HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-01-12 City Council - Full Agenda-1242
CITY OF CENTRAL
POINT
Oregon
City Council Meeting Agenda
Thursday, January 12, 2023
Mayor
Hank Williams
Ward I
Neil Olsen
Ward II
Kelley Johnson
Ward III
Melody Thueson
Ward IV
Taneea Browning
At Large
Rob Hernandez
At Large
Michael Parsons
At Large
Michael Parsons
Next Res(1730) Ord (2092)
I. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comment is for non-agenda items. If you are here to make comments on a specific agenda item, you must speak at
that time. Please limit your remarks to 3 minutes per individual, 5 minutes per group, with a maximum of 20 minutes per
meeting being allotted for public comments. The council may ask questions but may take no action during the public
comment section of the meeting, except to direct staff to prepare a report or place an item on a future agenda.
Complaints against specific City employees should be resolved through the City’s Personnel Complaint procedure. The
right to address the Council does not exempt the speaker from any potential liability for defamation.
V. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of December 15, 2022 City Council Minutes
B. 2023 Re-appointments to Committees and Commissions
VI. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA
VII. ORDINANCES, AND RESOLUTIONS
A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Updating the Transportation System Plan
(Holtey)
B. Resolution Updating Signers on City Bank Accounts (Weber)
VIII. BUSINESS
A. Election of 2023 Council President (Clayton)
B. Local City Council Committee and Board Assignments 2023 (Neuenschwander)
C. Parks Commission Report December 2022 (Samitore)
D. Discussion of City Water Rates for 2023 (Samitore)
E. Planning Commission Report 1/10/2023 (Holtey)
IX. MAYOR'S REPORT
X. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
XI. COUNCIL REPORTS
XII. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION ORS 192.660(2)(i)
The City Council will adjourn to executive session under the provisions of ORS 192.660. Under the provisions of the
Oregon Public Meetings Law, the proceedings of an executive session are not for publication or broadcast.
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
Individuals needing special accommodations such as sign language, foreign language interpreters or equipment for the
hearing impaired must request such services at least 72 hours prior to the City Council meeting. To make your request, please contact the City Recorder at 541-423-1015 (voice), or by e-mail to
Rachel.neuenschwander@centralpointoregon.gov.
Si necesita traductor en español o servicios de discapacidades (ADA) para asistir a una junta publica de la ciudad por
favor llame con 72 horas de anticipación al 541-664-3321 ext. 201
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
Oregon
City Council Meeting Minutes
Thursday, December 15, 2022
I. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Mayor Hank Williams
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Hank Williams Mayor Present
Neil Olsen Ward I Present
Kelley Johnson Ward II Present
Melody Thueson Ward III Present
Taneea Browning Ward IV Remote
Rob Hernandez At Large Remote
Michael Parsons At Large Present
Staff members present: City Manager Chris Clayton; City Attorney Dan O'Connor; Parks
and Public Works Director Matt Samitore; Planning Director Stephanie Holtey; Interim
Police Chief Scott Logue; IT Director Jason Richmond (Remote); City Recorder Deanna
Casey; Senior Accountant Rachel Neuenschwander
IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
V. CONSENT AGENDA
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Michael Parsons, At Large
SECONDER: Kelley Johnson, Ward II
AYES: Williams, Olsen, Johnson, Thueson, Browning, Hernandez, Parsons
A. Approval of November 17, 2022 City Council Minutes
B. OLCC Application - Local Vines Wine Bar
VI. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA
VII. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Updating the Transportation System Plan
Planning Director Stephanie Holtey presented the first reading of the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Updating the Transportation System Plan. On December 6, 2022,
the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 897 recommending the City
Council approve a Comprehensive Plan Amendment updating the Transportation
System Plan (TSP) without changes. The draft considered by the Planning
5.A
Packet Pg. 3
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
D
e
c
1
5
,
2
0
2
2
7
:
0
0
P
M
(
C
O
N
S
E
N
T
A
G
E
N
D
A
)
City of Central Point
City Council Minutes
December 15, 2022
Page 2
Commission included recommended changes by the Citizen’s Advisory Committee to
address the recently updated Strategic Plan.
The TSP is an Element of the Comprehensive Plan and was adopted in 2008 (City
Council Ordinance No. 1922) based on its conformance with all applicable state and
local land use transportation requirements. The purpose of the TSP is to assure that
the City’s multimodal transportation needs are met in coordination with anticipated
growth over a 20-year period. This includes adopting a Capital Improvement Project
(CIP) list that is financially constrained. These are the projects that the City will fund
during the life of the TSP. Since adoption of the TSP, the City amended its Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB) to include an additional 444 acres for housing, non-
industrial employment, parks/open space and associated public facility needs. The
proposed TSP amendment responds to the UGB Amendment and accomplishes the
following:
Incorporates projects identified the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the UGB
Amendment.
Removes projects that have been completed.
Reprioritizes the updated project list to consider transportation disadvantaged
populations.
Updates the funding forecast used to financially constrain the City’s CIP List.
Except for minor text corrections, the proposed changes to the TSP noted above are
limited to Chapter 7 (Street System Plan) and Chapter 12 (Transportation System
Financing Program). At the December 15, 2022 City Council meeting, staff will
present the proposed amendment for a public hearing and Council’s consideration of
the first reading of the Ordinance to adopt the proposed amendment.
Mayor Williams opened the public hearing.
Larry Martin, Taylor Rd resident.
Mr. Martin spoke wanted to commend Stephanie Holtey and Matt Samitore on
how quickly action was taken on this process has been accomplished in months
instead of years.
No one else came forward and Mayor Williams closed the public hearing.
Council was concerned over pedestrian and bicycle safety and accuracy of the
crash report data being outdated.
Melody Thueson made a motion to a second reading the Ordinance
approving the Comprehensive Plan Amendment updating the Central Point
Transportation Plan to a second reading without changes.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Melody Thueson, Ward III
SECONDER: Taneea Browning, Ward IV
AYES: Williams, Olsen, Johnson, Thueson, Browning, Hernandez,
Parsons
VIII. ORDINANCES, AND RESOLUTIONS
5.A
Packet Pg. 4
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
D
e
c
1
5
,
2
0
2
2
7
:
0
0
P
M
(
C
O
N
S
E
N
T
A
G
E
N
D
A
)
City of Central Point
City Council Minutes
December 15, 2022
Page 3
A. Resolution No. _________, A Resolution Canvassing the Votes Cast at the
General Election Held November 8, 2022
City Manager Chris Clayton presented the Resolution Canvassing the Votes Cast at
the General Election Held November 8, 2022. Central Point Municipal Code
2.20.110 states that notice of elections submitted to city electors on regular or
special election dates bust be given in accordance with State law. The City Recorder
must certify the election results to the Council at the first council meeting after the
results are certified by the Jackson County Clerk.
The City Recorder received the election report from Jackson County on December 5,
2022. A copy of the final report is attached to the resolution.
The proposed resolution specifies who won the election for each position presented
to the voters of Central Point and the results of Measure 15-205 asking if the city
shall prohibit Psilocybin-related businesses in Central Point city limits.
The City Recorder is prepared to sign and deliver a certificate of election to each
person elected within the thirty day limit after the canvass has been accepted.
Mike Parsons moved to approve Resolution 1727 a Resolution Canvassing the
Cotes Cast at the General Election Held November 8, 2022.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Michael Parsons, At Large
SECONDER: Kelley Johnson, Ward II
AYES: Williams, Olsen, Johnson, Thueson, Browning, Hernandez,
Parsons
B. Resolution No. ________, Accepting the Lowest Responsible Bid from ______
for the Hanley Baseball Complex Phase 1, Utilities and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute a Contract
Parks and Public Works Director presented the Resolution Accepting Lowest
Responsible Bid from Visar Construction Inc for the Hanley Baseball Complex Phase
1, Utilities and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Contract.
The city received three bids and six companies on the list. The lowest bid is from
Visar Construction at $842,162.50, Northcore at $863,799.67 and Pilot Rock at
$958,201.00. The City will be accepting the lowest bid of Visar construction.
Council was concerned why Pilot Rock as so much higher than the other two
bids.
Matt responded that the emphasis of their bid was in mobilization, and that they
would most likely have to bring in crews from out of town to do the work.
Melody Thueson made a motion to approve Resolution 1728 a Resolution
Accepting the Lowest Responsible Bid from Visar Construction Inc for the
Hanley Baseball Complex Phase 1, Utilities and Authorizing the City Manager
to Execute a Contract in the amount of $842,162.50.
5.A
Packet Pg. 5
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
D
e
c
1
5
,
2
0
2
2
7
:
0
0
P
M
(
C
O
N
S
E
N
T
A
G
E
N
D
A
)
City of Central Point
City Council Minutes
December 15, 2022
Page 4
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Melody Thueson, Ward III
SECONDER: Kelley Johnson, Ward II
AYES: Williams, Olsen, Johnson, Thueson, Browning, Hernandez,
Parsons
C. Resolution No. ________, Authorizing the transfer of the trademark, website
and event of Battle of the Bones to the Jackson County Expo
Matt Samitore presented the transfer of the Battle of the Bones website and
trademark to the Jackson County Expo. The City of Central Point has owned Battle
of the Bones since 2009. The last event the City held was in the fall of 2019. After
reviewing the staff time, cost-benefit, and overall need for the event Staff did not
budget for the event in the last fiscal year budgets. The Jackson County Expo
approached the City about taking over the event to pair with their winter event,
Barrel, and Bacon. It would be rebranded to Barrel and Bones, and the City would
transfer the event, trademark, and website to the Expo.
Council had concerns with how the Parks Foundation felt regarding the transfer.
Matt responded that the Foundation did great at the Battle of the Bones event and
they are hoping that they will have interest as Made in Southern Oregon Event
grows.
Neil Olsen moved to approve Resolution 1729 Authorizing the transfer of the
trademark, website and event of Battle of the Bones to the Jackson County
Expo.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Neil Olsen, Ward I
SECONDER: Michael Parsons, At Large
AYES: Williams, Olsen, Johnson, Thueson, Browning, Hernandez,
Parsons
IX. BUSINESS
A. Lease of 399 S. 5th Street to Pathways, Inc.
Matt Samitore presented to the Council a lease agreement for 399 S 5th Street to
Pathways, Inc. The city have been in conversation with Pathways regarding their
desire to lease the old Public Works Facility. Pathways and the City have agreed to
lease the entire complex, minus 1,082 sq. ft., which will be used by Access, Inc.
Pathways will operate a training and employment center out of the facility. Pathways
provide a variety of community services within Jackson County. Moreover, they
currently clean the City Buildings and have the contract to clean the restrooms in the
City parks. The agreed-upon lease amount s $3,500 a month. The lease is good for
two years with two consecutive auto-renewals.
The old shop site will continue to have the city reservoir and pump station located
within the complex and the City fueling station. The reservoir and pump station are
slated to be demolished and replaced in 2030. The fuel station at the new operation
center will be complete by the summer of 2023.
5.A
Packet Pg. 6
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
D
e
c
1
5
,
2
0
2
2
7
:
0
0
P
M
(
C
O
N
S
E
N
T
A
G
E
N
D
A
)
City of Central Point
City Council Minutes
December 15, 2022
Page 5
Council questioned if there is a shortage for facility space.
Matt responded that yes with a fenced compound space is very difficult to find.
Chris Clayton shared that they were interested long-term about purchasing the
property. The property is zoned civic so it wouldn’t be appropriate to sell the
property to them. The spare lot that came with the property on S Haskell may be
a fit for them in the future.
Kelley Johnson moved to approve the lease of 399 S 5th Street to Pathways,
Inc.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kelley Johnson, Ward II
SECONDER: Melody Thueson, Ward III
AYES: Williams, Olsen, Johnson, Thueson, Browning, Hernandez,
Parsons
B. Lease of 399 S. 5th Street to Access, Inc.
Matt Samitore presented the Lease of 399 S 5th Street to Access, Inc. The local non-
profit Access has been looking for a permanent location for their Central Point Food
distribution program, since they lost their location at Gloria Day Lutheran Church last
year. The City is offering 1085 sq. ft. for their pantry at no cost. The facility would
only be open on Thursdays. Access believes it will serve at a minimum of 50
families in the Central Point Area.
The Lease would be for one year with a one year automatic renewal. The area was
previously used by the Parks Department to store their equipment.
Council had concern of the impact of a crowd coming through the residential area.
Captain Scott Logue responded that the nature of the area there is ample space.
Melody Thueson moved to approve the Lease of 399 S 5th Street to Access, Inc.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Melody Thueson, Ward III
SECONDER: Michael Parsons, At Large
AYES: Williams, Olsen, Johnson, Thueson, Browning, Hernandez,
Parsons
C. City Attorney Employment Contract
Chris Clayton presented to Council the City Attorney Employment Contract.
Historically, the City of Central Point has contracted for legal services. However, as
our need for legal counsel has grown, we have reached a threshold where it makes
sense, particularly from a financial perspective, to bring legal counsel “in-house” as a
part-time employee. Our current city attorney has agreed to part-time, “in-house”
employment with the City beginning January 1, 2023.
5.A
Packet Pg. 7
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
D
e
c
1
5
,
2
0
2
2
7
:
0
0
P
M
(
C
O
N
S
E
N
T
A
G
E
N
D
A
)
City of Central Point
City Council Minutes
December 15, 2022
Page 6
Council had concerns over regular attendance of council meetings and study
sessions.
Chris Clayton responded that Study Sessions and Planning Commission the
agreement is an as needed basis. The work schedule is Tuesdays and
Thursdays 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM and the reason for that is she will be coving
Council meetings every other week.
Mike Parsons moved to authorize the City Manager to execute the
proposed City Attorney Employment agreement.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Michael Parsons, At Large
SECONDER: Kelley Johnson, Ward II
AYES: Williams, Olsen, Johnson, Thueson, Browning, Hernandez,
Parsons
D. Planning Commission Report
Stephanie Holtey presented to the Council the Central Point Planning Commission
met at their regular meeting on December 6, 2022. There were four (4) items on the
agenda. The first item was a public hearing and consideration of a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Updating the Transportation System Plan (TSP). The second and
third items were public hearings to consider concurrent applications for Project
Murphy at 3791 Table Rock Road, including a Tentative Partition Plan and Lot
Consolidation, and a Site Plan and Architectural Review. Lastly, the Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing regarding a Floodplain Development Permit
to authorize channel restoration work within the regulatory floodway for Horn Creek.
X. MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Williams reported that he attended the change of command for the Central
Point Police Department.
XI. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Manager Chris Clayton:
Recognized City Recorder Deanna Casey, retiring at the end of this year, has
worked with the City since 1997 and worked for three different City Managers. He
presented Deanna with a Longevity Torch plaque as she was the longest active
tenure employee, a Plaque commiserating Deanna’s Service from 1997 - 2022, and
a bench was placed in Deanna’s honor at Don Jones Park.
Earlier this week at night about 25 grave markers were damaged at the Cemetery.
XII. COUNCIL REPORTS
Council Member Taneea Browning reported that:
She attended the light parade and tree lighting ceremony with an epic countdown
that included the new snow machines. Straight out of Disney.
5.A
Packet Pg. 8
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
D
e
c
1
5
,
2
0
2
2
7
:
0
0
P
M
(
C
O
N
S
E
N
T
A
G
E
N
D
A
)
City of Central Point
City Council Minutes
December 15, 2022
Page 7
She attended Medford Chamber forum luncheon on Monday. the presentation from
the sponsor Cow Creek Takilma Tribe on the history of their written word, the loss of
it, a blessing for the season and a flute rendition was in harmony with the season
and thoughtful
She was an honor to speak during the change of command ceremony on
Wednesday. Law enforcement from all over the valley and as far as Grants Pass
came to recognize retiring Chief Allison and Incoming Chief Logue. It has been a
blessing to watch over the years the fruits of labor and love our community has
benefited from under the leadership of Chief Allison, our connection to the schools
and neighboring community are commendable. I am excited for her new chapter in
retirement for Chief Allison and the contributions of Chief Logue's.
She is currently in Redmond finishing my elected essentials and water tour. Over the
last several weeks, as LOC president I have been in Roseburg, Klamath Falls and
Redmond learning about municipal water supply challenges and waste treatment
projects that incorporate a triple bottom line approach addressing resilience,
scalability and cost. These projects are incredible! Public access, recreation and
ecological benefits not to mention lower cost.
Last week she attended my last LOC board meeting as President. It has been on
incredible journey filled with education from municipalities across the state.
She was also appointed to the LOC foundation effective January 1.
Last week the LOC successfully completed the Executive Director Recruitment and
am proud to announce we selected interim Patty Mulvihill. The process was
transparent, thorough and all-inclusive to all of our 241 cities. This recruitment was
complete only after the board had finished the strategic plan goals so as to best
inform the leadership selection.
She is sitting on the steering committee for the innovation hub that has been
charged with identifying resources within the valley and optimizing forward progress
to connect resources to businesses in development and existing. This is a
coordinated effort facilitated by SOREDI and funded by Business Oregon.
Items she missed reporting on at the November meeting due to my travels to Kansas
City to attend National League of Cities City Summit was the attendance at the
Envision Bear Creek project that the county is funding to explore operational options
for the greenway and a zoom call with Bear Creek Restoration Initiative group
discussing work being done along the burn scar.
Council Member Rob Hernandez reported that:
He attended the Bond oversight meeting at School District 6
He attended the Providence Festival of Trees
He attended the Crater Foundation Auction
He attended an Airport Advisory Committee Meeting
5.A
Packet Pg. 9
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
D
e
c
1
5
,
2
0
2
2
7
:
0
0
P
M
(
C
O
N
S
E
N
T
A
G
E
N
D
A
)
City of Central Point
City Council Minutes
December 15, 2022
Page 8
Council Member Melody Thueson reported that:
She attended the Crater Foundation Auction
She attended the Christmas parade
She read the minutes of the last school board meeting
She will be taking 100 4th graders caroling two three retirement homes
Council Member Mike Parsons reported that:
He Attended the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting
He participated in the Community Christmas Parade and tree lighting event
He attended the Planning Commission meeting
He attended the change of command event with the Central Point Police Department
for retiring police Chief Kris Allison and the badge pinning event for new Chief Scott
Logue.
He assisted the Police Department in transporting Christmas gifts and toys from
Scenic Middle School students to the Casa Office in Medford.
Council Member Kelly Johnson reported that:
She attended the Providence Festival of Trees
She attended the Community Christmas Event
She attended the RVCOG meeting
Council Member Neil Olsen reported that he attended the Planning Commission
meeting.
XIII. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
Interim Chief Scott Logue reported that:
He attended the Christmas parade and tree lighting
He attended the change of command ceremony
They do have a suspect in the damages to the Cemetery
Parks and Public Works Director Matt Samitore reported that:
Twenty-eight headstones were knocked over; two were cracked. One may be put
back together the other will have to be replaced. The rest should be able to be
put back.
Thank you everyone for coming for Community Christmas.
5.A
Packet Pg. 10
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
D
e
c
1
5
,
2
0
2
2
7
:
0
0
P
M
(
C
O
N
S
E
N
T
A
G
E
N
D
A
)
City of Central Point
City Council Minutes
December 15, 2022
Page 9
Planning Director Stephanie Holtey reported that:
They are working on Transportation System Planning Climate Friendly and
Equitable Communities reform starting on January 1st. She is putting together
outreach materials to let people know what is happening.
She is putting together a joint Study Session in February regarding parking
reforms.
We are starting a hiring process Friday, December 16th, for an additional
Planner.
The Planning Commission meeting will be on January 10th, with three items on
the agenda, all for the Oregon State Police facilities expansion.
XIV. EXECUTIVE SESSION ORS 192.660(2)(e)
XV. ADJOURNMENT
The foregoing minutes of the December 15, 2022, Council meeting were approved by the City
Council at its meeting of _________________, 2023.
Dated: _________________________
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Recorder
5.A
Packet Pg. 11
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
D
e
c
1
5
,
2
0
2
2
7
:
0
0
P
M
(
C
O
N
S
E
N
T
A
G
E
N
D
A
)
City of Central Point
Staff Report to Council
ISSUE SUMMARY
TO: City Council
DEPARTMENT:
Administration
FROM: Rachel Neuenschwander,
MEETING DATE: January 12, 2023
SUBJECT: 2023 Re-appointments to Committees and Commissions
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion
Consent Agenda Item
RECOMMENDATION:
It is time to reappoint members and a chairperson for various committees. This consent
agenda item is for re-appointments and chair appointments only.
Planning Commission
The term for Robin Stroh and Tom Van Voorhees expires December 31, 2022. Staff has
received word from both Mrs. Stroh and Mr. Van Voorhees that they would like to remain
on the Planning Commission.
Tom Van Voorhees is the current Chair of the Commission.
Current members are: Tom Van Voorhees Brad Cozza Robin Stroh
Kay Harrison Patrick Smith Jim Mock
Staff recommends reappointment of Robin Stroh to Position 7 and Tom Van
Voorhees to Position 3 with expiration dates of December 31, 2026.
Staff recommends reappointment of Tom Van Voorhees as Planning Commission
Chair.
Park and Recreation Commission
The term for Ronald Woodard expires December 31, 2022. Staff has received word that he
would like to be re-appointed to the Commission. Park and Recreation Commission
appointments are for three year terms.
Current members are: Patricia Alvarez Dennis Browning Lee Orr
Fran Cordeiro-Settell Steph Hendrickson Ronald Woodhead
Eden Foster
Staff recommends re-appointment of Ronald Woodhead with term ending December
31, 2025.
5.B
Packet Pg. 12
Staff recommends re-appointment of Patricia Alvarez as Chair.
Citizens Advisory Committee
The Citizens Advisory Committee members do not have annual appointments. The Council
and Mayor are required to appoint a Chair for this committee. There is currently one
vacancy on the CAC. Staff has been advertising and will present recommendations later in
the meeting.
Current Members:
John Eaton Michael Meek Paul Contreras
Kristy Painter Carrie Reed Royce Chambers
Staff recommends appointment of Kristy Painter as CAC Chair.
Budget Committee
The term for Lori Garfield, Kay Harrison, Jim Mock, Eden Foster, Kathleen (Kit) Flanagan-
Clark, and Mike Quilty expired December 31, 2022.
Council: Mayor Williams Mike Parsons Taneea Browning
Kelley Johnson Rob Hernandez Melody Thueson
Neil Olsen
Citizen Members: Kathleen (Kit) Flanagan-Clark Eden Foster
Lori Garfield Jim Mock
Michael Quilty Kay Harrison
Staff recommends reappointment of Lori Garfield, Kay Harrison, Jim Mock, Eden
Foster, Kathleen (Kit) Flanagan-Clark, and Mike Quilty with a term expiring December
31, 2024.
ACTION:
Approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
5.B
Packet Pg. 13
City of Central Point
Staff Report to Council
ISSUE SUMMARY
TO: City Council
DEPARTMENT:
Community Development
FROM: Stephanie Holtey, Planning Director
MEETING DATE: January 12, 2023
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Updating the Transportation System
Plan
ACTION REQUIRED:
Ordinance 2nd Reading
RECOMMENDATION:
None Forwarded
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On December 6, 2022, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 897 recommending
the City Council approve a Comprehensive Plan Amendment updating the Transportation
System Plan (TSP) without changes. The draft considered by the Planning Commission
included recommended changes by the Citizen’s Advisory Committee to address the recently
updated Strategic Plan.
The TSP is an Element of the Comprehensive Plan and was adopted in 2008 (City Council
Ordinance No. 1922) based on its conformance with all applicable state and local land use
transportation requirements. The purpose of the TSP is to assure that the City’s multimodal
transportation needs are met in coordination with anticipated growth over a 20-year period. This
includes adopting a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) list that is financially constrained. These
are the projects that the City will fund during the life of the TSP. Since adoption of the TSP, the
City amended its Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to include an additional 444 acres for housing,
non-industrial employment, parks/open space and associated public facility needs. The
proposed TSP amendment responds to the UGB Amendment and accomplishes the following:
Incorporates projects identified the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the UGB
Amendment;
Removes projects that have been completed;
Reprioritizes the updated project list to consider transportation disadvantaged
populations; and,
Updates the funding forecast used to financially constrain the City’s CIP List.
Except for minor text corrections, the proposed changes to the TSP noted above are limited to
Chapter 7 (Street System Plan) and Chapter 12 (Transportation System Financing Program). At
the December 15, 2022 City Council meeting, staff will present the proposed amendment for a
public hearing and Council’s consideration of the first reading of the Ordinance to adopt the
proposed amendment.
7.A
Packet Pg. 14
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS:
The Comprehensive Plan Amendment updating the TSP involves no direct cost to the City
except in-kind contributions for staff time. Once adopted the TSP’s updated Tier 1 project list will
be eligible for Federal grant funds, which is an important part of the TSP implementation
strategy.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
The proposal is a Major Comprehensive Plan Amendments and is subject to Type IV Legislative
procedures set forth in CPMC 17.05.500 and conformance with criteria in CPMC 17.96,
Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Boundary Amendments. The Planning Commission, in
making its recommendation to Council, considered the proposed amendment’s conformance
with applicable approval criteria. Their findings are provided in Attachment “B”.
COUNCIL GOALS/STRATEGIC PLAN ANALYSIS:
City Council has directed staff to complete the long range planning needed to allow annexations
within the recently expanded Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) areas. The TSP Amendment is
one of the tasks required to accomplish Council’s goal for the Planning Department.
The 2040 Strategic Plan includes two (2) strategic priorities that speak to transportation:
Community Investment addresses public and private investments including infrastructure and
facilities that foster new growth and development needed to fuel the local economy and provide
jobs. Three (3) goals and nine (9) strategies directly or indirectly apply to transportation.
Goal 1 – Build a strong city that is fiscally sustainable and provides enhanced services
and small town nuance. Strategies include collaborating with utility companies to offset
infrastructure costs and expanding streetscape improvements along East Pine Street.
Goal 2 – Be a city filled with happy, healthy people who are thriving. This goal
recognizes the importance of building healthy neighborhoods that provide safe,
connected and comfortable amenities including multimodal transportation networks that
foster active lifestyles. These are to be built with sustainability in mind to minimize
maintenance cost while being attractive.
Goal 5 – Plan, design and construct modern and efficient infrastructure in all areas and
systems. This goal includes five (5) implementation strategies.
Having a Vibrant Economy is fundamental to achieving the community’s preferred vision for its
future. There are three (3) goals and three (3) strategies that address transportation:
Goal 1 – Manage growth to provide a timely and orderly provision of facilities and
services to serve existing and new development.
Goal 2 – Build upon past success to further the purpose of promoting downtown
revitalization and renewal. This goal includes one strategy to expand the downtown
streetscape improvements to 10th Street and Front Street.
Goal 3 – Connect the east and west sides of Central Point to provide a sense of
community cohesion despite the physical barrier imposed by Interstate 5. Two (2)
7.A
Packet Pg. 15
strategies aim to enhance the Pine Street Overpass with multimodal improvements and
to plan and construct new transit stops that support a cross-town circulator.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct a public hearing and forward the Ordinance to a second reading with or without
changes.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
I move to forward the Ordinance approving the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Updating the
Transportation System Plan to a second reading without changes.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance (TSP Amendment)
2. Exhibit "A" - TSP with Amendments
3. TSP Findings of Fact
7.A
Packet Pg. 16
1 – Ordinance No. _____________ (12/15/2022)
ORDINANCE NO. _______________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TO UPDATE THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN
RECITALS:
1. In order to maintain its Comprehensive Plan in conformance with the
Statewide Planning Goals, the City of Central Point has completed an Amendment to
the Transportation System Plan for the City’s urban area; and
2. Pursuant to OAR 660-12, the amendment has been prepared in compliance
with Oregon state adopted rules governing preparation and coordination of
transportation system plans which are collectively referred to as the Transportation
Planning Rule and with Oregon Statewide Planning Goal #12 – Transportation; and
3. Pursuant to ORS 197.040(2)(e) and OAR 660-030-0060, the City has
coordinated its planning efforts with the State to assure compliance with goals and
compatibility with City and County Comprehensive Plans and with OAR 660-12-0015 to
assure consistency with the State and Regional TSP; and
4. Pursuant to OAR 660-12-006(1)(a-c) and (2)(a-d), the amendment to the
City’s acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations is consistent with
the identified function, capacity and levels of service of local and regional transportation
facilities; and
5. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in CPMC Sections 17.5 and 17.10, the
City has conducted the following duly advertised public hearings to consider the
proposed amendments:
a. Planning Commission hearing on 12/6/2022.
b. City Council hearing on 12/15/2022.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON,
DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. At its public hearing on December 15, 2022, the City Council reviewed
the City staff report, received findings of the Central Point Planning Commission, and
received public testimony from all interested persons. Based upon all the information
received, the City Council adopts the findings and conclusions set forth in the staff
report dated December 15, 2022 and based upon the same, the City Council finds that
there is sufficient public need and justification for the proposed amendments to the
Transportation System Plan and the proposed Transportation System Plan is adopted
entirely as per attached Exhibit “A”.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 17
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
T
S
P
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
2 – Ordinance No. _____________ (12/15/2022)
Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage the
_____ day of ______________, 2022
___________________________________
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTESTS:
___________________________________
City Representative
Approved by me this _____ day of ______________, 2022
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 18
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
T
S
P
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
Approved by the Central Point City Council on December 18, 2008
Implemented by Ordinance #1922
Amended on December X, 2022 by Ordinance #X
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 19
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point – Comprehensive Plan
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan
2030
Approved by the Central Point City Council on December 18, 2008
Implemented by Ordinance #1922
Amended on December X, 2022 by Ordinance #X
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 20
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
2008 Acknowledgments
Central Point Planning Department:
Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director
Don Burt, Planning Manager
David Jacob, Community Planner
Connie Clune, Community Planner
Didi Thomas, Planning Secretary
Central Point Public Works Department:
Bob Pierce, Public Works Director
Chris Clayton, Deputy Public Works Director
Matt Samitore, Development Services Coordinator/Parks & Recreation Director
Transportation System Plan Technical Advisory Committee:
David Pyles, Oregon Dept. of Transportation
John Renz, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
Susan Lee, Jackson County Development Services
Craig Anderson, Jackson County Planning
Mike Kuntz, Jackson County Roads
James Philip, Jackson County Roads
Paige Townsend, Rogue Valley Transit District
Matt Hermen, Rogue Valley Council of Governments/Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning
Organization
Eric Heesacker, Rogue Valley Council of Government/Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning
Organization
City Council:
Hank Williams, Mayor Bruce Dingler Michael Quilty
Matthew Stephenson Richard Halley Walter Moczygemba
Kay Harrison
Planning Commission:
Connie Moczygemba, Chairman Chuck Piland Candy Fish
Damian Idiart Mike Oliver Justin Hurley
Pat Beck
Citizens Advisory Committee:
Joe Thomas, Chairman Herb Farber Jake Jakabosky
Allen Broderick Sam Inkley, Jr. Larry Martin
David Painter
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 21
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
2008 Acknowledgments Page iv
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 22
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
2008 Acknowledgments Page v
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 23
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Table of Contents Page vi
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 — Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Urban Growth Boundary Amendment, 2022 ................................................................................ 2
1.3 The Transportation Planning Rule ................................................................................................ 2
1.4 The Regional Transportation Plan ................................................................................................. 4
1.5 Values, Guiding Principles, Goals and Policies .............................................................................. 4
1.6 Public Involvement & Plan Approval Process ............................................................................... 5
1.7 Plan Organization .......................................................................................................................... 5
1.8 1.8. Action Program ...................................................................................................................... 6
1.9 Program Compliance ..................................................................................................................... 6
Chapter 2 — Plan Compliance ............................................................................................................ 7
2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Plan Compliance, Scope of Review ............................................................................................... 7
2.3 Central Point Forward, Fair City Vision 2020 ................................................................................ 8
2.4 Oregon Transportation Planning Rule .......................................................................................... 9
2.5 Plan Conformity, Other ............................................................................................................... 11
2.6 Other Plans .................................................................................................................................. 14
2.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 14
Chapter 3 — Land Use & Transportation Planning .......................................................................... 15
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 15
3.2 The Land Use Element ................................................................................................................ 15
3.3 Buildable Land Inventory (BLI) .................................................................................................... 16
3.4 Growth Projections ..................................................................................................................... 16
3.5 Housing Element: ........................................................................................................................ 16
3.6 Transit-Oriented Development ................................................................................................... 17
3.7 Land Use Goals and Policies ........................................................................................................ 19
Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions ............................................................................. 20
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 20
4.2 Street System .............................................................................................................................. 20
4.3 Transportation Corridor Studies ................................................................................................. 31
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 24
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Table of Contents Page vii
4.4 Bicycle System Existing Conditions ............................................................................................. 32
4.5 Pedestrian System, Existing Conditions ...................................................................................... 35
4.6 Rail System, Existing Conditions ................................................................................................. 37
Chapter 5 — Transportation Management ...................................................................................... 39
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 39
5.2 Transportation System Management (TSM)............................................................................... 39
5.3 Mobility Standards ...................................................................................................................... 40
5.4 Access Management (AM) .......................................................................................................... 43
5.5 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ............................................................................ 46
5.6 Transportation Management Goals, Objectives, and Policies .................................................... 50
Chapter 6 — Parking Management .................................................................................................. 52
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 52
6.2 Current Parking Inventory ........................................................................................................... 52
6.3 Parking Performance Measures .................................................................................................. 52
6.4 Parking Strategies ....................................................................................................................... 53
6.5 Regional Transportation Plan ...................................................................................................... 58
6.6 Current Parking Code and Policy Changes .................................................................................. 59
6.7 Parking Management Goals and Policies .................................................................................... 59
Chapter 7 — Street System .............................................................................................................. 61
7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 61
7.2 Street System .............................................................................................................................. 62
7.3 Recommended Street System Improvements ............................................................................ 72
7.4 Street System Goals, Objectives, and Policies ............................................................................ 83
Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System ....................................................................................... 85
8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 85
8.2 Bicycle System Hierarchy ............................................................................................................ 85
8.3 The Bicycle System ...................................................................................................................... 86
8.4 In-fill Project Priorities & Implementation / Improvement Strategies ....................................... 86
8.5 Bicycle Parking, Safety Programs, and Facility Maintenance...................................................... 93
8.6 The Pedestrian System ................................................................................................................ 94
8.7 Priority of Pedestrian Improvements.......................................................................................... 95
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 25
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Table of Contents Page viii
8.8 Public Awareness ........................................................................................................................ 95
8.9 Bear Creek Greenway ................................................................................................................. 95
8.10 8.10. Bicycle and Pedestrian Goals, Policies, & Actions .............................................................. 96
Chapter 9 — Public Transit System .................................................................................................. 98
9.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 98
9.2 2005 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) ................................................................................... 98
9.3 Rogue Valley Transportation District .......................................................................................... 99
9.4 Strategies to Improve Transit Service ....................................................................................... 101
9.5 Transit Goals and Policies ......................................................................................................... 103
Chapter 10 — Railroad & Aviation System ...................................................................................... 104
10.1 Railroad System- Introduction .................................................................................................. 104
10.2 Railroads - Existing Conditions .................................................................................................. 104
10.3 Aviation System – Introduction ................................................................................................ 112
10.4 Railroad and Aviation Goals and Policies .................................................................................. 112
Chapter 11 — Truck Freight System ................................................................................................ 113
11.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 113
11.2 Land Use .................................................................................................................................... 113
11.3 Truck Freight - Existing Conditions ............................................................................................ 113
11.4 11.4. Central Point Truck Freight - Issues & Concerns .............................................................. 118
11.5 Out-of-Direction Travel ............................................................................................................. 118
11.6 Truck Freight Goals and Policies ............................................................................................... 118
Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program ................................................. 120
12.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 120
Chapter 13 — Implementation Policies ........................................................................................... 134
13.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 134
13.2 Implementation Goals and Policies by Chapter ........................................................................ 134
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 26
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
List of Figures Page ix
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Central Point Urban Growth Boundary, 2022 ............................................................................ 1
Figure 1-2: Central Point Forward, Fair City Vision 2020 .............................................................................. 4
Figure 4-1: Functional Classification System Map illustrates the City’s existing arterial and collector street
classification system. .................................................................................................................................. 23
Figure 4-2: Roadway Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................ 24
Figure 4-3: Major Truck Routes................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 4-4: Bicycle System Map .................................................................................................................. 33
Figure 4-5: Pedestrian System Map ............................................................................................................ 36
Figure 4-6: Rogue Valley Transit System Routes and Stops ........................................................................ 38
Figure 7-1: Functional Classification & Street Network Map, 2008-2030 .................................................. 63
Figure 7-2: Intersection Deficiencies .......................................................................................................... 71
Figure 7-3: Tier 1 Projects ........................................................................................................................... 81
Figure 8-1: Bicycle Plan ............................................................................................................................... 91
Figure 9-1: Twin Creeks Transit-Oriented Development .......................................................................... 100
Figure 10-1: Railroad System .................................................................................................................... 111
Figure 11-1: Rogue Valley MPO Freight Route ......................................................................................... 114
Figure 11-2: Freight Route Plan ................................................................................................................ 116
Figure 11-3: Problem Routes and Intersections ...................................................................................... 117
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Alternative RTP Performance Measure ..................................................................................... 12
Table 3-1RTP Alternative Performance Measures ...................................................................................... 18
Table 3-2City of Central Point Performance Measures .............................................................................. 18
Table 4-1: Crash Rate, City of Central Point, 2006 ...................................................................................... 25
Table 4-2: Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service Designations for Signalized ................................... 26
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 27
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
List of Tables Page x
Table 4-3: Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service for Stopped Controlled Intersections .................... 27
Table 4-4: Level of Service and Vehicle-to-Capacity Ratio .......................................................................... 29
Table 4-5: RVMPO Freight Study Recommended Projects, City of Central Point ....................................... 31
Table 5-1: Access Management Spacing Standards for District Highway ................................................... 44
Table 5-2: Access Management Guidelines ................................................................................................ 45
Table 6-1: Transportation System Plan Parking Performance Measures ................................................... 52
Table 6-2: Parking Plan Strategies............................................................................................................... 53
Table 7-1: Year 2010 PM Peak Hour LOS, City of Central Point .................................................................. 64
Table 7-2: Year 2020 PM Peak Hour LOS, City of Central Point .................................................................. 67
Table 7-3: Year 2030 PM Peak Hour LOS, City of Central Point .................................................................. 69
Table 7-4: Transportation Projects ............................................................................................................. 76
Table 7-5: Jackson County Transportation Projects within Central Point Urban Area ............................... 82
Table 7-6: ODOT Transportation Projects within Central Point Urban Area .............................................. 82
Table 8-1: Regional Transportation Plan Bicycle System Performance Measures ..................................... 85
Table 8-2: City of Central Point Bicycle System Performance Measures .................................................... 86
Table 8-3: Bicycle Facilities In-fill Strategies ............................................................................................... 91
Table 8-4: Prioritized Bicycle Facility Projects – Short-Term (5–10 years) ................................................. 92
Table 8-5: Regional Transportation Plan Pedestrian System Performance Measures ............................... 94
Table 8-6: City of Central Point Pedestrian System Performance Measures ............................................. 94
Table 9-1: City of Central Point Transportation System Plan Performance Measures ............................... 99
Table 10-1Central Point Railroad Crossings .............................................................................................. 105
Table 10-2: Level of Service Explained ...................................................................................................... 107
Table 11-1: Central Point Truck Freight Issues and Concerns................................................................... 115
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 28
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 1 — Introduction Page 1
Chapter 1 — Introduction
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Throughout history, transportation has been a major factor in the economic success and growth of
cities, states, and nations. The ability of a community to efficiently move people and goods from one
place to another offers a distinct competitive advantage over places that have limited transportation
systems. The availability of efficient transportation systems, from ancient trade routes to today’s
highways, railways, waterways, and airways have been synonymous with both economic progress and
improved quality of life. Consequently, transportation and transportation related expenditures
constitute a significant percentage of the economy, and few issues are as important for the economic
development and quality of life of local communities as transportation.
The City of Central Point recognizes the importance of having and maintaining a coordinated network of
transportation facilities that serves current and future state, regional and local transportation needs. In
response to this objective, the City has prepared this Transportation System Plan (TSP) to assure that
not only are the transportation needs of its citizens met in a timely and efficient manner, but that in
doing so, the transportation system will continue to be improved in a manner that supports projected
growth, while enhancing the quality of life of those living and visiting the City of Central Point.
Figure 1-1: Central Point Urban Growth Boundary, 2022
This TSP has been prepared within the context of an
urban area consisting of 3,420 acres, the state’s
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) as developed by the
Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization
(RVMPO) and other local transportation plans and
programs as described in detail in Chapter 2. This
TSP will serve as the Transportation Element of the
City’s Comprehensive Plan.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 29
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 1 — Introduction Page 2
1.2 URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AMENDMENT, 2022
The City added 444 acres of land to its Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in 2022 to provide needed
housing, non-industrial employment, parks and supporting land uses. Consequently the 2008 TSP is
being amended to incorporate the new UGB areas as necessary to plan for transportation facilities and
improvements. New projects for the revised UGB were identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
prepared by Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC on July 27, 2022. These include the
following six (6) intersections:
Gebhard Road/Pine Street: Addition of a third westbound through lane, dual eastbound left turn
lanes, and dual southbound left turn lanes. A third westbound through lane on Pine Street is
recommended to begin east of Table Rock Road and extend to the I-5 northbound ramps for
continuity and to help with corridor congestion.
Upton/Scenic Road: Installation of a traffic signal or roundabout when warrants are met.
Gebhard/Beebe Road: This new connection in the future is planned as a two-way stop-controlled
(TWSC) intersection with Beebe Road approaches stopped and Gebhard Road approaches free
movements. As a TWSC intersection, the eastbound movement operates at a LOS “F”, which
exceeds the City operational standard of LOS “D” or better. Implementing all-way stop-control
(AWSC) was considered but was not shown to adequately mitigate this intersection. A roundabout is
recommended to mitigate the higher demand of traffic volumes and blend in with the proposed
roundabout network to the north.
North Grant Road/Twin Creeks Crossing: This TWSC intersection becomes a 4-legged intersection in
the future with an increase in traffic generated to/from the east from URA CP-6A. It exceeds the City
and County performance standards as a TWSC but meets as an AWSC intersection. Proposed
mitigation includes adding stop signs to the north and south Grant Road approaches when
warranted.
Gebhard/Wilson Road: This 4-legged intersection exceeds its County performance standard under
future build conditions due to an increase in traffic to/from Wilson Road. Proposed mitigation
includes adding stop signs to Wilson Road east and west approaches to make it an AWSC
intersection when warranted.
Upton Road/CP-2B: This 3-legged intersection exceeds its County LOS D performance standard
under future build conditions due to an increase in traffic to/from Upton Road through a new
connection to CP2B URA. Proposed mitigation includes adding a center turn lane on Upton Road at
the CP-2B street connection.
This TSP is updated to reflect the findings of the 2020 UGB TIA with an emphasis on Chapter 7 (Street
System) and Chapter 12 (Transportation System Financing Program). In addition to adding projects
identified by the UGB TIA, the amendment eliminates projects that have been completed, and prioritizes
the new Capital Improvement (Tier 1) project list based on an updated financial forecast and inclusion of
a new criterion addressing equity. Other minor amendments have been made throughout this
document to coincide with major amendments discussed above.
1.3 THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE
In recognition of the role that transportation plays in the economic success and livability of the state and
the magnitude of the cost to provide and maintain a competitive transportation system, Oregon has
included it as an element of the statewide planning process. Goal 12 - Transportation provides and
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 30
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 1 — Introduction Page 3
encourages the planning and implementation of a convenient, economic, and safe transportation
system that integrates local, regional, state and inter-state transportation systems. This goal recognizes
the necessity, at all levels of government, of having, and maintaining, a comprehensive transportation
planning program that serves statewide transportation needs. The preferred means to achieving this
objective is through the preparation of transportation system plans (TSP). A TSP is a plan for one or
more transportation facilities that are planned, developed, operated, and maintained in a coordinated
manner to assure continuity of movement between modes and geographic and jurisdictional
boundaries.
To facilitate implementation of Goal 12, the state adopted rules governing the preparation and
coordination of transportation system plans (OAR 660-12). These rules are collectively referred to as the
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The TPR acknowledges the significance in the relationship between
transportation and land use planning and defines transportation systems planning as a mandatory
element of a community’s comprehensive planning process.
The following objectives of the TPR have been incorporated in the
guiding principles, goals, and policies presented in this TSP:
a) Promote the development of transportation systems adequate
to serve statewide, regional and local transportation needs and the
mobility needs of the transportation disadvantaged;
b) Encourage and support the availability of a variety of
transportation choices for moving people that balance vehicular use
with other transportation modes, including walking, bicycling and
transit;
c) Provide for safe and convenient vehicular, transit, pedestrian,
and bicycle access and circulation;
d) Facilitate the safe, efficient and economic flow of freight and
other goods and services within regions and throughout the state
through a variety of modes including road, air, rail and marine
transportation;
e) Protect existing and planned transportation facilities, corridors and sites for their identified
functions;
f) Provide for the construction and implementation of transportation facilities, improvements and
services necessary to support acknowledged comprehensive plans;
g) Identify how transportation facilities are provided on rural lands consistent with the goals;
h) Ensure coordination among affected local governments and transportation service providers
and consistency between state, regional and local transportation plans; and
i) Ensure that changes to comprehensive plans are supported by adequate planned transportation
facilities.
Transportation \,tran(t)s-
pər-‘tā-shen\ n 1: an act,
process, or instance of
transporting or being
transported.
Transport \tran(t)s-‘pō(ə)rt,
‘tran(t)s-,\ vt 1: to transfer
or convey from one place to
another.
System \’sis-təm\ n 1: a
regularly interacting or
interdependent group of
items forming a unified
whole. 2: an organized set of
doctrines, ideas, or
principles usually intended
to explain the arrangement
or working of a systematic
whole.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 31
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 1 — Introduction Page 4
1.4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN
In accordance with the TPR, the RVMPO is charged with the preparation, management, and
maintenance of the RTP. The RVMPO covers the urbanized area of Jackson County, including the cities of
Central Point, Ashland, Eagle Point, Jacksonville, Medford, Phoenix, Talent, the unincorporated area of
White City and surrounding Jackson County which in 2007 had an estimated population of 128,780. The
Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG) serves as the MPO for the Rogue Valley area. The MPO
Policy Committee, the organization's decision-making board, consists of elected officials from the
member cities and Jackson County, plus the Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD), Jackson
County, and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT).
1.5 VALUES, GUIDING PRINCIPLES, GOALS AND POLICIES
In 2007, Central Point Forward, Fair City Vision 2020 (Vision 2020) was adopted by the City Council.
Preparation of Vision 2020 included considerable citizen involvement in defining the future of the City,
including the role transportation will play as the vision unfolds. Vision 2020 adopted the following
statement as a core value for the planning and development of the City’s transportation system:
“The City of Central Point values a system of transportation and infrastructure that is modern,
efficient and sensitive to the environment.”
Figure 1-2: Central Point Forward, Fair City Vision 2020
In addition to this core transportation value, the
citizens of Central Point developed a series of
transportation related principles. The term
“principle” refers to the community’s fundamental
position to be used throughout the preparation and
implementation of this TSP. The use of principles is
intended to serve as a point of reference and a
philosophical system of wayfinding as the City
navigates its way through the goals, policies, and
implementation strategies necessary to attain the
City’s transportation vision. The following represents
the principles that will guide the preparation and
implementation of this TSP:
1. To strike a balance between accessibility and connectivity of people and goods, while keeping
the system safe, attractive, and well-maintained.
2. To advocate land use patterns, such as transit-oriented development and in-fill strategies, that
support the continued enhancement of multi-modal transportation.
3. To increase street system safety and function through the adoption and implementation of
access management standards for the purpose of maintaining and preserving the existing
investment in transportation facilities.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 32
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 1 — Introduction Page 5
4. To design streets in a manner that maximizes the utility of public right-of-way; is appropriate to
their functional role, and provides for multiple travel modes, while minimizing their impact on
the character and livability of surrounding neighborhoods, business districts and the
environment.
In addition to guiding principles, the City has adopted a series of transportation related goals. The term
“Goals” is defined as the City’s major desire, or intent, determined necessary for the attainment of its
preferred transportation system. The goals are written to focus attention, to energize the community to
action, and to instill the resolve necessary to attain the goal during the life of the Plan.
Goal implementation is generally enforced through what is referred to as policies. The term “Policy”
identifies the preferred course of action determined appropriate to the successful attainment of a
related goal. Where appropriate each policy is followed with actions related to the implementation of
the policy. Actions are typically associated with events such as code amendments, capital improvement
plans, etc.
1.6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT & PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS
In accordance with the Statewide Planning Goal, 1 the preparation and adoption of this TSP included a
citizen involvement component that included the following:
Central Point Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC). Throughout development of the TSP the CAC served as
a reviewing authority, providing input and forwarding recommendations to the Planning Commission
and City Council. The CAC draft TSP was the first released to the public and to other agencies for review
(Oregon Department of Transportation and the Department of Land Conservation and Development).
Throughout the CAC review all meetings were noticed to encourage the public to participate in
preparation of the draft TSP.
The Central Point Planning Commission. The draft TSP, as recommended by the CAC, was forwarded to
the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation to the City Council. All Planning
Commission meetings were noticed to encourage the public to provide input on preparation of the final
draft of the TSP, and City Council meetings at which the TSP was considered.
Central Point City Council. Based on recommendations from the CAC and the Planning Commission, the
City Council reviewed the TSP and after conducting public hearings the City Council December 4 and 18,
2008 adopted the TSP as presented in this document. The City Council meetings were noticed to further
encourage the public to provide final input on TSP.
1.7 PLAN ORGANIZATION
In acknowledgement of the relationship between the TPR, the RTP, and this TSP, the organization of this
document closely follows the format described in the TPR - Elements of Transportation System Plans.
Central Point’s TSP has been developed through a series of technical evaluations of the City’s
transportation system as it currently exists and as it will be expanded and used through the year 2030.
In addition, the technical analysis preparation of this TSP has included systematic input and review by
the city staff, the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), the Planning
Commission, and the citizens of Central Point.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 33
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 1 — Introduction Page 6
In its entirety, this TSP contains thirteen (13) chapters as follows:
Each of these chapters has been prepared in compliance with the TPR and tested for consistency with
federal, state, regional, and local transportation plans.
1.8 ACTION PROGRAM
During the preparation of this TSP, there were numerous occasions where it was determined that the
current standards and regulations were in need of modification or that entirely new provisions were
required to bring the City’s transportation program into compliance with the TPR. Changes to the City’s
zoning and public works standards are presented in the Implementation subsection of Chapter 13,
Implementation Policies. The Implementation subsection identifies required actions, the lead
department responsible, the document needing modification, and a schedule for completion of the
action throughout the planning period. The design of the Implementation subsection fully expects that
as actions are completed that they are noted in the Action Program and that this section will be
periodically updated to reflect the action. These periodic updates of the Action Program are not
considered amendments to this TSP, but merely reflect an accounting of progress in attaining the
objectives of the TSP throughout its life.
1.9 PROGRAM COMPLIANCE
In collaboration with the TPR and the RTP, the City of Central Point has prepared this TSP. Central Point’s
TSP is consistent with, and complements, other related transportation system plans, including local,
regional, state, and federal transportation policies and programs. The goals, policies, and plans set forth
in this TSP represent the City’s vision for maintaining and advancing its transportation system in
coordination with its land use planning program. The ultimate objective is to efficiently and effectively
provide for the transportation needs of the community while improving the quality of life of its citizens.
Chapter 1. Introduction Chapter 8. Bicycle and Pedestrian System
Chapter 2. Plan Compliance Chapter 9. Public Transit System
Chapter 3. Land Use and Forecasting Chapter 10. Aviation and Rail System
Chapter 4. Existing Conditions and Needs Chapter 11. Freight System
Chapter 5. Transportation Management Chapter 12. Transportation System Financing
Chapter 6. Parking System & Management Chapter 13. Implementation Policies
Chapter 7. Street System
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 34
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 2 — Plan Compliance Page 7
Chapter 2 — Plan Compliance
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires that all local transportation system plans be consistent
with the regional transportation system plan and adopted elements of the state transportation system
plan . Local transportation system plans are also required to be coordinated with affected federal and
state agencies, local governments, special districts, and private providers of transportation services. The
purpose of this chapter is to verify coordination, and where appropriate, compliance with applicable
transportation plans and programs and to address the consistency of this Transportation System Plan
(TSP) with affected state, federal and local transportation plans and programs.
2.2 PLAN COMPLIANCE, SCOPE OF REVIEW
Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines, Goal 12: Transportation serves as the principal
document governing the preparation and implementation of state, regional and local transportation
plans. Goal 12 requires that transportation system plans:
Consider all modes of transportation;
Be based upon an inventory of local, regional and state transportation needs;
Consider the differences in social consequences that would result from utilizing differing
combinations of transportation modes;
Avoid principal reliance upon any one mode of transportation;
Minimize adverse social, economic and environmental impacts and costs;
Conserve energy;
Meet the needs of the transportation disadvantaged by improving transportation services;
Facilitate the flow of goods and services so as to strengthen the local and regional economy; and
Conformity with local and regional comprehensive land use plans.
While Goal 12 establishes the state’s overall transportation goal, it is the TPR that defines the minimum
requirements for the preparation of local transportation system plans, including compliance with other
federal, state, and regional transportation plans. The goals, policies and plans presented in this TSP have
been reviewed for compliance with the following transportation plans and other documents:
City of Central Point Strategic Plan 2040 – A review of the City’s updated long-term vision for the
City of Central Point relative to the 2022 TSP Amendment.
Central Point Forward, Fair City Vision 2020 – A review of the City’s long-term vision for the City of
Central Point, with an emphasis on the community’s vision for their transportation needs.
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) – The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) was adopted by the
Land Conservation and Development Commission in 1991 and sets forth the requirements for
preparation of local transportation system plans. The City of Central Point’s TSP was originally based
on, and complies with, the TPR as set forth in OAR 660, Division 12 dated October 30, 2006. The
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 35
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 2 — Plan Compliance Page 8
2022 TSP Amendment was prepared in conformance with OAR 660-012-0012(2)(a) dated August 17,
2022.
Plan Conformity, Other – Preparation of this TSP included a review of the goals and policies of
applicable state, regional, and local transportation plans, as well as the City’s Comprehensive Plan
and development ordinances. Other plans considered in the preparation of this TSP included:
o Oregon Transportation Plan
o 1999 Oregon Highway Plan
o Oregon Rail Plan, 2001
o Regional Freight Study
o Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
o Oregon Access Management Rules (OAR 734-051)
o Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
o Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
o Jackson County Transportation System Plan, March 2005
o Jackson County Bicycle Master Plan
o Transit-Oriented Design (TOD) and Transit Corridor Development Strategies for the Rogue
Valley
o Rogue Valley Transit District Plan
o City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan
o City of Medford Transportation System Plan
o City of Central Point Zoning Ordinance
o City of Central Point Subdivision Ordinance
o City of Central Point Public Works Standards
o Other plans
2.3 CENTRAL POINT STRATEGIC PLAN
Over the course of time, there are many documents and plans that are used in guiding the development
practices of any community. The most significant of these documents is the one that identifies a
community’s long-term vision for its future. The City of Central Point has developed such a vision plan,
Central Point Forward, Fair City Vision 2020 and City of Central Point Strategic Plan 2040.
Central Point Forward, Fair City Vision 2020. Preparation of this plan was based on considerable citizen
involvement in defining the preferred future of the City, including the role transportation will play as the
vision unfolds. Within the scope of the visioning process, citizens defined a system of values, goals,
strategies, and actions to be applied over the course of the next thirteen years. When completed, there
were six categories defining the City’s vision and strategies for attaining that vision. One of those
categories included Transportation.
For transportation, the citizens of Central Point defined as a core value the planning and development of
a system of transportation and infrastructure that is modern, efficient, and sensitive to the
environment. For transportation, the Vision Plan identified three goals, thirteen strategies, and eight
actions. Each of these goals, strategies, and actions has been addressed in this TSP.
City of Central Point Strategic Plan 2040. The 2040 Strategic Plan was developed following completion
of the actions identified in the 2020 Vision Plan. The 2040 Strategic Plan charts a course for the next 20-
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 36
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 2 — Plan Compliance Page 9
years with an emphasis on the priorities and actions need to realize the community’s preferred vision
for its future as follows:
“Central Point is a safe, family-friendly, livable community that cultivates its small-town feel by
managing growth and inspiring meaningful connections between people and places.”
The Plan identifies five (5) Strategic Priorities to guide achievement of the community’s vision:
1. Community Investment – This priority has to do with making physical, social and economic
investments that support the community’s vision.
2. Community Engagement – Responsive and proactive governance requires quality
communication between citizens, business and the City. This priority is geared toward building
strong relationships and effective communication.
3. Community Culture – Central Point has a unique identify and culture. This priority aims to
celebrate Central Point customs, arts, social institutions and achievements.
4. Responsible Governance – There are multiple facets to responsible governance from earning
and retaining public trust, maintaining a strong financial position, to thoughtfully hiring and
training employees, promoting volunteerism, and developing the policing program. Lastly, this
area focuses on becoming a resilient city that has the capabilities needed to prevent, protect
against, mitigate, respond to and recover from the threats and hazards that pose the greatest
risk.
5. Vibrant Economy – Having a vibrant economy is the fuel for a healthy community. The City’s
Strategic Plan focuses on managing growth, revitalizing downtown, connecting the east and
west sides of the community and business attraction, support and investment.
For transportation the 2040 Strategic Plan identifies six (6) goals and twelve (12) strategies within the
Strategic Priorities related to Community Investment and Vibrant Economy. Priorities relative to
Community Engagement and Responsible Governance have been applied throughout the planning
process and will continue to be a core focus during implementation.
2.4 OREGON TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE
The need to update the TSP is driven by the requirements of the Oregon TPR. In accordance with the
TPR, local transportation plans at a minimum must:
Establish a system of transportation facilities and services adequate to meet identified local
transportation needs and shall be consistent with regional TSPs and adopted elements of the state
TSP;
Be adopted as part of the City’s comprehensive plan (Comprehensive Plan); and
Be coordinated with affected state and federal agencies, local governments, special districts, and
private providers of transportation services (Plan Conformity).
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 37
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 2 — Plan Compliance Page 10
The goals and policies of the City’s TSP have also been reviewed for consistency with the Planning and
Implementation Guidelines established by Goal 12, Transportation, and modified as necessary to
address the following key provisions of Goal 12:
Planning - To the fullest extent possible transportation systems should be planned to utilize existing
facilities and rights-of-way;
Planning - Population densities and peak hour travel patterns of existing and planned developments
should be considered in the choice of transportation modes for trips taken by persons. While high
density developments with concentrated trip origins and destinations should be designated to be
principally served by mass transit, low-density developments with dispersed origins and destinations
should be principally served by all transportation modes, including automobiles, multiple use trails,
public transportation, bicycles, etc.;
Planning - Plans providing for a transportation system should consider as a major determinant the
carrying capacity of the air, land, and water resources of the planning area. The land conservation
and development actions provided for by such plans should not exceed the carrying capacity of such
resources;
Implementation - The number and location of major transportation facilities should conform to the
applicable state or local land use plans and policies designed to direct urban expansion to areas
identified as necessary and suitable for urban development;
Implementation - Plans for new or for improvement of major transportation facilities should identify
the positive and negative impacts on:
o Local land use patterns;
o Environmental quality;
o Energy use and resources;
o Existing transportation systems; and
o Fiscal resources in a manner sufficient to enable local governments to rationally consider
the issues posed by the construction and operation of such facilities.
Implementation - Lands adjacent to major mass transit stations, freeway interchanges, and major
air, land and water terminals should be managed and controlled so as to be consistent with and
supportive of the land use and development patterns identified in the comprehensive plan of the
jurisdiction within which the facilities are located; and
Implementation - Plans should provide for a detailed management program to assign respective
implementation roles and responsibilities to those governmental bodies operating in the planning
area and having interests in carrying out the goal.
Additionally, the TSP goals and policies were reviewed to confirm that the following required elements
have been addressed:
A coordinated network of transportation facilities adequate to serve state, regional, and local
transportation needs;
A determination of transportation needs;
A road plan for arterial and collector streets and standards for the layout of local streets and other
non-collector street connections; and
An inventory and general assessment of existing and committed transportation facilities and
services by function, type, capacity, and condition;
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 38
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 2 — Plan Compliance Page 11
A public transportation plan;
A bicycle and pedestrian plan;
An air, rail, water and pipeline transportation plan;
A transportation system management plan and demand management plan (for areas greater than
25,000 persons)
A parking plan;
Policies and land use regulations for TSP implementation; and
A transportation financing program.
2.5 PLAN CONFORMITY, OTHER
The objective of the state’s transportation program is to assure that the preparation and content of local
transportation system plans support other local, regional, and state transportation plans. The following
identifies each of the local, regional, and state plans, the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and land
development regulations, including a summary of changes required for conformity.
2.5.1. Oregon Transportation Plan, 2006 (OTP): With the exception of the designation of Hwy. 99 as
noted below, the TSP goals and policies are consistent with the OTP goals and policies.
2.5.2. 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (OHP): As its name implies the OHP is the state’s twenty-year plan for
managing and improving its highway system. The OHP sets forth the state’s guiding vision for the future
of the state highway system, and sets forth goals, policies, and actions (the Policy Element) necessary to
attain its vision. The OHP also includes an analysis of system needs, revenue forecasts, investment and
implementation strategies, and performance measurements.
The goals and policies of this TSP are consistent with the OHP, with one exception resulting from a
jurisdictional exchange affecting the District Highway designation of Hwy. 99. On May 14, 2004, by City
of Central Point Resolution No. 1015 the jurisdiction of Hwy. 99 from Mile Post 1.64 to Mile Post 2.18
was transferred to the City and re-designated as a Major Arterial. Within the City’s urban area there
remain two short sections, one north of Mile Post 1.64 and one south of Mile Post .063 that retain the
District Highway designation. The City’s Street Classification Map has been modified to reflect these
changes.
2.5.3. 2001 Oregon Rail Plan: The goals, policies and actions set forth in the Air & Rail chapter of the TSP
are consistent with the Oregon Rail Plan.
2.5.4. Regional Freight Study, 2006: The Regional Freight Study identified the section of Pine Street
through the downtown as a freight route. As stated in the City’s 2000 TSP and its Vision 2020, the
preference is that freight be diverted from that section of Pine Street within the Central Business
District.
2.5.5. Statewide Transportation Improvement Program: The goals, policies and actions set forth in the
TSP are consistent with the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.
2.5.6. Oregon Access Management Rules (ORS 734-015): The goals, policies and actions set forth in the
Access Management chapter of the TSP are consistent with ORS 734-015.
2.5.7. Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: The goals, policies and actions set forth in the Bicycle and
Pedestrian chapter of the TSP are consistent with the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 39
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 2 — Plan Compliance Page 12
2.5.8. Regional Transportation Plan 2005-2030 (RTP): Aside from Goal 12 and the TPR, the RTP is the
most significant contributing document with regard to preparation of this TSP. Many of the findings and
compliance statements contained in the RTP are relied upon for compliance of this TSP, particularly in
reference to state and federal plans and programs. The goals, objectives and policies of this TSP were
compared against, and determined to be consistent with, those of the RTP, with the exception of the
following two items as follows:
1. Hwy. 99 Classification – As discussed, subsequent to the adoption of the OHP and the RTP, Hwy.
99 was transferred to the City and downgraded from District Highway to Major Arterial Street.
When the OHP and RTP are updated, they will reflect the change in designation of Hwy. 99 to
Major Arterial Street.
2. Regional Freight Study – In the Regional Freight Study, the RTP designates Pine Street, from
Front Street to Hamrick Road as a freight route. The freight designation conflicted with goals
and policies of the prior TSP (2000) and the City’s Vision Plan. In this TSP Pine Street, west of I-5
is retained as part of the freight network but is not identified as a major freight route (Figure
11-2). Additional discussion on this issue is presented in Chapter 11.
In addition to the goals and policies, the RTP also included seven performance measures. The purpose of
the performance measures is to provide assurances that a reduction in the region’s reliance on the
automobile would be achieved. The City of Central Point’s TSP acknowledges these performance
measures and has included similar supporting performance measures for the City. The RTP performance
measures are presented in Table 2-1. For comparison purposes the City’s performance measures are
presented in Table 2-1 in parenthesis.
Table 2-1: Alternative RTP Performance Measure
Measure How Measured Current 2000
Benchmark
2005 (2008)
Benchmark
2010
Benchmark
2015
Benchmark
2020
Benchmark
2030
Measure 1:
Transit &
bicycle/pedestrian
mode share
The percent of total daily trips
taken by transit and the
combination of bicycle and
walking (non-motorized)
modes. Determined from best
available data (e.g., model
output and/or transportation
survey data).
% daily
trips
Transit:
1.0
bike/ped.:
8.2
% daily
trips
Transit:
1.2 (1.2)
bike/ped.:
8.4 (8.4)
% daily
trips
Transit:
1.6 (1.6)
bike/ped.:
8.4 (8.4)
% daily
trips
Transit:
2.2 (2.2)
bike/ped.:
9.8 (9.8)
% daily
trips
Transit:
3.0 (3.0)
bike/ped.:
11.0 (11.0)
Measure 2:
Percent of
Dwelling Units
(DU’s) within ¼
mile walk to 30-
min. transit
service
Determined through GIS
mapping. Current estimates
are that 12% of DU’s are
within ¼ mile walking distance
of RVTD transit routes.
12% 20% (38%) 30% (40%) 40% 50% (55%)
(65%)
Measure 3:
Collectors &
arterials w/bicycle
facilities
Determined through GIS
Mapping. Current estimates
are that 21% of collectors and
arterials in the City have
provisions for bicyclists.
21% 28% (16%) 37% (21%) 48% 60% (48%)
(70%)
Measure 4:
Percentage of
collectors and
Determined through GIS
mapping. Current
estimates are that 46% of
47% 50%
(70%)
56%
(75%)
64% 75% 80%)
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 40
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 2 — Plan Compliance Page 13
2.5.9. Jackson County Transportation System Plan 2005: The goals and policies of this TSP have been
reviewed against Jackson County’s TSP and determined to be consistent. No changes were required.
2.5.10. Jackson County Bicycle Master Plan: The goals, policies and actions set forth in the Bicycle and
Pedestrian chapter of the TSP is consistent with the Jackson County Bicycle Master Plan.
2.5.11. Rogue Valley Transit District Plan: The goals, policies and actions set forth in the Transit chapter
of the TSP are consistent with the Rogue Valley Transit Plan.
2.5.12. City of Medford Transportation Plan: Similar to Jackson County, the City’s transportation
network interfaces in several locations with that of the City of Medford. Central Point’s TSP was
compared with Medford’s TSP and was found to be consistent on all levels. The functional classification
of streets, particularly the arterials system, is consistent as they traverse jurisdictional lines. Similarly,
the bicycle and pedestrian systems facilitate inter-jurisdictional movement. No changes were required
to assure consistency between the two TSPs.
2.5.13. City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan: This TSP has been prepared based on the land use
classifications and distribution in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
2.5.14. City of Central Point Zoning Ordinance: As a result of the preparation of this TSP, numerous
incidents were revealed requiring amendment of the City of Central Point Municipal Code, Title 17,
Zoning.
2.5.15. City of Central Point Subdivision Ordinance: As a result of the preparation of this TSP, numerous
incidents were revealed requiring amendment of the Central Point Municipal Code, Title 16,
Subdivisions.
arterials in TOD
areas with
sidewalks.
collectors and arterials in
TOD areas have sidewalks
(85%)
Measure 5:
Percentage
mixed-use DU’s
in new
development
Determined by tracking
building permits – the ratio
between new DU’s in TODS
and total new DU’s in the
region.
0% 9% (25%) 26%
(35%)
41% 49%
(50%)
(60%)
Measure 6:
Percentage
mixed-use
employment in
new
development
Estimated from annual
employment files from
State – represents the ratio
of new employment in
TODs over total regional
employment.
0% 9% (9%) 23%
(23%)
36% 44%
(44%)
(50%)
Measure 7:
Alternative
Transportation
Funding
Estimated from annual
employment files from
State – represents the ratio
of new employment in
TODs over regional
employment.
N/A
$950,000
(-)
$2.5
million (-)
$4.3
million (-)
$6.4
million (-)
(-)
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 41
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 2 — Plan Compliance Page 14
2.6 OTHER PLANS
Over the course of the past five years, the City has completed three significant transportation studies for
Hwy. 99, East Pine Street, and the Twin Creeks Transit-Oriented Development district. The findings and
recommendations from these three plans have been reviewed and incorporated into this TSP. The
following is a brief description of each study and its relationship to the TSP.
2.6.1. Highway 99 Corridor Plan: This plan was prepared in 2005 for the purpose of identifying
improvements to Hwy. 99 consistent with commercial revitalization of the Hwy. 99 corridor through
Central Point. The findings and recommendations of the Highway 99 Corridor Plan have been
incorporated in this TSP.
East Pine Street Transportation Plan: This plan was prepared in 2004 by JRH Transportation
Engineering. The purpose of this plan was to provide an assessment of the future transportation
infrastructure of the East Pine Street corridor area to accommodate regional and local traffic growth.
The plan forecast traffic growth through the year 2023 and recommended improvements necessary to
maintain an acceptable level of service. The findings and recommendations of the East Pine Street
Transportation Plan have been updated and incorporated in this TSP.
Central Point Transit-Oriented Development Traffic Impact Study: This study was completed in August
2000 by JRH Transportation Engineers to evaluate the traffic impacts of Central Point’s Transit-Oriented
Development District. The findings and recommendations have been incorporated in this Plan.
2.7 CONCLUSION
The TSP as presented in this document is found to be consistent with all applicable federal, state,
regional and local transportation plans. It is the City’s intent, throughout the duration of this TSP, to
continue monitoring and managing the TSP as necessary to maintain compliance with federal, state,
regional, and local transportation system plans and changing transportation and land use needs.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 42
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 3 — Land Use & Transportation Planning Page 15
Chapter 3 — Land Use & Transportation
Planning
3.1 INTRODUCTION
By the year 2030, it is expected that the City of Central Point’s population will approach 26,000, making
Central Point the second largest city in the Rogue Valley. To accommodate the City’s projected growth,
land was added to the UGB in 2022 for housing and jobs as well as other supporting land uses.
Improvements to the City’s transportation system will be needed to accommodate continued growth.
The amount, use, and distribution of future development, and the policies governing land use and
development will determine the need for improvements to the transportation system. Consequently,
the ability of the City to effectively incorporate transportation planning as an element of its land use
planning process is critical to the continued enhancement of the quality of life offered to the citizens of
Central Point.
The purpose of this chapter is to acknowledge the relationship within the City’s Comprehensive Plan
between land use and transportation planning. The findings, goals, and policies presented in the TSP
have been integrated with the findings, goals, and policies of the City’s land use program as presented in
the Comprehensive Plan. It is not the purpose of this chapter to restate the City’s land use program, but
instead to reference those elements of the Comprehensive Plan that most directly determine the
transportation needs of the City.
Within the City’s Comprehensive Plan there are four elements that have a noticeable impact on
transportation planning. Those elements are the Land Use Element, the Population Element, the
Housing Element, and the Economic Element. Together these elements affect the rate, character, and
location of development within the City’s urban area, which then determines the need for
transportation services. Each of these elements and their role in the City’s transportation planning
process will be discussed and noted as a reference to the TSP.
3.2 THE LAND USE ELEMENT
Currently, within the City’s urban area there are 3,420 acres of land distributed over eleven (11) land use
classifications. Included in the land use classifications is a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) overlay
zone. The land use classifications identified in the Land Use Element are supported by fourteen (14)
zoning districts, with nine (9) residential zones and five (5) commercial/industrial zones. Development
within each zoning district is regulated by standards set forth in the City’s Land Development Code.
Collectively, this system of land use classifications, zoning districts, and development standards establish
the limits and tools for the development of an efficient and timely transportation system.
Land Use Classifications: The land use classifications are the basis for determining traffic
generation/services. The transportation modeling used in the preparation and maintenance of the TSP
relies on the land use classifications defined in the Land Use Element. Changes in the City’s land use
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 43
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 3 — Land Use & Transportation Planning Page 16
classifications should be accompanied by supplemental traffic analysis to identify any impacts and
mitigation measures necessary to maintain a balanced transportation system.
Zoning Districts: Zoning districts are a higher order refinement of the land use classification system.
Zoning districts must be compatible with the underlying land use designation. For each zoning district,
specific types of uses are identified and regulated in accordance with the standards set forth in the City’s
Land Development Code. Allowed uses within a zoning district are consistent with the underlying land
use classification.
Development Standards: Throughout the City of Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC) there are
codified standards that control improvements to the City’s transportation system. Most of these
development standards are contained in the City’s Land Development Code (Chapter 17). Another
source of development standards can be found in the City of Central Point Public Works Standards. The
City’s development standards are designed to support and implement the multi-modal goals and
policies of the TSP.
3.3 BUILDABLE LAND INVENTORY (BLI)
One of the significant considerations in preparation of the TSP is the availability and distribution of
vacant lands within the City’s urban area. The BLI provides an accounting of buildable lands by land use
designation, zoning, and Transportation Area Zones (TAZ) making it possible to determine the location
and type of new development, and the future impact of that development on the City’s transportation
system. The BLI is a support document to the Land Use Element.
3.4 GROWTH PROJECTIONS
The rate of development of the City’s buildable lands and its impact on the transportation system is a
function of the rate of population and employment growth. The Population Element and Housing
Element of the Comprehensive Plan addresses the City’s projected population growth and housing
needs throughout the planning period, while the Economic Element addresses the City’s expected
employment growth. Together these three Comprehensive Plan elements will, in conjunction with the
BLI, provide the basis for identifying the rate, location of new development, and the impact of that
development on the City’s transportation system.
3.4.1 POPULATION ELEMENT:
The Population Element identifies the City’s projected population growth and population characteristics
throughout the planning period. It is expected that by the year 2030 the City’s population will be
approaching 29,000 people.
3.4.2 HOUSING ELEMENT:
The demand for housing is a function of population growth and household characteristics such as
housing type, vacancy rate, and persons per household. The Housing Element evaluates the housing
needs of the City throughout the planning period. The Housing Element, in conjunction with the Land
Use Element, determines the mix and distribution of housing within the urban area. As evidenced in the
Housing Element, the City is encouraging use of the TOD overlay to encourage mixed residential
development and the use of multi-modal transportation opportunities.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 44
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 3 — Land Use & Transportation Planning Page 17
3.4.3 ECONOMIC ELEMENT:
Similar to the Housing Element, the Economic Element, using population projections, estimates job
creation throughout the planning period. Together with the Land Use Element, the Economic Element
provides information on the rate and location of jobs.
3.5 TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
Any discussion of land use and transportation planning is not complete without the inclusion of transit-
oriented development (TOD). As used in this chapter, the term “TOD” refers to mixed-use, pedestrian
friendly development. Transit-oriented design is a general description of a set of development strategies
designed to create an atmosphere that is safe, convenient, and easily accessible by foot, bicycle, and
transit users.
With the completion of the Transit-Oriented Design and Transit Corridor Development Strategies Study
(TOD 1999 Study), cities within the metropolitan area have been successfully applying transit-oriented
development (TOD) as a land use strategy. The City of Central Point is an excellent example of the
application of TOD strategies. Shortly after completion of the TOD 1999 Study the City adopted TOD
standards and in December of 2000, a final plan for the Twin Creeks Transit-Oriented Development, a
230-acre TOD project was approved, and development commenced. Today the Twin Creeks TOD is a
successful representation of applied TOD strategies. The Twin Creeks TOD has been a positive influence
on the land use planning for the City and has set the standard for new, in-fill and redevelopment
standards throughout the City. Today the City has a TOD designation for the City’s Central Business
District and for the commercial area along Highway 99. Most recently the citizens of Central Point have
reasserted in Vision 2020 their continued endorsement of land use policies that support and enhance
the City’s transit-oriented land use program.
The use of TOD strategies has been endorsed on the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and is
represented in three of the seven RTP performance measures identified in Chapter 2. These
performance standards have been acknowledged by the City and included in the TSP as land use
performance measures for the City and are presented in Table 3-1. The RTP performance measures are
presented below and included in the TSP as future performance benchmarks for the City.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 45
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 3 — Land Use & Transportation Planning Page 18
Table 3-1: RTP Alternative Performance Measures
Measure How Measured Current 2008
Benchmark
2010
Benchmark
2015
Benchmark
2020
Benchmark
2030
Measure 2: Percent
of Dwelling Units
(DUs) within ¼ mile
walk to 30-min.
transit service
Determined through
GIS mapping.
Current estimates
are that 12% of DUs
are within ¼ mile
walking distance of
RVTD transit routes.
12% 30% 40% 50%
Measure 5:
Percentage mixed-
use DUs in new
development.
Determined by
tracking building
permits – the ratio
between new DUs in
TODs and total new
DU’s in the region.
0% 26% 41% 49%
Measure 6:
Percentage mixed-
use employment in
new development.
Estimated from
annual employment
files from State –
represents the ratio
of new employment
in TODs over total
regional
employment.
9% 23% 36% 44%
Table 3-2: City of Central Point Performance Measures
Measure How Measured Current 2008 Benchmark 2010 Benchmark 2020 Benchmark 2030
Measure 3.1:
Percent of Dwelling
Units (DUs) within ¼
mile walk to 30-min.
transit service
Determined
through GIS
mapping. Current
estimates are that
12% of DUs are
within ¼ mile
walking distance of
RVTD transit routes.
38% 40% 55% 65%
Measure 3.2:
Percentage mixed-
use DUs in new
development.
Determined by
tracking building
permits – the ratio
between new DUs
in TODs and total
new DU’s in the
region.
25% 35% 50% 60%
Measure 3.3:
Percentage mixed-
use employment in
new development.
Estimated from
annual employment
files from State –
represents the ratio
of new employment
in TODs over total
city employment.
9% 23% 44% 50%
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 46
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 3 — Land Use & Transportation Planning Page 19
3.6 LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL 3.1: TO EFFECTIVELY MANAGE THE USE OF LAND WITHIN THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA
IN A MANNER THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH, AND THAT SUPPORTS, THE SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION
OF THIS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN.
Policy 3.1.1. The City shall manage the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan in a manner
that enhances livability for the citizens of Central Point as set forth in the Transportation System Plan.
Policy 3.1.2. The City shall continuously monitor and update the Land Development Code to maintain
best practices in transit-oriented design consistent with the overall land use objectives of the City.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 47
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 20
Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation
Conditions
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Section 660-012-0020(3) of the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires that all transportation
system plans include an inventory of existing transportation facilities and services by function, type,
capacity, and condition. In accordance with the TPR, this chapter will inventory the condition of the
City’s existing transportation system. The City’s transportation system is comprised of five (5)
transportation modes:
1. Street System
2. Pedestrian System
3. Bicycle System
4. Transit System
5. Rail System
An inventory of each of these transportation modes has been completed as part of the 2008 TSP
planning process. The inventory data comes from a variety of sources including the City’s physical
inventory of its street, pedestrian, and bikeway systems. For the transit system, the facilities inventory
information was provided by the Rogue Valley Transportation District. For the rail system, the inventory
information was provided by Central Oregon Pacific Railroad (CORP).
4.2 STREET SYSTEM
The City’s street system is comprised of over 60 miles of roadway serving a variety of functions from
arterial and collector streets to local residential and commercial streets. Each street type within the City
has a specific functional classification.
4.2.1 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
Streets, whether public or private, do not operate independent of one another but as a network of
roadways. The City’s street system is comprised of a hierarchy of street types, each designed and
constructed with the objective of serving a specific function within the City’s street system, the regional
street system, and the state roadway system. The City’s street classification system is derived from the
Federal Highway Administration’s (FHA) functional classification definitions, which consists of four (4)
basic street types: principal arterials, minor arterials, collector streets, and local streets. Each street
classification describes the role of that classification in serving the flow of trips through a community’s
street network, as well as how it interfaces with regional, state, and national street networks. The
following describes each of the City’s street classifications:
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 48
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 21
Principal Arterials. The City’s principal arterial system is designed to link major activity centers within
the metro area. Principal arterials have the highest traffic volumes, serve the longest trip desires, and
should be integrated with local and regional arterial systems.
To effectively serve its design objective, principal arterials are either partially, or fully, access controlled.
In order to preserve the identification of controlled access facilities, the principal arterial system is
further classified as interstate freeways (I-5), principal arterials, or minor arterials. The minimum design
standard for principal arterials will include bike lanes and sidewalks.
Intermodal Connectors. Another, often overlooked, function of principal arterials is their role as
intermodal connectors linking regional intermodal terminals to the highway network. Although they
account for less than one percent (1%) of National Highway System mileage, intermodal connectors are
unique in their role as key conduits for the timely and reliable delivery of goods, and hence the regional
economy.
The U.S. Department of Transportation identifies Pine/Biddle between I-5 and Hwy. 62 as an intermodal
connector. This stretch of arterial street is referred to as the Rogue Valley International Airport
intermodal connector. It is described as an Airport intermodal connector connecting I-5 and Hwy. 62
with the Airport. The identification of intermodal connectors, their role in the community’s
transportation and economic system, and the investment needs necessary for their efficient operation
throughout the planning period are deserving of special acknowledgement.
Changes to this classification require amendment to the TSP and would be based on factors such as
changes in land use, including expansion of the urban growth boundary.
Minor Arterials. The minor arterial street system includes all arterials not classified as a principal
arterial, contains facilities that place more emphasis on land access than principal arterials, and offer a
lower level of traffic mobility. Minor arterials may carry local bus routes and provide intra-community
connectivity but ideally should not penetrate identifiable neighborhoods. The minimum design standard
for minor arterials will include bike lanes and sidewalks.
Changes to this classification require an amendment to the TSP and would be based on factors such as
changes in land use, including expansion of the urban growth boundary.
Collector Streets. As their name implies, collector streets collect and distribute traffic from principal
arterials and minor arterials to the local street system or directly to local destinations. Collector streets
differ from the arterial system in that the collector system may penetrate residential neighborhoods,
distributing trips from the arterials through the area to their ultimate destination.
Changes to this classification require an amendment to the TSP and would be based on factors such as
changes in land use, including expansion of the urban growth boundary.
Local Streets. The local street system consists of all streets not classified as one of the other higher
order streets. As their name implies local streets provide adjacent residential, commercial, and industrial
land uses with access to the City’s higher order streets. Local streets typically offer the lowest level of
mobility. Within the City there are two basic types of local streets as follows:
Residential Streets. Residential streets provide direct access from the arterial network to local
land uses. Residential access streets provide access to low and medium density residentially
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 49
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 22
zoned lands. Residential streets can be further classified based on the number of residential
units served.
Changes to this classification require an amendment to the TSP and would be based on factors
such as changes in land use, including expansion of the urban growth boundary.
Commercial/Industrial Streets. Commercial/Industrial streets provide direct access from the
arterial network to local commercial and industrial land uses. Commercial/Industrial streets
provide access to commercial and industrial land uses and provide localized traffic circulation.
They serve commercial, manufacturing, and industrially zoned lands.
Changes to this classification require an amendment to the TSP and would be based on factors
such as changes in land use, including expansion of the urban growth boundary.
Private Streets. Privately owned streets provide direct access from the arterial network to local land
uses. Private streets may serve both residential and commercial land uses and provide localized traffic
circulation. Private streets are no longer permitted by the City.
Changes to this classification require the streets to be brought to public street standards and dedicated
to the City without modification to this TSP.
Figure 4-1 illustrates the City’s existing arterial and collector street classification system.
4.2.2 JURISDICTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Several jurisdictions, including the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Jackson County,
are responsible for portions of the existing street system within the study area. Figure 4-2 identifies the
jurisdictions responsible for each street within the City.
State Maintained Facilities. Within the planning area, ODOT maintains Interstate 5 (I-5) as well as
portions of Pine Street near the Central Point/I-5 Interchange and portions of Highway 99. Each of these
roadways is identified as a four-lane divided interstate freeway with posted speeds of 55 and 65 miles
per hour in the Central Point area. It is classified in the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan as having interstate
significance and serves as the primary north and south route for traffic traveling through the area.
Interstate 5 (I-5) is the main Interstate highway on the West Coast, paralleling the Pacific Ocean from
Canada to Mexico and serving some of the largest cities in the western U.S., including Seattle, Tacoma,
Portland, Salem, Sacramento, San Francisco/Oakland, Los Angeles, and San Diego. Within the planning
area, ODOT maintains I-5 which is a four-lane divided freeway with posted speeds of 55 and 65 miles per
hour. The City is bisected by I-5, which runs in a northwest to southeast direction on the east side of
downtown. There are two I-5 interchanges that serve Central Point. The first is located at Pine Street
(Exit 33) near the center of the city and serves the downtown area, residential areas in east Central
Point, the airport, and the industrial area located on Biddle Road and Table Rock Road. The second is the
Seven Oaks Interchange (Exit 35) located approximately two (2) miles north of the City center.
Highway 99 serves as another north-south access through Central Point. In 2004, a jurisdictional transfer
was completed conveying to the City of Central Point the section of Highway 99 from Mile Post 1.64 to
Mile Post 2.18. Within the City’s urban area there remain two short sections, one north of Mile Post 1.64
and one south of Mile Post .063 that retain the District Highway designation. The City’s Street
Classification Map has been modified to reflect these changes.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 50
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 23
Figure 4-1: Functional Classification System Map
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 51
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 24
Figure 4-2: Roadway Jurisdiction
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 52
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 25
County Maintained Facilities. Jackson County has jurisdiction over some roads within the Central Point
UGB, including many sections of the City’s arterial and collector street system such as Beall Lane, Grant
Road, and Upton Road. The City and the County have been working collaboratively to transfer County
roads to the City’s jurisdiction.
City Maintained Facilities. As illustrated in Figure 4-2, the City maintains the majority of the streets
within the Central Point urban area. The cross-sections range from two lane local streets to five lane
arterial streets with posted speed ranges between 20 and 40 mph.
Privately Maintained Facilities. Throughout the City there are a limited number of privately owned and
maintained streets. The City no longer allows the creation of private streets.
4.2.3 TRAFFIC SAFETY ANALYSIS
The crash histories on the major intersections within the City were reviewed to identify potential
intersection safety concerns. Crash records were obtained from the ODOT Crash Summary Books and
the City of Central Point Police Department for the period of January 1, 2002 through December 31,
2006. Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference. provides a summary of this crash data for each of the
study intersections. As illustrated in Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference., all study area
intersections are currently operating at less than 1.0 accidents per Million Entering Vehicles (MEV),
indicating that there are currently no apparent safety issues within the City’s street system.
Table 4-1: Crash Rate, City of Central Point, 2006
Intersection
Threshold
Used in
Evaluation
(MEV) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 ADT
Crash
Rate
(MEV)
Beall & Freeman 1.0 0 0 0 1 0 5,620 0.10
Beall & Bursell 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 4,810 0.00
Beall & Grant 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 3,360 0.00
Beall & Hanley 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 7,000 0.00
Beall & Hwy. 99 1.0 0 0 4 2 1 18,480 0.21
Taylor & Grant
(south)
1.0 0 0 0 0 0 1,550 0.00
Taylor & Grant
(north)
1.0 0 0 0 0 0 1,740 0.00
Bursell & Hopkins 1.0 2 1 0 1 1 4,490 0.61
Wilson & Table
Rock
1.0 0 0 0 0 0 14,960 0.00
Vilas & Table Rock 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 23,870 0.00
New Haven &
Hamrick
1.0 0 1 0 1 0 11,850 0.09
Gebhard & Wilson 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 1,860 0.00
Grant & Scenic 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 1,710 0.00
Scenic & Hwy. 99 1.0 0 1 0 1 0 9,660 0.11
Haskell & Taylor 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 2,840 0.00
Haskell & West Pine 1.0 1 2 2 3 2 11,320 0.48
Upton & Peninger 1.0 0 1 1 0 0 4,590 0.24
Freeman & Hopkins 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 7,650 0.00
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 53
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 26
Mobility Measures and Standards: There are two methods for determining the quality of a street
system’s mobility: Level of Service (LOS) and Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (V/C Ratio). The City uses the LOS
as its primary methodology for determining the street systems efficiency. The City also uses V/C Ratio
methodology as a secondary measurement of efficiency, while ODOT and Jackson County only use the
V/C Ratio methodology.
Level of Service (LOS): The LOS methodology was developed to quantify the quality of service of
transportation facilities. LOS quantifies the degree of comfort (including such elements as travel
time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay and impediments caused by other
vehicles) afforded to drivers as they travel through an intersection or along a roadway section.
In general, level of service is based on total delay. This parameter is defined as the total elapsed
time from when a vehicle stops at the end of a queue until the vehicle departs from the stop
line. LOS ranges from “A” to “F”, with LOS “A” indicating the most desirable condition and LOS
“F” indicating an unsatisfactory condition. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) LOS
designations for signalized and stop-controlled intersections are provided in Table 4-2 and Table
4-3, respectively. The City uses LOS as a performance standard for its traffic facilities. The
maximum level of service for Central Point facilities is level of service “D”. With the exception of
ODOT facilities the LOS methodology will be used in identifying existing and future mobility
standards for all other major roadway systems. As previously noted, the City acknowledges that
the County uses the V/C Ratio methodology. However, it is generally acknowledged that all
County roads will at some point come under the City’s jurisdiction, and as such the LOS mobility
measure is used.
Table 4-2: Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service Designations for Signalized
of Service Traffic Flow Comments Delay Range*
A (Desirable) Free Traffic flows freely with minimum or no
delay. Drivers can maneuver easily and find
freedom in operation.
<=10 Level
Meadowbrook &
East Pine
1.0 0 0 0 1 0 13,540 0.04
Beebe & Hamrick 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 12,960 0.00
Peninger & East
Pine
1.0 10 3 3 5 4 27,340 0.50
Hamrick & East
Pine
1.0 2 0 3 1 3 24,550 0.20
Hwy. 99 & East Pine
(Front)
1.0 4 7 2 4 4 22,230 0.52
2nd & East Pine 1.0 3 3 5 3 2 15,420 0.57
3rd & East Pine 1.0 5 4 4 4 5 14,070 0.86
4th & East Pine 1.0 2 4 4 1 2 13,430 0.53
6th & East Pine 1.0 3 1 1 1 2 15,430 0.28
10th & East Pine 1.0 12 9 8 10 8 25,960 0.99
I-5 NB & East Pine 1.0 2 2 2 2 1 26,960 0.18
I-5 SB & East Pine 1.0 2 2 2 2 1 23,460 0.21
Table Rock & East
Pine
1.0 1 0 0 0 0 16,060 0.03
Hazel & 3rd & 2nd 1.0 3 0 1 0 0 3,160 0.69
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 54
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 27
of Service Traffic Flow Comments Delay Range*
B (Desirable) Stable Traffic still flows smoothly with few delays.
Some drivers feel somewhat restricted
within groups of vehicles.
>10 and <=20
C (Desirable) Stable Traffic generally flows smoothly but
occasionally vehicles may be delayed
through one signal cycle. Desired urban area
design level. Backups may develop behind
turning vehicles. Most drivers feel
somewhat restricted.
>20 and <= 35
D (Acceptable) Approaching
Unstable Traffic delays may be more than one signal
cycle during peak hours, but excessive back-
ups do not occur. Considered acceptable
urban design level. Maneuverability is
limited during short periods due to
temporary back-ups.
>35 and <=55
E (Unsatisfactory) Unstable Delay may be great and up to several signal
cycles. Short period of this level may be
tolerated during peak hours in lieu of the
cost and disruption attributed to providing a
higher level of service. There are typically
long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of
the intersections.
>55 and <= 80
F (Unsatisfactory) Forced Excessive delay causes reduced capacity.
Always considered unsatisfactory. May be
tolerated in recreational areas where
occurrence is rare. Traffic is backed up from
other locations and may restrict or prevent
movement of vehicles at the intersection.
>= 80
*Delay Range related to the range of average vehicle delay (in seconds per vehicle) that falls within the associated level of service.
Table 4-3: Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service for Stopped Controlled Intersections
Level of Service Delay Range*
A (Desirable) <=10
B (Desirable) >10 and <=15
C (Desirable) >15 and <= 25
D (Acceptable) >25 and <= 35
E (Undesirable) >35 and <= 50
F (Unsatisfactory) >50
*Delay Range related to the range of average vehicle delay (in seconds per vehicle) that falls within the associated level of service.
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio: Volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio is another measure of effectiveness
that is used to describe the level of operation of signalized intersections, stop-controlled
movements, and roadway segments. A volume-to-capacity ratio measure indicates the
percentage of available capacity that is used by traffic demand during a given time period. When
the volume-to-capacity ratio exceeds 1.0, traffic queues will form and continue to lengthen until
demand reduces to below the capacity. The City of Central Point and Jackson County use the V/C
Ratio to provide for consistent traffic analysis with ODOT and because the V/C Ratio is
conceptually simpler making it somewhat easier to explain to the general public.
ODOT has jurisdiction over the signalized I-5 ramp terminal intersections at East Pine Street, as
well as the intersections of Hwy. 99 & Beall Lane, Hwy. 99 & Scenic Avenue and Peninger Road &
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 55
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 28
East Pine Street. ODOT does not employ LOS methodology. The 1999 Oregon Highway Plan lists
maximum volume-to-capacity ratios for all Oregon highways based on their level of importance
within the statewide highway system. Volume-to-capacity ratio provides an indication of
capacity sufficiency. The higher the volume-to-capacity ratio, the more congested the facility.
The Highway Mobility Standards Policy established standards for mobility that are reasonable
and consistent with the directions of other highway plan policies.
The 1999 Oregon Highway Plan volume-to-capacity ratio standard for I-5 and its interchange
components is 0.85. Action 1F.1 of the plan states that the maximum volume-to-capacity ratio
for the ramp terminals of interchange ramps shall be the smaller of the values of the volume-to-
capacity ratio for the crossroad, or 0.85. All other ODOT intersections within the City of Central
Point must operate at a volume-to-capacity ratio less than or equal to 0.90. For both the City
and County facilities, the maximum V/C ratio is 0.95.
4.2.4 EXISTING OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
In 2007, the City completed an operational analysis of the City’s existing street system. With the
exception of the intersection of Beebe Road and Hamrick Road, the City’s arterial and collector street
system is currently operating at an acceptable level of service. The LOS at the intersection of Beebe
Road and Hamrick Road is operating at a LOS of E/F (am/pm). All ODOT facilities are operating within
their minimum of 0.85 V/C for Interchange 33 ramp terminals and 0.90 V/C for the north and south
remaining Oregon Highway 99 segments under state jurisdiction (portions of the intersection at Scenic
Road and Beall Lane). The existing operational levels of intersections within the study area are
summarized in Table 4-4.
4.2.5 FREIGHT SERVICE.
Truck freight transportation within the Central Point UGB is primarily concentrated along the truck
routes designated in the Regional Transportation Plan. Figure 4-3 illustrates the City’s truck routes,
which include Interstate 5 (I-5) and Highway 99 (Front Street). I-5 is the most important freight route in
the region carrying approximately 4,000 to 5,000 trucks per day through the area. I-5 not only serves
freight heading to destinations within the Central Point UGB, but also serves trucks passing through the
region to destinations throughout the West Coast. Currently, the combined volume of freight
transported over highway and rail modes in the I-5 corridor through the Rogue Valley Metropolitan
Planning Region is estimated at 25 million tons annually, with the majority of this freight carried on the
highway system. Additional Central Point Freight Routes as identified in the RVMPO Freight Study (2006)
include Table Rock Road, Hamrick Road, East Vilas Road, Pine Street, and Hanley Road.
The Freight Study finds that the freight system is in need of improvements to maintain adequate levels
of service to remain competitive and safe. The Freight Study recommended twenty-nine (29) projects
that would improve the region’s freight system. Of these twenty-nine projects, seven (7) were within
Central Point’s urban area. These projects and their scoring are listed in Table 4-5.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 56
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 29
Table 4-4: Level of Service and Vehicle-to-Capacity Ratio
Intersection Control Type LOS & V/C Standard
Year 2006 A.M.
Performance
Year 2006 P.M.
Performance
WEST SIDE
Beall & Freeman Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS C LOS C
Beall & Bursell Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B
Beall & Grant Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B
Beall & Hanley Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B
Beall & Hwy. 99 Signalized V/C 0.90 V/C 0.81 V/C 0.76
Taylor & Grant (south) Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A
Taylor & Grant (north) Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A
Bursell & Hopkins Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C
Hwy. 99 & East Pine
(Front)
Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS C
2nd & East Pine Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS C LOS D
3rd & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS A LOS A
4th & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS A LOS A
6th & East Pine Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS D LOS D
10th & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS D LOS C
Grant & Scenic Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A
Scenic & Hwy. 99 Stop/Unsignalized V/C 0.90 V/C 0.23 V/C 0.64
Haskell & Taylor Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A
Haskell & West Pine Signalized LOS D LOS B LOS A
Freeman & Hopkins Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C
Hazel & 3rd & 2nd Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B
Haskell & Beall Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS C LOS C
EAST SIDE
Meadowbrook & East
Pine
Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C
Beebe & Hamrick Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS E LOS F
Peninger & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS D
Hamrick & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS B LOS C
Upton & Peninger Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS B
I-5 NB & East Pine Signalized V/C 0.85 V/C 0.51 V/C 0.77
I-5 SB & East Pine Signalized V/C 0.85 V/C 0.72 V/C 0.65
Table Rock & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS B LOS C
Wilson & Table Rock Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS D LOS D
Vilas & Table Rock Signalized LOS D LOS B LOS C
New Haven & Hamrick Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS C LOS D
Gebhard & Wilson Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS B
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 57
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 30
Figure 4-3: Major Truck Routes
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 58
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 31
Table 4-5: RVMPO Freight Study Recommended Projects, City of Central Point
Rank Project
Importance to
Freight
Create & Sustain
Jobs Multi-Modal
Remove
Barriers Total Score
6 Table Rock Rd. & West Vilas Rd.
Intersection
30 14 0 30 80
7 Table Rock Rd. & Hamrick Rd.
Intersection
20 30 0 30 80
9 Improve East/West Flow on Pine
Street
30 10 6 30 78
10 Improve Traffic Flow at Central
Point I-5 Interchange
30 10 6 30 76
21 Repair Hamrick Rd. South of Pine
St.
5 30 0 18 53
23 East Pine St. & Peninger
Intersection
10 10 0 30 50
27 Table Rock Rd.: Bear Creek to Pine
St./Biddle Rd.
20 10 0 10 40
4.3 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR STUDIES
Within the City, there are two major transportation corridors: Hwy. 99 and Pine Street. Over the years
each of these transportation corridors have had studies prepared addressing the transportation role of
each in the community and preferred design solutions.
Pine Street Transportation Corridor. Pine Street serves as the City’s primary east/west major arterial
and is also the primary street serving the Central Business District. Additionally, Pine Street is a
designated freight route. Because of its history and abutting land uses, Pine Street has been segregated
in to two unique sections: East Pine Street and West Pine Street.
East Pine Street Plan (JRH Transportation Engineering, October 2004) – East Pine Street serves as a
typical major arterial with limited access. In 2005, the City completed an East Pine Street Corridor Study.
This study identified limitations on East Pine Street due to continued growth in the area. The study also
identified mitigation measures needed to maintain an acceptable level of service along East Pine Street.
Recommended improvements have been incorporated in this TSP as part of the roadway improvements
presented in Chapter 7.
West Pine Street serves the Central Business District and is considered an urban arterial through the
downtown with on-street parking, curb-extension, and other design features to emphasize the
pedestrian nature of the downtown. Because West Pine Street traverses the downtown, it is critical that
the design standards for West Pine Street be formalized as a by-product of a downtown master plan.
Although West Pine Street is classified as a major arterial, it is imperative that on-street parking
continues to be a part of the design for West Pine Street through the downtown.
Highway 99 Corridor Plan (OTAK/DKS, June 13, 2005). Historically Hwy. 99 has been a north/south state
highway that runs through Central Point. As is typical of the State’s old highway system, business
developed and received direct access from Hwy. 99. Although a major arterial street, there are many
businesses that have direct access to Hwy. 99. Through a Transportation Growth Management (TGM)
grant, the City has prepared a corridor plan for Hwy. 99 that will serve as a blueprint for future private
and public development along the highway using Smart Growth techniques. It is the objective of this
plan to provide an aesthetically pleasing and safe multi-modal environment along the corridor.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 59
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 32
In 2005, the City and the State agreed on a jurisdictional transfer conveying to the City the jurisdiction of
Hwy. 99 between Mile Post 1.64 and Mile Post 2.18. During that same period the City, after considerable
community and ODOT input, adopted the Highway 99 Corridor Plan. The acknowledged function of Hwy.
99 is as a major arterial with a posted speed of 45 mph. The proposed design of Hwy. 99 intends to slow
the traffic through the inclusion of the following:
Gateway medians
Frontage improvements to Fire Station No. 3
Enhanced pedestrian crossings
Continuous pedestrian sidewalks and pathways
Narrower curb-to-curb distances and travel widths
Landscape improvements to the street edges, e.g., street trees and landscape planter strips
These design components have been compiled into a boulevard design standard that addresses the
unique character of Hwy. 99. Figure 9.2 illustrates the City’s typical cross-section as applied to Hwy. 99.
The primary challenge in managing the redevelopment of Hwy. 99 will be access management. Typical
access management regulations will be difficult to apply to Hwy. 99 as a result of existing land use
patterns and driveways. An access management plan unique to Hwy. 99/Front Street should be
prepared and adopted by the City.
The recommendations presented in each of these studies are discussed in other chapters of this TSP,
such as Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Streets.
4.4 BICYCLE SYSTEM EXISTING CONDITIONS
The City’s existing bicycle system is illustrated in Figure 4-4. While existing bicycle facilities are located
on a few of the arterial and collector streets in Central Point, much of the City’s arterial and collector
systems lack bicycle facilities. The bicycle facilities that do exist cover only a limited geographic area and,
in some cases, are disconnected from each other. Many of the City’s public schools and parks are poorly
connected with surrounding neighborhoods, reducing the opportunity for convenient and safe bicycle
travel for students and employees. What follows are descriptions of the status of bicycle facilities on
arterial and collector streets. The focus is on these streets because they provide the essential
connectivity needed to develop an effective bicycle facilities system. The most significant arterial and
collector streets with limited or no bicycle facilities are:
Front Street. There are no bicycle facilities located on Front Street. The Highway 99 Corridor Plan was
completed in June 2005 and recommended that adding bike lanes to Front Street is not a recommended
improvement. Within the current curb-to-curb distances, the bicycle lanes would be substandard and
the differential between the average vehicle speeds and bike speeds are too great to support a
convenient and safe bicycle system. It was proposed that safe and continuous north to south bicycle
lanes could be provided along two parallel routes:
Second Street (north bound), with bikes and vehicles sharing a travel lane; and
A multi-use pathway west of the existing railroad tracks and connecting Crater High School with the
Twin Creeks TOD and the future Snowy Butte TOD (south bound). A fence separating the railroad
lines and the pathway will be required.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 60
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 33
Figure 4-4: Bicycle System Map
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 61
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 34
East Pine Street (Freeman Road to Front Street). This section of East Pine Street has limited bicycle
facilities located near the I-5 Interchange and Front Street. While East Pine Street may be designated as
a bicycle route, due to issues related to traffic flow, parking and access to shopping areas, bicycle lanes
may not be located on the street. Since this is the case, Manzanita Street and/or Oak Street have been
designated as bikeways.
Biddle Road (Table Rock Road to Hamrick Road). From Hamrick Road to Table Rock Road, bicycle
facilities are not available. This section of Biddle Road (Biddle Road changes to East Pine Street at the
intersection of Hamrick Road) is designated as a bicycle route consistent with the City of Medford’s
designation of Biddle Road.
Upton Road – I-5 Overpass. The Upton Road – I-5 overpass provides one of only two means for crossing
I-5 in Central Point. A new overpass was completed in 2008 which provides both bicycle and pedestrian
facilities. Bicycle lanes were also added to the west side of Upton which now connects to 10th
Street/Scenic Avenue providing improved connectivity to the existing bicycle system.
4.4.1 LINKS TO OTHER EXISTING REGIONAL & MUNICIPAL BICYCLE FACILITIES AND
PLANS
The City’s Bicycle Plan, as illustrated in Figure 8-1 of TSP Chapter 8, provides connectivity to other local
and regional bicycle facilities and plans. These links should be included to the Bear Creek Greenway, and
the City of Medford TSP, and Jackson County TSP which are described below.
Bear Creek Greenway Plan. The Bear Creek Greenway is a narrow corridor of publicly owned land that
follows the Bear Creek streambed from Ashland (Nevada Street) to Central Point (Pine Street).
Development of the Bear Creek Greenway bicycle and pedestrian path began in 1973 when the Oregon
Department of Transportation built the first 3.4 mile stretch of the pedestrian/bicycle path through
Medford. The Greenway currently includes two primary sections:
Pine Street in Central Point to Barnett Road in Medford; and
Blue Heron Park in Phoenix to Nevada Street in Ashland.
When complete, the Greenway will provide a 20-mile, multi-use path from the I-5/Seven Oaks
Interchange in Central Point to Nevada Street in Ashland. It will serve as an important facility for
intercity travel in the I-5/OR 99 corridor. Additionally, a Rogue River Greenway is currently in the
planning stages. This greenway will connect the communities of Grants Pass, Rogue River, and Gold Hill
and would eventually be linked to the Bear Creek Greenway at the Seven Oaks Interchange. In terms of
the bicycle component of the Central Point TSP, the Bear Creek Greenway not only offers a relatively
safe and efficient means of transportation but also provides an essential connection to other
communities located along the path. The links from the Central Point bicycle system to the Bear Creek
Greenway are via Upton Road / Peninger Road and East Pine Street near the I-5 Interchange.
The Jackson County Transportation System Plan (March 2005). Jackson County adopted its Bicycle
Master Plan, which identified conditions, needs, and projects in 1997. The current Jackson County
Transportation Plan adopted in March 2005 incorporates the projects identified in the master plan that
have not yet been completed. The plan also adds projects that were not in the Master Plan where traffic
volumes are expected to exceed 3,000 Average Daily Traffic Count (ADT) and adequate shoulders or bike
lanes are not provided.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 62
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 35
The primary connections that need to be considered as Central Point bicycle facilities are planned,
developed, and improved are Hanley Road, Beall Lane, and Taylor Road. The Jackson County section of
Taylor Road from Grant Road to Old Stage Road has been scheduled for improvement, including bicycle
facilities. Once completed, Taylor Road will provide an additional link from Central Point to Old Stage
Road. The county section of Beall Lane from Hanley Road to Old Stage Road has bicycle facilities.
City of Medford Transportation System Plan (April 2003). The City of Medford Transportation System
Plan – Bicycle Plan identifies the existing and planned bicycle system within the Medford urban area. On
arterial and collector streets, it is important that Medford’s and Central Point’s bicycle systems be
coordinated and supportive. The primary connections described in Medford’s Bicycle Plan that need to
be considered as Central Point bicycle facilities are planned, developed, and improved are Merriman
Road via Beall Lane, Front Street connection to North Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), West Vilas Road via
Hamrick Road, and E. Pine Street connections to Biddle Road. Within the City of Medford these streets
have, or are planned to have, bicycle lanes.
4.5 PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM, EXISTING CONDITIONS
The City’s existing pedestrian system is illustrated in Figure 4-5. The City has been diligently constructing
sidewalks within activity centers, i.e. schools, shopping, etc. The City’s current development standards
require sidewalks along all public streets.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 63
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 36
Figure 4-5: Pedestrian System Map
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 64
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 37
4.6 RAIL SYSTEM, EXISTING CONDITIONS
A single rail line runs through the City parallel to Hwy. 99. The rail line is operated by Central Oregon
Pacific Railroad (CORP) and is used for freight purposes only. Throughout the City’s urban area, there are
three (3) public at-grade railroad crossings and one (1) proposed crossing.
Table 4-6: Central Point Railroad Crossings and Controls
4.7 TRANSIT, EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) serves most of the urbanized area in Jackson County
with public transit and paratransit services. It also serves other roles such as providing medical-purpose
transportation for Medicaid clients, coordination with other government agencies for transportation
planning and houses the region’s rideshare program. Central Point is currently served by Route 40
(Figure 4-6) and has very strong ridership. Based on the City’s GIS mapping, Route 40 is within a ¼ mile
walk of approximately 40% of the City’s residential population. Route 40 travels from Medford to
Central Point and has received increased frequency from one hour to 30-minute headways (the time
between buses on the same line).
Crossing Name Crossing No. Crossing Control
Beall Lane U.S. DOT #756030T Full
W. Pine Street U.S. DOT #756050T Full
Scenic Avenue U.S. DOT #756051A Full
Twin Creeks Crossing Proposed Full
4.7. Transit, Existing Conditions
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 65
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 38
Figure 4-6: Rogue Valley Transit System Routes and Stops
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 66
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 5 — Transportation Management Page 39
Chapter 5 — Transportation Management
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The Transportation Management chapter addresses transportation management best practices. There
are three basic components to transportation management:
Transportation System Management
Access Management
Transportation Demand Management
The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires that cities over 25,000 population include in their
Transportation System Plan (TSP) strategies for Transportation System Management, Access
Management, and Transportation Demand Management. With a current population of less than 25,000,
the City of Central Point is not required by the TPR to include these elements in its TSP. However,
because of the significance of these elements in maximizing the efficiency of a transportation system,
coupled with the fact that during the life of this TSP the City will exceed 25,000, the City has elected to
include these transportation management techniques as a part of its TSP. Additional information on
these elements is provided in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
In this chapter, it is the City’s objective to establish, as a guiding principle, the use of transportation
management strategies that maximize the utility of public right-of-way; is appropriate to the functional
classification of each street; and provides for multiple travel modes, while minimizing their impact on
the character and livability of surrounding neighborhoods, business districts, and the general
environment.
5.2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM)
The TPR defines TSM as “techniques for increasing the efficiency, safety, and capacity or level of service
of a transportation facility without increasing its size.” TSM strategies are aimed at making the most
efficient and timely use of the existing transportation infrastructure, thus reducing the need for costly
roadway capacity expansions. Techniques include, but are not limited to:
Intersection and signal improvements:
o Signal timing optimization
o Controller/cabinet and signal head upgrades
o Vehicle detectors repair/replace
o Communication with central system
o Turning lanes
o Grade separations
o Pavement Striping
o Lane assessment changes
o Signage and lighting
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 67
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 5 — Transportation Management Page 40
o Using one-way streets
Signal prioritization for mass transit
Freeway bottleneck removal programs
Data Collection to monitor system performance
Special events management
TSM strategies emphasize policies that can guide implementation of solutions to problems when they
are discovered. Specific TSM measures most applicable to the City’s transportation system are
presented below. The listing and discussion of TSM strategies below does not represent any priority
order. The broad range of TSM strategies must be considered for the individual problems associated
with traffic operations at each location.
5.3 MOBILITY STANDARDS
5.3.1 UPDATE EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNALS
Local governments traditionally base their decisions on the installation of traffic signals on the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Central Point has a history of successfully using signals to achieve
optimum traffic flow and will continue to give priority to improving existing traffic signals and signal
systems. Such improvements should include regular signal maintenance, updating the signal equipment
and signal timing plan improvements.
The need for traffic signal equipment modernization, timing plan improvements, and traffic signal
removal should be evaluated based on detailed analyses of traffic operations at the existing
intersections where signals are in place. Recent advances in signal technology and acceptance have led
to installation of signals that offer a broader menu of traffic movement options, such as protective-
permissive left turns. Depending on the traffic and the precise characteristics of individual intersections,
installation of such equipment may prove desirable. The Pine Street traffic calming project, which is a
part of this TSP, includes the replacement of the mechanical downtown Pine Street signals with
protective-permissive left turn signals. Signal evaluations must be made on a case-by-case basis and can
be more easily evaluated using software packages such as, but not limited to, TRANSYT, SYNCHRO, and
Passer II.
5.3.2 COORDINATE TRAFFIC SIGNALS
The coordination of new traffic signals through interconnection with existing traffic signals is a
management technique that has demonstrated mobility improvements in corridor level traffic
operations. Experience in other communities has shown an eight to ten percent improvement in travel
time along arterials after interconnected systems have been installed. Reduction of some types of
automobile-generated emissions is also cited as a possible benefit of improved signal systems.
Whenever additional intersections are signalized, Central Point needs to consider how they can be best
integrated with nearby signalized intersections. In some cases, signals operate most efficiently as
independent signals, but in other cases, they are best integrated into a signal system. Some of the
existing systems may need to be expanded to attain maximum benefit with the addition of more signals.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 68
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 5 — Transportation Management Page 41
The RTP identifies East Pine Street between the I-5 interchange and Rogue Valley Highway in Central
Point as a candidate corridor for consideration, or for re-evaluation, of existing traffic signal systems.
The East Pine Street signal needs were evaluated, and recommendations are presented in the East Pine
Street Transportation Plan, October 2004. The recommendations from the East Pine Street Plan have
been included in this TSP. Installation of master controllers, interconnection systems, and other
equipment may help to achieve increased efficiency and reduce congestion of the street system. The
Pine Street traffic calming project includes the coordination of the downtown Pine Street signals.
5.3.3 ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY TRAFFIC SIGNALS
Intersection traffic control improvements such as traffic signals are generally based on identified traffic
congestion and safety problems. Over time, a change in the surrounding land use and/or street system
may reduce travel demand at the signalized intersection, or roadway and intersection geometric
improvements may mitigate the safety problems at the intersection. Such changes in travel demand and
safety at the intersection may make the signal unnecessary, thereby requiring that the signal be
removed for optimum system performance.
Intersections requiring removal of traffic signals may be converted to two-way stop control with free
flow in the major direction of travel, or they may be converted to all-way stop control. The placement of
traffic signals in downtown Central Point is likely to be re-evaluated during the Pine Street traffic
calming project.
5.3.4 INTERSECTION GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS
Intersection improvements such as the provision of turning lanes, traffic islands, channelization, and
improved design can generally be implemented at relatively modest cost depending on their complexity.
The benefits, though, in terms of improved vehicular traffic flow and pedestrian safety are substantial.
Central Point should consider following recognized national standards for geometric improvements at
intersections. The following are guidelines established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in
designing and improving arterial intersections at grade:
Reduce the number of conflicts among vehicular movements.
Control the relative speed of vehicles both entering and leaving the intersection.
Coordinate different types of traffic control devices used with the traffic volume at the intersection.
Select proper types of intersections to serve the traffic volume. Low volumes can be served with
minimal control, whereas higher volumes require turning lanes and sophisticated actuated signal
operations.
Use separate left- and right-turn lanes at high volume intersections.
Avoid multiple and compound merging and diverging maneuvers. These require complex driver
decisions and create additional conflicts.
Separate conflict points. Intersection hazards and delays are increased when intersection maneuver
areas are too close together or overlap.
Favor the heaviest and fastest flows.
Reduce areas of conflict by channelization (striping, islands, etc.).
Segregate non-homogenous flows. Separate lanes should be provided where appreciable volumes of
traffic are traveling at different speeds (e.g. turning lanes for slowing vehicles).
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 69
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 5 — Transportation Management Page 42
Consider the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists.
Geometric improvements at qualifying intersections are included in this TSP’s project list (see Chapter 7-
Street System).
5.3.5 ONE-WAY STREETS
Streets carrying high traffic volumes in major activity centers, such as in the central business district
(CBD) areas of cities, are often regulated to carry traffic in only one direction. The one-way designation
increases the vehicle carrying capacity of the street by offering additional lanes for travel in the same
direction and increases capacity of signalized intersections along the highway through improved signal
progression and reduction in the number of signal phases (turning movements). The increased capacity
along the corridor can result in reduced delays thereby providing significant travel time savings.
One-way streets can also result in increased safety by reducing vehicle-pedestrian and vehicle-vehicle
conflicts; preventing the entrapment of pedestrians between opposing traffic streams; and improving
the driver’s field of vision at intersection approaches. Along with increasing capacity and safety, one-way
streets can help meet community objectives by saving sidewalks, trees, and other valuable frontage
assets that would otherwise be lost because of the need to widen existing two-way streets. Additionally,
the one-way designation can also permit improvements in public transit operations such as routings
without turn-back loops. Overall, one-way streets provide a cost-effective operational solution to busy
streets in highly developed areas, such as CBD or other activity centers, without requiring large capital
expenditures.
One-way street systems must be adequately signed and enough cross-connections must be provided for
adequate accessibility. Without such provisions, traffic congestion and vehicle miles of travel could
actually increase.
One-way streets are not universally accepted. Where one-way streets have been proposed or
implemented, many business owners object, fearing that access by customers will be lost. Many
communities where one-way streets have been implemented have subsequently reversed their
direction or have changed them back to two-way operation. Such changes make it clear that
implementation of one-way street systems must be carefully considered, requiring involvement of all
parties including business owners, motorists, and all other transportation system users.
Several alleys in Central Point are one-way alleys. Currently, no streets are identified for being changed
to one-way.
5.3.6 INSTALL NEW TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT INTERSECTIONS
Traffic signal improvements generally provide the most cost-effective solution to improving traffic
congestion on existing arterial and collector streets. The need for traffic signal control at intersections
that are currently under two-way or four-way stop-control has been evaluated as part of this TSP and
the need for new traffic signals has been identified in Chapter 7 - Street System Plan.
5.3.7 RAMP METERING
Ramp meters are employed at freeway on-ramp entrances with the objective of optimizing throughput
capacity on the mainline freeway. The optimization is achieved by regulating the entry of vehicles onto
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 70
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 5 — Transportation Management Page 43
the freeway during the peak hours of operation through the use of ramp signals at the on-ramps. Very
often, optimization of freeway throughput capacity is achieved at the expense of additional delays at the
metered on-ramps. Another key consideration is the ability to provide adequate queuing or storage
capacity for the stopped vehicles on the ramps leading to the through road.
Ramp metering has proven to be one of the most cost-effective techniques to improve traffic flow on
the freeway. A Federal Highway Administration study of seven ramp metering sites in the United States
and Canada revealed that average highway speeds increased by 29 percent after installing ramp
metering. An analysis of the system in Seattle revealed that in addition to speed and corresponding
travel time improvements, highway volumes increased between 12 and 40 percent as a result of ramp
metering. Also, accident rate reductions between 20 and 58 percent have been recorded as a result of
improved merging operations associated with ramp metering at freeway and on-ramp merge points.
The need for metering on-ramps to I-5 should be evaluated by ODOT in cooperation with local
governments as the region grows and travel demands increase along I-5. Although I-5 and the ramps are
under the jurisdiction of ODOT, it will be important for agencies to work cooperatively to balance the
competing demands on the interstate system.
The ramps at the Central Point interchange are forecast to be operating at an acceptable level of service
through 2010, but by 2020 the northbound ramp is forecast to exceed ODOT’s minimum acceptable V/C
ratio. By 2030, it is forecast that the southbound ramp will have similar capacity problems. Whether
ramp metering is a solution to the capacity limitations of these two I-5 ramps is a question to be
answered by ODOT. This TSP does not identify any projects for meter installation at the I-5 interchange.
5.3.8 GOODS MOVEMENT MANAGEMENT
The efficient movement of goods into and out of urban areas is essential for the economic vitality of the
region. Goods movement management strategies are aimed at improving congestion and safety
conditions along the arterials. Strategies include restricting truck deliveries and pick-ups to off-peak
periods, using alleys for loading and unloading, and providing additional curb space for loading and
unloading operations. Such strategies should be investigated in commercial areas along heavily
congested roads.
In preparation of this TSP the issue of freight movement has resulted in a chapter dedicated to freight.
Chapter 11 - Freight will discuss the role of freight movement, issues, and solutions.
5.4 ACCESS MANAGEMENT (AM)
Access Management is an effective and rational approach to maximizing the City’s street system. As its
name implies, access management regulates access to land development while preserving the flow of
traffic on the surrounding road system in terms of safety, capacity needs, and speed. To be effective,
access management requires coordination between land use planning and transportation planning,
which is the primary objective of the State’s transportation planning rule. Access management calls for
land use controls that are keyed to development policies and transportation system capabilities. The
product of an effective access management program is a street system that is efficient, safe, accessible,
and viable. The challenge is to develop effective access standards that find a balance between transit
needs, land development plans, and the functional integrity of the roadways that serve local and
regional development and transportation needs.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 71
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 5 — Transportation Management Page 44
Access issues can be highly controversial since access management often regulates and limits access to
individual businesses or requires access from side streets or frontage roads. The key elements to a
successful access management program include:
Defining allowable access levels and spacing for various classes of roadways;
Providing a mechanism for granting variances when reasonable access cannot be provided; and
Establishing a means of enforcing standards.
Without an access management program along arterials and collectors, roadways may need to be
periodically widened to accommodate demands of new development. This cycle is a result of continually
trying to satisfy traffic demands, which are often a result of increased business activity, which is
influenced by improved traffic conditions, which leads to further traffic demands. The number of conflict
points among vehicles rises as a result of an increase in the number of driveways, causing capacity to
diminish. Vehicle delay increases and safety and comfort are reduced. The following are some of the
more important elements of an access management strategy that are applicable in the Central Point
area:
Regulate minimum spacing of driveways.
Regulate maximum number of driveways per property frontage.
Require access on adjacent cross-street (when available).
Consolidate access for adjacent properties.
Encourage connections between adjacent properties that do not require motorists to traverse the
public streets.
Require adequate internal site design and circulation plan.
Regulate the maximum width of driveways.
Improve the vertical geometrics of driveways.
Optimize traffic signal spacing and coordination.
Install raised median divider with left-turn deceleration lane.
Install continuous two-way left-turn lane.
Access management standards associated with state facilities are a required component of local
transportation system plans. Table 5-1 identifies the access management standards the City of Central
Point utilizes along state facilities. Table 5-2 identifies access management guidelines for all other
facilities within Central Point.
Table 5-1: Access Management Spacing Standards for District Highway
Posted Speed Urban Highway Urban Business District Special Transportation Area
>= 55 mph 700 feet -
50 mph 550 feet -
40 and 45 mph 500 feet -
30 and 35 mph 400 feet 350 feet Existing block spacing specified
in Comprehensive Plan or other
spacing as permitted. See
complete description in 1999
Oregon Highway Plan.
>= 25 mph 400 feet 350 feet
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 72
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 5 — Transportation Management Page 45
Table 5-2: Access Management Guidelines
Functional
Classification
Minimum Posted
Speed
Minimum Spacing
between
Driveway and/or
Street*
Spacing between
Intersections
Appropriate
Adjacent Land
Use
Major Arterial 35-50 mph See Table 5-1 See Table 5-1 Community/neighborhood
commercial near major
intersections.
Industrial/office/low
volume retail and
buffered medium or
higher density
residential between
intersections.
Minor Arterial 35-50 mph 300 feet ¼ Mile Light industry/offices and
buffered medium or low
density.
Neighborhood
commercial near
some major
intersections.
Collector 25-35 mph 50 feet 300 feet Neighborhood commercial
near some major
intersections.
Medium or low
density residential.
Primarily lower
density residential.
Primarily industrial.
Local 25 Access to each lot
permitted
300 feet Primarily low density
residential.
Primarily industrial.
*Desirable design spacing (existing spacing will vary).
5.4.1 ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLANNING
In recognition of the value of access management, the City of Central Point has prepared access
management plans and standards for its arterial and collector street system.
Access Management Plan for Front Street (Highway 99)/Pine Street. This plan was prepared in 2003 to
identify access management strategies for the section of Highway 99 generally defined as Front Street.
The Plan also included the section of Pine Street from Haskell Street to First Street. Both short-term and
long-term access strategies were developed. The findings and recommendations of the Access
Management Plan for Front Street (Highway 99)/Pine Street Plan are incorporated in this TSP by
reference.
Central Point Highway 99 Corridor Plan. This plan was prepared in 2005 and addressed the land use and
transportation needs of Highway 99 as a major transportation corridor. This plan differed from the 2003
Access Management Plan for Front Street (Highway 99)/Pine Street Plan only to the extent that its
purpose was broader in scope, including roadway geometry options, bicycle and pedestrian systems,
urban design solutions, etc. The access management recommendations in both plans are consistent for
the section of Highway 99 referred to as Front Street. The findings and recommendations of the Central
Point Highway 99 Corridor Plan are incorporated in this TSP by reference.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 73
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 5 — Transportation Management Page 46
5.5 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM)
The objective of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies is to reduce the number of
single-occupant vehicles using the road system while providing a wide variety of mobility options to
those who wish to travel. In accomplishing this objective, TDM measures increase the carrying capacity
of the transportation system, without the expense and inconvenience of adding capacity to the system.
If implemented on an area-wide basis and actively supported by agencies, businesses, and residents,
TDM strategies may be able to reduce or delay the need for street improvements as well as reduce
energy consumption and air quality problems. TDM strategies are aimed at reducing travel demand by
influencing people’s travel behavior in one of two ways: (1) by reducing the need to travel, or (2) by
encouraging travel utilizing a mode other than a single-occupant automobile.
To manage the demand upon a transportation system, there are a number of basic approaches that a
community may take. First, decreasing peak demand either by shifting person-trips from the peak hour
of demand or by eliminating person-trips. Person-trips represent the number of trips made by an
individual, while vehicle trips account for multiple person-trips depending upon the number of people
traveling in the vehicle. Second, for the person-trips that are necessary during the peak hour of demand,
a community may encourage non-vehicular and vehicular alternatives to single-occupant vehicles
(SOVs). Non-vehicular alternatives such as bicycling and walking are most applicable for short trips,
while vehicular alternatives such as ridesharing and transit are necessary for intermediate and long trips.
Finally, a community may reduce the demand on its surface transportation system by decreasing the
distances traveled by vehicle trips through different methods including, but not limited to, transit-
oriented type development and increasing the attractiveness of alternative modes of transportation
such as transit, bicycling, and walking. There is an important inter-relationship between the TDM
element and land use.
The major effect of the TDM programs would be on the home to work and return trips, which comprise
about one-fifth of the total daily trips and about half of the peak hour traffic. Although other types of
trips may be impacted, the effect would be considerably less because the trips are not as regular (e.g.,
shopping or business trips), often have a higher vehicle occupancy (e.g., school trips), and sometimes
involve the transfer of goods (e.g., shopping trips).
TDM strategies recommended for the Rogue Valley metropolitan area focus on the home to work and
return trips. These include establishing alternative work arrangements, promoting telecommuting and
ridesharing, and adopting a trip reduction ordinance. TDM strategies are also closely tied to the
provision of adequate pedestrian/bicycle facilities and transit services and modifying parking
requirements. The following describes the recommended plan for alternative work arrangements,
telecommuting, ridesharing, and a trip reduction ordinance. RVTD houses the “Way to Go Program”
which is Transportation Demand Management programs for the entire Rogue Valley. Programs focus on
bicycle and pedestrian safety, carpools and vanpools, etc.
5.5.1 ALTERNATIVE WORK ARRANGEMENTS
Local governments and major employers can encourage work arrangements providing an alternative to
the 8-to-5 work schedule. These arrangements could include, but not be limited to, employee flex-time
programs, staggered work hours, and compressed work weeks as described below:
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 74
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 5 — Transportation Management Page 47
Employee Flex-Time Programs. One opportunity employers have to affect total trip demand is through
influencing their own employees’ peak versus off-peak travel behavior. A flexible schedule may allow
employees to match their work hours with transit schedules, make carpool arrangements, or merely
avoid peak congestion times. Active promotion of alternative schedules might slightly decrease total
peak hour traffic.
Flex-time is most useful in offices, particularly for administrative and information workers. It may not be
as applicable for non-office employers since their employees often have to work hours that are not
during the peak hour of traffic demand anyway (e.g., retail employers) or because their work requires
continuous communication between workers. In addition, flex-time may be difficult to implement for
small employers.
Staggered Work Hours. Staggered work hours is a policy of established starting and finishing times for
different groups of employees. Unlike flex-time, the employer, rather than the employee, determines
the staggered work hours. Like flex-time, this tool has greater applicability to employees of large offices,
since many non-office employees already work staggered work hours or work in a highly interdependent
manner.
Government agencies can take a lead by establishing a standard work schedule that differs from the
historic 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. schedule. For example, employees can be encouraged to work a 7-to-4 or
9-to-6 five-day work schedule. This is often done for the street and parks crews in public works
situations because of summer hours and weather conditions. It might also be established for other
employees, although some agencies and local governments have encountered opposition from
employee groups claiming they should have additional compensation for unusual work hours. Staggered
work hours have to be considered in light of the need to have service desk hours that meet the needs of
citizens. Staggered work hours could actually increase the opportunities for citizen contact.
Compressed Work Week. Compressed work weeks involve employees working fewer days and more
hours per day. One common form of this policy is the 4-day/40-hour week where the employee works
four 10-hour days. A second common form is the 9-day/80-hour schedule in which the employee works
9 days and 80 hours over a two-week period. With the 4/40 schedule, the employee gets one business
day off each week; with the 9/80 schedule, the employee gets one business day off each two weeks.
Because of the extended hours, both policies usually shift one “leg” of a work trip per working day
(either the arriving or departing “leg”) out of the peak hours. The 4/40 policy additionally eliminates an
entire work trip every five business days (1/5 of the work trips). The 9/80 policy eliminates an entire
work trip every ten business days (1/10 of the work trips).
One of the problems with any of the compressed work schedules is the potential for increases in non-
work trips during the “off day.” Increases from non-work travel may off-set gains made from the shift in
employee schedule. Such trips, however, may not be taken during peak periods and could still produce
benefits related to peak hour congestion and air quality.
5.5.2 TELECOMMUTING
Local governments and major employers can encourage telecommuting. Telecommuting is another
opportunity available to employers to affect total trip demand. It is similar to work-at-home policies,
except that the employee connects to the workplace via a computer and fax/modem. Telecommuting
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 75
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 5 — Transportation Management Page 48
arrangements can also involve more than one employee, e.g., when an employer provides a satellite
work center connected to the principal work center. Another telecommuting alternative is a
neighborhood work center operated by more than one employer, or by an agency. Recent advances in
communications technology (e.g., Internet capabilities) should greatly enhance telecommuting options.
Telecommuting for even one or two days per week could save significant trip miles and still reap the
benefits of working at the central work site.
5.5.3 RIDESHARING
Local governments and major employers can encourage ridesharing by subsidizing ridesharing or by
making ridesharing more convenient. Ridesharing includes two principal categories: carpooling and
vanpooling. Carpooling involves the use of an employee’s private vehicle to carry other employees to
work, either using one car and sharing expenses or rotating driving responsibilities and vehicles.
Vanpooling involves the use of a passenger van driven by one of the employees with the fixed and
operating costs at least partially paid by the other riders through monthly fares. A common feature of
vanpooling is that the van is often owned by the employer, a public agency (such as a transit district), or
a private, non-profit corporation set up for that purpose.
Ridesharing can be greatly influenced by special treatment at the workplace. Participation can be
increased by employer actions, which make ridesharing more convenient through incentives such as
providing guaranteed ride home services, preferential car/vanpool parking, and area-wide and
employer-based commuter matching services:
Guaranteed ride. A guaranteed ride home often makes ridesharing more attractive. Surveys have shown
that many employees drive to work because they feel they need their automobile during the day or
because they may work late. In some cases, they need their automobile for work trips or errands. In
other cases, they do not use their automobile but simply want it available for emergencies. Provision of
daytime and emergency transportation by allowing use of a company vehicle or employer-sponsored
free taxi can encourage ridesharing by eliminating some of the barriers. On the other hand, ridesharing
also reduces individual “freedom” and is not widely accepted until there is real congestion or financial
benefits.
Preferential car/vanpool parking. Preferential carpool and vanpool parking is a simple, inexpensive way
for an employer to encourage employees to rideshare by increasing the ease of access to the workplace.
Generally, preferential carpool and vanpool parking spaces are provided close to the building entrance.
This makes it convenient for the employees to access the building, particularly during inclement weather
conditions.
Commuter matching services. Commuter matching services, whether area-wide or employer-based,
permit those who wish to rideshare to find others with similar locations and schedules. An employer-
based matching service offers the advantage of a shared destination but presents the disadvantage of
limiting the pool of potential riders. A carpool matching service can be one-time or continuous. The
Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) serves as the carpooling agency and performs a wide variety
of services to support and encourage the use of carpools, including matching of potential riders.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 76
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 5 — Transportation Management Page 49
5.5.4 TRIP REDUCTION ORDINANCE
Local governments can encourage major employers to adopt trip reduction goals designed to reduce site
vehicular trip generation. A voluntary Trip Reduction Ordinance (TRO) is recommended for the Rogue
Valley metropolitan area, applicable to major employers with more than 50 employees. The ordinance
would apply to both existing and proposed development, thereby distributing the responsibility
equitably between existing and future development.
A TRO is not a TDM strategy itself but is a device by which TDM measures are implemented. TROs
typically require employers and developers to share some of the responsibility for reducing single-
occupant automobile use by their employees. Some communities place the burden on the initial
developers of office parks or other major employment centers, including obligating them to fund a
transportation management organization. The developer then passes these costs on to tenants of the
facilities. TROs identify specific trip reduction targets, such as the percentage reduction of commuter
vehicle trips. The decrease in trip generation can be achieved by decreasing auto trips and by increasing
ridesharing and transit trips and trips by other alternative modes.
Ordinances are usually slowly phased into many communities as a way of easing the compliance burden.
A voluntary compliance period is initially implemented for employers to voluntarily adapt to the
requirements and learn the various demand management tools, such as promoting ridesharing,
subsidizing transit passes, and developing parking incentives. During this period, studies are conducted
to determine if voluntary compliance is meeting the community trip reduction goals. If the goals are not
met, then a community may choose to make the trip reduction goals mandatory for major employers
and/or expand it to smaller ones.
5.5.5 BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND TRANSIT PROGRAMS
Bicycle, pedestrian, and transit are often treated as TDM measures because promotional programs
aimed at encouraging their use are a major part of an area plan. The Central Point TSP project
improvement list calls for facilities as well as operational or promotional programs for all three modes.
Because of the importance of these modes to the overall transportation strategy for the region, these
modes are addressed in separate plan elements.
5.5.6 PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES
Local governments should consider the development of park-and-ride facilities as a cost-effective means
of increasing the efficiency of the existing transportation system. Park-and-ride facilities are one of
many TDM tools designed to increase efficiency, reduce energy consumption, and provide options to
the single occupant vehicle trip. Park-and-ride facilities increase the effectiveness of transit service by
expanding the area from which transit draws. Patrons living outside of walking distance of an
established transit stop can drive or bike to the park-and-ride and use transit instead of driving or cycling
long distances to their destination. Ease of access, security and safety, easy to understand layouts and
good, direct pedestrian and bicyclist connections make use of park-and-ride lots desirable.
Park-and-rides are frequently located near freeway interchanges or at transit stations and may be either
a shared use, such as at a church or Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) center, or an exclusive use.
Shared use facilities are generally designated and maintained through agreements reached between the
local transit operator and nearby businesses, churches, or other entities.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 77
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 5 — Transportation Management Page 50
The Rogue Valley Council of Governments completed The Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study in
January 2001 for the RVTD service area. Feasible locations for park-and-ride sites were one of the tasks
of the study. For Central Point, it was suggested that a park-and-ride site could be located at East Pine
Street and Freeman Road in the Albertson’s parking lot located on RVTD’s Route 40 (Medford to Central
Point). This site could be accessed by southbound I-5 commuters or those coming from within Central
Point. This site would be most logical if it could be served by an express transit line running on the I-5
corridor. Current routing would require buses to slightly deviate on their in-bound journey. In most
other respects, this lot would work well as a park-and-ride facility.
The City should remain open to other alternative park-and-ride facility options. As an example, it was
suggested by RVTD that strategically located churches could also serve as effective park-and-ride
facilities.
5.6 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES
GOAL 5.1: TO MAXIMIZE, THROUGH TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES,
THE EFFICIENCY, SAFETY, AND CAPACITY OF THE CITY’S EXISTING TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES AND SERVICES.
Policy 5.1.1. The City shall make every effort to maintain mobility standards that result in a minimum
level of service (LOS) “D.” The City defines LOS D as the equivalent to a volume-capacity
ratio of 0.9.
Policy 5.1.2. The City shall facilitate implementation of bus bays by RVTD on transit routes as a means
of facilitating traffic flow during peak travel periods. The feasibility, location and design
of bus bays shall be developed in consultation between the City and RVTD.
GOAL 5.2: TO EMPLOY ACCESS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO ENSURE SAFE AND EFFICIENT
ROADWAYS CONSISTENT WITH THEIR DESIGNATED FUNCTION.
Policy 5.2.1. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain, either within the zoning ordinance or the
Public Works Standards and Details manual, access management standards based on
best practices.
Policy 5.2.2. The City shall implement the access management strategies presented in the Access
Management Plan for Front Street (Highway 99)/Pine Street and the Central Point
Highway 99 Corridor Plan.
GOAL 5.3: TO REDUCE THE DEMANDS PLACED ON THE CURRENT AND FUTURE TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM BY THE SINGLE-OCCUPANT VEHICLE.
Policy 5.3.1. The City shall serve as a leading example for other businesses and agencies by
maximizing the use of alternative transportation modes among City employees through
incentive programs. The City shall provide information on alternative transportation
modes and provide incentives for employees who use alternatives to the single-occupant
automobile.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 78
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 5 — Transportation Management Page 51
Policy 5.3.2. The City shall offer flexible schedules and compressed work-week options whenever
feasible, as a way of reducing travel demand. The City shall encourage employees to
telecommute, whenever feasible.
GOAL 5.4: TO REDUCE THE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) IN THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA
BY ASSISTING INDIVIDUALS IN CHOOSING ALTERNATIVE TRAVEL MODES.
Policy 5.4.1. The City shall encourage major employers to promote work arrangements providing an
alternative to the 8-to-5 work schedule. These arrangements shall include, but are not
limited to, employee flex-time programs, staggered work hours, and compressed work
weeks.
Policy 5.4.2. The City shall encourage major employers to promote telecommuting where feasible.
Policy 5.4.3. The City and major employers shall encourage ridesharing by making ridesharing more
convenient.
Policy 5.4.4. The City shall encourage major employers to work with RVTD to adopt trip reduction
goals designed to reduce site vehicular trip generation.
GOAL 5.5: TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY BETWEEN TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
(TDM) MEASURES PROMOTED BY THE CITY WITH THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
PLAN STRATEGIES AIMED AT REDUCING RELIANCE ON THE SINGLE OCCUPANT VEHICLE
(SOV) AND REDUCING VEHICLE MILES TRAVELD (VMT) PER CAPITA.
Policy 5.5.1. The City shall coordinate and maintain a consistency in the implementation of
transportation demand management strategies with similar regional strategies as
presented in the Regional Transportation Plan.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 79
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 6 — Parking Management Page 52
Chapter 6 — Parking Management
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The Oregon State Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) encourages and promotes a variety of
transportation choices that balance vehicular use with other transportation modes, including the
reasonable management of vehicular parking spaces. In accordance with OAR 660-012-0045(5)(c), the
City of Central Point has elected to prepare, as part of its Transportation System Plan (TSP), a chapter
addressing management of on-street and off-street parking within the City’s urban area. The primary
goal in regulating parking is to responsibly reduce auto dependence, and to encourage use of alternative
modes of transportation where they are available. This chapter will address objectives and strategies for
the management of the City’s parking supply that integrates land use planning and best practices for on-
street and off-street vehicular parking consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the
TPR. The contents of this chapter are intended to provide a basis for the development and
implementation of parking regulations for the City of Central Point.
6.2 CURRENT PARKING INVENTORY
The TPR defines the term “parking space” as on-street and off-street parking spaces designated for
automobile parking in areas planned for industrial, commercial, and institutional or public use. Based on
this definition, a parking inventory for the City was completed in 2008 with a count of 4,585 parking
spaces located within the City’s urban area. The Parking Inventory will be maintained on an annual basis.
6.3 PARKING PERFORMANCE MEASURES
The primary means of measuring the City’s progress in attaining its parking objectives will be
determined using a per capita parking ratio (Parking Ratio). The Parking Ratio is measured by dividing
the parking inventory by the most current population. Over the course of this TSP, it is the City’s
objective to reduce parking spaces per capita by 10%. Currently, the City’s Parking Ratio is 0.27. A 10%
reduction will reduce the Parking Ratio to 0.24 by the year 2030. The parking performance benchmark is
defined in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1: Transportation System Plan Parking Performance Measures
Measure How Measured
Current
2008
Benchmark
2010
Benchmark
2015
Benchmark
2020
Benchmark
2030
Measure 6-1: Ratio
of parking spaces to
population within
the urban area.
Calculated based on the City of
Central Point Parking Inventory
and annual population estimates
from Portland State University.
0.270 0.265 0.260 0.250 0.240
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 80
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 6 — Parking Management Page 53
6.4 PARKING STRATEGIES
There are many parking strategies addressing a wide variety of techniques that manage parking supply
and demand. The appropriateness of any individual parking strategy is dependent on the needs of the
community. Not all parking strategies are appropriate for a community at any particular period in time
but may be appropriate during later stages of a community’s development. Consequently, the list of
potential parking strategies includes strategies that may not be appropriate at this time but may be
appropriate within the planning period.
In Table 6-2, a comprehensive listing of parking strategies is identified and cross referenced to both the
RTP and TSP. A discussion of each of the strategies and their applicability to the City is included in this
section. There are two categories of parking strategies presented in Table 6-2: Parking Facility Efficiency
and Reduce Parking Demand. As their names imply, strategies that address Parking Facility Efficiency are
intended to maximize the use of parking spaces (supply) while strategies to Reduce Parking Demand are
directed to reductions in the demand for parking.
Table 6-2: Parking Plan Strategies
STRATEGY TSP POLICY RTP POLICY
PARKING FACILITY EFFICIENCY
Shared Parking 6 NA
Regulate Parking 6 NA
Accurate & Flexible Standards 6 6.B-2
Parking Maximums 6 6.B-1
Remote Parking & Shuttle Service 6 6.B-6
Smart Growth Policies 3 6.B-5
Walking & Bicycle Alternatives 8 NA
Increase Capacity of Existing Parking 6 NA
REDUCE PARKING DEMAND
Mobility Management 5 6.B-3, 6.B-4
Price Parking 6 NA
Improve Pricing Methods 6 NA
Financial Incentives 6 NA
Unbundle Parking 6 NA
Parking Taxes 6 NA
Improved Bicycle Facilities 8 NA
User Information & Marketing 6 NA
Enforcement & Control 6 NA
Transportation Management Assoc. 6 NA
Overflow Parking Plans 6 NA
Spillover Problems 6 NA
Parking Facility Design & Operation 6 6.B-5
6.4.1 SHARED PARKING
The term “shared parking” refers to a parking facility that serves multiple destinations/uses. The key to
the effective use of shared parking relies on the mix of uses sharing the parking facility. The use of
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 81
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 6 — Parking Management Page 54
shared parking is most effective in a mixed-use development where there is a variety of uses that have
different peak hour parking demands.
Traditionally, parking lots have been sized to accommodate 90 percent of peak hour and peak month
usage, typically the Christmas season, and serve a single development. For the most part, these lots are
operating at levels considerably less than the number of spaces provided. Shared parking standards
allow different uses with different peak period parking demand to share parking facilities.
For example, a series of buildings may include such land uses as restaurants, theaters, offices, and retail,
all of which have varying peak use times. A restaurant generally experiences parking peaks from 6 to 8
p.m., while offices typically peak around 10 a.m. and again around 2 p.m. on weekdays. Some retail
establishments have their peak usage on weekends. Theaters often peak from 8 to 10 p.m. Without a
shared parking plan, these uses would develop parking to serve each of their individual peaks. This
generally results in each lot being heavily used while the other lots operate at far less than capacity.
Depending upon the combination of uses, a shared parking plan may allow some developments to
realize a parking reduction of 10-15 percent without a significant reduction in the availability of parking
at any one time, due solely to the different peak periods for parking.
One of the major stumbling blocks to implementing shared parking standards is local jurisdictions
themselves. Quite often, parking codes are written to express parking minimums as opposed to
maximums. In some cases, the implementation of shared parking strategies may require changes to the
minimum parking requirements contained in the parking policies.
Other issues surrounding shared parking are liability, insurance, and the need for reciprocal access
agreements allowing patrons of one establishment to cross land owned by another establishment.
The City zoning ordinance currently contains some provisions permitting shared parking and will continue
efforts to expand the use of shared parking. It is acknowledged that the success of shared parking is in
the understanding of a peak parking demand and the mix of uses to assure different peak parking
demand.
6.4.2 REGULATE PARKING
Parking regulations refer to the adoption of controls regulating who can use parking, when the parking
can be used, and for how long a vehicle may park in a given location. As an example, the establishment
of loading zones is a parking regulation, as is handicapped parking, time limits, no parking zones, etc.
The primary objective of regulating parking is to ensure that parking is available to a specific user group.
The City’s parking regulations follow conventional practices and laws. Since the City already employs
parking regulations, it is only necessary that the City periodically evaluate the efficiency of its parking
regulation program and update as necessary to maintain optimal efficiency.
6.4.3 ACCURATE AND FLEXIBLE STANDARDS
Generally referred to as efficiency-based parking standards, this strategy refers to the use of parking
requirements adjusted to a location’s needs based on parking demand and supply that addresses the
demographic, geographic, and management factors unique to the area. The use of lower parking
standards for retirement housing is an example of accurate and flexible parking standards.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 82
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 6 — Parking Management Page 55
The City will continue efforts to establish lower minimum parking requirements in the current zoning
districts to encourage in-fill development and the use of alternative travel modes. This is particularly true
of commercial and industrial zoning. Lower parking minimums could have an impact on the total parking
inventory, but there is no guarantee that development would choose fewer parking spaces for their
developments. Lower minimum parking requirements, however, might encourage some in-fill
development. In-fill development can be encouraged to increase densities and remove land from its
temporary status as parking lots. Both the reduction of existing parking and increasing building densities
will help lead to a more pedestrian friendly environment and encourage transit ridership - a primary goal
of the TPR.
6.4.4 PARKING MAXIMUMS
Most often zoning regulations address parking in terms of the minimum parking required for any given
use. This often leads to an overabundance of parking, particularly in retail environments. As its name
implies, maximum parking standards establish a maximum amount of parking allowed per use or area.
Depending upon how the zoning regulation is structured, the amount of parking built in connection with
new development could be reduced by as much as 30 percent. The exact levels of parking permitted for
new development would be figured on the rate of expected construction by land use type.
The City does not currently regulate the maximum amount of parking allowed. The adoption of
maximum parking standards is an effective means of reducing excessive parking and is a stated policy of
the City. As a product of this TSP, the City will be updating the parking regulations in its Land
Development Code to provide maximum parking requirements for all uses and development (new, in-fill,
redevelopment).
6.4.5 REMOTE PARKING AND SHUTTLE SERVICE
Remote parking typically involves off-site parking and is very similar to shared parking. Remote parking
essentially addresses parking needs by providing parking in outlying areas. Consequently, users of
remote parking are required to walk further, or use transit/shuttle services to reach the intended
destination.
The City’s current zoning regulations support remote parking, provided that it is located within a
minimum specified distance. With respect to transit/shuttle service, the City does support efforts by
ODOT and RVTD to develop shuttle service and park-and-ride facilities.
6.4.6 SMART GROWTH
Smart growth is a term that represents land use planning techniques that encourage compact, mixed-
use, pedestrian friendly, and transit-oriented development. Smart growth techniques are aimed at
reducing reliance on the automobile by providing an environment that encourages walking and
bicycling.
The City has been very aggressive in its pursuit of smart growth techniques, with projects such as Twin
Creeks TOD, Snowy Butte Station, and the adoption of transit-oriented development standards.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 83
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 6 — Parking Management Page 56
6.4.7 WALKING AND BICYCLE ALTERNATIVES
To the extent that they reduce reliance on use of the automobile, walking and bicycle policies are an
effective parking strategy. An effective and connected pedestrian and bicycle system will reduce the
demand for parking.
In Chapter 8, the City’s policies and plans for development of a convenient and safe pedestrian and
bicycle system are stated.
6.4.8 CAPACITY OF EXISTING PARKING FACILITIES
Increases in the capacity of existing parking facilities applies to both on-street and off-street parking. It is
not unusual for older parking facilities to have areas of waste or paring dimensions which can yield
additional parking. Many cities also have parking requirements that don’t allow flexibility in dimensional
standards, i.e., compact parking.
The City will continuously evaluate its parking standards to maintain use of best practices for parking
management.
6.4.9 MOBILITY MANAGEMENT
Mobility management, more commonly referred to as transportation demand management (TDM)
addresses strategies that increase the efficiency of a transportation system by changing travel behavior.
This change in behavior can be in the form of routes use, transportation mode, time of travel, etc., or a
combination thereof. An effective TDM program can cause a reduction in the demand for parking.
Chapter 5 of the TSP discusses the City’s use of TDM strategies. When successfully implemented, many
TDM strategies will also result in a reduction in the parking demand.
6.4.10 PRICE PARKING
Another approach to reducing the supply of parking is to impose a fee on the use of parking spaces,
particularly within commercial areas. There are a number of responses, both positive and negative, to
pricing parking. One of the negative responses is to work, shop, or visit other destinations that are not
subject to pricing of parking.
At this time, the pricing of parking is not considered a reasonable parking reduction technique for the
City. However, it is acknowledged that it is merely a matter of time before the pricing of parking will be a
viable strategy, this will be particularly true of the successful revitalization of the downtown.
6.4.11 IMPROVE PRICING METHODS
Improvements to pricing methods relates to the actual means by which motorists pay for parking, i.e.,
meters, parking passes, debit cards, etc. These payment systems are often an aggravation to the
motorist, because of the general inconvenience they cause versus the preferred free parking that they
have become accustomed to.
The improvement in pricing methods strategy requires that a pricing system be in place (6.4.10). As
noted above, it is not expected that the City will generate sufficient demand in parking to support price
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 84
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 6 — Parking Management Page 57
parking and pricing methods. However, when considering plans for the downtown, price parking and
pricing methods will be a consideration.
6.4.12 FINANCIAL INCENTIVES
Financial incentives refer to strategies that encourage motorists to use alternative means of commuting
to work/shopping. Examples include, discounted transit passes, rideshare incentives, and what is
referred to as cash-out which is a direct cash incentive to employees to use an alternative travel mode
less reliant on parking.
In the foreseeable future, the City does not anticipate its direct use of this strategy but does support its
use by RVTD.
6.4.13 UNBUNDLE PARKING
The term “unbundle parking” refers to the leasing or sale of parking spaces separate from the building
space. The objective is to allow users to purchase only the parking that is needed. Because of the
administrative sophistication (legal) of unbundled parking, its use is primarily limited to metropolitan,
high-density environments with very high parking demand.
At this time unbundled parking is not an appropriate parking strategy for the City of Central Point.
Parking demand and general land use characteristics do not support consideration of this strategy.
6.4.14 PARKING TAXES:
The taxation of parking is another strategy for managing the supply of parking. Parking taxation
strategies refer to a wide range of taxation related to parking, including the actual taxation of parking,
storm water management fees, etc.
Through its storm water systems development fee and maintenance fees the City does indirectly tax
parking based on the impervious surface area parking creates. The use of a parking tax, other than the
storm development and maintenance fee, is not a realistic consideration until it becomes a common
practice throughout the metropolitan area.
6.4.15 USER INFORMATION AND MARKETING
Often parking is available, but the location of that parking is unknown. Proper signage and marketing
can improve the efficiency of parking use.
Parking information and marketing will primarily apply to the City’s downtown area. As the downtown
revitalizes, parking will become a premium and the location and availability of parking will be a
functional component of the downtown revitalization process.
6.4.16 ENFORCEMENT AND CONTROL
As its name implies, this parking strategy addresses improvement in the efficiency of a City’s parking
enforcement and control program. This strategy is primarily a management strategy focusing on the
attainment of a City’s parking objectives.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 85
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 6 — Parking Management Page 58
Until the City has an enforcement or formal parking management program, this strategy is premature. It
is probable that over the next twenty years revitalization of the downtown will result in the need for
parking management. When a parking management program is developed, it is important to define the
mission of the program.
6.4.17 PARKING MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
Parking management and parking management associations (PMAs) are mechanisms that can facilitate
shared parking among non-adjacent land uses by providing off-site centralized parking facilities. These
facilities can be large parking structures or surface lots. Parking management can employ a wide range
of techniques that will result in the more efficient use of existing parking facilities.
PMAs are entities responsible for conducting this management and providing access to resources that
will ease the burden on the parking supply. Often PMAs are non-profit groups supported by retail or
business district associations.
With the exception of the downtown, it is not anticipated that during the planning period covered by this
TSP that the intensity of development within the City will be such as to support a PMA. Currently, within
the downtown, development is not intense enough to support a PMA. However, as the downtown’s
revitalization efforts mature there will be a definite role for the creation of a PMA. This is particularly
true considering the many small properties lacking current parking and the cost of developing new
parking within the downtown.
6.5 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The Regional Transportation Plan 2005-2030 (RTP) contains six (6) parking related policies. The policies
adopted in the RTP address some, but not all, of the strategies noted above. The RTP parking policies are
as follows:
RTP Policy 6.B-1: Local Governments shall consider the adoption of maximum parking requirements (or
parking caps) in their zoning codes to reduce excessive off-street parking supply.
RTP Policy 6.B-2: Local governments should establish low minimum parking requirements in their zoning
codes to encourage in-fill development.
RTP Policy 6.B-3: Local governments should re-designate existing, general use parking spaces to a
different, special use as to encourage the use of alternative transportation modes.
RTP Policy 6.B-4: Local governments are required to manage roadway space as necessary to provide for
bike lanes, bus stops, turn lanes, no parking zones, and other such uses that promote use of alternative
transportation modes. On-street parking can be eliminated as required to provide for these facilities.
The management of roadway space also includes the use of narrower streets. Management of the
roadway space and the allocation for these uses can have a measurable impact on the amount of on-
street parking.
Bike Lanes: In limited locations, the removal of on-street parking and re-striping for a bicycle
lane is a possibility, rather than by widening the roadway. However, since most arterial and
collector streets currently do not include on-street parking, elimination of a significant number
of parking spaces is unlikely.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 86
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 6 — Parking Management Page 59
Bus Stops: From time-to-time throughout the planning period, the placement of bus stops will
be needed as the Rogue Valley Transportation District’s expands routes and service.
Turn Lanes: Re-striping for turn lanes is a transportation system management strategy that can
be used to increase the capacity of intersections. In many cases, queuing distances at stop signs
or traffic signals will require that no-parking zones be extended for more than 100 feet from the
intersection. This could require removal of parking that is sometimes permitted as close as 20
feet from a cross-walk at an intersection.
No-Parking Zones: Designating larger no-parking zones to increase sight distances at
intersections is already implied in the code. Parking is not permitted within 50 feet of a stop
sign, yield sign, or other traffic control device where such parking hides it from view. A blanket
prohibition on parking within 50 feet of a corner would have a measurable impact on the
number of parking spaces and would have other benefits related to sight distance.
Street Standards: Adopting street standards for residential streets could include reducing street
width to the extent that on-street parking would be permitted only on one side or eliminated
completely. This technique needs to be carefully considered and managed through strict design
controls to assure that residential neighborhoods have adequate parking for visitors.
RTP Policy 6.B-5: Local governments shall utilize and encourage appropriate parking policies and
strategies to reduce auto dependence and discourage auto use where other alternative modes of access
are possible. Where appropriate, parking needs to be oriented to the back or side of buildings with
entrances to the front for pedestrian access.
The TPR presented two techniques in this category: Shared Parking; and Parking Management
RTP Policy 6.B-6: Local government and ODOT shall plan park-and-ride facilities near transit routes and
major transportation connections to encourage transit and shared rides to discourage single occupancy
vehicles.
The parking strategies presented in this chapter have been prepared in coordination, and are compliant
with, the parking policies adopted in the RTP.
6.6 CURRENT PARKING CODE AND POLICY CHANGES
The City’s current parking standards were last updated in 1998. Current parking regulations specify only
minimum standards, resulting in some developments, such as retail stores, to provide an excess of
parking supply. It is the City’s policy that parking regulations as set forth in the Land Development Code
be periodically reviewed against best practices, and the Land Development Code appropriately
amended.
6.7 PARKING MANAGEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL 6.1: TO MANAGE AUTOMOBILE PARKING WITHIN THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA AS
NECESSARY TO REDUCE PARKING CONSISTENT WITH STATE AND REGIONAL GOALS.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 87
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 6 — Parking Management Page 60
Policy 6.1.1. The City shall manage the supply, operation, enforcement and demand for parking in the
public right-of-way to encourage economic vitality, traffic safety, transportation system
efficiency, and livability of neighborhoods.
Policy 6.1.2. Except within the Central Business District, where on-street parking is considered an
element of the Central Business District’s economic vitality, the provision for on-street
parking is second in priority to the needs of the travel modes (i.e., vehicle, transit,
bicycle, pedestrian) using the street right-of-way, and shall be removed when necessary
to facilitate street widening.
Policy 6.1.3. In those areas where demand exists, an adequate supply of off-street carpool and
vanpool parking spaces shall be provided. The location of these spaces shall have
preference over those intended for general purpose off-street parking.
GOAL 6.2: TO PROMOTE AND MANAGE THE PARKING NEEDS OF THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN
AREA IN A MANNER THAT REASONABLY BALANCES THE DEMAND FOR PARKING
AGAINST THE USE OF TRANSIT, BICYCLE, AND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION MODES,
WHILE MAINTAINING THE ECONOMIC VITALITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY.
Policy 6.2.1. The City shall prepare, adopt and maintain parking standards that reflect best parking
practices that further the parking goals of the City.
Policy 6.2.2. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain effective development standards for paved
off-street parking areas to include provisions for landscaping, planting strips, pedestrian
walkways, curbs, and sidewalks.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 88
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 7 — Street System Page 61
Chapter 7 — Street System
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Central Point’s street system contains over sixty miles of roadways serving a variety of
functions ranging from local streets, collectors, and arterials providing a broad range of transportation
services for the City’s residential, commercial, and industrial needs. Within this system there are thirty-
five key intersections, which by the year 2030, these intersections and their related street segments will
require both modernization and extension to accommodate the City’s projected growth as discussed in
Chapter 3. In anticipation of this growing demand the City has completed five major traffic studies.
These studies and their objectives are:
Central Point Transit-Oriented Development Traffic Impact Study, JRH Engineers, Planners &
Project Managers, August 1, 2000.
Central Point Highway 99 Corridor Plan, OTAK/DKS Associates, 2005.
East Pine Street Transportation Plan, Central Point, Oregon, JRH Transportation Engineering, July
2004. Most of the City’s vacant land is served by E. Pine Street, a major arterial. The City recognizes
the impact of development on the service level of E. Pine Street and commissioned a traffic study to
evaluate future growth impacts and mitigation options.
City of Central Point Transportation Plan, Existing & Future Conditions Technical Traffic Report,
JRH Transportation Engineering, June 30, 2007. In preparation of this TSP the City commissioned a
more comprehensive traffic analysis that took into consideration prior findings of prior traffic
studies.
City of Central Point Urban Growth Boundary Amendment, Traffic Impact Analysis, Southern
Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC, July 27, 2020. This TIA was completed in support of the
City’s UGB expansion project. The findings and recommendations of this TIA form the foundation of
this TSP amendment.
As the City proceeds with implementation of its transportation plans, it is important that inter-
jurisdictional coordination on those projects that involve other governmental agencies be
communicated in a timely and productive manner. One of the primary purposes of this TSP is to identify
and acknowledge projected improvements that are inter-jurisdictional, and to provide an estimate of
the timing of those projects from concept through construction. Table 7-4 identifies each project, the
estimated timing of the project completions, and the jurisdictions involved in the project’s design and
development.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 89
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 7 — Street System Page 62
7.2 STREET SYSTEM
The City’s 2030 Street System is illustrated in Figure 7-1, which provides an overview of the City’s
existing and planned arterial and collector street system.
7.2.1 FUTURE CONDITIONS
In Chapter 4, the existing conditions of the City’s street system were discussed, including current
deficiencies. As of 2008, the City’s street system is operating at an acceptable level of service. In order to
maintain this level of service it will be necessary that the street system be monitored and improved to
meet the City’s growing demand for transportation services. In recognition of this challenge, the City has
prepared, as part of this TSP, forecasts of future demands on the City’s arterials and collectors for the
years 2010, 2020, and 2030. The purpose of these forecasts is to determine improvements necessary to
accommodate growth while maintaining an acceptable level of mobility (LOS D) throughout the City’s
street system.
7.2.2 OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS AND LOS “D”
For each of the forecast years (2010, 2020, and 2030), an operational analysis was conducted for each of
the thirty-five intersections. The City’s policy is to maintain a minimum level of service (LOS) of “D” or
better. Based on land development forecasts, development volume scenarios were prepared for each of
the forecast years. These volume scenarios included growth in regional traffic volumes and traffic
resulting from local development. The future year projections are based on the availability, probability,
and location of vacant lands within the Central Point urban area as discussed in Chapter 3. If, throughout
the planning period the average rate of development changes from that used in the model, project
timing will similarly change through either acceleration or postponement of the project. Throughout the
duration of this TSP, the rate of land use development and mobility level (LOS) should be continuously
monitored with forecasts and project timing adjusted as appropriate.
Year 2010 Roadway Deficiencies
By 2010, it is projected that nine (9) intersections will approach, or exceed, minimum performance
standards during one or both peak hours without any improvements. This represents 26% of the City’s
key intersections. Table 7-1 summarizes the results of the operational analysis for the Year 2010
scenario. The table lists each intersection within the study area separately with the corresponding
mobility standard for A.M. and P.M. conditions.
Additionally, the fourth railroad crossing and intersection improvement for Twin Creeks Crossing Drive
will be needed to accommodate the continued development of the Twin Creeks TOD. Without this
improvement, the recently upgraded intersections of Front St. & Pine and Pine & Haskell will exceed
acceptable levels of service.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 90
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 7 — Street System Page 63
Figure 7-1: Functional Classification & Street Network Map, 2008-2030
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 91
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 7 — Street System Page 64
Table 7-1: Year 2010 PM Peak Hour LOS, City of Central Point
Intersection Control Type LOS & V/C Standard
Year 2010 A.M.
Performance
Year 2010 P.M.
Performance
WEST SIDE
Beall & Freeman Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS C LOS C
Beall & Bursell Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C
Beall & Grant Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B
Beall & Hanley Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B
Beall & Hwy. 99 Signalized V/C 0.90 V/C 0.85 V/C 0.90
Taylor & Grant (south) Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A
Taylor & Grant (north) Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A
Bursell & Hopkins Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C
Hwy. 99 & East Pine
(Front)
Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS D
2nd & East Pine Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS C LOS F
3rd & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS A LOS B
4th & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS A LOS B
6th & East Pine Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS E LOS E
10th & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS D LOS C
Grant & Scenic Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A
Scenic & Hwy. 99 Stop/Unsignalized V/C 0.90 V/C 0.27 V/C 0.93
Haskell & Taylor Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A
Haskell & West Pine Signalized LOS D LOS A LOS B
Freeman & Hopkins Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C
Hazel & 3rd & 2nd Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS C LOS B
Haskell & Beall Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS C LOS D
EAST SIDE
Meadowbrook & East
Pine
Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F/B restricted LOS F/B restricted
Beebe & Hamrick Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F/B (signal) LOS F/B (signal)
Peninger & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS D
Hamrick & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS D
Upton & Peninger Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B
I-5 NB & East Pine Signalized V/C 0.85 V/C 0.74 V/C 1.00
I-5 SB & East Pine Signalized V/C 0.85 V/C 0.76 V/C 0.77
Table Rock & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS D
Wilson & Table Rock Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F LOS F
Vilas & Table Rock Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS D
New Haven & Hamrick Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS E LOS F
Gebhard & Wilson Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 92
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 7 — Street System Page 65
The following identifies each of the ten intersections and a general description of the improvements
needed to meet a minimum LOS “D”:
1. Scenic Avenue & Hwy. 99. Install a traffic signal when signal warrants are met. The intersection
is shown to exceed minimum performance standards by the year 2010 in the P.M. peak hour.
Although the level of service will exceed minimums, the criteria for preliminary signal warrants
will not be met. Planning and engineering should proceed in the short-term in preparation of
construction. The intersection should be monitored until such time that signal warrants are met.
2. 2nd Street & East Pine Street. Install a new traffic signal. The intersection is shown to exceed
performance standards by the year 2010 during the P.M. peak hour. The existing signal at 3rd
Street & East Pine Street is planned for removal when the signal is constructed at 2nd Street &
Pine Street. Preliminary signal warrants are not met in the year 2010. The intersection should be
monitored and signalized when signal warrants are met.
3. 6th Street & East Pine Street. Install a traffic signal. The intersection is shown to exceed
performance standards by the year 2010 during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Preliminary
signal warrants are not met in the year 2010. The intersection should be monitored and
signalized when signal warrants are met.
4. Wilson Road & Table Rock Road. Install a signal or restrict movements to right-in/right-out/left-
out. The intersection is shown to exceed performance standards by the year 2010 during the
A.M. and P.M. peak hour. Preliminary signal warrants are not met at the intersection in the year
2010. The intersection should be monitored and signalized when signal warrants are met or
restricted by median control when the intersection begins to experience excessive delays and/or
an increase in accidents as an unsignalized intersection.
5. New Haven Road & Hamrick Road. Install a signal or restrict with median control. The
intersection is shown to exceed performance standards by the year 2010, but preliminary signal
warrants are not met by the year 2010. The intersection should be monitored and signalized
when signal warrants are met or restricted by median control when the intersection begins to
experience excessive delays and/or an increase in accidents as an unsignalized intersection.
6. Beebe Road & Hamrick Road. Install a new signal. The intersection is shown to exceed
performance standards under existing year 2006 conditions; however, preliminary signal
warrants are not met under existing conditions. The intersection should be monitored and
signalized when signal warrants are met when the intersection begins to experience excessive
delays and/or an increase in accidents as an unsignalized intersection.
7. Meadowbrook Drive & East Pine Street. Restrict intersection movements to right-in/right-
out/left-in movements. The intersection is shown to exceed performance standards when the
development to the south (Hamrick Business Park) is developed. Seventy-five (75) percent of the
Hamrick Road Business Park project is estimated to be developed by the year 2010, with the
remaining twenty-five (25) percent being developed by the year 2020. Median control
prohibiting northbound and southbound left-turn movements will mitigate the intersection
through the year 2030.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 93
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 7 — Street System Page 66
8. Peninger Road & East Pine Street. Remove signal and restrict intersection movements to right-
in/right-out through median control. The proximity of this intersection to the northbound I-5
off-ramp intersection will necessitate the need to remove the signal and convert the
intersection to a right-in/right-out stop-controlled intersection. The success of this improvement
is contingent on its coordination with improvements to the connectivity of Peninger Road north
and south of East Pine Street as illustrated in Figure 7-1, which will necessitate the crossing of
Bear Creek in two locations.
The proposed improvement will impact the use of this intersection for freight purposes. The
significance of this intersection on the City’s freight system reinforces the simultaneous need to
improve the extensions of Peninger as noted above.
The design of this project needs to be closely coordinated with development plans for the
Jackson County Fairgrounds (the “Expo”). Throughout the planning period the Expo will continue
to be a significant influence on the transportation needs of the general area. Currently, the
County is preparing a master plan for the development of the Expo. This master plan should
address transportation needs consistent with those set forth in this TSP.
9. I-5 Northbound Ramps & East Pine Street. Initial improvements will add capacity to the
northbound off-ramp to accommodate the high right-turn volume demand forecast by the year
2010. Additional capacity improvements are needed to accommodate local development traffic.
This improvement is listed in the RVMPO Freight Study as a priority freight system
improvement.
10. Twin Creeks Crossing Drive & Hwy. 99. Construct the three-way signalized intersection at Hwy.
99 and the easterly extension of Twin Creeks Crossing Drive. The extension of Twin Creeks
Crossing Drive will also require installation of a railroad crossing.
Year 2020 Roadway Deficiencies
By 2020 it is projected that sixteen (16) intersections will exceed performance standards during one or
both peak hours without any improvements. This represents 46% of the City’s key intersections. The
results of the operational analysis for the Year 2020 scenario are summarized in Table 7-2. The table lists
each intersection within the study area separately, with the corresponding mobility standard for A.M.
and P.M. conditions.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 94
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 7 — Street System Page 67
Table 7-2: Year 2020 PM Peak Hour LOS, City of Central Point
Intersection Control Type LOS & V/C Standard
Year 2020 A.M
Performance.
Year 2020 P.M.
Performance
WEST SIDE
Beall & Freeman Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C
Beall & Bursell Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C
Beall & Grant Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B
Beall & Hanley Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C
Beall & Hwy. 99 Signalized V/C 0.90 V/C 0.98 V/C 0.90
Taylor & Grant (south) Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A
Taylor & Grant (north) Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A
Bursell & Hopkins Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C
Hwy. 99 & East Pine
(Front)
Signalized LOS D LOS LOS
2nd & East Pine Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F/B (signal) LOS F/B (signal)
3rd & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS B/D (unsignaled) LOS B/F (unsignaled)
4th & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS B LOS A
6th & East Pine Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F/B (signal) LOS F/B (signal)
10th & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS D LOS D
Grant & Scenic Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A
Scenic & Hwy. 99 Stop/Unsignalized V/C 0.90 V/C 0.27 V/C 0.99
Haskell & Taylor Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A
Haskell & West Pine Signalized LOS D LOS A LOS B
Freeman & Hopkins Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C
Hazel & 3rd & 2nd Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B
Haskell & Beall Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS C LOS D
EAST SIDE
Meadowbrook & East
Pine
Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F/B restricted LOS F/B restricted
Beebe & Hamrick Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F/B (signal) LOS F/B (signal)
Peninger & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS (unsignaled) LOS (unsignaled)
Hamrick & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS F
Upton & Peninger Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B
I-5 NB & East Pine Signalized V/C 0.85 V/C 0.72 V/C 1.23
I-5 SB & East Pine Signalized V/C 0.85 V/C 0.79 V/C 0.99
Table Rock & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS E
Wilson & Table Rock Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F LOS F
Vilas & Table Rock Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS F
New Haven & Hamrick Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F LOS F
Gebhard & Wilson Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B
Gebhard Rd. & E. Pine St. Signalized LOS D LOS B LOS F
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 95
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 7 — Street System Page 68
The following identifies each of the sixteen intersections and a general description of the improvements
needed to meet a minimum LOS “D”:
1. Table Rock Road & Vilas Road. Widen to increase capacity. The intersection is shown to exceed
performance standards by the year 2020. Adding an eastbound lane to allow a dual eastbound
left turn movement and shared through-right turn movement mitigates the intersection in the
year 2020. Additional widening is required to mitigate for the future year 2030 conditions.
2. East Pine Street, Table Rock Road to I-5. An additional westbound through lane will eventually
be required based on projected traffic volumes.
3. Gebhard Road Extension. By Year 2020, it is forecast that Gebhard Road will be extended to
intersect with E. Pine Street approximately 700 feet west of Hamrick Road. In addition to the
extension of Gebhard Road, its intersection with East Pine Street would need to be signalized.
4. Beall Lane & Hwy. 99. Add protected-permissive phasing to the eastbound and westbound left
turn movements. The intersection is shown to exceed performance standards by the year 2020.
Changing to protected-permissive phasing mitigates the intersection through future year 2030
conditions during both A.M. and P.M. peak hours.
5. Hwy. 99 & Pine Street. Widen Pine Street. The intersection exceeds performance standards by
the year 2020. Possible improvements at that time include striping the eastbound movements
to include an exclusive left turn and two through lanes with a shared right-turn, as well as
adding protected-permissive phasing to the eastbound and westbound left-turn movement.
6. Hamrick Road & East Pine Street & Table Rock Road/Biddle Road. Major capacity
improvements are necessary for these intersections to accommodate heavy left-turn volume
demand and added traffic due to developments along East Pine Street that will use existing and
proposed cross-streets versus direct access to East Pine Street.
Year 2030 Roadway Deficiencies
By 2030, it is projected that nineteen (19) intersections will exceed performance standards during one
or both peak hours without any improvements. This represents 54% of the City’s existing key
intersections. The results of the operational analysis for the Year 2030 scenario are summarized in Table
7-3. The table lists each intersection within the study area separately with the corresponding mobility
standard and type of control listed.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 96
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 7 — Street System Page 69
Table 7-3: Year 2030 PM Peak Hour LOS, City of Central Point
Intersection Control Type LOS & V/C Standard
Year 2030 A.M.
Performance
Year 2030 P.M.
Performance
WEST SIDE
Beall & Freeman Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS C LOS C
Beall & Bursell Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C
Beall & Grant Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B
Beall & Hanley Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS D
Beall & Hwy. 99 Signalized V/C 0.90 V/C 1.01 V/C 0.92
Taylor & Grant (south) Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS B
Taylor & Grant (north) Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS B
Bursell & Hopkins Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C
Hwy. 99 & East Pine
(Front)
Signalized LOS D LOS LOS
2nd & East Pine Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F/B (signal) LOS F/C (signal)
3rd & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS B/E (unsignaled) LOS B/F (unsignaled)
4th & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS B LOS B
6th & East Pine Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F/B (signal) LOS F/B (signal)
10th & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS D LOS E
Grant & Scenic Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A
Scenic & Hwy. 99 Stop/Unsignalized V/C 0.90 V/C 0.31 V/C 1.82
Haskell & Taylor Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A
Haskell & West Pine Signalized LOS D LOS B LOS B
Freeman & Hopkins Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS D
Hazel & 3rd & 2nd Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B
Haskell & Beall Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS C LOS D
EAST SIDE
Meadowbrook & East
Pine
Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F/B restricted LOS F/B restricted
Beebe & Hamrick Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F/B (signal) LOS F/C (signal)
Peninger & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS (unsignaled) LOS (unsignaled)
Hamrick & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS F
Upton & Peninger Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C
I-5 NB & East Pine Signalized V/C 0.85 V/C 0.93 V/C 1.45
I-5 SB & East Pine Signalized V/C 0.85 V/C 0.88 V/C 1.26
Table Rock & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS F
Wilson & Table Rock Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F LOS F
Vilas & Table Rock Signalized LOS D LOS D LOS F
New Haven & Hamrick Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F LOS F
Gebhard & Wilson Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B
Gebhard Rd. & E. Pine St. Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS F
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 97
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 7 — Street System Page 70
The following identifies each of the nineteen intersections and a general description of the
improvements needed to meet a minimum LOS “D”:
1. 10th Street & Pine Street & Freeman. Signal timing improvements. The intersection is shown to
exceed performance standards by the year 2030 during the P.M. peak hour but can be mitigated
with signal timing.
2. New Signal on East Pine Street. A new north-south public street is proposed between the
existing Peninger Road and Hamrick Road. The new roadway will extend from Beebe Road to a
new east-west street south of East Pine Street. The new east-west street will allow Peninger
Road traffic to use the new signalized intersection at East Pine Street. A new east-west street is
also proposed north of East Pine Street to accommodate traffic to and from the Fairgrounds site
once the Peninger Road and East Pine Street signal is removed. The new public streets will
relieve traffic demand on East Pine Street to facilitate the regional function of this roadway
while accommodating local access.
3. I-5 & East Pine Street Interchange. Currently, there are no planned or programmed
improvements scheduled or approved for Exit 33. There is a need for detailed analysis of the
interchange to ensure that projects will meet long-term needs. Initial improvements will add
capacity to the northbound off-ramp to accommodate the right-turn volume demand.
Additional capacity improvements are needed to accommodate added local development
traffic.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 98
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 7 — Street System Page 71
Figure 7-2: Intersection Deficiencies
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 99
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 7 — Street System Page 72
7.3 RECOMMENDED STREET SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Based on the needs described above, a listing of recommended street projects has been prepared and
presented in
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 100
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 7 — Street System Page 73
Table 7-4. It is important to note that the recommendations in this table are based on the most recent
growth forecasts at the time the TSP was adopted. Throughout the planning period 2008-2030, the City
needs to continuously monitor its needs and make adjustments to this TSP as justified, both on a need
basis and a financial basis. Circumstances will change and so will street improvement needs.
As such, the 2022 UGB Expansion described in previous chapters of this plan has presented an
opportunity to update the recommended street projects shown in
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 101
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 7 — Street System Page 74
Table 7-4, including removing those that the City has completed since 2008 as well as incorporating new projects that are associated with
the UGB Expansion. The recommended street projects are prioritized into two Tiers, which are described in Chapter 12. Projects that have
been prioritized into Tier 1 are illustrated in
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 102
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 7 — Street System Page 75
Figure 7-3 and are further prioritized into short-term and mid-/ long-term for implementation
through 2030. Refer to Chapter 12 for more details on project prioritization.
It is also important to understand that some of the listed projects are dependent on other projects to
either precede them or to be developed concurrently. If developed alone, they will not resolve any
traffic capacity issue and most likely would degrade existing levels of service. An example of such a
project would be removing the signals at Peninger Road and East Pine Street. Without new bridge
crossings of Bear Creek and the extension of Hamrick Road and Beebe Road an unacceptable level of
service would immediately occur.
Table 7-5 and Table 7-6 list Jackson County and ODOT projects within the City’s urban area that have
been identified as necessary to support the City’s transportation objectives. These listed projects,
although a part of this TSP, are not included in Chapter 12 Transportation System Financing Program, as
a financial responsibility of the City. It is expected that as the County and state update their
transportation plans that the projects listed in Table 7-5 and Table 7-6 will be included in those plan
updates.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 103
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 7 — Street System Page 76
Table 7-4: Transportation Projects
Ref.
No. Project Location Im
p
r
o
v
.
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
Project
Description Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Fr
e
i
g
h
t
Ac
c
e
s
s
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
Sa
f
e
t
y
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Tr
u
c
k
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
Ur
b
a
n
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
OD
O
T
Co
u
n
t
y
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
P
o
i
n
t
Me
d
f
o
r
d
Ot
h
e
r
204 S. Haskell St.; Pine St.
to Ash St.
uu Add bike lanes & sidewalks. ▪ ▪ ♦
205 10th St. & Pine St. &
Freeman Rd.
Intersection
minor Add protective-permissive phasing to
eastbound and westbound left turn
movements.
▪ √ ♦
207 10th St., Hazel St. to
Lathrop
uu Widen to add turn lane with bike lanes
& sidewalks.
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ ♦
208 Oak St.: Second -Third
& First St.: Manzanita-
Laurel
Improve alleys and parking facility ▪ √ ♦
209 Beebe Rd.: Gebhard
Rd. to Hamrick Rd.
uu Widen to collector standards with
sidewalks & bike lanes.
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦
211 Beebe Rd. & Hamrick
Rd. intersection
p Add traffic signal ▪ ▪ ▪ √ ♦ ♦ ♦
212 Hwy. 99, Project No. 4 p Cupp Street Gateway. ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦
214 Scenic Av.: Mary's
Way to Scenic Middle
School.
uu Add bike lanes & sidewalks. ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦
216 E. Pine St. & Hamrick
Rd. Intersection
minor Widen west and south approaches to
add a second eastbound left turn lane
and second receiving lane. Restripe
northbound approach to include dual
left turns and a single through-shared-
right turn. Restripe southbound
approach to include a left turn, through,
and exclusive right turn lanes.
▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦
218 E. Pine St. & Table
Rock Rd.
minor Widen west approach to add second
eastbound left turn lane.
▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ ♦
219 Table Rock Rd. & Vilas
Rd. Intersection
major Widen to increase capacity, add
eastbound lane & shared through-right
turn movement
▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ ♦
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 104
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 7 — Street System Page 77
220 Gebhard Rd.: UGB to
Beebe Rd.
uu Realign, widen to 3 lanes, and install
separated bike-ped path on west side
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ ♦
221 Hwy. 99 & Beall Ln.
intersection
major Realign & upgrade signals & railroad
crossing, urban upgrade.
▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
222 3rd St.: E. Pine St. to
Hazel St.
uu Add bike lanes and sidewalks ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦
223 Hazel St.: Third to
10th St.
p Pave and improve, adding sidewalks. ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦
225 Hwy. 99: Phase 3 pb Add sidewalks. ▪ ▪ √ ♦ ♦
227 W. Pine St.; Hanley
Rd. to Haskell St.
uu Widen 3 lanes (continuous turn lane),
bike lanes, sidewalks, urban upgrade.
▪ √ √ ♦ ♦
230 Hwy. 99 & Scenic Av.
Intersection
major Install a traffic signal when signal
warrants are met
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ ♦
231 Scenic Av.: Hwy. 99 to
Grant Rd.
uu Widen 3 lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks.
Box culvert developer driven
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
232 Taylor Rd.: Grant Rd.
to Silver Creek
uu Widen 3 lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks,
urban upgrade. Culvert crossings (2)
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ ♦
233 E. Pine St.: Hamrick
Rd. to Bear Creek
Bridge
pb Widen for decel/accel lanes, add bike
lanes and sidewalks.
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ ♦
234 E-W Hamrick Rd.
extension (south of E.
Pine St.)
nc Extend Hamrick Rd. westerly to
intersect with Penninger Rd. (collector
standards).
▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ √ ♦
235 Freeman Rd.: Hopkins
Rd. to Beall Ln.
b Rebuild to collector standards ▪ √ ♦
236 E. Pine St.: Bear Creek
Bridge to Peninger Rd.
pb Widen for turn lanes, bike lanes, add
sidewalks. And third lane
▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ √ ♦ ♦ ♦
238 10th St.: E. Pine St. to
Hazel St.
uu Add bike lanes & sidewalks. ▪ ▪ ♦
239 Grant Rd.: Scenic Av.
to Taylor Rd.
uu Realign, widen to 3 lanes, bike lanes,
sidewalks, urban upgrade.
▪ ▪ ▪ √ ♦ ♦ ♦
240 Peninger Rd.
Extension, South
nc Extend Penninger Rd. from E. Pine St.
south across Bear Creek to Hamrick Rd.
& construct new bridge across Bear
Creek
▪ ▪ ▪ √ ♦ ♦ ♦
242 Grant Rd.: Taylor Rd.
to Beall Ln.
uu Realign, widen to 3 lanes, bike lanes,
sidewalks, urban upgrade (collector
standards).
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ ♦
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 105
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 7 — Street System Page 78
243 Bursell Rd.: Beall Ln.
to Hopkins Rd.
uu Urban upgrade; 2 lanes, bike lanes,
sidewalks.
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦
244 Upton Rd., Scenic Av.
Raymond St.
ru Widen to rural 2 lanes with bike lanes,
sidewalks.
▪ ▪ ▪ ♦ ♦
245 Peninger Rd. Project nc Extend Penninger Rd. from E. Pine St.
north across Bear Creek to Beebe Rd.&
remove signal at Penninger /Pine St. and
construct bridge across Bear Creek.
Also, extend Peninger Rd. south across
Bear Creek to intersect with S. Hamrick
Rd.
▪ ▪ ▪ √ ♦ ♦ ♦
246 Freeman Rd. &
Hopkins Rd.
Intersection
s Install new signal when signal warrants
are met.
▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ ♦
247 3rd St.; E. Pine St. to
Ash St.
p Construct sidewalks, repair curb &
gutter.
▪ √ ♦
248 Maple St.; Hwy. 99 to
10th St.
p Construct sidewalks, repair curb &
gutter.
▪ √ ♦
249 4th St.; Ash St. to
Cedar St.
p Construct sidewalks, repair curb &
gutter.
▪ √ ♦
250 Ash St.; Hwy. 99 to
Freeman Rd.
p Construct sidewalks, repair curb &
gutter.
▪ √ ♦
251 Oak St.; Hwy. 99 to
Freeman Rd.
p Construct sidewalks, repair curb &
gutter.
▪ √ ♦
252 Rachel Dr.; Saxbury
Dr. to W. Pine St.
p Construct sidewalks, repair curb &
gutter.
▪ √ ♦
253 Saxbury Dr.; Brad Wy.
To Rachel Dr.
p Construct sidewalks, repair curb &
gutter.
▪ √ ♦
254 Brad Wy.; Taylor Rd.
to Saxbury Dr.
p Construct sidewalks, repair curb &
gutter.
▪ √ ♦
255 E. Pine St.; I-5 to Table
Rock Rd.
major Widen E. Pine St. to add third
westbound through lane from east side
of Table Rock Rd. to I-5 SB off-ramp.
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦
256 Upton Rd & Scenic
Ave intersection
major Install a roundabout ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ ♦
257 Beebe Rd Extension nc Extend Beebe Rd west to Peninger Rd –
project includes a bridge over Bear
Creek
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ ♦
258 Gebhard Rd & Pine St
intersection
major Install a traffic signal, a third westbound
through lane (beginning east of Table
▪ √ √ ♦ ♦
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 106
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 7 — Street System Page 79
LEGEND:
uu = urban upgrade
ru = rural upgrade
s = signalization
p = pedestrian
b = bicycle
pb = pedestrian/bicycle
Rock Rd and extending to the I-5
northbound ramps), dual eastbound
and southbound left-turn lanes, and
dedicated westbound and northbound
left-turn lanes to support future traffic
volumes when the Gebhard Rd
Extension is complete
259 Gebhard Rd Extension
(Phase 1)
nc Extend Gebhard Rd from north of Pine
St south to Pine St (west of Hamrick Rd)
– Coordinate with Project#258
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ ♦
260 Grant Rd Realignment nc Realign Grant Rd south of Taylor Rd to
align with Grant Rd north of Taylor Rd.
Install two-way stop-control at Taylor
Rd / Grant Rd and Grant Rd / CP-6A
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ ♦ ♦
263 Gebhard Rd & Wilson
Rd intersection
minor Install all-way stop-control when
warranted
▪ √ ♦
264 Grant Rd & Twin
Creek Crossing
intersection
minor Install all-way stop-control when west
leg is complete
▪ √ ♦
265 Gebhard Rd & Beebe
Rd intersection
major Install a roundabout when Gebhard Rd
Extension is complete
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ ♦
266 Gebhard Rd & Local
Gebhard Rd
intersection
major Install a roundabout when Gebhard Rd
Extension is complete
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ ♦
267 Gebhard Rd Extension
(Phase 2)
nc Extend Gebhard Rd from Gebhard Rd
(north of Beebe Rd) to north of Pine St –
coordinate with Projects #259 and #261
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ ♦
268 Gebhard-Upton
Connector
nc Construct a new street connection from
Upton Rd to Gebhard Rd
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ ♦
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 107
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 7 — Street System Page 80
minor = minor capacity improvement
major = major capacity improvement
nc = new construction
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 108
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 7 — Street System Page 81
Figure 7-3: Tier 1 Projects
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 109
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 7 — Street System Page 82
Table 7-5: Jackson County Transportation Projects within Central Point Urban Area
Table 7-6: ODOT Transportation Projects within Central Point Urban Area
Ref.
No.
Project
Location
Im
p
r
o
v
.
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
Project Description
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Fr
e
i
g
h
t
Ac
c
e
s
s
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
Sa
f
e
t
y
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Tr
u
c
k
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
Ur
b
a
n
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
OD
O
T
Co
u
n
t
y
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
P
o
i
n
t
Me
d
f
o
r
d
Ot
h
e
r
916 I-5 & E. Pine
St., SB Off-
Ramp
major Extend and channelize
southbound off ramp
▪ ▪ ♦ ♦
917 I-5 Central
Point
Interchange
(Exit 33)
major Interchange
reconfiguration.
▪ ▪ ♦ ♦
918 I-5 & E. Pine
St. NB
major Northbound &
eastbound capacity
improvements.
▪ ▪ ♦
LEGEND:
uu = urban upgrade; ru = rural upgrade; s = signalization
p = pedestrian; b = bicycle; pb = pedestrian/bicycle
minor = minor capacity improvement; major = major capacity improvement
nc = new construction
Ref.
No.
Project
Location Im
p
r
o
v
.
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
Project Description
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Fr
e
i
g
h
t
Ac
c
e
s
s
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
Sa
f
e
t
y
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Tr
u
c
k
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
Ur
b
a
n
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
OD
O
T
Co
u
n
t
y
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
P
o
i
n
t
Me
d
f
o
r
d
Ot
h
e
r
802 Beall Ln.,
Hwy. 99 to
Merriman Rd.
uu Widen to add
continuous turn lane
with bike lanes and
sidewalks.
▪ ▪ ▪ ♦ ♦ ♦
812 Table Rock
Rd., Bear
Creek to
Biddle Rd.
uu Widen to add
continuous turn lane
with bike lanes &
sidewalks.
▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ♦ ♦ ♦
813 Table Rock
Rd. & Wilson
Rd.
minor Widen to five lanes
with sidewalks and bike
lanes. Install a signal
when warranted or
restrict movements to
right-in, right-out, left-
in.
▪ ▪ ♦ ♦ ♦
816 E. Pine St.,
Table Rock
Rd. to
Hamrick Rd.
ps Add bike lanes &
sidewalks.
▪ ▪ ♦ ♦ ♦
823 Hanley Rd.:
W. Pine to
Beall Ln.
uu Widen 3 lanes, bike
lanes, sidewalks.
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ ♦
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 110
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 7 — Street System Page 83
7.4 STREET SYSTEM GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES
GOAL 7.1: PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE STREET SYSTEM THAT SERVES THE PRESENT AND
FUTURE MOBILITY AND TRAVEL NEEDS OF THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA,
INCLUDING PROVISIONS FOR BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES.
Policy 7.1.1. The City shall fulfill its system wide travel capacity needs through the use of multiple
travel modes within the public rights-of-way.
Policy 7.1.2. The City’s street system shall contain a network of arterial and collector streets and
highways that link the central core area and major industry with regional and statewide
highways.
Policy 7.1.3. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain street design standards consistent with the
policies of this TSP.
Policy 7.1.4. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain standards that promote connectivity of the
street system consistent with the Functional Classification Map.
Policy 7.1.5. The City shall actively pursue construction of I-5 interchange improvements at Pine
Street.
Policy 7.1.6. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain design standards for its streets to safely
accommodate pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle travel as has been accomplished in
the TOD Districts.
Policy 7.1.7. The City Standards and Details shall be the basis for all street design within the Central
Point urban area.
Policy 7.1.8. Wherever possible the City shall incorporate safely designed, aesthetic features into the
streetscape of its public rights-of-way. These features may include: street trees, shrubs,
and grasses; planting strips and raised medians; meandering sidewalks on arterial
streets; and, in some instances, street furniture, planters, special lighting, public art, or
non-standard paving materials.
Policy 7.1.9. When existing streets are widened or reconstructed they shall be designed to the
adopted street design standards for the appropriate street classification where practical.
Adjustments to the design standards may be necessary to avoid existing topographical
constraints, historic properties, schools, cemeteries, problems with right-of-way
acquisition, existing on-street parking and significant cultural features. The design of the
street shall be sensitive to the livability of the surrounding neighborhood.
Policy 7.1.10. The City shall work with federal, state and local government agencies to promote traffic
safety education and awareness, emphasizing the responsibilities and courtesies
required of drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians.
Policy 7.1.11. The City shall place a higher priority on funding and constructing street projects that
address identified vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian safety problems than those projects
that solely respond to automotive capacity deficiencies in the street system. Exceptions
are those capacity improvements that are designed to also resolve identified safety
problems.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 111
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 7 — Street System Page 84
Policy 7.1.12. The City shall select street improvement projects from those listed in the Central Point
Transportation System Plan when making significant increases in system capacity or
bringing arterial or collector streets up to urban standards. The selection of
improvement projects should be prioritized based on consideration of improvements to
safety, relief of existing congestion, response to near-term growth, system-wide benefits,
geographic equity, and availability of funding.
Policy 7.1.13. To maximize the longevity of its capital investments, the City shall design street
improvement projects to meet existing travel demand and, whenever possible to
accommodate anticipated travel demand for the next 20 years for that facility.
Policy 7.1.14. The City shall involve representatives of affected neighborhood associations, citizens,
developers, surveyors, engineering and planning professionals in an advisory role in the
design of street improvement projects.
Policy 7.1.15. The City shall require Traffic Impact Analyses as part of land use development proposals
to assess the impact that a development will have on the existing and planned
transportation system and to identify reasonable on-site and off-site improvements
necessary to mitigate impacts.
Policy 7.1.16. The City may require new development to pay charges towards the mitigation of system-
wide transportation impacts created by new growth in the community through
established Street System Development Charges (SDCs) and any other street fees that
are established by the City.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 112
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System Page 85
Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System
8.1 INTRODUCTION
Providing adequate facilities and programs that support bicyclist and pedestrian needs is an important
transportation strategy for promoting alternatives to the automobile. The goal of this chapter is to
provide guidance in developing transportation alternatives through the design and implementation of a
comprehensive, convenient, accessible, and safe system of bike and pedestrian routes throughout the
City. It is the City’s goal to continually seek bicycle and pedestrian system improvements that will
encourage use of these systems for journey-to-work trips as well as the non-work/recreational trip.
Increases in bicycle and pedestrian use will reduce the City’s reliance on automobile use through
reductions in vehicular miles traveled and parking demand.
8.2 BICYCLE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
There are two basic uses for bicycles: as a means of transportation and for recreational purposes. This
TSP focuses on bicycle use as a means of transportation, with recreational use as a secondary
consideration. It is the City’s position that a well-planned and maintained bicycle transportation system
will also effectively serve the needs of the recreational bicyclist.
As a means of transportation, the bicyclist relies on a network that links local neighborhoods to intra-city
and inter-city destinations. In order to meet this objective, an effective bicycle system will offer
connectivity from neighborhoods to schools, recreation and employment centers, commercial districts,
transit centers, institutions, and recreational destinations. The most common means of accomplishing
this objective is by providing dedicated bikeways on arterial and collector streets. Dedicating travel lanes
on arterial and collector streets to bicyclists is prudent because of the traffic volumes and speeds on
these facilities. Additionally, by their very nature, arterial and collector streets offer connectivity
between intra-city and inter-city activity centers.
In recognition of this approach to improving the bicycle system’s connectivity and safety, the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) has established as a performance measure (Measure 3) the provision of
bicycle facilities on all collector and arterial streets with targeted percentages. Measure 3 is presented in
Table 8-1.
Table 8-1: Regional Transportation Plan Bicycle System Performance Measures
Measure 3 How Measured 2000
Benchmark
2005
Benchmark
2010
Benchmark
2015
Benchmark
2020
Measure 3:
Collectors &
arterials
w/bicycle
facilities
Determined through
GIS Mapping. Current
estimates are that
21% of collectors and
arterials have
provisions for
bicyclists.
21% 28% 37% 48% 60%
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 113
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System Page 86
8.3 THE BICYCLE SYSTEM
Chapter 4 demonstrates that approximately 17% of the City’s current arterial and collector street
systems include bike lanes. As illustrated in Figure 8-1 City of Central Point Bicycle Plan, it is the City’s
objective to provide bicycle lanes along all arterial and collector streets, linking the City’s major activity
centers such as schools, shopping centers, community parks, etc. Over the course of the next twenty
years, it is the City’s goal to increase the presence of bicycle lanes on arterial and collector streets by
40%. Table 8-2 presents the City’s benchmarks to the year 2030.
Table 8-2: City of Central Point Bicycle System Performance Measures
Measure 8.1 How Measured 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Collectors &
arterials
w/bicycle
facilities
Determined through Street Inventory
and Geographic Information System
(GIS). Current estimates are that 16% of
collectors and arterials have provisions
for bicyclists.
16% 21% 35% 48% 59% 70%
8.4 IN-FILL PROJECT PRIORITIES & IMPLEMENTATION / IMPROVEMENT
STRATEGIES
The City’s current street standards for arterial and collectors include bike lanes. Since 2000, all new
arterial and collector streets have been required to include bike lanes. However, the City’s older
arterial and collector streets have gaps where bike lanes do not currently exist. Over time, it is
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 114
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System Page 87
expected that these street sections will be modernized to include bike lanes. Short-term and long-
term strategies for closing these gaps are presented in Figure 8-1: Bicycle Plan
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 115
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System Page 88
Table 8-3. The short-term strategies focus on creating critical links to develop a more integrated bicycle
system using arterial and collector streets. The long-term strategies are primarily focused on providing
safe and efficient links to the City’s major activity centers.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 116
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System Page 89
As described in Figure 8-1: Bicycle Plan
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 117
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System Page 90
Table 8-3, the short-term strategy for developing an effective bicycle system will focus on filling in
existing gaps in the system. While this approach will eventually help to meet bicyclists’ needs for a
comprehensive bicycle system, there is also a need to prioritize critical projects. Table 8-4 provides a
prioritized short-term (5 to 10 years) list of those projects that are essential for needed connectivity and
bicycle safety.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 118
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System Page 91
Figure 8-1: Bicycle Plan
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 119
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System Page 92
Table 8-3: Bicycle Facilities In-fill Strategies
Short-Term Strategy Description Objectives of the Strategy
Fill in Gaps Improve/construct facilities
linking existing and planned
bikeways (filling in “missing
links”)
Increase percentage of bicycle facilities on arterial and collector
streets
Improve connections to employment centers, commercial districts,
transit centers, institutions, and recreational destinations when
possible
Increase percentage of daily trips made via bicycle
Long-Term Strategy Description Objectives of the Strategy
Focus on Schools Provide bikeways to/from all
public schools where none
exist (emphasis on arterials
and collectors)
Primarily improve connections to schools
Secondarily improve connections to employment and commercial
districts, transit, institutions, and recreation
Encourage and facilitate safe and convenient bicycle transportation
for younger riders
Increase percentage of daily trips made via bicycle
Secondarily increase percentage of bicycle facilities on arterial and
collector streets
Focus on Parks and other
Activity Centers
Provide bikeways to/from
commercial and neighborhood
employment centers and parks
where none exist (emphasis
on arterials and collectors)
Primarily improve connections to employment and commercial
districts, transit, institutions, and recreation
Increase percentage of daily trips made via bicycle
Increase percentage of bicycle facilities on arterial and collector
streets
Encourage and facilitate safe and convenient bicycle
Connect to Transit Routes Provide bikeways to/from
major transit stops where
none exist (emphasis on
arterials and collectors)
Primarily improve connections to transit
Secondarily improve connections to employment and commercial
districts, institutions, and recreation
Increase percentage of daily trips made via bicycle and transit
Encourage and facilitate safe and convenient bicycle transportation
Table 8-4: Prioritized Bicycle Facility Projects – Short-Term (5–10 years)
Priority Project Comments
1 Front Street Front Street is the primary north-south route through Central Point, but it is very unlikely that
bicycle facilities will be developed along Front Street due to a lack of right-of-way and general
driveway conflicts. The Central Point Highway 99 Corridor Plan evaluated bike lanes along Front
Street and recommended alternative bike routes using the west side of the railroad right-of-way
(south bound) and Second Street (north bound). This alignment is illustrated in Figure 8-1.
2 East Pine Street East Pine Street is the primary east-west route through Central Point. The designation of bicycle
lanes on Pine Street would negatively impact parking and access to local businesses. To preserve
the character of the downtown it is suggested that E. Pine Street be designated a bicycle route
through the downtown area. Traffic speeds through the downtown should be reduced through
traffic calming, on-street parking, and other site design strategies that make this section of Pine
Street compatible with bicycle users. Under no circumstance should on-street parking on Pine
Street, within the downtown, be removed to accommodate bicycle lanes.
3 Taylor Road Taylor Road provides access to Mae Richardson Elementary School, Twin Creeks Development,
and is an important connection to the Jackson County Bicycle System along Grant Rd.
4 Bursell Road Bursell Road is an important north-south link in the Central Point System, providing connectivity
between Beall Lane and Scenic Avenue via Hopkins/Freeman/10th.
5 N. 3rd Street N. 3rd Street from Hazel Street to N. 10th Street provides a critical north-south connection and
an important link to both Crater High School and Scenic Middle School.
6 S. 3rd Street There is currently no connection from existing Hazel Street bicycle facilities to East Pine Street.
Bicycle lanes need to be improved along South 3rd Street.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 120
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System Page 93
8.5 BICYCLE PARKING, SAFETY PROGRAMS, AND FACILITY MAINTENANCE
While developing and implementing a bicycle facilities improvement program is a priority, consideration
must also be given to bicycle amenities such as parking and safety. Also, once bicycle facilities are
completed, there is a need to maintain them so that bicycling is both safe and convenient.
8.5.1 BICYCLE PARKING
Currently, the City does not have standards for bicycle parking. The City needs to develop standards in
its zoning ordinance requiring bicycle parking, along with other amenities to help meet bicyclists’ needs.
Bicycle parking should include short-term parking for customers or visitors and all-day parking for
employees or students. Safe, convenient, and secure bicycle parking is particularly important if bicycling
is to become a viable mode of transportation.
Bicycle parking requirements can be specified in the municipal code as a percentage of automobile
parking or building square footage. For some uses, relatively little bicycle parking needs to be provided,
but there are very few land uses for which no bicycle parking can be justified. The code can also specify
locations which provide for safe, convenient, and secure bicycle parking. For example, it is preferable for
bicycle parking to be located in high-visibility areas near high traffic pedestrian entrances to buildings.
8.5.2 BICYCLE PROMOTION & SAFETY PROGRAMS
The use of the media, bicycle committees, and other methods are effective tools for the promotion of
bicycling for transportation purposes. Promotional campaigns and other strategies that encourage the
use of bicycling for transportation can have a positive impact. Encouraging major employers to provide
amenities such as showers, lockers, and related facilities that encourage bicyclists to commute to work.
Bicycle suitability maps or bicycle system maps can help cyclists choose the most appropriate route and
can also be used for educational purposes. RVTD also provides a variety of bicycle safety and commuting
education programs of which the city can provide links to and increase awareness.
Along with promoting bicycle riding, the City Central Point needs to promote safe bicycle riding
practices. Children should be taught at an early age basic bicycle riding skills and safety. The Central
Point Police Department is developing a Dare-like program for 5th Grade students that will provide basic
bicycle safety education and a free helmet as well. A consistent problem faced by the police department
is that citations/warnings for not wearing helmets have not proved to be effective in increasing helmet
use. Bicycle safety programs may also be planned in conjunction with summer Parks and Recreation
programs.
Educating drivers to the rights of bicyclist is also a critical issue. Areas of particular concern are those
locations where bicycle lanes end and bicyclists enter traffic. This situation exists throughout Central
Point where street improvements have occurred and short sections of bicycle lanes have been added.
Areas of critical concern are located on East Pine Street near the I-5 Interchange and the Front Street
Intersection. In both cases, once through these intersections, bicyclists enter the flow of traffic without
warning provided to drivers. Another area of concern is the bicycle lanes located on the I-5 / Pine Street
overpass. Drivers moving from Pine Street onto the freeway entrance ramp may not be aware of bicycle
riders. Visible signage and stripes would be an effective means of educating the public on their
obligation to share the road with bicyclists.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 121
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System Page 94
8.5.3 BICYCLE FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
Once bicycle facilities are developed, they need to be maintained on a regular basis in order to remove
broken glass, mud, vegetation, etc. Because most of the bicycle system is located within the street
system, routine maintenance can be accomplished in conjunction with regularly scheduled street
maintenance. The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan includes the following bicycle facility maintenance
recommendations:
Establish a seasonal sweeping schedule;
Sweep walkways and bikeways whenever there is an accumulation of debris on the facility;
In curbed sections, sweepers should pick up debris; on open shoulders, debris can be swept onto
gravel shoulders;
Pave gravel driveway approaches to reduce loose gravel on paved roadway shoulders; and
Provide extra sweeping in the fall in areas where leaves or pinecones accumulate in bike lanes.
8.6 THE PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM
In 2008, approximately 30% of the City’s arterial and collector street system included sidewalks. The
Oregon TPR requires sidewalks along all collector and arterial streets within a city’s urban area. The
City’s current standards for development are consistent with the TPR, requiring sidewalks on all public
streets. As a sidewalk performance measure (Measure 4), the RTP sets benchmarks for the percentage
of arterial and collectors that include sidewalks. Table 8-5 describes the RTP performance objectives for
sidewalks.
Table 8-5: Regional Transportation Plan Pedestrian System Performance Measures
Measure How Measured 2000 2005
Benchmark
2010
Benchmark
2015
Benchmark
2020
Measure 4:
Collectors &
arterials
w/sidewalks
Determined through GIS Mapping.
Current estimates are that 47% of
collectors and arterials have
sidewalks.
47% 50% 56% 64% 75%
In recognition of the RTP performance Measure 4, the City has established its own performance
measure for the improvement of sidewalks on the arterial and collector street system. Table 8-6
presents the City’s benchmarks over the course of the next twenty years.
Table 8-6: City of Central Point Pedestrian System Performance Measures
Within the TOD districts, the City has adopted additional standards addressing the design of sidewalks
within commercial areas, including provisions for landscaping, lighting, delineation, and on-site
connectivity between adjacent developments. The purpose of these design standards is, through both
land use and urban design, to provide an environment that encourages walking.
Measure How Measured 2008 2010 2015 2015 2020 2020
Measure 8.2:
Collectors &
arterials
w/sidewalks
Determined through GIS Mapping. Current
estimates are that 30% of collectors and
arterials have sidewalks.
30% 56% 60% 64% 70% 75%
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 122
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System Page 95
8.7 PRIORITY OF PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS
The City’s most significant pedestrian challenge is the in-filling of areas where sidewalks do not exist,
which is generally the older neighborhoods. A systematic approach to filling gaps in the sidewalk system
and an annual allocation for construction is recommended. The primary consideration for sidewalk in-fill
is safety, particularly of school-age children. Excluding new development, which is required to construct
sidewalks, the priority for sidewalk in-fill construction should be based on the following considerations:
Street Upgrade: As the City upgrades the existing street system, it will do so to the standards for city
streets, which includes the provision of sidewalks.
Pedestrian Connections to Schools: Many of the
streets servicing the schools within the City are
lacking sidewalk improvements, resulting in not
only an inconvenience, but also a safety concern
for students walking to and from school.
Pedestrian Connections with Transit: Central Point
should provide sidewalks and other amenities to
make pedestrian access to bus stops easier.
Current efforts at providing pedestrian access to
transit could be significantly expanded by
providing better walkways to commercial centers
and providing walkways from subdivisions to bus stops on arterials. It is vitally important to RVTD that
its riders or potential riders have safe, convenient access to bus stops and passenger shelters. The
provision of sidewalks is expected to significantly increase the ability of RVTD to attract riders. RVTD
needs the cooperation of other area governments with infrastructure improvements, especially
sidewalks, to implement high quality transit service between activity centers.
Pedestrian Connections to Commercial Activity Centers: Commercial Activity Centers are defined as
commercial, civic, and to a lesser extent industrial areas, that attract large numbers of employees,
customers, visitors, etc. For these areas convenient access throughout the area, to transit and to
adjacent neighborhoods is important.
8.8 PUBLIC AWARENESS
The use of the media, pedestrian committees, pedestrian plans, and other methods to promote use of
walking as a mode of transportation is an important strategy in facilitating the community’s awareness
of the pedestrian system and its many transportation and recreational opportunities. Promotional
campaigns and other strategies that encourage the use of walking for transportation can have a positive
impact.
8.9 BEAR CREEK GREENWAY
The Bear Creek Greenway is a project that has been in progress for more than 25 years. When complete,
the Greenway will provide a 20-mile, multi-use path from the I-5/Seven Oaks Interchange in Central
Point to Nevada Street in Ashland. In addition to its recreational use, the Bear Creek Greenway will serve
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 123
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System Page 96
as an important facility for intercity pedestrian and bicycle travel along the I-5 corridor. Within the City,
the Greenway is divided into two sections:
1. East Pine Street in Central Point, south to Barnett Road in Medford; and
2. East Pine Street, north to the limits of the Urban Growth Boundary.
The East Pine Street south section is complete and in use. The East Pine Street north section is
unimproved. Part of this section (between East Pine Street and Upton Road) has been designed and
approved for construction but not funded.
8.10 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN GOALS, POLICIES, & ACTIONS
GOAL 8.1: TO PLAN FOR AND FACILITATE THE INCREASED USE OF BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION IN
THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA BY ASSURING THAT CONVENIENT, ACCESSIBLE AND
SAFE BICYCLE FACILITIES ARE PROVIDED.
Policy 8.1.1. The City of Central Point recognizes bicycle transportation as a necessary and viable
component of the transportation system, both as an important transportation mode,
and as an air quality improvement strategy.
Policy 8.1.2. The Bicycle Element of this plan shall serve as the Central Point Bicycle Master Plan.
Policy 8.1.3. The City of Central Point shall progressively develop a linked bicycle network, focusing
on, but not inclusive to the arterial and collector street system, and concentrating on the
provision of bicycle lanes, to be completed within the planning period (20 years). The
bikeway network will serve bicyclists needs for travel to employment centers,
commercial districts, transit centers, schools, institutions and recreational destinations.
Policy 8.1.4. The City of Central Point shall use all opportunities to add bike lanes in conjunction with
road reconstruction and re-striping projects on collector and arterial streets.
Policy 8.1.5. The City of Central Point shall maintain public improvement standards that assure that
the design of all streets and public improvement projects facilitate bicycling by providing
proper paving, lane width, traffic control, storm drainage grates, striping, signage,
lighting, parking, etc.
Policy 8.1.6. The City of Central Point shall prepare, adopt, and maintain on-site development
standards that assure the provision of bicycle access, parking, racks and/or shelters in
business developments, institutions, duplexes and multi-family developments and other
locations where bicycle parking facilities are required.
Policy 8.1.7. The City of Central Point shall support the local transit provider in their efforts to
facilitate “bikes on buses” and bicycle facilities at transit stations and stops.
Policy 8.1.8. Except within the Central Business District, the City of Central Point shall give priority to
bicycle traffic over parking within public rights-of-way designated on the Bicycle Master
Plan or otherwise determined to be important bicycling routes.
Policy 8.1.9. The City shall require pedestrian and bicycle easements to provide neighborhood
connectors and reduce vehicle trips. The City shall modify the street vacation process so
pedestrian and bicyclist through access is maintained.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 124
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System Page 97
GOAL 8.2: THE CITY WILL PROMOTE BICYCLE SAFETY AND AWARENESS.
Policy 8.2.1. The City of Central Point shall actively support and encourage local and state bicycle
education and safety programs intended to improve bicycling skills, observance of laws,
and overall safety for both children and adults.
Policy 8.2.2. The City shall consider the use of the media, bicycle committees, bicycle plans and other
methods to promote use of bicycling for transportation purposes.
GOAL 8.3: TO FACILITATE A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF CONVENIENT, ACCESSIBLE AND SAFE
SIDEWALKS AND WALKWAYS THAT WILL ENCOURAGE AND INCREASE PEDESTRIAN
TRAVEL THROUGHOUT THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA.
Policy 8.3.1. The City shall establish and maintain a Sidewalk Construction Program to complete the
pedestrian facility network.
Policy 8.3.2. Sidewalks and walkways shall complement access to transit stations/stops and multi-use
paths. Activity centers, schools and business districts should focus attention on and
encourage pedestrian travel within their proximity.
Policy 8.3.3. The City of Central Point shall maintain standards that require sidewalk and pedestrian
access and standards for improvement, i.e. crosswalks at signalized intersections and
high volume pedestrian areas such as the Central Business District. All road construction
or renovation projects shall include sidewalks.
Policy 8.3.4. The City shall require pedestrian and bicycle easements to connect neighborhoods and
reduce vehicle trips. The City shall modify the street vacation process so pedestrian and
bicyclist through-access is maintained.
Policy 8.3.5. Pedestrian walkway or accessway connections shall be required between adjacent
developments when roadway connections cannot be provided.
Policy 8.3.6. The City shall prepare a plan and implement a multi-use trail system, using linear
corridors including, but not limited to: utility easements, rail lines, Bear Creek, Griffin
Creek, Jackson Creek and other creeks that complement and connect to the sidewalk
system.
GOAL 8.4: TO ENCOURAGE EDUCATION SERVICES AND PROMOTE SAFE PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL TO
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ACCIDNTS INVOLVING PEDESTRIANS.
Policy 8.4.1. The City of Central Point shall encourage schools, safety organizations, and law
enforcement agencies to provide information and instruction on pedestrian safety issues
that focus on prevention of the most important accident problems. The programs shall
educate all roadway users of their privileges and responsibilities when driving, bicycling
and walking.
Policy 8.4.2. The City shall include in the Sidewalk Construction Program (Policy 9.1.1) inclusion of a
street lighting system.
Policy 8.4.3. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain standards for the separation of pedestrian
traffic from auto traffic on streets and, where determined appropriate, in parking lots.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 125
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 9 — Public Transit System Page 98
Chapter 9 — Public Transit System
9.1 INTRODUCTION
Public transportation services fulfill two roles. First, they provide transportation for those who cannot or
choose not to drive their own automobile. The majority of Central Point transit riders would likely fall
into this category. Secondly, the provision of a comprehensive local transit service is a key measure of
quality of life within a community. In concert with walking and bicycling, transit provides an alternative
to driving. Transit is also an important component in the toolbox of strategies that can support Smart
Growth through higher density, mixed use development, and a more compact form of urban
development where the dependency on automobile use is minimized.
9.2 2005 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP)
The RTP Transit System Element provides a comprehensive review of the region’s transit system and
future potential for growth. The primary constraint confronting transit service is the limited amount of
funds available to service the current system, not to mention the funds needed to support expansion of
ridership.
The RTP includes nine (9) transit related goals 6.D-1 through 6.D-9 focusing on funding, market
demographics, and increased ridership. Of the nine policies five apply to local governments. Those
policies include:
RTP Policy 6.D-1 Local funding actions should be taken to ensure a long-term stable operating and
capital-funding basis for RVTD.
This policy is a general statement regarding local funding as a source of income for RVTD. The term
“local” does not specifically refer to individual cities, but rather to the region as opposed to state
and federal funding. The City of Ashland was used as an example of one city in the region that
contributes annually to RVTD for transit services.
RTP Policy 6.D-2 Local governments shall, through RVTD, continue provision of transportation
services and facilities that enhance mobility/livability and quality of life options for the
transportation-disadvantaged.
The City of Central Point supports this policy as evidenced in this TSP.
RTP Policy 6.D-4 Local governments, RVTD, and ODOT where appropriate, shall consider the
development of park-and-ride facilities as a cost-effective means of increasing the efficiency of the
existing transportation system.
The City of Central Point supports this policy as evidenced in this TSP. The Parking Plan presented in
this TSP sets forth as a parking reduction strategy the appropriate use of park-and-ride facilities
(see Chapter 6).
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 126
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 9 — Public Transit System Page 99
RTP Policy 6.D-8 Local governments, ODOT where appropriate, and RVTD should support transit-
friendly design including appropriate inclusion of bus-only lanes on arterial streets, bus bays or
turnouts on district level State highways, arterial and collector streets as a means of facilitating
traffic flow during peak travel periods and should revise building codes that enhance pedestrian
access to major destination buildings. This transit-friendly design approach will also encourage
connectivity to transit by enhancing pedestrian, wheelchair, and bicycle access to bus stops.
The City acknowledges the importance of including transit needs in its development and street
standards. This acknowledgement is not only limited to functional design needs but also design
standards that improve the attractiveness and convenience of the transit system.
RTP Policy 6.D-9 Where warranted by traffic speeds, volume, and average bus schedule dwell time;
where consistent with maintaining a positive pedestrian environment; and where approved by
RVTD, local governments, and ODOT where appropriate, shall facilitate implementation of bus bays
on congested arterial streets as a means of facilitating traffic flow during peak travel periods.
The appropriateness of bus bays on congested major streets is a justifiable design consideration,
but one that is time sensitive and dependent of the presence of stable bus routes. The City will
work with RVTD in identifying the need and timing of bus bays on arterial streets and the
development of acceptable bus bay standards as part of the City’s street standards.
In addition to the policies above, the RTP also includes a performance measure for transit service. Table
9-1 represents Measure 2 of the RTP. In support of the RTP Measure 2, the City as part of this TSP
establishes a similar performance measure. Table 9-2 represents the City’s transit performance
measure. It is important to note that attainment of this performance measure relies on the expansion of
transit service to the east side of the City and other planned transit-oriented development areas.
Table 9-1: Regional Transportation Plan Public Transportation System Performance Measures
Measure How Measured Current 2000
Benchmark
2005
Benchmark
2010
Benchmark
2015
Benchmark
2020
Measure 2:
Percentage of
DU’s within ¼
mile walk to 30-
minute transit
service
Determined through GIS
Mapping. Current estimates
are that 12% of DU’s are
within ¼ mile walking
distance of RVTD transit
routes.
12% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Table 9-2: City of Central Point Transportation System Plan Performance Measures
Measure How Measured Current 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Measure 2:
Percentage of
DU’s within ¼ mile
walk to 30-minute
transit service
Determined through GIS
Mapping. Current estimates are
that 35% of DU’s are within ¼
mile walking distance of RVTD
transit routes.
38% 45% 50% 60% 65% 70%
9.3 ROGUE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
The Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) provides public transit within the City of Central Point,
offering a combination of services including a fixed-route, fixed-schedule bus system, and paratransit
(Valley Lift) service - a specialized service for people with disabilities that prevent them from riding the
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 127
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 9 — Public Transit System Page 100
bus. Additionally, RVTD operates the Valley Rideshare and Vanpool programs which provide ride
matching support and commuter van service to employers and their employees.
Figure 9-1: Twin Creeks Transit-Oriented Development
Currently, RVTD ridership is less than one
percent of total daily and peak-hour
vehicular trips. Although not unusual for a
small metropolitan area, public
transportation has the potential for
accommodating a greater portion of total
daily trips in the region provided RVTD is
adequately funded as necessary to
increase transit services, including
enhancements that will make transit more
convenient to people who generally use
automobiles.
Transit’s ability to serve an expanded role
would be significantly enhanced by other
elements of this plan including the TDM,
pedestrian, bicycle, and land use elements.
Access to transit routes and stops will be
improved by development of more
sidewalks as specified in the Pedestrian
Element. Development of mixed-use
activity centers and higher densities
adjacent to major corridors are among the
strategies in the Land Use Element that
would make travel by transit between
activity centers a viable option. With the
support of policies and projects in other
elements of the plan, transit may be able to help reduce the need for street and highway system
improvements.
The preferred transit system for RVTD is fully described in the Regional Transportation Plan. Central
Point is currently served by Route 40 of RVTD. The preferred transit system would provide for an
additional route in Central Point as well as increased headways and weekend service. The present
financial forecast does not support additional service to Central Point. During Phase II of the Regional
Transportation Plan Update, the Rogue Valley MPO will be investigating methods of increasing transit
service.
9.3.1 ROGUE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT TEN-YEAR LONG-RANGE PLAN (2007-
2017)
The RVTD Ten-Year Plan 2007-2017 is a multi-modal document focused on enhancing ridership through
appropriate best practices. The Plan is designed to address the community’s public transportation
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 128
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 9 — Public Transit System Page 101
needs, with the realization that there will be revenue
constraints to be addressed throughout the Plan’s
implementation.
Central Point is currently served by Route 40 of RVTD
(Figure 9-1), which has a very strong ridership. Route 40
travels from Medford to Central Point and has received
increased frequency from one hour to 30-minute
headways. South of Route 40 the City has created a TOD
overlay district for the Twin Creeks area. Within this
overlay district, future transit facilities have been
planned. The long-range plan proposes the following
priorities and future needs:
Priorities and Immediate Needs:
Service along Hwy 99;
Service to the Twin Creeks TOD (Figure 9-2);
Downtown reverse service (currently only the north
side of Pine Street receives service);
Expanded hours and increased frequency;
Provide Saturday service;
Express route that connects all City Centers; and
Determine location for transfer station and major
bus stops.
Future Needs:
East Central Point; and
Area near South Haskell St. and Ash St.
9.4 STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE TRANSIT
SERVICE
The growth of transit service, in terms of ridership, will
necessitate a variety of strategies that need to be
simultaneously employed. These strategies include a
variety of disciplines such as economics, land use and
transportation planning, and urban design that when
considered collectively will provide a solid infrastructure
to build future transit ridership.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 129
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 9 — Public Transit System Page 102
Figure 9-2: Transit Plan
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 130
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 9 — Public Transit System Page 103
The following is a listing of actions that will facilitate growth in transit ridership:
Additional site plan standards can be incorporated into the land development code to encourage
transit-oriented development.
Prepare code amendments that provide standards and incentives fostering enhancements to
parking lot design, integration of transit facilities, flexibility to support various uses over time, such
as temporary parking zones or parking areas that convert to plazas to support programmed
activities; shared parking facilities.
Transportation infrastructure can be designed to support redevelopment of future building
construction.
Provide clear pathways to transit vehicles from shelters.
Sidewalks should be constructed to the nearest intersection or to the nearest section of existing
sidewalk from all urban transit facilities.
Provide suitable and universally accessible waiting areas for transit users.
Coordinate locations of crosswalks with placements of way-finding signage and shelters.
On streets with parking, consider curb extensions at near-side bus stops so passengers can board
transit directly from the curb without stepping onto the street and to comply with ADA universal
accessibility standards.
Encourage and promote high quality design, durable, easy to maintain materials, and modern
vehicles to encourage ridership.
Develop a consistent graphic system for wayfinding and information to facilitate increased ridership
for all community sectors.
9.5 TRANSIT GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL 9.1: IN COOPERATION WITH TRANSIT PROVIDERS FACILITATE THE PROVISION OF A
TRANSIT SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES CONVENIENT AND ACCESSIBLE TRANSIT SERVICES
TO THE CITIZENS OF THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA.
Policy 9.1.1. The City shall work with RVTD to encourage transit services that meet the City’s transit
needs.
Policy 9.1.2. To encourage accessibility and increased ridership, the City shall continue to encourage
future transit-supportive land uses, such as mixed uses, multiple-family, and
employment centers to be located on or near transit corridors.
Policy 9.1.3. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain development standards and regulations
facilitating accessibility to transit services through transit-supportive streetscape,
subdivision, and site design requirements that promote pedestrian and bicycle
connectivity, convenience and safety.
GOAL 9.2: INCREASE OVERALL DAILY TRANSIT RIDERSHIP IN THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA,
TO MITIGATE A PORTION OF THE TRAFFIC PRESSURE EXPECTED BY REGIONAL
GROWTH.
Policy 9.2.1. Through Transportation Demand Management efforts, the City shall work with Central
Point employers and other government agencies to increase commuter transit ridership.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 131
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 10 — Railroad & Aviation System Page 104
Chapter 10 — Railroad & Aviation System
10.1 RAILROAD SYSTEM- INTRODUCTION
In February 1976, Congress passed the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act (the 4R Act),
which set up a nationwide local rail service assistance program and a rail planning process. As a
prerequisite for obtaining federal assistance funds, a state was required to establish:
“…An adequate plan for rail services in such
state as overall planning process for all
transportation services in such state, including a
suitable process for updating, revising and
amending such plan….and that….such state plan
is administered and coordinated by a designated
state agency and provides for the equitable
distribution of resources.”
The purpose of the rail transportation element is
to address both freight and passenger
components of the railway system relative to
this TSP. The long-term potential for both freight
and passenger service for the Rogue Valley
region is greater than present service provides.
This is particularly true as the increasing cost of
gasoline affects the cost of the automobile and
truck transportation. Rail service offers specific
advantages for various bulk commodities or
loads longer than those normally permitted on
highways. Even with recent increases in railroad
traffic, the total volume of rail freight is far less
than the highway freight tonnage for the region.
The combined highway and rail freight tonnage
along the I-5 corridor alone is estimated at 25
million tons annually. The rail freight portion
accounts for between 5 and 10 percent of this
total in the I-5 corridor.
10.2 RAILROADS - EXISTING CONDITIONS
The railroad has a long history in Central Point and was one of the driving forces behind the founding of
the city. The Southern Pacific railroad came to the valley in 1885, four years prior to the incorporation of
Central Point in 1889.
Figure 10-1: Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad Map
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 132
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 10 — Railroad & Aviation System Page 105
Today within the City of Central Point’s transportation inventory, there is a single north-south railroad
track operated by the Central Oregon Pacific Railroad (CORP). This trackage is part of CORP’s Siskiyou
Line which provides connections from Eugene-Springfield to Cottage Grove, Roseburg, Glendale, Grants
Pass, Medford, Ashland and on into California (Figure 10-1).
CORP is Oregon’s second largest short line railroad, operating on 378 route miles and 8 miles of trackage
rights in Oregon. Its route miles comprise 13.8 percent of all route miles statewide. CORP is strictly a
freight line that carries local forest and agricultural products. Steep grades and tight turns limit
operating speeds, which mostly fall in the range of 25 to 35 miles per hour. Forty-three miles of track is
limited to an operating speed of only ten miles per hour. In recent years, CORP carried approximately
28,000 cars on the Siskiyou Line.
10.2.1 LAND USE
The CORP line through Central Point is generally bound predominantly by residential and commercially
zoned properties with some industrial properties south of Pine Street. With the exception of the Grange
Co-op, which does have a spur and occasionally uses the rail for shipment of materials, the City’s
commercial/industrial use of the railroad is non-existent.
The speed (low) and frequency (very limited) of the rail traffic is not a cause for concern at this time.
Along much of the rail line, adjacent land uses are effectively buffered from rail traffic impacts such as
noise and vibration. With the exception of the commercial lands along the west side of Front Street, the
remaining lands are buffered by either Hwy. 99 on the east and planned open space/ landscaped berms
along the west side of the tracks. These buffering systems are anticipated to be sufficient to mitigate any
increases in rail speed and frequency that may occur in the future. Within the City’s urban area, there
are three existing (3) and one (1) proposed public at-grade railroad crossings (Table 10-1). Each of these
crossings is located on one of the City’s arterial streets.
Table 10-1: Central Point Railroad Crossings
10.2.2 RAIL FREIGHT – EXISTING CONDITIONS
Currently, the CORP line is used only for freight, which can be divided into two major segments: 1. A
large wood products operation at Dillard, south of Roseburg, contributes most of the traffic on the
northern end of the line. 2. Shippers south of Grants Pass (Timber Products, Boise Cascade, and Sierra
Pine, Ltd.) are the major source of business on the southern end of the line. While the railroad operates
a through train between Medford and Roseburg, most of the traffic heads either north out of Roseburg
or south out of Medford. CORP’s line south from Medford is one of the most rugged rail lines in the
western part of the United States with gradients that approach 3.25 percent. The portion of the line
south from Ashland to Black Butte, California has no weight restrictions but has height and length
restrictions in the Siskiyou Mountains due to size limitations related to tunnels.
Crossing Name Crossing No. Crossing Control
Beall Lane U.S. DOT #756030T Full
W. Pine Street U.S. DOT #756050T Full
Scenic Avenue U.S. DOT #756051A Full
Twin Creeks Crossing Proposed Full
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 133
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 10 — Railroad & Aviation System Page 106
In 2002, the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO) undertook a survey entitled
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Current Freight Transportation System. The survey asked shippers if
they were interested in improving their connections with rail. While there was interest among some
manufacturers in increasing their use of rail for inbound raw materials and outbound finished product, it
was very selective. Shippers with the greatest interest tended to have a spur either on their property or
one nearby and were producing heavy, bulk products or needed large quantities of bulk raw materials.
The reasons shippers gave for not using rail more extensively had to do with the length of time it takes
to move freight by rail and concerns of the reliability of delivery times. Rail freight is typically carried by
more than one railroad company before reaching its destination, which means that the originating
company loses hands-on control of the freight in the process. Local rail personnel point to the
inconsistency of schedules as an important issue that they have been working to correct.
The findings of the 2002, Strengths and Weaknesses of the Current Freight Transportation System,
particularly as it pertains to timely and cost-effective rail service, have been reinforced by CORP’s most
recent cutbacks. Any increased shipping times and costs will ultimately result in increases in demand for
motor freight services.
In September 2007, CORP discontinued operations between Vaughn, OR and Coquille, OR due to unsafe
tunnel conditions. CORP estimates the cost for repairing the tunnels at $23 million and is seeking federal
financial assistance for this purpose. Additionally, in December 2007, CORP notified shippers south of
Eugene that the railroad’s Siskiyou Line would be closed to train service into California. Effective January
2008, no freight trains will be allowed south of Ashland. Instead, companies that want to ship cargo by
rail south into California will have their products loaded onto railcars bound for Eugene. From Eugene,
railcars will be directed to Klamath Falls and then into California. This change will have a direct impact
on businesses using the Siskiyou Line by increasing shipping times and, potentially, shipping costs.
Based on recent events, the future role of rail freight service to and from the Rogue Valley is
questionable. Based on the most recent actions by CORP it appears that the market share of products
shipped by rail will decline in the near future.
10.2.3 PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE – EXISTING CONDITIONS
Passenger rail service to and from Southern Oregon was terminated in 1958. Currently north-south rail
passenger service in the California-Oregon-Washington corridor is provided through Klamath Falls,
bypassing the Rogue Valley region on the way to Eugene. State sponsored thruway bus service with one
daily round trip via the I-5 freeway between Eugene and Ashland started in May 2000. This bus connects
with the mid-morning Amtrak Cascades train departure from Eugene.
10.2.4 PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE – FUTURE FEASIBILITY
The primary advantage of rail is its ability to move larger numbers of passengers at approximately the
same cost as a small number of passengers and to move them in a comfortable, time-competitive
manner. Passenger service also can provide peaking capacity parallel to congested highway corridors.
Because of the high infrastructure cost, rail works best where passenger volumes are high enough to
justify the investment, and generally this means where multiple frequencies can be operated.
Rail’s advantage declines where the available rail route is not competitive with driving times, either due
to a circuitous route or to poor track conditions that limit operating speeds. Nevertheless, there is a
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 134
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 10 — Railroad & Aviation System Page 107
general perception that rail service is more reliable, more comfortable, and safer because the railway
cars provide more passenger space and travel over a fixed guideway that is not affected by highway
congestion.
Recently, interest has been expressed in bringing passenger rail service to southwestern Oregon. Several
studies have been completed providing various scenarios that could potentially reintroduce passenger
service to the area, but in all cases, the cost would be prohibitive and federal and state support at this
time is very limited. These studies include:
The 2001 Oregon Rail Plan. The 2001 Oregon Rail Plan provided an analysis of potential rail passenger
service between Medford and Eugene. In the Plan, it was stated that rail service is disadvantaged in
southern Oregon by an antiquated rail line alignment built in the 1880s, twisting track alignment, slow
speeds, and relatively light population. The line is maintained to Class 2 standards with maximum speed
over the route of 25 mph, with many segments limited to 20 mph. A passenger rail service would be
unable to match highway times. Rail running time on the present 205-mile rail route between Eugene
and Medford would require over 8 hours, and the improvements necessary to reduce the rail running
time to competitive levels would require major reconstruction.
Southern Oregon Commuter Rail Study, 2001. The 1999 session of the Oregon Legislature instructed the
Oregon Department of Transportation to examine the potential for local passenger service (commuter
rail) between Grants Pass and Ashland, a distance of approximately 45 miles. The operation being
contemplated would operate on trackage owned by CORP. The Southern Oregon Commuter Rail Study
was a joint effort of the Rail Division of the Oregon Department of Transportation, the Rogue Valley
Transportation District (RVTD) and the Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG). The overall goal
of the study was to define costs, benefits, and impacts of the project to allow regional partners to
compare the feasibility of commuter rail against other regional transportation options.
The plan presented a highly visionary concept of rail service in the Rogue Valley that was determined to
be infeasible under current, or foreseeable, levels of financial support for rail improvements.
Key findings are:
With substantial upgrading of the track and signal system, the rail line connecting the eight
Rogue Valley communities is well suited to serve as the backbone of an effective commuter
transportation system for the region.
With top speeds of up to 60 miles per hour, commuter trains can travel the 45-mile corridor
from Ashland to Grants Pass in about 80 minutes, making seven (7) intermediate stops.
The estimated costs for upgrading the rail infrastructure, including track, ties, switches, a new
1.5-mile track through Medford Yard, new sidings, a modern train movement signaling system,
grade crossing safety improvements, acquiring passenger equipment, and operating the system
at three potential levels of service are summarized in Table 10-2 below:
Table 10-2: Level of Service Explained
Service Level Elements
LEVEL 1 Full service (six (6) round trips in the morning and six (6) in the evening) between Ashland and Central Point.
LEVEL 2 Level 1, plus limited service (two (2) round trips in the morning and two (2) in the evening) between Central
Point and Grants Pass.
LEVEL 3 Full service (six (6) round trips in the morning and six (6) in the evening) between Ashland and Grants Pass
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 135
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 10 — Railroad & Aviation System Page 108
Commuter and Inter-Urban Corridors Plan. The focus of this rail plan was primarily on intercity service,
rather than commuter service. However, the Plan did discuss commuter service, which is getting
increasing attention nationwide, both in major urban centers and in less populous communities where
increasing traffic congestion encourages people to look for transportation alternatives. The recent
introduction of such service between Seattle and Tacoma shows that this trend has moved to the Pacific
Northwest. Several Oregon communities have conducted commuter rail feasibility studies, and others
continue to show interest. The discussion that follows is intended to provide a perspective on these
efforts.
Once considered viable only as a means to move suburban residents into major downtown employment
centers, many communities are now investigating commuter service potential between suburban areas
where employment and housing patterns are more diverse. Lightly used or abandoned rail lines are seen
as having commuter service potential with minimal or no conflicts with freight operations. A
determination of commuter rail feasibility depends on a number of factors that vary widely from
community to community, but ultimately the viability of commuter rail hinges largely on a calculation of
the balance between its costs and ridership, which translates to revenue. A number of indicators can be
used to measure the potential success for a commuter service.
The checklist below covers the primary attributes that affect a viable commuter operation:
Direct Rail Link: An existing rail line with a reasonably direct route between the communities to be
served and with sufficient unused capacity to accommodate relatively frequent rush hour passenger
service.
Supporting Regional Goals: Land use and transportation system goals that seek to reduce motor
vehicle trips, concentrate commercial and residential development in and near the urbanized areas
in the corridor, and to promote higher-density development within the corridor and specifically,
near rail station sites.
Population Growth and Density: Continuing moderate to rapid growth in population within and
along the corridor, with a high concentration of residences and/or business/commercial activity
close to proposed station sites.
Limited Funding for Highway Projects: Difficulty in raising funds for new highway projects which
would increase traffic capacity in the corridor.
Commuting within the Corridor: A high level of daily commuting within the rail corridor.
Traffic Congestion: Growing traffic congestion on highways paralleling the rail line.
Limited Parking: Limited and expensive parking at commuter destination points.
Competitive Transit Times: Ability to provide rail commuter service competitive with auto commute
times.
Availability to Funding: Ability to provide rail commuter service at a cost competitive with auto
commuting.
Willingness to Use Transit: Daily commuters in the corridor with a relatively high propensity to use
transit. A number of commuter or localized (inter-urban) rail services have been proposed in Oregon
during the past decade. The status of each service is summarized below.
Rogue Valley Commuter Rail Project, 2006. In 2006, the RVMPO examined an additional option for
bringing commuter rail service to the Rogue Valley. This study was brought about as a result of the
availability of several self-propelled rail diesel cars (RDC) owned by ODOT Rail Division. Under this
scenario, these RDCs would be purchased or leased and would provide service to Central Point,
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 136
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 10 — Railroad & Aviation System Page 109
Medford, Bear Creek Orchards, Phoenix, Talent, and Ashland. The operation would be less extensive and
require less capital and operating costs than the concept developed as part of the 2001 Southern
Oregon Commuter Study. The estimated costs for required infrastructure improvements would be
approximately $12,500,000, while the cost of the Southern Oregon Commuter would approach
$38,000,000.
Funding for the Rogue Valley Commuter Rail Project was limited, and additional information is required
before it can be seriously considered, particularly information related to travel market demand.
While these studies have, for the most part, focused on infrastructure needs, questions that need to be
answered in future service assessments include:
Will the service attract sufficient ridership and revenue to justify the service?
What are the potential costs and revenue?
What are the economic and social benefits to the state and local communities?
Can a service be provided at an affordable cost?
What are the alternatives to providing the service?
How does the service satisfy Oregon’s transportation goals?
Will the service contribute positively to other services through connections?
Does the service accommodate disabled travelers and comply with the Americans with Disabilities
Act?
In summary, the feasibility of passenger rail service must take into consideration not only infrastructure
requirements, but also the following key operational thresholds:
Patronage: To justify rail service, a train should have a minimum average occupancy of about 75
passengers per train. Occupancy might be lower at the extreme end of a run, but average occupancy
should justify the operation of a train with at least 180 seats (typically a three-car train). The economic
efficiency of rail is significantly reduced if usage falls below this level, and bus operation often may
provide more effective use of transportation dollars. Most of Oregon’s current trains meet this
threshold.
Cost Recovery: Typical train operating costs are about $26 per mile. A new rail service should be
expected to attain a 30-40 percent fare box recovery ratio (the proportion of operating costs covered by
fare revenue) to be viable. With a lower cost recovery, the amount of subsidy per passenger becomes
excessive and alternative transportation by bus becomes a more attractive option. Oregon’s long-term
goal is to achieve or exceed 100 percent operating cost recovery on its rail services.
Running Time: Rail service has to be reasonably competitive with auto driving times to be successful.
Unfortunately, some branch lines that otherwise might have passenger service potential drop out of
consideration because they follow alignments that cannot be upgraded to provide time-competitive
service at a cost commensurate with the potential service level. Many of Oregon’s branch lines fall into
this category. Freight service levels are insufficient to justify major capital investment in track upgrades
or curve reductions that would also benefit passenger operations, so the entire cost of improvements
would be a passenger-related responsibility. Parallel highways, however, have been improved to the
extent that driving times (and potential bus times) have been significantly reduced over time, rendering
establishment of rail service more difficult to justify.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 137
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 10 — Railroad & Aviation System Page 110
Other Factors: In certain situations, rail service may be warranted even though it would not meet the
general parameters given above. Justifications may include rail service that contributes substantially to
the patronage of other trains, service that provides special benefits to the area served or operations
that assist in the mobility of certain travelers (i.e. handicapped).
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 138
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 10 — Railroad & Aviation System Page 111
Figure 10-2: Railroad System
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 139
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 10 — Railroad & Aviation System Page 112
10.3 AVIATION SYSTEM – INTRODUCTION
Although the City of Central Point does not
provide aviation service, it is fortunate to have
convenient access to the Rogue Valley
International-Medford Airport. The airport is
located to the east of the City just outside the
urban area. The Rogue Valley International-
Medford Airport is the third largest commercial
service airport in Oregon providing air passenger
and air freight services to seven counties in
Southern Oregon and northern California. The
airport provides national and international
connections to the region with commercial air
service provided by Horizon Airlines and United Airlines/United Express. Because of the airport’s
proximity to the City, it is considered to be a transportation asset.
The governing planning document for the Airport is the Medford-Jackson County Airport Master Plan
Update, which will continue to serve as the airport’s guiding document governing anticipated
development of the airport, including the on-site facilities. It is the City’s goal, through this TSP, to
maintain convenient and efficient vehicular transportation access to the Rogue Valley International-
Medford airport.
10.4 RAILROAD AND AVIATION GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL 10.1: TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT, SAFE, AND EFFECTIVE MOVEMENT OF GOODS, SERVICES AND
PASSENGERS BY RAIL WHILE MAINTAINING THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE CITIZENS OF
THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA.
Policy 10.1.1. The City shall encourage both freight and passenger service as part of statewide rail
transportation planning efforts.
Policy 10.1.2. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain site development standards that mitigate
railroad noise and vibration.
GOAL 10.2: TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT, SAFE, AND EFFECTIVE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS
VIA INTER-MODAL CONNECTIONS WITH THE ROGUE VALLEY INTERNATIONAL-
MEDFORD AIRPORT.
Policy 10.2.1. The City shall support the Rogue Valley Transportation District efforts to provide service
to the Rogue Valley International Airport from established routes serving Central Point.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 140
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 11 — Truck Freight System Page 113
Chapter 11 — Truck Freight System
11.1 INTRODUCTION
Efficient truck movement plays a vital role in the economical transportation of raw materials and
finished products. The establishment of through truck routes provides for this efficient movement while
at the same time maintaining neighborhood livability, public safety, and minimizing maintenance costs
of the roadway system. The significance of freight movement is supported by the 1999 Oregon Highway
Plan, the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). Most recently
the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO) completed a freight study addressing the
freight needs of the Rogue Valley. As a result of the findings presented in the RVMPO Freight Study
(2006), truck freight movement warrants a special chapter in the Transportation System Plan (TSP) in
order to maintain focus of truck freight issues.
11.2 LAND USE
The safe and efficient movement of goods is a common goal for both truck and rail freight, but trucks
use different infrastructure, have different land use implications, and must be integrated with other
modes in the broader transportation system. Commercial trucks have specific travel needs such as
adequate lane widths, adequate turning at intersections, and adequately designed loading and
unloading areas. Truck services also need roadways operating at an adequate level of service so that
goods and services can move efficiently through the city, the region, and the state.
Most of the Central Point’s freight intense land uses are located on the eastside of the freeway with
access predominantly via East Pine Street and Table Rock Road. The downtown and the area along
Highway 99 also contribute but to a lesser degree. Aside from these areas most of the City is residential
in character with limited freight needs.
11.3 TRUCK FREIGHT - EXISTING CONDITIONS
Truck freight transportation within the Central Point urban area is primarily concentrated along the
truck routes designated in the Regional Transportation Plan. Figure 11-1 illustrates the truck routes
within the City as identified in the RVMPO Freight Study. The major truck routes include Interstate 5 (I-5)
and Highway 99 (Front Street). I-5 is the most important freight route in the region carrying
approximately 4,000 to 5,000 trucks per day through the area. I-5 not only serves freight heading to
destinations within the Central Point UGB, but also serves trucks passing through the region to
destinations throughout the West Coast. Currently, the combined volume of freight transported over
highway and rail modes in the I-5 corridor through the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Region is
estimated at 25 million tons annually, with the majority of this freight carried on the highway system.
Additional Central Point Freight Routes as identified in the RVMPO Freight Study (2006) include: Table
Rock Road, East Vilas Road, Pine Street, and Hanley Road. As part of the RVMPO Freight Study, the
Rogue Valley Council of Governments conducted a series of interviews with major freight shippers and
carriers providing issues and concerns related to specific Central Point freight routes. Table 11-1 lists the
freight issues taken from the RVMPO Freight Study that affect facilities within the City’s urban area.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 141
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 11 — Truck Freight System Page 114
Figure 11-1: Rogue Valley MPO Freight Route
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 142
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 11 — Truck Freight System Page 115
Table 11-1: Central Point Truck Freight Issues and Concerns
Freight Route Issues & Concerns
I-5 Interchange General concerns expressed about the capacity of the interchange
and the potential for continued growth in the area around the
interchange which will increase congestion in the future.
Hwy. 99/Pine Street East Pine Street through downtown Central Point is congested and
relatively narrow for truck freight traffic.
Table Rock Road Table Rock Road deliveries are difficult due to the lack of turning
lanes. [Please note: Since the publication of the RVMPO Freight
Study sections of Table Rock Road have been widened and turning
lanes added.]
East Vilas Road The four corners intersection at Table Rock Road and Vilas Road is
very tight. Turning lanes on Vilas Road are needed. [Please note:
This intersection has been improved since the publication of the
RVMPO Freight Study.]
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 143
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 11 — Truck Freight System Page 116
Figure 11-2: Freight Route Plan
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 144
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 11 — Truck Freight System Page 117
Figure 11-3: Problem Routes and Intersections
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 145
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 11 — Truck Freight System Page 118
11.4 CENTRAL POINT TRUCK FREIGHT - ISSUES & CONCERNS
As presented in the RVMPO Freight Study, the City of Central Point’s capacity to accommodate truck
freight has numerous challenges ranging from capacity and land use conflicts to inappropriate route
designations.
East Pine Street/Central Point Interchange. Freight trucks moving south on I-5 often choose to connect
with I-5 via the East Pine Street/Central Point Interchange, rather than face the congestion on Highway
62 en route to the North Medford Interchange. USF Reddaway, the largest bulk facility in the Rogue
Valley, is located off Pine Street on Hamrick Road. Counting just Reddaway traffic, 300 trucks per day
exit from I-5 and another enter I-5. Gordon Trucking, a long-haul company, is likely to relocate near this
interchange. East Pine Street connects freight on Highway 99 with Table Rock Road, the route to
industrial sites in White City. Issues include the high levels of congestion leading to and occurring within
the area. Freight companies are concerned that conditions at the Central Point Interchange are starting
to mirror those at the north and south Medford interchanges. This is troublesome since the Central
Point Interchange is currently their only viable alternative south of the Seven Oaks Interchange.
Hamrick Road. In the RVMPO Freight Study, Hamrick Road was identified as part of the MPO freight
system. This section of Hamrick Road is predominantly residential in character and has been eliminated
from the City’s freight route map as illustrated in Figure 11-2. As presented in this TSP, it is proposed
that the section of Hamrick Road from East Pine Street to Table Rock Road be removed as a designated
truck freight route from the RVMPO regional freight route map. Table Rock Road is adequate to serve
the designated freight needs.
East Pine Street (Downtown Core). By its very nature, the downtown core has always been, and will
continue to be, a less than desirable truck route. This is particularly true given the City’s plans for
revitalization of the downtown, which include pedestrian oriented uses and traffic calming along East
Pine Street. To avoid the downtown section of East Pine Street, truck drivers often travel out-of-
direction to the Seven Oaks I-5 interchange.
11.5 OUT-OF-DIRECTION TRAVEL
Out-of-direction travel is defined as drivers taking an indirect non-designated route rather than a more
direct designated route. The use of out-of-direction routes typically occurs as a result of regular routes
being blocked during construction, drivers avoiding bottlenecks and congestion, and restrictions that
prevent oversized freight. According to the RVMPO Freight Study, there has been an increase in out-of-
direction travel. The result is that manufacturers and shippers are using alternative routes to Hwy. 99
and I-5 placing significant burdens on the Central Point Interchange, Table Rock Road, and Vilas Road.
11.6 TRUCK FREIGHT GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL 11.1: TO IDENTIFY AND MAINTAIN A TRUCK FREIGHT SYSTEM WITHIN THE CITY THAT
SERVES THE CITY’S AND REGION’S FREIGHT NEEDS IN AN EFFICIENT AND SAFE
MANNER, WITH MINIMAL ADVERSE IMPACTS ON ADJACENT LAND USES.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 146
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 11 — Truck Freight System Page 119
Policy 11.1.1. The City shall cooperate with the RVMPO, Jackson County, ODOT and the City of
Medford in the coordination of design, funding, and improvement of the freight system
within the City that enhances freight movement, while improving the overall capacity of
the City’s street system.
Policy 11.1.2. The Freight System Map presented in Figure 11-2 shall be considered by the City as the
official freight route system for the City of Central Point. The design and improvement of
the street system designated on the Freight System Map shall accommodate large
vehicles typical of freight movement.
Policy 11.1.3. The City shall ensure access to truck freight via the local street system, with emphasis on
maintaining an efficient and safe designated truck route system.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 147
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program Page 120
Chapter 12 — Transportation System
Financing System Program
12.1 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), this chapter presents the City of Central
Point’s financing program for its transportation system. By definition, the financing program shall
include:
1. Policies that guide the selection of transportation facility and improvement projects for funding
in the short-term that meet the standards and benchmarks established pursuant to the TPR;
2. A list of planned transportation facilities and major improvements;
3. An estimate of the timing for planned transportation facilities and major improvements; and
4. A determination of rough cost estimates for the transportation facilities and major
improvements identified in the TSP.
In Chapter 7, a list of transportation improvements was identified. These are projects that are forecast
to be needed through the TSP planning period.
As stated in Chapter 7, the referenced list of transportation improvements has been updated to
remove projects that have been completed since 2008 and to include new projects that are
associated with the 2022 UGB Expansion. The remainder of this Chapter (12) reflects those
updates.
In the aggregate, the total cost of all projects approaches $58.4 million. These costs do not include the
cost of Jackson County and ODOT projects as identified in Table 7-5 and Table 7-6 of Chapter 7. The City
readily acknowledges that it is beyond the realm of feasibility to fund all projects through the year 2030
and that not all projects are necessary to maintain an acceptable level of service throughout the
planning period. Consequently, it is the purpose of this chapter to prioritize the projects based on need
and to reconcile the cost of the projects with the City’s ability to fund.
Development of this chapter is based on the following documents:
The RVMPO Regional Transportation Plan 2005-2030 dated April 5, 2005, and draft information for
the 2009-2034 RTP;
City of Central Point’s FY 2007-08 Budget;
City of Central Point’s Five-Year Capital Improvements Plan 2008-2012; and
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), 2008 – 2011.
City of Central Point Urban Growth Boundary Amendment, Traffic Impact Analysis, July 27, 2020.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 148
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program Page 121
All expense and revenue estimates presented in this chapter are in terms of 2022 dollars. Funding has
been estimated over the duration of this TSP.
12.2 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION POLICIES
The TPR requires that the selection of transportation projects be based on policies that establish
standards and benchmarks. To this end, the City relies on its Strategic Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, the
RTP, and the STIP.
Initially, one of the standards to be achieved in local TSPs was a 5% reduction in vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) during the planning period of the TSP. On April 3, 2002, the Land Conservation and Development
Commission (LCDC), by Order 02-LCDC-026, approved alternative standards to accomplish reduced
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as required by OAR 660-012-0035(5). LCDC’s approval was conditional
subject to completion of certain tasks. The RVMPO completed the necessary tasks in 2004. The 2005-
2030 RTP contains the LCDC approved alternative measures. In total seven (7) alternate measures were
approved. These alternative measures have been incorporated in this TSP. Where applicable these
alternate measures have been used in developing the standards and benchmarks for prioritization of
transportation projects.
Project prioritization is based on the following criteria:
1. Safety. Projects that improve the safety of the City’s transportation system. This includes all
modes of transportation;
2. RTP Benchmarks. Projects that facilitate compliance with the RTP Benchmarks;
3. Economic Development. Projects that reinforce the City’s economy, either through
improvements to freight routes, or improvements that facilitate development of land uses that
support the City’s employment base;
4. Regional Coordination. Projects undertaken in coordination with the State, County, and/or City
of Medford;
5. Livability. Projects that improve the City’s livability through maintenance of minimum levels of
service, connectivity, and modal choice; and
6. Cost/Benefit. Projects that demonstrate cost effectiveness in relationship to benefits derived.
As part of updating the recommended street projects presented in Chapter 7, the updated project was
re-prioritized according to the criteria above and also considering a seventh criterion, Equity. The intent
of introducing Equity into the prioritization process is to evaluate capital projects with a lens for people
that may be considered transportation disadvantaged and must rely on active travel modes, such as
walking, biking, and taking transit. The intent is also to be sure that projects that do serve transportation
disadvantaged populations (e.g., sidewalks, bike lanes, etc.) are located in areas with the highest
concentrations of these populations. The project priorities presented later in this chapter reflect this re-
prioritization process.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 149
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program Page 122
12.3 PROJECT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
The transportation projects presented in this TSP have been assigned to one of two classifications
referred to as either Tier 1 or Tier 2 projects.
Tier 1 Projects. By definition, Tier 1 projects are financially constrained. Financially constrained projects
are projects that can be reasonably funded within the next twenty years. Tier 1 projects are further
classified as short- or medium/long-term. These time periods correspond to the years 2022 - 2026
(short-term) and 2026 - 2030 (medium/long-term).
Tier 2 Projects. Tier 2 projects are those projects identified as having an eventual need beyond the
timeframe of this TSP, and for which funding is unavailable. Tier 2 projects can advance to Tier 1 as
funds become available or priorities change. Advancing Tier 2 projects requires an amendment to the
TSP with justification for the advancement and the impact on the timing and funding of designated Tier
1 projects.
12.4 TRANSPORTATION FUNDING SOURCES
Revenue for transportation system projects predominantly comes from three sources: federal, state,
and local. The City’s transportation projects have historically been funded by a combination of these
sources. Its primary revenue sources have been generated by State gas tax, System Development
Charges (SDCs), Transportation Utility Fees (TUFs), and Urban Renewal funds. The City has also funded
several transportation projects with grants, including the Surface Transportation Block (STBG) program,
All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) program, and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
Program.
Federal, State, and local revenue sources that are used to fund street system projects are described in
the RTP and a more comprehensive discussion of each funding source is available in the RTP. This
section provides a summary of the funding sources referenced above. The funding forecast presented in
Table 12-1 is derived from these sources.
State Gas Tax: The City’s State gas tax revenue is primarily generated by House Bill 2017 (HB 2017),
which increased the motor fuels tax, vehicle title and registration fees, and the weight-mile tax on heavy
trucks. Revenue from HB 2017 is restricted to expenditures that include construction, reconstruction,
improvement, repair, maintenance, operation, use, and policing of public streets within the City. The
City currently receives an annual average of $1.1 million in State gas tax, of which $400,000 is
earmarked for capital improvements. Over the last 10 years, this revenue source has increased by an
average of six percent each year. The City expects to continue receiving revenue from State gas tax over
the planning horizon but recognizes that electric vehicle fleets may impact this revenue source.
System Development Charges (SDCs): System Development Charges (SDCs) are fees assessed on
development for impacts created to public infrastructure. A portion of the City’s SDC funds are
reimbursement fees, which are flexible and can be applied toward non-capital expenditures, but
typically most of the SDC funds are dedicated toward capital improvement projects designed to
accommodate growth. The City can offer SDC credits to developers that provide public improvements
beyond the required street frontage, including those that can be constructed by the private sector at a
lower cost. The City currently receives an annual average of $353,000 in SDC funds, of which $250,000 is
earmarked for capital improvements. The City expects SDC funds to increase over the planning horizon
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 150
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program Page 123
by two percent each year (reflecting the expected increase in development, not a rate increase assessed
to developers).
Transportation Utility Fee (TUF): The City implemented a Transportation Utility Fee (TUF) in 2007 to
provide a temporary solution to its street budget shortage. The TUF is a monthly fee assessed to a
variety of land uses including single-family residences, multifamily residences, manufactured home
parks, retirement communities, commercial sites, parks, and freight (businesses pay a higher TUF than
residences, likely due to the higher traffic volume that they generate) and is collected through the City’s
water bill collection system.
The TUF became an important revenue source for the City’s street budget and continues to be renewed
every few years. In 2017, the TUF was increased to specifically support ADA compliant infrastructure
improvements and create a more walkable community. The City had anticipated that a long-term
comprehensive fuel tax solution possibly adopted by the State would support such improvements, but
the State did not implement a solution. The fee increase resembled that of nearby jurisdictions. The City
implemented a fee increase applied specifically to commercial land uses in July 2021 and a second
increase is being implemented this year. The City currently receives an annual average of $527,000 in
TUF funds, of which $100,000 is earmarked for capital improvements. The City expects TUF funds to
increase to approximately $825,000 annually over the planning horizon.
Urban Renewal District: The City established an Urban Renewal District that generally includes the
area of Old Town and the adjacent Interstate 5 (I-5) interchange (Exit 33). The Urban Renewal District
is a temporary revenue source scheduled to fund capital projects through the year 2039. The City
estimates that this revenue source will generate approximately $2 million each year through its life
and fund several of the recommended street projects identified in
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 151
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program Page 124
Table 7-4 (#209, #212, #225, #238, and #247-251), which is reflected in the overall cost of transportation
projects presented later in this chapter.
Surface Transportation Block (STBG) Program: STBG funds are flexible federal dollars that can be used
for City projects to preserve and improve the conditions and performance of any Federal-aid highway,
bridge, or tunnel on any public road, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects,
including intercity bus terminals. The City can either apply 100 percent of these funds toward projects
that comply with federal regulations or 90 percent toward projects that do not have federal constraints.
All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program: ARTS funds are intended to address safety needs on
all public roads in Oregon. By working collaboratively with local road jurisdictions (cities, counties,
MPO’s, and tribes), ODOT expects to increase awareness of safety on all roads, promote best practices
for infrastructure safety, compliment behavioral safety efforts, and focus limited resources to reduce
fatal and serious injury crashes across the state. The program is data driven to achieve the greatest
benefits in crash reduction and should be blind to jurisdiction. The ARTS program primarily used federal
funds from the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program: CMAQ funds are for projects that help reduce
emissions and meet national air quality standards, such as transportation demand management
programs, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, public transportation projects, diesel retrofits, and
vehicle emission reduction programs. All types of non-motorized transportation projects are eligible for
CMAQ funding. States are required to provide a non-federal match for program funds (which has not
been the case historically for Federal lands highway funding).
12.5 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM REVENUE PROJECTIONS
Projecting revenue over long periods – in this case, 20 years – involves making several assumptions
which may, or may not, prove valid over time. For example, changing social, economic, and political
conditions cannot be predicted, yet these factors play important roles in determining future funding
levels for Street System projects. The Tier 1 revenue projections presented in this plan are based on
historic funding sources. The revenue projections account for anticipated annual revenue increases that
reflect both how historic funding sources have increased in the past as well as potential future increases
to the City’s SDC and TUF fees. As illustrated in Table 12-1, it is forecast that there will be approximately
$13.4 million in revenue that will be available to fund the City’s transportation projects through the
planning horizon, 2030.
It is important to remember that the revenue identified in Table 12-1 is a forecast. It is recommended
that the revenue figures be re-evaluated annually and adjusted appropriately.
Table 12-1: City of Central Point Projected Transportation Program Capital Funding 2022-2030
(Measured in 2022 dollars)
Funding Source FY 2022-23 to FY 2025-26 (Short-Term)
FY 2026-27 to FY 2029-30 (Medium/Long-
Term)
State Gas Tax (6% Annual Escalation) $1.75M $2.21M
SDC (2% Annual Escalation) $1.03M $1.12M
TUF (1% Bi-Annual Escalation) $0.63M $0.64M
Grants (STBG, CMAQ, ARTS) $3.00M $3.00M
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 152
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program Page 125
Funding Source FY 2022-23 to FY 2025-26 (Short-Term)
FY 2026-27 to FY 2029-30 (Medium/Long-
Term)
Total $6.41M $6.97M
12.6 TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM COSTS
Chapter 7 presented a comprehensive list of transportation projects identified as necessary to address
the City’s transportation needs through 2030. Table 12-2 summarizes costs for City sponsored projects.
The costs presented in Table 12-2 are estimates and should be updated annually to reflect budgeted and
actual expenditures. The total estimated cost for Tier 1 projects is approximately $13.1 million. When
combined with Tier 2 projects ($45.3 million), the total transportation program is estimated to cost
approximately $58.4 million.
Table 12-2: City of Central Point Projected Transportation Program Capital Costs 2022-2030 (Measured
in 2022 dollars)
Timeframe Project Costs
Tier 1 (Short-Term) $11.2M
Tier 1 (Medium/Long-Term) $1.9M
Tier 2 $45.3M
Total $58.4M
Table 12-3 through Table 12-5 categorize each project as either Tier 1 or Tier 2, as defined previously in
this chapter. These tables also include the estimated cost of each project. Tier 1 projects were
differentiated from Tier 2 projects using the prioritization process presented earlier in this chapter and
in conjunction with the funding available for transportation projects as forecasted in Table 12-1. As with
forecasted revenue, it is recommended that the project costs be re-evaluated annually and modified as
necessary.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 153
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program Page 126
Table 12-3: City of Central Point Projected Transportation Program Capital Costs 2022-2030 (Measured in 2022 dollars)
Ref.
No. Project Location Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
Project Description Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Fr
e
i
g
h
t
Ac
c
e
s
s
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
Sa
f
e
t
y
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Tr
u
c
k
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
Ur
b
a
n
Up
g
r
a
d
e
Ti
e
r
OD
O
T
Co
u
n
t
y
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
P
o
i
n
t
Me
d
f
o
r
d
Ot
h
e
r
Total Project Cost
204 S. Haskell St.; Pine
St. to Ash St.
uu Add bike lanes & sidewalks. ▪ ▪ Tier 1,
Short
♦ $250,000
205 10th St. & Pine St.
& Freeman Rd.
Intersection
minor Add protective-permissive phasing
to eastbound and westbound left
turn movements.
▪ √ Tier 1,
Short
♦ $100,0001
207 10th St., Hazel St.
to Lathrop
uu Widen to add turn lane with bike
lanes & sidewalks.
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 1,
Short
♦ ♦ ♦ $550,0001
209 Beebe Rd.:
Gebhard Rd. to
Hamrick Rd.
uu Widen to collector standards with
sidewalks & bike lanes.
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 1,
Short
♦ ♦ $02
220 Gebhard Rd.: UGB
to Beebe Rd.
uu Realign, widen to 3 lanes, and
install separated bike-ped path on
west side
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 1,
Short
♦ ♦ ♦ $4,500,000
256 Upton Rd & Scenic
Ave intersection
major Install a roundabout ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ Tier 1,
Short
♦ $800,000
257 Beebe Rd Extension nc Extend Beebe Rd west to Peninger
Rd – project includes a bridge over
Bear Creek
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ Tier 1,
Short
♦ $5,000,000
TIER 1 SHORT-TERM COSTS $11,200,000
1 Project has a dedicated funding source.
2 Project is/will be funded by Urban Renewal.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 154
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program Page 127
Table 12-4: Tier 1 – Medium/Long-Term Projects
Ref.
No. Project Location Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
Project Description Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Bic
y
c
l
e
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Fr
e
i
g
h
t
Ac
c
e
s
s
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
Sa
f
e
t
y
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Tr
u
c
k
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
Ur
b
a
n
Up
g
r
a
d
e
Ti
e
r
OD
O
T
Co
u
n
t
y
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
P
o
i
n
t
Me
d
f
o
r
d
Ot
h
e
r
Total
Project
Cost
211 Beebe Rd. &
Hamrick Rd.
intersection
p Add traffic signal. ▪ ▪ ▪ √ Tier 1,
Med./
Long
♦ ♦ ♦ $647,000
212 Hwy. 99, Project
No. 4
p Cupp Street Gateway. ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 1,
Med./
Long
♦ ♦ $02
214 Scenic Av.: Mary's
Way to Scenic
Middle School.
uu Add bike lanes & sidewalks. ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 1,
Med./
Long
♦ ♦ $250,000
216 E. Pine St. &
Hamrick Rd.
Intersection
minor Widen west and south approaches to add a
second eastbound left turn lane and second
receiving lane. Restripe northbound
approach to include dual left turns and a
single through-shared-right turn. Restripe
southbound approach to include a left turn,
through, and exclusive right turn lanes.
▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 1,
Med./
Long
♦ ♦ $01
258 Gebhard Rd & Pine
St intersection
major Install a traffic signal, a third westbound
through lane (beginning east of Table Rock
Rd and extending to the I-5 northbound
ramps), dual eastbound and southbound
left-turn lanes, and dedicated westbound
and northbound left-turn lanes to support
future traffic volumes when the Gebhard Rd
Extension is complete
▪ √ √ Tier 1,
Med./
Long
♦ ♦ $01
259 Gebhard Rd
Extension (Phase 1)
nc Extend Gebhard Rd from north of Pine St
south to Pine St (west of Hamrick Rd) –
Coordinate with Project#258
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ Tier 1,
Med./
Long
♦ $01
260 Grant Rd
Realignment
nc Realign Grant Rd south of Taylor Rd to align
with Grant Rd north of Taylor Rd. Install
two-way stop-control at Taylor Rd / Grant
Rd and Grant Rd / CP-6A
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ Tier 1,
Med./
Long
♦ ♦ $1,000,000
1 Project has a dedicated funding source.
2 Project is/will be funded by Urban Renewal.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 155
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program Page 128
Table 12-5: Tier 2 Projects
Ref.
No. Project Location Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
Project Description Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Fr
e
i
g
h
t
Ac
c
e
s
s
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
Sa
f
e
t
y
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Tr
u
c
k
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
Ur
b
a
n
Up
g
r
a
d
e
Ti
e
r
OD
O
T
Co
u
n
t
y
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
P
o
i
n
t
Me
d
f
o
r
d
Ot
h
e
r
Total Project
Cost
208 Oak St.: Second -
Third & First St.:
Manzanita-Laurel
Improve alleys and parking facility ▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ $717,000
218 E. Pine St. & Table
Rock Rd.
minor Widen west approach to add second
eastbound left turn lane.
▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ ♦ $501,000
219 Table Rock Rd. &
Vilas Rd. Intersection
major Widen to increase capacity, add
eastbound lane & shared through-
right turn movement
▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ ♦ $800,000
221 Hwy. 99 & Beall Ln.
intersection
major Realign & upgrade signals & railroad
crossing, urban upgrade.
▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ $3,400,000
222 3rd St.: E. Pine St. to
Hazel St.
uu Add bike lanes and sidewalks ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 2 ♦ $02
223 Hazel St.: Third to
10th St.
p Pave and improve, adding
sidewalks.
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ $02
225 Hwy. 99: Phase 3 pb Add sidewalks. ▪ ▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ $02
227 W. Pine St.; Hanley
Rd. to Haskell St.
uu Widen 3 lanes (continuous turn
lane), bike lanes, sidewalks, urban
upgrade.
▪ √ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ $01
230 Hwy. 99 & Scenic Av.
Intersection
major Install a traffic signal when signal
warrants are met
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ ♦ $01
231 Scenic Av.: Hwy. 99
to Grant Rd.
uu Widen 3 lanes, bike lanes,
sidewalks. Box culvert developer
driven
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ $2,700,000
232 Taylor Rd.: Grant Rd.
to Silver Creek
uu Widen 3 lanes, bike lanes,
sidewalks, urban upgrade. Culvert
crossings (2)
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ ♦ $53,000
233 E. Pine St.: Hamrick
Rd. to Bear Creek
Bridge
pb Widen for decel/accel lanes, add
bike lanes and sidewalks.
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ ♦ $01
234 E-W Hamrick Rd.
extension (south of
E. Pine St.)
nc Extend Hamrick Rd. westerly to
intersect with Penninger Rd.
(collector standards).
▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ $1,200,000
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 156
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program Page 129
Ref.
No. Project Location Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
Project Description Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Fr
e
i
g
h
t
Ac
c
e
s
s
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
Sa
f
e
t
y
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Tr
u
c
k
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
Ur
b
a
n
Up
g
r
a
d
e
Ti
e
r
OD
O
T
Co
u
n
t
y
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
P
o
i
n
t
Me
d
f
o
r
d
Ot
h
e
r
Total Project
Cost
235 Freeman Rd.:
Hopkins Rd. to Beall
Ln.
b Rebuild to collector standards ▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ $31,000
236 E. Pine St.: Bear
Creek Bridge to
Peninger Rd.
pb Widen for turn lanes, bike lanes,
add sidewalks. And third lane
▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ ♦ $01
238 10th St.: E. Pine St.
to Hazel St.
uu Add bike lanes & sidewalks. ▪ ▪ Tier 2 ♦ $02
239 Grant Rd.: Scenic Av.
to Taylor Rd.
uu Realign, widen to 3 lanes, bike lanes,
sidewalks, urban upgrade.
▪ ▪ ▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ ♦ $7,300,000
240 Peninger Rd.
Extension, South
nc Extend Penninger Rd. from E. Pine
St. south across Bear Creek to
Hamrick Rd. & construct new bridge
across Bear Creek
▪ ▪ ▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ ♦ $146,000
242 Grant Rd.: Taylor Rd.
to Beall Ln.
uu Realign, widen to 3 lanes, bike lanes,
sidewalks, urban upgrade (collector
standards).
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ ♦ $1,500,000
243 Bursell Rd.: Beall Ln.
to Hopkins Rd.
uu Urban upgrade; 2 lanes, bike lanes,
sidewalks.
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ $2,500,000
244 Upton Rd., Scenic Av.
Raymond St.
ru Widen to rural 2 lanes with bike
lanes, sidewalks.
▪ ▪ ▪ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ $1,600,000
245 Peninger Rd. Project nc Extend Penninger Rd. from E. Pine
St. north across Bear Creek to Beebe
Rd.& remove signal at Penninger
/Pine St. and construct bridge across
Bear Creek. Also, extend Peninger
Rd. south across Bear Creek to
intersect with S. Hamrick Rd.
▪ ▪ ▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ $10,600,000
246 Freeman Rd. &
Hopkins Rd.
Intersection
s Install new signal. ▪ √ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ ♦ $175,000
247 3rd St.; E. Pine St. to
Ash St.
p Construct sidewalks, repair curb &
gutter.
▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ $02
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 157
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program Page 130
Ref.
No. Project Location Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
Project Description Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Fr
e
i
g
h
t
Ac
c
e
s
s
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
Sa
f
e
t
y
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Tr
u
c
k
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
Ur
b
a
n
Up
g
r
a
d
e
Ti
e
r
OD
O
T
Co
u
n
t
y
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
P
o
i
n
t
Me
d
f
o
r
d
Ot
h
e
r
Total Project
Cost
248 Maple St.; Hwy. 99
to 10th St.
p Construct sidewalks, repair curb &
gutter.
▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ $02
249 4th St.; Ash St. to
Cedar St.
p Construct sidewalks, repair curb &
gutter.
▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ $02
250 Ash St.; Hwy. 99 to
Freeman Rd.
p Construct sidewalks, repair curb &
gutter.
▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ $02
251 Oak St.; Hwy. 99 to
Freeman Rd.
p Construct sidewalks, repair curb &
gutter.
▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ $02
252 Rachel Dr.; Saxbury
Dr. to W. Pine St.
p Construct sidewalks, repair curb &
gutter.
▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ $261,000
253 Saxbury Dr.; Brad
Wy. To Rachel Dr.
p Construct sidewalks, repair curb &
gutter.
▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ $187,000
254 Brad Wy.; Taylor Rd.
to Saxbury Dr.
p Construct sidewalks, repair curb &
gutter.
▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ $250,000
255 E. Pine St.; I-5 to
Table Rock Rd.
major Widen E. Pine St. to add third
westbound through lane from east
side of Table Rock Rd. to I-5 SB off-
ramp.
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ ♦ $01
263 Gebhard Rd &
Wilson Rd
intersection
minor Install all-way stop-control when
warranted
▪ √ ♦ $25,000
264 Grant Rd & Twin
Creek Crossing
intersection
minor Install all-way stop-control when
west leg is complete
▪ √ ♦ $25,000
265 Gebhard Rd & Beebe
Rd intersection
major Install a roundabout when Gebhard
Rd Extension is complete
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ ♦ $3,000,000
266 Gebhard Rd & Local
Gebhard Rd
intersection
major Install a roundabout when Gebhard
Rd Extension is complete
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ ♦ $3,000,000
267 Gebhard Rd
Extension (Phase 2)
nc Extend Gebhard Rd from Gebhard
Rd (north of Beebe Rd) to north of
Pine St – coordinate with Projects
#259 and #261
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ ♦ $2,100,000
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 158
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program Page 131
Ref.
No. Project Location Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
Project Description Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Fr
e
i
g
h
t
Ac
c
e
s
s
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
Sa
f
e
t
y
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Tr
u
c
k
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
Ur
b
a
n
Up
g
r
a
d
e
Ti
e
r
OD
O
T
Co
u
n
t
y
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
P
o
i
n
t
Me
d
f
o
r
d
Ot
h
e
r
Total Project
Cost
268 Gebhard-Upton
Connector
nc Construct a new street connection
from Upton Rd to Gebhard Rd
▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ ♦ $3,000,000
TIER 2 COSTS $45,300,000
1Project has a dedicated funding source.
2Project is/will be funded by Urban Renewal.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 159
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program Page 132
12.7 TRANSPORTATION FINANCING GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES
GOAL 12.1: TO DEVELOP A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA
THAT IS ADEQUATELY FUNDED TO MEET THE CITY’S CURRENT AND FUTURE CAPITAL,
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS NEEDS.
Policy 12.1.1. Transportation system development charges (SDCs), as defined by Oregon Revised
Statutes and City ordinances, will be collected by the City to offset costs of new capacity
development. The City will continue to collect SDCs as an important and equitable
funding source to pay for transportation capacity improvements.
Policy 12.1.2. For all Tier 2 projects the City shall require those responsible for new development to
mitigate their development’s impacts to the transportation system, as authorized in the
Central Point Zoning Ordinance and Oregon Revised Statutes, concurrent with the
development of the property.
Policy 12.1.3. The City shall continue to set-aside one-percent of its allocation of State Highway Fuel
Tax funds for creation of on-street bicycle, pedestrian and transit capital facilities.
Policy 12.1.4. When the City agrees to vacation of a public right-of-way at the request of a property
owner, conditions of such agreement shall include payment by the benefitted property
owner of fair market value for the land being converted to private ownership. Funds
received for vacated lands shall be placed in a trust fund for the acquisition of future
rights-of-way.
GOAL 12.2: SECURE ADEQUATE FUNDING TO IMPLEMENT A STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
THAT WILL SUSTAIN A MAXIMUM SERVICE LIFE FOR PAVEMENT SURFACE AND OTHER
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES.
Policy12.2.1. Assuming no changes in State funding mechanisms, the primary funding sources for
street system maintenance activities shall be the City’s allocation of the State Highway
Fuel Tax and allocation of fees supplemented by street maintenance fees.
Policy 12.2.2. The City shall seek additional funding sources to meet the long-term financial
requirements of sustaining a street maintenance program, including alternative modes
of transportation.
Policy 12.2.3. The City shall continue to participate in cooperative agreements with other State and
local jurisdictions for maintenance and operation activities based on equitable
determinations of responsibility and benefit.
GOAL 12.3: SECURE ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR THE OPERATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
INCLUDING ADVANCE PLANNING, DESIGN ENGINEERING, SIGNAL OPERATIONS,
SYSTEM MANAGEMENT, ILLUMINATION, AND CLEANING ACTIVITIES.
Policy 12.3.1. Assuming no changes in State funding mechanisms, transportation system operations
shall be funded primarily from the City’s allocation of the State Highway Fuel Tax. Other
funding sources should be pursued to augment the financial requirements of providing
adequate future system operations.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 160
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program Page 133
Policy 12.3.2. The City shall continue to pursue federal, state and private grants to augment operations
activities, especially in the planning and engineering functions.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 161
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 13 — Implementation Policies Page 134
Chapter 13 — Implementation Policies
13.1 INTRODUCTION
The transportation system goals and objectives listed below are broad statements of philosophy that
describe the hopes of the people of the City of Central Point for the future of their community and its
transportation system. Goals and objectives have been developed around each TSP chapter. A goal
and/or objective may never be completely attainable but is used as a point toward which to strive and
should be used to monitor future transportation strategies and improvements. Policies are statements
that provide a specific course of action moving the community toward the attainment of its goals and
objectives. Each new capital improvement project, land use application, or implementation measure
must be consistent with the policies. Once adopted, the goals, objectives, and policies, as well as the
project lists, will become part of the City of Central Point’s Comprehensive Plan.
13.2 IMPLEMENTATION GOALS AND POLICIES BY CHAPTER
Chapter 3 – Land Use & Forecasting
GOAL 3.1: TO EFFECTIVELY MANAGE THE USE OF LAND WITHIN THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN
AREA IN A MANNER THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH, AND THAT SUPPORTS, THE
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN.
Policy 3.1.1. The City shall manage the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan in a manner that
enhances livability for the citizens of Central Point as set forth in the Transportation
System Plan.
Policy 3.1.2. The City shall continuously monitor and update the Land Development Code to maintain
best practices in transit-oriented design consistent with the overall land use objectives of
the City.
Chapter 5 – Transportation System Elements
GOAL 5.1: TO MAXIMIZE, THROUGH TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES,
THE EFFICIENCY, SAFETY, AND CAPACITY OF THE CITY’S EXISTING TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES AND SERVICES.
Policy 5.1.1. The City shall make every effort to maintain mobility standards that result in a minimum
level of service (LOS) “D.” The City defines LOS D as the equivalent to a volume-capacity
ratio of 0.9.
Policy 5.1.2. The City shall facilitate implementation of bus bays by RVTD on transit routes as a means
of facilitating traffic flow during peak travel periods.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 162
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 13 — Implementation Policies Page 135
The feasibility, location and design of bus bays shall be developed in consultation between the City and
RVTD.
GOAL 5.2: TO EMPLOY ACCESS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO ENSURE SAFE AND EFFICIENT
ROADWAYS CONSISTENT WITH THEIR DESIGNATED FUNCTION.
Policy 5.2.1. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain, either within the zoning ordinance or the
Public Works Standards and Details manual, access management standards based on
best practices.
Policy 5.2.2. The City shall implement the access management strategies presented in the Access
Management Plan for Front Street (Highway 99)/Pine Street and the Central Point
Highway 99 Corridor Plan.
GOAL 5.3: TO REDUCE THE DEMANDS PLACED ON THE CURRENT AND FUTURE TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM BY THE SINGLE-OCCUPANT VEHICLE.
Policy 5.3.1. The City shall serve as a leading example for other businesses and agencies by
maximizing the use of alternative transportation modes among City employees through
incentive programs. The City shall provide information on alternative transportation
modes and provide incentives for employees who use alternatives to the single-occupant
automobile.
Policy 5.3.2. The City shall offer flexible schedules and compressed work-week options whenever
feasible, as a way of reducing travel demand. The City shall encourage employees to
telecommute, whenever feasible.
GOAL 5.4: TO REDUCE THE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) IN THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA
BY ASSISTING INDIVIDUALS IN CHOOSING ALTERNATIVE TRAVEL MODES.
Policy 5.4.1. The City shall encourage major employers to promote work arrangements providing an
alternative to the 8-to-5 work schedule. These arrangements shall include, but are not
limited to, employee flex-time programs, staggered work hours, and compressed work
weeks.
Policy 5.4.2. The City shall encourage major employers to promote telecommuting where feasible.
Policy 5.4.3. The City and major employers shall encourage ridesharing by making ridesharing more
convenient.
Policy 5.4.4. The City shall encourage major employers to work with RVTD to adopt trip reduction
goals designed to reduce site vehicular trip generation.
GOAL 5.5: TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) MEASURES PROMOTED BY THE
CITY SHALL BE CONSISTEN WITH THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN STRATEGIES
AIMED AT REDUCING RELIANCE ON SINGLE OCCUPANT VEHICLE (SOV) AND REDUCING
VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) PER CAPITA.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 163
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 13 — Implementation Policies Page 136
Chapter 6 – Transportation System Elements
GOAL 6.1: TO MANAGE AUTOMOBILE PARKING WITHIN THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA AS
NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE REDUCTIONS IN PARKING SPACES CONSISTENT WITH
STATE AND REGIONAL GOALS.
Policy 6.1.1. The City shall manage the supply, operation, enforcement and demand for parking in the
public right-of-way to encourage economic vitality, traffic safety, transportation system
efficiency, and livability of neighborhoods.
Policy 6.1.2. Except within the Central Business District, where on-street parking is considered an
element of the Central Business District’s economic vitality, the provision for on-street
parking is second in priority to the needs of the travel modes (i.e., vehicle, transit,
bicycle, pedestrian) using the street right-of-way, and shall be removed when necessary
to facilitate street widening.
Policy 6.1.3. In those areas where demand exists, an adequate supply of off-street carpool and
vanpool parking spaces shall be provided. The location of these spaces shall have
preference over those intended for general purpose off-street parking.
GOAL 6.2: TO PROMOTE AND MANAGE THE PARKING NEEDS OF THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN
AREA IN A MANNER THAT REASONABLY BALANCES THE DEMAND FOR PARKING
AGAINST THE USE OF TRANSIT, BICYCLE, AND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION MODES,
WHILE MAINTAINING THE ECONOMIC VITALITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY.
Policy 6.2.1. The City shall prepare, adopt and maintain parking standards that reflect best parking
practices that further the parking goals of the City.
Policy 6.2.2. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain effective development standards for paved
off-street parking areas to include provisions for landscaping, planting strips, pedestrian
walkways, curbs, and sidewalks.
Chapter 7 – Streets System
GOAL 7.1: PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE STREET SYSTEM THAT SERVES THE PRESENT AND
FUTURE MOBILITY AND TRAVEL NEEDS OF THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA,
INCLUDING PROVISIONS FOR BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES.
Policy 7.1.1. The City shall fulfill its system wide travel capacity needs through the use of multiple
travel modes within the public rights-of-way.
Policy 7.1.2. The City’s street system shall contain a network of arterial and collector streets and
highways that link the central core area and major industry with regional and statewide
highways.
Policy 7.1.3. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain street design standards consistent with the
policies of this TSP.
Policy 7.1.4. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain standards that promote connectivity of the
street system consistent with the Functional Classification Map.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 164
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 13 — Implementation Policies Page 137
Policy 7.1.5. The City shall actively pursue construction of I-5 interchange improvements at Pine
Street.
Policy 7.1.6 The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain design standards for its streets to safely
accommodate pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle travel as has been accomplished in
the TOD Districts.
Policy 7.1.7. The City Standards and Details shall be the basis for all street design within the Central
Point urban area.
Policy 7.1.8. Wherever possible the City shall incorporate safely designed, aesthetic features into the
streetscape of its public rights-of-way. These features may include: street trees, shrubs,
and grasses; planting strips and raised medians; meandering sidewalks on arterial
streets; and, in some instances, street furniture, planters, special lighting, public art, or
non-standard paving materials.
Policy 7.1.9. When existing streets are widened or reconstructed they shall be designed to the
adopted street design standards for the appropriate street classification where practical.
Adjustments to the design standards may be necessary to avoid existing topographical
constraints, historic properties, schools, cemeteries, problems with right-of-way
acquisition, existing on-street parking and significant cultural features. The design of the
street shall be sensitive to the livability of the surrounding neighborhood.
Policy 7.1.10. The City shall work with federal, state and local government agencies to promote traffic
safety education and awareness, emphasizing the responsibilities and courtesies
required of drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians.
Policy 7.1.11. The City shall place a higher priority on funding and constructing street projects that
address identified vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian safety problems than those projects
that solely respond to automotive capacity deficiencies in the street system. Exceptions
are those capacity improvements that are designed to also resolve identified safety
problems.
Policy 7.1.12. The City shall select street improvement projects from those listed in the Central Point
Transportation System Plan when making significant increases in system capacity or
bringing arterial or collector streets up to urban standards. The selection of
improvement projects should be prioritized based on consideration of improvements to
safety, relief of existing congestion, response to near-term growth, system-wide benefits,
geographic equity, and availability of funding.
Policy 7.1.13. To maximize the longevity of its capital investments, the City shall design street
improvement projects to meet existing travel demand, and whenever possible to
accommodate anticipated travel demand for the next 20 years for that facility.
Policy 7.1.14. The City shall involve representatives of affected neighborhood associations, citizens,
developers, surveyors, engineering and planning professionals in an advisory role in the
design of street improvement projects.
Policy 7.1.15. The City shall require Traffic Impact Analyses as part of land use development proposals
to assess the impact that a development will have on the existing and planned
transportation system and to identify reasonable on-site and off-site improvements
necessary to mitigate impacts.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 165
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 13 — Implementation Policies Page 138
Policy 7.1.16. The City may require new development to pay charges towards the mitigation of system-
wide transportation impacts created by new growth in the community through
established Street System Development Charges (SDCs) and any other street fees that
are established by the City.
Chapter 8 – Bicycle and Pedestrian System
GOAL 8.1: TO PLAN FOR AND FACILITATE THE INCREASED USE OF BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION IN
THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA BY ASSURING THAT CONVENIENT, ACCESSIBLE AND
SAFE BICYCLE FACILITIES ARE PROVIDED.
Policy 8.1.1. The City of Central Point recognizes bicycle transportation as a necessary and viable
component of the transportation system, both as an important transportation mode,
and as an air quality improvement strategy.
Policy 8.1.2. The Bicycle Element of this plan shall serve as the Central Point Bicycle Master Plan.
Policy 8.1.3. The City of Central Point shall progressively develop a linked bicycle network, focusing
on, but not inclusive to the arterial and collector street system, and concentrating on the
provision of bicycle lanes, to be completed within the planning period (20 years). The
bikeway network will serve bicyclists needs for travel to employment centers,
commercial districts, transit centers, schools, institutions and recreational destinations.
Policy 8.1.4. The City of Central Point shall use all opportunities to add bike lanes in conjunction with
road reconstruction and re-striping projects on collector and arterial streets.
Policy 8.1.5. The City of Central Point shall maintain public improvement standards that assure that
the design of all streets and public improvement projects facilitate bicycling by providing
proper paving, lane width, traffic control, storm drainage grates, striping, signage,
lighting, parking, etc.
Policy 8.1.6. The City of Central Point shall prepare, adopt, and maintain on-site development
standards that assure the provision of bicycle access, parking, racks and/or shelters in
business developments, institutions, duplexes and multi-family developments and other
locations where bicycle parking facilities are required.
Policy 8.1.7. The City of Central Point shall support the local transit provider in their efforts to
facilitate “bikes on buses” and bicycle facilities at transit stations and stops.
Policy 8.1.8. Except within the Central Business District, the City of Central Point shall give priority to
bicycle traffic over parking within public rights-of-way designated on the Bicycle Master
Plan or otherwise determined to be important bicycling routes.
Policy 8.1.9. The City shall require pedestrian and bicycle easements to provide neighborhood
connectors and reduce vehicle trips. The City shall modify the street vacation process so
pedestrian and bicyclist through access is maintained.
GOAL 8.2: THE CITY WILL PROMOTE BICYCLE SAFETY AND AWARENESS.
Policy 8.2.1. The City of Central Point shall actively support and encourage local and state bicycle
education and safety programs intended to improve bicycling skills, observance of laws,
and overall safety for both children and adults.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 166
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 13 — Implementation Policies Page 139
Policy 8.2.2. The City shall consider the use of the media, bicycle committees, bicycle plans and other
methods to promote use of bicycling for transportation purposes.
GOAL 8.3: TO FACILITATE A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF CONVENIENT, ACCESSIBLE AND SAFE
SIDEWALKS AND WALKWAYS THAT WILL ENCOURAGE AND INCREASE PEDESTRIAN
TRAVEL THROUGHOUT THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA.
Policy 8.3.1. The City shall establish and maintain a Sidewalk Construction Program to complete the
pedestrian facility network.
Policy 8.3.2. Sidewalks and walkways shall complement access to transit stations/stops and multi-use
paths. Activity centers, schools and business districts should focus attention on and
encourage pedestrian travel within their proximity.
Policy 8.3.3. The City of Central Point shall maintain standards that require sidewalk and pedestrian
access and standards for improvement, i.e. crosswalks at signalized intersections and
high volume pedestrian areas such as the Central Business District. All road construction
or renovation projects shall include sidewalks.
Policy 8.3.4. The City shall require pedestrian and bicycle easements to connect neighborhoods and
reduce vehicle trips. The City shall modify the street vacation process so pedestrian and
bicyclist through-access is maintained.
Policy 8.3.5. Pedestrian walkway or accessway connections shall be required between adjacent
developments when roadway connections cannot be provided.
Policy 8.3.6. The City shall prepare a plan and implement a multi-use trail system, using linear
corridors including, but not limited to: utility easements, rail lines, Bear Creek, Griffin
Creek, Jackson Creek and other creeks that complement and connect to the sidewalk
system.
GOAL 8.4: TO ENCOURAGE EDUATION SERVICES AND PROMOTE SAFE PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL TO
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS INVOLVING PEDESTRIANS.
Policy 8.4.1. The City of Central Point shall encourage schools, safety organizations, and law
enforcement agencies to provide information and instruction on pedestrian safety issues
that focus on prevention of the most important accident problems. The programs shall
educate all roadway users of their privileges and responsibilities when driving, bicycling
and walking.
Policy 8.4.2. The City shall include in the Sidewalk Construction Program (Policy 9.1.1) inclusion of a
street lighting system.
Policy 8.4.3. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain standards for the separation of pedestrian
traffic from auto traffic on streets and, where determined appropriate, in parking lots.
Chapter 9 – Public Transit System
GOAL 9.1: IN COOPERATION WITH TRANSIT PROVIDERS, FACILITATE THE PROVISION OF A
TRANSIT SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES CONVENIENT AND ACCESSIBLE TRANSIT SERVICES
TO THE CITIZENS OF THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 167
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 13 — Implementation Policies Page 140
Policy 9.1.1. The City shall work with RVTD to encourage transit services that meet the City’s transit
needs.
Policy 9.1.2. To encourage accessibility and increased ridership, the City shall continue to encourage
future transit-supportive land uses, such as mixed uses, multiple-family, and
employment centers to be located on or near transit corridors.
Policy 9.1.3. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain development standards and regulations
facilitating accessibility to transit services through transit-supportive streetscape,
subdivision, and site design requirements that promote pedestrian and bicycle
connectivity, convenience and safety.
GOAL 9.2: INCREASE OVERALL DAILY TRANSIT RIDERSHIP IN THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA,
TO MITIGATE A PORTION OF THE TRAFFIC PRESSURE EXPECTED BY REGIONAL
GROWTH.
Policy 9.2.1. Through Transportation Demand Management efforts, the City shall work with Central
Point employers and other government agencies to increase commuter transit ridership.
Chapter 10 – Rail and Aviation System
GOAL 10.1: TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT, SAFE, AND EFFECTIVE MOVEMENT OF GOODS, SERVICES AND
PASSENGERS BY RAIL WHILE MAINTAINING THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE CITIZENS OF
THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA.
Policy 10.1.1. The City shall encourage both freight and passenger service as part of statewide rail
transportation planning efforts.
Policy 10.1.2. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain site development standards that mitigate
railroad noise and vibration.
GOAL 10.2: TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT, SAFE, AND EFFECTIVE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS
VIA INTER-MODAL CONNECTIONS WITH THE ROGUE VALLEY INTERNATIONAL-
MEDFORD AIRPORT.
Policy 10.2.1. The City shall support the Rogue Valley Transportation District efforts to provide service
to the Rogue Valley International Airport from established routes serving Central Point.
Chapter 11 – Freight System
GOAL 11.1: TO IDENTIFY AND MAINTAIN A TRUCK FREIGHT SYSTEM WITHIN THE CITY THAT
SERVES THE CITY’S AND REGION’S FREIGHT NEEDS IN AN EFFICIENT AND SAFE
MANNER, WITH MINIMAL ADVERSE IMPACTS ON ADJACENT LAND USES.
Policy 11.2.1. The City shall cooperate with the RVMPO, Jackson County, ODOT and the City of
Medford in the coordination of design, funding, and improvement of the freight system
within the City that enhances freight movement, while improving the overall capacity of
the City’s street system.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 168
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 13 — Implementation Policies Page 141
Policy 11.2.2. The Freight System Map presented in Figure 11-2 shall be considered by the City as the
official freight route system for the City of Central Point. The design and improvement of
the street system designated on the Freight System Map shall accommodate large
vehicles typical of freight movement.
Policy 11.2.3. The City shall ensure access to truck freight via the local street system, with emphasis on
maintaining and efficient and safe designated truck route system.
Chapter 12 – Transportation System Financing
GOAL 12.1: A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA THAT IS
ADEQUATELY FUNDED TO MEET THE CITY’S CURRENT AND FUTURE CAPITAL,
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS NEEDS.
Policy 12.1.1. Transportation system development charges (SDCs), as defined by Oregon Revised
Statutes and City ordinances, will be collected by the City to offset costs of new capacity
development. The City will continue to collect SDCs as an important and equitable
funding source to pay for transportation capacity improvements.
Policy 12.1.2. For all Tier 2 projects the City shall require those responsible for new development to
mitigate their development’s impacts to the transportation system, as authorized in the
Central Point Zoning Ordinance and Oregon Revised Statutes, concurrent with the
development of the property.
Policy 12.1.3. The City shall continue to set aside one-percent (1%) of its allocation of State Highway
Fuel Tax funds for creation of on-street bicycle, pedestrian and transit capital facilities.
Policy 12.1.4. When the City agrees to vacation of a public right-of-way at the request of a property
owner, conditions of such agreement shall include payment by the benefitted property
owner of fair market value for the land being converted to private ownership. Funds
received for vacated lands shall be placed in a trust fund for the acquisition of future
rights-of-way.
GOAL 12.2: SECURE ADEQUATE FUNDING TO IMPLEMENT A STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
THAT WILL SUSTAIN A MAXIMUM SERVICE LIFE FOR PAVEMENT SURFACE AND OTHER
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES.
Policy12.2.1. Assuming no changes in State funding mechanisms, the primary funding sources for
street system maintenance activities shall be the City’s allocation of the State Highway
Fuel Tax and allocation of fees supplemented by street maintenance fees.
Policy 12.2.2. The City shall seek additional funding sources to meet the long-term financial
requirements of sustaining a street maintenance program, including alternative modes
of transportation.
Policy 12.2.3. The City shall continue to participate in cooperative agreements with other State and
local jurisdictions for maintenance and operation activities based on equitable
determinations of responsibility and benefit.
GOAL 12.3: SECURE ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR THE OPERATION OF THE TRANSPORTATOIN SYSTEM
INCLUDING ADVANCE PLANNING, DESIGN ENGINEERING, SIGNAL OPERATIONS, SYSTEM
MANAGEMENT, ILLUMINATION, AND CLEANING ACTIVITIES.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 169
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030
Chapter 13 — Implementation Policies Page 142
Policy 12.3.1. Assuming no changes in State funding mechanisms, transportation system operations
shall be funded primarily from the City’s allocation of the State Highway Fuel Tax. Other
funding sources should be pursued to augment the financial requirements of providing
adequate future system operations.
Policy 12.3.2. The City shall continue to pursue federal, state and private grants to augment operations
activities, especially in the planning and engineering functions.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 170
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
-
T
S
P
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 1 of 24
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law
Central Point Transportation System Plan (TSP) Amendment
File No. CPA-22001
Applicant: City of Central Point
INTRODUCTION
This proposed amendment to the 2008 Central Point Transportation System Plan (TSP) as
presented in Attachment “A” to the Staff Report dated December 6, 2022 has been prepared in
accordance with applicable local and state requirements as an amendment to the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. Procedurally, consideration of the proposed TSP amendment is a legislative
action and has been processed in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 17.05.500 of
the Central Point Development Code. It is the purpose of these findings to identify and address all
applicable requirements. These findings are presented follows:
1. TSP Amendment Background
2. Compliance with Statewide Land Use Planning Goals
3. Compliance with the Oregon Transportation Plan
4. Compliance with the Oregon Highway Plan
5. Compliance with Oregon Administrative Rule 660-012
6. Compliance with the Central Point Comprehensive Plan & Development Code
1. TSP AMENDMENT BACKGROUND
The City of Central Point is amending its TSP to accomplish the following specific tasks:
Incorporate transportation projects associated with the 2021 Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB) expansion of 444 acres;
Update project lists from the 2008 TSP to remove projects that are complete or no longer
needed in the remainder of the City;
Reprioritize updated project lists to consider transportation disadvantaged populations; and
Update the funding forecast.
The Central Point TSP was adopted and acknowledged in 2008. The current amendment does not
adjust the 2030 planning horizon or revise any policy language. Except for minor text corrections,
changes to the 2008 TSP are limited to Chapter 7: Street System Plan and Chapter 12:
Transportation System Financing Program. The changes can be summarized as follows:
Chapter 7 Street System Plan: The City of Central Point amended the Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB) in 2021 to add 444 acres. A detailed Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was
completed in support of the UGB expansion project. The recommendations of the TIA form
the foundation of this TSP amendment. The City also updated the 2008 transportation
project list to remove those projects that the City has completed.
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 171
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
S
P
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
F
a
c
t
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 2 of 24
Chapter 12 Transportation System Financing Program: As part of updating the
recommended street projects in Chapter 7, the project list was re-prioritized to include a
new Equity criterion. The intent of introducing equity into the prioritization process was to
ensure that the TSP prioritize projects that serve transportation disadvantaged populations
as well as projects that are located in areas with the highest concentrations of these
populations. The project priorities presented in Chapter 12 reflect this re-prioritization
process. Chapter 12 was also updated to reflect current project costs as well as new
funding sources.
Because the remainder of the 2008 TSP remains intact as adopted and acknowledged in
2008, these findings below are restricted to the changes proposed in the amendment.
2. COMPLIANCE WITH STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS
As set forth in Section 17.05.500(G)(1) of the Central Point Development Coed, all Type IV
(legislative) actions must demonstrate compliance with applicable statewide planning goals.
Goal 1, Citizen Involvement
To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved
in all phases of the planning process.
Finding: The City relied on the extensive public involvement process that was conducted
for the 2021 Urban Growth Boundary Expansion project to ensure that the planned
improvements had broad-based support from the community. The process included public
advisory committee meetings, open houses, neighborhood meetings, the City’s website,
and notifying stakeholders and interested citizens through media notices and direct
electronic mail communications. For this TSP amendment, the public involvement process
was accomplished by the use of the City’s standing seven-person Citizen Advisory
Committee (CAC).
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with Goal 1.
Goal 2, Land Use Planning
To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and
actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and
actions.
Finding: The proposed TSP amendment is supported by an adequate factual base (the
UGB Expansion TIA) and is being adopted through the City’s land use planning processes.
The amendment is being processed through a Type IV Legislative process, which requires
that any applicable statewide planning goals, federal or state statutes or regulations,
comprehensive plan policies, and City's implementing ordinances be addressed as part of
the decision-making process. All noticing requirements have been met. Representatives of
affected governmental entities were consulted.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with Goal 2.
Goals 3 and 4, Agriculture and Forestry
Finding: These statewide planning goals relate to agricultural and forest lands in Oregon;
Goal 3 and Goal 4 are not applicable to this proposed amendment.
Conclusion: Not applicable.
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 172
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
S
P
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
F
a
c
t
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 3 of 24
Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces
To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces.
Finding: The City is currently in compliance with the State’s Goal 5. The TSP amendment
does not alter the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventories or land use programs. No
changes will occur to current natural resource protections.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with Goal 5.
Goal 6, Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality
To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.
Finding: The City is currently in compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 6. The TSP
amendment does not alter the City’s acknowledged land use programs regarding water or
air quality.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with Goal 6.
Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Hazards
To protect people and property from natural hazards.
Finding: The City is currently in compliance with Goal 7. The proposed TSP amendment
does not alter the City’s acknowledged land use programs regarding natural hazards, nor
does it alter the City’s participation.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with Goal 7.
Goal 8, Recreational Needs
To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to
provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts.
Finding: The City is currently in compliance with Goal 8. The TSP amendment includes
improvements intended to provide improved connectivity for all modes.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with Goal 8.
Goal 9, Economic Development
To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to
the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
Finding: The City is currently in compliance with Goal 9. The TSP amendment includes
facilities to provide a multi-modal transportation system to meet the needs of the
community into the future, including accommodating future employment growth and the
transport of goods and services needed to support a healthy economy. The transportation
system identified in the TSP amendment was developed using the City’s current and
planned land use patterns, and designed to connect people, services, goods, and to meet
the economic needs of the City.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with Goal 9.
Goal 10, Housing
To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
Finding: The City is currently in compliance with Goal 10. The TSP amendment includes
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 173
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
S
P
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
F
a
c
t
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 4 of 24
projects to provide a multi-modal transportation system to meet the needs of the
community into the future, including accommodating future housing growth.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with Goal 10.
Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services
To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to
serve as a framework for urban and rural development.
Finding: The City is currently in compliance with Goal 11. The proposed TSP amendment
does not alter the policies for providing timely, orderly, and efficient public facilities and
services. Additionally, adoption of the project list enables infrastructure planning, funding,
and construction to identify infrastructure corridors for planned stormwater, sanitary sewer,
water, and electricity facilities, as well as transportation.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with Goal 11.
Goal 12, Transportation:
To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.
Finding: The proposed TSP amendment will bring the City into alignment with the current
and future conditions in Central Point by updating the project list, including equity-based
prioritization, and ensuring continued compliance with Goal 12.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with Goal 12.
Goal 13, Energy
To conserve energy.
Finding: The City is currently in compliance with Goal 13. The TSP provides direction for
the City regarding transportation strategies to reduce vehicle miles traveled and single
occupancy vehicle trips.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment does not alter these policies and is
consistent with Goal 13.
Goal 14, Urbanization
To provide for an 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.
Finding: The City is currently in compliance with Goal 14. The TSP amendment addresses the
transportation needs of the City, particularly for the 2021 UGB expansion area as it transitions
from rural to urban.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with Goal 14.
3. COMPLIANCE WITH THE OREGON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) is the state’s long-range, multimodal transportation plan.
The OTP is the overarching policy document for a series of modal and topic plans that together
form the state’s TSP. Per direction from the Department of Land Conservation and Development
(DLCD), a local TSP must make findings to demonstrate compliance with applicable OTP goals
and policies. The following findings demonstrate how the proposed TSP amendment complies with
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 174
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
S
P
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
F
a
c
t
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 5 of 24
state transportation policy:
Policy 1.1 – Development of an Integrated Multimodal System
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to plan and develop a balanced, integrated transportation
system with modal choices for the movement of people and goods.
Finding: The TSP is a plan to fund and develop a balanced multi-modal transportation
system that meets the needs of the community and region.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment does not alter this plan and is consistent with
OTP Policy 1.1.
Policy 1.2 – Equity, Efficiency and Travel Choices
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to promote a transportation system with multiple travel
choices that are easy to use, reliable, cost-effective and accessible to all potential users, including
the transportation disadvantaged.
Finding: As part of the TSP amendment, an equity analysis was completed that identified
historically transportation disadvantaged populations within the community. This
information was used to re-prioritize unbuilt projects from the 2008 TSP and new projects
for the UGB expansion area.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 1.2.
Policy 1.3 – Relationship of Interurban and Urban Mobility
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to provide intercity mobility through and near urban areas in a
manner which minimizes adverse effects on urban land use and travel patterns and provides for
efficient long distance travel.
Finding: The 2008 TSP includes projects that address intercity mobility, provide for
efficient long distance travel, and minimize adverse effects on land use.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment does not alter this plan and is consistent with
OTP Policy 1.3.
Policy 2.1 - Capacity and Operational Efficiency
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to manage the transportation system to improve its capacity
and operational efficiency for the long term benefit of people and goods movement.
Findings: The proposed TSP amendment includes projects to address capacity and efficiency
and is therefore consistent with OTP Policy 2.1.
Policy 2.2 – Management of Assets
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to manage transportation assets to extend their life and
reduce maintenance costs.
Finding: The 2008 TSP and the proposed TSP amendment address maintenance of new
and existing facilities.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 2.2.
Policy 3.1 – An Integrated and Efficient Freight System
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to promote an integrated, efficient and reliable freight system
involving air, barges, pipelines, rail, ships and trucks to provide Oregon a competitive advantage
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 175
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
S
P
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
F
a
c
t
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 6 of 24
by moving goods faster and more reliably to regional, national and international markets.
Finding: The 2008 TSP includes a description of the air, freight, pipeline, and rail systems
in the Central Point area, and provides plans for the continued movement of goods
throughout the planning area.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment does not alter that plan and is therefore
consistent with OTP Policy 3.1.
Policy 3.2 – Moving People to Support Economic Vitality
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to develop an integrated system of transportation facilities,
services and information so that intrastate, interstate and international travelers can travel easily
for business and recreation.
Finding: The TSP amendment plans for an integrated system of transportation facilities
that meets the needs of people who live, work, and travel in and to the Central Point area.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 3.2.
Policy 3.3 – Downtowns and Economic Development
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to provide transportation improvements to support
downtowns and to coordinate transportation and economic development strategies.
Finding: The TSP amendment includes projects to provide a multi-modal transportation
system to meet the needs of the community into the future, including accommodating
future employment growth and the transport of goods and services needed to support
economic development. The transportation system identified in the TSP amendment was
developed using the City’s current and planned land use patterns, and designed to connect
people, services, goods, and to meet the economic needs of the City.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 3.3.
Policy 3.4 – Development of the Transportation Industry
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to promote, incubate and develop transportation- related
industry and services in Oregon.
Finding: The TSP amendment includes modal improvements that promote the movement
of goods throughout the planning area.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 3.4.
Policy 4.1 - Environmentally Responsible Transportation System
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to provide a transportation system that is environmentally
responsible and encourages conservation and protection of natural resources.
Finding: The TSP amendment includes infrastructure improvements that will provide an
environmentally responsible transportation system.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 4.1.
Policy 4.2 - Energy Supply
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to support efforts to move to a diversified and cleaner energy
supply, promote fuel efficiencies and prepare for possible fuel shortages.
Finding: The 2008 TSP includes infrastructure improvements to support a more diversified
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 176
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
S
P
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
F
a
c
t
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 7 of 24
and cleaner energy supply and promote fuel efficiencies.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment does not alter this plan and is therefore
consistent with OTP Policy 4.2.
Policy 4.3 - Creating Communities
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to increase access to goods and services and promote health
by encouraging development of compact communities and neighborhoods that integrate
residential, commercial and employment land uses to help make shorter trips, transit, walking and
bicycling feasible. Integrate features that support the use of transportation choices.
Finding: The TSP amendment includes infrastructure improvements that will increase
access to good and services. The TSP amendment includes facility improvements intended
to provide improved connectivity for people walking and bicycling.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 4.3.
Policy 5.1 – Safety
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to continually improve the safety and security of all modes
and transportation facilities for system users including operators, passengers, pedestrians,
recipients of goods and services, and property owners.
Finding: The TSP amendment includes improvements that promote safety for all modes
and system users.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 5.1.
Policy 5.2 – Security
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to provide transportation security consistent with the
leadership of federal, state and local homeland security entities.
Finding: The TSP amendment supports and enables the continued provision of
transportation security through a network of complete and safe infrastructure.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 5.2.
Policy 6.1 – Funding Structure
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to develop a transportation finance structure that addresses
the public funding aspects of all modes and reinforces plan strategies. This structure should
include provisions for flexibility in the use of new funding sources and new partnerships to achieve
system integration while also protecting transportation funds for transportation purposes.
Finding: The TSP amendment identifies possible existing and potential new funding
sources in Chapter 12. The proposed TSP amendment addresses the public funding of all
modes and includes provisions for flexibility in the use of new funding sources.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 6.1.
Policy 6.2 – Achievement of State and Local Goals
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to plan and manage the transportation finance structure to
contribute to the accomplishment of state and local environmental, land use and economic goals
and objectives.
Finding: The proposed TSP amendment identifies funding for transportation projects that
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 177
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
S
P
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
F
a
c
t
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 8 of 24
contribute to the accomplishment of the state and local environmental, land use, and
economic goals.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 6.2.
Policy 6.3 – Public Acceptability and Understanding
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to use finance mechanisms that have broad public
acceptance and are understandable to transportation system users.
Finding: The proposed TSP amendment identifies finance mechanisms that provide
direction about how projects and programs identified in the TSP may be funded.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 6.3.
Policy 6.4 – Beneficiary Responsibilities
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to examine mechanisms to expand the beneficiary pay
concept to reflect the costs and benefits of uses of the transportation system and reinforce the
relationship between benefiting from transportation facilities and paying for their benefit, but to
retain essential fairness including cost responsibility. This policy recognizes some modes will
continue to need subsidies to achieve overall transportation system goals and provide essential
services.
Finding: The TSP amendment identifies finance mechanisms, including existing and
potential new funding sources. Chapter 12 examines mechanisms to reflect the costs and
benefits of uses of the transportation system and reinforce the relationship between
benefiting from transportation facilities and paying for their benefit.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 6.4.
Policy 6.5 – Triage in the Event of Insufficient Revenue
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to resolve revenue shortfalls by means that maximize public
acceptance and that minimize undesirable long-term consequences to the overall transportation
system in urban and rural areas.
Finding: The TSP amendment addresses the potential funding constraints for the projects
listed and identifies Tier 1 and 2 projects relative to their importance.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 6.5.
Policy 7.1 – A Coordinated Transportation System
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and agencies
with the objective of removing barriers so the transportation system can function as one system.
Finding: The City of Central Point worked closely with the Rogue Valley MPO, the City of
Medford, ODOT, and other relevant agencies to develop the 2008 TSP and the 2021 UGB
expansion.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment reflects this coordination and is therefore
consistent with PT Policy 7.1.
Policy 7.2 – Public/Private Partnerships
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to maintain, expand and provide tools to encourage
partnerships to improve efficiency in the delivery of transportation facilities and services benefiting
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 178
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
S
P
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
F
a
c
t
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 9 of 24
the state transportation system and the state’s citizens. Partners include transportation providers,
public agencies and private businesses at all levels across jurisdictions and ownerships.
Finding: The City relied on the extensive public involvement process that was conducted
for the 2021 Urban Growth Boundary Expansion project to ensure that the planned
improvements had broad-based support from the community. The process included public
advisory committee meetings, open houses, neighborhood meetings, the City’s website,
and notifying stakeholders and interested citizens through media notices and direct
electronic mail communications. For this TSP amendment, the public involvement process
was accomplished by the use of the City’s standing seven-person Citizen Advisory
Committee (CAC).
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 7.2.
Policy 7.3 – Public Involvement and Consultation
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to involve Oregonians to the fullest practical extent in
transportation planning and implementation in order to deliver a transportation system that meets
the diverse needs of the state.
Finding: The City relied on the extensive public involvement process that was conducted
for the 2021 Urban Growth Boundary Expansion project to ensure that the planned
improvements had broad-based support from the community. The process included public
advisory committee meetings, open houses, neighborhood meetings, the City’s website,
and notifying stakeholders and interested citizens through media notices and direct
electronic mail communications. For this TSP amendment, the public involvement process
was accomplished by the use of the City’s standing seven-person Citizen Advisory
Committee (CAC).
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 7.3.
Policy 7.4 – Environmental Justice
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to provide all Oregonians, regardless of race, culture or
income, equal access to transportation decision-making.
Finding: As part of the TSP amendment, an equity analysis was completed that identified
historically transportation disadvantaged populations within the community. This information
was used to re-prioritize unbuilt projects from the 2008 TSP and new projects for the UGB
expansion area.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 7.4.
4. COMPLIANCE WITH THE OREGON HIGHWAY PLAN
The 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (OHP), including amendments, establishes policies and
investment strategies for Oregon’s statewide highway system over a 20-year period and refines
the goals and policies found in the OTP. Policies in the OHP emphasize the efficient management
of the highway system to increase safety and to extend highway capacity, partnerships with other
agencies and local governments, and the use of new techniques to improve road safety and
capacity. These policies also link land use and transportation, set standards for highway
performance and access management, and emphasize the relationship between state highways
and local road, bicycle, pedestrian, transit, rail, and air systems. The TSP amendment meets the
state’s policies in the OHP as follows:
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 179
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
S
P
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
F
a
c
t
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 10 of 24
Policy 1A: State Highway Classification System
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to develop and apply the state highway classification system
to guide ODOT priorities for system investment and management.
Finding: The TSP amendment does not affect state facilities.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OHP Policy 1A.
Policy 1B: Land Use and Transportation
This policy recognizes the need for coordination between state and local jurisdictions.
Finding: The City of Central Point worked closely with the Rogue Valley MPO, the City of
Medford, ODOT, and other relevant agencies to develop the 2008 TSP and the 2021 UGB
expansion.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OHP Policy 1B.
Policy 1C: State Highway Freight System
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to balance the need for movement of goods with other uses
of the highway system, and to recognize the importance of maintaining efficient through movement
on major truck freight routes.
Finding: The TSP amendment plans for an integrated system of transportation facilities
that meets the needs of people who live, work, and travel in and to the Central Point area.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OHP Policy 1C.
Policy 1D: Scenic Byways
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to preserve and enhance designated Scenic Byways, and to
consider aesthetic and design elements along with safety and performance considerations on
designated Byways.
Finding: There are no designated Scenic Byways located within the Central Point UGB
therefore OHP Policy 1D is not applicable to the proposed TSP amendment.
Conclusion: Not applicable.
Policy 1E: Lifeline Routes
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to provide a secure lifeline network of streets, highways, and
bridges to facilitate emergency services response and to support rapid economic recovery after a
disaster.
Finding: Central Point’s existing system of streets is enhanced by the TSP amendment,
facilitating emergency services response and supporting economic recovery after a
disaster.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OHP Policy 1E.
Policy 1F: Highway Mobility Standards
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to maintain acceptable and reliable levels of mobility on the
state highway system, consistent with the expectations for each facility type, location and
functional objectives.
Finding: The TSP amendment does not affect mobility on the state highway system.
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 180
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
S
P
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
F
a
c
t
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 11 of 24
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OHP Policy 1F.
Policy 1G: Major Improvements
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to maintain highway performance and improve safety by
improving system efficiency and management before adding capacity. ODOT will work in
partnership with regional and local governments to address highway performance and safety
needs.
Finding: The TSP amendment does not affect the state highway system.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OHP Policy 1G.
Policy 1H: Bypasses
Bypasses are highways designed to maintain or increase statewide or regional mobility. Generally
they relocate a highway alignment around a downtown, an urban or metropolitan area or an
existing highway. The goal of bypass facilities is to effectively serve state and regional traffic trips.
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to build bypasses to provide safe, efficient passage for
through travelers and commerce.
Finding: No bypasses are existing, identified or included in the TSP amendment therefore
Policy 1H is not applicable.
Conclusion: Not applicable.
Policy 2A: Partnerships
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to establish cooperative partnerships to make more efficient
and effective use of limited resources to develop, operate, and maintain the highway and road
system. These partnerships are relationships among ODOT and state and federal agencies,
regional governments, cities, counties, tribal governments, and the private sector.
Finding: The 2008 TSP includes a description of how cooperative partnership and cost-
sharing between the City and ODOT could support future project funding. The proposed
TSP amendment does not amend this description and therefore is consistent with OHP
Policy 2A.
Conclusion: Consistent.
Policy 2B: Off-System Improvements
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to provide state financial assistance to local jurisdictions to
develop, enhance, and maintain improvements on local transportation systems when they are a
cost-effective way to improve the operation of the state highway system, with identified guidelines.
Finding: The 2008 TSP includes a description of how cooperative partnership and cost-
sharing between the City and ODOT could support future project funding. The proposed
TSP amendment does not amend this description and therefore is consistent with OHP
Policy 2B.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OHP Policy 2B.
Policy 2C: Interjurisdictional Transfers
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to consider, in cooperation with local jurisdictions,
interjurisdictional transfers that:
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 181
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
S
P
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
F
a
c
t
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 12 of 24
Rationalize and simplify the management responsibilities along a particular roadway
segment or corridor;
Reflect the appropriate functional classification of a particular roadway segment or corridor;
and/or
Lead to increased efficiencies in the operation and maintenance of a particular roadway
segment or corridor.
Finding: The TSP amendment does not include interjurisdictional transfers therefore OHP
Policy 2C is not applicable.
Conclusion: Not applicable.
Policy 2D: Public Involvement
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to ensure that citizens, businesses, regional and local
governments, state agencies, and tribal governments have opportunities to have input into
decisions regarding proposed policies, plans, programs, and improvement projects that affect the
state highway system.
Finding: This policy is specific to planning and projects that affect the state highway
system. The proposed and improvement projects identified in the TSP amendment are
specific to the City of Central Point transportation network and the amendment included a
public process as described in above, consistent with OHP Policy 2D.
Conclusion: Consistent.
Policy 2E: Intelligent Transportation Systems
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to consider a broad range of Intelligent Transportation
Systems services to improve system efficiency and safety in a cost-effective manner.
Deployment of ITS shall reflect the user service priorities established in the Oregon Intelligent
Transportation Systems Strategic Plan. Specifically:
Incident Management
En-route Driver Information
Traffic Control (Arterials and Freeways)
Route Guidance
Commercial Vehicle Electronic Clearance
Pre-trip Travel Information
Public Transportation Management
Emergency Notification and Personal Security
Emergency Vehicle Management
Commercial Fleet Management
Findings: The Rogue Valley MPO prepared an ITS plan in 2016. The City of Central Point
coordinates with the Rogue Valley MPO on ITS issues.
Conclusion: The TSP amendment will comply with OHP Policy 2E.
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 182
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
S
P
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
F
a
c
t
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 13 of 24
Policy 2F: Traffic Safety
This policy improves the safety of the highway system.
Finding: The TSP amendment addresses safety. The proposed TSP amendment is
consistent with OHP Policy 2F.
Conclusion: Consistent.
Policy 2G: Rail and Highway Compatibility
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to increase safety and transportation efficiency through the
reduction and prevention of conflicts between railroad and highway users.
Finding: This policy is related to the reduction and prevention of conflicts between railroad
and highway users which is outside of the scope of the Central Point TSP amendment;
therefore OHP Policy 2G is not applicable.
Conclusion: Not applicable.
Policy 3A: Classification and Spacing Standards
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to manage the location, spacing and type of road and street
intersections and approach roads on state highways to assure the safe and efficient operation of
state highways consistent with the classification and function of the highways.
Finding: The 2008 TSP includes system plan elements addressing the location, spacing
and type of road and street intersection and approach roads on state highways. The
proposed TSP amendment does not affect any intersections or approaches to the State
Highway system.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OHP Policy 3A.
Policy 3B: Medians
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to plan for and manage the placement of medians and the
location of median openings on state highways to enhance the efficiency and safety of the
highways, and influence and support land use development patterns that are consistent with
approved comprehensive plans including transportation system plans.
Finding: This policy is related to the placement of medians and the location of median
openings on state highways which is not specified in the TSP amendment therefore OHP
Policy 3B is not applicable.
Conclusion: Not applicable.
Policy 3C: Interchange Access Management Areas
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to plan for and manage grade-separated interchange areas
to ensure safe and efficient operation between connecting roadways.
Finding: This policy relates to the planning and management of grade-separated state
highway interchange areas which is outside of the scope of the TSP amendment and City’s
purview; therefore OHP Policy 3C is not applicable.
Conclusion: Not applicable.
Policy 3D: Deviations
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to manage requests for state highway approach permits that
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 183
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
S
P
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
F
a
c
t
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 14 of 24
require deviations from the adopted access management spacing standards and policies through
an application process to ensure statewide consistency.
Finding: This policy relates to the management of requests for State highway approach
permits which is not within the scope of the TSP amendment or City’s purview therefore
OHP Policy 3D is not applicable.
Conclusion: Not applicable.
Policy 3E: Appeals
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to manage appeals of approach permit decisions including
approval subject to conditions, removal or modification of an approach, denied requests for
approach roads and denied requests for deviations from adopted access management standards
and policies through an appeals process to ensure statewide consistency with ORS 374.350 and
the Access Management Rule.
Finding: This policy relates to the management of appeals of State highway approach
permit decisions, which is not within the scope of the proposed TSP amendment or City’s
purview; therefore OHP Policy 3E is not applicable.
Conclusion: Not applicable.
Policy 4A: Efficiency of Freight Movement
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to maintain and improve the efficiency of freight movement
on the state highway system and access to intermodal connections. The State shall seek to
balance the needs of long distance and through freight movements with local transportation needs
on highway facilities in both urban areas and rural communities.
Findings: The TSP amendment plans for an integrated system of transportation facilities
that meet the needs of people who live, work, and travel in and to the Central Point area.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OHP Policy 4A.
Policy 4B: Alternative Passenger Modes
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to advance and support alternative passenger transportation
systems where travel demand, land use, and other factors indicate the potential for successful and
effective development of alternative passenger modes.
Finding: The TSP amendment is multi-modal.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OHP Policy 4.B.
Policy 4C: High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Facilities
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to utilize HOV facilities to improve the efficiency of the
highway system in locations where travel demand, land use, transit, and other factors are
favorable to their effectiveness. A systems planning approach shall be taken in which individual
HOV facilities complement one another and the other elements of the multimodal transportation
system.
Finding: This policy relates to HOV facilities. There are no existing or proposed HOV
facilities in the TSP amendment therefore Policy 4C is not applicable.
Conclusion: Not applicable.
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 184
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
S
P
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
F
a
c
t
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 15 of 24
Policy 4D: Transportation Demand Management
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to support the efficient use of the state transportation system
through investment in transportation demand management strategies.
Finding: The TSP amendment is consistent with the 2008 TSP’s Transportation Demand
Management strategies and policies.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OHP Policy 4D.
Policy 4E: Park-and-Ride Facilities
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to encourage the efficient use of the existing transportation
system and to seek cost-effective expansion of the highway system’s passenger capacity through
development and use of park-and-ride facilities.
Finding: This policy relates to State park-and-ride facilities. There are no existing or
proposed State park-and-ride facilities in the Central Point TSP area and designation of
such is outside of the scope of the TSP amendment therefore Policy 4E is not applicable.
Conclusion: Not applicable.
Policy 5A: Environmental Resources
It is the policy of the State of Oregon that the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of
the state highway system should maintain or improve the natural and built environment including
air quality, fish passage and habitat, wildlife habitat and migration routes, sensitive habitats (i.e.
wetlands, designated critical habitat, etc.), vegetation, and water resources where affected by
ODOT facilities.
Finding: This policy relates to the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the
State highway system, which is under the jurisdiction of ODOT and not within the scope of
the TSP amendment therefore Policy 5A is not applicable.
Conclusion: Not applicable.
Policy 5B: Scenic Resources
It is the policy of the State of Oregon that scenic resources management is an integral part of the
process of creating and maintaining the state highway system. The State of Oregon will use best
management practices to protect and enhance scenic resources in all phases of highway project
planning, development, construction, and maintenance.
Finding: This policy relates to State highway project planning, development, construction,
and maintenance, which is under the jurisdiction of ODOT and not within the scope of the
TSP amendment therefore Policy 5B is not applicable.
Conclusion: Not applicable.
Policy 6A: New Toll Facilities
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to consider the use of tolling for financing the construction,
operations and maintenance of new roads, bridges or dedicated lanes only if expected toll receipts
will pay for an acceptable portion of project costs.
Finding: This policy relates to the use of tolling in Oregon; Policy 6A is not applicable to
the proposed TSP amendment.
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 185
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
S
P
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
F
a
c
t
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 16 of 24
Conclusion: Not applicable.
Policy 6B: Pricing Existing Capacity
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to consider the use of tolls, including time-of-day pricing, on
existing, non-tolled state highways consistent with other Oregon Transportation Commission
policies, state law, and federal statutes and planning regulations.
Finding: This policy relates to the use of tolls and time-of-day pricing in Oregon; Policy 6B
is not applicable to the proposed TSP amendment.
Conclusion: Not applicable.
Policy 6C: Consistent and Supportive Policy Objectives
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to ensure motorists and its citizens have clear, consistent
and coordinated objectives for any future highway tolling or pricing proposals, reflective of primary
public concerns with the performance of the state highway system.
Finding: This policy relates to the use of tolls and pricing proposals in Oregon; Policy 6C is
not applicable to the proposed TSP amendment.
Conclusion: Not applicable.
Policy 6D: Toll Revenues
The effectiveness, equity and overall utility of tolling projects can be affected by how net toll
receipts are used. Multiple approaches to using revenue may need to be considered. It is the
policy of the State of Oregon to treat the use of toll-generated revenue as an important component
in evaluating any tolling proposal.
Finding: This policy relates to the tolling projects and use of toll-generated revenue in
Oregon; Policy 6D is not applicable to the proposed TSP amendment.
Conclusion: Not applicable.
Policy 6E: Tolling Technology and Systems
When tolling state highways, it is the policy of the state of Oregon to implement tolling systems
that:
1) Enable cash-based motorists ready access to all-electronic toll facilities while eliminating
the need for cash payment at the point of entry;
2) Deploy technology that facilitates interoperability with tolling systems of neighboring states
and allows evolution of fully functional, non-proprietary tolling systems.
Finding: This policy relates to the use technology in tolling systems; Policy 6E is not
applicable to the proposed TSP amendment.
Conclusion: Not applicable.
5. COMPLIANCE WITH THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE
The purpose of the Transportation Planning Rule is to facilitate implementation of Statewide
Planning Goal 12 (Transportation). The following findings address compliance of the TSP with the
requirements set forth in the Transportation Planning Rule.
OAR 660-012-0010, Transportation Planning
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 186
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
S
P
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
F
a
c
t
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 17 of 24
(1) As described in this division, transportation planning shall be divided into two phases:
transportation system planning and transportation project development. Transportation
system planning establishes land use controls and a network of facilities and services to
meet overall transportation needs. Transportation project development implements the
TSP by determining the precise location, alignment, and preliminary design of
improvements included in the TSP.
(2) It is not the purpose of this division to cause duplication of or to supplant existing applicable
transportation plans and programs. Where all or part of an acknowledged comprehensive
plan, TSP either of the local government or appropriate special district, capital
improvement program, regional functional plan, or similar plan or combination of plans
meets all or some of the requirements of this division, those plans or programs may be
incorporated by reference into the TSP required by this division. Only those referenced
portions of such documents shall be considered to be a part of the TSP and shall be
subject to the administrative procedures of this division and ORS Chapter 197
(Comprehensive Land Use Planning).
(3) It is not the purpose of this division to limit adoption or enforcement of measures to provide
convenient bicycle and pedestrian circulation or convenient access to transit that are
otherwise consistent with the requirements of this division
Finding: The City of Central Point’s 2008 TSP was acknowledged as complying with OAR
660-012-0010. The TSP amendment contains the following items:
Updated project lists from the 2008 TSP to remove projects that are complete or no
longer needed in the remainder of the City;
Reprioritization of the updated project lists to consider transportation disadvantaged
populations; and
Updated funding forecast.
The proposed TSP amendment will allow the City’s TSP to continue to function as adopted
and acknowledged.
Conclusion: Consistent.
OAR 660-012-0015 Preparation and Coordination of Transportation System Plans
(3) Cities and counties shall prepare, adopt and amend local TSPs for lands within their
planning jurisdiction in compliance with this division:
(a) Local TSPs shall establish a system of transportation facilities and services adequate to
meet identified local transportation needs and shall be consistent with regional TSPs and
adopted elements of the state TSP;
(b) Where the regional TSP or elements of the state TSP have not been adopted, the city or
county shall coordinate the preparation of the local TSP with the regional transportation
planning body and ODOT to assure that regional and state transportation needs are
accommodated.
(4) Cities and counties shall adopt regional and local TSPs required by this division as part of
their comprehensive plans. Transportation financing programs required by OAR 660-012-
0040 may be adopted as a supporting document to the comprehensive plan.
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 187
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
S
P
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
F
a
c
t
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 18 of 24
(5) The preparations of TSPs shall be coordinated with affected state and federal agencies,
local governments, special districts and private providers of transportation services.
Finding: The proposed TSP amendment demonstrates that the proposed system of
transportation facilities and services are adequate to meet the City’s needs to 2030. The City
of Central Point worked closely with the Rogue Valley MPO, the City of Medford, ODOT, and
other relevant agencies to develop the 2008 TSP and the 2021 UGB expansion. The proposed
TSP amendment will be adopted as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan. The planning
level cost estimates provided in the proposed TSP amendment provide an estimate of the
fiscal requirements to support the land uses in the acknowledged comprehensive plan and
allows the assessment of the adequacy of existing and alternative funding mechanisms. The
proposed TSP amendment meets the requirements of this section of the TPR.
Conclusion: Consistent.
OAR 660-012-0016 Coordination with Federally Required Regional Transportation Plans in
Metropolitan Areas
(1) In metropolitan areas, local governments shall prepare, adopt, amend, and amendment
transportation system plans required by this division in coordination with regional
transportation plans (RTPs) prepared by MPOs required by federal law.
Finding: The proposed TSP amendment demonstrates coordination with regional planning
processes to assure that transportation needs are met.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment complies with this section of the TPR.
OAR 660-012-0020 Elements of TSPs
(1) A TSP shall establish a coordinated network of transportation facilities adequate to serve
state, regional and local transportation needs.
(2) The TSP shall include the following elements:
(a) Determination of transportation needs as provided in OAR 660-012-0030
(b) A road plan for a system of arterials and collectors and standards for the layout of local
streets and other important non-collector street connections. Functional classifications
of roads in regional and local TSPs shall be consistent with functional classifications of
roads in state and regional TSPs and shall provide for continuity between adjacent
jurisdictions. The standards for the layout of local streets shall provide for safe and
convenient bike and pedestrian circulation necessary to carry out OAR 660- 012-
0045(3)(b). New connections to arterials and state highways shall be consistent with
designated access management categories. The intent of this requirement is to provide
guidance on the spacing of future extensions and connections along existing and future
streets which are needed to provide reasonably direct routes for bicycle and pedestrian
travel.
The standards for the layout of local streets shall address:
(A) Extensions of existing streets;
(B) Connections to existing or planned streets, including arterials and collectors;
and
(C) Connections to neighborhood destinations. Chapter 3 of the TSP includes a
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 188
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
S
P
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
F
a
c
t
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 19 of 24
functional classification plan and roadway standards to address this
requirement.
(c) A public transportation system plan which:
(A) Describes public transportation services for the transportation
disadvantaged and identifies service inadequacies;
(B) Describes intercity bus and passenger rail service and identifies the location
of terminals;
(C) For areas within an urban growth boundary which have public transit
service, identifies existing and planned transit trunk routes, exclusive transit
ways, terminals and major transfer stations, major transit stops, and park-
and-ride stations. Designation of stop or station locations may allow for
minor adjustments in the location of stops to provide for efficient transit or
traffic operation or to provide convenient pedestrian access to adjacent or
nearby uses.
(D) For areas within an urban area containing a population greater than 25,000
persons, not currently served by transit, evaluates the feasibility of
developing a public transit system at buildout. Where a transit system is
determined to be feasible, the plan shall meet the requirements of
paragraph (2)(c)(C) of this rule.
(d) A bicycle and pedestrian plan for a network of bicycle and pedestrian routes
throughout the planning area. The network and list of facility improvements shall be
consistent with the requirements of ORS 366.514.
(e) An air, rail, water and pipeline transportation plan.
Finding OAR 660-012-0020(1) through OAR 660-012-0020(2)(e): The TSP amendment does
not find a need for or anticipate any changes to these facilities.
Conclusion OAR 660-012-0020(1) through OAR 660-012-0020(2)(e): The proposed TSP
amendment complies with this section of the TPR.
(f) Plan for transportation management and demand management.
(g) Parking plan as provided in OAR 660-012-0045(5)(c).
(h) Policies and land use regulations for implementing the TSP as provided in OAR 660- 012-
0045.
Finding OAR 660-012-0020(2)(f) through OAR 660-012-0020(2)(h): Potential actions for
implementing the TSP are contained in the Central Point Development Code. The proposed
TSP amendment does not trigger the need for any changes to the Development Code.
Conclusion OAR 660-012-0020(2)(f) through OAR 660-012-0020(2)(h): Consistent.
(i) Transportation financing program as provided in OAR 660-012-0040.
(3) Each element identified in subsections (2)(b) – (d) of this rule shall contain:
An inventory and general assessment of existing and committed transportation facilities and
services by function, type, capacity and condition.
(A) The transportation capacity analysis shall include information on:
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 189
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
S
P
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
F
a
c
t
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 20 of 24
(i) The capacities of existing and committed facilities;
(ii) The degree to which those capacities have been reached or surpassed on existing
facilities; and
(iii) The assumptions upon which these capacities are based.
(B) For state and regional facilities, the transportation capacity analysis shall be consistent with
standards of facility performance considered acceptable by the affected state or regional
transportation agency;
(C) The transportation facility condition analysis shall describe the general physical and
operational condition of each transportation facility (e.g., very good, good, fair, poor, very
poor).
(D) A system of planned transportation facilities, services and major improvements. The
system shall include a description of the type or functional classification of planned facilities
and services and their planned capacities and performance standards.
Finding OAR 660-012-0020(2)(i) through OAR 660-012-0020(3): Most of these criteria are
met by the 2008 TSP and the proposed TSP amendment does not affect them. The
amendment describes the planned facilities and services needed for the UGB expansion
through 2030 by function, type, and condition for each mode, except transit, since the Transit
District does not plan to extend new routes to the expansion area. The proposed TSP
amendment updates the transportation financing plan, including existing and potential new
funding sources.
Conclusion OAR 660-012-0020(2)(i) through OAR 660-012-0020(3): The proposed TSP
amendment complies with this section of the TPR.
OAR 660-012-0025 Complying with Goals in Preparing TSPs
(1) Adoption of a TSP shall constitute a land use decision regarding the need for transportation
facilities, services and major improvements and their function, mode and general location.
(2) Findings of compliance with applicable statewide planning goals and acknowledged
comprehensive plan policies and land use regulations shall be developed in conjunction
with the adoption of the TSP.
(3) The City may defer decisions regarding function, general location and mode of a
refinement plan if findings are adopted that:
(a) Identify the transportation need for which decisions regarding function, general location or
mode are being deferred.
(b) Demonstrate why information required to make final determination cannot be made
available within time for TSP preparation.
(c) Explain how deferral does not invalidate the assumptions upon which the TSP is based ore
preclude implementation of the remainder of the TSP.
(d) Describe the nature of the findings which will be needed to resolve issues deferred to a
refinement plan; and,
(e) Set a deadline for adoption of a refinement plan prior to initiation of the periodic review
following adoption of the TSP.
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 190
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
S
P
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
F
a
c
t
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 21 of 24
Finding: The TSP amendment is being adopted as a Type IV legislative land use decision,
consistent with the Central Point Development Code and this rule. These findings of
compliance accompany that decision. No deferrals are suggested. No refinement plans are
proposed.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is in compliance with this section of the TPR.
OAR 660-012-0030 Determination of Transportation Needs
(1) The TSP shall identify transportation needs relevant to the planning area and the scale of
the transportation network being planned including:
(a) State, regional and local transportation needs
(b) Needs of the transportation disadvantaged
(c) Needs for movement of goods and services to support industrial and commercial
development planned for, pursuant to Goal 9.
(2) Local governments preparing local TSPs shall rely on the analyses of state and regional
transportation needs in adopted elements of the state TSP and adopted regional TSPs.
(3) Within UGBs, the determination of local and regional transportation needs shall be based
upon:
(a) Population and employment forecasts and distributions that are consistent with
acknowledged comp plan. Forecasts and distributions shall be for 20 years and, if desired,
for longer periods;
(b) Measures adopted pursuant to OAR 660-012-0045 to encourage reduced reliance on the
automobile.
(4) In MPO areas, calculation of local and regional transportation needs also shall be based on
accomplishment of the requirement in OAR 660-012-0035(4) to reduce reliance on the
automobile.
Finding: The proposed TSP amendment outlines the identified existing and future needs by
mode, related to state, regional and local transportation needs, needs of transportation
disadvantaged, and needs for goods movement to support industrial and commercial
development. The 2021 UGB expansion utilized population and employment forecasts
consistent with the Central Point Comprehensive Plan and the State of Oregon. The 2008 TSP
demonstrated a transportation system that could reduce reliance on the automobile by
increasing the safety and convenience of using other modes; the proposed TSP amendment
continues this pattern by providing pedestrian and bicycle projects to support mode choice.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment complies with this section of the TPR.
OAR 660-012-0035 Evaluation and Selection of Transportation System Alternatives
(1) The TSP shall be based on evaluation of potential impacts of system alternatives that can
reasonably be expected to meet the identified transportation needs in a safe manner and at
a reasonable cost with available technology. The following shall be evaluated as
components of system alternatives.
(a) Improvements to existing facilities or services
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 191
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
S
P
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
F
a
c
t
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 22 of 24
(b) New facilities and services, including different modes or combinations of modes that could
reasonably meet identified transportation needs.
(c) Transportation system management measures;
(d) Demand management measures; and
(e) A no-build system alternative required by the NEPA or other laws.
(3) The following standards shall be used to evaluate and select alternatives:
The transportation system shall support urban and rural development by providing types and
levels of transportation facilities and services appropriate to serve the land uses identified in
the acknowledged comprehensive plan;
(b) The transportation system shall be consistent with state and federal standards for
protection of air, land and water quality;
(c) The transportation system shall minimize adverse economic, social, environmental and
energy consequences;
(d) The transportation system shall minimize conflicts and facilitate connections between
modes of transportation; and
(e) The transportation system shall avoid principal reliance on any one mode of transportation
by increasing transportation choices to reduce principal reliance on the automobile. Select
transportation alternatives that meet the requirements in section (4) of the rule.
(4) Local TSPs shall be designed to achieve adopted standards for increasing transportation
choices and reducing reliance on the automobile. Adopted standards are intended as
means of measuring progress of metropolitan areas towards developing and implementing
transportation systems and land use plans that increase transportation choices and reduce
reliance on the automobile. It is anticipated that metropolitan areas will accomplish reduced
reliance by changing land use patterns and transportation systems so that walking, cycling,
and use of transit are highly convenient and so that, on balance, people need to and are
likely to drive less than they do today.
(7) Regional and local TSPs shall include benchmarks to assure satisfactory progress towards
meeting the approved standard or standards adopted pursuant to this rule at regular
intervals over the planning period. MPOs and local governments shall evaluate progress in
meeting benchmarks at each amendment of the regional transportation plan. Where
benchmarks are not met, the relevant TSP shall be amended to include new or additional
efforts adequate to meet the requirements of this rule.
Finding: The proposed TSP amendment supports urban growth as planned for the Central
Point UGB area in the acknowledged comprehensive plan and regional travel and restricts
facility extension that might encourage inappropriate growth on rural lands.
The multimodal system improvements proposed in the TSP amendment were developed
to ensure that needs are met with a safe and reasonable manner. Improvements to
existing facilities have been prioritized with a new equity lens.
The reasonableness of proposed projects was verified by the selection criteria (established
in the 2008 TSP and enhanced with a new equity criterion). Transportation Demand
Management and Transportation System Management are addressed in the 2008 TSP and
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 192
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
S
P
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
F
a
c
t
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 23 of 24
will not be altered by this amendment. Benchmarks set in the 2008 TSP will also remain
unaltered by this amendment.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment complies with this section of the TPR.
OAR 660-012-0040 Transportation Financing Program
(1) For areas within an urban growth boundary containing a population greater than 2,500
persons, the TSP shall include a transportation financing program.
(2) A transportation financing program shall include the items listed in (a)-(d):
(a) A list of planned transportation facilities and major improvements;
(b) A general estimate of the timing for planned transportation facilities and major
improvements;
(c) A determination of rough cost estimates for the transportation facilities and major
improvements identified in the TSP; and
(d) In metropolitan areas, policies to guide selection of transportation facility and improvement
projects for funding in the short-term to meet the standards and benchmarks established
pursuant to 0035(4)-(6). Such policies shall consider, and shall include among the
priorities, facilities and improvements that support mixed-use, pedestrian friendly
development and increased use of alternative modes.
(1) The determination of rough cost estimates is intended to provide an estimate of the fiscal
requirements to support the land uses in the acknowledged comprehensive plan and allow
jurisdictions to assess the adequacy of existing and possible alternative funding
mechanisms. In addition to including rough cost estimates for each transportation facility
and major improvement, the transportation financing plan shall include a discussion of the
facility provider's existing funding mechanisms and the ability of these and possible new
mechanisms to fund the development of each transportation facility and major
improvement. These funding mechanisms may also be described in terms of general
guidelines or local policies.
(4) The transportation financing program shall provide for phasing of major improvements to
encourage infill and redevelopment of urban lands prior to facilities and improvements
which would cause premature development of urbanizable lands or conversion of rural
lands to urban uses.
Finding: The TSP amendment lists the planned transportation facilities, along with a
general time estimate. Each project is assigned a planning level cost estimate. The projects
in the TSP amendment support the use of alternative modes of transportation. The TSP
amendment includes a summary of cost estimates, by prioritization category. The forecast
of revenue is based on existing funding mechanisms, potential new mechanisms, and a
plan for implementation.
Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment complies with this section of the TPR.
6. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CENTRAL POINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
& DEVELOPMENT CODE
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 193
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
S
P
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
F
a
c
t
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 24 of 24
CPMC 17.96.500 Approval Criteria
A recommendation or a decision to approve or to deny an application for an amendment to the
comprehensive plan, or urban growth boundary shall be based on written findings and conclusions that
address the following criteria:
A. Approval of the request is consistent with the applicable statewide planning goals;
B. Approval of the request is consistent with the Central Point comprehensive plan;
C. For urban growth boundary amendments findings demonstrate that adequate public services
and transportation networks to serve the property are either available, or identified for
construction in the city’s public facilities master plans (major and minor amendments); and
D. The amendment complies with OAR 660-012-0060 of the Transportation Planning Rule.
Finding: The amendment to the comprehensive plan updating the TSP assures that allowed
land uses are consistent with the function, capacity, and level of service of Central Point
transportation facilities. The TSP amendment has been reviewed for compliance with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan as required by CPMC 17.96.500,as well as the Statewide Planning Goals
and Transportation Planning Rule. The proposed TSP amendment does not affect the current
goals and policies of the 2008 TSP or other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. No changes
to land use regulations are proposed. Therefore, the proposed TSP amendment is in
compliance with the Central Point Comprehensive Plan and the Development Code.
Conclusion: Consistent.
7. SUMMARY CONCLUSION
The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment updating the TSP has been reviewed against
and found to comply with all applicable criteria and associated state policies as set forth in
these Findings and Conclusions of Law.
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 194
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
T
S
P
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
F
a
c
t
(
2
0
2
2
-
6
5
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
)
City of Central Point
Staff Report to Council
ISSUE SUMMARY
TO: City Council
DEPARTMENT:
Finance
FROM: Steven Weber, Finance Director
MEETING DATE: January 12, 2023
SUBJECT: Resolution Updating Signers on City Bank Accounts
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion
Resolution
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Due to the recent retirement of Kris Allison, Chief of Police, and Deanna Casey, City Recorder,
an update to those authorized to sign checks and other form of payment of City funds is
needed. The Mayor, City Manager, and Finance Director are already authorized signers on City
bank accounts and staff is recommending adding Matt Samitore, Parks and Public Works
Director, and Scott Logue, Chief of Police, as authorized signers on City bank accounts.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS:
N/A
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
N/A
COUNCIL GOALS/STRATEGIC PLAN ANALYSIS:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve resolution as presented.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
I move to approves Resolution ____, a resolution updating signers on City bank accounts.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. RESO Updating Signers on City Bank Accounts
7.B
Packet Pg. 195
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
UPDATING SIGNERS ON CITY BANK ACCOUNTS
Recitals:
A. In the course of the City of Central Point’s (“City”) business it establishes relationships
with various banks for purposes including, but not limited to, making payment on
checks issued by the City.
B. Banks with whom the City does business normally requires a City resolution
designating or updating which City officials are authorized to execute checks and
other forms of payment of City funds.
C. Due to the recent retirement of two City officials, City Council desires to update the
City officials that are authorized to execute checks and other forms of payment of
City funds.
The City of Central Point resolves as follows:
Section 1.
To add Matt Samitore, Parks and Public Works Director, and Scott Logue, Chief of Police,
as authorized check signers on all City of Central Point bank accounts as well as remove
former Chief of Police Kris Allison and former City Recorder Deanna Casey as authorized
check signers on all City of Central Point bank accounts.
Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 12th day of
January 2023.
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTEST
Rachel Neuenschwander, Recorder
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 196
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
E
S
O
U
p
d
a
t
i
n
g
S
i
g
n
e
r
s
o
n
C
i
t
y
B
a
n
k
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
s
(
1
6
2
5
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
U
p
d
a
t
i
n
g
S
i
g
n
e
r
s
o
n
C
i
t
y
B
a
n
k
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
s
)
City of Central Point
Staff Report to Council
ISSUE SUMMARY
TO: City Council
DEPARTMENT:
Administration
FROM: Chris Clayton, City Manager
MEETING DATE: January 12, 2023
SUBJECT: Election of 2023 Council President
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion
RECOMMENDATION:
Not Applicable
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Chapter 3, Section 9, of the City of Central Point Charter, states the following:
Council President. At its first meeting each year, the council must elect a
president from its membership. The president presides in the absence of the mayor and
acts as mayor when the mayor is unable to perform mayoral duties.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS:
N/A
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
N/A
COUNCIL GOALS/STRATEGIC PLAN ANALYSIS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council discuss, debate, nominate and elect a City Council
President for 2023.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
I move to approve_____________as the 2023 City of Central Point Council President.
8.A
Packet Pg. 197
City of Central Point
Staff Report to Council
ISSUE SUMMARY
TO: City Council
DEPARTMENT:
Finance
FROM: Rachel Neuenschwander,
MEETING DATE: January 12, 2023
SUBJECT: Local City Council Committee and Board Assignments 2023
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
It is time to formalize committee, commission, and board assignments for the upcoming
year. This is a chance for Council Members to change their preferences regarding which
organization they would like to participate in as a representative of the City of Central
Point.
Council Member Mike Parsons would like to add Jackson County Local Public Policy
Coordinating Council, and Jackson County Fire District 3 Civil Service Committee to the
2023 list.
Each of these assignments represents an important opportunity for the City of Central
Point to exert influence and maintain relations with regional agencies and partners.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS:
No fiscal impact.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Not Applicable.
COUNCIL GOALS/STRATEGIC PLAN ANALYSIS:
Proactive Government and Citizen Involvement
Goal 1- Build strong relationships between government and its citizens.
Strategies:
8.B
Packet Pg. 198
a. Initiate effective communication by implementing varied methods to reach as
many citizens as possible (e.g. Town Hall meetings, social gatherings, reestablish
gathering places (businesses/homes), build upon existing, events, set up kiosks,
local newspaper/newsletter/website, marketing/advertising, personal contact);
b. Collaborate with other governmental agencies, public and private enterprises,
pooling resources ( e.g. School District #6, RCC/SOU, Library, Theater, RVCOG,
Chamber of Commerce);
c. Regularly survey the needs of citizens
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Review and discuss the attached Committee and Board list.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
I move to approve the 2023 City Council Committee and Board assignments “as
presented” or “as discussed and amended.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Local Committee Representatives 2023
8.B
Packet Pg. 199
Last Revision January 5, 2023 Page 1
City Council Representatives
Boards, Commissions, Committees, Foundations
2023
1. RVCOG Board of Directors Meetings, Kelley Johnson
4th Weds, monthly, 11:45 a.m.
Contact: 664-6676 ext. 202
2. Jackson County Expo Board, Mayor Williams,
3rd Tuesday each month, 6:00 p.m. Fair Board Room
Contact: Helen Funk, 541-774-8270
3. So. Oregon Regional Econ. Dev. Inc. (SOREDI), Rob Hernandez, Taneea
Browning
1st Tuesday each month, 3:30 alternating between Medford and G.P
Contact: Angie 773-8946
4. School District No. 6 Board Meeting, Melody Thueson
2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Location varies
Contact: Robin 541-494-6200
6. Medford Water Commission, Hank Williams, Taneea Browning, Chris
Clayton
1st and 3rd Wednesday each month, 12:30 p.m. Lausman Annex.
Contact: Medford Water Commission 774-2430
7. Transportation Advocacy Committee (TRADCO), Hank Williams
2nd Tuesday each month, 12:00 p.m. Jackson County
Contact: Kim Parducci 774-2100
8. Airport Advisory Committee, Rob Hernandez
3rd Monday of each month, Noon at Airport Terminal
Contact: Vicki Waltner 541-776-7222
9. Rogue Valley Area Commission on Transportation, (RVACT) Mike
Quilty
2nd Tuesday each month, 9:00 a.m. Location varies
Contact: Stephanie Thume 423-1368
10. Jackson County Fire District No. 3 Board, Kelley Johnson
3rd Thursday each month, 5:15 p.m. White City Station
Contact: 541-826-7100
11. RVTD Board Meetings, Melody Thueson
last Wednesday of the month 5:30 p.m. at Medford Court House
12. Visitor Information Center, Kelley Johnson
4th Thursday each month, 12:00 p.m.
Contact: Chamber 664-5301
13. Commission on Access, Diversity, Equity & Inclusion, Kelley Johnson
3rd Tuesday each month 5:00 p.m.
Location may vary
Contact: Bonnie, HR Director
8.B.a
Packet Pg. 200
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
o
c
a
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
s
2
0
2
3
(
1
6
1
2
:
L
o
c
a
l
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
a
n
d
B
o
a
r
d
a
s
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
s
2
0
2
3
)
Last Revision January 5, 2023 Page 2
14. Rogue Valley Sewer Systems, Mike Parsons
3rd Wednesday each month, 11:30 Lunch 12:00 – 1:30 meeting.
138 W. Vilas Road
Contact: Carl Tappert 541-779-4144
15. Central Point Citizens Advisory Committee, Mike Parsons
6:30 p.m. 2nd Tuesday - January, April, July, October (Subject to
Change) Contact: Tom Humphrey 541-423-1025
16. Parks and Recreation Commission, Mike Parsons
Quarterly, Council Chambers
Contact: Dave Jacobs 541-423-1042
17. Parks and Recreation Foundation, Mike Parsons
Meetings vary Contact: Dave Jacobs 541-423-1042
18. Planning Commission, Neil Olsen
Meetings 1st Tuesday of the month,
Contact: Karin Skelton 541-664-3321 ext 292
19. Jackson County Local Public Policy Coordinating Council, Mike
Parsons
Meeting 4th Tuesday of the month,
Contact: Brittany Whitemore 541-774-4990
20. Jackson County Fire District 3 Civil Service Commissioner, Mike
Parsons
Meeting Quarterly
Contact: Marisa Lehnerz 541-831-2739
2019 Transportation Representative Mike Quilty appointed on 1/10/2019
1. Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO) Policy Committee,
Representative Mike Quilty, Hank Williams,
2. Oregon Rail Leadership Group,
3. Oregon Metropolitan Planning Organization Consortium
4. Oregon Freight Advisory Group
5. Oregon State Transportation Improvement Program Stakeholders
Group
6. West Cost Corridor Coalition
7. Rogue Valley Area Commission on Transportation (RVACT) as
representative of RVMPO
8. LOC Transportation Policy Committee
8.B.a
Packet Pg. 201
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
o
c
a
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
s
2
0
2
3
(
1
6
1
2
:
L
o
c
a
l
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
a
n
d
B
o
a
r
d
a
s
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
s
2
0
2
3
)
City of Central Point
Staff Report to Council
ISSUE SUMMARY
TO: City Council
DEPARTMENT:
Public Works
FROM: Matt Samitore, Parks and Public Works Director
MEETING DATE: January 12, 2023
SUBJECT: Parks Commission Report December 2022
ACTION REQUIRED:
Consent Agenda Item
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting Report – December 1, 2022
1. My Veteran/My Hero Tree Program: Dave Jacob presented the final version of the program
that would allow people to buy a tree and how it would be maintained and warrantied. The pilot
program was approved and City Council will see the full details in February 2023.
2. Revised Memorial Dedicaton Program: Dave Jacob presented changes to program in
regards to the overall costs for trees and other amenities. Full details will be presented to
Council for park policy changes in February 2023.
3. Project Updates: Dave Jacob and Matt Samitore gave updates regarding the joint
community center, blue grass down wetlands, little league complex and Dennis Richardson
Memorial.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS: N/A
LEGAL ANALYSIS: N/A
COUNCIL GOALS/STRATEGIC PLAN ANALYSIS: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Parks Commission Report.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve the Parks Commission Report.
8.C
Packet Pg. 202
8.C
Packet Pg. 203
City of Central Point
Staff Report to Council
ISSUE SUMMARY
TO: City Council
DEPARTMENT:
Public Works
FROM: Matt Samitore, Parks and Public Works Director
MEETING DATE: January 12, 2023
SUBJECT: Discussion of City Water Rates for 2023
ACTION REQUIRED:
Information/Direction
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The City was informed by the Medford Water Commission that they would be raising the
Partner City water rate by 8% for winter and 12% for summer rates. The difference is
the cost of operating the Duff Water Treatment facility. When computing the city water
rate staff uses the bulk cost of water as one of several factors in determining the City’s
overall rates. The other factors are the costs of labor through negotiations/contracts and
new staffing; the cost of goods (pipe and other materials); and how much growth we
anticipate in the City in terms of new water uses.
Historically, in looking at all of these factors it would normally be in the 2-4% range.
Unfortunately that is not the case this year as shown in the table below.
Table 1: Inflation 2022
Medford Water Commission - Winter 8%
Medford Water Commission - Summer 12%
Staff Cost Projections 2.50%
Cost of Goods 12%
Rate of Growth 1%
Average 7%
The overall cost increase projected by staff is a minimum of 7%. This is needed just to
cover the cost to maintain existing service levels. In order to maintain our current
replacement of older pipes we would need to adopt a cost increase in the range of 8-
10%.
8.D
Packet Pg. 204
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS:
City/Public Works staff has prepared an update to the City Water Rates based upon
the past three years of rate increases. The increase is split consistently between the
base rate and the consumptive rate.
Current Rates:
Residential
Meter Monthly Monthly Total Monthly Volume Charge Volume Charge Volume Charge
Size Base Charge R & R Charge Fixed Charge First 8 ccf 8 - 22 ccf Over 22 ccf
5/8"15.30 1.00 16.30 1.03 2.00 3.19
1"20.96 2.45 23.41 1.03 2.00 3.19
1.5"26.61 8.15 34.76 1.03 2.00 3.19
2"37.93 11.15 49.08 1.03 2.00 3.19
3"60.56 25.25 85.81 1.03 2.00 3.19
4"83.20 43.85 127.05 1.03 2.00 3.19
6"156.77 86.00 242.77 1.03 2.00 3.19
8"241.65 139.50 381.15 1.03 2.00 3.19
Proposed Rates at 7%:
Residenti
al
Meter Monthly Monthly
Total
Monthly
Volume
Charge
Volume
Charge
Volume
Charge
Size
Base
Charge
R & R
Charge Fixed Charge First 8 ccf 8 - 22 ccf Over 22 ccf
5/8" 16.37 1.00 17.37 1.10 2.13 3.42
1" 22.43 2.45 24.88 1.10 2.13 3.42
Based upon this methodology, the Base Rate will increase by $1.07 and the
consumptive rates by $0.07 for Tier 1, $0.13 for Tier 2, and $0.23 for Tier 3. Attached
is the full rate resolution reflecting residential, commercial, multi-family and irrigation
rates based on the hybrid rate increase proposal.
LEGAL ANALYSIS: N/A
8.D
Packet Pg. 205
STRATEGIC GOALS:
Strategic Priority – Responsible Governance
GOAL 1 - Maintain a strong financial position that balances the need for adequate service levels
and capital requirements against the affordability that is desired by our citizens.
STRATEGY 1 – Continually update the city’s long-term financial plan/strategy.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: N/A
RECOMMENDED MOTION: N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 2022 RATE SUMMARY
8.D
Packet Pg. 206
This information is a summary only; it is non-inclusive.
The effect of this analysis was to accurately adjust the revenue requirements for all customer groups. The analysis recommended monthly and gallonage charge modifications for most customer groups, effective March 1, 2023. The proposed water consumption rates (per 1,000 gallons) and monthly charges are as follows:
INSIDE CUSTOMERS: CURRENT PROPOSED CHANGE
Residential Gallonage/Mo.: 0-5,000 $0.88 $0.95 +$0.07 6,000-25,000 $1.59 $1.72 +$0.13 Over 25,000 $2.31 $2.49 +$0.18 Non-Residential Gallonage Blocks: Summer $1.57 $1.69 +$0.12 Winter $1.37 $1.49 +$0.12 Typical Residential Monthly Charge
(12K gal. & ¾″ meter) $30.97/mo $33.44/mo +$2.47
OUTSIDE CUSTOMERS: CURRENT PROPOSED CHANGE
Residential Gallonage/Mo.: 0-5,000 $1.29 $1.39 +$0.10 6,000-25,000 $2.34 $2.53 +$0.19 Over 25,000 $3.44 $3.71 +$0.27 Non-Residential Gallonage Blocks: Summer $2.08 $2.24 +$0.16 Winter $1.88 $2.04 +$0.16 Typical Residential Monthly Charge (12K gal. & ¾″ meter) $44.31/mo $47.82/mo +$3.51
DISTRICTS: CURRENT PROPOSED CHANGE
Gallonage Blocks: Summer $0.80 $0.90 +$0.10 Winter $0.60 $0.70 +$0.10
PARTNER CITIES: CURRENT PROPOSED CHANGE
Gallonage Blocks: Summer $0.89 $0.97 +$0.08 Winter $0.69 $0.77 +$0.08
BULK WATER STATION: CURRENT PROPOSED CHANGE
Gallonage Charge: $4.01 $4.01 +$0.00
2022 Cost of Service Study
SUMMARY
8.D.a
Packet Pg. 207
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
2
R
A
T
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
(
1
6
2
2
:
2
0
2
3
W
a
t
e
r
R
a
t
e
s
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
)
City of Central Point
Staff Report to Council
ISSUE SUMMARY
TO: City Council
DEPARTMENT:
Community Development
FROM: Stephanie Holtey, Planning Director
MEETING DATE: January 12, 2023
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Report 1/10/2023
ACTION REQUIRED:
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission Report will be provided at the meeting.
8.E
Packet Pg. 208