Date: Jurisdiction: Local file no.: DLCD file no.: 10/10/2014 Washington County Ordinance 783 004-14 The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) received the attached notice of adopted amendment to a comprehensive plan or land use regulation on 10/08/2014. A copy of the adopted amendment is available for review at the DLCD office in Salem and the local government office. Notice of the proposed amendment was submitted to DLCD 48 days prior to the first evidentiary hearing. Appeal Procedures Eligibility to appeal this amendment is governed by ORS 197.612, ORS 197.620, and ORS 197.830. Under ORS 197.830(9), a notice of intent to appeal a land use decision to LUBA must be filed no later than 21 days after the date the decision sought to be reviewed became final. If you have questions about the date the decision became final, please contact the jurisdiction that adopted the amendment. A 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). If the amendment is not appealed, it will be deemed acknowledged as set forth in ORS 197.625(1)(a). Please call LUBA at 503-373-1265, if you have questions about appeal procedures. If you have questions about this notice, please contact DLCD’s Plan Amendment Specialist at 503- 934-0017 or plan.amendments@state.or.us DLCD Contact NOTICE OF ADOPTED CHANGE TO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR LAND USE REGULATION http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/Pages/forms.aspx  ‐1‐  Form updated November 1, 2013   DLCD FORM 2  NOTICE OF ADOPTED CHANGE  FOR DLCD USE    TO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR  File No.:                LAND USE REGULATION  Received:             Local governments are required to send notice of an adopted change to a comprehensive plan or land use regulation no more than 20 days after the adoption. (See OAR 660-018-0040). The rules require that the notice include a completed copy of this form. This notice form is not for submittal of a completed periodic review task or a plan amendment reviewed in the manner of periodic review. Use Form 4 for an adopted urban growth boundary including over 50 acres by a city with a population greater than 2,500 within the UGB or an urban growth boundary amendment over 100 acres adopted by a metropolitan service district. Use Form 5 for an adopted urban reserve designation, or amendment to add over 50 acres, by a city with a population greater than 2,500 within the UGB. Use Form 6 with submittal of an adopted periodic review task. Jurisdiction: Washington County Local file no.: A‐Engrossed Ordinance 783  Date of adoption: 10/7/2014 Date sent: 10/8/2014  Was Notice of a Proposed Change (Form 1) submitted to DLCD? Yes: Date (use the date of last revision if a revised Form 1was submitted): 5/15/14 No Is the adopted change different from what was described in the Notice of Proposed Change? Yes If yes, describe how the adoption differs from the proposal:  The engrossed ordinance amends and clarifies Transportation System Plan (TSP) language to better reflect community aspirations.  The engrossed ordinance makes several TSP map amendments including:  Add as Proposed Collector: Kinsman Road in Wilsonville from Day Road to Ridder Road (The alignment is already shown on Lane Numbers map).  Change lane number designation on Grabhorn Road from Farmington Road to UGB to 2/3 lanes.  Change the lane number designation on Tile Flat Road from UGB to Scholls Ferry Road to 2/3 lanes.   Local contact (name and title): Steve Kelley, Senior Planner Phone: 503‐846‐3764 E-mail: stevel_kelley@co.washington.or.us Street address: 155 N First Ave City: Hillsboro Zip: 97124‐ PLEASE COMPLETE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS THAT APPLY For a change to comprehensive plan text: Identify the sections of the plan that were added or amended and which statewide planning goals those sections implement, if any: Transportation System Plan Elements and Goals  Amended     All System Elements   Goal 1 Safety   Goal 2 Economic Vitality   Goal 5 Mobility   Goal 7 Connectivity   Goal 8 Active Transportation   Glossary  http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/Pages/forms.aspx  ‐2‐  Form updated November 1, 2013   Community Development  Code Standards Amended     300 Introduction ‐ Land Use Districts   385 Private Use Airport Overlay District   390 North Bethany Subarea Overlay District   401 Introduction ‐ Development Standards   430 Special Use Standards   431 Transit Oriented Design Principles, Standards and Guidelines   501 Public Facility and Service Requirements   601 Land Division and Property Line Adjustments   712 Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Facilities   714 Additional Standards for Category A, B and C Projects    Urban Community Plans  Amended       Aloha‐Reedville‐Cooper Mountain   Bethany   Bull Mountain   Cedar Hills‐Cedar Mill   East Hillsboro   Metzger‐Progress   Raleigh Hills‐Garden Home   Sherwood   Sunset West   West Union  Applicable statewide planning goals: Goals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.  For a change to a comprehensive plan map: Identify the former and new map designations and the area affected: Change from           to                       acres. A goal exception was required for this change. Change from           to                     acres. A goal exception was required for this change. Change from           to                     acres. A goal exception was required for this change. Change from           to                     acres. A goal exception was required for this change. Location of affected property (T, R, Sec., TL and address):           The subject property is entirely within an urban growth boundary The subject property is partially within an urban growth boundary 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:           http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/Pages/forms.aspx  ‐3‐  Form updated November 1, 2013   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: 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:   USDOT, ODOT, Metro, TriMet, cities and special districts in Washington County  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.           Continued from September 23,2014 AGENDA WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Public Hearing -Third Reading and Third Public Hearing Agenda Category: Land Use & Transportation; County Counsel (CPO All) Agenda Title: Presented by: SUMMARY: CONSIDER PROPOSED A-ENGROSSED ORDINANCE NO. 783 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE COMMUNITY PLANS RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Andrew Singelakis, Director of Land Use & Transportation Alan Rat,mleyea, County Counsel A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 proposes to amend the Washington County Transportation System Plan (TSP), the Community Development Code and all Community Plans. The ordinance makes significant changes to the TSP including an update to all Transportation System Elements based on the policy framework adopted in 201 3 by Ordinance No. 768. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 is posted on the county's land use ordinance web page at the lbllowing linl<: http://www .co. washington .or.us/LUT /Di v isions/LongRangePiann i ng/20 14-land-use-ord i nances.cfm The Board conducted the initial public hearing for Ordinance No. 783 on August 5, 2014, and directed engrossment of the ordinance to include changes recommended by the Planning Commission. A description ofthose changes was included in the staff report for the August 5 hearing. The Board held its first hearing for A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 on September 23, 2014 and continued the hearing to October 7, 201 4. A stalT report will be provided to the Board prior to the October 7, 201 4 hearing and posted on the above land use ordinance web page. Copies of the report will also be available electronically and at the Clerk's desk prior to the meeting. Consistent with Board policy, testimony about the ordinance is limited to two minutes for individuals and five minutes for a representative of a group. Clerk's Desk Item: Staff Report (click to access electronic copy) DEPARTMENT'S REQUESTED ACTION: Read A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 by title only and conduct the second public hearing on the engrossed ordinance. At the conclusion of the hearing, adopt A-Engrossed Ordinance 783 and associated findings. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION: I concur with the requested action. ADOPTED Agenda Item No. 4.a. Dato: 10/07114 1 2 3 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON FILED SEP 0 5 2014 Washington County County Clerk 4 A-ENGROSSED ORDINANCE 783 An Ordinance Amending the Transportation Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the Community Development Code, the Aloha- Reedville-Cooper Mountain Community Plan, Bethany Community Plan, Bull Mountain Community Plan, Cedar Hills- Cedar Mill Community Plan, East Hillsboro Community Plan, Metzger- Progress Community Plan, Raleigh Hills-Garden Home Community Plan, Sherwood Community Plan, Sunset West Community Plan, and the West Union Community Plan 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 The Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Oregon ("Board") ordains as 12 follows: 13 SECTION 1 14 A. The Board recognizes that the Transportation Plan Element of the Comprehensive 15 Plan (Volume XV) was adopted on October 25, 1988, by way of Ordinance Nos. 332 and 333, and 16 subsequently amended by Ordinance Nos. 343, 382, 409, 419, 426, 432, 450, 463, 470, 471, 473, 17 474,480,483-485,493, 494,503,515,526,537, 542,546,552,556,588, 601,609,611 ,626,627, 18 63 1,642,649,663 , 674, 683, 712,713, 717,718.730,739,744, 749,750, 760,and768. 19 B. The Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Oregon, recognizes 20 that the Community Development Code Element of the Comprehensive Plan (Volume IV) was 21 readopted with amendments on September 9, 1986, by way of Ordinance No. 308, and 22 subsequently amended by Ordinance Nos. 321,326,336-341,356-363,372-378,380,381.384- Page 1 - A-ENGROSSED ORDINANCE 783 WASHINGTON COUNTY COUNSEL 155 N. FlR~T AVI::NUt:,SUITE340 HlLl.StsORO, OR 97124 PHONE: 503 846·8747- FAX: 503 846·8636 1 386,392,393,397,399~403,407,412,413,415,417,421-423,428-434,436,437,439,441-443, 2 449, 451~454, 456,457,462-464,467-469,471 ,478-481,486-489, 504, 506-512, 517-523, 525, 3 526,528,529,538,540,545,551-555,558-561 , 573,575-577,581,583,588,589,591-595,603- 4 605, 607-610,612,615, 617,618,623, 624,628,631,634,635,638, 642,644, 645, 648, 649,654, 5 659-662,667,669,670,674,676,677,682-686,692,694-698,703,704,708,709,711,712, 718~ 6 720,722,725,730,732,735,739,742-745,754-758,760,762,763,765, 766, and 769-776. 7 c. The Board of County Conunissioners of Washington County, Oregon, recognizes 8 that the Aloha-Reedville-Cooper Mountain Community Plan was adopted by Ordinance Nos. 263 9 and 265 and subsequently amended by Ordinance Nos. 292,294,344,367,418,420,471,480,551, 10 588,610,615,620, 649,653,674,683,and776. 11 D. The Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Oregon, recognizes 12 that the Bethany Community Plan was adopted by Ordinance Nos. 263 and 265 and subsequently 13 amended by Ordinance Nos. 345, 420, 471, 480, 551, 588, 610, 615, 620, 649, 702, 712, 730, 739, 14 744, 745, 758, and 771. 15 E. The Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Oregon, recognizes 16 that the Bull Mountain Community Plan was adopted by Ordinance Nos. 263 and 265 and 17 subsequently amended by Ordinance Nos. 368, 420, 480, 487, 547, 551 , 552, 588, 610, 615, 659, 18 and 666. 19 F. The Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Oregon, recognizes 20 that the Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan was adopted by Ordinance Nos. 263 and 265 and 21 subsequently amended by Ordinance Nos. 346, 369,396,418,420,450,471,480,484, 526,551 , 22 553,588,609,610,620,631, and 732. Page 2 - A-ENGROSSED ORDINANCE 783 WASHINGTON COUNTY COUNSEL !55 N. rlRST AV!iNUil, 5UITE340 HILLSBORO, OR 97124 PHONE: 503 846·13747 - 1-'AX: 503846-8636 1 G. The Board of County Commiss ioners of Washington County, Oregon, recognizes 2 that the East Hillsboro Community Plan was adopted by Ordinances Nos. 278 and 280 and 3 subsequently amended by Ordinances Nos. 349, 420,480, 532, 551, 588, 610, 615, and 686. 4 H. The Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Oregon, recognizes 5 that the Metzger-Progress Community Plan was adopted by Ordinance No. 236 and subsequently 6 amended by Ordinance Nos. 278,280, 350, 364, 420,471,480, 551,588,608, and 610. 7 l. The Board of Corn1ty Commissioners of Washington County, Oregon, recognizes 8 that the Raleigh Hills-Garden Home Community Plan was adopted by Ordinance No. 215 and 9 subsequently amended by Ordinance Nos. 278,280,292, 347, 365,408, 420, 471,480,551,588, 10 608, 610, 683, and 758. 11 J. The Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Oregon, recognizes 12 that the Sherwood Community Plan was adopted by Ordinances Nos. 263 and 265 and subsequently 13 amended by Ordinances Nos. 370,420,480, 551, 588, 610,615, and 649. 14 K. The Board of County Commiss ioners of Washington County, Oregon, recognizes 15 that the Sunset West Community Plan was adopted by Ordinance No. 242 and subsequently 16 amended by Ordinance Nos. 278, 280, 292,294, 348, 366,418,420,485, 503, 526, 531, 532, 551- 17 553, 588, 610, 620, 717,760, and 780. 18 L. The Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Oregon, recognizes 19 that the West Union Community Plan was adopted by Ordinance Nos. 263 and 265 and 20 subsequently amended by Ordinance Nos. 420,480, 551, 588,610,671, and 694. 21 M. As part of its ongoing planning efforts including review of current policy and plan, 22 existing conditions, and possible future expansions, Washington County has determined there is a Page 3 - A-ENGROSSED ORDINANCE 783 WASHINGTON COUNTY COUNSEL 155 N . FIRST A VF.NUF., SUITE 340 Hli.LSB()l!O, O R 97124 PIIONE: 503 846-8747 - fAX: 503846·11636 1 need to update the Transportation Plan to provide direction, identify needs, and address 2 transportation-related issues. The Board takes note that such changes are for the health, welfare, 3 and benefit of the residents of Washington County, Oregon. 4 N. Under the provisions of Washington County Charter Chapter X, the Depattment of 5 Land Usc and Transportation has carried out its responsibilities, including preparation of notices, 6 and the County Planning Commission has conducted one or more public hearings on the proposed 7 amendments and has submitted its recommendations to the Board. The Board finds that this 8 Ordinance is based on those recommendations and any modifications made by the Board are a 9 result of the public hearings process; 10 0. The Board finds and takes public notice that it is in receipt of all matters and 11 information necessary to consider this Ordinance in an adequate manner, and finds that this 12 Ordinance complies with the Statewide Planning Goals, the standards for legislative plan adoption 13 as set forth in Chapters 197 and 215 of the Oregon Revised Statutes, the Washington County 14 Charter, the Washington County Community Development Code, and the Washington County 15 Comprehensive Plan. 16 SECTION 2 17 The following Exhibits, attached and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted 18 as amendments to the following documents: 19 Exhibit 1 (2 pages)- Adding Inu·oduction "About the Modal Elements" to the 20 Transportation System Plan; 21 Exhibit 2 (39 pages)- Amending Roadway Element of the Transportation System Plan and 22 maps: Page 4 -A-ENGROSSED ORDINANCE 783 WASHINGTON COUNTY COUNSEL 155 N. FIRST A VF.NUI:!, 5U!Tll340 1-hLLSUOitO, OR 97124 PJJONll: 503 846-8747 - FAX: 503 846-8636 1 a. The Functional Classification map, Transpmtation System Plan, is amended; 2 b. The Lane Numbers map, Transportation System Plan, is amended; 3 c. The Special Area Street Overlay Sunset Station Area Plan, is amended; 4 d. The Special Area Street Overlay Cedar Mill Town Area, is amended; 5 e. The Long Term Roadway Jurisdiction map is incorporated into the 6 Transportation System Plan; 7 f. The Rural Enhancement Study Corridors map is incorporated into the 8 Transportation System Plan; 9 g. The SW 124111 A venue Extension Refinement Area map is incorporated into the 10 Transp01tation System Plan; 11 h. The NW 1851h Avenue and OR Highway 26 Interchange Refinement Area map is 12 incorporated into the Transportation System Plan; 13 1. The North Bethany Neighborhood Route Refinement Area map is incorporated 14 into the Transportation System Plan; 15 j. The SW Day Road Overcrossing Refinement Area map is incorporated into the 16 Transportation System Plan; 17 k. The l-5 to Highway 99W Refinement Area map is incorporated into the 18 Transportation System Plan; 19 l. The NW Schaff Road Extension Refinement Area map is incorporated into the 20 Transportation System Plan; 21 m. The NW Springville Road Extension Refinement Area map is incorporated into 22 the Transp01tation System Plan; Page 5 -A-ENGROSSED ORDINANCE 783 WASHINGTON COUNTY COUNSEL 155N. FIRST AVENUE,SUITE340 HILLSBORO, OR 97124 PHONE: 503 846-B747- FAX: 503 846-8636 1 n. The Tualatin Valley Highway Refinement Area map is incorporated into the 2 Transportation System Plan; and 3 o. The N\V Wilkins Road Extension Refinement Area map is incorporated into the 4 Transportation System Plan. 5 Exhibit 3 (7 pages)- Amending Freight Element of the Transportation System Plan and 6 maps: 7 a. Deleting Countywide Through-Truck Routes map; 8 b. The Roadway Freight System map is incorporated into the Transportation 9 System Plan; and 10 c. Title of the "Air, Rail, Pipeline & Water Elements" map is amended 1 1 Exhibit 4 (40 pages)- Amending Active Transportation Elements of the Transportation 12 System Plan and maps: 13 a. The Pedestrian System map is incorporated into the Transportation System 14 Plan; 15 b. The Bicycle System map is deleted; 16 c. The Bicycle System map is incorporated into the Transportation System 17 Plan; 18 d. The Transit System map is deleted; and 19 e. The Transit System map is incorporated into the Transportation System Plan 20 Exhibit 5 (5 pages)- Amending Transportation System Management & Operations Element 21 of the Transportation System Plan; 22 Exhibit 6 (5 pages) -Amending Funding Element of the Transportation System Plan; Page 6 - A-ENGROSSED ORDINANCE 783 WASHINGTON COUNTY COUNSEL 155 N. f-IRST AVGNUF., SUITF. 340 Hll.l SRO!{Q, OR 97124 PHON!i: 503 846-8747- FAX: 503846-8636 Exhibit 7 (18 pages) - Amending Ordinance 768 and maps: 2 a. The 2040 Growth Concept Design Types map is deleted; 3 b. The Deficiency Areas map is deleted; 4 c. The Regional Street Design Overly map is deleted; 5 d. The Washington County Study Areas map is deleted; and 6 e. The Countywide Road System map is deleted 7 Exhibit 8 (5 pages)- Amending Community Development Code; and 8 Exhibit 9 (10 pages) - Amending Commw1ity Plan maps: 9 a. The Transportation Functional Classification map, Aloha, Reedv ille, Cooper 10 Mountain Community Plan, is deleted; 11 b . The Transportation Functional Classification map, Chapters I and 2, Bethany 12 Community Plan, arc deleted; 13 c. The Transportation Functional Classification map, Bull Mountain Community 14 Plan, is deleted; 15 d. The Transportation Functional Classification map, Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill 16 Community Plan, is deleted; 17 e. The Transportation Functional Classification map, East Hillsboro Community 18 Plan, is deleted; 19 f. The Transportation Functional Classification map, Metzger-Progress Community 20 Plan, is deleted; 21 g. The Transportation Functional Classification map, Raleigh Hills-Garden Home 22 Community Plan, is deleted; Page 7 - A-ENGROSSED ORDINANCE 783 WASHINGTON COUNTY COUNSEL 1.55 N. FIKST AVF.NUF., Sum;340 HILLSBORO, OR 97124 PHONF.: 503 846-8747- FAX; 503 846-8636 1 h. The Transportation Functional Classification map, Sherwood Community Plan, 2 is deleted; 3 1. The Transportation Functional Classification map, Sllllset West Community 4 Plan, is deleted; and 5 J. The Transportation Functional Classification map, West Union Community Plan, 6 is deleted 7 8 SECTION 3 9 All other Comprehensive Plan provisions that have been adopted by prior ordinance, which 10 are not expressly amended or repealed herein, shall remain in full force and effect. 11 SECTION 4 12 All applications received prior to the effective date shall be processed in accordance with 13 ORS 215.427. 14 SECTION 5 15 If any portion of this Ordinance, including the exhibits, shall for any reason be held invalid or 16 unconstitutional by a body of competent jurisdiction, the remainder shall not be affected thereby and 17 shall remain in full force and effect. 18 SECTION 6 19 The Office of County Counsel and Department of Land Use and Transportation are 20 authorized to prepare planning documents to reflect the changes adopted under Section 2 of this 21 Ordinance, including deleting and adding textual material and maps, renumbering pages or sections, 22 Page 8 - A-ENGROSSED ORDINANCE 783 WASHINGTON COUNTY COUNSEL 155N. FIRST AV F.NUF.,5UITc340 Hll .L'iU A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Exhibit 7 August 26, 2014 Page 7 of 18 abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions 2. Bikeways or bicycle lanes are required on all urban Collectors and Arterials, including Special Area Collectors. A Ssix-foot wide, striped and stenciled bike lanes or other appropriate bicycle treatments shall be constructed along these facilities except where special constraints exist, as determined by the County Engineer. In those areas, five-foot wide bike lanes, 14-foot wide outside travel lanes or other appropriate facilities may be used and transitioned back to the appropriate bicycle facility when the constraint ends. The Bicycle Facility Design Toolkit should be referenced during the design of urban Collectors and Arterials. Outside of the UGB, refer to the Bicycle System Mmap and the Rural Roadway Enhancement Study Corridors Map to determine which facilities are intended to have bikeways. These Rural bikeways may be a minimum of six-foot wide paved shoulders. 3. Minimum right-of-way and maximum paved widths identified here are, as a rule, the maximum that can be built on roadway segments without an amendment to the TSP. However, plan amendments will not be required when it is determined by the County Engineer during the project development or development review processes that these maximums should be exceeded. The reasons to exceed the maximums may include accommodation or topography or other project-level refinements associated with safety and/or wider than standard pedestrian facilities bus pullouts; on-street parking; project impact mitigation measures; and intersection, interchange or other project features identified as necessary for safe, efficient operation of the planned transportation system. All intersections along Arterials and Collectors shall be planned to include right-of-way necessary for turn lanes within 5001,000-feet of intersections based on a 20-year analysis of intersection needs. Actual right-of-way requirements may be less than the maximums specified in the table based on roadway characteristics and surrounding land uses, as determined by the County Engineer. On two and three lane urban Collectors, right-of-way may by reduced to 60 feet and maximum paved width may be reduced to 36 feet through the land development or project development processes. Such a determination can be made when there is a finding that a turn lane is reasonably unlikely to be needed based on anticipated future development and traffic analysis, and after consideration of other related transportation facilities including storm water quality facilities. Acquiring adequate right-of-way is important to avoid unnecessary and costly future improvement impacts. In all circumstances, Arterial, Collector and Neighborhood roadways right-of-way shall be no less than the roadway width (curb to curb or back of shoulder to back of shoulder) plus 24 feet. In rural areas, the maximum right-of-way for Collectors shall be 60-feet. Article VII of the CDC identifies land use standards, public notice and involvement provisions and appeal opportunities that are provided in the land use permitting process. 4. On those Arterials and Collectorsroadways designated on the ‘Regional Street Design OverlayPedestrian’ System Map as ‘Boulevards’’Pedestrian Parkway’, ‘Streetscape Overlay’, ‘Boulevard Intersections’ or ‘Streets’, or located within identified ‘Pedestrian Districts’ on the Pedestrian System map, sidewalks widths and other design features such as planter areas and crosswalks shall should be determined based on the Washington County Pedestrian Enhancements Design Guidelines and/or applicable standards in the Community Plans and/or the CDC, as determined by the County Engineerand based on engineering review as appropriate. On those Arterials and Collectorsroadways designated on the Bicycle System Map as ‘Enhanced Major Street Bikeway’, buffered bike lanes and other bicycle treatments shall be determined based on the bicycle toolkitBicycle Facility Design Toolkit and/or other applicable standards in the Community Plans and/or CDC, as determined by the County Engineer. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Exhibit 7 August 26, 2014 Page 8 of 18 abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions 5. ‘Special Area’ streets (Collector, Neighborhood, Commercial or Local classifications) are shown on the ‘Special Area Street Overlay’ maps. Special Area Local Streets may also be designated in the appropriate Community Plans and/or by the CDC. Additional Special Area Neighborhood Routes and Special Area Local Streets may be designated using the development review process. Special Area Street designs will be determined via the development review process. While Special Area Commercial Streets do not include striped bicycle lanes, they shall include wide travel lanes of 14 feet to accommodate bicycle use. For Special Area Collectors, in addition to the right-of-way, a nine-foot minimum utility/sidewalk easement shall be dedicated on each side of the right-of-way. For Special Area Local streets, in addition to the right- of-way, a ten-foot minimum utility/sidewalk easement shall be dedicated on each side of the right-of-way. For Special Area Alleys, additional right-of-way may be required as part of development review. The right- of-way determination may include special consideration of other related transportation and water quality facilities, such as (but not limited to): low impact water quality treatment, parking, intersection bump outs, mid-block crossings and/or trail extensions. *** 4. Goal 7: Connectivity *** Objective 7.2 Identify as Study Refinement Areas locations where new Arterial or Collector connections or other improvements are necessary, but the specific location, mode and/or function route of the connection has not been determined. Strategy 7.2.1 Within designated Study Refinement Areas, require that development demonstrate how the development proposal shall either accomplish or not preclude the needs identified by the Refinement Area identified by the Study Area. Strategy 7.2.2 Seek to identify the specific location, mode and/or function of the Arterial or Collector connections within StudyRefinement Areas, and amend the appropriate maps and to remove the studyrefinement area designation as funding and resources allow. *** 5. Goal 8: Active Transportation *** Active transportation refers to human-powered travel, including walking and bicycling. Public transit is also a component of active transportation because accessing transit stops usually involves walking or bicycling. Widespread use of the term began in the first decade of the 21st century as transportation policy placed increased emphasis on non-automobile modes and as the links between human health and transportation planning became more evident. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Exhibit 7 August 26, 2014 Page 9 of 18 abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions Active transportation modes are essential components of the overall transportation system, meeting a variety of societal, environmental and economic goals. These include:  Environmental stewardship and energy sustainability Replacing gasoline-powered automobile trips with active trips reduces the emission of greenhouse gases, air toxins and particulates, helping to maintain air quality and address energy sustainability.  Congestion alleviation People who walk, bike and use transit reduce the number of motor vehicles vying for space on roadways and in parking lots. The active mode share for commuting from Washington County is currently estimated to be about 11% for work-related trips.2 Reduced congestion improves air quality, livability and economic vitality.  Health “Obesity is one of the biggest public health challenges the country has ever faced.”3 The conditions in which we live explain in part why some Americans are healthier than others and why Americans are generally not as healthy as they could be. The social determinates of health include five key areas: Economic Stability, Education, Social and Community Context, Health Care and the Neighborhood and Built Environment. The TSP sets the framework for future decisions about the Neighborhood and Built Environment component. Due to the connection to public health and healthy outcomes, it is necessary that public health and active lifestyles are considered as we make these choices. The transportation system is necessary to provide access to health care and emergency services. Furthermore the transportation system provides the environment for an active lifestyle. Infrastructure that enhances pedestrian, bicycle and transit networks also enhances opportunities for physical activity within our communities. This may in turn help address obesity and other public health related issues.  Safety As walking and bicycling trips increase, so does the relative safety of those modes. In Portland, for example, the bicycle crash rate (reported crashes normalized by counted bicycle trips) has shown a general downward trend in the past decade, even as daily bicycle trips have more than doubled.4 This can be partly attributed to increased attentiveness on the part of motorists as they see more bicyclists on the road. The same trend applies to pedestrian safety.  Efficient travel For many trips, active transportation choices are the most sensible and efficient mode. For very short trips, such as a quarter-mile trip to a convenience store, walking can be the best choice. Trips in the one to five mile range are often ideal for bicycling.  Cost savings and social equity Some people in Washington County and nationwide region-wide cannot afford to or choose not to own or operate a private vehicle. For those who need or want to reduce their transportation costs, active transportation is a common solution. 2 American Community Survey 2010 One-Year Estimates, U.S. Census Bureau, 2011. 3 F as in Fat: How Obesity Threatens America’s Future 2010, a report from the Trust for America’s Health. 4 2011 Bicycle Counts Report, Portland Bureau of Transportation, 2012. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Exhibit 7 August 26, 2014 Page 10 of 18 abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions  Attractive, efficient urban form The popularity of neighborhoods designed around a higher density urban form with active transportation facilities shows this type of community is increasingly desirable. From the historic, tree-lined streets of Forest Grove to the rapidly growing Orenco Station neighborhood, active transportation facilities like sidewalks, bike lanes and frequent transit are drawing residents and businesses. Walkable neighborhoods tend to be compact, using urban land efficiently and helping to meet other land use policies such as agricultural preservation. *** Objective 8.1 Provide an integrated network of “complete streets” that safely and comfortably accommodate road users of all ages and abilities, including people walking, cycling, using mobility devices, taking transit and driving. Strategy 8.1.1 Prioritize public active transportation projects that are effective at improving connectivity, filling gaps, expanding coverage of the active transportation network and positively influencing walk/bike/transit mode shares. Strategy 8.1.2 Early in the project development process, solicit and consider input from active transportation advocates to help optimize the design of pedestrian, bicycle and access-to-transit projects. Strategy 8.1.3 On existing substandard streets where the construction of full street improvements is not practicable within the foreseeable future, consider the construction of interim pedestrian and bicycle facilities, as available public funding allows. Strategy 8.1.4 Require new development to provide multi-modal complete street connections as defined in the CDC. Objective 8.2 Provide a pedestrian network that is safe, comfortable and convenient for people of all ages and abilities. Strategy 8.2.1 Prioritize pedestrian projects that are technically and financially feasible and that also improve connectivity, fill gaps, and/or provide safe routes to schools, community facilities, commercial areas, transit stops or essential destinations. Strategy 8.2.2 Prioritize pedestrian projects based on need; factors to consider may include: safety, density (residential and employment), access to essential destinations and transit and environmental justice factors, among others. Strategy 8.2.3 Inside the Urban Growth Boundary, require that sidewalks are constructed along new or improved streets and along street frontages of new developments. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Exhibit 7 August 26, 2014 Page 11 of 18 abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions Strategy 8.2.4 Facilitate safe, convenient and comfortable pedestrian facilities through the provision of pedestrian scale amenities as deemed appropriate and in compliance with applicable regulations. Strategy 8.2.5 Consider enhanced pedestrian crossings treatments at intersections and at other appropriate locations including school zones, commercial areas, major transit stops, trail crossings, Pedestrian Districts and warranted mid-block locations, using county-approved crossing treatments. Strategy 8.2.6 In rural pedestrian activity areas, which includes recreational trail crossings, consider improvements that enhance pedestrian safety. Strategy 8.2.7 On roadways designated on the Pedestrian System Map as ‘Pedestrian Parkway’ and/or ‘Streetscape Overlay’ and on roadways within identified Pedestrian Districts, enhanced pedestrian facility designs shall be considered based on applicable standards, land use context and physical constraints. Objective 8.3 Expand and improve the quality of bicycling infrastructure. Strategy 8.3.1 Refer to the guidelines set forth in the Washington County Bicycle Facility Design Toolkit when designing new or reconstructed urban and rural Principal Arterials (except for freeways), Arterials and Collectors, and implement treatments as deemed appropriate. Strategy 8.3.2 Develop a system of neighborhood bikeways on appropriate low- volume streets (as defined in the Neighborhood Bikeways Plan) to supplement the system of bicycle lanes and paved shoulders on major streets. Strategy 8.3.3 Designate a functional classification of bikeway travel, including a preferred bikeway network, considering the following criteria for defining or modifying the classification: A) Expected amount, type and characteristics of bicycle use. B) Population density of surrounding community. C) Average daily vehicle traffic. D) Posted travel speed. E) Topography. F) Road network density. G) Land use mix. Strategy 8.3.3 On those Arterials and Collectors designated on the Bicycle System Map as ‘Enhanced Major Street Bikeway’ buffered bike lanes and other bicycle treatments shall be considered based on the Bicycle Facility Design Toolkit and/or other applicable standards. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Exhibit 7 August 26, 2014 Page 12 of 18 abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions Strategy 8.3.4 Maintain and periodically revisit bicycle parking requirements in the CDC for applicable new development. Strategy 8.3.5 Coordinate the development of the bikeway system with other local and regional agencies and integrate it with the delivery of other transportation services. Strategy 8.3.6 Consider developing a rural road bicycle safety study that proposes solutions and strategies to increase the safety of recreational and utilitarian cycling in the rural area. Implement recommendations as appropriate. *** Objective 8.5 Improve access to and encourage the enhancement of transit service in Washington County. Strategy 8.5.1 Provide safe, convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to existing and proposed transit stops, including pedestrian crossings and other appropriate features near Major Transit Stops. Strategy 8.5.2 Coordinate with TriMet and other transit providers in their efforts to provide new or improved transit service to underserved locations in the urban area where concentrations of households, jobs or transit- dependent populations may warrant better service. Strategy 8.5.3 Work with Metro, TriMet and the cities to plan and implement new High Capacity Transit Corridors identified in the Regional High Capacity Transit System Plan. Strategy 8.5.4 Work with employers, Westside Transportation Alliance, TriMet and other transit providers to identify creative solutions to bridge the "last mile" from transit stop to workplace. Strategy 8.5.5 Encourage Ride Connection, Yamhill County Transit, Columbia County Transit and other transit providers to continue and potentially enhance operation of rural transit where it is cost-effective and warranted by demand. Strategy 8.5.6 Facilitate Encourage TriMet LIFT service operations, and the provision of accessibility features at transit stops and on transit vehicles. *** 6. Glossary *** A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Exhibit 7 August 26, 2014 Page 13 of 18 abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions Intelligent Transportation System – The application of advanced technologies and proven management techniques to solve transportation problems, enhance safety, provide services to travelers and assist transportation system operators in implementing suitable management strategies. Intelligent Transportation Systems focuses on increasing the efficiency of existing transportation infrastructure. Modal – Pertaining to the different modes of travel to be accommodated by the transportation system. Mid-Block Crossing – A rare and necessary link for our pedestrian and bike trails, mid-block crossings provide safer crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists between road intersections. Paratransit – A shared-ride service for those unable to use regular buses and trains. Place-Making Amenities – Features intended to improve the quality of public spaces by creating active, unique, interesting and/or visually attractive locations. Such features may include public art, plazas, ornamental lighting, banners, seating areas, wayfinding signage, transit shelters and/or bicycle parking. These features are intended to work in tandem with building features to create locations that people care about and in which they want to live, work, learn and play. Refinement Area – Locations that have been identified where further study is needed to determine the mode, function and/or general location of a future solution or transportation improvement. Further study of a refinement area may occur through a transportation planning process, capital project development or the land development process. Before development may occur on land within a refinement area, the development application must demonstrate how potential solutions to the transportation need will (at a minimum) not be precluded by the proposed development. Streetscape – The cross section design and features that make up a roadway. The streetscape includes the entirety of the public right-of-way and in some cases may include the visual aspects of private land and/or building facades adjacent to the public right-of-way. Study Area – In general, study areas relate to facilities or areas for which further study is required to determine specifically how an identified need should be met. In these cases the function, proposed alignment, or other specific solution has yet to be identified. Additional analysis will need to occur before solutions to the identified traffic problems can be addressed. The purpose of each study area is defined in the study area descriptions in the modal plans. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Exhibit 7 August 26, 2014 Page 14 of 18 abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions The following map is deleted from the Washington County Transportation Plan: A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Exhibit 7 August 26, 2014 Page 15 of 18 abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions The following map is deleted from the Washington County Transportation Plan: A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Exhibit 7 August 26, 2014 Page 16 of 18 abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions The following map is deleted from the Washington County Transportation Plan: A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Exhibit 7 August 26, 2014 Page 17 of 18 abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions The following map is deleted from the Washington County Transportation Plan: A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Exhibit 7 August 26, 2014 Page 18 of 18 abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions The following map is deleted from the Washington County Transportation Plan: A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Exhibit 8 August 26, 2014 Page 1 of 5 abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions Sections of the Community Development Code are amended to reflect the following: 1. SECTION 300 - INTRODUCTION (Article III - Land Use Districts) 300-1 Intent and Purpose *** 300-1.4 Transportation System Plan A. Policies 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 22, and 23, Goals 1 through 11 including their implementing objectives and strategies; B. The Functional Classification System Map; C. The Lane Numbers Map; D. The Special Area Streets Overlay Maps E. The Regional Street Design Overlay Map EF. The Transit System Map; FG. The Pedestrian System Maps H. The Off-Street Trail System Maps GI. The Planned Bicycle System Map *** 2. SECTION 385 - PRIVATE USE AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT 385-5 Uses Which May be Permitted Through a Type III Procedure A. The use is or will be supported by adequate types and levels of facilities and services and transportation systems consistent with the County’s adopted and acknowledged 2020 Transportation System Plan; *** 3. SECTION 390 - NORTH BETHANY SUBAREA OVERLAY DISTRICT 390-22 Additional North Bethany Subarea Development Standards *** 390-22.3 Neighborhood Circulation In addition to the requirements of Section 408, the following standards apply: A. Streets A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Exhibit 8 August 26, 2014 Page 2 of 5 abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions (1) Streets shall be public and designed according to the specific street cross- section type in the North Bethany Subarea Plan (or the County’s 2020 Transportation System Plan functional classification, or in both). *** 4. SECTION 401 - INTRODUCTION (Article IV - Development Standards) 401-4 The Transportation System Plan 401-4.1 Goals 1 through 11 Policies 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 22 and 23, including their implementing objectives and strategies; 401-4.2 The Functional Classification System Map; 401-4.3 The Lane Numbers Map; 401-4.4 The Special Area Streets Overlay Maps; 401-4.5 The Regional Street Design Overlay Map; 401-4.56 The Transit System Map; 401-4.7 The Planned Bicycle System Map; and 401-4.8 The Pedestrian System Maps; and 401-4.9 The Off-Street Trail System Maps. *** 5. SECTION 430 - SPECIAL USE STANDARDS 430-74 Living History Museum in the EFU and AF-20 Districts *** 430-74.2 In addition to the requirements of Section 501-9, an application for a living history museum shall include a transportation/traffic impact analysis which demonstrates the following. The analysis shall be prepared and certified by a traffic or civil engineer registered in the state of Oregon. A. Consistency with the following standards based upon existing and planned conditions (planning horizon of the applicable transportation plan or functional plan): (1) Washington County’s functional classification system as shown on the Functional Classification Map policy (Policy 10) of the Transportation System Plan; (2) Washington County’s level of service standard, as defined by Section 501-8.8 I.; and A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Exhibit 8 August 26, 2014 Page 3 of 5 abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions (3) The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) functional plans, including The Oregon Highway Plan and the Oregon Transportation Plan. *** 6. SECTION 431 - TRANSIT ORIENTED DESIGN PRINCIPLES, STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 431-5 Streetscapes for Pedestrians 431-5.1 Streetscapes - Transit Oriented Districts *** B. Standards: *** (4) Minimum sidewalk widths in Transit Oriented Districts shall be the widest identified by the Washington County Road Design and Construction Standards for the adjacent Special Area Street (as shown in the 2020 Transportation System Plan, Figures 6 through 8), except for Special Area Commercial Streets. Special Area Commercial Streets shall have sidewalks that are a minimum of twelve (12) feet in width. On arterials within or adjacent to Transit Oriented Districts and which are designated as ‘Streetscape Overlay’ ‘Boulevards’ on the Pedestrian System Regional Street Design Overlay Map in the 2020 Transportation System Plan, the minimum sidewalk width shall be twelve (12) feet (see Technical Appendix B-8 of the 2020 Transportation Plan for typical roadway cross- sections). *** 7. SECTION 501 - PUBLIC FACILITY AND SERVICE REQUIREMENTS (Article V) 501-8 Standards for Development *** 501-8.2 Essential Services *** J. When a development site includes frontage on a roadway that is identified as a ‘Pedestrian Parkway’ ‘Boulevard’ or ‘Streetscape Overlay’ on the Pedestrian System Regional Street Design Overlay Map in the Transportation System Plan, the Director shall determine if additional right-of-way, set backs, easements or right-of-way reservations are required so that implementation of Pedestrian System designations Regional Street Design Guidelines will not be precluded. *** 8. SECTION 601 - LAND DIVISION AND PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENTS (Article VI) 601-2 Applicability *** 601-2.3 A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Exhibit 8 August 26, 2014 Page 4 of 5 abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions *** D. The Transportation System Plan (1) Policies 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 22, and 23Goals 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11, including their implementing objectives and strategies; (2) The Functional Classification System Map; (3) The Lane Numbers Map; (4) The Special Area Streets Overlay Map; (5) The Regional Street Design Overlay Map; (65) The Transit System Map; (76) The Planned Bicycle System Map; and (87) The Pedestrian System Map.s; and (9) The Off-Street Trail System Maps. 9. SECTION 712 - PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE AND TRANSIT FACILITIES (Article VII - Intent and Purpose) 712-4 For ultimate capital improvements on facilities designated to accommodate bikeways Arterials or Collectors as identified on the Planned Bicycle Functional Classification System Map in the Transportation System Plan, bikeways shall be constructed consistent with the Bicycle Element of the Transportation System Plan. Bikeways include striped and stenciled lanes, five (5) to six (6) feet in width, buffered bike lanes, cycle tracks, paved shoulders at least four (4) feet in width and or fourteen (14) foot wide outside travel lanes in areas where constraints limit roadway width; these fourteen (14) foot wide shared, outside travel lanes shall transition to either paved shoulders or bikeways when the constraint ends. 712-5 For those road construction or reconstruction projects located within Pedestrian Districts or along ‘Pedestrian Parkways’ or ‘Streetscape Improvement AreasOverlay’ identified in the Pedestrian Element of the 2020 Transportation System Plan, pedestrian enhancements such as those amenities described in the County’s Pedestrian Enhancements Design Guideline Booklet shall be considered as part of the project development process. 712-6 For interim capital improvements on roadways identified for bikeways as Arterials or Collectors on the Planned Bicycle Functional Classification System Map in the Transportation System Plan, a minimum of a five (5) foot paved shoulder for each outside travel lane shall be provided. *** A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Exhibit 8 August 26, 2014 Page 5 of 5 abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions 10. SECTION 714 - ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR CATEGORY A, B AND C PROJECTS *** 714-3 On those roadways that are designated as ‘Pedestrian Parkways’ ‘Boulevard Intersections’, ‘Boulevards’ or ‘Streetscape Overlay’ on the Regional Street Design Overlay Pedestrian System Map in the Transportation System Plan, consider the street design characteristics set forth in the Regional Transportation Plan and Metro’s publication entitled ‘Creating Livable Streets – Street Design Guidelines for 2040’ during development review and project development, when construction or reconstruction is proposed. 714-4 For those roadway construction or reconstruction projects located within Pedestrian Districts or along ‘Pedestrian Parkways’ or ‘Streetscape Overlay’Improvement Areas identified in the Pedestrian Element of the 2020 Transportation System Plan, pedestrian enhancements such as those described in the county’s Pedestrian Enhancements Design Guideline Booklet shall be considered as part of the project development process. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Exhibit 9 August 26, 2014 Page 1 of 10 abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions The following maps are to be deleted from the following Community Plan documents of the Washington County Comprehensive Plan: Aloha, Reedville, Cooper Mountain Community Plan A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Exhibit 9 August 26, 2014 Page 2 of 10 abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions Bethany Community Plan A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Exhibit 9 August 26, 2014 Page 3 of 10 abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions Bull Mountain Community Plan A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Exhibit 9 August 26, 2014 Page 4 of 10 abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Exhibit 9 August 26, 2014 Page 5 of 10 abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions East Hillsboro Community Plan A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Exhibit 9 August 26, 2014 Page 6 of 10 abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions Metzger-Progress Community Plan A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Exhibit 9 August 26, 2014 Page 7 of 10 abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions Raleigh Hills-Garden Home Community Plan A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Exhibit 9 August 26, 2014 Page 8 of 10 abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions Sherwood Community Plan A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Exhibit 9 August 26, 2014 Page 9 of 10 abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions Sunset West Community Plan A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Exhibit 9 August 26, 2014 Page 10 of 10 abcdef West Union Community Plan Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions AGENDA WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Agenda Category: Action- Land Use & Transportation (CPO All) Agenda Title: ADOPT FINDINGS FOR A-ENGROSSED ORDINANCE NO. 783 Presented by: Andrew Singclakis, Director of Land Use & Transportation SUMMARY: A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 amends the Washington County Transportation System Plan (TSP). The ordinance makes significant changes to the TSP by incorporating amendments to system plan elements and maps. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 is posted on the county's land use ordinance web page at the following link: http://www .co. wash i ngton.or.us/LUT /Div isions/Lon gRangeP Ianni ng/20 14-land-use-ord i nances.cfm As required by ORS 197.615, post acknowledgment comprehensive plan amendments (e.g., amendments made to the County's Comprehensive Plan after it was acknowledged by the State Department of Land Conservation and Development as complying with the Statewide Planning Goals) must be accompanied by findings setting forth the facts and analysis showing that the amendments are consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals, Oregon Revised Statutes, State Administrative Rules and the applicable provisions of Washington County's Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, as required by Title 8 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, any amendment to a comprehensive plan or implementing ordinance shall be consistent with the requirements of the Functional Plan. Attached is the Resolution and Order to adopt the findings for A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. Prior to October 7, 2014 the proposed findings will be provided to the Board, posted on the above land use web page, and will also be available at the Clerk's desk. Attachment: Resolution and Order Clerk's Desk Item: Ordinance Findings (click to access electronic copy) DEPARTMENT'S REQUESTED ACTION: Adopt the findings for A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 and authorize the Chair to sign the Resolution and Order memorializing the action. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION: I concur with the requested action. RO Ji /09 Agenda Item No. 6.a. Date: 10/07114 1 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON 3 4 In the Matter of Adopting Legislative Findings in Support of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 RESOLUTION AND ORDER No. /.L.f -I 09 5 This matter having come before the Washington County Board of Commissioners at its 6 meeting of October 7, 2014; and 7 It appearing to the Board that the findings contained in Exhibit "A" summarize relevant facts 8 and rationales with regard to compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals, Oregon Revised 9 Statutes and Administrative Rules, Washington County's Comprehensive Plan, and titles of Metro's 10 Urban Growth Management Functional Plan relating to A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783; and 11 It appearing to the Board that the findings attached as Exhibit "A" constitute appropriate 12 legislative findings with respect to the adopted ordinance; and 13 It appearing to the Board that the Planning Commission, at the conclusion of its public hearing 14 on July 2, 2014, made a recommendation to the Board, which is in the record and has been reviewed 15 by the Board; and 16 It appearing to the Board that, in the course of its deliberations, the Board has considered the 17 record which consists of all notices, testimony, staff reports, and correspondence from interested 18 parties, together with a record of the Planning Commission's proceedings, and other items submitted 19 to the Planning Commission and Board regarding this ordinance; it is therefore, 20 RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the attached findings in Exhibit "A" in support of 21 A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 are hereby adopted. 22 23 24 25 26 27 County Counsel 28 For Washington County, Oregon BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON Chairman Recording Secreta EXHIBIT A FINDINGS FOR A-ENGROSSED ORDINANCE NO. 783 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN October 7, 2014 Part 1 – General Findings Part 2 – Statewide Planning Goal Findings Part 3 – Oregon Highway Plan Findings Part 4 – Metro’s Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Findings Part 1 GENERAL FINDINGS A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 amends the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The ordinance makes significant changes to the TSP, modifying and updating all transportation system elements. Key Ordinance Provisions 1) Update all Transportation System Elements based on the policy framework adopted in 2013 by Ordinance No. 768. 2) Make minor revisions and clarifications to the transportation policy framework adopted in Ordinance A-Engrossed Ordinance 768 in 2013. 3) Make minor changes to the Community Development Code (CDC) to reference the correct name and terminology used in the proposed TSP. 4) Remove Transportation Functional Classification maps from all community plans; these have been superseded by the Functional Classification map in the TSP. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783:  Incorporates map and system plan amendments identified through countywide system evaluation, including recent planning efforts and public outreach.  Updates the Roadway Element and amends the Functional Classification map, the Lane Numbers map, makes minor revisions to the Special Area Streets maps, incorporates the Long Term Roadway Jurisdiction map and Rural Road Enhancement Study Corridors map and identifies a number of refinement areas with maps and descriptive language.  Updates the Freight Element with new descriptive language and an updated Roadway Freight map.  Updates the Active Transportation Elements, including revised Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Elements; and provides new maps and descriptive language for each of these system elements. Exhibit A Findings – A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 October 7, 2014 Page 2 of 21  Updates the System Management and Funding Elements.  Makes minor updates to the CDC to reference the correct name and terminology of the proposed TSP. No substantive changes to the CDC are included.  Removes the Transportation Functional Classification maps from all community plans; these have been superseded by the Functional Classification map in the TSP. Because the ordinance would make changes that do not affect compliance with Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals (Goals), it is not necessary for these findings to address the Goals with respect to each amendment. The Board of County Commissioners (Board) finds that the Goals apply to amendments covered by these findings only to the extent noted in specific responses to individual applicable Goals, and that each amendment complies with the Goals. Goals 15 (Willamette River Greenway), 16 (Estuarine Resources), 17 (Coastal Wetlands), 18 (Beaches and Dunes) and 19 (Ocean Resources) and related Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) are not addressed because these resources are not located within Washington County. Part 2 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL FINDINGS The purpose of the findings in this document is to demonstrate that A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 is consistent with Statewide Planning Goals (Goals), Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) and Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) requirements, Metro’s Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP) and the Washington County Comprehensive Plan. The Washington County Comprehensive Plan was adopted to implement the aforementioned planning documents and was acknowledged by the State of Oregon. The county follows the post-acknowledgement plan amendment (PAPA) process to update the Comprehensive Plan with new state and regional regulations as necessary and relies in part upon these prior state review processes to demonstrate compliance with all necessary requirements. No Goal compliance issues were raised in the hearing proceedings described below. In addition, none of the proposed changes implicate a Goal compliance issue. The following findings are provided to demonstrate ongoing compliance. Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement Washington County has an acknowledged citizen involvement program that provides opportunities for citizens and other interested parties to participate in all phases of the planning process. In addition, Chapter X of the County Charter sets forth specific requirements for citizen involvement during review and adoption of land use ordinances. Washington County has utilized these requirements for the adoption of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 was developed in consultation with staff from Metro, ODOT and the Cities and Special Districts of Washington County. An Interagency Coordinating Committee (ICC) was formed and met a total of nine times. The ICC committee was instrumental in guiding the development of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. In addition to the ICC meetings, staff met individually with each of the ICC member agencies to discuss consistency between local plans and the county’s TSP. Exhibit A Findings – A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 October 7, 2014 Page 3 of 21 Furthermore, an 18-member Community Advisory Committee (CAC) was appointed by the County Board of Commissioners to assist with the development of the TSP update. The CAC met fifteen times and was instrumental in guiding the development of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. In addition to the CAC meetings, staff held a number of focus meetings with members of the CAC to discuss specific issues related to sub-areas of the county. In addition to the CAC, staff solicited input from a variety of community organizations, staffed farmers markets and attended community forums and citizen participation organization meetings. A summary of the Washington County TSP Public Involvement process is included in the record as an attachment to the staff report – dated August 5, 2014. Washington County staff also made extensive efforts to engage disadvantaged populations during the development of the TSP. This included 2 briefings with Adalante Mujures, engagement at a number of farmers markets, and a statistically valid survey or Washington County residents. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning Statewide Planning Goal 2 addresses Land Use Planning by requiring an adequate factual base to support a decision as well as coordination with affected governmental entities. Washington County has an acknowledged land use planning process that provides for the review and update of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan, which includes documents such as the Rural/Natural Resource Plan, Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area (CFP), Community Development Code (CDC), Transportation Plan, Community Plans and Urban Planning Area Agreements. Washington County utilized this process to adopt A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. Notice was coordinated with all affected governmental entities and no comments were received from these parties regarding the ordinance. Goal 3 – Agricultural Lands Policy 15, Implementing Strategies (a) and (f) of the Rural/Natural Resource Plan, includes provisions for the preservation of agricultural lands. Plan compliance with Goal 3 is maintained with the amendments made to the county’s Transportation System Plan by A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 by providing a transportation element of the comprehensive plan that will allow the preservation of the county’s resource lands. The amendments are consistent with Goal 3; OAR Chapter 660, Division 33; and the county’s acknowledged policies for preservation of farmland. Goal 4 – Forestlands Policy 16 of the Rural/Natural Resource Plan includes provisions for the preservation of forest lands. Plan compliance with Goal 4 is maintained with the amendments made to the county’s Transportation System Plan by A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. Amendments made by A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 are consistent with Goal 4; OAR Chapter 660, Division 06; and the county’s acknowledged policies for preservation of forest lands. Goal 5 – Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas and Open Spaces Exhibit A Findings – A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 October 7, 2014 Page 4 of 21 Goal 5 addresses the protection of natural resources and the conservation of scenic, cultural, and historic areas and open spaces by requiring local programs to protect these resources in order to promote a healthy environment and natural landscape that contributes to Oregon’s livability for present and future generations. Policies 10, 11 and 12 of the CFP, Policies 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Rural/Natural Resource Plan and various sections of the Community Plans and the CDC include provisions for the protection of Goal 5 resources. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 did not amend any of the Goal 5 significant designations. The amendments made by A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 are consistent with the county’s acknowledged policies and standards for the protection of Goal 5 resources as well as those set forth in OAR 660 Division 23. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 does not amend other Comprehensive Plan policies or development regulations that would affect existing policies and standards applicable to natural resources. Plan compliance with Goal 5 is maintained with the amendments made by A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. The amendments are consistent with the county’s acknowledged policies and standards for the protection of Goal 5 resources. Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality Goal 6 requires the maintenance and improvement of the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state through the implementation of local plans that address waste and process discharge. Policies 4, 5, 6 and 7 in the CFP and Policies 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Rural/Natural Resource Plan provide for the maintenance and improvement of the quality of air, water and land resources. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 does not amend the applicable Plan policies or CDC standards related to air, water or land resources, which impact the county’s compliance with Goal 6. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 738 did not amend any provisions regarding Community Plan and CDC protections to significant wetlands, air quality or land resource quality. Plan compliance with Goal 6 is maintained with the amendments made by A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. The amendments are consistent with the county’s acknowledged policies and standards for the protection of Goal 6 resources. Goal 8 - Recreational Needs Goal 8 requires local jurisdictions to satisfy the recreational needs of citizens and visitors by planning and providing for necessary recreational facilities. Policies 33, 34 and 35 of the CFP, Policy 24 of the Rural/Natural Resource Plan and the individual Community Plans address the recreational needs of the residents of and visitors to Washington County. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 did not amend any Plan policies or development regulations related to parks. Plan compliance with Goal 8 is maintained with the amendments made by A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. The amendments are consistent with the county’s acknowledged policies and strategies for satisfying recreational needs as required by Goal 8. Exhibit A Findings – A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 October 7, 2014 Page 5 of 21 Goal 9 – Economic Development Goal 9 requires the provision of adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare and prosperity of citizens. Policy 20 in the CFP and Policies 15, 16, 20 and 21 in the Rural/Natural Resource Plan set out the county’s policies to strengthen the local economy. The CDC contributes to a sound economy by providing standards that facilitate development in an orderly and efficient fashion. Plan compliance with Goal 9 is maintained with the amendments made by A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. The amendments are consistent with the county’s acknowledged policies and strategies for strengthening the local economy as required by Goal 9. Goal 10- Housing Policies 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area and Policies 19 and 25 of the Rural/Natural Resource Plan address the provision of housing in the urban and rural areas of the county. The Community Development Code contributes to the provision of adequate housing by establishing standards that facilitate development in an orderly and efficient fashion. Plan compliance with Goal 10 is maintained with the amendments made by A-Engrossed Ordinance No.783. Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services Goal 11 requires a plan for the orderly and efficient provision of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. Policies 15, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 of the CFP, and Policy 22 of the Rural/Natural Resource Plan address the provision of public facilities and services in the urban and rural areas of unincorporated Washington County. The CDC requires that adequate public facilities and services be available for new development. Plan compliance with Goal 11 is maintained with the amendments made by A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. The amendments are consistent with the county’s acknowledged policies and strategies for the provision of public facilities and services as required by Goal 11. Goal 12 - Transportation Goal 12 requires the provision and encouragement of a safe, convenient, multi-modal and economic transportation system. Policy 32 of the Comprehensive Framework Plan, Policy 23 of the Rural/Natural Resource Plan, and in particular the Washington County Transportation Plan, describe the transportation system necessary to accommodate the transportation needs of Washington County. Implementing measures are contained in the County’s Transportation System Plan, Community Plans, and the CDC. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 amends and updates the Washington County Transportation System Plan (TSP). These amendments provide an update to the existing TSP, including updates to all transportation elements. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 incorporates map and system plan amendments identified through countywide system evaluation, including recent planning efforts and public outreach. The updates to the Roadway Element amend the Functional Classification map and the Lane Numbers map, and make minor revisions to the Special Area Streets maps. Further, the Roadway Element incorporates the Long Term Roadway Jurisdiction Exhibit A Findings – A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 October 7, 2014 Page 6 of 21 map and the Rural Road Enhancement Study Corridors map, and identifies a number of refinement areas with maps and descriptive language. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 also updates the Freight Element with new descriptive language and an updated Roadway Freight map. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 updates the Active Transportation Elements; including revised Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Elements, and provides new maps and descriptive language for each of these system elements. In addition A- Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 updates the Transportation System Management and Operations Element and the Funding Element. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 is the second of two ordinances that amend the TSP. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 adopted in 2013, established the policy framework including the goals, objectives and strategies used to guide the development of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. Both A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 and A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 will become effective on December 1, 2014. The Washington County TSP maps as amended by A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 continue to provide a system of transportation facilities and service adequate to meet identified transportation needs consistent with the Metro Regional Transportation Plan and the Oregon Highway Plan. Brief summaries of the applicable TPR provisions are followed by findings of compliance. 660-012-0010 Provides that transportation planning be divided into two phases, transportation system planning and project development. FINDING: A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783, together with A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768, constitutes Washington County’s transportation system plan and has been developed in compliance with all applicable provisions of Division 12. Exhibit 6 of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 describes the project prioritization process consistent with 660-012-0010. As provided under this subsection, project development is addressed separately under Article VII of the Community Development Code, which has been previously adopted and acknowledged. 660-012-0015 includes requirements for preparation and coordination of transportation system plans. FINDING: A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 complies with all of the applicable requirements for preparation, coordination and adoption of TSP’s required under this section of the TPR. • A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 amends and is incorporated as part of Washington County’s Comprehensive Plan. • As described above, the preparation of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 followed the process in place for the development of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 and was closely coordinated with affected government agencies and service providers via the Interagency Coordinating Committee (ICC) that met nine times. In addition, as described above, the development of A-Engrossed Exhibit A Findings – A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 October 7, 2014 Page 7 of 21 Ordinance No. 783 included extensive public involvement opportunities, and engagement of an active Community Advisory Committee throughout development of the ordinance. • OAR 660-012-0015 also requires that regional TSPs, such as Metro’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), be coordinated with state transportation plans and policies, such as those found in the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP). Both ODOT and Metro were represented on the ICC and assisted in the development of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. As detailed elsewhere in these findings, A-Engrossed Ordinance 783 is consistent with the RTP and with the OHP. 660-012-0016 This section of the TPR describes coordination with Federally-Required Transportation Plans in Metropolitan Areas. FINDING: As discussed above, A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 was developed in cooperation with Metro and is consistent with the RTP and therefore is consistent with OAR-660-012-0016. 660-012-0020 This section of the TPR describes the elements that TSPs must contain. FINDING: A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783, together with A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 and the previously adopted and acknowledged comprehensive plan and Community Development Code provisions, includes all of the elements required by the TPR. • As previously discussed in these findings, in developing A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783, Washington County coordinated with state, regional and local jurisdictions via the ICC. • Transportation needs were determined in accordance with OAR 660-012-0030 (and OAR 660-012-0020(2)(a)), and are addressed in the Technical Appendix 1 adopted by Resolution and Order of the Board in conjunction with A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. • A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 updates the roadway element of the TSP for Washington County. Exhibit 2 includes updates to the functional classification map consistent with Metro’s RTP; exhibit 4 provides an update to the transit, bicycle and pedestrian elements of TSP. These systems identify planned extensions and connections of existing streets and destinations. • The layout and standards for the spacing and extension of local streets and most neighborhood routes is controlled by Article V of the CDC. • A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 updates the transit element of the TSP. Exhibit 4 updates the transit element of the TSP, which includes all the public transit services described in 660-012-0020(2)(c)(A)-(C). • A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783, exhibit 4 updates the bicycle and pedestrian elements of the TSP consistent with the RTP. • A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783, exhibit 3 updates the freight element of the TSP consistent with the RTP, including the aviation, pipeline and railroad components of the freight system. Exhibit A Findings – A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 October 7, 2014 Page 8 of 21 • A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783, exhibit 5 updates the Transportation System Management and Operations element of the TSP consistent with the RTP, including a demand management component of the management system. • The planning framework, goals, objectives and strategies for roadway, parking, public transportation, bicycle, pedestrian, air, water, pipeline and freight were addressed in A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768. • The inventory and general assessment of existing and committed transportation facilities and services for each element of the transportation system as required by OAR 660-012-0020(3)(a) and its subsections, are included in the technical appendix, adopted by resolution and order. OAR 660-012-0025 This section of the TPR describes the requirements for Goal compliance and refinement plans. FINDING: A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 complies with the applicable provisions of Section 660-012-0025 of the TPR as demonstrated by the following facts. • Chapter X of the County Charter sets forth specific requirements for citizen involvement during review and adoption of land use ordinances. Washington County has utilized these requirements for the adoption of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. The findings contained herein satisfy the requirement of OAR 660-12-0025(2) and have been adopted in conjunction with A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. • A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 identifies a number of refinement areas. Exhibit 2 includes nine roadway refinement areas where a need has been identified but the decision regarding the general location, alignment or mode has been deferred. Exhibit 4 identifies five regional trail refinement areas where a need for regional trail connection has been identified, but the alignment of the trail has not been determined. These include: o Turf-to-Surf Trail o Council Creek Trail o Cooper Mountain Trail o River Terrace Trail o Fanno Creek Greenway Trail In these trail refinement areas additional study is necessary to make a decision. The study of the solution may be conducted as part of a multi-agency and multi-disciplinary public effort. If private development within the identified area wants to proceed prior to completion of such a study, the development must demonstrate how, at a minimum, the development will not preclude the ultimate solution. • In addition to the refinement areas identified, a number of potential deficiency locations have been identified in Technical Appendix 3. These are locations that are not expected to perform to the standard in effect for that location even with the implementation of the project list improvements identified in Technical Appendix 2; therefore, the location has been identified as deficient. Exhibit A Findings – A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 October 7, 2014 Page 9 of 21 These Deficiency Locations may need additional improvements that cannot be funded within existing revenue parameters. Alternatively, a different performance standard might be used to assess the location, which could yield different results. • No Environment Impact Statement is included or necessary within A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783, therefore OAR 660-12-0025(4) does not apply. OAR 660-012-0030 The provisions of this section set forth how needs shall be identified in TSPs. FINDING: A-Engrossed Ordinance 783 identifies transportation needs as required by OAR 660-012-0030. • A-Engrossed Ordinance 783 addresses Washington County’s transportation system needs in the Technical Appendix to A-Engrossed Ordinance 783. A-Engrossed Ordinance 783 is consistent with the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) and Metro’s RTP; and findings of compliance with the OHP and RTP are included herein. • In addition, transit services are discussed in Exhibit 4 of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. These services are provided by TriMet, the regional transit agency, and others. TriMet has adopted an Elderly and Disabled Transportation Plan, which addresses the needs of the transportation disadvantaged. Strategy 8.5.6 of A-Engrossed Ordinance 768 supports the implementation of TriMet LIFT services for the transportation disadvantaged. • A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 exhibit 3 provides for the movement of goods and provision of services to support industrial and commercial development and job growth. The freight plan was based on the needs assessment described in Technical Appendix 1. The needs assessment was augmented by discussions with the CAC and ICC members, meetings with the Westside Economic Alliance and stakeholder interviews. • The needs analyses that are part of A-Engrossed Ordinance 783 are based upon population and employment forecasts developed by Metro with local government participation (Exhibit 3 of A-Engrossed Ordinance 768 and Technical Appendix 1). These same regional forecasts have been used to implement Metro’s 2040 designations, which are part of the County’s adopted and acknowledged comprehensive plan. • A-Engrossed Ordinance 783 is consistent with the requirements for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction set forth in OAR 660-012-0035(4) and referenced by OAR 660-012-0030(4). Appropriate findings are provided herein under OAR 660-012-0035. OAR 660-012-0035 This section of the TPR concerns how the transportation system alternatives analysis was performed. Exhibit A Findings – A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 October 7, 2014 Page 10 of 21 FINDING: A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 is based on an extensive and diverse set of transportation system analysis techniques and measures. • OAR 660-012-0035(1)(a) – (e) establishes a list of system assessments that shall be evaluated, which include: improvements to existing facilities, new facilities, different modes, transportation system management, transportation demand management and an assessment of a no-build alternative. Technical Appendix 1 establishes an assessment of the existing system and the no-build alternative. Strategy 5.1.4 describes the methodology used to assess the transportation system alternatives. The outcomes of this system assessment are discussed in Technical Appendix 3. • Analyses of system alternatives in A-Engrossed Ordinance 783 and its associated Appendices were based upon the land use factors detailed in OAR 660-012-0035(2)(a) – (d). These same land use considerations are required to be implemented in the County’s Comprehensive Plan by Metro’s Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP). The County’s Comprehensive Plan was amended by a series of adopted and acknowledged ordinances that implement the UGMFP. Acknowledged and adopted amendments include, but are not limited to, Metro’s 2040 land use designations, Station Area Community Planning standards and land use designations, town center planning designations (for the Cedar Mill Town Center) and minimum density requirements. • As detailed in Technical Appendix 3 to A-Engrossed Ordinance 783, all of the factors in OAR 660-012-0035(3)(a)-(e) were considered in evaluating alternatives. • As discussed elsewhere in these findings, the transportation system assessment for A-Engrossed Ordinance 783 was based upon population and employment forecasts developed by Metro, with local government participation (Exhibit 3 of A-Engrossed Ordinance 768 and Technical Appendix 1). These same regional forecasts have been used to implement Metro’s 2040 designations, which are part of the County’s adopted and acknowledged comprehensive plan. In addition, a considerable public involvement effort was made with both rural and urban community members. • The economic, social, environmental and energy consequences were considered through a diverse public involvement program, as described elsewhere in these findings. A technical evolution of these resources, sufficient for the level of decision-making provided in this plan, is included in Technical Appendix 1. • The County’s Transportation Plan is also required to be consistent with Metro’s RTP. The RTP implements state and federal standards for protection of air, land and water quality, including the Federal Clean Air Act and State Water Quality Management Plan (OAR 660-012-0035(3)(b)). Specific findings of consistency with the RTP are included below. The State Water Quality Management Plan is implemented at the local level by compliance with the requirements of the Washington County Clean Water Services Exhibit A Findings – A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 October 7, 2014 Page 11 of 21 (CWS) Agency. All new construction is required to meet applicable CWS standards. • OAR 660-012-0035(4) and (5) concern VMT targets and alternative modal standards. As a county within an MPO, Metro’s RTP modal targets are applicable to A-Engrossed Ordinance 783. The modal targets in the RTP have been established to implement VMT reductions required under the alternative standards provision of OAR 660-012-0035(5). As explained in the findings of compliance with the RTP, A-Engrossed Ordinance 783 is consistent with the mode share target implementation measures of the RTP. Technical Appendix 3 discusses how A-Engrossed Ordinance 783 meets the modal targets within the RTP. • OAR 660-012-0035(5) through (7) concern measuring progress towards meeting non-SOV (single occupancy vehicle) modal targets and establishment of ‘interim benchmarks’ for monitoring the progress towards meeting modal targets/VMT reductions. Metro’s RTP establishes regional targets for non- SOV modes. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 adopted these targets countywide and A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 makes no change to these targets. As indicated above, the County’s Comprehensive Plan was amended for consistency with the UGMFP. The provisions of these ordinances, together with those found in A-Engrossed Ordinance 588, are consistent with Metro’s assumptions for achieving non-SOV mode targets. • OAR 660-012-0035(10) allows inclusion of transportation improvements in an urban fringe only under those circumstances and conditions outlined in this section of the TPR and under OAR 660-012-0065(3)(d)-(g) and (o). No new projects within these parameters have been proposed by A-Engrossed Ordinance 783. OAR 660-012-0040 This section of the TPR requires that a TSP must include a transportation financing program and sets forth what such a program is required to include. FINDING: A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 updates the transportation funding element, which augments the funding goals, objectives and strategies adopted by A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768. Together with Technical Appendix 2, these documents create a transportation financing element meeting the standards identified in OAR 660-012-0040. • Exhibit 6 of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 updates the funding element of the transportation system plan. • Exhibit 16 of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 discusses the funding goal, objectives and strategies and includes an overview of existing revenue sources for capital improvements as well as operations and maintenance. • Project lists and rough cost estimates for roadway, bicycle and pedestrian system improvements are included in Technical Appendix 2, along with Exhibit A Findings – A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 October 7, 2014 Page 12 of 21 planning level order of magnitude costs, anticipated timing, and an assessment of established revenue sources compared to the identified costs. OAR 660-012-0045 The provisions of this section concern how a TSP is implemented. FINDING: A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783, together with previously adopted and acknowledged ordinances, fully implements all of the applicable provisions of OAR 660-012-0045 as detailed in the following findings of fact: • The Community Development Code (CDC), together with R&O 86-95, provide a process for coordinated review of land use decisions affecting transportation facilities, corridors and sites as well as public notice. • Article VII of the CDC, which is acknowledged to be consistent with the requirements of OAR 660-012-0050, provides a consolidated review process for land-use decisions regarding permitting of transportation projects. • CDC Article V includes provisions for access control. Article V and the Washington County Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards, provide for review and protection of roadway safety, infrastructure and operations. • Local street connectivity standards, as well as the requirements for safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular circulation, have been adopted into the CDC. • A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 provides that plan amendment requests be reviewed for consistency with the applicable provisions of the Transportation Planning Rule (Strategy 9.4.2 – Exhibit 15). • Exhibit 5 of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 updates the Transportation System Management and Operations Element of the TSP, which includes Transportation Demand Management. These elements are also included in Article V of the Community Development Code. • A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 does not amend the process for land use- review of transportation projects, and is therefore consistent with OAR 660- 012-0045. OAR 660-012-0050 This section concerns transportation project development. FINDING: A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783, together with previously adopted and acknowledged ordinances, fully implements all of the applicable provisions of OAR 660-012-0050. • The CDC Article VII provides a consolidated review process for review of land-use decisions for permitting transportation projects; the goals, objectives and strategies related to the natural environment were updated in exhibit 8 of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 does not amend the current process for land use review of transportation projects. OAR 660-012-0055 This section sets forth timelines for adoption of TSPs and for the specific requirements of OAR 660-012-0045(3), (4)(a)-(e) and (5)(d). FINDING: A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783, together with previously adopted and acknowledged ordinances, is consistent with the applicable provisions of OAR Exhibit A Findings – A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 October 7, 2014 Page 13 of 21 660-012-0055. There are no other provisions in subsection -0055 that are required to be addressed as part of these findings. OAR 660-012-0060 This section sets forth requirements for plan and land use regulation amendments. FINDING: A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 is consistent with the provisions of OAR 660- 012-0060. • A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 established that all plan amendments be reviewed for compliance with OAR 660-012-060 (Exhibit 15, Strategy 9.4.2). No other provisions in subsection –0060 are required to be addressed as part of these findings. OAR 660-012-0065 This section identifies the “transportation facilities, services and improvements” that may be permitted on rural lands without a goal exception. FINDING: A-Engrossed Ordinance 783, as well as previously adopted and acknowledged ordinances, are consistent with the provisions of OAR 660-012-0065. • A-Engrossed Ordinance 783 and Technical Appendix 2 identify transportation facilities, services and improvements. A-Engrossed Ordinance 783 does not propose any new roadways, services or improvements on lands located outside of the UGB. • A-Engrossed Ordinance 783 exhibit 2 does identify rural road enhancement study corridors. Minor enhancements (consistent with OAR 660-012-0065) may be appropriate to consider along these corridors as resources allow (exhibit 2, page 4 of 39). OAR 660-012-0070 This section identifies the requirements for exceptions to Goals 3, 4, 11 or 14 for transportation improvements on rural lands that do not meet the requirements of OAR 660-012-0065. FINDING: This subsection is not applicable to A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783, as no rural transportation improvements have been identified in this ordinance. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 updates the previously adopted (A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768) transportation goals, objectives and strategies to amend the modal elements and provide a complete TSP update. Planned transportation facilities, services and improvements as well as planned capacities, functional classification and levels of service have been amended to be consistent with Regional and State transportation plans. The update includes amended transportation system maps for roadway and freight designations, as well as amendments to the active transportation plan consistent with the regional active transportation plan, and provides significant revisions to the transit, bicycle and pedestrian elements. Furthermore, the update includes the freight, transportation system operations and management, and funding elements. Exhibit A Findings – A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 October 7, 2014 Page 14 of 21 The amendments are consistent with the county's acknowledged policies and strategies for the provision of transportation facilities and services as required by Goal 12 (the Transportation Planning Rule or TPR, implemented via OAR Chapter 660, Division 12). A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 complies with all of the applicable requirements of OAR 660, Division 12. Only those provisions of Division 12 that require specific findings are summarized and addressed herein. Plan compliance with Goal 12 is maintained with the amendments made by A- Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. The amendments are consistent with the provision of transportation facilities and services as required by Goal 12. Goal 13 - Energy Conservation Goal 13 requires developed land uses to be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles. Policies 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 of the CFP and Policy 25 of the Rural/Natural Resource Plan address energy conservation in the urban and rural areas of unincorporated Washington County. The CDC implements the energy conservation policies by establishing standards that promote energy efficient development, especially in Article IV. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 does not amend the applicable Plan policies or CDC standards related to energy conservation, which impact the county’s compliance with Goal 13. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 established a transportation policy framework to reduce the energy and resource consumption associated with transportation, and promotes energy sustainability with transportation. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 does not amend any Community Plan policies and development regulations related to energy conservation. Plan compliance with Goal 13 is maintained with the amendments made by A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. The amendments are consistent with the county’s acknowledged policies and strategies for promoting energy conservation as required by Goal 13. Goal 14 - Urbanization Goal 14 requires provisions for the orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land and to provide for livable communities. Policies 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 41 and 42 of the CFP address urbanization within the Regional Urban Growth Boundary. The CDC implements the urbanization policies by establishing standards to promote appropriate urban development. The Community Plans implement the urbanization policies by designating sufficient land for appropriate development. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 complies with the Title 11 UGMFP provisions for the urbanization of new land. Plan compliance with Goal 14 is maintained with the amendments made by A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. The amendments are consistent with the county’s acknowledged policies and strategies for urbanization as required by Goal 14. Exhibit A Findings – A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 October 7, 2014 Page 15 of 21 Part 3 Findings of Consistency with the Oregon Highway Plan This section addresses the consistency of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 with the applicable policies of the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP). The Board finds that the OHP applies to the amendments covered by these findings only to the extent noted in specific responses to the applicable elements of this plan, and that the amendments comply with the applicable goals and policies of the OHP. Policy 1A: State Highway Classification System A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 exhibit 2 updates Washington County’s Functional Classification maps. No new classifications are introduced, and no changes inconsistent with State Highway Classifications have been made. Therefore, the Washington County Transportation System Plan is consistent with the OHP. Policy 1B: Land Use and Transportation A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 and A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 do not change any land use designations. Exhibit 10 of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 addresses mobility standards consistent with State Highway mobility standards. The Washington County Community Development Code addresses access spacing standards and other development related concerns. Exhibit 4 of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 and Exhibit 13 A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 both address Active Transportation. Taken together, A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768, A-Engrossed Ordinance 783 and the Community Development Code provide a coordinated land use and transportation system consistent with the OHP. Policy 1C: State Highway Freight System A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 exhibit 6 established the Economic Vitality goal of the TSP. Exhibit 3 of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 updates the Freight System Element of the TSP, including a revised roadway freight map. These are consistent with the requirements of the OHP. Policy 1D: Scenic Byways No Oregon Scenic Byways are located with Washington County. Therefore A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 and A-Engrossed Ordinance 783 are consistent with the requirements of the OHP. Policy 1F: Highway Mobility Standards As described in A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783, exhibit 2, the roadway system identified by the functional classification and lane numbers maps is adequate to meet anticipated travel needs. Technical Appendix 3 to A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 includes a Countywide Motor Vehicle Deficiency Evaluation. This evaluation included all ODOT and other facilities within Washington County and assessed the system performance based on the applicable mobility standards, including OHP mobility targets and standards, as well as the Regional Transportation Functional Plan interim mobility deficiency thresholds and operating standards. Exhibit A Findings – A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 October 7, 2014 Page 16 of 21 The potential deficiency locations identified in Technical Appendix 3 will require additional monitoring and system performance evaluation over time. For such locations, the ultimate decisions regarding the modes, functions, and general locations of solutions; and potential development of alternative mobility measures and standards, are deferred to future refinement planning to be incorporated into the next TSP update. Based on the system assessment, the TSP provides a plan for a transportation system consistent with the requirements of the OHP. Policy 1G Major Improvements A-Engrossed Ordinance 768 identified transportation improvement procedures. Article VII of the Community Development Code (CDC) controls the land use processes necessary when implementing transportation improvements. Together, these regulations provide a TSP consistent with the requirements of the OHP. Policy 2G: Rail and Highway Compatibility A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 does not propose any new at-grade crossings of railroad facilities. A-Engrossed Ordinance 768 exhibit 5, objective 2.2 encourages the safe, efficient operation of railroad facilities. Together, these Ordinances provide a TSP consistent with the requirements of the OHP. Policy 3A: Classification and Spacing Standards A-Engrossed Ordinance 768, exhibit 10 updated the functional classification system. Article V of the CDC controls access spacing standards. Together, these regulations meet the requirements of the OHP. Policy 3B: Medians The Washington County TSP (including A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783), does not identify any median locations or treatments. The Washington County Road Design & Construction Standards control the design and placement of medians on Washington County roadways. Washington County Resolution and Order 10-107 adopted Washington County’s Mid-Block Crossing Policy. These previously adopted documents are consistent with the OHP and have not been modified by A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. Policy 3C: Interchange Access Management Areas A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 does not make any changes to the previously adopted plan for any interchange area. Therefore, the TSP is consistent with the requirements of the OHP. Policy 3D: Deviations A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 does not make any requests for deviations to state highway standards. Therefore, the TSP is consistent with the requirements of the OHP. Policy 4A: Efficiency of Freight Movement A-Engrossed Ordinance 768, exhibit 6 and exhibit 15, adopt economic vitality and coordination strategies that meet the requirements of the OHP freight policies. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. Exhibit A Findings – A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 October 7, 2014 Page 17 of 21 783, exhibit 3, adopts a roadway freight system plan consistent with State Highway Freight System designations. Therefore, the TSP is consistent with the requirements of the OHP. Policy 4D: Transportation Demand Management A-Engrossed Ordinance 768, exhibit 10 (objective 5.4) and A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783, exhibit 5, adopt a Transportation Demand Management policy and system element that is consistent with the requirements of the OHP. Part 4 Findings of Compliance with Metro’s Urban Growth Management Functional Plan for A- Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Title 8 - Compliance Procedures Title 8 sets forth Metro’s procedures for determining compliance with the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP). Included in this title are steps local jurisdictions must take to ensure that Metro has the opportunity to review amendments to Comprehensive Plans. Title 8 requires jurisdictions to submit notice to Metro at least 45 days prior to the first evidentiary hearing for a proposed amendment to a comprehensive plan. Consistent with Title 8, staff sent a copy of proposed Ordinance No. 783 to Metro on May 15, 2014, 48 days prior to the first evidentiary hearing. Metro was mailed a copy of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 on September 12, 2014. Metro provided no comments on A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. The findings in this document demonstrate that the amendments made by this ordinance are in compliance with the UGMFP. Findings of Compliance with Metro’s Regional Transportation Functional Plan A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 amends the Washington County Transportation System Plan (TSP) consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the Regional Active Transportation Plan (RATP), and Title 2 “Development and Update of Transportation System Plans” of the Regional Transportation Functional Plan (RTFP) Sections 210, 220 and 230. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 amends and updates the Washington County Transportation System Plan (TSP). These amendments provide an update to the existing TSP, including updates to all transportation elements. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 incorporates map and system plan amendments identified through countywide system evaluation, including recent planning efforts and public outreach. The transportation system classifications adopted in A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 are consistent with the classifications identified in the 2014 RTP. The following table provides an equivalency between the designations in the Washington County TSP and the designations in the RTP. Exhibit A Findings – A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 October 7, 2014 Page 18 of 21 Regional Transportation Plan Washington County TSP Notes REGIONAL DESIGN CLASSIFICATIONS Throughway Principal Arterial Regional Boulevard Streetscape Overlay Community Boulevard Not shown Regional Trails + Road Design & Construction Standards for all roads are consistent with this regional designation Regional Street Streetscape Overlay Community Street Not shown Road Design & Construction Standards for all roads are consistent with this regional designation ARTERIAL AND THROUGHWAY NETWORK Principal Arterial Principal Arterial Major Arterial Arterial Minor Arterial Arterial Rural Arterial Arterial REGIONAL TRANSIT NETWORK Light Rail High Capacity Transit Commuter Rail High Capacity Transit Streetcar High Capacity Transit Rapid Bus High Capacity Transit Frequent Bus Frequent Service Bus Regional Bus Regular Service Bus Inter-City High Speed Rail Not shown No Inter-City High Speed Rail facilities are identified within Washington County Transit Center Transit Center Light Rail Station Not shown Identified as Major Transit Stops Major Bus Stop Major Transit Stop REGIONAL FREIGHT NETWORK Main Railroad Lines Railroads Branch Railroad Lines and Spur Tracks Railroads Main Roadway Routes Truck Routes, Over-Dimensional Truck Routes Road Connectors Truck Routes, Over-Dimensional Truck Routes Marine Facilities Not shown No Marine Facilities are identified within Washington County Rail Yards Not shown No Rail Yards are identified within Washington County Airports Airports Exhibit A Findings – A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 October 7, 2014 Page 19 of 21 Regional Transportation Plan Washington County TSP Notes REGIONAL BICYCLE NETWORK Bicycle Parkway Enhanced Major Street Bikeway Regional Bikeway Major Street Bikeway Local Bikeway Not shown All roadways in Washington County, with the exception of freeways, are on-street bikeways. Regional Bicycle District Pedestrian / Bicycle District Bike-Transit Facility Bicycle Transit Facility Shown in Transit Modal Element REGIONAL PEDESTRIAN NETWORK Pedestrian Parkway Pedestrian Parkway, Regional Trail Washington County differentiates on- street Pedestrian Parkways from Regional Trails because of the major differences in design, operation, maintenance and jurisdiction between the two facility types. Regional Pedestrian Corridor Not shown Washington County Road Design & Construction Standards for all urban roadways are consistent with this regional designation. Local Pedestrian Connector Not shown All roadways in the urban area, with the exception of freeways, are pedestrian routes. Regional Pedestrian District Pedestrian / Bicycle District As further described in the Goal 12 findings above, The Washington County TSP maps as amended by A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783, continue to provide a system of transportation facilities and services adequate to meet identified transportation needs consistent with the RTP. Brief summaries of the applicable RTFP provisions are followed by findings of compliance. Title 1 This section identifies the requirements for Transportation System Design, including provisions for complete streets, the transit system, pedestrian system, bicycle system, freight system and system management and operations. FINDING: The Washington County Road Design & Construction Standards, together with A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 and A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783, provide for a transportation system design consistent with all the requirements of Title 1. Title 2 This section identifies the process for developing a Transportation System Plan within the Metro region. Provisions include identification of transportation system performance, needs, and solutions. 3.08.210 This section contains provisions regarding the assessment of transportation needs. FINDING: A-Engrossed Ordinance 783, as well as previously adopted and acknowledged ordinances, is consistent with the provisions. Exhibit A Findings – A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 October 7, 2014 Page 20 of 21 • A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 updates the transportation system elements consistent with both the 2035 RTP and the 2014 RTP. System gaps are documented in Technical Appendix 1 of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. Motor Vehicle deficiency locations are documented in Technical Appendix 2 of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. Considerations for transportation disadvantaged individuals are documented in Technical Appendix 1 and Technical Appendix 3 of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. • The analysis for the development of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 was based on the population and employment forecasts documented in exhibit 3 of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768. This analysis was confirmed with an assessment of the transportation system based on the 2040 population and employment forecasts used for the 2014 RTP. As explained in the table above, the system classifications identified in A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 are consistent with the RTP classifications. The non-SOV modal targets for Washington County are located in A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 exhibit 3. • Washington County staff considered the mobility corridor strategies of the RTP during the system analysis and development of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. The results of the system analysis are included in Technical Appendix 3 of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. The RTP mobility corridor update process for the 2014 RTP occurred concurrently with the development of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783, as documented in the comments on the mobility corridors submitted by Washington County and incorporated into Chapter 5 of the 2014 RTP. 3.08.220 This section contains provisions regarding the development of planned transportation solutions. FINDING: A-Engrossed Ordinance 783, as well as previously adopted and acknowledged ordinances, is consistent with the provisions. • A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 exhibit 10, strategy 5.1.4 documents considerations prior to adding through travel lane motor vehicle capacity consistent with the RTFP and the OHP policy 1G. • A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 exhibit 15 identifies coordination strategies consistent with the RTFP. • The projects identified in Technical Appendix 2 of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 are consistent with the projects listed in the 2014 RTP. 3.08.230 This section contains provisions regarding transportation performance targets and standards. FINDING: A-Engrossed Ordinance 783, as well as previously adopted and acknowledged ordinances, is consistent with the provisions. • A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 exhibit 10 identifies interim performance targets and standards consistent with the RTFP. Washington County has not adopted alternative targets, and has not applied mobility standards different from those identified in the RTFP. Exhibit A Findings – A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 October 7, 2014 Page 21 of 21 • A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 Technical Appendix 3 identifies and calculates system performance measures consistent with the requirements of the RTFP. • The Washington County Community Development Code Article IV, section 413 includes adopted provisions for parking minimums and maximums consistent with the RTFP. • The Washington County Road Design & Construction Standards provide for a transportation system design consistent with the requirements of the RTFP. • A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 exhibit 5 provides for the management and operation of the transportation system consistent with the requirements of the RTFP. • As described previously in these findings, the analysis for the development of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 was based on the population and employment forecasts documented in exhibit 3 of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 and consistent with OAR 660-012-0035(2). Title 3 This section pertains to the general location and size of transportation facilities. FINDING: A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 exhibits 2 and 4 update the existing TSP with transportation facility locations consistent with the requirements of the RTFP. Title 4 This section pertains to parking management and standards. FINDING: The Washington County Community Development Code Article IV, section 413 includes provisions for parking minimums and maximums consistent with the RTFP. Title 5 This section pertains to amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and the TSP. FINDING: A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 was developed based on the policy framework identified in A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768 and the projects identified in Technical Appendix 2 are consistent with the projects identified in the 2014 RTP. As described previously in these findings, this process is consistent with all of the requirements of the RTFP. Title 6 This section pertains to requirements associated with amendments to the Washington County TSP. FINDING: The adoption of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 and its associated Technical Appendices complies with the RTFP requirement for an update of the Washington County TSP by the end of 2014. F:\Shared\PLNG\WPSHARE\2014ord\Ord783_TSP\Resolution_Findings\A-EngOrd783_Findings-INITIAL.doc AGENDA WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Agenda Category: Action- Land Use & Transp01tation Agenda Title: Presented by: SUMMARY: ADOPT THE TECHNICAL APPENDIX FOR THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN Andrew Singelakis, Director of Land Use & Transportation (CPO All) A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 and A-Engrossed Ordinance 768 (adopted in 20 13) update the Washington County Transportation System Plan (TSP) as well as portions of the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area, the Rural/Natural Resource Plan, the Community Plans and the Community Development Code relating to transportation planning. The Technical Appendix provides support and context for the plan as amended and defined by A-Engrossed Ordinance 783 and A-Engrossed Ordinance 768. The Technical Appendix will be addressed in the staff report for A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783. ht p://www .co. washington .or . us/LUT /Div isions/LongRangePiann i ng/20 14-land-use-ord i nances.cfm The Technical Appendix will be provided to the Board, posted on the above land use web page, and will also be available at the Clerk's desk prior to the meeting. Attached is the Resolution and Order that adopts the Technical Appendix. Attachment: Resolution and Order Clerk's Desk Items: Technical Appendix: Existing Conditions & Future Needs Report Capital Project List Hillsboro-Bethany - Study Area #1 DEPARTMENT'S REQUESTED ACTION: Adopt the Technical Appendix for the Transportation System Plan and authorize the Chair to sign the Resolution and Order memorializing the action. COUNTY ADlVIINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION: I concur with the requested action. Ro I t1 � I !3 Agenda Item No. 6.e. Date: 10/07/14 1 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON 3 4 In the Matter of Adopting the Technical Appendix for the Transportation System Plan RESOLUTION AND ORDER No. /.Lf-/1,'3 5 This matter having come before the Washington County Board of Commissioners at its 6 meeting of October 7, 2014; and 7 It appearing to the Board that A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 783 along with A-Engrossed 8 Ordinance No. 768 update the Transportation System Plan, the Rural/Natural Resource Plan, the 9 Urban Framework Plan, the Community Plans and the Community Development Code, all elements 10 of the Comprehensive Plan; and 11 It appearing to the Board that information providing context and support for changes to the 12 Plan is contained in the Technical Appendix, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", which, is necessary to 13 meet state requirements, now, therefore, it is 14 RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Board of County Commissioners of Washington 15 County, Oregon, does hereby adopt the Technical Appendix for the Transportation System Plan, 16 attached hereto as Exhibit "A" 17 DATED this 7th day of October, 2014. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 18 FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON 19 20 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Chairfff-4 � 21 22 Recording Secreta . County Counsel \J' 23 For Washington County, Oregon 24 AYE NAY A8SEHT DUYCK ./ --- SCHOUTEN ./ -r - - MAUNOWSKI -- - ROGERS � - - TERRY -- - 25 26 27 28 Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report Draft, January 2013 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report • Draft, January 2013 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 About This Document 1-1 1.2 Planning Context 1-2 1.2.1 State Transportation Planning 1-2 1.2.2 Regional Transportation Planning 1-4 1.2.3 Washington County Plans 1-10 1.2.4 City Plans 1-14 1.3 Changes in Washington County 1-15 1.3.1 Changes in Population and Employment 1-15 1.3.2 Travel Demand 1-20 1.3.3 Land Use Patterns 1-21 CHAPTER 2: ROADWAYS 2.1 Functional Classification 2-1 2.1.1 Washington County Functional Classification System 2-2 2.2 Design Standards 2-8 2.2.1 Rural Area Design Standards 2-10 2.2.2 Urban Area Design Standards 2-11 2.2.3 Special Area Design Standards 2-12 2.3 Regional Transportation Plan Functional Classification and Design 2-14 2.4 Facility Conditions 2-16 2.4.1 Roadway Conditions 2-16 2.4.2 Urban Road Maintenance District 2-18 2.4.3 Gravel Road Upgrade Program 2-20 2.4.4 Bridge Conditions 2-20 2.5 System Performance 2-27 2.5.1 Performance Targets and Standards 2-27 2.5.2 Modal Performance 2-28 2.5.3 Commuter Travel Characteristics 2-38 2.5.4 Mobility Standards 2-39 2.5.5 System Demand Patterns 2-43 2.5.6 Vehicle Miles Traveled 2-44 2.5.7 Roadway Performance 2-47 2.6 Roadway Safety 2-59 2.6.1 Motor Vehicle Collision Data 2-59 2.6.2 Roadway Safety Summary 2-67 CHAPTER 3: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT & OPERATIONS AND TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT 3.1 Overview 3-1 3.2 Multimodal Traffic Management 3-2 3.3 Traveler Information 3-4 3.4 Incident Management 3-5 3.5 Transportation Demand Management 3-6 CHAPTER 4: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSIT 4.1 Active Transportation: Introduction 4-1 4.1.1 What is active transportation? 4-1 4.1.2 Active Transportation Trends and Forecasts 4-2 4.1.3 What We’ve Heard About Active Transportation 4-5 4.1.4 Active Transportation Planning Context 4-5 4.1.5 Recently Completed and Planned Active Transportation Projects 4-9 4.2 Walking 4-14 4.2.1 Sidewalks 4-16 4.2.2 Crossings 4-23 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report • Draft, January 2013 Table of Contents 4.2.3 Connectivity 4-29 4.2.4 Lighting 4-32 4.2.5 Trails 4-34 4.2.6 Pedestrian Safety 4-40 4.2.7 Education & Encouragement 4-42 4.2.8 Rural Pedestrian Considerations 4-44 4.3 Bicycling 4-47 4.3.1 Overview of Bicycling 4-47 4.3.2 Bikeway Facilities 4-48 4.3.3 Bikeway Maintenance 4-53 4.3.4 Urban Bikeway Facility Needs 4-56 4.3.5 Bicycle Parking 4-60 4.3.6 Bicycles and Transit 4-60 4.3.7 Urban Bicycle Safety 4-67 4.3.8 Education & Encouragement 4-69 4.3.9 Rural Bicycling Considerations 4-69 4.4 Transit 4-73 4.4.1 Transit History 4-73 4.4.2 Transit Providers 4-75 4.4.3 TriMet 4-75 4.4.4 Other Public Transit Providers 4-88 4.4.5 Private and Non-Profit Transit Providers 4-89 4.4.6 Transit Needs 4-93 4.4.7 High Capacity Transit Planning 4-101 4.4.8 Oregon Passenger Rail Planning 4-103 4.5 Tualatin River Water Trail 4-104 CHAPTER 5: GOODS MOVEMENT AND AVIATION 5.1 Roadway Freight Connections 5-1 5.1.1 Freight Route Destinations 5-1 5.1.2 Truck Demand 5-5 5.2 Roadway Freight Gaps and Deficiencies 5-9 5.2.1 Metro RTP 5-9 5.2.2 Metro Regional Freight Plan 5-12 5.2.3 Portland Region Economic Corridor Evaluation Report 5-14 5.3 Roadway Freight Findings 5-17 5.4 Freight Rail 5-18 5.4.1 Railroad Routes, Owners and Users 5-18 5.4.2 Freight Rail Users and Demand 5-21 5.4.3 Railroad Crossing Considerations 5-21 5.5 Marine Shipping 5-22 5.6 Pipelines 5-22 5.7 Aviation 5-24 5.7.1 Hillsboro Airport 5-24 5.7.2 Other Airports 5-24 5.7.3 Air Cargo to PDX 5-25 APPENDICES Appendix A: Station Traffic Count Comparison Data Appendix B: System Demand Patterns Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report • Draft, January 2013 Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Figure 1-1: Metro Mobility Corridors 1-5 Figure 1-2: Washington County Population and Employment Trends 1-16 Figure 1-3: Types of Households in Washington County – 2010 1-17 Figure 1-4: Age of Washington County Residents – 2010 1-17 Figure 1-5: Educational Attainment of Washington County Residents – 2010 1-18 Figure 1-6: Industry of Washington County workers – 2010 1-19 Figure 1-7: 2040 Growth Concept Map 1-22 CHAPTER 2: ROADWAYS Figure 2-1: Relationship between Functional Classification, Mobility and Access 2-1 Figure 2-2: Urban Area Functional Classification System 2-6 Figure 2-3: Countywide Functional Classification System 2-7 Figure 2-4: Urban Lane Number Designation 2-9 Figure 2-5 Arterial and Throughway Network 2-15 Figure 2-6: Urban Road Maintenance District 2-19 Figure 2-7: Bridge Percentage Distribution 2-21 Figure 2-8: Number and Percentage of Bridges by Functional Classification 2-22 Figure 2-9: Rural and Urban Bridge Material Types 2-23 Figure 2-10: Percentage of Bridge Types 2-24 Figure 2-11: Bridge Status (Countywide) 2-25 Figure 2-12: Bridge Status (Urban Area) 2-26 Figure 2-13: Urban Washington County – All Trips 2010 Mode Share 2-28 Figure 2-14: 2010 Non-Single Occupancy Vehicle Percentage 2-29 Figure 2-15: Urban Washington County – All Trips 2035 Mode Share 2-30 Figure 2-16: 2035 Non-Single Occupancy Vehicle Percentage 2-31 Figure 2-17: National Average Vehicle Occupancy Rates 2-31 Figure 2-18: Daily Trips by Mode 2-32 Figure 2-19: Urban Washington County – All Trips 2010 by Trip Purpose 2-33 Figure 2-20: Urban Washington County – All Trips 2035 by Trip Purpose 2-34 Figure 2-21: Urban – Washington County – Home to Work Trips 2010 by Mode 2-36 Figure 2-22: Urban – Washington County – Home to Work Trips 2035 by Mode 2-37 Figure 2-23: US Department of Energy VMT Estimate 2-45 Figure 2-24: ODOT VMT Estimate 2-45 Figure 2-25: Washington County Fuel Sales 2-46 Figure 2-26: Average Fuel Efficiency of Light Duty Vehicles 2-46 Figure 2-27: Weekday PM Peak Hour Speed compared to Free Flow (2008-2010) 2-48 Figure 2-28: Weekday PM Peak Hour Travel Time Reliability (2008-2010) 2-49 Figure 2-29: Level of Service 2-50 Figure 2-30: Roadway Demand-to-Capacity Ratio (2010 Weekday PM Peak Hour) 2-52 Figure 2-31: Daily Hours of Congestion (2010 Weekday) 2-53 Figure 2-32: Roadway Demand-to-Capacity Ratio (2035 Weekday PM Peak Hour) 2-55 Figure 2-33: State Roadway Demand-to-Capacity Ratio (2035 Weekday PM Peak Hour) 2-57 Figure 2-34: State Daily Hours of Congestion (2035 Weekday) 2-58 Figure 2-35: SPIS List (2006-2008) 2-63 Figure 2-36: Metro Automobile Crash Density 2-66 CHAPTER 3: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT & OPERATIONS AND TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT Figure 3-1: TDM Employer Service and Drive-Alone Rates (2009) 3-8 CHAPTER 4: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSIT Figure 4-1: Composite of Demographics 4-8 Figure 4-2: Major Active Transportation Investments, 2002-2012 4-12 Figure 4-3: Planned Major Active Transportation Investments 4-13 Figure 4-4: Existing Regional Pedestrian Network 4-15 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report • Draft, January 2013 Table of Contents Figure 4-5: Sidewalk Inventory 4-18 Figure 4-6: Prioritized Sidewalk Needs 4-22 Figure 4-7: Enhanced Crossing Study Corridors 4-27 Figure 4-8: Connectivity Lands 4-31 Figure 4-9: Service District for Lighting 4-33 Figure 4-10: Regional Trail Network 4-38 Figure 4-11: Pedestrian Crashes (2008-2010) 4-41 Figure 4-12: Rural Pedestrian Considerations 4-46 Figure 4-13: Bike Lane Inventory 4-51 Figure 4-14: Prioritized Bike Lane Needs 4-59 Figure 4-15: Bicyclist Crashes (2008-2010) 4-48 Figure 4-16: Rural Bicycling Considerations 4-72 Figure 4-17: TriMet Transit System 4-77 Figure 4-18: Paratransit Service 4-83 Figure 4-19: Transit Stop Amenities 4-84 Figure 4-20: Transit Service Need Analysis 4-96 Figure 4-21: Proposed High Capacity Transit 4-102 CHAPTER 5: GOODS MOVEMENT AND AVIATION Figure 5-1: Through-Truck Routes (County-wide) 5-2 Figure 5-2: Regional Freight Network 5-4 Figure 5-3: FHWA Vehicle Classifications 5-5 Figure 5-4: Metro Title 4 Lands 5-8 Figure 5-5: Regional Economic Centers and Top Industrial Employment Locations (2005) 5-15 Figure 5-6: Freight Rail 5-20 Figure 5-7: Railroad Crossing Types 5-21 Figure 5-8: Pipelines 5-23 Figure 5-9: Airports 5-26 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report • Draft, January 2013 Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Table 1-1: Washington County Ordinances Modifying the Transportation Plan 1-11 Table 1-2: Washington County Ordinances Modifying the Transportation Plan 1-16 Table 1-3: Occupation of Washington County Residents – 2010 1-18 Table 1-4: Washington County Travel Demand (Average Weekday) 1-20 CHAPTER 2: ROADWAYS Table 2-1: Washington County Road Mileage 2-2 Table 2-2: Washington County Rural Functional Classification Design Standards 2-10 Table 2-3: Washington County Urban Functional Classification Design Standards 2-11 Table 2-4: Washington County Special Area Functional Classification Design Standards 2-13 Table 2-5: Road Maintenance Priority Matrix 2-17 Table 2-7: Number of Bridges 2-21 Table 2-8: Regional Non-SOV Modal Targets from RTFP Table 3.08-1 2-28 Table 2-9: Urban Washington County – All Trips 2010 Mode Share 2-29 Table 2-10: Urban Washington County – All Trips 2035 Mode Share 2-30 Table 2-11: Washington County Travel Demand (Average Weekday) 2-32 Table 2-12: Urban Washington County – All Trips 2010 by Trip Purpose 2-33 Table 2-13: Urban Washington County – All Trips 2035 by Trip Purpose 2-34 Table 2-14: Journey to Work Trips (Urban Washington County) Summary 2-34 Table 2-15: Commuter Mode Share – 2005 & 2010 2-35 Table 2-16: Urban – Washington County – Home to Work Trips 2010 by Mode 2-36 Table 2-17: Urban – Washington County – Home to Work Trips 2035 by Mode 2-37 Table 2-18: Commuter Residence Characteristics – 2002 & 2010 2-38 Table 2-19: Commuter Travel Distance (2010) 2-38 Table 2-20: Washington County Motor Vehicle Performance Measures (“Table 5”) 2-39 Table 2-21: Metro Mobility Standards 2-40 Table 2-22: ODOT Mobility Standards Outside of Metro 2-41 Table 2-23: Traffic Volume Comparison, 2007 and 2012 2-42 Table 2-24: Average Weekday Peak Hour Speed Summary (2008-2010) 2-50 Table 2-25: Weekday Peak Hour Travel Time Reliability (2008-2010) 2-50 Table 2-26: 2011 Crashes by County 2-60 Table 2-27: Washington County Accidents by Type (2011) 2-61 Table 2-28: Urban/Rural Accident by Contributing Factor 2-61 Table 2-29: Safety Priority Index System Parameters 2-62 CHAPTER 3: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT & OPERATIONS AND TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT Table 3-1: Commute Trip Mode Share Change for WTA Worksites 2009-2011 3-7 CHAPTER 4: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSIT Table 4-1: Use of Active Transportation Modes for the Journey to Work 4-2 Table 4-2: Active Transportation Trips and Mode Share, Washington County, 2010 4-3 Table 4-3: Vehicle Availability at Households 4-3 Table 4-4: Forecast of Active Transportation Mode Share, 2035 4-4 Table 4-5: Major Active Transportation Investments, 2002-2012 4-9 Table 4-6: Planned Major Active Transportation Investments 4-11 Table 4-7: RTP 2035 Pedestrian Network in Washington County 4-16 Table 4-8: Arterial/Collector Sidewalk Coverage, Urban Washington County 4-17 Table 4-9: Prioritized Sidewalk Needs 4-20 Table 4-10: Mid-Block Crossing Improvement Tiers 4-24 Table 4-11: County-Approved Pedestrian Crossing Treatments 4-25 Table 4-12: Enhanced Crossing Study Corridors 4-28 Table 4-13: Existing and Planned Trails 4-35 Table 4-14: Pedestrian Crashes, 2008-2010 4-40 Table 4-15: Pedestrian Crash Circumstances and Age, 2010 4-42 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report • Draft, January 2013 Table of Contents Table 4-16: Enhanced Bikeways in Urban Washington County 4-49 Table 4-17: Arterial/Collector Bikeway Coverage, Urban Washington County 4-50 Table 4-15: Committed Bikeway Improvements 4-52 Table 4-19: Existing & Committed Urban Bikeway System Approximate Lane Miles 4-53 Table 4-17: Prioritized Bike Lane Needs 4-58 Table 4-21: MAX and WES Station Bicycle Accessibility 4-61 Table 4-22: Arterial/Collector Bikeway Coverage, Rural Washington County 4-70 Table 4-23: TriMet Transit Routes Serving Washington County 4-78 Table 4-24: TriMet Fare Structure 4-80 Table 4-25: Weekday Ridership on TriMet Routes at Washington County Transit Stops 4-81 Table 4-26: Weekday Ridership at TriMet Rail Stations 4-81 Table 4-27: Weekday Ridership at Transit Centers and Park and Rides 4-82 Table 4-28: Top 20 Non-Transit Center Bus Stops by Ridership 4-82 Table 4-29: Top 20 Non-Transit Center Bus Stops by Monthly Ramp Deployments 4-85 Table 4-30: TriMet Park and Ride Locations in Washington County 4-86 Table 4-31: TriMet Access to Transit Focus Area Recommendations 4-99 Table 4-32: Tualatin River Water Trail Access Points in Washington County 4-104 CHAPTER 5: GOODS MOVEMENT AND AVIATION Table 5-1: Metro RTP Mobility Corridor Freight Needs 5-10 Table 5-2: Washington County Priority Freight Projects 5-13 Table 5-3: Daily Traffic Performance Measures by Corridor 5-14 Table 5-4: Current Portland and Western Operations 5-19 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 1  •  Introduction  1‐1 Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT This report documents existing conditions and assesses future needs for Washington County’s transportation  system. The primary purpose of this report is to inform policy recommendations to be included in the new  Washington County 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP 2035). It is envisioned that parts of this report will be  incorporated into the main body of the adopted TSP 2035 or its appendices. Other parts of this report may be  folded into a background document or into separate documents that address specific issues.    This report begins with a discussion of transportation policy considerations and countywide growth trends, then  moves into detailed descriptions of transportation facilities and performance for all modes of conveyance, from  motorized transportation and freight movement to bicycle, pedestrian and transit options.    While Washington County’s emphasis is on the transportation facilities that it owns and maintains, this report (as  well as the larger plan) must consider existing and future conditions on all transportation facilities in the county,  including Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) freeways and arterial roads, multi‐use trails through park  district lands, privately‐owned railroads, and transit routes operated by TriMet or other transit agencies.    This report documents and responds to changes in the state and regional transportation policy context, in  particular Metro’s 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and its constituent documents. This report also  accounts for the latest planning efforts at the local level, including city TSPs, county community plans and park  district trail plans.    For a majority of the quantitative data measured in this report, the baseline year is 2010, corresponding with the  most recently available regional travel demand model and census data. More recent figures are provided for  other elements, such as traffic counts. The forecast year for the plan, in concordance with the Metro RTP, is 2035.    Unlike the previous version of the TSP (Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan, adopted in 2002), this  report merges existing conditions and future needs into one cohesive document, rather than treat them in two  separate reports. Content is organized as follows:     Chapter 1: Introduction   Chapter 2: Roadways   Chapter 3: Transportation System Management Options and Travel Demand Management   Chapter 4: Active Transportation and Transit   Chapter 5: Goods Movement and Aviation   Appendices with more detailed data and technical information    Funding considerations, alternative transportation scenario testing, and selection of a preferred transportation  alternative will be treated in subsequent reports.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 1  •  Introduction  1‐2 1.2 PLANNING CONTEXT Public policies at the state, regional, county and local levels provide policy direction and legal requirements for  transportation planning in Washington County. This section summarizes pertinent transportation policies at  multiple levels of government, as well as planning efforts (such as land use plans) that have significant impacts on  transportation planning and the system itself.      1.2.1 State Transportation Planning Policies Transportation Planning Rule    Oregon Administrative Rule 660‐012‐0000 is referred to as the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). It implements  Statewide Planning Goal 12: Transportation. The purpose of the TPR is to ensure adequate coordination of  transportation and land use planning both for TSPs and in project development. The TPR is the legislative  mandate that requires Washington County to prepare and update its TSP. The TPR has been amended three times  since the adoption of the last Washington County TSP:     The 2005 Amendments (660‐012‐0060 and 660‐012‐0005) specify measures that jurisdictions must take  when adopting changes to land use documents that have the potential to affect the performance of an  existing or planned transportation facility.     The 2006 Amendments (660‐012‐0035, 660‐012‐0055) clarify that Metropolitan Planning Organizations  (such as Metro) must adopt standards to measure progress for increasing transportation choices and  reducing automobile reliance. Local TSPs are required to comply with these regional goals. The 2006  amendments also require local governments to comply with regional efforts to adopt integrated land use  and transportation strategies. Finally, these amendments specify that local governments must update  TSPs within one year of an updated Regional Transportation Plan, unless they are granted an extension by  Metro’s Chief Operating Officer.     The 2011 Amendments (660‐012‐0010) specify that local governments can designate “multi‐modal  mixed‐use areas” (MMAs) and/or “industrial areas” where traffic congestion does not have to be  considered for new developments or higher density zoning, provided that these areas meet certain  guidelines and are located entirely within an urban growth boundary.      Oregon Transportation Plan    The Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) is the state’s long‐range policy document that guides planning and project  development for transportation in Oregon. The OTP was originally adopted in 1992 and most recently updated in  2006. As an update to the 1992 OTP, the 2006 OTP “provides a framework to further these policy objectives with  emphasis on maintaining the assets in place, optimizing the existing system performance through technology and  better system integration, [and] creating sustainable funding and investing in strategic capacity enhancements.”  The OTP is supported by modal plans that help establish state transportation system investment priorities.    Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 1  •  Introduction  1‐3 Oregon Highway Plan  The Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) is the modal element of the OTP that sets visions, policies, and strategies for  investing in state and federal highways in Oregon. The OHP was last adopted in 1999. Since the adoption of the  last Washington County TSP in 2002, there have been two major amendments to the OHP that affect Washington  County:     Amendments to Policy 1B: Land Use and Transportation create new access spacing standards for  statewide, district and regional highways, as well as new definitions for “special transportation areas”  (STAs), which have less stringent mobility standards. These modified definitions result in three STAs on   state road segments in Washington County:  o Hwy. 8 from milepost 16.06‐16.67 in Cornelius  o Hwy. 47 from milepost 25.34‐26.54 in Gaston  o Hall Blvd. from milepost 2.84‐3.84 in Beaverton, unincorporated Washington County, and Tigard     Amendments to Policy 1F: Highway Mobility include new mobility targets for state highways within and  outside of the Portland metro area Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). These are described in chapter 2.      Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan     The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan was originally adopted in 1995 as a modal element of the Oregon  Transportation Plan (OTP). It is the planning and design manual for pedestrian and bicycle transportation in  Oregon and is used to implement the actions recommended by OTP. The technical section of the Plan was  updated October 2010 and re‐titled as the Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guide to offer a greater level of guidance  on the provision of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The standards and designs shown in the plan ‐‐ ODOT  standards used on state highway projects ‐‐ meet or exceed national standards. These standards are  recommended but not required for use by local jurisdictions in Oregon. The overarching goal, actions, and  strategies of the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan relevant to the Washington County TSP are unchanged from  the 1995 version of the Plan.     The Design Guide updated design standards for on‐road bikeways, walkways, street crossings, intersections,  shared use paths, restriping and bicycle parking. Washington County may choose to incorporate in the TSP 2035  or its supporting documents methodologies for selecting type of bicycle facility based on context sensitive design  guidelines. The Washington County Bicycle Facility Design Toolkit, completed in 2012, incorporates a variety of  these and other design guidelines.      Oregon Freight Plan  The Oregon Freight Plan (OFP) adopted in 2011, is the first state wide plan devoted entirely to freight. Similar to  the OTP, the OFP is needed to comply with federal and State of Oregon regulations. At the federal level, the OFP is  required to comply with the current federal transportation act, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century  (MAP‐21); the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act and Federal Aviation Administration policy and  guidance for aviation system planning. At the state level, the OFP addresses freight needs as required under the  Transportation Planning Rule, which also requires local governments to address goods movement in their TSPs in  a fashion that is consistent with the state TSP. Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 1  •  Introduction  1‐4 1.2.2 Regional Transportation Planning   Metro 2035 Regional Transportation Plan    The 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) was adopted by the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on  Transportation on June 10, 2010. Several companion plans are included in the RTP by reference; these include the  Regional High Capacity Transit System Plan, the Regional Transportation System Management and Operations  Plan, the Regional Freight Plan, and the 2035 RTP Technical Appendix.     The overall desired outcomes for the 2035 RTP are as follows:   Vibrant communities – People live and work in vibrant communities where they can choose to walk for  pleasure and to meet their everyday needs.   Economic prosperity – Current and future residents benefit from the region’s sustained economic  competitiveness and prosperity.   Safe and reliable transportation – People have safe and reliable transportation choices that enhance  their quality of life.    Leadership on climate change – The region is a leader in minimizing contributions to global warming.   Clean air and water – Current and future generations enjoy clean air, clean water and healthy  ecosystems.   Equity – The benefits and burdens of growth and change are distributed equitably.1   There are several key items in the RTP that affect transportation planning in Washington County. These include  the designation of mobility corridors, performance targets, modal targets, and mobility standards, all of which are  described below.     Mobility corridors. The 2035 RTP describes the Portland metro region in the context of 24 mobility  corridors. Mobility corridors are major components of the Portland region where movement is important  and should be facilitated to the degree and in the manner defined in RTP performance standards. The  mobility corridor framework requires consideration of multiple facilities, modes, and land use when  identifying solutions. There are nine mobility corridors in Washington County, shown in Figure 1‐1. They  are:    o #2: Portland Central City to Tigard  o #3: Tigard to Wilsonville  o #7: Tualatin to Oregon City  o #19: Beaverton to Tigard  o #20: Tigard to Sherwood and Sherwood to Newberg  o #21: Portland Central City to OR 217  o #22: OR 217 to North Plains  o #23: Forest Grove to U.S. 26  o #24: Beaverton to Forest Grove    1 Metro 2035 RTP, page 2‐2.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 1  •  Introduction  1‐5 Figure 1-1: Metro Mobility Corridors Source: http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=35555  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 1  •  Introduction  1‐6 Metro Regional Transportation Functional Plan    The Metro Regional Transportation Functional Plan (RTFP) is chapter 3.08 of the Metro Code. It implements the  RTP and includes requirements for the design of streets, transit systems, pedestrian systems, bicycle systems,  freight systems, and transportation system management and operations. The RTFP includes several requirements  for city and county TSPs. The most recent version of the RTFP became effective in September 2010. Requirements  for city and county TSPs within the RTFP are as follows (paraphrased from Titles 1‐5 of the RTFP):  TSPs must include adoption of street design regulations that are consistent with complete street designs,  green street designs, and transit‐supportive street designs. Street design regulations must allow  implementation of pavement widths of less than 28 feet, sidewalk widths that include at least 5 feet of  pedestrian through zones, landscaped pedestrian buffer strips, traffic calming devices, short and direct  right‐of‐way routes and shared‐use paths, opportunities to extend streets in an incremental fashion.   TSPs must include: o Documentation of regional and state transportation needs, as listed in the RTP and the OTP o Analysis of existing conditions, gaps, and deficiencies for streets, bicycle facilities, pedestrian  facilities, transit, freight, and transportation system management and operations (TSMO). o Identification of facilities that exceed regional mobility targets or alternative targets o Consideration and documentation of the needs of youth, seniors, people with disabilities, and  environmental justice populations o Consideration of ways to meet documented needs using the following strategies in the order  listed, and documentation of the reasons each was chosen or not chosen :  Transportation System Management and Operation (TSMO) strategies  Transit, bicycle, and pedestrian system improvements  Traffic calming designs and devices  Land use strategies  Connectivity improvements to the street network that include improvements to  pedestrian and bicycle facilities  Motor vehicle capacity improvements o Performance measures for safety, vehicle miles traveled per capita, freight reliability, congestion,  bicycling, walking, and transit mode shares o Parking ratios for motor vehicle and bicycle parking Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 1  •  Introduction  1‐7 Regional High Capacity Transit System Plan  The Regional High Capacity Transit (HCT) System Plan was adopted by Metro in 2009. This plan, which was  incorporated into the Regional Transportation Plan in 2010, provides an outline of the regional goals and  aspirations for high capacity transit. The HCT system plan established near‐term priorities and adopted a system  expansion policy. Furthermore, the planning process evaluated the benefits of high capacity transit to our local  communities.    Potential high‐capacity transit corridors are organized into four tiers based on the 2009 assessment of the system  expansion targets described above. The HCT plan calls for a focus on three transit corridors for investment in the  near‐term, two of which are in Washington County:     A corridor in the vicinity of Powell Boulevard, connecting Gresham to downtown Portland;      The “Southwest Corridor” in the vicinity of Barbur Boulevard/Highway 99W, connecting downtown  Portland to Tigard and possibly Sherwood; and     The WES commuter rail corridor that connects Beaverton to Wilsonville, which could see WES service  upgraded to all day service with trains running at 15‐minute intervals.    As part of the Regional Transportation Functional Plan, counties and cities are required to be consistent with  regional Transit System Design and Parking Management Policies, several of which have additional requirements  in the vicinity of High Capacity Transit station areas. The HCT plan is described in greater detail in chapter 4.  RTP Freight Component  The Regional Freight Plan 2035 is one of several RTP‐related plans whose policies and strategies have been  integrated into the larger 2035 RTP, the others being The Regional Transportation System Management and  Operations Plan and The High Capacity Transit Plan. These policies are included in chapter 2 of the 2035 RTP and  are as follows:      Use a systems approach to plan for and manage the freight network   Reduce delay and increase reliability   Protect industrial lands and freight transportation investments   Look beyond the roadway network to address critical marine and rail needs   Pursue clean, green and smart technologies and best practices  RTP TSMO Component  Transportation system management options (TSMO) is a combination of transportation system management and  transportation demand management strategies that are intended to improve transportation system performance  at a lower cost than traditional capital investments such as new transit service, roads or additional roadway lanes.    The four policies below form the foundation of the RTP approach to TSMO:     Use advanced technologies, pricing strategies and other tools to actively manage the transportation  system  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 1  •  Introduction  1‐8  Provide comprehensive real‐time traveler information to people and businesses   Improve incident detection and clearance times on the region’s transit, arterial and throughway networks   Implement incentives and programs to increase awareness of travel options and incent change    Urban and Rural Reserves     The urban and rural reserves regional planning effort began in 2008 and concluded with acknowledgment of  project outcomes by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) in August of 2012. Urban  reserves were established in the three metropolitan counties as areas in which future urbanization would occur in  the region. Those urban reserves requested for inclusion in the Urban Growth Boundary in Washington County  must have a city willing to plan and govern the areas. The cities of Hillsboro, Beaverton and Tigard have significant  reserves available, and Sherwood, Tualatin, Forest Grove, King City and Cornelius have lesser amounts.     Transportation systems within these new urban areas will be planned and developed under the respective cities'  jurisdiction. Ultimately, city and county TSPs will need to include provisions for facilities and services necessary to  adequately serve the newly urban areas.       Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project    This three‐phase planning effort responds to the Jobs and Transportation Act (House Bill 2001) passed in 2009.  Section 37 of the Act requires Metro to adopt a preferred land use and transportation scenario by 2014 that is  designed to accommodate planned population and job growth while reducing greenhouse gas emissions to a  particular target by 2035. Section 37 also calls for local governments in the Portland metropolitan region to  implement the adopted scenario.     Phase 1 was completed January, 2012. Phase 1 focused on understanding the region’s land use and transportation  choices by conducting a review of published research and testing 144 regional scenarios. The analysis  demonstrated the GHG emissions reduction potential of current plans and policies, as well as which combinations  of more ambitious land use and transportation strategies are needed to meet the state target.     Phase 2 is currently underway and is aimed at designing and evaluating more customized alternative scenarios.  This phase will examine the benefits, impacts, costs and savings associated with different strategies for meeting  environmental, economic and equity goals. Case studies will be developed to illustrate potential community  effects. The final phase, which is scheduled to be completed in 2014, will build and select a preferred scenario as  well as define policies, investments and actions needed to implement the preferred scenario.     A variety of strategies from six categories were tested during Phase 1. The strategies address community design,  pricing, technology, fleet, marketing and incentives, and roads. The following transportation system‐related  strategies were considered:   Reducing delay through traffic management;   Potential limitation on arterial and freeway expansion;   Emphasis on transit and bicycle mode shares; and    Potential pricing of parking and vehicle road‐use.    Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 1  •  Introduction  1‐9 A combination of these and other strategies are anticipated to make‐up the final preferred scenario.  Implementation of the adopted scenario will probably entail a significant update of the Regional Transportation  Plan sometime soon after the year 2014.     Completion of the county’s TSP 2035 update will precede the completion of the Climate Smart Communities  Scenario Project, which will therefore need to be addressed in a subsequent TSP update. Ultimately, city and  county TSPs will need to include policies and strategies outlined in the preferred scenario and be consistent with  the region’s Green House Gas (GHG) reduction targets.       Southwest Corridor Plan    The Southwest Corridor Plan integrates multiple planning efforts in a broad transportation corridor extending  from downtown Portland to the city of Sherwood. These include local land use plans developed to support livable  communities; a corridor refinement plan to examine the function, mode and general location of transportation  improvements; and the transit alternatives analysis to define the best mode and alignment of high capacity transit  to serve the corridor. Southwest Corridor planning work is undertaken through a partnership that includes Metro,  Multnomah County, Washington County, the Oregon Department of Transportation, TriMet and the cities of  Portland, Sherwood, Tigard, Tualatin, Beaverton, Durham, King City and Lake Oswego.      TV Highway Corridor Plan (TVCP)    The City of Hillsboro and ODOT are leading this refinement plan for the Tualatin Valley Highway corridor between  10th Street in Hillsboro and Cedar Hills Boulevard in Beaverton. The effort began in March of 2011, concurrently  with the Aloha‐Reedville Study and Livable Community Plan. The two plans are being closely coordinated, with  recommendations of the TVCP to be included in the Aloha‐Reedville Plan, and with the Aloha‐Reedville Plan  serving as the platform for land use, economic development and housing recommendations in the corridor. As of  January 2013, the TVCP is close to completion. Its most significant recommendation is to retain TV Highway’s  current configuration as a five‐lane urban arterial. Other recommendations include enhanced pedestrian  crossings, completion of missing sidewalk and bike lane gaps, addition of street lighting, capacity improvements at  intersections (such as new turn lanes and signal phase adjustments), and transit operational improvements. A  second phase of the project, called the Focus Area Plan, will analyze transportation impacts associated with future  development of South Hillsboro. Future high capacity transit planning along TV Highway will be further refined  through a transit alternatives analysis that is not yet funded.      Basalt Creek Transportation Refinement Plan    Prior to identifying land uses and urban development concepts in the area between Sherwood, Wilsonville and  Tualatin (the Basalt Creek and West Railroad areas), the cities of Tualatin and Wilsonville are collaborating with  Washington County and Metro to define the future major transportation infrastructure needed in this area  consistent with the RTP. Draft recommendations include an east‐west arterial that would connect the southern  terminus of the proposed 124th Avenue extension with Boones Ferry Road and potentially Interstate 5. Once the  major network has been adopted, the cities will address local street circulation and access during the concept  planning process, which will begin in 2013.    Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 1  •  Introduction  1‐10  1.2.3 Washington County Plans Washington County Comprehensive Plan    The Washington County Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the future growth and development of the  County. The Comprehensive Plan includes two primary policy documents, the (1) Comprehensive Framework Plan  for the Urban Area (CFP) and (2) the Rural/Natural Resource Plan. Other more specific elements of the  Comprehensive Plan are the Community Plans, the Transportation System Plan and the Public Facility Plan.    The CFP contains policies and strategies specifically designed to address growth and development issues for areas  of the County inside the regional Urban Growth Boundary. The Rural/Natural Resource Plan contains policies and  strategies intended to guide resource conservation and development for lands outside the urban growth  boundaries.     The CFP and the Rural/Natural Resource Plan provide the framework of policies and strategies to be used as the  basis for more specific planning activities, functional elements (e.g. transportation, housing, solid waste),  community plans, regulatory ordinances, capital improvement programs, etc.       Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan    The Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan is one element of the County's Comprehensive Plan. The plan  was last comprehensively updated in 2002 through A‐Engrossed Ordinance 588 and has been periodically  amended since then. Plan policies, strategies and system improvements were designed to meet existing and  future travel needs associated with projected population and employment growth through the year 2020.    This plan and its related documents are intended to help achieve Statewide Planning Goal 12; Transportation.  More specific guidance toward this end is provided by the State Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) (Oregon  Administrative Rule 660‐012‐0000). Like other local governments in the Portland Metro Area, Washington County  achieves many of these state planning requirements indirectly, by addressing provisions of Metro’s Regional  Transportation Plan.    The plan identifies general policies, strategies and system improvements necessary to address travel needs,  system safety, impacts on the built and natural environment, system funding, and system implementation and  plan management. The plan also includes more specific policies and strategies pertaining to the roadways, transit,  demand management, pedestrians, bicycles, freight, and air, rail, pipeline and water elements. It identifies system  needs under each of these elements through the year 2020, and identifies alternatives for financing  improvements necessary to address identified needs.    The plan is supplemented by and used in conjunction with other Comprehensive Plan documents, including the  County's Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards, Community Development Code and Community Plans  (County Code Chapter 15).    This plan has been modified through 20 separate ordinances since 2002. Most of these ordinances included more  than one plan modification, generally focusing on policy or strategy changes, modifying the designation or  alignment of specific transportation facilities, or changing process provisions to clarify or modify existing  language. The twenty actions are described in table 1‐1.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 1  •  Introduction  1‐11 Table 1-1: Washington County Ordinances Modifying the Transportation Plan Ordinance  Number  Year  Description  601  2003  Incorporated the Jackson School Road Interchange Area Management Plan  609  2003  Adopted an Airport Planning Program for small airports  611  2003  Housekeeping and refinement changes to Ordinance 588: amended plan text, Functional Classification  map, Lane Numbers map, Special Area Street Overlay map, and Countywide Road System map  626  2004  Added the Saltzman Road Extension Study Area  627  2004  Amended Functional Classification, Lane Numbers and Study Areas maps to define the location of the  170th / 173rd realignment  631  2004  General housekeeping update and amended Functional Classification map to correct a previously  adopted road alignment  642  2005  Amended Pedestrian Element to provide consideration of enhanced pedestrian design guidelines;  amended Bicycle Element to add a strategy calling for bicycle route signage  649  2005  Updated road Functional Classification names, reflected changes made to the transportation systems  within city jurisdiction, updated Study Area designations, and added trail and pipeline alignments  663  2006  Amended a portion of Table 6, the Functional Classification Design Parameters  674  2007  Amended Road Jurisdiction Policy  683  2007  Clarified provisions and use of System Performance Standards, added illustration of preferred  alternative for Beaverton‐Hillsdale/Scholls Ferry/Oleson intersection design  712  2009  Added the North Bethany Subarea Plan, establishing a primary street network, a trails and accessway  network, and conceptual design provisions for transportation facilities  713  2009  Added the ‘B’ Street Trail south of Forest Grove  717  2009  Modified the planned street network and functional classifications in the Elmonica Station Area  718  2009  Changed the functional classification of one roadway, and sections of four other roadways in the  Cedar Mill/Cedar Hills area; clarified that removal of proposed roadways from the Plan must be done  through a legislative action  730  2010  Further refinements for the North Bethany Subarea Plan  739  2011  Further refinements for the North Bethany Subarea Plan  744  2011  Further refinements for the North Bethany Subarea Plan  749  2012  Adopted ODOT’s Brookwood Interchange Area Management Plan and designated Cornelius Pass Road  from HWY 26 to Cornell Road as 7‐lanes  750  2012  Added a proposed SW 124 th Avenue between Tualatin‐Sherwood Road and Tonquin Road to facilitate  industrial development between Tualatin and Sherwood      Washington County Bike and Pedestrian Plan     This document organizes bicycle and pedestrian elements adopted as part of the Washington County 2020  Transportation Plan in a more focused and accessible form. During discussion of bicycle and pedestrian issues in  2010 and 2011 it was determined that a separate document focusing on plan provisions associated with these  two modes would be useful. The document is intended to reflect transportation plan provisions and is for  informational purposes only. It has no regulatory or policy status of its own.     Washington County Public Facilities Plan      Cities and counties are required under ORS 197.712 to adopt public facility plans for areas within urban growth  boundaries containing populations exceeding 2,500 persons.     Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 1  •  Introduction  1‐12  Public facilities plans describe the water, sewer, storm drainage, and transportation facilities needed to support  land use designations in local government comprehensive plans. Washington County maintains responsibility for  public facility planning throughout those areas of urban, unincorporated Washington County that are not either  formally incorporated within the city limits or covered by an Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) with a  municipality.     Based upon the 1988 Washington County Transportation Plan, the public facilities plan is outdated and of little  value for transportation planning. For transportation facilities, however,  the state transportation planning rule  (TPR) states that transportation system plans adopted pursuant to TPR provisions fulfill state public facilities  planning requirements (see 660‐012‐0000‐4). The existing 2020 Transportation Plan is consistent with these  provisions.      Washington County Community Development Code    The purpose of the Community Development Code (CDC) is to implement the Washington County Comprehensive  Plan. Standards and requirements of the Community Plans, the Rural/Natural Resource Plan, and the  Transportation Plan that are applicable to development applications are specified in the CDC.     The purpose of this Community Development Code (CDC) is to implement the Washington County Comprehensive  Plan through the adoption and coordination of planning and development regulations which provide for the  health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Washington County. Standards and requirements of the  Community Plans, the Rural/Natural Resource Plan, and the Transportation Plan that are applicable to  development applications, including but not limited to urban land divisions, are specified in the CDC.    Land within the unincorporated portion of Washington County may be used, or developed by land division or  otherwise, and a structure may be used or developed by construction, reconstruction, alteration, occupancy or  otherwise only as the Comprehensive Plan and this Code permit. The provisions of the CDC, including standards  and requirements of the Community Plans, the Rural/Natural Resource Plan, and the Transportation Plan that  development applications are required to comply with, apply to any person developing or using land or a  structure, and to the person’s successor(s) in interest.    In general, Article V of the CDC identify those public facilities and services that are necessary at a minimum level  to accommodate development particularly transportation facilities. Land within incorporated areas of Washington  County may also be subject to article V requirements, depending on location of the development, and if access to  County roadways is contemplated. Article VII of the code identifies public transportation improvements  authorized by the transportation plan that are subject to development review, and establishes the standards and  procedures for such review.    Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 1  •  Introduction  1‐13 Washington County Community Plans    Community plans provide specific land use designations on properties within the urban unincorporated areas of  the County as well as detailed policy direction to guide development based upon community needs and desires.  The policy framework of the CFP is reflected in the specific Community Plans. A Community Plan is the legally  binding statement of County policy within the boundaries of the planning area. With regard to transportation  matters, if there is a conflict between a provision in the community plan and a provision in the transportation  plan, the transportation plan provision applies.     The following community plans have been developed:   Aloha‐Reedville‐Cooper Mountain Community Plan   Bethany Community Plan   Bull Mountain Community Plan    Cedar Hills‐Cedar Mill Community Plan    East Hillsboro Community Plan   Metzger‐Progress Community Plan    Raleigh Hills‐Garden Home Community Plan   Sherwood Community Plan   Sunset West Community Plan    West Tigard Community Plan   West Union Community Plan      North Bethany Subarea Plan    Since September 2006, Washington County staff, a consultant group, two citizen‐driven advisory groups and  interested Washington County residents have worked to develop plans for the North Bethany area. First a  Concept Plan was developed. Following adoption by the Board of Commissioners, the Concept Plan was refined  through development of the comprehensive plan and community development code provisions necessary for its  implementation. Amendments to the Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan were adopted through A‐ Engrossed Ordinance No. 712 in 2009. These amendments included changes to the Functional Classification  System map to reflect newly proposed arterial, collector and neighborhood routes, changes to the Lane Numbers  map and Study Areas map as well as the addition of an off‐street trail to the Off‐Street Trails System map. An  infrastructure funding plan and further discussion of a range of outstanding issues followed.      Aloha Reedville (AR) Study and Livable Community Plan    A three‐year community planning effort for this large area of urban unincorporated Washington County began in  March 2011, and has a wide‐ranging set of objectives. Among the transportation‐related deliverables for this  project will be a bike/pedestrian plan and streetscape improvement plan. Public involvement thus far has  revealed significant support for more sidewalks, crossing improvements and street lighting, among other  improvements. The plan will also address other topics, including economic development, affordable housing and  land use. The Aloha‐Reedville effort is being closely coordinated with the TV Highway Corridor Plan and Focus  Area Plan being conducted by the City of Hillsboro and ODOT. Outcomes of the TV Highway effort will significantly  affect the Aloha‐Reedville planning process.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 1  •  Introduction  1‐14  1.2.4 City Plans   There are 16 cities wholly or partially located in Washington County:     Banks   Beaverton   Cornelius    Durham   Forest Grove   Gaston   Hillsboro   King City   Lake Oswego   North Plains   Portland   River Grove   Sherwood   Tigard   Tualatin   Wilsonville    Cities are generally responsible for the transportation system within their boundaries, with the exception of  transportation facilities under the jurisdiction of the state or county. In those cases the agency with jurisdiction  over the facility retains authority and responsibility for its maintenance and improvement.     Given the interdependence of city, county and state transportation facilities and services, coordination of system  design, system improvement and system management policies and practices is vitally important. Washington  County staff and inter‐jurisdictional coordination occurs frequently on an as needed basis. The formal  coordination generally occurs in a couple of ways:     Through formal arrangements such as Urban Planning Area Agreements (UPAAs) or other  intergovernmental agreements that specifically define local government relationships and responsibilities.     On‐going and active coordination, including the Washington County Coordinating Committee (the WCCC,  which is composed of elected officials) and the WCCC Transportation Advisory Committee (The WCCC  TAC, which is composed of senior planning or engineering staff).      Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 1  •  Introduction  1‐15 1.3 CHANGES IN WASHINGTON COUNTY Washington County in 2012 is not the same place it was in 2002. This section documents changes in population,  employment and travel demand and land use over the past decade, and projects those trends into the future.  1.3.1 Changes in Population and Employment    Historic Growth Rates    As indicated in Figure 1‐2 and Table 1‐4 below, Washington County has grown considerably during the last 40  years. Since 1970 the population within Washington County2 has increased from 311,544 to 532,620 an increase  of 71 percent or just over 221,000 residents. Employment since 1970 within Washington County2 has increased  from 180,302 to 232,019 an increase of 29 percent or 51,717 jobs.      Comparison to 2002 Plan    The 2002 Transportation Plan estimated that the population of Washington County would increase to  approximately 544,000 by 2010. This estimate was 11,380 more than actual (about 2% high).      Recession    The County has experienced a significant increase in jobs over the 40 years between 1970 and 2010. During that  time frame, Washington County increased from 51,935 jobs to over 232,000 jobs – adding over 180,000 jobs in 40  years. From 2005 to 2010 Washington County employment decreased from over 284,000 jobs to 232,000 jobs, a  decline of about 52,000 jobs or 22 percent in only five years.      Forecast    The forecast population and employment growth within Washington County is based upon historic trends and  assumptions related to remaining growth capacity. Remaining growth capacity includes assumptions related to  zoned capacity of lands within the existing Urban Growth Boundary as well as lands designated as Urban  Reserves. The forecast has been reviewed by all jurisdictions in the region. Washington County’s dramatic growth  rate over the past 40 years is expected to slow down in the future, but continue above the national average.     By the year 2035, the population of Washington County is expected to increase to 758,500, an increase of 42  percent from 2010. The forecasted average annual growth is approximately 1.42% per year for the 25 year period.  This is down significantly from the 2.8% annual average growth rate of the preceding 25 years.    As the economy recovers from the current downturn, employment is expected to increase at a faster rate than  population. From a long term planning point of view, Washington County is expected to recover from the recent  recession and continue to gain jobs at a relatively rapid pace. By 2035 the employment in Washington County is  expected to increase to about 382,000 jobs. This would be an increase of about 150,000 jobs above the 2010  employment, or about 100,000 above 2005 employment. The forecasted average annual employment growth is  2 Includes growth within cities in Washington County.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 1  •  Introduction  1‐16  approximately 2.02% per year for the 25 year period 2010‐2035. This is down slightly from the 2.11% annual  average employment growth rate of the preceding 25 years (1985‐2010), and down yet further, from the 3.69%  annual average employment growth rate of the pre‐recession 20 year period from 1985 to 2005.  Figure 1-2: Washington County Population and Employment Trends Washington County Population and Employment Historic and Projected 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 19 70 19 75 19 80 19 85 19 90 19 95 20 00 20 05 20 10 20 15 20 20 20 25 20 30 20 35 20 40 Population Employment      Table 1-2: Washington County Population and Employment Historic and Projected The growth envisioned in the 2035 population and employment  forecast translates directly into transportation system needs  within Washington County. Of particular significance for the  transportation system is the jobs growth and peak‐hour travel  demand. Travel most often occurs to, from, or between areas  where employment is located. Population numbers are an  important indication of the number of travelers, but employment  perhaps has a greater impact on traffic volumes. As can be seen  in the traffic count trends reported in chapter 2, there has been  limited growth in traffic counts between 2007 and 2012, which  roughly corresponds to the economic downturn that produced  the loss of more than 50,000 jobs in Washington County between  2005 and 2010. Meanwhile population increased by almost  43,000 people during the same period.    Population and employment statistics and trends could  encompass an entire report. A brief summary of several key elements related to travel for both population and  employment are provided below.      Year  Population  Employment  1970  157,920  51,935  1975  192,900  78,639  1980  245,808  122,558  1985  268,000  137,741  1990  311,554  180,302  1995  384,335  222,002  2000  445,342  265,353  2005  489,785  284,422  2010  532,620  232,019  2015  561,056  263,127  2020  589,491  294,234  2025  617,927  325,342  2030  688,329  354,077  2035  758,500  382,812  2040  799,000  416,836  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 1  •  Introduction  1‐17 Population Statistics    In 2010 there were approximately 199,000 households in Washington County. Figure 1‐3 shows household types,  indicating that more than 50 percent of the households were married couple families. The average household size  was 2.6 people.    Figure 1-3: Types of Households in Washington County – 2010 Other non-family households 6.6% People living alone 25.9% Other families 14.7% Married-couple families 52.8%    Figure 1‐4 shows the age breakdown of residents of Washington County. The median age of Washington County  residents in 2010 was 35.3 years. Twenty‐six percent of the population was under 18 years of age, and 10 percent  was age 65 years or older.    Figure 1-4: Age of Washington County Residents – 2010 Over 65 9.9% 45 to 64 25.1% 25 to 44 31.2% 18 to 24 8.2% Under 18 25.6%   Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 1  •  Introduction  1‐18  Employment Statistics    Figure 1‐5 shows educational attainment of Washington County residents. In 2010, nearly 40% of the residents of  Washington County had a bachelor’s degree or higher, whereas only 9% had less than a high school diploma.     Figure 1-5: Educational Attainment of Washington County Residents – 2010 Less than high school 9.4% High school diploma or equivalency 18.4% Graduate or professional degree 13.3% Bachelor's degree 25.7% Associate's degree 8.3% Some college, no degree 25.0%    Table 1‐5 below shows the occupation of employed Washington County residents, 16 years and over, in 2010.  Note that almost 43 percent of Washington County residents were employed in the predominantly white‐collar  management, business, science and arts occupations.     Table 1-3: Occupation of Washington County Residents – 20101  Occupation  Number  Percent  Management, business, science, and arts  109,032  42.7%  Service  39,958  15.6%  Sales and office  66,836  26.2%  Natural resources, construction and maintenance  18,237  7.1%  Production, transportation and material moving  21,452  8.4%  1 Does match employment within Washington County; some residents work outside the County and some employees commute from  outside the County.    Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 1  •  Introduction  1‐19 Figure 1‐6 shows the percentages of Washington County workers, 16 years or older, working in various industrial  sectors.    Figure 1-6: Industry of Washington County workers – 2010 1.6% 5.0% 16.6% 3.2% 11.8% 3.4% 1.9% 8.5% 11.8% 20.1% 7.5% 5.0% 3.6% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining Construction M anufactoring Wholesale trade Retail trade Transportation and werehousing, and utilities Information Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing Pro fessional, scientific, and management, and administration and waste management services Educational services, and health care and social assistance Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accomodation, and food services other services, except public administration Public administration    The highest category is educational services and health care with over 20% of the labor force. Second highest is  manufacturing (which includes high‐tech) with over 16% of the labor force. The construction sector still had 5% of  the employed labor force even with the economic downturn in 2010.      Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 1  •  Introduction  1‐20  1.3.2 Travel Demand   The RTP provides both a policy framework and regional transportation system elements and services that local  governments must recognize and address in their transportation planning work. An understanding of some of the  RTP provisions is helpful in understanding some provisions of the Washington County Transportation Plan.    While recognizing that the significant majority of trips will continue to be taken by automobile, the RTP places a  premium on encouraging non‐auto travel. As a result of RTP policies, facilities, services, and programs that  support and encourage the development and use of non‐auto travel, the percentage of daily trips taken by some  means other than driving alone is expected to increase.    The currently adopted Washington County TSP supports these RTP policies. Table1‐4 below describes the  forecasted model outcome based upon the implementation of the State RTP list of projects.3    Table 1-4: Washington County Travel Demand (Average Weekday)1  Mode  2010  2035 RTP  Percent Change  Total Person Trips  3,866,409  5,541,705  +43%  Auto  3,610,591  5,094,927  +41%       SOV2  1,861,046  2,680,680  +44%       Shared Ride3  1,749,546  2,414,247  +38%  Transit4  68,719  130,709  +90%  Pedestrian5  171,716  261,492  +52%  Bicycle5  35,383  54,577  +54%  Notes:  1. All modes include all daily trips that either start or end within Washington County, including the rural areas outside the  Metro Boundary. Other chapters focus on urban travel and report fewer daily trips (only those within the urban area).  2. SOV – Single Occupancy Vehicle, a vehicle in which the driver is traveling alone (this is a subset of the Auto category).  3. Shared Ride – Includes both the drive and other passengers (this is a subset of the Auto category).  4. Yellow school bus trips are not included.  5. Pedestrian and Bicycle trips do not include travel for the purpose of exercise.    Achieving these results depends upon the facilities, services and strategies necessary to support this non‐auto  travel being in place. The RTP identifies local government and transportation service provider responsibilities in  this regard. The Washington County Transportation Plan contains systems, services and strategies intended to  recognize and respond to those provisions.      3 The State RTP network for modeling assumes $3.9 billion in revenues will be available through 2035 for transportation improvements in Washington  County, however, only about 60 percent of that revenue is assumed to be available under the more realistic Financially Constrained funding scenario (source:  Metro 2035 Regional Transportation Plan tables 3.2 and 3.4)  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 1  •  Introduction  1‐21 1.3.3 LAND USE PATTERNS  Metro 2040 Growth Concept     The 2040 Growth Concept is the region's growth management policy; it defines development in the metropolitan  region through the year 2040. The 2040 Growth Concept:     encourages efficient land use, directing most development to existing urban centers and along existing  major transportation corridors;     promotes a balanced transportation system within the region that accommodates a variety of  transportation options such as bicycling, walking, driving and public transit; and     supports the region's goal of building complete communities by providing jobs and shopping close to  where people live.      Areas added to UGB since 2002    In 2002, 18,867 acres were added to the Urban Growth Boundary to provide 38,657 housing units and 2,671 acres  for additional jobs. This action also created important regional policies to support neighborhoods, protect  industrial areas and enhance regional and town centers. In 2004, an additional 1,956 acres were added to the  boundary to address the need for industrial lands identified as part of the 2002 planning process. In 2005, the  Metro Council added 345 acres of land for industrial purposes which completed the 2002 planning process.     In 2011, the Metro Council added 1,985 acres to the boundary to address the anticipated 20‐year need for new  housing and jobs. The four areas in Washington County that were added to the urban growth boundary in the  Metro Council’s Oct. 2011 decision include:     a 330‐acre area north of Hillsboro, in the vicinity of Northwest Meek Road and south of U.S. Highway 26,  for the purposes of attracting future large‐site industrial employers;     a 1,063‐acre area south of Hillsboro, in the vicinity of Southwest 229th Avenue and Southeast Tualatin  Valley Highway, to achieve a target of approximately 10,776 new housing units;     a 543‐acre area west of Beaverton, in the vicinity of Southwest 175th Avenue and Scholls Ferry Road, for a  minimum of 4,651 new housing units; and     a 49‐acre area west of Tigard, east of Southwest Roy Rogers Road and south of Southwest Bull Mountain  Road, for new residential development and to provide public structures in the West Bull Mountain area.      Urban and Rural Reserves    As mentioned in section 1.2, Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington counties and Metro collaborated on a  regional effort to help determine the shape of the region over the next 40 to 50 years. Urban and rural reserves  are intended to provide greater predictability for the region as to where future growth may take place both inside  and outside the current Urban Growth Boundary over the next 40 to 50 years, while protecting important  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 1  •  Introduction  1‐22  farmland and natural areas from urbanization for that same period of time. Urban and rural reserves are shown  on the Metro 2040 Growth Concept map below.    Figure 1-7: Metro 2040 Growth Concept and Urban and Rural Reserves in Washington County     Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐1 Chapter 2: Roadways 2.1 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION There are numerous ways in which the concept of roadway functional classification is defined and interpreted.  federal, state, regional and some city definitions within Washington County all differ from the classification  scheme used by the county. In practice though, this is usually not a problem because all classification systems  reflect the general thought process described below.  Functional classification is the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems,  according to the character of service they are intended to provide. Basic to this process is the recognition that  individual roads and streets do not serve travel independently in any major way. Rather, most travel involves  movement through a network of roads. It becomes necessary then to determine how this travel can be  channelized within the network in a logical and efficient manner. Functional classification defines the nature of  this channelization process by defining the part that any particular road or street should play in serving the flow of  trips through a highway network.1  As such, both the Washington County Functional Classification System and Metro’s 2035 Regional Transportation  Plan Arterial and Throughway Network map describe a hierarchy of roadway types, their relative roles in the  transportation system, and provide direction with regard to appropriate classification criteria and facility design.     As depicted in Figure 2‐1, roads perform two essential functions: they facilitate mobility and they provide access  to individual properties. At the top end of the system, a Freeway’s main function is to provide a continuous route  that enables traffic to move easily over long distances. At the bottom end, a Local Street’s primary function is to  provide access to individual properties. Between these extremes, roadways provide access and mobility to varying  degrees. In this manner the functional classification system represents a continuum in which through‐traffic  increases and provisions for access decrease in the higher classification categories.    Figure 2-1: Relationship between Functional Classification, Mobility and Access 1 FHWA Functional Classification Guidelines, 1989  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐2 2.1.1 Washington County Functional Classification System The Washington County functional classification system consists of six basic underlying classifications: Freeway,  Principal Arterial, Arterial, Collector, Neighborhood Route and Local streets.  Figure 2‐2 and 2‐3 show the  designated functional classification for all roads except local roads, which are not shown to improvement  readability. Each of these classifications except the Freeway, Principal Arterial and Local street classifications have  either an “existing” or “proposed” designation. Each of the underlying designations (Arterial, Collector,  Neighborhood Route and Local) also may have an existing or proposed Special Area designation relating to special  design standards that support transit‐oriented development. The Special Area functional classification  designations currently appear only in RTP designated Town Centers and Station Community Areas. For  Washington County, these Special Areas are the Sunset Station, Cedar Mill, Willow Creek, Merlo and Elmonica  areas.     While not part of the Functional Classification System, the Rural Resource Route designation in the rural area is  used to differentiate and give higher maintenance priority to the subset of local roadways that are most  important to the rural economy. This aspect of functional classification, however, is addressed at a programmatic  rather than plan level to allow more flexibility in responding to the changing locations of active farming, mining  and timber harvesting activities.    Table 2-1: Washington County Road Mileage by Functional Classification   Mileage  Percent of Total Miles  Urban Area           Arterial  125  9.7%       Collector  74  5.8%       Neighborhood Route  83  6.5%       Local  362  28.2%  Urban Total  644  50.2%        Rural Area           Arterial  74  5.8%       Collector  191  14.9%       Local  374  29.2%  Rural Total  639  49.8%        County Total  1283  100%  Source:  Washington County  The above designations are underlying functional classification designations. Collector, Neighborhood  Route and Local streets may also have Special Area designations, particularly in areas where transit  oriented development is planned.    As shown in Table 2‐1, as of 2011, Washington County had jurisdiction over nearly 1300 centerline miles (lane  mile data unavailable) of urban and rural roadway in the county with roughly 650 miles of roadway in both the  urban and rural areas. The Local road classification accounted for almost 60 percent of the total road mileage.  These mileages include roads that are under county jurisdiction but are located within city limits. Most of these  “county roads” are in the Arterial road functional class, and include Tualatin‐Sherwood Road in Tualatin and  Sherwood, Cornell Road in Hillsboro and Walker Road in Beaverton.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐3 Functional Classification Definitions    Principal Arterials form the backbone of the road network. These routes connect over the longest distance  (sometimes miles long) and are spaced less frequently than other Arterials. These freeways and highways  generally span several jurisdictions and can have statewide importance. At a minimum, highways that are  classified by ODOT as Interstate or Statewide Highways are considered Principal Arterials. Examples of Principal  Arterials in Washington County include Tualatin Valley Hwy., Hwy. 47, Hwy. 6 and parts of Hwy. 99W and U.S.  Hwy. 26. General characteristics of Principal Arterials can include:     Freeways have the highest level of access control, including grade separated interchanges. No at‐grade  driveways or connections are allowed.   Highways generally have limited at‐grade connections.   Freeways and highways provide connections for the movement of people, services and goods between  the central city, regional centers and destinations beyond the region.   Principal Arterials that are not freeways are managed to minimize the degradation of capacity while  providing limited access to abutting properties.    Arterial streets interconnect and support the Principal Arterial highway system. Arterials provide general mobility  for travel within the Washington/Multnomah/Clackamas County area. Correctly sized Arterials at appropriate  intervals allow through‐trips to remain on the Arterial system thereby discouraging use of Local streets for cut‐ through traffic. Arterials streets link major commercial, residential, industrial and institutional areas. General  characteristics of Arterials can include:      Arterials serve as primary connections to Principal Arterials, and connect to other Arterials, Collector and  Local streets, where appropriate.   Arterials in the rural area provide connections to neighboring cities, and farm‐to‐market access between  urban and rural areas. Most rural Arterials serve a mix of rural‐to‐urban and farm‐to‐market traffic. In  some cases rural Arterials, especially in rural/urban fringe areas, accommodate significant amounts of  urban‐to‐urban through‐traffic during peak commuting time periods. This is not the intended function of  the rural Arterial designation and is often the result of congestion on urban Arterials   Arterials provide freight movement in support of Principal Arterials.   Arterials have moderate access control for cross streets and driveways. Typically, residential driveways  are not allowed access to Arterials.    Collector Streets provide both access and circulation between residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural  community areas and the Arterial system. As such, Collectors tend to carry fewer motor vehicles than Arterials,  with reduced travel speeds. Collectors may serve as freight access routes, providing local connections to the  Arterial network. General collector characteristics can include:     Collectors connect neighborhoods to nearby centers, corridors, station areas, main streets and nearby  destinations in the urban area. Land development should not be sited to obstruct the logical continuation  of Collector streets.   In the rural area, Collectors are a primary link between the local street system and Arterials for freight,  people, goods and services.   Access control on Collectors is lower, and direct driveway connections    Commercial/Industrial Streets are a design variant of the Collector street designation and are intended to provide  access to commercial or industrial properties. The application of this designation through the development review  process may require a different design standard than the underlying functional classification designation.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐4 Neighborhood Routes are in residential neighborhoods and provide connectivity to the Collector and Arterial  system. They do not serve citywide or community circulation. Because traffic needs are greater than a Local  street, certain measures should be considered to retain the neighborhood character and livability of these routes.  Neighborhood traffic management measures are allowed (including devices such as speed humps, traffic circles  and other devices). New neighborhood routes may be established via the land development process.     The Neighborhood Route designation is appropriate for urban areas where neighborhood forms are more  compact and the routes are much shorter than typically occur in the rural area.   Traffic management measures are allowed.      Local Streets primarily provide direct access to adjacent land. While Local streets are not intended to serve  through‐traffic, the aggregate effect of local street design can impact the effectiveness of the Arterial and  Collector system when local trips are forced onto the Arterial street network due to a lack of adequate local street  connectivity. Local street connectivity maps in the Community Plans identify new local street connections that are  required by the Community Development Code in conjunction with development.      Rural Local roads may be miles long because of large parcels and a relatively sparse street network. Many rural  Local roadways are unpaved (gravel) and serviceability can vary with rainfall and maintenance. Rural Local roads  provide direct access to a variety of rural land uses including agriculture, forestry, quarry activities, low‐density  rural residential uses as well as rural commercial and industrial uses. Rural Local street characteristics include:     Paved or oftentimes unpaved surfaces    Narrow lane widths with roadside ditches to provide drainage   No access control and access points spaced far apart   Lack of traffic calming measures, sidewalks and illumination     Urban Local street characteristics include:     Traffic calming measures are allowed.   Access control is minimal with direct driveway connections permitted from all land use types.   A connected network of local streets is required as set forth in the Local Street Connectivity Maps of the  Community Plans and in the Community Development Code.    Special Area Streets are sub‐categories of Collector, Neighborhood Route, Commercial Street and Local Street  underlying functional classification designations. Special Area street designations are most frequently applied in  transit‐oriented overlay districts within RTP 2040 center and station community area designations with good  transit service. They are identified on the Special Area Street Overlay Map as well as in the Community Plans.  Special Area Street design standards are included in the Washington County Uniform Road Improvement Design  Standards.     Special Area Collectors are intended to link traffic from Special Area Local Streets, Special Area  Neighborhood Routes, and some Special Area Commercial Streets to Arterials. Posted speeds are low to  moderate. A moderate degree of non‐transit oriented development traffic would be acceptable for these  facilities.    The design of a Special Area Collector provides multi‐modal access to the Arterial system, station area  employment and high density residential areas while discouraging traffic infiltration on local streets. In  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐5 addition to autos, these facilities accommodate primary and secondary bus lines, bike lanes, and  sidewalks separated from the street by a landscape strip. Left turn lanes in medium and low density  residential areas are generally provided at intersections with Arterials.    Developments which are oriented to Special Area Collectors are generally employment‐based or multi‐ family residential. Single‐family residential developments that abut a Special Area Collector are typically  oriented away from road.     Special Area Neighborhood Routes serve both a traffic collection and distribution function and provide  access to adjacent properties. These facilities are intended to have less volume and less through‐ traffic  than Special Area Collectors. Posted speeds are low, and limited amount of non‐transit oriented  development traffic is acceptable for these facilities.    The design of Special Area Neighborhood Routes emphasizes neighborhood orientation by  accommodating on‐street parking, transit service, and bicycles in a relatively narrow paved width which  includes the use of traffic calming measures. Exclusive turn lanes are not appropriate for these facilities,  unless needed for safety at intersections with Arterials.    Special Area Neighborhood Routes primarily serve residential land‐uses. Development which includes  small to medium scale mixed uses is also appropriate.     Special Area Commercial Streets serve local access and service needs associated with urban high density  residential, mixed use and employment oriented land uses. These roads are not intended to serve  through‐trips but may have higher traffic volumes than Special Area Neighborhood Routes. The street  may not exceed two travel lanes in each direction. Speeds should be low.    The design of Special Area Commercial Streets reflects intensive localized urban use by all modes. The  road must accommodate autos, trucks, buses and bicycles while also providing transit stop amenities and  frequent opportunities for pedestrian crossings. Sidewalks are wide and have tree wells to encourage  walking.     Special Area Local Streets provide direct property access. They are not intended to serve through‐traffic.  Posted speeds are low, and non‐transit oriented development traffic is inappropriate for these facilities.    The design of Special Area Local Streets reflects the residential neighborhood function by accommodating  on‐street parking on a narrow paved width which can include traffic calming measures to slow down  traffic. Special Area Local Street serve only low to medium density residential districts.  §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ217 Functional Classification System J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ TS P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ Fu nc tio na lC la ss _U rb X .m xd January 02, 2013 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning and Development Services Freeway Principal Arterial Arterial Collector Neighborhood Route Proposed Arterial Proposed Collector Proposed Neighborhood Route Rural Reserves Urban Reserves Rural Washington County 0 16,0008,000 Feet 1 inch represents 16,500 feet ¯ Figure 2-2 §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 Functional Classification System J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ TS P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ Fu nc tio na lC la ss _C oW x. m xd January 02, 2013 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning and Development Services Freeway Principal Arterial Arterial Collector Neighborhood Route Proposed Arterial Proposed Collector Proposed Neighborhood Route Rural Reserves Urban Reserves Rural Washington County 0 30,00015,000 Feet 1 inch represents 30,000 feet ¯ Figure 2-3 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐8 2.2 WASHINGTON COUNTY DESIGN STANDARDS  Design and construction standards are set forth in the Washington County Code Chapter 15.08. Design standards  for rural and urban functional classifications are described in Table 2‐2 and Table 2‐3 below. All engineering plans  for public or private transportation improvements under the jurisdiction of Washington County shall conform to  these standards. These tables generally identify the maximum right‐of‐way and pavement widths that can be built  without amending the transportation plan. In some cases though, plan amendments may not be required if it is  determined through the project development or development review process that these maximums need to be  exceeded to ensure safe and efficient operation. Actual required right‐of‐way widths, however, may be less than  those specified depending upon roadway characteristics and surrounding land uses. Sufficient right‐of‐way to  accommodate turn lanes is required within 500 feet of all arterial and collector intersections.  Design standards  are, in part, based upon the future number of lanes that are called for in the plan. The number of required lanes  for roads in the urban area are shown in Figure 2‐4.   §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ217 Lane Numbers J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ TS P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ La ne N um be rs U rb .m xd January 08, 2013 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning and Development Services 8 Lanes 7 Lanes 6 Lanes 5 Lanes 4 Lanes 3 Lanes Rural Washington County 0 16,0008,000 Feet 1 inch represents 16,500 feet ¯ Figure 2-4 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐10  2.2.1 Rural Area Design Standards Rural area design standards for the various rural functional classifications are displayed in Table 2‐2. Although five  basic underlying classifications exist, only three (Arterial, Collector and Local) are currently designated in the  Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan. In general, between 50 and 90 feet of right‐of‐way is required on  all rural roads with pavement widths ranging from 24 to 60 feet. Travel lane widths are generally 12 feet, bike lane  or paved shoulders are 6 feet wide and center‐turn lanes are 14 feet wide. Note that parking (one side only) is  allowed in one Neighborhood Route sub‐class and on Commercial or Industrial classes.    Recent discussions with some rural residents have indicated a desire to revise the arterial standards to address  the increasing presence of urban commuter traffic passing through the rural area. Increased traffic in rural areas  can cause conflicts with slower moving farm equipment as well as increased dust, noise and air pollution.  Potential modifications to consider include wider roads to better accommodate all users, increased right‐of‐ways  to create more effective buffers between traffic , residences and farming operations. A contrasting point of view  expressed by some rural residents would not expand roadways in hopes of not increasing traffic speeds. Given  these contrasting opinions, will present a challenge in development equitable solutions.    Table 2-2: Washington County Rural Functional Classification Design Standards Classification  Max.  Right‐of‐ Way (Ft.)  Max.  Paved  Width  (Ft.)  Number  of Lanes  Bike  Lane/Pave d Shoulder  Width (Ft.)  Curb  Travel or  Parking  Lane  Width  (Ft.)  Travel  Lane or  Travel  Way  Width  (Ft.)  Center  Turn Lane  Width  (Ft.)  Parking  Allowed  Rural Arterial  90  60  4  6  12  12  0  None    90  50  3  6  0  12  14  None  Rural Collector  60  36  2  6  ‐‐  12  0  None  Rural  Neighborhood  Route  60  28  2  0  ‐‐  14  0  None    60  32  2  0  8  12  0  One side  Rural Local  50  24  2  ‐‐  ‐‐  24  0  None  Rural  Commercial or  Industrial  Ultimate  or 64  34  2  0  8  13  0  One side  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐11 2.2.2 Urban Area Design Standards   To better accommodate the greater variety of traffic and land use conditions that exist in the urban area, the five  underlying classifications (Arterial, Collector, Neighborhood Route, Local and Commercial/Industrial) have 23  different variations within them plus an additional four Special Area classifications having 14 variations contained  within them. The most common designs are based on 12‐foot wide travel lanes, 6‐foot wide bike lanes or paved  shoulders, 8‐foot wide parking lanes and 14‐foot wide center turn lanes. Typical right‐of‐way and paved road  widths for the various urban area functional classes are as follows:     Arterials – 90‐98 feet of right‐of‐way and 50‐74 feet of pavement width   Collectors – 74 feet of right‐of‐way and 36‐50 feet of pavement width   Neighborhood Routes – 60 feet of right‐of‐way and 36 feet of pavement width   Local roads – 34 feet of right‐of‐way and 28 feet of pavement width   Commercial or Industrial roads – 64 feet of right‐of‐way and 50 feet of pavement width  Table 2-3: Washington County Urban Functional Classification Design Standards Classification  Max.  Right‐of‐ Way (Ft.)  Max.  Paved  Width  (Ft.)  Number  of Lanes  Bike Lane/  Paved  Shoulder  Width  (Ft.)  Curb  Travel or  Parking  Lane  Width  (Ft.)  Travel  Lane or  Travel  Way  Width  (Ft.)  Center  Turn Lane  Width  (Ft.)  Parking  Allowed  Urban Arterial  122  98  7  6  12 + 12  12  14  None    98  74  5  6  12  12  14  None    90  60  4  6  12  12  ‐‐  None    90  50  3  6  ‐‐  12  14  None  Urban Collector  74  50  3  6  ‐‐  12  14  None    Ultimate or  74  36  2  6  ‐‐  12  ‐‐  None  Urban  Neighborhood  Route  60  28  2  ‐‐  ‐‐  14  ‐‐  None    60  32  2  ‐‐  ‐‐  12  ‐‐  One side    60  36  2  0  8  10  ‐‐  Both sides    60  36  2  6  ‐‐  12  ‐‐  None    50  28  2  ‐‐  ‐‐  14  ‐‐  None    50  32  2  ‐‐  8  12  ‐‐  One side  Urban Local  50  24  2  ‐‐  ‐‐  24  0  None    38  32  2  ‐‐  ‐‐  24  ‐‐  None    34  28  2  ‐‐  ‐‐  12  ‐‐  Both sides    30  24  2  ‐‐  ‐‐  16  ‐‐  One side    26  20  2  ‐‐  ‐‐  20  ‐‐  None  Urban  Commercial or  Industrial  64  50  4  ‐‐  ‐‐  12  ‐‐0  None    64  50  3  6  ‐‐  12  14  None    62  48  3  ‐‐  8  13  14  One side    56  42  3  ‐‐  ‐‐  14  14  None    Ultimate or  64  34  2  ‐‐  8  13  ‐‐  One side    54  40  2  ‐‐  8  12  ‐‐  Both sides  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐12  2.2.3 Special Area Road Design Standards     Special Area road design standards reflected in Table 2‐4 are intended to be applied in high‐density, mixed‐use  areas of development. Special Area roads are generally two or three lanes wide with designs that support  multi‐modal travel with bicycle lanes, sidewalks up to nine feet in width with landscaping provided within 9 to 10‐ foot wide easements. These designations also permit the use of traffic management devices such as speed  cushions, curb extensions and medians. Special Area street designs are limited to the Cedar Mill, Sunset MAX  station area, Willow Creek/185th Ave. and Merlo/158th Ave. MAX station areas as identified in the current  Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan.    Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐13   Table 2-4: Washington County Special Area Functional Classification Design Standards Classification  Max.  Right‐ of‐Way  (Ft.)1  Ease‐ ment  Width  (Ft.)  Max.  Paved  Width  (Ft.)2  Number  of Lanes  Bike  Lane  Width  (Ft.)  Parking  Allowed  Parking  Lane  Width  (Ft.)  Travel  Lane or  Travel  Way  Width  (Ft.)  Center  Turn  Lane  Width  (Ft.)  Design  Speed  Planting  Strip  Width  (Ft.)  Side‐ walk  Width  (Ft.)  Traffic  Management  Collector3  40  9  34  2  5  None  NA6  12  ‐‐  35  4.5  5  Allowed    52  9  46  3  5  None  NA  12  12  35  4.5  5  Allowed    40  9  34  2  5  None  NA  12  ‐‐  35  ‐‐  9  Allowed    52  9  46  3  5  None  NA  12  12  35  ‐‐  9  Allowed  Neighborhood  Route4  44  9  38  2  Shared  Both  sides  8  11  None  25  4.5  5  Required    44  9  38  2  Shared  Both  sides  8  11  None  25  ‐‐  9  Required  Commercial5  46  9  40  2  Shared  Both  sides  8  12  None  25  ‐‐  9  Allowed    58  9  52  3  Shared  Both  sides  8  12  12  25  ‐‐  9  Allowed    70  9  64  4  Shared  Both  sides  8  12  None  25  ‐‐  9  Allowed  Local  38  10  32  NA  Shared  Both  sides  8  (16)  None  25  4.5  5  Required    34  10  28  NA  Shared  Both  sides  8  (12)  None  25  4.5  5  Required    30  10  24  NA  Shared  One  side  8  (16)  None  25  4.5  5  Required    28  10  20  NA  Shared  One  side  8  (12)  None  25  4.5  5  Required    16  ‐‐  16  NA  Shared  None  NA  (16)  None  15  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐  1An additional three feet of right‐of‐way beyond the curb face is needed to accommodate traffic management devices except for curb extensions.   2Use of traffic management devices may require different pavement widths than indicated in table.  3Exclusive turn lanes allowed only at intersections with arterial roads. Speed cushions are not allowed.  4Exclusive turn lanes allowed through design exception only when Neighborhood Route intersects an arterial and left turn warrants are met.  5The number of lanes shall be established through land development process. On road parking is required on these facilities, but Washington County will not maintain delineation of spaces.  6Not Applicable  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐14  2.3 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION AND DESIGN   The 2035 Regional Transportation Plan focuses on the “regional” system, which generally corresponds to Arterial  and a few Collector street functional classifications in the county and city transportation plans. Regional  Transportation Plan arterial and throughway network designations are shown in Figure 2‐5.    Although many of the functional classification systems found throughout the Portland region use similar  terminology, comparing different systems can be confusing. Much of this confusion stems from the need to fit an  over‐simplified classification system to a dynamic and complex transportation network, and a general lack of solid  transportation data upon which to base designation criteria. In the spirit of simplification, the regional network is  shown in the attached maps. It consists of a Principal Arterial classification and three‐sub‐classes of Arterial  classification, which are most generally defined as follows:     Principal Arterials which emphasize high‐volume, high‐speed auto and truck mobility on freeway,  highway or parkway types of roadway design. These facilities may be grade‐separated or may have a mix  of grade‐separated and at‐grade access points with interchanges typically spaced at no less than two  miles apart. Principal Arterials generally span several jurisdictions and often link the Portland  metropolitan area to other parts of the state or to other states.     Arterials are intended to provide general mobility for motorized as well as non‐motorized travel and  connect to important destinations within the Portland metropolitan area as well as to the Principal  Arterial system. These arterials are generally spaced at one‐mile intervals, although this spacing tends to  break down in areas that do not have grid street patterns. The major distinction between the Major  Arterial and Minor Arterial designation is the relative volume of traffic they carry and the length of the  trip they serve. Generally speaking, Major Arterial streets can be expected to carry more vehicles and  serve longer trips than Minor Arterial streets, although the distinction is not always apparent. The Rural  Arterial designation is assigned to those rural roads that extend into the rural area but connect to the  Principal Arterial, Major Arterial and Minor Arterial roads in the urban area.     §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ217 Metro RTP Arterial & Throughway Network J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ TS P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ M et ro R TP _C oW .m xd January 08, 2013 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning and Development Services Principal arterial Principal arterial (proposed) Major arterial Major arterial (proposed) Minor arterial Minor arterial (proposed) Rural arterial Rural arterial (proposed) Rural Washington County 0 30,00015,000 Feet 1 inch represents 30,000 feet ¯ Figure 2-5 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐16  2.4 FACILITY CONDITIONS   Maintenance is an essential element of the transportation system. With nearly 1300 miles of paved roadway,  almost 200 bridges, over 3000 culverts, close to 900 miles of drainage ditches and numerous miles of roadside  vegetation to maintain, Washington County’s Operations and Maintenance Division (OPS) works hard to protect  the County’s growing investment in transportation infrastructure. As a plan whose primary focus is on long‐term  capital projects (i.e., relatively expensive projects that do not recur annually, last a long time and result in a fixed  asset), the Washington County 2035 Transportation System Plan will be limited to looking at two aspects of  transportation that come under the purview of OPS:  roadway pavement condition and bridge conditions.   2.4.1 Roadway Conditions   Roadway conditions vary throughout the County although the overall network condition is classified as fair or  above. Roadway maintenance is largely funded through State of Oregon gas tax revenues for the urban arterials,  urban collectors, and all rural roads while the Urban Road Maintenance District provides funding for roadway  maintenance on the urban locals and urban neighborhood routes.. Although these revenues have been sufficient  to fund most roadway maintenance needs in the past, improved vehicle fuel efficiency and infrequent gas tax  increases that have not kept up with the rate of inflation are making it more difficult to adequately fund roadway  maintenance. In addition, fuel prices have been steadily increasing and the citizenry is encouraged to reduce the  number of vehicular trips through public service campaigns such as “Drive Less / Save More”. The County has  been able to manage the maintenance of the transportation system by utilizing the Road Maintenance Priority  Matrix shown in Table 2‐5, which was initially adopted with the 1988 Transportation Plan.  This matrix has  provided guidance to the County with respect to maintaining the major system first in order to maximize the  funds available for road and bridge repairs.    Table 2-5: Road Maintenance Priority Matrix Activity  Arterial  Collector  Rural Resource Road  Neighborhood  Route  Local Road  Mandated1  1  1  1  1  1  Emergencies2  1  1  1  1  1  Hazards3  1  1  1  1  1  General Maintenance4  2  3  4  5  8  Minor Improvements5  6  7  11  13  14  Reconstruction6  9  10  12  15  16  Source:  Policy 21, Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan (Oct. 2002)  1Activities required by federal, state or local law, for example installation and maintenance of traffic control devices.  2Occurrences which cause a road to become impassable or require prompt action to protect human life; for example, flooding, slides or washouts.  3Existing or pending conditions which may cause a vehicle operator to lose control or lead to an emergency situation where persons or property is at risk for  injury or damage; for example, pot hole patching, replacing damaged or missing safety equipment.  4Preventive activities required to keep a road in good condition; for example, street cleaning and asphalt overlays.  5Removal of a specific problem on a short section of roadway.  6Rebuilding substandard or deteriorated roads to County design standards; for example, resurfacing with minor shoulder or lane widening and major  structural repairs.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐17   As seen in table 2‐5, mandated, emergency and hazard types of activities all receive the highest priority  designation, regardless of functional classification. For general maintenance, minor improvements and  reconstruction activities, however, the road with the higher functional classification generally has priority over a  road with a lower functional classification designation. This prioritization system generally ensures that those  roads that play the most vital role in moving people and goods throughout the county, are prioritized over other  roads when it comes to general maintenance, minor improvements and reconstruction.      Pavement Condition Index    To adequately maintain the many miles of road under its jurisdiction, Washington County uses a computerized  pavement management system to evaluate and monitor the condition of its paved roads. Arterial and Collector  roads are visually inspected and their surface condition assessed every two years while Neighborhood Routes and  Local roads are inspected every four years. Based on this assessment, the road or roadway segment is assigned a  Pavement Condition Index (PCI) score and grouped into one of the following five condition categories:       Very Good Condition – Pavement structure is stable, with no cracking, no patching, no deformation  evident. Roadways in this category are usually new or recently constructed (average PCI of 85‐100).     Good Condition – Pavement structure is stable, but may have surface erosion or minor hairline cracking,  minor patching or minor deformation. Riding qualities are still very good (average PCI of 70‐84).     Fair Condition – Pavement structure is generally stable with minor areas of structural weakness. Cracking  is easier to detect and pavement might be patched, but not excessively. Riding quality is good, but  deformation is more pronounced and more easily noticed (average PCI of 55‐69).     Poor Condition – Roadway has areas of instability, marked evidence of structural deficiency, large  cracking patterns known as “alligatoring”, heavy and numerous patching and very noticeable  deformation. Riding quality ranges from acceptable to poor. Spot repair of the pavement base may be  required (average PCI of 25‐54).     Very Poor Condition – Costs of saving the pavement structural section would equal or exceed complete  reconstruction (average PCI of 0‐24).     The average 2011 PCI for all roads in a particular functional classification as compared to their target PCI are  shown in Table 2‐6. The system average PCI of 81 indicates that the overall road system is in Good condition, and  all functional classifications meet or exceed their target PCI, except for the urban and rural arterial classifications.   While the arterial classifications fall slightly short of their targets, however, they still fall in the Good condition  rating range.     Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐18  Table 2-6: Average 2011 PCI vs. Target PCI by Functional Classification Functional Class  2011 Average PCI  Target PCI  Urban Area         Arterial  78  80     Collector  80  75     Neighborhood Route (URMD)  84  75     Local (URMD)  85  75     Local (non‐URMD)  74  65  Rural Area         Arterial  76  80     Collector  81  75     Local  77  65  System Average  81      2.4.2 Urban Road Maintenance District   The Urban Road Maintenance District (URMD) was approved by voters in urban unincorporated Washington  County in 1987 to improve the condition of urban local roads that had deteriorated due to the lack of adequate  maintenance funding. Before 1994, more than 80 miles of local (i.e., roads currently having a Neighborhood Route  and Local road functional classification designation) were classified as being in poor or very poor condition, and  only 77 percent were in fair or better condition.     The URMD was not funded until 1994 when voters approved a property tax levy of $0.365 per $1000 of assessed  value. Ballot Measure 50 in 1997 made this levy permanent at a rate of $0.2456 per $1000 of assessed valuation.  URMD now funds road maintenance for approximately 430 miles of Neighborhood Routes and Local roads within  its service area. URMD boundaries are shown in Figure 2‐6. Although URMD funds cannot be used for  maintenance needs outside its district or for maintenance needs on Arterial or Collector roads within its district, in  2011 the Washington County Board of Commissioners expanded the list of eligible activities under URMD to  include safety improvements (e.g., sidewalks, bike lanes, paved shoulders) on any road (including Arterial and  Collector roads) within the district. To free‐up funds for safety improvements, a target PCI of 75 was adopted for  URMD roads, which already had an average PCI of 85. The condition of URMD roads will be closely monitored and  funds for safety improvements determined through the annual budget process, so as to prevent any undue  deterioration of URMD roads.  §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ217 Urban Road Maintenance District (URMD) J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ TS P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ U R M D ur b. m xd January 08, 2013 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning and Development Services Urban Road Maintenance District Rural Washington County 0 16,0008,000 Feet 1 inch represents 16,500 feet ¯ Figure 2-6 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐20  2.4.3 Gravel Road Upgrade Program   Over the past 20 or so years the subject of forming a road maintenance district in the rural area or expanding the  URMD to include the rural area has periodically surfaced without any positive results. To address the problem of  deteriorating gravel roads and increased dust damage to nearby crops, Washington County has developed a  program of upgrading some rural Local roads from gravel to a hard chip seal surface. The chip seal process  involves applying two to three layers of rock and emulsified asphalt to create a hard driving surface. Since  upgrading all gravel roads to hard surface would cost more than $15 million, a prioritization methodology based  on crop frontage, number of houses, traffic volumes and other factors has been developed to identify roads for  chip sealing from a list of over 100 candidates. On average, several miles of gravel roadway per year get upgraded  to chip seal through the Gravel Road Upgrade Program, although funding for this program is nearing an end and it  is a possibility that 2013 may be the last year for work under this program for the foreseeable future.  2.4.4 Bridge Conditions   Bridges and to a less noticeable degree, culverts, are important elements of Washington County’s transportation  system, which provide access for residents and businesses. These facilities, especially in the rural area where  alternate routes are limited, provide essential connectivity. Although a culvert is similar to a bridge in that it  allows water to flow beneath a road surface, many of them are replaced as part of the regular maintenance  program or in conjunction with roadway improvement projects so they will not be discussed here.   Washington County manages 188 bridges. One hundred and fifty of these structures are longer than 20 feet which  make them part of the National Bridge Inventory (NBI). These bridges are inspected every two years through the  Oregon Department of Transportation, and results are reported to the Federal Highway Administration. The  remaining 38 bridges are not on the NBI system and are inspected every two years by certified inspectors who are  either Washington County staff or contracted consultants.   Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐21 Distribution of Bridges by Area   Bridges in Washington County are not uniformly distributed. As indicated in Figure 2‐7 and Table 2‐7, 70 percent  or 132 of the bridges in Washington County are located in the rural area and 30 percent or 56 bridges are located  in the urban area.     Figure 2‐7:  Bridge Percentage Distribution  Rural, 132, 70% Urban , 56, 30% Table 2-7: Number of Bridges   Number of Bridges  Rural  132  Urban  56  Total Rural + Urban  188    Distribution of Bridges by Functional Classification    Figure 2‐8 shows the distribution of bridges by functional classification for the rural and urban areas. In the rural  area, 86 percent or 113 of the bridges are on the Collector or Local road system with the remaining 14 percent or  19 bridges on Arterial roads. This number highlights the importance of bridges to the rural Local road system. For  the urban area the distribution is almost the reverse, as 72 percent of the urban bridges are on Arterial roads and  only 28 percent are on non‐Arterial roads.   Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐22  Figure 2-8: Number and Percentage of Bridges by Functional Classification  Urban Local, 3, 2% Urban Neighborhood  Route, 2, 1% Urban Collector, 10, 5%  Urban Arterial, 41, 22% Rural Local, 68, 36%  Rural Arterial, 19, 10% Rural Collector, 45, 24% Bridge Material Types    Figure 2‐9 indicates the numbers of concrete, steel and timber bridges in rural and urban areas of Washington  County. The material used to construct a bridge is important because it is the primary determinant of a bridge’s  expected life span. Concrete structures typically have the longest life span, ranging from 50 years for bridges  constructed of reinforced concrete to 100 years for those constructed of pre‐stressed concrete. At the other  extreme are timber bridges. Although timber structures are treated with preservatives to inhibit rot, their  expected average life span is only 30 years. In the middle are bridges constructed of steel with galvanized, painted  or powder coasted components. These bridges are susceptible to chipping, rust and corrosion, however, their  average life expectancy is 65 years.   Of particular concern in Washington County is the large number of timber bridges in the rural area. According to  the most current bridge inventory data provided by the Washington County Dept. of Land Use and  Transportation, Operations Division, 65 of the County’s timber bridges have already reached or exceeded their 30‐ year life expectancy. Fifty‐two bridges were replaced between 1995 and 2012, which is an average of three bridge  replacement per year. Although it is impossible to predict the longevity of any particular bridge, and routine  maintenance can allow many bridges to exceed their average life expectancy, at this low rate of replacement the  County will still have timber bridges in its inventory until at least the year 2030. A target replacement rate of eight  to ten bridge replacements per year for 15 years has been suggested, but securing the additional $8 million to $15  million per year needed to do this will be a challenge. If the replacement rate is not increased to this suggested  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐23 rate then it is likely that bridge closures and posting weight limits will be required to protect the traveling public.  Such actions, however, will negatively impact the movement of products and the overall economy of Washington  County.    Figure 2-9: Rural and Urban Bridge Material Types 58 30 17 7 57 19 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Rural Bridges Urban Bridges Timber Steel Concrete Figure 2‐10 shows the percentages of bridges in the urban and rural areas by their primary type of construction  material (concrete, steel or timber). As indicated in Figure 2‐10, the predominant bridge type in the urban area is  the relatively long‐lasting concrete bridge, which accounts for over half the bridges in this area. However, in the  rural area, as shown in Figure 2‐10, the proportions of concrete and timber bridges are roughly equal.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐24  Figure 2-10: Percentages of Bridge Types Urban Bridges Concrete 53% Steel 13% Timber 34%   Rural Bridges Concrete 44% Steel 13% Timber 43%   Source:  Washington County DLUT, Operations Division  Bridge Status    In addition to deterioration that is caused by age or the environment, load carrying trucks can do substantial  damage to roads and bridges. To protect the integrity of these facilities as well as public safety, Washington  County can designate bridges as length and width limited or as weight limited. Although the vast majority of  bridges in Washington County are considered to be Highway Legal and capable of carrying trucks who have axle  weights and spacing that do not exceed statutory limits, there are currently 10 bridges that have been posted as  Weight Limited because they have structural components or features that have been compromised or the design  has been determined to be insufficient to carry specified loads or configurations. Two bridges in Washington  County are designated as Length or Width Limited because of geometric features that restrict certain size vehicles  from traversing the structure without damaging the bridge or conflicting with other traffic movements. The  location of all bridges and their status is depicted on Figure 2‐11 and 2‐12.  ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ217 Bridge Status J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ TS P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ B rid ge sC oW .m xd January 08, 2013 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning and Development Services ! Highway Legal ! Length or Width Limited ! Weight Limited ! Pedestrian Rural Washington County 0 30,00015,000 Feet 1 inch represents 30,000 feet ¯ Figure 2-11 Highway Legal: A bridge with this label is capable of carrying trucks who have axle weights and spacings that do not exceed statutory thresholds Weight Limited: A bridge with this label has certain structural components or features that have been compromised or the design has been determined to be insufficient to carry specified loads and / or configurations. Length / Width Limited: A bridge with this label has certain geometric features that restrict certain size vehicles from traversing the structure without damaging the bridge or conflicting with other traffic movements. !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ217 Bridge Status J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ TS P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ B rid ge sU rb .m xd January 16, 2013 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning and Development Services ! Highway Legal ! Length or Width Limited ! Weight Limited ! Pedestrian Rural Washington County 0 16,0008,000 Feet 1 inch represents 16,500 feet ¯ Figure 2-13 Highway Legal: A bridge with this label is capable of carrying trucks who have axle weights and spacings that do not exceed statutory thresholds Weight Limited: A bridge with this label has certain structural components or features that have been compromised or the design has been determined to be insufficient to carry specified loads and / or configurations. Length / Width Limited: A bridge with this label has certain geometric features that restrict certain size vehicles from traversing the structure without damaging the bridge or conflicting with other traffic movements. Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐27 2.5 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE 2.5.1 Performance Targets and Standards Regional Performance Targets    The Metro Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)2 identifies a number of Regional Performance Targets. These  targets have been established with planning towards 2035. The regional targets below are excerpted from Table  2‐3 of the Metro RTP. These regional targets include:     Safety – reduce the number of pedestrian, bicyclist, and motor vehicle occupant fatalities plus serious  injuries each by 50% compared to 2005.   Congestion – reduce vehicle hours of delay (VHD) per person by 10 percent compared to 2005.   Freight reliability – reduce vehicle hours of delay truck trip by 10 percent compared to 2005.   Climate change – reduce transportation‐related carbon dioxide emissions by 40 percent below 1990  levels.   Active transportation – triple walking, biking and transit mode share compared to 2005.   Basic infrastructure – increase by 50 percent the number of essential destinations accessible within 30  minutes by trails, bicycling and public transit or within 15 minutes by sidewalks for all residents compared  to 2005.   Clean air – ensure zero percent population exposure to at‐risk levels of air pollution.   Travel – reduce vehicle miles traveled per person by 10 percent compared to 2005.   Affordability – reduce the average household combined cost of housing and transportation by 25 percent  compared to 2000.   Access to daily needs – increase by 50 percent the number of essential destinations accessible within 30  minutes by bicycling and public transit for low‐income, minority, senior and disabled populations  compared to 2005.    The Washington County Transportation System Plan must work towards the direction identified by these targets.    In addition to the mobility targets identified in the RTP, the Regional Transportation Functional Plan (RTFP)  establishes regional Performance Targets and Standards. The RTFP establishes two primary performance targets:      Non‐Single Occupant Vehicles (modal performance)   Roadway Mobility Operating Standards (mobility performance)    This report will address the Modal Performance Target first.      2 Throughout this section, there are references to the “State RTP” and the federal “Financially Constrained RTP”. These are both considered the “Regional  Transportation Plan” which functions as the TSP for the region. The “State RTP” includes a number of projects, programs and services to adequately address  identified needs. The federal “Financially Constrained RTP” only includes projects, programs and services that can be reasonably funded according to federal  guidelines. When a reference is not defined, it can be assumed to reference the “State RTP”.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐28  2.5.2 Modal Performance RTFP Section 3.08.230 Performance Targets and Standards    Each city and county shall demonstrate that solutions adopted will achieve progress toward the targets and  standards in Tables 3.08‐1.The city or county shall include the regional targets and standards or its alternatives in  its TSP.    Table 2-8: Regional Non-SOV Modal Targets from RTFP Table 3.08-1 (share of average daily weekday trips for the year 2035) 2040 Design Type  Non‐drive alone  modal target  Portland central city  60‐70%  Regional centers  Town centers  Main streets  Station communities  Corridors  Passenger intermodal facilities  45‐55%  Industrial areas  Freight intermodal facilities  Employment areas  Inner neighborhoods  Outer neighborhoods  40‐45%  Existing Modal Performance    In 2010 the urban area of Washington County already meets the regional Non‐SOV targets for 2035. As shown in  the Table and chart below, 47.8% of all trips starting or ending in Washington County are Drive Alone.  Figure 2-13: Urban – Washington County – ALL Trips 2010 Urban Washington County Travel by Mode - Daily 2010 Walk 4% Transit 2% Shared Ride 45% Drive Alone 48% Bicycle 1% Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐29 Table 2-9: Urban – Washington County – ALL Trips 2010 Mode  Trips  Percent  Drive Alone  1,784,283  47.8%  Shared Ride  1,679,233  45.0%  Transit  67,469  1.8%  Walk  167,312  4.5%  Bicycle  34,466  0.9%  Total  3,732,763  100.0%  Source: Metro Regional Travel Demand Forecast.  Figure 2‐14 below presents the same information geographically. Note that table and chart only represent the  urban area. The rural area is not subject to the same requirements.  Figure 2-14: 2010 Non-SOV Percent Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐30  The Metro 2035 State RTP does not show a significant change in modal performance within Washington County.  The regional travel demand forecasts are based on the existing measured preferences. Growth and changes to  system attributes are then projected into the future. Future forecasts do not attempt to account for changes in  attitudes or preferences – as such changes are subjective and difficult to quantify.  Figure 2-15: Urban – Washington County – ALL Trips 2035 Urban Washington County Travel by Mode - Daily 2035 Bike 1.0% Walk 4.8% Transit 2.6% Shared Ride 43.8% Drive Alone 47.8% Table 2-10: Urban – Washington County – ALL Trips 2035 Mode  Trips  Percent  Drive Alone  2,360,367  47.8%  Shared Ride  2,161,094  43.8%  Transit  126,904  2.6%  Walk  237,581  4.8%  Bicycle  49,375  1.0%  Total  4,935,321  100.0%  Source: Metro Regional Travel Demand Forecast (State RTP).    Comparing the 2035 with the 2010, shows an increased reliance on Transit (increased from 1.8% to 2.6%) and  bicycling (increased from 0.8% to 1.0%). However, the Shared Ride rate decreased and the Drive Alone rate  remained virtually unchanged. This means that proposed State RTP changes is system attributes alone, cannot be  expected to induce significant changes in travel behavior.    Washington County already meets the 2035 targets for most areas. Review of the map below indicates that the  industrial areas within Washington County may have the hardest time meeting the 2035 Non‐SOV targets.      Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐31 Figure 2-16: 2035 Non-SOV Percent   Comparison to National Data     One of the potentially surprising aspects of this data is the amount of “shared” ride trips. Shared Ride trips can be  translated to vehicle occupancy rates. The following information is provided as a point of reference, and to check  the validity of these numbers, this report reviews National vehicle occupancy rates by trip purpose.  Figure 2-17: National Average Vehicle Occupancy Rates   Sources: Published by U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of  Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1990 Nationwide Personal  Transportation Survey: Summary of Travel Trends, FHWA‐PL‐92027, Washington,  DC, March 1992, Figure 6. Data from 2009 NHTS were generated from the Internet  site nhts.ornl.gov, March 2011. (Additional resources: www.fhwa.dot.gov,  nhts.ornl.gov) The national average vehicle occupancy, calculated as  person‐miles per vehicle‐mile, is highest for social and  recreational purposes. The highest vehicle occupancy  levels for all purposes were in 1977. The increase in  number of vehicles per household and the decrease in  average household size could have contributed to the  decline since then. Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐32  Daily Trips by Mode ‐  Summary    The chart below depicts the 2010 Daily trips by Mode, and the 2035 State RTP trips by mode.    Figure 2-18: Daily Trips by Mode                                                 Table 2-11: Washington County Travel Demand (Average Weekday)1  Mode  2010  2035 RTP  Percent Change  Total Person Trips  3,866,409  5,541,705  +43%  Auto  3,610,591  5,094,927  +41%       SOV2  1,861,046  2,680,680  +44%       Shared Ride3  1,749,546  2,414,247  +38%  Transit4  68,719  130,709  +90%  Pedestrian5  171,716  261,492  +52%  Bicycle5  35,383  54,577  +54%  Notes:  1. Includes all daily trips that either start or end within Washington County, including the rural areas outside the Metro  Boundary. Other chapters focus on urban travel and report fewer daily trips (only those within the urban area).  2. SOV – Single Occupancy Vehicle, a vehicle in which the driver is traveling alone (this is a subset of the Auto category).  3. Shared Ride – Includes both the drive and other passengers (this is a subset of the Auto category).  4. Yellow school bus trips are not included.  5. Pedestrian and Bicycle trips do not include travel for the purpose of exercise.    0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 2010 2035 Person Trips Auto SOV HOV Transit Ped/Bike SOV ‐ single occupancy vehicle HOV‐ high occupancy vehicle Daily trips that start or end  within Washington County  Source: Metro Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐33 Home to Work Trips    Much of the discussion around modal targets relates to the journey to and from work. As can be seen on the  following table, the journey to/from work trip purpose currently makes up about 27%3 of all trips.  Figure 2-19: Urban – Washington County – ALL Trips 2010 by Trip Purpose Urban Washington County Travel by Purpose - Daily 2010 School 4.0%Non-Home to Work 9.1% Non-Home to Non-Work 17.9% Home to College 1.8% Home to Other 23.4% Home to Recreation 13.5% Home to Shopping 13.5% Home to Work 17.5% Table 2-12: 2010 Urban Washington County Trips – by trip purpose Trip Purpose  Trips  Percent  Home to College  67,666  1.8%  Home to Other  874,175  23.4%  Home to Recreation  505,040  13.5%  Home to Shopping  475,852  12.7%  Home to Work  652,457  17.5%  Non‐Home to Non‐Work  668,706  17.9%  Non‐Home to Work  339,073  9.1%  School*  149,795  4.0%  2010 Total  3,732,763  100.0%  Source: Metro Regional Travel Demand Forecast.  *Yellow School Bus trips have been excluded.  Note: trip purpose description has been simplified. Trips are referred to as “Home to ABC” the  data does include “ABC to Home” trips (any end of the trip is home).  3 Home to Work 17.5% plus Non‐Home to Work 9.1% is 26.6% Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐34  Figure 2-20: Urban – Washington County – ALL Trips 2035 by Trip Purpose Urban Washington County Travel by Purpose - Daily 2035 School 3.7%Non-Home to Work 9.9% Non-Home to Non-Work 18.4% Home to Work 18.2% Home to Shopping 12.8% Home to Recreation 12.8% Home to Other 22.5% Home to College 1.7% Table 2-13: 2035 Urban Washington County Trips – by Trip Purpose Trip Purpose  Trips  Percent  Home to College  83,376  1.7%  Home to Other  1,108,128  22.5%  Home to Recreation  632,324  12.8%  Home to Shopping  632,940  12.8%  Home to Work  898,746  18.2%  Non‐Home to Non‐Work  905,915  18.4%  Non‐Home to Work  490,369  9.9%  School*  183,524  3.7%  2035 Total  4,935,321  100.0%  Source: Metro Regional Travel Demand Forecast (State RTP).  *Yellow School Bus trips have been excluded.  Table 2-14: Journey to Work Trips (Urban Washington County) Summary Home Based Work Trips  (directly between Home & Work)  % of all  Trips  All Work Trips  (includes Home Based Work, and  other trips that start or end at work)*  % of all  Trips  ALL Trips  2010  652,457  17.5%  991,531  26.6%  3,732,763  2035  898,746  18.2%  1,389,115  28.1%  4,935,321  Source: Metro Regional Travel Demand Forecast (State RTP).  *examples include travel to and from lunch, or meetings, errands performed during the workday, and/or trips associated with work.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐35 Mode Share for Work Trips    U.S. Census Bureau conducts the “American Communities Survey”. This survey asks for respondents to report  journey to work travel. The reported journey data is summarized in Table 2‐15 below. Current estimates of  commuter travel characteristics are also summarized along with a comparison to 2005. The data indicates that  workers in Washington County are carpooling and using public transportation less often, compared to 2005.  Driving alone, walking, and other modes of travel (including biking) are increasingly being used instead. Active  transportation modes (walking and other) increased their combined share of work trips from 4.2% to 6.2%.     Table 2-15: Commuter Mode Share – 2005 & 2010 Mode  2005  Share  2010  Share  2005 to  2010  Change  Drive Alone  75.4%  76.5%  +1.1%  Carpool  9.4%  6.8%  ‐2.6%  Public Transportation  6.0%  5.7%  ‐0.3%  Walk  2.6%  3.6%  +1.0%  Other (e.g., Bike)  1.6%  2.6%  +1.0%  Work at Home  4.9%  4.9%  0%  Source:  U.S. Census Bureau ‐ Commute to Work Data  This data is presented as one of the data sources available regarding existing mode of travel, and is provided in  this report to allow for another perspective on the journey to work data. The Census based survey asks individuals  questions – and relies upon the memory of the respondents. The small changes noted may be due to the survey  sample size, weather at the time of the survey, and/or other factors.    Washington County staff agrees with Metro staff that while the Census information provides an additional point  of reference, greater detail about observed travel is necessary. The Regional Travel Demand Model is based on  daily activity diary, and a robust record of all daily activities, including travel. The Regional Travel Demand Model  it establish a mechanism for Households to record there daily activities, collects this information and asks  respondents questions about the records. Metro and Washington County staff believe the travel demand model  information is more accurate for the Portland Metro urban area, than the Census Journey to work survey.  Additionally the Travel Demand model is designed to allow forecasting of travel.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐36  Figure 2-21: Urban – Washington County – Home to Work Trips 2010 Urban Washington County Home Based Work Travel by Mode - Daily 2010 Walk 1% Transit 5% Bike 1% Shared Ride 8% Drive Alone 85% Table 2-16: 2010 Home to/from work trips by Mode Mode  Trips  Percent  Drive Alone  556,106  85.2%  Shared Ride  55,378  8.5%  Transit  29,369  4.5%  Walk  6,693  1.0%  Bicycle  4,911  0.8%  Total  652,457  100.0%  Source: Metro Regional Travel Demand Forecast  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐37 Figure 2-22: Urban – Washington County – Home to Work Trips 2035 Urban Washington County Home Based Work Travel by Mode - Daily 2035 Drive Alone 83.2% Shared Ride 8.9% Transit 5.7% Walk 1.3% Bike 1.0% Table 2-17: 2035 Home to/from work trips by Mode Mode  Trips  Percent  Drive Alone  747,355  83.2%  Shared Ride  79,905  8.9%  Transit  50,924  5.7%  Walk  11,899  1.3%  Bicycle  8,662  1.0%  Total  898,746  100.0%  Source: Metro Regional Travel Demand Forecast (State RTP).  As can be seen above, the travel model indicates a much higher drive alone rate for work trips than the census  data. Furthermore, the Non‐SOV rate for urban Washington County for home to/from work trips is significantly  lower than for other trip purposes. The 2010 Non‐SOV rate is 14.8% for home to/from work trips, as compared to  47.8% for all trip purposes.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐38  2.5.3 Commuter Travel Characteristics The following section describes travel characteristics of Washington County commuters who either lived or  worked in the County. Table 2‐18 shows a slight increase in employed residents and jobs in Washington County  between 2002 and 2010. In 2010, nearly half of Washington County residents worked outside the County and  nearly half of Washington County employees lived outside the County. The increase, relative to 2002, of  Washington County commuters traveling between counties may partially explain the increasing mode share for  drive alone commuter trips evident in Table 2‐17.  Table 2-18: Commuter Residence Characteristics – 2002 & 2010 Washington County  2002  2010  Employee Population (Residents)  215,901  216,424  Employment (Jobs)  213,028  222,588  Employees Living Outside of County  43.7%  48.8%  Residents Working Outside of County  44.5%  47.4%  Source:  U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin‐Destination  Employment Statistics  The distance traveled for Washington County commuters is shown in Table 2‐19. Most trips are less than 10 miles  but 5 to 7 percent of commuter trips are over 50 miles. Most commuters travel between Washington County and  points east (e.g., Portland). Most trips longer than 50 miles are between Washington County and points south  (e.g., Salem).    Table 2-19: Commuter Travel Distance (2010) Commute Distance  Work to  Home  Home to  Work  Less than 10 miles  57.9%  64.5%  10‐24 miles  28.5%  26.6%  25‐50 miles  6.7%  3.7%  Greater than 50 miles  6.9%  5.2%  Source:  U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin‐Destination  Employment Statistics  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐39 2.5.4 Mobility Standards Washington County maintains a Level of Service standard for vehicle operations. This standard is currently defined  in the Roadway System Policy.    Existing Strategy 6.1 “Provide a roadway system necessary to support travel demand associated with anticipated  future development of land uses identified in the County’s Comprehensive Plan at or better than the standards  identified in Table 5 and consistent with policies identified in this plan.”    Table 2‐20 shows the currently adopted Washington County Motor Vehicle Performance Standards.  Table 2-20: Washington County Motor Vehicle Performance Measures (“Table 5”) MAXIMUM VOLUME TO CAPACITY (V/C) RATIO STANDARDS  Location2  AM/PM Peak Two‐hour Period    Target1  Performance Measures3  Acceptable1  Performance Measures3    First Hour4  Second Hour4  First Hour4  Second Hour4  Regional Centers  Town Centers  Main Streets  Station Communities  .99  (E)  .9  (D)  .99  (E)  .99  (E)  Other Urban Areas  .9  (D)  .9  (D)  .99  (E)  .9  (D)  Rural Areas  .9  (D)  .9  (D)  .9  (D)  .9  (D)  1 For development review purposes, these performance standards will be used in assessing safety improvements. For plan amendment  purposes, if a plan amendment is predicted to exceed the acceptable performance standard, the performance on applicable facilities  will not be allowed to deteriorate further, and mitigation may be necessary. For project development purposes, these performance  standards will be used to evaluate conditions beyond the transportation plan’s planning horizon, as appropriate.  2 For location reference see 2040 Growth Concept Design Types Map.  3 Vehicle performance shall be determined by using volume to capacity ratios. Volume to Capacity equivalencies to Level of Service  (LOS) are as follows: LOS C = V/C of 0.8 or lower; LOS D = V/C of 0.81 to 0.9; LOS E = V/C of 0.91 to 0.99. Further discussion of vehicle  performance is provided in the Technical Appendix.  4 First Hour is defined as the highest hour of the day. Second hour is defined as the hour following the first hour.  A list of “deficiency areas” is also included in the adopted table 5.     Deficiency Areas are facilities, system elements or sub‐areas of Washington County which are expected to exceed  the acceptable performance measures defined above by 2020. Additional improvements and strategies to raise the  motor vehicle performance in these areas, if any, will be approached on a case by case basis.    The adopted list of deficiency areas is expected to be re‐examined and updated consistent with the level of  service standard.    Metro identifies mobility targets through the Regional Transportation Plan and the Regional Transportation  Functional Plan. The targets define deficiency thresholds for both the mid‐day peak (highest 60 minute period  between 9AM to 3PM) and the highest overall two consecutive hours of weekday traffic volumes. The RTP  mobility policies define an operating standard for different land use types within the urban growth boundary.  Although these standards are labeled “interim,” they apply to the Washington County Transportation Plan until  Metro issues a revision to these policies. The 2‐hour peak standards are identical to those identified within the  Portland Metropolitan Region by ODOT in the Oregon Highway Plan. Table 2‐21 shows the mobility standards for  Metro.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐40  Table 2-21: Metro Mobility Standards (RTFP Table 3.08-2) Location  Mid‐day Peak  Peak  First Hour  Peak  Second Hour  Regional Centers  Town Centers  Main Streets  Station Communities  Central City  .99  1.1  .99  Corridors  Industrial Areas  Intermodal Facilities  Employment Areas  Inner Neighborhoods  Outer Neighborhoods  .90  .99  .99  US 26 (from I‐405 to Sylvan Interchange)  .99  1.1  .99  Other Principal Arterial Routes   I‐205  I‐5 (Marquam Bridge to Wilsonville) OR 217  US 26 (west of Sylvan Interchange) US 30  OR 8 (Murray Blvd. to Brookwood Ave.) OR 212    .90  .99  .99  Source:  Metro  Notes:     Performance standard is defined by Demand to Capacity (D/C) ratio. Application of D/C is identical to V/C but acknowledges that ratios  over 1.0 reflect demand rather than actual traffic volume.    Corridor refinement plans are required in Chapter 6 of the Metro RTP and will include a recommended mobility policy for the following  corridors: I‐205, I‐5 (Marquam Bridge to Wilsonville), and OR 8 (Murray Blvd. to Brookwood Ave.)  Portions of Washington County are outside of the Portland Metro UGB, ODOT mobility targets4 identified for rural  highways also apply. This Transportation Plan must incorporate the ODOT mobility targets when evaluating  congestion on ODOT facilities within Washington County over the 20‐year planning horizon, or must adopt  alternative mobility standards that better reflect goals of the Transportation Plan process.    Certain segments of Statewide, Regional or District Highways may be designated as Special Transportation Areas  (STA) and therefore subject to alternative mobility targets. An STA is a designated district of compact  development located on a state highway where the need for appropriate local access outweighs considerations of  highway mobility. There are three existing Special Transportation Areas within Washington County:     OR 47 (Tualatin Valley Highway) from milepost 16.06‐16.67 in Cornelius   OR 47 (Tualatin Valley Highway) from milepost 25.34‐26.54 in Gaston   OR 141 (Hall Blvd.) from milepost 2.84‐3.84 in Beaverton, unincorporated Washington County, and Tigard   Add STA in Banks    OR 141 is classified as a District Highway and OR 47 is classified as a Statewide Highway. The mobility targets for  outside of the UGB are quoted in Table 2‐22. Mobility targets for ODOT highways inside the Portland metropolitan  4 On December 21, 2011 the Oregon Transportation Commission approved revisions to their Highway Mobility Policy 1F replacing the term “mobility  standard” with “mobility target”,  This change in terminology was prompted by the recognition that it might be infeasible or impractical to meet mobility  standards, and that the term “target” more aptly reflected the flexibility needed to consider alternate mobility measures in some situations.  These targets  apply primarily to transportation and land use planning decisions, and do not replace design mobility standards contained in ODOT’s Highway Design  Manual.   Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐41 area are the same as those in Table 2‐21, except that Hwy. 99W is also included on the list of Other Principal  Arterial Routes and there is no mid‐day peak target.    Table 2-22: ODOT Mobility Targets Outside of Metro Inside UGB  Outside UGB  Highway Category   STA  MPO  Non‐ MPO  outside  of STA  where  non‐ freeway  posted  speed  <=35  mph*  Non‐ MPO  outside  of STA  where  non‐ freeway  posted  speed >  35 but <  45 mph  Non‐ MPO  where  non‐ freeway  posted  speed  >=45  mph*  UC  Rural  Lands  Interstate Highways  N/A  .85  N/A  N/A  .80  .70  .70  Statewide Highway – Expressway  N/A  .85  .80  .80  .80  .70  .70  Statewide Highway – Freight Route  .90  .85  .85  .80  .80  .70  .70  Statewide Highway – Not a Freight Route  .95  .90  .90  .85  .80  .75  .70  Regional or District Highway – Freight  Route  .95  .90  .90  .85  .85  .75  .70  Regional or District Highway – Expressway  NA  .90  N/A  .85  .85  .75  .70  Regional Highways – Not a Freight Route  1.0  .95  .90  .85  .85  .75  .70  District / Local Interest Roads  1.0  .95  .95  .90  .90  .80  .75  Source:  ODOT  Notes:     Performance standard is defined by V/C ratio targets for peak hour operating conditions   UGB = Urban Growth Boundary   STA = Special Transportation Area   MPO = Metropolitan Planning Organization   UBA =  Urban Business Area   UC = Unincorporated Communities   *Non‐MPO standards apply outside of STAs and not freeways.    Roadway Traffic Volume Trends    Washington County maintains several hundred traffic count stations. These stations are counted either annually  or every three years. To get an idea of how traffic volumes have changed since 2007, Table 2‐23 compares the  average total motor vehicle volumes and truck volumes for all urban and rural count stations with counts taken in  both 2007 and 2012. Based upon counts recorded at 211 urban count stations and 53 rural stations, this data  shows a three to four percent drop in overall average motor vehicle volumes over the five‐year 2007 to 2012 time  period. Average truck volumes also decreased during this time period by approximately two percent in the urban  area and by over 12 percent in the rural area. These decreases in volume, especially rural truck volumes, can  largely be attributed to the recent economic downturn. The roughly 10 percent difference in truck volume  decreases between urban and rural counts is, in part, simply due to higher proportion of trucks in the rural area  (10 to 11 percent) as compared to a five to six percent share of trucks in the urban area.    Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐42  Table 2-23: Traffic Volume Comparison, 2007 and 2012 Urban Area1  Rural Area2   2007  2012  Volume  Change  Percent  Change  2007  2012  Volume  Change  Percent  Change  Average Auto Volume  13,398  12,936  ‐462  ‐3.45%  6154  5,971  ‐182  ‐2.96%  Average Truck Volume  762  744  ‐18  ‐2.33%  646  565  ‐81  ‐12.52%  Average Percent Trucks  5.66%  5.56%    ‐0.10%  11.28%  9.71%    ‐1.57%  1 Based upon 211 counts containing data for both 2007 and 2012.  2 Based upon 53 counts containing data for both 2007 and 2012.    Details of the 2007 and 2012 traffic counts and speeds are presented in Appendix A.      Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐43 2.5.5 System Demand Patterns  Origin‐Destination Patterns    A common question about traffic is “where do all the cars come from?” Often assumptions and discussion about  travel patterns reflect assumed predominant traffic flows, but such anecdotal discussions may neglect significant  routes. The Westside travel demand forecast is a tool built specifically to answer these questions.    Staff has identified 10 locations where a select link / flow bundle will be included in the existing conditions.  Additional locations may be desirable as future needs analysis is developed.    These are:    1. Tualatin‐Sherwood Road (west of Boones Ferry Road)  2. Roy Rogers Road (south of Scholls Ferry Road)  3. Scholls Ferry Road (west of Highway 217)  4. River Road (south of Farmington Road)  5. Murray Blvd (south of TV Highway)  6. 185th Avenue (north of Baseline Road)  7. Walker Road (west of 158th Avenue)  8. Cornell Road (west of Cornelius Pass Road)  9. West Union Road (west of Bethany Blvd)  10. Zion Church Road (west of Glencoe Road)    The results of this analysis are shown in Appendix B.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐44  2.5.6 Vehicle Miles Traveled Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) can be calculated a variety of different ways. The important element of these  calculations is to make comparisons between alternatives and/or identify trends.    For the Transportation System Plan Update purpose VMT has been computed based on the regional travel  demand model. This methodology has advantages and disadvantages. The primary advantage is it will allow the  forecast of VMT in the future, and for comparison of VMT between alternatives. The primary disadvantage is that  the model is not available for each year. Therefore historical VMT numbers and trends can not be calculated  consistently and without bias. Also the models are only valid for the specific level of land use development in the  adopted forecast, and therefore cannot be used to test alternative land use scenarios that might be developed  through this update process. The projections into the future must be calculated for a specific point in time in the  future. Therefore the evaluation cannot show trends over time, but rather will evaluate the absolute change at  the end of the planning horizon. Given these limitations, additional information has been provided to assist with  past trends, both nationally and locally.      Washington County VMT Estimates    The VMT within Washington County in 2010 is estimated at: 8.4 million miles of travel per weekday. Given the  population of Washington County in 2010, that would translate to approximately 15.76 miles per day per capita.  The Metro regional travel demand forecast has been used to estimate both the 2010 and the State RTP forecast  for 2035. Using this forecast, VMT within Washington County is expected to increase to 11.9 million miles per day.  Given the expected population increase within Washington County the VMT per resident would decrease to 15.71  miles per day. This represents a small percentage decrease in miles per day per resident. The VMT within  Washington County includes travel by residents from outside the County, but does not include travel by County  residents outside the County. Note this does not include weekend or holiday travel.      Data Related to VMT    Many forms of VMT calculations are annual numbers. The U.S. Department of Energy reports annual vehicle miles  per capita as shown in Figure 2‐23 below.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐45 Figure 2-23: US Department of Energy VMT per Capita Estimate  National Average Annual Vehicle-miles per Capita 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 19 50 19 52 19 54 19 56 19 58 19 60 19 62 19 64 19 66 19 68 19 70 19 72 19 74 19 76 19 78 19 80 19 82 19 84 19 86 19 88 19 90 19 92 19 94 19 96 19 98 20 00 20 02 20 04 20 06 20 08 20 10 Source: US Department of Energy.  The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) estimates VMT on state Routes by county, as shown in Figure  2‐24 below. Please note that some of the decline may be due to ODOT transferring ownership of several routes to  Washington County.    Figure 2-24: ODOT VMT Estimate Annual VMT - ODOT Roads Only within Washington County 1,000,000,000 1,100,000,000 1,200,000,000 1,300,000,000 1,400,000,000 1,500,000,000 1,600,000,000 1,700,000,000 1,800,000,000 1,900,000,000 2,000,000,000 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 Source: ODOT    Fuel sales may also be interesting and may relate to Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT). Fuel consumption is important  for Green House Gas emissions, which is often part of the reason given to reduce VMT. Figure 2‐25 reports fuel  sales within Washington County. Related to fuel sales, fuel efficiency is tracked by the Bureau of Transportation  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐46  Statistics. If average fuel efficiency is known an estimate of total VMT, including weekend and recreational VMT,  can describe inform total vehicle travel rate and growth. Figure 2‐26 reports the average fuel efficiency of light  vehicles.    Figure 2-25: Washington County Fuel Sales Washington County Fuel Sales Gallons per Capita per year 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Source: ODOT Fuels Tax Group Reports, PSU Population Center        Figure 2-26: Average Fuel Efficiency of Light Vehicles Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Light Duty Vehicles 20 20.5 21 21.5 22 22.5 23 23.5 24 24.5 25 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year M ile s P er G al lo n Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics  (2009 is the last year for which information is available). Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐47 2.5.7 Roadway Performance The following section discusses roadway travel conditions and congestion measures in Washington County.     Speed & Reliability    Travel time data has been collected on most highways and arterials in Washington County for each day in 2008  through 2010. By comparing ‘free flow’ vehicle speeds to those detected on an ‘average’ weekday peak hour  (Tuesday through Thursday, 5‐6PM), the effects of congestion on travel times and vehicle speed can be identified.  Free flow travel refers to conditions where there are no slow‐downs due to the volume of vehicles in the roadway  or other unexpected events. However, free flow conditions may include normal stopping at stop signs or traffic  lights and therefore differ from posted speeds. Figure 2‐27 illustrates average speed relative to free flow speed.  Travel time reliability refers to the consistency or dependability in travel times. While reliability is related to speed  reductions, the two measures are significantly different. Reliability focuses on the day‐to‐day consistency in travel  times rather than the level of delay caused by congestion on a ‘typical’ day. If a corridor is normally slower than  free‐flow conditions, it may be considered reliable, as long as the travel time is consistent on a daily basis.  However, if travel times dramatically increase compared to ‘normal’ or ‘expected’ conditions the roadway is not  considered to be reliable.    Figure 2‐28 illustrates travel time travel time reliability. The figure shows the level of travel time increase  (compared to an ‘average’ day) that occurs on a 95th percentile slowest travel time day. This measure reflects  what is often referred to as a Buffer Time Index. A buffer index of 0.0 indicates that travel times are consistent  nearly every day of the year, and likely reflect free flow conditions. A buffer index of 1.0 (equivalent to a 100%  increase in travel time on a 95th percentile day) represents roadways with significant congestion impacts. A buffer  index higher of 2.0 or more indicates that travel times triple, representing severe congestion impacts that may  spread across multiple hours.     The ‘average day’ speed measure and the travel time reliability measure may identify congestion effects in  different locations. Unlike ‘typical’ day congestion which results from high traffic volumes, reliability in travel  times may reflect some less common causes of congestion such as high crash frequency locations, special event  traffic, susceptibility to weather‐related slowing, etc. Travel time reliability may also be influenced by the  availability of alternative routes, travel lanes, or shoulder widths (for incidents).  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐48  Figure 2-27: Weekday PM Peak Hour Speed compared to Free Flow (2008-2010)   Source:  INRIX Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐49 Figure 2-28: Weekday PM Peak Hour Travel Time Reliability (2008-2010) Source:  INRIX  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐50  Table 2‐24 and 2‐25 summarize the total roadway miles in Washington County that fall into each identified class  for average speed and travel time reliability, respectively. The data includes freeways and arterials but generally  not local or neighborhood streets or many collectors. The results indicate that approximately half of these  roadways operate at 90 percent of free flow speed on a typical day. Congested conditions where speed is reduced  to 60% or less of free flow speed on an average day occurs on less than five percent of roadways in Washington  County. Travel time reliability findings indicates that approximately one third of roadways in Washington County  maintain slow day (95th percentile) travel times that are less than double those of a normal day. Unreliable  roadways that experience travel times that triple or more on slow days make up 18 percent of county roads. The  remaining 49 percent of roadways are categorized as ‘moderately reliable’ and experience travel times that  increase by 100 to 200 percent on high congestion (95th percentile) travel days.    Table 2-24: Average Weekday Peak Hour Speed Summary (2008-2010, Tuesday-Thursday, 5-6 PM)   Typical Peak Hour Travel Speed  Roadway  Miles  Percent of  Total  Uncongested (at least 90% of free flow speed)  477  50%  Slowing (75‐90% of free flow speed)  298  31%  Slow (60‐75% of free flow speed)  138  14%  Congested (less than 60% of free flow speed)  41  4%  Source:  INRIX  Note: Total is limited to roadways with data availability. The data includes freeways and most arterials but generally not local or  neighborhood streets or many collectors.  Table 2-25: Weekday Peak Hour Travel Time Reliability (2008-2010, Tuesday-Thursday, 5-6 PM)   High Congestion Day Compared to Normal Day    Roadway  Miles  Percent of  Total  Most Reliable (travel times are less than double)  317  33%  Moderately Reliable (travel times more than double)  467  49%  Unreliable (travel times triple or more)  170  18%  Source:  INRIX  *Represents 95th percentile day travel times compared to average day  Note: Total is limited to roadways with data availability. The data includes freeways and most arterials but generally not local or  neighborhood streets or many collectors.    Level of Service    Figure 2-29: Level of Service Roadway congestion is often  scored by a letter grade A  through F, similar to a report  card. Figure 2‐29 describes the  Level of Service and expected  congestion levels for each grade.    Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐51 Roadway Congestion Measures    Traffic congestion is often represented as a ratio of the motor vehicle volume (or demand) to roadway capacity.  Demand‐to‐capacity (D/C) ratios are estimated for the 2010 PM peak hour (between 4‐6PM) via the Washington  County Travel Demand Model. The model includes most collectors, arterials, and highways in Washington County.  The 2010 D/C ratios are illustrated in Figure 2‐30. Locations in Washington County where peak period minimum  performance standards are likely to be exceeded include:     I‐5 (various segments between OR 217 and I‐405)   OR 217 (various segments between US 26 and I‐5)   OR 99W (south of OR 217)   TV Highway (east of 185th Avenue)   Durham Road (west of Boones Ferry Road)   Greenburg Road   Scholls Ferry Road (west of OR 217)   Boones Ferry Road (between Bridgeport Village and east of Tualatin Road and in the vicinity of 95th Ave /  Commerce Circle)   Walker Road (various segments between Cedar Hills Boulevard and Amberglen Parkway)   Roy Rogers Road (south of Scholls Ferry Road)   Cornell Road (west of Saltzman, west of 185th, and west of Brookwood)   West Union (west of 185th)   Evergreen (west of 185th and west of Imbry)   Tualatin‐Sherwood Road    In the Portland Metro region, some roadways experience congestion that extends beyond the peak periods of  travel. Because off peak travel conditions are not directly represented in the available peak period travel demand  models, the Hours of Congestion tool was developed5 to estimate the duration of congestion, especially for future  conditions where ‘peak spreading’ is more likely to occur. Peak spreading refers to travelers shifting to peak‐ shoulder hours in response to severe congestion. The Hours of Congestion tool uses the peak period demand  models together, estimated roadways capacities, and 24‐hour traffic volume profile data to estimate the duration  of congestion per day for area roadways.     The 2010 hours of congestion for Washington County roadways is illustrated in Figure 2‐31. Congestion is defined  where hourly directional traffic volume is at least 90 percent of estimated roadway capacity (i.e., level‐of‐service E  or F in the far left column of figure 2‐29 above). Locations where congestion may occur for 8 hours or more per  day may include:   Boones Ferry Road (between Bridgeport Village and east of Tualatin Road),    Tualatin Sherwood Road    OR 217 (various segments between US 26 and I‐5)   OR 99W (through Tigard)   Beaverton‐Hillsdale Highway, intersection with Oleson Road and Scholls Ferry Road   Walker Road (various segments between Cedar Hills Boulevard and Amberglen Parkway)   TV Highway (between 170th Avenue and Cedar Hills Boulevard)  5 ODOT Region 1 Hours of Congestion Report, DKS Associates, March 2010.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐52  Figure 2-30: Roadway Demand-to-Capacity Ratio (2010 Weekday PM Peak Hour)     Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐53 Figure 2-31: Daily Hours of Congestion (2010 Weekday)   Source:  Washington County, DKS Associates  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐54  Future Needs    Future 2035 Travel Demand (Based on Regional Growth Projections) on the current system, including currently  funded improvements (MSTIP 3d and others) is reported in Figure 2‐32.     Yellow is D/C greater than 0.8.   Red indicates D/C greater than 0.99 which is the currently adopted Washington County Level of Service  (LOS) Standard.   Purple indicates D/C greater than 1.1 which is the currently adopted Metro Level of Service (LOS)  Standard.    The assumed network includes the existing system on the ground today, and funded improvements in the process  of being implemented. Many of the roadways in Washington County will not meet Metro LOS standards without  some form of improvement to the roadway system. Three categories of system improvements should be  expected.    1) The roadways in the vicinity of urban reserves will need to be planned for improved to accommodate the  demands created by the development in the urban reserve areas. This system picture would certainly  change if a complete urban network was assumed to be provided within the urban reserve areas. Since  this is a committed funding only network, such improvements have not been included but can be  expected.    2) Development along arterial and collector roadways that are not currently completed to urban standards  (as described in table 2‐3). In many locations roadway improvements are deferred until development  occurs on the adjacent property. It is assumed that the development will likely be conditioned to  complete the roadway to urban standards along the frontage.    3) It is expected that additional funding will be available between now and 2035. This network does not  utilize that funding. One of the purposes of this planning effort is to investigate the best and highest  priority improvements to consider future public funding.    A discussion of transportation funding and system improvement priorities is anticipated to occur later in the  Transportation System Plan Update process. These maps provide an indication of the future needs without a plan  to address them.    It should be noted that this sort of big picture of countywide system needs and is not location specific. Arterial and  collector roadways are controlled by intersection geometry, and signal operations. It is entirely possible that a  roadway will perform better or worse that shown. The D/C ratios provide an indication of a potential problem that  should be investigated further. Not a specific problem to be addressed at the location identified.    Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐55 Figure 2-32: Roadway Demand-to-Capacity Ratio (2035 Weekday PM Peak Hour) Source: Washington County  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐56  Figure 2‐33 applies the same demand to capacity ratios shown in figure 3‐32, but shows the expected outcome  from the State Regional Transportation Plan (RTP):     Yellow is D/C greater than 0.8.   Red indicates D/C greater than 0.99 which is the currently adopted Washington County Level of Service  (LOS) Standard.   Purple indicates D/C greater than 1.1 which is the currently adopted Metro Level of Service (LOS)  Standard.    The State RTP achieves significant improvement roadway performance when compared to the committed system.  The change to the graphic is noticeable, and the expected operation of most facilities is drastically improved. Two  of the three categories of system improvements described above have been implemented in by the State RTP  improvements.    1) In many cases the roadways in the vicinity of urban reserves have been improved to accommodate the  demands created by the development in the urban reserve areas.    2) Development along arterial and collector roadways that are not currently completed to urban standards  (as described in table 2‐3). In many locations roadway improvements are deferred until development  occurs on the adjacent property. It is assumed that the development will likely be conditioned to  complete the roadway to urban standards along the frontage.    3) Additional public funding has been assumed to be available between now and 2035, and a broad array of  improvements are assumed to be on the ground.    A discussion of transportation funding and system improvement priorities is anticipated to occur later in the  Transportation System Plan Update process. These maps provide an assessment of the future needs with the  State RTP in place to address them.    It should be noted that this sort of big picture of countywide system needs and is not location specific. Arterial and  collector roadways are controlled by intersection geometry, and signal operations. It is entirely possible that a  roadway will perform better or worse that shown. The D/C ratios provide an indication of a potential problem that  should be investigated further. Not a specific problem to be addressed at the location identified.    The 2035 hours of congestion for Washington County roadways resulting from the State Regional Transportation  Plan (RTP) is illustrated in Figure 2‐34.    Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐57 Figure 2-33: Roadway Demand-to-Capacity Ratio (2035 Weekday PM Peak Hour) – State RTP    Source: Washington County  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐58  Figure 2-34: Daily Hours of Congestion (2035 Weekday) – State RTP Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐59 2.6 EXISTING ROADWAY SAFETY CONDITIONS    Highway safety is a complex subject due to the variety of factors that interact with each other during the course  of person’s use of the right‐of‐way. Road conditions, weather, driver ability, and vehicle type are just some of the  factors that come into play when considering the safety of a particular situation or location. Predictive models are  available, along with anecdotal knowledge and experience with similar conditions. Traffic volumes, crash data,  and citizen observations are just some of the ways that staff can analyze locations and corridors to determine  what type of improvements or changes to the transportation infrastructure would add an element of safety. Each  situation and location is unique requiring engineering analysis and professional judgment. This section is intended  to provide a broad explanation of safety trends and considerations for planning purposes.      2.6.1 Overview   New road construction, as well as the ongoing maintenance of the existing transportation system in Washington  County uses modern techniques, industry standards, and best management practices to create a complex  network of roads and bridges that are safe and reliable. In addition, an active presence by law enforcement  personnel can reinforce the rules of the road. Road and bridges in Washington County are generally safe as long  as the traveler uses care and caution. The quality of a user’s experience is often a function of their skill and ability.  Even during adverse situations, drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians can typically negotiate marginal road conditions  when they exercise reasonable and prudent judgment.    Tens of thousands of vehicles traverse Washington County roads on a daily basis and the vast majority of those  trips are without incident. However, there are some locations that tend to have an increased rate of accidents or  crashes. While the Transportation System Plan cannot, in and of itself, reduce the number of crashes, it can  provide an overall summary of the transportation network’s performance as it relates to crashes.      2.6.2 Motor Vehicle Collision Data    Traffic safety monitoring is based on historical collision data. The primary evidence comes from local police  agency reports that are fed back to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for processing and  evaluation statewide. This data only reflects collisions that were reported. A percentage of the collisions that  occur are not reported. Washington County publishes a summary of the reported collisions referred to as the  Safety Priority Indexing System (SPIS) list.      ODOT Crash Data    Washington County's roads, bridges and traffic safety appurtenances are engineered, constructed, and  maintained using modern techniques, industry standards, and best management practices. The deliberate  approach to the design, construction and maintenance of our transportation infrastructure is intended to curtail  fatalities, minimize personal injuries, and reduce property damage. Despite these efforts, crashes will continue to  occur on Washington County roads and the Department of Land Use and Transportation will continue to make  reasonable efforts to improve the transportation system in order to alleviate or improve situations that pose  possible risks.    The County realizes that some areas may be prone to a higher rate of crashes than others. Many of these areas  are tracked and categorized through the Safety Priority Index System (SPIS). The SPIS is a tool that planners and  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐60  engineers use for identifying locations that may need design modifications or some other treatment to reduce the  number or severity of crashes occurring. In addition, the County has a Minor Betterment Program which is  intended to provide interim solutions to site specific situations in order to improve motor vehicle, pedestrian, and  bicycle safety in the county right‐of‐way.    The quality of the driving experience is also a function of the driver's knowledge, skills and ability. Obeying traffic  laws, properly maintaining vehicles, and using all available safety features are important elements to a safe  driving experience. Even during adverse situations, a responsible driver can typically negotiate marginal road  conditions when they exercise reasonable and prudent judgment.    Crash statistics in Oregon are maintained by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The ODOT Crash  Analysis and Reporting Unit compiles data for reported motor vehicle traffic crashes occurring on city streets,  county roads and state highways. Table 2‐26 shows the countywide crashes for the three counties in this region.    Table 2-26: 2011 Crashes by County County  Fatal Crashes  Total Crashes  Truck Crashes  Clackamas  31  4,434  151  Multnomah  38  13,244  445  Washington  13  6,659  171  Source: ODOT Crash Analysis Unit    Table 2‐27 below reports the urban and rural crashes by type that occurred in Washington County during calendar  year 2011. This represents a snap‐shot of crash statistics that occurred during 20116. The trends shown in the  table were generally expected. Some crashes have multiple people injured, while many other crashes (about half)  are property damage only. For this comparison all types of injuries were combined. Fixed Object crashes in the  rural area, and rear‐end crashes in the urban area are considered to be the most prevalent.    6 In 2011 ODOT changed accident reporting methods, so comparison to prior year data is biased.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐61 Table 2-27: Washington County Crashes by Type (2011) Accident Type  Urban  Rural  Total Accidents  Fatalities  Number  of people  Injured  Angle  347  5.7%  25  4.7%  372  5.6%  0  361  Backing  100  1.6%  6  1.1%  106  1.6%  0  37  Fixed Object  482  7.9%  251  47.4%  733  11.0%  5  362  Head‐On  23  0.4%  7  1.3%  30  0.5%  1  45  Misc  15  0.2%  21  4.0%  36  0.5%  0  7  Non‐Collision  27  0.4%  21  4.0%  48  0.7%  0  35  Parking  3  0.0%  0  0.0%  3  0.05%  0  0  Pedestrian  76  1.2%  3  0.6%  79  1.2%  5  83  Rear‐End  3,076  50.2%  68  12.8%  3,144  47.2%  2  2,602  Sideswipe – Meeting  41  0.7%  26  4.9%  67  1.0%  0  64  Sideswipe – Overtaking  364  5.9%  15  2.8%  379  5.7%  0  148  Turning Movement  1,575  25.7%  87  16.4%  1,662  25.0%  0  1,228  TOTAL  6,129    530    6,659  100%  13  4,972  Disclaimer: A higher number of crashes are reported for the 2011 data file compared to previous years. This does not reflect an increase in annual crashes.  The higher numbers result from a change to an internal departmental process that allows the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit to add previously  unavailable, non‐fatal crash reports to the annual data file. Please be aware of this change when comparing pre‐2011 crash statistics.  Source: ODOT Crash Analysis Unit      Contributing Factors to Crashes in Washington County (2011)    Table 2‐28 compares the contributing factor data for and crashes within Washington County by the urban and  rural area.    Table 2-28: Urban/Rural Crashes by Contributing Factor Factor  Urban  Rural  Total Accidents  6,129  530  Alcohol Involved  214  3.5%  31  5.8%  Speed Involved  696  11.4%  228  43.0%  Hit & Run  230  3.8%  14  2.6%  School Zone  30  0.5%  2  0.4%  Work Zone  73  1.2%  8  1.5%  Wet Surface  1,697  28.8%  215  41.9%  Dark  1,633  26.7%  219  41.4%  Some accidents list multiple factors, and some do not list any.  Source: ODOT Crash Analysis Unit    Speed, wet, and dark conditions appear to have been the most common contributing factors to rural crashes  within Washington County in 2011. Many roads in the rural area have no set speed limit (i.e. Basic Rule)7 and no  illumination, which when combined with wet surface conditions, makes these factors more important than in  urban areas.  Crashes involving fixed objects also were more common in the rural area in Washington County in  2011. Read‐End crashes accounted for over 50% of all crashes in the urban area of Washington County in 2011  due to the existence of more signalized intersections in urban areas than in rural areas. Trucks were involved in  171 crashes in 2011 or 2.6% of all crashes.   7811.100¹ Violation of basic speed rule (ORS 811.100): (1) A person commits the offense of violating the basic speed rule if the person drives a vehicle  upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard to all of the following: (a) The traffic; (b) The surface and width of  the highway; (c) The hazard at intersections; (d) Weather; (e) Visibility; (f) Any other conditions then existing.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐62  Safety Priority Indexing System (SPIS) list    The Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) List is the primary tool that Washington County uses to identify locations  where conflicts between motorists have been occurring most frequently. The SPIS is a method originally  developed in 1986 by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for identifying potential safety problems.  SPIS has been recognized as an effective problem identification tool for evaluating roadway intersections and  segments with higher crash histories. Locations that exhibit a high number of crashes may or may not have  remedies to reduce the frequency or severity of crashes. A careful investigation is required to determine the  causes or root problem of the crashes, and even then a relatively high occurrence of crashes may only be due to  the oftentimes random nature of crashes. The goal of investigating these locations is to systematically investigate  sites where there is potential to reduce the risk, occurrence and/or severity of crashes. The SPIS score is based on  a running three years of crash data where the first year’s data is dropped as the current year’s data is included.  This score is based upon crash frequency, crash rate, and crash severity. A roadway segment becomes a potential  SPIS site if a location has three or more crashes or one or more fatal crashes over the three year period. The SPIS  score has three parameters, which are weighted as follows:    Table 2-29: Safety Priority Index System Parameters Crash frequency  25% of SPIS score  Crash rate  25% of SPIS score  Crash severity  50% of SPIS score    The disadvantage of the SPIS formulation is that a high SPIS does not always indicate a roadway deficiency or a  location where a fix can be accomplished. For example, an intersection can end up on the SPIS list as a result of a  single fatality involving a drunken driver even though there may be no geometric way of preventing this type of  accident. SPIS alone also often gives no clue to the real problem or root cause of the high occurrence of crashes.  Finally, SPIS is only as good as the crash records that feed the system, which rely on the interpretation of the  investigating officer and the skill of the data entry operator. Figure 2‐34 presents the current SPIS List for  Washington County roadways. This figure reflects the top 50 percent8 of all SPIS locations where there were three  or more accidents or one or more fatalities over a three‐year survey period.       8 Washington County staff typically considers only the top 50 percent of SPIS scores when prioritizing funds for intersection  improvements. #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* !R !R !R!R !R !R !R !R !R !R !R §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ217 SPIS List 2006-08 J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ TS P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ S PI S _U rb .m xd January 02, 2013 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning and Development Services !R Top 11 Ranking SPIS locations #* SPIS locations Rural Washington County 0 16,0008,000 Feet 1 inch represents 16,500 feet ¯ Figure 2-35 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐64  Washington County Resolution and Order 86‐95    In 1986, Washington County adopted Resolution and Order 86‐95 titled “Determining Traffic Safety  Improvements Under the Traffic Impact Fee.” This resolution identified the process by which development  applications are reviewed. The Traffic Impact Fee (TIF), which has since been updated and replaced by the  Transportation Development Tax (TDT), significantly changed the method by which developments assure for  adequate levels of service for roadways. The adoption of TIF shifted the basis for determining conditions of  development approval from an assessment of capacity deficiencies to a determination of when and where traffic  safety improvements are required. It was the need for a distinction between safety and capacity that initiated the  development of R&O 86‐95. The basic approach assumed in determining necessary traffic safety improvements is  that:    1) There currently exists hazardous locations that present an unacceptable risk to the traveling public’s  safety, and increasing accident exposure by significant increases in traffic resulting from development is  unacceptable without mitigation measures.    2) Significant increases in traffic resulting from development can create hazard locations that currently do  not exist and mitigating measures are necessary to protect the traveling public.    For the former (1), a comprehensive analysis of accident data for County intersections is used to determine  existing hazard locations. The top 50% of all SPIS scores, as established by policy of the Board of County  Commissioners are defined as existing hazard locations on the premise that this would reflect a manageable  number of locations where safety issues might be addressed.    An update of Resolution and Order 86‐95 has been contemplated by staff to clarify procedures, specify current  traffic engineering standards, and better address ambiguous situations. The update would also address “in  process” traffic expected to be generated by development that is approved but not yet constructed.     Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐65 Metro State of Safety Report (April 2012)    In addition to general goals and objectives, the 2035 RTP contains specific performance measures or targets to  track the region’s progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the plan.  The stated regional performance  target for safety is as follows :    Safety ‐ By 2035, reduce the number of pedestrian, bicyclist, and motor vehicle occupant fatalities plus  serious injuries each by 50% compared to 20059.    The purpose of the Metro State of Safety Report is to document roadway crash data, patterns, and trends in the  Portland Metro area and beyond. Given this purpose, the report presents considerable data on the safety of the  transportation system within the Portland metropolitan area. It also includes a number of findings and potential  strategies which may inform the policies and strategies section of the Washington County transportation system  plan update, as appropriate.    Some of the data in the report has been made available by sub‐region. According to this report, Washington  County has the lowest rate of serious crashes (combined motor vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian crashes) per capita  and per vehicle mile traveled of any county in the Portland metropolitan area. Furthermore, Washington County  has the lowest rate for all injuries per million residents in the region. Figure 2‐36 has been extracted from the  report and appears to indicate that the density of crashes in Washington County is much lower than other  locations in the Portland Metropolitan Area. Furthermore, the figure appears to indicate that regional centers and  town centers may have higher concentrations of serious incidents.       92035 Regional Transportation Plan (June 2010, Table 2.3)  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐66  Figure 2-36: Metro Automobile Crash Density   Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 2  •  Roadways  2‐67 2.6.3 Roadway Safety Summary    Staff has identified several key elements worth keeping in mind during the update of the Transportation System  Plan.      Rural Accidents    Rural accidents are a small percent of all accidents within Washington County. About 8% of all crashes in  Washington County in 2011 occurred in the rural area (530 out of 6,659). Speed, wet, and dark conditions were  contributing to rural more often than urban accidents in 2011. Accidents involving fixed objects were the most  common type of accident (47%) in the rural area in 2011.      Read‐End Accidents    Read‐End accidents were the most common type of accident in Washington County in 2011. Over 50% of all  Washington County urban area accidents in 2011 were rear‐end accidents. No particular correlation between the  contributing factors was evident for read‐end collisions in 2011. Other than their frequency, and tendency to be in  the urban area, no other statistical category is noteworthy. Rear‐end collisions are an important consideration in  roadway safety simply because these are the most frequent type of collisions.      Injuries and Fatalities    Head‐On and pedestrian accidents cause the most injuries and fatalities. Angle, Sideswipe – Meeting, and Rear‐ End accidents also have a higher than average injury rate per accident.      Washington County Accidents    Review of the Metro Safety Report indicates that roadways within Washington County had fewer accidents per  mile traveled than other areas in the Portland metropolitan region.      R&O 86‐95    Washington County currently bases conditions of development approval on a traffic safety analysis. An update  from the adopted 1986 resolution has been contemplated on and off. The established program has been working  effectively, and an update has not been a priority.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013   Chapter 3  •  Transportation System Management & Operations and Travel Demand Management  3‐1                                                             Chapter 3: Transportation System Management & Operations and Travel Demand Management   As roadways in Washington County grow more congested, it becomes increasingly important to focus on cost‐ effective strategies that maximize the efficiency of the existing system. Transportation System Management and  Operations (TSMO) strategies seek to improve the performance of existing transportation infrastructure without  taking additional land for new roadways or additional lanes. TSMO strategies emphasize multimodal traffic  management, traveler information, incident management and transportation demand management (TDM)  strategies that promote travel options and reduce drive‐alone trips.  3.1 OVERVIEW   Transportation System Management and Operations (TSMO) strategies are consistent with the goals and desired  outcomes in the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), including Goal 3: Expand Transportation Choices; and  Goal 4: Emphasize Effective and Efficient Management of the Transportation System. Metro adopted the Portland  Regional TSMO Refinement Plan1 in 2010, which identifies the following four project categories:     Section 3.2 below describes Multimodal Traffic Management – provides arterial and freeway multimodal  traffic management and operations functions including advanced signal timing, access management,  arterial performance monitoring, transit priority treatments, data collection, and detection and  countdown timers for pedestrians and bicyclists.     Section 3.3 below describes Traveler Information – provides current and forecasted travel conditions  information via a variety of sources to help people make better informed travel decisions, including travel  mode, route, and time of day.     Section 3.4 below describes Incident Management– provides resources and builds partnerships to foster  a coordinated, timely and efficient response to traffic incidents that block travel lanes, slow or stop travel,  and lead to unreliable travel times. The strategies include improved surveillance, expanded service,  expanded training, and incident response teams.     Section 3.5 below describes Transportation Demand Management– Impacts traffic congestion by  reducing the demand for roadway capacity using strategies such as telecommuting, flexible work hours  and ride sharing, particularly during peak hours.     The following sections describe how the TSMO strategies are currently operating in Washington County.      1 Portland Regional TSMO Refinement Plan 2010‐2020, Metro, June 2010.    Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013   Chapter 3  •  Transportation System Management & Operations and Travel Demand Management  3‐2                                                             3.2 MULTIMODAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT There are four multimodal traffic management strategies that currently operate in Washington County:     1. Operate and maintain a regional communications network – A communications network connects traffic  signals with each other and to a central server, so that operators can efficiently manage the  transportation system. Currently only a small portion of Washington County traffic signals are connected  to the regional TransSuite server, using either fiber optic or interconnect cables. The ultimate goal is to  install communications that connect all traffic signals in Washington County to the regional server. The  Washington County ITS Plan2 includes detailed information regarding the communications infrastructure  in Washington County.     The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) operates a staffed regional Traffic Management and  Operations Center (TMOC).The center operates around the clock and performs the following functions for  the state highway system in Washington County:     Traffic Management: Operation of traffic control devices (e.g. signal timing, signal interconnects  and variable speed limit signs)     Incident Management: Detection/identification, response (e.g. dispatch), and management of  incidents     Maintenance Support: Dispatch and communications for ODOT maintenance crews     Information Services: Dissemination of traveler information to the public via variable message  signs and online computer services such as “TripCheck”.    The TMOC has access to video images from other agencies’ closed‐circuit television cameras as well as  their own cameras in Washington County.     The Washington County Traffic Operation Center (TOC) currently consists of two workstations that have  access to the county’s traffic signal systems. These workstations are not staffed continuously in the way  that the regional TMOC is, rather remote connectivity allows staff to remotely control the traffic  management systems on an as needed basis. Since 2005, Washington County has been installing video  detection for all new traffic signals and existing traffic signal retrofits. However, many of the county’s  traffic signals still use inductive loops, In addition to detecting motor vehicles bicycle detection is available  at some locations in the county.    The majority of the traffic signals in Washington County have emergency vehicle preemption on all  intersection approaches. Most fire vehicles and some police vehicles have the capability to preempt these  traffic signals. The preemption allows the emergency vehicles to turn the signal green to safely navigate  the intersection when responding to an emergency. Furthermore the preemption system allows for a  lower priority green time adjustment for non‐emergency transit vehicles.    2. Freeway management – OR 217 and the portions of US 26 and I‐5 within Washington County are  operated by ODOT and are all equipped with technologies that improve the operational efficiency of the  system. Those technologies include vehicle detection, video surveillance, and ramp meters. Variable    2 Washington County ITS Plan – Chapter 2, Current and Future Transportation Conditions. July 2012 Draft Update. Prepared by DKS Associates.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013   Chapter 3  •  Transportation System Management & Operations and Travel Demand Management  3‐3 message signs currently operate on US 26 and I‐5. On OR 217 a project to install variable message signs  (and variable advisory speeds) is included in ODOT’s FY2010‐2013 Statewide Transportation Improvement  Program Amended.    3. Coordinated signal timing – Based on a long history of working together and sharing the same local traffic  signal hardware and software, agencies in the Portland region have jointly selected and agreed to  implement the TransSuite traffic signal system. The county’s long term signal coordination goal is to  connect all signals to the regional TransSuite traffic signal system. The shared central signal system  provides many benefits for the region such as:     Reduced implementation and maintenance/operations costs since there is one region‐wide  software license and only two servers     Shared control and monitoring of multiple agencies’ traffic signals for cross‐jurisdictional  coordination during normal operations, incidents, and special events     Reduced maintenance/operations costs when a traffic signal timing issue can be handled in the  office instead of in the field     A large pool of trained staff on a common software system     A common source for traffic data (volume, speed, and occupancy) from the region’s traffic  detectors    Washington County, ODOT, and the Cities of Beaverton, Hillsboro, and Tigard still operate time‐based  coordination at many of the signalized intersections during the weekday and weekend peak periods. Such  time‐based systems use a combination of a.m., mid‐day, p.m., and weekend peak coordinated timing  plans. Washington County uses GPS to coordinate time clocks on a number of corridors that do not have  communications interconnect between the traffic signals. Many of these traffic signals operate in the free  mode because they are isolated and not conducive to coordination. Coordinated signal timings have been  updated on several corridors within the past 10 years including: SW Murray Boulevard, SW Scholls Ferry  Road, SW Farmington Road, NW Cornell Road, NW Bethany Boulevard, NW 185th Avenue, SW Cornelius  Pass Road, NW Cornell Road, and SW Boones Ferry Road. Ideally these timing plans should be updated  every few years to reflect changes in traffic demand.    4. Adaptive signal timing – Adaptive signal timing systems have been deployed on a  few heavily congested corridors in Washington County. These systems adjust  green time given to each movement based on real‐time changing traffic  conditions. Washington County has installed advanced systems on Cornell Road  and Tualatin‐Sherwood Road (Teton to I‐5, with HWY 99W to Teton scheduled to  be implemented). The City of Beaverton has installed a similar advanced system  on Farmington Road/Beaverton‐Hillsdale Highway. The City of Beaverton has a  programmed project to expand their system to Canyon Road (OR 8).    Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013   Chapter 3  •  Transportation System Management & Operations and Travel Demand Management  3‐4 3.3 TRAVELER INFORMATION   Region‐wide traveler information is provided by the  Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and  Washington County Consolidated Communications  Agency (WCCCA). The Washington County website  includes a site dedicated to road work traveler  information (www.wc‐roads.com). It provides  information about road closures, traffic advisories, and  construction and maintenance projects. The site also  highlights road work activities on a weekly basis. Cities  within the county also provide a variety of construction  and maintenance traveler information on their websites.    The ODOT TripCheck system includes a website  (www.tripcheck.com), mobile phone applications,  Twitter feed, 511 phone system, and a data feed to the  media and other interested parties. Washington County uses the TripCheck Local Entry tool to input information  about events with major traffic impacts so that the information may be shared with the public and media through  the TripCheck system. A comprehensive description of the TripCheck system is included in the Oregon Statewide  ITS Architecture and Operational Concept Plan.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013   Chapter 3  •  Transportation System Management & Operations and Travel Demand Management  3‐5                                                             3.4 INCIDENT MANAGEMENT   The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) operates  an incident response and management system known as  “COMET”. ODOT currently operates an incident response  program to address traffic congestion and delays caused by  incidents on freeways within the Portland metropolitan  region. The incident response program has full‐time  employees who staff several incident response vehicles,  which are equipped with flat tire repair gear, gasoline,  jumper cables, water, and other essentials for rescuing  disabled vehicles and getting them on the move again.  Incident response vehicles are available for service 24 hours  per day, seven days a week, and on the road 24 hours per day  on weekdays and most of Saturdays and Sundays. Incident response vehicles currently patrol I‐5, I‐84, I‐205 and I‐ 405 freeways as well as OR 217 and US 26 (Sunset Highway) daily. The drivers are in constant communication with  the ODOT Traffic Management and Operations Center (TMOC). If an incident occurs on an ODOT roadway,  incident response vehicles are available to respond. The main priority for responders is to keep travel lanes clear  by helping a vehicle off the road and assisting the motorist if possible. The responders assist motorists with flat  tire repairs, extra gasoline, battery jumps, and so forth. If the responder’s equipment cannot help move the  disabled vehicle off the travel lanes, then the responder will call a tow truck at the motorist’s expense.    The freeways in Washington County are equipped with traffic monitoring cameras; however, few arterials have  traffic monitoring cameras in place. The County has traffic monitoring cameras along the eastern section of  Tualatin‐Sherwood Road. Plans for the installation of traffic monitoring cameras along the western section of  Tualatin‐Sherwood Road are being prepared. Traffic monitoring cameras are scheduled to be installed along  Scholls Ferry Road by the end of 2012.    In addition, emergency responders are available to assist. The Washington County Consolidated Communications  Agency (WCCCA) manages the 9‐1‐1 call center and provides information. The WCCCA is the 9‐1‐1 dispatch agency  for all public safety agencies in Washington County3. The WCCCA acts as the central answering point for all of the  public safety agencies. WCCCA has over 50 full‐time dispatchers for the more than 500,000 Washington County  residents it serves. WCCCA operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. They dispatch calls to 12 police agencies and  7 Fire / Emergency Medical Service agencies. The consolidated agency houses a computer‐aided dispatch system  that maps addresses and provides other information that enhances 911 services. The Oregon Interoperability  Service message broker allows WCCCA’s dispatch system to communicate with other dispatch systems used by  other 9‐1‐1 centers in the region and the ODOT TMOC.    3 Except the Forest Grove Police Department  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013   Chapter 3  •  Transportation System Management & Operations and Travel Demand Management  3‐6                                                             3.5 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT   Metro oversees the Regional Travel Options (RTO) program. The RTO program implements Transportation  Demand Management (TDM) strategies across the Portland region to increase travel options, reduce pollution,  and improve mobility. The following region‐wide TDM strategies are supported by the RTO program and extend to  Washington County:     Marketing and Providing Resources – The RTO Program funds collaborative and individualized marketing,  as well as updating resources such as the “Bike There!” and “Walk There!” maps. The “Drive Less. Save  More” campaign is one example of collaborative marketing, which aims to increase awareness and use of  travel options that reduce drive along trips.     Employer Services– The RTO programs supports outreach efforts to employers to decrease drive alone  trips and vehicle trips during peak periods. Figure 3‐1 shows employer mode‐split performance in 2007‐ 2008, with the majority of participating employers in Washington County at a rate of over 83% employee  drive‐alone trips.     Rideshare Services– The RTO program supports rideshare services by funding marketing, outreach, and  incentives that encourage ridesharing (carpool or vanpool). The area north of Beaverton, on either side of  US 26, has the highest number of registered CarpoolMatchNW.org commuters (over 200) for Washington  County zip code areas, as of 2007‐20084.     Measuring program effectiveness– The RTO program measures the effectiveness of the services  provided.     Regional TSMO program– Support program oversight, and administer RTO and TSMO grant programs.  Founded in 1996, the Westside Transportation Alliance (WTA) is a non‐profit business association, and the only  transportation management association on the west side of Portland. The WTA stated mission is as follows:    “To provide programs and services to Westside employers that reduce single‐occupant vehicle trips, reduce  greenhouse gas emissions, foster economic vitality and improve health.”    The WTA provides the following services to employers:     Employee Commute Option (ECO) 5 – The WTA Creates and administers a survey and files the results as  part of a mandated ECO report to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Table 3‐1 compares  commuter trip mode share changes between 2009 and 2011. This data was compiled for 40 employers  and over 19,000 employees in the WTA area who participated in the ECO survey or TriMet Employer Pass  Program survey.  As indicated by this data, the percentage of single‐occupant (i.e., drive alone) trips  decreased by five percent while bike, transit, compressed work week, and telecommuting all increased by  one to three percent. Over the same period, carpooling use decrease by three percent, probably as a  result of commuters switching to other modes.      4 Portland Regional TSMO Refinement Plan 2010‐2020. Metro. June 2010, Figure 8  5 The comply with the federal Clean Air Act, the Department of Environmental Quality’s Employee Commute Options (ECO) Rule mandates that employers  with more than 100 employees at one site must provide commute options designed to reduce the number of cars driven to work in the Portland and  surrounding areas.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013   Chapter 3  •  Transportation System Management & Operations and Travel Demand Management  3‐7  Auto Trip Reduction Plan – Helps create and implement DEQ compliance plan.     Transportation Coordinator Support – Provides training, programs and incentives to transportation  coordinators.     GIS Support – Geo‐codes mapping of employee home locations for carpool matching.     New Employee Transportation Options Packet – Develops and distributes information on commute  options.    Table 3-1: Commute Trip Mode Share Change for WTA Worksites 2009-2011 Mode  Percent of Surveyed  Workers Using Mode in  2009  Percent of Surveyed  Workers Using Mode in  2011  Single‐Occupant Vehicle  82%  77%  Transit  5%  8%  Bike  3%  4%  Carpool  9%  6%  Compressed Work Week  1%  2%  Telecommute  0%  3%  Source: Metro Regional Travel Options 2012‐2017 Strategic Plan, Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, Appendix,  March 2012, Fig. 21)    The WTA provides the following services to employees:     Prepares personalized commute trip planning   Publishes monthly commute newsletter   Holds on‐site transportation fairs   Distributes transportation information (transit schedules, bike maps)   Disseminates information concerning road closures and transit service disruptions   Organizes the annual Carefree Commuter Challenge, which awarded prizes to individuals who reduced  driving during the month of July6.    Much of what the WTA does involves marketing, the effects of which are often difficult to quantify.  In terms of  measurable results, a 2008‐2009 program evaluation showed a reduction of 3.4 million in vehicle miles traveled  through its programs. A more recent WTA accomplishment was the installation of 25 bike racks in front of  participating businesses in the Tigard area. A post‐installation survey indicated that 86 percent of the riders  reported that the bike racks encouraged them to ride their bikes to downtown Tigard. Sixty‐one percent of the  participating businesses reported that the racks were used more than once and week and 54 percent of the  businesses responded that the racks were good for business.                                                               6 In 2010, 201 companies and 1,672 individuals participated in this challenge, resulting in an estimated 43 percent reduction in miles driven between pre and  post‐challlenge surveys.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013 Figure 3-1: Regional TDM Employer Service and Drive-Alone Rates (2009)    Source:  Metro        Chapter 3  •  Transportation System Management & Operations and Travel Demand Management 3‐8   Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐1 Chapter 4: Active Transportation and Transit 4.1 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION OVERVIEW This chapter describes existing conditions and future needs for three “active” modes of travel: walking (including  the use of personal mobility devices), bicycling and taking transit.  4.1.1 What is Active Transportation? Active transportation refers to human‐powered travel, including walking and bicycling. Public transit is also a  component of active transportation because accessing transit stops usually involves walking or bicycling.  Widespread use of the term began in the first decade of the 21st century as transportation policy placed increased  emphasis on non‐automobile modes, and as the links between human health and transportation planning became  more evident.    Active transportation modes are essential components of the overall transportation system, meeting a variety of  societal, environmental and economic goals. These include:      Environmental stewardship. In Oregon, approximately 34% of greenhouse gas emissions – the largest share –  can be attributed to motor vehicles.1 Replacing automobile trips with active trips reduces the emission of  greenhouse gases, air toxics and particulates, helping to improve air quality in the Tualatin Valley and address  one of the leading causes of global climate change.     Congestion alleviation. It is simple arithmetic that walk, bike and transit trips reduce the number of motor  vehicles vying for space on roadways and in parking lots. The active mode share for commuting from  Washington County is about 11%, representing roughly 27,000 people who do not drive to work.2 Reduced  congestion improves air quality, quality of life, and economic productivity.     Health. America is facing a health epidemic related to obesity and inactivity. About 1/3 of adult Americans  were obese in 2008, and an estimated 200,000 people die prematurely each year from inactivity.3 In  Washington County, a 2006 survey found that 24% of 8th graders and 22% of 11th graders were overweight or  obese; only a quarter of 8th graders and one fifth of 11th graders were getting the recommended level of  physical activity; and 11% of 8th graders and 64% of 11th graders do not have access to or are not enrolled in  physical education classes at school.4 Active transportation, which involves moderate‐intensity physical  activity, can help address these challenges.           Safety. As walking and bicycling trips increase, so does the relative safety of those modes. In Portland, for  example, the bicycle crash rate (reported crashes normalized by counted bicycle trips) has shown a general  downward trend in the past decade, even as daily bicycle trips have more than doubled.5 This can be partly  attributed to increased attentiveness on the part of motorists as they see more bicyclists on the road. The  same trend applies to pedestrian safety.    1 Clean Fuels Program, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2012 http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/cleanFuel/index.htm   2 American Community Survey 2010 One‐Year Estimates, U.S. Census Bureau, 2011.  3 TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, Chapter 16: Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, Transportation Research Board, 2012.  4 OR CHS 2005‐2006 Oregon Healthy Teens survey  5 2011 Bicycle Counts Report, Portland Bureau of Transportation, 2012. Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐2  Efficient travel. For many trips, active transportation is the most sensible, efficient mode. For very short trips,  such as a quarter‐mile trip to a grocery store, walking is often the best choice. Trips in the one‐ to five‐mile  range are often ideal for bicycling. For trips to places with limited or paid parking, such as downtown Portland,  many people choose to ride transit for cost and convenience reasons.     Cost savings and social equity. Many people in Washington County and nationwide cannot afford to own a  car or pay for gasoline. For these and other people who need or want to reduce transportation costs, active  transportation is a clear solution. The savings associated with not purchasing, registering, insuring, fueling or  maintaining a vehicle – the “green dividend” – can go toward other costs such as housing, food and  education. These choices are increasingly pertinent in the context of an aging baby boom generation as well  as a younger millennial generation that is less interested in cars and driving than their parents were.     Attractive, efficient urban form. The advent and popularity of walkscore.com joins other evidence that  neighborhoods designed around active transportation are growing in desirability. From the historic, tree‐lined  streets of Forest Grove to the rapidly‐growing Orenco Station neighborhood, active transportation amenities  like sidewalks, bike lanes and frequent transit are drawing residents and businesses. Walkable neighborhoods  tend to be compact, using urban land efficiently and helping to meet other regional land use policies such as  agricultural preservation.  4.1.2 Active Transportation Trends and Forecasts   Due in part to the benefits and policy goals above, a growing proportion of Washington County residents are using  active transportation modes for some or all of their trips. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 11% of  workers who live in Washington County walked, biked or took transit to work in 2010, compared to about 8% in  2000 (Table 4‐1). With an estimated 249,753 workers in Washington County, that amounts to approximately  27,000 commuters using active modes. Bicycling saw the greatest increase, quadrupling from 0.4% of commutes  in 2000 to 1.6% in 2010. Commuting by transit, representing 5.7% of trips, was statistically flat between 2000 and  2010.    Washington County active mode shares are lower than the tri‐county average (Clackamas, Multnomah and  Washington county), but higher than national rates. The tri‐county average is heavily influenced by Portland,  whose mode split includes the highest share of bicycle commuters of any large American city: 6%. Conversely,  only 5% of Clackamas County workers use active modes – less than half of the Washington County rate.        Table 4-1: Use of Active Transportation Modes for the Journey to Work   Washington Co.    Clackamas  Co.  Multnomah  Co.  Tri‐County Area  United States  Walk            2010                       2000  3.6%  2.2%  1.8% 2.1%  4.7% 4.6%  3.7%  3.2%  2.8% 2.9%  Bicycle  1.6%  0.4%  0.2% 0.3%  4.9% 1.5%  2.8%  0.9%  0.5% 0.4%  Transit  5.7%  5.8%  2.8% 3.1%  10.9% 11.1%  7.4%  7.6%  4.9% 4.7%  Total Active  Modes   10.9%  8.4%  4.8% 5.4%  20.5% 17.2%  14.0%  11.8%  8.2% 8.0%  Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2010 One‐Year Estimates and 2000 Decennial Census Summary File 3    Looking at mode split data from Metro’s regional travel demand model, active mode share appears more modest.  Comparing different trip types and locations reveals additional distinctions. In general, transit rates are lower and  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐3 walking rates are higher for non‐work trips, compared to work trips. This reflects a general tendency to use transit  more for commuting and less for mid‐day errands, as well as the convenience of walking for short utilitarian trips.  Comparing urban and rural portions of Washington County reveals an expected contrast in active mode usage.  Rural walking and biking rates are roughly 2/3 the urban rates; transit is less than half. Not shown in any of the  data are potentially thousands of recreation or exercise trips that begin and end at the same point, i.e. going for a  jog or bike ride.    Table 4-2: Active Transportation Trips and Mode Share, Washington County, 2010 Urban Area   Work Trips*  Non‐Work  Trips**  All Trips  Rural Area  All Trips  Entire County  All Trips  Walk            trips                     share  20,660  2.1%  146,652 5.3%  167,312 4.5%  4,403  2.9%  171,716 4.4%  Bicycle  6,619  0.7%  27,847 1.0%  34,466 0.9%  918  0.6%  35,383 0.9%  Transit  34,782  3.5%  32,686 1.2%  67,469 1.8%  1,250  0.8%  68,719 1.8%  Total Active  Modes   62,061  6.3%  207,185 7.6%  269,247 7.2%  6,571  4.3%  275,818 7.1%  Source: West side component of Metro Regional Travel Demand Model, 2010  *Includes home‐based work and non‐home‐based work trips, explaining part of the discrepancy with Census data in Table 4‐1.  **Includes college, recreation, shopping, non‐home‐based, school (but not school bus) and other trips.    The past decade also saw a slight increase in households with no vehicles available, from 5.6 to 6.2% of  households. Though small as a percentage, the 2010 figure represents about 12,000 households across the county  that do not have access to a personal vehicle. Other than staying home or getting a ride from someone else, these  households assumedly rely on active transportation to get around.    Table 4-3: Vehicle Availability at Households Number of  vehicles  available  Washington Co.    Tri‐County Area  United States  Zero             2010                       2000  6.2% 5.6%  9.9%   9.1%    1  31.7% 33.5%  33.5%   33.8%    2  44.1% 43.9%  38.7%   37.6%    3 or more   28.1% 17.0%  17.9%   19.5%    Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2010 One‐Year Estimates and 2000  Decennial Census Summary File 3      Future Demand    Forecasting future active transportation demand is challenging. Modelers must make assumptions and guesses  about a number of future conditions, from land use and density patterns to fuel and parking prices. The regional  travel demand model estimates future mode split in each traffic analysis zone based on these and other factors.  The mode split forecast for Washington County in 2035 predicts very meager gains in active transportation mode  share. Walking and bicycling rates increase by just a few tenths of a percentage point in all categories and  geographies. The rural transit share actually decreases. The greatest gain is in transit use for work trips in the  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐4 urban area, increasing 1.1 percentage points, or a 31% relative increase. Countywide, the share of trips that use  active transportation is forecasted to increase from 7.1% to 8.1%. By contrast, the 2035 RTP region‐wide  performance target for active mode share is 32%, including 19% walk, 3% bike and 10% transit.6  Table 4-4: Forecast of Active Transportation Mode Share, 2035 Urban Area   Work Trips*  Non‐Work  Trips**  All Trips  Rural Area  All Trips  Entire County  All Trips  Walk           2035                      2010  2.5%  2.1%  5.7% 5.3%  4.8% 4.5%  3.9%  2.9%  4.7% 4.4%  Bicycle  0.8%  0.7%  1.1% 1.0%  1.0% 0.9%  0.9%  0.6%  1.0% 0.9%  Transit  4.6%  3.5%  1.9% 1.2%  2.6% 1.8%  0.6%  0.8%  2.4% 1.8%  Total Active  Modes   7.9%  6.3%  8.7% 7.6%  8.4% 7.2%  5.4%  4.3%  8.1% 7.1%  Source: West side component of Metro Regional Travel Demand Model, 2010  *Includes home‐based work and non‐home‐based work trips.  **Includes college, recreation, shopping, non‐home‐based, school (but not school bus) and other trips.    Despite the forecasts above, a number of anecdotal considerations put Washington County in a good position for  growth in active mode share. For example:      Information technology workers, many of whom are employed in Washington County’s growing “Silicon  Forest,” tend to demand quality of life amenities in the places where they choose to live. This includes access  to good transit and opportunities to walk and bike for transportation and recreation. This lifestyle preference  is the underlying cause of many “reverse commutes” observed throughout the United States – Seattle to  Redmond/Bellevue, San Francisco to the Silicon Valley, Boston to Route 128, and locally, Portland to  Washington County. Increasing active transportation options, along with other quality‐of‐life investments,  may convince more IT workers to live near where they work in Washington County, rather than heading home  “through the tunnel.” Across all professions, younger workers are driving less and using active transportation  more, compared to their older coworkers.7     Washington County is home to Nike, whose products focus on active pursuits like running, and whose  presence may have spillover effects on the local population. Global buzz generated from Nike’s Oregon  Project (which produced 2012 Olympic medal‐winners Galen Rupp and Mo Farrah), along with other  corporate initiatives, may have the potential to spur increased local interest in running and fitness. In  addition, the Nike workforce includes many young people with preferences similar to the IT workers above.      Portland, a well‐known American hub of active transportation, has an undeniable influence on Washington  County. Portland chronically scores at the top of national polls on walk‐, bike‐ and transit‐friendly cities.  Washington County, by virtue of proximity and its strong jobs base, also experiences much of this active  culture. Hundreds of Portland residents bring their bikes on MAX trains to commute to jobs in Washington  County. Bicycle innovations like cycle tracks and bike boulevards have been regionally pioneered in Portland  and are generating interest and implementation in Washington County. This relationship with Portland has  many benefits, including learning from the successes and flaws of brand new facility innovations.    6 Metro 2035 Regional Transportation Plan, page 2‐14, March 2010.   7 Transportation and the New Generation: Why Young People Are Driving Less and What It Means for Transportation Policy, Frontier Group and U.S. PIRG  Education Fund, 2012.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐5  The relatively flat terrain of the Tualatin Valley, combined with an ever‐increasing mileage of “complete  streets,” multi‐use trails and high‐capacity transit routes, creates a favorable physical environment for  increased use of active transportation. Washington County has the potential to become a North American  model for suburban active transportation.      4.1.3 What We’ve Heard About Active Transportation   Active transportation themes were prevalent throughout the public involvement process for TSP 2035. One of the  seven “community values” developed by the TSP 2035 Community Advisory Committee is having a transportation  system that “makes it safe and convenient to get around by biking, walking or taking transit.” Stakeholder  interviews – representing diverse interests from large private sector employers to environmental advocacy groups  – revealed similar support for an enhanced active transportation network. Frequently‐cited priorities included  improving transit service to better serve suburb‐to‐suburb trips; developing comfortable and convenient walking  and biking facilities that connect homes, businesses and transit; and making sure that bicycle facilities serve a  variety of cyclist types from young children to fearless commuters.    Public open houses, community events and online surveys elicited a wider range of comments, opinions and  specific suggestions on active transportation. Major themes included:     Improving pedestrian connectivity in neighborhoods that lack it;     Building bicycle facilities that provide greater separation from automobile traffic on busier roads;     Creating safer pedestrian crossings of busy, wide roads like TV Highway, and more pedestrian  improvements in regional centers like Washington Square and Tanasbourne;     Completing bikeway gaps, from adding bike lanes on sub‐standard arterial roads to paving wider  shoulders on certain rural roads;     Expanding and improving the county’s multi‐use trail network; and     Offering improved transit service and new or extended bus routes that better serve trips within  Washington County.      4.1.4 Active Transportation Planning Context   Active transportation is a critical component of transportation planning at all levels of government in Oregon.    State of Oregon    Statewide Planning Goal 12 (Transportation) states, among other things, that a transportation plan must:8     consider all modes of transportation;   avoid principal reliance on any one mode,   conserve energy; and  8 Statewide Planning Goals, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, 1973.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐6  meet the needs of the transportation disadvantaged.    Mandates for active transportation are found explicitly and implicitly throughout other State of Oregon  transportation plans and policies, including:     The Transportation Planning Rule (1991), which requires local jurisdictions to include a bicycle/pedestrian  component in their transportation plans, and to establish a network of walking and biking facilities  throughout the plan area;9      The Oregon Transportation Plan (2006), which calls for a “balanced” transportation system and  communities that provide “transportation choices;”10     The Oregon Highway Plan (1999), which requires state highways to accommodate alternative modes;11  and     The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (1995), which calls for the integration of said modes into all  transportation planning and design activities, and provides design guidelines for bicycle and pedestrian  facilities.12    Metro    Metro’s 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP, 2010) relies heavily on active transportation and transit to  achieve regional land use and transportation goals. RTP Goal 3 – Expand Transportation Choices – includes the  following objectives:     Achieve modal targets for increased walking, bicycling and use of transit (19%, 3% and 10% mode shares,  respectively) and reduced reliance on the automobile and drive alone trips.     Reduce vehicle miles traveled per capita.     Provide affordable and equitable access to travel choices and serve the needs of all people and  businesses, including people with low income, children, elders and people with disabilities, to connect  with jobs, education, services, recreation, social and cultural activities.    The RTP designates preferred networks for pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes across the region. In Washington  County, the regional pedestrian network focuses on mixed‐use corridors, existing and planned regional trails, and  pedestrian districts. The regional bicycle network includes many of these same corridors and trails, but adds  “community bikeways” that would take the form of lower‐traffic bike boulevards. The regional transit network  includes existing transit routes, potential future bus routes in growing areas, and a separate High Capacity Transit  Plan that prioritizes the next corridors for light rail, commuter rail or bus rapid transit. The latter is described in  more detail in section 4.4 of this report.    The RTP also includes a regional street design overlay for arterial streets. These designations – regional  boulevards, regional streets, community boulevards and community streets – encourage street designs that are  conducive to active transportation and that support implementation of the Metro 2040 Growth Concept. The  9 Transportation Planning Rule, OAR 660‐12‐020(2)d, State of Oregon, 1991.   10 Oregon Transportation Plan, Goals 1 and 4, Oregon Department of Transportation, 2006.  11 Oregon Highway Plan, Action 1B.14, Oregon Department of Transportation, 1999.  12 Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, Oregon Department of Transportation, 1995. Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐7 regional street designation overlaps with nearly all of Washington County’s arterial roadways outside of industrial  areas, and includes most of the 2040 mixed‐use corridors. The less common boulevard designation is found  primarily along arterials within regional and town centers. Boulevards should include wide sidewalks, safe  crosswalks, planter strips, medians, ample trees and vegetation, and other pedestrian‐friendly design features.    A separate but related Metro initiative examines demographic and socio‐economic data to identify areas with  disproportionate concentrations of poverty, minority residents, older adults, youth and low English proficiency, as  measured by the US Census. These “Environmental Justice” (EJ) scores indicate, among other things, where active  transportation investments may have a particularly high benefit. Areas with higher EJ scores generally correlate  with lower rates of automobile availability, usage and affordability, putting residents at a transportation  disadvantage. In these areas, active transportation investments such as sidewalks, bike lanes and transit service  are particularly critical. As shown in Figure 4‐1, Washington County contains several areas with high EJ scores,  including the Aloha‐Reedville area, downtown Hillsboro, downtown Beaverton and a majority of the City of  Cornelius.      Washington County    Washington County has been conducting active transportation planning for several decades, responding to  regional and state mandates as well as the needs and desires of its populace. In addition to pedestrian, bicycle  and transit components found in every major update to the Washington County Transportation Plan, the county  has pursued more targeted planning efforts to address active transportation needs and opportunities. In recent  years, these efforts have included:     The Washington County Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan (2010), which built upon the wealth of information  collected in the 2020 Transportation Plan and lists, prioritizes and estimates costs for pedestrian and  bicycle improvements needed throughout the county;       The Washington County Bicycle Toolkit (2012), a design guide that helps county transportation planners  and engineers make informed decisions on how to establish context‐specific bikeway facilities; and     The Washington County Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Prioritization Project (2013), which  performed a detailed gap analysis of sidewalk and bikeways along arterial and collector roads, followed  by a criteria‐based prioritization of projects. This project was funded by a grant from the U.S. Department  of Energy (DOE).    Recommendations from all of the above county documents are discussed in further detail in the modal sections of  this chapter.      Cities and Other Jurisdictions    Each city in Washington County has a transportation system plan with pedestrian, bicycle and transit components.  Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District (THPRD) has a district‐wide trail plan as well as several specific trail  feasibility or master plans. TriMet, through its Westside Service Enhancements Project, is studying population,  employment, socio‐economic and ridership trends to determine potential service enhancements in Washington  County.  All of these plans help Washington County provide accurate and concurrent recommendations within the  respective jurisdictions. Recommended active transportation projects from these plans are reflected in the modal  sections of this chapter.  §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ217 Composite of Demographics Proportion of: - non-white residents, - older adults (age 65+), - youth (age under 17), - income below poverty line - person with low English proficiency J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ TS P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ E J_ C om po si te U rb .m xd January 09, 2013 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning and Development Services < 0.50 Std. Dev. 0.50 - 1.5 Std. Dev. 1.5 - 2.5 Std. Dev. > 2.5 Std. Dev. 0 16,0008,000 Feet 1 inch represents 16,500 feet ¯ Figure 4-1 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐9 4.1.5 Recently Completed and Planned Active Transportation Projects   Washington County and its partner jurisdictions are constantly improving the county’s active transportation  network through a variety of capital projects and programs. Often times, these investments are part of multi‐ modal “complete street” projects that provide sidewalks, bike lanes and lighting in concert with automobile  capacity and/or safety improvements. The county continues to make progress on complete street projects  through the Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program (MSTIP), the Minor Betterments program,  development‐prompted road projects funded through the Transportation Development Tax, and partnerships  with other jurisdictions. Other recent accomplishments include ongoing development of the regional trail  network and major new transit services.    Table 4‐5 and Figure 4‐2 show major active transportation investments completed in Washington County since  the 2002 adoption of the 2020 Transportation Plan. For complete street projects, the cost figures shown are 25%  of the total project cost. These figures, shown in italics, roughly estimate the proportion of total project costs  spent on pedestrian and bicycle facilities. In total, Washington County has invested at least $55 million in active  transportation capital projects between 2002 and 2012. This is a very rough and conservative estimate, and does  not include the $161 million capital cost of the Westside Express Service commuter rail.    Table 4-5: Major Active Transportation Investments, 2002-2012* Facility  Extent/Location  City/Area  Description  Funding  Sources  Cost  (x 1M )  119th Avenue  McDaniel – Cornell   Cedar Mill  Sidewalk (1 side)  OJTA  $2.20  170th/173rd Ave  Walker – Baseline   Beaverton  Complete street  MSTIP  $0.94  170th Ave  MAX – Merlo   Beaverton  Sidewalk (1 side),  lighting, trees  MTIP, MSTIP  $0.35  170th Ave  Alexander – Rigert   Aloha / Cooper  Mountain  Complete street  MSTIP  $7.25  185th Ave  West Union – US 26  Rock Creek  Complete street,  including buffered  bike lanes  MSTIP  $1.28  185th Ave  Shaw – Kinnaman  Aloha  Complete street  MSTIP  $1.46  198th Ave  Johnson – TV  Aloha  Sidewalk (1 side),  lighting, trees  MTIP, MSTIP  $0.23  Baseline Rd  231st – 177th   Hillsboro  Complete street  MSTIP  $4.65  Brookwood Ave  Baseline – TV  Hillsboro  Complete street  MSTIP  $3.50  Brookwood Ave  TV – Witch Hazel  Hillsboro  Complete street  MSTIP  $2.34  Butner Road  Woodward – Park  Cedar Hills  Sidewalk (1 side),  lighting, trees  MTIP, MSTIP    $0.23  Cornelius Pass Rd  Wilkins – Frances  Hillsboro  Complete street  TIF, MSTIP  $3.80  Cornelius‐Schefflin  Rd  Verboort – Council Creek  Verboort  Wide shoulders  MSTIP  Unavailable  Cornell Rd  Evergreen – 158th  Beaverton  Complete street  MSTIP  $1.65  Cornell Rd  Science Park – Murray  Oak Hills  Complete street  MSTIP  Unavailable  Cornell Rd  Murray – Barnes  Cedar Mill  Complete street  MSTIP  $3.75  Evergreen Rd  Glencoe – 25th   Hillsboro  Sidewalk (1 side),  bike lanes, lighting,  trees  MSTIP  Unavailable  Glencoe Rd  West Union – US 26  North Plains  Complete street  MSTIP  $0.58  Murray Blvd  Cornell – US 26  Oak Hills  Complete street  MSTIP  Unavailable  Murray Blvd  Fountain Park  Apartments – Farmington  Beaverton  Sidewalk (1 side)  MTIP, MSTIP  $0.15  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐10  Facility  Extent/Location  City/Area  Description  Funding  Sources  Cost  (x 1M )  Oleson Rd  Fanno Creek – Hall  Metzger  Complete street  MSTIP  $3.35  Park Way  Parkwood – Butner  Cedar Hills  Sidewalks, lighting,  trees  MTIP, MSTIP  $0.29  River Rd  Rood Bridge – Davis  Hillsboro  Complete street  MSTIP  $2.75  Roy Rogers Rd /  175th Ave  99W – north of Scholls  Ferry  Sherwood,  Beaverton  Wide shoulders,  realignment  MSTIP  $2.379 +  Saltzman Rd  Bauer Woods – Cornell  Cedar Mill  Complete street  MSTIP  $2.88  Sunset Drive  OR 47 – University  Forest Grove  Complete street  MSTIP  Unavailable  Veterans Drive  28th – 34th   Hillsboro  Complete street with  cycle track  TDT  $0.88  B Street Trail  16th St – OR 47  Forest Grove  Paved, multi‐use trail    Unavailable  Banks‐Vernonia  Trail  Sellers Road – 2/3 mile  north  Banks  Paved, multi‐use trail  extension  TE, ARRA  $1.20  Banks‐Vernonia  Trail  Stub Stewart State Park  Buxton  Paved, multi‐use trail  Oregon  Lottery  Unavailable  Fanno Creek  Greenway Trail  105th – Scholls Ferry  Beaverton  Paved, multi‐use trail    Unavailable  Ki‐a‐Kuts Bike‐Ped  Bridge  Tualatin River  Durham, Tigard,  Tualatin  Ped‐bike bridge over  river  ODOT, cities,  CWS  $2.90  Rock Creek Trail  Rock Creek – Kaiser  Rock Creek,  Bethany  Paved, multi‐use trail    Unavailable  Rock Creek Trail  Evergreen Pkwy  Hillsboro  Enhanced at‐grade  trail crossing  ODOT  Bike/Ped  $0.51  Waterhouse Trail  Walker Rd  Beaverton  Enhanced at‐grade  trail crossing  ODOT  Bike/Ped  $0.24  Westside Trail  Millikan – Davis  Beaverton  Paved, multi‐use trail  ODOT, THPRD   $2.30  Westside Trail  Scholls Ferry – Barrows   Tigard  Paved, multi‐use trail  THPRD  Unavailable  Westside Express  Service  Beaverton – Wilsonville   Beaverton,  Tigard, Tualatin,  Wilsonville  Commuter rail  FTA, ODOT,  local  $161.2  Bike & Rides  Sunset TC, Beaverton TC  Cedar Hills,  Beaverton  2 secure bike parking  facilities at light rail  stations  ARRA  $0.73  *This table is not an exhaustive list of all projects involving active transportation improvements in Washington County.    Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐11 Many additional active transportation or complete street projects are planned and funded for the next several  years. Table 4‐6 and Figure 4‐3 show major active transportation projects that are funded through 2018. This  table reports full cost estimates, and does not proportionally reduce the estimates to reflect just bike/ped costs.    Table 4-6: Planned Major Active Transportation Investments* Facility  Extent  City/Area  Description  Funding  Sources  Cost  Estimate  (x 1M)  198th Ave  TV – Farmington  Aloha‐Reedville  Complete street or  interim solution  MSTIP  $14  124th Ave  Tualatin‐Sherwood –  Tonquin   Basalt Creek  New road with wide  shoulders  MSTIP  $15  205th Ave  Quatama – Baseline   Reedville  Complete street  OJTA  $31.30  Baseline Rd  Brookwood –231st   Hillsboro  Complete street  MSTIP  $11.30  Bethany Blvd  West Union – Cornell  Bethany  Complete street  MSTIP  $24.60  Boones Ferry Rd  Norwood – Day   Tualatin  Bike lanes, sidewalk  on one side  MSTIP, OTIA  $10  Cornelius Pass Rd  Alocleck – Wilkins  Hillsboro  Complete street  TIF, MSTIP  $10.10  Cornell Rd  107th – Cedar Hills  Cedar Mill  Complete street  MSTIP  $19  David Hill Rd  Brooke – OR 47  Forest Grove  New complete street  MSTIP  $8.80  Evergreen Pkwy  25th – 253rd  Hillsboro  Complete street  TIF  $6.50  Farmington Rd  141st ‐ Hocken  Beaverton  Complete street  MSTIP  $12.20  Jackson School Rd  Rogahn – Grant  Hillsboro  Complete street  MSTIP  $5  Leahy Rd / Stark St  90th – 88th  Cedar Mill  Sidewalks  ODOT SR2S  $0.41  Veterans Drive  34th – Brookwood  Hillsboro  Complete street with  cycle track  TDT  Unavailable  Walker Rd  173rd – 158th   Beaverton  Complete street  MSTIP  $5.80  Walker Rd  158th – Murray  Beaverton  Complete street  MSTIP  $11.60  Walker Rd  Ecole – OR 217  Beaverton  Interim safety  improvements  MSTIP  $33  Walnut St  116th – Tiedeman   Tigard  Complete street  MSTIP, ODOT  $5.40  Forest Grove  Emerald Necklace  Numerous locations  Forest Grove  Multi‐use trail  network    Unavailable  Fanno Creek  Greenway Trail  Hall Blvd  Beaverton  Enhanced at‐grade  trail crossing    $0.40  Waterhouse Trail  Rock Creek Trail – Merlo  Road MAX station  Oak Hills,  Beaverton  Paved, multi‐use trail  THPRD bond  $3.70  Westside Trail  Rock Creek Trail –  Bronson Creek Trail  Bethany  Paved, multi‐use trail  MTIP  $2.40  *This table is not an exhaustive list of proposed projects involving active transportation improvements in Washington County.  kj kj kj §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 Major Active Transportation Investments 2002-2012 J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ TS P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ A ct iv eT ra ns P rj_ U rb .m xd January 02, 2013 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning and Development Services kj Major Active Transportation Investments (Bridges, At-Grade Crossings, Bike Parking) Major Active Transportation Investments (Bike Lanes, Sidewalks, Complete Streets, Wide Shoulders, Paved Trail, Commuter Rail) Rural Washington County 0 16,0008,000 Feet 1 inch represents 27,898 feet ¯ Figure 4-2 §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ217 Planned Major Active Transportation Investments J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ TS P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ P ln dA ct iv eT ra ns P rj_ U rb .m xd January 09, 2013 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning and Development Services kj Planned Major Active Transportation Project (At-Grade-Crossing) Planned Major Active Transportation Project (Streets, Bike Lanes, Sidewalks, Safety Improvements) Rural Washington County 0 16,0008,000 Feet 1 inch represents 16,500 feet ¯ Figure 4-3 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐14  4.2 WALKING   Walking, the most basic form of human travel, plays a  fundamental role in the transportation system. It has many  advantages: travel times are predictable, expenses are  minimal, and health benefits are proven. For the county, a shift  to more walking trips could reduce the need or scope of  roadway and parking facilities, especially in regional and town  centers. Compared to facilities for other modes, walkways are  easy to maintain and inexpensive to install. A good pedestrian  network also supports and leverages investments in transit.    Walking plays an important role in community design (and vice  versa). Put simply, places designed for walking usually result in  more walking. Researchers generally agree that most people are willing to walk between a quarter and a half mile  to reach destinations like stores and transit stops, and up to a mile to reach schools. Neighborhoods that include  these mixed uses and that have safe, convenient and attractive walking facilities, tend to encourage walking.  Regionally and nationwide, walkable neighborhoods increasingly rank among the most desirable and economically  vibrant areas within urban regions.    Regional Pedestrian Network    The RTP 2035 Pedestrian Network is a Metro recommendation on where investments in pedestrian facilities make  the most sense – in mixed‐use centers, along major mixed‐use corridors, and as a component of regional trails.  Regional centers, town centers and station areas in the Metro 2040 Growth Concept are designated as pedestrian  districts in the RTP, reflecting the important role of a walkable environment in supporting land use and urban  form goals. Table 4‐7 and Figure 4‐4 shows locations in Washington County included in the RTP 2035 Pedestrian  Network. These delineations should be considered when applying for Metro‐administered grants for walking  infrastructure.  Evergreen Parkway, Tanasbourne.  §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ217 Existing Regional Pedestrian Network J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ TS P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ R eg Pe dN et w or k_ U rb .m xd January 09, 2013 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning and Development Services Regional trail Regional trail (proposed) Mixed-use corridor Pedestrian Districts Rural Washington County 0 16,0008,000 Feet 1 inch represents 16,500 feet ¯ Figure 4-4 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐16  Table 4-7: RTP 2035 Pedestrian Network in Washington County Pedestrian Districts  Mixed‐Use Corridors  Regional Trails  Regional Centers  Beaverton RC  Hillsboro RC  Tanasbourne / Amber Glen RC  Washington Square RC    Town Centers  Aloha TC  Bethany TC  Cedar Mill TC  Cornelius TC  Forest Grove TC  King City TC  Murray Scholls TC  Orenco TC  Raleigh Hills TC  Sherwood TC  Sunset Transit TC  Tigard TC  Tualatin TC    Station Areas (outside RCs & TCs)  Beaverton Creek SA  Elmonica SA  Hawthorne Farm SA  Fairgrounds SA  Millikan Way SA  Quatama SA  Willow Creek SA    1st/Oregon (Sherwood)  185th Ave  229th Ave  Allen Blvd  Barnes Rd  Baseline/Adair (Cornelius)  Baseline/Oak (Hillsboro)  Baseline Rd  Beaverton‐Hillsdale Hwy  Bethany Blvd  Boones Ferry Rd  Canyon Rd  Cedar Hills Blvd  Century Blvd  Cornell Rd  Edy Rd  Evergreen Pkwy  Farmington Rd  Garden Home/Multnomah/92nd  Hall Blvd  Hunziker Rd (Tigard)  Kinnaman Rd  Main St (Hillsboro)  Main/Adair (Cornelius)  Murray Blvd  Oleson Rd  Pacific Hwy  Pacific/19th (Forest Grove)  Roy Rogers Rd  Scholls Ferry Rd  Sherwood Blvd  Tualatin Valley Hwy  Walker Rd  Beaverton Creek Trail  Cooper Mountain Trail  Council Creek Trail  Fanno Creek Greenway Trail  Highway 26 Trail  Red Electric Trail  Rock Creek Trail  Tonquin Trail  Tualatin River Trail  Waterhouse Trail  Westside Trail  Willow Creek Trail      Walking Facilities    Transportation facilities for walking (and for the use of personal mobility devices such as wheelchairs) include  sidewalks, street crossings, trails, accessways and wide shoulders. Supporting facilities that make walking safer  include street lighting and pedestrian signals. The following sections describe general considerations, existing  conditions and future needs for these fundamental transportation facilities.      4.2.1 Sidewalks   Washington County has required concrete or other hard‐surface walkways within new development and road  projects in the urban area since the mid‐1980s. Before then, provision of sidewalks was largely a function of  developer preferences, local codes and covenants, urban/rural location, and historical period. As a result, the  county remains a blend of suburban communities with and without sidewalks, surrounded by rural areas largely  without sidewalks.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐17 Today, sidewalks are usually built in one of three contexts:     within and/or alongside new development;     as part of a major road expansion or safety project funded by MSTIP, TDT or a federal or state grant; or     as an interim improvement funded through the county’s Minor Betterments program. Interim  improvements include asphalt or gravel spaces for walking.    Through these efforts, the county and its partner jurisdictions have made significant progress in adding sidewalks  to major roads. As of 2012, 82% of arterials and collectors in the urban area, or 354 centerline miles, have a  walkway facility on one or both sides. On roads maintained by Washington County, 77% have a walkway facility of  some kind.  Table 4‐8 and Map 4‐5 illustrate sidewalk coverage in urban Washington County.    Table 4-8: Arterial/Collector Sidewalk Coverage, Urban Washington County Sidewalk presence,  reported in  roadway centerline  miles  Maintained  by  Washington  County   %  Maintained  by ODOT  (does not  include  freeways)  %  Maintained  by Cities  %  Total  Arterial/  Collectors  %  Sidewalk on both  sides  97  51%  18  41%  129  68%  245  57% Sidewalk on one  side   48  25%  17  38%  38  20%  104  24% Substandard path  on both sides  0  0%  0  0%  0  0%  1  0% Substandard path  on one side  1  1%  1  1%  2  1%  4  1% No walkway  facilities  46  24%  9  9%  22  12%  76  18% Total mileage of  arterial/collector  192  100%  45  100%  191  100%  430  100%     Standards    In urban unincorporated Washington County, sidewalks are required along both sides of new public streets, new  private commercial streets, and new private residential streets that access nine or more residential units.13  Developers also must provide “half street improvements” along existing, adjacent roads that do not already meet  county road standards.14 Half street improvements include a sidewalk, planter strip, street lighting, and – if along  an arterial or collector – a bike lane, as well as any associated dedication of public right‐of‐way.     Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet wide, and separated from the roadway by a planter strip at least four  feet, six inches wide, including curb. Sidewalks also must be designed for people of all abilities. To aid people who  use mobility devices such as wheelchairs, this means minimizing cross slope, limiting the impact of driveway  crossings, and installing curb ramps with level landings at every street crossing. For people who are blind or have  low vision, accessibility is enhanced by establishing a clear path of travel and tactile warnings at curb ramps.  13 Washington County Community Development Code, Article IV, Section 409.  14 Washington County Community Development Code, Article V, Section 501. §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ217 Sidewalk Inventory J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ TS P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ si de w al ks .m xd January 09, 2013 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning and Development Services Both Sides of Road Standard One Side of Road Standard Both Sides Substandard One Side Substandard No Sidewalk Both Sides 0 16,0008,000 Feet 1 inch represents 16,500 feet ¯ Figure 4-5 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐19 Streetscape Enhancements    Wider pedestrian corridors provide the opportunity for  streetscape improvements such as pedestrian‐scale lighting,  additional street trees, landscaping, benches, public art, and  space for store displays or café seating. Cornell Road in Cedar  Mill Town Center is an example where Washington County  constructed an enhanced streetscape to promote commercial  redevelopment and a safe, inviting pedestrian environment.    Generally speaking, enhanced streetscapes are most  appropriate within Metro 2040 centers, where aesthetic and  safety improvements can help foster growth and  redevelopment.  The county has designated numerous roads  within centers as special area streets, along with giving a  smaller set of arterials a regional boulevard overlay generally corresponding with the RTP. County road standards  call for a pedestrian corridor of nine or ten feet on both sides of special area streets, to be fitted with enhanced  sidewalks ranging in width from five to nine feet, depending on functional class and provision of planter strip.      Non‐Standard Sidewalks    The county may grant modifications to sidewalk standards in circumstances where topography or other natural  hazards present insurmountable difficulties. For public road projects not triggered by development, right‐of‐way  is an additional constraint that can curtail the provision of standard sidewalks. While developers are required to  dedicate sufficient right‐of‐way to build standard sidewalks, the county often must purchase right‐of‐way at  significant cost from established property owners for its own projects.    The most common departure from sidewalk standards is not including a planter strip. Curb‐tight sidewalks can be  found on numerous Washington County arterial and collector roads where existing development, topography,  right‐of‐way constraints, project cost, or a combination of those factors prevented the provision of a full 10‐foot  pedestrian corridor on each side of the road. Omitting the planter strip removes a key visual and physical buffer  between pedestrians and automobile traffic – a major concern on arterials with posted speeds of 35 mph or  higher. Curb‐tight sidewalks also tend to have obstructions such as signposts, utility poles and mailboxes, as well  as driveway aprons that change the sidewalk grade. These obstructions, which would normally be placed within  the planter strip, are especially problematic for people using mobility devices.    Other non‐standard sidewalks include asphalt pathways or delineated areas of wide shoulders. These are interim  solutions used in circumstances where greater walking safety is needed, but funds for standard sidewalks are not  available in the short term. Asphalt pathways have been installed along numerous county roadways, often funded  by the Minor Betterments program.    Cornell Road in Cedar Mill Town Center. Image: Google Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐20      Washington County expanded 185th Avenue to 3 lanes with  sidewalks and bike lanes in an established area of Aloha. Planter  strips were not included due to right‐of‐way constraints.  This section of Cornell Road in the Orenco Station community has  wide sidewalks and a generous planter strip. The trees and  vegetation provide a visual and physical buffer between pedestrians  and fast‐moving cars.      Arterial/Collector Sidewalk Needs      As shown in Table 4‐8 above, approximately 76 miles of arterial or collector roads in Washington County –  representing 18% of those roadway types – do not have separated walkway facilities. The Washington County  Bicycle and Pedestrian Prioritization Project of 2013, funded by a U.S. Department of Energy grant, took  inventory of these gaps and used weighted criteria to prioritize which ones have the highest need to be filled.  Criteria included density and mix of land uses, observed safety issues and crash rates, street network connectivity,  and social equity. A subsequent round of analysis determined which of those high‐scoring projects are most  feasible from a technical and financial standpoint. Priority sidewalk gaps are listed in Table 4‐9 and shown on Map  4‐6. These gaps total 8.7 miles. 15    Table 4-9: Prioritized Sidewalk Needs Road  From  To  Total Length  Cost Estimate   92nd Avenue  Garden Home Road  Allen Road  2,115  $602,775  170th Avenue  150' south of Heritage Court  Augusta Street  2,353  $670,605  174th Avenue  Bronson Road  Madras Court  1,621  $461,985  197th Avenue  100' south of Alderwood  Court  Baseline Road  726  $206,910  1st Avenue  Grant  Street  south of Tiffany Lane  501  $142,785  Glencoe Road  400' north of Tiffany Street  150' north of Cody Court  904  $257,640  209th Avenue  160' south of RR  300' north of Blanton Street  910  $259,350  209th Avenue  250' south of Stoddard Drive  McInnis Lane  286  $81,510  209th Avenue  Carlin Boulevard  Manor Way  600  $171,000  209th Avenue  Martini Court  208th Terrace  1,093  $311,505  209th Avenue  Blanton Street  Kinnaman Road  1,015  $289,275  Alexander Street  172nd Avenue  173rd Avenue  160  $45,600  Alexander Street  173rd Avenue  178th Avenue  1,048  $298,680  Alexander Street  178th Avenue  182nd Avenue  468  $133,380  Barnes Road  Cedar Hills Blvd  117th Avenue  1,145  $326,325  Boones Ferry Road  250' north of Norwood Road  Horizon Comm. Church  904  $257,640  Bronson Road  174th Avenue  179th Avenue  1,768  $503,880  15 The total length reflects the extent of filling gaps and improving one side of the road. Cost estimates are planning‐level based on an average cost of $285  per lineal foot of improvement including curb, gutter and concrete sidewalk. Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐21 Road  From  To  Total Length  Cost Estimate   Brookwood Parkway  Huffman Street  Meek Road  2,162  $616,170  Bull Mountain  Hazeltree Terrace  120th Place  939  $267,615  Cedar Hills Boulevard  Butner Road  WB Sunset‐Cedar Hills Off  Ramp  865  $246,525  Cornell Road  99th  Avenue  102nd Avenue  711  $202,635  Farmington Road  171st Avenue  173rd Avenue  778  $221,730  Farmington Road  176th Avenue  185th Avenue  2,214  $630,990  Farmington Road  300' east of 188th Court.   100' west of 189th Avenue  768  $218,880  Garden Home Road  77th Avenue  92nd Avenue  3,147  $896,895  Johnson Street  95' west of 214th Avenue   214th Avenue  95  $27,075  Johnson Street  204th Avenue  85' east of 203rd Avenue  389  $110,865  Johnson Street  174th Avenue  180th Terrace   632  $180,120  Locust Street  80th Avenue  Hall Boulevard  1,392  $396,720  Meadow Drive  Trout Creek Lane  Surrey Street  656  $186,960  Rock Creek  Boulevard  Malhuer Avenue  Rock Creek Drive  845  $240,825  Rock Creek  Boulevard   West of 185th Avenue  Columbia Drive  808  $230,280  Scholls Ferry Road  Heather Lane  McKay Elementary  440  $125,400  Scholls Ferry Road  75' west of Northvale Way  395' east of Northvale Way  472  $134,520  Scholls Ferry Road  Heather Lane  south of Merry Lane  530  $151,050  Scholls Ferry Road  90th Avenue  235' southwest of 86th  Avenue  919  $261,915  Scholls Ferry Road  250' west of 155th Terrace  250' east of 155th Terrace  504  $143,640  Springville Road  178th Avenue  181st Avenue  439  $125,115  Taylors Ferry Road  80th Avenue  75th Place   612  $174,420  Walker Road  240' west of Bronson Creek  Bridge  248' east of Bronson Creek  488  $139,080  Walker Road  180th Avenue  178th Avenue  572  $163,020  Walker Road  183rd Avenue  180th  Avenue  746  $212,610  West Union Road  LDS Church Property  203rd Place  2,577  $734,445  West Union/  Thompson Road  Banff Drive  147th Place  422  $120,270  West Union/  Thompson Road  Bronson Creek Drive  143rd Avenue  1,091  $310,935      TOTAL  45,962  $13,024,550    88 10 10 210 210 210 99 219 219 219 26 26 5 205 Prioritized Sidewalk Needs J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ TS P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ si de w al kP ro je ct s. m xd January 04, 2013 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Long Range Planning Division Top 45 Sidewalk Gaps* Urban Growth Boundary 1 inch represents 12,500 feet Figure 4-6 *As identified through Washington County Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Prioritization Project. Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐23 Non‐Arterial/Collector Sidewalk Needs    The county generally does not pursue sidewalk infill projects on existing local streets or neighborhood routes. One  major exception is streets near schools. For example, the county has installed a sidewalk along NW Stark Street, a  local roadway near West Tualatin Elementary School in the Cedar Mill Area, and is in the process of building a  sidewalk on SW 173rd Avenue near Aloha‐Huber Park K‐8 School. These projects, funded through state and federal  grants, help children from immediately surrounding neighborhoods safely reach their school on foot.     Public input received during the Aloha‐Reedville Study and Livable Community Plan process has revealed a desire  to build sidewalks along local streets near schools in that area.      Maintenance    The cost of maintaining sidewalks is the responsibility of the adjacent property owner. While most concrete  sidewalks in the county are relatively new and in good condition, there are several miles of asphalt pathways  along county roads that are in need of repair. In general, the county needs a long‐term systematic approach to  maintaining sidewalk and roadside pathways. The county may consider regular inspection and maintenance of  walkways to protect its investments and continue to provide safe access for people walking. The addition of other  elements in the roadway to enhance pedestrian safety – such as planted medians – can also add to maintenance  budget needs. It is crucial that maintenance budgets be increased to handle additional needs as more pedestrian  amenities are constructed.      4.2.2 Crossings   Street crossings form critical connections in the pedestrian  network, facilitating the simple but sometimes dangerous act of  walking to destinations across the street. Crossings are  particularly important for accessing transit, since a round trip  usually involves crossing at one end of the journey. Bicyclists  also use crossings, especially in circumstances where they are  not mixed with traffic, such as a trail crossing.    By state law, every intersection is a legal crosswalk, even if none  are marked. In practice, this law is not sufficient to ensure safe  passage across many urban arterial roads. The difficulty and  danger of crossing increases with roadway width, volume and  speed. Arterials like TV Highway, 185th Avenue and Pacific Highway statistically pose a higher risk to pedestrians than streets with fewer lanes, slower speeds and lower functional classes. Inconveniently, the most difficult  to cross often have the highest pedestrian crossing demands, due to high concentrations of business   roads  es, multi‐ mily housing and transit stops.  xisting Crossing Facilities fa     E       signals. Outside of major road intersections, jurisdictions including THPRD and ODOT are increasingly targeting    Marked crosswalks in Washington County are mostly limited to signalized intersections, of which there are nearly 600 countywide. Most, but not all, signalized intersections in the county feature delineated crosswalks and walk Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐24  crossing improvements at mid‐block locations and minor intersections that have high pedestrian crossing  demand. Recently completed crossing projects in Washington County include:     a full traffic signal and median refuge at TV Highway and SW 178th Avenue, connecting a heavily‐used #57  bus stop with businesses and homes in the Aloha town center; and     a mid‐block, signal‐controlled crossing of the Rock Creek Trail at NW Evergreen Parkway in north  Hillsboro, featuring a staggered refuge island and bike lane connections.      Mid‐Block Crossing Policy    In November 2010, in response to increased requests for trail crossings of county roads, Washington County  adopted standards for evaluating and approving mid‐block crossings of county roadways.16     Each mid‐block crossing must be evaluated based on existing and planned roadway characteristics, observed  speeds and volumes, pedestrian trip generators, proximity of existing traffic signals, sight distance, topography  and other considerations. At‐grade crossings are not permitted within 300 feet of an existing signalized  intersection.    Crossing design features are chosen from a tiered selection of improvements based on roadway lane numbers, as  described in Table 4‐10 below.    Table 4-10: Mid-Block Crossing Improvement Tiers Tier  Standard Treatments    Additional Treatments To Be Considered  Tier 1    Crosses a 2‐lane road with or without an  island refuge. Install high visibility  mounted signs and markings.  Refuge islands, curb extensions, staggered  pedestrian refuges.  Tier 2  Crosses a 3‐lane road with island refuge.  Install high visibility signs and markings.  Flashing beacons, pedestrian actuated  signal/beacon.  Tier 3  Crosses a 3‐lane road without island  refuge or 4‐lane road with island refuge.  Install high visibility signs and markings or  pedestrian actuated signal.  Pedestrian actuated signal/beacon.  Tier 4   Crosses a 4‐lane or greater road without  an island/refuge. Install pedestrian  actuated signal or beacon.  Pedestrian actuated signal, pedestrian  over‐ or undercrossing.    The policy further describes these and other county‐approved crossing devices, as shown in Table 4‐11 below.    16 Washington County Resolution and Order 10‐107, November 23, 2010.   Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐25 Table 4-11: County-Approved Pedestrian Crossing Treatments   Crossing Treatment  Description    Objective  A  Roadway signing    Passive signs are placed in the roadway right‐ of‐way within or near the crosswalk.  To remind drivers to obey the law and  yield to pedestrians while in the crosswalk.  B  High‐visibility markings  Uses a ladder or “zebra” style crosswalk  pavement markings.  To provide drivers with information at  uncontrolled crosswalks where  pedestrians may not be expected to cross  the street, such as a mid‐block crossing.  C  Double‐posted  pedestrian crossing signs  Standard pedestrian crossing signs are  installed on both sides of the approaching  roadway at a mid‐block pedestrian crossing.  To provide additional notice to drivers that  are approaching a pedestrian crossing.  D  Advance placement of  yield lines  Standard yield lines are placed in advance of  marked, uncontrolled crosswalks.  To encourage drivers to stop a greater  distance from the marked crosswalk.  E  Pavement legends  Word legends are placed on the pavement at  the ends of the crosswalk.  To encourage pedestrians to look each  direction before proceeding to cross the  street.  F  Fluorescent yellow‐green  signs (school zones only)  Pedestrian signs made of fluorescent yellow‐ green color are posted at school crossings.  To improve pedestrian safety at crossings  by enabling drivers to detect signs from a  greater distance.  G  Refuge islands  Raised median islands are placed in the  center of the roadway separating opposing  lanes of traffic and are slotted along the  pedestrian path.  To provide a sheltering place in the  median where pedestrians can wait for  adequate crossing gaps in the traffic  stream.  H  Staggered pedestrian  refuge islands  Raised islands are laid out in a staggered  configuration that requires pedestrians to  walk towards traffic before crossing.  To provide a better view of oncoming  traffic.  I  Pedestrian railings  Railings are placed along the top of the curb.  To effectively channelize pedestrians to  the safest designated crossing points.  J  Street and trail lighting  Lights are installed on both sides of the  street and on the trail. Comply with  Washington County Illumination Standards  for the roadway.  To provide levels of lighting that are  oriented toward pedestrian trail activity at  the crossing and not exclusively for traffic.  K  Flashing beacons  Flashing amber lights are installed on signs,  in advance of the crosswalk, or on signs  located at the entry of the crosswalk.  To increase driver attentiveness when  approaching marked crosswalks at  uncontrolled locations.  L  Rectangular‐shaped rapid  flashing LED crosswalk  beacon (RRFB)  Special traffic signal installed to the bottom  of the crosswalk sign at marked crosswalks.  Pedestrian actuated.  To improve visibility of pedestrian crossing  locations and increase driver recognition  of changing conditions.  M  Rumble strips and  rumple stripes  Raised or grooved patterns on the roadway  that provide both an audible warning and a  physical vibration.  To alert drivers of an upcoming change in  the roadway environment.  N  Grade separated  crossings  A bridge or tunnel that carries non‐ motorized traffic over or under a motorized  corridor.  To physically separate the crossing of non‐ motorized and motorized vehicles.   O  Mid‐block signal‐ controlled crossing  Traffic signals are used to control traffic at  mid‐block crosswalks. Signals remain green  until pedestrians activate the push button.  May include passive detection such as video.  To provide pedestrians an opportunity to  cross mid‐block at a controlled crosswalk.  P  Two‐stage signal‐ controlled crossing  Traffic signal with median island, staggered  crossings, coordinated with signals on  corridor.  To provide safe crossing opportunities  with minimum disruption of traffic.  Source: Washington County Resolution and Order 10‐107, November 2010.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐26  Spacing Considerations    Other than the requirement to avoid establishing at‐grade crossings within 300 feet from an existing traffic signal,  the county’s mid‐block crossing policy does not provide guidance on the overall spacing of multiple crossings on a  particular roadway. In the aggregate, crossings must carefully balance pedestrian safety and convenience with  other modal needs, including vehicular traffic flow. Several standards in the Washington County development  code provide implicit guidance:     Block faces in new development along arterials and collectors cannot be longer than 600 feet. For those  that are, an accessway must be provided every 400 feet.17 Within designated “connectivity lands,” these  maximums are reduced to 530 and 330 feet. These standards may result in pedestrian crossing demand  where local streets and accessways meet the arterial/collector.      Direct vehicular access to an arterial in new development can be no less than 600 feet from another  vehicular access point.18 While a pedestrian crossing may still be allowed within 300 feet of a signalized  intersection, this code requirement essentially establishes a desired spacing of 600 feet between decision  points along arterial roadways.     ODOT recommends traffic signal spacing between 1,100 and 4,840 feet on urban arterials, depending on  posted speed and length of signal phase.19 These distances are too great to foster a well‐connected  pedestrian network, but they provide a starting point for establishing crossings in locations where there  may be none for long distances.    How to best integrate and implement these standards depends largely on context. For example, downtown  Beaverton features crossings every 264 feet (0.05 mile) on Hall Boulevard and Watson Avenue, corresponding  with the area’s compact street grid and dense land uses. By contrast, the TV Highway Corridor Plan recommends  enhanced pedestrian crossings or fully signalized intersections approximately every 0.3 mile in the more suburban  Aloha area.      Existing Signalized Intersections    Existing signalized intersections can also be made safer and more convenient for pedestrians by delineating  standard crosswalks if they are missing, adding countdown walk signals, allowing a two‐second advance phase for  pedestrians, and making physical improvements such as curb extensions and refuge islands.      Crossing Needs    Table 4‐12 and Figure 4‐7 show urban Washington County corridors where new, additional or enhanced crossings  should be evaluated and potentially provided. These corridors, many of them four‐or‐more‐lane arterials with  transit service, were compiled from the Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Background Report,  TriMet’s 2011 Pedestrian Network Analysis document,20 and public comment received during this plan update. A  finer‐scale analysis of each corridor is recommended before pursuing crossing projects.  17 Washington County Code, Article IV, Section 408‐5.2.  18 Washington County Code, Article V, Section 501‐8.5.  19 Signalized Intersection Spacing, prepared for Oregon Department of Transportation by Oregon State University Transportation Research Institute, 1996. 20 Pedestrian Network Analysis, TriMet, 2011.  §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ217 Enhanced Crossing Study Corridors J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ TS P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ E nh an ce dP ed X in g_ U rb .m xd January 02, 2013 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning and Development Services Enhanced Crossing Study Corridors Rural Washington County 0 16,0008,000 Feet 1 inch represents 16,500 feet ¯ Figure 4-7 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐28  Table 4-12: Enhanced Crossing Study Corridors Roadway  Extent  Location  185th Ave  Baseline Rd – Kinnaman Rd  Washington County (Aloha)  Barnes Rd  Cedar Hills Blvd – 87th Ave  Washington County (Sunset)  Baseline Rd  Cornelius Pass Rd – 185th Ave  Washington County (Aloha)  Farmington Rd  209th Ave – 160th Ave  Washington County (Aloha)  Tualatin Valley Hwy  Cornelius Pass Rd – 160th Ave  Washington County / Beaverton  Beaverton‐Hillsdale Hwy  Hwy 217 – Oleson Rd  Beaverton / Washington County  Canyon Rd  Hwy 217 – Canyon Dr  Beaverton / Washington County  Hall Blvd / Watson Ave  Cedar Hills Blvd – Allen Blvd  Beaverton  Hall Blvd  Greenway Blvd – Hwy 217  Beaverton  Jenkins Rd  Murray Blvd – Cedar Hills Blvd  Beaverton  Murray Blvd  Millikan Way – Scholls Ferry Rd  Beaverton  Scholls Ferry Rd  Murray Blvd – Hwy 217  Beaverton  Walker Rd  173rd Ave – 158th Ave  Beaverton  Adair St / Baseline St  10th Ave – 20th Ave  Cornelius  Highway 47  Porter Road – B St  Forest Grove  Pacific Ave / 19th Ave  Cedar St – Maple St  Forest Grove  10th Ave  Main St – Shute Park  Hillsboro  Baseline St / Oak St  Dennis Ave – 10th Ave  Hillsboro  Cornell Rd  Brookwood Pkwy – 229th Ave  Hillsboro (Orenco)  Cornell Rd  Cornelius Pass Rd – 185th Ave  Hillsboro (Tanasbourne)  Evergreen Pkwy  Cornelius Pass Rd – 185th Ave  Hillsboro (Tanasbourne)  Hall Blvd  Pacific Hwy – Burnham St  Tigard  Pacific Hwy  65th Ave – Fischer Rd  Tigard / King City  Upper Boones Ferry Rd  72nd Ave – Tualatin‐Sherwood Rd  Tigard / Durham / Tualatin       Other Crossing Needs    Other transportation facilities present barriers to crossing, including railroads and freeways.     The Portland & Western Railroad (PNWR) that parallels TV Highway between Beaverton and Hillsboro is a  barrier for people accessing #57 bus stops and shopping areas from the south. Demand paths worn into  the ground indicate that many people trespass across the tracks rather than walk out of direction to the  nearest legal crossing. Some have gone as far as building makeshift timber bridges across the drainage  ditch next to the railroad. To explore official solutions, the county will need to engage PNWR. Precedent  exists in downtown Lake Oswego, where a staggered pedestrian crossing of the same railroad provides  access to Millennium Park and the Oswego Lake shore.      Sunset Highway (US 26) is a major physical and psychological barrier that effectively defines the northern  area of Washington County. Between Highway 217 and Brookwood Parkway, the average interchange  spacing is about 1.4 miles, and few roads or trails cross in between those locations. Several planned  corridors would provide additional crossings of Sunset:    o Century Boulevard / 229th Avenue  o 173rd Avenue / 174th Avenue / Bronson Creek Trail  o 143rd Avenue / Meadow Drive / Westside Trail  o North Johnson Creek Trail    Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐29  Highway 217 imposes a north‐south barrier between intensely developed areas on either side. One  location of particular concern is Washington Square Regional Center, where the namesake mall and bus  transit center sit opposite the WES Commuter Rail station and Nimbus Avenue employment corridor. The  RTP proposes a pedestrian bridge here.    4.2.3 Connectivity   Pedestrian connectivity is the degree to which walkways intersect with other walkways, and can be measured by  the density of intersections in a given area. Neighborhoods with a high density of intersections – such as those  with a compact grid network – have higher connectivity than neighborhoods with fractal street networks, large  blocks and cul‐de‐sacs. Along with more obvious factors like sidewalk presence and lighting, connectivity plays a  major role in encouraging or discouraging walk trips. Development patterns where the only through routes are  arterials or collectors tend to discourage pedestrian travel. Out‐of‐direction travel makes trips longer and the  concentration of traffic onto a few streets can make them less pleasant for walking.    Washington County has a few small pockets of excellent connectivity, mostly limited to original town plat areas  such as downtown Beaverton or new developments like Orenco Station. Much of the remainder of the county  exhibits low connectivity, either due to mid‐century development features like cul‐de‐sacs and loops, large block  sizes, or natural or man‐made barriers like creeks, hillsides, freeways and railroads. Examples of areas with low  connectivity include Aloha‐Reedville, Rock Creek, Cedar Mill (especially north of Cornell Road) and Tanasbourne  Regional Center.          High connectivity: downtown Beaverton  Medium connectivity: Cedar Hills  Low connectivity: Aloha      Connectivity in the Code    Improvements that enhance connectivity may take the form of new street connections, multi‐use trails, or  accessways – off‐street corridors built exclusively for walking or bicycling (and sometimes emergency vehicle  access). In 1994, Washington County adopted connectivity standards requiring street block faces no longer than  600 feet and accessway spacing every 400 feet in new development in the urban unincorporated area.21 In 2000,  Washington County amended the code to include “required” and “potential” future street and accessway  connections in areas with five or more acres of developable land. Within these “connectivity lands,” shown on  Figure 4‐8, the maximum block length for new development is 530 feet and accessways must be provided every  330 feet.22 Accessways must be paved, ten feet wide, within a 15 to 20 foot‐wide right‐of‐way, and include  pedestrian‐scale lighting at each entrance and landscaping throughout.23  21 Washington County Community Development Code, Article IV, Section 408‐5.1  22 Washington County Community Development Code, Article IV, Section 408‐6.2  23 Washington County Community Development Code, Article IV, Section 408‐9  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐30  Connectivity in Washington County has also been improved by a code provision that prohibits cul‐de‐sacs, a  hallmark of 20th century suburban development.24      Connectivity Needs    While the connectivity code is effective in creating new street connections and accessways in newly developing  areas, this still leaves many established neighborhoods with poor connectivity. In these areas, opportunities may  exist to retrofit accessways between streets. A 2012 mapping and inventory effort undertaken by LUT revealed  numerous public easements and vacant rights‐of‐way in the urban unincorporated area. Designed properly, and  with buy‐in from surrounding property owners, new accessways could greatly improve connectivity and  encourage more walking in many urban areas of the county. In some cases, additional features such as  footbridges and stairways would be necessary to traverse natural barriers.    In unincorporated Washington County, Aloha‐Reedville and Cedar Mill arguably have the highest connectivity  improvement needs and the most opportunities (through public easements and rights‐of‐way) to provide them.  Specific locations are not identified in this plan update, but any future prioritization exercise should consider  connections to schools, transit stops, commercial areas and parks as having the most utility.    24 Washington County Community Development Code, Article IV, Section 408‐5.1 §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ217 Connectivity Lands J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ TS P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ C on ne ct iv ity La nd s_ U rb .m xd January 02, 2013 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning and Development Services Local Street Connectivity Lands Rural Washington County 0 16,0008,000 Feet 1 inch represents 16,500 feet ¯ Figure X Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐32  4.2.4 Lighting    Sufficient street lighting is key to walking safely in the urban area from dusk till dawn. This is especially true in the  fall and winter, when much of the AM and PM peak traffic hours are dark. In addition to helping people see and  be seen, street lighting also increases perceptions of personal safety. The presence or lack of street lighting has a  major influence on people’s route choice as well as their decision to walk at all.      Lighting in the Code    In urban unincorporated Washington County, all new local, neighborhood route, collector and arterial streets, as  well as half street improvements thereof, must be fitted with street lighting consistent with county engineering  standards.25 Developers must arrange maintenance and electricity payments for street lights by annexing to the  county’s Service District for Lighting (SDL).       Lighting Inventory    In 2012, there were 15,204 street lights in place on all roadways maintained by Washington County.  Approximately six percent of those street lights are on arterials, collectors and neighborhood routes, with the  remainder on local streets. Currently, there are several miles of streets within existing neighborhoods without  illumination, particularly in areas built before the 1990s. Significant segments of the major roadway system also  remain without lighting. Illumination tends to decrease with functional class. Arterials have the highest degree of  roadway illumination due to improvements made during road expansion projects. Neighborhood routes have the  lowest levels of illumination. In the rural area, street lighting is limited to villages and major intersections.    Lighting Funds    When street lights are installed in unincorporated Washington County, they are funded through either the SDL or  the general Washington County Road Fund. New street lights may be installed on major roads when the road is  reconstructed to ultimate standards, or when an adjacent property is developed and illumination is needed at the  development’s access to a major road or at another location. Along local streets, illumination is provided through  the SDL at the request of developers or property owners. The current extent of the SDL is shown on Figure 4‐9. In  these areas, all costs associated with providing illumination along local streets are paid by property owners. These  costs include the capital expense of the light itself, as well as the county’s electric bill payments to PGE.      Lighting Needs     Insufficient street lighting has emerged as a top‐level concern among community members in the Aloha‐Reedville  area. While much of that area is within the SDL, scattered road segments remain without street lighting.  Elsewhere in the urban unincorporated area, significant portions of Cedar Mill, Raleigh Hills, Metzger, Cooper  Mountain and Bull Mountain remain outside the SDL and without consistent street lighting, especially away from  arterials and collectors. In the rural area, many intersections of minor rural roads lack street lighting. However,  public comment revealed a desire to limit roadway lighting in the rural area to minimize light pollution and effects  on crop growth.  25 Washington County Code Article V, Section 501‐8.2   §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ217 Street Light District J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ TS P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ S D L_ U rb .m xd January 02, 2013 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning and Development Services Street Lighting District Rural Washington County 0 16,0008,000 Feet 1 inch represents 16,500 feet ¯ Figure X Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐34   4.2.5 Trails    For people moving on foot, trails offer the greatest protection from motorized traffic. Often associated with  recreational pursuits, trails also offer transportation utility for short walking trips and longer bicycling trips.  Washington County has an ever‐expanding network of trails for walking, running, skating, bicycling and other  forms of non‐motorized human travel. As of 2012, 69 miles of trails traverse the county, including 36 miles in the  urban area and 33 in the rural area. An additional 164 miles of trails are in the planning stages countywide.    Trail planning in Washington County occurs at state, regional  and local levels. Metro’s 2004 Regional Trails and Greenways  Vision established a strong conceptual framework for trail  development in the urban portion of the county. The regional  vision has since been embellished by more specific trail plans  from Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District (THPRD) and  city jurisdictions. THPRD’s 2006 trail plan put forth a bold vision  for trails in the central part of the county, with regional trails  further connected by community trails and on‐road segments.  The State of Oregon also plays a role in trail planning due to its  stewardship of the Banks‐Vernonia Trail and nearby soft‐ surface trails within Stub Stewart State Park and Tillamook  State Forest.     Trail construction and maintenance responsibilities in the urban area typically fall on local jurisdictions. THPRD, by  means of its voter‐approved bond funding, has taken a lead role in trail development in the past decade. Cities  from Tualatin to Forest Grove have also made significant trail investments. Funding assistance often comes from  regional and state grants, including Metro’s natural area bond and ODOT bike/ped grants (the latter now included  in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program “Enhance” category.). Washington County has a limited  role in trail development, focusing efforts on inter‐jurisdictional coordination of trail planning and facilitation of  road crossings. The county’s one major trail asset is the loop trail around Henry Hagg Lake west of Gaston.    Private development is responsible for yet more trails in the county. From the mid‐century Oak Hills subdivision to  the latest Peterkort projects, developers have provided sizable local trail networks that effectively donate a public  amenity while also helping with sales. Commercial developers have followed suit, as seen on the Nike campus and  in Hillsboro’s Dawson Creek Industrial Park. However, not all privately owned trails are open to the public.    Table 4‐13 and accompanying Figure 4‐10 account for major existing and proposed trails in Washington County.  Regional trails are typically longer and help build out the regional trail and greenway vision. Community trails are  shorter, often connecting neighborhoods or parks within a single jurisdiction. Many shorter, localized trails and  accessways can be found throughout the county, but a complete inventory is not within the scope of this plan  update.   Banks‐Vernonia Trail Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐35 Table 4-13: Existing and Planned Trails Trail Name, Description and Status  Existing  Mileage*  Planned  Mileage*   REGIONAL TRAILS  Banks‐Vernonia Trail. Stretching 21 miles through farms and forests between the namesake  towns, this State Parks‐operated rail‐trail is a major regional recreation destination. 14 miles of  the trail are within Washington County. The trail was recently improved within Stub Stewart  State Park, including asphalt surfacing and the Tophill Trestle bypass. Washington County  extended the southern end of the trail to Sellers Road and provided a trailhead. In the long term,  the trail is envisioned to connect to Hillsboro by either continuing along the Portland & Western  Railroad or using the proposed Council Creek Regional Trail.   14 (WC) 21 (total)  9.5  Beaverton Creek Trail. Originally envisioned as a conservation greenway, THPRD completed a  2007 feasibility study that proposes a 7‐mile trail along Beaverton Creek from the Fanno Creek  Greenway Trail at Denny Road and Highway 217, northwestward to Arleda Park at SW 194th  Place and Willow Creek Drive. A more recent iteration of the trail combines it with the adjacent  Fanno Creek Greenway Trail in a multi‐jurisdictional trail completion initiative called the  Crescent Connection.  2.1  5.3  Burlington Northern Rail Trail. This rail corridor between North Plains and US 30 is occasionally  discussed as a potential rail‐trail. However, trail development is unlikely in the near term as  freight trains still actively use this line.   0  6.0  Cooper Mountain Trail. This trail would provide an east‐west connection from the Westside Trail  to Cooper Mountain Nature Park, then northwestward to the South Hillsboro area.  0  4.1  Council Creek Regional Trail. A master planning process begun in 2012 will study potential trail  alignments in a 15‐mile corridor connecting Hillsboro, Cornelius, Forest Grove and Banks. The  trail would provide a key active transportation link between the four cities and effectively extend  the Banks‐Vernonia Trail to the urban area. One potential route follows the namesake creek  along the north edges of Cornelius and Forest Grove, then turns northward along the Highway  47 corridor.  0  15  Fanno Creek Greenway Trail. One of the first paved multi‐use trails in Washington County, the  Fanno Creek Greenway forms a major spine of active transportation connecting Tigard,  Beaverton and Portland. Several sections remain to be done, including a short segment in  downtown Tigard and a longer extension from Bonita Road southward to the Ki‐a‐Kuts Bike‐Ped  Bridge over the Tualatin River. These missing sections are part of the Crescent Connection  initiative that bundles the Fanno Creek Greenway and Beaverton Creek trails.  8.2  2.6  Hagg Lake Greenway. A greenway and potential trail is envisioned between Henry Hagg Lake  and the Tualatin River, following the Scoggins Creek Valley and adjacent railroad corridor.  0  4.4  Ice Age Tonquin Trail. A three‐pronged network of trails will eventually connect Tualatin,  Sherwood and Wilsonville. One section has been completed within Metro’s Graham Oaks Nature  Park in Clackamas County. The northern prong of the trail would connect with the Westside Trail  at a proposed ped/bike bridge over the Tualatin River near King City. The western prong would  pass through the City of Sherwood as the Cedar Creek Trail.  0  18.1  (total)  Oregon Electric Trail. An abandoned railroad extends from the Cornelius Pass / Sunset Highway  interchange northward to Helvetia. A finished section extends eastward from the railroad,  connecting to the Rock Creek Trail. Both segments provide a trail connection to Liberty High  School.  1.0  2.8  Path to the Pacific. Also called the Turf‐to‐Surf Trail, Portland‐to‐Coast Trail, and (in one  segment) the TV Highway Trail, this ambitious concept aims to connect the Portland region with  the Oregon Coast through a series of off‐road and on‐road connections. Multiple route  alternatives through Washington County have been studied. A northern route would use the  aforementioned Burlington Northern Railroad and US 26 right‐of‐way. A southern route would  follow TV Highway and the either the unfinished portion of the Banks‐Vernonia Trail or the  proposed Council Creek Trail. Both proposed routes converge in Manning, with hopes of using  the Port of Tillamook Railroad (which was irreparably damaged in a 2007 winter storm) to reach  the coast near Manzanita.  0  40+  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐36  Trail Name, Description and Status  Existing  Mileage*  Planned  Mileage*   Pearl‐Keeler Power Line Trail. This trail, shown in Hillsboro’s 2009 Parks and Trails Master Plan  as the BN Powerline Trail, would diverge southward from the Rock Creek Trail at Orchard Park,  following BPA’s Pearl‐Keeler transmission line through the Reedville area. Portions of the trail  exist within Paula Jean and Trachsel Meadows parks, but are deficient by modern regional trail  standards. Recent planning for South Hillsboro continues the trail corridor south of TV Highway  along the BPA line to Rosedale Road and potentially beyond.  0.5  3.9  River‐to‐River Trail. This proposed route, mostly within Clackamas County, would connect  Tualatin with Lake Oswego using the Portland & Western Railroad corridor.  0  1.1 (WC) 5.6 (total)  Rock Creek Trail. This trail uses a combination of stream valleys and power line corridors to  travel southwestward from Bethany to Hillsboro. With some minor exceptions, the trail is  complete north of Wilkins Street. Major gaps exist southward to TV Highway.  4.6  4.2  Sunset Highway Trail. A utilitarian bike‐ped trail parallels Sunset Highway from Highway 217  eastward and uphill to the Oregon Zoo. From the zoo, numerous low‐traffic streets and trails  provide ped/bike connections to downtown Portland.  2.2  0  Tualatin River Greenway Trail. This riverside trail would extend from the Tualatin River National  Wildlife Refuge eastward through downtown Tualatin, underneath Interstate 5 and into  Clackamas County, where it would enter the Stafford urban reserve.  0  12.7  Washington Square Loop Trail. A proposed loop trail would encircle Washington Square  Regional Center and connect to the Fanno Creek Greenway Trail at two points.  0  3.8  Westside Trail. Generally following a north‐south power line corridor for over 20 miles across  Washington and Multnomah counties, the Westside Trail will eventually connect the Tualatin  River near King City with the Willamette River in far northwest Portland. Many portions are  complete between Barrows Road in Tigard and TV Highway in Beaverton. Major challenges in  the remaining sections include steep topography on Bull Mountain, and costly crossings of  Sunset Highway and the Tualatin River.  5.5  15.9  Yamhelas Westsider Trail. The Yamhelas Westside Trail Coalition is working to acquire a 17‐mile  abandoned Union Pacific railroad connecting McMinnville and Carlton in Yamhill County with  Gaston in Washington County. The abandoned segment stops just east of Hagg Lake.  0  1.8 (WC) 17 (total)  COMMUNITY TRAILS  Ascension Trail. Proposed in the Tigard Greenways Master Plan, this trail would ascend the  north side of Bull Mountain in a forested canyon between two residential streets.  0  0.6  Bannister Creek Trail. This trail, proposed in the THPRD Trails Master Plan, is a northeastward  extension of the Bronson Creek Trail near NW Laidlaw and Saltzman roads.  0  0.6  Bethany Terrace Trail. This partially‐completed trail extends eastward from the intersection of  the Westside and Rock Creek trails in Bethany.   0.3  0.5  Bronson Creek Trail. This proposed trail would follow Bronson Creek through several greenway  parks from Bethany to Tanasbourne.  0.2  2.7  Cedar Creek Trail. This City of Sherwood project would form a part of the Ice Age Tonquin  Regional Trail, while also serving the immediate community. It would link Old Town Sherwood to  northern neighborhoods of Sherwood, passing underneath Highway 99W.  0  1.5  Cedar Mill Trails. Numerous trails course through the Cedar Mill area, including the Cedar Mill  Creek and North Johnson Creek trails. Several of the trails include grade‐separated timber  bridges over roadways. The North Johnson Creek Trail is proposed to continue south underneath  Sunset Highway and connect to Commonwealth Lake.  2.3  2.6  Dawson Creek Trails. A series of existing paved trails connect light industrial and office  businesses with the Hillsboro Library and Brookwood Parkway, all surrounding a natural area of  ponds and wetlands. The Hillsboro Parks and Trails Master Plan envisions a trail continuing  southward along Dawson Creek to the unfinished portion of the Rock Creek Trail.  Unavailable  0  Forest Grove Emerald Necklace. The 2007 Forest Grove Trails Plan envisions a trail encircling  Forest Grove. Southern and eastern portions of the route are complete, consisting of the B  Street Trail and Highway 47 Trail.  4.5  5.8  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐37 Trail Name, Description and Status  Existing  Mileage*  Planned  Mileage*   Glencoe Swale Trail. The City of Hillsboro envisions formalizing and extending an existing  demand path in the stream corridor behind Glencoe High School. At its longest, it would extend  1.7 miles from Glencoe Road to NE 15th Avenue.    0  1.7  Hiteon‐Conestoga Trail. This trail connects Hiteon Park with Conestoga Middle School in the  Progress Ridge area of south Beaverton.  1.1  0.5  North Bethany Trails. As part of the concept plan for North Bethany, Washington County has  planned an interconnected network of trails and greenways. The network is based on an earlier  vision from the THPRD Trails Master Plan.  0  5.9  Oak Hills Trails. The mid‐century Oak Hills subdivision was one of the first in Washington County  to provide a community trail network. In addition to serving the immediate community, the Oak  Hills Trails include a section of the Waterhouse Trail, which will eventually connect North  Bethany and Beaverton. With the exception of the Waterhouse corridor owned by BPA, the Oak  Hills Trails are located on private homeowners’ association property.  Unavailable  0  Pathfinder Genesis Trail. Named for two nearby residential streets, the Pathfinder Genesis Trail  follows a wooded stream corridor in the heart of Tigard. A short connection is needed to link the  trail with the Fanno Creek Greenway.   1.0  0.2  Reedville Creek Greenway. Hillsboro envisions long‐term development of a greenway trail along  this east‐west creek between the BN Powerline Trail and Brookwood Avenue. The corridor  passes along the north edge of Century High School.  0  1.9  Summercreek Trail. Using a vacated alignment of Scholls Ferry Road, this short, ADA‐accessible  trail is a highlight of Barrows Park in the Progress Ridge area of far southwestern Beaverton.  0.5  0  Tigard Street Trail. Tucked between Tigard Street and the adjacent WES commuter rail is a  gravel access driveway that, if improved into a trail, would provide a direct connection with few  interruptions between downtown Tigard and the Fanno Creek Greenway further north.  0  0.8  Turner Creek Trail. Turner Creek separates downtown Hillsboro from neighborhoods to the east.  The city envisions a greenway trail along this corridor from the MAX line to Valley Memorial Park  Cemetery on TV Highway.  0  1.6  TV Highway Trail. A proposed trail parallel to TV Highway between Hillsboro and Beaverton  would provide local utility for the Aloha‐Reedville and South Hillsboro areas. Right‐of‐way  associated with the Old Hillsboro Highway may be available in various segments along the south  side of the Portland & Western Railroad. The TV Highway Trail is one potential route for the  larger Path to the Pacific concept.  0  9.0  Waible Creek Greenbelt. Located in the urban reserve north of Hillsboro, the east‐west Waible  Creek is a likely location for a greenway trail upon future development. The corridor is shown in  the Hillsboro Parks and Trails Master Plan.  0  Unavailable  Waterhouse Trail. This trail, about 50% complete, follows a north‐south power line corridor  parallel to and west of the one used by the Westside Trail. Once complete, it will provide a  mostly car‐free connection from North Bethany to the Nike campus area.    2.8  2.8  Willow Creek Trail. Trending northeast to southwest like several other streams in the area,  Willow Creek flows from Oak Hills to 185th and Baseline before joining Beaverton Creek. THPRD  envisions expanding the existing trail in Willow Creek Nature Park in both directions.  0.6  2.8  *Mileage estimates are approximate.    §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 Regional Trail Network J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ TS P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ Tr ai ls .m xd January 04, 2013 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning and Development Services Existing Regional Trails Existing Community Trails Proposed Regional Proposed Inter-Regional Trail Proposed Greenway Corridor Rural Washington County 0 16,0008,000 Feet 1 inch represents 30,000 feet ¯ Figure 4-10 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐39 Nodal Trail Destinations    In addition to an interconnected network of linear trails, Washington County also includes a number of nodal  recreation destinations such as nature parks. These sites have interior trail networks that may or may not connect  with exterior destinations, but are nonetheless popular for walking, hiking, running or nature viewing. Nodal trail  destinations include:     Chehalem Ridge Natural Area   Cooper Mountain Nature Park   Fernhill Wetlands   Hagg Lake Park   Jackson Bottom Wetlands   Jenkins Estate   L.L. Stub Stewart State Park   Nike World Headquarters   Tillamook State Forest – Gales Creek area and University Falls area   Tualatin Hills Nature Park   Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge      Future Needs    Trails or portions of trails with “planned” mileage in Table 4‐10 provide a record of trail needs throughout  Washington County. In terms of prioritization, the county will largely defer to the jurisdictions that would build  and maintain these trails – THPRD and the cities. THPRD, Beaverton, Tigard, Hillsboro and Forest Grove have each  completed trail master plans in the past five years that prioritize projects and provide implementation direction.    The county supports filling gaps in existing regional trails, since these projects would have a greater potential to  improve countywide trail connectivity. The Crescent Connection (Beaverton Creek and Fanno Creek Greenway  trails) and Westside Trail are probably the best examples of this. However, the county also supports new trail  efforts in areas that lack them, including the Ice Age Tonquin Trail, Council Creek Trail and Yamhelas Westsider  Trail. As an entity focused more on transportation and less on recreation, the county would tend to support trail  projects that provide active transportation access to major employment hubs, transit stops and mixed‐use  centers.    In fact, county residents involved in the TSP 2035 process have voiced a strong interest in building trails for  transportation, not just recreation. This means facilitating efficient and safe movement of people 24 hours a day,  all year long, on appropriate urban trails. Design and management solutions to achieve this goal include:     Using pervious asphalt to provide a surface that is durable, watershed‐friendly and resistant to ponding  during the region’s rainy winters;   Minimizing sharp curves and out‐of‐direction travel that slow down travel times and create blind spots;   Considering trail lighting in appropriate urban areas;   Keeping trails legally open during night hours to facilitate all types of commuting schedules; and   Ensuring regular maintenance and debris clearing by the responsible jurisdiction.    Not all trails would be appropriate for this level of service. For example, soft surface nature trails are typically not  intended for commuting.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐40  4.2.6 Pedestrian Safety   In 2008 through 2010, Washington County experienced 225 pedestrian/automobile collisions (Table 4‐14). Of  these, 14 were fatal. By comparison, 190 pedestrian crashes with 14 fatalities occurred in 1997 through 1999, the  three‐year period studied for the previous TSP update. Normalized by population, the pedestrian crash rate has  decreased very slightly.    Table 4-14: Pedestrian Crashes, 2008-2010   2008‐2010  1997‐1999  Non‐fatal injury  211  176  Fatal  14  14  Total  225  190  County population  529,710 (2010)  445,342 (2000)  Pedestrian crash rate  0.0425%  0.0427%      Pedestrian Crash Locations    Pedestrian crash locations are shown on Figure 4‐11. A majority of crashes occur along arterial roadways.  Countywide, the road with the most pedestrian crashes – and the most fatalities – is TV Highway. In the  unincorporated area, the most significant cluster of pedestrian crashes is at the five‐leg Beaverton‐ Hillsdale/Scholls Ferry/Oleson intersection in Raleigh Hills. On roadways owned and maintained by the county,  notable concentrations of pedestrian crashes took place in the Evergreen/Imbrie/Cornelius Pass triangle in north  Hillsboro, along Scholls Ferry Road west of Highway 217, and in the Tualatin town center where Tualatin‐ Sherwood and Boones Ferry roads meet. Two pedestrian crashes took place in the rural area, including one fatal.      Pedestrian Crash Circumstances and Age    Looking at pedestrian crash circumstances for the year 2010, an overwhelming majority occurred as people were  crossing streets at intersections or crosswalks. In terms of the age, adults age 25‐44 comprise the largest group of  pedestrian crash victims. Table 4‐15 cross‐tabulates pedestrian crash circumstances with age.    §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ217 Pedestrian Crashes 2008 - 2010 J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ TS P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ C ra sh es _U rb .m xd January 09, 2013 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning and Development Services " Fatal ! Non-fatal Injury Rural Washington County 0 16,0008,000 Feet 1 inch represents 16,500 feet ¯ Figure 4-11 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐42  Table 4-15: Pedestrian Crash Circumstances and Age, 2010 Age of pedestrians killed and injured Circumstance  Peds  killed  Total  0‐4  5‐9  10‐14  15‐19  20‐24  25‐44  45‐64  65 +  Not  stated  Crossing at intersection or crosswalk    2  55  1    1  6  5  18  14  5  5  Crossing not at intersection    1  16  1  1  1  2  3  2  1  5    Walking in road with traffic      1                1    Walking in road against traffic      1                1    Standing in roadway    2  5      1  1    3        Attending to vehicle in roadway                          Other working in roadway                          Playing in roadway                          Other in roadway      1              1      Not in roadway    1  16      2  2    6  4  2    Not stated      1            1        Totals    6  96  2  1  5  11  8    20  14  5  Source: Oregon Department of Transportation 2010 Crash Summary Book    Additional safety data and considerations are covered in Chapter 2 of this report.  4.2.7 Education & Encouragement   Providing safe, convenient facilities for walking is a logical first step. Encouraging people to use them and to do so  safely is the next critical step. Washington County collaborates with a variety of public and private providers of  walking education and encouragement. Major initiatives include the following:     Safe Routes to School. In 2001, the State Legislature passed enabling legislation for Safe Routes to School,  hoping to help reverse the national decline of walking and biking to school. Bill 3712 requires counties and  cities to work with schools districts to identify barriers and hazards to students walking or bicycling to and  from school. Together, these partners develop Safe Routes to School programs focused on the “4 Es”:  education, encouragement, enforcement and engineering. The county and cities may be involved in all  four activities, but particularly in implementing engineering solutions on roadways. Safe Routes to School  programs are active in most of the public school districts in Washington County. The county has partnered  with Beaverton School District on several sidewalk projects near elementary schools.     Walk There. Metro’s Walk There guidebook describes and maps 50 walking routes throughout the  Portland region, including nine in Washington County. The book is intended to encourage walking for  exercise, and to showcase the region’s neighborhoods, historic sites, natural areas and parks.     Oregon Walks. Previously called the Willamette Pedestrian Coalition, Oregon Walks is the Portland  region’s primary advocacy organization focused on walking. A non‐profit organization formed in 1991,  Oregon Walks is dedicated to promoting walking and making conditions for walking safe, convenient and  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐43 attractive throughout the Portland region. In 2011, Oregon Walks jointly hosted a public forum on active  transportation in Washington County along with the Bicycle Transportation Alliance. Oregon Walks is  becoming increasingly involved with transportation planning. Two members of Oregon Walks served on  the TSP 2035 CAC.     Sunday Trailways. Inspired by Portland’s very successful Sunday Parkways events (in which a network of  streets and trails are closed to automobile traffic for a celebration of walking, biking, food, music and  community), THPRD held an inaugural Sunday Trailways event in 2012 along the Fanno Creek Greenway  Trail. By merging active transportation encouragement with a fun community event, Sunday Trailways  increases exposure to the county’s walking and biking infrastructure.      Education and Encouragement Needs    Washington County may consider building upon the efforts described above to further encourage walking as a  means of transportation and recreation. Potential future efforts may include:      Increasing the quantity and scope of Safe Routes to School programs throughout the county, especially at  schools in the urban unincorporated area. In addition to seeking funds for engineering solutions, the  county may be able to help with walking route recommendations, safety events, and, through the  Sheriff’s department, stepped up traffic enforcement in school zones. Many jurisdictions throughout the  US have a dedicated Safe Routes to School staff person to coordinate these efforts.     Building on Metro’s Walk There guidebook by establishing more walking tour routes throughout the  county and publishing them online and in print. The Washington County Visitors Association, Westside  Transportation Alliance, THPRD and cities could be partners in this effort.     Further engaging Oregon Walks to advocate and consult on transportation projects, plans and programs.     Working with THPRD to continue and expand the Sunday Trailways event, including routes with on‐street  segments that would be temporarily closed to automobile traffic.     Installing wayfinding signage that identifies suitable walking routes between major destinations such as  schools and shopping areas. Wayfinding signage may be especially helpful in neighborhoods with  accessways and trails that may be unfamiliar to visitors. Wayfinding signage typically points the way to  specific destinations and reports distances or estimated walking times. Some communities, like Southwest  Portland, have established named or numbered walking routes and a guide map.    Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐44  4.2.8 Rural Pedestrian Considerations   Walking as a means of transportation is less common in rural areas of Washington County. Distances between  destinations are typically too long to feasibly walk between them. However, rural residents still have plenty of  reasons to walk or run along rural roads – among them, exercise, visiting a neighbor, making an on‐road trail  connection, or getting to a reasonably close destination such as a farmstand, church or social hall.      Rural Walking Facilities    Designated facilities for walking in the rural area are few. Sidewalks are not required along rural roads in  Washington County, and the intensity of land development that would trigger a need for sidewalks is limited by  land use policies. Many rural roads in Washington County are narrow, forcing pedestrians to share the roadway  with fast‐moving automobile traffic.    A limited number of rural roads, including Roy Rogers and Cornelius‐Schefflin, have been intentionally improved  with wide shoulders to accommodate farm equipment and bicyclists. These roads can also safely accommodate  pedestrians. Additionally, portions of some rural arterials have reasonably sized shoulders (four feet or more) that  can facilitate walking or running, such as Highway 47 between Forest Grove and Gaston, and Scholls Ferry Road  west of Roy Rogers Road. The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan recommends that shoulders to accommodate  pedestrian and bicycle travel on state roads be a minimum of six feet wide.    Perhaps the most significant and well‐developed pedestrian facility in rural Washington County is the Banks‐ Vernonia Trail, which extends 21 miles between the namesake towns, and connects to one of Oregon’s newest  state parks, Stub Stewart. More rugged trails can be found at Henry Hagg Lake and in the Tillamook State Forest.       Rural Pedestrian Activity Areas    Several locations in rural Washington County attract or generate a small number of localized walking trips. These  “rural pedestrian activity areas” include small villages with clusters of houses, businesses or public uses like  schools, churches and social halls. Also included are road segments that connect nearby urban areas, and major  recreational destinations such as regional parks and trails. Rural pedestrian activity areas, shown on Figure 4‐12,  include:     the villages of Blooming, Buxton, Cherry Grove, Dilley, Farmington, Gales Creek, Glenwood, Greenville,  Groner, Helvetia, Kinton, Laurel, Laurelwood, Manning, Midway, Roy, Scholls, Verboort and West Union;     the half‐mile rural section of Highway 8 between Hillsboro and Cornelius;     the intersection of B Street, Highway 47 and adjacent multi‐use trails south of Forest Grove;     the area surrounding Farmington View School along Highway 219 south of Hillsboro;     Henry Hagg Lake County Park;     L.L. Stub Stewart State Park, which includes multiple trail crossings of Highway 47;     Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge, which straddles Highway 99W; and  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐45  a 2½ mile stretch of Highway 6 in the Tillamook State Forest between Gales Creek Campground and the  Coast Range Summit, featuring a parallel hiking trail, a scenic viewpoint, and several parking areas for  other trails.    Figure 4‐12 also illustrates linear pedestrian facilities in the rural area, including the Banks‐Vernonia Trail and rural  roadways with reasonably wide shoulders for walking (about 4 feet or wider).      Rural Pedestrian Crashes    From 2008 through 2010, there were two pedestrian crashes involving injuries outside of urban growth  boundaries in Washington County. One was fatal, at the intersection of Highway 47 and B Street just south of  Forest Grove. The other crash was non‐fatal, and occurred on Glencoe Road just south of the Sunset Highway  interchange near a gas station and convenience store.      Rural Pedestrian Needs    Existing and future needs for walking in the rural area vary, and are largely dependent on context.     Installing walkway facilities in rural villages should be approached on a case‐by‐case basis. Village areas  are not likely to see major growth due to land use regulations, but traffic passing through them may  increase as housing and employment grows in nearby urban areas. Some villages may exhibit enough  pedestrian demand and automobile traffic conflict to warrant building walkway facilities. Villages with  schools, such as Groner, provide additional rationale for walkways. However, construction of sidewalks or  walkways could have unwanted impacts on the aesthetics of a village. Enhanced crosswalks, which have  fewer property impacts, may be more appropriate in some locations. Coordination with village residents,  business owners and school officials is the best way to determine these needs.     Use of major recreation facilities such as Stub Stewart State Park and the Banks‐Vernonia Trail are likely to  increase as population grows in the Portland region. Supportive pedestrian facilities on county roads may  be needed, such as enhanced crosswalks where trails cross roads.     Rural areas that are close to urban areas may have urban levels of pedestrian demand. The most  significant example is the half‐mile stretch of Highway 8 between Hillsboro and Cornelius, which includes  bus service. Public comment revealed a need for better walking facilities along this stretch, especially at  the bridge over Dairy Creek.  §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ217 Rural Pedestrian Considerations J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ TS P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ P ed C on si de rC oW .m xd January 09, 2013 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning and Development Services Pedestrian Crashes ('08-'10) " Fatal ! Non-fatal Injury Rural Pedestrian Activity Areas Existing Other Banks to Vernonia Trail Tualatin River Nat'l Wildlife Refuge Rural Washington County 0 30,00015,000 Feet 1 inch represents 30,000 feet ¯ Figure 4-12 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐47 4.3 BICYCLING   4.3.1 Overview   Bicycle planning in Washington County began in earnest  following the passage of the Oregon Bicycle Law in 1971. The  Washington County Bicycle Pedestrian Pathway Master Plan  soon followed, adopted in 1974. The master plan proposed an  extensive network of on‐street and off‐street bicycle routes  and a point system to prioritize routes for construction. By  1983 approximately 7 miles of pathways had been completed.  In 1986, the County adopted bikeway standards as part of the  Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards calling for “a six‐ foot wide bicycle lane constructed adjacent to the curb within  the pavement area.” The 1988 Transportation Plan notes 15  miles of bike lanes built to design standard and 14 miles of sub‐ standard bicycle paths existed on or adjacent to county roads. By 2002 that number had grown to over 64 miles of  existing on‐street bikeway facilities, the result of over 2.5 miles of additional bikeways added to the system  annually between 1988 and 2002 in conjunction with the Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program.  Today, the County’s major street network (arterials and collectors) has over 91 miles of on‐street urban bikeway  (6’ bicycle lanes and minimum 4’ width paved shoulders) and 36 miles of rural on‐street bikeways (minimum 4’  width paved shoulders).       Bicycle Trip Characteristics     Bicycling is an important mode of transportation, whether used separately or with other modes.   Bicycling is the most efficient form of transportation and is considered particularly well suited for shorter trips,  typically less than three miles. A recent study that track cyclists’ activity in the Portland Metropolitan Region,  including Washington County, found the median bicycle trip of study participants was 2.8 miles. However, it was  found that participants were willing to travel further from home to work; the median single trip distance was 3.8  miles with an average trip length of 5.2 miles.26 However, acceptable trip length can vary greatly depending on  the skill and fitness level of the cyclist.     The bicycle can be used for a variety of uses and trip purposes. Bicycle trips in Washington County include trips to  work, school, shopping and for recreational purposes. The same study noted above found that other than riding  to home, riding to work was the most frequent trip purpose (25%), with approximately 18% for shopping/dining  out/or other personal business, and 12% for social/recreation purposes (such as going to the movies, the gym, or  visiting friends).27     Nationally approximately 39 percent of all trips are less than two miles.28 This suggests that with improved access  to safe and comfortable bikeways, bicycling can be a feasible option for many people.         26 Understanding and Measuring Bicycling Behavior: a Focus on Travel Time and Route Choice. OTREC‐RR‐08‐03, December 2008., p. 35  27 Understanding and Measuring Bicycling Behavior: a Focus on Travel Time and Route Choice. OTREC‐RR‐08‐03, December 2008. p. 34  28 Regional Transportation Plan Active Transportation Fact Sheet. Metro, Fall 2009.  Buffered bike lane on NW 185th Avenue.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐48  Types of System Users     An important consideration in preparing a bicycle plan is to recognize the primary types of cyclists and the  differing needs each group has. Generally, the types of bicyclists fall into three categories:     Strong and Fearless or Type A (Advanced) – This group includes bicyclists that are comfortable riding on  busy roads with a low level of separation from traffic and navigating in traffic when necessary to reach  destinations. This group makes up a small percentage of cyclists and the population.     Enthused and Confident or Type B (Basic) – This group includes utilitarian and recreational riders who will  ride on busy streets if bike lanes or other facilities are provided, but may deviate from the most direct  route to ride on low‐traffic streets or shared‐use paths.     Interested, but Concerned or Type C (Concerned) – This group includes a wide range of people of all ages  who enjoy bicycling occasionally, but may only ride on shared use paths, protected on‐street facilities, or  low traffic local streets. The majority of the population falls into this category.    Achieving regional active transportation performance targets will require attracting a wider range of users. For  Type B and C cyclists there are a variety of factors that limit their use of the bikeway network including, adjacent  vehicle speeds (>35 mph), adjacent vehicle volumes (>3,000 ADT) and freight conflicts. Some jurisdictions are  responding by increasing separation between vehicle and bicycle travel through enhanced bicycle facility design.  Washington County’s Bicycle Facility Design Toolkit provides detailed design considerations intended to provide a  safe and convenient bikeway that will be especially beneficial to Type B and C bicyclists.    4.3.2 Bikeway Facilities The following describes the spectrum of existing and potential separated on‐street bikeways:     Shoulder bikeways: On rural roads or interim urban roads with a large shoulder, shoulder bikeways can  accommodate bicycle travel. Shoulder bikeways are generally used by commuter and long‐distance  recreational riders, rather than families with children or more inexperienced riders.     Bike lanes: Designated exclusively for bicycle travel, bike lanes are separated from vehicle travel lanes  with striping and pavement stencils. Bike lanes are most appropriate on arterial and collector streets  where higher traffic volumes and speeds warrant greater separation. Bike lanes also increase safety and  reduce wrong‐way riding. This treatment is required on arterials and collectors when roads are newly  constructed or reconstructed, per Washington County’s existing Road Design Standards.     Buffered bike lanes: Buffered bike lanes are designed to increase the space between the bike lane and  the travel lane or parked cars. They allow motorists greater separation from bicyclists in the bike lane (as  travel speeds increase greater separation is needed) and provide space for cyclists to pass one another  without encroaching into the travel lane. Buffered bike lanes are not currently addressed in the  Washington County Road Design Standards. Two pilot projects have been constructed that demonstrate  the use of buffered bike lanes on NW 185th Avenue and SW Tualatin‐Sherwood Road.      Cycle tracks: Cycle tracks provide added protection by separating motor vehicles and bicyclists where  travel speeds and/or motor vehicle traffic volumes are high. This type of facility appeals to a wider range  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐49 of bicycle users than a conventional bike lane. Cycle tracks are not currently addressed in the Washington  County Road Design Standards. Table 4‐16 shows the types of enhanced facilities that have been  constructed in Washington County.     According to Washington County’s Bicycle Facility Design Toolkit there are three types of cycle tracks:    o Protected cycle tracks are on‐street bikeway  facilities that provide the safety and comfort of  multi‐use paths within the road right‐of‐way.  This is accomplished by combining a painted  buffer with a physical barrier such as flexible  bollards, a landscaped buffer, or a parking lane.    o Raised cycle tracks are grade separated.  Commonly located above the adjacent travel  lane and below the sidewalk, they can also be  found at sidewalk grade.    o Two‐way cycle tracks allow for bicycle travel in  two directions on the same side of the road.    Table 4-16: Enhanced Bikeways in Urban Washington County Road  Jurisdiction  From  To  Type of  Facility  Approximate  Extent  (lane miles)  Brookwood  Parkway  Washington  County  Cornell Rd  Evergreen  Multi‐use path  3.8  Evergreen Parkway  Washington  County  225th Ave  Brookwood  Parkway  Buffered bike  lane  3.8  Tualatin‐Sherwood  Washington  County  Teton Ave  Gerda Ln  Buffered bike  lane  4.4  Veterans Dr.  Hillsboro  29th Ave  Fairground  Roundabout  Cycle track  0.7  185th Ave  Washington  County  Westview High  West Union  Buffered bike  lane  1.0          Total  13.7    Existing Urban Bicycle Facility Network    Today the major bikeway system is comprised of a variety of facilities and treatments on collector and arterial  roadways.  As in many growing areas, bicycle facilities in Washington County are still developing. In some cases  there are complete, continuous bike lanes, while in others, significant gaps in connections between facilities exist.  The Regional Transportation Functional Plan (RTFP) requires an inventory of existing facilities that identifies gaps  and deficiencies in the bicycle system. Washington County performed a complete inventory of the County’s  existing on‐street bicycle facilities between 2011‐2012 for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Prioritization  Project. The study examined all urban arterial and collector streets using the latest aerial imagery to identify the  presence or absence of on‐street bicycle lanes five to six feet wide and paved shoulders at least four feet wide.  The inventory was publicly vetted using on online interactive map that allowed visitors to the project’s website to  Veterans Drive has a raised cycle track, which was  constructed as a joint project between the City of Hillsboro  and Washington County at the Fair Grounds. Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐50  review the mapped inventory and comment on its accuracy as well as provide other information like system  needs and route preferences. The following provides descriptive analysis of the existing bicycle network:       Arterials and Collectors    There are a total of 838.7 lane miles of urban collector and arterial roadways (includes incorporated cities, county  and state facilities) throughout Washington County.     Table 4-17: Arterial/Collector Bikeway Coverage, Urban Washington County   Lane miles:  Urban area  % of urban  area total   Washington County  Maintained  Enhanced bike lanes*  13.7  2%  13  Bike lanes on both sides of road  324  39%  150  Bike lane on one side of road  24  3%  7  Shoulder suitable for bikes (both  sides)  16  2%  10  Shoulder suitable for bikes (one side)  9  1%  4  No separated bikeway facilities  452  53%  198  Total mileage of arterials/collectors  838.7  100%  382  *Includes buffered bike lanes, cycle tracks and parallel multi‐use trails.    As illustrated in Table 4‐17 Washington County has jurisdiction of 382 lane miles of urban arterial and collector  streets. Bicycle lanes exist on a number of major routes including Highway 99W, Scholls Ferry Road, Tualatin  Valley Highway, Evergreen Road, 185th Avenue, Walker Road, Cornell Road, Murray Boulevard and other major  streets; however, not all of these roads have continuous bike lanes. There are approximately 184 lane miles of  existing bikeways (minimum 4’ width paved shoulders or 6’ bicycle lanes). Therefore, the on‐street bicycle system  is approximately 47% complete on the major urban street network.  Figure 4‐13 shows the County's existing  bicycle system, which is a combination of on‐street and off‐street facilities.        §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ217 Bike Lane Inventory J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ TS P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ B ik eL an es U rb .m xd January 03, 2013 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning and Development Services Existing Both Sides Existing One Side Shoulder Suitable Both Sides Shoulder Suitable One Side No Bike Lane 0 16,0008,000 Feet 1 inch represents 16,500 feet ¯ Figure 4-13 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐52  Committed Bikeway Improvements    Some of the gaps in the system will be alleviated as part of committed road improvement projects.   Lack of appropriate facilities and local street connectivity as well as missing key sections on some major roads  such as Canyon Road and Beaverton‐Hillsdale Highway make safe and convenient bicycle travel difficult in some  parts of the county. However, new bicycle facilities are systematically constructed on the County's urban arterial  and collector street network in conjunction with roadway improvement projects. Table 4‐18 shows committed  bikeway improvements scheduled to be completed by 2018 through the Major Streets Transportation  Improvement Program.    Table 4-18: Committed Bikeway Improvements County Roads  From  To  Facility  Approximate  Extent (lane miles)  Cornelius Pass Rd  Cherry  past Wilkins  bike lanes both sides  0.6  Bethany Blvd  Cornell  West Union  bike lanes both sides  1.8  Boones Ferry Rd  Norwood  Day  bike lanes both sides  1.8  Farmington  Murray  Hocken  bike lanes both sides  1.2  Walker  Murray  158th Ave  bike lanes both sides  2.0  Baseline  Brookwood  231st Ave  bike lanes both sides  2.2  198th Ave  TV Hwy  Farmington  bike lanes both sides  3.4  Walker  Ecole  Hwy 217  bike lanes both sides  2.6  Cornell  107th  113th  bike lanes both sides  0.6  Tualatin‐Sherwood Rd  Langer Farms  Borchers  bike lanes both sides  1.2  Walnut  116th Ave  Tiedeman  bike lanes both sides  1.0  Brookwood  SE 41st  Golden  bike lanes both sides  0.8  Total Miles  19.2  Non‐County Roads  From  To  Facility    Jackson School Rd  Grant   Rogahn  bike lanes both sides  2.2  David Hills Rd  Brooke St  Hwy 47  bike lanes both sides  1.6  Total Miles  3.8  Note: MSTIP 3c and 3d Projects to be completed by 2018    Once the committed bikeway improvements are completed, the County’s on‐street bicycle system will be  approximately 51% complete on the major urban street network.     Bicycles are allowed on all paved roadways in Washington County except I‐5, and part of Highway 26. Although  allowed on Highway 26, bicycle movement along this highway in the urban area is hazardous due to high traffic  volumes, vehicle speeds and conflicted traffic movements at on‐ and off‐ramp facilities. Table 4‐19 shows the  existing and committed bikeway system by jurisdiction.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐53 Table 4-19: Existing & Committed Urban Bikeway System Approximate Lane Miles Jurisdiction  Bicycle Lanes  Paved Shoulders    Existing  Committed  Existing  Committed  Washington County  170  19  14  NA  Incorporated Cities  135  4  4  NA  ODOT  56  Unknown  6  NA  Total Mileage  361  23  24  ‐  Notes: Bicycle Lanes include on‐street striped & stenciled lanes, buffered bike lanes, cycle tracks and parallel multi‐use trails.  Paved shoulders include areas beyond fog line at least four feet in width.      Neighborhood Routes and Local streets    Washington County also has an extensive system of local roadways. While these streets are not signed for bicycle  routes and bikeway facilities are not developed, they may be and are used as shared roadways by bicycles. It may  be possible to identify areas where good local street connectivity has been established and appropriately sign  these areas as secondary bicycle routes (bike boulevards or neighborhood greenways), to supplement the main  system of bikeways on the arterial and collector street network. In October 2012, Washington County received an  ODOT Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) grant to develop a neighborhood greenways study that  will look into these opportunities.    4.3.3 Bikeway Maintenance   While constructing bikeway facilities is important, keeping them well maintained and in good condition is equally  important. Cyclists are often forced to ride outside of bicycle lanes and in motor vehicle travel lanes, to avoid glass  and other debris when lanes are not swept regularly. Additionally, various utility cuts that occur in the area of a  street where bike lanes are located can cause temporary or long‐term hazards for cyclists if they are not  adequately resurfaced.    Maintenance of bikeways is complicated by the existence of multiple jurisdictions within Washington County. The  County maintains its roads in unincorporated Washington County as well as County roads within various city  limits. ODOT maintains its roads throughout Washington County. Added to this mix are city streets maintained by  the various individual jurisdictions within Washington County. Bicyclists and residents may not know who to call  for maintenance requests or problems.      Sweeping     Bicycle lanes on County roads with curbs and gutters are swept regularly by Clean Water Services (CWS); roads  without curbs and gutters do not receive regular sweeping. CWS performs sweeping as part of its Surface Water  Management program to help ensure water quality, not for road maintenance purposes. However, the sweeping  obviously provides a benefit to the bikeway system. For the purposes of sweeping, unincorporated Washington  County is broken into nine zones, which are each swept monthly. In addition to sweeping performed by CWS,  most cities sweep their roadways on a monthly basis. The cities sweep County roads that are within their  jurisdictions. ODOT performs sweeping of its roadways on a regular basis between October and May and on an as‐ needed basis during construction season (June‐September).   Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐54  Washington County’s Department of Land Use and Transportation Operations Division responds to reported  problems through the use of hand sweeping, either by its own crews or community service crews, or by putting a  request in to CWS.     Winter ice storms can present lingering challenges for cyclists. Gravel placed on roadways to reduce motorists’  skidding on ice may collect in bicycle lanes and on shoulders and cause a hazard and severe nuisance for cyclists.  The County has worked to reduce the impact of sanding by using anti‐icing chemicals in advance of winter storms.      Striping, Signing, and Stencils     Washington County attempts to maintain a regular annual striping and stenciling schedule for bicycle lanes on its  roads. Although complete re‐striping has not occurred in some recent years, the Operations Division believes that  the annual maintenance schedule will be met in the future.       Vegetation Management     Washington County devotes a full‐time vegetation crew as well as community service crews to trim blackberry  vines and ivy, prune tree limbs, and keep roads and sidewalks free from vegetative overgrowth. Washington  County prioritizes the roads based on their classification and volume, maintaining roads on a regular cycle as well  as handling individual requests.       Drainage Grates     Drainage grate inlets for stormwater are potential hazards for bicyclists. Those with bars that are parallel to the  direction of travel can trap the front wheel of a bicycle, resulting in loss of control of the bike and serious injury to  a cyclist. Even if they are oriented correctly, the metal surfaces can become slippery.     It is not known how many bicycle‐unsafe drainage grates may exist within the bikeway network. To address the  issue, the County includes curb inlet drainage grates whenever possible for new construction and reconstruction.  These grates are flush with the curb face and are not a hazard to bicyclists. When standard drainage grates are  installed in new construction or reconstruction they are required to be fitted with cross bars running  perpendicular to the direction of bicycle travel thereby eliminating the chance of a bicycle tire catching in the  gaps. Finally, existing storm drain grates are retrofitted or “strapped” with cross bars on request or as identified  by crews. A new effort by Washington County’s Department of Land Use and Transportation Operations Division  involves placing a diagonal stencil placed before grates to inform and direct the bicyclist around the problematic  drainage grate. Stenciling of problem drainage grates is occurring on a case‐by‐case basis when requested or as  they are identified by crews.       Railroad Crossings     Accepted design standards for bicycle crossings of railroad tracks at‐grade recommend that such crossings ideally  be at a right angle to the rails. The greater the deviation from this crossing angle, the greater the potential for a  bicycle’s front wheel to be trapped in the flangeway, resulting in a loss of control. Other design standards  recommend that crossings be designed so that the road approach is at the same grade as the rails and that for  angles of less than approximately 45 degrees, consideration be given to providing a wider outside lane, shoulder  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐55 or bike lane to allow enough room for a bicyclist to cross at a right angle. Consideration should also be given to  materials of the crossing surface and flangeway width and depth.     Identified problems at railroad crossings are referred to the owner of the rail line and the County may notify the  Public Utility Commission if a problem is not addressed. The County and railroads share in the responsibility of  resolving crossing issues.       Signal Detection    Some intersections in Washington County have actuated signals, which are triggered when the presence of a  bicycle is detected by a sensitive wire buried in the pavement‐usually in the shape of a diamond. This sensitive  wire detects the presence of a bicyclist, and relays the information to a signal control box. However, some  bicyclists are not aware that they can actuate the signal by properly positioning their bicycle over the signal  detector loop. The Oregon Bicyclist’s Manual contains information on positioning bicycles for detection by  actuated signals. Washington County provides detectors for bicycles per ODOT standards on new traffic signals  and can adjust the loop detectors’ sensitivity when problem locations are identified.     The County has installed bicycle push buttons at several locations throughout the major road network, including  Cornell and 229th. However, the most common method used currently is video detection. More detail will be  provided on video detection at a later point.      Signing     Currently Washington County uses pavement stencils to identify bicycle lanes. Directional signs are generally not  provided on County bicycle facilities although the County provides green and white reflective signs meeting  MUTCD standards along bicycle lanes. However, in accordance with State standards, it is now acceptable to use  stencils within the bicycle lanes instead of the signs, which were formerly required every 500’. The County is  converting to the stenciling to avoid a proliferation of signs. Additionally, signing is provided at intersections to  inform roadway users of conflict points in the transition areas between through bicycle lanes and right‐turn lanes.  Signs are inventoried annually on all collector and arterial roadways.      Neighborhood Streets Program    The Neighborhood Streets Program works to reduce cut‐through traffic and improve safety for pedestrians,  bicyclists, and drivers. Some design elements used to improve neighborhood streets are speed cushions and  traffic circles. The goals of the Neighborhood Streets Program are to preserve and improve neighborhood livability  by:   Discouraging undesirable driver behavior,   Encouraging safe pedestrian and bicycle use,   Improving the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers,   Involving area residents in solving traffic problems, and   Making efficient use of your tax dollars by prioritizing requests for improvements.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐56  4.3.4 Urban Bikeway Facility Needs Bicyclists are very sensitive to the distance between destinations. Strategies that reduce the distance between  origins and destinations can make bicycling more attractive. Mixing compatible land uses can make biking more  attractive for errands. And the creation of more direct routes to job centers and schools can reduce the time  needed to travel between those places. Providing a safe, well‐connected system of bicycle and pedestrian routes,  as well as other bicycle facilities, can significantly increase bicycling. The National Bicycling and Walking Study  found that “cities with higher levels of bicycle commuting have on average 70 percent more bikeways per  roadway mile and six times more bike lanes per arterial mile.” Equally important is how well connected the miles  of bikeways and bike lanes available are: gaps in the system of bicycle routes and obstacles such as tunnels and  bridges can make bicycling much less feasible.     Obstacles to bicycle travel in urban Washington County include physical gaps in facilities, lack of regular  maintenance, funding adequacy, historic development patterns where there is a lack of local street connectivity  and the presence of flood plains and topographic constraints. Intersections that are not designed for current and  future traffic volumes, such as Beaverton‐Hillsdale Highway at Scholls Ferry Road, and missing links in facilities  such as those found along Boones Ferry Road, Canyon Road and Highway 8 are obvious obstacles to bicyclists.     The County’s major streets evolved from “farm‐to‐market” roads at a time when principal markets and  employment centers were located in Portland. The result was a system that primarily served east‐west travel  needs. This historic trend, as well as topographic conditions, has resulted in a street pattern that, for the most  part, is not developed in an interconnected, grid pattern. For bicycle travel, grid‐pattern streets have the  advantage of providing multiple routes on parallel roadways, some of which typically carry lower traffic volumes  with lower speeds, making them particularly suitable for bicycle travel.     Although the County has undertaken an ambitious program to improve the road system in recent years, it  continues to lack adequate peak hour capacity and includes many substandard roadways that are consequently  more costly to maintain than roads built to County and city design standards. The road system is also lacking in  serving new demand for north‐south travel.     Major streets in Washington County provide the most continuous and direct routes connecting business and  residential areas in Washington County. As a result, they are required to serve as true multi‐modal facilities,  balancing the needs for peak‐period motor‐vehicle capacity, public transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel. Bikeways  on the major street system provide direct connections for bicyclists, making them the logical choice for longer  trips. At the same time, the high traffic volumes, greater speeds and the potential for conflicting turning  movements at intersections, which are common on the major street network, may also be considered obstacles  by some bicyclists.     Identification of low traffic volume streets for use as “bicycle boulevards” (shared roadways, bike routes, or  shoulder bikeways) may be possible in some areas at relatively low cost. Many areas of Washington County lack  well ‐ connected low traffic volume streets for such a system. However, newer developments do tend to have well  connected local street networks and an effort to identify these areas could help facilitate the establishment of an  alternative to the bicycle network that is on the major street system.     Regional goals aim at increasing the commuting mode share of bicycling and walking by nearly three‐fold over the  next 25 years. Due to incremental expansion and improvement of collector and arterial roadways it is unlikely a  complete bicycle and pedestrian system will be realized in the near‐term. Adopting strategies to support bicycle  travel are consistent with the goals and desired outcomes of the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).  The  2035 RTP recognizes the important role active transportation plays in achieving regional objectives, such as  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐57 increasing non‐SOV mode share, reducing vehicle miles traveled, reducing the cost of transportation, improving  public health and meeting state goals for greenhouse gas reduction.29     The bicycle needs analysis must be consistent with the Regional Transportation Functional Plan (RTFP) section  3.08.140. The County must also evaluate the bikeway system with the intent of providing bicycle connections to  the Regional Trails and Greenways network.    A study for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Prioritization Project (2012) compared the existing and  planned urban bicycle network (collector and arterial roadways) to help determine how to optimize the planned  bicycle system and the suitability of future improvements. The bicycle network was evaluated using context  sensitive suitability criteria. The RTFP directs the local jurisdictions to pay particular attention to bicycle access to  transit and essential destinations. The RTFP defines “essential destinations” as hospitals, medical centers, grocery  stores, schools, and social service centers with more than 200 monthly LIFT pick‐ups. This approach aimed at  measuring the suitability of a roadway for a particular improvement using spatial data in a geographic information  system (GIS). The analysis suggests that the land use characteristics of the County are suited for greater use of the  bicycle as a mode of travel. However, the traffic characteristics of the major street system, with high peak period  traffic volumes, make it essential that appropriate bicycle facilities be in place if the bicycle mode‐share is to  increase.    Table 4‐20 illustrates the prioritized list of bike lane needs on collectors and arterials, representing 66.3 lane  miles.30     29 Regional Transportation Plan, p. 2‐60, Metro, July 2010  30 The total length illustrates the extent of widening and striping both sides of the road six feet. Cost estimates are planning‐level based on an average cost of  $200 per lineal foot of improvement. Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐58  Table 4-20: Prioritized Bike Lane Needs Road Name  From  To  Total Length  (lane feet)  Cost Estimate  1st Avenue  Baseline Road  500' north of Grant  7,174  $1,434,800  65th Avenue  Sagert Street  Nyberg Street  2,466  $493,200  92nd Avenue  Garden Home  Scholls Ferry  5,310  $1,062,000  143rd Avenue  Cornell Road  West Union Road  8,889  $1,777,800  158th Avenue/Merlo  Jenkins Road  170th Avenue  6,682  $1,336,400  170th Avenue  Merlo Road  Alexander Street  8,448  $1,689,600  170th Avenue  Baseline Road  Merlo Road  2,918  $583,600  173rd Avenue  Cornell Road  Walker Road  7,956  $1,591,200  174th Avenue  Laidlaw Road  Bronson Road  8,192  $1,638,400  185th Avenue  Alexander Street  Blanton Street  1,966  $393,200  205th Avenue  Quatama Street  Baseline Road  4,664  $932,800  209th Avenue  TV Highway  Farmington Road  11,036  $2,207,200  Alexander Street  178th Avenue  170th Avenue  4,880  $976,000  Barnes Road  St. Vincent’s Medical Center  Leahy Road  8,617  $1,723,400  Baseline Road  158th Avenue  Jenkins Road  4,712  $942,400  Beef Bend Road  150th Avenue  Pacific Highway  20,868  $4,173,600  Bronson Road  185th Avenue  Bethany Boulevard  15,565  $3,113,000  Brookwood Parkway  Evergreen Parkway  Sunset Highway  7,467  $1,493,400  Cornell Road  Main Street  25th Avenue  12,124  $2,424,800  Evergreen Parkway  Cornelius Pass Road  215th Avenue  1,214  $242,800  Farmington Road  198th Avenue  176th Avenue  6,348  $1,269,600  Fischer Road  131st Avenue  Pacific Highway  6,916  $1,383,200  Glencoe Road  Cody Court  Tiffany Street  2,984  $596,800  Glencoe Road  Cory Street  Camp Ireland Street  1,600  $320,000  Greenburg Road  Hall Boulevard  Oak Street  5,540  $1,108,000  Johnson Street  198th Avenue  185th Avenue   7,000  $1,400,000  Johnson Street  Cornelius Pass  198th Avenue  10,873  $2,174,600  Johnson Street  185th Avenue  170th Avenue  5,801  $1,160,200  Kinnaman Road  185th Avenue  Farmington Road  7,392  $1,478,400  Kinnaman Road  198th Avenue  185th Avenue    6,720  $1,344,000  Langer Drive  Langer Drive  Roy Rogers Road  3,428  $685,600  Murray Boulevard  TV Highway  Farmington Road  1,138  $227,600  Oregon Street  Tualatin‐Sherwood  300’ east of Tonquin Road  3,563  $712,600  River Road  TV Highway  Rood Bridge Road  12,488  $2,497,600  Roy Rogers Road  Borchers Drive  Pacific Highway  2,198  $439,600  Saltzman Road  Cornell Road  Barnes Road  1,709  $341,800  Springville Road  185th Avenue  Joss Avenue  8,085  $1,617,000  Thompson Road  East of 143rd Avenue  Saltzman Road  8,873  $1,774,600  Tualatin‐Sherwood   Boones Ferry  I‐5 Interchange  4,824  $964,800  Walker Road  173rd Avenue  185th Avenue    7,548  $1,509,600  Walker Road  185th Avenue  Von Neumann Drive  4,186  $837,200  West Union Road  Cornelius Pass Road  185th Avenue    15,367  $3,073,400  West Union Road  185th Avenue  Bethany Boulevard  16,558  $3,311,600  West Union Road  Helvetia Road  Cornelius Pass Road  16,996  $3,399,200      Total  349,811  $70,460,340  88 10 10 210 210 210 99 219 219 219 26 26 5 205 Prioritized Bike Lane Needs J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ TS P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ bi ke la ne P ro je ct s. m xd January 04, 2013 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Long Range Planning Division Top 45 Bike Lane Gaps* Urban Growth Boundary 1 inch represents 12,500 feet Figure 4-17 *As identified through Washington County Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Prioritization Project. Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐60  4.3.5 Bicycle Parking Bicyclists also often note that improved facilities, including improved bicycle parking and showers at work, would  make bicycling more attractive as a commute alternative. Secure bicycle parking or storage facilities are a  recognized need at cyclist destination points. Riders may be discouraged from using a bicycle to make an  otherwise appropriate trip if secure parking is not available at the destination. Bicyclists’ needs for bicycle parking  range from simply a convenient piece of street furniture, to storage in a bicycle locker that affords weather, theft  and vandalism protection, gear storage space, and 24‐hour personal access. The type of facility needed is  determined by several factors:      Type of trip being made: whether or not the bicycle will be left unattended all day or just for a few  minutes.     Security of area: determined by factors such as visibility, presence of people, type of area and perception  of the bicycle owner.      Value of the bicycle: the more a cyclist has invested in a bicycle, the more concern she or he will show for  theft protection or how prone a given area is to bicycle theft.     Additional needs for some commuting cyclists include shower, locker, and changing facilities at trip destinations.  For those cyclists needing to dress more formally, travel longer distances, or cycle during wet or hot weather, the  ability to shower, change, and store clothing can be as critical as bicycle storage.   The County’s existing Community Development Code includes bicycle parking requirements for new development.  While bicycle parking has been required in new developments since 1994 by Section 429 of the Community  Development Code, little or no baseline information is available on the amount or quality of existing bicycle  parking. However, Washington County’s Development Standards for Bicycle Parking are comprehensive, with  provisions in the Code for development of minimum bicycle parking facilities in conjunction with multi‐family  developments of four units or more, retail, office, institutional, and industrial development, transit centers and  park and ride lots. Larger employers may choose to provide additional amenities as part of DEQ’s Employee  Commute Options (ECO) program.     4.3.6 Bicycles and Transit   Another important context factor is the connection between the bicycle and transit systems. This can enable a  cyclist to avoid certain barriers such as steep terrain or facilitate longer distance or even regional trips using a  combination of bicycling and transit. Because this type of trip can have a great deal of utility in increasing the  attractiveness of cycling, it is important, in assessing bicycle needs, to identify how the bicycle system connects to  the transit system. Such an analysis was undertaken in preparing the 2020 Transportation Plan, and is updated in  Table 4‐21 below.    Several options are available for combining bicycle and transit trips. Bike parking is available at most MAX and  WES stations either by keyed bicycle lockers or short term bicycle parking racks. Secure, enclosed parking with  keycard access is provided at Sunset and Beaverton transit centers. TriMet and SMART have bike racks on the  front of their buses that can carry two bikes.  In addition, a customer can bring their bike onboard MAX, WES and  Portland Streetcar if room is available in one of the designated bike spaces.     Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐61 Connections to WES and MAX, which are as important as connections to regional bus routes have also been  evaluated. The table below provides an assessment of bicycle accessibility to MAX and WES stations within  Washington County, including stops within incorporated cities. Improving the bicycle‐transit link can create more  options for bicycle travel in Washington County. Linking bicycles with transit mitigates some obstacles to bicycling  such as lengthy trips, personal security concerns, riding at night, poor weather, or steep topography.      Table 4-21: MAX and WES Station Bicycle Accessibility MAX/WES  Station  Location   Road  Jurisdiction   Access Characteristics as  defined in 2002*   Map of Existing Network  Characteristics Accessing Transit            Transit Stop  Changes since 2002* Beaverton  Central   Beaverton   Poor bicycle access – Area  under redevelopment; bike  lanes not present on any  feeder street   Improved bicycle  access ‐ Bike lanes are  present on Millikan  Way between Murray  Blvd and Rose Biggi Ave  Beaverton  Creek   Beaverton   Fair bicycle access – Bike  lanes located on Jenkins  Road, approximately ½ mile  north of MAX station. Bike  lanes also located on  Murray, approximately ½  mile southeast of the  station. Direct access from  153rd Avenue, which is a  wide street that is suitable  for shared use.   No change  Beaverton  Transit Center   Beaverton   Good bicycle access – Bike  lanes on Lombard, which  fronts the station and  connects to bicycle lanes on  Center Street to the north  and TV Highway to the  south.   Fair bicycle access ‐ No  bike lanes exist on TV  Highway to the south  as indicated in 2002  and network  connectivity is islanded  in all directions on the  major street system.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐62  MAX/WES  Station  Location   Road  Jurisdiction   Access Characteristics as  defined in 2002*   Map of Existing Network  Characteristics Accessing Transit            Transit Stop  Changes since 2002* Elmonica/SW  170th Avenue   Washington  County   Good bicycle access from  the north (Baseline Rd.),  poor bicycle access from  the south – Bike lanes  located on Baseline,  approximately 500’ north of  station; south of the  station, it is approximately  1.2 miles to TV Highway,  the nearest street with  bicycle lanes.       No change  Fair  Complex/Hills boro Airport   Hillsboro   Good bicycle access – Bike  lanes on Cornell;  approximately ¼ mile north  of the station via NE 34th  Avenue, a wide street with  relatively low traffic speeds  and volumes. Access is also  available from the south via  NE 37th Avenue, a city  street with low traffic  speeds and volumes. NE  37th Avenue connects to a  shared use path at its north  terminus that provides  direct access to the station.   Improved bicycle  access ‐ Veterans Drive,  a new facility  completed in 2012,  extends Grant from  28th Avenue to 34th  Avenue with enhanced  bicycle facility design  (cycle tracks) on both  sides of the road.   Hall/Nimbus  WES Station  Washington  County   No station existed in 2002.   Good bicycle access –  Bike lanes on Hall  Boulevard and Scholls  Ferry Road, accept on  Highway 217 overpass,  provide adequate  access.   Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐63 MAX/WES  Station  Location   Road  Jurisdiction   Access Characteristics as  defined in 2002*   Map of Existing Network  Characteristics Accessing Transit            Transit Stop  Changes since 2002* Hatfield  Government  Center   Hillsboro   Good bicycle access – This  station is served by  relatively low speed and  traffic volume streets from  all directions.   Reclassify to Fair –  Access from the south  is not served by low  speed, low volume  streets and no bike  lanes exist on the major  streets within ¼ mile in  all directions.  Hawthorn  Farm   Hillsboro   Fair bicycle access – Station  is located approximately 0.8  miles north of bicycle lanes  on Baseline Road and 0.25  mile south of bicycle lanes  on Cornell Road. Direct  access from Elam Young  Parkway and NE 53rd  Avenue, both of which are  wide streets that are  adequate shared road type  facilities.   Improved bicycle  access ‐ NE 53rd is  improved with bicycle  lanes between Baseline  Road and Elam Young  Parkway.  Hillsboro  Central & SE  8th Avenue  Stations   Hillsboro   Good bicycle access –  Stations are served by a low  volume and speed  downtown street grid from  all directions.   No change.  Merlo  Road/SW  158th Ave   Washington  County   Good bicycle access – Good  access from the north,  bicycle lanes are located on  Jenkins Road, 0.1 mile north  of station; fair access from  Merlo Road, which runs  generally east – west and  would be considered a  shared facility with wide  travel lanes.   Reclassify to Fair ‐  Merlo Road does not  have bike facilities.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐64  MAX/WES  Station  Location   Road  Jurisdiction   Access Characteristics as  defined in 2002*   Map of Existing Network  Characteristics Accessing Transit            Transit Stop  Changes since 2002* Millikan Way   Washington  County   Fair bicycle access –  Millikan Way, ¼ mile south  of the station, has bike  lanes; Jenkins Road, ½ mile  to the north also has bike  lanes. Direct access is from  141st Avenue, which  connects to Millikan and  also to Jenkins via Terman  Road and Hocken Avenue.  The connection to the north  is considered ‘fair’ due to  the distance to bicycle  lanes.       No change.  Orenco/NW  231st Ave   Hillsboro   Fair bicycle access – Bike  lanes present on Cornell  Road <1/4 mile north of  station. There is no access  available from the south to  this station.   Improved bicycle  access – NW 229th  Avenue is improved  with bicycle lanes  between Baseline Road  and Cornell Road.  Quatama/NW  205th Ave   Washington  County &  Hillsboro  (206th Ave.  north of  station)   Good to poor bicycle access  – Bike lanes present on  Cornell Road, 0.8 miles  north of station and on  Baseline Road,  approximately 0.4 miles  south of the station; bicycle  lanes also exist on NW  Quatama, which the station  fronts. From Baseline or  Cornell, access is via NW  205th/206th Avenue, which  has mixed characteristics.  From the north, NW 206th  is a wide street with a  continuous two‐way center  turn lane that is fair for  cycling. Access from the  south is generally poor for  cycling, although a  separated path exists for  Improved bicycle  access – Amberglen  Parkway/Wilkins Road  provide bike lanes to  NW 206th Avenue from  Cornell and Cornelius  Pass Road ¼ mile north  of the station.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐65 MAX/WES  Station  Location   Road  Jurisdiction   Access Characteristics as  defined in 2002*   Map of Existing Network  Characteristics Accessing Transit            Transit Stop  Changes since 2002* northbound pedestrians  and cyclists; this path only  exists along one side of the  road so southbound bicycle  facilities are virtually non‐ existent. Southbound  cyclists will also encounter a  narrow bridge that is  extremely hazardous.   Sunset Transit  Center   Washington  County   Good bicycle access – From  the south, access is via a  pedestrian bridge over  Highway 26. The pedestrian  bridge can be reached via  existing bicycle lanes or  wide low speed, low  volume streets such as  Parkway, Roxbury or  Wilshire. From the east and  west, cyclist can reach  Sunset Transit Center via  Barnes Road, which has  paved shoulders or bicycle  lanes and which fronts the  access to the transit center.   Improved bicycle  access – bike lanes now  exist on Barnes Road  between the transit  station entrance to the  interchange triangle.  However, access from  the east of Baltic  Avenue is complicated  by high traffic volumes  and a lack of bike lanes  or wide shoulders.  Tigard WES  Station  Tigard   No station existed in 2002.  Fair bicycle access –  Bike lanes present on  Hall Boulevard <1/4  mile south of station.   Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐66  MAX/WES  Station  Location   Road  Jurisdiction   Access Characteristics as  defined in 2002*   Map of Existing Network  Characteristics Accessing Transit            Transit Stop  Changes since 2002* Tualatin WES  Station  Tualatin   No station existed in 2002.  Good bicycle access –  Bike lanes present on  Boones Ferry Road  adjacent to station.   Washington  Street/SE  12th   Hillsboro   Good bicycle access –  Bicycle lanes present on  Baseline, which is less than  300’ north of the station  and provides east‐west  access. From the south,  access is available via a grid  street system that has low  to moderate traffic volumes  and low speeds.       No change.  Willow  Creek/SW  185th Transit  Center*   Washington  County   Good bicycle access –  Bicycle lanes present on  185th Avenue, which  provides access from north  and south directions.  Baseline Road currently has  bicycle lanes east of 185th  Avenue and under  construction to the west of  185th Avenue. It provides  (or will provide in the  immediate future) an east‐ west bicycle connection to  the existing facilities on  185th Avenue.       No change.     *Notes   Access Characteristics are ranked as poor, fair or good followed by a description of the characteristics that result in the ranking. Since the MAX  line serves an east‐west alignment, the most critical station access is provided by north‐south oriented streets.    Additional bicycle/transit considerations are described in section 4.4.3 (TriMet) and 4.4.6 (Transit Needs). Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐67 4.3.7 Urban Bicycle Safety   Conflicts with automobiles and the lack of safe routes is a key reason why more people don’t bike. Studies have  shown that increasing the separation from automobiles encourages more bicycling. Safety problems are especially  acute at intersections and other crossings. Between 50 and 65 percent of all bicycle accidents in the Portland  Metropolitan region result from turning or crossing movements.31 Focusing on improvements that address these  conflicts could encourage more bicycling.     Crash data is useful for analyzing trends and identifying locations with potential safety problems. However, it is  not possible to draw substantive conclusions regarding the relationship between reported crashes and facility  design. It is important to recognize that most bicycle crashes are not reported and that many crashes result from  traffic law violations rather than system design deficiencies. It is generally accepted that 65 to 85 percent of  bicycle crashes do not involve a motor vehicle, according to national studies of bicycle safety. These crashes  typically involve falls or collisions with stationary objects, other cyclists or pedestrians.     Crashes involving motor vehicles tend to have much more serious injuries and may point to engineering solutions  at certain locations where an identified design deficiency might be correctable.     The available accident data for Washington County shows that many of the crashes reported over the three‐year  data period (2008‐2010) occurred along major road corridors. However, few conclusions can be drawn from this  data. These crash concentrations are likely reflective of the level of use on these roadways by bicyclists and traffic  volumes rather than design deficiency. A closer examination of crash locations that lack existing bicycle facilities  may help prioritize future improvements.     Two fatal accidents occurred during the 2008‐2010 data period: one on 205th Avenue and a second at the  intersection of Murray Boulevard and Farmington Road. Both facilities are not built to ultimate design standard.   Accident trends will need to continue to be monitored over time to determine if system design deficiencies exist. 31 Metro State of Safety 2011 Report, p. 59.  §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ217 Bicyclist Crashes 2008 - 2010 J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ TS P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ B ik eC ra sh es _U rb .m xd January 09, 2013 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning and Development Services " Fatal ! Non-fatal Injury ! Property damage only Rural Washington County 0 16,0008,000 Feet 1 inch represents 16,500 feet ¯ Figure 4-15 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐69 4.3.8 Education and Encouragement   Encouragement, education and other types of support programs are typically run by a variety of entities like non‐ profit organizations, bicycle shops and ride groups, local governments, police/sheriff's offices, and others. They  help support the County's efforts to improve facilities by encouraging cyclists, offering incentives, and providing  safety education. The organizations listed below help encourage and support bicycling in Washington County.      Westside Transportation Alliance (WTA) is a transportation management association set up to assist  businesses in meeting the state's ECO Rule requirements for decreasing single occupancy motorized vehicle  commuting. The intent of this law is to improve air quality in the urbanized areas.     Washington County Bicycle Transportation Coalition’s mission is to promote bicycle transportation, protect  bicyclists’ rights and improve bicycling conditions throughout Washington County, Oregon through education,  advocacy and community.     The Beaverton Bicycle Club (BBC) is a racing club that works to elevate the sport of bicycle racing.      The Bicycle Transportation Alliance, based in Portland, promotes bicycling for safer streets, cleaner air, and  energy independence.     The Portland Wheelmen Touring Club is based in Portland but with members throughout the region.     Education is an important element in increasing bicycling while also improving safety. Information available from  other communities indicates that the number of bicycle accidents does not necessarily rise with increases in  cycling. While improving the quality of Washington County's bikeway facilities is key, there is also a need for  proper education of both youth and adult cyclists as well as motorists.   4.3.9 Rural Bicycle Considerations   Outside of the Urban Growth Boundary, obstacles to bicycle travel are different than in the urban portions of the  County. Although, bicycling as a means of transportation is less common in rural areas of Washington County, as  distances between destinations are typically too long to feasibly bike between them; many rural roads are  attractive riding areas for recreational cyclists. While traffic volumes are generally much lower in most of the rural  area, many rural roads have narrow travel lanes with steep ditches for drainage, little or no shoulders, high  vehicle speeds and poor sight distance due to vertical and horizontal curves. Even with the lower traffic volumes,  these conditions create significant hazards for cyclists.      Rural Bicycling Facilities    Outside of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), improvement projects for major roadways typically include wide  shoulders (4‐6 feet) to accommodate wide and slow moving farm equipment. While not specifically designated as  bike lanes, these wide shoulders serve as shared‐roadway bikeways and are considered part of the rural bikeway  system.    As Table 4‐22 shows, approximately 23% of the major rural road network is improved with wide shoulders (4‐6  feet). The majority of rural bikeway facilities (81 lanes miles) are located on state highways. The portions of the  state highway system that have reasonably sized shoulders (4 feet or more) that can facilitate bicycling include  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐70  Highway 47 between Forest Grove and Gaston, and Highway 99W between Tigard and the county line. A limited  number of county rural roads, including Roy Rogers and Cornelius‐Schefflin, have been improved with wide  shoulders. In total, there are approximately 69 lane miles of existing rural bikeways (minimum 4’ width paved  shoulders) on county facilities. Washington County has jurisdiction of 548 lane miles of rural arterial and collector  roads, therefore the County’s rural bikeway system is approximately 13% complete.    Table 4-22: Arterial/Collector Bikeway Coverage, Rural Washington County   Lane miles:  Rural area  % of rural area  total  Washington  County  Maintained  Bike lanes on both sides of road  6  1%  0  Bike lane on one side of road  0  0%  1  Shoulder suitable for bikes (both sides)  134  19%  66  Shoulder suitable for bikes (one side)  9  3%  2  No separated bikeway facilities  532  77%  466  Total mileage of arterials/collectors  681  100%  545      Rural Bicycle Crashes    Eight bicycle involved crashes resulting in non‐fatal injury or property damage occurred on rural roads in  Washington County between 2008 and 2010. The majority of locations where crashes occurred lack wide  shoulders, including Cornelius Pass, West Union, Clark Hill, Tile Flat, Scholls‐Sherwood, and Glencoe Roads.32  Crash incidences are not necessarily the result of poor road design or inadequate facilities, but do require  additional examination.      Popular Bicycling Roads     Many popular recreational bicycling routes exist on rural Washington County roads. The Washington County  Visitors Association and Ride Oregon are two organizations that promote bicycling in rural Washington County  and have mapped routes. Some of the route travel along Helvetia Road, West Union, Fern Hill Road, Blooming  Fern Hill Road, and Tongue Lane, just to name a few. Although none of these routes are formally designated,  there are efforts underway to designate a state scenic bikeway.     The Tualatin Valley State Scenic Bikeway is proposed to go from Rood Bridge Park in Hillsboro to Vernonia via the  Banks‐Vernonia Trail. If approved, the proposed bikeway would consist of approximately 80 miles of combined  on‐street and off‐street bikeways and be among the first wave of mapped and signed cycling routes in the state.  Several deficiencies have been noted along this route that may need to be addressed in order to accommodate  bicycle travel that will attract a broader set of users:     Osterman Road / Visitation Road from OR 47 to Verboort: There are consistent double‐yellow centerline  striping that makes the travel lanes appear very narrow, and may confuse motorists trying to veer around  cyclists.    32 Often times not all incidences are reported and the crash locations are not precisely defined.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐71  OR 47 Crossings: The crossings of Route 47 at Porter Road and at Fern Hill are unsignalized, and could be  difficult at times. At the very least, warning signs may be appropriate.     Geiger Road: Portions of this road have deep drainage ditches close to the road.     Golf Course Road: A relatively higher volume portion of the route, serving as the main road into Cornelius  from the south.   §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ217 Rural Bicycling Considerations J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ TS P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ B ik eC on si de rC oW .m xd January 09, 2013 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning and Development Services Bicyclist Crash ('08-'10) " Fatal ! Non-fatal Injury ! Property damage only Bike Lane Inventory. Lane or Shoulder Suitable; 2 sides Lane or Shoulder Suitable; 1 side None Tualatin Valley Scenic Bikeway Rural Washington County 0 30,00015,000 Feet 1 inch represents 30,000 feet ¯ Figure 4-16 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐73 Cornelius and Forest Grove; a second branching southward  th 4.4 TRANSIT Washington County’s location in the Portland region places it within one of the most successful and pioneering  public transportation systems in the nation. Transit is a critical component of the county transportation system,  reducing automobile trips and congestion, providing travel options for people without vehicles, curbing  greenhouse gas and other emissions, and reducing transportation costs for individuals and families. The American  Public Transportation Association reports that residents of the Portland region save an average of $867 per month  if they use transit instead of driving and owning a car.33    This report section provides an overview of existing and planned transit service, transit stop access and amenity  considerations, and an assessment of transit needs in Washington County.  4.4.1 Transit History Washington County has a rich history of public and private  transit, beginning in earnest with the electric interurban  railways of the early 20th century. Two competing companies –  Oregon Electric Railways (OE) and the Southern Pacific Railroad  (SP) – established passenger service connecting Washington  County with Portland and much of the Willamette Valley.34     Three OE lines extended into the county from Portland: one  entering along modern‐day Multnomah Boulevard and  connecting Garden Home, Beaverton, Orenco, Hillsboro,  from Garden Home and passing through Metzger, Tigard,  Tualatin and Wilsonville before proceeding to Salem; and a third tunneling through the Tualatin Mountains near  Cornelius Pass and extending to Helvetia and Banks. Various portions of these historic OE routes now host MAX  light rail, WES commuter rail and the Fanno Creek Greenway Trail.    Rival SP, known for its “Red Electric” trains, also operated three routes through the county. A northern line  roughly paralleled modern‐day Beaverton‐Hillsdale Highway, then continued westward through Aloha, Hillsboro,  Forest Grove, then southward to Gaston and Yamhill County. A southern SP line connected Milwaukie, Lake  Oswego, Tigard, Sherwood and Newberg. A third line connected the two, using today’s Highway 217 corridor.  Many portions of the SP inventory continue to operate today as Portland & Western freight railroads.    In the mid‐20  century, Washington County experienced the familiar American story of private automobile travel  and diesel buses usurping passenger rail. During the 1950s and 1960s, Tualatin Valley Buses provided service  within Washington County and to downtown Portland. Along with other private bus companies in the region, they  were informally known as the “blue buses” for their shared paint scheme. As part of an agreement with Rose City  Transit Company (Portland’s primary transit provider at the time), the blue buses were not allowed to stop within  the City of Portland, other than dropping off and letting on passengers in downtown Portland.35    33 Transit Savings Report, American Public Transportation Association, August 2012,  http://www.publictransportation.org/tools/transitsavings/Pages/default.aspx   34 “Interurbans,” http://www.pdxhistory.com/html/interurbans.html  35 Blue Bus Lines, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Bus_lines_(Oregon)  The original Orenco station. Image: pdxhistory.com Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐74  By the late 1960s, most private transit companies could not operate profitably, prompting public intervention at  multiple levels of government. The Tri‐County Metropolitan Transit District of Oregon was established in 1969,  the same year Oregon House Bill 1808 authorized public transit districts to raise revenue through a payroll tax.36  Most private bus operators in the region discontinued service shortly after.    TriMet began as an all‐bus system, but system planning as early as the 1970s called for a rail transit network  following existing railroad rights‐of‐way throughout the region. The first line, the Banfield Metropolitan Area  Express (MAX), connected downtown Portland with east Portland and Gresham in 1986. Service to rapidly‐ growing Washington County was an obvious choice for the next line. Construction began on the 18‐mile West  Side MAX in 1993, with service beginning in 1998. A significant portion of the previously abandoned OE Forest  Grove line came back to life as a modern light rail line. West Side MAX provided not just a new travel option but  also an incentive to revitalize historic downtowns and to focus new, transit‐oriented development in “greenfield”  areas between Beaverton and Hillsboro.    The west side experienced additional travel demand in the Highway 217/Interstate 5 corridor from Beaverton to  Wilsonville. From 1994 to 2000, the corridor’s growth in households was 34% more robust, and employment  growth 55%  greater, than those of the Portland region as a whole.37 Feasibility studies and political support  favored a diesel commuter rail solution along an existing Portland & Western freight railroad. The Westside  Express Service (WES) opened in early 2009 as one of the nation’s few suburb‐to‐suburb commuter rail lines. It  has since seen two consecutive years of double‐digit percentage growth in annual ridership.    Wilsonville’s transit history is also unique. In 1988, the city successfully petitioned to secede from the TriMet  service district and create its own transit system. South Metro Area Regional Transit (SMART) began operating in  1989 with door‐to‐door passenger van service.38 Ridership grew steadily, and in 1993 SMART established fixed  route service. Today, the agency operates over 35 vehicles on seven fixed routes, including two routes with stops  in Washington County.    Due to the effects of the Great Recession on payroll tax revenues, combined with uncertainty in state and federal  transportation funding and unsustainable health care costs for union employees, TriMet has experienced multiple  years of extreme budget pressures, resulting in repeated budget cuts, including service reductions. This funding  instability comes at a time when there is increasing demand for transit service. TriMet has cut service and raised  fares system‐wide, even as ridership reaches all‐time highs. In Washington County, no bus lines have been  eliminated, however weekend service has been eliminated on a few lines and frequencies have been reduced on  several bus routes and during off‐peak hours on MAX.    Nevertheless, TriMet, SMART and several other transit agencies continue to provide Washington County residents  and workers with convenient, affordable travel options that take cars off the road and reduce the environmental  impact of the transportation system as a whole.  36 “The TriMet Story,” http://www.trimet.org/about/history/trimet_story.htm  37 Growing Places: WES Commuter Rail, TriMet fact sheet, 2012.   38 SMART Timeline, http://www.ridesmart.com/Index.aspx?page=72  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐75 4.4.2 Transit Providers Five public transit providers offer transit service in Washington County:     Tri‐County Metropolitan Transit District of Oregon (TriMet);   South Metro Area Regional Transit (SMART);   Yamhill County Transit Area;   Columbia County Transit Division; and   Tillamook County Transportation District.    Additionally, six private, non‐profit or employer‐based transit services operate in Washington County:     Ride Connection, a non‐profit that provides rural transit and urban paratransit services;   OC&W Coachways, operator of the Northwest Point inter‐city bus service between Portland, Cannon  Beach and Astoria;   Tualatin Chamber of Commerce, operator of the Tualatin Shuttle;   Intel employee shuttles; and   Nike employee shuttles.    The following sections provide additional detail on each of these services.      4.4.3 TriMet   TriMet is the principal public transit system serving Washington County. TriMet services in the County include 29  bus routes, one light rail line (including two routes), a commuter rail line, and 1,993 transit stops . The TriMet  service district extends west to Forest Grove, north to Bethany and south to Sherwood. In spring 2012, TriMet  recorded an average of 114,331 weekday boardings and alightings (“ons/offs”) at Washington County transit  stops during its quarterly passenger census, accounting for 17% of ons/offs systemwide.39      Service    TriMet transit routes in Washington County generally exhibit a radial pattern following major corridors from  downtown Portland or Beaverton, along with several north‐south “cross‐town” routes and localized loop routes.  Two rail lines and seven bus lines provide “frequent service” with 15‐minute or better peak‐hour headways along  with late‐night service on all or portions of their alignments. These routes, shown in bold type in Table 4‐23, are:     MAX Blue Line;   MAX Red Line;   12‐ Barbur/Sandy Blvd.;   Weekday service on 52 ‐Farmington/185th;   The shared portion of lines 54 and 56 on Beaverton‐Hillsdale Highway east of Scholls Ferry Road;   The shared portion of lines 76 and 78 on Hall Boulevard and Greenberg Road between the Beaverton and  Tigard transit centers, and;   57‐ TV Highway/Forest Grove.    39 TriMet Spring 2012 Passenger Census, provided by TriMet staff.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐76  Due to recent service cuts, TriMet’s Frequent Service bus routes run every 17‐20 minutes s in the mid‐day period.  MAX Blue Line, along with the interwoven MAX Red Line service operating on the same trackway as far west as  Beaverton, offers the most frequent transit service, with headways as short as six minutes during peak hours.  MAX also has the longest span of service of any transit route in Washington County, operating 20+  hours a day.    WES commuter rail and nine TriMet bus routes in Washington County operate only during weekday peak periods.  Five other bus routes operate all day Monday through Friday, with a sixth operating Monday through Saturday.  The remaining 14 bus routes operate seven days a week, with service from early morning through late evening.    Cumulative travel times on MAX Blue Line from Hatfield Government Center in Hillsboro are 17 minutes to Willow  Creek Transit Center at 185th Avenue, 29 minutes to Beaverton Transit Center, 34 minutes to Sunset Transit  Center and 53 minutes to Pioneer Courthouse Square in downtown Portland. WES commuter rail cumulative  travel times from Beaverton Transit Center are five minutes to Hall/Nimbus, 11 minutes to Tigard, 17 minutes to  Tualatin and 27 minutes to Wilsonville.     Table 4‐23 provides further details on all TriMet rail and bus routes in Washington County, including:     Route name and number;   Terminus locations, where the route starts and ends, with “inbound” referring to destinations within or  closer to downtown Portland;   Headways, the number of minutes between consecutive transit vehicle arrivals at a given transit stop (this  is the inverse of “frequency,” which is how many times per hour a transit vehicle stops as a given  location);   Span of Service, the time of day when transit service is available; and   Days of service, the days of the week when transit service is available.    TriMet routes are mapped in Figure 4‐17.  §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ217 TriMet Transit System J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ TS P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ Tr an si t_ U rb .m xd January 08, 2013 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning and Development Services ") Commuter Rail Station Commuter Rail Route #Y Light Rail Station Light Rail Route (X Major Bus Stop Frequent Service Bus Routes Bus Routes Other Transit Providers* TriMet Service District Rural Washington County 0 16,0008,000 Feet 1 inch represents 16,500 feet ¯ Figure 4-17 * Other Transit Providers include: Wilsonville SMART, Yamhill County Transit Authority (YCTA), CC Rider (Columbia County), Tillamook Wave, NW Point, Washington County Ride Connection and King City Ride-About Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐78  Table 4-23: TriMet Transit Routes Serving Washington County Route  (Weekday frequent service  routes in bold)  Terminus  (outbound)  Terminus  (inbound)  Headways  (weekday  peak/  mid‐day,  minutes)  Span of Service  (weekdays)  Days of  Service  MAX Blue Line  Hillsboro    Gresham  6/15  3:37am –   2:02am   7 days  MAX Red Line  Beaverton/  Hillsboro  Portland Airport  15/15  3:37am – 12:50am  7 days  Westside Express Service  (WES) Commuter Rail  Wilsonville  Beaverton  30/NA  5:21am – 9:55am;  3:20pm – 8:02pm  M‐F peak   12 – Barbur/Sandy Blvd  Tigard TC  Parkrose‐ Sumner  TC  15/20  4:54am – 1:54am  7 days  20 – Burnside/Stark  Beaverton TC  Gresham TC  20/20  4:24am – 2:07am  7 days  36 – South Shore  Tualatin Park &  Ride  Lake Oswego TC or  Portland  30/90  6:58am – 7:08pm  M‐F  37 – Lake Grove  Tualatin Park &  Ride  Lake Oswego TC  90/90  7:03am – 5:20pm  M‐F  38 – Boones Ferry Rd  Tualatin Park &  Ride  Portland City  Center  30/NA  5:50am – 9:39am;  2:29pm – 7:19pm  M‐F  peak   43 – Taylors Ferry Rd  Washington  Square TC  Portland City  Center  60/60  5:45am – 7:42pm  M‐F  45 – Garden Home  Tigard TC  Portland City  Center  20/60  5:28am – 9:33pm  7 days  46 – North Hillsboro  Hillsboro TC  Hillsboro Main  Library  60/60  5:45am – 7:31pm  M‐F  47 – Baseline/Evergreen  Hillsboro TC  Sunset TC  45/75  5:26am – 10:55pm  M‐F  48 – Cornell  Hillsboro TC  Sunset TC  40/40  5:10am – 10:08pm  7 days  50 – Cedar Mill (loop)  Sunset TC  Sunset TC  45/NA  5:26am – 9:17am;  4:30pm – 7:23pm  M‐F  peak   52 – Farmington/185th   PCC Rock Creek  Beaverton TC  15/20  4:42am – 12:42am  7 days  53 – Arctic/Allen (loop)  Beaverton TC  Beaverton TC  30/NA  5:55am – 8:50am;  3:05pm – 6:27pm  M‐F  peak   54 – Beaverton‐Hillsdale  Hwy*  Beaverton TC  Portland City  Center  20/30  4:55am – 12:31am  7 days  55 – Hamilton   Raleigh Hills  Portland City  Center  60/NA  7:02am – 8:39am;  4:00pm – 5:50pm  M‐F  peak   56 – Scholls Ferry*  Washington  Square TC  Portland City  Center  20/30  5:28am – 1:04am  7 days  57 – TV Hwy / Forest Grove  Forest Grove  Beaverton TC  15/20  4:08am – 2:47am  7 days  58 – Canyon Rd  Beaverton TC  Portland City  Center  30/30  5:01am – 10:55pm  7 days  59 – Walker / Park Way  Willow Creek TC  Sunset TC  60/NA  6:06am – 9:01am;  3:16pm – 6:17pm  M‐F  peak   61 – Marquam Hill /  Beaverton  Beaverton TC  Marquam Hill  20/NA  6:19am – 8:27am;  3:32pm – 6:16pm  M‐F  peak  62 – Murray Blvd  Washington  Square TC  Sunset TC  30/30  4:57am – 11:00pm  7 days  64 – Marquam Hill / Tigard  Tigard TC  Marquam Hill  30/NA  5:47am – 8:29am;  3:47pm – 6:42pm  M‐F peak   67 – Bethany/158th   PCC Rock Creek  Merlo Rd / SW  158th  30/30  5:49am – 9:54pm  M‐Sat  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐79 Route  (Weekday frequent service  routes in bold)  Terminus  (outbound)  Terminus  (inbound)  Headways  (weekday  peak/  mid‐day,  minutes)  Span of Service  (weekdays)  Days of  Service  76 – Beaverton/Tualatin*  Legacy Tualatin  Beaverton TC  30/30  5:42am – 11:17pm  7 days  78 – Beaverton / Lake  Oswego*  Lake Oswego TC  Beaverton TC  30/30  5:29am – 12:27am  7 days  88 – Hart/198th   Willow Creek TC  Beaverton TC  30/30  5:32am – 10:57pm  7 days  92 – South Beaverton  Express  Murrayhill  Portland City  Center  30/NA  5:32am – 8:54am;  3:36pm – 7:06pm  M‐F peak  94 – Pacific Hwy /  Sherwood  Sherwood  Tigard TC or  Portland  30/30  4:32am – 1:09am  7 days  96 – Tualatin/I‐5  Commerce Circle  Portland City  Center  15/NA  5:17am – 9:50am;  1:33pm – 9:00pm  M‐F peak  Source: TriMet, September 2012  *Only the shared portion of lines 54 and 56 on Beaverton‐Hillsdale Highway and the shared portion of lines 76 and 78 on Hall Boulevard and Greenburg Road  have frequent service.  In addition to the fixed routes above, TriMet offers LIFT paratransit service, a shared ride advance‐reservation  service for people who cannot use regular buses or trains due to a disability or disabling health condition. Users  must meet ADA eligibility criteria and be registered with TriMet.  The LIFT vehicle fleet includes small buses, vans  and taxis. The LIFT service area, mapped in Figure 4‐18, extends generally ¾ mile beyond the outer limits of  TriMet bus and MAX lines, but no further than the TriMet service district boundary. As of September 2012 the  LIFT paratransit service area and hours of operation match nearby bus/MAX service. There are six LIFT paratransit  service boundaries: weekdays, weekday evenings, Saturdays, Saturday evenings, Sundays, and Sunday evenings.   LIFT trips are provided if there is nearby fixed‐route bus or rail service in operation during that time. The non‐ profit Ride Connection, described in section 4.4.5, offers paratransit service in a larger area of Washington  County.      Fares    In September 2012, TriMet eliminated its zonal fare system as part of a fare increase and service adjustment  process. TriMet now charges an adult boarding fare of $2.50 throughout the entire system, with free transfers  allowed within two hours of the original boarding (MAX and WES tickets) or past the last scheduled stop on the  route or Downtown Portland, for connections with other buses or trains (bus transfer receipts). Youth ($1.65) and  Honored Citizen ($1.00) fares offer discounts to eligible users.  Day passes are available for adults, Youth and  Honored Citizens ($5, $3.30, $2) offering convenience and savings for anyone making two or more transit trips in  the span of one service day.    Table 4‐24 shows the complete TriMet fare structure.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐80  Table 4-24: TriMet Fare Structure Effective Sept. 1, 2012   Two‐hour  ticket  One‐day pass  One‐week  pass  14‐day pass  One‐month  pass  One‐year pass  Adult (18‐64)    $2.50  $5  $26  $51  $100  $1,100  Honored citizen  (65+, Medicare,  disability)  $1  $2  $7  $13.50  $26  $286  Youth (7‐17, high  school, GED)  $1.65  $3.30  $8  $15.50  $30  $330  LIFT paratransit    $2.15  N/A  N/A  $31.50  $62  $744      Ridership    Systemwide, TriMet has seen year‐to‐year ridership increases in all but two years since 1999.40 Only 2006 and  2010 saw decreases. In fiscal year 2012, TriMet boardings surpassed 102 million, an all‐time high. Between 2000  and 2010, boardings increased 23%, significantly higher than the tri‐county population increase of 14% during the  same decade. Between 2011 and 2012, the greatest gains by service type occurred on WES Commuter Rail, with a  12.8% increase in boardings, compared to a 2% increase on MAX and 2.4% increase on buses.41     Comparing individual TriMet rail and bus lines, the highest weekday ridership figures are found on lines that offer  frequent service and have long routes – MAX Blue Line, 57‐TV Highway and 52‐Farmington/185th. Table 4‐25  ranks lines by total weekday ons/offs at stops within Washington County. (Some lines may have higher ridership  over the course of their entire routes, but would skew the analysis of transit ridership within Washington County.  For example, Line 12 ‐Barbur/Sandy Blvd.begins in Tigard, passes through southwest and downtown Portland, and  terminates at Parkrose Transit Center in outer northeast Portland. Table 4‐25 does not include ons/offs that occur  outside of Washington County, but it does account for trips that begin in Washington County and end elsewhere,  and vice versa. Routes that are totally within Washington County are shown in bold.)    40 TriMet Annual Performance Report, FY199‐FY2011, http://www.trimet.org/about/performance.htm  41 TriMet celebrates record boardings, The Oregonian, July 25, 2012, http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2012/07/trimet_celebrates_record_board.html  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐81 Table 4-25: Weekday Ridership on TriMet Routes at Washington County Transit Stops, Spring 2012 Route  (Routes in bold travel entirely within  Washington County)  Average  Weekday  Ons/Offs in  Washington  County    Route  (Routes in bold travel entirely within  Washington County)  Average  Weekday  Ons/Offs in  Washington  County  MAX Blue Line  41,870    89 – Tanasbourne*  1,127  57 – TV Hwy/Forest Grove  15,102    45 – Garden Home  949  52 – Farmington/185th  8,893    94 – Sherwood/Pacific Hwy Express  938  MAX Red Line  5,416    47 – Baseline/Evergreen*  908  76 – Beaverton/Tualatin  5,227    53 – Arctic/Allen  592  62 – Murray Blvd  4,942    50 – Cedar Mill  438  12 – Barbur/Sandy Blvd  4,394    46 – North Hillsboro  413  78 – Beaverton/Lake Oswego  4,020    92 – South Beaverton Express  372  88 – Hart/198th   2,868    61 – Marquam Hill/Beaverton  367  WES Commuter Rail  2,720    43 – Taylors Ferry Rd  251  20 – Burnside/Stark  2,369    59 – Walker/Park Way  244  54 – Beaverton/Hillsdale Hwy  2,189    64 – Marquam Hill/Tigard  104  67 – Jenkins/158th   1,952    38 – Boones Ferry Rd  100  56 – Scholls Ferry Rd  1,493    36 – South Shore  43  48 – Cornell*  1,467    37 – Lake Grove  38  96 – Tualatin/I‐5  1,337    55 – Hamilton   22  58 – Canyon Rd  1,166        Source: TriMet, Spring 2012 Passenger Census  *Bus routes and service characteristics changed in September 2012, after the above census. Among these changes, the #47 and #48 lines were realigned to  operate between the Hillsboro and to Sunset transit centers, and the #89 line was eliminated.    At a finer scale, some transit stops/stations see more patronage than others. In Washington County, stops with  the highest ridership are typically MAX stations and at transit centers. Tables 4‐26, 4‐27 and 4‐28 report ridership  at rail stations, transit centers and other major stops, respectively. Locations are listed in order from highest to  lowest ridership.    Table 4-26: Weekday Ridership at TriMet Rail Stations, Spring 2012 Station    Average  Weekday  Ons/Offs    Station  Average  Weekday  Ons/Offs  Beaverton Transit Center (MAX )  10,122    Beaverton Central  1,779  Sunset Transit Center   5,932    Merlo Rd/SW 158th Ave  1,727  Willow Creek Transit Center  4,744    Beaverton Creek  1,614  Millikan Way  3,433    Tuality Hospital/SE 8th Ave  1,404  Hatfield Government Center  3,042    Beaverton Transit Center (WES)  1,350  Elmonica/SW 170th Ave  2,745    Washington/SE 12th Ave  1,316  Quatama/NW 205th Ave  2,670    Hawthorn Farm  968  Orenco/NW 231st Ave  1,994    Tigard Transit Center (WES)  628  Hillsboro Central/SE 3rd Transit Center  1,971    Tualatin (WES)  455  Fair Complex/Hillsboro Airport  1,825    Hall/Nimbus (WES)  287  Source: TriMet, Spring 2012 Passenger Census  Note: Bus ons/offs are not included in transit center and park&ride counts. Total transit center and park&ride ons/offs are provided in Table 4‐25. For  stations with combined MAX Blue Line and Red Line service, combined counts are shown. WES counts are shown separately for Beaverton Transit Center.      Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐82  Table 4-27: Weekday Ridership at Transit Centers and Park and Rides, Spring 2012 Transit Center / Park and Ride    Average  Weekday  Ons/Offs  Beaverton Transit Center  20,303  Sunset Transit Center  7,683  Willow Creek Transit Center  7,412  Millikan Way Park & Ride  4,129  Hillsboro Transit Center  3,759  Tigard Transit Center  3,302  Washington Square Transit Center  2,694  Merlo Rd/SW 158th Ave Turnaround  2,055  Tualatin Park & Ride  745  Source: TriMet, Spring 2012 Passenger Census  Note: Includes ons/offs for all service types – bus, MAX and WES. For bus  only, subtract rail ons/offs from Table 4‐26.  Table 4-28: Top 20 Non-Transit Center Bus Stops by Ridership, Spring 2012 Bus  Route(s)  Stop Location    Direction  City/Area  Average  Weekday  Ons/Offs  52  PCC Rock Creek main stop  Northern terminus  Rock Creek  1,158  57  SW Washington & Adams  Eastbound  Hillsboro  369  57  SW TV Hwy & 185th   Eastbound  Aloha  285  12  SW Main & Pacific Hwy  Northbound  Tigard  274  57  19th & B St   Eastbound  Forest Grove  246  57  SW TV Hwy & 185th   Westbound  Aloha  246  47,48,57  SE Baseline & 2nd  Westbound  Hillsboro  244  57  19th & Main  Eastbound  Forest Grove  242  57  SW TV Highway & 170th   Westbound   Aloha  220  57  SW TV Highway & 170th   Eastbound  Aloha  217  57  SE 10th & Walnut  Southbound  Hillsboro  202  57  SE TV Hwy & Minter Bridge  Eastbound  Hillsboro  200  57  SE TV Hwy & 234th   Eastbound  Hillsboro  196  94  SW Pacific Hwy & Durham  Southbound  King City  193  57  SE TV Hwy & Century  Westbound  Hillsboro  190  57  SE 10th & Walnut  Northbound  Hillsboro  183  52  SW 185th & Farmington  Northbound  Aloha  183  52  NW 185th & Tanasbourne Rd  Northbound  Hillsboro  182  57  SE TV Hwy & Cypress  Westbound  Hillsboro  177  57  N Adair & 4th   Westbound  Cornelius  172  Source: TriMet, Spring 2012 Passenger Census    As seen above, 15 of the 20 highest ridership non‐transit center bus stops are associated with the #57 – TV  Highway/Forest Grove line. The top stop, however, is the northern terminus of the #52 bus at Portland  Community College Rock Creek campus. These and other “major bus stops” – stops with 100 or more boardings  per weekday – are shown in Figure 4‐19.          §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ217 Paratransit Service J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ T S P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ P ar aT ra ns it_ U rb .m xd October 22, 2012 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Long Range Planning Division MAX WES Commuter Rail Route Light Rail Route Monthly Ramp Deployments 0-8 8-29 29-68 68-126 126-244 TriMet LIFT Service Washington County Ride Connection 0 16,0008,000 Feet 1 inch represents 16,500 feet ¯ Figure 4-18 !!!! !!! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !H !H H !H !H H !H !H!H H !H !H !H!H !H !H !H H !H !H !H !H H H !H !H!H!H H H HH H!H !H !H !H H!H !H H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H H !H H!H !H H !H !H !H !H !H !H!H!H !H H !H !H !H!H!H !H !H H !H !H !H !H !H !H H !H !H !H H !H !H !H H ! H H H !H !H !H !H !H H !H !H H H !H !H !H !H H !H !H !H H !H H !H H !H !H H !H !H H !H !H !H ! !H H !H !H H H !H H !H !H H !H !H !H !H !H !H H !H !H §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ217 Transit Stop Amenities J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ T S P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ Tr an si tA m en iti es _U rb .m xd October 19, 2012 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Long Range Planning Division !H Transit Amenities (Includes bus shelters, benches, trashcans) ! Major Bus Stop Frequent Service Bus Routes Rural Washington County 0 16,0008,000 Feet 1 inch represents 16,500 feet ¯ Figure 4-19 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐85 Bus Lift/Ramp Deployments    All TriMet buses have ramps or lifts to accommodate persons who have difficulty with steps or who use mobility  devices.  Low‐floor buses with ramps make up about two‐thirds of the fleet as of 2012. On MAX, every train has at  least one low‐floor car to accommodate people with disabilities. All WES commuter trains have accessible level  boarding from station platforms.    TriMet records the location and frequency of all bus ramp/lift deployments to understand where additional bus  stop or other access improvements may be needed. Table 4‐29 ranks the top 20 non‐transit center bus stops by  the number of ramp/lift deployments per month. (Transit centers represent many of the highest ramp  deployment locations due to overall trip volume, and are typically well‐equipped to accommodate people with  disabilities.) Non‐transit center bus stops with high ramp/lift activity are often located near senior housing or  health care facilities. Figure 4‐18 symbolizes bus stops with larger dots corresponding to more monthly ramp  deployments. Line 57 scores highly in this regard.  Table 4-29: Top 20 Non-Transit Center Bus Stops by Monthly Ramp/Lift Deployments, Spring 2012 Bus  Route(s)  Stop Location    Direction  City/Area  Monthly  Ramp  Deployments  57  SE TV Hwy & 44th   Westbound  Hillsboro  130  57  SE TV Hwy & 44th   Eastbound  Hillsboro  125  88  SW 197th & Frances  Northbound  Aloha  74  52  PCC Rock Creek main stop  Northern terminus  Rock Creek  73  57  2200 block Baseline St  Westbound  Cornelius  60  47,48,57  SE Baseline St & 7th   Westbound  Hillsboro  56  57  SE TV Hwy & Sunset Esplanade  Eastbound  Hillsboro  52  47,48,57  SE Oak & 7th   Eastbound  Hillsboro  50  57  SW Washington & Adams  Eastbound  Hillsboro  47  57  SW TV Hwy & 198th   Westbound  Aloha  46  20  SW Cedar Hills & Fairfield  Northbound  Cedar Hills  43  88  SW 197th & Stacey  Southbound  Aloha  43  57  SE TV Hwy & 67th   Westbound  Hillsboro  42  57  SE TV Hwy & 24th   Westbound  Hillsboro  42  46  3100 block Dawson Creek Dr  Northbound  Hillsboro  42  57  SE TV Hwy & Minter Bridge  Eastbound  Hillsboro  39  96  10100 block SE Commerce Circle  Southern terminus  Wilsonville  39  57  SE TV Hwy & 229th   Eastbound  Hillsboro  38  52  NW 185th & West Union  Southbound  Rock Creek  38  57  2900 block Pacific Ave  Westbound  Forest Grove  36  Source: TriMet, Spring 2012 Passenger Census      Transit Stop Amenities    TriMet bus stops range from signposts along unimproved road shoulders to more functional and fully‐accessible  stops with sidewalk connections, concrete pads, bus shelters, benches, trash cans and lighting. TriMet has  guidelines and standards for bus stops and amenities. As funds are limited, TriMet typically provides shelters and  benches only at the highest ridership bus stops (and at all rail stations). Figure 4‐19 shows those transit stops that  include a shelter, bench and trash can. Out of 1,993 transit stops in Washington County, 318 have these  amenities. Also visible in Figure 4‐19 are several “major bus stops” – stops with 100 or more boardings during an  average weekday – that have no amenities. Many of these deficient stops are on busy roadways like Cedar Hills  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐86  Boulevard or Hall Boulevard. MAX and WES stations and transit centers generally have more amenities than  individual bus stops, with shelters and seating joined by real‐time arrival displays, bicycle parking, public art, and  at some locations, food vendors.      Park and Rides    In the suburban setting that characterizes much of Washington County, park and rides provide a convenient  option for people who are not within reasonable walking or bicycling distance of a transit stop but have access to  an automobile. TriMet offers designated automobile parking at a majority of its rail stations in Washington  County, on property either owned or leased by the agency. Park and rides are available at other locations through  leases and agreements with churches, businesses and shopping centers. Many of these secondary locations are  available Monday through Friday only. Table 4‐30 lists TriMet‐approved park and ride locations. A total of 5,447  parking spaces are available at TriMet park and rides countywide.    Table 4-30: TriMet Park and Ride Locations in Washington County At Rail Stations    At Other Locations  Location  (West to east, then north to south)  Parking  Spaces    Location  Parking  Spaces  Hillsboro Parking Garage  (Hatfield Government Center)  250    Bethel Congregational Church*  5150 SW Watson Ave  50  Hillsboro Intermodal Transit Facility  (Tuality Hospital/SE 8th Ave)  85    Boones Ferry Community Church*  20500 SW Boones Ferry Rd  20  Fair Complex/Hillsboro Airport MAX  station   396    Cedar Hills United Church of Christ*  11695 SW Park Way  46  Orenco Station/NW 231st Ave MAX  station  180    Cedar Mill Bible Church*  12208 NW Cornell Rd  16  Quatama/NW 205th Ave MAX station  310    Christ the King Lutheran Church*  11305 SW Bull Mountain Rd  30  Willow Creek/NW 185th Ave Transit  Center  595    Mohawk Park & Ride  SW Martinazzi & Mohawk  232  Elmonica/SW 170th Ave MAX station  430    Progress Park & Ride  SW Scholls Ferry & Hwy 217  122  Beaverton Creek MAX station  417    Seventh Day Adventist Church*  14645 SW Davis St  113  Millikan Way MAX station  400    Sherwood Park & Ride*  SW Main & Railroad  30  Sunset Transit Center  627    Sherwood Regal Cinemas*  15995 SW Tualatin‐Sherwood Rd  50  Hall/Nimbus WES station  50    Somerset Christian Church*  16255 NW Bronson Rd  30  Tigard Transit Center  (Tigard WES station)  100    Southminster Presbyterian Church*  12250 SW Denney Rd  20  Tualatin South Park & Ride*  (Tualatin WES station)  147    Tigard Park & Ride  SW 74th & Pacific Hwy  220    Tualatin Park & Ride  SW 72nd & Bridgeport  466    Valley Community United Presbyterian  Church,* 8060 SW Brentwood St  15  TOTAL  3,987    TOTAL  1,460  Source: TriMet, http://trimet.org/parkandride/index.htm  *Parking  available Monday through Friday only.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐87 Transit and Bicycles    Bicycling is a convenient method of traveling to and from transit stops that are too far to reach by walking or  inconvenient to reach by car. It is also an essential means of transportation for people without cars. Upon arriving  at a transit stop by bicycle, two choices are available: bringing the bicycle aboard the transit vehicle, or parking  the bicycle at the transit stop.    For those that wish to travel with their bikes, all regular TriMet buses and full‐size SMART buses are equipped  with retractable bike racks at the front of the vehicle, with room for two bicycles. TriMet trains also provide  designated space for standard‐size bicycles. Newer, low‐floor MAX cars have four vertical bicycle hooks in  addition to four “priority seating areas” that may be used by bicyclists in the absence of any older adults or people  with disabilities that may need the space. Older, high‐floor MAX cars have six designated spaces for bicycles. WES  commuter trains feature two bike racks and space for four additional bikes in the priority seating areas. Even with  as many as 16 spaces for bicycles on a newer two‐car MAX train, demand exceeds capacity on many trains  through Washington County, especially during peak hours.     For those concerned about not finding space for their bikes on a train or bus, bicycle parking is an alternative.  Most MAX and WES stations feature staple‐ or loop‐style bicycle racks – the most secure type of non‐enclosed  bicycle parking. TriMet also offers bicycle lockers at every MAX and WES station in Washington County except  Tuality Hospital/SE 8th Avenue.  These key‐access lockers are available for $25 per six‐month period. As of October  2012, all TriMet bike lockers in Washington County were rented, with waiting lists in effect. In addition, TriMet  has recently installed electronic bike lockers at Tigard WES Station and Orenco MAX Station, which are available  on demand as opposed to in 6 month cycles for keyed bike lockers.  The access key cards for these electronic bike  lockers are the same as below.    Two MAX stations – Sunset and Beaverton transit centers – offer European‐style bicycle parking facilities called  bike and rides. These enclosed, secure facilities are accessed through a digital key card. Once inside, users secure  their bicycles to metal racks using their own locks.  After purchasing and activating a key card for $25, bicycle  parking prices are three cents per hour on weekdays and one cent per hour on weekends. Sunset TC and  Beaverton TC bike and rides can accommodate 74 bicycles and 100 bicycles, respectively. TriMet partnered with  Washington County and the City of Beaverton to build the bike and rides using American Reinvestment and  Recovery Act (federal stimulus) funding. Sunset Bike and Ride opened in 2009 as the first of its kind in the region.  Beaverton’s opened in 2011 simultaneously with one in Gresham.  Primary goals of bike and rides are to reduce  automobile trips to rail stations, to manage demand for bringing bicycles aboard MAX and WES trains, and to  provide a higher level of security for people leaving their bikes at stations. As of this writing, TriMet has no formal  plans for additional bike and ride facilities in Washington County.    Additional considerations related to bicycles and transit, including roadway access to TriMet rail stations, were  discussed in section 4.3.4. Broader access‐to‐transit needs are discussed in section 4.4.6.       Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐88  4.4.4 Other Public Transit Providers    SMART    South Metro Area Regional Transit (SMART) operates seven fixed‐route bus or shuttle routes in the Wilsonville  area. Two SMART routes have stops in Washington County:     Route  2X connects the Wilsonville WES station and Wilsonville Civic Center area with TriMet’s Tualatin  Park and Ride in Washington County and Barbur Transit Center in southwest Portland. Tualatin Park and  Ride offers connections to TriMet’s #36, #37, #38, #76 and #96 buses, which collectively link Lake Oswego,  Tualatin, Durham, Tigard, Beaverton and Portland. Route 2X provides all‐day service from 4:59am to  8:51pm, including half‐hour peak headways and one‐hour off‐peak headways. The route also provides an  abbreviated day of service on Saturday.     Route 5 has a northern terminus at SW Commerce Circle near the I‐5/Elligsen Road interchange in  Washington County. This location provides connections to TriMet’s #96 express bus to downtown  Portland. Route 5 proceeds southward on SW 95th Avenue through a major Wilsonville employment area,  ultimately terminating at the Wilsonville WES commuter rail station. Route 5 is an extended peak hour  service, running every half hour from 5:25 to 10:10am, and from 3:17 to 7:15pm, weekdays only. The  schedule is coordinated with the WES commuter rail.     Route 6 connects the Canyon Creek Business Park east of I‐5 with the Wilsonville WES station.     One‐way fares on the above SMART routes are $1.25.    Other SMART bus routes provide travel utility to Washington County residents by offering connections from the  Wilsonville WES station to other locations in Wilsonville, as well as to Salem and Canby. For example, Washington  County residents can commute to State of Oregon jobs in Salem for $5 one way, using a combination of WES  commuter rail and SMART’s 1X express bus.       Yamhill County Transit Area    The Yamhill County Transit area (YCTA) provides a hub‐and‐spoke network of bus routes centered in McMinnville.  Two YCTA routes extend into Washington County:     Route 33 – McMinnville to Hillsboro connects McMinnville, Carlton, Yamhill, Gaston, Forest Grove and  Hillsboro. It operates five daily round trips on weekdays only. For passengers connecting to MAX, the first  northbound trip arrives at Hillsboro Transit Center at 6:50am. The final return trip leaves Hillsboro Transit  Center at 6:20pm. Other round trips are spaced throughout the day. Scheduled travel time is 50 minutes  from McMinnville to Hillsboro.     99W Link consists of three related bus routes – #44, #45X and #46S – that connect McMinnville,  Lafayette, Dayton, Dundee, Newberg, Sherwood and Tigard. All three routes terminate at Tigard Transit  Center, providing connections to TriMet’s WES and bus #12‐Barbur/Sandy. YCTA Route 44 runs Monday  through Friday and provides 12 round trips between all of the communities above, including three  consecutive hourly trips in both the morning and evening peaks. The first trip reaches Tigard Transit  Center at 6:33am; the last trip leaves at 6:20pm. Route 45X is a weekday express bus that follows a similar  route as Route 44, but does not stop in Dundee, Dayton or Lafayette. It consists of one morning round trip  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐89 and one evening round trip. Route 46S runs on Saturdays only, following the same route as Route 44, but  with four total round trips. For all three routes, scheduled travel time from McMinnville to Tigard Transit  Center is 62 to 72 minutes.     One‐way fares on YCTA buses are $1.25. Day passes are available for $2.50.      Columbia County Transit Division    Columbia County operates a system of shuttle buses collectively called the “CC Rider,” including two routes that  extend southward into Washington County. Both routes operate Monday through Friday, with one way fares of  $6 between the two counties.     Nehalem Valley Route: This route provides service between Vernonia, Stub Stewart State Park, Staley’s  Junction and TriMet’s Willow Creek Transit Center, generally following Highway 47, Highway 26 and 185th  Avenue. Service consists of a morning, mid‐day and evening round trip. The morning trip reaches Willow  Creek Transit Center at 7:15am; the evening trip leaves at 5:30pm. Scheduled travel time from Vernonia  to Willow Creek Transit Center is one hour.     St Helens/Scappoose to Hillsboro/Beaverton Route: This route connects St Helens and Scappoose in  Columbia County with destinations in central Washington County, including Portland Community College  Rock Creek campus, Tanasbourne regional center and Willow Creek Transit Center. Service consists of six  round trips per weekday. Scheduled travel time from Scappoose to Willow Creek is 55 minutes.      Tillamook County Transportation District    Tillamook County’s bus service, known as “The Wave,” includes a route from Tillamook to the Portland metro  area. Route 5 Tillamook‐Portland provides two round trips per day, seven days a week, with stops at the  Tillamook Forest Center, Banks, North Plains, Tanasbourne and Sunset Transit Center. The route continues to  Union Station in downtown Portland. Westbound buses to the coast stop at Sunset Transit Center at 11:00am and  3:40pm daily; eastbound buses stop there at 9:55am and 2:15pm. One way fare to the coast is $15; round trip is  $20. Scheduled travel time from Sunset Transit Center to downtown Tillamook is one hour, 45 minutes.     4.4.5 Private and Non-Profit Transit Providers   Ride Connection    Ride Connection is a Portland‐based non‐profit organization that provides several transportation services in  Washington County: door‐to‐door paratransit for seniors and people with disabilities, rural transportation for the  general public, rural and urban job access for transportation‐disadvantaged commuters, circulator routes for  seniors in King City and Beaverton, and one rural transit commuter line connecting North Plains, Banks and the  Hillsboro Transit Center. Ride Connection also offers a number of educational programs intended for older adults  and people with disabilities, including one‐on‐one travel training and group travel training. Ride Connection is  funded through an agreement with TriMet, and with grants from federal, state, foundation, corporate and  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐90  individual entities. Ride Connection provided over 416,000 rides in and offered travel training to over 1,000  participants in 2011.42 Additional details on Ride Connection services are provided below:43     Door‐to‐Door: Door‐to‐door paratransit service is available for adults 60 and older and people with  disabilities, free of charge countywide. Common uses include rides to medical appointments, grocery  shopping and other basic errands.     U‐Ride: Ride Connection’s U‐Ride is a rural transportation service open to the general public covering  western Washington County. U‐Ride operates through contracts with private transportation providers  such as taxi companies. U‐Ride has two service outlines:    o Banks and North Plains: This Dial‐A‐Ride program serves customers within the city limits of Banks and  North Plains. Service is door‐to‐door for destinations in Forest Grove, Cornelius or Hillsboro (west of  10th Street). Customers can request trips to and from medical appointments as far east as 185th  Avenue in Hillsboro.    o Rural West Washington County: This Dial‐A‐Ride program serves residents in areas outside the  TriMet service district. The service is intended to encourage shared rides. Service is door‐to‐door to  and from destinations in Forest Grove, Cornelius or Hillsboro (west of 10th Street). Customers can  request trips to and from medical appointments as far east as 185th Avenue in Hillsboro.       Urban Job Access: This service provides transportation for qualifying lower‐income workers in Tigard and  Forest Grove. Trips must originate and terminate within the City or Tigard or within the City of Forest  Grove, from 6am to 6pm, Monday through Friday.     RideAbout: Ride Connection operates two circulator routes through communities in Washington County  that have a high concentration of older adults. In both cases, call‐ahead door‐to‐door service is available  for seniors and people with disabilities. The two routes are as follows:     o King City RideAbout connects several neighborhoods in King City with shopping centers on  Highway 99W. This service also has a fixed‐route, fixed schedule component available to the  general public. That service operates 3½ round trips per day, Wednesday through Friday.    o Beaverton RideAbout connects residents of Hollytree Village on Murray Boulevard with  destinations including Elsie Stuhr Center (a community center intended for adults 55 and over)  and the Cedar Hills WinCo. Call‐ahead trips are available Monday through Friday.     Community Bus Service: Ride Connection operates morning and evening commuter transit service open  to the general public between downtown Forest Grove, Banks, North Plains and Hillsboro Transit Center.  Service is limited to one morning round trip and one evening round trip, Monday through Friday. Service  is free of charge.    42 Ride Connection, About Us, http://www.rideconnection.org/Ride/AboutUs.aspx 43 Ride Connection, Services, http://www.rideconnection.org/Ride/Services.aspx Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐91 OC&W Coachways    Northwest POINT (Public Oregon Intercity Transit) is one of three inter‐city shuttle bus routes in Oregon operated  by private sector OC&W Coachways with supplemental funding from ODOT. This particular route provides twice‐ daily round trips between Portland Union Station, Cannon Beach and Astoria. The service includes a “flag stop” in  Manning along Highway 26 in western Washington County. Westbound buses stop in Manning at 10:05am and  6:55pm daily; eastbound buses stop at 9:55am and 7:50pm. One‐way adult fares from Manning to Cannon Beach  and Seaside are $12; Manning to Astoria, $13; Manning to Union Station, $7. Discounts of 15% are available for  adults 62 and older.      Tualatin Chamber of Commerce    The Tualatin Chamber of Commerce operates the Tualatin Shuttle in partnership with major employers in that  city. The service uses a dial‐a‐ride model and operates from 5:30am to 9:30am and from 2:00pm to 6:00 pm,  Monday through Friday. The transit vehicle is either a 15‐passenger van or a mini‐van, depending on demand.  Service is free of charge. The first morning pick‐up in is in downtown Portland, allowing commuters to reach  Tualatin before bus service starts. Remaining service is in the Tualatin area, including stops at the Tualatin WES  station and Tualatin Park and Ride. The Tualatin Shuttle fills a major gap in public transit service in this area.      Employee and Student Shuttles    Washington County’s two largest employers, Intel and Nike, each operate fleets of employee shuttles. In addition  to transporting employees between various corporate campuses in the county, the shuttles also provide  connections to public transit. The shuttles are a valuable service, encouraging employees to use transit instead of  driving, and reducing the inconvenience of the “last mile” gap between transit and the workplace. The most  significant employee shuttles that connect with transit are:     The Intel shuttle connecting Orenco Station MAX station with Ronler Acres campus;   The Intel shuttle connecting Fair Complex MAX station with Jones Farm campus; and   A group of Nike shuttles that connect to Millikan Way, Beaverton Creek and Elmonica MAX stations.    Nike reported 84,000 person trips on its five employee shuttles in fiscal year 2012 (that’s roughly 350 trips per  average weekday). Ridership on Intel shuttles was not available, but the company provides:     16 scheduled morning trips from Orenco Station MAX to Ronler Acres;   18 scheduled evening trips from Ronler Acres to Orenco Station MAX;   19 scheduled morning trips from Fair Complex MAX to Jones Farm; and   12 scheduled evening trips from Jones Farm to Fair Complex MAX.    Portland Community College (PCC) operates a series of free shuttles for students, faculty and staff traveling  between different campuses. The shuttles operate weekdays only, and do not run during the summer term. Two  PCC shuttles operate within Washington County:     The PCC Blue Line shuttle provides 11 weekday round trips between PCC Rock Creek campus, Sunset  Transit Center and PCC Sylvania Campus in southwest Portland.    Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐92   The PCC Red Line shuttle provides ten roundtrip weekday round trips between PCC Rock Creek campus,  Sunset Transit Center and PCC Cascade campus in north Portland.    Systemwide ridership of PCC’s shuttles has doubled in the past five years, totaling 265,190 trips in Fiscal Year  2011‐2012.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐93 4.4.6 Transit Needs   While Washington County enjoys a relatively robust transit network for a suburban/rural American county, plenty  of service and amenity needs remain. Further, as Washington County continues to grow, new transit service  improvements and expansions will be necessary. This section summarizes existing and future transit needs based  on public comment, technical analysis and planning efforts undertaken by other agencies.      What We’ve Heard    Public involvement as part of TSP 2035, combined with community input from other planning projects (including  the Aloha‐Reedville Livable Community Plan and TV Highway Concept Plan), have revealed a variety of concerns  about transit service, amenities and safety in Washington County. Major themes and particular concerns raised  during the public involvement process include the following:     The TriMet network in Washington County disproportionately accommodates travel to and from  downtown Portland, while inadequately serving trips within Washington County.   It is often difficult to reach major employment areas by transit.   Better north‐south service is needed, particularly along the Cornelius Pass Road / Century Boulevard  corridor.   Southern Washington County has poor transit service, including the Tualatin‐Sherwood employment area  and southern Tigard.   Transit service in Forest Grove is lacking beyond the terminus of the #57 bus downtown.   Transit service is needed on Cooper Mountain as it becomes increasingly developed.   Better transit service is needed in the rural area, including service to Gaston.   Direct bus service between Bethany Town Center and Sunset Transit Center would be more convenient  than the current connection to MAX at Merlo Road.   Bus stop amenity and access improvements are needed along busy, wide roads like TV Highway, Hall  Boulevard and Evergreen Parkway.   Future MAX or other rail service has public support in Forest Grove and Cornelius.    Bad behavior and crimes occur on MAX potentially due to the isolation of the operator.   SMART, with its smaller vehicles, may be a good example of more flexible, community‐serving transit.      Analysis of Transit Service and Density    A geographic analysis of transit service and land use patterns helps inform the discussion of transit deficiencies  and future needs. Figure 4‐20 compares existing transit service with household and employment distributions  anticipated in 2035, based on the following assumptions and methodology:     A location is considered to be “served by transit” if it is within reasonable walking distance of a transit  stop. Commonly used thresholds to define walking distance to transit are ¼ mile for bus service and ½  mile for rail service. This analysis follows suit, except that ½ mile is also used for frequent service bus  routes (those with 15‐minute peak headways). The analysis uses Euclidean (straight line) buffers of bus  routes (lines) and rail stations (points), rather than network distance and individual bus stops. This means  that transit service areas may be overrepresented in some locations, especially near major linear barriers  such as freeways and creeks.    Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐94   Transit frequency level of service (LOS) is defined by weekday peak‐hour headways on each existing  transit route. LOS classes are customized to TriMet’s current portfolio of service frequencies and differ  from guidelines in the Highway Capacity Manual published by the Transportation Research Board.  Delineations for the purposes of this analysis are:    o LOS A: 1 – 8.99‐minute headways (includes routes with 7.5‐minute or more frequent service)   o LOS B: 9 – 17.99‐minute headways (includes 15‐minute service)   o LOS C: 18 – 25.99‐minute headways (includes 20‐minute service)  o LOS D: 26 – 36.99‐minute headways (includes 30‐minute service)  o LOS E: 36‐minute or greater headways (includes 45 and 60‐minute service)  o LOS F: No regular service available      Transit‐supportive densities are based on the number of households and jobs per acre in traffic analysis  zones (TAZs), as forecasted for 2035 in the Regional Travel Demand Model. It is generally accepted that  the minimum density needed to support regular transit service is three households per acre or four jobs  per acre. This analysis goes further, matching increasing densities with more frequent transit service. First,  households and jobs are combined into a single unit of measurement – “household/job equivalent units”  (HHJEUs) – by multiplying the number of jobs in a TAZ by ¾ and then adding them to the number of  households in that TAZ. Dividing the resulting number by the gross acreage of the TAZ results in density,  which is then assigned into one of the following classes:    o 0 – 2.99 HHJEU/acre: not a transit‐supportive density  o 3 – 5.99 HHJEU/acre: appropriate for LOS E (45‐60‐minute or less frequent headways)  o 6 – 8.99 HHJEU/acre: appropriate for LOS D (30‐minute headways)  o 9 – 11.99 HHJEU/acre: appropriate for LOS C (20‐minute headways)  o 12 – 19.99 HHJEU/acre: appropriate for LOS B (15‐minute headways)  o 20 HHJEU/acre or greater: appropriate for LOS A (7.5‐minute or more frequent headways)     Transit service areas, classified by frequency level of service, are overlaid with TAZs, classified by  households and jobs per acre. The two measures are compared by performing a spatial join. Any given  location can then be described as not served, underserved, appropriately served or well served by  transit. These conditions are displayed in Figure 4‐20.    According to the analysis, areas in 2035 that would be underserved by existing transit service include:     Northwestern Forest Grove;   Most of job‐rich north Hillsboro, from Brookwood Parkway eastward to the Tanasbourne/Amberglen  area;   The entire urban portion of the Cornelius Pass Road corridor, from West Union to South Hillsboro;   Areas of Bethany that are not near the town center or Bethany Boulevard, including North Bethany,  Laidlaw Road (east of Bethany) and 174th Avenue;   Cedar Mill Town Center;   The 158th Avenue corridor from Sunset Highway to Jenkins Road;   Raleigh West industrial area in Beaverton, centered on the intersection Western Avenue and Allen  Boulevard;   Washington Square Regional Center on both sides of Highway 217;   Progress Ridge, Bull Mountain and urban reserves to the north and west;   The Tigard Triangle and 72nd Avenue employment areas near the I‐5/217 interchange;  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐95  Southern areas of Tigard, especially along Durham Road;   The Tualatin‐Sherwood industrial employment area; and   Southern and western neighborhoods of Sherwood.    Many of these areas are underserved based on present densities and transit service.    Areas shown as well served are places that are less densely developed than what a high‐frequency transit route  would typically serve. Such areas often correspond with single‐family neighborhoods and suburban‐format retail  areas near frequent service transit lines including MAX, bus #57 – TV Highway and bus #52 – Farmington/185th.  Portions of Aloha, Cornelius, Rock Creek and Raleigh Hills meet this description and benefit from it. Being well  served by transit does not mean that transit service should be reduced or that transit headways should be longer  in these locations. It may indicate where denser development could be feasible, if a number of other criteria were  met, including support by the community and local officials.    Many other factors play a role in transit demand and ridership, including the demographic and socio‐economic  characteristics of neighborhoods (especially income and age), the safety and “walkability” of areas near transit  stops, the reliability of transit service, and qualitative perceptions about the transit experience.  §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ217 Transit Service Needs Analysis J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ TS P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ Tr an si tL O S .m xd January 09, 2013 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning and Development Services Well-served by Transit Appropriately Served by Transit Underserved by Transit Underserved - No Transit TriMet Service District SMART District 0 16,0008,000 Feet 1 inch represents 16,500 feet ¯ Figure 4-20 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐97 Westside Service Enhancements Project    In 2012, TriMet began a study of transit service needs in Washington County called the Westside Service  Enhancements Project. The study area is limited to TriMet’s service district north of Scholls Ferry Road and  Barrows Road. Data collection included a public survey of resident and worker travel habits and perceptions,  interviews with study area stakeholders, and a geographic analysis of residential concentrations, employment  hubs and commuting travel patterns. Preliminary findings reveal existing or future needs for transit service in  many of the areas described in Washington County’s analysis above, including:     Laidlaw Road and 174th Avenue in Bethany;   170th Avenue south of Elmonica MAX station;   Alocleck Drive, Amberwood Drive and 206th Avenue between Evergreen Parkway and Quatama MAX  station;   Century Boulevard (including present‐day 229th and 231st avenues and a future bridge over Rock Creek)  from Gordon Faber Recreation Complex to the South Hillsboro plan area;   Brookwood Parkway/Avenue from Fair Complex or Hawthorne Farm MAX station to the South  Hillsboro/Witch Hazel area;   Evergreen Road/Parkway, Shute Road and Butner Road in north Hillsboro; and   Horizon Boulevard and Barrows Road in the Progress Ridge area of south Beaverton.    For many of the above corridors, significant development and infrastructure investment would need to occur  before TriMet provides new service. For example, a route along the Century Boulevard corridor would likely be  prompted by major development in the South Hillsboro plan area and construction of the Century Boulevard  bridge over Rock Creek. In the near term, TriMet plans to focus largely on restoring more frequent service on  existing bus routes that were impacted by recent service cuts.44    TriMet plans to undertake a similar service analysis for the Southwest Corridor, including Tigard, Tualatin,  Sherwood and King City, once the Westside Service Enhancements Project is complete.       Bus Stop Amenity Needs    As mentioned earlier, TriMet does not have sufficient resources to provide the full array of amenities – shelters,  benches, trash cans – at every bus stop. TriMet works with partner jurisdictions including Washington County to  appropriately match amenities with transit patronage at each stop. TriMet generally does not provide shelters  and benches at locations that lack sidewalks and curbs.    The geographic comparison of major bus stops and stops without amenities shown in Figure 4‐19 reveals those  stops that may warrant amenity improvements. Particular concentrations of such stops include:     Baseline Street in Cornelius;   TV Highway between River Road and Brookwood Avenue in Hillsboro;   Cedar Hills Boulevard between Sunset Highway and Hall Boulevard;   Beaverton‐Hillsdale Highway between Lombard Street and Oleson Road;   Hall Boulevard in the Washington Square regional center;    Downtown Hillsboro; and   Downtown Beaverton.   44 Correspondence with Tom Mills, Service Planner at TriMet, September 2012.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐98  Access to Transit Needs    TriMet’s 2011 Pedestrian Network Analysis project assessed the availability of pedestrian amenities such as  sidewalks and crosswalks near high‐ridership transit stops throughout the region. Locations with a significant  concentration of high‐ridership transit stops, a relatively high density and mix of land uses, and an observed  deficiency of pedestrian facilities, were advanced as “focus areas” for further site study and consideration of  solutions. Washington County contains four focus areas where, according to the analysis, safer access to transit is  needed. The analysis recommends specific solutions to address these needs, including wider sidewalks, enhanced  and more frequent pedestrian crossings, pedestrian pathways and bus shelters. Recommended solutions are  reported in Table 4‐31. Note that each focus area includes at least a ½‐mile buffer of the location listed in the  table.    Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐99 Table 4-31: TriMet Pedestrian Network Analysis- Access to Transit Focus Area Recommendations Focus Area  Transit  Routes    Recommended Solutions  (edited for brevity)  SW Farmington  Road and Murray  Boulevard  52, 57, 62    10‐ to 14‐foot sidewalks, including planted buffer, along Farmington Rd east and  west of Murray Blvd.   Bus shelter at stop ID 1660.   Frequent, enhanced pedestrian crossings and 10‐foot sidewalks (including planted  buffer) along TV Highway east and west of Murray Boulevard.   Additional, frequent, enhanced pedestrian crossings along Farmington Rd.   Shorten crossing distances, make crosswalks more visible, and provide more time  for pedestrians to cross at Farmington/Murray and TV/Murray. Consider other  signal treatments like leading pedestrian phases, automatic recall for pedestrian  actuated signals, and right turn on red restrictions.   Tanasbourne  Regional Center  47, 48, 52   Shorten crossing distances and provide more time for pedestrians to cross at  185th/Cornell. Consider other signal treatments like leading pedestrian phases,  automatic recall for pedestrian actuated signals, and right turn on red restrictions.   Shorten crossing distances and provide more time for pedestrians to cross at the  185th/Evergreen. Consider other signal treatments like leading pedestrian phases,  automatic recall for pedestrian actuated signals, and right turn on red restrictions.   Enhanced crossing treatments to assist people crossing the street at the driveway  into the Tanasbourne Town Center on Stucki Ave.   Build sidewalks along Walker Rd between Amberglen and 185th, including  landscaped buffer.   Provide ADA accessible landing pads at bus stops along Evergreen Pkwy.  Tigard Transit  Center  WES, 12, 45,  64, 76, 78    10‐ to 14‐foot sidewalks, including planted buffer, along Pacific Highway.   Fill sidewalk gaps along Scoffins and Ash streets, which provide access to the  transit center.   Formalize informal path between Commercial and Center streets by paving it,  making it ADA accessible, providing lighting, and wayfinding signage.   Provide a designated pedestrian path through the transit center park and ride,  connecting to Main Street.   Shorten crossing distances, make crosswalks more visible, and provide more time  for pedestrians to cross at Pacific/Greenberg, Pacific/Hall and Pacific/Dartmouth.  Consider other signal treatments like leading pedestrian phases, automatic recall  for pedestrian actuated signals, and right turn on red restrictions.  SW Beaverton‐ Hillsdale Highway  and Scholls Ferry  Road  54, 55, 56,  61   Shorten crossing distances, make crosswalks more visible, and provide more time  for pedestrians to cross at Beaverton‐Hillsdale/Oleson and Beaverton‐ Hillsdale/Oleson. Consider other signal treatments like leading pedestrian phases,  automatic recall for pedestrian actuated signals, and right turn on red restrictions.   10‐ to 14‐foot sidewalks, including planted buffer, along Scholls Ferry Road.   Enhanced crossing treatments along Scholls Ferry Road.   10‐ to 14‐foot sidewalks, including planted buffer, along Beaverton‐Hillsdale  Highway.  Source: TriMet Pedestrian Network Analysis, 2011    Additional locations in Washington County would benefit from improvements that provide safer and more  convenient access to transit. Resources to help identify additional locations include Table 4‐28 in this report (Top  20 Non‐Transit Center Bus Stops by Ridership), Table 4‐29 in this report (Top 20 Non‐Transit Center Bus Stops by  Monthly Ramp Deployments), and remaining portions of TriMet’s Pedestrian Network Analysis document.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐100 Other Transit Needs    Based on observed conditions and public input, other transit needs in Washington County include:     Additional and higher‐quality bicycle parking at MAX  and WES stations, including more bicycle lockers, bike  and ride facilities, or other secure bike parking  solutions. Based on ridership and major employment  locations, bicycle parking improvements could  particularly benefit Willow Creek, Millikan Way,  Hatfield Government Center, Orenco Station and Fair  Complex MAX stations. Outside of Washington County,  a bike and ride at Goose Hollow MAX station in  Portland would provide significant utility for those who  commute from Portland to Washington County, and  could potentially reduce demand for bringing bikes  aboard MAX.     Bus pull‐outs or other operational treatments at in‐lane bus stops on roadways with congestion  problems, including TV Highway and 185th Avenue.  Companion solutions may also be helpful, such as  queue‐jump lanes in which buses can proceed through an intersection using a right‐turn lane before or  after a bus stop. Transit signal priority is another tool that can improve transit service reliability along  with general traffic operations. It extends a traffic signal green phase by a few seconds if an approaching  bus is observed to be running behind schedule.       Real‐time transit arrival displays at any rail stations that lack them, and at appropriate major bus stops.     A comprehensive look at park and rides, including demand, capacity, pricing, redevelopment  considerations and structured parking. The most obvious location where demand exceeds capacity is  Sunset Transit Center. Car parking here is usually unavailable after 7:30am on weekdays, which may  discourage some transit use.     A comprehensive rider’s guide for the many overlapping transit services in Washington County. Some  information about other services is posted on the TriMet website at    http://trimet.org/schedules/othertransit.htm            MAX train with more bikes than allowed. Photo:  Jonathan Maus  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐101 4.4.7 High Capacity Transit Planning   As part of the 2035 RTP, Metro completed a Regional High Capacity Transit (HCT) System Plan in 2010. It is the  first comprehensive vision for HCT in the Portland region since 1982. The HCT Plan explores the feasibility of new  light rail, commuter rail, rapid streetcar or bus rapid transit lines in the region, both to improve mobility and  transit performance, and to support land use goals set out in the Metro 2040 Growth Concept. HCT routes are  envisioned to connect the region’s centers – areas with higher densities, mixed land uses, walkable streets and  higher expectations for non‐automobile modal targets. Metro developed the HCT Plan in coordination with  TriMet, counties (including Washington), cities, and a range of private stakeholders from development and  corporate interests to environmental and active transportation advocates. The HCT Plan also included public  workshops in communities throughout the region.    Starting with 55 potential HCT corridors collected from past plans, stakeholder interviews and public workshops,  Metro used a screening process based on ridership, cost, environmental constraints, equity, connectivity,  congestion, land use and travel demand. The result was 18 refined HCT corridors divided into four tiers. In  Washington County, the tiers and proposed corridors are as follows:45    Near‐term regional priority corridors: Corridors that are most viable for implementation in the next four years.     Corridor 11: Portland to Sherwood in the vicinity of Highway 99W ( the “Southwest Corridor”)   Corridor 34: WES commuter rail frequency improvements to 15‐minute all‐day service, seven days a week    Next phase regional priority corridors: Corridors where future HCT investment may be viable if recommended  planning and policy actions are implemented.     Corridor 17: Sunset Transit Center to Hillsboro in the vicinity of Highway 26/Evergreen Parkway   Corridor 17D: Tanasbourne/Amberglen extension   Corridor 28: Clackamas Town Center to Washington Square in the vicinity of Portland & Western Railroad   Corridor 29: Clackamas Town Center to Washington Square in the vicinity of I‐205/Highway 217   Corridor 32: Beaverton to Hillsboro in the vicinity of TV Highway    Developing regional priority corridors: Corridors where projected 2035 land use and commensurate ridership  potential are not supportive of HCT implementation, but which have long‐term potential due to political  aspirations to create HCT‐supportive built form.     Corridor 12: Hillsboro to Forest Grove extension    Regional vision corridors: Corridors where projected 2035 land use and commensurate ridership potential are not  supportive of HCT implementation.     Corridor 38S: Sherwood to Tualatin    Washington County HCT corridors are mapped in Figure 4‐21. Initial planning has begun in the Southwest  Corridor (Corridor 11) connecting Portland, Tigard, Tualatin and Sherwood. The results of that planning effort will  include a series of HCT alternatives for further study. Elsewhere in the county, TV Highway (Corridor 32) is often  discussed as a potential corridor for bus rapid transit (BRT), a service that runs on rubber tires but has stations and  amenities similar to light rail.  45 Metro, Regional High Capacity Transit System Plan 2035 Summary Report, March 2010.  §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ8 ÄÆ6 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ99 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ10 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ47 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ219 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ210 ÄÆ217 Proposed High Capacity Transit J: \W or kg ro up s\ G IS P la nn in g\ TS P _2 03 5\ E xi st in gC on di tio ns \S ep te m be r2 01 2\ H C _T ra ns it_ U rb .m xd January 02, 2013 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning and Development Services Near-Term Regional Priority Corridors Next Phase Regional Priority Corridors Developing Regional Priority Corridors Regional Vision Corridors Light Rail Route Commuter Rail Route Rural Washington County 0 16,0008,000 Feet 1 inch represents 16,500 feet ¯ Figure 4-21 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐103 4.4.8 Oregon Passenger Rail Planning   In 2010, ODOT was awarded a Federal Railroad Administration appropriation to develop an environmental impact  statement (EIS) for improving inter‐city passenger rail service in Oregon’s portion of the federally‐designated  Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor connecting Vancouver (Canada), Seattle, Portland and Eugene/Springfield. ODOT  began the EIS process in 2012. The project will have two primary deliverables, due in 2015: a Tier 1 EIS that will  select a preferred route alternative and a System Development Plan that will describe how the preferred  alternative will be implemented. Major decisions will include the locations of stops, the propulsion system used,  and service characteristics such as travel time and the number of daily trips.    Even in this early stage of the EIS process, it is understood that three corridors will likely form the basis of the  alternatives:     The existing Amtrak/Union Pacific route through Portland, Oregon City, Canby, Woodburn, Salem, Albany  and Eugene;     An alignment that combines the Portland & Western Tillamook branch and the former Oregon Electric  Railway, passing through Lake Oswego, Tualatin and Wilsonville; and     A potential alignment in the median of Interstate 5.    The latter two corridors pass through Washington County. Representatives from the County, City of Tualatin and  City of Wilsonville are participating in the EIS process to ensure that any new passenger rail alignment provides  the most benefits and the least negative impacts. Concerns raised in initial workshops include:     Automobile traffic impacts in the Tualatin Town Center, especially freight traffic on Tualatin‐Sherwood  Road;     Community/environmental impacts associated with transferring from the Tillamook Branch to the Oregon  Electric Railway, which meet at a grade‐separated right angle in Tualatin Community Park; and     Potential conflicts with future service improvements on WES commuter rail, which would share the  Oregon Electric portion of the route.    If these concerns were addressed, and a Washington County route chosen, the Oregon Passenger Rail project  could provide significant transportation utility to county residents and businesses, particularly by offering daily  commuting options to and from Salem.    Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  •  Draft, January 2013 Chapter 4  •  Active Transportation and Transit  4‐104 4.5 TUALATIN RIVER WATER TRAIL A water trail is a river, creek or other linear waterway that is designated for recreational paddling, typically by  people in canoes, kayaks or rafts. While the primary facility is the waterway itself, water trails are enhanced by  establishing designated put‐in and take‐out sites with parking and signage, and by providing maps that identify  the route, access sites, aquatic hazards and interpretive information on the surrounding natural and cultural  landscape.    The non‐profit Tualatin Riverkeepers group has established a Tualatin River Water Trail stretching 33 meandering  river miles from Rood Bridge Park south of Hillsboro to Stafford Road in Clackamas County. A majority of the  water trail passes through rural farmland and natural areas. A section within the urban growth boundary begins in  King City, passes through the Tualatin town center, then exits the county just east of Interstate 5.      Existing Access Points For Washington County, the most practical concern for the Tualatin River Water Trail is facilitating roadway access  to the trail’s boat launch sites. Following the water trail from northwest to southeast, the designated access  points are shown in Table 4‐32 below.    Table 4-32: Tualatin River Water Trail Access Points in Washington County River Mile  Access Point  Nearest Road  General Location  38.4  Rood Bridge Park  Rood Bridge Road  South of Hillsboro  29.6  Eagle Landing  Rainbow Lane  Scholls  26.9  Scholls Bridge  Scholls Ferry Road (OR 210)  Scholls  16.2  Schamburg Bridge  Roy Rogers Road  North of Sherwood  11.5  99W Bridge  Pacific Highway (99W)  South of King City  10.6  Jurgens  Jurgens Avenue  Tualatin  8.9  Tualatin Community Park  Tualatin Road  Tualatin    Future Needs  Tualatin Riverkeepers has identified additional locations in Washington County where river trail access would be  desirable but is not currently possible:     Farmington Road bridge   Munger Lane Natural Area, a Metro‐owned property near the village of Scholls   Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge    Establishing access at these locations would primarily involve coordination with property owners, including  private property owners at Farmington Road and public agencies for the remaining two sites. Tualatin  Riverkeepers would likely take the lead in these efforts, with Washington County handling road access issues. At  these and other access sites, the county may also play a role in placing water trail signage.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 5  •  Goods Movement and Aviation  5‐1 Chapter 5: Goods Movement and Aviation   Washington County is often dubbed “the Economic Engine of Oregon.” Led by established industry clusters in  high‐tech, clean tech and activewear, Washington County is home to over 232,000 jobs and the highest average  weekly wages in Oregon.1  Critical to maintaining and raising this status is the efficient movement of goods by  road, rail, and air. This chapter discusses existing conditions and future needs for roadway freight, freight rail, and  air cargo. General aviation and pipelines are also covered.  5.1 ROADWAY FREIGHT CONNECTIONS   This section deals primarily with the transport of freight on roadways because it is the only mode of freight travel  over which Washington County has control. Although it is recognized that significant amounts of freight are also  transported by rail and pipeline, and to a much lesser extent air, the planning for these modes is done by private  companies or other government agencies. Rail, pipeline, and air modes are more specifically discussed as separate  elements later in this chapter.    Given the close connection between freight movement and economic growth, it is critically important for  Washington County’s freight connections to provide efficient and reliable access for the transport of goods. To  keep pace with regional trade volumes that are expected to double by 20352, the Washington County  Transportation Plan must identify and address gaps and deficiencies in the freight network. The following section  identifies key freight connections and summarizes existing freight needs. Also included are previous findings  regarding freight system needs from the Metro Regional Transportation Plan, the Metro Regional Freight Plan,  and the ODOT Portland Region Economic Corridor Evaluation Report.    Freight is transported via intermodal, roadway, rail, air and marine facilities. Each of these modes provides an  important element of goods movement in Washington County and the Portland Metro region. While all modes  are important the majority of freight is moved via roadways, as approximately 67% of freight tonnage in the  Portland Metropolitan area moved by truck in 20003. The following section identifies freight roadway  designations and truck demand in Washington County.    5.1.1 Freight Route Destinations   The Countywide Through‐truck route system is an important element of the plan. To provide for the most  efficient transport of freight and to minimize impacts on residential neighborhoods, through‐truck routes are  designated primarily on Arterial and Collector roads, However through‐truck route designations in this Plan  encourage the use of these routes for through‐truck travel, but do not restrict through‐truck travel or local pickup  and delivery by truck to these routes. The primary purpose of designating through‐truck routes in this plan is to  ensure that any future improvements on these roads provide for the safe and efficient movement of trucks.  1 County Employment and Wages in Oregon – Fourth Quarter 2011, U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics, 2012.  2 Regional Freight Plan, Metro, June 2010, pg. 32  3 2035 Regional Transportation Plan, Metro, June 2010, pg. 1‐17 §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ 8 ÄÆ 8 ÄÆ 6 ÄÆ 99 ÄÆ 99 ÄÆ 10 ÄÆ 10 ÄÆ 47 ÄÆ 47 ÄÆ 219 ÄÆ 219 ÄÆ 219 ÄÆ 210 ÄÆ 210 ÄÆ 210 ÄÆ 217 J : \ W o r k g r o u p s \ G I S P l a n n i n g \ T S P _ 2 0 3 5 \ E x i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n s \ S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 2 \ T h r o u g h T r u c k U r b . m x d October 01, 2012 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Long Range Planning Division Existing Route Proposed Route Study Area* Rural Washington County 0 16,0008,000 Feet 1 inch represents 16,500 feet ¯ Figure X Through-Truck Routes * Additional through-truck route designations to be determined by further study. 5-1 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 5  •  Goods Movement and Aviation  5‐3 Hazardous Materials    The transport of hazardous materials is regulated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration under Title  49 Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 390‐397, and is not governed by local jurisdictions. Hazardous materials  include a variety of substances, ranging from radioactive and medical wastes to gasoline. The transport of non‐ radioactive hazardous materials requires that vehicles transporting these materials comply with any routing  designations of a state, be placarded or marked and not go through or near heavily populated areas, places where  crowds are assembled, tunnels, narrow streets or alleys, except where there is no practicable alternative. The  transport of radioactive materials is generally restricted to designated preferred routes on interstate highways,  beltways or bypasses, where alternative routes have not been designated by a state.    Transport of hazardous materials is permitted on all Through Truck Routes within the County, however the Vista  Ridge tunnel (on US 26 near downtown Portland) is closed to such traffic. As a result, hazardous materials are  frequently transported via Cornelius Pass Road.      Regional Freight System    Freight (i.e., truck) route designations are applied at the state, regional, county and local level. ODOT, Metro,  Washington County as well as cities in Washington County each have their own designations that reflect the  needs for transporting goods within and through the respective agency jurisdictions. Roadways on these routes  should be designed, constructed, and maintained to support the efficient movement of freight.   The 1999 Oregon Highway Plan identifies the State Highway Freight System. In Washington County, this  designation is applied to all freeways (I‐5, US 26, and OR 217) as well as OR 99W and OR 6. At the regional level,  Metro identifies a more‐detailed set of significant freight infrastructure. The Metro Regional Freight Network in  Washington County is illustrated below. It identifies main roadways and road connectors for freight trucks,  railroad lines, rail yards, marine facilities, and airports. The map also identifies major employment areas, industrial  areas, and urban areas that are most likely to generate freight traffic.    §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ 8 ÄÆ 8 ÄÆ 8 ÄÆ 8 ÄÆ 6 ÄÆ 6 ÄÆ 99 ÄÆ 99 ÄÆ 10 ÄÆ 10 ÄÆ 47 ÄÆ 47 ÄÆ 47 ÄÆ 47 ÄÆ 219 ÄÆ 219 ÄÆ 219 ÄÆ 210 ÄÆ 210ÄÆ 210 ÄÆ 217 Regional Freight Network J : \ W o r k g r o u p s \ G I S P l a n n i n g \ T S P _ 2 0 3 5 \ E x i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n s \ S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 2 \ M e t r o F r e i g h t _ C o W . m x d October 01, 2012 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Long Range Planning Division Main railroad lines Branch railroad lines and spurs Main roadyway routes Main roadway routes (proposed) Road connectors Road connectors (proposed) Rail yards Marine facilities Airports Rural Washington County 0 30,00015,000 Feet 1 inch represents 30,000 feet ¯ Figure X5-2 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 5  •  Goods Movement and Aviation  5‐5 5.1.2 Truck Demand    Truck Counts    Counts of truck traffic have been taken at various locations within Washington County. These provide an  understanding of truck operation within the county, but only at the points where the counts are taken. Specific  path information about truck trips is extremely limited.    For operational purposes, FHWA classifies vehicles into the following 13 categories:    Figure 5‐3:  FHWA Vehicle Classifications    Source: FHWA    Washington County vehicle classification counts, use this classification scheme, and describe trucks as class 4  through 13.    Vehicle Classification Counts have been taken at most Washington County count stations over the last 5 years.          Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 5  •  Goods Movement and Aviation  5‐6 Count locations with Highest Truck Volumes:     Tualatin‐Sherwood Rd, W of Boones Ferry (5,948 trucks in 2007, and 4,085 trucks in 2012)4   Cornelius Pass Rd, N of Cornell (2,172 trucks in 2007, 2,359 trucks in 2012)   Glencoe Rd, S of Beach (1,916 trucks in 2007, and 1,647 trucks in 2012)   Murray Blvd, S of Allen (1,882 trucks in 2007, and 1,657 trucks in 2012)   185th Ave, N of Cornell (1,725 trucks in 2007, and 1,730 trucks in 2012)   Roy Rogers Rd, S of Scholls Ferry (1,723 trucks in 2007, and 1,587 trucks in 2012)   Scholls Ferry Rd, W of Nimbus (1,718 trucks in 2007, and 1,742 trucks in 2012)    Count locations with Highest Truck Percentages:     Clark Hill Rd, S of Farmington (24% in 2007, and 14% in 2012)   Grahams Ferry Rd, S of Cahalin St (22% in 2007, and 20% in 2012)   Roy Rd, N of Cornelius‐Schefflin (22% in 2007, and 27% in 2012)   Cipole Rd, N of Tualatin‐Sherwood (19% in 2007, and 17% in 2012)   Tonquin Rd, S of Oregon St (18% in 2007, and 12% in 2012)   Sellers Rd, S of Hwy. 26 (17% in 2007, and 15% in 2012)   Gordon Rd, S of Beach (11% in 2007, and 15% in 2012)   Farmington Rd, W of 209th (17% in 2007, and 14% in 2012)   Tualatin‐Sherwood Rd, W of Boones Ferry (16% in 2007, and 14% in 2012)    The Washington County information is also available in Appendix A.    The Washington County traffic count stations do not include ODOT or City operated roadways. ODOT has a limited  number of Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) count stations that count trucks on their roads in Washington  County. A comparison of 2008 and 2010 (latest comparable data available) truck volumes and percentages for five  ODOT ATR stations is listed below.     OR 6 west of Glenwood Lane (549 trucks or 12% trucks in 2008, 1,070 trucks or 22.6% trucks in 2010)   U.S. 26 @ Hwy. 47 (302 trucks or 4.7% trucks in 2008, 583 trucks or 8.39% trucks in 2010)   U.S. 26 west of Glencoe Rd. (2,218 trucks or 10.6% trucks in 2008, 2,129 trucks or 10.13% trucks in 2010)   I‐5 south of Boones Ferry Rd. (20,632 trucks or 13.6% trucks in 2008, 15,596 trucks or 10% trucks in 2010)   OR 8 west of NW 334th Ave. (1,482 trucks or 4.38% trucks in 2008, 1,349 trucks or 4.06% trucks in 2010)    As indicated by the data, there is no clear trend in change. Two of the five count stations exhibited increased truck  volumes and percentages whereas the other three locations showed decreased truck volumes and percentages.  Although this is a very limited sample size that should be viewed with caution, this data reflects an overall  decrease of approximately 4,500 trucks or just under 18 percent in truck traffic between 2008 and 2010. One  possible explanation for this downward trend is that the 2008 to 2010 time period coincides with the height of the  economic recession, reduced business activity and an expected commensurate decline in truck activity.  4 All of Tualatin‐Sherwood has extremely high truck volumes, a listing of the highest truck volumes in Washington County would be a  descriptions of the count station locations along Tualatin‐Sherwood Rd. It is listed once with the highest truck volume location.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 5  •  Goods Movement and Aviation  5‐7 Freight & Truck Traffic Generating Areas    The Roadway Freight System needs to serve industrial and employment locations within Washington County.  Many of these locations within the Urban Growth Boundary are identified by Metro Title 4, as shown in figure 5.4  on the following page. Other truck generating uses include many rural activities such as rock quarries, logging, and  farming. No map of these activities is included, as they span most of the rural area.  §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ 8 ÄÆ 8 ÄÆ 6 ÄÆ 99 ÄÆ 99 ÄÆ 10 ÄÆ 10 ÄÆ 47 ÄÆ 47 ÄÆ 219 ÄÆ 219 ÄÆ 219 ÄÆ 210 ÄÆ 210 ÄÆ 210 ÄÆ 217 Metro Title 4 Lands J : \ W o r k g r o u p s \ G I S P l a n n i n g \ T S P _ 2 0 3 5 \ E x i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n s \ S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 2 \ M e t r o T i t l e 4 U r b . m x d October 01, 2012 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Long Range Planning Division Title 4 - Industrial Lands Rural Washington County 0 16,0008,000 Feet 1 inch represents 16,500 feet ¯ Figure X5-4 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 5  •  Goods Movement and Aviation  5‐9 5.2 ROADWAY FREIGHT GAPS AND DEFICIENCIES    Significant regional efforts have previously been conducted to analyze the movement of goods in the region.   Three studies in particular have provided valuable information on gaps and deficiencies in the freight network in  Washington County:   Metro Regional Transportation Plan,    Metro Regional Freight Plan,    ODOT Portland Region Economic Corridor Evaluation Report.    Findings relevant to Washington County are summarized in the following section.    5.2.1 Metro RTP The 2035 Metro Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) was completed in June 2010 and characterizes freight travel  in the state and the region.  The RTP provides a vision for the regional freight network; to enhance freight mobility  and access to industrial area and intermodal facilities by focusing strategies on the most critical locations where  roadway congestion occurs.  That vision is focused on a system approach to plan and manage the freight system  in order to reduce delay, increase reliability, protect industrial lands and freight transportation investments,  address critical marine and rail needs, and utilize ‘clean, green, and smart’ technologies and practices.  Performance thresholds for reliability on the regional freight transportation system are identified in the Interim  Regional Mobility Policy. The threshold is a midday (9 AM to 3PM) one‐hour peak period with demand capacity  ratio of 0.99 or 0.90, depending on the facility5. These thresholds are intended to support off‐peak freight  mobility and reliability.  The RTP identifies long‐term multi‐modal needs for key regional corridors.  The eight RTP ‘mobility corridors’ that  were located in Washington County are listed in Table 5‐1, as are the regional freight needs identified for each  corridor. Also noted in Table 5‐1 are arterial and throughways needs that may be significant to local freight  mobility and reliability or address other potentially freight‐related concerns. The RTP recommends  implementation of the Regional Transportation Functional Plan and Urban Growth Management Functional Plan  as the applicable strategy to address the identified freight needs for these corridors. Future Corridor Refinement  Plans are recommended for two of the corridors; the Portland Central City to Wilsonville and Sherwood, and from  Beaverton to Forest Grove.      5 2035 Regional Transportation Plan, Metro, June 2010, Table 2.4  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 5  •  Goods Movement and Aviation  5‐10  Table 5-1: Metro RTP Mobility Corridor Freight Needs Mobility Corridor  Regional Freight Needs  Portland City Center  to Tigard  Performance thresholds not met in 2035 midday on:   I‐5 between Tualatin Town Center and SW Durham Road (both directions)   I‐5 around the Lake Grove Town Center(both directions)   SW Durham Road between I‐5 and SW Pacific Hwy at the King City Town Center (both direction)   OR 217 between Denney Road and SW Hall Blvd.    Throughway needs identified include the close spacing of I‐5 interchanges south of the Ross Island  Bridge (US 26) and additional crossings over I‐5.  Fanno Creek, the rail line, and I‐5 are located close  to each other and function as barriers to crossings. Most of I‐5 does not meet peak hour  performance thresholds.  Arterial connectivity gaps exist between OR 43 and I‐5, OR 99W and I‐5  (south of Durham Road), between Taylors Ferry Road and Oleson Road, and between I‐5/Terwilliger  and Washington Square.  Arterial performance deficiencies include segments of OR 43, OR 99W, and  Boones Ferry Road.  Tigard to Wilsonville  The Grahams Ferry undercrossing of the P&W line and WES has a height restriction which affects  freight vehicles. It is a safety hazard and limits mobility.     The Tonquin‐Day‐Graham’s Ferry‐Boones Ferry route between the Tualatin Industrial Area and the  Elligsen interchange has geometric deficiencies that need to be improved to function reliably for  freight traffic.    Performance thresholds not met in 2035 midday on:   I‐5 from I‐205 to Boones Ferry Road   I‐5 between Wilsonville Road and the next interchange south (both directions)   I‐5 around the Lake Grove Town Center(both directions)    Throughway needs include the less than one‐mile distance between I‐5 interchanges at Nyberg Road  and I‐205, including merge‐weave conflicts on northbound I‐5. 2035 PM peak hour performance  thresholds are not met on I‐5 between I‐205 and Wilsonville Road.  Arterial gaps are identified east  of I‐5 and south of I‐205, and on either side of Tualatin‐Sherwood Road.  Arterial deficiencies are  identified for crossing the Tualatin River, Willamette River, and I‐5.  Arterial performance thresholds  will be exceeded for segments of Boones Ferry Road, Stafford Road, and Grahams Ferry Road.  Beaverton to Tigard  Performance thresholds not met in 2035 midday on:   OR 217 from south of Denney Way to Hall Blvd (northbound)    Throughway needs include performance thresholds on OR 217, OR 99W, Beaverton‐Hillsdale  Highway, Canyon Road.  The close spacing of OR 217 interchanges and design constraints due to  Fanno Creek are identified as well.  Arterial deficiencies are noted around Washington Square  regional center, as well as on OR 99W, Scholls Ferry Road, and Oleson Road.  Arterial connectivity  gaps are noted in multiple locations on either side of OR 217.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 5  •  Goods Movement and Aviation  5‐11 Mobility Corridor  Regional Freight Needs  Tigard to Sherwood  & Sherwood to  Newberg  Future (2035) midday freight reliability is compromised by intersection operations and driveway turn  movements on OR 99W between SW McDonald St and SW Beef Bend Road and from Durham Road  to just north SW 124th Ave (both directions)    Performance thresholds not met in 2035 midday on:   Tualatin Sherwood Rad. from Avery Street to NE Oregon Street     Throughway needs include the close spacing of traffic signals and driveways along OR 99W south of  the I‐5 interchange.  Performance thresholds are exceed along OR 99W between I‐5 to 124th  Avenue.  Several arterial connectivity gaps are identified around OR 99W and another is identified  south of Tualatin‐Sherwood Road.  Arterial performance deficiencies are identified for segments of  Scholls Ferry Road, OR 99W, Roy Rogers Road, Hall Boulevard, Boones Ferry Road, Tualatin‐ Sherwood Road, and 72nd Avenue.  Portland Central City  to OR 217  Performance thresholds not met in 2005 and 2035 midday on:   US 26 near the Vista Ridge tunnel (both directions)   US 26 from Central City to Scholls Ferry Road (westbound)    Performance thresholds not met in 2035 midday on Cornelius Pass Road, which also includes SPIS  locations on the section north of the Urban Boundary including hairpin turns.    Throughways needs note the close spacing of six interchanges on US 26 between OR 217 and  Portland Central City.  Arterial gaps in connectivity include south of US 26, between Scholls Ferry  Road and Barbur Boulevard, north of US 26, and north of Beaverton‐Hillsdale Highway.  Arterial  deficiencies are identified for Cornell Road, Barnes Road, and Burnside Road.  OR 217 to North  Plains  Performance thresholds not met in 2005 and 2035 midday on:   US 26 between 158th Ave and Cedar Hills Blvd     Lack of freight reliability on Murray Blvd between TV Hwy and US 26.    Throughways needs include more crossings across US 26 and note the close spacing of interchanges  on US 26 between OR 217 and Brookwood Parkway. Arterial deficiencies are identified for Walker  Road (between OR 217 and 185th Avenue)  Forest Grove to US  26  Better freight reliability on Zion Church Road.     Throughways needs are identified for OR 47 intersections approaching Forest Grove Town Center. An  arterial gap is identified for east/west connectivity, with no alternative to TV Highway (OR 8)  available.  Beaverton to Forest  Grove  No regional freight needs were identified.      Throughways needs are identified along TV Highway (OR 8), between OR 47 and OR 217 and a need  is identified for an east‐west connection between Forest Grove and Hillsboro.  Arterial gaps are identified south of TV Highway (OR 8), and between Farmington Road and Scholls  Ferry Road.  Arterial deficiencies are identified for Walker Road (between OR 217 and 185th Avenue)  Source:  Metro Regional Transportation Plan    The RTP includes a long list of regional projects to prioritize funding of transportation system  improvements in the region. Many of the projects are focused on multi‐modal improvements that will  directly or indirectly benefit freight transportation.    Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 5  •  Goods Movement and Aviation  5‐12  5.2.2 Metro Regional Freight Plan   The 2010 Metro Regional Freight Plan is an element of the Metro RTP that provides data and analysis of freight  and goods movement in the region. The plan describes the close relationship between freight transportation,  trade, and economic growth. The plan provides an action plan and a tool kit of strategies designed to address  freight needs and issues in conjunction with the RTP and the 2040 Growth Concept.    The plan identifies locations of recurring highway congestion (chokepoints) that affect freight movement. The  locations and issues identified in Washington County are:     I‐5 Corridor (south of OR 217):  the corridor is reaching capacity and carries a larger percentage of trucks.     OR 217:  Inadequate interchange spacing leads to merge/weave congestion and accidents near  interchanges at Southwest Beaverton‐Hillsdale Highway, Allen Boulevard, and Denney Road.     Non‐continuous or awkward parallel arterials and connections: improved connections to current or  emerging industrial areas are needed (e.g., I‐5/OR 99W connector)     Last‐mile chokepoints: various locations that experience congested last‐mile local industry connectors  (e.g., SW 124th Avenue from Tualatin‐Sherwood Road to the I‐5/Elligsen Road interchange)    Improved access to the North Wilsonville‐Tualatin‐Sherwood industrial area is identified as one of the highest  road improvement priorities in the region. OR 99W through Tigard is also identified as a core throughway system  bottleneck with substantial freight impacts. While truck traffic makes up the dominant share of freight movement,  upgrades to rail main line and rail yard infrastructure were also found to be critical transportation needs.  Included in the Regional Freight Plan is a prioritized project list developed by Metro’s Regional Freight and Goods  Movement Task Force 2008. The projects are categorized as high, medium‐high, medium‐low, or low regional  priority and may not be included in the financially constrained RTP project list. The highest priority projects  identified for Washington County are listed in Table 5‐2. The projects listed below were identified as medium‐high  priority, as no high priority projects where identified for Washington County by the Task force.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 5  •  Goods Movement and Aviation  5‐13 Table 5‐2:  Washington County Priority Freight Projects  Project  Description  RTP Project #  Tualatin‐Sherwood/Boones  Ferry Intersection  Grade separate Tualatin‐Sherwood/Boones Ferry intersection.  10556  Grahams Ferry Rd  Improvements  Widen Grahams Ferry Rd to 3 lanes, add bike/pedestrian connections to  regional trail system, and fix undersized railroad overcrossing.  10588*  I‐5/OR 99W Connector  Related Arterial  Improvements  Improve arterial roads to enhance the function of the I‐5/OR 99W  Connector.  10598  OR 217/72nd Ave.  Interchange Improvements  Complete interchange reconstruction with additional ramps and  overcrossings.  10599  US 26/Brookwood Parkway  (formerly Shute)  Interchange Improvements  Add westbound to southbound loop ramp, additional northbound through  lane and relocate Jacobsen intersection.  10600*  Oregon‐Tonquin  Intersection & Street  Improvements  Intersection improvements (consider roundabout) on Oregon at Tonquin  Road; sidewalks and bike access through the intersection.  10674*  Adams Ave Signal &  Interconnect on Tualatin‐ Sherwood Road  Install traffic signal at Adams Ave. and interconnect the signals along  Tualatin‐Sherwood Road between Cipole and Borchers.  10675  I‐205 SB to I‐5 SB  Merge lane to I‐5 south  10734**  OR 217 Overcrossing  Realign Hunziker Road to meet Hampton Street at 72nd Ave. and removes  existing 72nd/Hunziker Road intersection.  10751*  72nd Ave. Intersection  Improvements  Southbound right turn lane, northbound right turn overlap at OR 99W and  72nd; Southbound or Eastbound right turn lane at  72nd/Hampton/Hunziker.  10767  OR 99W Intersection  Improvements  Provide increased capacity at priority intersections, including bus queue  bypass lanes in some locations, improved sidewalks, priority pedestrian  crossings, and an access management plan, while retaining existing 4/5‐ lane facility from I‐5 to Durham Road.  10770*  I‐5/OR 99W Connector  Phases 1‐6  Phase 1: Conduct study, complete environmental design work and NEPA  for I‐5 to OR 99W Connector and acquire ROW.  Phase 2: Construct  minimal connection to I‐5 and two lane arterial to Tonquin Road/124th  extension.  Phase 3: Extend two lanes to OR 99W and construct  interchange.  Phase 4: Improve I‐5 interchange connections and add braids  on I‐5.  Phase 5: Construct mid‐point interchanges.  Phase 6: Widen from  two lanes to four lanes on corridor.  10870, 10878‐ 10882  SB I‐205 to SB I‐5  interchange ramp  Add lane to SB I‐205 to SB I‐5 interchange ramp and extend acceleration  lane and add auxiliary lane on SB I‐5 to Stafford Road.  10872**  OR 217 ramps  Braid OR 217 ramps between Beaverton‐Hillsdale Highway and Allen  Boulevard in both directions.  10875*  I‐5 South Corridor  Refinement Plan  Wilsonville to North Tigard.  11062  I‐5 Auxiliary Lanes  Add auxiliary lane to I‐5 southbound between Wilsonville Rd. and Elligsen  Rd. Extend Boeckman Rd. overcrossing bridge on both ends.  11068  OR 217: Sunset Hwy to TV  Hwy  Widen OR 217 and structures.  11122*  US 26: Cornell to 185th  Widen US 26 to 6 lanes from Cornell to 185th  11124**  Source:  Metro Regional Freight Plan  *Included in Financially Constrained RTP project list  **Constructed or under construction    Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 5  •  Goods Movement and Aviation  5‐14  5.2.3 Portland Region Economic Corridor Evaluation Report   The 2011 ODOT Portland Region Economic Corridor Evaluation identified key corridors that serve the region’s top  economic centers for existing and future industrial employment. Five regional economic centers (out of 14) were  located in Washington County: Beaverton, Hillsboro, Tigard/SW 72nd, Tualatin/Sherwood, and Wilsonville. Two of  the eight economic corridors identified were located in Washington County: I‐5 (Elligsen Road to OR 217) and US  26 (I‐405 to Cornelius Pass Road). OR 217, OR 99W, and other corridors were not determined to be in the top  eight regional facilities serving industrial uses. Figure F4 shows the location of regional economic centers along  with the top locations for industrial employment in 2005.    The regional corridors were prioritized based on assessment of regional truck traffic, industrial traffic, traffic  generated from the identified economic centers, and total number of economic centers served by the corridor.  Both the I‐5 and U.S. 26 segments in Washington County were ranked in the second highest prioritization tier  based on the amount of criteria satisfied.    Findings from analysis of the operational performance of these corridors indicate significantly more congestion  occurring by 2035. As a result, the corridors will experience increases in travel delay and degradation of travel  time reliability. Table 5‐3 summarizes daily performance measures for the Washington County economic  corridors.    Table 5-3: Daily Traffic Performance Measures by Corridor Year 2005  Year 2035  Change  (2035‐2005)  Corridor  Direction  Average  Speed  (mph)  Buffer  Index*  Average  Speed  (mph)  Buffer  Index*  Average  Speed  (mph)  Buffer  Index*  north‐ bound  42  0.87  34  3.10  ‐8  2.23 I‐5  (Elligsen Rd to OR 217)  south‐ bound  44  0.72  36  2.41  ‐8  1.69  eastbound  39  1.41  36  2.05  ‐3  0.64 US 26  (I‐405 to Cornelius  Pass Rd)  westbound  40  0.84  37  1.52  ‐3  0.68  Note:   *A buffer index score of 0.0 is free‐flow, with larger numbers indicating increased speed variability.  Generally, a buffer index between  1.0 and 2.0 represents corridors with significant peak period congestion and values above 2.0 represent severe congestion that spreads  into multiple hours.  Corridors with a buffer index greater than 2.0 are shown highlighted in bold font.  Source: ODOT Portland Region Economic Corridor Evaluation Report, DKS Associates, December 2011    Amongst all the corridors analyzed in the region, the I‐5 segment between Elligsen Road and OR 217 would  degrade the most under future conditions. The corridor will experience one of the highest drops in average speed  and greatest degradation in travel time reliability (as measured by buffer index). Limited peak period congestion  today would change to congestion that spans many hours of the day, with the worst congestion of any of the  corridors occurring on I‐5 in the northbound direction. U.S. 26 would degrade by approximately 3 mph in each  direction with the key bottleneck location remaining at the Vista Ridge tunnel approaches.      Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 5  •  Goods Movement and Aviation  5‐15 Figure 5-5: Regional Economic Centers and Top Industrial Employment Locations (2005)   Source:  Portland Region Economic Corridor Evaluation Report, December 2011, Figure 2.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 5  •  Goods Movement and Aviation  5‐16  The regional picture of economic centers is important to assist with understanding freight travel patterns in  Washington County.    The opportunities and constraints for growth to each regional economic site were also identified for sites  expected to have significant industrial growth, including Hillsboro, Tualatin/Sherwood, and Wilsonville. The  economic areas in Beaverton and Tigard/SW 72nd were not considered to have significant industrial growth in the  future. The opportunities and constraints identified for each site analyzed are summarized below:     Hillsboro would benefit from improved arterial performance on corridors that connect to US 26 (such as  Cornell Road, Cornelius Pass Road and Brookwood Parkway).  The opportunities for growth are  categorized as ‘fair’ based on location and level of reliance on congested facilities.     Tualatin/Sherwood would benefit from improving the connectivity and performance of existing arterial  corridors that connect to I‐5 and OR 99W, as well as corridors parallel to I‐5 to better connect OR 217 and  Wilsonville. The opportunities for growth are categorized as ‘constrained’ due to distance from freeways,  the level of congestion expected on connecting roadways (without additional future improvements), and  the level of congestion expected on the portion of I‐5 accessed by the site.     Wilsonville would benefit from improving the performance of I‐5 and parallel corridors between OR 217  and the Willamette River. Similar to Tualatin/Sherwood, the opportunities for growth are categorized as  ‘constrained’ due to limited freeway accessibility and congestion on I‐5 to the north. This location may  remain favorable to uses that rely on connections to the south, but connections to other regional portals  would be limited.    It should be noted that the ODOT study only reported the opportunities and constraints based on comparing the  level of traffic congestion and regional mobility options. Other factors, such as parcel aggregation and site  suitability were not considered.      Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 5  •  Goods Movement and Aviation  5‐17 5.3 ROADWAY FREIGHT FINDINGS   Existing and Future Industrial Areas    Key industrial centers are located in Hillsboro, Beaverton, Tigard/SW 72nd, Tualatin/Sherwood, and Wilsonville.  Hillsboro, Tualatin/Sherwood, and Wilsonville include areas identified as regionally significant industrial with high  growth potential. Mobility and reliability in accessing these locations should be improved particularly to the  regional freeway corridors.      Cornelius Pass Road    Trucks traveling to the region’s ports often use Cornelius Pass Road to reach US 30, where they either turn right to  reach Port of Portland terminals, or turn left to reach ports in St Helens and Longview. Though Cornelius Pass  Road has some sharp curves, it is a designated freight route. Approximately 14% of traffic on Cornelius Pass Road  is trucks. Cornelius Pass Road also serves as a hazardous materials route for cargo that cannot pass through the  Vista Ridge Tunnel. Germantown Road, though more direct for reaching Port of Portland terminals, is far less  suitable for large trucks due to sharp curves and steep grades. Still, 5% of traffic on Germantown is truck traffic.  There is a need for improved connection between the Washington County industrial areas, and the river ports;  this need is particularly important for hazardous materials.      Tualatin‐Sherwood Road    Tualatin‐Sherwood Road has the highest truck volume of any arterial in Washington County. This road is  congested during much of the day. Furthermore, the railroad crossing at Boones Ferry further affects freight  traffic. Many of these trucks are accessing the industrial areas of Sherwood and Tualatin, and headed to or from  Interstate 5 or Interstate 205. Chapter 2 shows that travel time along Tualatin‐Sherwood Road is extremely  unreliable. There is a need for improved freight reliability between the industrial areas in Sherwood and Tualatin  and the Interstate system and/or the rest of the region.      Gaps and Deficiencies    Washington County through truck routes designations generally reflect the arterial roadway system and represent  intuitive connections between economic activity areas and highways. In a capacity‐constrained context the  through truck route system may need to focus on identifying priority routes truck, facilities and systems. The gaps  and deficiencies most often identified in previous studies for regional freight mobility in Washington County  include:   Interstate 5 between Interstate 84 and Wilsonville, grades and travel time reliability issues.   U.S. 26 between Interstate 405 and Brookwood Parkway, grades, travel time reliability issues, and  hazardous materials may not pass through the Vista Ridge Tunnel.   Cornelius Pass Road, safety concerns.   Tualatin‐Sherwood Road, reliability issues.      Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 5  •  Goods Movement and Aviation  5‐18  5.4 FREIGHT RAIL   Many Washington County communities developed around railroads in the 19th century, from bustling Beaverton  to tiny Timber. Railroad builders laid tracks to bring Coast Range logs and Tualatin Valley grain to markets in  Portland and beyond. While the role of railroads in Washington County’s overall freight network has diminished, a  number of modern day firms continue to use them regularly. Rail shipping remains the most fuel‐efficient method  of moving goods over land. A train can move one ton of goods 400 miles on one gallon of diesel, compared to  three gallons on most trucks.6      5.4.1 Railroad Routes, Owners and Users   Washington County hosts over 90 miles of active “short line” freight railroads, all of them owned and operated by  Portland and Western (PNWR), a Salem‐based subsidiary of short line holding company Genesee and Wyoming.  Washington County does not contain any Class I railroads, intermodal facilities or major rail yards. The PNWR  system interchanges with the Albany & Eastern Railroad, BNSF Railway, Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad, Coos  Bay Rail Link, Hampton Railway, Port of Tillamook Bay Railroad and Union Pacific Railroad. Commodities  transported include aggregates, brick and cement, chemicals, construction and demolition debris, food and feed  products, forest products, metallic ores and minerals, and steel and scrap. PNWR lines in Washington County,  mapped in Figure 5‐6, include the following:     Tillamook Branch: This PNWR ‐operated line originates in Banks, where it serves the Banks Lumber Mill.  Port of Tillamook Bay owns the segment from Banks to Schefflin, with the remainder owned by PNWR.  The line proceeds generally southeastward, passing through Hillsboro, Aloha, Beaverton, Tigard and Lake  Oswego, ultimately connecting with the Union Pacific main line in Milwaukie. Rail traffic on the busiest  section of track (between Hillsboro and Beaverton) is currently two to four trains per day. It is expected  that this may increase to six trains per day by 2014.7     Oregon Electric (OE) Line: Once part of an extensive electric interurban rail network connecting much of  the Willamette Valley, the OE now carries WES diesel commuter trains and P&W freight trains. The line  officially begins in Tigard, where it diverges southward from the Tillamook Branch and passes through  Tualatin and Wilsonville. The OE usually carries one freight round trip per day, in addition to 16 WES  round trips. The OE is currently under consideration as one of the possible route for high‐speed passenger  rail between Portland and Eugene.     Newberg Branch: This PNWR line diverges from the Tillamook Branch in the Lake Grove area of Lake  Oswego, heading southwest through Tualatin, Sherwood and into Yamhill County. Cascade Steel is a  major railroad client in McMinnville that occasionally sends trains through Washington County. The  Newberg branch typically carries two to three freight round trips per week.     Westside‐Seghers Branch: One of two spurs heading west from the Tillamook Branch in Hillsboro, this  PNWR line skirts the southern fringes of Cornelius and Forest Grove before turning south to reach the  Stimson Lumber Mill near Henry Hagg Lake. The line typically carries one daily freight round trip. South of  Seghers, the line is abandoned and being considered for a rail‐trail to Carlton and McMinnville.    6 Center for Ports and Waterways & Texas Transportation Institute, “A Modal Comparison of Domestic Freight  Transportation Effects on the General Public,” 2007. 7 Aloha‐Reedville Study and Livable Community Plan, Appendix 5 Report: Transportation, 2012.  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 5  •  Goods Movement and Aviation  5‐19  Forest Grove Branch: The other PNWR spur heading west from Hillsboro is rarely used. It passes through  the northern half of Cornelius and ends just short of Pacific University in Forest Grove. The line has been  considered for a future extension of MAX light rail from Hillsboro to Forest Grove.     United Railways Line: Also called the BN Line, referring to its original ownership by Burlington Northern  Santa Fe, this PNWR line connects Banks with existing BNSF tracks in Portland’s Northwest Industrial area.  The line traverses Helvetia‐area farmland before climbing to a tunnel through the Tualatin Mountains  near Cornelius Pass. The line is technically the shortest rail link between Washington County and Port of  Portland terminals.    The Port of Tillamook Bay (POTB) short line railroad operated between Tillamook and Banks until December of  2007, when flood waters from a major storm destroyed large sections of the roadbed in the mountainous area of  the Salmonberry River Canyon. Prior to the storm, the railroad had hauled freight six days a week, carrying lumber  and feed grains. Because of the extraordinary expense that would be entailed in rebuilding the damaged rail bed  over the mountains, POTB has, instead, opted to use Federal Emergency Management Agency funds to expand  and enhance the port's industrial park and airport facilities. The Port of Tillamook Bay retains ownership and now  leases a 3.5 mile section from Banks to Schefflin to the Portland & Western Railroad.  Table 5‐4 describes the PNWR operations within Washington County. Since PNWR owns the right‐of‐way, public  agencies have limited control over such operations. These operations are subject to changing needs and demands  for freight rail service.    Table 5-4: Current Portland and Western Operations* Train  Frequency  Description  Rock Train (Job 355)  On duty at 0530 Monday  through Friday  Usually on duty at Reed Quarry near Hopmere on the former  Oregon Electric between Greton and Salem. Routine varies  according to the needs of Morse Brothers. Works from Reed Pit,  Tonquin, Hillsboro, or Deer Island as needed by Morse Brothers.  Note: This job uses remote control.  Beaverton Switcher  (Job 684)  On duty at 1200 Monday  through Friday  Services industries as need from Hillsboro to Kellogg Industrial Park.  Brooklyn Hauler (Job  686)  On duty at 2100 Sunday  through Thursday  Normal work pattern is to pick up traffic from Union Pacific's  Brooklyn yard. Usually works to Harbor Saturday nights.  Harbor Turn (Job  687)  On duty at 1900 Monday  through Friday.  Moves traffic between the Astoria line and St. Marys.  Hillsboro Switcher  (Job 685)  On duty at 0930 Monday  through Saturday.  Works St. Marys and Hillsboro area as needed. Usually this job runs  to Stimson mill on the Seghers line west of Forest Grove and the  former Oregon Electric Forest Grove branch.  St. Marys‐Albany  Turn (Job 342)  On duty at 0800 daily  Moves traffic between St Marys and Albany.  Source:  Unofficial Portland & Western Fan Site  *Information is not confirmed by ODOT Rail, or PNWR. Operations are subject to change without notice.  §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ 8 ÄÆ 8 ÄÆ 8 ÄÆ 6 ÄÆ 6 ÄÆ 99 ÄÆ 99 ÄÆ 10 ÄÆ 10 ÄÆ 47 ÄÆ 47 ÄÆ 47 ÄÆ 47 ÄÆ 219 ÄÆ 219 ÄÆ 219 ÄÆ 210 ÄÆ 210 ÄÆ 210 Freight Rail J : \ W o r k g r o u p s \ G I S P l a n n i n g \ T S P _ 2 0 3 5 \ E x i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n s \ S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 2 \ F r e i g h t R a i l . m x d September 19, 2012 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Long Range Planning Division Burlington Northern Portland and Western Port of Tillamook Bay Rural Washington County 0 16,0008,000 Feet 1 inch represents 27,898 feet ¯ Figure X5-6 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 5  •  Goods Movement and Aviation  5‐21 5.4.2 Freight Rail Users and Demand Class I railroads such as Union Pacific and BNSF have seen major business growth in the past decade, largely due  to increased fuel costs that make rail shipping less expensive than trucking. Washington County, however, has  only short line railroads, which are generally in a distressed or static state. The railroads’ primary business – forest  products – remains in an uncertain economic state, and few funds are available (public or private) for track  maintenance or upgrades. Putting particular short lines at further risk is reliance on a single customer, such as the  Stimson lumber mill at the terminus of the Westside‐Seghers Branch.    While freight rail demand is uncertain, it is existing county policy to preserve these corridors for future needs,  including freight and passenger service.8 (Passenger rail is discussed in the Transit section of this report – Chapter  4, Section 4‐4.)    5.4.3 Railroad Crossing Considerations The majority of roadway rail crossings in Washington County are at grade, posing potential conflicts and hazards.  The Oregon Department of Transportation Rail Division authorizes any new rail crossing, or any modification to an  existing rail crossing.    Trains are required to signal with horns when approaching a highway crossing. All Highway crossings are required  to be marked with a passive stop sign and railroad crossing sign. Alternatively, an activated crossing guard arm  may be implemented if the expected traffic at the crossing warrants this treatment.     Figure 5‐7: Railroad Crossing Types  Passive Railroad Crossing Sign  Activated Railroad Crossing Gate       Passive railroad crossing signs may also be accompanied by active flashing lights. These are to be treated the same  as red traffic light. A 2011 USDOT report9 indicates that passive crossings are almost 10 times more risky than  active crossings. This same report indicates that the incidents per year at railroad crossings have been declining  over the last 20 years.     Until recently, the State of Oregon regulated the length of time a railroad train may block a public highway‐rail  crossing. An Oregon Court of Appeals ruling determined that federal law preempted the State from continuing  this practice. So, the State of Oregon can no longer control public crossings that are blocked by trains.    8 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan, Policy 17, Strategy 17.3, 2002.  9 RR 11‐27 / December 2011  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 5  •  Goods Movement and Aviation  5‐22  Today, trespassing has become the leading cause of railroad fatalities [USDOT FRA Annual issues]. Each year,  approximately 500 people are killed as a result of trespassing on railroad rights‐of‐way. Railroads face the  challenge of identifying sites vulnerable to trespassing, improving awareness, and installing fencing. Oregon  Operation Lifesaver is a not‐for‐profit devoted to ending tragic collisions, fatalities and injuries at highway‐railroad  crossings and on railroad rights‐of‐way. To accomplish their mission, they promote the 3 E’s: Education,  Enforcement, and Engineering. One particular area of concern is in Aloha, where people often cross the railroad  tracks at unauthorized locations to reach bus stops and businesses along TV Highway.    Railroad crossings also significantly affect the operations of a number of roadways in Washington County  Tualatin‐Sherwood Road and TV Highway are perhaps the most significant.    5.5 MARINE SHIPPING No freight‐navigable rivers pass through Washington County. While the Tualatin River is occasionally suggested as  a possible route for moving goods, the river’s limited width, depth and surrounding environmentally sensitive  areas prohibit the movement of large vessels.    Of greater relevance are the major west coast ports located just over the Tualatin Mountains from Washington  County. The Port of Portland maintains four marine terminals: three on the Willamette and one on the Columbia,  all within ten miles of Washington County. Other regional port facilities near Washington County are located  along the Columbia River in St Helens, Oregon and in Vancouver, Kalama and Longview, Washington.    Cornelius Pass Road will continue its role as a freight and hazardous materials route for cargo reaching ports on  the Columbia and Willamette Rivers. Considering that one out of every seven vehicles on Cornelius Pass Road  north of Sunset Highway is a large truck, roadway safety and durability should be top values when considering  improvements.     5.6 PIPELINES   Figure 5‐8 shows major pipelines that traverse Washington County. Most significant is the Kinder‐Morgan gas  pipeline that transports pressurized, refined gas products from a facility on the Willamette River in Northwest  Portland to Eugene and points between. The pipeline generally follows a north‐south BPA electric transmission  line corridor through Bethany, Beaverton, Bull Mountain and Sherwood, portions of which also accommodate the  Westside Regional Trail. Several other gas pipelines cross the county, including another north‐south corridor from  the Dairy Creek valley to Sherwood, and several east‐west routes.    For Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation, the primary concerns with major pipelines  are:     Protecting the functionality of these pipelines as a mode of transporting products;   Accounting for pipeline buffer corridors within planned development;   Avoiding the high cost of relocating pipelines for transportation projects; and   Minimizing the community impacts of any future proposed pipelines, including liquefied natural gas (LNG)  pipelines that have become more relevant in today’s booming natural gas market.   §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ 8 ÄÆ 8 ÄÆ 8 ÄÆ 6 ÄÆ 6 ÄÆ 99 ÄÆ 99 ÄÆ 10 ÄÆ 10 ÄÆ 47 ÄÆ 47 ÄÆ 47 ÄÆ 47 ÄÆ 219 ÄÆ 219 ÄÆ 219 ÄÆ 210 ÄÆ 210 ÄÆ 210 Pipelines J : \ W o r k g r o u p s \ G I S P l a n n i n g \ T S P _ 2 0 3 5 \ E x i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n s \ S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 2 \ P i p e l i n e s _ U r b . m x d September 19, 2012 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Long Range Planning Division Natural Gas Pipeline Corridor Kinder-Morgan Propane Pipeline Corridor Rural Washington County 0 16,0008,000 Feet 1 inch represents 27,898 feet ¯ Figure X5-8 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 5  •  Goods Movement and Aviation  5‐24  5.7 AVIATION Washington County contains one medium‐sized general aviation airport, two smaller private airports, and  approximately 23 other airstrips or helipads. These are identified in figure 5‐9.  5.7.1 Hillsboro Airport Hillsboro Airport (HIO) is located northeast of downtown Hillsboro and operated by the Port of Portland. HIO is  defined by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as a reliever airport for Portland International Airport (PDX).  In this role, HIO’s function is to preserve capacity at PDX by offering an alternative facility for general aviation  aircraft, separate from commercial airline and air cargo activities.10 At the state level, the Oregon Aviation Plan  defines HIO as a Category 2 airport that accommodates “corporate aviation activities, including business jets,  helicopters, and other general aviation activities.”11 HIO functions thusly, receiving corporate air traffic associated  with Intel and other large Washington County companies, while also accommodating personal aircraft.    HIO features two runways, one 6,600 feet in length, the other 4,050 feet. In 2012, HIO had 277 “based aircraft” –  meaning aircraft that are typically stored and flown from the airport – down from the upper 300s ten years prior.  In 2008, HIO averaged 695 operations (takeoffs and landings) daily.12       Future Demand    A demand analysis in the 2005 Hillsboro Airport Master Plan projected based aircraft to increase from 363 (in  2003) to 465 by 2025, and annual operations to increase from 253,847 to 323,000 – a 27% operational increase.  However, based aircraft and operations both dropped significantly in the subsequent recession. The master plan  envisions HIO’s role either as remaining a general aviation/reliever airport, or adding scheduled commuter airline  operations with aircraft containing fewer than ten passenger seats.    Based on this assessment, the Port of Portland in 2009 proposed to construct a parallel runway at HIO. The  project’s environmental assessment earned a federal Finding of No Significant Impact in 2010, but was appealed  by community members. Federal circuit court remanded the case back to FAA for further study of potential  impacts, a process that is still underway as of 2012. In the mean time, a new taxiway was constructed in summer  2011.      Surface Transportation    HIO is well‐served by surface transportation. The airport terminal is accessed by four‐lane Cornell Road between  downtown Hillsboro and the north Hillsboro employment area. Two TriMet buses stop at the airport, MAX light  rail is a 0.4‐mile walk to the south, and private rental cars are available across Cornell Road.    No major future impacts are expected on the surface transportation system from increased operations at HIO, as  currently forecasted. Increased operations may have more impacts on land use and community livability issues  not addressed in this plan, including future development in the North Hillsboro urban reserve.      10 Hillsboro Airport Master Plan, Port of Portland, 2005.  11 Oregon System Plan, Chapter 4, Oregon Department of Aviation, 2008.  12 Airnav website on Portland‐Hillsboro Airport, http://www.airnav.com/airport/HIO  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013  Chapter 5  •  Goods Movement and Aviation  5‐25 5.7.2 Other Airports Two smaller, privately‐owned airports are located in the rural area:     Skyport Airport near the village of Roy, and   Stark Twin Oak Airport along River Road near Scholls.    Both airports primarily cater to single‐engine hobby aircraft. In addition to these two facilities, Washington  County has 23 other air facilities. These include small airstrips as well as helipad facilities at hospitals.      5.7.3 Air Cargo to PDX Much of Washington County’s high tech cargo is shipped by air, in part due to the small size of the products. Air  cargo is almost always shipped from Portland International Airport (PDX), where a number of established air  freight carriers such as UPS, FedEx and Asiana Cargo fly out many times daily. The key transportation concern for  air cargo traveling from Washington County to PDX is congestion and travel time reliability on Sunset Highway.      !( !( !( !( o o !( !( !( o !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( §¨¦205 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 £¤26 ÄÆ 8 ÄÆ 8 ÄÆ 8 ÄÆ 6 ÄÆ 6 ÄÆ 99 ÄÆ 99 ÄÆ 10 ÄÆ 10 ÄÆ 47 ÄÆ 47 ÄÆ 47 ÄÆ 47 ÄÆ 219 ÄÆ 219 ÄÆ 219 ÄÆ 210 ÄÆ 210 ÄÆ 210 Airports J : \ W o r k g r o u p s \ G I S P l a n n i n g \ T S P _ 2 0 3 5 \ E x i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n s \ S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 2 \ A v i a t i o n . m x d September 19, 2012 This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Care was taken in the mapping but there are no warranties for this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 2035 Transportation System Plan Department of Land Use and Transportation Long Range Planning Division o Portland/Hillsboro o Skyport o Stark Twin Oak !( Other Airports and Airstrips Rural Washington County 0 16,0008,000 Feet 1 inch represents 27,898 feet ¯ Figure X Portland/Hillsboro Airport Skyport Airport Stark Twin Oak Airport 5-9 Washington County TSP 2035 Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report STA # ROAD NAME DIST (miles) DIR LIMITS 2007 ADT Trucks % trucks POSTED SPEED 85th % Speed 2012 ADT Trucks % trucks POSTED SPEED 85th % Speed 101 Barnes Rd 0.10 E Leahy Rd 18694 754 4% 35 39 17009 626 4% 35 41 102 Barnes Rd 0.02 W 084th Ave 18957 912 5% 35 40 16530 707 4% 35 43 103 Leahy Rd 0.10 N 084th Ave 3892 181 5% 30 35 3742 116 3% 30 34 104 Cornell Rd 0.02 E 093rd Ave 9413 353 4% 45 44 9706 300 3% 45 46 105 Cornell Rd 0.10 W 107th Ave 13063 595 5% 40 40 14064 653 5% 40 44 106 113th Ave 0.10 N Cornell Rd 5947 216 4% 35 43 5822 207 4% 35 47 107 McDaniel Rd 0.30 E 111th Ave 2378 119 5% 35 40 2943 137 5% 35 38 108 119th Ave 0.14 N Cornell Rd 4644 179 4% 35 32 4710 221 5% 35 39 109 Cornell Rd 0.10 E Saltzman Rd 12989 671 5% 30 34 12286 941 8% 30 38 110 Saltzman Rd 0.10 N Cornell Rd 13339 425 3% 35 34 13953 630 5% 35 33 111 Cornell Rd 0.10 E 143rd Ave 18659 808 4% 30 29 17713 636 4% 30 33 112 143rd Ave 0.10 N Cornell Rd 15255 598 4% 40 36 13773 588 4% 40 43 113 Thompson Rd 0.10 W Saltzman Rd 5581 174 3% 40 40 5859 170 3% 40 38 114 West Union Rd 0.10 W Kaiser Rd 7706 365 5% 40 41 7325 207 3% 40 42 115 Cornell Rd 0.10 E 153rd Ave 16273 652 4% 40 42 15998 703 4% 40 43 117 Bethany Blvd 0.25 N Bronson Rd 18851 707 4% 35 40 19419 631 3% 35 40 118 Kaiser Rd 0.30 N West Union Rd 7655 286 4% 35 39 7937 197 2% 35 38 119 West Union Rd 0.30 W Bethany Blvd 8932 320 4% 40 47 8249 270 3% 40 46 120 Bronson Rd 0.25 E 185th Ave 7388 191 3% 45 47 7411 173 2% 45 48 121 185th Ave 0.50 N Rock Creek Rd 19961 884 4% 45 42 21742 1449 7% 45 46 122 Rock Creek Blvd 0.20 W 185th Ave 6396 183 3% 35 37 3396 95 3% 35 39 123 West Union Rd 0.50 W 185th Ave 9175 401 4% 45 52 10171 330 3% 45 49 124 185th Ave 0.10 S Springville Rd 15947 832 5% 40 42 16437 766 5% 40 41 125 Springville Rd 0.15 E 185th Ave 10521 541 5% 45 42 14286 516 4% 45 42 126 Germantown Rd 0.40 E 185th Ave 4070 228 6% 45 53 4177 197 5% 45 53 127 Cornelius Pass Rd 0.10 S Germantown Rd 11391 1511 13% BR-55 57 12028 1255 10% BR-55 57 128 Cornelius Pass Rd 0.30 S West Union Rd 18758 1779 9% 45 43 19248 1927 10% 45 47 129 West Union Rd 0.20 W Cornelius Pass Rd 3513 440 13% 45 45 4147 408 10% 45 48 130 Leahy Rd 0.10 E 107th Ave 1982 95 5% 35 44 1836 101 6% 35 42 131 185th Ave 0.10 S Rock Creek Rd 26282 1371 5% 45 40 27582 1421 5% 45 40 132 Germantown Rd 0.10 W 185th Ave 6208 364 6% 45 48 6570 317 5% 45 47 133 Cornelius Pass Rd 0.10 N Germantown Rd 8700 1324 15% BR-55 54 9078 1224 13% BR-55 56 134 Barnes Rd 0.10 E Sunset Transit Center 16626 1087 7% 40 40 15908 772 5% 40 45 135 Barnes Rd 0.20 W 117th Ave 15022 552 4% 45 49 18021 512 3% 45 45 136 Murray Blvd 0.10 S Cornell Rd 22761 1417 6% 35 29 22074 759 3% 35 29 137 Saltzman Rd 0.16 N Thompson Rd 4911 167 3% 35 39 5193 150 3% 35 39 138 Laidlaw Rd 0.10 E Kaiser Rd 7828 285 4% 40 35 8746 226 3% 40 33 139 Kaiser Rd 0.10 N Springville Rd 2468 281 11% BR 45-50 47 2268 151 7% BR 45-50 48 STATION COUNT COMPARISON DATA Appendix A - Traffic Counts 1 Washington County TSP 2035 Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report STA # ROAD NAME DIST (miles) DIR LIMITS 2007 ADT Trucks % trucks POSTED SPEED 85th % Speed 2012 ADT Trucks % trucks POSTED SPEED 85th % Speed STATION COUNT COMPARISON DATA 140 185th Ave 0.30 N Springville Rd 4825 246 5% BR-55 59 4661 245 5% BR-55 59 141 Phillips Rd 0.30 E Helvetia Rd 745 85 11% BR-55 57 853 83 10% BR-55 56 143 Rock Creek Blvd 0.10 E Cornelius Pass Rd 4138 168 4% 25 28 4733 225 5% 25 30 144 174th Ave 0.05 N Bronson Rd 8839 241 3% 40 35 8603 221 3% 40 35 145 Cedar Hills Blvd 0.10 N Barnes Rd 13317 659 5% 40 43 13587 518 4% 40 39 146 Bethany Blvd 0.10 S Laidlaw Rd 10876 428 4% 35 34 10268 351 3% 35 31 156 Saltzman Rd 0.15 S Thompson Rd 8030 259 3% 40 43 7746 355 5% 40 44 157 Thompson Rd 0.09 E Saltzman Rd 3912 128 3% 40 43 3988 211 5% 40 41 158 Kaiser Rd 0.10 S Springville Rd 6180 338 5% 35 38 7171 302 4% 35 36 159 Miller Rd 0.20 N Barnes Rd 45 9185 330 4% 45 42 160 West Union Rd 0.20 W Laidlaw Rd 40 11012 289 3% 40 43 161 Laidlaw Rd 0.30 N Holcomb Dr 30 6958 133 2% 30 38 162 Baltic Ave 0.10 S Barnes Rd BR-55 13844 503 4% BR-55 31 163 Science Park Dr 0.10 W Murray Blvd 30 7017 287 4% 30 39 164 Old Cornelius Pass Rd 0.10 S Phillips Rd BR-55 1145 97 8% BR-55 52 201 Cornelius Pass Rd 0.20 N Cornell Rd 28559 2172 8% 45 47 25159 2359 9% 45 43 202 Cornell Rd 0.20 E Cornelius Pass Rd 24251 738 3% 45 48 21479 1177 5% 45 47 203 Cornell Rd 0.10 E 231st Ave 30384 1327 4% 45 42 29407 2315 8% 45 45 204 Cornell Rd 0.10 W Brookwood Pkwy 32973 0% 45 32477 1598 5% 45 44 206 Baseline Rd 0.20 W 231st Ave 14552 736 5% 40 43 17117 632 4% 40 43 207 Cornelius Pass Rd 0.14 N Quatama Rd 19792 1528 8% 45 43 19536 1300 7% 45 45 208 Baseline Rd 0.20 E 231st Ave 16662 710 4% 40 47 18997 538 3% 40 46 209 Cornelius Pass Rd 0.10 S Baseline Rd 21030 1772 8% 35 37 22212 1680 8% 35 40 210 Baseline Rd 0.20 E Cornelius Pass Rd 17279 712 4% 45 46 18300 462 3% 45 43 211 197th Ave 0.10 S Baseline Rd 5949 280 5% 35 42 5730 317 6% 35 41 212 Baseline Rd 0.20 W 185th Ave 21555 872 4% 45 47 21223 904 4% 45 47 213 Walker Rd 0.40 W 185th Ave 12268 320 3% 45 44 11981 212 2% 45 43 214 Cornell Rd 0.10 W Stucki Ave 23461 786 3% 45 41 23066 1281 6% 45 43 215 185th Ave 0.10 N Walker Rd 27869 1542 6% 45 36 30058 1766 6% 45 39 216 Walker Rd 0.20 E 185th Ave 15049 487 3% 45 42 14759 446 3% 45 44 217 Baseline Rd 0.20 E 185th Ave 22383 782 3% 45 48 20278 1578 8% 45 50 218 185th Ave 0.10 N Johnson St 27010 1389 5% 45 44 25251 1581 6% 45 47 219 198th Ave 0.10 S Johnson St 7745 403 5% 35 33 9086 439 5% 35 38 220 185th Ave 0.10 S Johnson St 23348 1253 5% 45 44 22299 1298 6% 45 44 221 170th Ave 0.60 N TV Highway 14624 755 5% 40 44 15724 813 5% 40 44 222 170th Ave 0.10 S Baseline Rd 9953 409 4% 40 38 10100 483 5% 40 39 223 173rd Ave 0.10 N Baseline Rd 9878 427 4% 35 38 2313 99 4% 35 38 224 Cornell Rd 0.20 E 185th Ave 24134 785 3% 45 43 16718 889 5% 45 44 Appendix A - Traffic Counts 2 Washington County TSP 2035 Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report STA # ROAD NAME DIST (miles) DIR LIMITS 2007 ADT Trucks % trucks POSTED SPEED 85th % Speed 2012 ADT Trucks % trucks POSTED SPEED 85th % Speed STATION COUNT COMPARISON DATA 226 Cornell Rd 0.30 W Bethany Blvd 21025 753 4% 45 39 23506 1595 7% 45 44 227 Walker Rd 0.30 W 158th Ave 18580 544 3% 45 44 16658 670 4% 45 48 229 158th Ave 0.10 S Walker Rd 22214 1023 5% 40 39 20341 1051 5% 40 42 230 Jenkins Rd 0.10 E Baseline Rd 16019 465 3% 45 47 15054 504 3% 45 48 231 158th Ave 0.10 S Jenkins Rd 8576 982 11% 40 37 9151 960 10% 40 36 232 Jenkins Rd 0.10 E 158th Ave 20117 1142 6% 45 40 19683 1192 6% 45 42 233 Walker Rd 0.30 W Murray Blvd 23301 772 3% 45 39 22103 1131 5% 45 44 234 Murray Blvd 0.10 N Butner Rd 30189 1487 5% 45 45 27760 1764 6% 45 46 235 Murray Blvd 0.10 N Jenkins Rd 26914 1449 5% 45 44 22428 1377 6% 45 44 236 Murray Blvd 0.10 N TV Highway 25404 1486 6% 40 40 22099 1415 6% 40 39 237 Walker Rd 0.30 E Murray Blvd 15178 506 3% 35 36 13560 422 3% 35 38 238 Cedar Hills Blvd 0.10 S Butner Rd 20716 737 4% 35 43 19544 878 4% 35 43 239 Walker Rd 0.05 W 123rd Ave 21508 585 3% 35 36 18515 746 4% 35 38 240 Walker Rd 0.10 W 107th Ave 9405 266 3% 35 35 8708 233 3% 35 34 241 091st Ave 0.10 N BH Highway 5311 155 3% 30 32 5133 144 3% 30 33 244 Scholls Ferry Rd 0.10 N Hamilton St 18835 544 3% 30 42 16304 455 3% 30 42 245 185th Ave 0.10 N Baseline Rd 28526 1651 6% 45 38 26350 1583 6% 45 40 246 Johnson St 0.10 E 198th Ave 4575 190 4% 25 31 3050 162 5% 25 33 247 Johnson St 0.10 E Cornelius Pass Rd 4581 212 5% 25 31 4818 188 4% 25 32 249 Brookwood Ave 0.10 S Baseline Rd 13431 679 5% 35 37 11057 716 6% 35 34 251 Rock Rd 0.10 E Cornelius Pass Rd 1711 68 4% 25 28 1611 101 6% 25 28 252 Rock Rd 0.10 W 198th Ave 4376 138 3% 30 33 3726 125 3% 30 32 253 205th Ave 0.10 N Baseline Rd 13110 450 3% 35 39 11226 345 3% 35 38 255 Evergreen Pkwy 0.10 E Cornelius Pass Rd 16273 692 4% 45 40 14721 880 6% 45 40 256 209th Ave 0.10 N TV Highway 5391 335 6% 25 31 6521 349 5% 25 31 257 Alexander St 0.10 W 198th Ave 2830 112 4% 25 27 2608 112 4% 25 29 258 Alexander St 0.10 W 185th Ave 1805 109 6% 25 28 1598 58 4% 25 28 259 Alexander St 0.10 E 185th Ave 3618 128 4% 25 28 2936 120 4% 25 27 260 Alexander St 0.10 W 170th Ave 4275 168 4% 25 31 3956 143 4% 25 29 261 Johnson St 0.10 E 185th Ave 2899 121 4% 25 31 2752 97 4% 25 31 262 Merlo Rd 0.10 E 170th Ave 7752 452 6% 40 39 8124 576 7% 40 42 263 Murray Blvd 0.20 S Jenkins Rd 30392 1408 5% 45 49 26890 1436 5% 45 49 264 Jenkins Rd 0.30 E Murray Blvd 17225 563 3% 40 42 15157 553 4% 40 41 265 Butner Rd 0.10 E Murray Blvd 3765 124 3% 35 38 3866 156 4% 35 37 267 Park Way 0.10 E Cedar Hills Blvd 5684 203 4% 35 32 4442 156 4% 35 34 269 185th Ave 0.06 N Cornell Rd 24829 1725 7% 45 36 31071 1730 6% 45 39 270 Cedar Hills Blvd 0.10 S Park Way 20080 750 4% 35 39 20124 765 4% 35 39 271 Evergreen Pkwy 0.10 W 188th Ave 17527 453 3% 40 43 16049 672 4% 40 43 Appendix A - Traffic Counts 3 Washington County TSP 2035 Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report STA # ROAD NAME DIST (miles) DIR LIMITS 2007 ADT Trucks % trucks POSTED SPEED 85th % Speed 2012 ADT Trucks % trucks POSTED SPEED 85th % Speed STATION COUNT COMPARISON DATA 272 Cornell Rd 0.10 N Grant St 24835 1462 6% 35 38 23957 1590 7% 35 38 273 158th Ave 0.03 S Cornell Rd 26031 1024 4% 40 39 24614 1257 5% 40 40 274 158th Ave 0.20 S Blueridge Dr 25936 954 4% 40 43 27583 900 3% 40 42 275 Brookwood Pkwy 0.30 S Cornell Rd 14867 763 5% 45 47 14862 806 5% 45 46 276 Cornell Rd 0.08 E Brookwood Pkwy 28245 1296 5% 45 41 23719 1676 7% 45 44 277 Cornelius Pass Rd 0.10 N Baseline Rd 21168 1731 8% 45 42 20263 1516 7% 45 42 278 Murray Blvd 0.10 S Allen Blvd 28870 1882 7% 40 44 26786 1657 6% 40 46 279 Cornelius Pass Rd 0.20 N Imbrie Dr 45 40265 1793 4% 45 39 280 Cornelius Pass Rd 0.20 N TV Highway 45 14495 1322 9% 45 36 281 185th Ave 0.08 N Evergreen Pkwy 45 47518 2386 5% 45 39 282 Murray Blvd 0.30 N Walker Rd 45 26669 1741 7% 45 46 283 Meadow Dr 0.10 N Trout Creek Ln 25 2419 92 4% 25 32 284 Park Way 0.10 N Walker Rd 25 1766 69 4% 25 31 285 Roxbury Ave 0.10 N Walker Rd 25 1502 53 4% 25 32 302 Oleson Rd 0.20 S BH Highway 35 10950 432 4% 35 38 303 Oleson Rd 0.15 N Garden Home Rd 10015 382 4% 35 34 12786 448 4% 35 34 304 Garden Home Rd 0.10 E Oleson Rd 12624 504 4% 25 28 15498 563 4% 25 30 305 080th Ave 0.10 S Oleson Rd 4297 186 4% 35 35 4456 118 3% 35 38 306 Taylors Ferry Rd 0.15 E 080th Ave 5611 207 4% 35 39 5168 189 4% 35 39 307 080th Ave 0.10 S Taylors Ferry Rd 5016 198 4% 35 34 3982 143 4% 35 37 308 Oak St 0.10 W 080th Ave 2027 81 4% 25 34 1789 108 6% 25 37 309 Garden Home Rd 0.10 W Oleson Rd 13655 489 4% 35 34 11987 392 3% 35 37 310 Witch Hazel Rd 0.10 W Brookwood Ave 6590 446 7% 40 40 5584 402 7% 40 37 311 Greenburg Rd 0.10 S Hall Blvd 11012 557 5% 35 38 10889 499 5% 35 38 313 092nd Ave 0.10 N Garden Home Rd 13980 547 4% 35 38 11337 385 3% 35 34 314 Scholls Ferry Rd 0.30 E Murray Blvd 29417 1472 5% 40 44 26890 1675 6% 40 47 315 Scholls Ferry Rd 0.10 W Murray Blvd 20983 1331 6% 40 38 23802 1118 5% 40 38 316 Murray Blvd 0.10 N Scholls Ferry Rd 23376 1124 5% 45 39 23192 1193 5% 45 41 317 Murray Blvd 0.10 N Brockman St 27785 1294 5% 45 46 22308 1523 7% 45 49 318 Murray Blvd 0.10 S Farmington Rd 31994 1434 4% 40 42 27663 1458 5% 40 43 319 Murray Blvd 0.10 N Farmington Rd 29026 1480 5% 40 36 25264 1381 5% 40 35 320 160th Ave 0.10 N Farmington Rd 6884 227 3% 35 38 6823 188 3% 35 34 321 160th Ave 0.10 S Farmington Rd 4194 85 2% 25 34 4062 91 2% 25 33 322 170th Ave 0.10 N Farmington Rd 14233 621 4% 35 41 14147 690 5% 35 42 323 170th Ave 0.15 N Oak St 14953 648 4% 35 38 15733 714 5% 35 42 324 170th Ave 0.10 S Oak St 15190 723 5% 35 40 14278 769 5% 35 41 325 Bany Rd 0.10 E 170th Ave 9078 410 5% 25 33 9152 397 4% 25 33 326 Rigert Rd 0.10 W 170th Ave 7420 446 6% 35 39 7352 343 5% 35 39 Appendix A - Traffic Counts 4 Washington County TSP 2035 Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report STA # ROAD NAME DIST (miles) DIR LIMITS 2007 ADT Trucks % trucks POSTED SPEED 85th % Speed 2012 ADT Trucks % trucks POSTED SPEED 85th % Speed STATION COUNT COMPARISON DATA 327 175th Ave 0.10 N Kemmer Rd 6763 372 6% 35 43 6333 287 5% 35 32 328 175th Ave 0.50 N Scholls Ferry Rd 6574 392 6% BR-55 57 8156 415 5% BR-55 53 329 Tile Flat Rd 0.10 N Scholls Ferry Rd 3995 288 7% BR-55 52 3218 165 5% BR-55 51 330 185th Ave 0.10 N Gassner Rd 2552 152 6% 40 39 3251 140 4% 40 43 331 Bany Rd 0.10 E 185th Ave 3754 128 3% 25 34 3327 247 7% 25 32 332 185th Ave 0.10 S Farmington Rd 9498 373 4% 35 39 10058 406 4% 35 39 333 185th Ave 0.10 S Kinnaman Rd 11458 781 7% 35 36 11141 744 7% 35 39 334 185th Ave 0.30 S TV Highway 16057 980 6% 35 36 15844 868 5% 35 40 335 198th Ave 0.10 S TV Highway 17134 782 5% 35 34 15917 785 5% 35 35 336 198th Ave 0.02 S Blanton St 12984 582 4% 35 38 12850 577 4% 35 39 337 198th Ave 0.10 N Farmington Rd 5534 273 5% 35 38 5423 277 5% 35 39 338 209th Ave 0.10 S Rosedale Rd 11088 1231 11% 45 48 10154 739 7% 45 48 339 209th Ave 0.10 N Kinnaman Rd 11932 1063 9% 45 46 11719 709 6% 45 45 340 209th Ave 0.10 S TV Highway 12738 971 8% 45 42 11861 785 7% 45 39 341 229th Ave 0.50 S Alexander St 1921 160 8% 45 44 1756 84 5% 45 44 342 Rosedale Rd 0.50 W 209th Ave 4210 289 7% 45 50 3489 162 5% 45 52 343 Clark Hill Rd 0.10 S Farmington Rd 3166 768 24% 50 43 2156 305 14% 50 44 344 River Rd 0.10 S Rosedale Rd 6361 607 10% BR-55 57 5878 516 9% BR-55 59 345 River Rd 0.10 S Witch Hazel Rd 9395 737 8% 45 45 7370 517 7% 45 47 346 Rood Bridge Rd 0.10 S Tualatin River Bridge 1088 87 8% 45 54 825 52 6% 45 54 347 Minter Bridge Rd 0.30 S Morgan Rd 3677 361 10% 45 47 3226 332 10% 45 49 348 Vermont St 0.10 E Oleson Rd 7167 228 3% 35 37 7608 254 3% 35 35 349 160th Ave 0.10 S TV Highway 6977 236 3% 35 36 9476 276 3% 35 34 350 Oak St 0.10 E 170th Ave 3702 120 3% 25 35 3921 143 4% 25 34 351 Kinnaman Rd 0.30 N Farmington Rd 10623 484 5% 35 38 11024 466 4% 35 38 352 Kinnaman Rd 0.10 W 185th Ave 7821 354 5% 35 36 7437 318 4% 35 37 353 Kinnaman Rd 0.10 E 209th Ave 1401 89 6% 25 32 1141 97 9% 25 32 354 Rosa Rd 0.10 W 185th Ave 2962 116 4% 25 32 2740 153 6% 25 33 355 Rosa Rd 0.10 E 209th Ave 1196 46 4% 25 28 1152 92 8% 25 28 356 Grabhorn Rd 0.10 S Farmington Rd 5268 374 7% 45 42 5533 301 5% 45 43 357 Gassner Rd 0.10 E Grabhorn Rd 1955 112 6% 40 34 2343 106 5% 40 43 358 190th Ave 0.10 S Gassner Rd 3358 208 6% 40 40 4462 260 6% 40 41 360 Grabhorn Rd 0.10 N Tile Flat Rd 2640 207 8% 45 47 2757 150 5% 45 49 361 Clark Hill Rd 0.10 S Tile Flat Rd 1980 360 18% 50 49 1889 213 11% 50 53 362 Clark Hill Rd 0.30 N Tile Flat Rd 2442 424 17% 50 59 2178 249 11% 50 56 363 River Rd 0.30 S Farmington Rd 7454 708 9% BR-55 54 7540 818 11% BR-55 57 364 Minter Bridge Rd 0.30 N Grabel Rd 2936 313 11% 45 55 0 45 365 Scholls Ferry Rd 0.10 W Nimbus Ave 39087 1718 4% 40 42 37916 1742 5% 40 44 Appendix A - Traffic Counts 5 Washington County TSP 2035 Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report STA # ROAD NAME DIST (miles) DIR LIMITS 2007 ADT Trucks % trucks POSTED SPEED 85th % Speed 2012 ADT Trucks % trucks POSTED SPEED 85th % Speed STATION COUNT COMPARISON DATA 366 Scholls Ferry Rd 0.10 N Hall Blvd 14589 627 4% 35 38 11903 604 5% 35 39 367 Scholls Ferry Rd 0.10 N Denney Rd 19729 894 5% 35 35 13862 579 4% 35 34 368 Scholls Ferry Rd 0.02 S Stephen Ln 14942 578 4% 35 38 12535 586 5% 35 39 369 Farmington Rd 0.50 E Hwy 219 4023 466 12% BR-55 44 5562 493 9% BR-55 57 371 Farmington Rd 0.20 E Rood Bridge Rd 5498 618 11% BR-55 59 6380 574 9% BR-55 59 372 Farmington Rd 0.50 E River Rd 3935 450 11% BR-55 47 4192 413 10% BR-55 62 373 Farmington Rd 0.05 E Tile Flat Rd 3541 443 13% BR-55 59 3840 373 10% BR-55 62 374 Farmington Rd 0.17 W Clark Hill Rd 4693 539 11% BR-55 57 3980 324 8% BR-55 57 375 Farmington Rd 0.10 E Clark Hill Rd 7337 1003 14% 45 49 6236 786 13% 45 49 376 Farmington Rd 0.10 W 209th Ave 8496 1409 17% 40-45 48 7376 1045 14% 40-45 55 378 Farmington Rd 0.10 E Grabhorn Rd 10510 947 9% 40 40 9903 807 8% 40 44 379 Farmington Rd 0.02 W Miller Hill Rd 12875 1356 11% 40 37 11166 809 7% 40 42 380 Farmington Rd 0.10 E 198th Ave 15476 1159 7% 40 41 14973 947 6% 40 40 381 Farmington Rd 0.20 W 185th Ave 17407 1257 7% 40 41 17639 1147 7% 40 42 382 Farmington Rd 0.10 E 185th Ave 15462 1040 7% 40 37 16480 960 6% 40 42 383 Farmington Rd 0.03 E Rosa Rd 15326 993 6% 40 38 18795 1013 5% 40 38 384 Farmington Rd 0.10 E Kinnaman Rd 19727 1285 7% 40 38 25403 2169 9% 40 40 385 Farmington Rd 0.08 E 170th Ave 25772 1421 6% 40 43 24590 1415 6% 40 44 386 Farmington Rd 0.08 W 160th Ave 11635 1304 11% 40 43 23913 1442 6% 40 46 387 Farmington Rd 0.08 E 160th Ave 25264 1288 5% 40 43 23440 1483 6% 40 45 388 Farmington Rd 0.10 W 149th Ave 27579 1374 5% 40 44 25432 1437 6% 40 45 389 Burkhalter Rd 0.20 W Rood Bridge Rd 1908 164 9% BR-55 61 1464 120 8% BR-55 58 390 River Rd 0.10 E Thrush Ave 11427 762 7% 40 39 9612 617 6% 40 41 391 River Rd 0.15 W Minter Bridge Rd 10158 681 7% 35 38 8880 574 6% 35 38 392 River Rd 0.60 W Scholls Ferry Rd BR-55 7589 658 9% BR-55 60 393 Jamieson Rd 0.30 W Scholls Ferry Rd 25 2060 117 6% 25 34 394 Kemmer Rd 0.10 E 175th Ave 25 2903 116 4% 25 39 395 179th Ave 0.10 N Oak St 2542 106 4% 30 396 Locust St 0.10 E Hall Blvd 30 3455 177 5% 30 36 397 Rosedale Rd 0.20 W 229th Ave 45 2574 121 5% 45 52 400 Scholls Ferry Rd 0.10 N Hwy 219 6818 627 9% 45 51 6216 725 12% 45 56 402 Roy Rogers Rd 0.70 S Scholls Ferry Rd 21410 1723 8% BR-55 51 18372 1587 9% BR-55 58 403 Bull Mountain Rd 0.10 E 150th Ave 5782 311 5% 40 42 5192 232 4% 40 43 404 Beef Bend Rd 0.02 E Elsner Rd 5012 519 10% 45 51 3824 251 7% 45 51 406 Lower Boones Ferry Rd 0.10 E Childs Rd 12839 794 6% 35 39 13390 781 6% 35 39 407 Cipole Rd 0.10 S Hwy 99w 6022 873 14% 45 46 3589 474 13% 45 44 408 Scholls Ferry Rd 0.10 S River Rd 5642 524 9% 45-55 52 5688 443 8% 45-55 51 409 Tualatin-Sherwood Rd 0.10 E Teton Ave 34789 5836 17% 45 43 29418 3618 12% 45 44 Appendix A - Traffic Counts 6 Washington County TSP 2035 Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report STA # ROAD NAME DIST (miles) DIR LIMITS 2007 ADT Trucks % trucks POSTED SPEED 85th % Speed 2012 ADT Trucks % trucks POSTED SPEED 85th % Speed STATION COUNT COMPARISON DATA 410 Scholls Ferry Rd 0.10 E River Rd 9099 815 9% BR-55 53 8882 744 8% BR-55 49 411 Tualatin-Sherwood Rd 0.10 E Boones Ferry Rd 33133 4366 13% 35 34 40591 4943 12% 35 35 412 Nyberg Rd 0.10 W 065th Ave 35 21351 599 3% 35 32 413 065th Ave 0.10 S Nyberg Rd 15207 820 5% 35 40 18392 718 4% 35 39 414 065th Ave 0.02 N Norwood Rd 4476 265 6% 45 49 4425 267 6% 45 54 415 Norwood Rd 0.10 W 076th Ave 1548 115 7% 45 48 1476 108 7% 45 47 416 065th Ave 0.10 N Elligsen Rd 3647 218 6% 45 45 3402 185 5% 45 47 417 Scholls Ferry Rd 0.10 E Clark Hill Rd 8254 985 12% BR-55 60 7870 881 11% BR-55 63 419 Grahams Ferry Rd 0.10 S Cahalin St 3638 809 22% 45 43 3535 723 20% 45 47 420 Grahams Ferry Rd 0.10 N Tonquin Rd 3231 521 16% 45 45 3206 322 10% 45 49 421 Tualatin-Sherwood Rd 0.10 E Cipole Rd 26040 2449 9% 45 43 26290 3238 12% 45 46 422 Tonquin Rd 0.10 S Oregon St 6544 1139 17% BR-55 48 6041 739 12% BR-55 44 423 Oregon St 0.10 S Tualatin-Sherwood Rd 11730 1545 13% 35 38 10164 1259 12% 35 42 424 Tualatin-Sherwood Rd 0.10 E Adams St 23876 2560 11% 45 43 23651 2421 10% 45 45 425 Scholls Ferry Rd 0.30 W Tile Flat Rd 8319 995 12% BR-55 53 8256 674 8% BR-55 58 427 Scholls Ferry Rd 0.10 E Tile Flat Rd 11898 1169 10% BR-55 53 11254 851 8% BR-55 55 430 Elwert Rd 0.10 S Edy Rd 4919 336 7% BR-55 48 5465 250 5% BR-55 47 431 Edy Rd 0.10 E Elwert Rd 2809 257 9% 40 44 2820 226 8% 40 40 432 Edy Rd 0.10 W Elwert Rd 1692 224 13% BR-55 49 1485 107 7% BR-55 49 433 Roy Rogers Rd 0.10 S Scholls-Sherwood Rd 17170 1650 10% 45 50 14973 1461 10% 45 54 434 Elsner Rd 0.10 S Beef Bend Rd 384 21 5% BR-55 48 0 BR-55 435 Elwert Rd 0.10 S Lebeau Rd 5112 361 7% BR-55 49 5528 208 4% BR-55 46 437 Scholls-Sherwood Rd 0.10 N Swank Rd 4644 626 13% BR-55 53 3914 325 8% BR-55 51 439 150th Ave 0.10 N Beef Bend Rd 1480 124 8% 40 39 1032 39 4% 40 44 440 Scholls Ferry Rd 0.10 E Roy Rogers Rd 17357 1306 8% 40 45 16170 1153 7% 40 51 441 Tualatin-Sherwood Rd 0.50 W Boones Ferry Rd 37229 5948 16% 45 44 30051 4085 14% 45 47 442 065th Ave 0.18 S Sagert Rd 6915 400 6% 35 34 5328 338 6% 35 54 443 Norwood Rd 0.10 E Boones Ferry Rd 2399 181 8% 45 42 2135 193 9% 45 44 445 Cipole Rd 0.10 N Tualatin-Sherwood Rd 6723 1270 19% 45 41 3282 544 17% 45 37 446 Edy Rd 0.10 W Terrapin Dr 4426 334 8% 40 44 5002 374 7% 40 44 448 Elligsen Rd 0.30 W 065th Ave 5568 364 7% 45 49 4955 441 9% 45 52 449 Barrows Rd (east) 0.10 S Scholls Ferry Rd 10111 284 3% 40 44 3771 116 3% 40 39 450 Bridgeport Rd 0.06 W Hazelfern Rd 12652 433 3% 40 30 9703 372 4% 40 32 451 072nd Ave 0.07 N Bridgeport Rd 16987 1148 7% 35 29 14832 676 5% 35 27 452 Beef Bend Rd 0.10 E 119th Ave 8658 433 5% 35 39 8203 428 5% 35 40 453 Bull Mountain Rd 0.03 E Hazeltree Ter 10289 541 5% 40 43 9639 355 4% 40 43 454 131st Ave 0.15 S Beef Bend Rd 3558 279 8% 25 31 3395 255 8% 25 33 455 Roshak Rd 0.30 N Bull Mountain Rd 25 1888 70 4% 25 32 Appendix A - Traffic Counts 7 Washington County TSP 2035 Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report STA # ROAD NAME DIST (miles) DIR LIMITS 2007 ADT Trucks % trucks POSTED SPEED 85th % Speed 2012 ADT Trucks % trucks POSTED SPEED 85th % Speed STATION COUNT COMPARISON DATA 456 Scholls-Sherwood Rd 0.50 W Roy Rogers Rd BR-55 6588 415 6% BR-55 43 457 Bull Mountain Rd 0.10 E Roy Rogers Rd 40 2555 120 5% 40 44 458 Seiffert Rd 0.50 S Hwy 219 BR-55 585 76 13% BR-55 61 459 Brookman Rd 0.10 W Old Hwy 99 35 1193 115 10% 35 34 460 Fischer Rd 0.10 W Hwy 99w 25 6142 253 4% 25 30 522 Vanderschuere Rd 0.10 W Hwy 219 BR-55 1640 154 9% BR-55 43 601 Verboort Rd 0.10 E Hwy 47 4474 334 7% 45 42 5252 127 2% 45 44 602 Cornelius-Schefflin Rd 0.70 N Long Rd 3812 552 14% BR-55 53 4013 487 12% BR-55 50 603 Susbauer Rd 0.30 N Long Rd 4628 303 7% 45 55 4458 190 4% 45 51 604 Hornecker Rd 0.10 E Susbauer Rd 1771 203 11% 55 48 1778 165 9% 55 53 605 Evergreen Rd 0.10 E Glencoe Rd 9864 793 8% 45 42 9722 748 8% 45 41 606 Evergreen Rd 0.10 E Jackson School Rd e/leg 12557 771 6% 45 44 12594 805 6% 45 46 607 Shute Rd 0.10 S Meek Rd 28409 1663 6% BR-55 56 28562 2411 8% BR-55 54 608 Meek Rd 0.10 E Jackson School Rd 359 47 13% BR-55 50 338 42 12% BR-55 46 609 Scotch Church Rd 0.10 W Jackson School Rd 3178 227 7% BR-55 51 3866 218 6% BR-55 52 610 Glencoe Rd 0.10 S Scotch Church Rd 6319 786 12% BR-55 50 4744 614 13% BR-55 50 611 Susbauer Rd 0.10 S Zion Church Rd 2685 197 7% BR-55 44 2177 244 11% BR-55 49 612 Cornelius-Schefflin Rd 0.10 S Roy Rd 11833 1488 13% BR-55 57 12526 1645 13% BR-55 61 613 Roy Rd 0.10 N Cornelius-Schefflin Rd 1306 288 22% BR-55 39 1156 309 27% BR-55 44 614 Glencoe Rd 0.10 S Beach Rd 15302 1916 13% BR-55 52 13658 1647 12% BR-55 55 618 Sellers Rd 0.10 S Hwy 26 811 141 17% BR-55 51 724 112 15% BR-55 50 619 Jackson School Rd 0.10 N Evergreen Rd 8794 502 6% BR-55 39 10462 646 6% BR-55 48 621 Zion Church Rd 0.20 W Glencoe Rd 13438 1585 12% BR-55 58 13522 1773 13% BR-55 61 622 Gordon Rd 0.10 S Beach Rd 1057 118 11% BR-55 59 982 148 15% BR-55 59 623 Kerkman Rd 0.10 N Zion Church Rd 416 61 15% BR-55 47 358 48 13% BR-55 43 625 Brookwood Pkwy 0.20 S Dawson Creek Dr 18106 1013 6% 45 51 19235 738 4% 45 43 627 Evergreen Pkwy 0.10 W Cornelius Pass Rd 12958 629 5% 45 44 13072 868 7% 45 41 628 Evergreen Pkwy 0.10 W 229th Ave 16117 904 6% 45 46 17153 1478 9% 45 46 629 001st Ave (Hillsboro) 0.10 N Lincoln St 11783 1170 10% 25 29 12071 1145 9% 25 31 630 Evergreen Rd 0.30 E 264th Ave 19870 1025 5% 45 53 19597 1302 7% 45 53 631 Wren Rd 0.10 W Glencoe Rd BR-55 1742 101 6% BR-55 52 632 Wren Rd 0.10 E Cornelius Schefflin Rd BR-55 1698 166 10% BR-55 49 633 Glencoe Rd 0.15 S Evergreen Rd 45 11758 1402 12% 45 43 716 Glencoe Rd 0.10 S Pacific St 7904 1000 13% 35 34 6833 923 14% 35 36 718 Jackson Quarry Rd (3 yr) 0.40 N West Union Rd BR-55 612 77 13% BR-55 42 720 Sell Rd 0.10 S Green Mountain Rd BR-55 413 60 15% BR-55 46 815 Old Hwy 47 (3 yr) 0.20 N Seghers Rd BR-55 490 61 12% BR-55 54 824 Ritchey Rd 0.50 W Pacific Ave BR-55 634 83 13% BR-55 57 Appendix A - Traffic Counts 8 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013 Appendix B – System Demand Patterns 2010 Tualatin-Sherwood Road - Traffic Distribution Patterns This graphic shows only the traffic using the selected location. Other traffic on the system is not shown. The intent of the graphic is to provide a better understanding of travel patterns 2010 Roy Rogers Road - Traffic Distribution Pattern This graphic shows only the traffic using the selected location. Other traffic on the system is not shown. The intent of the graphic is to provide a better understanding of travel patterns Appendix B  •  System Demand Patterns   B‐1 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013 2010 Scholls Ferry Road - Traffic Distribution Pattern This graphic shows only the traffic using the selected location. Other traffic on the system is not shown. The intent of the graphic is to provide a better understanding of travel patterns 2010 River Road - Traffic Distribution Pattern This graphic shows only the traffic using the selected location. Other traffic on the system is not shown. The intent of the graphic is to provide a better understanding of travel patterns Appendix B  •  System Demand Patterns   B‐2  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013 2010 Murray Blvd - Traffic Distribution Pattern This graphic shows only the traffic using the selected location. Other traffic on the system is not shown. The intent of the graphic is to provide a better understanding of travel patterns 2010 185th Avenue - Traffic Distribution Pattern This graphic shows only the traffic using the selected location. Other traffic on the system is not shown. The intent of the graphic is to provide a better understanding of travel patterns Appendix B  •  System Demand Patterns   B‐3 Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013 2010 Walker Road - Traffic Distribution Pattern This graphic shows only the traffic using the selected location. Other traffic on the system is not shown. The intent of the graphic is to provide a better understanding of travel patterns 2010 Cornell Road - Traffic Distribution Pattern This graphic shows only the traffic using the selected location. Other traffic on the system is not shown. The intent of the graphic is to provide a better understanding of travel patterns Appendix B  •  System Demand Patterns   B‐4  Washington County TSP 2035 • Existing Conditions and Future Needs Report  • Draft, January 2013 2010 West Union Road - Traffic Distribution Pattern This graphic shows only the traffic using the selected location. Other traffic on the system is not shown. The intent of the graphic is to provide a better understanding of travel patterns 2010 Zion Church Road - Traffic Distribution Pattern This graphic shows only the traffic using the selected location. Other traffic on the system is not shown. The intent of the graphic is to provide a better understanding of travel patterns Appendix B  •  System Demand Patterns   B‐5 Capital Project List The attached Capital Project List represents transportation improvement "candidates" that respond to identified transportation needs and provide associated order of magnitude costs. An identified transportation improvement remains a project candidate until it has been funded, after which it becomes a “project." The Capital Project List in technical appendix X.X represents a snapshot in time of current assumptions. The timeframe associated with each candidate is derived from the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan project list, in which candidates were assigned a "time bucket" for modeling and funding target purposes. While the Capital Project List conveys a sense of which projects would be particularly beneficial in addressing the county’s transportation needs, it is not a prioritization tool. It is possible that candidates not on this list become priorities in the future, while some candidates on this list become less important and ultimately not pursued. In Washington County, transportation project prioritization and selection occurs through the various funding programs. For example, Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program (MSTIP) projects are selected through a collaborative, public process by the Washington County Coordinating Committee and the Board of County Commissioners. The TSP Capital Project List focuses on projects in which Washington County has transportation and/or land use jurisdiction, as well as a small number of additional projects that have been identified as important county priorities. Specifically, the list includes: • Projects on county roadways in the unincorporated area (urban and rural) • Projects on county roadways within cities • Projects on state highways in the unincorporated area • Trail projects in the unincorporated area (both within and outside of the Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District) • Transit projects in the unincorporated area • Washington County-sponsored projects on the Regional Transportation Plan project list that do not otherwise meet the above criteria • Regional-scale projects in which the county has made a funding commitment and that do not otherwise meet the above criteria (such as Southwest Corridor project development) The Capital Project List does not include projects on city roadways or on trails wholly within cities, nor does it include all of the projects on the Regional Transportation Plan project list within Washington County. The TSP Modal Element maps depict an ultimate complete system that will be implemented gradually through capital projects and private development. The county reserves the right to “condition” right-of-way dedications and half-street improvements during development review based on designations shown on the TSP Modal Element maps, regardless of whether a particular road segment is included in the Capital Project List. Washington County Capital Project List Washington County Transportation System Plan 2014 RTP Project ID Project/Program Name Project Start Location Project End Location Functional Classification Project Purpose Description Estimated Cost ($2014) Time Period* 10545 OR 10: Oleson Rd. Improvement Phase 1 Oleson Rd. south of OR10 Oleson Rd. at Scholls Ferry Arterial Address recurring safety issue. Realign Oleson Rd. 500 feet to east and reconfigure Oleson intersections with OR10 and Scholls Ferry Rd. $34,200,000 Medium 10546 170th Ave. Improvements Alexander St. Merlo Rd. Arterial Provide congestion relief. Widen roadway to 4 lanes with left turn lanes at major intersections, sidewalks, and bike lanes or cycle tracks. $15,277,000 Medium 10547 173rd/174th Under Crossing Improvement Cornell Rd. Bronson Rd. Arterial Provide congestion relief. Construct four-lane road under Hwy. 26 with bike lanes and sidewalks. $58,640,000 Long 10548 174th Ave. Improvements Bronson Rd. Meadowgrass Ln. Arterial Address recurring safety issue. Add turn lanes, bike lanes and sidewalks $16,230,000 Long 10549 Cornell @ 143rd Improvements Science Park Dr. 143rd Ave. Arterial Address recurring safety issue. Realign 143rd with Science Park Dr. @ Cornell as a 4-way signalized intersection. $12,400,000 Long 10550 185th Avenue Improvement West Union Rd. Springville Rd. Arterial Provide congestion relief. Widen 185th Ave. from two to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks $5,400,000 Near 10552 Cornell/Cornelius Pass Interchange N/A N/A Arterial Provide congestion relief. Grade separate Cornell at Cornelius Pass. $21,200,000 Long 10553 209th Improvements T.V. Hwy. Farmington Rd. Arterial Address recurring safety issue. Widen roadway to 4 lanes with left turn lanes at major intersections, access management, sidewalks, and bike lanes or buffered bike lanes. $27,391,000 Near 10557 Murray/TV Hwy. Intersection Farmington Rd. TV Hwy. Arterial Provide congestion relief. Intersection improvements at TV Hwy. and Farmington with Murray Blvd. $25,000,000 Long 10558 Cornell Rd. Improvements 113th Ave. 107th Ave. Arterial Provide congestion relief. Widen from two to three lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $9,941,000 Near 10559 Cornell Improvements Murray Blvd. Hwy. 26 Arterial Provide congestion relief. Widen Cornell from three to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $40,620,000 Long 10560 Farmington Rd. Improvements 185th Ave. Kinnaman Rd. Arterial Provide congestion relief. Widen roadway from 2/3 lanes to 4 lanes with turn lanes at major intersections, bike lanes, sidewalks, access management, realignment of Rosa/179th intersection. $27,299,000 Medium 1 of 13 Washington County Capital Project List Washington County Transportation System Plan 2014 RTP Project ID Project/Program Name Project Start Location Project End Location Functional Classification Project Purpose Description Estimated Cost ($2014) Time Period* 10561 Jenkins Rd. Improvements 158th Ave. Murray Arterial Provide congestion relief. Widen roadway from three to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $15,530,000 Near 10563 Kaiser/143rd Ave. Improvements Bethany Blvd. Cornell Rd. Collector Address recurring safety issue. Widen from two to three lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $38,357,000 Long 10564 Kaiser Improvements Springville Rd. Bethany Blvd. Arterial Provide congestion relief. Widen from two to three or five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $6,100,000 Long 10565 Springville Rd. Improvements 185th Ave. PCC Driveway Arterial Provide congestion relief. Widen from two to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $11,100,000 Near 10566 Springville Rd. Improvements PCC Driveway Kaiser Rd. Arterial Address recurring safety issue. Widen from two to three lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $3,600,000 Near 10567 Taylors Ferry Extension Oleson Rd. Washington Dr. Collector Improve connectivity. Construct new two lane extension with bike lanes and sidewalks. $4,390,000 Long 10568 Tualatin-Sherwood Rd. Improvements Langer Farms Parkway Teton Ave. Arterial Provide congestion relief. Widen from three to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $49,150,000 Near 10569 Walker Rd. Improvements Amberglen 185th Ave. Arterial Provide congestion relief. Widen from two to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $17,611,000 Medium 10571 West Union Rd. Improvements 185th Ave. 143rd Ave. Arterial Address recurring safety issue. Widen from two to three lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $34,870,000 Long 10572 Barnes Rd. Improvements St. Vincent's Hosp. entrance Leahy Rd. Arterial Provide congestion relief. Widen from two to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $8,933,000 Near 10573 Barnes Rd. Improvements Leahy Rd. Multnomah Co. Line Arterial Address recurring safety issue. Widen from two to three lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $17,326,000 Long 10575 West Union Rd. Cornelius Pass Rd. 185th Ave. Arterial Provide congestion relief. Widen from two to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $26,192,000 Near 10577 Scholls Ferry Improvements Allen Blvd. Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy. Arterial Address recurring safety issue. Widen roadway from two to three lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $22,587,000 Long 10578 Merlo/158th Improvements 170th Ave. Walker Rd. Arterial Provide congestion relief. Widen roadway to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $24,735,000 Medium 10579 Barnes Rd. Improvements Cedar Hills Blvd.. 118th Ave. Arterial Provide congestion relief. Widen to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. Add double turn lanes. $4,000,000 Medium 10580 Butner Rd. Improvements Murray Blvd. Cedar Hills Blvd. Collector Address recurring safety issue. Widen to three lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $18,515,000 Long 10582 185th Ave. Improvements Blanton St. Farmington Rd. Arterial Provide congestion relief. Widen to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks $12,163,000 Long 2 of 13 Washington County Capital Project List Washington County Transportation System Plan 2014 RTP Project ID Project/Program Name Project Start Location Project End Location Functional Classification Project Purpose Description Estimated Cost ($2014) Time Period* 10584 Alexander St. Improvements 192nd Ave. 178th Ave. Collector Economic development and address safety issues. Add sidewalks, lighting, streetscape features, bike boulevard treatments, signal at 185th Ave, turn lanes at major intersections. $9,293,000 Medium 10585 Johnson St. Improvements Cornelius Pass Rd. 185th Ave. Collector Address recurring safety issue. Add sidewalks, bike lanes, lighting, turn lanes at major intersections. $24,333,000 Long 10586 197th/198th Ave. Improvements Baseline Rd. T.V. Hwy. Collector Address recurring safety issue. Add sidewalks, bike lanes, lighting, turn lanes at major intersections. $19,297,000 Long 10587 Cornelius Pass Rd. Improvements Frances St. T.V. Hwy. Arterial Provide congestion relief. Widen to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $11,307,000 Near 10588 Grahams Ferry Rd. Improvements Helenius St. Washington/ Clackamas County line Collector Provide freight access and capacity to link the Coffee Creek I RSIA and the industrial area north of Wilsonville Road as well as the I- 5/Wilsonville Road Interchange. Widen Grahams Ferry Rd. to three lanes, add bike/pedestrian connections to regional trail system and fix undersized railroad overcrossing. $28,000,000 Medium 10589 95th Ave. Ped/Bike Connection Morrison St. Sunset Transit Center Trail Improve connectivity. Pedestrian/bicycle pathway, lighting, bridge over Johnson Creek, grade- separated crossing of Barnes Road. $11,546,000 Medium 10590 Tonquin Rd. Improvements Grahams Ferry Rd. Oregon St. Arterial Address recurring safety issue. Realign and widen to three lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks and street lighting. $15,000,000 Medium 10591 Glencoe Rd. Improvements Evergreen Rd. Jackson Ave. Arterial Address recurring safety issue. Widen to three lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $26,016,000 Long 10592 205th Ave. Improvements Quatama Rd. Baseline Rd. Collector Provide congestion relief. Widen road to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. Widen bridge over Beaverton Creek to four lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $31,000,000 Medium 10593 Kinnaman Rd. Improvements 209th Ave. Farmington Rd. Collector Address recurring safety issue. Reconstruct with sidewalks, bike lanes and turn lanes at major intersections; consolidate offset intersection at 198th Ave. $26,810,000 Long 10594 Greenburg Rd. Improvements Summit Dr. Locust St. Arterial Provide congestion relief. Widen to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $3,780,000 Long 3 of 13 Washington County Capital Project List Washington County Transportation System Plan 2014 RTP Project ID Project/Program Name Project Start Location Project End Location Functional Classification Project Purpose Description Estimated Cost ($2014) Time Period* 10595A Hall Blvd. in Washington Square Improvements Scholls Ferry Rd. Oleson Rd. Arterial Provide congestion relief. Provide continuous five-lane cross- section with right turn lanes as needed, reconstruct bike lanes and sidewalks accordingly. $2,327,000 Long 10595B Hall Blvd. in Metzger Improvements Oleson Rd. Pfaffle St. Arterial Address recurring safety issue. Provide continuous three-lane cross section with bike lanes and sidewalks. $13,762,000 Long 10595C Hall Blvd. in Tigard Improvements Hwy. 99W Durham Rd. Arterial Provide congestion relief. Widen to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $42,500,000 Long 10596 Scholls Ferry Rd. Improvements Hwy. 217 121st Ave. Arterial Provide congestion relief. Widen to seven lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $19,749,000 Long 10598 I-5/99W Connector Southern Arterial Hwy. 99W I-5 Arterial Provide congestion relief. Purchase Right-of-Way. $53,000,000 Long 10599 Hwy. 217/72nd Ave. Interchange Improvements N/A N/A I-5 Freeway Address recurring safety issue and improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Purchase ROW Complete interchange reconstruction with additional ramps and bridge structure replacement $20,000,000 Near 10605 Hillsboro Area ITS N/A N/A Provide congestion relief. Install advanced traffic management systems including adaptive signals, communications, dynamic messaging signs, and surveillance and management equipment. $10,888,000 Near 10606 Washington Square Regional Center Pedestrian Improvements Wash. Sq. Regional Center Complete gap in pedestrian system. Complete 7400 feet of sidewalk improvements. $8,954,000 Long 10607 Sunset TC Station Community Pedestrian Improvements Sunset TC Station Community Complete gap in pedestrian system. Sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, accessways, ped/bike bridges over creeks. $6,006,000 Long 4 of 13 Washington County Capital Project List Washington County Transportation System Plan 2014 RTP Project ID Project/Program Name Project Start Location Project End Location Functional Classification Project Purpose Description Estimated Cost ($2014) Time Period* 10608 Aloha-Reedville Pedestrian Improvements Aloha-Reedville Study Area Complete gap in pedestrian system. Sidewalk infill, pedestrian crossings, accessways, ped/bike bridges over creeks, at-grade ped/bike crossings of Portland and Western Railroad. $27,045,000 Medium 10609 Science Park Dr. Bike Murray Blvd. Cornell Rd. Collector Complete gap in pedestrian system. Complete 3600 feet of bike lanes in town center. $2,124,000 Long 10610 Saltzman Rd. Bike Cornell Rd. Barnes Rd. Arterial Complete gap in bike system. Complete 950 feet of bike lanes in town center. $1,000,000 Near 10611 Locust Ave. Bike Hall Blvd. 80th Ave. Collector Complete gap in bike system. Complete 1650 feet of bike lanes in regional center. $3,417,000 Long 10612 Greenburg Rd. Bike Hall Blvd. Hwy. 217 Arterial Complete gap in bike system. Complete 3400 feet of bike lanes in regional center. $3,610,000 Long 10613 Cornell Rd. Bike Saltzman Rd. 119th Ave. Arterial Complete gap in bike system. Complete 1750 feet of bike lanes in town center. $1,036,000 Long 10614 Butner Rd. Bike Cedar Hills Blvd. Park Way Collector Complete gap in bike system. Complete 7800 feet of bike lanes to transit corridor. $3,520,000 Long 10615 Bronson Rd. Bike 185th Ave. Bethany Blvd. Collector Complete gap in bike system. Complete 15000 feet of bike lanes to transit corridor. $5,490,000 Medium 10617 Farmington Rd. Murray Blvd. Hocken Ave. Arterial Safety (high crash location), fill gaps in bike/ped system, and congestion relief at intersections of Murray and Hocken. Construct turn lanes and intersection improvements; signalize where warranted; add bike lanes and sidewalks in gaps. Includes multi- modal improvements to Murray: TV Hwy. to Farmington. $10,700,000 Near 10641 102nd/103rd 2 lane multimodal connection Western Ave. Walker Rd. Neighborhood Route Complete a gap. Connect streets and construct bike lanes and sidewalks. Realign intersection at BH Hwy. and Western. $16,500,000 Long 10644 110th Ave. sidewalk gaps Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy. Canyon Rd. Neighborhood Route Complete a gap. Construct sidewalks. $1,400,000 Near 10674 Oregon-Tonquin Roundabout Oregon Street at Tonquin Arterial Safety improvements. Congestion relief. Economic development for undeveloped industrial area. Reconstruct and realign three leg intersection with a roundabout (partial two-lane) approx. 400 feet northeast of existing roundabout at SW Oregon St. & Murdock Rd. ROW, PE, construction. $2,300,000 Near 5 of 13 Washington County Capital Project List Washington County Transportation System Plan 2014 RTP Project ID Project/Program Name Project Start Location Project End Location Functional Classification Project Purpose Description Estimated Cost ($2014) Time Period* 10680 Elwert-99W-Sunset Blvd. Improvements 99W Kruger-Cedar Brook Way Arterial Safety improvements. Congestion relief. Relocate Kruger Rd. intersection 600' northeast along Elwert Rd. Construct roundabout at Elwert-Kruger-Cedar Brook. Widen Sunset Blvd. approach. Reconstruct 99W intersection and replace signal. PE, construction. $4,000,000 Near 10708 Roy Rogers Rd. / Tualatin-Sherwood Road Langer Farms Parkway Borchers Dr. Arterial Economic development and address safety issues. Construct road to five lane collector standard. $1,900,000 Near 10717 Cipole ORE 99W Tualatin-Sherwood Rd. Collector Economic development and freight movement. Reconstruct/widen to three lanes from 99W to Tualatin-Sherwood Road and include multi-use path, includes signal at Cipole and Herman $20,030,000 Medium 10736 124th Ave. Extension Tualatin-Sherwood Rd. Grahams Ferry Rd. Arterial Economic Development. New road to facilitate development of industrial lands, grade seperated rail crossing South of Tonquin. $31,000,000 Near 10749 Washington Square Regional Center Pedestrian Improvements Various Various Sidewalk and trail infill to improve safety and access to transit. Improve sidewalks, lighting, crossings, bus shelters, and benches at Washington Square. $3,900,000 Near 10809 Bronson Creek Trail (Community) Bronson Creek Park Cornell Rd. (THPRD) Laidlaw Rd. Trail Complete a community trail segment in THPRD's Trail Master Plan. To design and construct a community trail segment in a greenway corridor, 8'-10' wide paved. $3,500,000 Medium 10810 Westside Trail (Regional) Hwy 26 THPRD Nature Park Trail Complete a regional trail segment in THPRD's Trail Master Plan. To design and construct a regional trail multi-use segment in a utility corridor, 10'-12' wide paved. $4,000,000 Medium 10811 Beaverton Creek Trail (Regional) SW 194th Ave. Fanno Creek Trail Trail Complete a regional trail segment in THPRD's Trail Master Plan. To design and construct a regional trail multi-use segment in a utility corridor, 10'-12' wide paved. $7,000,000 Medium 10824 Cornell Rd. Arrington Main Street Arterial Provide congestion relief. Improve to five lane with bike lanes and sidewalks. $9,248,000 Long 10836 Evergreen Rd. Bike Lanes Glencoe Rd. 25th Arterial Provide congestion relief. Widen to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $5,440,000 Medium 10844 Cornelius Pass Road TV Hwy. Rosedale Rd. Arterial Provide congestion relief. Extend as a five lane facility with buffered bike lanes/sidewalks. $26,500,000 Medium 6 of 13 Washington County Capital Project List Washington County Transportation System Plan 2014 RTP Project ID Project/Program Name Project Start Location Project End Location Functional Classification Project Purpose Description Estimated Cost ($2014) Time Period* 10873 US 26W: Widen highway to 6 lanes 185th Ave. Cornelius Pass Road Freeway Increase capacity. Widen highway to 6 lanes. $25,000,000 Near 10907 High Capacity Transit: Southwest Corridor (Portland to Tualatin via Tigard) - Project Development N/A N/A Transit To further develop and advance the Near Term corridor identifed in the HCT System Plan through ROW acquisition to include in conformity modeling. Project Development through ROW acquisition/early construction for High Capacity Transit project between Portland and Tualatin via Tigard. The project or a portion of the project is outside the designated urban growth boundary as of March 2014. $75,000,000 Near 11045 Baseline @ 185th Ave. Improvement 185th Ave. Baseline Arterial Provide congestion relief. And improve transit operations. Grade separate intersection and MAX. $24,700,000 Long 11089 92nd Ave. Ped. Garden Home Blvd. Allen Blvd. Arterial Complete gap in pedestrian system. Complete 3800 feet of sidewalk improvements to transit corridor $3,922,000 Long 11090 Cornell Rd. Arrington 25th Ave. Arterial Complete gap in bike system. Complete 2100 feet of bike lanes in transit corridor $4,740,000 Long 11134 Westside Trail (Regional) Bronson Creek Trail (Kaiser Ridge Park) Rock Creek Trail (Kaiser Woods Park) Trail Complete a regional trail segment in THPRD's Trail Master Plan. To design and construct a regional trail multi-use segment in a utility corridor, 10'-12' wide paved. $2,675,000 Near 11140 Brookwood Parkway Ihly Way Cornell Rd. Arterial Improve capacity and safety. Widen to five lanes with offstreet sidewalk and bikeway $9,000,000 Medium 11149 Helvetia Rd. Schaaf Rd. West Union Rd. Arterial Improve capacity and safety. Construct three lane roadway with bike lanes on both sides and sidewalk on urban side. $4,000,000 Long 11158 206th Ave. Baseline Rock Rd. Collector Improve safety, bike/ped, school, transit access Widen to provide bike lanes and sidewalks. $3,000,000 Medium 11211 Bridge crossing of Hwy. 26 by the Westside Trail Trail Allows for a more direct travel route Would avoid out-of-direction bike/ped trips on a major regional trail $9,000,000 Medium 11233 Walker Rd. Improvements 185th Ave. 173rd Ave. Arterial Provide congestion relief. Widen from two to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $13,570,000 Medium 11234 Walker Rd. Improvements 173rd Ave. Murray Blvd. Arterial Provide congestion relief. Widen from two to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $16,600,000 Near 11235 Walker Rd. Improvements Murray Blvd. Hwy. 217 Arterial Provide congestion relief and enhance safety. Widen from two to four lanes with turn lanes, intersection treatments, bike lanes, sidewalks and street lighting. $33,000,000 Near 7 of 13 Washington County Capital Project List Washington County Transportation System Plan 2014 RTP Project ID Project/Program Name Project Start Location Project End Location Functional Classification Project Purpose Description Estimated Cost ($2014) Time Period* 11236 Cedar Hills Blvd. Improvements Butner Rd. Celeste Ln. Arterial Provide congestion relief, complete gap in bike system. Widen to five lanes thru Barnes, turn lane improvements at US26, signalize US26 EB, continous bike lanes and sidewalks through interchange area. $4,000,000 Medium 11238 Cedar Mill Local Street Connectivity Cedar Mill Town Center Local Reduce arterial congestion through Improved local street connectivity. Connect local streets to reduce out of direction travel and use of arterial roads for local trips. $10,000,000 Medium 11239 Washington County Neighborhood Bikeways N/A N/A Improve bicycle connectivity. 30 miles of neighborhood bikeways (bike boulevards) on low-traffic streets throughout unincorporated urban Washington County, including enhanced at-grade crossings of arterials. $16,000,000 Medium 11240 Murray Blvd. Bikelane & sidewalk Farmington Rd. TV Hwy. Arterial Improve bicycle connectivity. Construct a six-foot wide bikelane on west side of Murray and replace existing asphalt path with six-foot wide concrete sidewalk and five-foot wide planting strip. Move railroad equipment. $2,900,000 Near 11241 Evergreen Rd. Bike Lanes NW 215th Ave. Cornelius Pass Rd. Arterial Improve bicycle connectivity. Construct six-foot wide bike lanes east and westbound and correct vertical alignment. $2,000,000 Near 11279 US-26 at 185th/Stucki Interchange Capacity Improvements N/A N/A Arterial Improve capacity at US-26 and 185th interchange. Refinement planning and construction of interchange improvements. $25,000,000 Long 11284 Farmington Rd. 185th Ave. 198th Ave. Arterial Improve capacity and safety, bike/ped and transit access Widen to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $24,000,000 Long 11285 Farmington Rd. 198th Ave. 209th Ave. Arterial Improve capacity and safety, bike/ped and transit access Widen to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $18,000,000 Long 11339 I-5/99W Connector Southern Arterial Hwy. 99W 124th Ave. Extension Arterial Provide congestion relief. Construct two/three lane arterial with bike lanes and sidewalks. $130,000,000 Long 11340 I-5/99W Connector Southern Arterial Hwy. 99W 124th Ave. Extension Arterial Provide congestion relief. Widen road to five lanes. $80,000,000 Long 11341 West Union Rd. Helvetia Rd. Cornelius Pass Arterial Improve capacity and safety Construct three lane roadway with bike lanes and sidewalks $25,000,000 Long 11386 198th Ave. Improvements - South TV Hwy. Alexander St. Arterial Provide congestion relief Widen to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks $3,000,000 Medium 8 of 13 Washington County Capital Project List Washington County Transportation System Plan 2014 RTP Project ID Project/Program Name Project Start Location Project End Location Functional Classification Project Purpose Description Estimated Cost ($2014) Time Period* 11395 Baseline Rd. Improvements 231st Ave. Brookwood Ave. Arterial Provide congestion relief. Improve to five lanes with bike/ped facilities, storm drainage, street lighting $9,000,000 Near 11405 Westside Trail (Regional) Highway 26 Bronson Creek Trail To complete remaining gaps in the trail To design and construct multi-use regional trail segments 10'-12' wide paved. $5,000,000 Long 11422 Tualatin-Sherwood Road Boones Ferry Road 124th Ave. Extension Arterial Provide congestion relief. Add eastbound right turn lane on Tualatin-Sherwood at Boones Ferry Rd. and add right-turn lane on Tualatin-Sherwood to 124th Ave. $1,112,000 Near 11436 Basalt Creek East-West Arterial Overcrossing Boones Ferry Rd. East of I-5 Arterial Provide congestion relief. Extend new four-lane overcrossing over I-5 from Boones Ferry Rd. to 65th and Stafford Rd. $38,000,000 Long 11437 Oleson Rd. Bridge North of Fanno Creek South of Fanno Creek Arterial Address safety issue. Bridge Replacement. $5,800,000 Near 11438 Tonquin / Grahams Ferry Intersection Improvements N/A N/A Arterial Economic development and address safety issues. Raise intersection elevation, widen approaches to three lanes, provide sidewalks and bike lanes, install traffic signal. $3,353,000 Near 11439 Southbound Hwy. 217 Allen/Denny Split Diamond Interchange Allen Blvd. Denny Rd. Arterial Address recurring safety issue, provide congestion relief. Consolidate Allen Blvd. and Denney Rd. SB interchanges with split diamond interchange and collector/distributor roads. $5,941,000 Near 11440 TV Hwy. (and Canyon Rd.) Corridor Safety and Access to Transit 209th Ave. 107th Ave. Arterial Access to transit. Bus stop improvements, ADA improvements, sidewalk infill, enhanced pedestrian crossings, signal priority, queue jumps. $1,614,000 Near 11441 TV Highway in Aloha-Reedville Safety and Operational Improvements 19500 block 160th Ave. Arterial Address recurring safety issues, improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, access to transit. Enhanced pedestrian crossings, sidewalk infill, bikelane infill, street lighting, bus stop enhancements, intersection safety and operational improvements. $11,667,500 Near 11442 Cornell/Evergreen/229th Ave. Corridor Safety and Access to Transit Hillsboro TC Sunset TC Arterial Access to transit. Bus stop improvements, ADA improvements, sidewalk infill, enhanced pedestrian crossings, signal priority. $560,000 Near 11443 Walnut St. 116th Ave. Tiedeman Arterial Provide congestion relief. Widen from two to three lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $4,000,000 Near 9 of 13 Washington County Capital Project List Washington County Transportation System Plan 2014 RTP Project ID Project/Program Name Project Start Location Project End Location Functional Classification Project Purpose Description Estimated Cost ($2014) Time Period* 11444 Joss Ave. Shackelford Rd. Existing terminus Collector Economic development. Extend Joss Rd. to Shackel Rd. to serve development of North Bethany Area. $4,100,000 Near 11445 160th Ave Brugger Rd. Springville Rd. Neighborhood Route Economic development. New two lane road with sidewalks, bike and street lighting. $2,300,000 Near 11446 Tigard/Tualatin/Sherwood Area ITS N/A N/A Provide congestion relief. Install advanced traffic management systems including adaptive signals, communications, dynamic messaging signs, and surveillance and management equipment. $2,853,000 Near 11447 Baseline Rd. Improvements 197th Ave. Lisa Dr. Arterial Provide congestion relief. Eastbound: Widen to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $4,600,000 Near 11448 198th Ave. Improvements - South T.V. Hwy. Farmington Rd. Collector Address recurring safety issue. Add sidewalks, bike lanes, lighting, turn lanes at major intersections. $27,900,000 Near 11449 TV Highway HCT Study Forest Grove Beaverton Arterial Increase transit mode share, help meet land use and economic development goals. High capacity transit study, including alternatives analysis, to determine transit mode, alignment, station/stop locations, operational characteristics and phasing options for a high capacity transit service between Forest Grove and Beaverton TC. $1,000,000 Near 11451 Saltzman Rd Laidlaw Rd. Bayonne Ln. Collector Address recurring safety issue. Realign and widen to three lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $11,100,000 Near 11452 Scholls Ferry Rd. Improvements West of Tile Flat Rd. Arterial Address recurring safety issue. Realign curves to improve safety. $4,300,000 Near 11453 Jackson School Road Meek Rd. Scotch Church Rd. Arterial Address recurring safety issue. Realign intersection and construct a round-about. $1,000,000 Near 11454 Jackson School Road US 26 and Jackson School Road Arterial Address recurring safety issue. Signalize ramp intersections. $1,000,000 Near 11455 Brugger Rd. Joss Ave. Kaiser Rd. Neighborhood Route Economic Development Widen from two to three lanes with sidewalks, bike lanes, street lighting, and community features. $3,200,000 Near 10 of 13 Washington County Capital Project List Washington County Transportation System Plan 2014 RTP Project ID Project/Program Name Project Start Location Project End Location Functional Classification Project Purpose Description Estimated Cost ($2014) Time Period* 11456 Shackelford Rd. 185th Ave. Bridge Collector Provide congestion relief. Build new three lane road with bike/ped facilities, storm drainage, street lighting to serve North Bethany. $12,000,000 Near 11457 Shackelford Rd. Bridge Collector Provide congestion relief. Build new three lane road with bike/ped facilities, storm drainage, street lighting to serve North Bethany. $14,600,000 Near 11458 Shackelford Rd. Bridge Kaiser Rd. Collector Provide congestion relief. Build new three lane road with bike/ped facilities, storm drainage, street lighting to serve North Bethany. $18,100,000 Near 11459 Shackelford Rd. Kaiser Rd. Springville Rd. Collector Provide congestion relief. Build new three lane road with bike/ped facilities, storm drainage, street lighting to serve North Bethany. $9,900,000 Near 11460 OR 10: Oleson Rd. Improvement Phase 2 Beaverton- Hiilsdale Hwy. Oleson Rd. and Scholls Ferry Arterial Address recurring safety issue. BHOS Phase 2 improvements to project 10545. $35,000,000 Medium 11461 Reedville Trail North Segment Wilkins St. T.V. Hwy. Trail Improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. Multi-use trail following BPA Pearl- Keeler Powerline. $6,240,000 Medium 11462 Reedville Trail South Segment T.V. Hwy. Rosedale Rd. Trail Improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. Multi-use trail following BPA Pearl- Keeler Powerline. $5,640,000 Medium 11463 Thompson Rd. Realignment Saltzman Rd. Circle A Dr. Arterial Address recurring safety issue. Realign as three lane arterial, with sidewalks, bike and street lighting $9,000,000 Medium 11464 Jenkins Rd. Improvements Murray Blvd. Cedar Hills Blvd. Arterial Provide congestion relief. Widen from three lanes to five lanes with bike lanes, sidewalks and street lighting $10,000,000 Medium 11465 Metzger Area Bike/Ped Improvements Address recurring safety issue. Metzger Area Bike / Ped Improvement program. $16,000,000 Medium 11466 Laidlaw Improvements Skycrest Lakeview Collector Address recurring safety issue. Straighten curves, widen to three lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $10,000,000 Medium 11467 Fischer Rd. Interim Bike and Pedestrian Improvements 131st Ave Pacific Hwy (99W) Collector Improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. Add sidewalks, bike lanes, lighting, turn lanes at major intersections. $4,580,000 Medium 11 of 13 Washington County Capital Project List Washington County Transportation System Plan 2014 RTP Project ID Project/Program Name Project Start Location Project End Location Functional Classification Project Purpose Description Estimated Cost ($2014) Time Period* 11468 Washington County Pedestrian Arterial crossings N/A N/A Arterial Complete gap in pedestrian system. Construct 12 enhanced at-grade pedestrian crossings of 170th Avenue, 185th Avenue, Baseline Road, Cornell Road and Walker Road. $3,585,000 Medium 11469 124th Ave. Improvements Tualatin-Sherwood Rd. Grahams Ferry Rd. Arterial Economic development. Widen 124th from two lanes to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $14,000,000 Medium 11470 Basalt Creek East-West Arterial Grahams Ferry Rd. Boones Ferry Rd. Arterial Economic development. Extend new five lane Arterial with bike lanes, sidewalks and street lighting. $57,900,000 Medium 11471 Laidlaw Improvements Saltzman Rd. Countyline Collector Address recurring safety issue. Widen to three lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $22,000,000 Medium 11472 160th Ave Improvements TV Hwy. Farmington Rd. Collector Address recurring safety issue. Widen to three lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $15,000,000 Medium 11473 111th Ave. / Rainmont Rd. / 113th Ave. McDaniel Rd. Cornell Rd. Collector Address recurring safety issue. Construct sidewalks. $9,000,000 Medium 11474 113th Ave. McDaniel Rd. Rainmont Rd. Collector Complete cap in the system Construct new two lane Collector Rd with sidewalks bikelanes and street lighting. $6,000,000 Medium 11475 Beaverton Area ITS N/A N/A N/A Provide congestion relief. Install advanced traffic management systems including adaptive signals, communications, dynamic messaging signs, and surveillance and management equipment. $10,450,000 Medium 11476 Saltzman Rd. Bayonne Ln. Bauer Woods Dr. Collector Address recurring safety issue. Widen to three lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $8,000,000 Medium 11477 Kaiser Rd. Shackelford Rd. Springville Rd. Arterial Provide congestion relief. Widen from two to three lanes with sidewalks, bike lanes, street lighting, and community features. $7,800,000 Medium 11478 185th Ave. Springville Rd. Shackelford Rd. Arterial Address recurring safety issue. Widen from two lanes to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $57,000,000 Medium 11479 Council Creek Trail: East-West Segment Hwy. 47 (Forest Grove) 1st Ave. (Hillsboro) Trail Improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. Multi-use trail connecting Hillsboro, Cornelius, Forest Grove, unincoporated Washington County. $20,100,000 Medium 12 of 13 Washington County Capital Project List Washington County Transportation System Plan 2014 RTP Project ID Project/Program Name Project Start Location Project End Location Functional Classification Project Purpose Description Estimated Cost ($2014) Time Period* 11481 Garden Home Rd. Improvements 92nd Ave. Oleson Rd. Arterial Address recurring safety issue. Improvements to enhance safety, and bike / ped accessibility. $9,000,000 Long 11483 Turf-to-Surf Trail: South Hillsboro / Reedville Segment Century Blvd. Shaw St. Trail Improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. Multi-use trail along south side of Portland & Western Railroad. $5,600,000 Long 11484 Westside Trail: Segment 2 Tigard City Limit Beef Bend Rd. Trail Improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. Multi-use trail following BPA powerline. $4,300,000 Long 11485 North Hillsboro Active Transportation Connections N/A N/A Trail Improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. Multi-use trails, cycletracks and grade- separated bike/ped crossings connecting Intel Ronler Acres, Hillsboro Ballpark, Fred Meyer shopping center, Rock Creek Trail, Oregon Electric Railway Trail and Cornelius Pass Road. $12,000,000 Long 11486 Roy Rogers Rd. Scholls Ferry Rd. UGB Arterial Provide congestion relief. Widen to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks $20,000,000 Long 11574 Cornell Road 107th Ave. Countyline Arterial Address recurring safety issue. Widen from two to three lanes with sidewalks, bike lanes, street lighting, and community features. $21,000,000 Long 11575 Leahy Rd. Cornell Rd. Barnes Rd. Collector Address recurring safety issue. Construct sidewalks. $2,500,000 Long 11576 Bull Mountain Rd. Roy Rogers Rd. HWY 99W Collector Address recurring safety issue. Widen to three lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $34,000,000 Long 11577 Beef Bend Rd. 150th Ave. HWY 99W Arterial Address recurring safety issue. Widen to three lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $30,000,000 Long 11578 80th Ave. Oleson Rd. Oak St. Collector Address recurring safety issue. Add sidewalks, bike lanes, lighting, turn lanes at major intersections. $13,000,000 Long 11579 119th Ave. McDaniel Rd. Cornell Rd. Collector Address recurring safety issue. Add sidewalks, bike lanes, lighting, turn lanes at major intersections. $12,000,000 Long 11580 McDaniel Rd. 119th Ave. Countyline Collector Address recurring safety issue. Add sidewalks, bike lanes, lighting, turn lanes at major intersections. $21,000,000 Long 11581 Thompson Rd. Realignment Saltzman Rd. Countyline Arterial Address recurring safety issue. Widen to three lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. $37,000,000 Long *Time period definition: Near within 10 years Medium 10 to 20 years Long more than 20 years 13 of 13 Capital Project Summary Capital Revenue Summary (Millions) 1 Source Annual Average Total by 2040 2 MSTIP $26.25 $682.5 TDT 3 $9.45 $245.7 North Bethany Roads $1.3 $35 Federal and State $9.8 $254.6 Total $46.8 $1,217.8 1 In 2014 dollars 2 2040 is the planning horizon for the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan, 26 years has been used for calculations 3 Assumes full phase-in of the TDT and includes credits Capital Project Funding Shortfall (Millions) 1 Available Revenue by 2040 $1,217.8 Estimated Cost $2,448.0 Estimated Shortfall $1,230.2 1 In 2014 dollars Capital Project Needs Summary by Mode Mode Number of Projects Bicycle 115 Pedestrian 111 Motor Vehicles 105 Please note that many projects benefit multiple or all modes. Capital Project Costs by Mode (Millions) 1 Bicycle $464.0 19% Pedestrian $449.9 18% Motor Vehicle / Freight $1,519.8 62% Transit $14.3 1% Total $2,448.0 100% 1 In 2014 dollars Overview STUDY AREA #1 HILLSBORO-BETHANY Summary  About 75% of households are within ½ mile of regional destinations such as schools, shopping centers and major employers – slightly above county urban area average.  Employment is expected to increase 77% by 2035, while households increase 21%. 2010 2035 Growth Growth % Households 17,614 21,339 3,725 21% Employment 28,491 50,506 22,015 77% Study Area #1 CONNECTIVITY Findings  Street network and intersection density is below county urban area average.  Roads and intersections are generally far apart, due in part to large industrial properties in the study area.  Roads have relatively few dead-ends or cul-de-sacs. HILLSBORO-BETHANY Study Area #1 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION Findings  Trail and Sidewalk coverage is better than county urban area average. However, critical gaps remain on Rock Creek and Waterhouse Trails.  Bike facility coverage is slightly below county urban area average.  Several arterials, including NW 185th Avenue and Cornell and Evergreen Roads, were improved to county standard in the past 15 years. However, several major gaps in the sidewalk and bike lane network remain, including West Union Road.  Crossing spacing on Sunset Highway and Brookwood Parkway are well over typical (¼ mile). HILLSBORO-BETHANY Crossing Spacing on Major Streets Average: 0.26 miles Longest: 0.97 miles on Sunset Highway 51% 35% 8% 4% 3% Drive Alone Drive Share Transit Walk Bike Study Area #1 MODE SHARE Findings  Forecasted 2035 mode shares are relatively consistent with 2010.  No significant increase identified for walk, bike, and transit modes.  Non-SOV mode share is projected to fall within regional target range. However, SOV mode share is projected to increase relative to 2010 base. HILLSBORO-BETHANY 2010 Mode Share 48% 37% 9% 4% 2% Drive Alone Drive Share Transit Walk Bike 2035 Mode Share Active and Transit Modes (Combined) Change from 2010 to 2035 Non-SOV Mode Share Regional Target Study Area #1 TRANSIT Findings  Transit access measures are below the county urban area average.  Only one bus – the #48 Cornell – serves east-west travel seven days a week.  A change to the #47 bus route effective September 1, 2013 will provide additional access to households north of Sunset Highway. HILLSBORO-BETHANY *Less than 20 low income / minority households identified in Study Area Study Area #1 MOTOR VEHICLE DEMAND & TRAVEL TIME Findings  Motor vehicle travel miles traveled in the study area are projected to increase 46% in 2035 relative to 2010 and VMT per capita is expected to increase by 20%.  Significant increases in roadway travel times anticipated for 2035 PM peak on: o West Union Road (EB), Helvetia Road to Bethany Road (23% increase) o Evergreen Parkway (EB), Brookwood Parkway to Cornell Road (25% Increase) o Cornell Road (EB), Butler Street to US 26 Ramp (30% increase) o Brookwood Parkway (SB), West Union Road to Airport Road (22% increase) o Cornelius Pass Road (NB), Cornell Road to Springville Road (24% increase) HILLSBORO-BETHANY Volume to Capacity Ratio Study Area #1 CONGESTION Findings  Significant increases in roadway congestion and delay are anticipated in 2035 relative to 2010.  Mobility standard deficiencies identified during 2035 PM peak for: o West Union Road, between Cornelius Pass Road and 185th Avenue(Eastbound) o Cornell Road, between 188th Avenue and 158th Avenue (Eastbound), partial segments o 185th Avenue, between Evergreen Parkway and US 26 Interchange (Northbound) HILLSBORO-BETHANY Congested Roadway Miles Congested Roadways – 2035 PM Peak Red = Demand Volume > Roadway Capacity Yellow = Demand Volume > 90% of Roadway Capacity Gray = Demand Volume < 90% of Roadway Capacity STUDY AREA #2 BEAVERTON-CEDAR MILL  About 69% of households are within ½ mile of regional destinations such as schools, shopping centers and major employers – slightly below county urban area average.  Several of the neighborhoods north of Sunset Highway have relatively few commercial services within walking distance of homes.  Employment and households are expected to increase by approximately 50% by 2035. 2010 2035 Growth Growth % Households 21,666 32,735 11,069 51% Employment 33,386 48,951 15,565 47% Summary Overview Study Area #2 CONNECTIVITY Findings  Street network and intersection density are similar to county urban area average.  Roads have relatively few dead-ends or cul-de-sacs.  Older neighborhoods with grid or modified grid street networks help connectivity in this study area.  Sunset Highway and creek corridors are the most impactful connectivity gaps. BEAVERTON-CEDAR MILL Study Area #2 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION Findings  Sidewalk, bike facility, and trail coverage is worse than county urban area average.  Major gaps in active mode facility coverage include Cornell Road and Canyon Road.  Crossing spacing on Sunset Highway is well over typical (¼ mile). Other roadways with relatively long spacing between crossings include Highway 217, Murray Boulevard and Canyon Road.  Multi-use trail coverage will improve as several planned trails are completed in the corridor, including the Beaverton Creek Trail / Crescent Connection. BEAVERTON-CEDAR MILL Crossing Spacing on Major Streets Average: 0.26 miles Longest: 0.94 miles on Sunset Highway 46% 36% 11% 5% 2% Drive Alone Drive Share Transit Walk Bike Study Area #2 MODE SHARE Findings  Forecasted 2035 mode shares indicate a slight increase in non-SOV mode share.  A 3-4% increase is identified for combined walk, bike, and transit mode shares.  Non-SOV mode share is projected to fall within regional target range. BEAVERTON-CEDAR MILL 2010 Mode Share 2035 Mode Share Active and Transit Modes (Combined) Change from 2010 to 2035 Non-SOV Mode Share Regional Target 47% 38% 9% 4% 2% Drive Alone Drive Share Transit Walk Bike Study Area #2 TRANSIT Findings  Transit access measures are significantly above the county urban area average.  The study area is served by more than ten bus lines and includes frequent light rail service.  Beaverton and Sunset transit centers are the two busiest transit exchanges in Washington County. BEAVERTON-CEDAR MILL Study Area #2 MOTOR VEHICLE DEMAND & TRAVEL TIME Findings  Total motor vehicle travel miles traveled in the study area are projected to increase 20% in 2035 relative to 2010. However, VMT per capita is expected to decrease by approximately 21%.  Significant increases in roadway travel times anticipated for 2035 PM peak on: o Cornell Road (EB), Murray Boulevard to Miller Road (25% increase) o Canyon Road (EB), Cedar Hills Boulevard to US 26 Ramp (23% increase) o Murray Boulevard (SB), Cornell Road to TV Highway (23% increase) BEAVERTON-CEDAR MILL Overview Study Area #2 CONGESTION Findings  Significant increases in roadway congestion and delay are anticipated in 2035 relative to 2010.  Mobility standard deficiencies identified during 2035 PM peak for: o Barnes Road, between Leahy Road and Skyline Boulevard o Murray Blvd, between Walker Road and Cornell Road, partial segments o Jenkins Road, between Merlo Road and Cedar Hills Boulevard, partial segments BEAVERTON-CEDAR MILL Congested Roadway Miles Congested Roadways – 2035 PM Peak Red = Demand Volume > Roadway Capacity Yellow = Demand Volume > 90% of Roadway Capacity Gray = Demand Volume < 90% of Roadway Capacity Volume to Capacity Ratio STUDY AREA #3 CORNELL/WALKER/JENKINS  About 84% of households are within ½ mile of regional destinations such as schools, shopping centers and major employers – significantly higher than the county urban area average.  The study area contains portions of the Beaverton and Tanasbourne-Amberglen regional centers, which are rich in mixed uses.  Employment and households are expected to increase by approximately 30-40% by 2035. 2010 2035 Growth Growth % Households 22,310 29,127 6,817 31% Employment 36,641 50,578 13,937 38% Summary Overview Study Area #3 CONNECTIVITY Findings  Street network and intersection density are higher than county urban area average.  The corridor is well developed and does not include many natural constraints.  Roads have relatively few dead-ends or cul-de-sacs. CORNELL/WALKER/JENKINS without dead ends Study Area #3 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION Findings  Sidewalk, bike facility, and trail coverage are generally better than county urban area average, however major gaps exist on Walker Road and areas in the west side of the study area.  The most significant barrier is the Sunset Highway, where average spacing between crossings is about 0.94 mile. Murray Blvd has the longest average distance between crossings on arterials – 0.38 miles.  The study area contains a critical gap in the West Side Trail – an overcrossing of Sunset Highway. CORNELL/WALKER/JENKINS Crossing Spacing on Major Streets Average: 0.26 miles Longest: 0.94 miles on Sunset Highway Study Area #3 MODE SHARE Findings  Forecasted 2035 mode shares are consistent with 2010.  A 2% increase is identified for combined walk, bike, and transit mode shares.  Non-SOV mode share is projected to fall within regional target range. CORNELL/WALKER/JENKINS 2010 Mode Share 2035 Mode Share Active and Transit Modes (Combined) Change from 2010 to 2035 Non-SOV Mode Share Regional Target 48% 37% 9% 4% 2% Drive Alone Drive Share Transit Walk Bike 47% 36% 10% 5% 2% Drive Alone Drive Share Transit Walk Bike Study Area #3 TRANSIT Findings  Transit access for households is significantly above the county urban area average, however service for low income and minority households is slightly below average.  Transit access for employees is slightly above county urban area average. CORNELL/WALKER/JENKINS Study Area #3 MOTOR VEHICLE DEMAND & TRAVEL TIME Findings  Total motor vehicle travel miles traveled in the study area are projected to increase 29% in 2035 relative to 2010. However, VMT per capita is expected to decrease slightly by 2%.  Increases in roadway travel times are anticipated for 2035 PM peak are expected to be less than 20% for key area roadways. CORNELL/WALKER/JENKINS Overview Study Area #3 CONGESTION Findings  Significant increases in roadway congestion and delay are anticipated in 2035 relative to 2010.  Mobility standard deficiencies identified during 2035 PM peak hour: o Cornell Road, 188th Avenue tp Barnes Road (Eastbound), partial segments o 185th Avenue, Evergreen Parkway to US 26 Interchange (Northbound) o Walker Road, between 185th Avenue and 173rd Avenue o Jenkins Road, between Merlo Road and Cedar Hills Boulevard, partial segments o Murray Blvd, between Walker Road and Cornell Road, partial segments CORNELL/WALKER/JENKINS Congested Roadway Miles Congested Roadways – 2035 PM Peak Red = Demand Volume > Roadway Capacity Yellow = Demand Volume > 90% of Roadway Capacity Gray = Demand Volume < 90% of Roadway Capacity Volume to Capacity Ratio STUDY AREA #4 ALOHA-COOPER MOUNTAIN  The corridor is predominantly residential, with limited commercial areas or major employers.  About 66% of households are within ½ mile of regional destinations such as schools, shopping centers and major employers – well below the county urban area average.  Employment and households are expected to increase by 45-50% by 2035 Households 2010 40,997 2035 61,502 Growth 20,505 Growth % 50% Employment 2010 16,687 2035 24,371 Growth 7,684 Growth % 46% Summary Overview Study Area #4 CONNECTIVITY Findings  Street network and intersection density are slightly below county urban area average.  The study area has a relatively abundance of dead-ends and cul-de-sacs. These features can be attributed to mid-century development and limited crossings at streams. ALOHA-COOPER MOUNTAIN Study Area #4 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION Findings  Sidewalk coverage is similar to the county urban area average, although many gaps remain with no sidewalk facilities on either side of the roadway.  Bicycle facility coverage is significantly lower than the county urban area average..  The average distance between crossings is significantly higher than the county average. 185th Avenue, Millikan Way and TV Highway have the longest average distances between crossings. The Portland & Western Railroad is also a major barrier with few convenient or safe crossings for people walking and accessing transit.  Trail coverage by population is below the county urban area average. ALOHA-COOPER MOUNTAIN Crossing Spacing on Major Streets Average: 0.26 miles (County) Average: 0.34 miles (Study Area #4) 45% 36% 11% 6% 2% Drive Alone Drive Share Transit Walk Bike Study Area #4 MODE SHARE Findings  Forecasted 2035 mode shares are relatively consistent with 2010.  No significant increase is identified for combined walk, bike, and transit mode shares.  Non-SOV mode share is projected to fall within regional target range. ALOHA-COOPER MOUNTAIN 2010 Mode Share 2035 Mode Share Active and Transit Modes (Combined) Change from 2010 to 2035 Non-SOV Mode Share Regional Target 45% 37% 11% 5% 2% Drive Alone Drive Share Transit Walk Bike Study Area #4 TRANSIT Findings  Transit access for households and employment are similar to the county urban area average.  Transit access to low income and minority household areas is better than county urban area average. Many of these households are served by the frequent service #57 bus, along TV Highway.  Transit service is currently limited in the Cooper Mountain and South Hillsboro areas, where major development is beginning. ALOHA-COOPER MOUNTAIN Study Area #4 MOTOR VEHICLE DEMAND & TRAVEL TIME Findings  Total motor vehicle travel miles traveled in the study area are projected to increase 43% in 2035 relative to 2010. However, VMT per capita is expected to decrease by 5%.  Significant increases in roadway travel times anticipated for 2035 PM peak on: o Roy Rogers Road/175th Avenue, between Beef Bend Road and Rigert Road (24% NB, 22% SB) o Murray Boulevard (SB), TV Highway to Scholls Ferry Road (22% increase) o 185th Avenue, between Baseline Road and Rigert Road (20% NB, 28% SB) o 209th Avenue (SB), TV Highway to Farmington Road (39% increase) ALOHA-COOPER MOUNTAIN Volume to Capacity Ratio Overview Study Area #4 CONGESTION Findings  Significant increases in roadway congestion and delay are anticipated in 2035 relative to 2010.  Mobility standard deficiencies are identified during 2035 PM peak for many roadways in the study area including segments of Roy Rogers Road, 160th Avenue, 170th Avenue, 175th Avenue, 185th Avenue, 190th Avenue, 209th Avenue, Murray Road, Grabhorn Road, Kemmer Road, TV Highway, and Farmington Road. ALOHA-COOPER MOUNTAIN Congested Roadway Miles Congested Roadways – 2035 PM Peak Red = Demand Volume > Roadway Capacity Yellow = Demand Volume > 90% of Roadway Capacity Gray = Demand Volume < 90% of Roadway Capacity STUDY AREA #5 BROCKMAN/SCHOLLS FERRY/WALNUT  About 70% of households are within ½ mile of regional destinations such as schools, shopping centers and major employers – slightly below county urban area average.  The study area has more mixed land uses closer to OR 217.  Employment and households are expected to increase by approximately 43% and 60%, respectively by 2035. 2010 2035 Growth Growth % Households 24,302 38,844 14,542 60% Employment 20,595 29,518 8,923 43% Summary Overview Study Area #5 CONNECTIVITY Findings  Street network and intersection density are less than county urban area average.  Roads have relatively frequent dead-ends or cul-de-sacs. BROCKMAN/SCHOLLS FERRY/WALNUT without dead ends Study Area #5 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION Findings  Sidewalk and bike facility coverage are generally better than county urban area average, however the percent of roadways with no sidewalks is higher than county average.  The most significant barrier is the Highway 217/WES corridor, where average spacing between crossings is about 0.6 mile.  Multi-use trail coverage is equal to the county urban area average; however east-west trail connectivity is very limited. BROCKMAN/SCHOLLS FERRY/WALNUT Crossing Spacing on Major Streets Average: 0.26 miles Longest: 0.6 miles on OR 217 46% 37% 10% 5% 2% Drive Alone Drive Share Transit Walk Bike Study Area #5 MODE SHARE Findings  Forecasted 2035 mode shares are consistent with 2010.  A small increase is identified for combined walk, bike, and transit mode shares.  Non-SOV mode share is projected to fall within regional target range. BROCKMAN/SCHOLLS FERRY/WALNUT 2010 Mode Share 2035 Mode Share Active and Transit Modes (Combined) Change from 2010 to 2035 Non-SOV Mode Share Regional Target 46% 38% 10% 4% 2% Drive Alone Drive Share Transit Walk Bike Study Area #5 TRANSIT Findings  Transit access for employees and low income and minority households is slightly above the county urban area average. Transit access to Washington Square Regional Center and Tigard Town Center is fairly robust.  Transit access for households is well below the county urban area average, with most neighborhoods west of Murray Boulevard not having any transit access.  Development of River Terrace and South Cooper Mountain will increase demand for transit service. BROCKMAN/SCHOLLS FERRY/WALNUT Study Area #5 MOTOR VEHICLE DEMAND & TRAVEL TIME Findings  Total motor vehicle travel miles traveled in the study area are projected to increase 34% in 2035 relative to 2010. However, VMT per capita is expected to decrease by approximately 16%.  Significant increases in roadway travel times anticipated for 2035 PM peak on: o Beef Bend Road (WB), OR 99W to Roy Rogers Road (22% increase) o Bull Mountain Road (WB), OR 99W to Roy Rogers Road (23% increase) BROCKMAN/SCHOLLS FERRY/WALNUT Overview Study Area #5 CONGESTION Findings  Significant increases in roadway congestion and delay are anticipated in 2035 relative to 2010.  Mobility standard deficiencies identified during 2035 PM peak are anticipated for portions of many study area roadways including Beef Bend Road, Roshak Road, Bull Mountain Road, Gaarde Road, Walnut Road, Barrows Road, Scholls Ferry Road, and Greenburg Road. BROCKMAN/SCHOLLS FERRY/WALNUT Congested Roadway Miles Congested Roadways – 2035 PM Peak Red = Demand Volume > Roadway Capacity Yellow = Demand Volume > 90% of Roadway Capacity Gray = Demand Volume < 90% of Roadway Capacity Volume to Capacity Ratio STUDY AREA #6 TUALATIN RIVER CROSSINGS  About 83% of households are within ½ mile of regional destinations such as schools, shopping centers and major employers – well above the county urban area average.  Employment is expected to increase by approximately 50% by 2035 while households are expected to increase by 28%. Households 2010 16,005 2035 20,438 Growth 4,433 Growth % 28% Employment 2010 39,442 2035 59,215 Growth 19,773 Growth % 50% Summary Overview Study Area #6 CONNECTIVITY Findings  Street network and intersection density are significantly below county urban area average due in large part to large block sizes in the Tualatin-Sherwood industrial area.  Connectivity is hindered by the Tualatin River, with nearly two miles between the Pacific Highway (OR 99W) bridge and the Ki-a-Kuts ped/bike bridge, and an additional half mile to the Boones Ferry Road bridge. TUALATIN RIVER CROSSINGS without dead ends Study Area #6 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION Findings  Bicycle facility coverage is better than the county urban area average, as many arterials and collectors in the corridor were built or reconstructed in the past 20 years when bike lanes were required.  Sidewalk coverage is similar to the county urban area average, although many sidewalk gaps exist on Pacific Highway (OR 99W) where there are also long gaps between pedestrian crossings or signals.  The most significant crossing gap on major roadways in the study area is I-5.  Trail coverage by population is slightly above the county urban area average. Existing trails include the southern end of the Fanno Creek Greenway Trail, the Ki-a-Kuts ped/bike bridge over the Tualatin River, and a trail alongside the Tualatin River. TUALATIN RIVER CROSSINGS Crossing Spacing on Major Streets Average: 0.26 miles Longest: 0.6 miles on I-5 51% 36% 7% 4% 2% Drive Alone Drive Share Transit Walk Bike Study Area #6 MODE SHARE Findings  Forecasted 2035 mode shares are relatively consistent with 2010.  An approximate 1% increase is identified for combined walk, bike, and transit mode shares.  Non-SOV mode share is projected to fall within regional target range. TUALATIN RIVER CROSSINGS 2010 Mode Share 2035 Mode Share Active and Transit Modes (Combined) Change from 2010 to 2035 Non-SOV Mode Share Regional Target 50% 37% 6% 4% 2% Drive Alone Drive Share Transit Walk Bike Study Area #6 TRANSIT Findings  Transit access measures are below the county urban area average.  Transit access to employment is particularly poor, with no fixed-route service to the Tualatin-Sherwood industrial area.  TriMet is developing a Southwest Service Enhancement Plan to supplement the larger regional process of planning a high capacity transit line between Portland and Tualatin. TUALATIN RIVER CROSSINGS Study Area #6 MOTOR VEHICLE DEMAND & TRAVEL TIME Findings  Total motor vehicle travel miles traveled in the study area are projected to increase 25% in 2035 relative to 2010. However, VMT per capita is expected to decrease slightly by 2%.  Significant increases in roadway travel times anticipated for 2035 PM peak on: o OR 99W, between OR 217 and Cipole Road (29% NB, 22% SB) o Hall Boulevard, between OR 99W and Durham Road (23% NB, 32% SB) o Boones Ferry Road (NB), Tualatin Road to Carmen Road Interchange (22% increase) o Tualatin-Sherwood Road, between Nyberg Interchange and Oregon Street (26% EB, 26% WB) TUALATIN RIVER CROSSINGS Overview Study Area #6 CONGESTION Findings  Significant increases in roadway congestion and delay are anticipated in 2035 relative to 2010.  Mobility standard deficiencies are identified during 2035 PM peak for many roadways in the study area including segments of I-5, OR 99W, Hall Boulevard, 72nd Boulevard, Boones Ferry Road, Durham Road, McDonald Road, and Bonita Road. TUALATIN RIVER CROSSINGS Congested Roadway Miles Congested Roadways – 2035 PM Peak Red = Demand Volume > Roadway Capacity Yellow = Demand Volume > 90% of Roadway Capacity Gray = Demand Volume < 90% of Roadway Capacity Volume to Capacity Ratio 720 SW Washington St. Suite 500 Portland, OR 97205 503.243.3500 www.dksassociates.com MEMORANDUM DATE: March 14, 2014 TO: Washington County TSP Update Project Management Team FROM: Carl Springer, Mat Dolata SUBJECT: Transportation Plan Development - Motor Vehicle Performance Evaluation P11022-003 The following memorandum summarizes key findings of the motor vehicle system performance evaluation of the proposed project list for the Washington County Transportation System Plan (TSP) update. Performance criteria were applied at the system-level (the county-wide urbanized area) to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed projects in improving transportation system performance. These performance measures demonstrate compliance or progress toward targets identified in Metro’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Functional Plan (RTFP). REGULATORY CONTEXT Overview Metro’s Regional Transportation Functional Plan1 (RTFP) directs Washington County to implement the RTP through their TSP and other land use regulations. The RTFP codifies the requirements that TSP’s must comply with to be consistent with the RTP. If a TSP is consistent with the RTFP, Metro will find it to be consistent with the RTP. The RTFP provides guidance on several areas including design guidance for various facilities, system planning, regional parking management and amendments to comprehensive plans. The following directives specifically pertain to updating TSP’s: ● Include regional and state transportation needs identified in the 2035 RTP along with local needs ● Local needs must be consistent with RTP in terms of land use, system maps and non-SOV modal targets ● When developing solutions, local jurisdictions shall consider a variety of strategies, in the following order: ● TSMO (Transportation System Management Operations) ● Transit, bicycle and pedestrian improvements ● Traffic calming 1 Metro Regional Transportation Functional Plan: http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=274 Washington County TSP Update Transportation Plan Development – Motor Vehicle Performance Evaluation March 10, 2014 Page 2 of 14 ● Land use strategies in OAR 660-012-0035(2)2 ● Connectivity, including pedestrian and bicycle facilities ● Motor vehicle capacity improvements ● Local jurisdictions can propose regional projects as part of the RTP process ● Local jurisdictions can propose alternate performance and mobility standards, however, changes must be consistent with regional and statewide planning goals ● Local parking regulations shall be consistent with the RTFP The Washington County TSP identifies a variety of strategies and projects focused on developing the active transportation system, improving system connectivity, improving access to transit, and enhancing transportation system management and operations. The project list builds upon previous planning efforts including the RTP, previous TSP, the Washington County Intelligent Transportation System Plan, and the TSP update analysis of individual study areas. The following analysis is focused specifically on motor vehicle system performance and identifies how the roadway projects identified in the TSP are consistent with the RTFP targets. Compliance with Regional Targets The following section identifies each of the Metro regional targets identified in Table 2.3 of the RTP and how performance criteria will address them. Section 3.08.230 of the RTFP specifies that the county must include performance measures for safety, vehicle miles traveled per capita, freight reliability, congestion, bicycling, walking, and transit mode shares. Targets not identified in the RTFP are shown with an asterisk. Table 1: System Performance Targets 2035 System Performance Target Approach Used for County TSP Update Safety Reduce the number of pedestrian, bicyclist, and motor vehicle occupant fatalities plus serious injuries each by 50% compared to 2005. No methods for accurately predicting or forecasting safety outcomes at the system level have been accepted or adopted in the region. The RTP goal is addressed through plan monitoring and establishing a baseline by which to make future comparisons to. Congestion Reduce VHD per person by 10 percent compared to 2005. Congestion is addressed through estimates for VHD per capita and roadway miles where demand-to-capacity ratios exceed mobility targets for future scenarios. The measures were calculated through analysis of the regional travel demand model for the PM peak 2 This section of the Transportation Planning Rule requires Metro area jurisdictions to evaluate land use designations, densities, and design standards to meet local and regional transportation needs. Washington County TSP Update Transportation Plan Development – Motor Vehicle Performance Evaluation March 10, 2014 Page 3 of 14 2035 System Performance Target Approach Used for County TSP Update Freight reliability Reduce VHD per truck trip by 10 percent compared to 2005. The same performance measures used for congestion (based on VHD and demand-to-capacity ratios) are applied for freight reliability by including only the subset of roadways that are designated as Truck Routes Climate change * Reduce transportation-related carbon dioxide emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels. Although emissions estimates were not made for the TSP, VMT per capita may be considered as an approximate indicator for the climate change goal. Active transportation Triple walking, biking and transit mode share compared to 2005. Facilities improvements for these modes may be measured through sidewalk and bikeway coverage on arterial/collector streets as well as the total trail miles in the transportation system. Note: Not covered in this memorandum. Basic Infrastructure* Increase by 50 percent the number of essential destinations accessible within 30 minutes by trails, bicycling and public transit or within 15 minutes by sidewalks for all residents compared to 2005. The measures described under active transportation (mode share and arterial/collector coverage) will be considered as approximate indicators of progress toward basic infrastructure access. Clean Air* Ensure zero percent population exposure to at-risk levels of air pollution. Although population exposure to pollution estimates will not be made for the TSP, VMT per capita may be considered as an approximate indicator for the clean air goal. Travel Reduce VMT per person by 10 percent compared to 2005. VMT is measured for future scenarios through analysis of the regional travel demand model. Affordability* Reduce the average household combined cost of housing and transportation by 25 percent compared to 2000. Although average household costs was not estimated in the TSP, the VMT measure and measures of sidewalk and bikeway coverage on arterial/collector streets as well as total trail miles in the transportation system will serve as indicators for affordability. Access to daily needs* Increase by 50 percent the number of essential destinations accessible within 30 minutes by bicycling and public transit for low-income, minority, senior and disabled populations compared to 2005. The measures described under active transportation will be considered as approximate indicators of progress toward access to daily needs. Volume Capacity Ratio The interim Washington County Motor Vehicle Performance Measures represent the minimum performance level desired for motor vehicles. Measures the ratio of traffic volume to planned vehicle capacity of a given facility. The measure is used to diagnose the extent of congestion. Washington County TSP Update Transportation Plan Development – Motor Vehicle Performance Evaluation March 10, 2014 Page 4 of 14 2035 System Performance Target Approach Used for County TSP Update Non-drive alone modal targets The mode share targets are intended to be aspirations to work towards. Measures the share of trips being made in single occupant motor vehicles. * No performance measure required by the RTFP. In addition to these targets, the location of roadways that do not meet mobility targets will be mapped for each scenario, to address the targets identified in RTP Table 2.4. Performance measures in rural areas of Washington County are limited by the availability of the travel demand model coverage area, which primarily covers urbanized areas of the county. ROADWAY PROJECTS The Capital Project List identifies the TSP roadway projects included in this motor vehicle system performance evaluation. The TSP project list is consistent with the projects identified in the RTP. EVALUATING THE PROJECTS Will the roadway projects identified in the TSP improve the performance of the Washington County transportation system? To answer this question, the plan projects were evaluated with performance measures to identify long-term trends through 2035. The results were identified for the future baseline (RTP) scenario as well as for the TSP scenario that includes the TSP roadway projects. The results are presented in the following sections. System Performance Criteria Motor vehicle system performance criteria used are for evaluation in the Washington County TSP update: • Roadway miles with demand to capacity ratio deficiencies (all roads and truck routes) • Vehicle hours of delay (VHD) per capita • Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita • Mode Share Study area and corridor performance criteria are used as supplemental measures to evaluate performance beyond the county-wide system level. Washington County TSP Update Transportation Plan Development – Motor Vehicle Performance Evaluation March 10, 2014 Page 5 of 14 EVALUATION RESULTS Progress is expected to be made towards meeting the Congestion Targets To reduce congestion, Washington County has identified projects to improve driving, walking, biking and transit travel. Vehicle hours of Delay3: Because Washington County is an attractive place to live and operate a business, the population and employment are expected to increase significantly by 2035. This growth will result in increased demand on the roadway network and pose a significant challenge for meeting this performance measure. Although delay is expected to increase significantly by 2035, the TSP project list would result in approximately 6% less delay than the 2035 RTP project list. Figure 1: Vehicle Hours of Delay Table 2: Vehicle Hours of Delay Measure 2010 2035 RTP 2035 TSP TSP Impact VHD 13,882 27,155 25,526 -6% from RTP +83% from 2010 3 Delay is defined as the difference between uncongested or “free-flow” travel time and congested travel time on roadways in Washington County, as measured by the Metro Regional Travel Demand Forecast Model for the PM peak period (4-6PM). Washington County TSP Update Transportation Plan Development – Motor Vehicle Performance Evaluation March 10, 2014 Page 6 of 14 Figure 2: Vehicle Delay per Capita (average minutes of delay per person during the PM peak)4 Table 3: Vehicle Delay per Capita Measure 2010 2035 RTP 2035 TSP TSP Impact Delay per Capita 1.6 2.2 2.0 -9% from RTP +25% from 2010 Mobility Targets for Streets: Metro’s regional travel demand model was used to estimate how streets in Washington County will handle the increased travel demand through 2035 assuming the TSP investments.5 Although congestion is expected to increase in 2035, the TSP project list would result in approximately 13% fewer miles of roadway at capacity than the 2035 RTP project list. 4 Capita is measured by all residents of Washington County, not only travelers. 5 The raw travel demand model for the evening peak periods were used to evaluate system wide congestion for this objective, but detailed link capacity analysis was not included in this measure. Washington County TSP Update Transportation Plan Development – Motor Vehicle Performance Evaluation March 10, 2014 Page 7 of 14 Figure 3: Roadway Miles at Capacity during the PM Peak Table 4: Roadway Miles at Capacity during the PM Peak Measure 2010 2035 RTP 2035 TSP TSP Impact Congested Roads 40 128 111 -13% from RTP +175% from 2010 Figure 4: Percent of Roadways by V/C Category (PM Peak Volume to Capacity) Washington County TSP Update Transportation Plan Development – Motor Vehicle Performance Evaluation March 10, 2014 Page 8 of 14 Progress is expected to be made towards reducing Freight Delay The trends for delay and congestion on County-designated Truck Routes closely match the overall countywide trend. Many of the more congested freeways and arterial roadways are designated for truck travel. The TSP project list would result in approximately 6% less delay on Truck Routes compared to the 2035 RTP project list and 7% fewer congested miles of truck routes. Figure 5: Vehicle Hours of Delay on Truck Routes Table 5: Vehicle Hours of Delay on Truck Routes Measure 2010 2035 RTP 2035 TSP TSP Impact VHD on Truck Routes 10,485 19,877 18,769 -5.6% from RTP +79% from 2010 Washington County TSP Update Transportation Plan Development – Motor Vehicle Performance Evaluation March 10, 2014 Page 9 of 14 Figure 6: Percent of Truck Routes at Capacity during the PM Peak Table 6: Percent of Truck Routes at Capacity during the PM Peak Measure 2010 2035 RTP 2035 TSP TSP Impact Percent Congested Truck Routes 4.1% 11.4% 10.7% -7% from RTP +260% from 2010 Figure 7: Truck Route Miles at Capacity during the PM Peak Table 7: Truck Route Miles at Capacity during the PM Peak Measure 2010 2035 RTP 2035 TSP TSP Impact Congested Truck Routes 25 70 65 -7% from RTP +260% from 2010 Washington County TSP Update Transportation Plan Development – Motor Vehicle Performance Evaluation March 10, 2014 Page 10 of 14 An Increase in Active Transportation and Transit travel is expected Targets to reduce regional travel by motor vehicles have been identified by Metro for non-single occupancy vehicles and for walking, biking, and transit mode shares. Non-Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) Travel: Metro’s regional travel demand model was used to evaluate progress towards meeting transportation demand management (TDM) goals, specifically reducing reliance on the single occupancy vehicle.6 Washington County’s non-SOV mode shares (within urbanized areas) are expected to be above the target of 40 to 45 percent, with an estimated non-SOV mode share of 53 percent in 2010 and in 2035. Table 8: Travel by Mode Mode 2010 2035 Change Drive Alone 47% 47% -0.1% Drive Shared 37% 36% -1.4% Transit 9% 10% 0.7% Walk 4% 5% 0.4% Bike 2% 2% 0.4% The TSP defines a transportation system that is expected to further reduce the SOV mode share through investments that encourage multi-modal travel, including increased walking and bicycling facilities and transit stop access/amenity improvements. Walking, Biking and Transit Mode Share: The percent of travel by motor vehicles (single-occupancy or shared-ride) in Washington County is expected to decrease by 1.6% in 2035. This is the result of the combined share of transit, walk, and bike trips expected to increasing from 15.4% in 2010 to 17.0% in 2035. Washington County has identified a substantial list of investments in walking, biking, transit or other active transportation projects in its TSP. The County has identified investments to complete walking and biking gaps along the major street system, and identified a network of trails off the major street system to further encourage walking and biking to key destinations throughout the County. These projects are expected to make progress toward tripling the walking, biking and transit mode share between 2010 and 2035. 6 The Metro RTP Financially Constrained Plan was utilized for the non-SOV mode share analysis; therefore, not all of the projects included in the TSP were captured in the analysis. Washington County TSP Update Transportation Plan Development – Motor Vehicle Performance Evaluation March 10, 2014 Page 11 of 14 The Plan is expected to outperform the Climate Change Target With healthy local and regional population and employment growth, PM peak vehicle miles traveled per capita in Washington County is expected to be reduced by approximately 5% in 2035. The TSP project list would slightly reduce VMT compared to the RTP projects (by less than 1% countywide). Figure 8: VMT (PM Peak Vehicle Miles Traveled) Figure 9: VMT per Capita (PM Peak Vehicle Miles Traveled) Washington County TSP Update Transportation Plan Development – Motor Vehicle Performance Evaluation March 10, 2014 Page 12 of 14 What are the Impacts to Study Areas? The motor vehicle performance measures show that the total vehicle delay, roadway congestion, and vehicle distance traveled will increase from 2010 to 2035 for each study area. The TSP projects will generally reduce delay, congestion, and distance traveled for most study areas compared to the 2035 RTP. The following section identifies the estimated PM peak VHD (Vehicle Hours of Delay), VMT (Vehicle Miles of Travel), and Congested Roadways (percent of roadways where vehicle demand reaches capacity) for each study area. The performance measures are compared for 2010 and 2035 with the 2035 RTP projects assumed as well as 2035 with the TSP projects assumed. Study Area #1: Hillsboro-Bethany The TSP projects would reduce delay and congestion in the study area. Total vehicle distance traveled would not significantly change as a result of the TSP projects. Table 9: Study Area #1 Measure 2010 2035 RTP 2035 TSP TSP Impact VHD 822 1,581 1,464 -7% from RTP +78% from 2010 VMT 122,594 175,301 174,973 0% from RTP +43% from 2010 Congested Roads 1% 2% 1% -1% from RTP 0% from 2010 Study Area #2: Beaverton-Cedar Mill The TSP projects would reduce delay and congestion in the study area. Total vehicle distance traveled would not significantly change as a result of the TSP projects. Table 10: Study Area #2 Measure 2010 2035 RTP 2035 TSP TSP Impact VHD 2,546 4,236 4,093 -3% from RTP +61% from 2010 VMT 199,033 239,056 239,210 0% from RTP +20% from 2010 Congested Roads 4% 7% 6% -1% from RTP +2% from 2010 Washington County TSP Update Transportation Plan Development – Motor Vehicle Performance Evaluation March 10, 2014 Page 13 of 14 Study Area #3: Cornell/Walker/Jenkins The TSP projects would reduce delay, congestion in the study area. Total vehicle distance traveled would be slightly reduced as a result of the TSP projects. Table 11: Study Area #3 Measure 2010 2035 RTP 2035 TSP TSP Impact VHD 2,292 4,113 3,892 -5% from RTP +70% from 2010 VMT 207,269 264,100 262,564 -1% from RTP +27% from 2010 Congested Roads 6% 8% 7% -1% from RTP +1% from 2010 Study Area #4: Aloha-Cooper Mountain The TSP projects would reduce delay and congestion in the study area. Total vehicle distance traveled would slightly increase change as a result of the TSP projects. The widening projects identified for 170th Avenue, 175th Avenue, and 209th Avenue would result in significant reductions to delay and congestion in the study area, but may induce additional travel within the boundaries of the study area. Table 12: Study Area #4 Measure 2010 2035 RTP 2035 TSP TSP Impact VHD 1,429 3,099 2,807 -9% from RTP +96% from 2010 VMT 149,301 216,930 219,083 +1% from RTP +47% from 2010 Congested Roads 4% 14% 9% -5% from RTP +5% from 2010 Washington County TSP Update Transportation Plan Development – Motor Vehicle Performance Evaluation March 10, 2014 Page 14 of 14 Study Area #5: Brockman/Scholls Ferry/Walnut The TSP projects would reduce delay and congestion in the study area. Total vehicle distance traveled would not significantly change as a result of the TSP projects. Table 13: Study Area #5 Measure 2010 2035 RTP 2035 TSP TSP Impact VHD 1,715 3,065 2,812 -8% from RTP +64% from 2010 VMT 117,245 156,204 155,906 0% from RTP +33% from 2010 Congested Roads 10% 18% 14% -4% from RTP +4% from 2010 Study Area #6: Tualatin River Crossings The TSP projects would reduce delay and congestion in the study area. Total vehicle distance traveled in the study area would also be improved as a result of the TSP projects. Table 14: Study Area #6 Measure 2010 2035 RTP 2035 TSP TSP Impact VHD 2,793 5,514 5,143 -7% from RTP +84% from 2010 VMT 200,247 250,993 247,015 -2% from RTP +23% from 2010 Congested Roads 10% 21% 20% -1% from RTP +10% from 2010 Countywide Motor Vehicle Deficiency Evaluation The Washington County Roadway Deficiency List identifies a number of roadway segments where motor vehicle performance may not meet adopted standards. The roadway deficiency analysis has been based on regional model results for motor vehicles in 2035. Anticipated improvements to the network (identified in Appendix 2, Capital Project List) were included in this analysis. Given the TSP improvements, these segments do not perform within adopted motor vehicle performance standards. Intersection operational analysis and queue length assessment have not been conducted and may yield different results. For each roadway segment additional analysis is needed to determine the type, extent and/or severity of the deficiency. These potential Deficiency Locations may need additional improvements that cannot be assumed to be funded within anticipated revenue parameters. Alternatively a different performance standard might be used to assess the Deficiency Location, which could yield different results. The roadway deficiency evaluation is required by the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) for ODOT facilities within the planning area. The analysis has been expanded to include all Arterial and Collector facilities within Washington County. The Mobility Target indicated is the adopted interim motor vehicle mobility performance standard identified in Table 3 of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 768. The Other Mobility Target is either the interim Metro regional mobility target or the ODOT Mobility Target from OHP policy 1F. Washington County Roadway Deficiency List Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Deficiency Severity I-5 SW Nyberg St Interchange Carmen Dr Interchange NB 0.99 0.99 - Low I-5 OR-217 Interchange I-205 Interchange SB 0.99 0.99 - Low I-5 Ramp (SB Off) I-5 SB (Off) Elligsen Rd SB 0.99 0.99 - Low I-5 Ramp (SB Off) I-5 SB (Off) I-205 NB (On) SB 0.99 0.99 - Low I-5 Ramp (SB On) SW Dartmouth St I-5 SB (On) SB 0.99 0.99 - Low Kruse Way OR-217 I-5 Interchange EB 0.99 0.99 - Low Laurel Hillsboro (OR 219) SW Laurrel Rd SW Raynyard Rd/SW Midway Rd SB 0.75 N/A ODOT Designation (Outside of Metro) Medium Laurel Hillsboro (OR 219) SW Raynyard Rd/SW Midway Rd SW Scholls Ferry Rd SB 0.75 N/A ODOT Designation (Outside of Metro) Medium NW 113th Ave NW Cornell Rd NW Lost Park Dr/NW Anderson St NB 0.99 0.99 - Low NW 143rd Ave NW Cornell Rd NW West Union St NB 0.99 0.99 - Low NW Cornelius Pass Rd NW West Union Rd NW Germantown Rd NB 0.9 N/A Rural Medium NW Cornelius Schefflin Rd NW Wren Rd NW Verboort Rd SB 0.9 N/A Rural Low NW Cornell Rd NW Murray Blvd NW Barnes Rd EB 0.99 1.1 Metro Designation Medium NW Cornell Rd OR-26 Interchange NW Cornell Dr EB 0.99 0.99 - Low NW Cornell Rd NW Murray Blvd NW Barnes Rd WB 0.99 1.1 Metro Designation Low NW Germantown Road NW Cornelius Pass Rd E County Boundary EB 0.9 N/A Rural Medium NW Germantown Road NW Cornelius Pass Rd NW 185th Ave WB 0.9 N/A Rural Low NW Glencoe Rd OR-26 Interchange NW Scotch Church Rd NB 0.9 N/A Rural Low NW Glencoe Rd OR-26 Interchange OR-26 Interchange SB 0.9 N/A Rural High NW Jackson School Rd NW Meek Rd OR-26 Interchange NB 0.9 N/A Rural Medium NW Jackson School Rd NW Meek Rd NW Evergreen Rd SB 0.9 N/A Rural Low NW Kaiser Rd NW Springville Rd NW Brugger Rd NB 0.99 0.99 - Medium NW Murrary Blvd OR-26 Interchange SW Butner Rd SB 0.99 0.99 - Low NW Scotch Church Rd NW Glencoe Rd NW Jackson School Rd EB 0.9 N/A Rural Low OR-217 SW 72nd Ave Interchange SW Scholls Ferry Rd Interchange NB 0.99 0.99 - Low OR-217 SW Allen Blvd Interchange SW Scholls Ferry Rd Interchange NB 0.99 0.99 - Low OR-217 SW Canyon Rd Interchange SW Walker Rd Interchange NB 0.99 0.99 - Low OR-217 OR-26 Interchange (Off) SW Wilshire St Ramp (On) SB 0.99 0.99 - Low OR-217 SW Allen Blvd Interchange SW Scholls Ferry Rd Interchange SB 0.99 0.99 - Low OR-217 SW Scholls Ferry Road Interchange SW 72nd Ave Interchange SB 0.99 0.99 - Low OR-217 SW Walker Rd Interchange SW Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy Interchange SB 0.99 0.99 - Medium OR-217 Ramp (SB Off) OR-217 SB (Off) I-5 SB (On) SB 0.99 0.99 - Medium OR-217 Ramp (SB On) OR-99W I-217 SB (On) SB 0.99 0.99 - Low OR-26 NW Murray Blvd Interchange (Off) NW Murray Blvd Interchange (On) EB 0.99 0.99 - Medium OR-26 SW Cedar Hills Interchange (Off) SW Cedar Hills Interchange (On) EB 0.99 0.99 - Low OR-26 NW Murray Blvd Interchange (Off) NW Murray Blvd Interchange (On) WB 0.99 0.99 - Low OR-26 OR-217 SW Cedar Hills Interchange WB 0.99 0.99 - Low OR-26 SW Canyon Rd Interchange OR-217 Interchange WB 0.99 0.99 - Low OR-26 Ramp (EB On) NW Cornell Rd OR-26 (On) EB 0.99 0.99 - Low OR-26 Ramp (EB On) NW Helvetia Rd OR-26 (On) EB 0.99 0.99 - Low OR-26 Ramp (EB On) NW Murry Blvd OR-26 (On) EB 0.99 0.99 - Low OR-26 Ramp (EB On) SW Cedar Hills Blvd OR-26 (On) EB 0.99 0.99 - Low OR-26 Ramp (WB On) OR 217 Ramp/ NW Barnes Rd Ramp Merge OR-26 (On) WB 0.99 0.99 - Low OR-99W SW 124th Ave SW Fischer Rd NB 0.99 0.99 - Medium OR-99W SW 72nd I-5 Interchange NB 0.99 1.1 Metro Designation Low OR-99W SW Beef Bend Rd SW Gaarde St / SW McDonald St NB 0.99 0.99 - Medium OR-99W SW Fischer Rd SW Beef Bend Rd NB 0.99 1.1 Metro Designation Medium OR-99W SW 124th Ave SW Fischer Rd SB 0.99 0.99 - Low OR-99W SW 72nd I-5 Interchange SB 0.99 1.1 Metro Designation Low OR-99W SW Beef Bend Rd SW Gaarde St / SW McDonald St SB 0.99 0.99 - Medium OR-99W SW Cipole Sherwood City Limits (North) SB 0.7 N/A ODOT Designation (Outside of Metro) Low Mobility Target DetailsRoadway Roadway Section Extent Mobility Target Other Mobility TargetDirection 6/23/2014 Page 1 of 4 Washington County Roadway Deficiency List Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Deficiency SeverityMobility Target DetailsRoadway Roadway Section Extent Mobility Target Other Mobility TargetDirection OR-99W SW Fischer Rd SW Durham Rd SB 0.99 1.1 Metro Designation Medium OR-99W SW Hall Blvd SW Walnut St SB 0.99 1.1 Metro Designation Low OR-99W SW Walnut St SW Gaarde St / SW McDonald St SB 0.99 0.99 - Low S 1st Ave (OR 219) SW Walnut St SE Maple St SB 0.99 1.1 Metro Designation Low SE Minter Bridge Rd SW Tualatin Valley Hwy (OR-8) SE River Rd SB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW 131st Ave SW Fischer Rd SW Beef Bend Rd NB 0.99 0.99 - High SW 131st Ave SW Beef Bend Rd SW Fischer Rd SB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW 153rd Dr SW Jenkins Rd SW 154th Trc SB 0.99 1.1 Metro Designation Low SW 160th Ave SW Tualatin Valley Hwy (OR-8) SW Ludwig St SB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW 175th Ave SW Scholls Ferry Rd SW Kemmer Rd NB 0.99 0.99 - High SW 175th Ave SW Scholls Ferry Rd SW Kemmer Rd SB 0.99 0.99 - High SW 185th Ave SW Rigert Rd SW Bany Rd NB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW 185th Ave SW Farmington Rd SW Rigert Rd SB 0.99 0.99 - Medium SW 190th Ave SW Kemmer Rd SW Gassner Rd NB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW 229th Ave UGB (South of Hillsboro) SW Tualatin Valley Rd (OR-8) NB 0.99 0.99 - Medium SW 229th Ave SW Tualatin Valley Rd (OR-8) UGB (South of Hillsboro) SB 0.99 0.99 - High SW 65th Ave SW Elligsen Rd SW Norwood Rd NB 0.99 0.99 - Medium SW 65th Ave SW Norwood Rd SW Elligsen Rd SB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW 72nd Ave OR-217 Interchange SW Uppper Bones Ferry Rd NB 0.99 0.99 - Medium SW 72nd Ave OR-217 Interchange SW Uppper Bones Ferry Rd SB 0.99 0.99 - High SW 92nd Ave SW Allen Blvd SW Garden Home Rd NB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW 92nd Ave SW Allen Blvd SW Garden Home Rd SB 0.99 0.99 - High SW Allen Blvd SW Scholls Ferry Rd SW 92nd Ave EB 0.99 1.1 Metro Designation High SW Allen Blvd SW Scholls Ferry Rd SW 92nd Ave WB 0.99 1.1 Metro Designation Low SW Barrows Rd SW Walnut St/SW Murray Blvd SW 154th St WB 0.99 1.1 Metro Designation Low SW Beef Bend Rd OR-99W SW 116th Ave WB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Beef Bend Rd SW 150th Ave SW Elsner Rd WB 0.9 N/A Rural Low SW Beef Bend Rd SW Beef Bend Rd SW 137th Ave WB 0.99 0.99 - Medium SW Bonita Road SW 72nd Ave Interchange SW Hall Blvd WB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Boones Ferry Rd I-5 Interchange SW 65th Ave/SW McEwan Ave EB 0.99 0.99 - Medium SW Boones Ferry Rd SW Tualatin Rd Tualatin River Bridge EB 0.99 1.1 Metro Designation Medium SW Boones Ferry Rd SW Durham Rd Tualatin River Bridge NB 0.99 0.99 - High SW Boones Ferry Rd SW Durham Rd Tualatin River Bridge SB 0.99 0.99 - High SW Boones Ferry Rd I-5 Interchange SW 65th Ave/SW McEwan Ave WB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Boones Ferry Rd SW Tualatin Rd Tualatin River Bridge WB 0.99 1.1 Metro Designation High SW Bridgeport Rd SW Boones Ferry Rd SW Hazel Fern Rd WB 0.99 0.99 - Medium SW Bridgeport Rd SW Boones Ferry Rd SW Hazel Fern Rd WB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Bull Mountain Rd OR-99W SW 141st Ave WB 0.99 0.99 - Medium SW Bull Mountain Rd SW 150th Ave SW Roshak Rd WB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Cedar Hills Blvd SW Jenkins Rd SW Walker Rd NB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Cedar Hills Blvd SW Canyon Rd (OR 8) SW Farmington Rd (OR 10) SB 0.99 1.1 Metro Designation Low SW Conestoga Dr SW Scholls Ferry Road SW Downing Dr NB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Denny Rd OR-217 Interchange SW Lombard Ave WB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Durham Rd SW Boones Ferry Rd SW 108th Ave WB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Elwert Rd SW Edy Rd SW Scholls-Sherwood Rd NB 0.9 N/A Rural Medium SW Elwert Rd SW Scholls-Sherwood Rd SW Edy Rd SB 0.9 N/A Rural High SW Farmington Rd SW Rood Bridge Rd SW River Rd EB 0.9 N/A Rural Low SW Fischer Rd OR-99W SW 131st Ave WB 0.99 0.99 - High SW Gaarde St SW 110th Ave OR-99W EB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Gaarde St SW 121st Ave SW 115th EB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Gaarde St SW Hall Blvd SW 121st Ave WB 0.99 0.99 - Medium 6/23/2014 Page 2 of 4 Washington County Roadway Deficiency List Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Deficiency SeverityMobility Target DetailsRoadway Roadway Section Extent Mobility Target Other Mobility TargetDirection SW Garden Home Rd SW 83d Ave SW Multnomah Blvd EB 0.99 1.1 Metro Designation Medium SW Garden Home Rd SW Garden Home Rd SW 83d Ave EB 0.99 0.99 - High SW Garden Home Rd SW 83d Ave SW Multnomah Blvd WB 0.99 1.1 Metro Designation Low SW Garden Home Rd SW Garden Home Rd SW 83d Ave WB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Grabhorn Rd SW Farmington Rd SW Gassner Rd SB 0.99 0.99 - Medium SW Grahams Ferry Road SW Day Rd SW Tonquin Rd NB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Hall Blvd SW Bonita St SW McDonald St NB 0.99 0.99 - Medium SW Hall Blvd SW Burnham St SW McDonald St NB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Hall Blvd SW Greenway Blvd SW Nimbus Ave NB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Hall Blvd SW Spruce St SW Oak St NB 0.99 1.1 Metro Designation Low SW Hall Blvd SW Burnham St SW McDonald St SB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Hall Blvd SW Denney Rd SW Hart Rd SB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Hall Blvd SW Durham Rd SW McDonald St SB 0.99 0.99 - Medium SW Hall Blvd SW Hemlock St SW Washington Dr SB 0.99 1.1 Metro Designation Low SW Hall Blvd SW Cedar Hills Blvd SW Hocken Ave WB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Hart Rd SW Hall Blvd SW Murray Blvd WB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Hazelbrook Rd SW 115th Ave OR-99W WB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Hillsboro Hwy (OR 219) SW Unger Rd SW Burkhalter Rd NB 0.75 N/A ODOT Designation (Outside of Metro) Low SW Hillsboro Hwy (OR 219) SW Bald Peak Rd SW Laurel Rd SB 0.75 N/A ODOT Designation (Outside of Metro) Low SW Hillsboro Hwy (OR 219) SW Bald Peak Rd SW Unger Rd SB 0.75 N/A ODOT Designation (Outside of Metro) High SW Hillsboro Hwy (OR 219) UGB (South of Hillsboro) SW Unger Rd SB 0.75 N/A ODOT Designation (Outside of Metro) Medium SW Hunziker St SW Hall Blvd SW 72nd Ave WB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Jenkins Rd SW 158th Ave / SW Merlo Rd SW 153rd Dr EB 0.99 1.1 Metro Designation Low SW Jenkins Rd SW 153rd Dr SW 158th Ave / SW Merlo Rd WB 0.99 1.1 Metro Designation Low SW Kemmer Rd SW 175th Ave SW 190th Ave WB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Lower Boones Ferry Rd SW Bridgeport Rd/SW Boones Ferry Rd SW Hazel Fern Rd NB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Meinecke Rd/Brook Way OR-99W SW Handley St WB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Mountain Home Rd SW Seiffert Rd SW Schmeltzer Rd SB 0.9 N/A Rural Low SW Murray Blvd SW Farmington Rd (OR-10) SW Tualatin Valley Rd (OR-8) NB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Murray Blvd SW Farmington Rd (OR-10) SW Tualatin Valley Rd (OR-8) SB 0.99 0.99 - Medium SW Murray Blvd SW Farmington Rd (OR-10) SW 6th St SB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Murray Blvd SW Hart Rd SW Sexton Mountain Dr SB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Murray Blvd US 26 Interchange SW Downing St SB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Oleson Rd SW Canby St SW 80th Ave NB 0.99 1.1 Metro Designation High SW Oleson Rd SW Hall Blvd SW 80th Ave NB 0.99 0.99 - Medium SW Oleson Rd SW Vermont St SW Canby St NB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Oleson Rd SW Canby St SW 80th Ave SB 0.99 1.1 Metro Designation Medium SW Oleson Rd SW Hall Blvd SW 80th Ave SB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Oleson Rd SW Vermont St SW Canby St SB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Park Way SW Baltic Ave OR 26 Ramp (On) EB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW River Rd SE Davis Rd UGB (South of Hillsboro) SB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW River Rd SW Scholls Ferry Rd (OR-210) UGB (South of Hillsboro) SB 0.9 N/A Rural Medium SW Rosedale Rd SW 229th Ave SW 290th Ave EB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Rosedale Rd SW 290th Ave SW 229th Ave WB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Roy Rodgers Rd SW Bull Mountain Rd SW Scholls Ferry Rd NB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Roy Rodgers Rd UGB (North of Sherwood) OR-99W NB 0.99 0.99 - High SW Roy Rodgers Rd UGB (North of Sherwood) UGB (South of Beaverton) NB 0.9 N/A Rural High SW Roy Rodgers Rd SW Bull Mountain Rd SW Scholls Ferry Rd SB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Roy Rodgers Rd UGB (North of Sherwood) OR-99W SB 0.99 0.99 - Medium SW Roy Rodgers Rd UGB (South of Beaverton) UGB (North of Sherwood) SB 0.9 N/A Rural High SW Sagert Rd SW Martinazzi Ave SW 65th Ave EB 0.99 0.99 - Low 6/23/2014 Page 3 of 4 Washington County Roadway Deficiency List Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Deficiency SeverityMobility Target DetailsRoadway Roadway Section Extent Mobility Target Other Mobility TargetDirection SW Scholls Ferry Rd River Rd SW Clark Hill Rd EB 0.9 N/A Rural Medium SW Scholls Ferry Rd SW Clark Hill Road SW Tile Flat Rd EB 0.9 N/A Rural Low SW Scholls Ferry Rd SW Rainbow Ln SW Tile Flat Rd EB 0.9 N/A Rural Medium SW Scholls Ferry Rd West of SW Roy Rodgers Rd/SW 175 Ave SW Tile Flat Rd EB 0.99 0.99 - High SW Scholls Ferry Rd SW Denney Rd SW Allen Blvd NB 0.99 0.99 - Medium SW Scholls Ferry Rd SW Hall Blvd SW Denney Rd NB 0.99 1.1 Metro Designation Low SW Scholls Ferry Rd SW Hamilton St E County Boundary NB 0.99 0.99 - Medium SW Scholls Ferry Rd SW Old Scholls Ferry Rd SW Allen Blvd NB 0.99 1.1 Metro Designation Low SW Scholls Ferry Rd SW Scholls-Sherwood Rd River Rd NB 0.9 N/A Rural Low SW Scholls Ferry Rd SW Denney Rd SW Allen Blvd SB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Scholls Ferry Rd SW Hall Blvd SW Denney Rd SB 0.99 1.1 Metro Designation Low SW Scholls Ferry Rd SW Hamilton St E County Boundary SB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Scholls Ferry Rd SW River Rd SW Rainbow Ln SB 0.9 N/A Rural Low SW Scholls Ferry Rd SW Scholls-Sherwood Rd River Rd SB 0.9 N/A Rural Low SW Scholls Ferry Rd River Rd SW Clark Hill Rd WB 0.9 N/A Rural Low SW Scholls Ferry Rd SW 121st Ave SW Barrows Rd WB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Scholls Ferry Rd SW Nimbus Ave SW Conestoga Dr WB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Scholls Ferry Rd West of SW Roy Rodgers Rd/SW 175 Ave SW Tile Flat Rd WB 0.99 0.99 - Medium SW Scholls-Sherwood Rd SW Scholls Ferry Road SW Roy Rodgers Rd EB 0.9 N/A Rural Medium SW Scholls-Sherwood Rd SW Scholls Ferry Road SW Roy Rodgers Rd WB 0.9 N/A Rural Medium SW Tiedman Ave SW Greenburg Rd SW North Dakota St SB 0.99 0.99 - Medium SW Tile Flat Rd SW Grabhorn Rd SW Scholls Ferry Rd EB 0.9 N/A Rural Medium SW Tualatin Rd SW Chinhook St SW Boones Ferry Rd WB 0.99 1.1 Metro Designation Low SW Tualatin Rd SW Herman Rd SW Chinhook St WB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Tualatin Valley Hwy (OR-8) SW 153rd Ave SW Murray Blvd EB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Tualatin Valley Hwy (OR-8) SW 209th Ave SW 187th Ave EB 0.99 0.99 - Medium SW Tualatin Valley Hwy (OR-8) SW 141st Ave SW Murray Blvd WB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Tualatin Valley Hwy (OR-8) SW 160th Ave / SW Milikan Way SW 170th Ave WB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Tualatin Valley Hwy (OR-8) SW Cornelius Pass Rd SW 209th Ave WB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Walker Rd OR-217 Interchange (NB) OR-217 Interchange (SB) EB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Walker Rd SW 150th Ave SW Meadow Dr EB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Walker Rd SW 185th SW 173rd Ave EB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Walker Rd SW Cedar Hills Blvd SW 123rd Ave EB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Walker Rd OR-217 Interchange (NB) OR-217 Interchange (SB) WB 0.99 0.99 - High SW Walker Rd SW Meadow Dr SW 150th Ave WB 0.99 0.99 - Low SW Walnut St SW Gaarde St SW 135 St WB 0.99 0.99 - Medium W Burnside Rd E County Border SW Miller Rd EB 0.99 0.99 - Low W Burnside Rd E County Border SW Miller Rd WB 0.99 0.99 - Low Deficiency Severity to be evaluated on a case by case operational assessment High = V/C more than 50% above target Medium = VC more than 20% above target Low = V/C less than 20% above target All estimates based on regional 2035 travel demand model 6/23/2014 Page 4 of 4 Southern Arterial Regional Conditions 1. Future phasing plans for implementing Alternative 7 projects must take into consider the transportation, environmental, and economic impacts of advancing some improvements sooner than others. The sequencing of affordable improvements should be done in a manner that does not create new transportation problems of liabilities for the vitality of affect jurisdictions. 2. The timing and priority of an I-5 corridor study must be considered in the RTP adoption process for Alternative 7. The connector project development process emphasized the need for a corridor study along I-5 from Portland to the Willamette River. The results of this study may affect the timing and designs of some improvements within Alternative 7. 3. Access between I-5 and the southern arterial must be resolved. Additional study is required to fully understand the impacts and trade offs between transportation solutions and land use, economic and environmental consequences of a new southern arterial. The impacts on rural lands are of particular importance and must be further evaluated before pursuing an exceptions process. The study area may need to be expanded to include connections to Stafford Road and additional areas along the OR 99W corridor that were not included in the alternatives analysis. The alternatives analysis process determined the general corridor location for the new southern arterial. However, additional preliminary engineering and planning work is needed to determine the optimal access option and configuration for connecting the southern arterial to I-5, OR 99W, and other arterials in the expanded study area. Construction of the southern arterial should be conditioned on defining the I-5 improvements needed to accommodate it and ensuring no negative impacts to I- 5 and I-205 occur beyond the forecast No-Build condition as a result of Alternative 7. Options to be explored include modifying the I-5/North Wilsonville Interchange into a tight split-diamond interchange, or extending a new arterial connection crossing over I-5 and connecting to Stafford Road and/or Elligsen Road on the east side of I-5 for regional traffic benefits. 4. Completion and construction of major project elements is subject to compliance with National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) and design refinement. The Alternative 7 concept provides only the general locations and functional characteristics of new transportation facilities. A fully collaborative public/agency involvement and environmental analysis process must be conducted in developing the design details of any major construction element of Alternative 7. Subsequent project development work will need to define the actual alignments and designs of each of these facilities within the framework of these general parameters. On-going coordination with the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge must also occur to ensure optimum compatibility of Alternative 7 elements with refuge objectives. 5. Land Use Concept Planning for UGB expansion areas should be coordinated with the refinement of these transportation recommendations. 6. The design of the southern arterial; must incorporate any conditions that may come out of land use goal exceptions processes (if required) by Metro, Washington County, and Clackamas County. Portions of Alternative 7 may require exceptions under state land use goals that have not yet been studied or approved in order to be adopted in the RTP and to achieve needed federal and jurisdictional approvals. The extent of this issue may be affected by Metro’s coming decisions on rural/urban land use reserves. Portions of proposed new transportation facilities are outside Metro’s jurisdictional boundaries and will require coordination of actions between Metro and other affected jurisdictions. Possible design requirements may include forms of access management and land use control measures. 7. State highway system routing and ODOT mobility standards must by key considerations in the design and future ownership of improvements within Alternative 7. Current RTP assumptions are that a new limited-access connector would be built between I-5 and 99W, and that this roadway would become a new state route, possibly replacing OR 99W through Tigard. Alternative 7 does not result in a limited-access connector, which may result in OR 99W remaining the designated state highway route through Sherwood, King City and Tigard. 8. Strategic protection of right-of-way should be considered by agencies for the Alternative 7 elements within the UGB and along potential alignments where land development could conflict with the future implementation of corridor improvements. Protective measures could include property setbacks, dedication of right-of-way, specific acquisition(s), and/or right-of-way purchases within the UGB consistent with NEPA process. Washington County TSP Active Transportation & Transit Performance Evaluation of Proposed Network During the development of the TSP modal elements, 21 metrics were used to assess the existing active transportation and transit networks in the six study areas as compared with the Washington County urban area as a whole (incorporated and unincorporated). The findings of that assessment were summarized in a graphical “Findings Packet” presented to the TSP Community Advisory Committee and Interagency Coordinating Committee in September 2013. This performance evaluation takes those findings a step further. Using geographic information systems (GIS), it models the proposed TSP Capital Project List and reruns three of the most critical active transportation and transit metrics for the urban area. It also develops target values for each of the three metrics, allowing for a comparison of the “planned network” with aspirational targets. The metrics used in this performance evaluation are as follows: Sidewalk Completeness is measured as the percentage of principal arterials, arterials and collectors (“major streets”) with sidewalks on both sides of the street. The county has baseline information available from the 2012 Washington County Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Prioritization Project funded by the US Department of Energy (the “DOE project”). This data was updated and quality-checked in March 2014. The future target of 84% is an interpretation of a draft 2014 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) performance target that calls for a 50% increase in sidewalk mileage.1 The 84% target represents a 50% increase in the mileage of major streets with sidewalks on both sides of the street.2 Bikeway Completeness is measured as the percentage of principal arterials, arterials and collectors with bi-directional bike lanes, buffered bike lanes or cycle tracks. Similar to sidewalk completeness, baseline information was updated from the DOE project, and the future target is based on the draft 2014 RTP. The 56% target represents a 50% increase in the mileage of major streets with bi-directional bike lanes. Transit Access is measured as the percentage of households within ½ mile of a high-capacity transit station or a frequent service bus line, or within ¼ mile of other bus lines, measured using straight-line distance. The future target value of 100% is aspirational and reflects the desire to have transit service within reasonable walking distance of all residents of the urban area. The modeled future transit network consists of the following categories from the Transit Element: • Frequent Bus Service • Regular Bus Service • Peak Period Bus Service • Existing MAX Light Rail and WES Commuter Rail stations • Southwest Corridor High Capacity Transit potential stations3 • TV Highway High Capacity Transit4 • AmberGlen – North Hillsboro High Capacity Transit potential stations5 1 2014 Regional Transportation Plan February review draft, Table 2.3. 2 This target value calculation does not account for new arterials and collector mileage. However, the modeling of the planned network does account for new arterials and collectors. 3 For modeling purposes, stations are located at the “Key Places” shown on the map entitled Southwest Corridor Refinement Phase Draft HCT Conceptual Design Options, dated October 8, 2013. 4 No stations are modeled because a ½-mile buffer is already shown for the existing frequent service #57 bus. Table 1 below uses the metrics to compare existing conditions, the TSP planned network as indicated in the Capital Project List and Transit Element, and future targets for the Washington County urban area. A discussion of findings follows the table. Table 1 Active Transportation and Transit Performance Evaluation Washington County Urban Area Indicator Metric 2012 Urban Area TSP Planned Network Future Target Sidewalk Completeness Percentage of major streets with sidewalks on both sides. 56% 70% 84% Bikeway Completeness Percentage of major streets with bi- directional bike lanes, buffered bike lanes or cycle tracks. 38% 53% 56% Transit Access Percentage of households within ½ mile of high-capacity transit or frequent service bus, or within ¼ mile of other bus lines. 69% 83% 100% Findings Sidewalk Completeness Implementing the TSP Project List would result in 70% of major streets having sidewalks on both sides of the street in the urban area. The TSP Project List moves the county halfway toward the target of 84% and represents an additional 68 miles of major streets with complete sidewalks. Not accounted for are sidewalks provided through development frontage improvements. Bikeway Completeness Implementing the TSP Project List would result in 53% of major streets having bi-directional bike lanes, buffered bike lanes or cycle tracks in the urban area. The TSP Project List moves the county very close to the target of 56% and represents an additional 75 miles of major streets with complete bicycle facilities. Transit Access Implementing the recommended bus service enhancements and constructing high capacity transit in the Southwest Corridor, TV Highway Corridor and AmberGlen / North Hillsboro area would result in 83% of urban households being within walking distance of transit. This figure does not account for the Community Connector Service Areas shown on the Transit Element map. 5 For modeling purposes, stations are located at future 194th Avenue and Wilkins Street, future 194th Avenue and Walker Road, 194th Avenue and Evergreen Parkway, Evergreen Parkway and Rock Creek Trail, Evergreen Parkway and Cornelius Pass Road, and Evergreen Parkway and 229th Avenue. The first three station locations are based on Figure 3-2 in the City of Hillsboro’s AmberGlen Community Plan.