 
Bold font indicates intersection does not meet mobility targets 
 
 
  21 
TABLE 4 
Future Build Alternatives Queuing Analysis Results: Western Junction 
2035, 30th Highest Hour Volumes 
ID  Intersection  Approach 
Lane  
Group  Storage (feet) 
Alternative Queues (feet) 
No‐Build  Low Build  Offset‐T  Roundabout  Traffic Signal 
2  US 20 at OR 229 
EB 
Left  130  140  140  160 
consolidated to 
Central 
Intersection 
consolidated 
to Central 
Intersection
Thru  unconstrained  80  140  80 
WB 
Left  320  20  20  N/A 
Thru  unconstrained  20  50  120 
NB  Thru/Right  365  230  380  N/A 
SB 
Left  80  60  150  N/A 
Thru/Right  unconstrained  1950  1820  500 
3  US 20 at Western Loop 
EB  Left/Thru  unconstrained  70 
eliminated  eliminated  eliminated  eliminated 
WB  Thru/Right  unconstrained  0 
SB 
Left  unconstrained  20 
Right  unconstrained  10 
4  US 20 (west) at Business Loop 20  
EB  Thru/Right  unconstrained  0  20  90 
consolidated 
to Central 
Intersection
consolidated 
to Central 
Intersection
WB  Thru  unconstrained  0  0  300 
NB  Left/Right  350  >1 ½ mi.  >1 mi.  >2 mi. 
5  US 20 Spur at Business Loop 20 
EB  Thru  350  0  0 
eliminated 
consolidated 
to Central 
Intersection  
consolidated 
to Central 
Intersection  
WB  Thru/Right  unconstrained  >1 ½ mi.  >1 mi. 
SB  Left  365  90  100 
NEW  Central Intersection 
EB 
Longest queue 
reported for 
each approach 
unconstrained 
N/A  N/A  N/A 
1270  260 
WB  unconstrained  510  350 
NB  unconstrained  490  340 
SB  unconstrained  360  140 
Notes: 
95th Percentile queues calculated using an average of five, one hour SimTraffic runs 
Queue lengths rounded up to the nearest ten feet 
Italic font indicates queue has improved from no‐build (a 10% or greater change which could represent a noticeable improvement to drivers) 
Bold font indicates queue has worsened from no‐build (a 10% or greater change which could represent a noticeable impact to drivers) 
  
Business Loop 20 at A Street – Turn Pocket 
Business Loop 20 at A Street is the final study area intersection where the project team identified a queuing issue 
for 2035. There are no congestion concerns at this intersection, but the project team identified vehicle backups on 
three of the legs. The eastbound approach is expected to experience congestion for the left turn lane and through 
lane. The westbound approach is expected to have minor congestion for the left turn lane. The northbound 
approach is anticipated to have limited congestion, but there is concern that queues are expected beyond the 
railroad crossing south of Business Loop 20.  
No-Build Alternative 
The 2035 future no‐build alternative is a “do nothing” approach (besides basic upkeep and maintenance) for the 
intersection of Business Loop 20 and A Street. Analysis for this alternative is documented in Technical 
Memorandum #3. The operational analysis results can be seen in Table 5 and the queuing analysis results can be 
seen in Table 6. Attachment A shows the No‐Build HCM Synchro reports and no‐build queuing analysis reports.  
Pros 
 No additional cost beyond regular maintenance. 
Cons 
 Increased congestion on Business Loop 20, especially on the eastbound approach. 
Safety 
 Increased congestion on A street extending south past the railroad crossing. 
 
Right Turn Pocket 
Due to the slopes nearby at this intersection, improvement options are limited. This alternative would lengthen 
the eastbound left turn pocket to 200 feet and would add a 150 foot eastbound right turn pocket. Lengthening 
the left turn pocket will provide space for vehicles to queue up without blocking the through movement on 
Business Loop 20. The right turn pocket will help vehicles get through the intersection more quickly and allow for 
some green time to be allocated to other approaches. 
Pros 
 Would decrease congestion and vehicle backups. 
Cons 
 Existing slopes make adding a new turn pocket expensive due to retaining walls for the hill.  
Safety 
 This intersection would still have vehicle backups extending beyond the railroad crossing.  
 
The queues at this intersection would improve on nearly every approach; however, the northbound approach 
would still have vehicle queues that extend beyond the railroad crossing. With the physical limitations, 
maintenance at the railroad crossing will be important. Signs should be upgraded to current standards and 
pavement markings should be well maintained to help drivers recognize the railroad crossing and avoid stopping 
over the tracks in the event of a long backup.  
The operational analysis results for the Business Loop 20 and A Street alternative can be seen in Table 5, and the 
queuing analysis results can be seen in Table 6. Attachment F shows the Business Loop 20 and A Street Synchro 
reports and queuing analysis reports. 
  23 
 
Business Loop 20 at A Street - Analysis Discussion 
Operational analysis results in Table 5 show that the intersection of Business Loop 20 and A Street is functioning 
well within the City’s mobility standards.    
TABLE 5 
Future Build Alternatives Operational Analysis Results: Business Loop 20 at A Street
2035, 30th Highest Hour Volumes
ID  Intersection 
Mobility 
Measure 
Mobility Standard  Alternative Forecast (2035) Mobility 
No‐Build  Build  No‐Build  Right Turn Pocket 
7  Business Loop 20 at A Street 
V/C  1.0  1.0  0.79  0.65 
LOS  D  D  C  C 
Delay (sec 
unless noted)  D  D  31  24 
Notes: 
Mobility Standards taken from the Toledo TSP Technical Memorandum #3, Transportation Deficiencies and Needs 
 
Table 6 shows that three of the approaches would have decreased congestion at the intersection. The eastbound 
left turn pocket congestion would not decrease, but extending the pocket length to 200 feet would allow these 
vehicles to queue up without blocking through traffic on Business Loop 20.  
TABLE 6 
Future Build Alternatives Queuing Analysis Results: Business Loop 20 at A Street
2035, 30th Highest Hour Volumes
ID  Intersection  Approach 
Lane  
Group  Storage (feet) 
Alternative Queues (feet) 
No‐Build  Right Turn Pocket 
7  Business Loop 20 at A Street 
EB  Left  60  180  180 
Thru/Right  650  1040  410 
WB  Left  15  30  30 
Thru/Right  700  210  200 
NB  Lt/Th/Rt  160 (to RR xing)  310  240 
SB  Lt/Th/Rt  330  100  80 
Notes: 
95th Percentile queues calculated using an average of five, one hour SimTraffic runs 
Queue lengths rounded up to the nearest ten feet 
Italic font indicates queue has improved from no‐build (a 10% or greater change which could represent a noticeable improvement to drivers) 
 
East Slope Road Realignment 
East Slope Road connects Business Loop 20 to SE 10th Street and could provide an alternate freight route off of 
Sturdevant. However, the connection between East Slope Road and Business Loop 20 is currently too steep for 
freight trucks to navigate. This project would realign the vertical curve on East Slope Road east of Business Loop 
20 to a gentler slope to improve the route for future freight trucks. If this project is included in the TSP and moves 
forward into construction, the City could then consider changing the existing freight truck route from Sturdevant 
Road to East Slope Road. 
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 
24  
Burgess Road Realignment 
Burgess Road meets Business Loop 20 at a steep angle, potentially creating a safety issue for vehicles making 
turns onto Business Loop 20. The project team recommends realigning Burgess to meet Business Loop 20 at a 90 
degree angle. Realigning Burgess would potentially impact nearby properties at the intersection and would 
require retaining walls or fill because of the hillside and grade of the existing road. Only minor impacts to Business 
Loop 20 are expected with the realignment. 
Sturdevant Road Realignment 
This project would reduce the curves on Sturdevant Road south of SE 10th Street to the Siletz Kiln Site along the 
river. Realigning the road would allow larger trucks to access the kiln site to move materials and finished products 
into and out of the site. Currently, Sturdevant Road is narrow and curving, and this project would reduce the 
curves and add shoulders to accommodate freight truck traffic. 
A Street Railroad Crossing Improvements 
The Toledo Waterfront Connectivity Plan includes a project to improve the railroad crossing pavement surface for 
motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians by installing concrete panels on A Street at the PNWR crossing. 
Butler Bridge Road and NW 1st Street Changes 
The Toledo Waterfront Connectivity Plan includes a project to improve visibility, increase safety for pedestrians 
and motorists, and reduce conflict points at this intersection. The project would convert NW 1st Street from a two‐
way to a one‐way street westbound between Main Street and Butler Bridge Road. This project would remove 
vehicle conflicts and emphasizes the dominant flow of traffic (turning east on NW 1st from A Street and then south 
on Butler Bridge Road, and north on Butler Bridge Road, onto NW 1st and north onto A Street) and addresses 
visibility issues for motorists stopped eastbound. Currently rail car storage reduces sight distance at the 
intersection. Eastbound drivers would be able to access Main Street one block south at NW Graham Street. The 
project also includes curb extensions at the intersection, a 10 foot wide ladder style crosswalk across NW 1st 
Street, and directs pedestrians to and improved crosswalk on the north side of the intersection, deterring them 
from crossing on the south side. The eastbound stop sign on NW 1st Street at the railroad tracks would be 
removed, as all traffic would continue south on Butler Bridge Road. 
Next Steps 
The PMT, PAC, and community will review the alternatives presented in this technical memorandum and the 
other modal technical memoranda. Alternatives that meet the TSP project goals will be refined and included in 
the TSP document. 
 
TOLEDO TSP: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #4 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Attachment A 
No-Build 
  
 
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future No-Build
2: US 20 & OR 229 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/26/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 -  Report ToledoTSP_Future_NoBuild.syn
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 305 430 0 15 450 0 0 90 25 0 100 85
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 321 453 0 16 474 0 0 100 28 0 111 94
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 474 453 1750 1600 453 1678 1600 474
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 474 453 1750 1600 453 1678 1600 474
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.2 7.2 6.6 6.3 7.2 6.6 6.3
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 2.3 3.6 4.1 3.4 3.6 4.1 3.4
p0 queue free % 70 99 0 0 95 0 0 84
cM capacity (veh/h) 1083 1087 0 69 583 0 72 583
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 321 453 16 474 128 206
Volume Left 321 0 16 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 0 0 28 94
cSH 1083 1700 1087 1700 85 120
Volume to Capacity 0.30 0.27 0.01 0.28 1.50 1.71
Queue Length 95th (ft) 31 0 1 0 252 389
Control Delay (s) 9.7 0.0 8.4 0.0 360.9 413.1
Lane LOS A A F F
Approach Delay (s) 4.0 0.3 360.9 413.1
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 84.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.4% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future No-Build
20: OR 229 & Channelized Turn HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/26/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 -  Report ToledoTSP_Future_NoBuild.syn
Movement NBT NBR SBL SBT NWL NWR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 395 0 15 185 0 30
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.86
Hourly flow rate (vph) 439 0 17 206 0 35
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 439 678 439
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 439 678 439
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.5 6.3
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.3 3.6 3.4
p0 queue free % 98 100 94
cM capacity (veh/h) 1100 405 610
Direction, Lane # NB 1 SB 1 NW 1
Volume Total 439 222 35
Volume Left 0 17 0
Volume Right 0 0 35
cSH 1700 1100 610
Volume to Capacity 0.26 0.02 0.06
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 5
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.8 11.3
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.8 11.3
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future No-Build
200: Channelized Turn & US 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/26/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 -  Report ToledoTSP_Future_NoBuild.syn
Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 15 0 0 455 465 30
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Hourly flow rate (vph) 18 0 0 479 489 32
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 968 489 521
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 968 489 521
tC, single (s) 6.5 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.6 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 94 100 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 277 579 1040
Direction, Lane # SE 1 NE 1 SW 1 SW 2
Volume Total 18 479 489 32
Volume Left 18 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 0 32
cSH 277 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.28 0.29 0.02
Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 18.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS C
Approach Delay (s) 18.9 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future No-Build
3: US 20 & Western Loop HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11/14/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 - Report ToledoTSP_Future_NoBuild.syn
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 5 1265 810 5 5 5
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 1332 853 5 6 6
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh) 4
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 853 2197 855
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 853 2197 855
tC, single (s) 4.1 *6.3 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 99 89 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 778 53 361
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 1337 858 12
Volume Left 5 0 6
Volume Right 0 5 6
cSH 778 1700 106
Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.50 0.11
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 9
Control Delay (s) 0.3 0.0 48.3
Lane LOS A E
Approach Delay (s) 0.3 0.0 48.3
Approach LOS E
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.6% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
*    User Entered Value
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future No-Build
4: US 20 (west) & Bus Loop 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/26/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 -  Report ToledoTSP_Future_NoBuild.syn
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 725 545 0 535 280 10
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph) 763 574 0 563 329 12
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1337 1613 1050
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1337 1613 1050
tC, single (s) 4.1 *5.9 *5.7
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 0 96
cM capacity (veh/h) 506 144 321
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 1337 563 341
Volume Left 0 0 329
Volume Right 574 0 12
cSH 1700 1700 147
Volume to Capacity 0.79 0.33 2.32
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 718
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 662.7
Lane LOS F
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 662.7
Approach LOS F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 100.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.7% ICU Level of Service G
Analysis Period (min) 15
*    User Entered Value
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future No-Build
7: Bus Loop 20 & A Street HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9/26/2012 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 -  Report ToledoTSP_Future_NoBuild.syn
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 115 470 170 10 220 60 170 40 30 40 15 75
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750
Lane Width 12 15 12 12 13 12 12 16 12 12 16 16
Grade (%) 0% 0% 10% 0%
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 0.98 0.92
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.98
Satd. Flow (prot) 1614 1783 1646 1733 1697 1748
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.98
Satd. Flow (perm) 1614 1783 1646 1733 1697 1748
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.86
Adj. Flow (vph) 128 522 189 11 244 67 200 47 35 47 17 87
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 0 10 0 0 6 0 0 58 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 128 698 0 11 301 0 0 276 0 0 93 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 4 6
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 5% 5% 5% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot Prot Split Split
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.1 35.6 0.7 27.2 16.2 9.4
Effective Green, g (s) 9.1 35.6 0.7 27.2 16.2 9.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.46 0.01 0.35 0.21 0.12
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 189 815 15 605 353 211
v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.39 0.01 0.17 c0.16 c0.05
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.68 0.86 0.73 0.50 0.78 0.44
Uniform Delay, d1 33.0 18.9 38.5 20.0 29.2 31.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 9.2 8.8 103.2 0.6 10.8 1.5
Delay (s) 42.2 27.7 141.7 20.6 40.0 33.3
Level of Service D C F C D C
Approach Delay (s) 29.9 24.8 40.0 33.3
Approach LOS C C D C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 31.0 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.9 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.7% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c    Critical Lane Group
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future No-Build Queuing and Blocking Report
11/13/2012 CH2M HILL
SimTraffic Report ToledoTSP_Future_NoBuild_Queue_A.syn
Intersection: 1: US 20 & Arcadia Drive
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR L LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 10 46 174
Average Queue (ft) 0 14 61
95th Queue (ft) 5 41 131
Link Distance (ft) 560 917
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: US 20 & OR 229
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L T L T TR TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 148 169 20 43 288 197
Average Queue (ft) 69 7 1 2 80 171
95th Queue (ft) 132 71 11 19 222 238
Link Distance (ft) 530 208 390 180
Upstream Blk Time (%) 60
Queuing Penalty (veh) 112
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 130 320
Storage Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 5
Intersection: 3: US 20 & Western Loop
Movement EB SB SB
Directions Served LT L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 142 28 4
Average Queue (ft) 8 5 0
95th Queue (ft) 65 19 3
Link Distance (ft) 8862 2050
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future No-Build Queuing and Blocking Report
11/13/2012 CH2M HILL
SimTraffic Report ToledoTSP_Future_NoBuild_Queue_A.syn
Intersection: 4: US 20 (west) & Bus Loop 20
Movement NB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 368
Average Queue (ft) 358
95th Queue (ft) 369
Link Distance (ft) 349
Upstream Blk Time (%) 76
Queuing Penalty (veh) 221
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Bus Loop 20 & US 20 (spur)
Movement WB B15 B16 SB
Directions Served TR T T L
Maximum Queue (ft) 636 3044 3237 115
Average Queue (ft) 579 2331 977 47
95th Queue (ft) 681 3967 3014 88
Link Distance (ft) 509 2920 7815 390
Upstream Blk Time (%) 85 47
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 20: Channelized Turn & OR 229
Movement WB SB
Directions Served R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 66 1010
Average Queue (ft) 22 621
95th Queue (ft) 53 1709
Link Distance (ft) 91 2863
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future No-Build Queuing and Blocking Report
11/13/2012 CH2M HILL
SimTraffic Report ToledoTSP_Future_NoBuild_Queue_A.syn
Intersection: 200: Channelized Turn & US 20
Movement EB
Directions Served L
Maximum Queue (ft) 76
Average Queue (ft) 16
95th Queue (ft) 51
Link Distance (ft) 91
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 337
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future No-Build Queuing and Blocking Report
9/26/2012 CH2M HILL
SimTraffic Report ToledoTSP_Future_NoBuild_Queue_B.syn
Intersection: 6: Bus Loop 20 & Yaquina Bay Road
Movement EB WB WB NB
Directions Served TR L T LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 104 109 126 189
Average Queue (ft) 10 40 4 71
95th Queue (ft) 95 94 76 146
Link Distance (ft) 560 1439 1788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 90
Storage Blk Time (%) 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 6
Intersection: 7: Bus Loop 20 & A Street
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 174 1043 36 256 365 125
Average Queue (ft) 85 471 5 106 172 44
95th Queue (ft) 173 1033 22 206 307 94
Link Distance (ft) 1439 658 6015 3120
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 5
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 15
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 25 8 32
Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 29 22 3
Intersection: 8: Bus Loop 20 & Main Street
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 148 57 149 72
Average Queue (ft) 18 5 53 29
95th Queue (ft) 79 28 109 57
Link Distance (ft) 658 524 3275 305
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
TOLEDO TSP: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #3 TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attachment B 
Low Build 
  
 
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future Build: Low Build Alternative
2: US 20 & OR 229 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2/11/2013 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 - Report ToledoTSP_Future_LowBuild.syn
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 310 425 0 15 445 0 0 90 25 0 100 90
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 326 447 0 16 468 0 0 100 28 0 111 100
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 468 447 1756 1600 447 1678 1600 468
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 468 447 1756 1600 447 1678 1600 468
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.2 7.2 6.6 6.3 7.2 6.6 6.3
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 2.3 3.6 4.1 3.4 3.6 4.1 3.4
p0 queue free % 70 99 0 0 95 0 0 83
cM capacity (veh/h) 1088 1092 0 69 587 0 72 587
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 326 447 16 468 128 211
Volume Left 326 0 16 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 0 0 28 100
cSH 1088 1700 1092 1700 85 123
Volume to Capacity 0.30 0.26 0.01 0.28 1.50 1.72
Queue Length 95th (ft) 32 0 1 0 252 400
Control Delay (s) 9.7 0.0 8.3 0.0 364.2 418.4
Lane LOS A A F F
Approach Delay (s) 4.1 0.3 364.2 418.4
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 86.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.8% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future Build: Low Build Alternative
20: OR 229 & Channelized Turn HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2/11/2013 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 - Report ToledoTSP_Future_LowBuild.syn
Movement NBT NBR SBL SBT NWL NWR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 400 0 20 190 0 35
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.86
Hourly flow rate (vph) 444 0 22 211 0 41
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 444 700 444
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 444 700 444
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.5 6.3
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.3 3.6 3.4
p0 queue free % 98 100 93
cM capacity (veh/h) 1095 391 605
Direction, Lane # NB 1 SB 1 NW 1
Volume Total 444 233 41
Volume Left 0 22 0
Volume Right 0 0 41
cSH 1700 1095 605
Volume to Capacity 0.26 0.02 0.07
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 5
Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.0 11.4
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.0 11.4
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future Build: Low Build Alternative
200: Channelized Turn & US 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2/11/2013 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 - Report ToledoTSP_Future_LowBuild.syn
Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 20 0 0 450 460 35
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Hourly flow rate (vph) 24 0 0 474 484 37
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 958 484 521
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 958 484 521
tC, single (s) 6.5 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.6 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 92 100 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 281 583 1040
Direction, Lane # SE 1 NE 1 SW 1 SW 2
Volume Total 24 474 484 37
Volume Left 24 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 0 37
cSH 281 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.28 0.28 0.02
Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 19.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS C
Approach Delay (s) 19.0 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future Build: Low Build Alternative
4: US 20 (west) & Bus Loop 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2/11/2013 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 - Report ToledoTSP_Future_LowBuild.syn
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NWL NWR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 725 545 0 535 280 10
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph) 763 574 0 563 329 12
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type TWLTL None
Median storage veh) 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 763 1326 763
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 763
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 563
vCu, unblocked vol 763 1326 763
tC, single (s) 4.1 *5.9 *5.7
tC, 2 stage (s) 4.9
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 23 97
cM capacity (veh/h) 836 429 450
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 NW 1
Volume Total 763 574 563 341
Volume Left 0 0 0 329
Volume Right 0 574 0 12
cSH 1700 1700 1700 429
Volume to Capacity 0.45 0.34 0.33 0.79
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 177
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.8
Lane LOS E
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 38.8
Approach LOS E
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 5.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.6% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
*    User Entered Value
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future Build: Low Build Alternative
5: Bus Loop 20 & US 20 (spur) HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2/13/2013 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 - Report ToledoTSP_Future_LowBuild.syn
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 545 290 115 115 0
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 606 322 128 128 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 450 992 386
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 450 992 386
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.6 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 52 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 1100 268 662
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 606 450 128
Volume Left 0 0 128
Volume Right 0 128 0
cSH 1700 1700 268
Volume to Capacity 0.36 0.26 0.48
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 60
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 30.1
Lane LOS D
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 30.1
Approach LOS D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future Build: Low Build Queuing and Blocking Report
2/11/2013 CH2M HILL
SimTraffic Report ToledoTSP_Future_LowBuild.syn
Intersection: 2: US 20 & OR 229
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L T L T TR TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 153 156 27 76 316 130
Average Queue (ft) 67 15 2 14 158 117
95th Queue (ft) 133 138 13 44 373 129
Link Distance (ft) 511 103 390 110
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 6 76
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 6 144
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 130 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 2 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 10 0
Intersection: 4: US 20 (west) & Bus Loop 20
Movement EB NW
Directions Served T LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 36 346
Average Queue (ft) 2 330
95th Queue (ft) 21 377
Link Distance (ft) 686 327
Upstream Blk Time (%) 70
Queuing Penalty (veh) 204
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Bus Loop 20 & US 20 (spur)
Movement WB B15 B16 B6 SB
Directions Served TR T T T L
Maximum Queue (ft) 639 3044 624 1371 125
Average Queue (ft) 590 2303 241 323 49
95th Queue (ft) 652 3884 737 1290 92
Link Distance (ft) 509 2920 563 5695 390
Upstream Blk Time (%) 85 38 27
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future Build: Low Build Queuing and Blocking Report
2/11/2013 CH2M HILL
SimTraffic Report ToledoTSP_Future_LowBuild.syn
Intersection: 20: OR 229 & Channelized Turn
Movement NB SB NW
Directions Served T LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 23 1243 69
Average Queue (ft) 1 834 23
95th Queue (ft) 11 1683 52
Link Distance (ft) 110 1546 41
Upstream Blk Time (%) 19 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 200: Channelized Turn & US 20
Movement SE SW SW
Directions Served L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 68 36 36
Average Queue (ft) 15 1 2
95th Queue (ft) 46 19 17
Link Distance (ft) 41 1034
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 365
 
TOLEDO TSP: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #3 TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attachment C 
Offset-T 
  
 
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future Build: Offset-T Alternative
2: US 20 & OR 229 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1/11/2013 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 - Report ToledoTSP_Future_OffsetT.syn
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 400 450 460 35 20 190
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 421 474 484 37 22 211
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 521 1800 484
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 521 1800 484
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.6 3.3
p0 queue free % 59 56 64
cM capacity (veh/h) 1030 51 583
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 421 474 484 37 233
Volume Left 421 0 0 0 22
Volume Right 0 0 0 37 211
cSH 1030 1700 1700 1700 291
Volume to Capacity 0.41 0.28 0.28 0.02 0.80
Queue Length 95th (ft) 51 0 0 0 160
Control Delay (s) 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.9
Lane LOS B F
Approach Delay (s) 5.1 0.0 52.9
Approach LOS F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 10.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.3% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future Build: Offset-T Alternative
4: US 20 (west) & Bus Loop 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1/11/2013 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 - Report ToledoTSP_Future_OffsetT.syn
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 725 545 115 535 280 125
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph) 763 574 121 563 329 147
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh) 8
Median type TWLTL None
Median storage veh) 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1337 1568 763
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 763
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 805
vCu, unblocked vol 1337 1568 763
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.5 6.3
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.5
tF (s) 2.2 3.6 3.4
p0 queue free % 76 0 63
cM capacity (veh/h) 506 273 398
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1
Volume Total 763 574 121 563 476
Volume Left 0 0 121 0 329
Volume Right 0 574 0 0 147
cSH 1700 1700 506 1700 349
Volume to Capacity 0.45 0.34 0.24 0.33 1.37
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 23 0 588
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 212.0
Lane LOS B F
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 2.5 212.0
Approach LOS F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 41.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.2% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future Build: Offset-T Queuing and Blocking Report
1/4/2013 CH2M HILL
SimTraffic Report ToledoTSP_Future_OffsetT.syn
Intersection: 2: US 20 & OR 229
Movement EB EB WB WB SB B20
Directions Served L T T R LR T
Maximum Queue (ft) 198 78 111 60 197 324
Average Queue (ft) 87 5 9 3 102 64
95th Queue (ft) 160 78 113 35 196 297
Link Distance (ft) 772 1032 116 1546
Upstream Blk Time (%) 23
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Intersection: 4: US 20 (west) & Bus Loop 20
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB B5 B15 B16
Directions Served T R L T L R T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 29 94 273 466 450 225 633 3034 7138
Average Queue (ft) 1 35 113 43 403 89 589 2641 3089
95th Queue (ft) 13 81 239 293 431 267 643 3934 7123
Link Distance (ft) 1499 772 328 514 2920 10435
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 97 94 73
Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 250 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 4 98 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 24 123 1
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 154
 
TOLEDO TSP: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #3 TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attachment D 
Roundabout 
 
 
NCHRP Report 572 Roundabout Calculator
Single-Lane
Version 1.0
01/15/08
General & Site Information
Analyst:
Agency/Company:
Date:
Project Name:
Intersection:
Analysis Time Period:
Jurisdiction:
Year:
Volumes Roundabout Approach/Entry Legs
N (1) NE (2) E (3) SE (4) S (5) SW (6) W (7) NW (8)
Input                  N (1), vph 0 35 95 305
Volumes          NE (2), vph
to Leg #             E (3), vph 20 0 30 420
SE (4), vph
S (5), vph 100 15 0 545
SW (6), vph
W (7), vph 90 445 280 0
NW (8), vph
Output        Total Vehicles 210 0 495 0 405 0 1270 0
Volume Characteristics N NE E SE S SW W NW
% Trucks 6.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 4.0 0.0
Et 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
PHF 0.90 0.92 0.95 0.92 0.90 0.92 0.95 0.92
FHV 0.943 1.000 0.943 1.000 0.943 1.000 0.962 1.000
Entry/Conflicting Flows N NE E SE S SW W NW
Fl t L # N (1) /h 0 0 39 0 112 0 334 0
ODOT and City of Toledo
2035
A. Henriques
CH2M HILL
2/12/2012
Toledo TSP
US 20 & BUS 20 Loop W. Jct
Future Alternatives Analysis
N (1)
SE (4)
NE (2)
E (3)
S (5)
SW (6)
W (7)
NW (8)
North
Oregon Dept of Transportation Transportation Planning Analysis Unit
ow o eg    , pcu
NE (2), pcu/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E (3), pcu/h 24 0 0 0 35 0 460 0
SE (4), pcu/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S (5), pcu/h 118 0 17 0 0 0 597 0
SW (6), pcu/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W (7), pcu/h 106 0 497 0 330 0 0 0
NW (8), pcu/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry flow, pcu/h 247 0 552 0 477 0 1390 0
Conflicting flow, pcu/h 843 1328 776 1294 817 1548 158 1090
Results N NE E SE S SW W NW
Entry Capacity, pcu/h 486 NA 520 NA 499 NA 965 NA
Leg v/c ratio 0.51 #VALUE! 1.06 #VALUE! 0.96 #VALUE! 1.44 #VALUE!
Control Delay, s/pcu 14.8 #VALUE! 79.9 #VALUE! 53.8 #VALUE! 213.7 #VALUE!
LOS B #VALUE! F #VALUE! F #VALUE! F #VALUE!
95th Percentile Queue (ft) 355 0 836 0 684 0 2083 0
Single 
lane OK
Multilane 
required
Multilane 
required
Multilane 
required
NCHRP Report 572 Roundabout Calculator
Multilane
Version 1.0
01/15/08
General & Site Information
Analyst:
Agency/Company:
Date:
Project Name:
Intersection:
Analysis Time Period:
Jurisdiction:
Year:
Volumes
N1 (1) N2 (1) NE1 (2) NE2 (2) E1 (3) E2 (3) SE1 (4) SE2 (4)
Volumes                N (1), vph 0 0 0 35
to Leg #              NE (2), vph
E (3), vph 0 20 0 0
SE (4), vph
S (5), vph 35 65 15 0
SW (6), vph
W (7), vph 90 0 155 290
NW (8), vph
Entry Volume, vph 125 85 0 0 170 325 0 0
S1 (5) S2 (5) SW1 (6) SW2 (6) W1 (7) W2 (7) NW1 (8) NW2 (8)
N (1), vph 33 62 305 0
NE (2), vph
E (3), vph 0 30 147 273
SE (4), vph
S (5), vph 0 0 0 545
SW (6), vph
W (7), vph 280 0 0 0
NW (8), vph
Roundabout Approach/Entry Legs
A. Henriques
CH2M HILL
12/17/2012
Toledo TSP
US 20 & BUS 20 Loop W. Jct
Future Alternatives Analysis
ODOT and City of Toledo
2035
N (1)
SE (4)
NE (2)
E (3)
S (5)
SW (6)
W (7)
NW (8)
North
Oregon Dept of Transportation Transportation Planning Analysis Unit
  
Entry Volume, vph 313 92 0 0 452 818 0 0
Critical Lane Volumes N NE E SE S SW W NW
N (1), vph 0 0 35 0 33 0 0 0
NE (2), vph 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E (3), vph 0 0 0 0 0 0 273 0
SE (4), vph 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S (5), vph 35 0 0 0 0 0 545 0
SW (6), vph 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W (7), vph 90 0 290 0 280 0 0 0
NW (8), vph 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Volume, vph 125 0 325 0 313 0 818 0
Volume Characteristics N NE E SE S SW W NW
PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Et 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
% Trucks 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Fhv 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Entry/Conflicting Flows N NE E SE S SW W NW
Flow to             N (1), pcu/h 0 0 38 0 103 0 332 0
 Leg #             NE (2), pcu/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E (3), pcu/h 22 0 0 0 33 0 457 0
NCHRP Report 572 Roundabout Calculator
Multilane
Version 1.0
01/15/08
SE (4), pcu/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S (5), pcu/h 109 0 16 0 0 0 592 0
SW (6), pcu/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W (7), pcu/h 98 0 484 0 304 0 0 0
NW (8), pcu/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Conflicting flow, pcu/h 804 1277 739 1250 810 1527 147 1033
Results N NE E SE S SW W NW
Crit. Entry Capacity     pcu/h 644 NA 674 NA 641 NA 1020 NA
Crit. Lane Entry Flow   pcu/h 136 0 353 0 340 0 889 0
Leg v/c ratio 0.21 #VALUE! 0.52 #VALUE! 0.53 #VALUE! 0.87 #VALUE!
Control Delay              s/pcu 7.1 #VALUE! 11.1 #VALUE! 11.8 #VALUE! 21.8 #VALUE!
LOS A #VALUE! B #VALUE! B #VALUE! C #VALUE!
95th Percentile Queue       ft 193 0 501 0 483 0 1261 0
Assumptions:
Close the Western Loop access to US 20
Single-lane approach OK for north leg
Oregon Dept of Transportation Transportation Planning Analysis Unit
 
TOLEDO TSP: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #3 TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attachment E 
Traffic Signal 
 
 
Major Street:
Minor Street:
Project Name:
City/County:
Analysis Year:
Alternative:
Meet 70% Warrants?:
70%
Major
Approach Lanes:
Minor
Approach Lanes:
Major
Approach Volumes (vph):
Minor
Approach Volume (vph):
Right Turn Volume (vph):
Capacity of Shared/Exclusive Right Turn Lane1:
Right Turn Discount:
Right Turn Volume included in Warrant:
Minor Approach Volume in Warrant:
Major Approach K factor:
Minor Approach K factor:
1 Capacity obtained from unsignalized intersection analysis
For guidance on preliminary signal warrant analysis, refer to the Analysis Procedures Manual.
Last Updated:  February 2009
10
10
1765
405
30
639
543
0
375
2
US 20
OR 229
Toledo TSP
Toledo/Lincoln County
Yes
2035
Traffic Signal
2
Major Street: Minor Street:
Project: City/County:
Year: Alternative:
Major Minor Percent of standard warrants Percent of standard warrants
Street Street 100 70 100 70
1 1 8850 6200 2650 1850
2 or more 1 10600 7400 2650 1850
2 or more 2 or more 10600 7400 3550 2500
1 2 or more 8850 6200 3550 2500
1 1 13300 9300 1350 950
2 or more 1 15900 11100 1350 950
2 or more 2 or more 15900 11100 1750 1250
1 2 or more 13300 9300 1750 1250
100 percent of standard warrants
X 70 percent of standard warrants2
approaching from
both directions
Case A: Minimum Vehicular Traffic
Case B: Interruption of Continuous Traffic
volume
Oregon Department of Transportation
Transportation Development Branch
Transportation Planning Analysis Unit
Preliminary Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis1
approaching
OR 229
Toledo/Lincoln County
Traffic Signal
Preliminary Signal Warrant Volumes
US 20
Number of
Approach lanes
Toledo TSP
2035
ADT on minor street, highestADT on major street
      
Street Number of Warrant Approach Warrant Met
Lanes Volumes Volumes
Case Major 2 7400 17650
A Minor 2 2500 3750
Case Major 2 11100 17650
B Minor 2 1250 3750
Y
Y
Preliminary Signal Warrant Calculation
Analyst and Date: Reviewer and Date:
1  Meeting preliminary signal warrants does not guarantee that a signal will be installed.  When preliminary 
signal warrants are met, project analysts need to coordinate with Region Traffic to initiate the traffic signal 
engineering investigation as outlined in the Traffic Manual.  Before a signal can be installed, the engineering 
investigation must be conducted or reviewed by the Region Traffic Manager who will forward signal 
recommendations to headquarters.  Traffic signal warrants must be met and the State Traffic Engineer’s 
approval obtained before a traffic signal can be installed on a state highway.
2  Used due to 85th percentile speed in excess of 40 mph or isolated community with population of less than 
10,000.
Analysis Procedures Manual     
February 2009
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future Build: Signal Alternative 
2: US 20 & OR 229 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1/11/2013 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 - Report ToledoTSP_Future_Signal.syn
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 305 420 545 15 445 35 280 95 30 20 100 90
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750
Lane Width 13 16 12 13 15 12 12 13 12 12 13 12
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3236 3659 1444 1621 3450 1403 2829 1586 1305 1568 1706 1403
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3236 3659 1444 1621 3450 1403 2829 1586 1305 1568 1706 1403
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 321 442 574 16 468 37 311 106 33 22 111 100
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 379 0 0 29 0 0 20 0 0 73
Lane Group Flow (vph) 321 442 195 16 468 8 311 106 13 22 111 27
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 6% 6% 6% 14% 14% 14% 6% 6% 6%
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 4 3 8
Permitted Phases 2 6 4 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.8 23.8 23.8 0.8 14.8 14.8 10.6 27.8 27.8 1.6 18.8 18.8
Effective Green, g (s) 9.8 23.8 23.8 0.8 14.8 14.8 10.6 27.8 27.8 1.6 18.8 18.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.34 0.34 0.01 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.40 0.40 0.02 0.27 0.27
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 453 1244 491 19 729 297 428 630 518 36 458 377
v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.12 0.01 c0.14 c0.11 0.07 0.01 c0.07
v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.71 0.36 0.40 0.84 0.64 0.03 0.73 0.17 0.03 0.61 0.24 0.07
Uniform Delay, d1 28.7 17.3 17.6 34.5 25.2 21.9 28.3 13.6 12.8 33.9 20.0 19.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 5.0 0.8 2.4 131.7 4.3 0.2 6.1 0.6 0.1 27.0 1.3 0.4
Delay (s) 33.8 18.1 20.0 166.3 29.5 22.1 34.4 14.2 12.9 60.9 21.3 19.5
Level of Service C B C F C C C B B E C B
Approach Delay (s) 22.7 33.2 28.0 24.2
Approach LOS C C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 25.9 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.7% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c    Critical Lane Group
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future Build
Signal Alternative Queuing and Blocking Report
1/11/2013 CH2M HILL
SimTraffic Report ToledoTSP_Future_Signal.syn
Intersection: 2: US 20 & OR 229
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 287 312 178 127 241 106 375 325 122 268 277 310
Average Queue (ft) 159 114 57 62 90 21 213 129 24 172 144 74
95th Queue (ft) 257 247 124 112 181 78 346 259 71 272 280 233
Link Distance (ft) 725 725 680 680 308
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 6
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 250 100 100 350 350
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 0 0 44 9 0 0 0 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 0 0 7 3 0 0 1 6
Intersection: 2: US 20 & OR 229
Movement NB B5 SB SB SB
Directions Served R T L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 106 112 78 194 104
Average Queue (ft) 18 12 18 60 28
95th Queue (ft) 64 102 53 140 71
Link Distance (ft) 396 968
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 100 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 3 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 3 0
TOLEDO TSP: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #3 TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attachment F 
Right Turn Pocket 
 
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future Build: Turn Pocket Alternative
7: Bus Loop 20 & A Street HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1/11/2013 CH2M HILL
Synchro 7 - Report ToledoTSP_Future_A_Street.syn
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 115 470 170 10 220 60 170 40 30 40 15 75
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750
Lane Width 12 15 12 12 13 12 12 16 12 12 16 16
Grade (%) 0% 0% 10% 0%
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 0.98 0.92
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.98
Satd. Flow (prot) 1614 1869 1410 1646 1733 1698 1751
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.98
Satd. Flow (perm) 1614 1869 1410 1646 1733 1698 1751
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.86
Adj. Flow (vph) 128 522 189 11 244 67 200 47 35 47 17 87
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 105 0 12 0 0 7 0 0 74 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 128 522 84 11 299 0 0 275 0 0 77 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 4 6
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 5% 5% 5% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Split Split
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.5 25.4 25.4 0.7 19.6 14.5 6.6
Effective Green, g (s) 6.5 25.4 25.4 0.7 19.6 14.5 6.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.40 0.40 0.01 0.31 0.23 0.10
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 166 751 567 18 537 390 183
v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.28 0.01 0.17 c0.16 c0.04
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.77 0.70 0.15 0.61 0.56 0.71 0.42
Uniform Delay, d1 27.6 15.7 12.0 31.1 18.2 22.4 26.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 19.6 2.8 0.1 48.7 1.3 5.7 1.6
Delay (s) 47.2 18.5 12.1 79.8 19.4 28.1 28.1
Level of Service D B B E B C C
Approach Delay (s) 21.4 21.5 28.1 28.1
Approach LOS C C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 23.3 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 63.2 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.4% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c    Critical Lane Group
Toledo TSP - 2035 Future Build
A Street Turn Pocket Alternative Queuing and Blocking Report
1/11/2013 CH2M HILL
SimTraffic Report ToledoTSP_Future_A_Street.syn
Intersection: 7: Bus Loop 20 & A Street
Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L T R L TR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 224 584 175 36 225 271 102
Average Queue (ft) 75 173 37 6 101 138 38
95th Queue (ft) 171 405 143 23 195 235 78
Link Distance (ft) 1441 658 6020 3120
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 150 15
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 7 0 6 31
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 21 1 18 3
 1 
 
A p p e n d i x  D 2 / T e c h n i c a l  M e m o r a n d u m  # 5  
 
Toledo TSP: Local Pedestrian and Bicycle Systems
 
This memorandum describes the potential policies and projects for the Toledo TSP to address deficiencies and 
needs identified in Technical Memorandum #3 (November 2012). These are alternatives for projects and policies 
and will be reviewed by the Project Management Team (PMT), the Project Advisory Committee (PAC), and the 
general public before they are included in the TSP. Projects and programs will be compared against the TSP goals, 
and those that best meet the goals will be included in the TSP. The project team developed these alternatives 
with input from stakeholders and community members. 
The City of Toledo has an existing pedestrian and bicycle network that serves local residents and employees, 
downtown visitors, and long‐distance bicyclists. The alternatives for bicycle and pedestrian projects and policies 
are discussed below. Projects and policies that address other modes in Toledo the roadway system are included in 
other memoranda1. Planning level cost estimates for the projects and programs for all transportation modes are 
included in Technical Memorandum #8.  
Pedestrian and Bicycle System Needs 
Overall, Toledo has a number of challenges to providing comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle connections due to 
the City’s geography. Many roads are narrow and have sharp curves and steep grades because of natural features 
such as the river, sloughs, and slopes. The sidewalk network in Toledo is most complete in downtown and 
becomes piecemeal further away from Main Street. Outside of downtown, many arterials and collectors lack 
sidewalks, such as Business Loop 20 outside of the core commercial areas (east of JC Thriftway and West of NW 
6th Street). Some roads have sidewalks on one side of the street. There are few officially striped pedestrian 
crossings along most streets and the railroad tracks.  
Increased pedestrian access to the Toledo Elementary and Junior/Senior High Schools is a community priority. The 
lack of a path or sidewalk along Sturdevant Road is also a major concern due to the 45 mph speed limit and high 
truck traffic. There are also limited east‐west connections between downtown and Sturdevant Road, and some 
students walk along the shoulder of Business Loop 20 from the neighborhoods in the center of town to school. In 
addition, community members are concerned with the lack of pedestrian facilities near the Flowerree Community 
Center at SE 3rd and Douglas Streets. Another priority for local residents is connecting the existing path along East 
Slope Road to Butler Bridge Road. 
There are two bike routes in Toledo; Bay Boulevard and East Slope Road between 10th Street and Business Loop 
20. However, the routes do not provide a continuous route through the city. Bay Boulevard is popular among 
bicycle clubs for the route to and from Newport, though the lack of bicycle lanes and steep grades create safety 
concerns for riders. There are also no wayfinding signs and the steep local streets can also discourage cycling in 
Toledo. 
Pedestrian Network Alternatives 
The following section describes the proposed projects and policy alternatives for the sidewalk system in Toledo. 
Figure 1 at the end of this memo shows the pedestrian project alternatives in Toledo. The City recognizes that 
bicycling and walking are important to the community; active modes such as bicycling and walking promote 
healthier lifestyles, reduce reliance on fossil fuels, and can enhance community cohesion and character. Bicycling 
and walking, however can raise safety concerns. The following policy addresses some of those safety concerns, 
and the project alternatives included in this memo also work to decrease safety concerns for bicyclists and 
pedestrians. 
                                                            
1 Technical Memorandum #4 Transportation System Proposed Improvements 
   Technical Memorandum #6 Local Transit System 
   Technical Memorandum #7 Rail, Air, Water, and Pipeline Improvements 
TOLEDO TSP: LOCAL PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SYSTEMS 
2  
 Policy 1: Work with emergency services/schools to create and implement a bicycle, pedestrian, and driver 
safety education program to encourage safe walking, cycling, and driving behavior. 
Fill Sidewalk Gaps 
There are several gaps in the sidewalk network in Toledo that were identified as major community needs. Filling 
these sidewalks gaps would improve the pedestrian network and enhance access to important destinations. These 
are the high priority alternatives include: 
 Project 1: Burgess Road Sidewalk between Arcadia Drive and Business Loop 20. There is currently a short 
sidewalk on the west side of the road in front of the fire station, but the segment does not connect to 
Arcadia Drive or Business Loop 20. This sidewalk would connect to marked pedestrian crossings on both 
Arcadia Drive and Business Loop 20. 
 Project 2: Business Loop 20 Sidewalk from East Slope Road to Sturdevant Road. Currently there is a 
sidewalk on the east side of the road that ends at East Slope Road. Students walk along Business Loop 20 
to Sturdevant Road to access Toledo Elementary and Junior/Senior High Schools. Runners, walkers, and 
the high school cross country team also use this route. 
 Project 3: Douglas Street/SE 3rd Street Sidewalk around Flowerree Community Center. The Community 
Center is surrounded by Beech, Douglas, SE 3rd, and SE 4th Streets in southeast Toledo. This block does not 
have sidewalks except along SE 3rd Street. However, SE 3rd and Douglas Streets both have sidewalks on the 
opposite side of the street.  
 Project 4: East Slope Road Sidewalk. Currently, the East Slope Road trail ends at East Slope Park. This 
project would extend a sidewalk on one side of the road to Butler Bridge Road at the Georgia‐Pacific 
facility and would improve connections between east Toledo and the downtown waterfront. The current 
path starts at the intersection of SE 10th Street and East Slope Road and runs along the east side of East 
Slope Road. However, the trail does not connect to Butler Bridge Road, ending at the sharp curve near the 
railroad. In January 2013, the Public Works Department received approval from the Toledo City Council to 
apply for a state grant to construct a sidewalk to Butler Bridge Road. This sidewalk could eventually 
connect to the planned Sturdevant Road Trail to create a continuous link on the east side of Toledo for 
commuting and recreational purposes. 
 Project 5: A Street Sidewalk between Business Loop 20 and NW 1st Street. The existing sidewalk on the 
west side of the street is narrow and in poor condition. This project would replace and repair existing 
sidewalk with an 8‐foot concrete sidewalk to accommodate higher traffic near Memorial Park. This project 
is from the Toledo Waterfront Connectivity Plan. 
 Project 6: Bay Boulevard Sidewalk between Depot Slough Bridge and Business Loop 20. Currently Bay 
Boulevard lacks pedestrian facilities along this section. This project would construct a new 8‐foot sidewalk 
on the east side of Bay Boulevard to provide greater pedestrian access. This project does not include a 
new at‐grade railroad crossing that would connect the sidewalk with a new bicycle/pedestrian bridge at 
Depot Slough and to the Waterfront Path. This project is from the Waterfront Connectivity Plan. 
Crosswalks  
The project team recommends adding specific crosswalk improvements to help increase pedestrian visibility and 
safety. These alternatives could include advisory and warning signage, crosswalk markings, and in some cases, 
flashing lights.  
 Project 7: School Pedestrian Crossings. Add high visibility crosswalks at the entrance to Toledo 
Elementary and Junior/Senior High Schools. These crossings would be built together with the proposed 
multi‐use path or boardwalk trail along Sturdevant Road (described in the Trail Network section below). 
 Project 8: Vehicle signs and markings. Discourage vehicles at 2nd Street and Butler Bridge pedestrian 
crossing. The new railroad pedestrian crossing can be confusing for drivers, and adding signage and 
TOLEDO TSP: LOCAL PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SYSTEMS 
 3 
pavement markings to discourage vehicles from using the pedestrian‐only railroad crossing would reduce 
confusion and maintain the crossing for pedestrians only. 
 Project 9: NW 1st Street Crosswalk. Install a 10‐foot wide mid‐block crosswalk on NW 1st Street between A 
Street and Butler Bridge Road. This project was included in the Toledo Waterfront Connectivity Plan and 
includes a new 8‐foot wide median with vegetation on NW 1st Street, a rebuilt 6‐foot sidewalk on the 
north side of NW 1st Street, and new concrete rail panels at the railroad crossing. The project includes 
adding crosswalk and railroad crossing warning signs along NW 1st Street. The project would also close the 
south crosswalk at NW 1st Street and Butler Bridge Road to reduce traffic conflicts and safety issues. The 
new median and crosswalk would create a more visible crossing and would reduce overall crossing 
distance. 
 Project 10: Fencing to direct pedestrian traffic. This project would install a 4‐foot cyclone fence on the 
west side of Butler Bridge Road from NW 1st Street to SW 2nd Street. This project, from the Toledo 
Waterfront Connectivity Plan would channel pedestrian traffic to designated railroad crossings to prevent 
unauthorized track crossing. 
 Policy 2: The City will work to address rough pavement at railroad crossings to create smooth crossings 
for bicyclists and pedestrians. (This policy is in conjunction with Rail Policies 2 and 3 to address railroad 
crossings). 
Wayfinding signs 
Wayfinding signs, such as guide signs and maps, can help to encourage more visitors to explore Toledo’s 
downtown on foot and provide information about the location and distance of nearby attractions. Signage can 
also provide the direction and distance to local recreational trails. A wayfinding system can also incorporate 
unique design elements to reinforce the sense of place in downtown Toledo. 
 Policy 1: The City will work to develop a pedestrian wayfinding system that encourages visitors to explore 
Toledo and provides directions to local attractions in downtown and near the waterfront. 
 Project 11: Amenities and Signage. This project from the Toledo Waterfront Connectivity Plan and would 
provide wayfinding signs at key locations to direct visitors to the waterfront area and other local 
destinations, while also facilitating regional connections. This project is consistent with Policy 1. 
Trail Network 
The following is an overview of proposed projects and policy recommendations for a multi‐use path system in 
Toledo. These trail alternatives will accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians: bicycle‐specific projects and 
policies are included in the next section. Trails are shared‐use paths designed for both transportation and 
recreation purposes and are typically between 8 – 14 feet wide. Figure 1 shows trail alternative projects in Toledo.  
TOLEDO TSP: LOCAL PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SYSTEMS 
4  
 
Example of a boardwalk 
 
Example of a paved multi‐use path 
 Project 12: Construct a trail along Bay Boulevard/Yaquina 
Bay Road. In 2012, Lincoln County submitted a grant application to 
the Oregon Department of Transportation for a new multi‐use trail 
that bypasses the steep and narrow section of Bay Boulevard in 
Toledo. The proposed trail uses the nearby former rail bed, and 
would travel through the Port of Toledo’s boatyard facility. The 
project included a new trail along Altree Lane with improvements 
to a nearby railroad crossing before rejoining with Bay Boulevard. 
The Port of Toledo does not support the current trail route, due to 
safety concerns with bicyclists and pedestrians passing through the 
active boatyard. The narrow property and high traffic area for 
trucks and heavy machinery create safety concerns for trail users 
and potential impacts to boatyard operations. The project team 
recommends that the City work with Lincoln County and Port of Toledo to consider alternatives to the 
proposed trail that does not impact boatyard operations and addresses the safety concerns with the 
existing proposed route.  
 Project 13: Construct a multi‐use trail along Sturdevant Road. This project was recommended by 
stakeholders and community members at the first project open house. A sidewalk or trail would address 
the lack of pedestrian connections between downtown and the Toledo Elementary and Junior/High 
Schools. The freight route designation and the location of the two schools attract a number of different 
road users such as freight trucks, bicyclists, and pedestrians, many of whom are school children. In 
addition, there is little room next to the road to build sidewalks. 
The project team recommends a multi‐use path and/or 
boardwalk along the west side of Sturdevant Road. This 
path may be constructed as a boardwalk near Olalla 
Slough in areas where there is not enough room to build 
next to the road. The trail would include multiple 
connections to Sturdevant Road including marked 
crosswalks with signage and lights (Project 5) at the local 
schools. An east‐west connection across Olalla Slough to 
NE 2nd Street would be included to allow access between 
Sturdevant Road and downtown. The trail could be 
designed as a nature walk with interpretive signs and 
displays to educate users about the wildlife and habitat of 
the Olalla Slough.  
 Project 14: Business Loop 20 Trail. Business Loop 20 does not have room to construct a sidewalk for the 
entire length between NW 6th Street and US 20, this alternative includes constructing a sidewalk where 
possible and a separate multi‐use trail or boardwalk facility on the west side of the road where there is no 
room for a sidewalk. The trail would be on boardwalk where there are wetlands concerns or near Depot 
Slough, and would provide a dedicated facility for bicycles and pedestrians.  
 Project 15: Waterfront Path. The Waterfront Path is a 10‐12‐foot shared‐use asphalt trail that would 
provide a recreational connection from the Butler Bridge Road parking lot to NW 1st Street and then from 
NW 1st Street to the railroad tracks adjacent to Bay Boulevard. The path would provide continuous 
pedestrian and bicycle connections, improve access to the waterfront and downtown from surrounding 
neighborhoods, and facilitate connections to and from regional bicycle touring routes. The section of the 
path from the railroad/Bay Boulevard east to a point just west of NW 1st Street near of the waterfront 
pavilion is complete. The section between NW 1st Street and the pavilion still needs to be finished. There 
are challenges to connecting to Bay Boulevard, including how to cross the railroad tracks – an at‐grade 
TOLEDO TSP: LOCAL PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SYSTEMS 
 5 
 
Example of bike boulevard lane markings 
railroad crossing would conflict with railroad operations, and the Waterfront Connectivity Plan 
recommends a bridge or exploring an at‐grade crossing  
 Project 16: NW 1st Street and Waterfront Path Crossing. This project is included in the Waterfront 
Connectivity Plan and would cross NW 1st Street at the planned Waterfront Path. The project includes a 
10‐foot wide crosswalk across NW 1st Street, removable bollards at the path/boardwalk intersection at 1st 
Street, and a 14‐foot wide boardwalk west of NW 1st Street near the electrical substation with metal 
decking, asphalt surfacing, and railings. The project also includes a 6‐foot wide sidewalk on the south/east 
side of NW 1st Street from the crosswalk to the Port of Toledo office. In addition, the project would install 
speed humps and warning signage in advance of the crosswalk on NW 1st Street. 
 Project 17: Depot Slough Crossing. Currently, there are no dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities 
across Depot Slough on Bay Boulevard, which is a signed bicycle route. The Toledo Waterfront 
Connectivity Plan includes a project to construct a new bicycle/pedestrian bridge immediately to the east 
of the railroad bridge. The timber‐framed crossing would be 14 feet wide and would connect with the 
future Waterfront Path. The project also includes a new 6‐foot concrete sidewalk on the east side of Bay 
Boulevard south from Depot Slough and an 8 foot asphalt shared use path south of the new 
bicycle/pedestrian crossing to Altree Lane and could also connect with the planned Bay Boulevard trail. 
The project includes a fence to separate the path from the railroad tracks, and a new pedestrian crossing 
with concrete panels and signage.  
 Policy 2: Toledo will work with regional partners, including the Cities of Corvallis, Philomath, and 
Newport; Lincoln County; Benton County; and ODOT; to determine the feasibility of building an intercity 
multi‐use trail. This was suggested by a few community members to connect Toledo, Newport, and 
Corvallis along the US 20 corridor. This project would require a long‐term, collaborative multijurisdictional 
planning effort that falls outside of the scope of the TSP. It is included as a policy idea, recognizing that 
Toledo would need to coordinate with regional partners to implement a separated trail facility including 
determining information about available right‐of‐way, route, funding sources, impacts, etc.  
 Policy 3: The City will work with community partners to explore the possibility of instituting a volksmarch 
route in Toledo for programming events. Volksmarching is a form of personal, non‐competitive, fitness 
walking that originated in Germany and has a popular following in the United States. Volksmarch events 
allow people to participate at their own pace, and typically occur on specific length outdoor paths and 
trails. It can also be a tourist draw, as volksmarchers visit different routes and keep a log of their walks. A 
volksmarch route could use proposed or existing paths. 
Bicycle Network 
The following is an overview of proposed projects and policy alternatives for the bicycle system in Toledo.  
Bicycle Boulevards 
Bicycle boulevards are generally a network of local neighborhood 
streets with lower vehicle traffic that prioritize bicycle travel. There 
are different levels of bicycle boulevards; the lowest cost and least 
impactful investments include wayfinding and warning signs, and 
shared lane markings and directional markings. Other types have 
higher costs and include changes in road design that reduce vehicle 
speeds and emphasize through movement for bicyclists. The project 
team recommends a basic bicycle boulevard network with lower cost 
elements such as signage and lane markings as the first step to 
creating and maintaining bicycle boulevards in the City.  
A bicycle boulevard network would include a north‐south connection 
along Alder and Beech Streets that improves bicycle connections to the Public Library, Skate Park, and Arcadia 
Park and Pool north of downtown, as well as the Community Center, East Slope Park, and Branstiter Park south of 
TOLEDO TSP: LOCAL PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SYSTEMS 
6  
 
Example of wayfinding 
signs for bicyclists 
downtown. Additional improvements such as new signage and striping may be considered to allow bicyclists a 
safe crossing on Alder Street at Business Loop 20. Multiple east‐west facilities along Graham, SE 2nd, and NE 
2nd/NE 3rd Streets would connect the Port of Toledo, downtown, and Sturdevant Road which could provide 
connections to the local public schools. A bicycle boulevard along Dundon Road and Sunset Drive, though steep, 
would provide a lower traffic volume and slower speed route compared to Business Loop 20. Figure 1 shows a 
map of the proposed bicycle boulevard network in Toledo. 
 
 Policy 4: The City will implement a bicycle boulevard network on local residential streets with wayfinding 
signage and sharrows to facilitate connections to local destinations. 
Wayfinding Signs 
Stakeholders recommended adding signs at the intersection of Business Loop 20 and 
Bay Boulevard to direct tourists into downtown. Bay Boulevard is used by bicyclists and 
bicycle tourists coming from Newport, and signage would help direct them once they 
arrive in town.  
 Project 18: Wayfinding signs. Install bicycle wayfinding signs from Bay 
Boulevard into downtown. 
Next Steps 
The PMT, PAC, and community will review the alternatives presented in this technical 
memorandum and the other modal technical memoranda, and the alternatives that 
meet the TSP project goals will be refined and included in the TSP document. 
 
* *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Toledo 
Junior/Senior 
High School
Toledo 
Elementary 
School
JC 
Thriftway
Flowerree 
Community 
Center
Toledo Public 
Library
Downtown/ 
Main Street
Olalla 
Store
Georgia-Pacific 
Plant
Port of Toledo/ 
Waterfront Park
Toledo Park 
and Ride
*
20
20
BUS
20
BUS
Y
A
Q
U
I
N
A
 
R
I
V
E
R
Depot Slough
O
lalla S
lough
A
rcadia
D
rive
Skyline Dr
ive
W
ay
Linco
ln
Burgess
Road
A
St
re
et
B
ay
Bo
ul
ev
ar
d
Butler 
East
Sl
o
p
e
R
o
ad
R
o
ad
St
u
rd
ev
an
t
R
o
ad
T O L E D O
Bridge 
* Pedestrian Attractors
Park
FIGURE 1
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Network Alternatives 
City of Toledo TSP
LEGEND
Multi-Use
Path
Sidewalk
Bicycle
Boulevard
Approximate Scale in Feet
0 2000
North
\\ROSA\PROJ\ODOT\437682TOLEDO\4 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES\TM5_BIKEPED\TOLEDO_PROPOSED_BIKEPED.AI RFARHOODI 1/31/2013
Multi-use path along 
Sturdevant Road 
with connection to 
downtown
Extend sidewalk 
along Business Loop 
20 to Sturdevant 
Road
Multi-use path near 
Business Loop 20 to 
US 20  
Trail connection to 
downtown along 
railroad line
Complete sidewalk on 
Burgess Road between 
Arcadia Drive and 
Business Loop 20
Complete sidewalk on 
East Slope Road to connect 
Butler Bridge Road with 
existing multi-use path
  
  1 
A p p e n d i x  D 3 / T e c h n i c a l  M e m o r a n d u m  # 6  
 
Toledo TSP: Local Transit System 
This memorandum describes the potential policies, projects, and other measures for transit in the Toledo TSP to 
address deficiencies and needs identified in Technical Memorandum #3 (November 2012). These are alternatives 
for projects, policies, and measures and will be reviewed by the Project Management Team (PMT), the Project 
Advisory Committee (PAC), and the general public before they are included in the TSP. Projects and programs will 
be compared against the TSP goals, and those that best meet the goals will be included in the TSP. This 
memorandum also includes project team recommendations on each of the projects including those suggested by 
the community and PAC. 
Alternatives for the local transit system are discussed below. Projects and programs that address the roadway 
system and the bicycle and pedestrian network in Toledo are included in previous memoranda1. Projects and 
programs that address the rail, air, port and water, and pipeline systems are included in Technical Memorandum 
#7. Planning level cost estimates for the projects and programs for all transportation modes are included in 
Technical Memorandum #8. 
Existing Transit 
The City of Toledo has a local transit route, that is operated by Lincoln County Transit and a regional service, the 
Coast to Valley Express, that is managed by the Northwest Oregon Transit Alliance, a consortium of transit 
agencies that includes Lincoln County Transit. 
Lincoln County Transit 
Lincoln County Transit’s East County Route connects to Siletz and Newport through Toledo. The East County Route 
operates six days a week with five stops westbound and four stops eastbound in Toledo. The service operates six 
round trips per day. 
The stops are located at the following locations in Toledo, from west to east: 
 Food Fair (Business Loop 20 east of NW Forestry Road) 
 NE 1st and Main Street 
 SE 2nd and Main Street (Westbound only) 
 JC Thriftway (Business Loop 20 and NE 2nd Street) 
 Olalla Store (Sturdevant Road and SE 10th Street) 
In addition, Lincoln County Transit accommodates “flag stops” where riders are able to flag down the driver and 
board the bus along the route at safe locations. Riders do not have to be at a stop to be picked up or dropped off 
by a Lincoln County Transit vehicle. 
The City has recently improved Toledo bus stops: The Park and Ride has a gazebo, while all of the East County 
Route stops have bus shelters and benches with the exception of the Food Fair stop on Business Loop 20. 
Constructing a shelter and bench there would require the City of Toledo to acquire an easement or purchase 
right‐of‐way along the roadway. 
Riders most commonly request later service hours in the evening and more frequent service during the day for 
riders who work nonstandard hours. Currently, buses arrive 75‐240 minutes apart depending on the time of day, 
with the last bus departing Toledo at 7:30 PM westbound and 8:48 PM eastbound. The East County Route does 
not operate on Sundays. 
                                                            
1 Technical Memorandum #4 Transportation System Proposed Improvements 
Technical Memorandum #5 Local Pedestrian and Bicycle System 
TOLEDO TSP: LOCAL TRANSIT SYSTEM 
2  
Coast to Valley Express 
The regional Coast to Valley Express serves the City, connecting Albany, Corvallis, and Newport. The Express runs 
seven days a week with one stop at the Toledo Park and Ride and operates four round trips per day. There are 
two bus runs each in the morning and evening peak period and the last bus leaves at 5:40 PM heading eastbound 
and 7:03 PM heading westbound.  
Transit Alternatives 
Lincoln County Transit is interested in expanding service and additional program options as needed and as funding 
becomes available. Lack of funding is currently the biggest obstacle to expanding service and infrastructure 
improvements. The Lincoln County Transportation Service District has a total Fiscal Year 2012‐13 budget of $4.42 
million, with the largest portion of that going to labor costs. The County levies a Transit Service Fund tax of 10 
cents per $1,000 in property value, and also relies on Section 5310 and 5311 funds from the Federal Transit 
Administration to fund day‐to‐day operations, as well as capital expenditures and paratransit service. The agency 
also frequently applies for Oregon Department of Transportation statewide grants and federal grants such the 
Department of Energy’s $3.5 million General Innovation Fund grant used for the North by Northwest Connector 
project.  
The North by Northwest Connector project coordinated regional transit and is a partnership of Columbia County 
Rider, Sunset Empire Transportation District, Tillamook County Transportation District, Benton County Transit, and 
Lincoln County Transit. The five partners are working to improve transit connections between northwestern 
Oregon communities, Brand and market transit service in all five counties as a single seamless service, build 
community partnerships to increase transit ridership while promoting regional business and economic 
development opportunities, and implement sustainable funding strategies for continued transit system 
development. 
Community members have suggested a transit shuttle or circulator to better serve the needs of local residents. 
The current East County Route’s coverage leaves many Toledo residents beyond close walking distance to a transit 
stop, especially considering the area’s steep terrain. This circulator would potentially have a different operator 
than Lincoln County Transit. There was also a suggestion based on community input to implement a water taxi or 
ferry route to Newport. However, the project team considers this service to be more aligned with economic 
development objectives rather than serving an identified transportation need within the planning horizon of the 
TSP. 
To address these deficiencies, the project team recommends the following policies for the City of Toledo: 
T Policy A: Maintain long‐standing partnership with Lincoln County Transit and the North by Northwest Connector 
to support new investments in transit service and infrastructure, as well as identify potential new 
funding sources to implement these improvements.  
T Policy B: Work with the Toledo Chamber of Commerce or other organization to organize a citywide transit 
shuttle or circulator that could meet the demand for improved local service for Toledo residents and 
employees. 
T Policy C: Identify local and regional partners to explore long‐term feasibility of water taxi or ferry service to 
Newport. 
Next Steps 
The PMT, PAC, and community will review the alternatives presented in this technical memorandum and the 
other modal technical memoranda, and the alternatives that meet the TSP project goals will be refined and 
included in the TSP document. 
  1 
A p p e n d i x  D 4 / T e c h n i c a l  M e m o r a n d u m  # 7   
 
Toledo TSP: Rail, Air, Water, and Pipeline Systems
This memorandum describes the potential policies and projects for the Toledo TSP to address deficiencies and 
needs identified in Technical Memorandum #3 (November 2012). These are alternatives for projects, policies, and 
measures and will be reviewed by the Project Management Team (PMT), the Project Advisory Committee (PAC), 
and the general public before they are included in the TSP. Projects and programs will be compared against the 
TSP goals, and those that best meet the goals will be included in the TSP.  
The City of Toledo has a multimodal transportation system that includes a freight rail line, a state‐run airport, 
water transportation facilities including a port, and a number of pipelines through the City. The alternatives for 
each of the modes are discussed below. Projects and programs that address the roadway system, the bicycle and 
pedestrian network, and transit in Toledo are included in previous memoranda1. Planning level cost estimates for 
the projects and programs for all transportation modes are included in Technical Memorandum #8. 
Rail Network 
Portland and Western Railroad (PNWR) owns the Yaquina Branch of the railroad in Toledo which is regulated by 
the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Rail Division. The Georgia Pacific paper mill is currently the sole 
customer along the line. Within the City, there are four public crossings. All of the crossings are rough with 
degraded pavement and potholes between the rails and the street surface. These rough crossings make it difficult 
for pedestrians and bicyclists, cause damage to vehicles including freight trucks, and on occasion cause trains to 
derail due to the condition of the rails. The derailments could potentially impact plant operations by delaying 
material shipments into and out of the facility. There is also an unprotected crossing at Butler Bridge Road where 
a spur track enters the Georgia Pacific facility. Train engineers are required to use signal flares when using this 
crossing. The crossing has an advance warning sign, pavement markings, and a roadside “Yield” and railroad 
crossing signs. However, unlike the other rail crossings in Toledo there are no flashing lights, bells, and gates. 
Since the rails are owned by the railroad, the City is not able to address deficiencies directly. However, the City 
recognizes that freight rail is important to sustaining the local economy and is interested in preserving or 
increasing the amount of traffic using the rail line to access the I‐5 corridor. The project team recommends a 
number of policies to work with partners and address the issues with crossings and the railroad.  
To address these deficiencies, the project team recommends the following projects and policies: 
Rail Policy 1: The City will work with partners to support and maintain the freight rail connection to Toledo from 
the I‐5 Corridor. 
Rail Policy 2: The City will coordinate regular coordination with ODOT Rail, Lincoln County, Georgia Pacific, and 
PNWR to work together to address the conditions of the crossings. 
Rail Policy 3: The City will develop evaluation criteria to prioritize public crossing investments and generate a list 
of improvements in order of greatest priority. 
Rail Policy 4: The City will continue to pursue the proposed intermodal hub at Tokyo Slough with the Port of 
Toledo to add potential freight rail customers. This project is described in more detail in the Ports and 
Water section below. 
Rail Policy 5: The City will work with ODOT Rail and PNWR to reduce idling train engines near Downtown 
businesses. 
                                                            
1 Technical Memorandum #4 Transportation System Proposed Improvements 
Technical Memorandum #5 Local Pedestrian and Bicycle System 
Technical Memorandum #6 Local Transit System 
TOLEDO TSP: RAIL, AIR, WATER, AND PIPELINE SYSTEMS 
2  
Airport 
The Toledo State Airport is a small facility just outside of the urban growth boundary used mostly for emergency 
personnel and aircraft based at the airport. It is also used when foggy weather conditions preclude aircraft 
landings at Newport Municipal Airport. The airport accommodates an average of 22 aircraft operations per week, 
and there are a number of barriers to increasing capacity: an unpaved ramp and taxiway, a runway that is 
inundated during high tides, and tall trees over accepted standards near the edge of the runway. Aircraft must 
curve on their approach over the river to avoid obstructions. There are also wildlife conflicts near the airport. 
The state has expressed the desire to sell the airport to the Port of Toledo numerous times in the last 30 years, 
most recently in 2005.2 However, the Port has not decided to take control of the facility and it remains in state 
ownership. There are no changes expected to the airport within the planning horizon of the TSP with the possible 
exception of the sale and potential closure if the state is successful. If the airport closes, the City is interested in 
determining an alternate site for emergency response aircraft to continue serving Toledo. 
Air Policy 1: The City will work with partners (including emergency service providers) to identify an alternate Life 
Flight landing site in the City if the airport closes. 
There are no proposed projects for the airport. 
Port and Water Facilities 
The Port of Toledo operates west of downtown and provides moorage, ship repair facilities, and industrial space 
to businesses. The Port currently has an 85‐ton travel lift and 200‐ton floating drydock on site at the Sturgeon 
Bend boatyard facility. The Port has recently completed a transient dock and has just adopted its Boatyard 
Buildout Plan, which includes a number of projects described below.  
Port Projects 
Port Project 1: Implement elements of the Port 2012 Strategic Business Plan including:  
 A new 300 ton travel lift  
 Construct a new mobile lift pier, replacing the current drydock pier  
 Construct a wash‐down pad  
 Relocate Utilities: move road, power poles, and connect to city sewer  
 Establish Tokyo Slough upland area for hard moorage  
 Construct a vessel sandblast and paint building, to allow year‐round work  
 A rail cargo transfer area adjacent to railroad  
 
These projects would be implemented in three phases. 
Phase 1 
‐ Replace piles and construct new pier for travel lift 
‐ Construct a wash‐down pad 
‐ Relocate utilities/site preparation 
‐ Purchase travel lift 
Phase 2 
‐ Upgrade site access road, realign utilities, and develop cargo transfer and vessel hard moorage 
areas 
Phase 3 
                                                            
2 Hitchman, James. 2010. The Port of Toledo, Oregon, 1910‐2010.  Toledo, OR. p. 57. 
http://www.portoftoledo.org/Hitchman%20History%20for%20Website%20PDF.pdf .  
TOLEDO TSP: RAIL, AIR, WATER, AND PIPELINE SYSTEMS 
 3 
‐ Construct vessel work building 
‐ New boatyard office and restrooms 
Benefits of these upgrades include increased environmental stewardship through new efficient equipment and 
infrastructure improvements, the ability to lift and service larger boats, the ability to handle more than two 
large boats at once, and year‐round ability to sandblast and paint. 
The project team recommends including these Port projects in the TSP to ensure that the Port and City are able to 
pursue funding in the future. 
Other Water Projects and Policies 
Barge Access 
The City of Toledo is interested in providing barge access along the Yaquina River to the industrial site in southeast 
Toledo along Sturdevant Road. However, Butler Bridge restricts the height of barges or other vessels from 
accessing the site. The structure does not have a drawbridge and is in good condition. In addition, the City is also 
interested in exploring the possibility of a new pier for barge access at the entrance to Depot Slough. This pier 
would be located on Georgia‐Pacific property in the vicinity of the existing effluent pipeline. The following policies 
support the City and Port’s barge access interests: 
Water Policy 1: The City will consider conducting a bridge life cycle assessment to determine the lifespan of the 
bridge and explore the cost of rebuilding or altering the bridge to accommodate taller barges and boats.  
Water Policy 2: The City will explore developing a pier for barge access at the entrance to Depot Slough on 
Georgia‐Pacific property to take advantage of the dredged river channel. 
Public Boat Ramp near Downtown 
A number of community members suggested adding a public access boat ramp within the City limits. Currently the 
closest boat ramp is near the Toledo State Airport, and there is another ramp on Elk City Road southeast of 
Toledo. The project was suggested as a way to bring more visitors into Toledo who would use the ramp instead of 
one near Newport. The Port has considered adding a boat ramp near downtown in the past, and due to the 
dredging requirements, potential cost associated with the project, and limited availability for parking nearby, the 
Port decided not to pursue a motorized boat ramp in Toledo. However, there may be an opportunity for a non‐
motorized launch site that is convenient to downtown retail businesses.  
Water Policy 3: The City will explore the possibility of a recreational (non‐motorized) boat launch on the 
waterfront near downtown. 
Dredging Spoils Site  
Depot Slough and Yaquina River require regular dredging to allow ships and barges to access the Port. The last 
dredging occurred in 2010. The Port is interested in locating an appropriate site to deposit dredge spoils when the 
next dredging project takes place. Typically, dredging occurs every ten years and requires environmental 
permitting for the site and approval to deposit dredge spoils. The airport property may be an option for the spoils 
site should the facility close in the near future. 
Water Policy 4: The City will work with the Port of Toledo and other partners to help identify an appropriate 
dredge spoils site for Depot Slough. 
Tokyo Slough Intermodal Hub 
The Port of Toledo has been interested in purchasing and improving a marine industrial site for use as an 
intermodal shipping facility at Tokyo Slough along the Yaquina River. The facility would provide a warehouse and 
shipping location for goods to be transported by water, rail, and roadway and could support short ocean shipping 
along the Pacific Coast. The intermodal hub would expand the existing barge dock, extend the railroad 600 feet to 
allow goods to be transferred between barge and rail. Existing local roads and highways would carry freight trucks  
to and from the intermodal facility. The project would also expand access roads, provide a paved staging area for 
the loading/unloading of cargo, and construct a 9,800 square foot warehouse. 
TOLEDO TSP: RAIL, AIR, WATER, AND PIPELINE SYSTEMS 
4  
The project would provide additional transportation options for local and regional shippers receiving materials or 
sending products between the central Oregon Coast and destinations in the Willamette Valley and beyond.  
Water Policy 5: The City will continue to make the proposed intermodal hub at Tokyo Slough (linking water, rail, 
and freight truck transportation) a high priority. 
There are no projects recommended for water transportation. 
Pipeline 
There are two pipelines within the City: a gas transmission pipeline which parallels OR 229 south to US 20, and 
then west towards Newport, and an effluent pipeline from the Georgia Pacific site to the ocean.  
There are no plans and no need to expand the gas pipeline into Toledo within the 20 year planning horizon of the 
TSP. 
Pipeline Policy 1: The City will continue to support the Georgia‐Pacific plant’s effluent pipeline and work with 
partners to maintain applicable environmental permitting 
There are no proposed projects for the pipeline network. 
Next Steps 
The PMT, PAC, and community will review the alternatives presented in this technical memorandum and the 
other modal technical memoranda, and the alternatives that meet the TSP project goals will be refined and 
included in the TSP document. 
  1 
A p p e n d i x  D 5 / T e c h n i c a l  M e m o r a n d u m  # 8  
 
Toledo TSP: Costs and Priorities for Transportation System 
Improvements 
This memorandum discusses the planning‐level costs, implementation priority, and potential funding 
opportunities for improvement alternatives to the transportation network to be considered for the 
Transportation System Plan (TSP). These projects and programs were identified in previous memoranda1 with 
input from stakeholders and community members and are intended to address deficiencies and needs identified 
in Technical Memorandum #3 (November 2012). Technical Memorandum #4 identified roadway network 
alternatives, Technical Memorandum #5 identified bicycle and pedestrian network alternatives, Technical 
Memorandum #6 identified Transit alternatives, and Technical Memorandum #7 identified rail, air, pipeline, and 
water alternatives. For some modes, specifically transit, air, rail, or pipeline, there are no project alternatives, only 
policies. These policies are not included in the cost estimates. Attachment A includes detailed costs including unit 
cost assumptions for the project alternatives. 
The project team developed planning‐level costs and compared these costs to the current level of funding 
available from existing and potential future sources for transportation improvements in Toledo, as identified in 
Technical Memorandum #2 (July 2012). The project team prioritized the projects by mode based on local 
transportation goals to create a fiscally constrained system for the next 20 years. The Project Management Team 
(PMT), the Project Advisory Committee (PAC), and the general public will review the alternatives before they are 
included in the TSP. The project team has identified applicable local, state, federal, and private funding sources for 
each project to assist the City in implementing the project alternatives. 
Project Priorities 
Community preferences, estimated costs, project complexity, and funding availability determine whether a TSP 
project is identified as a short‐term (0‐5 years), medium‐term (5‐10 years), or long‐term (10‐20 years) priorities. 
Small, cost‐effective improvements are likely to be short‐term priorities, while larger, more expensive projects will 
likely be medium‐ to long‐term priorities.  The priority levels are a guide, not a rigid “to‐do list.” If the City receives 
unanticipated funding within the next five years; longer term priorities could be constructed.  
The Toledo TSP will also include a fiscally constrained list of projects that the City of Toledo is able to implement 
during the planning horizon of the TSP given the expected transportation funding. The constrained list will likely 
include short‐ and medium‐term projects, while long‐term projects and more expensive projects will make up an 
illustrative list of projects that the City supports. The fiscally constrained list will be included in the TSP and 
determined based on feedback from City stakeholders, staff, and the community. 
Tables 1‐3 provide the cost estimates, priority, possible funding sources, and agency/organization champions for 
the TSP roadway, bicycle/pedestrian, and Port project alternatives. There are no transit, rail, air, or pipeline 
project alternatives in the TSP. The City is encouraged to pursue the recommended policies in those particular 
sections to work towards the project goals and address transportation deficiencies. 
Roadway Alternatives 
The following projects are roadway alternatives. For the Western Junction where US 20, OR 229, and Business 
Loop 20 intersect, there are seven alternatives, and only one or two options will be carried forward into the TSP. 
The PMT, SAC, and community will provide input into which project(s) will be recommended in the plan, though 
two alternatives, the Couplet and Offset T Alternatives were not analyzed further once the project team 
                                                            
1 Technical Memorandum #4 Transportation System Proposed Improvements 
   Technical Memorandum #5 Local Pedestrian and Bicycle System 
   Technical Memorandum #6 Local Transit System 
   Technical Memorandum #7 Rail, Air, Water, and Pipeline Improvements 
TOLEDO TSP: COSTS AND PRIORITIES FOR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 
2  
determined they did not address the deficiencies identified in Technical Memorandum #3. A full description of the 
alternatives and results of the traffic modeling are included in Technical Memorandum #4. 
 
TABLE 1 
Roadway System Alternative Cost Estimates and Prioritization
Project Description  Cost Estimate 
(in 2012 $) 
Priority  Funding Source1  Champion 
R1 ‐ Freight Route Signage Improvements – 
Citywide 
$12,000  Short‐term  Street Fund, STIP, LID  City 
Western Junction Alternatives–  
US 20/Business Loop 20/OR 229 
       
R2 ‐ No Build Alternative   $0   N/A  N/A  N/A 
R3 ‐ Couplet Alternative  The project team did not identify cost estimates, priority, funding sources and champion for 
this alternative because this alternative did not improve traffic congestion or safety and the 
alternative would be out of character in the rural setting 
R4 ‐ Diamond Interchange 
Alternative  
$9,846,000  Long‐term  STIP, Street Fund, 
Bonds, OTIB 
ODOT, City 
R5 ‐ Low Build Alternative  $2,336,000  Medium‐term  STIP, Street Fund, 
OTIB, Bonds 
ODOT, City 
R6 ‐ Offset T Alternative  The project team did not identify cost estimates, priority, funding sources, and champion for 
this alternative because this alternative did not improve traffic congestion or safety at the 
Western Junction. 
R7 ‐ Roundabout Alternative  $3,310,000  Long‐term  STIP, Street Fund, 
Bonds, OTIB 
ODOT, City 
R8 ‐ Traffic Signal Alternative   $7,586,000  Long‐term  STIP, Street Fund, 
OTIB, Bonds 
ODOT, City 
R9 ‐ Business Loop 20 ‐ 
Eastbound Right Turn Pocket at A Street 
$449,000  Medium‐term  Street Fund, LID, STIP  City 
R10 ‐ East Slope Road – 
Improve Vertical Alignment For Freight 
Access 
$635,000  Medium‐term  Street Fund, STIP, LID  City 
R11 ‐ Burgess Road Realignment to 90‐
Degree Intersection at Business Loop 20 
$298,000  Medium‐term  Street Fund, LID, STIP  City 
R12 ‐ Sturdevant Road – Roadway 
Realignment for Siletz Site Freight Access 
$595,000  Long‐term  Street Fund, STIP LID, 
SDC, Bonds 
County, City, Siletz 
Tribe 
R13 ‐ A Street Railroad Crossing2  $176,000  Short‐Term  Street Fund, Bike/Ped 
Fund, LID, PNWR 
City, PNWR 
R14 ‐ Butler Bridge Road and NW 1st Street 
Intersection changes 2 3 
$51,000  Short‐term  Street Fund, LID  City 
1 STIP includes all funded categories, including Transportation Alternatives, Immediate Opportunity Fund, and Modernization. 
2 This project was recommended in the adopted Toledo Waterfront Connectivity Plan (2009) and is included in the TSP. The project team used the 2009 cost 
estimates and priority rankings and grew the cost estimate to 2012 dollars using an ODOT approved annual cost escalation of 4.04%.  
3 This project from the Waterfront Connectivity Plan combines pedestrian and roadway improvements into one project. The plan did not break down the cost 
of each improvement. 
Funding sources in italics are sources not currently used by the City 
STIP – Oregon Statewide Transportation Improvement Program  
LID – Local Improvement District (Toledo does not currently have a LID) 
SDC –System Development Charge 
OTIB – Oregon Transportation Infrastructure Bank 
TOLEDO TSP: COSTS AND PRIORITIES FOR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 
 3 
Bicycle and Pedestrian Alternatives 
Bicycle and pedestrian alternatives are described in more detail in Technical Memorandum #5. Alternatives for 
bicycle and pedestrian projects include filling sidewalk gaps, adding advisory and wayfinding signs, and 
constructing multi‐use paths and/or boardwalks to provide alternate routes to narrow, heavily traveled roads. 
TABLE 2 
Bicycle and Pedestrian System Upgrade Cost Estimates and Prioritization
Project Description  Cost Estimate 
(in 2012 $) 
Priority  Funding Source1  Champion 
BP1 ‐ Burgess Road – Fill sidewalk gaps  $172,000  Medium‐term  Street Fund, Bike/Ped 
Fund, LID 
City 
BP2 ‐ Business Loop 20 Sidewalk (South/East 
Side) – East Slope Road to Sturdevant Road 
$1,093,000  Medium‐term  Bike/Ped Fund, Bonds, 
LID 
City, School 
District 
BP3 ‐ Douglas Street and 3rd Street near the 
Community Center – fill sidewalk gaps 
$63,000  Medium‐term  Street Fund, Bike/Ped 
Fund, LID 
City 
BP4 ‐ East Slope Road sidewalk extension  $551,000  Medium‐term  Street Fund, Bike/Ped 
Fund, LID 
City 
BP5 ‐ A Street Sidewalk Rebuild – Business Loop 
20 to NW 1st Street2 
$105,000  Short‐term  Street Fund, Bike/Ped 
Fund, LID 
City 
BP6 ‐ Bay Boulevard Sidewalk – Depot Slough to 
Business Loop 202 
$108,000  Medium to 
long‐term 
Street Fund, Bike/Ped 
Fund, LID 
City 
BP7 ‐ Sturdevant Road High Visibility Crosswalks 
at Elementary and Junior/Senior High Schools 
$68,000  Medium‐term  County, Bike/Ped 
Fund, LID  
City, County, 
School District 
BP8 ‐ Railroad Pedestrian Crossing 
Improvements to Discourage Automobile Use ‐ 
Butler Bridge Road at SE 2nd Street  
$11,000  Short‐term  Bike/Ped Fund, LID  City 
BP9 ‐ NW 1st Street Median, Midblock 
Crosswalk, and North Sidewalk/Grade Crossing 
Improvements2 3 
$558,000  Short‐term  Street Fund, Bike/Ped 
Fund, LID 
City 
BP10 ‐ Butler Bridge Road Railroad Fencing – NW 
1st Street to SW 2nd Street2 
$27,000  Short‐term  Bike/Ped Fund, LID, 
PNWR 
City 
BP11 ‐ Amenities and Signage – Waterfront 
area2 
$12,000 ‐ $135,000  Medium to 
long‐term 
Street Fund, Bike/Ped 
Fund, LID 
City 
BP12 ‐ Trail along Bay Boulevard/Yaquina Bay 
Road 
$817,000  Long‐term  STIP, County, Bike/Ped 
Fund, Bonds, LID 
County, City 
BP13 ‐ Multi‐Use Trail – Sturdevant Road  $4,227,000  Medium‐term  Bike/Ped Fund, Bonds, 
LID 
City, County, 
School District 
BP14 ‐ Business Loop 20 Multi‐use Trail 
(South/West Side) – US 20 to NW 6th Avenue 
$2,675,000  Long‐term  STIP, Bike/Ped Fund, 
Bonds, LID 
City 
BP15 – Waterfront Path: East Section (between 
NW 1e Street and Butler Bridge Road)2 
$278,000  Short‐term  STIP, Bike/Ped Fund, 
Bonds, Port, LID 
City  
BP16 – Waterfront Path: West Section between 
Bay Boulevard and NW 1st Street (Includes NW 
1st Street Crossing and Boardwalk)2 
$872,000  Medium to 
long‐term 
STIP, Bike/Ped Fund, 
Bonds, Port, LID 
City 
BP17 ‐ Bay Boulevard – Depot Slough 
Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing 
$1,660,000  Medium to 
long‐term 
STIP, Bike/Ped Fund, 
Bonds, LID 
City 
BP18 ‐ Bay Boulevard Bicycle Wayfinding signs  $10,000  Short‐term  Street Fund, Bike/Ped 
Fund, LID 
City 
TOLEDO TSP: COSTS AND PRIORITIES FOR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 
4  
TABLE 2 
Bicycle and Pedestrian System Upgrade Cost Estimates and Prioritization
Project Description  Cost Estimate 
(in 2012 $) 
Priority  Funding Source1  Champion 
1 STIP includes all funded categories, including Transportation Alternatives, Immediate Opportunity Fund, and Modernization. 
2 This project was recommended in the adopted Toledo Waterfront Connectivity Plan (2009) and is included in the TSP. The project team used the 2009 cost 
estimates and priority rankings and grew the cost estimate to 2012 dollars using an ODOT approved annual cost escalation of 4.04%.  
3 This project from the Waterfront Connectivity Plan combines pedestrian, roadway, and rail improvements into one project. The plan did not break down the 
cost of each improvement. 
Funding sources in italics are sources not currently used by the City  
STIP – Oregon Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 
SDC –System Development Charge 
OTIB – Oregon Transportation Infrastructure Bank 
PNWR – Portland and Western Railroad 
 
Port and Water System Alternatives 
The following projects are described in more detail in Technical Memorandum #7. These projects are also 
included in the Port Boatyard Buildout Plan. The Port has a number of different funding sources beyond 
transportation funding sources. The Port receives and is eligible for a variety of economic development, marine, 
and Army Corps of Engineers funding sources that are not available for road or bicycle and pedestrian projects. 
The Port also has a budget of its own that it can use to fund projects. 
   
TOLEDO TSP: COSTS AND PRIORITIES FOR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 
 5 
TABLE 3 
Port and Water System Upgrade Cost Estimates and Prioritization
Project Description  Cost Estimate 
(in 2012 Dollars) 
Priority  Funding Source1  Champion 
Phase 1 projects – New pier and replace piles for 
travel lift, construct wash down pad, relocate 
utilities, purchase travel lift 
$3,493,000  Short‐Term  Port, ConnectOregon, 
MNIF, PRLF 
Port 
Phase 2 projects – upgrade site access road, 
realign utilities, and develop cargo transfer and 
vessel hard moorage areas 
$950,000  Medium‐Term  Port, ConnectOregon, 
MNIF, PRLF 
Port 
Phase 3 projects – construct vessel work 
building, new boatyard office and restrooms 
$2,050,000  Long‐Term  Port, ConnectOregon, 
PRLF 
Port, City 
1 Port – General Port of Toledo Revenues 
MNIF – Marine Navigation Improvement Fund 
PRLF – Port Revolving Loan Fund 
Summary of Funding Sources 
This section includes an overview of applicable funding sources, an in‐depth analysis of transportation funding 
within the City is included in Technical Memorandum #2: Funding for Roadway, Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit 
Improvements. There are two types of funding sources identified in Technical Memorandum #2: existing funding 
sources that the City currently uses, and potential funding sources that the City could pursue for future projects.  
The City of Toledo has several established and potential funding sources available at the local, state, and federal 
levels for future transportation projects.  
Funds for transportation projects within the city come from the City Street Fund, which is made up of the 
following: 
 City’s share of State Highway Funds, financed by fuel taxes, vehicle registration and title fees, driver’s 
license fees, and other sources, with the Oregon Transportation Commission appropriating funds to cities 
on an annual basis based on population. 
 Franchise fees, and  
 Road maintenance fees.  
One percent of these funds are devoted to bicycle and pedestrian projects within road right‐of‐way, per state law. 
In Toledo’s budget for Fiscal Year 2011‐12, the street fund included $979,310 and $17,473 for bicycle and 
pedestrian projects. The Street Fund is not entirely dedicated to road construction projects ‐ most funding 
supports maintenance, upkeep, and reconstruction. The City has around $100,000 per year to construct 
transportation projects. Assuming that transportation will remain steady for the next 20 years, the amount of 
money that the City of Toledo will be able to devote to transportation projects in the next 20 years is $2 million, 
and approximately $350,000 dedicated to bicycle and pedestrian projects over the same time period. 
Federal funding comes from Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP‐21) federal surface 
transportation legislation passed in 2012. The Highway Trust Fund (HTF) account within MAP‐21 is funded by 
motor vehicle fuel taxes and other fees, as well as the general revenue fund. The HTF is used to finance the 
Surface Transportation Program (STP), among other formula programs, which is the primary program that funds 
local government and non‐highway projects. Projects that receive federal funding must be included in the four‐
year Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and are usually required to be matched with state or 
local funding. The Cascades West Area Commission on Transportation (CWACT) is responsible for allocating 
funding for counties and cities under its jurisdiction, and ACTs will play a central role in prioritizing projects for 
funding through the Enhance‐It STIP.  
TOLEDO TSP: COSTS AND PRIORITIES FOR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 
6  
To ensure that Toledo is involved in the STIP decision‐making process and to advocate for STIP projects 
important to the community, the City should continue to actively participate in the CWACT. 
Federal active transportation funding is now incorporated into the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) in 
MAP‐21, replacing the separate Recreational Trails, Safe Routes to Schools, and Transportation Enhancement (TE) 
Programs from the previous surface transportation program. TAP funds can be used for Recreational Trails, Safe 
Routes to School, and those projects previously eligible for TE including bicycle and pedestrian projects, 
landscaping, historic preservation, and other projects. However, the amount of funding allocated to TAP is 
significantly reduced from the three previous programs added together. 
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Updates 
Since the project team completed Technical Memorandum #2, the categories for how the state of Oregon funds 
its 4‐year capital improvement program has changed. Projects included in the STIP are generally “regionally 
significant” and are prioritized by Area Commissions on Transportation (ACTs). ACTs are regional advisory bodies, 
and the appropriate ACT for Toledo is the Cascades West ACT. All regionally significant state and local projects, as 
well as all federally‐funded projects and programs, must be included in the STIP. About 80 percent of STIP projects 
use federal funds, most of which will originate from MAP‐21 programs. This includes the STP, TAP, and National 
Highway Performance Program funding for preservation and improvement of the National Highway System. In 
addition, Regional Flexible Funds competitive grants awarded every two years towards bicycle, pedestrian, transit 
and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) projects are now included in the STIP. 
Beginning with the 2015‐18 STIP, the process will be reorganized into two broad categories: “Fix‐it” and 
“Enhance” that encompass the previous funding categories detailed in the 2012‐2015 STIP. “Fix‐it” projects are 
those that fix or preserve the current transportation system; “Enhance” projects are those that enhance, expand 
or improve the transportation system. The main purpose of this reorganization is to allow maximum flexibility to 
fund projects that reflect community and state values, rather than those that fit best into prescriptive programs.  
 
Applicable “Fix‐it” activities will include:  Applicable “Enhance” activities will include: 
• Bridges (state owned)  • Bicycle and/or Pedestrian facilities on or off the highway 
right‐of‐way  
• High Risk Rural Roads  • Most projects previously eligible for Transportation 
Enhancement funds 
• Illumination, signs and signals  • Bike/Ped, Transit, TDM projects eligible for Flexible Funds 
(using federal STP and CMAQ funds) 
• Safety  • Safe Routes to School (infrastructure projects) 
  • Transportation Alternatives (new with MAP‐21) 
Under this new STIP organization, there will be one application for all projects eligible under the “Enhance” 
program. Communities will apply for the “Enhance” projects that best serve their community and ODOT will 
determine the appropriate funding mechanism. The OTC will select “Enhance” projects based on 
recommendations developed by local governments, public agencies, and citizen representatives through the 
ACTs. “Fix‐it” projects will be selected with input from infrastructure management systems, supported by 
consultations with the ACTs. This new organization is primarily intended to increase funding flexibility and does 
not represent a fundamental change in the type of projects that will be funded through the STIP. Seventy‐six 
percent of the STIP funding will go to “Fix‐it” projects, while 24 percent will go to “Enhance” projects.  
Non-STIP State Funding Sources 
Other sources of state funding include: 
 ConnectOregon lottery‐backed bonds, distributed in order to improve connections between the highway 
system and other modes of transportation, and can be used for Port of Toledo projects. 
TOLEDO TSP: COSTS AND PRIORITIES FOR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 
 7 
 Immediate Opportunity Fund, providing funding for transportation projects essential for supporting site‐
specific economic development projects on a case‐by‐case basis. 
 Special City Allotment Grants, distributed among cities with population of less than 5,000 to help repair or 
reconstruct City‐maintained streets that are inadequate for the capacity they serve or are deemed in 
unsafe condition. 
 Oregon Infrastructure Authority programs, such as the Marine Navigation Improvement Fund and Port 
Revolving Loan Fund, which can be used on projects to improve the Port of Toledo. 
 Oregon Transportation Infrastructure Bank (OTIB), a statewide revolving loan fund available for highway 
projects on major collectors or higher classification, and bicycle or pedestrian access projects on highway 
right‐of‐way. 
 ODOT’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Grant Program, distributed every two years for facility design and 
construction within public rights‐of‐way.  
 Oregon Parks and Recreation Department administers Recreational Trails Grants for new facilities, such as 
bridges and trailheads, as well as signage, and land acquisition or easement costs.  
To implement additional transportation projects not may not be included in the City’s fiscally constrained project 
list, the City may pursue funding transportation project with the following programs:  
 Local Improvement District (LID), created by property owners within a district to raise revenues for 
infrastructure improvements within district boundaries. 
 Tax Increment Financing (TIF), as part of an urban renewal area (URA) where a cap is placed on assessed 
value of properties within the URA, and any taxes collected above this cap go towards improvements in 
the URA. 
 Roads District, a special roads taxing district for the purposes of constructing and maintaining roads 
 Parking fees, most likely in Downtown Toledo 
 Revenue or general obligation bonds, financing construction of large capital improvement projects by 
borrowing money and paying it back over time in smaller installments but increasing the total cost over 
time due to interest. 
Next Steps 
The PMT, PAC, and Community will review these projects and priorities. The project team will make any necessary 
changes, and then the alternatives supported by City stakeholders will be included as recommendations in the 
Toledo TSP. Once the recommendations and priorities are determined, the project team will create the fiscally 
constrained project list to determine which projects can be funded with existing funding sources, and which 
projects will need additional funding before implementation.
  
Attachment A Cost Estimate Detail 
Toledo TSP - Estimate Summary 2/14/2013
Project Estimated Cost
Freight Route Signing $12,000
Western Junction Diamond Interchange $9,846,000
Western Junction Low Build $2,336,000
Western Junction Roundabout $3,310,000
Western Junction Traffic Signal $7,586,000
Right Turn Pocket on eastbound Bus. Loop 20 @ A Street $449,000
Improve East Slope Road Vertical Alignment $635,000
Realign Burgess Road @ Bus. Loop 20 $298,000
Sturdevant Roadway Realignment for Siletz Site Access $595,000
Pavement Markings to 1st Street Railroad Crossing $1,000
Burgess Road Sidewalk $172,000
Bus. Loop 20 Sidewalk_East Slope to Sturdevant $1,093,000
Sidewalk and Multi-use Path along Business loop 20 between US 20 and NW 6th $2,675,000
Douglas Street/3rd Street Sidewalk $63,000
East Slope Road Sidewalk Extension $551,000
Highly Visible Crosswalks at both Jr/Sr High School & Elementary School  $68,000
Pedestrian Advisory Signs @ Butler Bridge & 1st Street Intersection $37,000
Discourage Vehicles at SE 2nd Street Ped Crossing on SE Butler Bridge Road at Railroad Tracks $11,000
Multi-Use Path along Studevant Road $4,227,000
Bay Boulevard Bicycle Wayfinding Signs $10,000
ROADWAY PROJECTS ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COST ESTIMATES
1 of 42
DATE:
2/14/2013
SHEET:
1 of 1
NO. UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
1 EA 12.00 $500.00 $6,000
2 Mi. $217,900.00 $0
3 Lane-Mi. $412,500.00 $0
4 Lane-Mi. $89,400.00 $0
5 Lane-Mi. $438,900.00 $0
6 EA $76,500.00 $0
7 LS $35,000.00 $0
8 EA $300,000.00 $0
9 EA $75,000.00 $0
10 CY $7.50 $0
11 5-10% - $0
12 Mi. $260,000.00 $0
13 Mi. $235,000.00 $0
14 SF $150.00 $0
15 SF $75.00 $0
$6,000
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
1.0-2.5% 1.0% $100
3.0-8.0% 3.0% $200
8.0-10.0% 10.0% $600
0.5-2.0% 0.0% $0
30-40% 40.0% $2,400
0.5-2.0% 0.0% $0
2013
$9,300
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
SF 0 $0
LS All $0
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
15.0% $1,400
10.0% $900
$12,000
Assumptions:
For each approach to Bus. US20 along US20:
Advanced "Truck Route" Sign (R14-1) with "Ahead" Aux Sign (W16-9P, white)
At intersection, "Truck Route" Sign (R14-1) with Turn Arrow Aux sign (M6-3)
4 signs for 2 approaches, for 8 total small signs
No "Trucks" Sign (R14-5) on non truck routes, assume 4 signs
ITEM
TOLEDO TSP - ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE
PROJECT:
Freight Route Signing
PREPARED BY:
DESIGN LEVEL: Planning B. Adams
KIND OF WORK:
Signing
LENGTH (MILE):
Illumination
New Signs - Small
Multi-use Path
New Roadway
Overlay Existing Roadway
Reconstruct Existing Roadway
Intersection Widening
Interconnect Signal
New Signal
Signal Modifications
Earthwork (See Note)
Traffic Calming
Design Year
Landscaping
Bridges
Walls
SUBTOTAL
ADDITIONAL CONST. COSTS
Construction Surveying
TP & DT
Mobilization
Erosion Control
Contingency
Escalation (per year)
Design Engineering
Construction Engineering
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Construction Year
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
RIGHT OF WAY COSTS
New Right of Way Acquisition
Structure(s)
ENGINEERING COSTS
Project R1 2 of 42
DATE:
2/14/2013
SHEET:
1 of 1
NO. UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
1 Mi. 0.27 $935,700.00 $248,102
2 Mi. $217,900.00 $0
3 Lane-Mi. 3.8 $412,500.00 $1,556,641
4 EA $76,500.00 $0
5 LS $35,000.00 $0
6 EA $300,000.00 $0
7 EA $75,000.00 $0
8 CY 64,000 $7.50 $480,000
9 5-10% - $0
10 Mi. 0.27 $260,000.00 $68,939
11 Mi. 0.27 $235,000.00 $62,311
12 SF 12880.0 $150.00 $1,932,000
13 SF 6,000 $75.00 $450,000
$4,797,993
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
1.0-2.5% 2.5% $119,900
3.0-8.0% 8.0% $383,800
8.0-10.0% 10.0% $479,800
0.5-2.0% 2.0% $96,000
30-40% 40.0% $1,919,200
0.5-2.0% 0.0% $0
2013
$7,796,693
ANTICIPATED ADDITIONAL COSTS
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
LS 1 $100,000.00 $100,000
EA $600,000.00 $0
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
SF 0 $0
LS All $0
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
15.0% $1,169,500
10.0% $779,700
$9,846,000
Cost Assumptions:
Assumes Diamond Interchange
Assumes wetland impacts due to OR229 realignment and southbound on-ramp
No Right-of-Way Costs are considered
US20: 14955 lane-feet
   Assumes full-depth reconstruction of existing pavement
2050' EB lane with 2030' of 8-ft shoulder = 3420 lane-feet
2050' WB lane with 2030' of 8-ft shoulder = 3420 lane-feet
ITEM
TOLEDO TSP - ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE
PROJECT: Western Junction Diamond 
Interchange PREPARED BY:
DESIGN LEVEL: Planning B. Adams
KIND OF WORK: Roadway, Earthwork, Drainage, Lighting, 
Structures
LENGTH (MILE):
Illumination
Curb, Gutter, Sidewalks & Drainage
Multi-use Path
New Roadway
Intersection Widening
Interconnect Signal
New Signal
Signal Modifications
Earthwork (See Note)
Traffic Calming
Design Year
Landscaping
Bridges
Walls
SUBTOTAL
ADDITIONAL CONST. COSTS
Construction Surveying
TP & DT
Mobilization
Erosion Control
Contingency
Escalation (per year)
Design Engineering
Construction Engineering
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Construction Year
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
RIGHT OF WAY COSTS
New Right of Way Acquisition
Structure(s)
ENGINEERING COSTS
Sensitive Area Impact Mitigation
Railroad Crossing
Project R4 3 of 42
500' acceleration lane for both on-ramps = 1000 lane-feet
4100' of 8-ft shoulder = 2735 lane-feet
Each ramp is 22' wide, (600' + 620' + 560' + 610' )= 2390' total = 4380 lane-feet
OR229: 4970 lane-feet
Assumes curb/sidewalks along OR229 through interchange
1400' NB lane with 1400' of 6-ft shoulder = 2100 lane-feet
1400' NB lane with 1400' of 6-ft shoulder = 2100 lane-feet
Median: 470' of 14-width, with 300' of taper length = 770 lane-feet
   2 Bridges (1 interchange, 1 over slough)
   Interchange bridge would accommodate a 4-lane US20 and 130' span
   Slough bridge assumes 100' span
   Assumes Walls around Slough Bridge Abutments. (4 walls x 150' long x 10' avg. height
Earthwork:
Width (increased to account for embankment fill slopes):
Ramps 35 ft
OR229 65 ft (north) 70 ft (south)
Height: 23 ft
WB on: 620 ft long
WB off: 600 ft long
EB on: 560 ft long
EB off: 610 ft long
OR229, North: 400 ft long
OR229, South: 600 ft long
Lighting only at 4 gores, about 300' each
Design Assumptions:
        US20: 45mph posted (50mph design); US229: 55mph north of US20, assume 35 south of US20
        Improve US20 to 4‐lanes, two 12‐ft lanes each direction, with 8’ right shoulders (64’ width)
        Improve skew angle of US20 and US229; min 60 degrees (HDM Fig. 9‐18)
        Clear zone: 10‐14’ depending on fill slope (HDM Table 4‐3)
       Interchange bridge structure
o   23’ total height from US229 structure surface to US20 roadway surface
o   17’ vertical clearance, High Routes (HDM 4.5.1)
o   6’ thick deck structure
o   Two 12’ travel lanes, 14’ center turning lane
o   6’ sidewalk on each side, 6’ bike/shoulder lane each side
o   62’ roadway from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk
o   Use barrier, not 2:1 slopes
o   (Build to expand to 4 lanes?) No, due to low demand into Toledo via US229
o   Need to span (at a 60 degree skew angle, actual length about 100‐110’)
  Roadway: 64’ total
  Clear zone: 12’ total (including shoulder in the clear zone)
  Add 5’ on each side beyond structure approach
        4 non‐structure ramps between US20 and US229
o   Auxiliary lanes along US20 to US229 (AASHTO P. 814)
o   Max grade on ramp 3%
o   Terminal ramp spread: 610’ (HDM Figure 9‐17)
o   Assume ramps connect to US229 at 18’ above US20 (3% down from overpass)
o   6’ outer shoulder, 4’ inner shoulder
o   Exit Ramp – Total length: 
  Stop condition
  Ramp design speed: 30 mph
  Deceleration length: 315‐ft
Project R4 4 of 42
  Transition length: 100‐ft
  24 degree curve for exit curve
  238.73 ft radius exit curve
o   Entrance Ramp – 
  Ramp design speed 35 mph
  Taper length 300’
  Acceleration lane length 540’
  Degree of curve 18 degrees
  Entrance curve radius 318.31 ft
o   Terminal ramp spread (HDM Figure 9‐17)
        Close off south access to US20 from Western Loop
Project R4 5 of 42
DATE:
2/14/2013
SHEET:
1 of 1
NO. UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
1 Mi. $935,700.00 $0
2 LF 900.0 $50.00 $45,000
3 Lane-Mi. 2.5 $412,500.00 $1,038,672
4 Lane-Mi. 2.5 $26,400.00 $66,475
5 5-10% - $0
6 Mi. $260,000.00 $0
7 Mi. $235,000.00 $0
8 SF $150.00 $0
9 SF $75.00 $0
$1,150,147
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
1.0-2.5% 2.5% $28,800
3.0-8.0% 8.0% $92,000
8.0-10.0% 10.0% $115,000
0.5-2.0% 2.0% $23,000
30-40% 40.0% $460,100
0.5-2.0% 0.0% $0
2013
$1,869,047
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
SF 0 $0
LS All $0
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
15.0% $280,400
10.0% $186,900
$2,336,000
Assumptions:
Assumes widening about the center along US20 
Assumes full-depth reconstruction of all existing pavement
Only earthwork estimated is to construct the proposed pavement section. (8" AC over 10" Agg. Base)
2320' WB lane with 8' right shoulder = 3865 lane-feet
2320' EB lane with 8' right shoulder = 3865 lane-feet
560' right turn lane with 250' taper length, 810' of 6-ft shoulder = 1090 lane-feet
Left turn lane from Bus. US20:
170' lane with 340' of 4' shoulder = 285 lane-feet
West of intersection:
1240' long 26' wide median, includes acceleration lane and non-travel median = 2690 lane-feet
650' to taper out median = 705 lane-feet
East of intersection:
26' to 14' width taper, equals avg. 20' width over 480' = 800 lane-feet
900' of barrier needed for center median
No Right-of-Way Costs are considered
ITEM
TOLEDO TSP - ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE
PROJECT:
Western Junction Low Build
PREPARED BY:
DESIGN LEVEL: Planning B. Adams
KIND OF WORK: Roadway, Earthwork, Drainage, Lighting, 
Structures
LENGTH (MILE):
Illumination
Curb, Gutter, Sidewalks & Drainage
Concrete Barrier
New Roadway
Earthwork (See Note)
Traffic Calming
Design Year
Landscaping
Bridges
Walls
SUBTOTAL
ADDITIONAL CONST. COSTS
Construction Surveying
TP & DT
Mobilization
Erosion Control
Contingency
Escalation (per year)
Design Engineering
Construction Engineering
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Construction Year
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
RIGHT OF WAY COSTS
New Right of Way Acquisition
Structure(s)
ENGINEERING COSTS
Project R5 6 of 42
DATE:
2/14/2013
SHEET:
1 of 1
NO. UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
1 Mi. $935,700.00 $0
2 Mi. $217,900.00 $0
3 Lane-Mi. 2.05 $412,500.00 $843,750
4 Lane-Mi. $89,400.00 $0
5 Lane-Mi. $438,900.00 $0
6 EA $76,500.00 $0
7 LS $35,000.00 $0
8 EA 1 $500,000.00 $500,000
9 EA $75,000.00 $0
10 Lane-Mi. 2.05 $26,400.00 $54,000
11 5-10% - $0
12 Mi. 0.25 $260,000.00 $65,000
13 Mi. 0.50 $235,000.00 $117,500
14 SF $150.00 $0
15 SF $75.00 $0
$1,580,250
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
1.0-2.5% 2.5% $39,500
3.0-8.0% 8.0% $126,400
8.0-10.0% 10.0% $158,000
0.5-2.0% 2.0% $31,600
30-40% 40.0% $632,100
0.5-2.0% 0.0% $0
2013
$2,567,850
ANTICIPATED ADDITIONAL COSTS
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
LS 1 $100,000.00 $100,000
EA $600,000.00 $0
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
SF 0 $0
LS All $0
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
15.0% $385,200
10.0% $256,800
$3,310,000
Assumptions:
Assumes wetland impacts due to OR229 realignment
Assumes 2 Lane Roundabout
Assumes multi-lane approaches and exits on all legs except for the North Leg
Only earthwork estimated is to construct the proposed pavement section. (8" AC over 10" Agg. Base)
No Right-of-Way Costs are considered
ITEM
TOLEDO TSP - ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE
PROJECT:
Western Junction Roundabout
PREPARED BY:
DESIGN LEVEL: Planning B. Adams
KIND OF WORK: Roadway, Earthwork, Drainage, Lighting, 
Structures
LENGTH (MILE):
0.52
Illumination
Curb, Gutter, Sidewalks & Drainage
Multi-use Path
New Roadway
Overlay Existing Roadway
Reconstruct Existing Roadway
Intersection Widening
Interconnect Signal
Roundabout 
Signal Modifications
Earthwork (See Note)
Traffic Calming
Design Year
Landscaping
Bridges
Walls
SUBTOTAL
ADDITIONAL CONST. COSTS
Construction Surveying
TP & DT
Mobilization
Erosion Control
Contingency
Escalation (per year)
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Construction Year
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
RIGHT OF WAY COSTS
New Right of Way Acquisition
Structure(s)
ENGINEERING COSTS
Sensitive Area Impact Mitigation
Railroad Crossing
Design Engineering
Construction Engineering
Project R7 7 of 42
OR229, north of intersection: 2100 lane-feet
1 SB Lane = 700 lane-feet
1 NB Lane = 700 lane-feet
1400' of 6-ft shoulder = 700 lane-feet
OR229, south of intersection: 2920 lane-feet
Two 200' SB lanes, with 480' taper length (40:1) for lane reduction = 1120 lane-feet
Two 200' NB lanes, with 480' taper length (40:1) for lane add = 1120 lane-feet
1360' of 6-ft shoulder = 680 lane-feet
US20, east of intersection: 2920 lane-feet
Two 200' EB lanes, 480' taper length (40:1) for lane reduction = 1120 lane-feet
Two 200' WB lanes, 480' taper length (40:1) for lane add = 1120 lane-feet
1360' of 6-ft shoulder = 680 lane-feet
US20, west of intersection: 2920 lane-feet
Two 200' EB lanes, 480' taper length (40:1) for lane add = 1120 lane-feet
Two 200' WB lanes, 480' taper length (40:1) for lane reduction = 1120 lane-feet
1360' of 6-ft shoulder = 680 lane-feet
Project R7 8 of 42
DATE:
2/14/2013
SHEET:
1 of 1
NO. UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
1 Mi. $935,700.00 $0
2 Mi. $217,900.00 $0
3 Lane-Mi. 7.3 $412,500.00 $3,021,094
4 Lane-Mi. $89,400.00 $0
5 Lane-Mi. $438,900.00 $0
6 EA $76,500.00 $0
7 LS $35,000.00 $0
8 EA 1 $300,000.00 $300,000
9 EA $75,000.00 $0
10 Lane-Mi. 7.3 $26,400.00 $193,350
11 5-10% - $0
12 Mi. $260,000.00 $0
13 Mi. $235,000.00 $0
14 SF 1140.0 $150.00 $171,000
15 SF $75.00 $0
$3,685,444
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
1.0-2.5% 2.5% $92,100
3.0-8.0% 8.0% $294,800
8.0-10.0% 10.0% $368,500
0.5-2.0% 2.0% $73,700
30-40% 40.0% $1,474,200
0.5-2.0% 0.0% $0
2013
$5,988,744
ANTICIPATED ADDITIONAL COSTS
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
LS 1 $100,000.00 $100,000
EA $600,000.00 $0
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
SF 0 $0
LS All $0
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
15.0% $898,300
10.0% $598,900
$7,586,000
Assumptions:
Assumes wetland impacts due to OR229 realignment
Assumes full-depth reconstruction of all existing pavement
Realign OR229 for 90-degree intersection with US20
Assumes structure widening to OR229 bridge
Design speed of 40 mph on OR229, south of extg. structure
ITEM
TOLEDO TSP - ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE
PROJECT:
Western Junction Traffic Signal
PREPARED BY:
DESIGN LEVEL: Planning B. Adams
KIND OF WORK:
Roadway, Earthwork, Signal
LENGTH (MILE):
Illumination
Curb, Gutter, Sidewalks & Drainage
Multi-use Path
New Roadway
Overlay Existing Roadway
Reconstruct Existing Roadway
Intersection Widening
Interconnect Signal
New Signal
Signal Modifications
Earthwork (See Note)
Traffic Calming
Design Year
Landscaping
Bridges
Walls
SUBTOTAL
ADDITIONAL CONST. COSTS
Construction Surveying
TP & DT
Mobilization
Erosion Control
Contingency
Escalation (per year)
Design Engineering
Construction Engineering
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Construction Year
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
RIGHT OF WAY COSTS
New Right of Way Acquisition
Structure(s)
ENGINEERING COSTS
Sensitive Area Impact Mitigation
Railroad Crossing
Project R8 9 of 42
Only earthwork estimated is to construct the proposed pavement section. (8" AC over 10" Agg. Base)
Assumes 12' lanes, including turn lanes
Assume amount of pavement for tapers equals taper length divided by two
OR229, north of intersection: 5100 lane-feet
Two 780' NB lanes, with 480' taper length (40:1) for lane reduction = 2280 lane-feet
Lane reduction occurs north of s-curve
1 SB Lane = 1260', 2 turn pockets at 100' and each with 100' taper length = 1560 lane-feet
2520' of 6-ft shoulder = 1260 lane-feet
OR229, south of intersection: 2290 lane-feet
1 SB Lane = 450 lane-feet
1 NB Lane = 450 lane-feet
100' right turn pocket with 100' taper; Two 350' left pockets with 180' taper length = 940 lane-feet
900' of 6-ft shoulder = 450 lane-feet
US20, east of intersection: 24300 lane-feet
Two 4800' EB lanes = 9600 lane-feet
Two 4800' WB lanes = 9600 lane-feet
Two WB 100' turn pockets with 100' taper lengths = 300 lane-feet
9600' of 8-ft shoulder = 4800 lane-feet
US20, west of intersection: 6980 lane-feet
Two 700' WB lanes, with 600' taper length (50:1) for lane reduction = 2300 lane-feet
Two 700' EB lanes, with 600' taper length (50:1) for lane add = 2300 lane-feet
Two EB 300' turn pockets with 360' taper length, one 250' turn pocket with 100' taper = 1080 lane-feet
2600' of 8-ft shoulder = 1300 lane-feet
No Right-of-Way Costs are considered
Project R8 10 of 42
DATE:
2/14/2013
SHEET:
1 of 1
NO. UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
1 Mi. 0.05 $935,700.00 $44,304
2 Mi. $217,900.00 $0
3 Lane-Mi. 0.04 $412,500.00 $16,016
4 Lane-Mi. $89,400.00 $0
5 Lane-Mi. $438,900.00 $0
6 EA $76,500.00 $0
7 LS $35,000.00 $0
8 EA $300,000.00 $0
9 EA 1 $75,000.00 $75,000
10 CY 2,000 $7.50 $15,000
11 5-10% - $0
12 Mi. 0.00 $260,000.00 $0
13 Mi. $235,000.00 $0
14 SF $150.00 $0
15 SF 1,000 $75.00 $75,000
$225,320
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
1.0-2.5% 2.5% $5,600
3.0-8.0% 5.0% $11,300
8.0-10.0% 10.0% $22,500
0.5-2.0% 2.0% $4,500
30-40% 40.0% $90,100
0.5-2.0% 0.0% $0
2013
$359,320
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
SF 0 $0
LS All $0
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
15.0% $53,900
10.0% $35,900
$449,000
Assumptions:
Turn pocket: (205 lane-feet)
Storage Length: 100' (no traffic study)
Taper length: 150'
14' Width
Include 6' sidewalk
Retaining Wall approx. 200' long x 5' avg. Height
Relocate 1 traffic signal post
No Right-of-Way Costs are considered
ITEM
TOLEDO TSP - ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE
PROJECT: Right Turn Pocket on eastbound Bus. 
Loop 20 @ A Street PREPARED BY:
DESIGN LEVEL: Planning B. Adams
KIND OF WORK: Roadway, Earthwork, Drainage, Signal, 
Lighting
LENGTH (MILE):
Illumination
Curb, Gutter, Sidewalks & Drainage
Multi-use Path
New Roadway
Overlay Existing Roadway
Reconstruct Existing Roadway
Intersection Widening
Interconnect Signal
New Signal
Signal Modifications
Earthwork
Traffic Calming
Design Year
Landscaping
Bridges
Retaining Wall (H>=4')
SUBTOTAL
ADDITIONAL CONST. COSTS
Construction Surveying
TP & DT
Mobilization
Erosion Control
Contingency
Escalation (per year)
Design Engineering
Construction Engineering
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Construction Year
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
RIGHT OF WAY COSTS
New Right of Way Acquisition
Structure(s)
ENGINEERING COSTS
Project R9 11 of 42
DATE:
2/14/2013
SHEET:
1 of 1
NO. UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
1 Mi. $935,700.00 $0
2 Mi. $217,900.00 $0
3 Lane-Mi. 0.5 $412,500.00 $222,750
4 Lane-Mi. $89,400.00 $0
5 Lane-Mi. $438,900.00 $0
6 EA $76,500.00 $0
7 LS $35,000.00 $0
8 EA $300,000.00 $0
9 EA $75,000.00 $0
10 CY 12,000 $7.50 $90,000
11 5-10% - $0
12 Mi. $260,000.00 $0
13 Mi. $235,000.00 $0
14 SF $150.00 $0
15 SF $75.00 $0
$312,750
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
1.0-2.5% 2.5% $7,800
3.0-8.0% 8.0% $25,000
8.0-10.0% 10.0% $31,300
0.5-2.0% 2.0% $6,300
30-40% 40.0% $125,100
0.5-2.0% 0.0% $0
2013
$508,250
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
SF 0 $0
LS All $0
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
15.0% $76,200
10.0% $50,800
$635,000
Assumptions:
Assumes reconstructing 2 x 12' travel lanes and 2 x 6' shoulders for 950' along East Slope Road
Rebuild road to improve vertical alignment and therefore improve sight distance
Retain horizonal alignment
Earthwork assumes lowering the road an avg. of 1.5' and 18' pavement section
Proposed pavement section is 8" AC over 10" Agg. Base
No Right-of-Way Costs are considered
Design Engineering
Construction Engineering
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Construction Year
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
RIGHT OF WAY COSTS
New Right of Way Acquisition
Structure(s)
ENGINEERING COSTS
Design Year
Landscaping
Bridges
Walls
SUBTOTAL
ADDITIONAL CONST. COSTS
Construction Surveying
TP & DT
Mobilization
Erosion Control
Contingency
Escalation (per year)
Illumination
Curb, Gutter, Sidewalks & Drainage
Multi-use Path
New Roadway
Overlay Existing Roadway
Reconstruct Existing Roadway
Intersection Widening
Interconnect Signal
New Signal
Signal Modifications
Earthwork (See Note)
Traffic Calming
ITEM
TOLEDO TSP - ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE
PROJECT: Improve East Slope Road Vertical 
Alignment PREPARED BY:
DESIGN LEVEL: Planning B. Adams
KIND OF WORK:
Roadway, Earthwork, Drainage, Demo
LENGTH (MILE):
0.18
Project R10 12 of 42
DATE:
2/14/2013
SHEET:
1 of 1
NO. UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
1 Mi. $935,700.00 $0
2 Mi. $217,900.00 $0
3 Lane-Mi. 0.34 $412,500.00 $140,625
4 Lane-Mi. $89,400.00 $0
5 Lane-Mi. $438,900.00 $0
6 EA $76,500.00 $0
7 LS $35,000.00 $0
8 EA $300,000.00 $0
9 EA $75,000.00 $0
10 CY 0.34 $26,400.00 $9,000
11 5-10% - $0
12 Mi. $260,000.00 $0
13 Mi. $235,000.00 $0
14 SF $150.00 $0
15 SF $75.00 $0
$149,625
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
1.0-2.5% 2.0% $3,000
3.0-8.0% 5.0% $7,500
8.0-10.0% 10.0% $15,000
0.5-2.0% 2.0% $3,000
30-40% 40.0% $59,900
0.5-2.0% 0.0% $0
2013
$238,025
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
SF 0 $0
LS All $0
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
15.0% $35,700
10.0% $23,800
$298,000
Assumptions:
Only earthwork estimated is to construct the proposed pavement section. (8" AC over 10" Agg. Base)
Burgess Road: (900 lane-feet)
   Two 300' Lanes = 600 lane-feet
600' of 6-ft shoulder = 300 lane-feet
Bus. US20: (900 lane-feet)
Assume minor reconstruction along Bus. US20 only north of Burgess
   Two 300'Lanes = 600 lane-feet
600' of 6-ft shoulder = 300 lane-feet
No Right-of-Way Costs are considered
Design Engineering
Construction Engineering
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Construction Year
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
RIGHT OF WAY COSTS
New Right of Way Acquisition
Structure(s)
ENGINEERING COSTS
Design Year
Landscaping
Bridges
Walls
SUBTOTAL
ADDITIONAL CONST. COSTS
Construction Surveying
TP & DT
Mobilization
Erosion Control
Contingency
Escalation (per year)
Illumination
Curb, Gutter, Sidewalks & Drainage
Multi-use Path
New Roadway
Overlay Existing Roadway
Reconstruct Existing Roadway
Intersection Widening
Interconnect Signal
New Signal
Signal Modifications
Earthwork (See Note)
Traffic Calming
ITEM
TOLEDO TSP - ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE
PROJECT: Realign Burgess Road @ Bus. Loop 
20 PREPARED BY:
DESIGN LEVEL: Planning B. Adams
KIND OF WORK:
Roadway, Earthwork, Drainage, Demo
LENGTH (MILE):
Project R11 13 of 42
DATE:
2/14/2013
SHEET:
1 of 1
NO. UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
1 Mi. $935,700.00 $0
2 Mi. $217,900.00 $0
3 Lane-Mi. 0.7 $412,500.00 $275,391
4 Lane-Mi. $89,400.00 $0
5 Lane-Mi. $438,900.00 $0
6 EA $76,500.00 $0
7 LS $35,000.00 $0
8 EA $300,000.00 $0
9 EA $75,000.00 $0
10 Lane-Mi. 0.7 $26,400.00 $17,625
11 5-10% - $0
12 Mi. $260,000.00 $0
13 Mi. $235,000.00 $0
14 SF $150.00 $0
15 SF $75.00 $0
$293,016
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
1.0-2.5% 2.5% $7,300
3.0-8.0% 8.0% $23,400
8.0-10.0% 10.0% $29,300
0.5-2.0% 2.0% $5,900
30-40% 40.0% $117,200
0.5-2.0% 0.0% $0
2013
$476,116
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
SF 0 $0
LS All $0
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
15.0% $71,400
10.0% $47,600
$595,000
Assumptions:
Only earthwork estimated is to construct the proposed pavement section. (8" AC over 10" Agg. Base)
Sturdevant Road: (3525 lane-feet)
   Two 1175' Lanes = 2350 lane-feet
2350' of 6-ft shoulder = 1175 lane-feet
No Right-of-Way Costs are considered
Design Engineering
Construction Engineering
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Construction Year
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
RIGHT OF WAY COSTS
New Right of Way Acquisition
Structure(s)
ENGINEERING COSTS
Design Year
Landscaping
Bridges
Walls
SUBTOTAL
ADDITIONAL CONST. COSTS
Construction Surveying
TP & DT
Mobilization
Erosion Control
Contingency
Escalation (per year)
Illumination
Curb, Gutter, Sidewalks & Drainage
Multi-use Path
New Roadway
Overlay Existing Roadway
Reconstruct Existing Roadway
Intersection Widening
Interconnect Signal
New Signal
Signal Modifications
Earthwork (See Note)
Traffic Calming
ITEM
TOLEDO TSP - ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE
PROJECT: Sturdevant Roadway Realignment for 
Siletz Site Access PREPARED BY:
DESIGN LEVEL: Planning B. Adams
KIND OF WORK:
Roadway, Earthwork, Drainage, Signs
LENGTH (MILE):
0.22
Project R12 14 of 42
DATE:
2/14/2013
SHEET:
1 of 1
NO. UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
1 Mi. 0.00 $935,700.00 $0
2 LF 505.0 $1.00 $505
3 Lane-Mi. $412,500.00 $0
4 Lane-Mi. $89,400.00 $0
5 Lane-Mi. $438,900.00 $0
6 EA $76,500.00 $0
7 LS $35,000.00 $0
8 EA $300,000.00 $0
9 EA $75,000.00 $0
10 CY $7.50 $0
11 5-10% - $0
12 Mi. 0.00 $260,000.00 $0
13 Mi. 0.00 $235,000.00 $0
14 SF $150.00 $0
15 SF $75.00 $0
$505
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
1.0-2.5% 1.0% $0
3.0-8.0% 3.0% $0
8.0-10.0% 10.0% $100
0.5-2.0% 5.0% $0
30-40% 40.0% $200
0.5-2.0% 0.0% $0
2013
$805
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
SF 0 $0
LS All $0
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
15.0% $120
10.0% $80
$1,000
Assumptions:
Replace Stop Bar on east leg (1st Street): 25' x 3 (paid for as a 4" stripe) = 75'
Replace inside fog stripe for right turns from 1st to Butler Bridge = 100'
Add skipe strip for left turns from Butler Bridge to 1st: 115' x 0.25 = 30'
Replace crosswalk striping across 1st = 50' x 2 x 3 (paid for as a 4" stripe) = 300'
Design Engineering
Construction Engineering
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Construction Year
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
RIGHT OF WAY COSTS
New Right of Way Acquisition
Structure(s)
ENGINEERING COSTS
Design Year
Landscaping
Bridges
Walls
SUBTOTAL
ADDITIONAL CONST. COSTS
Construction Surveying
TP & DT
Mobilization
Erosion Control
Contingency
Escalation (per year)
Illumination
Curb, Gutter, Sidewalks & Drainage
Thermoplastic Pavement Striping
New Roadway
Overlay Existing Roadway
Reconstruct Existing Roadway
Intersection Widening
Interconnect Signal
New Signal
Signal Modifications
Earthwork (See Note)
Traffic Calming
ITEM
TOLEDO TSP - ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE
PROJECT: Pavement Markings to 1st Street 
Railroad Crossing PREPARED BY:
DESIGN LEVEL: Planning B. Adams
KIND OF WORK:
Striping
LENGTH (MILE):
Project R13 15 of 42
DATE:
2/14/2013
SHEET:
1 of 1
NO. UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
1 Mi. 0.09 $935,700.00 $87,545
2 Mi. $217,900.00 $0
3 Lane-Mi. $412,500.00 $0
4 Lane-Mi. $89,400.00 $0
5 Lane-Mi. $438,900.00 $0
6 EA $76,500.00 $0
7 LS $35,000.00 $0
8 EA $300,000.00 $0
9 EA $75,000.00 $0
10 CY $7.50 $0
11 5-10% - $0
12 Mi. $260,000.00 $0
13 Mi. $235,000.00 $0
14 SF $150.00 $0
15 SF $75.00 $0
$87,545
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
1.0-2.5% 2.5% $2,200
3.0-8.0% 3.0% $2,600
8.0-10.0% 10.0% $8,800
0.5-2.0% 2.0% $1,800
30-40% 40.0% $35,000
0.5-2.0% 0.0% $0
2013
$137,945
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
SF 0 $0
LS All $0
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
15.0% $20,700
10.0% $13,800
$172,000
Assumptions:
988' along Burgess Road
6' Sidewalk on 1 side of the road
Assumes no other roadway improvements
Assumes required earthwork is minimal to none
No Right-of-Way Costs are considered
ITEM
TOLEDO TSP - ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE
PROJECT:
Burgess Road Sidewalk
PREPARED BY:
DESIGN LEVEL: Planning B. Adams
KIND OF WORK:
Roadway
LENGTH (MILE):
0.19
Illumination
Curb, Gutter, Sidewalks & Drainage
Multi-use Path
New Roadway
Overlay Existing Roadway
Reconstruct Existing Roadway
Intersection Widening
Interconnect Signal
New Signal
Signal Modifications
Earthwork (See Note)
Traffic Calming
Design Year
Landscaping
Bridges
Walls
SUBTOTAL
ADDITIONAL CONST. COSTS
Construction Surveying
TP & DT
Mobilization
Erosion Control
Contingency
Escalation (per year)
Design Engineering
Construction Engineering
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Construction Year
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
RIGHT OF WAY COSTS
New Right of Way Acquisition
Structure(s)
ENGINEERING COSTS
Project BP1 16 of 42
DATE:
2/14/2013
SHEET:
1 of 1
NO. UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
1 Mi. 0.38 $935,700.00 $355,566
2 Mi. $217,900.00 $0
3 Lane-Mi. 0.38 $412,500.00 $157,031
4 Lane-Mi. $89,400.00 $0
5 Lane-Mi. $438,900.00 $0
6 EA $76,500.00 $0
7 LS $35,000.00 $0
8 EA $300,000.00 $0
9 EA $75,000.00 $0
10 Lane-Mi. 0.38 $26,400.00 $10,050
11 5-10% - $0
12 Mi. $260,000.00 $0
13 Mi. $235,000.00 $0
14 SF $150.00 $0
15 SF 900 $50.00 $45,000
$567,647
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
1.0-2.5% 1.0% $5,700
3.0-8.0% 3.0% $17,000
8.0-10.0% 8.0% $45,400
0.5-2.0% 2.0% $11,400
30-40% 40.0% $227,100
0.5-2.0% 0.0% $0
2013
$874,247
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
SF 0 $0
LS All $0
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
15.0% $131,100
10.0% $87,400
$1,093,000
Assumptions:
Proposed Curb and 6' Sidewalk along eastside of Bus. US20
Sawcut and widen US20 to include a 6' bike lane
4015' of 6' bike lane = 2010 lane-feet
Only earthwork estimated is to construct the proposed pavement section. (8" AC over 10" Agg. Base)
No structure widening on bridge across West Olalla Creek
Retaining Wall approx. 225' long x 4' avg. height near NE 8th Pl
No Right-of-Way Costs are considered
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Construction Year
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
RIGHT OF WAY COSTS
New Right of Way Acquisition
Structure(s)
ENGINEERING COSTS
Design Engineering
Construction Engineering
Design Year
Landscaping
Bridges
Walls
SUBTOTAL
ADDITIONAL CONST. COSTS
Construction Surveying
TP & DT
Mobilization
Erosion Control
Contingency
Escalation (per year)
Illumination
Curb, Gutter, Sidewalks & Drainage
Multi-use Path
New Roadway
Overlay Existing Roadway
Reconstruct Existing Roadway
Intersection Widening
Interconnect Signal
New Signal
Signal Modifications
Earthwork (See Note)
Traffic Calming
ITEM
TOLEDO TSP - ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE
PROJECT: Bus. Loop 20 Sidewalk_East Slope to 
Sturdevant PREPARED BY:
DESIGN LEVEL: Planning B. Adams
KIND OF WORK:
Roadway, Earthwork, Drainage
LENGTH (MILE):
0.76
Project BP2 17 of 42
DATE:
2/14/2013
SHEET:
1 of 1
NO. UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
1 Mi. 0.36 $935,700.00 $336,710
2 Mi. $217,900.00 $0
3 Lane-Mi. 0.18 $412,500.00 $74,219
4 Lane-Mi. $89,400.00 $0
5 Lane-Mi. $438,900.00 $0
6 EA $76,500.00 $0
7 LS $35,000.00 $0
8 EA $300,000.00 $0
9 EA $75,000.00 $0
10 Lane-Mi. 0.36 $26,400.00 $9,500
11 5-10% - $0
12 Mi. $260,000.00 $0
13 Mi. $235,000.00 $0
14 SF $150.00 $0
15 SF $50.00 $0
$420,429
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
1.0-2.5% 1.0% $4,200
3.0-8.0% 3.0% $12,600
8.0-10.0% 8.0% $33,600
0.5-2.0% 2.0% $8,400
30-40% 40.0% $168,200
0.5-2.0% 0.0% $0
2013
$647,429
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
SF 0 $0
LS All $0
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
15.0% $97,100
10.0% $64,700
$809,000
Assumptions:
Proposed Curb and 6' Sidewalk along westside of Bus. US20
Sawcut and widen US20 to include a 6' bike lane
1900' of 6' bike lane = 950 lane-feet
Only earthwork estimated is to construct the proposed pavement section. (8" AC over 10" Agg. Base)
No structure widening on bridge across West Olalla Creek
Retaining Wall approx. 225' long x 4' avg. height near NE 8th Pl
Excludes Multi-Use Boardwalk section (approx. 1725')
No Right-of-Way Costs are considered
ITEM
TOLEDO TSP - ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE
PROJECT: Bus. Loop 20 Sidewalk_US20 to NW 
6th PREPARED BY:
DESIGN LEVEL: Planning B. Adams
KIND OF WORK:
Roadway, Earthwork, Drainage
LENGTH (MILE):
0.36
Illumination
Curb, Gutter, Sidewalks & Drainage
Multi-use Path
New Roadway
Overlay Existing Roadway
Reconstruct Existing Roadway
Intersection Widening
Interconnect Signal
New Signal
Signal Modifications
Earthwork (See Note)
Traffic Calming
Design Year
Landscaping
Bridges
Walls
SUBTOTAL
ADDITIONAL CONST. COSTS
Construction Surveying
TP & DT
Mobilization
Erosion Control
Contingency
Escalation (per year)
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Construction Year
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
RIGHT OF WAY COSTS
New Right of Way Acquisition
Structure(s)
ENGINEERING COSTS
Design Engineering
Construction Engineering
Project BP3 18 of 42
DATE:
2/14/2013
SHEET:
1 of 1
NO. UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
1 Mi. $935,700.00 $0
2 SF 17250.0 $50.00 $862,500
3 Lane-Mi. $412,500.00 $0
4 Lane-Mi. $89,400.00 $0
5 Lane-Mi. $438,900.00 $0
6 EA $76,500.00 $0
7 LS $35,000.00 $0
8 EA $300,000.00 $0
9 EA $75,000.00 $0
10 CY 5,000 $7.50 $37,500
11 5-10% - $0
12 Mi. $260,000.00 $0
13 Mi. $235,000.00 $0
14 SF $150.00 $0
15 SF $50.00 $0
$900,000
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
1.0-2.5% 2.0% $18,000
3.0-8.0% 3.0% $27,000
8.0-10.0% 10.0% $90,000
0.5-2.0% 2.0% $18,000
30-40% 40.0% $360,000
0.5-2.0% 0.0% $0
2013
$1,413,000
ANTICIPATED ADDITIONAL COSTS
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
LS 1 $100,000.00 $100,000
EA $600,000.00 $0
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
SF 0 $0
LS All $0
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
15.0% $212,000
10.0% $141,300
$1,866,000
Assumptions:
Assumes sensitive area impact
Along westside of Bus. US20
Assumes 10' wide x 1725' long wooden boardwalk
Excludes sidewalk construction portion
No Right-of-Way Costs are considered
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Construction Year
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
Sensitive Area Impact Mitigation
Railroad Crossing
RIGHT OF WAY COSTS
New Right of Way Acquisition
Structure(s)
ENGINEERING COSTS
Design Engineering
Construction Engineering
Design Year
Landscaping
Bridges
Walls
SUBTOTAL
ADDITIONAL CONST. COSTS
Construction Surveying
TP & DT
Mobilization
Erosion Control
Contingency
Escalation (per year)
Illumination
Curb, Gutter, Sidewalks & Drainage
Multi-Use Path (Boardwalk)
New Roadway
Overlay Existing Roadway
Reconstruct Existing Roadway
Intersection Widening
Interconnect Signal
New Signal
Signal Modifications
Earthwork (See Note)
Traffic Calming
ITEM
TOLEDO TSP - ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE
PROJECT: Multi-Use Path (Boardwalk) along 
Bus. Loop 20 between US20 & NW 6th PREPARED BY:
DESIGN LEVEL: Planning B. Adams
KIND OF WORK:
Earthwork, Structure
LENGTH (MILE):
0.33
Project BP3-2 19 of 42
DATE:
2/14/2013
SHEET:
1 of 1
NO. UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
1 Mi. 0.03 $935,700.00 $31,899
2 Mi. $217,900.00 $0
3 Lane-Mi. $412,500.00 $0
4 Lane-Mi. $89,400.00 $0
5 Lane-Mi. $438,900.00 $0
6 EA $76,500.00 $0
7 LS $35,000.00 $0
8 EA $300,000.00 $0
9 EA $75,000.00 $0
10 CY $7.50 $0
11 5-10% - $0
12 Mi. $260,000.00 $0
13 Mi. $235,000.00 $0
14 SF $150.00 $0
15 SF $75.00 $0
$31,899
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
1.0-2.5% 2.5% $800
3.0-8.0% 3.0% $1,000
8.0-10.0% 10.0% $3,200
0.5-2.0% 2.0% $600
30-40% 40.0% $12,800
0.5-2.0% 0.0% $0
2013
$50,299
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
SF 0 $0
LS All $0
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
15.0% $7,500
10.0% $5,000
$63,000
Assumptions:
360' near Community Center at 3rd and Douglas
6' Sidewalk on 1 side of the road
Assumes no other roadway improvements
Assumes required earthwork is minimal to none
No Right-of-Way Costs are considered
Design Engineering
Construction Engineering
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Construction Year
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
RIGHT OF WAY COSTS
New Right of Way Acquisition
Structure(s)
ENGINEERING COSTS
Design Year
Landscaping
Bridges
Walls
SUBTOTAL
ADDITIONAL CONST. COSTS
Construction Surveying
TP & DT
Mobilization
Erosion Control
Contingency
Escalation (per year)
Illumination
Curb, Gutter, Sidewalks & Drainage
Multi-use Path
New Roadway
Overlay Existing Roadway
Reconstruct Existing Roadway
Intersection Widening
Interconnect Signal
New Signal
Signal Modifications
Earthwork (See Note)
Traffic Calming
ITEM
TOLEDO TSP - ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE
PROJECT:
Douglas Street/3rd Street Sidewalk
PREPARED BY:
DESIGN LEVEL: Planning B. Adams
KIND OF WORK:
Roadway
LENGTH (MILE):
0.07
Project BP4 20 of 42
DATE:
2/14/2013
SHEET:
1 of 1
NO. UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
1 Mi. 0.21 $935,700.00 $194,938
2 Mi. $217,900.00 $0
3 Lane-Mi. 0.21 $412,500.00 $85,938
4 Lane-Mi. $89,400.00 $0
5 Lane-Mi. $438,900.00 $0
6 EA $76,500.00 $0
7 LS $35,000.00 $0
8 EA $300,000.00 $0
9 EA $75,000.00 $0
10 Lane-Mi. 0.21 $26,400.00 $5,500
11 5-10% - $0
12 Mi. $260,000.00 $0
13 Mi. $235,000.00 $0
14 SF $150.00 $0
15 SF $75.00 $0
$286,375
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
1.0-2.5% 1.0% $2,900
3.0-8.0% 3.0% $8,600
8.0-10.0% 8.0% $22,900
0.5-2.0% 2.0% $5,700
30-40% 40.0% $114,600
0.5-2.0% 0.0% $0
2013
$441,075
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
SF 0 $0
LS All $0
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
15.0% $66,200
10.0% $44,100
$551,000
Assumptions:
Proposed Curb and 6' Sidewalk along northside of East Slope Road between 10th St. & Butler Bridge
Sawcut and widen East Slope Road to include a 6' bike lane
2200' of 6' bike lane = 1100 lane-feet
Only earthwork estimated is to construct the proposed pavement section. (8" AC over 10" Agg. Base)
No Right-of-Way Costs are considered
Design Engineering
Construction Engineering
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Construction Year
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
RIGHT OF WAY COSTS
New Right of Way Acquisition
Structure(s)
ENGINEERING COSTS
Design Year
Landscaping
Bridges
Walls
SUBTOTAL
ADDITIONAL CONST. COSTS
Construction Surveying
TP & DT
Mobilization
Erosion Control
Contingency
Escalation (per year)
Illumination
Curb, Gutter, Sidewalks & Drainage
Multi-use Path
New Roadway
Overlay Existing Roadway
Reconstruct Existing Roadway
Intersection Widening
Interconnect Signal
New Signal
Signal Modifications
Earthwork (See Note)
Traffic Calming
ITEM
TOLEDO TSP - ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE
PROJECT:
East Slope Road Sidewalk Extension
PREPARED BY:
DESIGN LEVEL: Planning B. Adams
KIND OF WORK:
Roadway, Earthwork, Drainage
LENGTH (MILE):
0.42
Project BP5 21 of 42
DATE:
2/14/2013
SHEET:
1 of 1
NO. UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
1 EA 12.00 $500.00 $6,000
2 EA 2.0 $14,000.00 $28,000
3 Lane-Mi. $412,500.00 $0
4 Lane-Mi. $89,400.00 $0
5 Lane-Mi. $438,900.00 $0
6 EA $76,500.00 $0
7 LS $35,000.00 $0
8 EA $300,000.00 $0
9 EA $75,000.00 $0
10 CY $7.50 $0
11 5-10% - $0
12 Mi. $260,000.00 $0
13 Mi. $235,000.00 $0
14 SF $150.00 $0
15 SF $75.00 $0
$34,000
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
1.0-2.5% 1.0% $300
3.0-8.0% 8.0% $2,700
8.0-10.0% 10.0% $3,400
0.5-2.0% 2.0% $700
30-40% 40.0% $13,600
0.5-2.0% 0.0% $0
2013
$54,700
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
SF 0 $0
LS All $0
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
15.0% $8,200
10.0% $5,500
$68,000
Assumptions:
Assumes a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) at each crossing
Provide crosswalk markings and "SCHOOL" marking (MUTCD Fig 7C-1)
Each crosswalk will need 4 school crossing assemblies (MUTCD Fig 7B-1)
School advance crossing assembly, 4 signs per crossing (MUTCD Fig 7B-1))
Design Engineering
Construction Engineering
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Construction Year
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
RIGHT OF WAY COSTS
New Right of Way Acquisition
Structure(s)
ENGINEERING COSTS
Design Year
Landscaping
Bridges
Walls
SUBTOTAL
ADDITIONAL CONST. COSTS
Construction Surveying
TP & DT
Mobilization
Erosion Control
Contingency
Escalation (per year)
Illumination
New Signs - Small
School Crossing with RRFB
New Roadway
Overlay Existing Roadway
Reconstruct Existing Roadway
Intersection Widening
Interconnect Signal
New Signal
Signal Modifications
Earthwork (See Note)
Traffic Calming
ITEM
TOLEDO TSP - ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE
PROJECT: Highly Visible Crosswalks at both 
Jr/Sr High School & Elementary 
School  PREPARED BY:
DESIGN LEVEL: Planning B. Adams
KIND OF WORK:
Signs, Striping
LENGTH (MILE):
Project BP6 22 of 42
DATE:
2/14/2013
SHEET:
1 of 1
NO. UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
1 Mi. 0.00 $935,700.00 $0
2 EA 8 $500.00 $4,000
3 EA 1.0 $15,000.00 $15,000
4 Lane-Mi. $89,400.00 $0
5 Lane-Mi. $438,900.00 $0
6 EA $76,500.00 $0
7 LS $35,000.00 $0
8 EA $300,000.00 $0
9 EA $75,000.00 $0
10 CY $7.50 $0
11 5-10% - $0
12 Mi. $260,000.00 $0
13 Mi. $235,000.00 $0
14 SF $150.00 $0
15 SF $75.00 $0
$19,000
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
1.0-2.5% 1.0% $200
3.0-8.0% 3.0% $600
8.0-10.0% 10.0% $1,900
0.5-2.0% 0.0% $0
30-40% 40.0% $7,600
0.5-2.0% 0.0% $0
2013
$29,300
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
SF 0 $0
LS All $0
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
15.0% $4,400
10.0% $2,900
$37,000
Assumptions:
Recommend installing active RR crossing on Butler Bridge Road, before left turn onto NW 1st St
Dependant on RR approval; Alternative: Install "STOP" sign with Stop Bar
Install advance warning sign (modified W10-11, MUTCD Fig 8B-4) on Butler Bridge Rd
At NW 1st and RR crossing, install sign R15-5 to prevent peds from crossing tracks on south side
On north side of NW 1st, provide signing on both ends of crossing (MUTCD Figure 8D-1)
3 signs and post on each end, 6 total
Design Engineering
Construction Engineering
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Construction Year
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
RIGHT OF WAY COSTS
New Right of Way Acquisition
Structure(s)
ENGINEERING COSTS
Design Year
Landscaping
Bridges
Walls
SUBTOTAL
ADDITIONAL CONST. COSTS
Construction Surveying
TP & DT
Mobilization
Erosion Control
Contingency
Escalation (per year)
Illumination
Curb, Gutter, Sidewalks & Drainage
New Signs - Small
Active Railroad Crossing
Overlay Existing Roadway
Reconstruct Existing Roadway
Intersection Widening
Interconnect Signal
New Signal
Signal Modifications
Earthwork (See Note)
Traffic Calming
ITEM
TOLEDO TSP - ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE
PROJECT: Pedestrian Advisory Signs @ Butler 
Bridge & 1st Street Intersection PREPARED BY:
DESIGN LEVEL: Planning B. Adams
KIND OF WORK:
Signing
LENGTH (MILE):
Project BP7 23 of 42
DATE:
2/14/2013
SHEET:
1 of 1
NO. UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
1 EA 1.00 $2,000.00 $2,000
2 EA 6.0 $500.00 $3,000
3 LF 30.0 $15.00 $450
4 Lane-Mi. $89,400.00 $0
5 Lane-Mi. $438,900.00 $0
6 EA $76,500.00 $0
7 LS $35,000.00 $0
8 EA $300,000.00 $0
9 EA $75,000.00 $0
10 CY $7.50 $0
11 5-10% - $0
12 Mi. $260,000.00 $0
13 Mi. $235,000.00 $0
14 SF $150.00 $0
15 SF $75.00 $0
$5,450
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
1.0-2.5% 1.0% $100
3.0-8.0% 3.0% $200
8.0-10.0% 10.0% $500
0.5-2.0% 0.0% $0
30-40% 40.0% $2,200
0.5-2.0% 0.0% $0
2013
$8,450
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
SF 0 $0
LS All $0
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
15.0% $1,300
10.0% $800
$11,000
Assumptions:
Install bollard on westside of railroad tracks to prevent cars from using crosswalk for existing lot
Provide Signing on both ends of crosswalk (MUTCD Figure 8D-1)
3 signs on each end =  6 total
Curb parking lot side to make crosswalk seem narrower to cars
Design Engineering
Construction Engineering
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Construction Year
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
RIGHT OF WAY COSTS
New Right of Way Acquisition
Structure(s)
ENGINEERING COSTS
Design Year
Landscaping
Bridges
Walls
SUBTOTAL
ADDITIONAL CONST. COSTS
Construction Surveying
TP & DT
Mobilization
Erosion Control
Contingency
Escalation (per year)
Illumination
Bollard
New Signs - Small
Conc. Curb
Overlay Existing Roadway
Reconstruct Existing Roadway
Intersection Widening
Interconnect Signal
New Signal
Signal Modifications
Earthwork (See Note)
Traffic Calming
ITEM
TOLEDO TSP - ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE
PROJECT: Discourage Vehicles at SE 2nd Street 
Ped Crossing on SE Butler Bridge 
Road at Railroad Tracks PREPARED BY:
DESIGN LEVEL: Planning B. Adams
KIND OF WORK:
Roadway, Signing
LENGTH (MILE):
Project BP8 24 of 42
DATE:
2/14/2013
SHEET:
1 of 1
NO. UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
1 Mi. $935,700.00 $0
2 Mi. 1.3 $217,900.00 $283,270
3 SF 29000.0 $50.00 $1,450,000
4 LF 5800.0 $45.00 $261,000
5 Lane-Mi. $438,900.00 $0
6 EA $76,500.00 $0
7 EA $75,000.00 $0
8 CY 5,000 $7.50 $37,500
9 5-10% - $0
10 Mi. $260,000.00 $0
11 Mi. $235,000.00 $0
12 SF $150.00 $0
13 SF $75.00 $0
$2,031,770
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
1.0-2.5% 2.5% $50,800
3.0-8.0% 8.0% $162,500
8.0-10.0% 10.0% $203,200
0.5-2.0% 2.0% $40,600
30-40% 40.0% $812,700
0.5-2.0% 0.0% $0
2013
$3,301,570
ANTICIPATED ADDITIONAL COSTS
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
LS 1 $100,000.00 $100,000
EA $600,000.00 $0
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
SF 0 $0
LS All $0
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
15.0% $495,200
10.0% $330,200
$4,227,000
Assumptions:
Assumes sensitive area impact
Multi-Use Path (Asphalt) = 1.30 mi
Assumes 12' wide Multi-Use Path
Assume wooden boardwalk structure, 2900' long x 10' wide
Includes boardwalk connection west to East Slope Road
Multi-Use Path (Boardwalk) = 0.55 mi
Includes timber pedestrian rail along both sides of entire Boardwalk
No Right-of-Way Costs are considered
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Construction Year
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
RIGHT OF WAY COSTS
New Right of Way Acquisition
Structure(s)
ENGINEERING COSTS
Sensitive Area Impact Mitigation
Railroad Crossing
Design Engineering
Construction Engineering
Design Year
Landscaping
Bridges
Walls
SUBTOTAL
ADDITIONAL CONST. COSTS
Construction Surveying
TP & DT
Mobilization
Erosion Control
Contingency
Escalation (per year)
Illumination
Curb, Gutter, Sidewalks & Drainage
Multi-use Path
Multi-Use Path (Boardwalk)
Timber Pedestrian Rail
Reconstruct Existing Roadway
Intersection Widening
Signal Modifications
Earthwork (See Note)
Traffic Calming
ITEM
TOLEDO TSP - ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE
PROJECT:
Multi-Use Path along Studevant Road
PREPARED BY:
DESIGN LEVEL: Planning B. Adams
KIND OF WORK: Roadway, Earthwork, Drainage, 
Structure
LENGTH (MILE):
1.85
Project BP10 25 of 42
DATE:
2/14/2013
SHEET:
1 of 1
NO. UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
1 EA $2,000.00 $0
2 EA 10.0 $500.00 $5,000
3 LF $15.00 $0
4 Lane-Mi. $89,400.00 $0
5 Lane-Mi. $438,900.00 $0
6 EA $76,500.00 $0
7 LS $35,000.00 $0
8 EA $300,000.00 $0
9 EA $75,000.00 $0
10 CY $7.50 $0
11 5-10% - $0
12 Mi. $260,000.00 $0
13 Mi. $235,000.00 $0
14 SF $150.00 $0
15 SF $75.00 $0
$5,000
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
1.0-2.5% 1.0% $100
3.0-8.0% 3.0% $200
8.0-10.0% 10.0% $500
0.5-2.0% 0.0% $0
30-40% 40.0% $2,000
0.5-2.0% 0.0% $0
2013
$7,800
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
SF 0 $0
LS All $0
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
15.0% $1,200
10.0% $800
$10,000
Assumptions:
Install bollard on westside of railroad tracks to prevent cars from using crosswalk for existing lot
Provide Bike Route Guide Signs (MUTCD D1-type): 
1 downtown, 1 for bike coming into town = 2 signs
Provide Bike Route Signs (MUTCD D11-1 w/arrows): 
2 locations, 2 signs per location, per direction = 8 signs
Design Engineering
Construction Engineering
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Construction Year
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
RIGHT OF WAY COSTS
New Right of Way Acquisition
Structure(s)
ENGINEERING COSTS
Design Year
Landscaping
Bridges
Walls
SUBTOTAL
ADDITIONAL CONST. COSTS
Construction Surveying
TP & DT
Mobilization
Erosion Control
Contingency
Escalation (per year)
Illumination
Bollard
New Signs - Small
Conc. Curb
Overlay Existing Roadway
Reconstruct Existing Roadway
Intersection Widening
Interconnect Signal
New Signal
Signal Modifications
Earthwork (See Note)
Traffic Calming
ITEM
TOLEDO TSP - ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE
PROJECT:
Bay Boulevard Bicycle Wayfinding 
Signs
PREPARED BY:
DESIGN LEVEL: Planning B. Adams
KIND OF WORK:
Signing
LENGTH (MILE):
Project BP12 26 of 42
DATE:
8/1/2012
SHEET:
1 of 1
NO. UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
1 Mi. 0.00 $935,700.00 $0
2 Mi. $217,900.00 $0
3 Lane-Mi. $412,500.00 $0
4 Lane-Mi. $89,400.00 $0
5 Lane-Mi. $438,900.00 $0
6 EA $76,500.00 $0
7 LS $35,000.00 $0
8 EA $300,000.00 $0
9 EA $75,000.00 $0
10 CY $7.50 $0
11 5-10% - $0
12 Mi. 0.00 $260,000.00 $0
13 Mi. 0.00 $235,000.00 $0
14 SF $150.00 $0
15 SF $75.00 $0
$0
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
1.0-2.5% 2.5% $0
3.0-8.0% 8.0% $0
8.0-10.0% 10.0% $0
0.5-2.0% 2.0% $0
30-40% 40.0% $0
0.5-2.0% 0.0% $0
2013
$0
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
SF 0 $5.00 $0
LS All $0
SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE COST
15.0% $0
10.0% $0
$0
Assumptions:
Design Engineering
Construction Engineering
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Construction Year
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
RIGHT OF WAY COSTS
New Right of Way Acquisition
Structure(s)
ENGINEERING COSTS
Design Year
Landscaping
Bridges
Walls
SUBTOTAL
ADDITIONAL CONST. COSTS
Construction Surveying
TP & DT
Mobilization
Erosion Control
Contingency
Escalation (per year)
Illumination
Curb, Gutter, Sidewalks & Drainage
Multi-use Path
New Roadway
Overlay Existing Roadway
Reconstruct Existing Roadway
Intersection Widening
Interconnect Signal
New Signal
Signal Modifications
Earthwork (See Note)
Traffic Calming
ITEM
TOLEDO TSP - ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE
PROJECT:
PREPARED BY:
DESIGN LEVEL: Planning Darren Hippenstiel
KIND OF WORK: Roadway, Earthwork, Drainage, Lighting, 
Structures
LENGTH (MILE):
Project Template 27 of 42
Project Template 28 of 42
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE
Curb, Gutter, Sidewalks & 
Enclosed Drainage
~0.5-ft curb, 1.5-ft gutter pan and 7-ft wide sidewalk (each side)
~18-inch concrete pipe storm system w/ 2-ft of cover
~Storm manhole every 500 LF
~Standard catch basin every 250 LF (each side of the roadway)
Mile #REF!
Bike Boulevard Separated bike facility:
~11-ft wide, 2-in of AC and 12-in of aggregate base
~Clearing and grubbing and removal of structures are included
~20-ft long 12-in culverts every 400 LF
Mile #REF!
New Roadway ~Subgrade preparation, 6-in of AC, 14-in of aggregate base
~Clearing/grubbing, removal of struct.
~18-in culverts every 500 LF.
~1 solid stripe of thermoplastic pavement striping per lane
Lane-Mile #REF!
Overlay Existing Roadway ~Grinding 25% of existing surface and 2-in of new AC
~1 solid stripe of thermoplastic pavement striping per lane Lane-Mile #REF!
Reconstruct Existing 
Roadway
Removal of existing roadway and rebuilding a new facility:
~Removal cost of 4-in AC and 14-in aggregate base
~"New Roadway" cost (listed above)
Lane-Mile #REF!
Intersection Widening Widening two approaches of an existing intersection:
~4 lanes for 150 LF (2 left turn lanes and 2 right turn bay)
~Demolition of all approach curbs and sidewalks.  
~6-in AC and 14-in aggregate base
~Curb, gutter, and sidewalk ft 300 LF per approach
~Relocation of obstructions, clearing/grubbing, landscaping
~2 solid stripes of thermoplastic pavement striping per lane
Each #REF!
Roundabouts Cost to construct 1-lane roundabout at existing intersection:
~4 lanes for 150 LF (2 left turn lanes and 2 right turn bay)
~Demolition of all approach curbs and sidewalks.  
~6-in AC and 14-in aggregate base
~Curb, gutter, and sidewalk ft 300 LF per approach
~Relocation of obstructions, clearing/grubbing, landscaping
~2 solid stripes of thermoplastic pavement striping per lane
Each #REF!
Restriping Existing Roadway ~Removal of existing striping and restriping of existing facility Lane-Mile #REF!
Interconnect Signal ~Lump sum cost to interconnect signal system Lump Sum #REF!
New Signal ~The signal system and all appurtenances (pole, wiring, detection devices, 
etc) for one intersection Each #REF!
Signal Modifications ~All evaluations and modifications Each #REF!
Earthwork Calculated ~Cut/Fill from InRoads Earthwork Calculator LS #REF!
Earthwork Estimated Estimated Based on Roadway Section CY #REF!
Unit Cost Descriptions
Illumination ~luminaire, pole, wiring, and all other appurtenances
~one light pole on each side of the roadway every 200 LF Mile #REF!
Landscaping ~Plantings, topsoil, and irrigation requirements Mile #REF!
Bridges ~Based on estimated square footage of bridge Square Foot VARIES
Walls ~Cost of Standard Retaining Wall Square Foot #REF!
ITEM
Contingency Factor
Right-of-Way Basic ROW estimator based on anticipated ROW area to be acquired Square Foot #REF!
General Contingency for Construction Costs: 30-40%.
Additional Construction & Engineering Costs
DESCRIPTION
Insert the desired percentage from the common range for each factor:General Construction Costs
~Construction Surveying: 1.0-2.5%
~Temporary Protection and Direction of Traffic: 3.0-8.0%
~Mobilization: 8.0-10.0%
~Erosion Control: 0.5-2.0%
Engineering Costs
Given the year and escalation percentage, this estimate can roughly                                                                         
approximate yearly inflation of prices:
~Insert the desired yearly percentage from the common range: 0.5-2.0%
~Insert the construction year (must be design year or later)
Calculated as a percentage of the total Construction Costs:
~Design Engineering: 13.0%
~Construction Engineering: 10.0%
Escalation Factor
~Insert the design year (must be 2007 or later)
Curb, Gutter, Sidewalks, & Enclosed Drainage (Unit: Mile)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Concrete Curb and Gutter LF 10,560       $15.00 $158,400.00
Concrete Sidewalk SF 63,360       $5.00 $316,800.00
15 Inch Storm Sewer Pipe, 10' deep LF 5,280         $65.00 $343,200.00
Storm Manhole EA 21              $2,400.00 $50,400.00
Standard Catch Basin EA 42              $1,200.00 $50,400.00
SUBTOTAL $919,200.00
Clearing and Grubbing - 0.6% $5,515.20
Removal of Structures - 1.2% $11,030.40
TOTAL UNIT COST $935,700.00
Multi-use Path (Unit: Mile)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Asphalt TN 802            $95.00 $76,168.89
Aggregate Base TN 5,788         $20.00 $115,768.89
12 Inch Storm Sewer Pipe, 5' deep LF 260            $85.00 $22,100.00
SUBTOTAL $214,037.78
Clearing and Grubbing - 0.6% $1,284.23
Removal of Structures - 1.2% $2,568.45
TOTAL UNIT COST $217,900.00
Multi-use Path Broadwalk (Unit: SF)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Broadwalk SF $50.00 $50.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $50.00
New Roadway (Unit: Lane-Mile)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Asphalt TN 3,207         $95.00 $304,675.56
Aggregate Base TN 4,341         $20.00 $86,826.67
15 Inch Storm Sewer Pipe, 10' deep LF 130            $65.00 $8,450.00
Excavation CY -             $7.50 $0.00
Embankment CY -             $7.50 $0.00
Thermoplastic Pavement Striping LF 5,280         $1.00 $5,280.00
SUBTOTAL $405,232.22
Clearing and Grubbing - 0.6% $2,431.39
Removal of Structures - 1.2% $4,862.79
TOTAL UNIT COST $412,500.00
New Roadway (Unit: SF)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
New Roadway/SF per Lane Mile SF 1                $6.51 $6.51
TOTAL UNIT COST $7.00
Overlay Existing Roadway (Unit: Lane-Mile)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Asphalt TN 802            $95.00 $76,168.89
Cold Plane Pavement Removal SF 15,840       $0.50 $7,920.00
Thermoplastic Pavement Striping LF 5,280         $1.00 $5,280.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $89,400.00
Reconstruct Existing Roadway (Unit: Lane-Mile)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Excavation CY 3,520         $7.50 $26,400.00
New Roadway - - - $412,500.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $438,900.00
Unit Costs (Based on Development

Intersection Widening (Unit: Each)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Asphalt TN 296            $95.00 $28,130.56
Aggregate Base TN 624            $20.00 $12,470.37
Concrete Curb and Gutter LF 600            $15.00 $9,000.00
Sidewalk SF 4,200         $5.00 $21,000.00
Demolition of Extg. Curb/Sidewalk CY 200            $15.00 $3,000.00
Thermoplastic Pavement Striping LF 1,200         $1.00 $1,200.00
SUBTOTAL $74,800.93
Clearing and Grubbing - 0.6% $448.81
Removal of Structures - 1.2% $897.61
Landscaping - 0.5% $374.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $76,500.00
Large Roundabouts (Unit: Each)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Roundabout EA 1                $500,000.00 $500,000.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $500,000.00
Small Roundabouts (Unit: Each)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Roundabout EA 1                $350,000.00 $350,000.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $350,000.00
Restriping Existing Roadway (Unit: Lane-Mile)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Stripe Removal LF 5,280         $0.65 $3,432.00
Thermoplastic Pavement Striping LF 5,280         $1.00 $5,280.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $8,700.00
Bike Lane Colored Marking (Unit: Square Foot)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Bike Lane Colored Marking SF 1                $2.00 $2.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $2.00
Interconnnect Signal (Unit: Lump Sum)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Interconnect Signal System LS 1                $35,000.00 $35,000.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $35,000.00
New Signal (Unit: Each)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
New Signal LS 1                $300,000.00 $300,000.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $300,000.00
Signal Modifications (Unit: Each)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Modify Signal LS 1                $75,000.00 $75,000.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $75,000.00
Earthwork Estimated (Unit: Lane-Mile)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Excavation CY 3,520         $7.50 $26,400.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $26,400.00
Earthwork Estimated (Unit: CY)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Earthwork (Cut/Fill) CY 1                $7.50 $7.50
TOTAL UNIT COST $7.50
Illumination (Unit: Mile)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Luminaire and appurtenances EA 52              5,000.00$         $260,000.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $260,000.00
Illumination (Unit: EA)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Luminaire and appurtenances EA 1                5,000.00$         $5,000.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $5,000.00
Landscaping (Unit: Mile)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Landscaping LS 1                235,000.00$     $235,000.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $235,000.00
Landscaping (Unit: Square Foot)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Landscaping SF 1                5.56$                $5.56
TOTAL UNIT COST $5.60
Bridges - Short Span (Unit: Square Foot)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
SF 1                $185.00 $185.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $185.00
Bridges - Long Span (Unit: Square Foot)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
SF 1                $250.00 $250.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $250.00
Walls (Unit: Square Foot)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Retaining Wall (H>=4') LS 1                $75.00 $75.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $75.00
Walls (Unit: Square Foot)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Retaining Wall (H<4') LS 1                $50.00 $50.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $50.00
Right-of-Way - Undeveloped (Unit: Square Foot)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Right-of-Way Acquisition LS 1                $5.00 $5.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $5.00
Right-of-Way - Developed (Unit: Square Foot)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Right-of-Way Acquisition LS 1                $8.00 $8.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $8.00
Fence Reconstruction (Unit: LF)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Fence Construction LF 1                $25.00 $25.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $25.00
New Signs - Small (Unit: EA)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Signs EA 1                $500.00 $500.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $500.00
New Signs - Large (Unit: SF)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Signs SF 1                $120.00 $120.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $120.00
New Signs Supports (Unit: EA)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Sign Supports EA 1                $50,000.00 $50,000.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $50,000.00
Guardrail (Unit: LF)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Guardrail LF 1                $50.00 $50.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $50.00
Tree Removal (Unit: EA)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Tree Removal EA 1                $1,000.00 $1,000.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $1,000.00
Concrete Barrier (Unit: LF)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Concrete Barrier LF 1                $50.00 $50.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $50.00
Bus Pullouts (Unit: EA)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Bus Pullouts EA 1                $20,000.00 $20,000.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $20,000.00
Bus Shelter (Unit: EA)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Bus Shelter EA 1                $5,000.00 $5,000.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $5,000.00
Bus (Unit: EA)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Bus EA 1                $440,000.00 $440,000.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $440,000.00
Shuttle (Unit: EA)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Shuttle EA 1                $50,000.00 $50,000.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $50,000.00
Bollard (Unit: EA)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Bollard EA 1                $2,000.00 $2,000.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $2,000.00
Timber Pedestrian Rail (Unit: LF)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Timber Pedestrian Rail LF 1                $45.00 $45.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $45.00
School Crossing Assembly with Rapid Flashing Beacons (Unit: EA)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
School Crossing with RRFB EA 1                $14,000.00 $14,000.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $14,000.00
Active Railroad Crossing (Unit: EA)
ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL
Active RR Crossing EA 1                $15,000.00 $15,000.00
TOTAL UNIT COST $15,000.00
  
Appendix E 
Street Standards
  
   1 
A p p e n d i x  E / T e c h n i c a l  M e m o r a n d u m  # 9  
 
Toledo TSP: Transportation Facility Development Standards 
This memorandum provides draft amendments to the City of Toledo Development Code to include street, 
sidewalk, bicycle lane, and multi‐use path standards, originally developed in Technical Memorandum #4, 
Transportation System Proposed Improvements. These changes establish standards for local streets and off‐street 
pedestrian and bicycle facilities as part of the Toledo Transportation System Plan (TSP). The facility standards are 
presented in table format and include roadway cross‐section figures. These draft proposed amendments will be 
reviewed by the Project Management Team (PMT), the Project Advisory Committee (PAC), Toledo City Council, 
and the Toledo Planning Commission before they are included in the TSP.  
Street standards are based on the City of Toledo Division 3: Street and Transportation System Design Standards 
Manual 2009 standards currently used and depend on street functional classification and the anticipated use 
(consistent with Oregon Administrative Rule 660‐012‐0045(7)). They include standards for lane width, sidewalks, 
bicycle facilities, and other street elements in the public right‐of‐way. The suggested revisions are in this appendix 
are one of amendments will be inserted in Title 16, Subdivisions, Section 16.04.040 General Provisions, new 
Section 16.14, Transportation Facility Standards, and Section 16.16 Planned Development Procedures. The action 
is described in italics at the beginning of each Chapter. 
Proposed Amendments 
Chapter 16.04 – General Provisions 
Section 16.04.040, Definitions. 
Action: Amend Section 16.04.04, Definitions within Chapter 16.04, General Provisions of Title 16, Subdivisions to 
add, remove, or modify the following definitions. Proposed language is underlined, and removed language is struck 
through. 
The terms and phrases used in this title are defined as follows: 
 
"Alley" means a public way of not over twenty (20) feet wide providing a secondary means of access to private 
property. 
 
“Arterial Road” means a high traffic volume street that accommodates longer‐distance trips and prioritizes 
mobility over local access. In Toledo, no streets are designated as an arterial street. 
 
"Bikeway” “Bicycle path" means a hard‐surfaced bicycle way facility with concrete or similar permanent surfacing 
in public or private way designed for and dedicated to bicycle use. There are a number of different facilities 
considered bikeways: a shared lane in a road, a shared‐use roadway shoulder, a dedicated bike lane within or on 
the shoulder of a road, a paved or boardwalk multi‐use path, or other way that is specifically designated for 
bicycle travel or shared bicycle/pedestrian travel. See standards in Section 16.14.030. 
 
"Building line" means a line on a plat, parallel to the road right‐of‐way, indicating the limit beyond which buildings 
or structures may not be erected, or the minimum distance as prescribed by the Toledo zoning ordinance 
between the front property line abutting a road and the closest point of the roof line of any building or structure 
on the land often referred to as a setback line. 
 
"City" means the city of Toledo, Oregon. 
 
"City manager" means the city manager of the city of Toledo, Oregon, or his/her designate(s). 
 
"City recorder" means the city recorder of the city of Toledo, Oregon, or his/her designate(s). 
 
TOLEDO TSP: TRANSPORTATION FACILITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 
2   
"City street" means a public roadway which has been dedicated to the public and accepted by the city and created 
to provide ingress or egress to one or more lots, parcels, areas or tracts of land, including the terms "street," 
"highway," "lane," "avenue," "road" or similar designations. For the purpose of Title 16, the term "city street" 
includes improved public roadways dedicated to the public and accepted and maintained by either Lincoln County 
or the Oregon Department of Transportation. 
 
“Collector Road” means a moderate traffic volume street that accommodates shorter local trips and balances the 
need for local property access and through traffic. Collector streets connect residential traffic on local streets with 
other collector and arterial streets. Within the City of Toledo, collector streets include Business Loop 20, Arcadia 
Drive, Skyline Road, Sturdevant Road, East Slope Road, Butler Bridge Road, and Yaquina Bay Road. 
 
“Commercial Road” means a low speed, low traffic volume street that is within or adjacent to land zoned 
commercial or industrial with a high percentage of freight truck traffic. Commercial streets provide frontage and 
direct access for commercial and industrial uses. This designation is specific to streets in the industrially zoned 
area west of NW A Street adjacent to Industrial Way. 
 
"Comprehensive land use plan" means the plan adopted by the city to serve as a guide to the orderly growth, 
development and improvement of the city, including a written text with goals and policies, a diagrammatic map of 
desired land use allocations, and any amendments to such text and map. 
 
"Commission" means the Toledo planning commission. 
 
"Council" means the Toledo city council. 
 
"Curbline" means the line indicating the edge of the vehicular roadway within the overall right‐of‐way. 
 
"Dividing or division of land" means to segregate an area or tract of land into two or more parcels. 
 
"Easement" means the grant of a right‐of‐way use for a specific purpose, such as an easement for utility purposes 
across a parcel of land. 
 
"Expedited land division" means a division of land for which an applicant specifically applies for an expedited land 
division and which meets the standards of ORS Section 197.360 as modified by city of Toledo standards noted in 
Section 16.20.030. 
 
"Flooding" means the rise of a natural stream or other water body to the level at or above the intermediate 
regional flood, otherwise known as the one hundred (100) year flood, as determined by the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, which periodically covers an area of land that is not under water at other times. 
 
“Local Road” means a low speed, low traffic volume street that connects local traffic to collector and arterial 
streets and prioritizes local access to residences and businesses over through traffic. 
 
"Lot" means a unit of land that is created by a partition or subdivision of land as defined by this title. 
 
"Lot line adjustment" means a modification to lot lines or parcel boundaries which do not result in the creation of 
new lots and includes the consolidation of lots. 
 
“Main Street”: means a low speed, moderate traffic volume local street that serves the downtown retail district 
and has an attractive, pedestrian‐oriented streetscape with landscaping, wider sidewalks, and on‐street parking. 
Main Street accommodates local and freight traffic associated with the downtown business district. This 
designation is specific to Main Street in downtown Toledo 
TOLEDO TSP: TRANSPORTATION FACILITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 
 
  3 
 
"Mobilehome" means a double‐wide (or wider) structure, transportable in sections, each built on a permanent 
chassis, and which is designed to be used for permanent occupancy as a single‐family dwelling unit only. 
 
“Multi‐Use Path” means a pathway used by cyclists, pedestrians, skaters, joggers, wheelchair users and others 
that are physically separated from and prohibit motorized traffic. Multi‐use paths may be located within a street 
right‐of‐way and the surface may be paved, gravel, or accommodated with a boardwalk. Paths can be used for 
either recreational or transportation purposes. See standards under Section 16.14.030. 
 
"Natural hazard" means a natural event which can result in personal injury or property damage, such as flooding, 
landslides, soil erosion, or other damage resulting from water or soil movement. 
 
"Owner" means the person who has ownership of land. 
 
"Ownership" means the existence of legal or equitable title to land. 
 
"Parcel" means a tax lot created by the division of land. 
 
"Partitioning or partitioned land" means to divide a tract of land into two or three parcels (including the parent 
parcel) within one year of the date of the first segregation where such area or tract of land existed as a unit or 
contiguous units of land under a single ownership at the time of such segregation. "Partitioned land" does not 
include division of land resulting from the creation of cemetery lots; and "partitioned land" does not include any 
adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary where an additional parcel is not created and 
where the existing parcel reduced in size by the adjustment, is not reduced below the minimum lot size 
established by the zoning ordinance. "Partitioned land" does not include the sale of a lot in a recorded 
subdivision, even though the lot may have been acquired prior to sale with other contiguous lots or properties by 
a single ownership. 
 
"Major partition" means the partition of land which does not meet the standards for an expedited land division 
and which necessitates the creation of a street as a method of providing access. 
 
"Minor partition" means the partition of land which does not meet the standards for an expedited land division 
and which does not necessitate the creation of a street. 
 
"Pedestrian or bicycle way" means a right‐of‐way for pedestrian or bicycle traffic. 
 
"Person" means and includes a natural person, firm, partnership, association, domestic or foreign corporation, 
joint stock company, trust or any incorporated organization. 
 
"Planned development" means the development of an area of land as a single entity for a number of dwelling 
units or a number of uses, according to a plan which does not correspond in lot size, bulk or type of building, 
density, lot coverage or required open space to the regulations otherwise required by the city of Toledo zoning 
ordinance. 
 
"Plat" means the map, diagram, replat and other writing containing the description, location, specifications, 
dedications, provisions and all other requirements pursuant to Chapters 16.12, 16.16 and 16.20 of this title 
regulating subdivisions and planned developments within the city. 
 
“Principal Arterial” means a high traffic volume and limited access street that accommodates long‐distance trips 
between and through urban areas. Principal arterials have little to no local residential and commercial access and 
TOLEDO TSP: TRANSPORTATION FACILITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 
4   
prioritize through movement, connecting mainly to arterials and collectors. US 20 is the only principal arterial in 
Toledo and is owned and maintained by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 
 
"Record" means to submit documents to the clerk of Lincoln County for the purpose of placing them in official 
public evidence. 
 
"Replat, major" means the reconfiguring of lots in a recorded subdivision plat that results in either the creation of 
four or more additional lots or the deletion of four or more lots within a twelve (12) month period.  
 
"Replat, minor" means the reconfiguring of a portion of the lots in a recorded subdivision or partition plat that 
results in three or fewer lots being created or deleted within a twelve (12) month period. 
 
“Shared‐use Shoulder” means a paved shoulder adjacent to a street travel lane for use by bicyclists and 
pedestrians. Shared‐use shoulders occur on streets that do not include a constructed curb and gutter and lack 
sidewalks or bikeways. 
 
"Sidewalk" means a pedestrian hard‐surfaced walkway with concrete surfacing, or similar permanent surfacing 
within a public street right‐of‐way that is generally located adjacent to and separated from the roadway by a curb 
or planter strip. See standards in Section 16.14.030. 
 
"Single ownership" means a person or group of persons who either singularly or jointly own a contiguous unit of 
land. 
 
"Subdivide land" means to divide an area or tract of land into four or more parcels (including the parent parcel) 
within one year of the date of the first segregation when such area or tract of land existed as a unit or contiguous 
units under a single ownership at the time of such segregation. 
 
"Subdivision" means an area of land that has been subdivided. 
 
"Subdivider" means any person who undertakes the subdivision of land for the purpose of transfer of ownership 
or development at any time, whether immediate or future. 
 
"Tract" means a contiguous area of land that exists or has existed in single ownership. 
(Ord. 1301B § 1 (part), 2004) 
 
Section 16.04.050, General Requirements and Minimum Standards of Design and Development 
Action: Amend Title 16, Subdivisions to add a reference to local street design standards. Proposed language is 
underlined, and removed language is struck through. 
A. Conformity to the Comprehensive Plan. All partitions and subdivisions shall conform with all adopted portions 
of the comprehensive plan, transportation system plan, and all applicable ordinances and design standards of the 
city. Traffic facilities (including streets, pedestrian paths and bicycle paths), community and neighborhood 
facilities and recreational areas should be placed in approximately the same locations designated by the 
comprehensive plan, and transportation system plan. 
B. Access. The partitioning and subdividing of land shall provide each lot or parcel, by means of a fully developed 
city street, satisfactory vehicular access to an existing street pursuant to Chapter 16.14 of this Code. The city 
street for the entire length that is adjacent to the parcel or lot which is being partitioned or subdivided must be a 
fully developed city street unless and exception is granted as per the following standards and procedures: 
1. Partitions and subdivision of land that require the creation of a city public street to serve the proposed 
lots shall be required to provide a city street in accordance comply with the requirements of the adopted 
TOLEDO TSP: TRANSPORTATION FACILITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 
 
  5 
street standards and shall include the public dedication of the required right‐of‐way in the adopted street 
standards. 
 
Chapter 16.14 – Transportation Facility Standards 
Action: Amend Title 16, Subdivisions to add section 16.14 Transportation Facility Standards. Proposed language is 
underlined. 
Section 16.14.010, Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish standards for local streets and accessways 
that minimize pavement width and total right‐of‐way consistent with the operational needs of the facility and 
provide safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access in compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule 
(OAR 660‐012). The Public Infrastructure Design Standards Manual shall be amended to incorporate these 
standards. 
Section 16.14.020, Street and Multi‐Use Path Design Standards. For new streets and multi‐use paths, the rights‐
of‐way and improvements shall be the widths in Section 16.14.030. A Class C Variance is necessary to vary the 
standards in Section 16.14.030 for new streets and multi‐use paths. Existing streets and multi‐use paths are 
exempt from these standards. Where an existing street or multi‐use path is substantially rebuilt1 and cannot meet 
these standards, then they may be waived following the Class C Variance process. Section 16.14.030 lists the 
standards for arterial, collector, commercial, and local roads, as well as the unique standards recommended for 
Main Street in downtown Toledo. The functional classification of existing streets is shown on the City’s 
Transportation System Plan Maps.  
 
Section 16.14.030 Summary of Transportation Facility Standards 
Street and Multi-Use Path Design Standards 
Type of Street 
Road Width 
with Curbs1 
       
Sidewalk (ft) Travel Lane 
Center Median or 
Center Turn Lane 
On-Street 
Parking Bike Lane2 
Arterial 
3‐Lane  63’  Two 12’ travel lanes  14’  None 
6’ on both 
sides 
6’ on both 
sides 
2‐Lane  49’  Two 12’ travel 
lanes 
None  None  6’ on both 
sides 
6’ on both 
sides 
Collector3  45’  Two 12’ travel 
lanes 
None  None  5’ on both 
sides 
5’ on both 
sides 
Commercial  77’  Two 12’ travel lanes  14’  8’ on both sides 
5’ on both 
sides 
6’ on both 
sides 
Local 
Preferred  55’  Two 14’ travel 
lanes 
None  8’ on both sides  Cyclists share 
the travel lane 
5’ on both 
sides 
Minimum  39’  Two 14’ travel 
lanes 
None  None  Cyclists share 
the travel lane 
5’ on both 
sides 
Main Street  61’  Two 12’ travel 
lanes 
None  8’ on both sides  None  10’ on both 
sides 
Multi‐Use Path  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  12’ total width (10’ paved trail 
with 1’ gravel shoulders) 
 
Boardwalk Path  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  12’ total width with side railings; 
10’ if no rails are used 
1Six inch curbs are assumed on either side 
2Bike lanes could be substituted for a 4’ shared use shoulder where topography or other right-of-way constraints exist, at the discretion of 
the Planning Commission 
3 Collector standards apply to the Special Downtown Business District on Business Loop 20 between A Street and NE 3rd Street 
                                                     
 
1 “Substantially rebuilt” refers to a construction project where the pavement or asphalt of the street is removed down to the base rock foundation and rebuilt. 
TOLEDO TSP: TRANSPORTATION FACILITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 
6   
 
Section 16.14.040, Bikeway Standards. Pursuant to the Statewide Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660‐012), 
arterial and collector street widths must include width requirements for bikeways in addition to travel lanes. 
These bikeways must be no less than five (5) feet wide, in each direction of travel. The Planning Commission will 
decide whether bikeways are to be bicycle lanes, shared use shoulders, or multi‐use paths based on the City’s 
evaluation of bicycle use, right‐of‐way constraints, and topography. Paved and boardwalk or multi‐use path 
facility standard widths are also included in Section 16.14.030. The proposed citywide bicycle and pedestrian 
network is shown on the City’s Transportation System Plan Maps.  
Section 16.14.050, Street Cross Section Figures. The standards shown in Figures 16.14.050A through 16.14.050C 
include the cross sections for each of the roadway classifications.
TOLEDO TSP: TRANSPORTATION FACILITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 
 
  7 
Figure 16.14.050A 
Arterial Road Standards 
 
 
  
TOLEDO TSP: TRANSPORTATION FACILITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 
8   
Figure 16.14.050B 
Collector and Commercial Road Standards  
 
TOLEDO TSP: TRANSPORTATION FACILITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 
 
  9 
Figure 16.14.050C 
Local Road and Main Street Standards 
 
TOLEDO TSP: TRANSPORTATION FACILITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 
10   
Section 16.14.060, Grades and Curves. 
Grades shall not exceed 6% on arterials, 10% on collector streets, or 12% on any other streets. Centerline radii of 
curves shall not be less than 300 feet on major arterials, 200 feet on collectors, and continuing residential streets, 
and 100 feet on other streets and alleys and shall be rounded to an even 10 feet.  Where existing conditions, 
particularly the topography, make it otherwise impracticable to provide buildable sites, the Planning Commission 
may accept steeper grades and sharper curves.  
 
Chapter 16.16 – Planned Development Procedures 
Action: Amend Title 16, Subdivisions to add a reference to local street design standards. Proposed language is 
underlined. 
Section 16.16.090, Criteria for Preliminary Evaluation of Planned Development  
A. The granting of preliminary approval is a statement to the applicant to proceed with the development under 
the conditions set forth by the planning commission. Therefore, the planning commission shall apply the following 
criteria to a proposal for a planned development: 
 
1. All required information has been submitted; 
 
2. Every aspect of the planned development conforms to all applicable ordinance standards; 
 
3. The proposal complies with the city comprehensive land use plan; 
 
4. All streets, sidewalks and ways meet the standards and specifications set by the city pursuant to 
Chapter 16.14 of this Code; 
 
5. Each unit can be served by city sewer and water and the city has the capacity to provide those services; 
 
6. Identified natural hazards have been addressed and provisions made for insuring that the development 
will proceed without aggravating those hazards; 
 
7. Provisions of city ordinances concerning flood control and prevention have been and will be complied 
with; 
 
8. Provisions have been made for safe and efficient access to the development and safe and efficient 
circulation of motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrian traffic; 
 
9. Adequate off‐street parking has been provided. 
 
  
Appendix F 
Draft Objectives, Code, and Plan Amendments
  
   1 
A p p e n d i x  F / T e c h n i c a l  M e m o r a n d u m  # 1 0  
 
Toledo TSP: Suggested Comprehensive Land Use Plan and 
Development Code Amendments 
To ensure compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule1, this memorandum provides 1) a list of 
suggested amendments to the City of Toledo Municipal Code (TMC) to be considered for adoption after the 
TSP is approved, and 2)a summary of the proposed revisions to the Comprehensive Plan that will be adopted 
upon approval of the TSP. The findings of compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule are presented in 
table‐format and are included in this memorandum as Attachments A and B.  
Please note that suggested code revisions to implement the street system standards is recommended in 
Appendix E, also referred to as Technical Memo #9, which makes changes to TMC 16.04.040, TMC 16.04.050, 
TMC 16.16.090, and adds a new section (TMC 16.14). 
The proposed amendments are outlined in Tables 1 and 2, with references to the TPR requirements that they 
address. Following the table, corresponding text is presented in adoption‐ready format; the draft 
amendments are numbered consistent within the structure of the Toledo Municipal Code and 
Comprehensive Plan. New language that is proposed to be added is underlined and proposed deletions are 
struck through. In some cases, adopting proposed new text will require re‐numbering or re‐lettering of 
subsequent TDC subsections. 
 
Table 1: Summary of Suggested Municipal Code Amendments for future consideration and Corresponding TPR 
Requirements 
 Proposed Development Code Amendments  TPR Requirements 
1.  TMC 16.04.050(A) 
Add references requiring conformity to the transportation system plan for all partitions and 
subdivisions, as well as traffic facilities.  
OAR 660‐12‐
0045(3)(b) 
2.  TMC 16.04.050(E) 
Remove language on public access ways that will be replaced by new subsection 16.12.180 to 
comply with TPR requirements. 
OAR 660‐12‐
0045(3)(b) 
3.  TMC 17.04.020 
Define “transportation facilities and improvements” in TMC 17.04.020 (Definitions) 
OAR 660‐12‐
0045(1)(b) 
4.  TMC 17.08.020 
Explicitly identify transportation facilities as an allowed use in the Single Family Residential 
Zone (R‐S), in order to streamline the permitting process. 
OAR 660‐12‐
0045(1)(b) 
5.  TMC 17.12.020 
Explicitly identify transportation facilities as an allowed use in the General Residential Zone 
(R‐G), in order to streamline the permitting process. 
OAR 660‐12‐
0045(1)(b) 
6.  TMC 17.16.020 
Explicitly identify transportation facilities as an allowed use in the Commercial Zone (C), in 
order to streamline the permitting process. 
OAR 660‐12‐
0045(1)(b) 
7.  TMC 17.20.020 
Explicitly identify transportation facilities as an allowed use in the Light Industrial Zone (L‐I), in 
order to streamline the permitting process. 
OAR 660‐12‐
0045(1)(b) 
                                                     
1 Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660‐012‐0045. 
TOLEDO TSP: SUGGESTED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 
2   
 Proposed Development Code Amendments  TPR Requirements 
8.  TMC 17.24.020 
Explicitly identify transportation facilities as an allowed use in the Industrial Zone (I), in order 
to streamline the permitting process. 
OAR 660‐12‐
0045(1)(b) 
 
9.  TMC 17.28.020 
Explicitly identify transportation facilities as an allowed use in the Natural Resource Zone (N‐
R), in order to streamline the permitting process. 
OAR 660‐12‐
0045(1)(b) 
 
10.  TMC 17.32.020 
Explicitly identify transportation facilities as an allowed use in the Water‐Dependent Zone (W‐
D), in order to streamline the permitting process. 
OAR 660‐12‐
0045(1)(b) 
 
11.  TMC 17.36.020 
Explicitly identify transportation facilities as an allowed use in the Public Lands Zone (P‐L), in 
order to streamline the permitting process. 
OAR 660‐12‐
0045(1)(b) 
 
12.  TMC 17.44.070 (new subsection) 
Add minimum bicycle parking requirements by use to comply with TPR requirements to 
accommodate bicycle travel and help reduce dependence on the automobile.  
OAR 660‐12‐
0045(3)(a) 
 
13.  TMC 17.44.080 (new subsection) 
Establish exceptions to the minimum number of off‐street parking that can be made if 
sufficient bicycle parking is provided. 
OAR 660‐12‐
0045(3)(a) 
14.  TMC 17.48.030 – TMC 17.48.055 
Modifies the existing vehicle access and circulation section to include access standards. 
OAR 660‐12‐
0045(2)(a) 
 
Table 2: Summary of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments 
  Proposed Development Code Amendments 
1.  Purpose 
Add language referring to the adoption of the TSP in 2013 to serve as the Transportation Element of the 
Comprehensive Plan 
2.  Article 12: Transportation 
Add multimodal objectives that were developed for the TSP. 
3.  Article 14: Urbanization and Livability 
Add reference to the TSP as a document to guide future development in Toledo. 
 
The TPR (OAR 660‐012) implements Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goal 12 (Transportation) and 
promotes the development of safe, convenient, and economic transportation systems that reduce 
reliance on automobile travel. TPR Section 660‐012‐0045(1) requires that “each local government shall 
amend its land use regulations to implement the TSP.” 
Recommended changes are based on a review of the City of Toledo Municipal Code and Comprehensive 
Plan for consistency with the TPR.  
TOLEDO TSP: SUGGESTED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 
  3 
Suggested Code Amendments  
The discussion of suggested code revisions changes is organized by (1) the applicable section(s) of the 
TPR that prompts a change in the Municipal Code, (2) a brief description of the recommended change 
(in italics), and (3) the recommended additions, deletions, or revisions to the Municipal Code (in 
underline and strikethrough format).  
Title 16 Subdivisions 
OAR 660‐12‐0045(3)(b) 
Local governments shall adopt land use or subdivision regulations for urban areas and rural communities 
as set forth below. 
On‐site facilities shall be provided which accommodate safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle 
access from within new subdivisions, multi‐family developments, planned developments, shopping 
centers, and commercial districts to adjacent residential areas and transit stops, and to neighborhood 
activity centers within one‐half mile of the development. Single‐family residential developments shall 
generally include streets and access ways. Pedestrian circulation through parking lots should generally 
be provided in the form of access ways. 
Proposed Changes 
The following changes to the Toledo Municipal Code encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel and ensure 
that new development allows for reasonably direct routes with adequate separation from vehicular 
traffic. 
Chapter 16.04 
GENERAL PROVISIONS 
 
Section 16.04.050 General Requirements and Minimum Standards of Design and Development 
The following are the minimum requirements and standards to which partitions and subdivisions must 
conform before approval: 
 
A. Conformity to the Comprehensive Plan and Transportation System Plan. All partitions and 
subdivisions shall conform with to all adopted portions of the comprehensive plan, 
transportation system plan, and all applicable ordinances and design standards of the city. 
Traffic facilities (including streets, pedestrian paths and bicycle paths), community and 
neighborhood facilities and recreational areas should be placed in approximately the same 
locations designated by the comprehensive plan and transportation system plan maps. 
 
E.   Public Access Ways. Public access ways may be required from the applicant as part of the land 
division approval to connect to cul‐de‐sacs, to pass through oddly shaped or unusually long 
blocks, to provide for networks of public paths according to adopted plans or to provide access 
to schools, parks, or other public areas, or to provide secondary public safety vehicular access, 
of such design and location as is reasonably necessary to facilitate public use and provided the 
following criteria is met: 
 
1. Public access ways may be required of the applicant by the planning commission provided 
that the need for the public access way is a result of the proposed development and that the 
public access way required is roughly proportional to the impact of the proposed land 
division. 
 
TOLEDO TSP: SUGGESTED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 
4   
2. Where public access ways have been identified as necessary for public convenience and 
safety by the adopted comprehensive plan or by other adopted lands or policies of the city, 
the planning commission can require the applicant to dedicate the public access way 
provided the city council has authorized the purchase of the public access way. 
Title 17 Zoning  
OAR 660‐12‐0045(1)(b) 
Each local government shall amend its land use regulations to implement the TSP.  
To the extent, if any, that a transportation facility, service, or improvement concerns the application of a 
comprehensive plan provision or land use regulation, it may be allowed without further land use review if 
it is permitted outright or if it is subject to standards that do not require interpretation or the exercise of 
factual, policy or legal judgment. 
Proposed Changes 
The proposed changes to the Toledo Zoning Ordinance sections below ensure that the Toledo TSP and 
the City of Toledo comply with TPR requirement 660‐12‐0045(1)(b). These changes permit 
transportation facilities and improvements outright, thus streamlining the permitting process.  
CHAPTER 17.04 
GENERAL PROVISIONS 
 
Section 17.04.020 Definitions 
Transportation Facilities: A physical facility used to move people and goods from one place to another 
(i.e., streets, sidewalks, pathways, bike lanes, transit stations, bus stops, etc.). 
 
Transportation Improvements: Transportation facility improvements include, but are not limited to: 
 Normal operation, maintenance, repair, and preservation activities associated with existing 
transportation facilities. 
 Installation of culverts, pathways, medians, fencing, guardrails, lighting, and similar types of 
improvements within the existing right‐of‐way  
 Projects specifically identified in the City’s adopted Transportation System Plan 
 Landscaping as part of a transportation facility. 
 Emergency measures necessary for the safety and protection of property or the public. 
 Construction of a street or road as part of an approved subdivision or partition consistent 
with the City’s adopted Transportation System Plan. 
 Construction of a street or road as part of an approved subdivision or land partition 
approved in accordance with the applicable land division ordinance. 
 
  
TOLEDO TSP: SUGGESTED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 
  5 
CHAPTER 17.08 
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (R‐S) 
 
Section 17.08.020 Uses Permitted Outright. In the R‐S Zone, the following uses and their accessory uses 
are permitted outright. Special standards for certain uses, marked with an asterisk (*), are found in 
Section 17.08.090. 
 
A. Single‐family dwellings* and their accessory uses. 
B. Home occupations which comply with Chapter 17.46 
C. Manufactured dwellings.* 
D. Accessory use structures.* 
E. Accessory dwelling units.* 
F. Transportation  facilities  (operation,  maintenance,  preservation,  and  construction  in 
accordance with the City’s Transportation System Plan). 
 
 
CHAPTER 17.12 
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE (R‐G) 
 
Section 17.12.020 Uses Permitted Outright. In the R‐G Zone, the following uses and their accessory uses 
are permitted outright. Special standards for certain uses, marked with an asterisk (*), are found in 
Section 17.12.040. 
 
A. Single‐family dwellings and their accessory uses 
B. Multi‐family dwelling units.  
C. Manufactured dwellings.* 
D. Accessory dwelling units.* 
E. Home occupations which comply with Chapter 17.46 
F. Accessory Use Structures 
G. Registered and licensed residential care facility and residential care homes 
H. Transportation  facilities  (operation,  maintenance,  preservation,  and  construction  in 
accordance with the City’s Transportation System Plan). 
 
 
Chapter 17.16  
COMMERCIAL ZONE (C) 
 
Section 17.16.020 Uses Permitted Outright. In the C Zone, the following uses and their accessory uses 
are permitted outright. Special standards for certain uses, marked with an asterisk (*), are found in 
Section 17.16.050. 
 
A. Retail trade or commercial services, except drive‐in uses. 
B. Entertainment (e.g., theaters, clubs, amusement uses). 
C. Hotel, motels, bed and breakfast facility, hostel, or residency hotels. 
D. Personal  and  professional  services  (e.g.,  child  care  center,  catering/food  services, 
restaurants,  taverns,  laundromats  and  dry  cleaners,  barber  shops  and  salons,  banks  and 
financial institutions, or similar uses). 
E. Medical and dental offices, clinics or laboratories. 
TOLEDO TSP: SUGGESTED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 
6   
F. Office uses (i.e., those not otherwise listed). 
G. Public and  institutional uses  such as  religious uses,  clubs,  lodges, government offices and 
facilities, public safety services, libraries, museums, community centers, public parking lots, 
parks, schools, or other similar uses. 
H. Custom manufacturing of goods  for  retail and/or wholesale  sale on  the premises  such as 
small‐scale crafts, electronic equipment, bakery, furniture, art, sculpture, pottery, or other 
similar types of goods. 
I. Truck and car repair and service ‐ minor.* 
J. Automobile service stations. 
K. One accessory dwelling unit in conjunction with a commercial use and that meets applicable 
code requirements. 
L. Temporary vendors/seasonal commercial uses not to exceed three months. 
M. Transportation  facilities  (operation,  maintenance,  preservation,  and  construction  in 
accordance with the City’s Transportation System Plan). 
 
 
Chapter 17.20 
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE (L‐I) 
 
Section 17.20.020 Uses Permitted Outright. In the L‐I Zone, the following uses and their accessory uses 
are permitted The following light industrial uses and their accessory uses are permitted, subject to 
applicable standards, provided that the uses occur in a building or buildings that together do not exceed 
40,000 square feet of floor area. Special standards for certain uses, marked with an asterisk (*), are 
found in Section 17.20.040. 
 
A. Assembly plants.  
B. Limited manufacturing.  
C. Contractor’s warehouse and shop. 
D. Crane business and related operations. 
E. Storage in conjunction with a permitted use.  
F. Machine shop and fabrication.  
G. Mini‐storage. 
H. Parking in conjunction with uses permitted in the L‐I zone. 
I. Governmental  and  utility  uses  such  as  a  pumping  station,  utility  service  yard,  utility 
substation, public works shop, public safety services, or similar facilities. 
J. Separate office building and/or retail sales in conjunction with a permitted use. *  
K. Wholesale trade.  
L. Auto body shop. * 
M. Truck and car repair and service‐minor. * 
N. Boat building and/or boat repair and related launch facility. 
O. Automobile service stations. 
P. One security dwelling as a separate structure or one security dwelling as part of a building 
for  light‐industrial  use  that  complies with  applicable  codes  for mixed  use  occupation.  A 
security  dwelling  may  only  be  allowed  as  an  accessory  use  in  conjunction  with  uses 
permitted in the L‐I zone. * 
Q. Temporary street vendors/seasonal commercial uses not to exceed six months. 
R. Uses  permitted  outright  in  the  commercial  zone,  but  only  on  parcels  with  frontage  on 
Business Highway 20.  
S. Warehousing. 
TOLEDO TSP: SUGGESTED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 
  7 
T. Railroad line and associated uses. 
U. Commercial fishing gear maintenance, repair and storage. 
V. Food production and/or beverage production. 
W. Research and development.  
X. Low intensity recreation. 
Y. Timber‐based operations, excluding milling and/or processing of wood and paper products. 
Z. Commercial marina or moorage, and or charter boat operation. 
AA. Transportation  facilities  (operation,  maintenance,  preservation,  and  construction  in 
accordance with the City’s Transportation System Plan). 
 
 
Chapter 17.24 
INDUSTRIAL ZONE (I) 
 
Section 17.24.020 Uses Permitted Outright. In the I Zone, the following uses and their accessory uses 
are permitted outright and are found in Section 17.20.040.Special standards for certain uses, marked 
with an asterisk (*), are found in Section 17.24.040. 
 
A. Assembly plants.  
B. Limited manufacturing.  
C. Processing and manufacturing operations, excluding the following: 
a. Asphalt mixing and batching. 
b. Explosives manufacturing.  
c. Petroleum or petroleum products refining. 
d. Fertilizer manufacture. 
e. Gas manufacture. 
f. Slaughterhouse or rendering facility. 
D. Contractor’s warehouse and shop. 
E. Crane business and related operations. 
F. Storage in conjunction with a permitted use.  
G. Machine shop and fabrication.  
H. Mini‐storage. 
I. Parking in conjunction with uses permitted in the I zone. 
J. Governmental  and  utility  uses  such  as  a  pumping  station,  utility  service  yard,  utility 
substation, public works shop, public safety services, or similar facilities. 
K. Separate office building and/or retail sales in conjunction with a permitted use. *  
L. Wholesale trade.  
M. Auto body shop. * 
N. Truck and car repair and service minor. * 
O. Truck and car repair service major. 
P. Automobile service stations. 
Q. One security dwelling as a separate structure or one security dwelling as part of a building 
for  industrial use that complies with applicable codes for mixed use occupation. A security 
dwelling may only be allowed as an accessory use in conjunction with uses permitted in the I 
zone. * 
R. Temporary street vendors/seasonal commercial uses not to exceed six months. 
S. Warehousing. 
T. Railroad line and associated uses. 
U. Commercial fishing gear maintenance, repair and storage. 
TOLEDO TSP: SUGGESTED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 
8   
V. Food production and/or beverage production. 
W. Research and development.  
X. Low intensity recreation. 
Y. Timber‐based operations. 
Z. Shipping facilities. 
AA. Waste transfer, recycling facility, or scrap metal facility. 
BB. Bulk storage of flammable liquids and gases. 
CC. Boat building and/or boat repair and related launch facility.  
DD. Commercial marina or moorage, and or charter boat operation. 
EE. Transportation  facilities  (operation,  maintenance,  preservation,  and  construction  in 
accordance with the City’s Transportation System Plan). 
 
 
Chapter 17.28 
NATURAL RESOURCE ZONE (N‐R) 
 
Section 17.28.020 Uses Permitted Outright. In an N‐R Zone, the following uses and their accessory uses 
are permitted outright: 
 
A. Planting, cultivation and harvesting of timber or agricultural crops.  
B. Pasture.  
C. One  residence  per  tax  lot  existing  on  the  effective  date  of  this  ordinance,  provided  the 
residence is occupied in conjunction with an agricultural use.  
D. Accessory out‐buildings.  
E. Yaquina Estuary Management Unit #33 shall be governed by the permitted uses established 
through the Yaquina Bay Task Force.  
F. Public park facilities. 
G. Transportation  facilities  (operation,  maintenance,  preservation,  and  construction  in 
accordance with the City’s Transportation System Plan). 
 
 
Chapter 17.32 
WATER‐DEPENDENT ZONE (W‐D) 
 
Section 17.32.020 Uses Permitted Outright. In a W‐D Zone, the following uses and their accessory uses 
are permitted outright: 
 
A. Marine terminal or transfer facility for fish, timber, or other water‐borne commerce.  
B. Industrial processing plant which requires access to water body during processing operation.  
C. Log storage which that requires access to water.  
D. Boat building or boat repair and launch facility.  
E. Seafood processing.  
F. Marine fuel sales.  
G. Charter boat operation.  
H. Marine ways and boat ramp.  
I. Commercial marina or moorage.  
J. One  security  dwelling  as  part  of  a  building  for water‐dependent  use  that  complies with 
applicable codes for mixed use occupation. 
K. Any shoreland use or activity necessary in relation to a use allowed under Section 17.32.020.  
TOLEDO TSP: SUGGESTED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 
  9 
L. Any other use which that conforms with the definition of water‐dependent development in 
Section 17.04.020.  
M. Low intensity recreation providing waterfront access. 
N. Transportation  facilities  (operation,  maintenance,  preservation,  and  construction  in 
accordance with the City’s Transportation System Plan). 
 
 
Chapter 17.36 
PUBLIC LANDS ZONE (P‐L) 
 
Section 17.36.020 Uses Permitted Outright. In a P‐L Zone, the following uses and their accessory uses 
are permitted outright: 
 
A. Uses existing at the time of passage of this ordinance and the expansion of those uses are 
permitted outright. 
B. Transportation  facilities  (operation,  maintenance,  preservation,  and  construction  in 
accordance with the City’s Transportation System Plan). 
 
OAR 660‐12‐0045(3)(a) 
Local governments shall adopt land use or subdivision regulations for urban areas and rural communities 
as set forth below.  
Bicycle parking facilities as part of a new multi‐family residential developments of four units or more, 
new retail, office and institutional developments, and all transit transfer stations and park‐and‐ride lots. 
Proposed Changes 
The following changes to the Toledo Municipal code accommodate bicycle travel, help reduce 
dependence on the automobile, and help the City comply with TPR requirements 
 
Chapter 17.44 
OFF‐STREET PARKING AND LOADING 
 
Section 17.44.070 Bicycle Parking Requirements 
A.  Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces. Uses shall provide bicycle parking spaces, as designated 
in the table below.  
 
   
TOLEDO TSP: SUGGESTED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 
10   
Table 17.44.070 
Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces 
Use Categories   Required Spaces  
General Residential Uses 
Apartment dwellings, condominium or time share 
project (Multifamily – more than 2‐family 
dwellings only) 
1 per 6 units  
Rooming or boarding house or fraternity  2, or 1 per 20 bedrooms 
Commercial Uses 
Church  2, or 1 per 4,000 sq. ft. of net building area 
Public or equivalent private or parochial schools  1 per every 4 classrooms, or per CU review  
All other uses  2, or 1 per 12,000 sq. ft. of floor area, or per CU 
review 
Natural Resource Uses 
Public Parks (active recreation areas only)  2 
Industrial or Light Industrial Uses 
All uses  2, or 1 per 40,000 sq. ft. of floor area 
Other uses  Determined through Land Use Review, Site Design 
Review, or CU Review, as applicable 
 
B.   Exemptions. This Section does not apply to single‐family and two‐family housing (attached, 
detached, or manufactured housing), home occupations, agriculture, and livestock uses. 
 
C.  Location and Design. Bicycle parking should be no farther from the main building entrance than the 
distance to the closest vehicle parking space. When allowed within a public right‐of‐way, bicycle 
parking shall be coordinated with the design of street furniture, as applicable.  
 
D.  Lighting. For security, bicycle parking shall be lit at least as well as vehicle parking. 
 
E.  Hazards. Bicycle parking shall not impede or create a hazard to pedestrians. Parking areas shall be 
located so as to not conflict with vision clearance standards. 
 
Section 17.44.080 Bicycle parking credit. 
A. Bicycle Parking Credit. The amount of required vehicle parking may be reduced by up to 25 percent 
with each additional 2 bicycle parking spaces.  
 
OAR 660‐12‐0045(2)(e) 
Local governments shall adopt land use or subdivision regulations consistent with applicable federal and 
state requirements, to protect transportation facilities, corridors and sites for their identified function. 
A process to apply conditions to development proposals in order to minimize impacts and protect 
transportation facilities. 
 
  
TOLEDO TSP: SUGGESTED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 
  11 
Access permit requirements 
Chapter 17.48   Access and Clear Vision Requirements. 
17.48.030    Access permit required.   
 
Access to a public street requires an Access Permit  (a Type  I permit)  in accordance with  the  following 
procedures: 
 
A.    Permits for access to City streets shall be subject to review and approval by the City Manager or 
their designee based on the standards contained in this Chapter, the Toledo Public Improvements 
Requirements and Design Standards, the Toledo Transportation System Plan, and/or the Uniform 
Fire Code as applicable.  An access permit may be in the form of a letter to the applicant, attached 
to  a  land  use  decision  notice,  or  included  as  part  of  the  development  review/building  permit 
approval. 
B.   Permits  for  access  to  State  highways  shall  be  subject  to  review  and  approval  by  the  Oregon 
Department of Transportation (ODOT), except when ODOT has delegated this responsibility to the 
City or Lincoln County.  In that case, the City or County shall determine whether access is granted 
based on its adopted standards. 
C.   Permits for access to County roads/highways shall be subject to review and approval by Lincoln 
County, except where the County has delegated this responsibility to the City,  in which case the 
City shall determine whether access is granted based on adopted City standards. 
 
17.48.040   Conditions of approval.   
 
The  City  or  other  agency with  access  permit  jurisdiction may  require  the  closing  or  consolidation  of 
existing curb cuts or other vehicle access points, recording reciprocal access easements (i.e., for shared 
driveways),  installation of  traffic control devices or  traffic safety devices, and/or other mitigation as a 
condition  of  granting  an  access  permit,  to  ensure  the  safe  and  efficient  operation  of  the  street  and 
highway system.   The City  is authorized to require greater requirements for access  in accordance with 
the adopted city standards for permits issued by any jurisdiction within the city limits. 
 
17.48.050    Access options. 
 
When  vehicle  access  is  required  for development  (i.e.,  for off‐street parking, delivery,  service, drive‐
through facilities, etc.), access shall be provided by one of the following methods.   These methods are 
options  to  the developer unless one method has been specifically required  in conjunction with a  land 
use application. 
 
A.   Option 1.   Access is from an existing or proposed alley or mid‐block lane.  If a property has access 
to an alley or lane, direct access to a public street is not required. 
B.   Option 2.  Access is from a private street or driveway connected to an adjoining property that has 
direct access  to a public  street  (i.e.,  shared driveway).   A public access easement  covering  the 
driveway shall be recorded to assure access to the closest public street for all users of the private 
street/drive. 
C.   Option 3.   Access  is from a public street adjacent to the development parcel.    If practicable, the 
owner/developer may be required to close or consolidate an existing access point as a condition 
of approving a new access. 
 
17.48.055    Access Spacing Standards. 
TOLEDO TSP: SUGGESTED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 
12   
Access spacing  is divided  into two categories: Public Street Intersections and Private Access Driveways. 
Tables 17.48.055a and 17.48.055b include standards for both categories. 
 
Table 17.48.055a 
Public Street Intersection Spacing Standards 
Functional Classification  Public Intersection Spacing 
Arterial  100 feet 
Collector  100 feet 
Local Street (includes Main Street and streets designated as 
Commercial Streets) 
50 feet 
 
Table 17.48.055b 
Private Access Driveway Spacing Standards 
Functional Classification  Driveway Spacing 
Arterial  40 feet 
Collector  20 feet 
Local Street (includes Main Street and streets 
designated as Commercial Streets) 
10 feet 
 
Comprehensive Plan Amendments 
The text below includes proposed amendments to the Toledo Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2000. 
The amendments include adding references to the TSP and its accompanying policies for roadway, 
freight, bicycle/pedestrian, rail, transit, pipeline, airport, and water/port modes. The policies in Article 
12, Transportation, have been reordered into subsections that cover the overall system and each of 
these modes, impacts on land use and development, and operation and maintenance. All existing 
transportation policies in the Comprehensive Plan have been retained except for those policies that 
instruct the City to adopt a TSP. 
Purpose 
The Toledo Comprehensive Plan provides a framework for making better decisions regarding the use of 
land and community resources. The plan is a means of controlling the urban environment, conserving 
Toledo's existing values and guiding growth in the desired directions. The plan is a policy statement 
based upon the existing assets, problems and needs within the community. It predicts future conditions 
and sets forth City policies in an effort to guide the development of Toledo in a positive and productive 
manner. The plan is designed to help Toledo to know its past and present and to develop a future which 
reflects the community's values and goals.  
The plan is a guideline for both short and long term development and is written to assure a 
comprehensive view of how individual projects can contribute to achievement of the community’s goals.  
Change is an inherent part of the community. The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to help the 
community adjust to changing circumstances in a manner which reflects the community's desires. It is a 
tool designed to: 
 be comprehensive 
 be long range 
TOLEDO TSP: SUGGESTED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 
  13 
 be general 
 focus on physical development 
 be related to the social and economic forces that the plan proposes to accommodate 
 to be adopted and used by the City of Toledo to guide land development and use. 
The plan is intended for use by local officials, persons with development interests, neighborhood and 
community groups, state and federal agencies, special districts and citizens of all interests. It provides 
information about the community and how future land use development should be balanced to meet 
the overall needs of the community. The Plan is comprehensive and should not be viewed in parts 
without consideration of the interrelationships with other aspects of the Plan. 
The Toledo Comprehensive Plan was also written in compliance with the Oregon Planning Act and 
addresses the Oregon Statewide Planning Goals. The framework of the plan is based upon the Oregon 
goals with adjustments to assure a comprehensive review of Toledo's specific characteristics and needs. 
This comprehensive policy plan is the central, but not only, document for directing Toledo's future. 
Other planning documents are equally important. Many of these have been used as background reports 
or inventory documents providing specific and detailed information on each of the statewide land use 
planning goals applicable to Toledo. Others include the specific facts regarding Toledo from which the 
Comprehensive Plan statements, policies and objectives are derived. Summaries and references to the 
relevant background materials are found in the 2020 Vision for Toledo, Oregon – The 2000 Toledo 
Comprehensive Land Use Plan Inventory. 
The City of Toledo completed a Transportation System Plan (TSP) in September 2013 for areas within the 
Toledo urban growth boundary. The TSP serves as the Transportation element of the Comprehensive 
Plan. The TSP process considered future growth prospects for the community, evaluated alternatives for 
access and circulation, and included specific recommendations for a balanced transportation system and 
system improvements. 
Planning is a continuous, not a static, process. Over time, the Comprehensive Plan must incorporate new 
values, concerns and opportunities. Periodically (approximately every 5 to 7 years) the plan should be 
revised to reflect the needs, goals and desires of Toledo's residents. 
Article 12 Transportation 
Goals 
1. Provide a safe and efficient, multi‐modal transportation system which provides linkages in a manner 
that enhances Toledo's neighborhoods, environment, economy, and social and scenic values. 
2. Minimize the adverse social, economic, energy, and environmental impact costs of constructing, 
maintaining, and using transportation facilities and services in cooperation with county, state, and 
other public agencies and the private sector.  
3. Encourage safe, efficient, convenient, and economic modes of travel that reduce reliance upon one 
form of transportation, minimize energy consumption and air quality impacts. 
4. Develop a safe and efficient street system that will handle the projected needs of the community and 
provide connections to the region. 
5. Provide safe, accessible, and convenient pedestrian and bicycle facilities while taking into account 
Toledo’s topography, current street use and widths, and current funding levels for major 
improvements. 
TOLEDO TSP: SUGGESTED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 
14   
6. The City of Toledo will seek for all its citizens the maximum level of access to all social, work, and 
welfare resources. 
7. The City of Toledo will seek for all its citizens a customer‐based regionally coordinated public transit 
system that is efficient, effective, and founded on present and future needs. 
8. Minimize the negative impact of the rail system on other aspects of the transportation system, 
adjacent land uses, and quality of life in Toledo. 
9. Encourage land use patterns that maximize rail service or preserve the future opportunity to use rail 
transportation. 
10. Support current rail service in Toledo. 
Objectives 
Multimodal System Objectives 
1. Provide a multi‐modal transportation system which provides services for motorized vehicles, 
bicycles, pedestrians, electronic data transmission, mass transit, and air, rail and water transport 
(including shipping).* 
2. Encourage options other than the personal automobile for transportation services through 
comprehensive land use planning policies that would allow reliance upon the automobile and 
vehicle trips to be reduced. 
a. Improve and support transit services. 
b. Improve and support ride‐sharing opportunities. 
c. Support programs to reduce the single‐occupancy trips for commuters to Newport and 
other Lincoln County and Benton County areas. 
d. Encourage the provision of sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and bicycle paths/lanes. 
3. Support the role of Toledo as a regional center for air, water, rail, and roadway transport 
connections. Within Lincoln County, Toledo has the only sites which provide rail, air, water, and 
roadway connections for moving goods.* 
4. Continue to coordinate transportation planning and services with Lincoln County, Oregon 
Department of Transportation, private industry, and others determining transportation policies, 
programs, and projects.* 
5. Maintain a Transportation System Plan which supports and implements these transportation goals 
and objectives, the Oregon Transportation Goal 12, and the requirements of the Oregon 
Transportation Rule. 
Public Works Objectives 
6. Build and maintain roadways and other transportation facilities in a manner that is the most cost 
effective for the life of the road so as to reduce public maintenance costs.* 
7. Provide transportation facilities designed to maintain safe conditions over time and in adverse 
weather conditions.* 
8. Develop a coordinated approach to the operation, development, and maintenance of transportation 
facilities by linking the construction and maintenance of roadways to the construction and 
maintenance of other public services including wastewater, water, storm drainage, public utilities, 
TOLEDO TSP: SUGGESTED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 
  15 
and public safety vehicle access and to the increased service level demands of new or expanded land 
within the City and Urban Growth Boundary.* 
9. Ensure continued, economically viable, and competitive access to electronic data transmission. 
Maintain the Toledo Public Utilities Commission to provide input to the City Council regarding 
franchises for the operation of public utilities within Toledo.* 
Development/Land Use Objectives 
10. Assure that minimum, adopted national standards for public safety access are maintained for each 
property and that access lanes are provided as fire breaks and evacuation routes within the 
community.* 
11. Require new development to extend/improve transportation facilities to complete transportation 
system linkages and to mitigate impacts of additional traffic from new development on the existing 
transportation system and neighborhoods.* 
12. Maintain standards and procedures to ensure the provision of the desired transportation system as 
each property is developed/redeveloped for more intense uses by coordinating development 
permits with the extension or improvement of streets and other transportation facilities. 
13. Develop and maintain a Transportation System Plan and clear and objective local standards for 
transportation facilities construction and maintenance. Incorporate the use of the TSP and local 
standards into application reviews and permits for all new developments and construction projects. 
14. Minimize disturbances of the natural environment or use of natural resources when locating, 
constructing, maintaining, and using transportation facilities and services. Encourage land use 
patterns which minimize environmental impacts from transporting people, goods, and services. * 
Street System Objectives 
15. Provide a system of roadways that maintain vehicle capacity and public safety as the community 
grows.* 
16. Provide linkages within the community with a circulation system that is safe and convenient to all 
areas within the community and that links the community to Highway 20, rail, air, and water 
shipping facilities.* 
17. Maintain the character of Toledo’s neighborhoods by encouraging local streets that ensure safe and 
efficient traffic flows but which are designed to encourage low speeds and minimize traffic impacts 
within the residential neighborhoods.* 
18. Maintain efficient and safe truck routes to support the transportation of people, goods, and services 
between major employment centers and markets.* 
19. Support and work with the Cascades West Area Commission on Transportation (CWACT) to identify 
funding for Western Junction projects that are in line with Toledo’s vision for the intersection. 
20. Work with partners to add wayfinding signs to direct visitors to downtown Toledo, the Arts District, 
and other Toledo attractions for all modes including vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. 
21. Continue to support transportation access including freight to industrial sites in the City ‐ including 
the Siletz Kiln site ‐ to support economic development. 
22. Maintain flexibility with street standards for all modes given the existing topographical and right‐of‐
way constraints, provide options to minimum standards that provide safe, feasible streets. 
TOLEDO TSP: SUGGESTED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 
16   
23. The designated Functional Classification of streets in the Toledo TSP will be used to prioritize street 
maintenance and guide the location and design of new streets. 
24. Protect the function of existing and planned roadways by application of appropriate setbacks, land 
use regulations, exactions, and voluntary dedication. 
25. All development proposals, plan amendments, or zone changes will conform with the Toledo 
Transportation System Plan. 
26. Consider impacts on existing or planned transportation facilities in all land use decisions. 
27. Coordinate with the Oregon Department of Transportation and Lincoln County Public Works to 
implement the improvements listed in the Toledo Transportation System Plan. 
28. Continue to update capital plans to identify, prioritize, and construct transportation projects giving 
careful consideration to a constrained budget environment, topographical challenges, and 
diminishing sources of outside funding. 
29. Land uses authorized under Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map amendments must 
be consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level of services of transportation facilities. 
Bicycle and Pedestrian System Objectives 
30. Develop a pedestrian and bikeway system which will provide routes to allow pedestrians and 
bicyclists to travel to and from residential areas to schools, parks, places of employment, and 
commercial areas. 
a. Action: If there are stakeholders in this area, then every effort should be made to involve 
these citizens in selecting prioritized routes to be considered for feasibility, safety, and cost 
versus use practicality. 
b. Action: The same stakeholders should also be encouraged to take an active role in 
determining sources of revenue for funding these improvements above the funds currently 
being dedicated for bike lanes. 
c. Action: Coordinate with Lincoln County and private land owners in the development of 
bikeways. 
31. All new arterial and collector streets and major improvements2 to arterial and collector streets shall 
include the pedestrian and bikeway facility specified in the street design standard where feasible. 
32. When traffic volume on existing collector streets (speeds <25mph) exceeds 3,000 ADT consider 
changing the bikeway type from shared roadway to bike lanes. 
33. Low curb crosswalks shall be used at all intersections, consistent with ADA guidelines, to facilitate 
use by all pedestrians. 
34. Where feasible, the City shall allow no physical obstruction of sidewalks such as utility poles, sign 
posts, or guy wires (consistent with ADA guidelines). 
35. Provide safe, convenient, and attractive walking environments through the City with a special 
emphasis in the commercial area. 
36. Visibility and unobstructed views shall be promoted for all areas of high pedestrian use. 
                                                     
2 “Major improvement” refers to a construction project where the pavement or asphalt of the street is removed down to the base rock 
foundation and rebuilt. 
TOLEDO TSP: SUGGESTED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 
  17 
37. Bicycle traffic on sidewalks shall be prohibited. 
38. The City will work with interested landowners to explore local funding options for sidewalk 
improvements such as Local Improvement Districts. 
39. The City supports the development of a well‐developed sidewalk system with street trees to link the 
community to downtown, local parks, and the waterfront. 
40. Support efforts by local schools and emergency service organizations to implement a bicycle, 
pedestrian, and driver safety education program to encourage safe walking, cycling, and driving 
behavior. 
41. Coordinate with rail operators to address rough pavement at railroad crossings to create smooth 
crossings for bicyclists and pedestrians. (This objective is in conjunction with Rail Objectives 61 and 
63 to address railroad crossings). 
42. Identify ways to improve wayfinding resources to guide pedestrians and bicyclists to explore Toledo 
and provides directions to local attractions in downtown and near the waterfront. 
43. Work with regional partners to determine the feasibility of building an intercity multi‐use trail.  
44. Encourage community partners to explore the possibility of instituting a volksmarch3 route in Toledo 
for programming events. 
Port and Water System Objectives 
45. Work with partners to determine the lifespan of Butler Bridge and explore the rebuilding or altering 
the bridge to accommodate taller barges and boats.  
46. Support efforts to develop a pier for barge access at the entrance to Depot Slough on Georgia‐
Pacific property to take advantage of the dredged river channel. 
47. Explore the possibility of a recreational (non‐motorized) boat launch on the waterfront near 
downtown. 
48. Work with the Port of Toledo and other partners to help identify an appropriate dredge spoils site 
for Depot Slough. 
49. Continue to make the proposed intermodal hub at Tokyo Slough (linking water, rail, and freight 
truck transportation) a high priority. 
Transit Objectives 
50. The City will support and promote regional planning for public transportation services that use 
innovative technology to maximize efficiency of operation, planning, and administration of public 
transportation. 
51. The City encourages the use of car pools and park‐and‐ride lots in the area and other strategies to 
reduce the number of single occupant vehicle trips. 
52. The City shall support existing public transportation services by improving facilities including adding 
bus shelters at all stops and promoting public awareness of the services. 
53. The City will coordinate with other jurisdictions when park‐and‐ride facilities are needed. 
                                                     
3 Volksmarching is a form of personal, non‐competitive, fitness walking that originated in Germany and has a popular following in the United 
States. 
TOLEDO TSP: SUGGESTED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 
18   
54. Maintain long‐standing partnership with Lincoln County Transit and the North by Northwest 
Connector to support new investments in transit service and infrastructure, and identify potential 
new funding sources to implement these improvements. 
55. Encourage the Toledo Chamber of Commerce or other organization to explore a citywide transit 
shuttle or circulator that could meet the demand for improved local service for Toledo residents and 
employees. 
56. Encourage local and regional partners to explore long‐term feasibility of water taxi or ferry service 
to Newport. 
Air Objective 
57. If the airport closes, work with partners (including emergency service providers) to identify an 
alternate Life Flight landing site in the City. 
Pipeline Objective 
58. Continue to support the Georgia‐Pacific plant’s effluent pipeline and work with partners to maintain 
applicable environmental permitting. 
Rail Objectives 
59. Retain existing railroad crossings in Toledo and strive for safety measures that offer the highest level 
of protection. 
60. Work with the railroad to minimize the visual and noise impacts of rail traffic. 
61. Continue to work with the railroad to facilitate pedestrian facility installation at all pedestrian 
crossings. 
62. Coordinate with regional organizations to emphasize the importance of the current rail system to 
the economy of Toledo and Lincoln County. 
63. Coordinate regularly with ODOT Rail, Lincoln County, Georgia Pacific, and PNWR to work together to 
address the conditions of the crossings. 
64. Develop evaluation criteria to prioritize public crossing investments and generate a list of 
improvements in order of greatest priority. 
65. Continue to pursue the proposed intermodal hub at Tokyo Slough with the Port of Toledo to add 
potential freight rail customers.  
66. Work with ODOT Rail and PNWR to develop policies to reduce idling train engines near Downtown 
businesses. 
67. Support efforts that will attract new businesses and support existing businesses and industries that 
will utilize freight and potential passenger rail service between Toledo and the I‐5 corridor 
Article 14 Urbanization and Livability 
Goals 
3.   Ensure that all new developments are reviewed expeditiously and thoroughly and result in 
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, the Transportation System Plan 
requirements, and Toledo's Municipal Code and standards. 
TOLEDO TSP: SUGGESTED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 
  19 
Objectives 
1. Work with Lincoln County to ensure that as undeveloped portions of the Urban Growth Boundary 
are in transition from rural to urban uses, development in these areas occurs in a manner consistent 
with the Toledo Comprehensive Plan, Transportation System Plan, and standards for 
redevelopment. 
 
 1 
 
Attachment A: Findings of TPR Compliance in Toledo TSP 
TPR Requirements  Toledo TSP Compliance 
660‐012‐0015 Preparation and Coordination of TSPs 
(3)  Cities and counties shall prepare, adopt and amend 
local TSPs for lands within their planning 
jurisdiction in compliance with this division: 
(a)   Local TSPs shall establish a system of 
transportation facilities and services adequate 
to meet identified local transportation needs 
and shall be consistent with regional TSPs and 
adopted elements of the state TSP; 
The Modal Plans in the TSP include facilities and 
services to meet identified transportation needs. Needs 
are identified in Appendix C, Transportation 
Deficiencies and Needs.  
(5)   The preparation of TSPs shall be coordinated with 
affected state and federal agencies, local 
governments, special districts, and private 
providers of transportation services. 
The TSP Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) 
included representatives from City of Toledo, ODOT, 
and Lincoln County. Portland and Western Railroad was 
invited to all SAC meetings. 
(6)  Mass transit, transportation, airport and port 
districts shall participate in the development of 
TSPs for those transportation facilities and services 
they provide. These districts shall prepare and 
adopt plans for transportation facilities and 
services they provide. Such plans shall be 
consistent with and adequate to carry out relevant 
portions of applicable regional and local TSPs. 
Cooperative agreements executed under ORS 
197.185(2) shall include the requirement that mass 
transit, transportation, airport and port districts 
adopt a plan consistent with the requirements of 
this section. 
The TSP SAC included representatives from Lincoln 
County Transit and the Port of Toledo who participated 
throughout the development of the TSP. The Toledo 
TSP is consistent with Lincoln County Transit and Port of 
Toledo future plans.  
660‐012‐0020 Elements of TSPs 
(2) The TSP Shall include the following elements
(a)   A determination of transportation needs as 
provided in OAR 660‐012‐0030 
Transportation needs are included in Appendix C, 
Transportation Deficiencies and Needs. The Toledo TSP 
also includes a summary of needs for each 
transportation element. 
ATTACHMENT A – TSP COMPLIANCE 
2 
 
TPR Requirements  Toledo TSP Compliance 
(b)   A road plan for a system of arterials and 
collectors and standards for the layout of local 
streets and other important non‐collector 
street connections. Functional classifications of 
roads in regional and local TSP's shall be 
consistent with functional classifications of 
roads in state and regional TSPs and shall 
provide for continuity between adjacent 
jurisdictions. The standards for the layout of 
local streets shall provide for safe and 
convenient bike and pedestrian circulation 
necessary to carry out OAR 660‐012‐
0045(3)(b). New connections to arterials and 
state highways shall be consistent with 
designated access management categories. 
The intent of this requirement is to provide 
guidance on the spacing of future extensions 
and connections along existing and future 
streets which are needed to provide 
reasonably direct routes for bicycle and 
pedestrian travel.  
The standards for the layout of local streets shall 
address: 
(A)   Extensions of existing streets 
(B)   Connections to existing or planned streets, 
including arterials and collectors; and 
(C)   Connections to neighborhood 
destinations. 
The Implementation element of the TSP includes a 
functional classification plan and roadway standards. 
Arterial and collector standards include space for 
sidewalks and bicycle lanes. The standards for the 
layout of local streets address extensions of existing 
streets, connections to existing or planned streets, or 
connections to neighborhood destinations planned 
within the 20‐year TSP timeline. 
ATTACHMENT A – TSP COMPLIANCE 
3 
 
TPR Requirements  Toledo TSP Compliance 
(c)   A public transportation plan which:
(A)  Describes public transportation services 
for the transportation disadvantaged and 
identifies service inadequacies;  
(B)   Describes intercity bus and passenger rail 
service and identifies the location of 
terminals;  
(C)   For areas within an urban growth 
boundary which have public transit 
service, identifies existing and planned 
transit trunk routes, exclusive transit ways, 
terminals and major transfer stations, 
major transit stops, and park‐and‐ride 
stations. Designation of stop or station 
locations may allow for minor adjustments 
in the location of stops to provide for 
efficient transit or traffic operation or to 
provide convenient pedestrian access to 
adjacent or nearby uses.  
The transit modal plan includes existing local and 
regional public transportation services and identifies 
service deficiencies and recommended improvements. 
Existing conditions section describes existing transit 
routes, stops, frequency, and park‐and‐ride locations. 
(d)   A bicycle and pedestrian plan for a network of 
bicycle and pedestrian routes throughout the 
planning area. The network and list of facility 
improvements shall be consistent with the 
requirements of ORS 366.514; 
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan includes a plan for 
bicycle and pedestrian route networks. 
(e)   An air, rail, water and pipeline transportation 
plan which identifies where public use airports, 
mainline and branchline railroads and railroad 
facilities, port facilities, and major regional 
pipelines and terminals are located or planned 
within the planning area. For airports, the 
planning area shall include all areas within 
airport imaginary surfaces and other areas 
covered by state or federal regulations;  
Appendix C, Transportation Deficiencies and Needs and 
the Rail, Water, and Pipeline modal plans include 
descriptions of existing and planned air, rail, port, 
water, and pipeline facilities. The Toledo TSP is 
consistent with Port of Toledo plans and does not 
conflict with future operations at Georgia‐Pacific, 
Toledo State Airport, and Portland and Western 
Railroad. 
(h)   Policies and land use regulations for 
implementing the TSP as provided in OAR 660‐
012‐0045;  
The Implementation and Policy language section 
includes Policy and Code language to implement the 
TSP. Appendix F Code and Plan Amendments includes 
the full text of the implementing ordinances. 
(i)   For areas within an urban growth boundary 
containing a population greater than 2,500 
persons, a transportation financing program as 
provided in OAR 660‐012‐0040.  
Project tables in the Roadway and Pedestrian, Bicycle, 
and Multi‐Use Path modal plans include priority ranking 
and cost estimates. The Implementation and Policy 
Language section summarizes the existing and potential 
future funding sources. Additional information is 
included in Appendix B, Transportation Funding. 
ATTACHMENT A – TSP COMPLIANCE 
4 
 
TPR Requirements  Toledo TSP Compliance 
(a)   An inventory and general assessment of 
existing and committed transportation 
facilities and services by function, type, 
capacity and condition:  
(A)   The transportation capacity analysis shall 
include information on:  
(i)   The capacities of existing and committed 
facilities;  
(ii)   The degree to which those capacities have 
been reached or surpassed on existing 
facilities; and  
(iii)  The assumptions upon which these capacities 
are based.  
(B)   For state and regional facilities, the 
transportation capacity analysis shall be 
consistent with standards of facility 
performance considered acceptable by the 
affected state or regional transportation 
agency;  
(C)   The transportation facility condition analysis 
shall describe the general physical and 
operational condition of each transportation 
facility (e.g., very good, good, fair, poor, very 
poor).  
The roadway modal plan includes a summary of 
roadway capacity. Appendix C, Transportation 
Deficiencies and Needs, includes an in‐depth analysis of 
existing conditions and project future capacity issues on 
the transportation network. 
(3)  (b) A system of planned transportation facilities, 
services and major improvements. The system shall 
include a description of the type or functional 
classification of planned facilities and services and 
their planned capacities and performance 
standards;  
The TSP includes modal plans which describe the 
planned transportation facilities, services, and major 
improvements, including the type or functional 
classification of planned or improved facilities and 
services. Performance standards are located in the 
roadway section. 
660‐012‐0025 Complying with the Goals in Preparing TSPs 
(1) Except as provided in section (3) of this rule, 
adoption of a TSP shall constitute the land use 
decision regarding the need for transportation 
facilities, services and major improvements and 
their function, mode, and general location. 
The City will adopt the TSP as part of the Toledo
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 
(2)   Findings of compliance with applicable statewide 
planning goals and acknowledged comprehensive 
plan policies and land use regulations shall be 
developed in conjunction with the adoption of the 
TSP.  
The Staff Findings during the adoption process include
findings of compliance with applicable statewide 
planning goals. Comprehensive plan policies and land 
use regulations were developed and will be adopted in 
conjunction with the TSP. 
ATTACHMENT A – TSP COMPLIANCE 
5 
 
TPR Requirements  Toledo TSP Compliance 
660‐012‐0030 Determination of Transportation Needs 
(1)   The TSP shall identify transportation needs relevant 
to the planning area and the scale of the 
transportation network being planned including:  
(a)   State, regional, and local transportation needs; 
(b)   Needs of the transportation disadvantaged; 
(c)   Needs for movement of goods and services to 
support industrial and commercial 
development planned for pursuant to OAR 
660‐009 and Goal 9 (Economic Development).  
Appendix C, Transportation Deficiencies and Needs,
includes a determination of transportation needs in the 
planning area including state, regional, and local 
transportation needs. Additionally, the needs of 
transportation disadvantaged and goods movement to 
support industrial and commercial development are 
considered.  
(3)  Within urban growth boundaries, the 
determination of local and regional transportation 
needs shall be based upon:  
(a)   Population and employment forecasts and 
distributions that are consistent with the 
acknowledged comprehensive plan, including 
those policies that implement Goal 14. 
Forecasts and distributions shall be for 20 
years and, if desired, for longer periods; and  
(b)  Measures adopted pursuant to OAR 660‐012‐
0045 to encourage reduced reliance on the 
automobile. 
Appendix C, Transportation Deficiencies and Needs,
includes population and employment forecasts that are 
consistent with the Toledo Comprehensive Plan, with 
2035 as the study year.  
The Toledo TSP includes bicycle, pedestrian, and multi‐
use path policies and projects that will help reduce 
reliance on the automobile. 
660‐012‐0035 Evaluation and Selection of Transportation System Alternatives 
(1)   The TSP shall be based upon evaluation of potential 
impacts of system alternatives that can reasonably 
be expected to meet the identified transportation 
needs in a safe manner and at a reasonable cost 
with available technology. The following shall be 
evaluated as components of system alternatives:  
The TSP system and network of improvements includes 
considerations of impacts on identified transportation 
needs. 
(a)   Improvements to existing facilities or services;  Improvements to existing facilities and services were 
considered before new facilities and are high priorities 
in this TSP for all modal elements. 
(b)   New facilities and services, including different 
modes or combinations of modes that could 
reasonably meet identified transportation 
needs;  
All new facilities were evaluated based on their ability 
to include all modes or combinations of travel modes to 
meet identified transportation needs. 
(e)   A no‐build system alternative required by the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or 
other laws. 
Appendix C, Transportation Deficiencies and Needs, 
documents the “no‐build” system alternative for 
Western Junction and other transportation deficiencies. 
ATTACHMENT A – TSP COMPLIANCE 
6 
 
TPR Requirements  Toledo TSP Compliance 
(3)   The following standards shall be used to evaluate 
and select alternatives:  
Appendix G, Public Involvement Process, includes 
documentation of the alternatives evaluation and 
selection process for the Western Junction. TSP goals 
and objectives developed in the project’s first phase 
guided alternative selection. 
(a)   The transportation system shall support urban 
and rural development by providing types and 
levels of transportation facilities and services 
appropriate to serve the land uses identified in 
the acknowledged comprehensive plan;  
Appendix C, Transportation Deficiencies and Needs, 
documents the anticipated land uses and the TSP 
projects include consideration of these land uses in 
determining an appropriate transportation system. 
(b)   The transportation system shall be consistent 
with state and federal standards for protection 
of air, land and water quality including the 
State Implementation Plan under the Federal 
Clean Air Act and the State Water Quality 
Management Plan;  
The TSP system and network of improvements includes 
consideration of environmental and ecological impacts, 
such as nearby wetlands, which informed facility type 
and alignment decisions. 
(c)   The transportation system shall minimize 
adverse economic, social, environmental and 
energy consequences; 
The TSP system and network of improvements includes 
consideration of minimizing economic, social, 
environmental, and energy consequences. 
(d)   The transportation system shall minimize 
conflicts and facilitate connections between 
modes of transportation; and  
The modal plans include an evaluation of projects for 
ability to minimize conflicts and facilitate connections 
between modes of transportation. 
(e)   The transportation system shall avoid principal 
reliance on any one mode of transportation by 
increasing transportation choices to reduce 
principal reliance on the automobile.  
The transit and bicycle, pedestrian, and multi‐use trail 
modal plans increase transportation choices to reduce 
reliance on the automobile.  
660‐012‐0040 Transportation Financing Program 
(1)   For areas within an urban growth boundary 
containing a population greater than 2,500 
persons, the TSP shall include a transportation 
financing program.  
Funding for individual transportation projects in the TSP 
is included in the Modal Plans, and in the 
Implementation and Policy Language Section. Full 
documentation of the financing plan is included in 
Appendix B, Transportation Funding. 
(2)   A transportation financing program shall include 
the items listed in (a)‐(d):  
(a)   A list of planned transportation facilities and 
major improvements;  
The modal elements in the TSP include planned 
transportation facilities and major improvements. 
(b)   A general estimate of the timing for planned 
transportation facilities and major 
improvements;  
Tables in the modal element sections include estimated 
timing for planned facilities and major improvements. 
(c)   A determination of rough cost estimates for 
the transportation facilities and major 
improvements identified in the TSP; and  
Tables in the modal element sections include planning 
level cost estimates for facilities and major 
improvements. Full documentation of the cost 
estimates is included in Appendix B, Transportation 
Funding. 
ATTACHMENT A – TSP COMPLIANCE 
7 
 
TPR Requirements  Toledo TSP Compliance 
(3)   The determination of rough cost estimates is 
intended to provide an estimate of the fiscal 
requirements to support the land uses in the 
acknowledged comprehensive plan and allow 
jurisdictions to assess the adequacy of existing and 
possible alternative funding mechanisms. In 
addition to including rough cost estimates for each 
transportation facility and major improvement, the 
transportation financing plan shall include a 
discussion of the facility provider's existing funding 
mechanisms and the ability of these and possible 
new mechanisms to fund the development of each 
transportation facility and major improvement. 
These funding mechanisms may also be described 
in terms of general guidelines or local policies.  
The Implementation and Policy Language section and 
funding sources listed in the project tables within the 
modal sections include cost estimates and how the 
project will be implemented. 
(5)   The transportation financing program shall provide 
for phasing of major improvements to encourage 
infill and redevelopment of urban lands prior to 
facilities and improvements which would cause 
premature development of urbanizable lands or 
conversion of rural lands to urban uses. 
The TSP includes the option for phasing of major 
improvements at Western Junction. 
 
 8 
 
Attachment B: Findings of TPR Compliance in Municipal Code 
TPR Requirements  Local Development Code Reference 
660‐012‐0045 Implementation of the Transportation System Plan 
(1) Each local government shall amend its land use 
regulations to implement the TSP. 
(b) To the extent, if any, that a transportation 
facility, service or improvement concerns the 
application of a comprehensive plan provision 
or land use regulation, it may be allowed 
without further land use review if it is 
permitted outright or if it is subject to 
standards that do not require interpretation or 
the exercise of factual, policy or legal 
judgment. 
Proposed amendments to TMC 17.08.020, TMC 
17.12.020, TMC 17.16.020, TMC 17.20.020, TMC 
17.24.020, TMC 17.28.020, TMC 17.32.020, and TMC 
17.36.020 establish transportation facilities as a use 
permitted outright in each zone. 
(c) Where a transportation facility, service or 
improvement is determined to have a 
significant impact on land use or requires 
interpretation or the exercise of factual, policy 
or legal judgment regarding the application of 
a comprehensive plan or land use regulation, 
the local government shall provide a review 
and approval process that is consistent with 
660‐012‐0050 (Transportation Project 
Development). Local governments shall amend 
regulations to provide for consolidated review 
of land use decisions required to permit a 
transportation project.  
There are existing references to coordination with other
agencies in the notice procedures for Type II 
(Administrative) land use review in TMC 
19.12.030(A)(4), and for notice procedures for Type III 
(Quasi‐judicial) land use review in TMC 
19.16.030(A)(1)(c). 
(2) Local governments shall adopt land use or 
subdivision ordinance regulations, consistent with 
applicable federal and state requirements, to 
protect transportation facilities, corridors and sites 
for their identified functions. 
(a) Access control measures.  Proposed amendments to TMC 17.48.055 include 
access management measures. 
(b) Standards to protect future operation of roads, 
transitways and major transit corridors. 
TMC 17.48.030 include access standards to protect the 
future operation of roads, transit ways, and major 
transit corridors. 
(c) Measures to protect public use airports by 
controlling land uses within airport noise 
corridors and imaginary surfaces, and by 
limiting physical hazards to air navigation. 
There are existing references to notifying airport 
owners of possible zoning changes in accordance with 
ORS 227.175 in the notice procedures for Type III 
(Quasi‐judicial) land use review in TMC 
19.16.030(A)(1)(c) and in notice procedures for Type IV 
(Legislative) land use review in TMC 19.20.040(B)(1)(f). 
ATTACHMENT B – LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CODE REFERENCE 
9 
 
TPR Requirements  Local Development Code Reference 
(d) A process for coordinated review of future 
land use decisions affecting transportation 
facilities, corridors or sites. 
There are existing references to coordination with other
agencies in the notice procedures for Type II 
(Administrative) land use review in TMC 
19.12.030(A)(4), and for notice procedures for Type III 
(Quasi‐judicial) land use review in TMC 
19.16.030(A)(1)(c). 
(e) A process to apply conditions to development 
proposals in order to minimize impacts and 
protect transportation facilities. 
TMC 17.48.040 includes language for conditions to 
development proposals and their impact on 
transportation facilities. 
(f) Regulations to provide notice to public agencies 
providing transportation facilities and services, 
MPOs, and ODOT of: land use applications that 
require public hearings, subdivision and 
partition applications, applications which affect 
private access to roads, applications within 
airport noise corridor and imaginary surfaces 
which affect airport operations.  
There are existing references to coordination with other
agencies in the notice procedures for Type II 
(Administrative) land use review in TMC 
19.12.030(A)(4), and for notice procedures for Type III 
(Quasi‐judicial) land use review in TMC 
19.16.030(A)(1)(c). 
(g) Regulations assuring that amendments to land 
use designations, densities, and design 
standards are consistent with the functions, 
capacities and performance standards of 
facilities identified in the TSP. 
Amendment to TMC 16.04.050 includes minimum 
requirements and standards of new development to 
conform with the functions, capacities and performance 
standards of facilities identified in the TSP. 
(3) Local governments shall adopt land use or 
subdivision regulations for urban areas and rural 
communities as set forth in 660‐012‐0040(3)(a‐d).  
(a) Provide bicycle parking in multifamily 
developments of 4 units or more, new retail, 
office and institutional developments, transit 
transfer stations and park‐and‐ride lots. 
Proposed new subsection TMC 17.44.070 includes 
bicycle parking standards for new development. 
(b) Provide “safe and convenient” (per subsection
660‐012‐0045.3(d)) pedestrian and bicycle 
connections from new subdivisions/ 
multifamily development to neighborhood 
activity centers; bikeways are required along 
arterials and major collectors; sidewalks are 
required along arterials, collectors, and most 
local streets in urban areas except controlled 
access roadways. 
Proposed new subsection TMC 16.14.050 includes 
street standards that require bikeways and sidewalks. 
Existing language in TMC 16.14.050 includes provisions 
for the safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian 
connections. 
Existing language in TMC 16.16.090 includes safe and 
convenient access for pedestrians and bicyclists. 
(c) Off‐site road improvements required as a 
condition of development approval must 
accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel, 
including facilities on arterials and major 
collectors. 
Existing language in TMC 16.14.050 includes provisions 
for the safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian 
connections. Proposed City street design standards in 
TMC 16.14.050 include pedestrian and bicycle facilities 
on arterials and collectors.  
(e) Provide internal pedestrian circulation within 
new office parks and commercial 
developments. 
Existing language in TMC 16.16.090 includes safe and 
convenient internal circulation for pedestrians and 
bicyclists in development proposals. 
ATTACHMENT B – LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CODE REFERENCE 
10 
 
TPR Requirements  Local Development Code Reference 
(6) As part of the pedestrian and bicycle circulation 
plans, local governments shall identify 
improvements to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian 
trips to meet local travel needs in developed areas.  
Proposed new subsection TMC 16.14.050 includes 
street standards that require bikeways and sidewalks. 
Existing language in TMC 16.16.090 includes safe and 
convenient access for pedestrians and bicyclists. 
(7) Local governments shall establish standards for local 
streets and accessways that minimize pavement 
width and total ROW consistent with the operational 
needs of the facility.  
Proposed amendment TMC 16.14.050 establishes 
transportation facility standards for local streets based 
on functional classification and accessways depending 
on facility type. 
660‐012‐0060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments 
Amendments to functional plans, acknowledged 
comprehensive plans, and land use regulations that 
significantly affect an existing or planned transportation 
facility shall assure that allowed land uses are 
consistent with the identified function, capacity, and 
performance standards of the facility.  
Existing language in TMC 16.16.090 includes criteria for 
preliminary evaluation of planned development that 
includes consistence with allowed land uses. 
 
  
Appendix G 
Public Involvement Process 
  
Public Involvement Process 
The Toledo TSP process involved the community a number of ways. A wide variety of stakeholders participated 
in the Plan development by meeting with project staff, providing background information, attending Project 
Advisory Committee (PAC) meetings, attending public Open Houses, attending Planning Commission and City 
Council hearings and worksessions, and visiting the project’s website. Each of these activities are described 
below, along with meeting materials and summaries, where appropriate. The project team developed a Public 
Involvement Plan at the beginning of the project that describes the process for involving the public. 
   
  
This page intentionally left blank  
  1 
M E M O R A N D U M  
 
Public Involvement Plan
PREPARED FOR: City of Toledo Staff 
COPY TO:  David Helton, ODOT 
Terra Lingley, CH2M HILL 
PREPARED BY: Brandy Steffen, CH2M HILL 
DATE: October 4, 2012 
Introduction 
This memo describes the proposed public involvement plan that will support the Toledo Transportation System 
Plan (TSP) project. The TSP will identify developments needed to improve connectivity for all travel modes, 
support planned land uses and economic development, and reduce reliance on the automobile. The project will 
also create consistency between the TSP and other local and state policies, plans, and rules (including the 
Transportation Planning Rule).  
The outreach process, goals, and messaging are outlined below. Additionally, key messaging statements are 
included to assist the project team when discussing the project with the media or the public. Finally, outreach 
activities are detailed below along with assignments of responsibility and timelines for completion.  
Outreach Process 
The project schedule (shown in Figure 1) outlines the timeline for technical work and public outreach processes 
for the project, which is expected to be completed by June 2013. Public involvement opportunities will be 
provided throughout the project, but focused on key milestones. Three project advisory committee (PAC) 
meetings and two open houses are scheduled.  
Figure 1 - Project Schedule 
 
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN 
2 PUBLICINVOLVEMENTPLAN-100412-DRAFT_TL 
Project Description 
The following text will be used in public materials throughout the outreach process to describe the project.  
The City of Toledo is creating a plan for the future of transportation in Toledo. This transportation 
system plan (TSP) will look at ways to improve connections for everyone traveling in or through 
the city, either by foot, bike, car, freight, boat, or air. The plan will also support land uses and 
economic development goals set by the city, while ensuring that Toledo complies with all state and 
local regulations, policies, and rules. The plan is expected to be finished by June 2013. More 
information about the plan and ways to get involved with the project, can be found on the project 
website www.GettingAroundToledoOregon.org 
Goals of the Public Involvement Plan  
The City of Toledo and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) are committed to an approach that: 
• Provides early and ongoing opportunities for stakeholders to raise issues and concerns that can be considered 
through equitable and constructive two-way communication between the project team and the public.  
• Encourage the participation of all stakeholders regardless of race, ethnicity, age, disability, income, or primary 
language by offering alternative accommodations (e.g. translation services, transportation). 
• Promote fair treatment so that no group of people (racial, ethnic, or a socioeconomic group) bears a 
disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from a program or policy. 
• Ensures that public contributions are considered in the decision making process and can influence the 
agency’s decision.  
To reach these goals, the following plan has been developed. It will be revised as needed, to ensure that outreach 
with the public meets these goals. The public involvement program must include specific steps to provide 
opportunities for participation by federal Title VI communities. City and consultant shall utilize the ODOT Title VI 
(1964 Civil Rights Act) Plan guidance to identify Title VI populations, formulate public involvement strategies, and 
report outreach efforts to and participation by Title VI communities. 
Target Audiences/Stakeholders 
Stakeholders for this project include the City of Toledo, transportation interests, neighborhood and business 
interests, media, emergency service providers, and the traveling public.i
  
  
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN 
PublicInvolvementPlan-100412-Draft_TL 3 
Table 1 - Target Audiences/Groups 
Stakeholder Category Examples 
Government Agencies Toledo City Council, Toledo Public Works Sounding Board, Toledo Planning Commission, 
Lincoln County, ODOT, Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, Department of Land 
Conservation and Development (DLCD) 
Transportation stakeholders Willamette & Pacific Railroad, Portland & Western Railroad, Yaquina Pacific Railroad, 
Greyhound bus, Bicycling and Running Groups, Port of Toledo, Amtrak (bus), Lincoln 
County Transit, Toledo State Airport 
Businesses Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Business reps, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Freight 
companies, Oregon Forestry Department  
Media Newport News, Yaquina Wavelength, local radio stations (KWAX, Newport 91.9FM is run 
by University of Oregon) 
Residents/ Traveling public Lincoln County School District, Disabled Committee, Head Start, Olalla Center for 
Children and Families, Mid-Coast Christian School, Abundant Life Academy 
Emergency service providers Toledo Police, Fire and Rescue 
 
Environmental Justice Outreach and Title VI Compliance 
The project team conducted a review of area demographics to understand the concentrations of low-income, 
minority, and limited-English proficient residents. The analysis of demographics will be used to refine the public 
involvement plan (PI plan) as needed. However, regardless of concentration, members of all of these groups will 
be invited to participate in the planning process and accommodations will be made (e.g. translation services) to 
encourage their participation. The project will also compile a Title VI report at the end of the project. This report 
will compile all Title VI activities, document project process and outreach for all low income, race, gender, and age 
groups.  
To engage these communities, the PI team will employ the following strategies: 
• Project Advisory Committee (PAC) Meetings: include groups that advocate for or serve as networking places 
for these traditionally under-served communities during these meetings. 
• Community open houses and events: identify partner organizations that can co-host or promote open house 
events to traditionally underserved communities. Collect demographic information (anonymously) at all 
public events to be added to the final report.  
• Translation or special accommodations: translation services and other special accommodations will be 
provided at all meetings upon request.  
Below is demographic information from the 2010 US Census for the project area. In Toledo, there is a higher 
percentage of residents below 17 years old and living below the poverty threshold, compared to the county and 
state. There are also a lower percentage of Hispanic/Latino residents, compared to the county and state.  
  
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN 
4 PUBLICINVOLVEMENTPLAN-100412-DRAFT_TL 
Table 2 - Population Demographics by Location 
Demographic Category Toledo Lincoln County State of Oregon 
Population 3,465 46,034 3,831,074 
Age 65 and Over 12% 12% 14% 
Age 17 and Under 25% 17% 22% 
Male 49% - - 
Female 51% - - 
White 90% 88% 89% 
African American 1% 0% 2% 
American Indian 4% 4% 2% 
Asian American 1% 1% 4% 
Pacific Islander 0% 0% 0% 
Two or more races 4% 4% 3% 
Hispanic or Latino 5% 8% 12% 
Median Household Income $43,871 $39,738 $49,260 
Population – Poverty Status Determined  - - 
Below Poverty 19% 16% 14% 
 
The project team also collected demographic information for the Lincoln County School District, since school 
information can provide another accurate representation of the social characteristics of the city (compared to 
Census data) since it is collected yearly. The 2010-11 AYP report (Adequate Yearly Progress report, conducted by 
the Oregon Department of Education as required by the federal government) collected data on the school 
district’s characteristics from the Toledo elementary and high schools (see Table 3).  
The school data information shows that over 50% of all students in elementary and high schools are economically 
disadvantaged (which means that students qualify for free and reduced price lunch programsii
  
). This is a greater 
percentage than the Census data’s 18.8% below the poverty level in 2010. The racial/ethnic background of 
students shows a wider split in demographics than the 2010 Census data, with 14-15% of students as American 
Indian compared to Census data of 3.8%; the other demographic percentages are similar between the school and 
Census data.  
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN 
PublicInvolvementPlan-100412-Draft_TL 5 
Table 3 - School Demographics, AYP 2010-11 data 
Category Toledo Elementary Toledo Jr./Sr. High 
All students 206 152 
Economically disadvantaged 119 (57%) 76 (50%) 
Limited English proficient 2 (0.9%) -- 
Students with disabilities 32 (15%) 30 (20%) 
Asian/Pacific Islander -- 1 (0.6%) 
Black (not of Hispanic origin) 1 (0.5%) 1 (0.6%) 
Hispanic origin 10 (5%) 6 (4%) 
American Indian/Alaskan Native 30 (15%) 21 (14%) 
White (not of Hispanic origin) 156 (76%) 122 (80%) 
Multi-racial/multi-ethnic 9 (5%) 1 (0.6%) 
 
Public Involvement Tools and Methods 
This portion of the memo identifies key public involvement activities that the consultant team or city staff 
members have been and will conduct during the project.  
Stakeholder Interviews 
CH2M HILL conducted several stakeholder interviews over the summer of 2012, as part of the existing conditions 
data collection process, in an effort to encourage early and continuous public involvement. Those interviewed 
included businesses, service providers, and other interested parties (see the stakeholder interview summary for 
greater detail). Stakeholders were encouraged to send out information to their constituents as the project 
progresses.  
Stakeholder Mailing List 
CH2M HILL will develop and maintain a mailing list of 500 addresses, based on the stakeholder interviewees 
identified above and from interested individuals identified through public events and the project website. 
CH2M HILL will maintain the mailing list, updating it before events.  
Project Website 
CH2M HILL developed the project website in the summer of 2012 to provide basic information about the project 
in a reader-friendly manner. The website also allows the public to view upcoming meetings and provide 
comments, either online or by contacting city staff by phone, email, or mailed letters. Pages on the website 
include a project overview, the schedule, ways to get involved, and a resource page where project memos will be 
posted. The project website allows busy residents or individuals interested in the project that don’t live or work in 
Toledo, to stay involved with the project.  
Table 4 - Website Tasks  
Task Responsibility Schedule Review 
Website text and graphics, draft CH2M HILL 7/26 City of Toledo 
Finalize and post website text and graphics CH2M HILL 8/1  
Website update and meeting materials posted CH2M HILL Three days before meeting  
 
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN 
6 PUBLICINVOLVEMENTPLAN-100412-DRAFT_TL 
Project Advisory Committee (PAC) 
The city has developed a list of Project Advisory Committee (PAC) members and the first meeting, of three, was 
held in July. The PAC will meet two more times to review Project deliverables and provide guidance on the project 
work tasks. The members of the committee are key stakeholders, including: 
• City Council 
• City Planning Commission 
• The Port of Toledo  
• Lincoln County 
• Lincoln County Transit 
• Portland & Western Railroad 
• Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) Regional Representative 
• ODOT Area Representative 
• Lincoln County School District 
• Alan Brown Tire Center 
• Dahl Disposal 
• Mitchell Trucking 
• Georgia-Pacific Toledo 
• Toledo Police Department 
• Toledo Fire Department 
Each meeting is open to the public and advertised on the project website. The first meeting included a review of 
the project and the committee provided comments on the first two memos (funding opportunities and review of 
existing plans and policies relevant to the TSP). The second meeting will allow the group to review and comment 
on the existing and future conditions, deficiencies, and needs before the information is presented to the general 
public at the first open house. The final meeting will allow the group to review the remaining memos which will 
outline potential improvements for the City’s transportation system for pedestrians, cyclists, transit service, rail, 
water, and air. This final meeting will be held before the second open house.  
Table 5 - PAC Tasks  
Task Responsibility Schedule Review 
PAC Agenda and other materials CH2M HILL One week before meeting City of Toledo 
Distribute materials to PAC and post to website CH2M HILL Three days before meeting  
Develop meeting summary CH2M HILL One week after meeting City of Toledo 
Finalize meeting summary and post to website CH2M HILL Two weeks after meeting  
 
Open House #1 
The first open house will be held in November 2012. The goal of the meeting will be to solicit public input on the 
existing and future transportation conditions, deficiencies, and needs, as well as introduce the project to the 
community. The format of the meeting will be a standard open house format which allows participants to drop 
into the meeting anytime, walk around the room reading display boards with information, provide input on 
comment forms and on maps, and to speak with project staff members.  
Below is event outline (preparation activities are expected to be the same for the second event). The city has 
confirmed the date, time, and location of event and made the reservations.  
• Wednesday, November 7, 2012  
• 5:00 to 7:00 pm to piggy-back off of the City Council meeting that starts at 7:00 pm 
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN 
PublicInvolvementPlan-100412-Draft_TL 7 
• City Hall (206 N Main Street) 
Terra Lingley and at least one, but up to two other technical staff persons from CH2M HILL will attend the open 
house, along with an ODOT staff member, and three city of Toledo staff members (at least one will staff the sign-
in/welcome table to welcome residents and explain the purpose of the meeting).  
A summary of the event will be written by CH2M HILL, which will include all verbal and written comments 
collected through the flip charts, comment forms, or maps. The draft summary will be provided to City of Toledo 
one week after the meeting, allowing the city one week for review, and then the final summary will be posted to 
the project website (two weeks after the event).  
Open House Announcements 
The event will be advertised many ways in an effort to encourage the public to attend. Due to high attendance at 
city council meetings, the open house has been scheduled before those regularly scheduled meetings to increase 
attendance at the open house (piggy-backing activities). A press release, display ad, and a flyer will be developed 
by CH2M HILL for the City to distribute to local media outlets.  
Table 6 – Open House Announcements/Notice  
Task Responsibility Schedule Review 
Post open house dates to project website CH2M HILL 10/22  
Post open house dates to City website City of Toledo 10/22  
Post open house dates to Lincoln County website City of Toledo 10/22  
Post open house materials to project website CH2M HILL 11/2  
Postcard sized ad for city newsletter, draft CH2M HILL 10/5 City of Toledo 
Postcard sized ad for city newsletter, final CH2M HILL 10/12  
Run postcard sized ad in city newsletter City of Toledo 10/15  
Flyer, draft CH2M HILL 10/5 City of Toledo 
Flyer, final CH2M HILL 10/12  
Distribute and hang Fliers City of Toledo 10/22-26  
Press release, draft CH2M HILL 10/5 City of Toledo 
Press release, final CH2M HILL 10/12  
Distribute press release to Newport news, 
Yaquina Wavelength, other local papers and 
media outlets 
City of Toledo 10/15  
Announce Open House at next City council and 
planning commission meetings City of Toledo October  
Develop mailing list for email distribution CH2M HILL 10/15 City of Toledo 
Send PAC and mailing list email with postcard 
information and/or flyer for additional 
distribution through stakeholders 
City of Toledo 10/22  
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN 
8 PUBLICINVOLVEMENTPLAN-100412-DRAFT_TL 
Materials 
All materials will be prepared by CH2M HILL and reviewed by the City of Toledo. Materials will be provided in draft 
form by October 22 with comments due to CH2M HILL by October 29.  
Table 7 – Open House Materials  
Task Responsibility Schedule Review 
Sign-in sheet, staff name tags, welcome board CH2M HILL 10/15 City of Toledo 
Comment form/Title VI collection, draft CH2M HILL 10/22 City of Toledo 
Comment form/Title VI collection, final CH2M HILL 10/29  
Display boards, draft CH2M HILL 10/22 City of Toledo 
Display boards, final CH2M HILL 10/29  
Introduction/ What can you do tonight? 
Project overview and Purpose & Need 
Schedule graphic 
Next steps 
   
What is a TSP? 
Who is involved? 
What can you do tonight?  
   
Problems or needs (is anything missing?) 
Opportunities for improvement (is anything 
missing?) 
   
Extra maps of town for the public to mark up CH2M HILL 10/29  
 
Environmental Justice/Title VI approaches 
The postcard ad, poster, and press release will include a Spanish language message providing instruction on how 
to request a translator. The city will ask local business owners in the area who may serve non-English speaking 
customers to attend the open house and display the poster. The business owners should be told that translation 
services will be available and to please share the information with their customers, friends, and neighbors. The 
meeting will be held in accessible facility. 
Open House #2 
The second open house will be held in February 2013. The goal of the meeting will be to solicit public input on 
proposed improvements to the local street system, pedestrian and bicycle system, and transit system in Toledo. 
The format of the meeting will be a standard open house format which allows participants to drop into the 
meeting anytime, walk around the room reading display boards with information, provide input on comment 
forms and on maps, and to speak with project staff members. The event outline will be the same as the first open 
house, listed above (with all dates changing to similar timeframes in January/February). There may be changes 
made to the second event’s format, based on the success of the first event.  
                                                          
i  Some demographic information was found at http://www.city-data.com/city/Toledo-Oregon.html 
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN 
PublicInvolvementPlan-100412-Draft_TL 9 
                                                                                                                                                                                                            
ii  The free and reduced price lunch program in 2011-12 defined eligibility for the program to households with 3 people to an 
annual income of $33,874 for reduced price meals and for $23,803 for free price meals (households receiving supplemental 
nutrition assistance program (SNAP), temporary assistance to needy families (TANF), or food distribution program on 
Indian reservations (FDPIR) are also eligible for free meals). 
http://www.ode.state.or.us/news/announcements/announcement.aspx?id=6016&typeid=4 
  
  
Stakeholder Interviews 
As part of the TSP process, the project team interviewed seven stakeholders ranging from business owners, 
community members, and emergency services personnel. Summaries of each of the interviews are below. 
Dave Enyeart, Chief of Police, Will Ewing, Fire Chief, Brett LaCroix, Pacific West 
Ambulance Services 
Interview on Thursday, July 12, 2012 
 Freight traffic is the biggest issue in Toledo. Trucks have hit street lights on Main Street in the past.  
 The problem is how to get trucks to use truck routes – most rely on their GPS systems, which do not 
account for the steep hills. Better/larger truck route signage is needed. Truck route indications could be 
painted on roads.  
 There are a number of traffic fatalities near OR 229, Western Loop, US 20, and Business Loop 20. The 
most recent traffic fatality was at the T intersection near Dairy Queen (near US 20) - driver failed to stop 
and struck a car on Business Loop 20.  
 Other dangerous roads in Toledo include East Slope Road, which is steep and narrow; there are 
weather-related accidents on this road. Weather includes ice storms which make the road slippery to 
navigate. 
 Main Street/Business Loop 20 has poor visibility. 
 1st Street, near the Post Office is problematic for pedestrians. Need a stop sign on Butler Bridge Road at 
1st Street. 
 Stop sign control is needed at the intersection of Butler Bridge Road and 1st Street.  
 Local roads that are really narrow: Alder Lane to 10th Street, NE 10th and NE 8th.  
 The elementary school is located on a truck route – concerns with students biking and walking to school 
with the amount of freight traffic.  
 Burgess and Arcadia Roads, as well as Business Loop 20 all lack sidewalks. People walk on Business Loop 
20 between French Avenue and 1st Street, but there are no shoulders.  
 There is a need for a bike route system to get from the eastern part of town into downtown.  
 There may be a concept to make 1st Street one way downhill and 2nd Street one way uphill.  
 Need sidewalks near the Park on East Slope Road. 
 There have been bicycle crashes (and a car/train collision) at intersections with railroad tracks. There are 
few train warning signs. At Georgia Pacific, there is no warning gate near Gate #3, though few trains use 
that connection. The engineer throws a flare in the roadway in advance of the train crossing the 
roadway.  
 Traffic is generated at Georgia Pacific during shift changes, from 6:00 to 6:30 AM and at 3:30 PM when 
the day shift ends.  
 Suggests changing city codes regarding parking – either enforce the two hour limit or remove the signs. 
Another option is to meter the parking.  
  
  
Celeste Matthews, Toledo Heritage Center Volunteer, Former City employee 
Interview on Thursday, July 12, 2012 
 Lives off US 20 between Toledo and Newport. She comes to town a couple days each to work at the 
Toledo Heritage Center.  
 Bay Road, originally a railroad right-of-way, is a good bicycling route, though the hill close to town is a 
huge barrier. Before the Port was using the roadway, cyclists could use the Port road to get past the hill, 
and then Bay Road over to Newport. 
 Sidewalks on Business Loop 20 are great and should be extended to the intersection with Sturdevant 
Road.  
 Sturdevant Road is a truck route and has no walking facilities. A multiuse path near Sturdevant would 
help address this issue. 
 The pedestrian crossing at 1st near the Post Office is not in a great location. Most pedestrians jaywalk 
since the crosswalk is not located in an area that makes sense. 
 Concerned with truck traffic on Butler Bridge Road. There should be signs warning of pedestrians on the 
roads, specifically at the bottom of Main Street towards the Post Office. The street is not comfortable 
for walkers, with a sidewalk on only one side of the street.  
 There are gaps in the sidewalk system near Mary Harrison School/Flower Center at 3rd and Douglas St. 
The gap requires pedestrians to cross at Douglas. Burgess Street, near the fire station, also lacks 
sidewalks – the only sidewalks are in front of the fire station, which is recent construction.  
 Arcadia is also difficult to walk on, though the narrow road does not lend itself to a sidewalk. 
 Two hour parking limits should be enforced. There are parking problems on busy days. If you can’t park 
on Main Street, you have to park further out and must walk up and downhill. There are problems with 
business owners and employees parking all day in the on-street spots.  
 People walk from downtown Toledo to Dairy Queen near US 20. This is a dangerous walk. The Dairy 
Queen parking lot is used for the Chinook Winds Shuttle drop-off, the Valley Wind Shuttle, and informal 
carpools. 
 The Georgia Pacific mill generates the most traffic in town.  
 The annual Summer Festival is a big event held during the last weekend of July; brings 30,000 people to 
town.  
 The antique car show and festival during the 1st weekend of August is a big event – Main Street is closed 
for the day.  
 The Wooden Boat Show is also popular, but this event does not generate a lot of traffic on Main Street.  
 Thursday Market is held each Thursday from mid-June to end of September, and there is an art walk on 
Labor Day weekend that draws visitors to town. 
 
  
  
Dick Wood, owner of Timbers Restaurant 
Interview on Thursday, July 12, 2012 
 Has been a business owner in Toledo for 42 years.  
 The previous TSP planned to make Main Street one-way, with one lane of parallel parking and angled 
parking on the other side of the street. This project presented concerns with freight deliveries blocking 
traffic. The TSP planned to add curb bulb-outs and landscaping at intersections, but that would have 
impeded truck turning ability.  
 Has concerns about transportation planning; feels that curb bulb-outs are not a good idea because they 
make it hard for trucks making deliveries to turn on Main Street. 
 It’s difficult to turn at the newly reconstructed intersection at Butler Bridge, Main Street and 2nd Street 
– replaced the gentle turns with tighter turns to enter or exit Main Street.  
 There have been many close calls at the intersection of Business Loop 20 and Main Street. He suggests 
removing the brick post at this intersection and replacing with a narrower metal post to improve the 
sight distance.  
 It is important to work with Georgia Pacific to update truck routes in the city.  
 There are no problems with parking – downtown has enough parking to accommodate visitors. 
 Walking is generally difficult in the city, even where there are sidewalks because Toledo is hilly and 
difficult, especially for older people. Constructing wider intersections would accommodate trucks.  
 
Sharon Kelly, Ivan Kelly Gallery Owner 
Interview on Tuesday, July 17, 2012 
 Trucks sometimes do not use the designated truck route; they get stuck on Graham and Alder. Better 
signage is needed to direct traffic to the right route. Two or three trucks a week inappropriately use 
these streets.  
 Railway crossings are rough; some vehicles have to drive at an angle to cross them.  
 No concerns with safety. 
 Vehicles turn too fast from Business Loop 20 onto Alder Street – the intersection is dangerous because 
of the close intersection with 1st Street as well, and the vertical and horizontal curves make it difficult to 
see. 
 Parking is really only a problem one day a year during the Car and Antique show when Main Street is 
closed.  
 Kids walk around town during the summer, but don’t walk to school. Most kids live too far from school 
to walk. There is an issue with kids skateboarding down the steep hills.  
 There is lots of congestion at the intersection of OR 229, US 20 and Business Loop 20 in the morning 
around 8 AM. Visibility is also a problem at this intersection.  
  
  
Jim Irvin, Portland and Western Railroad 
Phone interview on August 15, 2012 
 Portland and Western is an important line in Toledo 
 Currently merging with Rail America – changes the organizational region for Toledo.  
 PNWR only serves the mill, and lease the tracks from Union Pacific 
 ODOT rail is in charge of crossing upgrades – lights and gates 
 The company has an annual budget for operations and maintenance, which changes from year to year. 
 Negotiating with UP on a new lease for this year. 
  
  
Project Advisory Committee 
The Project Advisory Committee (PAC) included representatives from the business community, the railroad, 
ODOT, the City, trucking, GP, the Port of Toledo, etc. The PAC met 4 times, and Table 1 provides the dates and 
purpose of each of the meetings. 
TABLE 1 
PAC Meeting Dates and Purpose 
Meeting 
Number 
Date Purpose 
1 July 17, 2012 Provide an introduction to the Toledo TSP 
Devine the PAC’s roles and responsibilities 
Review the first two technical memoranda: Plan Assessment and Funding sources 
2 October 11, 2012 Discuss Goals and Objectives for the TSP 
Review the existing and future conditions, provide feedback on findings 
3 February 21, 2013 Review and discuss alternatives for all modes to include in the TSP 
Discuss next project Open House 
4 April 25, 2013 Review and discuss content of the TSP 
Discuss Toledo Municipal Code Changes 
Materials from each of the PAC meetings are included below. 
  
  
  
PAC Meeting 1 Materials 
  
  
  
Toledo TSP Project Advisory Committee (PAC) 
Meeting #1 Agenda 
Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 
Time: 3:00 – 5:00 p.m. 
Location: Toledo Fire Department 285 NE Burgess Road, Toledo 
Meeting Purpose: 
• Provide an introduction to the Toledo Transportation System Plan (TSP) 
• Define the PAC’s role and responsibilities 
• Review the first two technical memoranda: Plan Assessment and Funding Sources 
 
3 p.m. Welcome and introductions 
- Self Introductions 
- Meeting Agenda 
- Committee Purpose 
Adam Denlinger/ 
Michelle Amberg 
3:10 p.m. Transportation System Plan (TSP) Introduction and Overview 
- What is a TSP? 
- Roles (ODOT, City, PAC, Consultants) 
- Project Objectives  
- Schedule and Key Milestones 
David Helton and 
Larry Weymouth 
3:20 p.m. Committee Operations 
- Meeting Guidelines 
Terra Lingley 
3:30 p.m. Technical Memo #1: Plan Assessment Overview 
- Previous Plans 
- Goals and Objectives - Discussion 
Terra Lingley 
4:10 p.m. Technical Memo #2: Funding Sources Overview 
- Funding: How It Really Works 
- Past Project Funding and Existing Sources 
- Potential Funding Sources 
David Helton and 
Larry Weymouth 
4:25 p.m. Transportation Values 
- What do you think works well in our existing 
transportation system?  
- What would you like to see change over the next 20 
years? 
All 
4:55 p.m. Future Meetings, Next Steps, Adjourn All 
Toledo TSP Project Advisory Committee Purpose and Guidelines 
Purpose 
The Project Advisory Committee (PAC) has been formed to provide “on the ground” guidance to the 
Project Management Team (PMT) on important issues for community members and other project 
stakeholders. The committee will: 
• Provide individual and group input to the Toledo Planning Commission and City Council on 
policies and projects to be included in the City’s TSP. 
• Individual and group ongoing input and feedback to staff as the TSP is developed. 
• Advice and input on how to engage other community members in developing the TSP. 
Roles and Responsibilities 
Members of the PAC will: 
• Attend three meetings between July 2012 and January 2013 
• Actively participate in the project by contributing to project meetings and reviewing materials 
before the meetings. 
• Abide by the agreed upon meeting guidelines. 
• Represent the interests and perspectives of who they represent. 
• Ask questions and seek information to ensure understanding. 
• Talk to others in the community to give and receive information about the TSP. 
• PAC members will not make group recommendations based on consensus or a majority vote; 
rather, the product of the meetings will be a record of discussion that includes all points of view 
and documents any general points of agreement. 
The Facilitator will: 
• Ensure that everyone has an opportunity to participate. 
• Keep meetings moving and focused on the agenda. 
• Start and end meetings on time unless the group agrees to extend the meeting time. 
Draft guidelines 
• Meeting materials will be distributed by e-mail, generally one week in advance of meetings.  
• Meetings will begin and end on time. If agenda items cannot be completed on time, the group 
will decide if the meeting should be extended or if the discussion can continue in another 
manner (via a phone call or email communication). 
• A brief summary will be prepared after each meeting documenting the discussion.  
• All project and meeting materials will be posted to the project website: 
www.gettingaroundtoledooregon.org  
• At the meetings, PAC members will: 
o Share the available speaking time 
o Be respectful of a range of opinions 
o Focus on successfully completing the agreed upon agenda 
o Avoid side discussions when others are speaking 
o Voice concerns and complaints at the meeting, not outside the meeting 
o Put cell phones on silent 
Communications Outside of Meetings 
• PAC members are encouraged to share the committee’s progress with their respective 
constituencies at meetings, by e-mail or through newsletters. 
• Terra Lingley (Consultant staff member) will be responsible for distributing information to PAC 
members, so everyone has the same information. Relevant discussions of project issues should 
occur at the PAC table, for the benefit of allowing all members and the Project Management 
Team to be informed and participate.  
• Committee members should communicate outside of meetings in ways that are respectful of 
each other and the PAC process.  Members should speak to the media and others only on their 
own behalf and not on behalf of the PAC. 
Getting Around Toledo, Oregon     
PAC Meeting #1 – 07/17/12
Who is involved in creating the Plan?
• City of Toledo Staff
– Adam Denlinger, Public Works Director
– Michelle Amberg, City Manager
– Stuart Cowie, Associate Planner (Lincoln County)
– Arlene Inukai, Planning and Public Works
– Allen Stewart,  RARE, Main Street Program
• Oregon Department of Transportation
– David Helton, TGM Program Coordinator
• Public
– Project Advisory Committee Members
– Residents and Others
• Consultant Team 
– Larry Weymouth, CH2M HILL
– Terra Lingley, CH2M HILL
A d H i CH2M HILL– n ra enr ques,   
Who does what in this process?
City, Consultant, 
d ODOT T k
PAC Tasks 
d 3 i
Public Involvement
d 2 Ean     as s
• Identify funding
an    meet ngs
• Decide project goals and 
objectives
an     vents
• Provide details and 
reality check
• Analyze the problems
• Identify strategies and 
solutions
• Determine the issues
• Comment on solutions
• Advise or priorities and 
 
• Offer insights,  
perspectives, and 
constructive criticism
• Compare feasible 
solutions
• Recommend policy 
funding
• Comment on policy 
changes and the Draft 
• React to alternatives
• Interact via website: 
www.
i d ldchanges Plan gett ngaroun to eoore
gon.org
What are the project objectives?
1. Safe, efficient, and well‐connected multi‐modal 
transportation network
h i d l h h l2. En ance econom c  eve opment t roug  rai  
and water transportation opportunities unique 
to Toledo 
3. Clear vision and design for future improvement 
of Business Loop 20     
4. Coordinate planning for improving OR 229, 
Business Loop 20 and US 20 intersection    ,       
5. Safe routes to schools infrastructure plan
Project Objectives, Part 2
6. Safe and convenient network of pedestrian and 
bicycle facilities
7. Adequate public participation in the process
8 Compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule.         , 
Oregon Transportation Plan, and Oregon Hwy Plan
9 P i iti d t t ti f iliti d i. r or ze   ranspor a on  ac es an  serv ces 
considering likely future revenues
10. Safe and reasonably smooth railroad crossings for 
both vehicles and pedestrians
What is the project schedule?
Technical Memo #1: Plan Assessment
• Purpose: Look at existing plans, consider goals 
for the Toledo TSP     
– Plans reviewed:
• Lincoln County Transportation System Plan       
• City of Toledo Comprehensive Plan
P t f T l d W t f t C ti it Pl• or  o   o e o  a er ron   onnec v y  an
• Port of Toledo Waterfront Development Strategic Plan
P i d d T l d T i S Pl• rev ous una opte o e o  ransportat on  ystem  an
Lincoln County TSP Applicable Goals
• Mobility
• Coordination
• Public Transportation
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
• Accessibility
• Environment
• Safety
2000 Toledo Comprehensive Land Use Plan
• Citizen Involvement
– Opportunities for involvement in all phases
• Transportation
S f ffi i t d lti d l t t ti t– a e, e c en , an  mu ‐mo a   ranspor a on sys em
– Reduce reliance on the personal auto
– Maintain efficient and safe truck routes and rail 
services to move people and goods
– Develop and adopt a TSP with clear and objective 
local standards
Port of Toledo Waterfront Development Strategic Plan
• Contains projects only
– Depot Slough trail – paved accessible trail along      ,       
the entire frontage of depot slough
Pedestrian connectivity downtown safe and–      –    
direct pedestrian connection at Butler Bridge Road
Port of Toledo Waterfront Connectivity Plan
• Transportation objectives:
– Pedestrian connection improvements   
– Pedestrian and bicycle circulation
I d ADA li / ibili– mprove    comp ance access ty
– Mobility for vehicles and freight
– Increase awareness for waterfront amenities
• Includes transportation projects   
Unadopted Toledo TSP
• Goals
– Transportation Circulation/Safety/Mobility 
– Coordination
C i li bili– ommun ty  va ty
– Economic Development
– Bicycles and Pedestrians
– Public Transportation 
– Capital Improvements and Financing
Technical Memo #2: Funding
• Purpose: determine funding sources available 
for transportation projects in Toledo       
– Funding: How Does It Really Work? 
P t j t f di d i ti– as  pro ec   un ng an  ex s ng sources
– Potential funding sources
How were past projects funded?
d• Butler Bridge/Main Street/2n Street improvements
– Federal Bicycle and Pedestrian funds
City Street Fund–    
– Port of Toledo
• Port Transient Boat Dock     
– Oregon State Marine Board
– Federal Boating Infrastructure Grant
– Federal Clean Vessel Act Funds
• Slough Dredging
– Marine Navigation Fund
– Oregon Business Infrastructure Grant
What are existing funding sources?
• Federal Sources
– Highway Trust Fund
– FTA grants 
• State Sources
– State Highway Fund
– STIP
– Oregon Parks and Recreation Local Government Grants
Oregon Transportation Infrastructure Bank–      
• Local
– State Highway Revenues
– Road Maintenance Fees
– System Development Charges
Public Utility District Franchise Revenue–        
What are potential future funding sources?
• Federal Surface Transportation Funding
• Department of Energy Efficiency and 
Conservation Block Grants
• Roads District 
• Local Improvement District (LID)
• Tax Increment Financing (TIF)     
• Revenue and General Obligation Bonds
• Parking Fees
• Connect Oregon
Transportation Discussion
• What do you think works well in our existing 
transportation system? 
• What would you like to see change over the 
t 20 ?nex    years
Thank you
• Next meeting – Mid‐September, day/time that 
works best? 
• Comments on technical memoranda by 
J l 25thu y 
 TOLEDOPAC1SUMMARY_FINAL 1 
M E E T I N G  S U M M A R Y  
 
Project Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting #1 
Michelle Amberg, City of Toledo 
Stuart Cowie, Lincoln County 
Nic Dahl, Dahl Disposal 
Adam Denlinger, City of Toledo Public 
Works 
Jack Dunaway, City of Toledo City 
Council 
Dave Enyeart, City of Toledo Police 
Chief
Will Ewing, City of Toledo Fire Chief  
David Helton, ODOT 
Terra Lingley, CH2M HILL 
Bud Shoemake, Port of Toledo  
Allen Stewart, City of Toledo  
Larry Weymouth, CH2M HILL 
Patrick Wingard, DLCD
PREPARED BY: Terra Lingley, CH2M HILL 
DATE: July 24, 2012 
 
The City of Toledo Transportation System Plan (TSP) held its first Project Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting on 
July 17, 2012 from 3:00-5:00 p.m. at the Toledo Fire Department. The purpose of the meeting was to provide an 
introduction to the TSP, define the PAC’s role and responsibilities, and review the first two technical memoranda: 
Plan Assessment and Funding Sources. Handouts of the agenda, PowerPoint presentation, and draft PAC roles and 
Meeting Guidelines were available along with the meeting sign-in sheet. The meeting began promptly at 3:00 pm 
and ended at 5:00 pm, as scheduled.  
Introduction 
Adam introduced the group and the purpose of the Transportation System Plan and thanked members for 
attending. Members present introduced themselves. Adam then reviewed the overall purpose of the project, 
which is to look at several aspects of Toledo’s multimodal transportation system including: safety, operational 
improvements, US 20/Business Loop 20/OR 229 intersection, sidewalks, and railroad crossings.  
David Helton from Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) explained what a TSP is all about. It seeks to 
plan for a transportation system to serve planned land use for a 20-year period.  It includes an inventory of all 
elements of today’s transportation system (roads, bike paths, sidewalks, transit, marine, airport, and pipeline) in 
Toledo’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), and the elements’ existing and future conditions, deficiencies, and 
needs. It is the city’s plan not ODOT’s, and requires early public participation for development. The public and the 
PAC are important to provide a reality check, so that information isn’t missed, key issues are addressed, and 
proposed improvements are acceptable, ultimately by the City Council. Policies and ordinances might need to be 
revised to show support for particular types of improvements.  
Transportation System Plan Overview 
David and Larry provided a brief overview of the TSP process, the state requirements, the stakeholders for the 
TSP, and how the entities will work together to finish the project that will ultimately be adopted by Planning 
Commission and City Council. Larry shared the project schedule. 
Committee Operations 
Terra walked through the PAC guidelines and how meetings will be run. She stressed that this was not a decision-
making body, but will provide valuable input and enhance the technical work to provide the project team with on-
the-ground knowledge of transportation systems in Toledo. The guidelines include statements about allowing PAC 
members to speak and provide input, participating in a courteous manner, and allowing all voices to be heard. 
The guidelines also include expectations for PAC members, which include asking questions, providing input, and 
ATTENDEES: 
COPY TO: 
PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAC) MEETING #1 
TOLEDOPAC1SUMMARY_FINAL 2 
attending meetings. The project team will provide meeting materials one week in advance by email, and project 
information will also be available on the project website: www.gettingaroundtoledooregon.com.  
PAC members were asked to provide edits or comments on the guidelines by July 25th.  
Technical Memo #1: Plan Assessment 
Terra then walked through the first technical memorandum, describing that the Toledo TSP will need to 
coordinate with previous planning efforts including the Lincoln County TSP and the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 
The presentation included goals that were included in the previous plans, and Terra then led a discussion about 
what goals should be included in the Toledo TSP to guide the project and help select transportation projects when 
they have been developed to ensure that the TSP meets Toledo’s goals. 
The discussion about Project Goals included the importance of safety as a project goal. PAC members also wanted 
aesthetics to be included in the goal statements – Toledo prides itself on having a clean and aesthetically 
attractive town. Any transportation projects in the TSP should include aesthetic considerations, but also take into 
account where they are located, and ensure that they are durable. Aesthetics could be included in design criteria 
to ensure that they are consistent throughout town.  
Other members wanted to include a goal to coordinate with the railroad on improving railroad crossings. There 
was a derailment last week due to the poor quality of the tracks at the crossing. 
Another important goal to the group was the safety and security of the transportation system, and the 
importance of having good routes for emergency events. 
The airport was also discussed – the City may want to include an air policy section in the TSP to support future 
goals with regard to air transportation. One member asked if the City should be looking at adding helicopter 
landing spots associated with the airport. 
David mentioned that as the technical work progresses, the group could revisit the goals to ensure that they are 
consistent with the plan as it is being developed. 
The technical team will take these comments and create a set of project goals to be included in the TSP. These 
goals will be developed into criteria to help select transportation projects as they are developed in the TSP. 
Technical Memo #2: Funding Sources 
David described how ODOT provides funding from various programs, and how decisions are made to award funds 
for projects and that there are multiple funding “buckets” for different types of projects. Each program bucket has 
limitations of what can be funded. Individual projects are usually funded through a complex combination of 
sources. There will be very little funding for modernization (capacity improvements, new facilities) until an 
increase in transportation revenue. The current outlook for transportation funding is not great because the gas 
tax has not increased, inflation has gone up, and people are driving less or are driving more fuel-efficient vehicles. 
Also, ODOT borrowed money for past transportation projects against future federal and state revenue to make 
essential repairs to bridges and freeways. Those bills are coming due, so money collected now is going to pay 
down that debt.  
Safety is one area that ODOT targets funding, so it is important to go through a planning process now due the 
importance of highway safety. Funding to improve safety concern areas is expected within the TSP’s 20-year 
planning horizon. Because safety is so important, any project in Toledo with a safety element is more likely to be 
funded by the State. In addition, present funding formulas require a set-aside percentage for bicycle and 
pedestrian improvements for every dollar going to road improvements.  
At the federal level, under the new Surface Transportation Act—“Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 
(MAP-21)—the funding buckets are being combined, and states are being given more flexibility in how to fund 
projects. Besides safety as a way to receive funding, it helps if Toledo were to put some of the city’s own money 
into a plan for improvements over time—show progress, even if only 10-feet of sidewalk a year. The City also 
needs to work with the relevant Area Commission on Transportation (ACT) (Coastal Policy Advisory Committee on 
Transportation) to get the city’s projects high on the ACT’s priority list.  Which local projects go on the 5-year 
PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAC) MEETING #1 
TOLEDOPAC1SUMMARY_FINAL 3 
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) project list for state/federal funding comes from ACT 
recommendations. The city’s priorities should be revisited periodically and made known to the ACT. The City itself 
has an opportunity to capture revenue for transportation improvements at the time development occurs in the 
city by collecting system development charges. Projects proposed in the TSP are not fiscally constrained—that is, 
funding does not need to be identified.  
Larry then reviewed the most recent transportation projects and how they were funded in the City, along with an 
overview of existing and potential future transportation funding sources. The Street Fund revenue has increased 
from $575,000 in 2007-2008 to $979,000 in 2011-2012 (and latest amount for 2012-2013 is $1,164,000). Because 
most of the PAC members present were City staff familiar with City revenue and the budget, highlights of the 
memo were covered in the PAC presentation.  
Transportation Values 
Terra then asked each PAC member present what worked well and what members would like to see change over 
the next few years. Each PAC member was given a chance to talk about both questions. Responses are recorded 
below: 
What works well? 
• Collaborative process  
• Connections to waterfront – are currently being improved over the railroad tracks. 
• No congestion problems (except western junction – the intersection of US 20, Business Loop 20, and OR 
229) 
• Designated truck route – it is not perfect, but it has improved freight issues in town 
• Multi-modal system works fairly well 
• Sidewalks along Business Loop 20 and in downtown 
• City benefits from  freight rail with maintained mainline tracks to coast  
• Water traffic is good: the Port is able to handle large vessels 
• The working railroad is a good aspect of the transportation system – provides freight access for industry. 
• Lincoln Co. transit works ok 
• Multi-modal transportation system could work really well 
• Sidewalks – Business Loop 20 and downtown. 
What would like to change in 20 years? 
• Multiple PAC members were concerned with the Western Junction intersection – safety and congestion 
concerns continue to make that intersection dangerous and difficult. ODOT owns and operates US 20 and 
OR 229, and any projects would need to be approved by the agency, but it is an acknowledged area that 
needs to be improved. 
o Speeding is a big problem – it is 45 mph at that location, though vehicles are usually around 55 
mph.  
o During tourist season there is heavy traffic making it difficult to turn or cross the intersection 
o Entrance into Dahl’s Disposal business west of Western Loop connection – the new guardrails 
require trucks to take the opposing lane while making a turning movement – in the past they 
could infringe on the ditch a bit, now  the turn is tighter and more difficult. 
• There are a lot of near misses near Dahl’s. 
• There are a lot of improvements and modernization projects to bring city roads up to standards 
PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAC) MEETING #1 
TOLEDOPAC1SUMMARY_FINAL 4 
• Pedestrian connectivity upgrades, and a better bike connection to Bay Road through the Port property 
(possibly – there are concerns with landslides here – is there another route besides the boatyard?) to 
allow bicyclists to avoid the steep hill and narrow roadway near town. 
• East junction (Business Loop 20 and US 20) is slumping into river 
• Add sidewalks on West Junction if a project is included there 
• Outlying areas need pedestrian improvements to connect to schools – there are few sidewalks out that 
way 
• There is a lack of connectivity to East Slope Park 
• Railroad crossings are extremely difficult and bumpy 
• Pedestrians walking from the Dairy Queen on Business Loop 20 do not have a shoulder or sidewalk to 
walk on – need a pedestrian route 
• Look at Butler Bridge clearance for barges and boats to the Siletz tribal mill site development – look at 
maybe raising the bridge? 
• Improve multi-modal commuter options/opportunities 
• Create a better relationship with Lincoln County Transit 
• Improve entrances to Town at both connections of US 20 and Business Loop 20 – bring people into town 
who usually just pass on by. 
• Downtown parking – enforce the 2 hour limit 
• Bike/pedestrian access into town 
• Improve the relationship between railroad and City – it is a historic railroad – look into tourist possibilities 
• Sturdevant to Butler Bridge to tribal property will increase freight traffic on Sturdevant (This area already 
has bike/pedestrian deficiencies) 
• Truck impacts on roadways – wear and tear on the asphalt 
• West Junction also consider aesthetics when looking at improvements 
• Make sure that the City is business friendly – support freight and residents 
• Add bike path along railroad 
• Sidewalks on Business Loop 20 to both junctions of US 20 
• Develop waterfront as a resource, explore a water taxi to Newport 
• Begin with western junction so something gets done – there’s been a lot of planning but not a lot of 
action on that intersection. Frustration with a known safety issue. 
• Mary Harrison/2nd Street is a dangerous intersection  
Next Steps 
Terra asked the group if the timeframe for this meeting worked well – afternoon on a Tuesday or Thursday. The 
group agreed that this time worked for those present. Terra suggested sending out a poll with the meeting 
summary and the PAC follow-up email as members noted that it would be important to make sure that Georgia 
Pacific, the Railroad, and Lincoln County Transit would be able to attend future meetings. The meeting adjourned 
at a little after 5:00 p.m. 
  
  
PAC Meeting 2 Materials 
  
  
Toledo TSP Project Advisory Committee (PAC) 
Meeting #2 Agenda 
Date: Thursday, October 11, 2012 
Time: 1:00 – 3:00 p.m. 
Location: Toledo Fire Department 285 NE Burgess Road, Toledo 
Meeting Purpose: 
• Discuss Goals and Objectives for TSP 
• Review the existing and future conditions, provide feedback on findings 
Time Item Who 
1 p.m. Welcome and introductions 
- Self Introductions 
- Meeting Agenda 
- Overview of last meeting 
Adam Denlinger 
1:15 p.m. What do you want to get out of the Transportation 
System Plan? 
- Safety and Security 
Goals 
- Aesthetics and Community Livability 
- Economic Development 
- Coordination 
- Transportation Circulation and Mobility 
- Efficient Multi-modal Transportation System 
All 
1:30 p.m. What is the Existing and Future state of Toledo’s 
Transportation System? 
- Roads 
Results from Technical Memo #3 
- Transit 
- Rail 
- Traffic operations 
- Safety 
- Parking 
- Did we get it right? Is there anything missing? 
All 
Time Item Who 
2:45 p.m. Project Open House 
- Wednesday, November 7, 5:00-7:00 p.m., 
drop-in format 
- How to encourage people to come? 
All 
2:55 p.m. Future Meetings, Next Steps, Adjourn All 
 
 
Getting Around Toledo, Oregon 
PAC Meeting #2 – 10/11/12 
Today’s Meeting 
• Welcome, Introductions 
• Review Project Goals 
• Existing and Future Transportation System 
– Roads 
– Transit  
– Rail 
– Traffic Operations 
– Safety 
– Parking 
• Open House 
 
 
What is the project schedule? 
What are the project goals? 
• Safety and security 
• Aesthetics and Community Livability 
• Economic Development 
• Coordination 
• Transportation circulation and mobility 
• Efficient multi-modal transportation system 
Existing and Future Conditions: What we analyzed 
• Facilities: Roads, sidewalks, bike lanes/routes, 
truck routes, rail, port, airport 
– Location, gaps, issues 
• Services: Transit, rail, freight 
– Times, issues, gaps 
• Characteristics: Safety, operating conditions, 
parking  
– Crash history, parking analysis, congestion 
Roadways 
• Arterial and 
Collector roads 
• Only consider local 
roads when looking 
at potential 
connections 
Study Area Intersections 
 
1. US 20 at Arcadia Drive  
2. US 20 at OR 229  
3. US 20 at Western Loop  
4. US 20 at Business Loop 20 (west)  
5. US 20 at Business Loop 20 Spur  
6. Business Loop 20 at Yaquina Bay 
Road  
7. Business Loop 20 at A Street  
8. Business Loop 20 at Main Street  
9. Business Loop 20 at East Slope 
Road  
10. Business Loop 20 at Burgess Road  
11. Business Loop 20 at Sturdevant 
Road  
Analysis – what we studied 
• Traffic demand (existing and future) 
– Areas likely to be congested 
• Queue analysis 
– Areas where backups can block the next intersection 
• Safety analysis 
– Crashes and safety concerns 
• Parking availability 
– When the demand for parking exceeds available 
spaces 
Tell us what issues you see 
• Facilities: Roads, sidewalks, bike lanes/routes, 
truck routes, rail, port, airport 
– Location, gaps, issues 
• Services: Transit, rail, freight 
– Times, issues, gaps 
• Characteristics: Safety, operating conditions, 
parking  
– Crash history, parking analysis, congestion 
Summary of Findings 
• Roads –steep and narrow, have limited sidewalks 
• Freight – high freight percentage, off-route vehicles 
• Land use – generate different and/or conflicting types of traffic 
• Traffic generators – generate traffic with different patterns 
• Bicycle/pedestrian –sidewalks, one bike route 
• Transit – limited service, low ridership 
• Freight rail –rough, safety issues, high percentage 
• Traffic operations –queues and congestion at  
– US 20 at OR 229,  
– US 20 at Western Loop,  
– US 20 at Business Loop 20 (Western junction) 
• Safety – crashes at western junction, one fatality 
• Parking – average day few shortages, events days limitations 
 
Upcoming Project Open House 
• Wednesday, November 7th, 5:00-7:00 pm, 
Toledo City Hall 
• Drop-in format, tell us what you think 
• Help us get the word out 
Thank you 
• Next meeting – December/January, does a 
Thursday 1-3 pm work best? 
• Comments on technical memoranda by  
November 7th 
Toledo PAC #2 Comment Matrix 
For Inclusion in Technical Memo #3 
 
Map Comment Mode/TM #3 section Included in TM #3 (Y/N) 
Sturdevant Road Safety Deficiencies: 
Narrow, Winding, Lack of Shoulders 
and Sidewalks Bike/Ped, Freight, Safety Yes 
Lack of Bike/Ped Access on East 
Slope Road Bike/Ped, Safety No 
Lack of Town Boat Ramp and parking 
for boat trailers Port No 
Lack of urban trail/multi-path system Bike/Ped Yes 
Yaquina Bay Road Bike Route steep 
and narrow, lacks sidewalks Bike/Ped, Safety Yes 
Lack of barge access at Port of 
Toledo Port No 
Blind curve on Butler Bridge road 
south of East Slope Road intersection Safety No 
Rail crossing at Butler Bridge Road 
near East Slope Road lacks gates Rail, Safety No 
Rail crossings at A Street and 1st 
Street are in poor condition and can 
cause crashes Rail, Safety Yes 
Small bridge on Business Loop 20 
south of Sturdevant Road obstructs 
views of drivers waiting to turn from 
Sturdevant Road Safety No 
Dangerous intersection at OR 
229/Business Loop 20 Spur @ US 20: 
sightlines difficult, skewed 
intersection, difficult to proceed 
straight Safety Yes 
Queues and sightline issues on 
Business Loop 20 make turning east 
from Spur difficult Traffic Operations, Safety Yes 
Business Loop 20 reduces speed limit 
too quickly from 50 -> 25 mph east 
of downtown Roadway No 
Need for a local transit circulator Transit No 
Butler Bridge too low for river traffic Freight No 
Poor rail conditions cause 
derailments near East Slope Road Rail, Safety No 
East Slope Road north of SE 10th 
Street needs improvements to allow 
collector designation, freight access Roadway, Freight No 
 Lack of pedestrian access on 
Business Loop 20 outside downtown Bike/Ped, Safety Yes 
Left turn into Dairy Queen from 
Business Loop 20 Eastbound 
hazardous Safety No 
Need for increased freight access 
from the west to downtown Freight No 
ADA access needed across town Bike/Ped, Safety No 
Difficult to turn in and out of Burgess 
Road @ Arcadia Drive Safety No 
Lack of signage to transit stops Transit No 
Freight truck routes need to be 
reassessed Freight Yes 
Need for truck parking north of 
Toledo along US 20 Freight No 
 TOLEDOPAC2SUMMARY_DRAFT_101712.DOCX 1 
M E E T I N G  S U M M A R Y  
 
Project Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting #2 
Michelle Amberg, City of Toledo 
Stuart Cowie, Lincoln County 
Adam Denlinger, City of Toledo Public 
Works 
Jack Dunaway, City of Toledo City Council 
Reza Farhoodi, CH2M Hill 
Rick Graff, Port of Toledo 
Arlene Inukai, City of Toledo Planning 
Julie Kay, Lincoln County Transit 
Anne Learned-Ellis, Toledo Planning 
Commission 
Terra Lingley, CH2M HILL 
Sumi Malik, CH2M HILL 
Stan Marshall, Georgia-Pacific Toledo 
Kirk Mitchell, Mitchell Trucking 
Jerry Seth, Toledo Planning Commission 
Patrick Wingard, DLCD 
PREPARED BY: Reza Farhoodi, CH2M HILL 
DATE: October 15, 2012 
 
The City of Toledo Transportation System Plan (TSP) held its second Project Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting on 
October 11, 2012 from 1:00-3:00 p.m. at the Toledo Fire Department. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss 
the goals and objectives for the TSP (especially for individuals who had not attended the first PAC meeting) and 
provide a review of existing and future conditions of the transportation network as described in Technical 
Memorandum #3. There would also be an opportunity for the PAC to provide feedback on the findings. Handouts 
of the agenda, PowerPoint presentation, and copies of Memorandum #3 were available along with the meeting 
sign-in sheet. The meeting began promptly at 1:00 pm and ended slightly after 3:00 pm.  
Introduction 
Adam Denlinger of City of Toledo introduced the group, reviewed the purpose of the Transportation System Plan, 
and thanked members for attending, especially individuals who were previously unable to attend representing 
stakeholders such as Lincoln County Transit and Georgia-Pacific. He provided an overview of the previous PAC 
meeting and went over the agenda for the PAC Meeting #2. Adam also expressed satisfaction with the TSP 
planning process and outreach, including the project website, and the level of enthusiasm it was garnering from 
community members.  
Adam explained the TSP process for the benefit of members who had missed the previous meeting, and 
mentioned that it was funded by an Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) grant. He hoped that the 
members of the PAC would be able to provide insight on pressing transportation issues in Toledo. Adam then 
initiated an icebreaker to allow members present to introduce themselves while also identifying one 
improvement to the Toledo transportation network that they would prioritize. This was a good way to get 
committee members engaged, and the responses given here set the tone for the subsequent breakout 
discussions. Suggestions included: 
• Better connections to the waterfront from downtown 
• Improvement/relocation of freight routes away from school zones along Sturdevant Road 
• More visible truck route signage 
• Improvement of rail crossings for all transportation modes 
• Expansion of the sidewalk network to improve pedestrian connections, especially southeast 
• Installation of traffic signal at US 20/Business Loop 20 (Western Junction) 
• Installation of  boat ramp at the Port of Toledo 
• Increased access to local transit system 
ATTENDEES: 
COPY TO: 
PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAC) MEETING #2 
TOLEDOPAC2SUMMARY_DRAFT_101712.DOCX 2 
Some members of the PAC could not limit their choices to just one improvement and therefore listed 2-3 
improvements that they would make. Adam expressed agreement with many of these sentiments and felt that 
safe access for all travel modes was the key issue that needed to be addressed. 
Transportation System Plan Goals and Objectives 
Terra Lingley of CH2M Hill reviewed the TSP goals, noting that the process was an opportunity for community 
members to establish broad objectives for where they would like to see the Toledo transportation network within 
the 20-year planning horizon while also identifying and addressing deficiencies and needs in specific locations. She 
identified the study area as the Toledo Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and reviewed the project schedule, which 
included assessments of previous planning efforts and potential funding sources for improvements. Based on the 
suggestions from this meeting, staff would identify and price potential projects for inclusion in the TSP, with 
estimated timeline for implementation. These projects would then be brought to the next PAC meeting in 
December or January for discussion and feedback. 
Technical Memo #3: Deficiencies and Needs 
Terra identified the main points of analysis for existing conditions. Data was gathered through the City, County, 
ODOT, stakeholder interviews and a site visit in July 2012. The locations, gaps and issues associated with existing 
facilities and services were documented: roadways (arterials and collectors), sidewalks, bike routes/lanes, truck 
routes, transit, railroad, port, and airport. Traffic counts were collected at eleven study area intersections which 
were then used to create a traffic model for the year 2035 no-build condition. As part of the Deficiencies and 
Needs Memo, the project team analyzed existing and future traffic operations to determine areas of likely 
congestion that may lead to traffic queues that block the next intersection. In addition, safety concerns related to 
crash history or perception of risk were evaluated as well as the availability of parking in Downtown. 
She then provided the summary of findings: 
• In general, roads were deemed steep and narrow, with a limited sidewalk network generally incompliant 
with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations.  
• The bike network was almost nonexistent, with one designated route that features no bicycle lanes as 
well as steep terrain.  
• The network featured a high percentage of freight truck traffic, but the City’s designated freight routes 
were not always utilized and led to trucks frequently getting trapped on residential streets. In addition, 
the location of two public schools along the main freight route generated conflicting types of traffic.  
• Transit service was limited with six round trips a day between Newport and Siletz, and consequently 
suffered from low ridership.  
• The freight railroad only had one roundtrip train daily, with the Georgia Pacific Toledo Pulp & Paper 
Operations facility being the only customer on the short line. Rail crossings were rough at several 
occasions, and hampered accessibility for all modes. 
• Traffic congestion and queues were observed at US 20 @ OR 229/Business Loop 20 Spur, US 20 @ 
Western Loop, and US 20 @ Business Loop 20 (Western Junction). There were crashes recorded at the 
latter intersection in recent years, with one fatality. 
• Parking counts revealed low-moderate occupancy rates during an average weekday. However, special 
events likely caused demand to exceed supply.  
Discussion Groups 
Terra invited the PAC to split into two groups to discuss transportation needs and deficiencies in Toledo for the 
next hour and fifteen minutes. Copies of study area maps were provided along with Post-It notes to allow 
members to mark up the maps. At the end of the session, each group would assign a notetaker and report overall 
findings, including the four or five issues identified as most important to the groups.  
US 20/Business Loop 20/OR 229 (Western Junction) 
Within the groups, several common themes emerged. The US 20/Business Loop 20 (western junction)/OR 229 
complex garnered most of the attention due to the routine traffic congestion and perceived safety risk at those 
PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAC) MEETING #2 
TOLEDOPAC2SUMMARY_DRAFT_101712.DOCX 3 
locations. Traffic queues on westbound Business Loop 20 waiting to turn west onto US 20 were observed backing 
up nearly half a mile east towards Dundon Road. This backup could also impact drivers turning east onto Business 
Loop 20 from the spur. Also, trucks turning into the Dahl’s Disposal business west of Western Loop on US 20 
frequently impeded traffic in both directions due to the tight turns required to enter the driveway. Several 
improvements were suggested to help improve traffic operations at the US 20/Business Loop 20 (West) 
intersection including: a) installing a traffic signal, b) building an interchange, c) building a roundabout, d) 
modifying the turn lane for eastbound US 20 traffic turning right onto Business Loop 20, and e) removing passing 
lanes on US 20. Poorly placed signage impede visibility for traffic waiting to turn west on US 20, while the 
perceived high speed of through traffic on US 20 was also cited as an issue. Some members felt that the prevailing 
traffic pattern confused drivers unfamiliar with the area and often contribute to congestion and lead to cut-
through traffic in the Dairy Queen parking lot or illegal turning movements being made.  
Further east on US 20, the OR 229/Business Loop 20 Spur also generated several comments. According to the PAC, 
the awkward layout of the intersection and sightline issues exacerbated by acute angles increase crash risk for 
traffic continuing straight across US 20. Some felt that the problem extended beyond this area and that more 
global changes should be made to US 20 further west of the complex. 
Sturdevant Road/General Freight Access 
The status of local freight routes also received significant attention, with problems specifically identified along 
Sturdevant Road, which is the main route for trucks accessing the Georgia-Pacific Toledo facility. This designation 
often poses conflicts with traffic accessing Toledo Elementary and Junior/Senior High schools. Each of these 
schools includes a 20 mile per hour (mph) school zone section. The type of traffic seen on this road and the lack of 
continuous sidewalks or bike lanes prevent students from being able to walk or bike to school. In addition, the 
road was seen as substandard for freight due to insufficient or nonexistent shoulders and sharp curves. One PAC 
member wanted to see Sturdevant improved throughout its entire length to enable easier access to industrial 
land owned by the Siletz Indian Tribe south of 10th Street. Other issues included a lack of visibility looking west 
onto Business Loop 20 from Sturdevant Road due to a bridge crossing over Olalla Slough. 
When speaking generally of freight routes in Toledo, some members thought that the signage could be improved 
as trucks were still frequently getting trapped on residential streets. Police were periodically fining truck drivers 
found driving on non-approved streets. Others thought that the truck routes were not well thought out, and that 
there should be more than two access points to the Georgia-Pacific Toledo facility, which is the largest employer 
in the City. The mill attracts 150 trucks daily for shipment of pulp and paper products; in addition many logging 
trucks use the routes as well. One member representing Georgia-Pacific informed the PAC that all trucks were 
instructed to use Sturdevant Road whether approaching Toledo from Newport, Siletz or Corvallis due to issues 
with sharp or blind curves on Business Loop 20 west of Downtown. In addition, the right turn onto A Street 
southbound from Business Loop 20 was described as being difficult for trucks. There was a suggestion that a new 
truck route should be built bypassing this stretch of Business Loop 20 to facilitate greater access from the west 
while also relieving truck traffic on Sturdevant Road. 
Railroad Crossings 
PAC members felt that railroad crossings in Toledo are in poor condition, specifically at A Street and 1st Street 
along the freight route near the Port. One member representing the Port felt that the problem was especially bad 
for trucks and vehicles pulling boats. In addition, the crossings could cause bicyclists to crash. The life expectancy 
of the rail line was questioned, with one PAC member describing the line being in fair condition and maintained 
for lower speeds. Many members recognized the importance of the railroad in driving the economy and felt that 
there could be an opportunity for increased coastal freight traffic in the future if improvements were made 
(Georgia-Pacific is currently the only customer along the line). One member estimated that crossings would cost 
$150,000 to upgrade and that funding may be difficult to obtain due to lack of coordination between entities 
(ODOT Rail Division regulates the crossings, while Portland and Western Railroad [PNWR] owns the railroad). 
There were no members representing either agency at this meeting.  
Other crossings are seen as deficient as well: there are currently no crossing gates at the Butler Bridge Road 
crossing near Timme Lane, while the Butler Bridge Road crossing near Main Street does not have a crossing gate 
PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAC) MEETING #2 
TOLEDOPAC2SUMMARY_DRAFT_101712.DOCX 4 
for southbound Main Street traffic. There had also been reports of train derailments at the Butler Bridge Road 
(Timme Lane) and East Slope Road crossings near the mill entrance. 
Pedestrian/Bicycle Access 
Instilling safe connections for active transportation modes was seen as critically important to Toledo’s vitality and 
livability. In general, citywide sidewalk and bike route networks were described as disconnected or nonexistent in 
neighborhoods outside Downtown. A multi-use path on Sturdevant Road connecting the two schools was seen as 
a large priority, for the purposes of Safe Routes to Schools and for recreation. An extension of existing trail on East 
Slope Road further west towards Butler Bridge Road would also facilitate greater connections in south Toledo. 
Moreover, members of the PAC felt that sections of Burgess Road and Arcadia Drive in north Toledo were lacking 
continuous sidewalks. Improved connections across Depot Slough on Yaquina Bay Recreational trail opportunities 
were also described in the Olalla Slough area. Enhanced pedestrian networks were seen as a key component of 
better integrating the Georgia-Pacific Toledo facility with Downtown (as a place where workers might walk to 
lunch instead of drive, for example). The PAC also stressed the importance of providing ADA access, including at 
rail crossings. 
The PAC also described bicycle access in Toledo as lacking. Yaquina Bay Road is currently the only designated 
bicycle route in Toledo but only serves a small portion of the City and is used mostly by weekend recreational 
cyclists. In addition, the road was identified as being uncomfortable for bike traffic due to lack of dedicated bike 
lanes and steep grades. Previously, the county had applied for a grant from ODOT to construct a new trail to the 
east of Yaquina Bay Road, however this application was unsuccessful. There were concerns from the PAC about 
this path, such as its location along a hillside that may not be stable, or the lack of willingness from PNWR to 
provide a new rail crossing for the path without requesting that another crossing be vacated by the City. 
Other Issues 
Additional issues brought up by the committee were related to Port operations, public transit, and airport. The 
PAC member representing the Port suggested that a boat ramp convenient to Downtown needed to be built to 
attract out-of-town visitors who now use the boat ramp in Newport. Currently, the closest boat ramp is located 
near Toledo State Airport outside of the UGB. The boat ramp could provide economic opportunity to Toledo by 
increasing the amount of money spent at local establishments, including Downtown shops and the Port’s 
boatyard and maintenance facilities. The location of a boat ramp, or parking for vehicles with boat trailers, would 
need to be determined. The idea of facilitating access for barges at the Port was also introduced as an opportunity 
to increase economic growth in Toledo. These barges may be used to transport fuel in conjunction with tanker 
trains operating along the railroad. Tokyo Slough was suggested as a possible location for this facility. 
There was not a great deal of discussion in the PAC about public transportation in Toledo. According to one 
member’s anecdotal observation, the station at Olalla Store seemed to be well-used. The member representing 
Lincoln County Transit did not have ridership data for the Newport-Siletz route but promised to follow up with 
those figures. She noted that bus shelters had been installed along the route during the past year. One member 
informed the PAC that the Coast to Valley Express bus route (operated by a consortium of nearby counties 
between Corvallis and Newport) had recently consolidated its Toledo stop to the Park and Ride lot located at 
Business Loop 20 and A Street so that both eastbound and westbound trips would stop there after hearing 
feedback from passengers. Previously, buses in one direction would stop at the Park and Ride, while those in the 
opposite direction would stop at the Dairy Queen. The distance between these two stops is over a mile along a 
windy arterial road without continuous sidewalks. 
The PAC also discussed the future of airport operations at Toledo State Airport, noting that the state was looking 
to sell or shut down the airport in the future due to the lack of aviation traffic.  
Open House & Next Steps 
Terra informed the group of the upcoming project open house on Wednesday, November 7 from 5:00-7:00PM at 
Toledo City Hall. The open house will be informal and solicit input from the broader community on transportation 
issues. She asked the PAC to help get the word out to the community, indicating that the City was planning on 
putting up flyers and sending notices with local utility bills. One member suggested that a press release could be 
PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAC) MEETING #2 
TOLEDOPAC2SUMMARY_DRAFT_101712.DOCX 5 
published in the NewsLincolnCounty online newsletter. Another member offered to publish a press release in the 
Georgia-Pacific newsletter and post flyers in the company break rooms. 
Terra appreciated the suggestions and asked that committee members post flyers in local businesses, email local 
contact lists, and bring friends to the open house in order to increase turnout. She reminded them to check the 
project website www.gettingaroundtoledooregon.org for the latest updates to the TSP process. She thanked the 
committee for their attendance and participation in this meeting and informed them that the next PAC meeting 
would either be in December or January. She asked if meetings on Thursday afternoons generally worked for 
everyone, and the consensus was that it did. She also requested comments on Technical Memo #3 by November 
7. With that, the meeting was adjourned shortly after 3:00PM. 
  
  
PAC Meeting 3 Materials 
  
  
  
Toledo TSP Project Advisory Committee (PAC) 
Meeting #3 Agenda 
Date: Thursday, February 21, 2013 
Time: 3:00 – 5:00 p.m. 
Location: Toledo Fire Department 285 NE Burgess Road, Toledo 
Meeting Purpose: 
• Review and discuss alternatives for all modes to include in the TSP 
• Discuss next project Open House 
Time Item Who 
3 p.m. Welcome and introductions 
- Self Introductions 
- Meeting Agenda 
- Overview of last meeting 
Adam Denlinger 
3:10 p.m. Review road alternatives 
- Do you agree with the project team 
recommendations and priorities? 
All 
3:45 p.m. Review bicycle and pedestrian alternatives 
- Do you agree with the project team 
recommendations and priorities? 
All 
4:15 p.m. Review air, water, pipeline, rail, and transit 
alternatives 
- Do you agree with the project team 
recommendations and priorities? 
All 
4:35 p.m. Project Open House 
- March 12, 4-6 pm Toledo City Hall 
- Help us encourage people to come 
Terra Lingley 
4:55 p.m. Thank you, Next Steps, Adjourn All 
 
 
Getting Around Toledo, Oregon 
PAC Meeting #3 – 2/21/13 
Presentation Overview 
• Review Project Goals 
• Road alternatives 
– Costs and priorities 
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Alternatives 
– Costs and priorities 
• Transit Policies 
• Freight Rail Policies 
• Air/Pipeline 
• Water (Port) Alternatives 
– Costs and priorities 
 
What are the project goals? 
• Safety and security 
• Aesthetics and Community Livability 
• Economic Development 
• Coordination 
• Transportation circulation and mobility 
• Efficient multi-modal transportation system 
Road Projects 
• Freight Alternatives 
– No recommended changes to the freight route 
– Add more wayfinding signs (including no truck signs) 
• Functional Classification 
– A Street (south of Business Loop 20)/1st Street/Butler Bridge Road is a 
collector 
– Main Street is a local road 
• Business Loop 20 at A Street 
– Eastbound right turn lane from Business Loop 20 to A Street 
– Lengthen the turn lane for left turning vehicles on A Street 
• Burgess Road Realignment 
– Realign intersection to a 90 degree angle 
• Sturdevant Road Realignment 
– South of 10th Street – allow large trucks to Siletz Kiln Site 
• Pavement markings at Butler Bridge Road and NW 1st Street 
– Clarify which vehicles have the right-of-way and which vehicles need to stop. 
Road Projects 
• Western Junction Alternatives 
– No Build 
– Couplet Alternative 
– Interchange Alternative 
– Low-build Alternative 
– Offset T Alternative 
– Roundabout Alternative 
– Traffic Signal Alternative 
Western Junction No Build and Couplet Alternatives 
No Build Alternative 
• Only upkeep and 
maintenance 
• No additional cost 
• Congestion and safety 
issues remain 
 
Couplet Alternative 
• Uses existing roads 
• Congestion and safety 
issues remain 
• Confusing in a  rural setting 
 
Western Junction Diamond Interchange Alternative 
• Addresses congestion 
and safety issues 
• Expensive 
• Could have 
environmental impacts 
• Out of scale with 
existing US 20 
Western Junction Low Build Alternative 
• Lowest cost alternative 
• Backups would still happen on Business Loop 20 
• Vehicles still cross US 20 
• Could be an early phase for a larger project 
Western Junction Offset T Intersections Alternative 
• Consolidates Western 
Junction into 2 
intersections 
• Long queues for left 
turns from Business 
Loop 20 towards 
Newport 
• Removes cross traffic 
from US 20, though left 
turns across highway 
remain 
Western Junction Roundabout Alternative 
• Reduces access points 
and vehicle conflict 
points 
• Slows traffic on US 20 – 
impacts to Dairy Queen 
• Removes all cross traffic 
from US 20, reduces 
severity of potential 
crashes 
Western Junction Traffic Signal Alternative 
• Addresses 
congestion on 
Business Loop 20 
at the Western 
Junction 
• Inconsistent with 
driver expectation 
on US 20 
• Does not remove 
cross traffic on US 
20 – potential for 
rear-end crashes 
and vehicles 
running the signal. 
Project Description Cost estimate Priority 
Freight Route Signage Improvements – Citywide $12,000 Short-term 
Business Loop 20 -Eastbound Right Turn Pocket at A Street $449,000 Medium-term 
East Slope Road - Improve Vertical Alignment For Freight 
Access $635,000 Medium-term 
Burgess Road Realignment to 90-Degree Intersection at 
Business Loop 20 $298,000 Medium-term 
Sturdevant Road – Roadway Realignment for Siletz Site 
Freight Access $595,000 Long-term 
Pavement Markings at Railroad Crossing – Butler Bridge Road 
and NW 1st Street Intersection $1,000 Short-term 
Western Junction Alternatives 
No Build Alternative  $0 outside of regular maintenance and upkeep N/A 
Couplet Alternative Did not improve traffic congestion or safety and would be out of character in the rural setting 
Diamond Interchange Alternative  $9,846,000 Long-term 
Low Build Alternative $2,336,000 Medium-term 
Offset T Alternative  Did not improve traffic congestion or safety 
Roundabout Alternative $3,310,000 Long-term 
Traffic Signal Alternative  $7,586,000 Long-term 
Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects and Policies 
• Fill Sidewalk Gaps 
– B/P Project 1: Burgess Road sidewalk extension to create a continuous sidewalk 
– B/P Project 2: Extend the sidewalk on Business Loop 20 from East Slope Road to 
Sturdevant Road.  
– B/P Project 3: Business Loop 20 off-street multi-use path 
– B/P Project 4: Douglas Street/SE 3rd Street sidewalks around Community Center  
– B/P project 5: East Slope Road Sidewalk from the Park to Butler Bridge Road 
• Crosswalks, could include signage, markings, and in some cases, flashing lights  
– B/P Project 6: High visibility crosswalks at Elementary and Junior/Senior High Schools 
– B/P Project 7: Add a crosswalk and signage to the Post Office 
– B/P Project 8: Discourage vehicles at the pedestrian railroad crossing at 2nd Street 
• Bicycle Boulevards are a network of local, neighborhood streets that prioritize 
active transportation modes 
– B/P Policy 4: City to implement bicycle boulevard network on residential streets with 
wayfinding signage and sharrows 
Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects and Policies 
• Trail Network for both bicyclists and pedestrians:  
– B/P Policy 2: Work with regional partners to look into an intercity multi-use trail 
– B/P Policy 3: Work with community partners to explore a “volksmarch” route 
– B/P Project 9: Construct a trail along Bay Boulevard/Yaquina Bay Road using abandoned 
rail bed near the Port; City to work with Lincoln County and the Port to create 
alternatives to addresses safety concerns  
– B/P Project 10: Construct a multi-use path and/or boardwalk along Sturdevant Road, 
east-west connections across Olalla Slough could be included; could be a nature walk 
– B/P Project 11: Business Loop 20 multi-use trail or boardwalk facility on the west side of 
the road; could be a boardwalk over wetlands (near Depot Slough)  
• Wayfinding Signs can encourage visitors to explore downtown on foot or bike 
– B/P Policy 1: Work to develop a pedestrian wayfinding system to encourage visitors to 
explore Toledo’s attractions 
– B/P Project 12: Install bicycle wayfinding signs from Bay Boulevard into downtown 
Project Description Cost estimate Priority 
Business Loop 20 Sidewalk (South/East Side)  – East Slope Road to Sturdevant 
Road $1,093,000 Medium-term 
Business Loop 20 Path (South/West Side) – US 20 to NW 6th Avenue $2,342,000 Long-term 
East Slope Road sidewalk extension $551,000 Medium-term 
Fill Sidewalk Gaps – Burgess Road $172,000 Medium-term 
Fill Sidewalk Gaps – Douglas Street and 3rd Street near the Community Center $63,000 Medium-term 
Multi-Use Path – Sturdevant Road $4,227,000 Medium-term 
Sturdevant Road High Visibility Crosswalks at Elementary and Junior/Senior 
High Schools $68,000 Medium-term 
Pedestrian Advisory Signage – Butler Bridge Road and NW 1st Street 
Intersection $37,000 Short-term 
Railroad Pedestrian Crossing Improvements to Discourage Automobile Use -
Butler Bridge Road at SE 2nd Street  $11,000 Short-term 
Pedestrian Advisory signs – Butler Bridge Road and 1st Street intersection $37,000 Short-term 
Bicycle Wayfinding signs – Bay Boulevard  $10,000 Short-term 
Transit Policies 
• Lincoln County Transit manages transit service. No 
recommended projects. 
• Recommended City policies:  
– T Policy A: Maintain partnership to support new investments in transit 
service and infrastructure; identify new funding sources 
– T Policy B: Work with Toledo Chamber of Commerce/others to explore 
citywide transit shuttle or circulator 
– T Policy C: Identify local and regional partners to explore a water taxi 
or ferry service to Newport 
 
Freight Rail Policies 
• The rails are owned by Portland and Western Railroad 
(PNWR). No recommended projects. 
• Recommended City policies: 
– FR Policy A: Coordinate meetings with ODOT Rail, Lincoln County, 
Georgia Pacific, and PNWR to address crossing conditions 
– FR Policy B: City to develop evaluation criteria (to prioritize public 
crossing investments) and generate an improvement list (in order of 
greatest importance) 
– FR Policy C: City to work with ODOT Rail and the Federal Railroad 
Administration to explore a “Quiet Zone” in Downtown 
– FR Policy D: City to pursue proposed intermodal hub at Tokyo Slough 
with the Port of Toledo, to add potential freight rail customers  
Airport/Pipeline 
• Airport 
– There are no changes expected to the airport, with the 
possible exception of its sale and potential closure. 
 
• Pipeline 
– There are no plans or need to expand the gas pipeline into 
Toledo within the 20 year planning horizon of the TSP. 
Water/Port Projects and Policies 
• The Port’s Boatyard Buildout Plan, includes: 
– W/P Project 1: Construction of a travel lift at the Sturgeon Bend 
boatyard facility 
– W/P Project 2: Developing sandblasting and painting operations 
within an airtight, climate-controlled facility for the boatyard 
– W/P Project 3: Investigating the Tokyo Slough Intermodal Hub, to 
leverage the existing barge dock and the nearby PNWR line 
• Create barge access (along the Yaquina River) to industrial 
site.  
– W/P Policy A: Conduct a bridge life cycle assessment and explore the 
cost of rebuilding/ altering the Butler Bridge to accommodate taller 
barges and boats  
Project Description Cost Estimate Priority 
Phase 1 projects – New pier and replace piles for travel lift, 
construct wash down pad, relocate utilities, purchase travel lift 
$3,493,000 Short-Term 
Phase 2 projects – upgrade site access road, realign utilities, and 
develop cargo transfer and vessel hard moorage areas 
$950,000 Medium-Term 
Phase 3 projects – construct vessel work building, new boatyard 
office and restrooms 
$2,050,000 Long-Term 
Zoning and Truck Routes 
Bike and Pedestrian Alternatives 
Which 5 road projects should move forward first?
Road Projects Put your dot stickers
R Project 1: Citywide freight sign improvements
R Project 2:Western Junction No Build         
R Project 3: Western Junction Couplet Alternative
R Project 4:Western Junction Interchange Alternative
R Project 5: Western Junction Low Build Alternative
R Project 6:Western Junction Offset T Alternative
R Project 7: Western Junction Roundabout Alternative
R Project 8:Western Junction Traffic Signal Alternative
R Project 9: Business Loop 20/A Street turn pocket             
R Project 10: Improve vertical curves on East Slope Road for freight
R Project 11: Burgess Road Realignment at Business Loop 20
R Project 12: Sturdevant realignment for Siletz Site access
R Project 13: Pavement markings at Butler Bridge Road and NW 1st Street
Which 5 bicycle and pedestrian projects should move forward first?
Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects Put your dot stickers
B/P Project 1: Burgess Road sidewalk extension
B/P Project 2: Business Loop 20 sidewalk between East Slope Road and Sturdevant Road
B/P Project 3: Community Center sidewalks
B/P Project 4: East Slope Road Sidewalk from Park to Butler Bridge Road                     
B/P Project 5: High visibility school crosswalks
B/P Project 6: Post Office crosswalk/signage
B/P Project 7: Discourage vehicles at the pedestrian railroad crossing at 2nd Street
B/P Project 8: Bay Boulevard/Yaquina Bay Road bike path
B/P Project 9: Sturdevant Road path/boardwalk
B/P Project 10: Business Loop 20 trail/boardwalk
B/P Project 11: Bicycle wayfinding signs
 FACT SHEET: POLICIES AND PROJECTS 2/13/13 
C i t y  o f  T o l e d o  T S P   
 
Fact Sheet: Road Network Improvements 
Potential policies, projects, and other measures for the Toledo TSP (transportation system plan), which can help address 
deficiencies and needs already identified, are shown below. These ideas are a starting point for a larger discussion.  
Freight Alternatives 
There are no recommended changes to the freight route network in Toledo. Freight projects include: 
• Add more wayfinding signs (including no truck signs) before critical turns on the truck route 
Functional Classification 
The project team recommends changing/smoothing the classification of a few streets within Toledo: 
• A Street (south of Business Loop 20)/1st Street/Butler Bridge Road as a collector 
• Lincoln Way as a collector 
• Main Street as a local road 
• East Slope Road (north of SE 10th Street to Business Loop 20) as a collector 
Intersection Alternatives 
Western Junction 
• No Build – do nothing, except for regular upkeep and maintenance 
o No additional cost 
o Congestion and traffic backup would remain 
o Current safety issues would remain 
• Couplet Alternative – create a one-way couplet with Western Loop as a northbound road and OR 229 as a 
southbound road 
o Would use existing roads 
o Would not address safety, is confusing in a rural setting, and would not help congestion 
• Interchange Alternative– create a diamond interchange – elevate OR 229 over US 20, with ramps onto and off 
of US 20. 
o Would address congestion and safety issues 
o Would be expensive to build and could have environmental impacts 
o Would be out of scale with existing feel of US 20 
• Low-Build Alternative –would add an acceleration lane for left turning vehicles onto US 20 from Business Loop 
20 and extend the turn lane for right turning vehicles from US 20 to Business Loop 20. Would add a median on 
US 20 between eastbound and westbound traffic. 
o Lowest cost alternative, would slightly improve vehicle backups on Business Loop 20 and US 20 
o Backups would still occur on Business Loop 20 
o Would not reduce the number of vehicles crossing US 20 – drivers may take more risks turning onto US 
20 
o Could be an early phase to a longer-term project alternative 
FACT SHEET: ROAD NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS 
2 FACTSHEET-ROADPROJECTS 
• Offset T Intersections Alternative – would consolidate Western Junction into two T intersections, creating turn 
pockets where the side streets meet US 20 
o Would consolidate access points on US 20 and decrease vehicle conflicts – would improve congestion 
and backups at US 20 and OR 229 
o Left turns onto US 20 from Business Loop 20 would back up into Toledo, as all traffic turning into Toledo 
from westbound US 20 would turn left at that intersection – left turns from US 20 onto Business Loop 20 
would have priority over left turns onto US 20 towards Newport 
o Would remove cross traffic from US 20, but would keep left turns from the side streets 
• Roundabout Alternative – would create a two-lane roundabout. Would require realignment of side streets onto 
US 20 
o Would reduce access points and reduce vehicle conflict points, and improve congestion on Business 
Loop 20 
o Would slow traffic on US 20, would impact the Dairy Queen 
o Would remove all cross traffic from US 20, and reduce the severity of potential crashes 
• Traffic Signal Alternative – would consolidate all of the roads into one intersection with a traffic signal 
o Would address congestion at Western Junction with shorter vehicle backups 
o Would not be consistent with driver expectation on a rural highway, would impact Dairy Queen 
o Would not remove cross traffic from US 20, potential for vehicles to run the traffic signal and increased 
rear-end crashes from traffic stopped at the signal 
Business Loop 20 at A Street 
This alternative would add an eastbound right turn lane from Business Loop 20 right onto A Street at the traffic signal for 
vehicles coming from the Western Junction. It would also lengthen the turn lane for vehicles turning left onto A Street 
from Business Loop 20 to provide more space for the left turning vehicles to move out of the through lane. 
o Would improve traffic congestion and vehicle backups 
Burgess Road Realignment at Business Loop 20 
Realign Burgess Road at Business Loop 20 to a 90 degree angle to improve vehicle sight distance. 
o Would affect nearby properties, would require earthwork, and is relatively expensive to construct 
Sturdevant Road Realignment 
Would reduce the curves and add shoulders on Sturdevant Road south of SE 10th Street to the Siletz Kiln Site. 
o Would allow larger trucks to access the kiln site to move materials and finished products into and out of 
the site 
Pavement Markings at Butler Bridge Road and NW 1st Street Intersection 
Would add pavement striping to clarify which vehicles have the right-of-way, and which vehicles need to stop, and 
where.  
Street Standards 
Street standards will be included in the TSP to provide guidance for developers and the City when constructing new road 
or reconstructing existing roads. There are different standards for each roadway classification, though all roads have 
sidewalks, and every road but a local road has bicycle lanes. 
 FACT SHEET: POLICIES AND PROJECTS 2/19/13 
C i t y  o f  T o l e d o  T S P   
 
Fact Sheet: Bike and Pedestrian Systems 
Potential policies, projects, and other measures for the Toledo TSP (transportation system plan), which can help address 
deficiencies and needs already identified, are shown below. These ideas are a starting point for a larger discussion.  
Fill Sidewalk Gaps 
Filling the sidewalks gaps would improve the pedestrian network and enhance access to important destinations: 
• Project 1: Burgess Road (from Arcadia Drive to Business Loop 20) sidewalk extension would connect to marked 
pedestrian crossings on both Arcadia Drive and Business Loop 20. 
• Project 2: Business Loop 20 (from East Slope Road to Sturdevant Road) sidewalk extension on the east side past 
East Slope Road to Toledo Elementary and Junior/Senior High Schools.  
• Project 3: Douglas Street/SE 3rd Street sidewalks on Beech, Douglas, SE 3rd, and SE 4th Streets to connect to the 
Flowerree Community Center. 
• Project 4: East Slope Road Sidewalk add sidewalk connecting the end of the East Slope Road trail to Bulter 
Bridge Road. 
Bicycle Boulevards 
Bicycle boulevards are generally a network of local, neighborhood streets that prioritize active transportation modes; 
ranging in cost and levels of impact to behavior. A basic bicycle boulevard network with lower cost elements is 
recommended along Main, Alder, or Beech Streets (N-S connection), as well as on Graham or SE 2nd Streets (E-W 
connection) and on Dundon Road and Sunset Drive (alternate to Business Loop 20). 
• Policy 4: The City will implement a bicycle boulevard network on local residential streets with wayfinding 
signage and sharrows to facilitate connections to local destinations. 
Crosswalks  
The project team recommends adding specific crosswalk improvements to help increase pedestrian visibility and safety. 
These alternatives could include advisory and warning signage, crosswalk markings, and in some cases, flashing lights.  
• Project 5: Add high visibility crosswalks at the entrance to Toledo Elementary and Junior/Senior High Schools 
(built with Project 10 below). 
• Project 6: Add a crosswalk and signage to the Post Office at Butler Bridge Road and NW 1st Street. 
• Project 7: Discourage vehicles from using the pedestrian railroad crossing at 2nd Street and Butler Bridge Road 
Trail Network 
These trail alternatives would accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians:  
• Policy 2: Toledo will work with regional partners, including the Cities of Corvallis, Philomath, and Newport; 
Lincoln County; Benton County; and ODOT; to determine the feasibility of building an intercity multi-use trail. 
• Policy 3: The City will work with community partners to explore the possibility of instituting a volksmarch route 
in Toledo for programming events. 
Volksmarching is a form of personal, non-competitive, fitness walking that originated in Germany and has a 
popular following in the United States. Volksmarch events allow people to participate at their own pace, and 
typically occur on specific length outdoor paths and trails. It can also be a tourist draw, as volksmarchers visit 
different routes and keep a log of their walks. A volksmarch route could use proposed or existing paths. 
• Project 8: Construct a trail along Bay Boulevard/Yaquina Bay Road to bypass the steep and narrow section of 
Bay Boulevard. The trail would use the nearby abandoned rail bed, traveling through the Port of Toledo’s 
FACT SHEET: BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN SYSTEMS 
2 FACT SHEET: POLICIES AND PROJECTS 
boatyard facility then along Altree Lane to a nearby railroad crossing before rejoining with Bay Boulevard. There 
are safety concerns with having bicyclists and pedestrians pass through the active boatyard. The project team 
recommends that the City work with Lincoln County and Port of Toledo to consider alternatives to the proposed 
trail that does not impact boatyard operations and addresses the safety concerns with the existing proposed 
route.  
• Project 9: Construct a multi-use trail along Sturdevant Road between downtown and the Toledo Elementary 
and Junior/High Schools. A multi-use path and/or boardwalk along the west side of Sturdevant Road, with areas 
with limited space along the road (Olalla Slough) built as boardwalks. The trail would include connections to 
Sturdevant Road, including marked crosswalks with signage and lights (Project 5) at the local schools. East-west 
connections across Olalla Slough could be included to allow access between Sturdevant Road and downtown. 
The trail could be designed as a nature walk with interpretive signs and displays to educate users about the 
wildlife and habitat of the Olalla Slough.  
• Project 10: Business Loop 20 Trail (between NW 6th Street and US 20) would create a separate multi-use trail or 
boardwalk facility on the west side of the road, since there is not room for a sidewalk. The trail would be a 
boardwalk over wetlands (near Depot Slough).  
Wayfinding Signs 
Wayfinding signs can encourage visitors to explore downtown on foot or bike, by providing location information and 
distances to destinations and recreational trails; can include design elements to reinforce the sense of place in 
downtown. 
• Policy 1: The City will work to develop a pedestrian wayfinding system that encourages visitors to explore 
Toledo and provides directions to local attractions. 
• Project 11: Install bicycle wayfinding signs from Bay Boulevard into downtown at the intersection of Business 
Loop 20 and Bay Boulevard. 
 
 FACT SHEET: POLICIES AND PROJECTS 1/9/13 
C i t y  o f  T o l e d o  T S P   
 
Fact Sheet: Air, Pipeline, Port/Water, Rail, and Transit Systems 
Potential policies, projects, and other measures for the Toledo TSP (transportation system plan), which can help address 
deficiencies and needs already identified, are shown below. These ideas are a starting point for a larger discussion.  
Air 
There are no changes expected to the airport, with the possible exception of its sale and potential closure. 
Pipeline 
There are no plans or need to expand the gas pipeline into Toledo within the 20 year planning horizon of the TSP. 
Port/Water  
• The Port’s Boatyard Buildout Plan, includes construction of a travel lift at the Sturgeon Bend boatyard facility; to lift 
boats up to 300 tons, allowing the Port to work on 98% of West Coast and Alaskan fishing vessels. 
• The Port’s Boatyard Buildout Plan, includes developing sandblasting and painting operations within an airtight, 
climate-controlled facility for the boatyard. 
• The Port’s Boatyard Buildout Plan, suggests that the Tokyo Slough Intermodal Hub would leverage the existing barge 
dock and the PNWR line that terminates near the slough. The intermodal hub project includes: expanding the 
existing rail spur 600 feet; expanding the port access road; paving a staging area for cargo loading/unloading; and 
building a 9,800 square foot warehouse. 
• Create barge access (along the Yaquina River) to industrial site. Conduct a bridge life cycle assessment and explore 
the cost of rebuilding/ altering the Butler Bridge to accommodate taller barges and boats.  
• Public boat ramp near Downtown, within the City limits, as a way to bring more visitors into Toledo. However, the 
project team does not recommend including a boat ramp in the TSP due to costs and feasibility concerns. 
Rail  
The rails are owned by Portland and Western Railroad (PNWR). Recommended City policies include: 
Policy 1: The City will coordinate regular meetings with ODOT Rail, Lincoln County, Georgia Pacific, and PNWR to work 
together to address the conditions of the crossings. 
Policy 2: The City will develop evaluation criteria to prioritize public crossing investments and generate a list of 
improvements in order of greatest importance. 
Policy 3: The City will work with ODOT Rail and the Federal Railroad Administration to explore instituting a “Quiet Zone” 
in Downtown Toledo to reduce noise pollution from passing trains. 
Policy 4: The City will continue to pursue the proposed intermodal hub at Tokyo Slough with the Port of Toledo to add 
potential freight rail customers. This project is described in more detail in the Water section below. 
Transit 
Lincoln County Transit manages transit service. Recommended City policies include: 
Policy 1: Maintain the existing partnership with Lincoln County Transit to support new investments in transit service and 
infrastructure, as well as identify potential new funding sources to implement these improvements. 
Policy 2: Work with the Toledo Chamber of Commerce or other organizations to explore the possibility of a citywide 
transit shuttle or circulator for local service. 
Policy 3: Identify local and regional partners to explore the feasibility of a water taxi or ferry service to Newport. 
C i t y  o f  T o l e d o  T S P   
 
Fact Sheet: Costs and Priorities 
Costs, priorities, and champions for project alternatives for the Toledo TSP (transportation system plan), which can help address deficiencies and needs already 
identified, are shown below. These ideas are a starting point for a larger discussion.  
There are no project alternatives for Transit, rail, airport, or pipelines in Toledo. Alternatives are broken down by Road, Bicycle and Pedestrian, and Port projects.  
Road Alternatives 
Project Description Cost Estimate (in 2012 Dollars) Priority Champion 
Freight Route Signage Improvements – Citywide $12,000 Short-term City 
Western Junction Alternatives– S 20/Business Loop 20/OR 229  
No Build Alternative  $0 outside of regular maintenance 
and upkeep 
N/A N/A 
 Couplet Alternative - The project team did not identify cost estimates, priority, and champions for this alternative because this alternative did not improve traffic congestion or safety 
and the alternative would be out of character in the rural setting 
Diamond Interchange Alternative  $9,846,000 Long-term ODOT, City 
Low Build Alternative $2,336,000 Medium-term ODOT, City 
 Offset T Alternative - The project team did not identify cost estimates, priority, and champions for this alternative because this alternative did not improve traffic congestion or safety at 
the Western Junction. 
Roundabout Alternative $3,310,000 Long-term ODOT, City 
Traffic Signal Alternative  $7,586,000 Long-term ODOT, City 
Business Loop 20 -Eastbound Right Turn Pocket at A Street $449,000 Medium-term City 
East Slope Road - Improve Vertical Alignment For Freight Access $635,000 Medium-term City 
Burgess Road Realignment to 90-Degree Intersection at Business Loop 20 $298,000 Medium-term City 
Sturdevant Road – Roadway Realignment for Siletz Site Freight Access $595,000 Long-term County, City, Siletz Tribe 
Pavement Markings at Railroad Crossing – Butler Bridge Road and NW 1st Street 
Intersection 
$1,000 Short-term City 
  
Bicycle and Pedestrian Alternatives 
Project Description Cost Estimate(in 2012 Dollars) Priority Champion 
Business Loop 20 Sidewalk (South/East Side)  – East Slope Road to Sturdevant Road $1,093,000 Medium-term City, School District 
Business Loop 20 Path (South/West Side) – US 20 to NW 6th Avenue $2,675,000 Long-term City 
East Slope Road sidewalk extension $551,000 Medium-term City 
Fill Sidewalk Gaps – Burgess Road $172,000 Medium-term City 
Fill Sidewalk Gaps – Douglas Street and 3rd Street near the Community Center $63,000 Medium-term City 
Multi-Use Path – Sturdevant Road $4,227,000 Medium-term City, County, School District 
Sturdevant Road High Visibility Crosswalks at Elementary and Junior/Senior High 
Schools 
$68,000 Medium-term City, County, School District 
Pedestrian Advisory Signage – Butler Bridge Road and NW 1st Street Intersection $37,000 Short-term City 
Railroad Pedestrian Crossing Improvements to Discourage Automobile Use -Butler 
Bridge Road at SE 2nd Street  
$11,000 Short-term City 
Bay Boulevard/Yaquina Bay Road multi-must trail Cost from Lincoln County’s grant 
application 
Long-term City, County 
Pedestrian Advisory signs at Butler Bridge Road and 1st Street intersection $37,000 Short-term City 
Bay Boulevard Bicycle Wayfinding signs $10,000 Short-term City 
 
Port Alternatives 
Project Description Cost Estimate(in 2012 Dollars) Priority Champion 
Phase 1 projects – New pier and replace piles for travel lift, construct wash down 
pad, relocate utilities, purchase travel lift 
$3,493,000 Short-Term Port 
Phase 2 projects – upgrade site access road, realign utilities, and develop cargo 
transfer and vessel hard moorage areas 
$950,000 Medium-Term Port 
Phase 3 projects – construct vessel work building, new boatyard office and 
restrooms 
$2,050,000 Long-Term Port, City 
 
 TOLEDOPAC3SUMMARY 1 
M E E T I N G  S U M M A R Y  
 
Project Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting #3 
Stuart Cowie, Lincoln County 
Adam Denlinger, City of Toledo 
Jack Dunaway, Toledo City Council 
Anne Ellis, Toledo Planning Commission 
Reza Farhoodi, CH2M HILL 
Valerie Grigg Devis, ODOT 
David Helton, ODOT 
Arlene Inukai, City of Toledo 
Terra Lingley, CH2M HILL 
Penny Ryerson, Port of Toledo 
Jerry Seth, Toledo Planning Commission 
Bud Shoemake, Port of Toledo 
PREPARED BY: Reza Farhoodi, CH2 HILL 
DATE: March 5, 2013 
 
The City of Toledo Transportation System Plan (TSP) held its third Project Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting on 
February 21, 2012 from 3:00-5:00 p.m. at the Toledo Fire Department. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss 
the recommend projects and policies, including cost estimates, for the roadway, bicycle/pedestrian, transit, 
freight, rail, air, water, and pipeline networks in Toledo as described in Technical Memoranda #4 - #8. The PAC 
reviewed information and had the opportunity to provide feedback on the findings. Handouts of the agenda and 
fact sheets summarizing the Technical Memoranda #4 – #8 were available along with the meeting sign-in sheet. 
The meeting began around 3:10 pm and ended around 5:15 pm. 
Introduction 
Stuart Cowie of Lincoln County began the meeting by announcing he was leaving Lincoln County to take a position 
at Douglas County. He introduced the group and thanked the PAC for participating in the TSP process as well as 
the project team for their work.  
Terra Lingley provided an overview of the previous PAC meeting, including the TSP goals that were identified by 
the PAC. She started the discussion about projects and programs by describing how suggestions from 
stakeholders and the local community helped develop the project alternatives and policies. She asked for PAC 
feedback on the recommendations, project prioritization, and other recommendations for projects and policies to 
include in the TSP. The projects and policies were broken down by transportation mode, starting with road 
projects. 
Road Projects 
Terra reviewed the list of alternative projects, which included freight route signage, changes to the functional 
classification map, and various infrastructure improvements around Toledo.  
Bud Shoemake from the Port suggested a project improving access from southbound Bay Boulevard onto Altree 
Lane towards the mill chip site. The project could include a new left turn lane and widening Altree Lane at the 
private railroad crossing to accommodate truck traffic.  
Western Junction  
The group then discussed the Western Junction, which was identified as having both safety concerns and traffic 
congestion in the existing and future conditions report. 
Terra walked through each of the alternatives: No-Build, Couplet, Diamond Interchange, Low-Build, Offset-T 
Junction, Roundabout, and Traffic Signal. All alternatives include closing Western Loop at US 20 to reduce 
confusion at the Western Junction. The existing traffic counts show very few vehicles use Western Loop. 
Discussion of each of the alternatives is included below. 
ATTENDEES: 
PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAC) MEETING #3 
TOLEDOPAC3SUMMARY 2 
Low-Build Alternative 
• David Helton commented that a new median could impact access to Dahl’s Disposal on the north side of US 
20 – that driveway may need to be modified or moved, depending on design. 
• Stuart asked if the right turn lane for eastbound US 20 traffic going to Toledo would be separated from 
through traffic by a concrete median – the design currently does not include a median. 
• Adam Denlinger was concerned that this option is expensive because of the need to widen US 20. He also 
suggested that improvements that slow through traffic along US 20 would address safety concerns.  
• To slow traffic on US 20, Anne Ellis suggested rumble strips similar to what is currently on US 20 near 
Eddyville. Bud suggested speed bumps or other physical changes to slow traffic. 
Offset-T Alternative 
• David noted a positive impact from this alternative, as it would reduce visibility problems for vehicles turning 
left from US 20 to go either northbound on OR 229 or southbound on Business Loop 20 spur currently turning 
vehicles can reduce sight distance when they are waiting in the turn lane. 
• There were concerns about possible wetland impacts since the OR 229 north would be moved to create a 90 
degree intersection. 
Roundabout Alternative 
• Adam asked if the footprint of this alternative was to scale. It looks small on the figure. He also had concerns 
with traffic speeds approaching the roundabout on US 20. The placement of the roundabout could also have 
impacts to the Dairy Queen. Roundabout designs restrict driveways near the connecting roads for safety, 
which could impact residents and businesses near the intersection. 
• Valerie Grigg Devis mentioned that drivers would not expect a roundabout along a rural highway, and there 
would need to be an educational program to ensure drivers know how to use the roundabout. 
• For some drivers, a roundabout could be confusing and would impact truck traffic. Valerie noted that all 
approved roundabouts have truck turning radiuses in mind, and the freight community would be engaged 
during the decision-making process and design. 
• David also mentioned that ODOT’s new Roundabout policy requires further study and freight community 
engagement, and that he has engaged ODOT’s freight policy staff to review Technical Memo #4. A roundabout 
could be constructed to accommodate through trucks on US 20, but there are likely safety concerns – in a 
two-lane roundabout, trucks are likely to take up both lanes, creating safety concerns for vehicles. 
Traffic Signal Alternative 
• David asked if it was necessary to create a 90 degree intersection with the signal alternative. He also 
suggested adding a hybrid alternative using signalized offset T-intersections to avoid impacting the Dairy 
Queen. 
• Stuart suggested keeping the existing legs on the west side of the intersection and signalizing the US 20/OR 
229 intersection. 
Costs 
Terra then presented a slide on preliminary costs for the roadway projects. The cost estimates are planning level, 
rounded to the nearest $1,000, and no right-of-way or property acquisitions costs are included. The project team 
did not develop cost estimates for the Couplet and Offset T Alternatives because the project team does not 
recommend moving these alternatives forward into the TSP. 
PAC members provided the following additional comments: 
• Jack Dunaway asked why the Western Junction Traffic Signal option was so expensive. The high cost is due to 
widening US 20 to four lanes (two in each direction) east of the intersection to the existing four lane cross 
section. US 20 would need to have a consistent four lane cross section from Arcadia Drive west to the 
Western Junction. 
• Stuart asked how much acquiring the Dairy Queen property would add to the cost estimates. Costs for the 
Dairy Queen would be dependent on a number of factors: if the business could be relocated, or if ODOT 
PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAC) MEETING #3 
TOLEDOPAC3SUMMARY 3 
 
Road Dot Exercise Results 
would need to purchase both the land and the business. With the business, it could reach around $2 million 
because of the lack of comparable relocation possibilities with the same visibility along the highway. ODOT 
would prefer to negotiate a settlement, but property appraisals and/or eminent domain may be necessary if 
an alternative that impacts the Dairy Queen is chosen. 
Road Priorities 
After the road alternative discussion, PAC members 
were given 5 dot stickers to put on a board to 
indicate the projects they thought should be 
completed first. The alternatives with the most 
stickers were pavement markings at Butler Bridge 
Road and NW 1st Street, followed by citywide freight 
sign improvements and reducing vertical curves on 
East Slope Road. 
 
 
 
 
Road Prioritization Dot Exercise 
Project 
Number 
Project Description Number of 
Stickers 
R Project 1 Citywide Freight Sign Improvements 7 
R Project 2 Western Junction No-Build 0 
R Project 3 Western Junction Couplet Alternative 0 
R Project 4 Western Junction Interchange Alternative 5 
R Project 5 Western Junction Low Build Alternative 5 
R Project 6 Western Junction Offset-T Alternative 0 
R Project 7 Western Junction Roundabout Alternative 0 
R Project 8 Western Junction Traffic Signal Alternative 2 
R Project 9 Business Loop 20/A Street Turn Pocket 1 
R Project 10 Improve Vertical Curves on East Slope Road for Freight 7 
R Project 11 Burgess Road Realignment at Business Loop 20 2 
R Project 12 Sturdevant Realignment for Siletz Site Access 1 
R Project 13 Pavement Markings at Butler Bridge Road and NW 1st Street 8 
 
Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects and Policies 
Terra walked through the bicycle/pedestrian projects and policies and then provided cost estimates for the 
projects. Projects and policies included filling sidewalk gaps, crosswalks, multi-use path and trail projects, and 
wayfinding sign projects.  
Bicycle/Pedestrian Comments 
The PAC added the following comments: 
PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAC) MEETING #3 
TOLEDOPAC3SUMMARY 4 
 
Bicycle and Pedestrian Dot Exercise Results 
• Penny had concerns about pedestrian safety during nighttime and poor weather conditions, and noted that 
the sidewalk on Business Loop 20 to Sturdevant Road was a priority. 
• David noted that while the TSP focuses on capital improvements, the City may want to include policies 
supporting educational programs to encourage safe walking and cycling behavior for pedestrians, bicyclists, 
and drivers. The City could also invest in flashers, beacons, or other visibility aids in heavy pedestrian activity 
areas. 
• Adam suggested reviewing the Waterfront Connectivity Plan to ensure that the recommended projects are 
compatible with the Post Office Crosswalk/Signage project. Bud suggested that unfunded projects in the 
Waterfront Connectivity Plan be included in the TSP. 
• Bud noted that the Bay Boulevard/Yaquina Bay Road path should be considered, though the TSP should look 
at other alternatives near the Port due to safety concerns about bicycles and pedestrians conflicting with 
boatyard operations.  
• David suggested that the TSP include policy language that cyclists are concerned about rough pavement 
around railroad crossings, which is ODOT Rail’s responsibility to improve. 
• Penny suggested adding signs at the Western Junction with travel distances to downtown Toledo from US 20 
to help bring tourists into town – many visitors don’t know how close Toledo is to US 20. Anne agreed and 
suggested adding signs at the Eastern Junction too. 
• Adam noted that the City prepared a grant for the East Slope Road sidewalk project, and would share the 
City’s cost estimates with the team to ensure the assumptions are the same. 
Bicycle and Pedestrian Priorities 
PAC members were asked to do a similar dot exercise for the bicycle and pedestrian projects. The Sturdevant 
Road Path/Boardwalk project, followed by the high visibility school crosswalks on Sturdevant Road, and the East 
Slope Road sidewalk extending from East Slope Park to Butler Bridge Road were the projects that received the 
most dots. 
  
PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAC) MEETING #3 
TOLEDOPAC3SUMMARY 5 
Bicycle/Pedestrian Prioritization Dot Exercise 
Project 
Number 
Project Description Number of 
Stickers 
B/P Project 1 Burgess Road Sidewalk Extension  0 
B/P Project 2 Business Loop 20 Sidewalk Between East Slope Road and Sturdevant 
Road 
5 
B/P Project 3 Community Center Sidewalks 2 
B/P Project 4 East Slope Road Sidewalk from Park to Butler Bridge Road 6 
B/P Project 5 High Visibility School Crosswalks 7 
B/P Project 6 Post Office Crosswalk/Signage 2 
B/P Project 7 Discourage Vehicles at the Pedestrian Railroad Crossing at SW 2nd Street 0 
B/P Project 8 Bay Boulevard/Yaquina Bay Road Bike Path 4 
B/P Project 9 Sturdevant Road Path/Boardwalk 8 
B/P Project 10 Business Loop 20 Trail/Boardwalk 5 
B/P Project 11 Bicycle Wayfinding Signs 1 
 
Transit Policies 
The project team did not develop any transit projects after talking with Lincoln County Transit. Terra presented 
the three transit policy alternatives. 
The PAC had the following comments: 
• David noted that it was up to the City to make sure policy alternatives were in line with what the City was 
prepared to support, specifically related to the circulator shuttle policy. The City should determine if it is 
willing to take on the task of coordinating with the Chamber of Commerce or other entity to develop a 
circulator. 
• David asked about the status of the Coast to Valley Express bus stops which used to drop off and pick up at 
separate locations for eastbound and westbound buses. That has been fixed. 
• Valerie asked about opportunities for new bus shelters. Most are now covered, except for the Food Fair stop. 
Freight Rail Policies 
Terra indicated that there were no project alternatives for the rail network, and then reviewed the recommended 
rail policies, which are listed below. 
The PAC had the following comments: 
• Adam suggested that the policy to coordinate meetings with ODOT Rail to address crossing conditions would 
be difficult to implement – the City has been attempting to reach out over the past couple of years with 
limited success. However, he agreed that the policy was necessary. He added that the recently completed 
safety audit may recommend the installation of crossing arms at the Georgia Pacific rail spur. 
• Penny mentioned that different people have different expectations about train noise depending on how long 
they have lived in the community, and that those who have been in Toledo for a long time are used to train 
noise, and exploring a quiet zone may be unnecessary. 
• Jerry commented that odor from idling train engines near the Post Office and 1st Street siding impact 
downtown establishments. 
• David noted that rail service is important an important aspect of Toledo’s economy and the City could add a 
policy stating that – he mentioned that there is some risk that the rail service could be discontinued due to 
maintenance costs and the risk of landslides or floods that could damage the tracks. If the City agrees, David 
PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAC) MEETING #3 
TOLEDOPAC3SUMMARY 6 
suggested adding a policy stating the importance of the rail line and a willingness to support working with 
partners to maintain the link to the I-5 corridor. 
• Bud noted that a policy in the Port’s Strategic Business Plan includes the Intermodal Hub as a priority project. 
• Adam suggested that industrial land was important to Toledo, and if the City agrees, maybe adding a policy to 
the TSP to support heavy industrial sites, such as the Siletz Kiln site, because they are scarce. Adding a policy 
recognizing the importance of freight access to the Siletz site would help support that goal. 
Airport/Pipeline Policies 
Terra indicated that there were no recommended projects or policies for the air or pipeline networks. The airport 
may potentially be sold or permanently closed, while there are no anticipated pipeline expansions within the 20 
year TSP planning horizon. 
The PAC added the following comments: 
• Bud indicated that the Port would like to use the airport as a dredge spoils site should it close, adding that the 
state does not have money to maintain the airport as it is nearing the end of its usable lifespan. 
• Jack asked about the future of helicopter access should the airport close – currently life flights land and take 
off from the Toledo airport, adding that a helipad could be built in another location. The project team should 
reach out to Fire Chief to talk through alternate landing sites for helicopters. 
• David suggested that the City could either have no Airport policies, or could add a policy supporting the 
airport’s continued operation (if that is the case). If the airport were to close, David suggested having a policy 
to work with partners to identify an alternate landing site for helicopters. The City could also include a policy 
stating its support for the continued use of the pipeline to maintain the viability of the paper mill. These 
policies would be up to the City to decide if they would like to include them in the TSP. 
• Adam and Jack noted that the pipeline is important to the City’s economy as it is vital to G-P mill operations, 
and the City should support the continued use and permitting of the pipeline.  
Water/Port Projects and Policies 
Terra included three projects from the Port of Toledo’s Boatyard Buildout Plan which also provided cost 
estimates. An additional policy was also listed to create barge access along the Yaquina River serving the Siletz 
industrial site. 
The PAC added the following comments: 
• David suggested adding a policy regarding the need to identify a dredge spoils site and another policy stating 
that the City values water transportation and would support the continued use of river navigation and 
waterway access for economic development, if appropriate. Bud agreed with these suggestions. 
• Bud noted one possibility for barging would be to develop a pier directly at the entrance of Depot Slough on 
Georgia Pacific property. ConnectOregon grants could help build a potential project. 
• Jack proposed including a recreational (non-motorized) boat ramp in downtown as a policy or project, noting 
that it could help support economic activity in Toledo. Anne recommended better signage directing people to 
the existing boat ramp at the airport. 
• Bud stated that the price of a boat ramp for motorized boats goes beyond installation, adding that a new boat 
ramp would be expensive to maintain due to dredging and mitigation and requires a lot of space for vehicles 
with boat trailers. He suggested that a passive boat ramp for recreational boats like kayaks and canoes would 
be better than a motorized boat ramp. 
• Jack suggested adopting a long-term vision and associated policies that considers the future of Toledo should 
the Georgia-Pacific mill close within the TSP planning horizon (though this is not currently expected). Bud 
agreed, saying that the City needs to think strategically about how Toledo might change and how it can adapt 
should GP leave. There may be a rough transition because of the impact on the local economy but it could 
also be a prime opportunity for Toledo to remake itself. 
PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAC) MEETING #3 
TOLEDOPAC3SUMMARY 7 
Open House & Next Steps 
Terra informed the group of the upcoming project open house on Tuesday, March 12 from 4:00-6:00 pm at 
Toledo City Hall in the council chambers. The open house will be informal and gather input from the community 
on the recommended projects and policies to include in the TSP. She asked the PAC to help get the word out to 
the community, and passed out printed flyers.  
Terra thanked the committee for their attendance and participation in this meeting and asked the PAC if another 
meeting was warranted to present the draft TSP. Originally the budget included only three PAC meetings but 
there may be an opportunity for an additional meeting if the committee thought it would be worthwhile. Since all 
members agreed that an extra PAC meeting would be beneficial, David informed the group that another meeting 
would be scheduled after the project team writes the draft TSP. The meeting adjourned shortly after 5:00PM. 
  
  
PAC Meeting 4 Materials  
  
  
Toledo TSP Project Advisory Committee (PAC) 
Meeting #4 Agenda 
Date: Thursday, April 25, 2013 
Time: 3:00 – 5:00 p.m. 
Location: Toledo Fire Department 285 NE Burgess Road, Toledo 
Meeting Purpose: 
• Review and discuss content of the TSP 
• Discuss Toledo Municipal Code changes 
Time Item Who 
3 p.m. Welcome and introductions 
- Self Introductions 
- Meeting Agenda 
- Overview of last meeting 
Adam Denlinger 
3:10 p.m. Review road element of the TSP 
- Do you agree with the priorities, policies, and 
projects? 
All 
3:40 p.m. Review bicycle and pedestrian element of the TSP 
- Do you agree with the priorities, policies, and 
projects? 
All 
4:10 p.m. Review air, water, pipeline, rail, and transit element 
of the TSP 
- Do you agree with the priorities, policies, and 
projects? 
All 
4:30 p.m. Toledo Municipal Code Changes 
- Integrating street standards into the code 
- Other amendments to the code and 
Comprehensive Plan 
Terra Lingley 
4:55 p.m. Thank you, Next Steps, Adjourn All 
 
 
Getting Around Toledo, Oregon 
PAC Meeting #4 – 4/25/13 
Project schedule 
We are 
here 
Presentation Overview 
• Review content of the TSP 
• Discuss which concept(s) to carry forward for 
Western Junction 
• Review code changes and consistency with State 
requirements 
 
Road Projects 
• Freight 
– Add more wayfinding signs (including no truck signs) 
– Support access to heavy industrial sites. 
• Business Loop 20 at A Street 
– Add right turn lane on Business Loop 20 to A Street 
• East Slope Road Realignment  
– Allow freight trucks to use East Slope Road 
• Burgess Road Realignment 
– Create a 90 degree angle 
• Sturdevant Road Realignment 
– Allow large trucks to Siletz Kiln Site 
• A Street Railroad crossing 
– From Waterfront Connectivity Plan 
• Butler Bridge Road and 1st Street Changes 
– From Waterfront Connectivity Plan 
Western Junction Alternatives 
• No Build 
• Couplet– not moving forward 
• Diamond Interchange 
• Low Build 
• Offset T – not moving forward 
• Roundabout – recommend not moving forward 
• One Traffic Signal 
• Two Interconnected traffic signals 
Roundabout Alternative 
• Reduces access points 
and vehicle conflict 
points 
• Slows traffic on US 20 – 
impacts to Dairy Queen 
• Removes all cross traffic 
from US 20, reduces 
severity of potential 
crashes 
• Has environmental 
impacts 
• Freight community 
concerns 
• Western Loop would 
remain open 
Roundabout 
• $3.3 million 
• No votes at PAC Meeting #3 
• No votes at Open House 
Diamond Interchange Alternative 
• Addresses 
congestion and 
safety issues 
• Expensive 
• Could have 
environmental 
impacts 
• Out of scale with 
existing US 20 
• Impacts to Dairy 
Queen 
• Closes Western Loop 
Diamond Interchange 
• $9.8 million 
• 5 votes at PAC Meeting #3 
• No votes at the Open House 
Low Build Alternative 
• Lowest cost alternative 
• Backups would still happen on Business Loop 20 
• Vehicles still cross US 20 
• Could be an early phase for a larger project 
• Dahl’s Disposal access kept open; Western Loop is right-in, right-out 
Low Build 
• $2.3 million 
• 5 votes at PAC Meeting #3 
• 1 vote at Open House 
One Traffic Signal Alternative 
• Addresses 
congestion on 
Business Loop 20 
• Inconsistent with 
driver expectation 
on US 20 
• Does not remove 
cross traffic on US 
20 
• Impacts to Dairy 
Queen 
• Western Loop 
would remain 
open 
• Would widen US 20  to four lanes from Western 
Junction to Arcadia Drive 
One Traffic Signal 
• $7.6 million 
• 2 votes at PAC Meeting #3 
• 5 votes at Open House 
Two Traffic Signal Alternative 
• Would keep most of the existing roads in place 
• Addresses congestion on Business Loop 20 
• Inconsistent with driver expectation on US 20 
• Cross traffic  
remains on US 20 
• Avoids Dairy Queen 
• Western Loop  
would remain  
open 
• Widens US 20 to  
4 lanes to Arcadia 
Two Traffic Signals 
• Cost estimate likely to be similar to one signal 
~ $7.6 million 
• New concept (no PAC or Open House votes), 
though positive feedback when discussed at 
the Open House 
Western Junction Group Activity and Discussion 
• Summary of alternative 
• Does the community support this alternative? 
• Do you recommend including this alternative 
in the TSP? 
 
Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects and Policies 
• Fill Sidewalk Gaps 
– Burgess Road 
– Business Loop 20 (East Slope Road to Sturdevant Road) 
–  Douglas Street/SE 3rd Street 
– East Slope Road 
– A Street Business Loop 20 to NW 1st Street (Waterfront Plan) 
– Bay Boulevard (Waterfront Plan) 
• Crosswalks, could include signage, markings, and in some cases, flashing 
lights  
– Crosswalks at schools 
– Butler Bridge Road, SE 2nd and Main 
– NW 1st Street midblock crossing (Waterfront Plan) 
– Butler Bridge railroad fencing (Waterfront Plan) 
Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects and Policies 
• Bicycle Boulevards - neighborhood streets that prioritize bicyclists and 
pedestrians 
– Implement bicycle boulevard network on residential streets 
• Trail Network for both bicyclists and pedestrians:  
– Bay Boulevard/Yaquina Bay Road trail  
– Multi-use path and/or boardwalk along Sturdevant Road 
– Business Loop 20 multi-use trail or boardwalk to US 20 and Western Junction 
– Waterfront Path (Waterfront Plan) 
– Bay Boulevard – Depot Slough bike/ped crossing (Waterfront Plan) 
• Wayfinding Signs - encourage visitors to explore downtown on foot or bike 
– Amenities and Signage (Waterfront Plan) 
– Install bicycle wayfinding signs from Bay Boulevard into downtown 
* *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Toledo 
Junior/Senior 
High School
Toledo 
Elementary 
School
JC 
Thriftway
Flowerree 
Community 
Center
Toledo Public 
Library
Downtown/ 
Main Street
Olalla 
Store
Georgia-Pacific 
Plant
Port of Toledo/ 
Waterfront Park
Toledo Park 
and Ride
*
20
20
BUS
20
BUS
Y
A
Q
U
I
N
A
 
R
I
V
E
R
Depot Slough
O
lalla S
lough
A
rcadia
D
rive
Skyline Dr
ive
W
ay
Linco
ln
Burgess
Road
A
St
re
et
B
ay
Bo
ul
ev
ar
d
Butler 
East
Sl
o
p
e
R
o
ad
R
o
ad
St
u
rd
ev
an
t
R
o
ad
T O L E D O
Bridge 
* Pedestrian Attractors
Park
FIGURE 1
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Network Alternatives 
City of Toledo TSP
LEGEND
Multi-Use
Path
Sidewalk
Bicycle
Boulevard
Approximate Scale in Feet
0 2000
North
\\ROSA\PROJ\ODOT\437682TOLEDO\4 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES\TM5_BIKEPED\TOLEDO_PROPOSED_BIKEPED.AI RFARHOODI 1/31/2013
Multi-use path along 
Sturdevant Road 
with connection to 
downtown
Extend sidewalk 
along Business Loop 
20 to Sturdevant 
Road
Multi-use path near 
Business Loop 20 to 
US 20  
Trail connection to 
downtown along 
railroad line
Complete sidewalk on 
Burgess Road between 
Arcadia Drive and 
Business Loop 20
Complete sidewalk on 
East Slope Road to connect 
Butler Bridge Road with 
existing multi-use path
Transit Policies 
• Lincoln County Transit manages transit service. No 
recommended projects. 
• City policies:  
– Support new investments in transit service and infrastructure;  
– Explore citywide transit shuttle or circulator 
– Explore a water taxi or ferry service to Newport 
 
Freight Rail Policies 
• City policies: 
– Maintain freight rail connection to Toledo from I-5 corridor 
– Coordinate meetings with ODOT Rail, Lincoln County, 
Georgia Pacific, and PNWR to address crossing conditions 
– Develop evaluation criteria and generate a prioritized 
crossing improvement list 
– Explore an Intermodal hub with the Port of Toledo 
– Reduce idling train engines near Downtown businesses 
Airport/Pipeline 
• Airport 
– Identify alternate Life Flight landing locations in City if 
Airport closes 
 
• Pipeline 
– Support GP’s effluent pipeline to maintain applicable 
environmental permitting 
Water/Port Projects and Policies 
• The Port’s Boatyard Buildout Plan, includes: 
– Phase 1-3 of the Port’s plan – facilities improvements 
• Water Policies 
– Assess Butler Bridge to explore accommodating taller barges 
and boats  
– Explore pier for barge access at Depot Slough (GP property) 
– Explore recreational boat launch near downtown 
– Identify dredge spoils site 
– Support intermodal hub 
Plan and Code Amendments 
• Comprehensive Plan Amendments 
– TSP as the transportation element 
– Include TSP policies 
• Municipal Code Amendments 
– Comply with Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) 
requirements 
– Ensure transportation facilities are allowed uses in 
each zone 
– Add transportation standards 
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk 
6’
Bike
Lane 
6’
Bike
Lane 
6’
Travel Lane 
12’
Travel Lane 
12’
Turning Lane 
14’
63’ Right of Way Including Curbs
3-LANE ARTERIAL ROAD
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk 
6’
Bike
Lane 
6’
Bike
Lane
6’
Travel Lane 
12’
Travel Lane 
12’
49’ Right of Way Including Curbs
2-LANE ARTERIAL ROAD
FIGURE 1
Arterial Road Standards
City of Toledo TSP
\\ROSA\PROJ\ODOT\437682TOLEDO\4 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES\CROSS SECTIONS\TOLEDO_CROSSSECTION.AI RFARHOODI 1/25/2013
FIGURE 2
Collector and Commercial
Road Standards
City of Toledo TSP
\\ROSA\PROJ\ODOT\437682TOLEDO\4 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES\CROSS SECTIONS\TOLEDO_CROSSSECTION2.AI RFARHOODI 1/25/2013
77’ Right of Way Including Curbs
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk 
6’
Bike
Lane 
5’
Bike
Lane 
5’
Travel Lane 
12’
Travel Lane 
12’
Turning Lane 
14’
Parking 
Lane
8’
P
Parking 
Lane
8’
P
COMMERCIAL ROAD
Sidewalk
5’
Sidewalk 
5’
Bike
Lane 
5’
Bike
Lane
5’
Travel Lane 
12’
Travel Lane 
12’
45’ Right of Way Including Curbs
COLLECTOR ROAD
Sidewalk
10’
Sidewalk 
10’
Parking 
Lane
8’
Parking 
Lane
8’
Travel Lane 
12’
Travel Lane 
12’
P
61’ Right of Way Including Curbs
Clear Zone
6’
Tree Well
4’
P
Clear Zone
6’
Tree Well
4’
DOWNTOWN MAIN STREET
FIGURE 3
Local Road and Downtown
Main Street Standards
City of Toledo TSP
\\ROSA\PROJ\ODOT\437682TOLEDO\4 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES\CROSS SECTIONS\TOLEDO_CROSSSECTION3.AI RFARHOODI 1/25/2013
Sidewalk 
5’
Parking 
Lane 
8’
Shared Travel Lane 
14’
Shared Travel Lane 
14’
Parking 
Lane 
8’
Sidewalk 
5’
P
55’ Right of Way Including Curbs
P
PREFERRED LOCAL ROAD 
Sidewalk  
5’
Shared Travel Lane 
14’
Shared Travel Lane 
14’
Sidewalk  
5’
39’ Right of Way Including Curbs
MINIMUM LOCAL ROAD
 TOLEDOPAC4SUMMARY_DRAFT 1 
M E E T I N G  S U M M A R Y  
 
Project Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting #4 
Adam Denlinger, City of Toledo 
Reza Farhoodi, CH2M HILL 
David Helton, ODOT 
Arlene Inukai, City of Toledo 
Terra Lingley, CH2M HILL 
Penny Ryerson, Port of Toledo 
Jerry Seth, Toledo Planning Commission 
Bud Shoemake, Port of Toledo 
PREPARED BY: Reza Farhoodi, CH2M HILL 
DATE: May 8, 2013 
 
The City of Toledo Transportation System Plan (TSP) held its fourth Project Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting on 
April 25, 2013 from 3:00-5:00 p.m. at the Toledo Fire Department. The purpose of the meeting was to review the 
content of the TSP, decide on which Western Junction concepts to carry forward, and review proposed 
amendments to the Toledo Comprehensive Plan and Toledo Municipal Code for consistency with state 
requirements as described in Technical Memoranda #9 and #10. The PAC reviewed information and had the 
opportunity to provide feedback on the findings. Handouts of the agenda and fact sheets summarizing the 
Western Junction concepts were available along with the meeting sign-in sheet. The meeting began shortly after 
3:00 pm and ended early at 4:20 pm. 
Introduction 
Terra Lingley began the meeting with a schedule update – the project team is drafting the TSP and preparing for 
adoption by City Council and the Planning Administration. PAC Meeting #4 is the final PAC Meeting of the TSP 
project. Terra thanked the PAC for their work in developing the TSP. 
Terra provided a brief overview of the projects and policies to be included in the TSP, categorized by mode. 
TSP Projects 
Terra reviewed the list of projects and policies for the roadway, freight, bicycle/pedestrian, transit, rail airport, 
pipeline, and water/port modes. The team added projects listed in the adopted Waterfront Connectivity Plan to 
the TSP based on feedback from the previous meeting. Other changes included adding a policy to reduce idling 
train engines impacting businesses downtown, and to remove the policy for a rail quiet zone downtown. 
The TSP will include language that the City and Lincoln County will work with the Port of Toledo to avoid impacts 
to the Port’s boatyard operations with the Yaquina Bay Road Trail. Bud asked the City to look at the Bay 
Boulevard/ Altree Road intersection because of the problems with turning truck traffic and limited visibility due to 
the rail cars stored nearby.  
David Helton from ODOT mentioned that any projects included in the TSP on US 20 would require further analysis 
and support from ODOT before further design and construction would begin. Based on the existing conditions 
analysis at Western Junction, the City would not be able to use ODOT safety funding because the crash and 
fatality rates are relatively low compared to similar roads. However, the City should work with the local Area 
Commission on Transportation (ACT) to include the project in the next Statewide Transportation Improvement 
Program (STIP) and advocate for statewide funding. Terra noted that currently Adam is the ACT representative for 
Toledo, and the City should find another person to attend those meetings and advocate for transportation 
projects important to Toledo since Adam has accepted another job. 
Western Junction Alternatives 
PAC members then discussed the remaining Western Junction concepts. The Couplet and Offset-T options were 
removed based on feedback from the previous PAC meeting.  
ATTENDEES: 
PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAC) MEETING #4 
TOLEDOPAC4SUMMARY_DRAFT 2 
Roundabout Alternative 
Terra walked through the Roundabout alternative 
and asked the PAC if they were comfortable 
removing the Roundabout due to the unpopularity 
with the freight community, the expense, and the 
inconsistency of a roundabout on US 20. Adam 
mentioned that the City Manager was also not in 
favor of keeping the roundabout in the TSP. PAC 
members in attendance supported removing the 
Roundabout alternative. 
Terra walked through the remaining Western 
Junction alternatives, describing the benefits and 
drawbacks of each, and noted any modifications that 
were made since the last PAC meeting. 
Low Build Alternative 
Terra noted that the Low-Build option would retain full access to Dahl’s Disposal from US 20, and access to 
Western Loop would be modified to right-in/right-out only turns. PAC members were concerned that this option 
does not address the OR 229 intersection, and that widening the bridge over Depot Slough would be too costly for 
the small benefits.  
The PAC voted unanimously to remove the Low-Build option from the TSP. 
One Signal Alternative 
The one-signal option would allow Western Loop to stay open at US 20. The cost of the option takes into account 
wetland mitigation required due to the alignment of OR 229 but does not include the costs of acquiring and 
relocating the Dairy Queen. The PAC felt that the widening of US 20 was too expensive and also expressed 
concern about the impact to the DQ site.  
The PAC voted unanimously to remove the One-Signal option. 
Two Signal Alternative 
The Two-Signal option is a new alternative developed after the project Open House in February - it would add two 
coordinated signals, one at US 20/Business Loop 20/Western Loop and another at US 20/OR 229/Business Loop 
20 Spur. North of US 20, OR 229 would be relocated slightly to reduce the extreme angle of the intersection, while 
Western Loop would also be relocated to line up with Business Loop 20 at US 20. This relocation would require a 
new structure over Depot Slough, and detailed cost estimates were not available yet for this concept, though they 
are likely similar to the One Signal Alternative, though this alternative would not impact the Dairy Queen.  
The PAC voted unanimously to include the Two-Signal option. 
Modified One Signal Alternative 
David suggested refining the two signal alternative into a Modified One-Signal option. This alternative would add 
one signal at US 20/OR 229/Business Loop 20 Spur and slightly realign OR 229 north of US 20 to reduce the angle 
of the intersection, but would keep all of the other roads at the intersection where they are. Westbound Business 
Loop 20 traffic traveling to Newport would turn left onto US 20 at the signal, while eastbound right turns from US 
20 eastbound to Business Loop 20 into Toledo would remain on free-flowing. Business Loop 20 between the OR 
229 spur and US 20 would be one way eastbound, while maintaining access to both Dairy Queen and the trucking 
business on the west side of Business Loop 20.  
This concept needs further study, as the angle of the intersection may make it difficult for large freight trucks to 
turn west onto US 20 to Newport. David added that while Western Loop access may need to close due to the 
proximity to the signal, but that decision would not have to be made at this point. A cost estimate would need to 
be developed for this concept.  
 
PAC members discussing Western Junction concepts 
PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAC) MEETING #4 
TOLEDOPAC4SUMMARY_DRAFT 3 
The PAC voted unanimously to include the Modified One-Signal option. 
Interchange Alternative 
The Interchange alternative has not changed since the previous PAC meeting. While it improves congestion and 
safety, it is the most expensive option and would result in closing access to Western Loop and displacing the Dairy 
Queen.  
The PAC voted unanimously to remove the Interchange option. 
Plan and Code Amendments 
Reza Farhoodi reviewed the proposed plan and code amendments 
included in Technical Memos #9 and #10. The recommended 
changes are necessary to comply with the statewide 
Transportation Plan Rule. The Comprehensive Plan will include 
new language referencing the TSP as the transportation element of 
the Comprehensive Plan and the new TSP policies. Amendments to 
the Municipal Code will include new language ensuring 
transportation facilities are allowed uses in each zone and codifies 
transportation facility standards similar to those already being 
used by the public works department.  
David mentioned that the bicycle parking requirements, while 
similar to the state model code suggestions may not be 
appropriate for the City of Toledo and suggested that City staff 
take a look at the recommended parking requirements and 
determine if those are appropriate for the City. Some smaller Cities 
do not require four or more residential unit properties to provide covered bicycle parking due to the costs it could 
place on developers. 
Adam clarified that Main Street design standards would only reference 10-foot wide sidewalks and not include 
references to a “clear zone” or “tree/furnishing zone”. 
Next Steps 
Terra informed the group of the upcoming joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop to review the TSP 
before adoption. Terra thanked the committee for their attendance and participation in this meeting and 
adjourned the meeting at 4:20 PM. 
 
Reza Presenting Street Cross Sections 
  
  
Open Houses 
Two project Open Houses were held as part of the TSP process. Both open houses were paired with a City 
meeting (either City Council, Planning Commission, or a worksession at City Hall) to draw more people and 
introduce them to the TSP. The format was informal drop-in, and staff was on hand to talk with attendees and to 
provide information and answer questions. There was a comprehensive outreach approach for both open 
houses, included in the summaries in the following materials. 
Open House #1 was on November 7, 2012 to discuss the findings from Technical Memo #3, Transportation 
Deficiencies and Needs.  
Open House #2 was on March 12, 2013 to discuss the project alternatives, along with projects and policies to 
include in the TSP document.  
  
  
  
  
Open House #1 Materials 
  
  
  
Help plan the future of  
Toledo’s transportation! 
The City of Toledo is creating a plan for the future of 
transportation in Toledo. This plan will look at ways to improve 
connections for everyone traveling in or through the city, either 
by foot, bike, car, freight, boat, or air.  
Come to the open house to share your thoughts on how 
transportation can be improved. Children are welcome! 
Come to the first project Open House! 
Wednesday, November 7th 
5:00 to 7:00 pm, drop by anytime  
(right before the City Council meeting) 
Toledo City Hall (206 N Main St) 
Special accommodations will be provided upon request. Please call 541-336-2247 by November 5th.  
Atender a una casa abierta para compartir tus ideas para el proyecto. Servicios de traducción 
estarán disponibles. Los niños son bienvenidos! Por favor llame al 541-336-2247 para pedir esta al 5 
de Noviembre. 
 Learn more at www.GettingAroundToledoOregon.org 
H l l th f t f T l d ’ t t ti !e p p an  e  u ure o   o e o s  ranspor a on
The City of Toledo is creating a plan for the future of transportation in
T l d Thi l ill l k t t i ti fo e o. s p an w oo a ways o mprove connec ons or everyone
traveling in or through the city, either by foot, bike, car, freight, boat, or
air.
Special accommodations will be
provided upon request. Please call
541‐336‐2247 by November 5.
Come to the open house! 
Children are welcome
Atender a una casa abierta para
compartir tus ideas para el proyecto.
Servicios de traducción estarán
Wednesday, November 7th
5:00 to 7:00 pm, drop by anytime 
disponibles. Los niños son bienvenidos!
Por favor llame al 541‐336‐2247 para
pedir esta al 5 de Noviembre.
(right before the City Council meeting)
Toledo City Hall (206 N Main St)
Learn more at www.GettingAroundToledoOregon.org
Getting Around Toledo, Oregon 
Toledo Transportation System Plan (TSP) open house 
Welcome! Tonight you can: 
• Learn about the TSP project 
• Tell us what you think about transportation in 
Toledo now and what you would like to see in the 
future 
– Fill out a comment form  
– Leave your thoughts on the maps 
• Talk to project staff members and ask questions  
• Comparta sus ideas para el proyecto. Servicios de 
traducción estarán disponibles.  
Study Area 
Why do a TSP? 
• Required by the state  
• Provides a long-term plan for transportation 
investments 
• Identifies issues that need further study 
• Sets transportation policy for the city 
• Ensures coordination between transportation 
and land use planning 
Develop goals and 
policies 
Understand 
conditions 
Indentify possible 
alternatives and 
select preferred 
alternative 
Develop cost 
estimates and 
priority strategy 
Revise City 
standards and 
amend Code  
Finalize and adopt 
the TSP 
Steps to develop the TSP 
Public input throughout 
Public input throughout 
We are 
here 
What is the project schedule? 
We are 
here 
Who’s involved? 
• City of Toledo Residents 
• City of Toledo 
• Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)  
• Lincoln County 
• Department of Land Conservation and 
Development 
 
We want to hear from you! 
• Are we missing any problems or concerns that 
you have? 
• Do you have solutions for improving 
transportation in Toledo? 
• You can: 
– Fill out information on the maps 
– Fill out a comment form 
– Talk to a staff member 
Zoning and Truck Routes 
Bike and Pedestrian Facilities 
Road Needs 
Existing conditions 
• Steep grades and curves 
• Narrow right-of-way with little room for shoulders, sidewalks, 
or bicycle lanes 
What else? Examples? 
Truck Freight Needs 
Existing conditions 
• Serve industrial land within the city 
• Trucks may stray from signed routes and get stuck on 
steep/narrow roads 
What else? Examples? 
Land use and Traffic generators Needs 
Land Use Existing Conditions 
• Industrial land is near the Yaquina River and the Slough on the south of the city 
near residential areas 
• Conflicts between heavy freight and residents 
Traffic Generators 
• Georgia-Pacific main generator; traffic at shift changes and throughout the day 
• Other generators are along Main Street, schools and parks, the Library, Police 
Department, and Fire Station; traffic throughout the day 
• The grocery store attracts traffic throughout the day, but peak is in the afternoon 
What else? Examples? 
Bicycle and Pedestrian Needs 
Existing Conditions 
• One bike route in Toledo and no striped bike lanes  
• Steep/narrow roads and railroad crossings make bicycling and 
walking difficult 
• Sidewalks in the downtown core and along portions of 
Business Loop 20; some gaps in the sidewalks 
What else? Examples? 
Transit Needs 
Existing Conditions  
• Lincoln County Transit = 6 daily round trips, with 6 stops in 
Toledo on the Siletz-Newport route  
• Benton County = Coast to Valley Express intercity route 
What else? Examples? 
 
Freight Rail Needs 
Existing Conditions 
• Portland & Western Railroad operates to Georgia-Pacific  
– 1 round-trip train/day and 6-12 switching movements along the track 
near Butler Bridge Road downtown 
• Most crossings are gated, 2nd Street to Butler Bridge is not 
• Crossings rough/safety hazard for vehicles and pedestrians 
What else? Examples? 
Airport Needs 
Existing Conditions 
• 22 takeoffs and landings a week 
• No plans to expand the airport 
What else? Examples? 
Water and Pipelines Needs 
Existing Conditions 
• 200 boats in/out of the Port per year; no freight is unloaded or offloaded 
• 50 boats a year come to Yaquina Boatworks for maintenance 
• Water/sewer lines in City-owned streets 
• Georgia-Pacific site has a large pipeline connecting two activity areas, 
outflow pipeline through town to the Ocean 
• 1 gas transmission pipeline northeast of the City  
What else? Examples? 
 
Safety Issues 
Existing Conditions 
• The western junction of US 20, Business Loop 20 and OR 229 
had 12 crashes with one fatality 
• There are a number of near-misses at the Western Junction 
• Main Street an Business Loop 20 intersection is hard to see 
around 
What else? Examples? 
 
Parking in Downtown 
Existing Conditions 
• On a typical day, 25-40 percent of parking is full on Main 
Street 
• Except for special events, there is enough parking downtown 
What else? Examples? 
 
November 7, 2012 www.GettingAroundToledoOregon.org 
Please return before November 12, 2012:  mail to Adam Denlinger, City Hall/ PO Box 220/ Toledo, OR 97391; fax 503-736-2074; or 
submit using the comment form at www.GettingAroundToledoOregon.org.   
Your feedback is a vital part of the planning process!  Before you leave, please fill out this comment form 
and put it in the comment box. (Use the back of the sheet if you need more room.) 
 
Problems or Concerns 
Are there any problems missing from the boards (walking, biking, driving, flying, taking rail in Toledo)? 
 
 
 
 
 
Solutions 
Any ideas for creating solutions for the problems you’ve listed above? 
 
 
 
 
 
Other comments 
Do you have any other comments? Is there anything else you want to tell us?  
 
 
 
 
 
Optional information 
How did you hear about this open house? (check all that apply)       Newspaper Ad    News Article    
 Word of Mouth    TV/Radio   Email update   Other: _________________________________________ 
 
How would you like to be involved as the project moves forward? (check all that apply) 
 Attend an open house     Go to a booth at the farmer’s market or _________________________________ 
 Visit the website to learn more and submit comments   Read a news article        Read a newsletter/mailing              
 Read an email update    Other: ____________________________________________________________ 
 
This project is requesting demographic information at public events to evaluate the effectiveness of public 
outreach activities. The identity of individuals is kept confidential. The results are reported as totals only, and 
used solely to help improve future community engagement. Providing this information is voluntary.  
Check all that apply. 
Race/Ethnicity  Language Spoken at Home  Gender Identity ZIP Code 
 African-American (not of Hispanic origin)  
 Caucasian (not of Hispanic origin)  
 Hispanic  
 American Indian or Alaskan Native  
 Asian or Pacific Islander  
 Unknown/Do not wish to disclose 
 English 
 Spanish 
 Do not wish to disclose 
 Other:______________ 
_____________________ 
 Male 
 Female 
 _____________ 
 Do not wish to 
disclose 
 
_________ 
 PAGE 1 
 
Displays at the Open House 
Toledo Transportation System Plan 
Open House #1 Summary 
Wednesday, November 7, 2012 
5-7 p.m. 
Toledo City Hall 
 
This document provides a summary of the Toledo Transportation System Plan Open House 
held November 7th at Toledo City Hall. The purpose of this open house was to review 
findings from the project team 
on transportation system 
deficiencies and needs, as well 
as gather input from the 
community about additional 
problem areas that need to be 
addressed. Twenty-six people 
signed in the night of the 
event. 
The open house format was an 
informal drop-in open house. 
Visitors had the opportunity to 
view study area maps and read 
display boards that included findings gathered for the most recent Technical Memo #3, 
Transportation System Deficiencies and Needs. Additionally, there was the opportunity for 
community members to speak with the project team about their concerns, to stick Post-It 
note comments onto the display boards, and complete project comment sheets (to leave in 
the comment box or mail back to the project by November 12).  
Open House Notification 
The Open House was announced to the public through a variety of outlets. Flyers for the 
Open House were posted to businesses around Toledo and at City Hall two weeks before 
the event, as well as being distributed to the Project Advisory Committee on October 11, 
2012. The same information was published in the City’s monthly utility mailer, which is 
distributed to all residents and businesses. A press release was distributed by the City of 
Toledo, to local media outlets. The Newport News Times ran a short article about the project 
before the event. Project Advisory Committee members and other key stakeholders were 
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN 
OPEN HOUSE #1 SUMMARY 
PAGE 2 
 
Community members at the Open House 
called a week before the event and personally invited to attend by City staff members. 
Finally, an email was distributed to the project mailing list to announce the event.  
Open House Stations 
The Open House included the following stations: 
• Welcome and Sign-In – A staff person introduced visitors and explained the format 
of the event. Comment forms were available and the participants signed in, as a way 
to count attendees and to increase the mailing list for future announcements. 
 
• Project Overview – The boards in this area included project overview, goals, 
schedule, study area maps, and who is involved. There was also a comment box in 
this area where visitors could drop off completed comment forms. 
 
• Key Findings – The majority of the display boards summarized the key findings 
from Technical Memo #3, Transportation System Deficiencies and Needs. The 
boards were separated by the type of travel mode and each had space below the 
findings where participants could write comments.  
o roadway facilities 
o bicycle/pedestrian facilities 
o transit facilities 
o freight truck routes 
o freight rail network 
o water and pipeline facilities 
o airport facilities 
o general safety concerns 
o downtown parking 
Comments were also directly added to study area maps showing roadway 
functional classification, zoning, freight routes, traffic generators, and the sidewalk 
network. 
 
• Next Steps – This board 
described how comments from 
the public would be 
incorporated into the next 
phase of the planning process, 
which is brainstorming 
recommendations to address 
the identified deficiencies and 
needs. 
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN 
OPEN HOUSE #1 SUMMARY 
PAGE 3 
Summary of Public Comments 
The following section is a summary of public comments received during the Open House. 
These comments were submitted via the project comment sheets, written on Post-It notes 
added to the display boards and maps, and through conversations with project staff.  
Roadway Needs 
Attendees provided the following comments on roadway facilities in Toledo: 
• Several participants cited the Western Junction (US 20/OR 229/Business Loop 20 
intersections) as having many deficiencies, including issues with congestion and 
safety. Specifically:  
o There are long backups in the morning on westbound Business Loop 20 at 
turning left onto westbound US 20. It is difficult to turn left due to poor 
visibility and heavy traffic. 
o Traffic on westbound Business Loop 20 should not be legally permitted to 
make an eastbound right on US 20 at the Western Junction. 
o Traffic on westbound US 20 should not be permitted to turn left onto 
Business Loop 20 Spur southbound towards downtown. 
o An interchange would be great at the Western Junction, but a roundabout or 
signal would also improve the intersection.  
o Add a roundabout surrounding the Dairy Queen. 
o The speed limit on US 20 should be reduced to 25 MPH. 
• Many Open House attendees were concerned with Sturdevant Road. 
o The road is narrow and winding, with limited sight distance. The 45 MPH 
speed limit is too high given the conditions. 
o There are few walking/cycling paths along Sturdevant – creating a safety 
concern based on the amount of industrial traffic and the nearby Toledo 
Elementary and Jr./Sr. High Schools. 
o Improve the roadway to provide better freight access to the Siletz Kiln site 
and other prime industrial opportunity sites along the river south of SE 10th 
Street.  
Freight Truck Needs 
Attendees submitted the following comments on issues with freight truck routes: 
• Improve signage to ensure all trucks use Sturdevant Road to access the Georgia-
Pacific plant. 
• Improve freight access to the Siletz Kiln site along Sturdevant Road. 
• Business Loop 20 should not be a freight route between the Western Junction and 
downtown, except to access local businesses. Freight trucks accessing the Georgia-
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN 
OPEN HOUSE #1 SUMMARY 
PAGE 4 
Pacific plant and other destinations outside of downtown should use Business Loop 
20 at the Eastern Junction. 
Rail Needs  
Attendees submitted the following comments on issues with rail facilities: 
• Install crossing gates at Butler Bridge Road. This would require new rails and 
sensors along the spur line.  
• Train horns are a nuisance. Consider quiet zones. 
• Improve the condition of the rail line. There are frequent derailments along the track 
near East Slope Road/Butler Bridge Road. 
• Rail crossings are hazardous to pedestrians and cyclists on A Street/1st Street/Butler 
Bridge Road. 
• More rail traffic would increase jobs and prosperity in Toledo. 
Bicycle and Pedestrian Needs  
Attendees provided the following comments on bicycle and pedestrian facilities: 
• There were a number of comments about the lack of pedestrian and bicycle facilities 
north-south along Sturdevant Road and east-west between downtown and 
Sturdevant Road, especially considering access to Toledo Elementary and Jr./Sr. 
High Schools. 
o Provide a parallel path along Sturdevant Road for transportation and 
recreation for pedestrians and bicyclists. 
o Create a nature walk with interpretive/educational signage in Olalla Slough. 
Provide multiple access points to downtown and Sturdevant Road. 
o Create a pedestrian and bicycle crossing over slough to connect Sturdevant 
Road and downtown.  
• Several comments related to improving access for bicyclists between Newport and 
Toledo along Yaquina Bay Road/Bay Boulevard. 
o Yaquina Bay Road south and west of Toledo lacks safe shoulders, bike lanes, 
or sidewalks for cycling, walking, and running. Expand the paved shoulder 
area. 
o Bay Boulevard is steep, which discourages some riders. Lincoln County 
submitted a grant application to construct a trail on an abandoned railroad 
bed to bypass the hill and provide an off-street path crossing Depot Slough 
and connecting Bay Boulevard to downtown Toledo. 
o The Bike Newport shop gets a lot of weekend and summer cyclists who rent 
bikes and/or pick up a local bike map. They send 200-300 riders a year out on 
Yaquina Bay Road towards Toledo because it is beautiful and safe. Encourage 
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN 
OPEN HOUSE #1 SUMMARY 
PAGE 5 
more riders from Newport to travel to downtown Toledo, patronize local 
businesses. 
o There is no signage for bicyclists on Bay Boulevard to get to downtown 
Toledo. There should be clear signage at the intersection with Business Loop 
20 directing cyclists to Main Street, benefiting local businesses.  
• Build a pedestrian path along the rail line from Main Street to Bay Boulevard north 
of the Port of Toledo. 
• Bicycle and pedestrian access along Business Loop 20 west of downtown is 
challenging because of the narrow road and lack of facilities. Add a sidewalk on 
Business Loop 20 between Dairy Queen and the bowling alley. An alternate bicycle 
route could utilize NW Sunset Drive and NW Dundon Road to get around portions 
of Business Loop 20. 
• A long-distance multi-use trail along US 20 could provide connections to Newport 
and Corvallis. 
• Increase crosswalk education and enforcement for drivers and pedestrians. 
• Add wayfinding and signage for bicyclists and pedestrians in downtown Toledo. 
Include bicycle sharrows on designated bicycle routes to increase safety and 
encourage drivers and cyclists to share the road. Newport uses sharrows on its 
bicycle routes and has a template that Toledo could use. 
• Publish a map of bicycle routes for locals and visitors.  
• Extend the existing trail along East Slope Road west to Butler Bridge Road. This is 
the most obvious walking trail in Toledo. 
Safety Issues  
Attendees made the following comments on general transportation safety issues in Toledo: 
• The intersection at Business Loop 20 and Main Street in downtown feels unsafe for 
all modes. 
• Left turning trucks onto Business Loop 20 Spur southbound from US 20 westbound 
at Western Junction travel too fast. 
• Turning north from Butler Bridge Road northbound to Main Street via SE 2nd Street 
eastbound requires two quick turns in succession. Once initial turn is made from 
Butler Bridge Road to 2nd Street, there is not enough distance to use the turning 
signal before the second turn, which is a safety concern. 
• Two drivers have veered off the road on the west side of Business Loop 20 this year. 
Install a guard rail north of the bowling alley along Depot Slough.  
• Add bollards at the railroad/pedestrian crossing on SE Butler Bridge Road so 
vehicles don’t cross the tracks here. 
• Add lighting on US 20 outside of Toledo city limits. 
• Add lighting on Business Loop 20 west of downtown to the bowling alley. 
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN 
OPEN HOUSE #1 SUMMARY 
PAGE 6 
Transit Needs  
Attendees made the following comments about transit in Toledo: 
• Add more roundtrip travel options to Newport. 
• Increase frequency and duration of service to help those who work nights in 
Newport and need a reliable transit option home. 
• The bus system should offer monthly and weekly passes. At the end of the month, 
hold a raffle with prizes from local businesses for those who have purchased 
monthly passes as an extra incentive to ride transit. 
• Make transfers easier and less expensive between bus lines. 
• Create a local shuttle/circulator with connections to regional transit providers. 
• Add rail passenger service to Amtrak in Albany to provide service to the Willamette 
Valley. 
• Create a water taxi or ferry between Toledo and Newport as an alternate route to US 
20 and as a tourist draw. 
Water and Pipeline Needs 
Open House attendees added the following comments on water and pipeline facilities, 
including the Port of Toledo: 
• Need more studies on river transportation and railroad involvement. Toledo could 
become an intermodal hub with import and export goods being transferred between 
boats, trucks, and trains at the Port of Toledo. 
• The Port should work with Portland & Western Railroad and the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Newport to explore ways to increase 
commerce. 
• Add a local boat ramp in Toledo accessible to downtown to increase economic 
development. 
• Is there a need for gas pipeline service to Toledo? What supporting policies are 
required? 
• Butler Bridge restricts river barge traffic that would serve new industrial expansion 
areas east of the bridge. Something to consider when the bridge is replaced? 
Airport Needs 
Attendees provided the following comments on the City’s airport facility: 
• Should the airport remain? Does it serve a need? 
• The airport serves emergency medical helicopter evacuations, but it is difficult to 
access due to high winds and low visibility. 
 
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN 
OPEN HOUSE #1 SUMMARY 
PAGE 7 
Other Comments 
Some comments from attendees will not be addressed in the TSP because of the scope or 
nature of the comment. These comments are still important, however, and are included 
below and will be forwarded to the City of Toledo for further action: 
• Create land-use and zoning policies to encourage development at the Western 
Junction to provide drivers on US 20 more visual cues to slow down. Designate that 
section of the highway as a special area to reduce speed limits depending on the 
results of speed surveys. 
• Reduce the need to drive to local retail shops. Create a citywide program at local 
retail destinations to rent wheel carts to local shoppers in order to bring heavy 
purchases home up steep hills without requiring a car. Another program could offer 
delivery of purchases by local shopkeepers to local disabled or elderly customers 
who are not able to take large purchases home. 
• A commercial fishing vessel based at the Port could sell fresh fish off the dock. 
• Horse-drawn carriage rides in downtown would draw tourists and provide another 
way around downtown. 
• Sunset Cruises and Mini-Love Boat tours on the Yaquina River would increase 
tourism. 
• Downtown could use more benches for walkers. 
• One commenter cited recent City fee increases as a reason why he/she would not 
support any projects that may further increase the cost burden on residents.  
• People are not cleaning up after their pets. This is a big problem in the park by the 
new gazebo at the Post Office. Is it possible to assemble a group of volunteers to 
clean up that area? More visible bag stations, signage, and enforcement of the law 
are needed. 
 
Demographic Information 
Demographic information of the participants was collected, according to ODOT Title VI 
requirements. The identity of individuals was kept confidential and not associated with the 
general event sign up (which collected name and address). Providing answers to the 
questions was voluntary. The following information was collected from the attendees that 
submitted comment forms.  
• Race/ethnicity: 7 Caucasian (not of Hispanic origin)  
• Language spoken at home: 7 English 
• Gender Identity: 2 male, 5 female 
• ZIP Code: 7 for 97391 
 
  
Open House #2 Materials 
  
  
  
Review transportation 
project alternatives! 
The City of Toledo is creating a plan for Toledo’s 
transportation future and we want to hear from you!                 
Come review and comment on project alternatives and 
policies. The City wants to hear from you! 
Come to the last project Open House!
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Child l !ren we come
4:00 to 6:00 pm, drop by anytime 
(right before a City Council work session)
Toledo City Hall, Council Chambers (206 N Main St)
Special accommodations will be provided upon request. Please call 541‐336‐2247 by March 5.
Atender a una casa abierta para compartir tus ideas para el proyecto. Servicios de traducción
estarán disponibles. Los niños son bienvenidos! Por favor llame al 541‐336‐2247 para pedir esta al 5
de Marzo.
Learn more at www.GettingAroundToledoOregon.org
Review transportation project alternatives! 
Learn more at www.GettingAroundToledoOregon.org 
Special accommodations will be 
provided upon request. Please call  
541-336-2247 by March 5.  
Atender a una casa abierta para 
compartir tus ideas para el proyecto. 
Servicios de traducción estarán 
disponibles. Los niños son bienvenidos! 
Por favor llame al 541-336-2247 para 
pedir esta al 5 de Marzo. 
Tuesday, March 12th 
4:00 to 6:00 pm, drop by anytime 
(right before a City Council work session) 
City Hall, Council Chambers  
(206 N Main St) 
Come to the last open house!  
Children are welcome 
The City of Toledo is creating a plan for Toledo’s transportation future and 
we want to hear from you! Come review and comment on a set of 
projects and policy alternatives. The City wants to hear from you!  
Getting Around Toledo, Oregon 
Toledo Transportation System Plan (TSP) open house 
Welcome! Tonight you can: 
• Learn about the TSP project 
• Tell us what you think about the proposed 
transportation projects and policies for Toledo 
– Fill out a comment form  
– Tell us the projects that should move forward first 
• Talk to project staff members and ask 
questions  
• Comparta sus ideas para el proyecto. Servicios 
de traducción estarán disponibles.  
Why do a TSP? 
• Required by the state  
• Provides a long-term plan for transportation 
investments 
• Identifies issues that need further study 
• Sets transportation policy for the city 
• Ensures coordination between transportation 
and land use planning 
Develop goals and 
policies 
Understand 
conditions 
Indentify possible 
alternatives and 
select preferred 
alternative 
Develop cost 
estimates and 
priority strategy 
Revise City 
standards and 
amend Code  
Finalize and adopt 
the TSP 
Steps to develop the TSP 
Public input throughout 
Public input throughout 
We are 
here 
What is the project schedule? 
We are 
here 
Who’s involved? 
• City of Toledo residents and businesses 
• City of Toledo 
• Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)  
• Lincoln County 
• Department of Land Conservation and 
Development 
 
We want to hear from you! 
• Do you agree or disagree with the proposed 
projects and policies?  
• What are the top 5 projects to move forward? 
• We want to hear from you: 
– Fill out a comment form 
– Use dot stickers to show which 5 street and 
bicycle/pedestrian projects should move forward 
first 
– Talk to a staff member 
Getting Around Toledo, Oregon 
Toledo Transportation System Plan (TSP) open house 
Welcome! Tonight you can: 
• Learn about the TSP project 
• Tell us what you think about the proposed 
transportation projects and policies for Toledo 
– Fill out a comment form  
– Tell us the projects that should move forward first 
• Talk to project staff members and ask 
questions  
• Comparta sus ideas para el proyecto. Servicios 
de traducción estarán disponibles.  
Study Area 
We want to hear from you! 
• Do you agree or disagree with the proposed 
projects and policies?  
• What are the top 5 projects to move forward? 
• We want to hear from you: 
– Fill out a comment form 
– Use dot stickers to show which 5 street and 
bicycle/pedestrian projects should move forward 
first 
– Talk to a staff member 
Road Projects 
• Freight Alternatives 
– No recommended changes to the freight route 
– R Project 1: Add more wayfinding signs (including no truck signs) 
– Freight Policy A: Continue to support transportation access to 
heavy industrial sites in the City including the Siletz Kiln site to 
support economic development. 
• Business Loop 20 at A Street 
– R Project 2: Add an eastbound right turn lane from Business Loop 
20 to A Street and lengthen the turn lane for left turning vehicles 
onto A Street 
• Burgess Road Realignment 
– R Project 3: Realign intersection to a 90 degree angle 
• East Slope Road Realignment  
– R Project 4: At Business Loop 20 – allow freight trucks to use East 
Slope Road 
Road Projects 
• Sturdevant Road Realignment 
– R Project 5: South of 10th Street – allow large trucks to Siletz Kiln Site 
• Pavement markings at Butler Bridge Road and NW 1st Street 
– R Project 6: Clarify which vehicles have the right-of-way and which 
vehicles need to stop. 
• Western Junction Alternatives 
– R Project 7: No Build 
– R Project 8: Couplet Alternative 
– R Project 9: Interchange Alternative 
– R Project 10: Low-build Alternative 
– R Project 11: Offset T Alternative 
– R Project 12: Roundabout Alternative 
– R Project 13: Traffic Signal 
Western Junction No Build and Couplet Alternatives 
R Project 7: No Build Alternative 
• Only upkeep and 
maintenance 
• No additional cost 
• Congestion and safety 
issues remain 
 
R Project 8: Couplet Alternative 
• Uses existing roads 
• Congestion and safety 
issues remain 
• Confusing in a  rural setting 
 
R Project 9: Western Junction Diamond Interchange Alternative 
• Addresses 
congestion and 
safety issues 
• Expensive 
• Could have 
environmental 
impacts 
• Out of scale with 
existing US 20 
• Impacts to Dairy 
Queen 
R Project 10: Western Junction Low Build Alternative 
• Lowest cost alternative 
• Backups would still happen on Business Loop 20 
• Vehicles still cross US 20 
• Could be an early phase for a larger project 
R Project 11: Western Junction Offset T Intersections Alternative 
• Consolidates Western 
Junction into 2 
intersections 
• Long queues for left 
turns from Business 
Loop 20 towards 
Newport 
• Removes cross traffic 
from US 20, though 
left turns across 
highway remain 
R Project 12: Western Junction Roundabout Alternative 
• Reduces access points 
and vehicle conflict 
points 
• Slows traffic on US 20 
– impacts to Dairy 
Queen 
• Removes all cross 
traffic from US 20, 
reduces severity of 
potential crashes 
R Project 13: Western Junction Traffic Signal Alternative 
• Addresses 
congestion on 
Business Loop 20 
• Inconsistent with 
driver expectation 
on US 20 
• Does not remove 
cross traffic on US 
20 – potential for 
rear-end crashes 
and vehicles 
running the signal. 
• Impacts to Dairy 
Queen 
• Would widen US 20  to four lanes from Western 
Junction to Arcadia Drive 
Project Description Cost estimate Priority 
Freight Route Signage Improvements – Citywide $12,000 Short-term 
Business Loop 20 -Eastbound Right Turn Pocket at A Street $449,000 Medium-term 
Burgess Road – Realign road to 90-Degree Intersection at 
Business Loop 20 $298,000 Medium-term 
East Slope Road - Improve Vertical Alignment For Freight 
Access $635,000 Medium-term 
Sturdevant Road –Realign road for Siletz Site Freight Access $595,000 Long-term 
Pavement Markings at Railroad Crossing – Butler Bridge Road 
and NW 1st Street Intersection $1,000 Short-term 
Western Junction Alternatives 
No Build Alternative  $0 outside of regular maintenance and upkeep N/A 
Couplet Alternative Did not improve traffic congestion or safety and would be out of character in the rural setting 
Diamond Interchange Alternative  $9,846,000 Long-term 
Low Build Alternative $2,336,000 Medium-term 
Offset T Alternative  Did not improve traffic congestion or safety 
Roundabout Alternative $3,310,000 Long-term 
Traffic Signal Alternative  $7,586,000 Long-term 
Road Projects Costs and Priorities 
Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects and Policies 
• Fill Sidewalk Gaps 
– B/P Project 1: Burgess Road sidewalk extension to create a continuous 
sidewalk 
– B/P Project 2: Extend the sidewalk on Business Loop 20 from East Slope Road 
to Sturdevant Road.  
– B/P Project 3: Douglas Street/SE 3rd Street sidewalks around Community 
Center  
– B/P project 4: East Slope Road Sidewalk from the Park to Butler Bridge Road 
• Crosswalks, could include signage, markings, and in some cases, 
flashing lights  
– B/P Project 5: High visibility crosswalks at Elementary and Junior/Senior High 
Schools 
– B/P Project 6: Add a crosswalk and signage to the Post Office 
– B/P Project 7: Discourage vehicles at the pedestrian railroad crossing at 2nd Street 
Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects and Policies 
• Trail Network for both bicyclists and pedestrians:  
– B/P Policy B: Work with regional partners to look into an intercity 
multi-use trail 
– B/P Policy C: Work with community partners to explore a “volksmarch” 
route 
– B/P Project 8: Construct a trail along Bay Boulevard/Yaquina Bay Road 
using abandoned rail bed near the Port; City to work with Lincoln 
County and the Port to create alternatives to addresses safety concerns  
– B/P Project 9: Construct a multi-use path and/or boardwalk along 
Sturdevant Road, east-west connections across Olalla Slough could be 
included; could be a nature walk 
– B/P Project 10: Business Loop 20 multi-use trail or boardwalk facility 
on the west side of the road; could be a boardwalk over wetlands (near 
Depot Slough)  
Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects and Policies 
• Bicycle Boulevards are a network of local, neighborhood streets that prioritize 
active transportation modes 
– B/P Policy D: Implement bicycle boulevard network on residential streets with 
wayfinding signage and sharrows 
• Wayfinding Signs can encourage visitors to explore downtown on foot or bike 
– B/P Policy A: Work to develop a pedestrian wayfinding system to encourage 
visitors to explore Toledo’s attractions 
– B/P Project 11: Install bicycle wayfinding signs from Bay Boulevard into downtown 
• Other Bicycle and Pedestrian Policies 
– B/P Policy E: Work with emergency services/schools to create an implement a 
bicycle/pedestrian/ driver safety education program to encourage safe walking, 
cycling and driving behavior 
– B/P Policy F: Address rough pavement at railroad crossings to create smooth 
railroad crossings for bicyclists and pedestrians 
 
Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects 
Project Description Cost estimate Priority 
Fill Sidewalk Gaps – Burgess Road $172,000 Medium-term 
Business Loop 20 Sidewalk (South/East Side)  – East Slope Road to Sturdevant 
Road $1,093,000 Medium-term 
Fill Sidewalk Gaps – Douglas Street and 3rd Street near the Community Center $63,000 Medium-term 
East Slope Road sidewalk extension $551,000 Medium-term 
Sturdevant Road High Visibility Crosswalks at Elementary and Junior/Senior 
High Schools $68,000 Medium-term 
Pedestrian Advisory signs – Butler Bridge Road and 1st Street intersection $37,000 Short-term 
Railroad Pedestrian Crossing Improvements to Discourage Automobile Use -
Butler Bridge Road at SE 2nd Street  $11,000 Short-term 
Bay Boulevard/Yaquina Bay Road bike path XXXXX Long-term 
Sturdevant Road Multi-Use Path /Boardwalk $4,227,000 Medium-term 
Business Loop 20 Path (South/West Side) – US 20 to NW 6th Avenue $2,342,000 Long-term 
Bicycle Wayfinding signs – Bay Boulevard  $10,000 Short-term 
Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Costs and Priorities 
Transit Projects and Policies 
• Lincoln County Transit manages transit service.  
No recommended projects. 
• Recommended Transit policies:  
– T Policy A: Maintain partnership to support new investments in transit 
service and infrastructure; identify new funding sources 
– T Policy B: Work with Toledo Chamber of Commerce/others to explore 
citywide transit shuttle or circulator 
– T Policy C: Identify local and regional partners to explore a water taxi 
or ferry service to Newport 
 
Freight Rail Projects and Policies 
• The rails are owned by Portland and Western Railroad (PNWR). No recommended 
projects. 
• Recommended Freight Rail policies: 
– FR Policy A: Coordinate meetings with ODOT Rail, Lincoln County, Georgia Pacific, and PNWR to 
address crossing conditions 
– FR Policy B: Develop evaluation criteria (to prioritize public crossing investments) and generate a 
ranked improvement list (in order of greatest importance) 
– FR Policy C: Work with ODOT Rail and the Federal Railroad Administration to explore a “Quiet Zone” 
in Downtown 
– FR Policy D: Pursue proposed intermodal hub at Tokyo Slough with the Port of Toledo, to add 
potential freight rail customers  
– FR Policy E: Work with railroad to reduce idling train engines near Downtown businesses 
– FR Policy F: Work with partners to support and maintain the freight rail connection to Toledo from 
the I-5 Corridor 
Airport/Pipeline Projects and Policies 
• Airport 
– There are no changes expected to the airport, with the possible 
exception of its sale and potential closure. 
– Air Policy A: Work with partners (including emergency service 
providers) to identify an alternate Life Flight landing site in the 
City if the airport closes 
• Pipeline 
– There are no plans or need to expand pipelines in Toledo within 
the 20 year planning horizon of the TSP. 
– Pipeline Policy A: Continue to support the Mill’s effluent 
pipeline and work with partners to maintain applicable 
environmental permitting 
Water/Port Projects and Policies 
• The Port’s Boatyard Buildout Plan, includes these projects: 
– W/P Project 1: New pier and replace piles for travel lift, construct wash down pad, relocate utilities, 
purchase travel lift 
– W/P Project 2: Upgrade site access road, realign utilities, and develop cargo transfer and vessel hard 
moorage areas 
– W/P Project 3: Construct vessel work building, new boatyard office and restrooms 
• Water/Port Policies 
– W/P Policy A: Conduct a bridge life cycle assessment and explore the cost of rebuilding/ altering the 
Butler Bridge to accommodate taller barges and boats  
– W/P Policy B: Work with the Port of Toledo and other partners to help identify an appropriate 
dredge spoils site 
– W/P Policy C: Explore developing a pier at the entrance to Depot Slough on Georgia-Pacific property 
to take advantage of the dredged river channel 
– W/P Policy D: Explore the possibility of a recreational (non-motorized) boat launch on the 
waterfront near downtown 
– W/P Policy E: Make the Intermodal hub (linking water, rail, and freight truck modes) a high priority 
for the City 
Which 5 road projects should move forward first? 
Road Projects Put your dot stickers 
R Project 1: Citywide freight sign improvements 
R Project 2: Business Loop 20/A Street turn pocket 
R Project 3: Burgess Road Realignment at Business Loop 20 
R Project 4: Improve vertical curves on East Slope Road for freight 
R Project 5: Sturdevant realignment for Siletz Site access 
R Project 6: Pavement markings at Butler Bridge Road and NW 1st Street 
R Project 7: Western Junction No Build 
R Project 8: Western Junction Couplet Alternative 
R Project 9: Western Junction Interchange Alternative 
R Project 10: Western Junction Low Build Alternative 
R Project 11: Western Junction Offset T Alternative 
R Project 12: Western Junction Roundabout Alternative 
R Project 13: Western Junction Traffic Signal Alternative 
Which 5 bicycle and pedestrian projects should move forward first? 
Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects Put your dot stickers 
B/P Project 1: Burgess Road sidewalk extension 
B/P Project 2: Business Loop 20 sidewalk between East Slope Road and Sturdevant Road 
B/P Project 3: Community Center sidewalks (Douglas/3rd Streets) 
B/P Project 4: East Slope Road Sidewalk from Park to Butler Bridge Road 
B/P Project 5: High visibility school crosswalks at schools 
B/P Project 6: Post Office crosswalk/signage 
B/P Project 7: Discourage vehicles at the pedestrian railroad crossing at 2nd Street 
B/P Project 8: Bay Boulevard/Yaquina Bay Road bike path 
B/P Project 9: Sturdevant Road path/boardwalk 
B/P Project 10: Business Loop 20 trail/boardwalk, Western Junction to NW 6th Street 
B/P Project 11: Bicycle wayfinding signs 
Do you support the following policies? 
 
Policies YES NO 
Freight Policy A: Continue to support transportation access to heavy industrial sites in the 
City including the Siletz Kiln site to support economic development 
Bike/Pedestrian (B/P) Policy A: Work to develop a pedestrian wayfinding system to 
encourage visitors to explore Toledo’s attractions 
B/P Policy B: Work with regional partners to look into an intercity multi-use trail 
B/P Policy C: Work with community partners to explore a “volksmarch” route 
B/P Policy D: Implement bicycle boulevard network on residential streets with wayfinding 
signage and sharrows 
B/P Policy E: Work with emergency services/schools to create an implement a 
bicycle/pedestrian/ driver safety education program to encourage safe walking, cycling and 
driving behavior  
B/P Policy F: Address rough pavement at railroad crossings to create smooth railroad 
crossings for bicyclists and pedestrians  
Transit (T) Policy A: Maintain partnership to support new investments in transit service and 
infrastructure; identify new funding sources 
T Policy B: Work with Toledo Chamber of Commerce/others to explore citywide transit 
shuttle or circulator 
T Policy C: Identify local and regional partners to explore a water taxi or ferry service to 
Newport 
Air Policy A: Work with partners (including emergency service providers) to identify an 
alternate Life Flight landing site in the City if the airport closes 
Pipeline Policy A: Continue to support the Mill’s effluent pipeline and work with partners to 
maintain applicable environmental permitting 
 Policies YES NO 
FR Policy A: Coordinate meetings with ODOT Rail, Lincoln County, Georgia Pacific, and PNWR 
to address crossing conditions 
FR Policy B: Develop evaluation criteria (to prioritize public crossing investments) and 
generate an improvement list (in order of greatest importance) 
FR Policy C: Work with ODOT Rail and the Federal Railroad Administration to explore a “Quiet 
Zone” in Downtown 
FR Policy D: Pursue proposed intermodal hub at Tokyo Slough with the Port of Toledo, to add 
potential freight rail customers  
FR Policy E: Work with railroad to reduce idling train engines near Downtown businesses  
FR Policy F: Work with partners to support and maintain the freight rail connection to Toledo 
from the I-5 Corridor  
W/P Policy A: Conduct a bridge life cycle assessment and explore the cost of rebuilding/ 
altering the Butler Bridge to accommodate taller barges and boats  
W/P Policy B: Work with the Port of Toledo and other partners to help identify an 
appropriate dredge spoils site  
W/P Policy C: Explore developing a pier at the entrance to Depot Slough on Georgia-Pacific 
property to take advantage of the dredged river channel  
W/P Policy D: Explore the possibility of a recreational (non-motorized) boat launch on the 
waterfront near downtown  
W/P Policy E: Make the Intermodal hub (linking water, rail, and freight truck modes) a high 
priority for the City  
Do you support the following policies? 
Next Steps 
• After tonight, the project team will:  
– Read and consider the comments collected here, online, 
and mailed to the City before 3/19/13 
– Write a draft TSP that will describe all of the projects and 
policies, including those to move forward first and those 
that can wait for more funding 
– Present the draft TSP to the Project Advisory Committee, 
City Council, and Planning Commission; make changes 
and adopt the final TSP 
March 12, 2013 www.GettingAroundToledoOregon.org 
Please return before March 19, 2013:  mail to Adam Denlinger, City Hall/ PO Box 220/ Toledo, OR 97391; fax 503-736-2074; or 
submit using the comment form at www.GettingAroundToledoOregon.org.   
Your feedback is a vital part of the planning process!  Before you leave, please fill out this comment form 
and put it in the comment box. (Use the back of the sheet if you need more room.) 
 
Proposed Projects and Policies 
Do you agree or disagree with the projects and policy alternatives shown tonight? 
  
 
 
 
 
Priorities 
What are the top 5 projects that should move forward first? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other comments 
Do you have any other comments? Is there anything else you want to tell us?  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Optional information 
How did you hear about this open house? (check all that apply)       Poster/Flyer      News Article    
 Word of Mouth    TV/Radio   Email update   Other: _________________________________________ 
 
This project is requesting demographic information at public events to evaluate the effectiveness of public 
outreach activities. The identity of individuals is kept confidential. The results are reported as totals only, and 
used solely to help improve future community engagement. Providing this information is voluntary and optional.  
Check all that apply. 
Race/Ethnicity  Language Spoken at Home  Household Income/Yr Year born 
 African-American (not of Hispanic origin)  
 Caucasian (not of Hispanic origin)  
 Hispanic  
 American Indian or Alaskan Native  
 Asian or Pacific Islander  
 Other: ___________________________ 
 Unknown/Decline 
 English 
 Spanish 
 Other:______________ 
_____________________ 
 
 
 Decline 
 
 Less than $23,000 
 $23,000 - $33,000 
 $33,000 - $43,000 
 $43,000 - $53,000 
 More than $53,000 
 
 Decline 
________ 
 
 Decline 
 
 
ZIP code 
________ 
Bike/Pedestrian:   Agree    Unsure/NA      Disagree, why:      
Port/Water/Air/Pipe:  Agree    Unsure/NA      Disagree, why:      
Freight Rail/ Trucks:  Agree    Unsure/NA      Disagree, why:      
Cars/Roads:   Agree    Unsure/NA      Disagree, why:      
Project #1 
Project #2 
Project #3 
Project #4 
Project #5 
  
 PAGE 1 
Toledo Transportation System Plan 
Open House #2 Summary 
Tuesday, March 12, 2013 
4-6 p.m. 
Toledo City Hall 
 
This document provides a summary of the Toledo Transportation System Plan Open House 
held March 12th at Toledo City Hall. The purpose of this open house was to present and 
gather public input on the 
transportation system alternatives 
presented by the project team, 
including specific projects and 
policies for the road, bicycle and 
pedestrian, freight, rail, transit, 
port/water, air, and pipeline 
networks. Twenty people signed in 
the night of the event. 
The open house format was an 
informal drop-in open house. Visitors 
had the opportunity to view study 
area maps and read display boards 
that included findings gathered for 
the most recent project memoranda:  
• Technical Memo #4, Transportation System Proposed Improvements 
• Technical Memo #5, Local Pedestrian and Bicycle System 
• Technical Memo #6, Local Transit System 
• Technical Memo #7: Rail, Air, Water/Port, and Pipeline Systems 
• Technical Memo #8: Costs and Priorities for Transportation System Improvements 
 
Additionally, community members had the opportunity to share concerns about project 
alternatives, indicate their approval or disapproval with specific projects and policies, and 
complete project comment sheets (to leave in the comment box or mail back to the project by 
March 19).  
 
 
Attendees at the second Toledo TSP Open House 
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN 
OPEN HOUSE #1 SUMMARY 
PAGE 2 
Open House Notification 
The Open House was announced to the public through a variety of outlets. Flyers for the 
Open House were posted to businesses around Toledo and at City Hall two weeks before 
the event, as well as being distributed to the Project Advisory Committee on February 21st. 
The same information was published in the City’s monthly utility mailer, which is 
distributed to all residents and businesses. A press release was distributed by the City of 
Toledo to local media outlets. The Newport News Times ran a short article about the project 
before the event in their March 6, 2013 issue. Project Advisory Committee members and 
other key stakeholders were called a week before the event and invited to attend by City 
staff. Finally, a letter was sent by the City to residents on Western Loop as project 
alternatives at the Western Junction include potentially closing Western Loop at US 20. 
Open House Stations 
The Open House included the following stations: 
• Welcome and Sign-In – A staff person introduced visitors and explained the format 
of the event. Comment forms were available and the participants signed in, as a way 
to count attendees and to increase the mailing list for future announcements. 
 
• Open House Overview (rotating Power Point presentation)– The overview included 
information about who is involved in the TSP, the schedule, the steps taken to 
complete the TSP, and the purpose of the TSP.   
 
• Proposed Projects and 
Policies – The display boards 
in this area summarized the 
key findings from each of the 
technical memorandums #4 
through #8. The boards 
included the proposed 
projects and policies, if 
applicable, for roads, bicycle 
and pedestrian alternatives, 
transit, freight truck, freight 
rail, water, pipelines, and the 
airport. Other information on 
projects included cost estimates and recommended priority for the projects. The 
seven Western Junction alternatives were highlighted individually with the 
description, diagram, benefits and drawbacks. 
 
 
Project staff explains proposed bicycle and pedestrian projects to 
attendees 
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN 
OPEN HOUSE #1 SUMMARY 
PAGE 3 
• Feedback – These board 
provided visitors the 
opportunity to provide 
feedback to the project 
team on the proposed 
projects and policies. On 
two of the boards, 
attendees were asked to 
indicate whether they 
agreed or disagreed with a 
list of proposed policies. 
Two other boards asked 
attendees which five road 
and bicycle/pedestrian projects they wanted to see move forward first. 
 
• Next Steps–This board described how comments received during the Open House 
would be incorporated into the next phase of the planning process. The Project Team 
will develop the draft TSP including projects and policies for the City over the next 
20 years. The draft TSP will be presented to the PAC, City Council, and Planning 
Commission where additional changes will be made prior to adoption of the final 
TSP. 
Summary of Comments 
The following section is a summary of comments received during the Open House. These 
comments were submitted via the project comment sheets, the project website, easel boards, 
and through conversations with project staff. The result of the feedback boards are also 
presented below. 
Project Feedback 
Attendees placed dot stickers on two boards with road and bicycle and pedestrian projects 
to indicate which 5 projects should move forward first. Projects that did not receive any dots 
are not included in the list below. The projects with dots include: 
  
 
Western Junction alignment alternatives 
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN 
OPEN HOUSE #1 SUMMARY 
PAGE 4 
Project Number 
of dots 
Road (R) Project 1: Citywide freight sign improvements 1 
R Project 2: Business Loop 20/A Street Turn Pocket 1 
R Project 7: Western Junction No Build 8  
R Project 10:Western Junction Low Build Alternative 1 
R Project 11: Western Junction Offset T Alternative 1 
R Project 13: Western Junction Traffic Signal Alternative 5 
B/P Project 2: Business Loop 20 sidewalk between East Slope Road and 
Sturdevant Road 
1 
B/P Project 4: East Slope Road Sidewalk from Park to Butler Bridge Road 1 
B/P Project 5: High visibility school crosswalks at schools 1 
B/P Project 9: Sturdevant Road path/boardwalk 1 
B/P Project 10: Business Loop 20 trail/boardwalk, Western Junction to NW 6th 
Street 
1  
 
Policies Feedback 
Attendees were asked to mark which policies they agreed with – there were two columns, 
one YES and one NO. The results are below: 
 
Policies Support 
(Yes/No) 
Freight Truck Policy A: Continue to support transportation access to 
heavy industrial sites in the City including the Siletz Kiln site to 
support economic development 
2 Yes  
Bike/Pedestrian (B/P) Policy A: Work to develop a pedestrian 
wayfinding system to encourage visitors to explore Toledo’s 
attractions 
3 Yes  
B/P Policy B: Work with regional partners to look into an intercity 
multi-use trail 
Question mark 
B/P Policy C: Work with community partners to explore a 
“volksmarch” route 
1 Yes  
B/P Policy D: Implement bicycle boulevard network on residential 
streets with wayfinding signage and sharrows 
1 Yes  
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN 
OPEN HOUSE #1 SUMMARY 
PAGE 5 
Policies Support 
(Yes/No) 
B/P Policy E: Work with emergency services/schools to create and 
implement a bicycle/pedestrian/driver safety education program to 
encourage safe walking, cycling and driver behavior 
1 Yes  
B/P Policy F: Address rough pavement at railroad crossings to create 
smooth railroad crossings for bicyclists and pedestrians 
4 Yes  
Transit (T) Policy A: Maintain partnership to support new investments 
in transit service and infrastructure; identify new funding sources 
2 Yes  
T Policy B: Work with Toledo Chamber of Commerce/others to 
explore citywide transit shuttle or circulator 
3 Yes  
T Policy C: Identify local and regional partners to explore a water taxi 
or ferry service to Newport 
3 Yes  
Air Policy A: Work with partners (including the emergency service 
providers) to identify an alternate Life Flight landing site in the City if 
the airport closes 
2 Yes  
Pipeline Policy A: Continue to support the Mill’s effluent pipeline and 
work with partners to maintain applicable environmental permitting 
2 Yes  
Freight Rail (FR) Policy A: Coordinate meetings with ODOT Rail, 
Lincoln County, Georgia-Pacific, and PNWR to address crossing 
conditions 
2 Yes  
FR Policy C: Work with ODOT Rail and the Federal Railroad 
Administration to explore a “Quiet Zone” in Downtown 
1 No  
FR Policy D: Pursue proposed intermodal hub at Tokyo Slough with 
the Port of Toledo, to add potential freight rail customers 
2 Yes  
W/P Policy D: Explore the possibility of a recreational (non-
motorized) boat lunch on the waterfront near downtown 
2 Yes  
 
Western Junction Alternatives 
Attendees provided the following comments on the Western Junction Alternatives: 
• A representative from Dahl’s Disposal had concerns about the Low Build alternative 
which includes a median on US 20. The median could potentially restrict left turns 
coming into or out of the Dahl property. 
• All of the Western Junction build alternatives recommend closing Western Loop to 
simplify the complicated intersection and reduce safety concerns. A number of Open 
House #2 attendees live on Western Loop and provided the following feedback and 
concerns with closing Western Loop at US 20: 
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN 
OPEN HOUSE #1 SUMMARY 
PAGE 6 
o Closing Western Loop would require residents to travel out of direction to 
OR 229 to get to US 20, or access their houses. 
o Concerns about the ability for a fire truck or large vehicle (such as an RV) to 
turn around on Western Loop if the road were closed. 
o Concerns with additional emergency (fire and ambulance) response time if 
Western Loop was closed at US 20. 
o The existing problems with illegal dumping at the south end of Western 
Loop may get worse if US 20 access is closed. 
o Residents were concerned that making a left or right turn onto OR 229 from 
Western Loop was difficult due to vehicles speeding and passing illegally. 
o One resident’s driveway is angled in a way that requires him to go south on 
Western Loop towards US 20. If the access closes, he would need to turn 
around to get to OR 229 and US 20 or to access his property. 
o These participants favored the No-Build option for Western Junction as it 
would keep Western Loop open at US 20. 
o One participant listed on a comment form that all of the other road projects 
except Western Junction were a high priority. 
• Several attendees indicated that addressing the safety and congestion issues at 
Western Junction was the highest priority for transportation system improvements. 
• Another attendee commented that the roundabout alternative would feel out of 
place in a rural setting, and it would be difficult for trucks to travel through 
roundabout.  
• Attendees asked why the signal alternative had such a high cost estimate. Project 
staff responded that the signal would require four lanes (2 through lanes in each 
direction), and US 20 would need to be widened to four lanes consistently back to 
Arcadia Drive. 
• One attendee was concerned about access to her driveway on the US 20 spur and 
potential property impacts with the Roundabout, Traffic Signal, Offset-T 
Alternatives and Interchange Alternatives. 
• In a written letter received after the open house, a property owner along Western 
Loop provided an additional concept at the Western Junction. He recommended 
expanding the study area to include a greater portion of US 20 and OR 229 north of 
the Western Junction. His concerns with the existing options included the high cost 
for the interchange and signal alternatives, business impacts to Dairy Queen and 
Dahl’s Disposal, wetland impacts, and increase in traffic noise. In addition, the 
interchange option may reduce access to his property from OR 229. The individual 
proposed a new option with the following phases: 
o Reduce the speed limits on US 20 and OR 229 by 10 mph and implement 
no passing zones along OS 229 north to Western Loop 
o Add a traffic signal at the US 20/OR 229 intersection and construct new 
left turn lanes 
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN 
OPEN HOUSE #1 SUMMARY 
PAGE 7 
o Convert Business Loop 20 to eastbound only traffic between US 20 and 
Business Loop 20 Spur, with westbound traffic using the spur to access 
US 20. 
Freight Truck Traffic and Routes 
Attendees made the following comments on freight truck traffic and route issues: 
• Trucks traveling along OR 229 towards US 20 use jake brakes which can be loud for 
nearby residents. Post signs restricting jake or compression brakes (Note: This area is 
outside of the TSP study area. the Toledo City Limits, and the UGB). 
• Install pavement markings directing freight traffic to correct routes. 
• Install physical height barriers for trucks on non-truck routes to deter freight trucks 
on local streets. This could include installing hanging chains (like at construction 
sites) or a more permanent solution. 
Safety Concerns 
Attendees made the following comments on safety issues: 
• Increase the visibility of the flashing traffic signal at US 20 and OR 229 by raising its 
height. 
• High vehicle speeds on 
US 20 near Western 
Junction was a major 
concern for most 
attendees. Physical 
changes to the road or 
visual cues are more 
effective than lowering 
the speed limit, as 
drivers are unlikely to 
obey a sign without any 
visual or physical 
changes to reduce speed. 
Bicycle and Pedestrian 
Needs  
Attendees and visitors to the website made the following comments on bicycle and 
pedestrian facilities: 
• One attendee said that bicycle/pedestrian improvements on Business Loop 20 
outside the city limits were a high priority. 
• Online commenter supported the Yaquina Bay Road/Bay Boulevard multi-use path 
as a connection for cyclists into Toledo.  
 
An open house attendee places stickers to indicate priority of 
proposed projects 
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN 
OPEN HOUSE #1 SUMMARY 
PAGE 8 
o Yaquina Bay Road is a popular route for bicycle tourism, but there is a gap 
between the bicycle lanes on the western part and the east end of the route as 
you approach Toledo. 
o A multi-use path would encourage recreational day-trip cyclists to visit 
Toledo and visit local businesses. One commenter noted that some visitors 
avoid the difficult section of Yaquina Bay Road by driving to a point west of 
Toledo before riding to Newport and back. 
o Long-distance riders approaching Toledo from points east bypass the City on 
the way to Newport. Constructing the trail and installing signage along US 
20 could encourage cyclists to ride through Toledo to support economic 
development. 
o The path would improve the safety and comfort of pedestrians, bicyclists, 
and drivers. Yaquina Bay Road is narrow with limited visibility, creating the 
opportunity for close calls between motorists and cyclists. 
Transit Needs  
One attendee mentioned the need for Lincoln County Transit to update the bus schedules in 
the shelters. The Project Team promised to forward the comment to Lincoln County Transit. 
Freight Rail Network 
One attendee disagreed that restrictions on freight train traffic were necessary, such as 
prohibiting idling trains or instituting a quiet zone in downtown. 
Demographic Information 
The comment form included questions about demographic information according to ODOT 
Title VI requirements. The responses were confidential and not associated with the general 
event sign in (which collected names and addresses). Providing answers to the questions 
was voluntary.  
• Race/ethnicity: 3 Caucasian (not of Hispanic origin)  
• Language spoken at home: 3 English 
• Household Income/Yr: 2 with More than $53,000/yr 
• ZIP Code: 3 for 97391 
 
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN 
OPEN HOUSE #1 SUMMARY 
PAGE 9 
Comments Received by Mail 




  
Project Website 
The project website, www.gettingaroundtoledooregon.org provided information throughout the TSP process. 
The webpage provided background information on the project, the project schedule, all technical materials, and 
agendas, display information, and summaries of all PAC meetings and public Open Houses. In addition to the 
information on the website, users could also provide feedback on the materials and information, request follow-
up from a project team member, and comment on technical information. The website was updated monthly 
with a What’s New section, and the PAC and Open Houses were both advertised on the website. The project 
team tracked the weekly web hits to the site, which averaged around 10 unique hits per week. 
 
 
Planning Commission and City Council Hearings and 
Worksessions 
 
Both Planning Commission and City Council were involved in decision‐making for the Toledo TSP. All meetings 
were open to the public and took public comment during the meetings. Official meeting minutes of those 
meetings are included below; however, meetings where the minutes are not yet finalized are not included.  
The following meetings were held to discuss the Toledo TSP: 
 Joint City Council and Planning Commission Worksession. May 14, 2013 
 Planning Commission Worksession and Hearing. August 14, 2013
 Planning Commission Hearing. September 11, 2013 
 City Council Worksession. October 8, 2013 




August 14, 2013 Toledo Planning Commission Page 1 
Toledo City Hall 
Conference Room 
August 14, 2013 
 
TOLEDO PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION MINUTES 
 
A worksession for the Toledo Planning Commission was called to order at 6:15 pm by Vice 
President Jerry Seth.  Commissioners present:  Anne Learned-Ellis, Mary Young, Doug Alldridge 
(arrived at 6:20 pm), and Paul Johnson (arrived at 6:35 pm).  Excused was Paul Schneidecker. 
 
Staff present:  City Planner (CP) Aneta Synan and Secretary Arlene Inukai. 
 
VISITORS:  None. 
 
WORKSESSION:  Transportation System Plan (TSP): 
CP Synan stated that not all of the proposed changes were completed, as the consultants were 
looking for additional Commissioner/Council input.  Vice President Seth provided a brief overview 
of the process leading up to the latest draft.  He noted the impacts of adopting the document and of 
the sub-committee’s feedback/response to date.  One item of contention has been the classification 
of Bus. Hwy 20 from an arterial to a collector street.  When property is developed, there are major 
differences with the required improvements, potentially hindering all new development along the 
route. 
 
Commissioners discussed the timeline of the consultant’s contract and State’s funding for the 
project.  If adoption cannot be reached by the end of the contract deadline, the City can finalized the 
document and bring it back for hearings.  Vice President Seth reported that the City Manager is in 
support of taking as much time as needed to bring in a good plan.  Commissioners requested the 
ability to see the final draft version before recommending anything to City Council.  Commissioner 
Learned-Ellis felt the document was a bit generic and does not adapt to Toledo very well.  She 
pointed out that Arcadia Drive is listed as a collector, with moderate speeds.  However, one cannot 
safely travel on Arcadia Drive at 35-45 mph. 
 
Commissioners discussed the street classifications and why not just list street for what they really 
are, rather than change the definitions to fit another classification.  Commissioners will want to 
verify with ODOT, but it looks like federal funding options are available for both arterial and 
collector classifications.  Commissioner Learned-Ellis confirmed that the TSP needs to be written in 
order to get projects funded, but it also needs to be usable and reflect Toledo's need. 
 
Vice President Seth noted that it is good to see the City Council’s goal statement for the year.  He 
noted that the document is set up with goals, objectives, and action statements.  The TSP only has 
goals and objectives, but many objectives are actually written as action statements or projects.  He 
would like to re-write several of the goals/objectives in order to be meaningful and could even 
combine/shorten some of the statements.  He even prepared a list of goals/objectives he would like 
to see in a TSP and the list was submitted.  However, they were inserted right into the document 
without even finding a good fit with existing statements or combining statements.  It turned into 76 
objectives.  Also, CP Synan noted that some modes have objective statements, but no goal 
statements.  ODOT suggested some overall goal statements to cover all transportation modes, then 
breaking down into separate modes to have specific statements.  Commissioners also noted that 
some reformatting could be done to reduce redundancy within the plan. 
August 14, 2013 Toledo Planning Commission Page 2 
 
Commissioners discussed definitions for street classifications and the speed limit ranges when 
identified as “low, moderate, and high” speed zones.  Commissioners also discussed Bus. Hwy 20 
classification of arterial and establishing a business district overlay.  Some thought the addition of 
an overlay zone would be difficult, as there are a lot of overlay issues now. 
 
Commissioners asked for an extra week to review the plan before the hearing and that another 
worksession may beneficial.  The contract will expire in October, but the City can still work on the 
project to reach adoption.  Commissioners noted they are focused on the proposed code 
amendments and goal/objective statements.  The specific projects came out of the project committee 
meetings and, ultimately, the City Council will decide which projects will stay in the plan. 
 
Commissioner Johnson entered the worksession at 6:35 pm. 
 
Commissioners complemented the consultants with their thorough presentations and the amount of 
work going into the plan.  The plan establishes the guidelines for the transportation system and will 
be a useful tool in financing the projects. 
 
Commissioners voiced their desire to view a revised draft around August 27th.  Commissioners then 
agreed to a worksession at 6:00 pm on Monday, September 9, 2013, if the hearing is continued until 
September 11, 2013. 
 
The worksession was adjourned at 6:50 pm. 
August 14, 2013 Toledo Planning Commission Page 3 
Toledo City Hall 
Council Chambers 
August 14, 2013 
 
TOLEDO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 
 
A regular meeting of the Toledo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 pm by Vice 
President Jerry Seth.  Commissioners present:  Anne Learned-Ellis, Mary Young, Doug Alldridge 
(left at 7:20 pm), and Paul Johnson (left at 7:30 pm).  Excused was Paul Schneidecker. 
 
Staff present:  City Manager (CM) Michelle Amberg, City Planner (CP) Aneta Synan and Secretary 
Arlene Inukai. 
 
ELECTION OF OFFICERS: 
It was moved and seconded (Learned-Ellis/Young) to nominate Jerry Seth as Planning Commission 
President.  The motion passed unanimously, noting the absence of Schneidecker. 
 
It was moved and seconded (Johnson/Alldridge) to nominate Anne Learned-Ellis as Planning 
Commission Vice President.  The motion passed unanimously, noting the absence of Schneidecker. 
 
VISITORS:  Terra Lingley and David Helton. 
 
APPROVAL OF THE JULY 10, 2013, MINUTES: 
It was moved and seconded (Learned-Ellis/Young) to approve the July 10, 2013, minutes as 
circulated and reviewed by the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously, noting the 
absence of Schneidecker. 
 
PUBLIC HEARING:  MINOR PARTITION TO CREATE TWO PARCELS FOR PROPERTY 
LOCATED AT 1439 NW SPRUCE STREET, REQUESTED BY BRUCE PARSONS: 
President Seth opened the public hearing by stating the nature and purpose.  After calling for 
declarations of ex parte contact, bias, or conflict of interest, Commissioner Learned-Ellis excused 
herself from participating in the public hearing, as she is a direct neighbor and feels she may have a 
bias.  The statements of rights and relevances and rights to appeal were then read. 
 
Staff Report:  CP Synan reviewed the staff report as on file at City Hall.  The request is to create 
two parcels in the General Residential (RG) Zone.  The property contains an existing home and 
some moderate to steep slopes.  The applicant provided information showing the approximate 
location of the existing home and the newly proposed flag lot located behind the existing house.  
However, upon a site visitation last week, the applicant has already performed driveway 
improvements for the rear lot and staff became concerned that 1) the driveway is not located in the 
‘flag pole’ portion of the new lot, 2) the existing house may not meet setback requirement, and 3) 
the flat area for the house on the new lot may not meet setback standards.  Because of these 
concerns, staff is requesting the public hearing be continued in order to have a surveyor prepare a 
preliminary plat showing the existing structure, contour lines, and the new driveway.  CP Synan 
suggested the Planning Commission hear any testimony tonight before continuing the meeting. 
 
CP Synan reported that the applicant notified staff that a surveyor will be at the site next week and 
information could come as early as then.  A survey could even indicate a need for a variance.  An 
updated report will be prepared once additional information is submitted. 
August 14, 2013 Toledo Planning Commission Page 4 
 
Commissioner Johnson stated that a survey will be very helpful, especially to show the details for 
the existing house and driveway.  The applicant’s submittal is very vague.  Commissioner Young 
added that the terrain is pretty steep and the survey will provide clarification.  In response to 
Commissioner questions, CP Synan reported the driveway work is in progress, gravel is down, and 
a building pad is being established at the top.  An excavation permit will be required for the project. 
 
It was moved and seconded (Young/Alldridge) to continue the public hearing until September 11, 
2013, to allow the applicant time to submit a preliminary plat that meets the requirements of TMC 
16.08.030(B) on or before September 3, 2013.  The motion passed unanimously, noting the 
absence of Schneidecker. 
 
PUBLIC HEARING:  COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT THE TOLEDO 
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN (CITY FILE #PA-1-13): 
President Seth opened the public hearing by stating the nature and purpose.  There were no 
declarations of ex parte contact, bias, or conflict of interest.  The statements of rights and relevances 
and rights to appeal were previously read. 
 
President Seth voice appreciation with the City Manager, City Planner, and Planning Assistant’s 
time on this project.  A lot of staff time has been dedicated to the draft plan.  He also acknowledged 
the time and comments from Commissioner Learned-Ellis, as they met a few times to review the 
plan.  Commissioner Learned-Ellis echoed back President Seth’s comprehensive review and 
feedback of the document. 
 
Staff Report/Applicant Testimony:  CP Synan reviewed the staff report as on file at City Hall.  She 
stated the request is to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Comp Plan) to adopt the Toledo 
Transportation System Plan (TSP).  Part of the TSP identifies new goals and objectives to be 
incorporated into the existing Comp Plan chapters, and then the TSP document can be adopted by 
title and reference. 
 
The Planning Commission held a worksession last week and looked at the draft document.  Several 
suggestions were identified.  Because of this, a draft ordinance was not created, as there could be 
changes to the text.  CP Synan is recommending a continuation of the public hearing, but suggested 
the Commission hear the consultant’s presentation and allowing public testimony tonight. 
 
At this time Commissioner Alldridge excused himself from the meeting. 
 
Consultant Terra Lingley of CH2M Hill introduced herself and David Helton from ODOT.  Ms. 
Lingley explained she prepared a power point presentation, but there are some technical problems 
with the projector.  She noted that a copy of the presentation is included in the Commission’s 
packet. 
 
Ms. Lingley reported she has enjoyed Toledo and hopefully, the plan reflects the City.  She 
provided the following information and background going into the draft TSP: 
¾ The TSP provides guidance for a 20-year planning period.  The plan should be revisited 
and updated every 5-8 years to stay current. 
¾ The TSP identifies each transportation mode, goals, objectives, proposed code changes, 
street classifications, projects, and funding options.  Projects are separated into short- and 
long-term categories.  This does not mean a long-term project cannot be done before a 
August 14, 2013 Toledo Planning Commission Page 5 
short-term project, but it reflects the time and costs involved to complete the project. 
¾ Four project advisory committee meetings were held over the last year. 
¾ One project was removed from the last draft, which was the East Slope Road realignment 
for freight trucks. 
¾ There are two options identified in the TSP for the west Highway 20 junction.  Both are 
viable options, but improvements could depend on funding.  It was clarified that the City 
needs to stress to ODOT that this intersection is a regional problem, not just a City issue.  
Also, Lincoln County should be included in the west junction project as a champion 
(partner). 
¾ Specific projects identified within the TSP were reviewed. 
¾ There are a lot of bicycle and pedestrian projects, nearly two times as many as road 
projects.  This is because of the system needs for the two modes--there are a lot of missing 
sidewalks and no bike lanes.  The plan does not mandate that the City build all of the 
projects, but would want to see developers address the bike/pedestrian facilities. 
¾ There are a lot of long-term projects and aspirational projects and many have a regional 
importance. 
¾ The maintenance costs for a boardwalk would be quite higher than for a concrete or asphalt 
surface.  An option could be to partner with volunteer or civic groups for construction and 
maintenance. 
¾ Three of the port projects were pulled directly from the Port of Toledo’s plans.  They 
would be funded from different sources and the City would not have to compete directly to 
with their projects.  The Port has been a great participant in the TSP process. 
 
Commissioner Johnson excused himself from the meeting at this time. 
 
Commissioners reviewed the goal statements and that they should be broad vision statements.   
The objective statements are ways to meet the goals and sets provisions to guide the City. 
 
The following revisions/edits were identified for the plan, as discussed in previous Commission 
worksessions: 
¾ The objectives could be condensed down, while still meeting the intent, for example, Page 
2-3, Numbers 25, 27, and 30 can be reduced down to one single objective. 
¾ The bicycle and pedestrian goals could also be combined.  Page 2-4, Nos. 37 and 38 can be 
combined.  Also, objectives No. 32 and 33 (new and major improvements) combined and 
Nos. 35 and 36 (pedestrian facility standards) combined. 
¾ Define “major improvements” (pulled from Appendix F), as discussed at the last 
worksession. 
¾ Combine objectives 57 and 58 on Page 2-5.  
¾ Reword the airport objective to deal with emergency services “if the airport closes”. 
¾ Within the rail objectives, the rezone language can be removed to restrict only industrial or 
commercial zones.  Also, remove the 500’ requirement to notify ODOT Rail for 
development proposals. 
 
The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires plan and code amendments and the City is pretty 
compliant with the requirements, just a few changes are necessary.  The proposal will include a 
complete amendment to Comp Plan Article 12 (Transportation) and a revision to one goal and one 
objective in Article 14 (Urbanization and Livability).  The proposed language is included in 
Appendix F.  Other changes to the City codes include, 1) an amendment to TMC 16.04 to add 
definitions and update the general requirements, 2) establishing new Section 16.14, dealing with 
August 14, 2013 Toledo Planning Commission Page 6 
transportation facility standards (this is a State requirement), 3) update TMC 16.16 for 
transportation items and consistency, and 4) updates to the zoning ordinance for transportation 
facilities, bicycle parking, and access requirements for various street classifications.  All proposed 
language is included in Appendix E and F.  The TPR requires street standards for new and 
redevelopment projects.  Commissioners discussed the high volume streets and establishing the 
classifications.  It was noted that the plan is consistent with the City’s existing Public Works design 
standards manual.  The proposal allows a preferred and minimum standard when developing local 
roads.  The State requires bike/pedestrian facilities on arterials, although a shoulder could be 
appropriate.  Illustrations of the standards are included in the plan. 
 
The Commission discussed the functional classification system for streets.  Proposed changes 
include changing A Street/Butler Bridge Road from a local street to a collector street.  East Slope 
Road, Lincoln Way, and Arcadia Drive as a collector street.  Downgrade Main Street to a local 
street.  Planning Commissioners discussed Bus. Hwy 20’s classification as an arterial and most felt 
this is not appropriate for Toledo.  They have options for the classifications, and the road could be 
downgraded to a collector street.   
 
Ms. Lingley noted that Bus. Hwy 20 is unique, considering how it is used for the local and regional 
network.  The State has guidelines for street standard classifications.  The first proposal came from 
this review, but it was determined that the standards were pretty extreme.  The second proposal used 
the City’s existing street standard manual.  Mr. Helton added that the functional classification is 
identified as a best fit, but there are no mandates.  Some communities have created their own 
classifications.  When making a funding determination and a classification does not match the 
norm, ODOT will define the road for that purpose and will look at their existing guideline.   
 
Commissioners discussed the option of establishing street classification definitions and noted that 
function and speed are not always compatible when looking at Bus. Hwy 20.  Commissioner 
Learned-Ellis pointed out that no speed range was identified in the plan, only “high”, “moderate”, 
or “low”.  This could be subjective, so she asked how much is the speed range factored into the 
classification?  Mr. Helton stated that it does not factor in and the speed range language can be 
deleted from the definition.  Oregon speed limits are set by statute and are very regulated, so it may 
be better to remove the language from the definition.  Mr. Helton further explained that the 
definitions describe the functional classification of the street, but it does not mandate the operation 
of the street.  For example, arterials usually have a higher speed, but it does not have to.  Mr. Helton 
offered to follow-up with speed limit statutes and how they may impact street classifications, 
making sure that the TSP does not get out-of-sync with current regulations.  Commissioners also 
asked for a specific number range for speed limits (for example, are low speeds identified as 25-35 
mph).  Ms. Lingley added that arterials often have higher speeds in a rural highway setting, then 
reduced down once inside city limits and business districts.  She noted that this is similar, noting 
that there is a reduced speed in town and the topography of Bus. Hwy 20 affects traffic speeds.  
Commissioners voiced their desire to achieve funding and not jeopardizing any project because of 
the road classification.  Commissioners agreed to delete the reference to speed range from the 
definition table.   
 
Ms. Lingley reported she reviewed the notes from the Commission’s August 7th worksession and 
she received direction from Commissioners to make the recommended changes to the plan.   
 
President Seth suggested classifying Bus. Hwy 20 as a collector, rather than an arterial, which 
would allow more businesses to develop.  He added that the west junction area is not an arterial by 
August 14, 2013 Toledo Planning Commission Page 7 
definition.  The east end has more residential development and often, it is hard to access the 
driveways because of traffic speeds.  The speed limit should not increase in that area.  Ms. Lingley 
agreed that driveway access should be safe.  She added that the City should make the determination 
to best suit the City’s needs and the plan should be reviewed every 5 years.  President Seth 
appreciates the information and does not want to make the process more difficult, but wants to make 
sure the City has a good plan.  He then pointed out that some objectives are written as action 
statements.  He suggested the plan include goals, objectives, then action items. 
 
CP Synan reported the use of access management standards based street classifications, which 
would impact new development.  Ms. Lingley reported that the initial set of standards were pulled 
from the DLCD model code, which is where the original 1200’ distance between driveways was 
established for arterials.  She agreed that this was too much and the standards should better 
represent Toledo. 
 
Ms. Lingley noted that Bus. Hwy 20 is currently classified as an arterial.  There is a reference that 
addresses the current classification on Page 3-1, which will remain. 
 
Commissioners asked for CM Amberg’s comments on the draft plan, however, she felt it is 
inappropriate to comment at this time and will provide input at a later date.  CP Synan noted that 
she received two comments on the draft, submitted via email, and they will be included in the next 
packet.   
 
Because there is no quorum, the hearing will be continued to September 11, 2013.  At the next 
meeting, David Helton will attend.  Unfortunately, Ms. Lingley’s attendance at a second Planning 
Commission meeting is not included in the contract.  Mr. Helton noted that if the plan does not go 
to City Council by the end of September, the contract can be extended. 
 
Commissioners voiced great appreciation of the amount of work that has gone into the plan.  They 
thanked Mr. Helton and Ms. Lingley for their work and appearance tonight.  Commissioner Young 
then acknowledged and thanked President Seth and Commissioner Learned-Ellis for their thorough 
review of the draft. 
 
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 pm. 
 
 
 
___________________________________  ____________________________________ 
Secretary         President 
September 11, 2013 Toledo Planning Commission Page 1 
Toledo City Hall 
Council Chambers 
September 11, 2013 
 
TOLEDO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 
 
A regular meeting of the Toledo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 pm by President 
Jerry Seth.  Commissioners present:  Anne Learned-Ellis, Mary Young, Paul Johnson, and Paul 
Schneidecker.  Excused was Doug Alldridge.  
 
Staff present:  City Planner (CP) Aneta Synan, City Manager (CM) Michelle Amberg, Public 
Works Director (PWD) Frank Anderson, and Secretary Arlene Inukai. 
 
VISITORS:  David Helton (Oregon Department of Transportation) 
 
APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 7, 2013, AND AUGUST 14, 2013, MINUTES: 
It was moved and seconded (Learned-Ellis/Johnson) to approve the August 7, 2013, and August 14, 
2013, minutes as circulated and reviewed by the Planning Commission. The motion passed 
unanimously, noting the absence of Alldridge. 
 
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:  MINOR PARTITION TO CREATE TWO PARCELS FOR 
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1439 NW SPRUCE STREET, REQUESTED BY BRUCE 
PARSONS: 
President Seth opened the public hearing by stating the nature and purpose.  Declarations of ex parte 
contact, bias, or conflict of interest, were made at the last meeting, in which Commissioner 
Learned-Ellis excused herself from participating in the public hearing.  The statements of rights and 
relevances and rights to appeal were previously read. 
 
Staff Report:  CP Synan reviewed the staff report as on file at City Hall.  She provided a recap of 
last month’s meeting and the concerns with the accuracy of the applicant’s submittal.  In August, 
the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to allow the applicant time to have a 
surveyor submit a preliminary plat.  The survey was submitted on September 10th, but the staff 
memo was written for the agenda packet on September 4, 2013, before the survey was completed. 
 
CP Synan reviewed two options for tonight’s hearing—take action based on the information 
presented or continue the public hearing.  She reported that the preliminary plat may indicate other 
issues on the property.  The survey shows a shed, but this would be nonconforming if the new 
parcel is created because it does not have a primary structure.  The survey also identified the shed 3’ 
from the side property, but the minimum setback is 5’.  The shed is only a foundation at this time, 
and a building permit has not been submitted for the work.  The proposed lot configuration for the 
new lot may not meet the code requirements for the ‘flag pole’ portion of the lot.  The code requires 
a 20’ wide area, but the applicant identifies only a 15’ wide area for the driveway.  If an additional 
5’ area is dedicated for the driveway, then the existing house would not meet setback requirements. 
 
CP Synan recommended continuing the public hearing to allow time to meet with the applicant and 
try to resolve the issue with the shed foundation, building permit, and setbacks. 
 
It was moved and seconded (Young/Johnson) to continue the public hearing for lack of information.  
The next meeting will be October 9, 2013.  The motion passed with Learned-Ellis abstaining and 
September 11, 2013 Toledo Planning Commission Page 2 
noting the absence of Alldridge. 
 
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:  COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT 
FOR THE TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN (CITY FILE #PA-1-13): 
President Seth opened the public hearing by stating the nature and purpose.  There were no 
declarations of ex parte contact, bias, or conflict of interest.  The statements of rights and relevances 
and rights to appeal were previously read. 
 
Staff Report/Applicant Testimony:  CP Synan reviewed the staff report as on file at City Hall.  At 
August meetings, the Planning Commission recommended changes to the Transportation System 
Plan (TSP) document.  David Helton from ODOT Transportation Growth Management program 
provided those edits and his version is included in the Commission’s packet in a ‘track-change’ 
format.  Commissioners Learned-Ellis and Seth reviewed the edits against the list of recommended 
changes and reported that they matched.  Because of the edits, Appendix E and F were updated to 
reflect the changes and included in the Commission packet. 
 
CP Synan stated there has been some concern expressed with the proposed language for the zoning 
and the land division ordinances, but those items are not part of tonight’s request.  The specific code 
changes will be forthcoming after a TSP is adopted.  Tonight’s hearing is only to consider the TSP 
adoption and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Comp Plan) text amendments.  Commissioner 
Johnson asked about the timeframe to review the code amendments.  CP Synan reported they 
should move forward with the review very soon after TSP adoption.  There will be a brief time 
where the codes are out of compliance with the Comp Plan, but there is no set time for 
implementation.  She clarified that some regulations are established in the TSP, such as the street 
improvement standards, which will apply to development upon TSP adoption.   
 
CP Synan clarified that the Commission would make a recommendation to the City Council.  The 
draft ordinance amends the Toledo Municipal Code (TMC) because the Comp Plan was adopted by 
ordinance and identified in TMC 1.08.  If the ordinance is adopted, the revised text language 
(Exhibit A) will be inserted into the Comp Plan.  President Seth reiterated that the decision to adopt 
the TSP only includes the plan document and it does not accept the recommended development 
code changes (identified in the appendices).  He added that when they reviewed the draft line-by-
line, all of the recommended updates were included and the only concern he saw had to do with the 
variance language in the appendix.  This item can be dealt with during the code update process.  
President Seth voiced appreciation for Mr. Helton making the changes.  Commissioner Learned-
Ellis added that all of the changes were made and the reasoning for other changes made sense.  
However, she pointed out Appendix E, Page 4, shows “Arcadia Road” as a collector, but this should 
be “Arcadia Drive”.  This is also listed on Page 4-2, under Collector Classification.  She questioned 
if Table 4-7 was struck in its entirety (Page 4-11) because it seemed redundant. 
 
David Helton from ODOT Transportation Growth Management program reported his agency 
provided the grant to develop the City’s TSP.  After last month’s meeting, he had a few issues to 
report back.  The functional street classifications for Toledo will be determined by the City.  ODOT 
has a process to update their list of functional classification for funding eligibility and ODOTs list 
will be consistent with the local list.  Generally, arterials and collectors are eligible for federal 
funds, while local streets are not.  The second item from last month was the statutory speed laws.  
These provide default speed limits and the street classifications are not a factor in the speed laws.  
In order to change a speed zone from the default standard, cities must request a speed study.  A 
study would look at traffic patterns, road conditions, the type of road, and surrounding land uses.  
September 11, 2013 Toledo Planning Commission Page 3 
Mr. Helton referenced ORS 811.111 for speed limit standards.  The default is in effect if a speed is 
not posted.  The only time a functional classification would make a difference for a speed limit is on 
a State highway.  He reviewed the list of existing speed zone orders for the Toledo area, including 
Butler Bridge Road, Yaquina Bay Road, Hwy 20, A Street, Arcadia Drive, Sunset Drive, East Slope 
Road, and Sturdevant Road, and Toledo Frontage Road (Bus. Hwy 20). 
 
Mr. Helton reported the goals and policies were established through committee meetings.  At this 
time, direction needs to come from the Planning Commission.  There have been several edits and 
revisions to reduce redundancies within the document.  Typically, every transportation plan has 
very broad goal statements, which Toledo currently has.  These broad statements establish the 
minimum standards and provide justification for many actions.  Specific goals provide the guidance 
for certain issues.  For example, the US Hwy 20 western junction is a very important issue and has a 
specific goal to continue to work with ODOT to reach a solution.  If the Planning Commission feels 
there are redundancies within the goals and objective statements, the simplest thing would be to 
delete them and rely on the broad goal statement at the beginning of the list. 
 
Mr. Helton stated the appendices are not being adopted with the plan.  They are the background 
documents.  A lot of analysis goes into the plan, but the technical data goes into the appendices and 
shows the reasoning behind the plan.  He clarified that not all of the appendices have to be included 
and can be removed all together.  Appendix A, C, D, and E are critical to the document, but the 
others are less critical and can be pulled out.  Most of Appendix F is already included in TSP 
Chapter 2.  Mr. Helton added that it is very important to have a TSP and he knows that this can be 
onerous.  The City’s plan should be a good fit for the community.  He stated that he reviewed 
minutes of the August worksession and understands the Commission’s concern with the timeframe.  
A request for an extension with the ODOT contract has been requested, set to expire December 31, 
2013.  This allows time for the consultant to attend one City Council meeting.  
 
Commissioners considered removing Appendix F because it is redundant to what is in the TSP.  
However, Appendix F provides the findings for reaching compliance with the Transportation 
Planning Rule and this is important for the document.  After discussion, Commissioners felt that it 
is good to have the back-up information in the plan.  Also, language throughout the plan reference 
several appendices. 
 
CP Synan offered that when the code language changes are reviewed later, there is some flexibility 
for the amendments, but some items are required in order to meet State standards.  She can provide 
a list of ordinance amendments that have flexibility options and the amendments which are 
mandated.  She pointed out that coordination with Lincoln County is necessary for development 
standards on County roads (Sturdevant Road, Yaquina Bay Road, and portions of Bus. Hwy 20). 
 
Commissioner Learned-Ellis referenced one of the public comments submitted in the staff report, 
specifically, the need to provide covered bus shelters.  This comment should go into the record that 
the structure be provided as funding is available.  This should be included in 5310, Page 4-13.  She 
added that with all of the revisions, the document has been reduced down and it is easier to read.  
Commissioner Johnson stated they can review items in the future, as long as there are good 
statements that allow “housekeeping” revisions.  President Seth noted that they could continue to 
adjust, change, and edit forever, but for the interest of other topics, it is good to move forward. 
 
Proponent Testimony:  None. 
 
September 11, 2013 Toledo Planning Commission Page 4 
Opponent Testimony:  None. 
 
Other Interested Parties:  None. 
 
Questions by Commissioners:  None. 
 
Deliberations:  The public hearing was closed and the Commission entered into deliberations.  It 
was moved and seconded (Young/Learned-Ellis) to recommend the City Council adopt proposed 
Ordinance No.1352, an ordinance amending the 2000 Toledo Comprehensive Land Use Plan, as 
adopted by Ordinance 1285.  The motion passed unanimously, noting the absence of Alldridge. 
 
Commissioners thanked both Mr. Helton for his assistance and staff for the work with the TSP. 
 
DISCUSSION ITEMS:  
President Seth reported that one of the City Council’s goals is to annex properties surrounded by the 
current City limit line.  About seven properties have been identified for potential annexation.  CM 
Amberg reported that many sites already receive City services, but are not paying City property tax.   
In some cases, only City water is available and a sewer line extension would be very expensive to 
provide.  Commissioner Learned-Ellis noted that the City has approved some septic systems upon 
annexation because the sewer main lines are not in the area.  Commissioner Schneidecker 
confirmed that he was one of those developments. 
 
STAFF COMMENTS: 
None. 
 
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: 
President Seth voiced appreciation with getting through the TSP process, which at times, has been 
very agonizing.  He recognized full cooperation and assistance from CM Amberg, CP Synan, and 
Secretary Inukai.  All were available throughout the project.  He also acknowledged Commissioner 
Learned-Ellis for her contribution and attention to details.  He felt there was good collaboration 
between everyone.  CP Synan noted that tonight’s draft TSP was quite a bit different from the 
original draft, released in May.  This latest draft provides a lot of detail that is specific to Toledo.  
President Seth also expressed appreciation for Mr. Helton’s help and streamlining the plan.  He 
noted that it will be good to move onto the development code standards and to remember that the 
TSP should be reviewed/updated every 4-5 years.  Everyone thanked President Seth for his work 
and time dedicated to the TSP project. 
 
CM Amberg introduced new Public Works Director Frank Anderson.  She added that PWD 
Anderson is a new Toledo resident and is getting very involved in the community.  All welcomed 
PWD Anderson to the City. 
 
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 pm. 
 
 
___________________________________  ____________________________________ 
Secretary         President 
City Hall 
Council Chambers 
Council Work Session Minutes 10/8/2013 
Page 1 of 4 
 
TOLEDO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 
WORK SESSION 
October 8, 2013 
 
Mayor Ralph Grutzmacher called the Toledo City Council work session to order at 6:16pm. 
Councilors present:  Alma Baxter, Jill Lyon, Jack Dunaway, Michele Johnson, and Jackie 
Kauffman. Excused: Council President Terri Strom. 
 
Staff present: City Manager (CM) Michelle Amberg, City Attorney (CA) Wes Chadwick, Public 
Works Director (PWD) Frank Anderson, Planning Secretary Arlene Inukai, Contract Planner (CP) 
Anita Synan, Contract Code Enforcement Officer Dustin Kittel, and City Recorder (CR) Nancy 
Bryant. 
 
Visitors present: Don Amberg, Dave Morgan, Jerry Seth, David Helton, and Ann Learned-Ellis. 
 
Discussion and Information Items 
Mayor Grutzmacher called for a motion to add “Property Abatement of 927 SW 6th Street, 
Toledo” to the Discussion and Information Items of this meeting. Moved by Councilor Dunaway 
and Seconded by Councilor Baxter. Motion passed 6-0, noting the absence of Council President 
Strom. 
 
Committee Updates 
CM Amberg noted vacancies in the following committees: Public Utility Commission, Budget 
committee, Contribution Committee, Planning Commission, and Parks and Recreation Advisory 
Committee. 
 
Property Abatement- 927 SW 6th Street, Toledo 
Dustin Kittel, Toledo’s Contract Code Enforcement Officer reported a potential abatement for 
nuisance of real property located at 927 SW 6th. Kittel stated that for the previous year the City has 
been working with the property owner regarding code violations. The structure is collapsing, there 
are exposed electrical components, and water has been allowed to get inside the building. There is 
also miscellaneous debris located throughout the property. The owner has been sighted several 
times and has appeared before Toledo’s Municipal Judge. Judge Parsons found the owner guilty of 
code violations and fined him several hundred dollars. The owner has indicated that he does not 
have the financial or physical means to do anything with this property. Kittel stated that continued 
fines will serve no purpose and the City may now take the issue to the next level. The owner has 
been notified that the City will consider abatement of the property a nuisance. Kittel estimated that 
the cost for a total abatement will be $15,000 unless the Fire Department is willing to use the 
‘Learn to Burn’ program which will reduce the cost to approximately $6,000. He noted that if the 
city does nothing it may set a precedence that if a property violation is ignored long enough the 
City will discontinue to seek compliance. 
 
In answer to Council questions Kittel stated the following: 
• The next step is to seek a warrant from the Toledo Municipal Judge. Fire Department 
personnel can then get a closer look at the property to determine if the Learn to Burn program 
can be utilized. 
• The owner is disabled and lives in another area. The owner has not indicated that he is willing 
to wash his hands of the property but may agree to the abatement. 
 Council Work Session Minutes 10/8/2013 
Page 2 of 4 
• If the City chooses to abate the property a lien will be filed and placed on the property. 
 
Mayor Grutzmacher stated that the City may want to suggest an exchange of ownership if the City 
is going to incur $15,000 in costs. Kittel agreed to discuss the issue further with the owner. 
 
Toledo Transportation System Plan Ordinance Review 
CA Chadwick reported that the City was awarded a Transportation and Growth Management 
(TGM) grant administered jointly by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and 
Department of Land Conservation and Development. The TGM grant funded the contract services 
of professional consulting firm CH2M Hill to provide assistance to study and prepare a 
Transportation System Plan for transportation modes within the City limits and Urban Growth 
Boundary. Before Council is an amendment to the goals in the 2000 Toledo Comprehensive Land 
Use Plan. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan includes an inventory of land, goals and 
objectives, and a map which is the governing document in which the City uses for land use 
decisions. CH2M Hill has been working with Toledo’s Planning Commission to develop the 
proposed Transportation System Plan and to amend the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the 
Transportation System Plan. 
 
Anita Synan, Toledo’s Contract Planner stated that the plan provides goals for the City’s 
transportation system including streets, transit, walkways, bicycle routes, water, and rail service. It 
also identifies implementation objectives including ways to implement the goals that are listed as 
well as several projects that were prioritized for the city to implement in the next 5 to 20 years. 
The city is not mandated to implement any of the projects but having them in an adopted plan 
makes them more attractive for future grant funding. She noted that the Planning Commission 
voted to recommend approval of the proposed Ordinance. 
 
David Helton of ODOT provided a summary of the proposed Transportation System Plan as 
follows: 
• How it will be used- as guidance for residents, developers, and city staff on the future 
transportation system. The project timeframe or priorities are a suggestion, based on current 
information. It is also used as a way to pursue transportation funding to implement projects 
important to the City. The plan can be amended as the need occurs. He suggested that the City 
review the plan and set annual priorities during annual goal setting sessions. He also suggested 
adding language regarding communication with the railroad company for rail crossing 
improvements. 
• Goals and objectives- will provide guidance on how the community envisions the future 
transportation system. The proposed TSP provides for goals and objectives in Street System, 
Bicycle/Pedestrian, Port/Water System, Transit, Air/Pipeline, and Rail. He encouraged the 
City to make any changes in the goals or objectives now, before it is approved or to delete 
them if not needed. 
• Plan and Code Amendments- The recommended code amendments are not adopted when the 
plan is adopted. The 2000 Toledo Comprehensive Plan amendments will include the TSP as 
the transportation element, with the TSP policies incorporated in Article 12 and a reference to 
the TSP in Article 14 (Urbanization and Livability). The proposed Municipal Code 
amendments include the following: 
o Chapter 16.14-adds Transportation Facility Standards.  These are based on the 2009 
Toledo Public Works Standards 
o Chapter 16.16-add TSP reference in the planned development criteria 
 Council Work Session Minutes 10/8/2013 
Page 3 of 4 
o Chapter 17.20-17.36 Zoning-adds transportation facilities as allowed uses and defines 
transportation improvements 
o Chapter 17.44 Parking-adds bicycle parking requirements/standards, and bicycle 
parking credit 
o Chapter 17.48 Access- adds driveway and public street spacing standards 
 
• Functional Classifications-will create a balanced system that moves people within and 
through the City and provides access to land uses. He noted that the plan does not identify any 
of the City Streets as ‘arterial’ because the City expressed concern that if so designated, the 
City may be required to set increased speed limits and increase driveway spacing which may 
interfere with commercial development. 
 
Other Comments- Mayor Grutzmacher requested a count of transit stops without shelters located 
in Toledo. Councilor Lyon said, outside of reading the document she sees no reason to hold back 
on a decision. Planning Commission President Jerry Seth stated that he sees nothing harmful in the 
plan and would like to see it approved. CP Synan noted that the Planning Commission spent a lot 
of time reviewing the initial proposal in an effort to make it relevant to Toledo. Anne Learned-
Ellis thanked CP Synan for her work on the project. Councilor Dunaway stated that he liked the 
process used to develop this plan. Mayor Grutzmacher noted that there doesn’t seem to be any 
controversy and staff should move forward with any text amendments. Staff agreed to bring the 
proposed ordinance for a formal decision by Council on November 6, 2013. 
 
Mayor Grutzmacher called for a brief recess at 8:09pm. The meeting resumed at 8:19 pm. 
 
City Owned Property 
CM Amberg provided Council with a copy of Ordinance No. 1342 which provides for a process to 
dispose of City owned property. She also provided Council with a draft request for proposal (RFP) 
for a Real Estate Agent of Record. She suggested bringing a Real Estate Agent on board to aid 
Council in strategizing the disposal of real estate properties. Councilor Dunaway suggested 
declaring some of the unused properties surplus while the City is seeking a Real Estate Agent of 
Record. Council agreed that they would like to decide which properties to surplus as soon as 
possible. Staff agreed to place the Real Estate Agent of Record on the October 16th agenda for an 
official decision.  
 
Street Utility Fee 
CM Amberg provided a copy of Ordinance No. 1325, an ordinance establishing the road 
maintenance regulatory program and adopting fees for the road maintenance services. Councilor 
Dunaway stated that he has been concerned about whether heavy industry is paying its fair share 
in Street Utility fees and has asked for this discussion. He noted that if other Council members are 
satisfied with the rate schedule then he is not interested in pursuing the issue further. Council 
members and staff agreed that the property inventory on the fee schedule may need to be updated 
to reflect current businesses. 
 
Completion of the 2012 Summer Paving Project & Pedestrian Grant 
PWD Anderson reported that as part of the waterfront connectivity plan, the south end of Main 
Street was examined regarding the speed of traffic, lack of ADA compliance access, poor 
transition to 2nd Street and Butler Bridge Road, and the lack of enhanced aesthetics and visitor 
information. In 2011 the City received a Bicycle/Pedestrian grant from ODOT in the amount of 
$180,000 with a City and Port of Toledo match of $10,000 each. A part of that grant project was 
 Council Work Session Minutes 10/8/2013 
Page 4 of 4 
to pave Butler Bridge Road and realign the South Main Intersection. He noted that the grant 
funding has been extended but that the enhanced aesthetics and visitor information public space 
portion of the project remains incomplete. He said the City and Port arrived at a conceptual design 
of the area which included a hardscape inside the concrete. Initially the estimated cost for 
completion of the public space was $50,000. After some changes in the design elements staff 
estimates the project can be completed at a cost of $28,000. By consensus, council directed PWD 
Anderson to move forward with the project. 
 
Neighborhood Park Enhancements 
Councilor Lyon reported through her involvement with economic development issues she has 
come up with a few ideas to boost the community and its attitude about itself.  She suggested 
placing covered shelters in neighborhood parks for people to use as gathering sites. She also 
suggested that City employees of various departments visit the local schools and provide 
information about the City government. Council and staff discussed the possibility of financing 
and installing structures in City parks. Council agreed to discuss the issue again in December or 
January. 
 
H.E.A.L. (Healthy Eating Active Living) City 
Mayor Grutzmacher reported that he is on the advisory committee for the Healthy Eating Active 
Living initiative and he would like Toledo to adopt the program. By consensus Council agreed 
that Mayor Grutzmacher will draft a resolution to come before Council on November 6th.  
 
Additional Council Discussion Items 
Councilor Lyon reported that the Lincoln County Telecom Committee approved a draft ordinance 
that will be distributed to the County and local municipalities for their consideration. The 
ordinance will require installation of fiber optic conduit for new construction and major 
renovations in both commercial and residential development. 
 
City Manager Comments 
CM Amberg reported that she will be away from the office beginning October 25th through 
November 9th. She will be attending a FEMA Incident Command Training at the National 
Emergency Training Center in Emmitsburg, Maryland.  CA Chadwick will be in charge during her 
absence. 
 
Adjournment: 
Mayor Grutzmacher adjourned the meeting at 9:19pm. 
 
ATTEST:               APPROVE: 
 
 
_______________________                                             ______________________________ 
City Recorder                           Mayor