Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 1814ORDINANCE NO. ~~~ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CENTRAL POINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ADOPTING THE CITY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN (TSP) RECITALS: 1. The City of Central Point ("City") is authorized under Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) Chapter 197 to prepare and adopt comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances consistent with the Statewide Land Use Planning Goals. Furthermore the City is directed under Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012-0045 to amend its land use regulations to implement the TSP. 2. The City has coordinated its planning efforts with the State in accordance with ORS 197.040(2)(e) and OAR 660-030-0060 to assure compliance with goals and compatibility with City and County Comprehensive Plans and with OAR 660-012-0015 to assure consistency with the State and Regional TSP. 3. 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 as described in OAR 660-012-0060(I)(a-c) and (2)(a-d). 4. The TSP does not yet contain implementing ordinance provisions required by the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). However the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Comprehensive Plan Amendment and related zoning regulations accomplish part of this requirement. Furthermore, the State has authorized the City to incorporate a work program with the adoption of the TSP in order to complete implementing ordinance provisions. 5. Pursuant to authority granted by the City charter and the Oregon Revised Statutes, the City has determined to amend the Central Point Comprehensive Plan which was originally adopted on August 29, 1980, and has been amended at vazious times since then. 6. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in CPMC Chapter 1.24 and Chapter 17.96, the City has conducted the following duly advertised public hearings to consider the proposed amendments: (a) Citizen's Advisory Committee hearing on August 29, 2000. (b) Planning Commission hearings on September 19 and October 3, 2000. (c) City Council hearings on October 26, November 16 and 30, 2000. 1 - Ordinance No. ~ (113000) Now, therefore; THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section I . At its public hearing on November 30, 2000, the City Council received the findings of the Citizen's Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission, received the City Staff Report, 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 this ordinance and the Transportation System Plan, dated November 2000, and based upon the same, the City Council finds that there is sufficient public need and justification for the proposed changes, and the proposed changes are hereby adopted entirely. Section 2. The City Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit "A", the TSP including all maps and attachments to such exhibit, and Exhibit "B", the Work Program which are attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Section 3. The City Administrator is directed to conduct post acknowledgment procedures defined in ORS 197.610 et seq. upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Passed by the ~Coyncil and signed by me in authentication of its passage this l U }~ d f _~c«~LO ATTEST: City Representative Approved by me this ~' y ~ day of ~,~ , 2000. _! l :% ~~i ~" vim' v~'~---gym _ayor Bill~alton ` ay o ec 00. ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ni ~~ ~ ~^ i ~`c~~ t,'2'~~ ~\Mayor Bill Walton 2 - Ordinance No. Ig/y (113000) 11c; 1' ,1M1l‘\\ rw +) o4:•1)111.(1),01 \i ,`"1`t.;;,, • 1 til` 1 I i (,4 \\‘\ (PIT RA4 cArlijAh. A .N. . \ - - v--4pi, 4th • --1 U 1111"Pari i,*MM.! • A .q. 0 ,, o\ EG Adopted December 14, 2000 Ordinance No. 1814 INTRODUCTION The Central Point Transportation System Plan(TSP)guides the management of existing transportation facilities and the design and implementation of future facilities for the next 20 years. This TSP constitutes the transportation element of the city's comprehensive plan. The City of Central Point is contained within the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).The Central Point TSP is consistent with the Rogue Valley MPO Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The Central Point TSP relies on the RTP to satisfy the MPO specific requirements of the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). Planning Area The Central Point planning area includes the City of Central Point and the area within the City's urban growth boundary(UGB). Central Point and the surrounding area constitute a small but rapidly growing community. Central Point is located just north of Medford on the I-5 and Highway 99 corridor. The challenge for the future of the Central Point area is to provide a transportation system that will accommodate growth without the traffic problems that often accompany rapid growth. Plan Organization The Central Point TSP was developed through a series of technical analyses combined with systematic input and review by the city staff,the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC),and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Key elements of the Transportation System Plan include: ► General Transportation ► Land Use ► Transportation System Management (TSM) ► Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ► Parking ► Access Management ► Streets ► Bicycle ► Pedestrian ► Transit ► Aviation ► Rail ► Finance ► Transportation Improvement Project List The beginning of each section of the TSP provides general background information related to that element. Following this general information the goals, policies and objectives developed by the CAC and TAC are outlined. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 1 Community Involvement Community involvement was an important part of developing the Central Point TSP. Interaction with the community was achieved through the formation of a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), the Citizens Advisory Committee, publishing newsletters and holding open meetings. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 2 GENERAL TRANSPORTATION Inventory Review An inventory of the existing transportation system in Central Point was conducted as part of the TSP planning process. This inventory includes the street,pedestrian,bikeway,public transportation,rail,air, water and pipeline systems. The inventory data comes from a variety of sources including a physical inventory and previous street inventories. The Rogue Valley Transportation District provided information related to transit service provided in the Central Point area. Street System Several jurisdictions, including the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT),Jackson County and the City of Central Point maintain portions of the existing street system within the study area. State Maintained Facilities Within the planning area, ODOT maintains Interstate 5 and Highway 99 as well as portions of Pine Street near the Central Point/I-5 Interchange and Highway 99. I-5 is a well maintained, four-lane divided freeway with posted speeds of 55 and 65 miles per hour in the Central Point area. It is classified by the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan as having interstate significance and serves as the primary north and south route for traffic traveling through the area. Paralleling 1-5,Highway 99 serves as another north-south access through the Central Point area and is classified in the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan as having regional significance and is classified as a District Highway. The cross section of Highway 99 in Central Point is four or five lanes. The posted speed on Highway 99 throughout the Central Point area is 45 mph. Within Central Point,Highway 99 is referred to as the Rogue Valley Highway. County Maintained Facilities Jackson County maintains many roads within the Central Point UGB, including, but not limited to: Beall, Pine Street, Hanley, Haskell, Upton and Vilas. City Maintained Facilities The City of Central Point maintains a complex network of streets. The cross-sections range from two to five lanes and the posted speed ranges between 20 and 40 mph. Jurisdictional Maintenance Figure 1, Jurisdictional Responsibility on the following page graphically depicts the jurisdictional responsibility for the street system within Central Point. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 3 Figure 1 Jurisdictional Responsibility. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 1111. Page 4 General Transportation Goals, Objectives and Policies GOAL#1: TO PROVIDE A SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT REDUCES ENERGY REQUIREMENTS, REGIONAL AIR CONTAMINANTS AND PUBLIC COSTS AND PROVIDES FOR THE NEEDS OF THOSE NOT ABLE OR WISHING TO DRIVE AUTOMOBILES. Objective: To strike a balance between accessibility and through movement of people and goods, while keeping the system safe, attractive and well-maintained. Policies: 1. The City will implement its transportation goals through this Transportation System Plan(TSP) and will review and update the TSP during periodic review, or more frequently if necessary. 2. The construction of transportation facilities shall be timed to coincide with community needs, and shall be implemented in a way that minimizes impacts on existing development. Where possible,the timing of facility maintenance will be coordinated with other capital improvements to minimize cost and avoid extraordinary maintenance on a facility scheduled for reconstruction or replacement. 3. The implementation of transportation system and demand management measures, enhanced transit service, and provision for bicycle and pedestrian facilities shall be pursued as a first choice for accommodating travel demand and relieving congestion in a travel corridor,before street widening projects are considered. 4. Transportation facilities shall be designed and constructed to minimize noise, energy consumption,neighborhood disruption,economic losses to the private or public economy and social,environmental and institutional disruptions, and to encourage the use of public transit, bikeways and walkways. 5. Aesthetics and landscaping shall be considered in the design of the transportation system. Within the physical and financial constraints of the project,landscaping,and where appropriate, public art, shall be included in the design of the transportation facility. Various landscaping designs, suitable plants and materials shall be used by the City,private entities or individuals to enhance the livability of the area. 6. The rapid and safe movement of fire,medical and police vehicles shall be a vital characteristic of the design and operation of the transportation system. 7. The City shall coordinate transportation planning and construction efforts with County, regional, State and Federal plans and requirements where feasible. 8. The City shall work to improve the relative attractiveness of alternative modes of transportation, including transit,pedestrian, bicycle, telecommuting and carpooling. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 5 LAND USE One of the major point of emphasis of the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule is ensuring that the transportation system supports the planned land uses. Regional travel demand modeling analysis conducted in conjunction with the development of the Rogue Valley RTP and the Central Point TSP demonstrated no level of service failures within the Central Point UGB for the planned land uses in the current comprehensive plan. The region has chosen to pursue a transit-oriented development(TOD)land use strategy. One of the TOD locations is in Central Point. The TOD concept is described below. Transit-Oriented Design Transit-oriented design (TOD) is a general description of a set of development strategies designed to encourage the use of public transit by creating an atmosphere that is safe, convenient, and easily accessible by foot, bicycle and transit. One purpose of transit-oriented design is to increase ridership by shaping and intensifying land use through the integration of transit stops with other activities of the community such as banking and shopping. Urban design strategies associated with transit-oriented development also support and encourage bicycle and walk travel modes. By reducing reliance on single-occupant vehicles,TOD improves air quality by reducing the number of vehicle trips. Another benefit of TOD is the promotion of economic development by attracting businesses and consumers to the area surrounding the transit stop. By encouraging mixed-use development transit-oriented, design strategies can also increase housing options. In 1999,the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization undertook the Transit-Oriented Design and Transit Corridor Development Strategies Study(TOD Study). The intent of the TOD Study was to provide an alternative land use scenario to bring the region into compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction requirements. The TOD Study analyzed the nine candidate high-growth areas identified in the 1995 Regional Transportation Plan. Current modeling analysis indicates that, the alternative land use patterns identified in the TOD Study do not yield the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) mandated 5% reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita. There are three TOD sites that are proceeding towards development the Central Point TOD, the Medford SE Plan and the Phoenix City Center Plan. A traffic impact analysis is currently underway for the Central Point TOD. These three TOD areas are included in the future year scenarios that were used in the Regional Transportation Plan analysis. The population and employment for these areas was supplied by each jurisdictions planning staff. These population and employment forecasts were then utilized in the analysis. The Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization will continue to seek funding so that further analysis of the recommended TOD land use pattern and the related Transportation Planning Rule mandated VMT changes can be conducted. Continued analysis and refinement of the TOD land use scenario will focus on the sensitivity of the travel demand model related to TOD land use scenarios and Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 6 population densities required for successful TODs. This will allow the MPO to define and pursue the appropriate TOD land use scenario for the region. The Central Point TSP relies upon the Regional Transportation Plan for demonstrating compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule's required 5% reduction in vehicle miles traveled. Three of the TOD activity centers are being implemented within their jurisdictions. These TODs are the Central Point TOD, the Phoenix TOD and the Southeast Medford TOD. Figure 2, shows the location of each TOD. An in-depth description of the TOD Study is included in the August 1999, Transit Oriented Development and Transit Corridor Design Strategies Final Report. Figure 3,shows the Central Point TOD in closer detail. The street standards for the Central Point TOD are the street standards outlined in the TOD Study. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 7 Figure 2 TOD - Transit Activity Centers 1 .--.-- / In • -- iirs - .\ •Modi'-....— , . ., '.2101/1110111.26.iii No , - ,--- . . .,..-.7, ...rjift- ...! 1 aN,i.. _ Illitair .,,,_' ' . •s'...ildi -:111liali .. . it .,.. ii NoNitte: .17,1!Ftnigil • .•iii...5.1111fliVE•in im, "•••''''' ‘II 'I'"3 ":'iCT:''., -11.• g.S s'..-Nimum,...r mr. ..• ,22;;\ willill,'' raliw' ' ' iifi.4:11I.......'ij.."..."'.".i'''''.1,1,9 ..--.. et• e 1. "•114' •• 6:1E1111 IIIKiiiiiiir.' . gi.” .• qinliiiill.Wilig..:.::-..-11-... F;E: ..;'; Oidenilii:•;;;Ficentliirlifili r - ,D.-eft ; ;2::-:-..• ;;;;....rd,,4 ., ff:::,-..461111,111N110111111. ..!....phi .:••:••.,•••Iiii., !!...r.,...„;;;;_....=.., ......f mi E:-liqiill&X61.m•'''LL4,_111111.1i6giaVilit..''' M• !Hg:t.4.2E97/01-&101'1161•111L.1111.114.161:111figkill7. • igio low E .1..; „„,, .., a, •_.-.=—Trifflw',. *---. hum. ---ir%nit ''-!--._or,,..••••••',.mg.-:: mr..,,zg q 1•19,4- • 4011180,,,--,:...,..m•tgip plow- _, I k IP 7... ..,0,-,..tirli•-,. •-." . ...TritorAty..rmil7dmilliv -1 (411 _ EN" ..rfitai iti .._%,... .s...... . .,..,,51 . •51 g,'01141111'11 mu- - itF2:7, . „,.. .. ...___ . el .:, ..411:f4 r7roar-ictim.:Lui....Arado •t • Ili gi. - 0-,iiii-i. iwaFF-- minsgriir.. E 1 + - I 1`.. -.,..411„i4;:ja L- i_ nifho:am pi, . !Pk, .....-• •41 ,..,,,.. _::-. -'41wim:liettli ' ' H ' •515;r1EMI 1 lil'-' .- ; ,-1iill. .. 111• tNiff-1 -1 1 •••-iiie;-:;;'Ai .: . I '.•It:,..... __T___ I [,_ 11.. ... -111 .IAA, —• 41N.IIMI.114 2Ifir::t...11.,. •I'I.'I - . lik.... •: .:r 0 :, 1111.. raj .. ,...4.al L ' ' mo,,inifizi.litlii • e'. I 11 ,. . 1,....:;:'''',Nte,:.;!.1514-41,zie- ..h"... • . .:T..- '” 1 f I . .. , . .:.1 i --.1„. --‘11,,,,r., - 6-::•;,. -=:-.111111 •66.4 ,• •'. . •..1r3 219 !El ir_r.jill j11111 ..f Itt.. • !!' 2-1 AWO. 7::.:1111..iia 11111111914.1 liff• C1 ;:.: - ..,•• E I -•• __PA__ r fo 11•1 kmiuulipiiit..t•-. '. - , .;• ' -'• L..01•11..24,..... .... 12: i......;,.. 1' i 1 ti 2 rig!,:, Me, c1ford D‘9.•writown:-' im. ,:. •• .... - , ••.-:., ,.; . i r . . ‘ 7 --• # ...elEIM E ....•... A4. tr,._;4•• Vie . . ..i-, . . •:Aini,.,...1 . ...47161.z. 9111. '...y.„.,7;1;11;. , • ,"-C- . • .••":.:;;T. str - -4 1 , • •• :',11 • -1 it..* 9-.,-`-`I •• - ..•'-•3.' :•i...i..• - -- :•:1F.3- _._ va —'IlL:111 It!: ...v.ioi. .! ''-•-10 '-'-4 A. - ' est Me• 7-d '-.4. gli ,I .-•. . ;-.-'N .1. 411014g5j M..4Tilli"..-.::(401 " _" ... ..%!..r dri.70.r .• -....,• .. :••• --.;•,...L.„. -I • . . . IL .. m -v•-- Arimill•rk,sfig ..; ........ .. lit 4_.; ;:.;7:',7 711'7.911111: :: :.... ...:-.4.41 - ui. me•Iqt-dilw, .. iiiii-- .2;',i,;: killi ' ..• •-•,,_,-1.,,,„-...,;-••1• ;Of• i•, 11111h. I . Legend tit-7.1...-4,•f• •, 1 i,!,,,,. 11.,;;;;;;,.i., • . -pit. - am. ri! 'ZLIIIIIrrAN... . EL':if•-,,:=....u.•,,,i' .g,t1-;;,.,, ii.o. • TOD Centeis . Milk "wilt:lc:L:1i VI: rinai._:,: - --.1111711%141NE Flvd 0111.1p Sc ale 0 wad •AllijrA ...: '6.,:rle.1?;•:...i:"L.A..71,0 . 1 1 2 Mies — s417.IV N.....,• ,2: mo • "I.-. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 8 46111" Figure 3. Central Point TOD Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 9 Land Use Goals, Objectives and Policies GOAL #2: ENCOURAGE'TRADITIONAL AND NEO-TRADITIONAL LAND USE DEVELOPMENT THAT SUPPORTS AND CONTRIBUTES TO A MORE EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. Objective: To advocate land use patterns that support multi-modal transportation. Policies: 1. The City shall consider changes to the Central Point Zoning Ordinance that will more effectively implement Comprehensive Plan goals that encourage mixed-use and high density development near the city center to reduce private vehicle trips by increasing access to transportation alternatives. 2. The City shall implement plans for both the traditional downtown area and the area designated for future downtown development that include mixed-use, high-density (where appropriate), transit oriented and pedestrian-friendly design standards. 3. The City will continue to coordinate land use planning with transportation planning by notifying the City Administrator, Public Works Director, City Engineer, Fire Department and Police Department of all planning proposals that include transportation components. All departments will be invited to make suggestions for design improvement and conditions of approval, and to participate in pre-application conferences whenever practical. 4. The City shall coordinate land use planning for properties with access onto Highway 99 and other projects large enough to impact traffic counts on state facilities consistent with the Oregon Highway Plan and ODOT's access management policies. To this end, the City will provide notice of pending decisions and invite ODOT and Jackson County to make suggestions for design improvement and conditions of approval, and to participate in pre- application conferences whenever practical. 5. The City shall re-designate Pine Street as a business route, and encourage the diversion of truck traffic to perimeter roads. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 10 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT The Oregon TPR defines Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies as "techniques for increasing the efficiency,safety,capacity or level of service of a transportation facility without increasing its size." TSM strategies are aimed at making the most efficient use of the existing transportation infrastructure, thus reducing the need for costly roadway capacity expansions. Example techniques include coordinating traffic signals,re-striping lanes,using one-way streets,and channelizing intersections in lieu of major new road construction projects. Generally,TSM projects have lower capital costs and are easier and quicker to implement than new construction or reconstruction projects. TSM projects also have the advantage of causing little or no disruption to traffic flow during construction and require no or minimal right-of-way acquisition. Locally,TSM strategies are considered the"first choice"whenever system deficiencies are encountered. Many TSM projects have relatively low capital costs, at least in comparison to construction of new streets. TSM projects seldom require right-of-way acquisition, a sometimes lengthy and expensive process. Some TSM projects do not even require any physical construction. These are among the factors that make TSM projects so attractive as methods of improving the transportation system. Because TSM projects tend to be relatively easy to implement and often do not require large amounts of funding,they can be implemented soon after a problem is analyzed and a solution is developed. As a result,the TSM element emphasizes policies that can guide implementation of solutions to problems when they are discovered. Specific TSM measures most applicable are presented below. Where possible,specific projects have been identified. 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. 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 good record of using signals to help achieve optimum traffic flow. Central Point 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. Among the possible benefits of improved signal systems is a reduction in congestion with a corresponding reduction in air quality problems. Low travel speeds and stop-and-go traffic contribute to higher carbon monoxide levels,which are principally caused by automobiles. One must be cautious, however, that signals do not cause additional traffic,which in turn increases emissions to the original levels. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 11 C, The need for traffic signal equipment updates, 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. Some recent advances in signal technology and acceptance on the state level has led to installation of signals with 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 included in 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. Coordinate Traffic Signals The coordination of new traffic signals through interconnection with existing and other new traffic signals should be considered to improve corridor level traffic operations. Experience in Medford and 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 are 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. With the addition of more signals, some of the existing systems may need to be expanded to attain maximum benefit. The Regional Transportation Plan identifies East Pine Street between the I-S interchange and Rogue Valley Highway in Central Point as a candidate corridor for consideration or for re-evaluation of existing traffic signal systems. The Pine Street traffic calming project includes the coordination of the downtown Pine Street signals. Installation of master controllers, interconnection systems, and other equipment may help to achieve increased efficiency and reduce congestion of the street system. 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 the traffic signals in downtown Central Point are likely to be re-evaluated during the Pine Street traffic calming project. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 12 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 the form 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 eleven 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 type of traffic control devices used with the traffic volume at the intersection. • Select proper type of intersection 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). • Consider the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists. Geometric improvements at the intersection of Highway 99 and Pine Street are included in this TSP's project list. One-Way Streets Streets carrying high traffic volumes in major activity centers (such as in 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 due to the availability of additional lanes for travel in the same direction,and the increased capacity of signalized intersections along the highway through improved signal progression and reduction in the number of signal phases. 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 Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 13 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 central business districts 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. No streets are identified in the 2000 Central Point TSP for being changed to one-way. Install New Traffic Signals At Intersections Traffic signal improvements generally provide the most cost-effective solution to improving traffic congestion on arterial streets. The need for traffic signal control at intersections that are currently under two-way or four-way stop-control was evaluated based on the roadway and intersection capacity deficiencies identified for the year 2020. The traffic model was used to forecast year 2020 traffic volumes. These forecast volumes were compared with the capacity typical of two-way and four-way stop-controlled intersections. If forecast volumes substantially exceeded the capacity, it was judged likely that warrants for signalization of the intersection would be met. Traffic control improvements in the form of new signals are estimated to be required at several intersections. These locations,along with other street system improvements,are identified in the project list (Table 7 and Table 8) in the Evaluation Criteria and Project List Chapter of the plan. 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 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. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 4111PY Page 14 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 1-5 should be evaluated by ODOT in cooperation with local governments as the region grows and travel demands increase along I-5. Although 1-5 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 in 2020. The 2000 Central Point TSP does not identify any projects for meter installation within the Central Point planning area. 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. Issues associated with goods movement management strategies include traffic management, improvements at shipping/receiving points,reductions in operational and physical constraints,changes in business operating practices, and changes in public policy. During the 1988 Los Angeles Olympic Games, a goods movement management program was conducted to help reduce traffic congestion. That experience showed that goods movement management during peak period traffic can effectively reduce overall traffic congestion through the removal of trucks. Shifting goods movement activities to off-peak hours through various incentives (tax and otherwise) assists in the reduction of peak period traffic congestion. Traffic management strategies include incident management, night shipping and receiving, and peak-period truck bans. Restricting deliveries or trucking activities in locations where it has long been conducted with little regulation may be unpalatable. It may, however,be possible to require on-site loading and unloading as a design feature for new developments. It is recognized that existing businesses will strenuously object to any restriction on deliveries or any change to the way in which they have been doing business. It is particularly difficult to implement a strategy that gives one business a real or perceived advantage over a competitor. It is also difficult for an agency to justify removal of on- street parking and, potentially,the loss of meter revenue, to accommodate more or larger truck loading zones. The implementing agencies need to evaluate these concerns in light of the advantages and disadvantages of the status quo. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 15 Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 16 Transportation System Man ag em ent Go als, Objectives and Policies GOAL#3: TO MAXIMIZE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE EXISTING SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THROUGH MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES AND FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS. Objective 1: A system of traffic control devices maintained and operated at an optimal level of service and efficiency, that is consistent with existing funding levels. Policies: 1. The City shall make every effort to maintain mobility standards that result in a minimum level of service (LOS) "D." The City defines an LOS D as the volume-capacity ratio of 0.9. 2. To ensure that transportation infrastructure is appropriately planned and constructed, the City shall keep an annual record of the Average Daily Trips (ADT's) generated as build out occurs throughout Central Point's UGB and provide this information to affected agencies. Sig n alizatio n on State Highway Facilities: Proposed traffic signals at intersections on state facilities within the TSP must first meet state signal warrants and other considerations, such as designated speed and roadway character before being considered "planned" and utilized for mitigation purposes. Furthermore, actual signal warrant analysis for proposed signals must be approved by the ODOT Region Traffic Manager,and all signals on the state facility must be assessed and authorized by the State Traffic Engineer. As with other transportation solutions in the City's TSP, signals must be programmed in the MTIP to be considered as mitigation for future development or land use actions. 3. The City shall continue to modernize its signal system and improve their coordination and efficiency as feasible. The City shall employ traffic signal timing plans that maximize the efficiency of the system given the particular travel demand during different time periods throughout the typical weekday and weekend day. 4. The City shall regularly maintain all of the traffic control devices within its inventory to minimize congestion and driver delay due to confusion. While priority shall always be given to regulatory and warning signs, informational (street name and directional) signs shall also be given proper maintenance. 5. The City shall consider the removal of traffic control devices where they are no longer justified due to land use changes, the resultant change in traffic patterns and traffic signal warrants. Objective 2: To maximize the effective capacity of the street system through improvements in physical design and management of on-street parking. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 17 Policies: 1. The City shall give the physical improvement of intersections a higher priority in the design process than general street corridor widenings,when seeking ways to increase capacity and relieve congestion on a street. 2. Where on-street parking is permitted on a congested arterial street, the City shall give first priority to removing on-street parking as a means of enhancing the capacity of the facility. The exception will be arterial streets within the central business district,where parking should not be removed. Depending upon the situation and proper analysis, the City may consider timed on-street parking prohibitions during peak travel periods in lieu of permanent removal. 3. The City shall facilitate implementation of bus bays by RVTD on congested arterial streets 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. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 18 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) , The purpose of Transportation Demand Management (1DM) 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. 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: by reducing the need to travel or by encouraging travel by 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, a community could attempt to decrease 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 affected,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. 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. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 19 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. Telecommuting Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 1111109 Page 20 Local governments and major employers can encourage telecommuting. Telecommuting is another opportunity available to employers to affect total trip demand. It is similar to work-at-home policies, except that the employee connects to the workplace via a computer and fax/modem. Telecommuting arrangements can also involve more than one employee, e.g., when an employer provides a satellite work center connected to the principal work center. Another telecommuting alternative is a neighborhood work center operated by more than one employer,or by an agency. Recent advances in communications technology(e.g.,Internet capabilities)should greatly enhance telecommuting options. Telecommuting for even one or two days per week could save significant trip miles and still reap the benefits of working at the central work site. 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 work place. Participation can be increased by employer actions,which make ridesharing more convenient, through incentives such as providing guaranteed ride home services,preferential car/vanpool parking,and area-wide and employer- based commuter matching services. 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, however,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 are real congestion or financial benefits. 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,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 o f limiting the pool of potential riders. A carpool matching service can be one-time or continuous.The Rogue Valley Transportation District Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 21 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. 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/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. 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. 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 Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 22 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 shared use, such as at a church or Transit Oriented Development(TOD)center, or exclusive use. Shared use facilities are generally designated and maintained through agreements reached between the local transit operator and nearby businesses, churches or other entities. The Rogue Valley Council of Governments is conducting a Park-and-Ride Feasibility Study for the service area of the Rogue Valley Transportation District. Feasible locations for park-and-rides is one of the tasks of the study. Findings are expected in late Fall 2000. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 23 4hir Transportation Demand Man ag em ent Goals, Objectives and Policies GOAL#4: TO REDUCE THE DEMANDS PLACED ON THE CURRENT AND FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM BY THE SINGLE-OCCUPANT VEHICLE. Objective 1: The City of Central Point shall encourage the use of alternative travel modes by serving as an institutional model for other agencies and businesses in the community. Policies: 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. 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. Objective 2: The City shall work towards reducing the vehicle miles traveled(VMT) in the Central Point Urban Area by assisting individuals in choosing alternative travel modes. Policies: 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. 2. The City shall encourage major employers to promote telecommuting where feasible. 3. The City and major employers shall encourage ridesharing by making ridesharing more convenient. 4. The City shall encourage major employers to work with RVTD to adopt trip reduction goals designed to reduce site vehicular trip generation. Objective 3: Transportation demand management(TDM)measures promoted by the City shall be consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan strategies aimed at reducing reliance on the single occupant vehicle (SO V)and reducing vehicle miles traveled(VM7)per capita. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 24 PARKING Oregon's TPR requires that metropolitan area jurisdictions reduce their overall parking capacity by ten percent per capita over the planning period. A reduction in parking is part of an overall strategy to reduce reliance on automobiles as the principal mode of travel and to help achieve a reduction in per capita vehicle travel. The challenge of this goal is to reduce the amount of parking in ways which help to achieve the travel reduction goal and which are equitable for all parties involved. A number of parking reduction strategies are proposed to help the Rogue Valley metropolitan area meet the requirements of the TPR. These include parking code and policy changes,redesignation of existing parking,and management of roadway space. Parking optimization techniques are presented,which may make it easier for residents, employers, and employees to make use of parking which remains. Parking Code and Policy Changes Current parking regulations specify only minimum standards, thereby implicitly encouraging some developments, such as retail stores,to provide an excess of parking supply. Furthermore,codes often leave little flexibility to allow parking reduction strategies such as shared parking or on-street parking. Establishing maximums or caps on parking and lowering minimum parking requirements would have a direct,quantifiable impact on parking supply. Some other suggested parking code and policy changes include parking fees and decreased building setbacks. Maximum Parking Requirements The City should consider establishing maximum parking requirements (or parking caps) in the current zoning codes to reduce the amount of off-street parking supply provided by businesses. Current parking regulations specify minimum numbers of spaces for a development, but not the maximum. Existing codes can be amended to specify a maximum parking requirement (or a parking cap). This could apply to all developments or only to new developments that are constructed following adoption of the implementing ordinances. The main benefit with applying parking caps to only new development is that existing developments are spared the expense of time and labor involved in tabulating each development's parking lot capacity and policing the sites. However,the policy may place new developments at a competitive disadvantage in relation to existing businesses. Some types of development appear to build at least twice as much parking as the minimum required by the code. Depending upon how the code was 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. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 25 Lower Minimum Parking Requirements The City should consider establishing lower minimum parking requirements in the current zoning codes to encourage in-fill development and the use of alternative travel modes. Lower parking minimums could have an impact on the total parking inventory,but there is no guarantee that developments 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. Parking Fees The City should consider the imposition of parking fees as an indirect measure aimed at decreasing the amount of parking provided by new developments. Such fees may be levied on the developer, the tenant or the end-user. Parking fees imposed on developers for each parking space are an indirect way of reducing the amount of parking provided by new developments. Fees can be levied on the developer,the tenant or the end- user. These are fees for either the use or provision of each parking space. Fees levied on the developer may lead to smaller parking lots due to monetary considerations when building the project. Fees on the tenant may encourage them to seek out retail or office space in areas with smaller lots, thus putting market pressure on developers to build with less parking. Fees on end-users may result in different modal choices,bringing down parking demand and leaving land open for in-fill development or smaller parking facilities. Fees are an indirect strategy and may be difficult to implement. Redesignation of Existing Parking The City should consider the redesignation of existing,general-use parking spaces to a different,special use so as to encourage the use of alternative transportation modes. Changing existing, general-use parking spaces, to special-use parking can be used to promote the use of alternative modes. General parking provided on-street or in lots can be reclassified for other purposes. These might include preferential parking for carpools or the designation of spaces for handicapped parking. Preferential parking,especially close to building entrances,for carpooling or vanpooling is a common way of helping to promote these as alternatives to driving alone. Carpool parking need not be limited to parking lots. On-street parking spaces,including metered spaces, may be restricted to carpools. Typically,monthly permits are obtained and displayed when parked in a reserved carpool space in a lot or on the street. In areas where easy access to free or low-cost parking has always been readily available,restrictions on parking may be poorly received by the public. Widespread conversion of general-use parking spaces to reserved parking for carpools or other restricted uses may lead to a high level of parking violations. This may place an undue burden on agencies for the enforcement of parking regulations at the expense of other activities. Management of Roadway Space Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 likor Page 26 The City should consider management of the roadway space so as to have a measurable impact on the amount of parking in the region. Such strategies could include the redesignation of parking spaces to other uses such as bike lanes, bus stops, turn lanes, and no parking zones, and the revision of street standards allowing for narrower street widths. There is considerable competition for use of the paved roadway space:through lanes and turn lanes for motor vehicles, bicycle lanes, on-street parking spaces, loading zones and bus stops. Management of the roadway space and the allocation for these uses can have a measurable impact on the amount of parking in the region. Bike Lanes Bike lanes on all arterial and major collector streets are required under the provisions of the Transportation Planning Rule. In many locations throughout the Rogue Valley region, this could be accomplished by parking removal and re-striping of the street,rather than by widening the roadway. Bus Stops Placement of bus stops as a result of an expansion of the Rogue Valley Transportation District's routes might require removal of some existing on-street parking. However,since most bus routes are likely to operate primarily on arterial and collector streets, elimination of a significant number of parking spaces is unlikely. 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. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 27 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. Shared Parking Shared parking is the use of one or more parking facilities between developments with similar or different land uses. Each land use experiences varying parking demand depending on the time of day and the month of the year. It is possible for different land uses to pool their parking resources to take advantage of different peak use times. Traditionally,parking lots have been sized to accommodate at least 90 percent of peak hour and peak month usage and serve a single development. For the most part, these lots are operating at a level considerably less than this amount. Shared parking schemes allow these uses to share parking facilities by taking advantage of different business peak parking times. 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 schemes 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. Parking Management and Parking Management Associations Parking management and parking management associations (PMAs) are mechanisms that can facilitate shared parking among non-adjacent land uses by providing off-site central 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 more efficient use of existing parking facilities. These include facilities like short-term on-street parking, medium-term nearby lot parking, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) priority parking, and long-term parking. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 28 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. PMAs can incorporate such programs as providing bus passes or tokens in lieu of parking validation, delivery services, shuttle buses from remote lots, clear and consistent signage for parking facilities, etc. An effective PMA benefits its members and its district by functionally increasing the parking supply for all uses and creating a parking plan that provides adequate parking for the area in a compact and coherent way. A PMA increases the efficiency of the use of land for parking,which helps reduce wasted space previously dedicated to underutilized parking. This, in turn, frees up land for further development. In the end, a successful PMA can create an area where parking is easier and more convenient,while using less land. • Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 29 Parking Goals, Objectives and Po lic ie s GOAL #5: TO ENSURE THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA HAS AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF PARKING FACILITIES THAT SUPPORTS THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THIS PLAN. Objective 1: The City will define an appropriate role for on-street parking facilities. Policies: 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 and livability of neighborhoods. Parking in the right-of-way, in general, should serve land uses in the immediate area. 2. The provision of 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, except where abutting properties have no ability to provide their own off-street parking, or where on-street parking is needed to support an existing business district. 3. Where practical,existing on-street parking will be removed in preference to widening streets for additional travel lanes, except for streets within the central business district. Efforts will be made to mitigate the impact of parking removal in those areas where abutting properties have no ability to provide their own adequate supply of off-street parking,or where on-street parking is needed to support an existing business district. 4. In those areas where demand exists, an adequate supply of on-street carpool and vanpool parking spaces shall be provided. The location of these spaces shall have preference over those intended for general purpose on-street parking. Objective 2: The City of Central Point shall promote economic vitality and neighborhood livability by requiring an appropriate supply of off-street parking facilities. 1. To avoid the negative impacts to surrounding residential neighborhoods or other nearby land uses, new development must provide, or have access to, an appropriate supply of off-street parking. 2. The City shall consider establishing lower minimum parking requirements in their current zoning codes to encourage in-fill development, shared parking facilities, and the use of alternative travel modes. 3. The City shall consider adopting maximum parking requirements in the current municipal code to reduce the amount of off-street parking supply provided by new businesses. 4. The location of major activity centers shall be accessible by transit,and shall meet activity center parking demand through a combination of shared,leased,and new off-street parking facilities. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 30 .440 5. The City shall encourage sharing of existing and future parking facilities by various nearby businesses. 6. The City shall continue to require effective landscaping throughout continuous paved parking areas to provide shading, screening and buffering aesthetics. Objective 3: The City will work towards meeting the State Transportation Planning Rule goals to reduce per capita parking supply by theyear 2020 to discourage reliance on private cars and consequently encourage the use of public transit, bicycles and walking. 1. The City of Central Point shall carefully monitor how new lands are designated in the Central Point Comprehensive Plan to achieve a decrease in the parking supply per capita for commercial, industrial, and institutional lands over the next 20 years. 2. Impacts on overall parking supply and Transportation Planning Rule compliance shall be taken into account when any significant expansion in the supply of commercial, industrial, or institutional designated land is considered. 3. The City has inventoried the downtown parking spaces available and shall continue to update the parking space inventory. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 31 ACCESS MANAGEMENT Roadways have two principal functions: the provision of access to adjacent properties and the provision of mobility for traffic already on the street. Streets of different categories have different blends of the access and mobility functions. These functions are illustrated in Figure 4 below. C� CJ-Iowa z x Lti O '�; {Gym ,.a .Coecto s n ' .District (� = Regixruil CA s late wide /f] .Limited Ace ass Highways $ Non harrsateReewyys rstate Re'ways = hat tsi%g Movement Function Priority MOVEMENT FUNCTION Sa[e,Easy,and Higher Speeds for Travelers Access management involves the balance between access to adjacent parcels and accommodating the flow of traffic. Access management standards associated with state facilities are a required component of local transportation system plans(ISPs). Table 1 on the following page,outlines access management standards the City of Central Point utilizes along state facilities. Table 2 outlines access management guidelines for all other facilities within Central Point. Access issues can be highly controversial since access management often regulates and limits access to individual business or requires access from side streets or frontage roads. Access issues must be handled individually for existing business sites. 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. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 32 The cost of allowing unplanned development to occur along arterials and collectors can be great because the inevitable solution calls for more capital expenditure as the traffic conditions reach intolerable proportions. However, if proper planning is utilized, in the form of an access management system, costs can be minimized. 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. Table 1. Access Management Spacing Standards for District Highway Urban Urban Posted Speed Highway Business Special Transportation Area' District >_ 55 mph 700 feet I - 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 25 mph 400 feet 350 feet complete description in the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan. 11999 Oregon Highway Plan,Appendix C: Access Management Standards,Table 15. 21999 Oregon Highway Plan, Policy Element,Policy 1B: Land Use and Transportation (definitions) As indicated in Table 8, the primary determinant for access spacing for state highways is the posted speed limit. Two different categories are specified in the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan that may be used to adjust the spacing standards. A Special Transportation Area (STA) is a highway segment designation that may be applied when a downtown, business district, or community center straddles the highway. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 33 Traffic speeds are slow,generally 25 mph. An Urban Business District (UBA) is a highway segment designation that recognizes existing areas of commercial activity or future nodes. Speeds are generally 35 mph or less. These two categories were first adopted as part of the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, so there is little experience or prescience on which to judge their applicability to Highway 99 in Central Point. The complete text of the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan should be reviewed and staff from ODOT should be consulted to determine whether an STA or UBA designation can be requested. Obligation of the city and the conditions that might be applied are undetermined. 111) Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 34 0 0 0 EO tu U cl t-4 E 0 0 .F CU0u G 3-I ul fa RS U U U i•i 3-1 'In • •-y(a � 0 S.d Cd C�y a a) -v -b V o 2. -0 0 o . 0 v 4-1 Q cn E E ao -d v i . •-• • 4.,4) +� o � -a•T • E A UU Q V U V _ 4, 410...5 o 73 7:1 a� 'a o x .4 0 5~ No o o • o -O , ~ ?-.u U .� V ..0 U ' •i4. •i.- cd cd cdcd61cn v) c 4-, . • 1.1 0 ^ t ° -o � ' V 2 o c .z ' 4 • • to V0e..q E .5 ; - Z .5 7 .c Qa; b 0 a 4 4 4 4 4 444 44 g a, . a.)" y w U "' bD . H p p U '- i v © p U cn u G.-i N ✓ bA 7, ,n 'C') en j on F ca y v k 1, V C-4 cn A V ca � > w 4. H c c 2 E 3 - _ \ U p �n aJ Q � V p. M U a 4 to _ 4 rr y b pr fa. — "E to a, in © c in N �O V) If) M a a M M if) �o y V N _ G" cd .. a) ti • o .2 V ° �d '7,� 0 0 = a w � a .� v Access Management Goals, Objectives and Policies GOAL: TO EMPLOY ACCESS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO ENSURE SAFE AND EFFICIENT ROADWAYS CONSISTENT WITH THEIR DETERMINED FUNCTION, ENSURE THE MOVEMENT OF GOODS AND SERVICES, ENHANCE COMMUNITY LIVABILITY AND SUPPORT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS, WHILE RECOGNIZING THE NEEDS OF MOTOR VEHICLES,TRANSIT, PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS. Objective: To increase street system safety and function through the adoption and implementation of access management standards for the purpose of maintaining and preseningthe existing investment in existing facilities. Policies: 1. The City shall develop and adopt specific access management standards to be contained in the Public Works Standards and Details,based on the following principles: a. Properties with frontage along two streets shall take primary access from the street with the lower classification. b. Any one development along the arterial street system shall be considered in its entirety, regardless of the number of individual parcels it contains. Shared, mutual access easements shall be designed and provided along arterial street frontage for both existing and future development as feasible. c. Signalized access for private streets and driveways onto the major street system should not be permitted within 1,320 feet (1/4 mile) of any existing or planned future signal, unless traffic analysis indicates that closer spaced signals will allow an acceptable level of service. d. The spacing of access points shall be determined based on street classification. Generally, access spacing includes accesses along the same side of the street or on the opposite side of the street. Access points shall be located directly across from existing or future access,provided adequate spacing results. e. All access to the public right-of-way shall be located, designed,and constructed to the approval of the Public Works Director, or his designee. Likewise,variances to access management standards shall be granted at the discretion of the Public Works Director, or his designees. 2. The City shall incorporate access management standards into all of its arterial street design projects. Access management measures may include, but are not limited to, construction of raised median, driveway consolidation, driveway relocation, right-in/right-out driveways and closure of local street access to the arterial. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 36 3. The City shall maintain carrying capacity and safety of pedestrian, bicycle, public transit and motor vehicle movement on arterials and collectors through driveway and curb cut consolidation or reduction. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 37 STREETS Figure 5 on the following page depicts the functional classification and the conceptual local street network plan. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 38 Figure 5—Functional Classification and Conceptual Local Street Network Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 39 Following are the street standards for each of the functional classifications. Street standards for the TOD overlay zone are also included. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 40 Streets Goals, Objectives and Policies GOAL#6: PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF STREETS AND HIGHWAYS THAT SERVES THE MOBILITY AND MULTIMODAL TRAVEL NEEDS OF THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA. Objective 1: Develop a comprehensive,hierarchical.ystem of streets and highways that provides for optimal mobility for all travel modes throughout the Central Point urban area. Policies: 1. The City shall fulfill its system wide travel capacity needs through the use of multiple travel modes within the public rights-of-way. 2. The City's street system shall contain a grid network of arterial streets and highways that link the central core area and major industry with regional and statewide highways. 3. The City's street system shall contain a network of collector streets that connect local traffic to the arterial street system. 4. The City shall classify streets and highways within the Central Point urban area based on how they will function within the overall system, based on volume, speed and points of access. 5. The City shall periodically review and revise street design standards. The City shall consider incorporating traditional neighborhood design elements including,but not limited to,planting - strips, minimum necessary curb radius, alleys and "skinny streets"in standards. 6. To facilitate pedestrian crossing,discourage through traffic,and reduce speeds,local streets shall not be excessive in width. However, local streets must have sufficient width to provide emergency access. 7. As practical,the City should integrate traffic calming techniques into city street design standards to reduce automobile speeds within new and existing neighborhoods. 8. The City shall maintain street surfaces to achieve maximum pavement life so that road conditions are good and pavement maintenance costs are minimized. 9. The City shall discourage cul-de-sac or dead-end street designs whenever an interconnection alternative exists. Development of a modified grid street pattern shall be encouraged for connecting new and existing neighborhoods during subdivisions,partitions,and through the use of the Street Dedication Map. 10. Improvements to streets in addition to those in or abutting a development may be required as a condition of approval of subdivisions and other intensifications of land use. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 41 Objective 2: Design City 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 and business districts. Policies: 1. The City of Central Point shall design its streets to safely accommodate pedestrian,bicycle and motor vehicle travel. 2. Arterial and collector street intersections shall be designed to promote safe and accessible crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists. Intersection design should incorporate measures to make pedestrian crossings convenient,minimizing barriers to pedestrian mobility. 3. Left-turn pockets shall be incorporated into the design of intersections of arterial streets with other arterial and collector streets,as well as collector streets with arterials and other collectors. 4. The City of Central Point Standards and Details shall be the basis for all street design within the Central Point urban area, including regionally acknowledged transit oriented development (TOD) street standards. 5. Wherever possible the City of Central Point 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. 6. 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. Objective 3: The City will continue to promote traffic safety by enforcing clear vision area regulations applicable to public and private property located at intersections. The existing clear vision area ordinance shall be reviewed and revised as needed to ensure that fences, hedges,foliage and other landscaping features do not obstruct the line of sight or drivers and cyclists entering intersections. Policies: 1. The City shall work with other federal,state and local government agencies to promote traffic safety education and awareness, emphasizing the responsibilities and courtesies required of drivers and cyclists. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 42 2. Through its law enforcement resources,the City shall continue to work to increase traffic safety by actively enforcing the City and State motor vehicle codes. 3. 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. 4. The City shall work to increase traffic safety by requiring private property owners to maintain vision areas adjacent to intersections and driveways clear of fences,landscaping,and foliage that obstruct the necessary views of motorists, bicyclists,and pedestrians. 5. The City shall develop a process for identifying and addressing areas prone to traffic accidents. Objective 4: Efficiently plan, design, and construct City funded street improvement projects to meet the safety and travel demands of the community. Policies: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. Objective 5: A street system that is improved to accommodate travel demand created by growth and development in the community. Policies: 1. 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. Thresholds for having to fulfill this requirement and specific analysis criteria shall be established in the Central Point Municipal Code. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 43 2. The City shall require new development to make reasonable site-related improvements to connecting streets where capacity is inadequate to serve the development. 3. 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. These funds can be used towards improvements to the street system. Projects funded through these charges are growth-related and should be selected from the approved list and prioritized based upon the established criteria. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 44 BICYCLE The purpose of the bicycle element is to provide viable, safe transportation alternatives to the automobile. The TSP recommends development of an integrated bicycle networks to make it more convenient for people to bike. The bicycle element is aimed at increasing the mode share of the journey-to-work trips as well as the non-work trips. Journey-to-work trips are particularly important because many occur during times of peak traffic during the morning and afternoons. Work trips account for only about one of five trips in the region. Figure 6 on the following page depicts the existing and planned bicycle facilities within Central Point. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 45 QFigure 6 Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities • Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 46 Bikeway Requirements The City shall complete a bikeway network that serves bicyclists needs, especially for travel to employment centers,commercial districts,transit centers,institutions and recreational destinations. Bike lanes shall be provided on all arterial and major collector streets. Other urban streets shall be constructed such that the pavement is wide enough to allow safe travel by both vehicles and bicycles on the shared roadway. Most of the major streets in Central Point have no provisions for bicyclists. All streets should be designed to safely accommodate bicyclists. A bikeway network providing a higher level of service for bicyclists should be implemented along major travel corridors to encourage bicycle use. Every project on the transportation project improvement list contains an project element that will increase the safety for bicycle travel. Amenities The City should consider revision of the municipal code to require the provision of amenities to help meet bicyclist needs. Bicycle parking needs to 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. 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 make it safe, convenient and secure. For example,it is preferable for bicycle parking to be located in high-visibility areas near often-used public entrances of buildings. Trip reduction ordinances or other code provisions can be used to promote bicycle travel for major employers (50 or more employees). Major employers can be encouraged or required to provide amenities that would make it safe and convenient for bicyclists to commute to work. Showers,lockers, and related facilities should be included in new construction by major employers. These facilities are popular among bicyclists who commute to work. Promotion Programs The City could consider the use of the media,bicycle committees,bicycle plans,and other methods to promote use of bicycling for transportation purposes. Promotional campaigns and other strategies that encourage the use of bicycling for transportation can have a positive impact. Health benefits are often mentioned in education programs. Bicycle suitability maps or bicycle system maps can help cyclists choose the most appropriate route and can also be used for educational purposes. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 47 Bear Creek Greenway The Bear Creek Greenway is a project that has been in progress for more than 20 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. It will serve as an important facility for intercity travel in the I-5/OR 99 corridor. The Greenway currently includes two primary sections: 1) Pine Street in Central Point to Barnett Road in Medford; and 2) Suncrest Road in Talent to Nevada Street in Ashland. A two-mile connection from Barnett Road to South Stage Road is programmed for construction in 2003. Construction of this section is being funded with federal Transportation Enhancement funds and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funds. The private Greenway Foundation is working to raise the remaining match money to complete this section. Two significant links remain to be constructed at this time: 1) 4.25 miles from South Stage Road near Medford to Suncrest Road in Talent (If necessary, this portion could be constructed in two sections to take advantage of future funding opportunities.); and 2) 2.5 miles from Seven Oaks 1-5 Interchange to Pine Street in Central Point. One mile(Pine Street to Upton Road) of this segment has already been designed and approved, with an estimated construction cost of$500,000. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 48 Bicycle Goals, Policies and Objectives GOAL#7: TO FACILITATE AND ENCOURAGE THE INCREASED USE OF BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION IN CENTRAL POINT BY ASSURING THAT CONVENIENT, ACCESSIBLE AND SAFE CYCLING FACILITIES ARE PROVIDED. Objective 1: The City of Central Point will create a comprehensive system of bicycle facilities. Policies: 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. 2. The Bicycle Element of this plan serves as the Central Point Bicycle Master Plan. 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, institutions and recreational destinations. 4. The City of Central Point shall use all opportunities to add bike lanes in conjunction with road reconstruction and restriping projects on collector and arterial streets. �••-' 5. The City of Central Point shall assure that the design of streets and public improvement projects facilitates bicycling by providing proper paving, lane width, traffic control, storm drainage grates, striping, signage, lighting,etc. 6. The City of Central Point shall assure regular maintenance of existing bicycle facilities,and take actions to improve crossings at railroads, creeks and major streets. 7. The City of Central Point shall assure the provision of bicycle racks and/or shelters at critical locations within the downtown and other locations where publicly provided bicycle parking facilities are called for. 8. The City of Central Point shall actively work with ODOT to improve bicycling on State Highway 99 within Central Point. 9. 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. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 49 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. The City shall require secure,sheltered bicycle parking in business developments, institutions, duplexes and multi-family developments. 13. The City shall coordinate bicycle planning efforts with Jackson County and the Jackson County Bicycle Master Plan. 14. The City shall where feasible,ensure that existing traffic signals which use a traffic sensor for activation can be easily tripped by bicycles and that any new signal sensors purchased have the capacity to be tripped by bicycles. Objective 2: The City will promote bicycle safety and awareness. 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. 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. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 50 PEDESTRIAN The purpose of the pedestrian element is to provide viable, safe transportation alternatives to the automobile. The TSP recommends development of integrated pedestrian network to make it more convenient for people to walk. The pedestrian system element is aimed at increasing the mode share of the journey-to-work trips as well as the non-work trips. Journey-to-work trips are particularly important because many occur during times of peak traffic during the morning and afternoons. Work trips account for only about one of five trips in the region. With the exception of the downtown core, the pedestrian system in Central Point is extremely disjointed to non-existent. All projects in the Central Point transportation project improvement list include pedestrian provisions. Figure 7 on the following page depicts the existing and planned pedestrian facilities within Central Point. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 51 Figure 7. Existing and Planned Pedestrian Facilities Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 52 Sidewalk Requirements Central Point shall require or provide sidewalks/pedestrian pathways along all streets within the urban growth boundary. Sidewalks and walkways should be required in new developments in Central Point and they should be provided in connection with most major street improvement projects(OAR 660-12-045(3)(B)). Pedestrian walkway or accessway connections shall be required between adjacent developments when roadway connections cannot be provided. Also,a systematic approach to filling gaps in the sidewalk system and an annual allocation for construction is recommended. The Oregon TPR requires sidewalks along all collector and arterial streets within the urban growth boundary. Most local governments already require sidewalks and walkways in connection with new developments. Where such provisions are not required, this requirement should be expanded. Sidewalks are also generally provided in connection with most major street improvement projects. One issue,which should be made a priority,is to develop a systematic approach to filling gaps in the sidewalk system. To accomplish this,an annual allocation for construction is recommended. The highest priority for sidewalk construction should be given to locations near schools,public facilities, and heavily-used transit corridors. Safety should be a prime consideration in evaluation and design. The provision of sidewalks is vitally important to transit,too. Pedestrian access to transit stops can be the determining factor as to whether or not an individual chooses a trip via transit or automobile. RVTD makes the point very succinctly, "Transit relies upon pedestrians for ridership." Priority should be given to provision of sidewalks where they can benefit transit. 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. Promotion Programs The City could consider the use of the media, pedestrian committees, pedestrian plans, and other methods to promote use of walking for transportation purposes. Promotional campaigns and other strategies that encourage the use of walking for transportation can have a positive impact. Health benefits are often mentioned in education programs. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 53 Bear Creek Greenway The Bear Creek Greenway is a project that has been in progress for more than 20 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. It will serve as an important facility for intercity travel in the I-5/OR 99 corridor. The Greenway currently includes two primary sections: 1) Pine Street in Central Point to Bamett Road in Medford;and 2)Suncrest Road in Talent to Nevada Street in Ashland. A two-mile connection from Barnett Road to South Stage Road is programmed for construction in 2003.Construction of this section is being funded with federal Transportation Enhancement funds and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program(CMAQ) funds. The private Greenway Foundation is working to raise the remaining match money to complete this section. Two significant links remain to be constructed at this time: 1) 4.25 miles from South Stage Road near Medford to Suncrest Road in Talent(If necessary,this portion could be constructed in two sections to take advantage of future funding opportunities.);and 2) 2.5 miles from Seven Oaks I-5 Interchange to Pine Street in Central Point. One mile (Pine Street to Upton Road) of this segment has already been designed and approved,with an estimated construction cost of$500,000. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 54 Pedestrian Goals, Policies and Objectives GOAL#8: TO PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF CONNECTING SIDEWALKS AND WALKWAYS THAT WILL ENCOURAGE AND INCREASE SAFE PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL. Objective 1: The City of Central Point shall create a comprehensive system of pedestrian facilities. Policies: 1. The City shall establish a Sidewalk Construction Program to complete the pedestrian facility network. 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. 3. All future development shall include sidewalk and pedestrian access construction as required by the Central Point Municipal Code and adopted Street Standard Details. All road construction or renovation projects, shall include sidewalks. 4. All signalized intersections shall have marked crosswalks. Crosswalks at controlled intersections should be provided near schools,commercial areas,and other high volume pedestrian locations. 5. The location and design of sidewalks shall comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 6. 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. 7. Pedestrian walkway or accessway connections shall be required between adjacent developments when roadway connections cannot be provided. 8. The City will establish evaluation criteria for prioritizing sidewalk projects. 9. The City shall identify a systematic approach to filling gaps in the sidewalk system. Objective 2: Mixed-use development that encourages pedestrian travel by including housing close to commercial and institutional activities will be encouraged. As the zoning ordinance is updated existing provisions for mixed-use development shall be reviewed to consider changes that will increase opportunities and incentives for mixed-use development. Policies: Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 55 1. The City shall establish standards for the maintenance and safety of pedestrian facilities. These standards shall include the removal of hazards and obstacles to pedestrian travel, as well as maintenance of benches and landscaping. 2. Zoning shall be developed to allow for mixed land uses that promote pedestrian travel. 3. The City shall encourage efforts that inform and promote the health, economic, and environmental benefits of walking for the individual and community. Walking for travel and recreation shall be encouraged to achieve a more healthful environment that reduces pollution and noise, that will foster a more livable community. 4. The City shall encourage the development of a connecting,multi-use trail network,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. 5. The City shall provide sidewalks and other amenities to make pedestrian access to bus stops easier. Objective 3: The City of CentralPoint shall encourage education services and promote safe pedestrian travel to reduce the number of accidents involving pedestrians. Policies: 1. The City 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. 2. The City shall enforce pedestrian safety laws and regulations to help increase safety as measured by a reduction in accidents. Attention should be focused on areas where high volumes of automobile and pedestrian travel occur. Warnings and citations given to drivers and pedestrians should serve to impress the importance of safety issues. 3. The City shall work toward the completion of the street lighting system, designed to city illumination standards,on all public and private streets within the City limits. Through the use of neighborhood street lighting districts(local improvement districts),property owners shall be encouraged to provide street lighting,designed to city illumination standards,on all public local streets within the City limits. 4. Pedestrian traffic should be separated from auto traffic on streets and in parking lots wherever possible. 5. ADA provisions shall be followed as sidewalks are installed. The City shall attempt to relocate sidewalk obstructions within the central business district. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 56 TRANSIT The Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD), the provider of transit service in Central Point, provides 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 bus. Additionally, RVTD operates the Valley Rideshare and Vanpool programs which provide ridematching support and commuter van service to employers and their employees. Currently,RVTD provides less than one percent of total daily and peak-hour trips.Public transportation has the potential of accommodating a greater portion of total daily trips in the region if RVTD is provided with revenues with which it can increase service.Additional revenues will enable the District to expand services to make transit more convenient to people who generally use automobiles. New operating revenues would increase the frequency on existing routes,expand hours and days of service, provide new routes,and expand shuttle services. 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 MPC)will be investigating methods of increasing transit service. Figure 8 Existing Transit Service depicts the current route, stops and shelters in Central Point. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page57 �, Figure 8 Existing Transit Service Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 58 Transit Goals, Objectives and Policies GOAL#9: A TRANSIT SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES CONVENIENT AND ACCESSIBLE TRANSIT SERVICES TO THE CITIZENS OF THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA. Objective 1: Ensure that transit services be accessible to Central Point urban area residences and businesses. Policies: 1. The City shall work with the local transit provider to encourage transit services be routed in a manner that,where practical, provides service coverage within a 1/4 mile walking distance of Central Point urban area residences and businesses. 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. 3. Through its zoning and development regulations,the City shall continue to facilitate accessibility to transit services through transit-supportive streetscape, subdivision, and site design requirements that promote pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, convenience and safety. 4. The City shall include the consideration of transit operations in the design and operation of street infrastructure wherever it is appropriate. 5. The City shall support the continued development and implementation of accessible fixed-route and appropriate complementary paratransit services. 6. The City of Central Point shall encourage connectivity between different travel modes. The Central Point Transportation Depot and park-and-ride facilities should be accessible by pedestrian,bicycle,bus and automobile travel modes. 7. The City shall cooperate with the local transit provider to identify and include features beneficial to transit riders and transit district operations when developing plans for roadway projects. 8. The City shall support the local transit providers efforts to provide pleasant, clean, safe, comfortable shelters along transit lines, at or near transit stops. 9. The City shall install bike racks or lockers at transit stops when adequate financial resources are available. 10. The City shall identify park and ride, bike and ride,and walk and ride lots in Central Point to support ridesharing. Objective 2: Increase overall daily transit ridership in the Central Point urban area, to mitigate a portion of the traffic pressures expected by regional growth,. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 59 1. Through rideshare programs and other TDM efforts, the City shall work with Central Point employers and other government agencies to increase commuter transit ridership through voluntary,employer-based incentives such as subsidized transit passes and guaranteed ride home programs. 2. The City shall work through RVTD rideshare programs and other transportation demand efforts (1'DM) efforts to assist in the effective marketing of the local transit provider services to Central Point urban area residents and businesses. 3. The City shall encourage promotional and educational activities that encourage school children and people who own cars to use public transit. 4. The City shall consider purchasing additional transit services,such as,extended hours,additional frequency and additional routes. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 60 AVIATION Central Point and the greater Rogue Valley metropolitan region is served by the Medford Jackson County International Airport located north and cast of I-5,between Crater Lake Highway and Table Rock Road. Airport activities have increased recently and show potential for air transportation as an important component of the regional transportation system. The airport and related services offers air passenger and air freight transportation opportunities to the area residents and businesses. The airport provides a national and international connection to the region. The MedfordJackson County Airport Master Plan Update will continue to serve as the airport's guiding document governing anticipated development of the airport, including the on-site facilities. Aviation Goals, Objectives and Policies GOAL: TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE MOVEMENT OF GOODS, SERVICES AND PASSENGERS VIA INTERMODAL CONNECTIONS WITH THE ROGUE VALLEY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. Objective: Increase intermodal connections between the City of Central Point and the Rogue Valley International Airport. Policy: Support Rogue Valley Transportation District efforts to provide deviated service to the Rogue Valley International Airport from established routes serving Central Point. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 61 .3 RAIL The rail transportation element addresses both freight and passenger components. The potential for both freight and passenger service for the Rogue Valley region is greater than present service. The former Southern Pacific Railroad Siskiyou Line runs from Springfield, Oregon to Black Butte, California with a total length of a little more than 300 miles of which about 250 miles are in Oregon. 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,the Southern Pacific carried about 12,000 cars on the Siskiyou Line. According to the 1994 Oregon Rail Freight Plan,Jackson County accounted for less than one million tons in 1992. In June 1995, the Siskiyou line was taken over by Central Oregon& Pacific (COP). Service has been increased and is now being offered six days per week. Service increases have led to increases in cars to a rate of approximately 28,000 cars per year. The COP is undertaking an aggressive maintenance program and is seeking to increase operating speeds to 25 miles per hour and to ease some of the height restrictions currently in place on the line. Loan guarantees by the Federal Railway Administration are being sought to help fund maintenance needs. Rail service provides specific advantages for various bulk commodities or loads longer than those normally permitted on highways. Lumber and other wood products are the principal commodities transported over the Siskiyou Line. 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 in 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. Rail passenger service is not provided between Eugene and Medford. North-south rail passenger service in the California-Oregon-Washington corridor is provided through Klammath Falls,bypassing the Rogue Valley region on the way to Eugene. The Oregon Rail Passenger Policy and Plan(1992)proposes Eugene to Roseburg passenger rail service as a "Second Stage" expansion, with Eugene to Medford service as a"Third Stage"addition. Second Stage package improvements are estimated at$32 million and Third Stage package improvements are estimated at$275 million. The Oregon Rail Passenger Policy and Plan identifies two daily round trip passenger runs from Medford to Portland in the Third Stage with travel times of six to eight hours,depending upon the schedule. There is no mention in the Oregon Rail Passenger Policy and Plan of service south of Medford,such as destination service to Ashland or to California. Annual operating and maintenance costs for the Eugene-Medford service are estimated to be$15.8 million for the Third Stage. For the Third Stage,ridership projections for the entire segment south of Eugene are estimated to be less than 500 per day. The Oregon Rail Passenger Polity and Plan does not propose timing for any of the stages of passenger rail expansion. Given the competition for scarce resources on a state-wide basis,it is not clear whether the Third Stage proposal from the Oregon Rail Passenger Policy and Plan would be implemented within the planning horizon of this TSP. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 62 Southern Oregon Commuter Rail Study The 1999 session of the Oregon Legislature instructed the Oregon Department of Transportation to examine the potential introduction of frequent local passenger service (commuter rail) between Grants Pass and Ashland,a distance of approximately 45 miles. The operation being contemplated will operate on trackage owned by the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad (CORP). The majority of the trackage is in Federal Railroad Administration Class I and Class II conditions permitting top passenger train speeds of 15 and 30 mph. Freight train service consists of several local switchers plus through trains providing service to CORP trackage in California and northerly through Glendale to Roseburg. The Southern Oregon Commuter Rail Study is 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 is to define costs, benefits and impacts of the project well enough that the regional partners can compare it with other regional transportation priorities. The study is scheduled to be completed March 2001. Rail Goals, Objectives and Policies GOAL: TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE MOVEMENT OF GOODS, SERVICES AND PASSENGERS BY RAIL WHILE MAINTAINING THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN CENTRAL POINT. Objective: Support rail transportation in the region and its connections with other areas in the state and nation. Policies 1. The City shall encourage passenger service as part of statewide rail transportation planning efforts. 2. The City shall encourage mitigation of railroad noise by recommending appropriate berming and landscaping in developments adjacent to the railroad that are impacted by railroad noise. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 63 FINANCE This section provides an overview of the funding required to implement the transportation improvement project list . Funding has been estimated over the 20-year duration of the plan and is linked to projects that comprise the Tier 1 (financially-constrained)project lists. Tier 2(financially- unconstrained)projects cannot be funded with anticipated revenues and require new revenue sources which are also described here. Other plan elements,requiring no direct financial commitments,have not been included in this analysis. The 20-year planning period has been divided into two five-year phases and one ten-year phase. These time periods correspond to the years 2001-2005(short-range),2006-2010(medium-range)and 2011-2020(long-range).Tier 1 projects have been included based on their ability to be implemented and funded during these phases. Tier 2 projects are not associated with a time phase due to the uncertainty of their implementation. This element has been developed in consultation with the Oregon Department of Transportation, Jackson County and Central Point. The development of this element has also been guided by the following documents: • Financial Assumptions for the Development of Metropolitan Transportation Plans, Oregon Department of Transportation, May 1998 • City of Central Point Adopted Budget, FY 1999-2000 • Financial Analysis: Rogue Valley Regional Transportation Plan, Preliminary Draft,ECONorthwest February 1996 • Draft Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, 2000-2003, Preliminary Version, Oregon Department of Transportation, January 1999 • RVMPO's Draft Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program,FY 2000-2003,Rogue Valley Council of Governments. Street System Revenue Sources The Federal, State, and local revenue sources that are used to fund street system projects are described below.Estimates showing how these revenue sources will contribute to the capital funding availability required for Medford, Central Point and Phoenix Street System projects are shown in Table 3. Revenues for agencies with jurisdictional boundaries that extend beyond the MPO area (ODOT and Jackson County)have not been similarly estimated but are, nevertheless,derived from the sources described below. Table 3 shows how the various revenue sources are expected to contribute as a percentage of total revenues to the cities of Medford, Central Point and Phoenix over the 20-year life of this plan. As the table shows,the primary transportation funding source in the region is the State Highway Fund, which is expected to contribute approximately 45% of revenues for the MPO cities of Medford, Central Point and Phoenix. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 64 TABLE 3 Projected Revenues as a Percentage of Total Transportation Budget Revenues Jurisdiction I Federal I State I Local Totals STP I Other IHwy Rid! Other I SDC's I Fees I Other I Medford I 2% I 8% I 45% I 2% I 11% I 11% I 21% I 100% Central Point I 10% I 9% I 50% I 2% I 5% I 23% I 1% I 100% I Phoenix I 26% I 8% I 44% I 5% I 5% I 10% I 2% I 100% I Federal Revenue Sources Federal Earmarks Earmarks are funding allocations that are tied directly to a project through the legislative process. Congressional authorization of TEA 21 in 1998 included$19.625 million to fund Unit 1 of the Hwy 62 Corridor Solutions Project(RTP project#121a). This is the only project listed in the RTP that is being funded through this source. Surface Transportation Program (STP) The STP, a flexible intermodal block grant-type program, provides funds for a broad range of transportation uses. Projects can include highway and transit capital projects, carpool projects, bicycle and pedestrian facilities,planning, and research and development. STP funds are allocated to the State and sub-allocated to cities and counties on a formula basis by the Oregon Transportation Commission. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act(ISTEA)created the CMAQ program to deal with transportation related air pollution. States with areas which are designated as non-attainment for ozone or carbon monoxide (CO) must use their CMAQ funds in those non-attainment areas. A state may use its CMAQ funds in any of its particulate matter(PM 10)non-attainment areas if certain requirements are met. The projects and programs must either be included in the air quality State Implementation Plan(SIP)or be good candidates to contribute to attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS). If a state has no non-attainment areas,the allocated funds may be used for STP or CMAQ projects. CMAQ requires a 20 percent local match unless certain requirements are met. STP Transportation Enhancements Program Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 65 Each state must set aside 10%of its yearly STP revenues for Transportation Enhancement Activities, which comprise a broad range of projects. Enhancement funds are allocated to local jurisdictions throughout the state on a competitive basis. Eligible transportation enhancement projects include pedestrian and bicycle facilities;preservation of abandoned railway corridors;landscaping and other scenic beautification; control and removal of outdoor advertising; acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites;scenic or historic highway programs;historic preservation;rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities;archaeological planning and research;and mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff.Enhancement projects require a 20 percent non-federal match. STP Safety Funds Each state must set aside 10 percent of its base STP funds for safety programs(hazard elimination, rail-highway crossings,etc.).The match rate for safety projects is 80 percent federal,20 percent state or local. Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRR) The HBRR Program provides funds to replace or maintain existing bridges; new bridges are not eligible for funding under this program.Currently,Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation funds are distributed through the STIP process. In the future, these funds will be distributed according to the Unified Bridge Program,a rating system that indicates the condition and traffic level on each bridge in the State. Hazard Elimination Program (HEP) The HEP provides funding for safety improvement projects on public roads. Safety improvement projects may occur on any public road and must be sponsored by a County or City. To be eligible for federal aid,a project should be part of either the annual element of a Transportation System Plan or the annual listing of rural projects by ODOT, although they do not have to be part of the approved STIP to receive STIP funding. Timber Receipts The United States Forest Service(USFS)shares 25 percent of national forest receipts with counties. By Oregon law(ORS 294.060),counties then allocate 75 percent of the receipts to the road fund and 25 percent to local school districts.Counties'share of USFS timber receipts is no longer directly tied to the level of timber harvests. Under current legislation, counties are guaranteed payments on a schedule that reduces this support by 3% annually over the next decade. The guaranteed payments are now considered minimums,so actual receipts could be greater if timber harvest levels increase. 4IPPublic Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 66 State Revenue Sources State Highway Fund The major source of funding for transportation capital improvements and activities statewide is the State Highway Fund. The Highway Fund derives its revenue through fuel taxes, licensing and registration fees,and weight-mile taxes assessed on freight carriers.Revenues have historically been divided as follows: 15.57% to cities, 24.38% to counties, and 60.05% to ODOT. Revenue from increased tax rates will be shared on a 20-30-50%basis,respectively.County shares of the Fund are based on the number of vehicle registrations, while the allocations to the cities are based on population.The State Highway Fund is the primary source of revenue for ODOT modernization and operation projects. Special Public Works Fund(SPWF) The State of Oregon allocates a portion of state lottery revenues for economic development. The Oregon Economic Development Department provides grants and loans through the SPWF program to construct, improve and repair infrastructure in commercial/industrial areas to support local economic development and create new jobs.The SPWF provides a maximum grant of$500,000 for projects that will help create or retain a minimum of 50 jobs. Traffic Control Projects (TCP) The State maintains a policy of sharing installation, maintenance, and operational costs for traffic signals and luminar units at intersections between State highways and city streets(or county roads). Intersections involving a State highway and a city street(or county road),which are included on the state-wide priority list are eligible to participate in the cost sharing policy. ODOT establishes a statewide priority list for traffic signal installations on the State Highway System. The priority system is based on warrants outlined in the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Local agencies are responsible for coordinating the statewide signal priority list with local road requirements. State Highway Fund Bicycle/Pedestrian Program ORS 366.514 requires at least 1%of the Highway Fund received by ODOT, counties, and cities be expended for the development of footpaths and bikeways.ODOT administers its bicycle/pedestrian funds, handles bikeway planning, design, engineering and construction, and provides technical assistance and advice to local governments concerning bikeways. Immediate Opportunity Fund(IOF) The IOF is intended to support economic development in Oregon by funding road projects that assure job development opportunities by influencing the location or retention of a firm or economic development. The fund may be used only when other sources of funding are unavailable or Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 67 insufficient, and is restricted to job retention and committed job creation opportunities. To be eligible, a project must require an immediate commitment of road construction funds to address an actual transportation problem. The applicant must show that the location decision of a firm or development depends on those transportation improvements, and the jobs created by the development must be"primary"jobs such as manufacturing, distribution, or service jobs. Special City Allotment (SCA) ODOT sets aside$1 million per year to distribute to cities with populations less than 5,000.Projects to improve safety or increase capacity on local roads are reviewed annually and ranked on a statewide basis by a committee of regional representatives. Projects are eligible for a maximum of $25,000 each. Local Revenue Sources System Development Charges (SDC's) Systems Development Charges are fees paid by developers intended to reflect the increased capital costs incurred by a jurisdiction or utility as a result of a development. Development charges are calculated to include the costs of impacts on adjacent areas or services, such as parks and recreation use, streets or utilities. The SDC typically varies by the type of development. Street Utility Fees (SUF's) Most city residents pay water and sewer utility fees.Street utility fees apply the same concepts to city streets.A fee is assessed to all businesses and households in the city for use of streets based on the amount of traffic typically generated by a particular use. Street utility fees differ from water and sewer fees because usage cannot be easily monitored. Street user fees are typically used to pay for maintenance projects. Revenue Bonds Revenue bonds are financed by user charges, such as service charges, tolls, admissions fees, and rents. Revenue bonds could be secured by a local gas tax,street utility fee, or other transportation- related stable revenue stream. The City of Medford will be using$21.3 million in revenue bonds to fund several projects in short-range years. The bonds will be paid back over the next twenty years at a cost of approximately $32.4 million. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 68 Street System Revenue Projections Projecting revenues over long time periods— in this case, 20 years —necessarily involves making several assumptions which may or may not prove valid.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. In general, revenue projections for Federal and State revenue sources described here rely on a document titled Financial Assumptions for the Development of Metropolitan Transportation Plans published in May of 1998 by the Oregon Department of Transportation. Revenue and non-capital needs projections have been made in coordination with the cities of Medford, Central Point and Phoenix. Projections have also been aided by several other documents, including: • Financial Analysis.' Rogue Valley Regional Transportation Plan, Preliminary Draft,ECONorthwest February 1996; • Draft Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, 2000-2003, Preliminary Version, Oregon Department of Transportation, January 1999; • RVMPO's Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program, FY 2000-2003, Rogue Valley Council of Governments, Draft, April, 2000. Table 4 shows the projected 20-year capital funding scenario for Street System projects. The cities of Medford,Central Point and Phoenix have had projected transportation revenues broken down by funding source and then the estimated non-capital needs (operation, maintenance, etc.) subtracted to yield the final column — capital funds available. The revenues shown in this column are anticipated to be available to fund Street System projects. Because the MPO Area comprises only a small portion of the Jackson County and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) jurisdictional boundaries, no attempt has been made to estimate revenues for these agencies. Such estimates have been considered"not applicable"in Table 16.2.Rather,projections of capital funding availability for MPO Area projects funded by these agencies have been made based on the documentation listed above,historical funding data and estimates provided by agency staff.Capital funding availability for Jackson County and ODOT assumes that non-capital (operation and maintenance) needs are fully funded. The combination of using conservative assumptions for operation and maintenance needs,along with insuring that these needs are met before any resources are expended on capital projects has resulted in a financial plan with primary emphasis on the maintenance and operation of the existing system. For further information on the revenue and non-capital needs assumptions that were used to arrive at the figures in Table 4, please refer to Appendix A. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 69 kr) C4 V N O N N CO CD O (0 O N CO � N- O CO L 0) ' P' co V N CO 00) (0D N N 47 03 O N O N co- 69 61 co- V 6' 67 Orr Cr O U? N N 4. V OD co ~ 69 6l 63 61 69 N 69 63 N. CO co 6> CD 69 CE. 66 Rr 0) N CO CO N (D CO O O O N CD O (D CO O co tir ' - co N O d' CO V V N. O O CO 47 00 M1 co 47 C L' •'(C `- N co M1 N 0 V N CO O O CO CD CO CO (D LI) co (p . i O CO CO <t CO V 63 6� 67 0) 1- CD N N CD (, Q N 109 4A 69 63 (t] N N N ti (OD COO O U. 69 69, 69 69 69 69 67 69 69 63 R (A M1 CD V M1 M1 VCO N E- CO g. u, CD CO 0) r 0 CO N O CO CO r <1' V M1 CO CO 0) N co CD (D V co Es* (A 6'•i (A 67' 69 N 67, 69. N 00 O I lA 0) M1 0) CD N CO EC) Co CD C co co_ 4. CO 0) 1- V V 47 0) O 6) CO CV M1 0) CO N CO CO co ~ CD ID N co IL) 63 6, 63 Ori N 69, 69 63 63 NGC 609, EA O N 47 ID O O O O CO O O N ,- co N. 69 CA E9 96 69 N N a) N •G t N 61 63 CD N 01 C a) y nl c C 69 6A C t0 cmi y0 — E CC e Cl) >+p 0 (D aD 0 O O v CO CO C C ~ 0 61 N CO N N fA fA 69 CD a) 4) a) Q) Q) M1 CD X J I 69 69 NAA, (� 69 (� 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 - - 0 TS CD I- 1— 1- 3 N a) m m a) a) a)—r_ w w w LL _ N ) 0) a) a) a) a) co 0 0 00',_ CO 0)) LI) IP O Cl)ti N 40C, 0) LOS ' 4) 'V V M1 0) M1 N C 6} a) a) a) a) a) a) O y to (a as (o (a (0mQv CCD C) C) 0 (? 0 C) Q (..) N N y M1 M1 v v (D v M1 a) Cl. Cl. Q Q Cl. Cl. CO ~ C Ci 0 S, C 0 o , v N N N (a CO Ca (a (u (u (v CO Cr, CD ZZZZZZ V > g ' N 0 0 0 0 0 0 ID �' p a) 0r x — c N 10 t r/1 Ti3 "V C 0) COa co CO CO n CD CD 0) v - (� U. O cf CO _ N. O cr CD 407 6 O Al C (D N (D (A 61 � 69 69 EA CO 1) • r- 0 dC •v = 6) fi3 63 (A O 'c v to •Q — 0. ro L 0 <! co (D M1 CD N CO 47 CD N ' G CL i- 03 N co <7 M1 CO V O N CD O M1 (D 0 0 O co N SD N CO CD •C V co- co (A N fA 69 67 ) �fi - -C 03 69 69 —im, 0 CDet ' C ' V' CD - C 0 v d CO 0) O CO 0) O CO 07 O O 0 03 I ' W 6) N 67 (A N 63 fr? N O C in 69 fA fA x O a, C O Er 0 O +.. .0 o e C A r E - E - E = - 3 ° C C ~ cv E 0 (e E C E C E C C E C -o -€.1 a co U) z C z -oo Com.) O 03 C a° O 0 o tl Q M C) 0_ O F « o .� 0) U 3 Street System Implementation Costs As indicated in the Street System Element, the capital funding needs in the MPO Area exceed anticipated revenues. A two-tiered approach is therefore presented in order to separate projects linked to anticipated revenues from those where new revenue sources are required. The Tier 1 (financially-constrained) Street System project list is based on the revenue projections as summarized in Table 4. In addition to anticipated revenues, Table 16.2 shows projected Tier 1 implementation costs for the Street System Element. Table 5 summarizes the capital funding availability for each agency and then adds Tier 2 project costs to Tier 1 costs demonstrating the revenue shortfalls that will result. TABLE 5 Street System Projected Revenue Shortfall Over Entire 20-Year Planning Period (in current/yr. 2000 dollars X 1,000) JurisdictionAvailable Tier 1 and Revenue Capital 2 Project Shortfall Funding Costs Medford $41 ,024 $149,879 ($108,855) Central Point $25,388 $29,821 ($4,433) Phoenix $867 $2,988 ($2,11) ,Jackson Co. (MPO Area) $46,810 $56,334 ($9,524) I 10D0T(MPO Area) $60,797 $174,029 ($113,232) Totals $174,886 $413,051 ($238,16511 Street System Funding Shortfall and Potential Revenue Sources Table 5 shows the revenue shortfall that is anticipated for funding of both Tier 1 and 2 projects. Revenue sources that can potentially be used to make up the funding shortfall for Tier 2 projects are shown in Table 6 and summarized below by jurisdiction.The column"20-Year Potential Funding" in Table 6 shows that the potential "Increased annual funding" will cover the anticipated revenue shortfalls over the 20-year planning period. "Planned" Transportation Projects Inclusion of a transportation improvement in the City's TSP does not necessarily represent a commitment by ODOT to fund, permit, construct, or implement the project. Furthermore, transportation projects on the State Highway System contained in the City's TSP are not considered "planned" projects, for the purposes of meeting TPR requirements 660-012-0060, until they are identified and listed in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and programmed in the adjoining Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program(MTIP). Concurrently,projects proposed in the City's TSP which are located on, and within the impacting purview of a State Highway cannot be Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 71 considered mitigation for future development or land use actions until they are actually programmed into the MTIP. In addition,highway projects, which are programmed to be constructed, may have to be altered or canceled at a later time to meet changing budget or unanticipated conditions such as environmental constraints. TABLE 6 Potential Revenue Sources for Tier 2 Street System Projects (in current/ yr. 2000 dollars X 1,000) Jurisdiction Fund Source Increased 20-Year Annual Potential Revenue Funding Funding Shortfall Increase System Development Charges $2,400 Medford Implement Local Option Gas Tax $250 Implement Vehicle Registration Fee $250 Property Tax Levy $2,700 $112,000 $108,855 Central Point Implement Street Utility Fee $140 Increase System Development Charges $100 $4,800 $4,433 Phoenix Increase Street Utility Fee $50 O Increase System Development Charges $70 $2,400 $2,121 Increase System Development Charges $138 Jackson Implement Street Utility Fee $770 County (MPO Area) Implement Local Option Gas Tax $440 Implement Vehicle Registration Fee $440 $35,760 $9,524 ODOT Gas Tax Increase $2,700 (MPO Area) Federal Earmarks $3,000 $114,000 $113,232 Totals $13,448 $268,960 I $238,165 1 City of Central Point The funding needed to construct the projects for which Central Point is flagged as the lead jurisdiction exceeds their projected revenues by about$4.4 million. If the City implemented a Street Utility Fee, approximately $140,000/year could be generated at an average fee of $2/month per household. A doubling of the City's SDC's could yield another$100,000 per year. Transit System Funding Refer to the Regional Transportation Plan for Rogue Valley Transportation District financial forecasts. Public Review'Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 72 Appendix A Financial Assumptions- Street System Element Federal Revenue Sources Surface Transportation Program (STP) The MPO's share of STP funds is shown in the column marked "Medford" on page 7 of the appendix to the Assumptions for the Development of Metropolitan Transportation Plans, ODOT, May 1998(hereafter referred to as"ODOT Assumptions").Years 2001-2005,2006-2010 and 2011- 2020 were totaled. The STP allocation for years 2001-2003 has been committed to specific project funding and has therefore been subtracted from the total.It has been assumed that the historic policy of sharing STP funds on a rotating basis between Medford,Central Point and Phoenix will continue through the 20-year planning period. Other This category includes Federal funds for CMAQ,Enhancements,Bridge and Safety programs shown on page 6 of the ODOT Assumptions appendix. These funds are distributed by the State to local jurisdictions through various methods.Historically,8%of Statewide CMAQ funds have been made available to the MPO. It was assumed that this would remain constant through 2020. CMAQ distributions for 2001-2003 are known and have been allocated accordingly. Although it is not possible to predict how the other funds will be distributed,an estimate was made based on predicted funding levels (from ODOT Assumptions appendix) and population figures. According to ODOT Region 3 staff,Jackson and Josephine Counties receive approximately 9.9%of funds distributed by the State. Since the MPO area contains approximately 40% of the Jackson and Josephine County combined total population, a multiplier of.0396 (40% of 9.9%) was used to determine the MPO area's approximate share of Enhancement, Bridge and Safety funds.Local allocation amounts were split according to the population size of jurisdictions relative to the MPO total. Years 2001-2005, 2006-2010 and 2011-2020 were totaled. State Revenue Sources Hwy Fund The State Highway Fund Revenue Scenarios are shown on page 3 of the ODOT Assumptions appendix.The column marked"Average Highway Fund with and without TPR Assumption"shows the State's proposed revenue scenario. The difference between this column's total and the"Current Law"column total ($7,095,000,000 from 2001-2020) will be split on a 50/30/20% basis between the State, counties and cities, respectively. The balance ($14,159,000,000) will be split on a 60.05/24.38/15.57% basis. Cities are allocated their share of the State Highway Fund proportionately according to population.Data from Portland State University indicates that Medford, Central Point and Phoenix represent approximately 2.710%, .5285%, and .1793% of the 1999 statewide incorporated city total,respectively. The 2001-2020 statewide incorporated city total was determined to be $3,623,556,000. Years 2001-2005, 2006-2010 and 2011-2020 were totaled. $500,000 per year,reserved to help fund the Small City Allotment(SCA)Program,was subtracted from the totals. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 73 Appendix A Financial Assumptions - Street System Element Other This category includes State Immediate Opportunity (IOF) and Bike/Ped (capital) fund sources shown on page 187 of the Draft 2000-2003 STIP. As with the Federal(Other)category,these funds are distributed by the State to local jurisdictions through various methods and it is not possible to predict exact future distribution levels. An estimate was made based on historic allocations and population figures. With the exception of Phoenix, these funds were estimated to be split among local jurisdictions according to the same methodology described under the Federal(Other)category above.Annual Statewide funding levels from the IOF and Bike/Ped sources were assumed to remain constant for short range years and equal to those shown in the STIP. Annual funding levels for medium and long range years were assumed to increase proportionately to the"Current Law" State Highway Fund Revenue Scenario shown on page 3 of the ODOT Assumptions appendix. Medford and Central Point amounts were split according to the population size of these jurisdictions relative to the MPO total. Phoenix's funding from these sources is taken from page B-3 of their Transportation Element. Years 2000-2004, 2005-2009 and 2010-2019 were totaled (year 2020 estimates are not provided). Local Revenue Sources Central Point SDC's Central Point has estimated SDC revenues at $250,000 per year. Fees Central Point's current(1999-2000)budget shows average revenues of$42,000 per year from permit fees and $384,000 for franchise fees per year (years 1999 and 2000). It was assumed that these amounts would remain constant during the 20-planning year period. Other Central Point expects approximately$4,000/yr from other revenues. NON-CAPITAL NEEDS Central Point Estimates for Central Point's non-capital transportation needs were derived from adding 3%per year to the amounts shown for these expenses in their 1999-2000 budget($584,000). Years 2001-2005, 2006-2010 and 2011-2020 were totaled. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29,2000 Page 74 Finance Goals, Policies and Objectives GOAL#2: A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA THAT IS ADEQUATELY FUNDED TO MEET ITS CURRENT AND FUTURE CAPITAL,MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS NEEDS. Objective 1: Meet the current and future capital improvement needs of the transportation system for the Central Point urban area, as outlined in this plan, through a variety of funding sources. Policies: 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. 2. 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. 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. 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. Objective 2: Secure adequate funding to implement a street maintenance program that will sustain a maximum service life for pavement surface and other transportation facilities. Policies: 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. 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. 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. Objective 3: Secure adequate funding for the operation of the transportation system including advance planning, design engineering, signal operations, system management, illumination, and cleaning activities. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 75 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. 2. The City shall continue to pursue federal, state and private grants to augment operations activities, especially in the planning and engineering functions. Public Review Draft Central Point TSP 29, 2000 Page 76 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT LIST *Sign alizatio n o n State Hig h iv ay Facilities Proposed traffic signals at intersections on state facilities within the TSP must first meet state signal warrants and other considerations, such as designated speed and roadway character before being considered"planned"and utilized for mitigation purposes. Furthermore,actual signal warrant analysis for proposed signals must be approved by the ODOT Regional Traffic Manager,and all signals on the state facility must he assessed and authorized by the State Traffic Engineer. As with other transportation solutions in the City's TSP, signals must be programmed in the MTIP to be considered as mitigation for future development or land use actions. • Public Review Draft Central Point TSP August 29, 2000 Page 77