Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Ordinance 1813
ORDINANCE NO. /813 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE ROGUE VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP) UPDATE 2000-2020 RECITALS: 1. The City of Central Point ("City"), as a member of the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO), is directed under Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) Chapter 660 to prepare and adopt a regional Transportation Systems Plan (TSP), also referred to as a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), consistent with the Statewide Land Use Planning Goals. 2. The City has coordinated its planning efforts with the State and other jurisdictions within the RVMPO in accordance with ORS 197.040(2)(e) and OAR 660-030-0060 to assure compliance with goals and compatibility with State and County TSPs. 3. Pursuant to authority granted by the City charter, the Oregon Revised Statutes and the Oregon Administrative Rules, the City has determined to concur with the findings and actions of the MPO Policy Committee and adopt the Interim Regional Transportation Plan Update 2000-2020. 4. 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) City Council hearings on October 26, 2000, November 16, 2000 and November 30, 2000. Now, therefore; THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. At its public hearing on November 30, 2000, the City Council received the findings of the MPO Policy Committee, 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 the RVMPO Interim Regional Transportation Plan Update 2000-2020, 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 required by OAR 660- 012-0015(4), and the RTP (Exhibit A), including financing programs required by OAR 660- 012-0040 are adopted and by this reference incorporated herein. 1 - Ordinance No. 18/3 (113000) 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 Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this I ~~` day of ~~r , 2000. ATTEST: City Representative i Mayor Bill Walton f i Approved by me this ~~ day of ~~e,w~~, 2000. Mayor Bill Walton 2 - Ordinance No. ~g/3 (113000) Fxl ibiz a ~-- olitan 11ey Metrop Rogue v a r anization ann~ng O g PI Inter al Rego°n oration Transp~pdate Pia ~~.202p 2 o e MPp policy COm~"ittee Adopted by t Apri112, 2~~~ - Rogue Valley Council of Governments 155 N. 1 st Street Central Point, OR 97502 541/664-6674 •? u ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ROGUE VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Prepared for ROGUE VALLEY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION the City of Medford the City of Central Point the City of Phoenix Jackson County Rogue Valley Transportation District Oregon Department of Transportation and ROGUE VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Board of Directors Rogue Valley Council of Governments Transportation Department 155 North 1S1 Street Central Point, Oregon 'April 12, 2000 The preparation ojthis report has been financed in part by funds from the Federal Highway Adminisb~ation and the Federal Transit Administratiar, U. S. Department ojTrazspor~tation and the Oregon Department ofTrmrsportation (ODOT), Region 3. The R~MPO and the authors ojthis document are solely responsible for dre material contained herein. METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION POLICY COMMITTEE (April 2000) Skip Knight, Chair, Medford City Council Otto Caster, City of Phoenix Joe Strahl, Jackson County Carol Bennett, RVTD Board of Directors Bill Walton, Mayor, City of Central Point Monte Grove, ODOT, District Manager STAFF AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE City of Medford Cory Crebbin, Lisa Owens, Mark Gallagher City of Central Point Tom Humphrey, Lee Brennan City of Phoenix Denis Murray, Jim Wear Jackson County Joe Strahl, Dale Petrasek, Eric Niemeyer, Pam Lind Rogue Valley Transportation District Scott Chancey, Sherrin Coleman Oregon Department of Transportation Paul Mather, Terry Harbour, Mark Ashby, Monte Grove, Frank Stevens, Bill Upton, Sam Ayash, Mike Gillette, and Stuart Foster, Oregon Transportation Commissioner Department of Environmental Quality Dave Nordberg, Keith Tong Department of Land Conservation & Development Jeff' Griffin Federal Highway Administration Fred Patron, Nick Fortey Kogue Valley Council of Governments Michael Cavallaro, Dan Moore, Michelle Fuller, Gary Hathaway, Bart Benthul, Craig Anderson W&H Pacific Tyler Deke Table of Contents Preface ...................................................................1 1.0 Introduction ......................................................... 1-I 2.0 The Planning Process .................................................. 2-1 2.1 Public Involvement ................................................ 2-1 2.2 MPO Policy Committee ............................................ 2-1 2.3 Technical Advisory Committee ...................................... 2-3 2.4 Determine Transportation System Plan Requirements ..................... 2-3 2.5 Determine Transportati.gp System Needs ............................... 2-3 2.6 Develop Transportation System Improvement Strategy .................... 2-3 2.7 Develop Transportation System Needs ................................. 2-5 2.8 Develop Funding Plan and Improvement Program ....................... 2-5 3.0 Goals and Objectives ................................................... 3-1 4.0 Evaluation Criteria .................................................... 4-1 S.0 Forecast Demographics and Travel Demand .................... ............ 5-1 5.1 Historical Population Growth and Recent Trends ............. ............ 5-1 5.2 Recent Employment Trends .............................. ............ 5-2 53 Vehicular Travel Demand ............................... ............ 5-5 5.4 Land Use-Transportation Connection ...................... ............ 5-6 6.0 Transportation System Management Element ....................... ........ 6-1 6.1 Update Existing Traffic Signals ............................... ........ 6-2 6.2 Coordinate Traffic Signals ................................... ........ 6-2 6.3 Eliminate Unnecessary Traffic Signals ......................... ........ 6-3 6.4 Intersection Geometric Improvements .......................... ........ 6-4 6.5 Intersection Turning Movement and Lane Use Restrictions ........ ........ 6-5 6.6 Access Management ..................................... ......... 6-6 6.7 One-Way Streets ........................................ ......... 6-8 6.8 Install New Traffic Signals at Intersections .................... ........ 6-9 69 Ramp Metering ......................................... ......... 6-9 6.10 Goods Movement Management ............................. ........ 6-10 Apri12000biterint Update ~lprit 12, 2000 11.4 Valley Lift Program ............................................. I1-6 11.5 Valley Rideshare ............................................... I1-6 11.6 Cost Estimates ................................................. 11-6 11.7 Financially-Constrained Plan ...................................... 11-8 12.0 Land Use Element .................................................. 12-I 12.1 Transit Oriented Design .......................................... 12-1 12.2 Protection of Transportation Corridors .............................. 12-3 12.1 Regional Land Use Development Patterns ........................... 12-4 13.0 Air Transportation Element ........................................... 13-1 14.0 Rail Transportation Element .......................................... 14-1 15.0 Freight Transportation Element ....................................... 15-1 15.1 Foreign Trade Zone ............................................. 15-3 15.2 Relationship to State Planning Efforts ............................... 15-4 16.0 Financial Element ........................................... ....... 16-1 16.lIntroduction ............................................. ....... 16-1 16.2 Street System Revenue Sources ............................. ....... 16-2 16..3 Street System Revenue Projections .......................... ....... 16-7 16.4 Street System Implementation Costs ......................... ....... 16-9 16.5 Street System Funding Shortfall and Potential Revenue Sources ... ....... 16-9 16.6 Transit System Revenue Sources ............................ ...... 16-12 16.7 Transit System Element -Implementation ..................... ...... 16-14 16.8 Street System Revenue Sources ............................. ...... 16-16 16.9 Other Plan Elements ..................................... ....... 16-16 17.0 Related MPO Issues ....................................... .......... 17-1 17.1 Federal Requirements and MPO Designation ............... .......... 17-I 17.2 Coordination of Transportation Decisions .................. .......... 17-1 17.3 Annual Planning Work Program ......................... .......... 17-2 17.4 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program .......... .......... 17-2 17.5 Air Quality Conformity Analyses ......................... .......... 17-2 17.6 Major Investment Studies .............................. .......... 17-3 17.7 Local Transportation System Plans ....................... .......... 17-3 April 2000Inlerim Update dprii t 2, 2000 111 List of Tigures No. Title Follows Page 1-1 MPO and Air Quality Maintenance Area Boundary (AQMA) .... ......... 1-2 2-1 Citizen Involvement Areas (CIAs) ......................... ......... 2-2 5-1 Employment and Population Comparison .................... ......... 5-3 5-2 Transportation Analysis Zones and Districts ................. .......... 5-4 6-1 Relationship Between Property Access and Movement Function . .......... 6-6 11-1 Tier 1: Financially-Constrained, Reduced Service Plan ........ ........ I1-10 11-2 Tier 2b: Preferred/Expanded Service Plan .................. ........ 11-11 11-3 Tier 2a: Existing Service Plan ........................... ........ 11-12 12-1 Alternative Land Use Scenarios .......................... ......... 12-2 April 2000lnterirn Update Apri(12, 2000 v Pf~efnce What is the "Rogue Valley Regional Transportation Plan"? Living in the Rogue Valley is a privilege. We are surrounded by natural beauty, geographical diversity for a wide range ofoutdoor activities, cultural and educational. Tourism is a result of attractions such as the Shakespeare Festival, the Mt. Ashland ski resort, and the magnificent Rogue River. This area serves as a gateway to Crater Lake and is along the main north-south travel route of Interstate 5. Medford also serves as a regional shopping, service, and employment center for Northern California and Southern Oregon. Growth has continued to surprise many people in our area since the timber industry has fallen on difficult times. The Meriopolitan Area ofMedford has experienced an annual population increase of 3 percent over the past ten years. Rogue Valley residents are extremely community oriented despite the fact that many are "transplants" from other regions. Many are retired people looking for tranquillity and a chance to enjoy a quieter lifestyle. Most people look at growth and development as inevitable, but hope to have it "managed" and not let growth detract from the livability currently enjoyed in our region. For the average person in the Rogue Valley, our transportation system supports our current needs. Growth and development are creating new transportation issues for the region. There are concerns about our ability to meet future transportation and mobility demands. As our mainstay industry has shifted from timber to tourism, retail, and service activities, our transportation needs have also shifted. Current development has been concentrated in the main transportation corridors and has primarily involved retail and commercial business rather than industry. The Rogue Valley Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) provides a coordinated framework for identifying and meeting our transportation needs for the next 20 years. It takes a snapshot of our current situation and provides the bestprojection for future growth and development based on current trends and approved land uses, policies and ordinances. The RTP looks at the different types of transportation opportunities that are available and what would be beneficial and useful in the future: automobiles, bicycles, pedestrian activities, airtravel, rail and other combinations oftravel opportunities or "modes." It looks at how all the pieces should fit together and what other opportunities are available for a coordinated and contiguous system in the future. Two significant requirements are imposed on the RTP by federal and state mandates. The Plan must meet air quality confomuty rules and mustbe financially constrained. The entire Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) boundary is within the Medford-Ashland Air Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA),which isconsidered innon-attainment for particulate matter (PM 10). The Medford Urban Apri120007nterGn Update ~ipril ]2, 2000 It also seeks to demonstrate that the right combinations of land uses, somewhat higher densities of development, and provisions for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit can significantly reduce the use of automobiles and have a positive impact on air quality. The Governor's office has also taken a specific interest in the transportation problems and "gaps" felt throughout the state. This has developed into the Govemor's Transportation Initiative. The Governor's Transportation Initiative has sparked interest al l over the state as well as regionally. Five regional advisory committees (RAC) were named, one ofwhich concentrated on the Southem Oregon region. These committees were cormnissioned to examine the ri~ansportation needs and to recommend ways to address the unmet needs or gaps between transportation system demands and funding availability. The Southern Oregon RAC presented its final report on May 15,1996, indicating nine "gaps" with a variety of ways to resolve and address the unmet needs. One ofthe gaps mentioned is the need for a community-based process for making flexible transportation, land use, and funding decisions. It stresses the importance of regional decision making. Additionally, there has been considerable interest locally with ourRTP process. The Transportation Advocacy Committee (TRADCO), a group consisting ofbusiness interests and local officials and others throughout Jackson and Josephine Counties, has become a major voice for our region in discussing the state-wide transportation project development process and regional funding equity. TRADCO's review and continued support of our RTP has helped gain acceptance, understanding, and involvement with Plan development to a wider cross section of the community. Although TRADCO has been a focal group for transportation issues, there are many other local groups that meet to discuss transportation orrelated needs and desires for the region. The RTP has become a focal point for capturing the ideas ofthose diverse groups. The key groups that have been involved include: • OurRegion • TRADCO • Jackson/Josephine Transportation Committee (JJTC) • Bear Creek Greenway Committee and Foundation • Medford "Action Committee" ' • Rogue Valley Area Commission on Transportation (RVACT) As an example, a diverse cross section ofcitizens consistingprimarily ofthe greaterMedford area business community pulled together to discuss their perceptions ofthe transportation system and the process of project selection and completion. Their self-imposed charge was to evaluate the transportation system needs without consideration ofthe land use or funding constraints. This "Action Committee" hired Kittleson and Associates (a Portland-based transportation engineering and planning firm) to facilitate and generate a report of their findings (May 3,1996 -Medford Circulation Study). Apri12000L~terim Updale Fiprill2, 2000 How do the affected agencies and the community use the RTP? Throughout the RTP update, affected agencies and comnumity members have been involved inthe planning process. The RTP outlines the multi-modal transportation strategies for the next twenty years. The RTP was developed for three phases of improvements: short (the first five years), medium (the following five years), and long (the remaining ten years). The phases were developed based on the projected need over time as the region grows and develops. Based on this plan, the communities should integrate the policies and recommendations into their own comprehensive planning documents, incorporate local needs with the pending regional strategies, and coordinate project completion with other affected agencies. The RTP provides support and validation of some of the local transportation needs. It is anticipated that each MPO memberjurisdiction will adopt this RTP as a regional plan and will then tailor its comprehensive plan updates to meet the goals and policies identified in the RTP. What will happen to the RTP in the future? The MPO Policy Committee, guides the development, updates and amendments of the Plan. The Policy Committee serves as the coordinating and problem-solving body during the RTP planning processes. The Policy Committee is in a position to help as the agencies seek to implement key provisions and to seek ways to build the projects listed in it. Because ofthe strong implications for funding ourtransportation needs, we must ensure this documentremains "alive" and does not getput on the shelfas just anotherreference or study. This document will be adjusted over time, taking new information and new priorities into consideration under the guidance of our community leaders. Every three years (as long as we remain in an air quality non-attainment area), we are required to review, validate, and update the Plan. The April 2000 RTP Update is the firstplan update since the RTP was adopted in 1997. Plan updates give the MPO the opportunity to evaluate our past projections for growth and anticipated use of the system. During the plan update process, we compare the new "existing" land use, recent development trends, and the use ofthe different modal components ofthe transportation system. We use this new perspective to better refine future growth projections based upon more recent decisions, determine their implications forthe future, and seek to modify or change the plan so that it will continue to help us plan our regional transportation system. Amendments to the Plancanbemadebethveenthethreeyearupdates. Eachtimeamajoramendment is made to the Plan, it must go through the rigors of an air quality conformity and afinancially- constraineddetermination. It is anticipated at this time that only large projects that would conceptually change the RTP would require a plan amendment. The region also has the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) that dovetails with the State's Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which is updated every two to three years. The STIP primarily sets the funding direction for transportation projects using federal and state funds. Apri12000Gttertm Update ~tpri112, 2000 the inunediate availability of known fimding trends. The flan also meets federal and state air quality requirements. The Plan provides the answers and potential solutions, yet places the burden of implementation back into the hands ofthe community and our elected officials. Although the financially constrained Plan identifies nearly 210 projects for a total ofapproximately$169 million overthe next 20 years, individual project designs are left to the respective communities to develop over time according to their needs and opportunities. Policies are identified throughout the plan that address alternative h~ansportation uses, land use changes, agency coordination, system management, and othertransportation related concerns. Over time, situations change and opporunities present themselves. This Plan update requires thatthe MPO review and modify the Plan as necessary to meet those differences. It is an on-going, dynamic process to ensure we are on the light track to meeting the ri•ansportation needs in the future. Together, we can make it reality. The RTP in a Nutshell: .Areas served: • Cities of Medford, Central Point, and Phoenix • Jackson County from the White City area, and continuing to connect the urban growth boundary areas of the cities included above. [Note: The geographical boundaries do NOT include Ashland, Talent, Jacksonville or Eagle Point since MPOs are defined by population density from a major metropolitan center. These communities maybe included within the MPO in the future.) Metropolitan Planning Organization Agency Members: • Medford, Central Point, Phoenix, Jackson County, RVTD and ODOT MPO Population: • Base Year (1995) 84,765 • Projections (2020) 129,895 April 20007nterint Update April l2, 2000 1.0 Introduction The Rogue Valley Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which was adopted in January 1997 and updated in Apri12000, is amulti-modal transportation plan designed to meet the anticipated 20-year transportation needs within the Rogue Valley Meh opolitan Planning Organization (MPO) planning area boundary. The RTP serves as a guide for the management ofexisting transportation facilities and for the design and implementation of future transportation facilities through the year 2020. The RTP addresses federal and state regulations that require urban areas to undertake long-range planning. The RTP serves as the regional transportation system plan required under Oregon's Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). A synopsis of TPR and RTP requirements are included in Appendix A, and are divided into two sections. Section 1 ofAppendix A addresses the 2000-2020 RTP update requirements ofthe federal Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments. Section 2 ofAppendix A addresses the original 1995-2015 RTP federal and state planning requirements. All state requirements associated with TEA-21 and the CAA are also addressed as the updated RTP meets the financially constrained requirements and the air quality conformity requirements. As such, the region is eligible for federal and state dollars for transportation improvements as defined in the updated RTP. The updated RTP focused on a re-evaluation ofthe transportation needs within the MPO planning boundary. There are several reasons why a larger area must be considered in the planning effort. Air quality impacts are often more widespread and are influenced by regional travel. Individual projects can extend beyond the MPO boundary. Travel between adjacent communities is an importantfactor in the MPO area planning needs. The MPO planning boundary and the other planning areas are illustrated in Figure 1-l. To meet all these requirements and local expectations, the RTP includes projects that have been divided into two tiers. The entire plan provides the overall vision forthe region taking into consideration only the needs anticipated because ofplanned growth. To meet federal and state requirements, the plan takes into consideration the present financial capabilities ofthe region's implementing agencies. Thus, the Tier 1 project list includes only thole projects within the present financial capabilities ofthe agencies. TheTierl listmeetsthefederaldefinitionofa"financially-constrained"plan. Projectsfrom the Tier 1 list were considered in the air' quality analysis. Projects on the Tier 21ist are outside or beyond current financial capabilities. The Tier 2 projects were not considered when financial and air quality analyses were undertaken. The plan is intended to provide the framework and foundation for our transportation future. Policies and project descriptions are provided to enable the region's governments and citizens to understand and "track" prof ects that are forecast to be needed within the next twenty years. As a regional plan, this document does not provide specific designs for individual projects. Such details are not within the ~Ipri12000LUerim Update dprillZ, 2000 1-I scope of a regional plan and will becompleted on aproject-by-project basis with the necessary community involvement and, where necessary, project level air quality determinations. Adoption ofthe April 2000 RTP update is required by the MPO Policy Committee and the Rogue Va1leyCouncilofGovernmentsBoardofDirectors. Since the Policy Committee is comprised of elected officials from each of the MPO jurisdictions and because special efforts have been made to keep all of the elected officials fully informed tlrroughout the process, it is expected that each ofthe local agencies, specifically the cities and the county, will adopt the updated RTP as the regional planning document, andthatthey will also implement the policies presented in the plan as they complete comprehensive plan and transportation elementupdates. The Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) is also expected to adopt the updated RTP. The plan focuses on intra-regional (within the region) travel, but also addresses inter-regional travel (through the region). The street and highway element ofthe plan receives principal emphasis in recognition that automobiles and trucks are the predominant mode oftransportation today and are expected to remain the primary mode in this region over the next 20 years. It is important to also note thatthe highway element emphasizes connectivity to other modes oftravel and list improvements that will directly benefit systems users. The highway system provides for bicycle travel through the addition ofupgraded urban streets with sidewalks and with bike lanes or other provisions for safe bike travel. The rural roadway improvements specify improved rural street cross sections to accommodate bike lanes or shared shoulders for safe bike travel. Throughout the urban area, sidewalks areproposed for accessible and safe pedestrian travel. In many cases, there are transit needs within the improvements designated for highway improvements. All of these factors are critical when describing the transportation system. Other elements of the plan cover important aspects of the overall system including transportation system management (TSM), transportation demand management (TDM), freight, rail and air travel. The planning effort for the 2000 - 2020 RTP included significant community involvement and was guided by local public agency staffand the Policy Committee. The agencies represented on the Policy Committee include the cities ofMedford, Central Point, and Phoenix, Jackson County, Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD), and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has equally broad participation. It includes staffmembers firom the cities ofMedford, Central Point, and-Phoenix, Jackson County, RVTD, ODOT, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ); the Department ofLand Conservation and Development (DECD) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Input from the Public Advisory Council and the Transportation Advocacy Committee (TRADCO) is forwarded to the MPO TAC and Policy Committee. Community outreach for the RTP update was in the form ofregular planning updates to MPO member jurisdictions. The Public Advisory Council (PAC), which represents the thirteen Community Apri12000Interim Update Apri! l[, LUVU 1-3 Technical reports and memoranda were prepared beginning in 1993 to document the details ofthe plamtingprocessfnrthe 1995 RTP requirements, and to provide background infot7nation, data, and explanations ofassumptions and technical work. Much ofthe final product ofthe 1995 RTP was directed and developed from research and decisions based on these technical memoranda. These reports were written by members ofthe RVCOG staff, DEA, and their subcontractors, including ECO Northwest who completed the 1995 fina~icial analysis. RVMPO staffcompleted the financial analysis forthe April 2000 RTP update. All ofthe technical memoranda and reports are listed and briefly summarized in Appendix B. Abound copy ofthe technical memoranda and reports is available from RVCOG. April 2000 Literim Update ~Ipril /2, 2000 1-S 2.0 The Planning Process The April 2000 RTP update builds upon a series of technical analyses documented in technical reports from the 1995 RTP planning process. The process was guided by systematic input and review by the staff of the RVMPO, the MPO Technical Advisory Committee and the public. Key steps of the planning process are summarized in the following discussion. 2.1 Public Involvement The public involvement/communityinputelementwasanimportantfactorinupdatingtheRTP. The public involvementprogram is aimed at reviewing the identified transportation needs transportation system improvement strategy and developing consensus on these needs and the improvement strategy. The MPO planning is subdivided into 13 areas, each with a Citizen InvolvementAssociation (CIA). These areas are shown on the map on Figure 2-1. From each CIA, the RVMPO identified a Public Advisory Council (PAC) representative. The PAC served as the community "forum" to gather information from their constituent base and to help develop public consensus on the updated plan and the planning process. They also helped the MPO define local issues and potential solutions to transportation problems. Recommendations from PAC meetings were provided to the Policy Committee. Public involvement and input did not stop at the PAC level. RVCOG staff, made numerous presentations at city council and board of directors meetings, planning commission meetings, Jackson County Board ofCommissioners discussions, an open house andvarious othermeetings to discuss the planandreceiveinputfromcommunitymembers. Thepublicinvolvementprogramalsoincludedpublic notices of all TAC and Policy Committee meetings during the RTP update. A public open house with extensive displays and opportunities for the public to comment was conducted at the Rogue Valley Medical Center's Smullin Center. The public involvement process, in addition to being a federal and state planning requirement, was a high priority of RVMPO and all of the locgl MPO agencies involved in the update of the RTP. Appendix A summarizes the federal and state'plaluung requirements, including those related to public involvement. J 2.2 MPO Policy Committee The MPO Policy Committee is comprised of elected officials from each ofthe affectedjurisdictions including Medford, Central Point, and Phoenix, Jackson County, Rogue ValleyTransportationDistrict (RVTD) and ODOT. The Policy Committee continued to meet monthly, during the update ofthe RTP. The MPO Policy Committee makes its recommendation to the Rogue Valley Council of dpri120007nterim Update April I2, 2000 2-1 Governments' Board ofDirectors. As the designated MPO, the Rogue Valley of Governments' Board of Directors makes the final "approval" decision. 2.3 Technical Advisory Committee The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is responsible for gathering, reviewing, and validating technical information and data that were used in the update ofRTP. The TAC includes staffmembers from Medford, Central Point, and Phoenix, Jackson County, RVTD, ODOT, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DECD), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). In addition to a core group ofvoting TAC members that meet monthly there are many people involved behind the scenes to help make this plan update a reality. 2.4 Determine Transportation System Plan Requirements The update ofthe RTP is designed to meet the requirements of the federal TEA-21, and the Statewide Planning Goa112 and its implementing division, theTransportation PlanningRule (OARChapter 660, Division 12). In addition, the regional plan mustbe consistent with the Oregon Transportation Plan. A summary ofthe planning requirements and the manner in which they have been addressedby the updated RTP and the process used to develop it are documented in Appendix A. 2.5 Determine Transportation System Needs Using population and employment forecasts forthe year2020, the travel forecastingmodel was used to estimate transportation needs of the Rogue Valley metropolitan planning region fora 20-year horizon. Section S.0 summarizes the growth and development assumptions used for the year2020. The year2020 travel demand forecastwas compared with the capacity and services currently provided in the region. The comparison of the 2020 forecast with current capabilities produced a listing of regional transportation "needs" for movement of people and goods. 2.6 Develop Transportation System Improvement Strategy A new EMME/2 "best practices" model was developed during the Apri12000 update ofthe RTP. RVMPO staff developed the travel demand model with the assistance of ODOT's Transportation Planning and Analysis Unit (TPAU). The EMME/2 model is sophisticated and requires significantly data definition and input to produce more accurate results. A travel detnand model is a tool that can accurately replicate existing transportation conditions and evaluate a variety of future year scenarios. To replicate base year conditions, the key transportation Apri120007nteri»i Update Apru i~, wvv 2-3 2.7 Develop Transportation System Needs The transportation system improvement strategy was developed using the goals and objectives (reiterated in Section 3) and the evaluation criteria (specified in Section 4). The recommended transportation system improvement strategy forms the basis for the updated RTP. 2.8 Develop Funding Plan and Improvement Program A financial analysis was conducted as part ofthe update of the RTP. This included a review and validation of the past transportation expenditures for Jackson County, Central Point, Medford, Phoenix, and the Rogue Valley Transportation District. Historical fundingby ODOT within the region was also reviewed. All transportation improvement projects needed within the 20 year planning horizon were identified during the needs assessment. This list of improvement projects was then assessed utilizing the evaluation criteria (described in Section 4) and finalized as a part of developing the regional transportationplan. Once completed, this listbecame theunconstrained project list and vision beyond the present financial limitations of the RTP. The financial limitations described by the financial analysis were merged with the project lists from the Street System Element (Section 8.0) and the Transit Element (Section 11). Taking the financial limitations into account, "Tier 1"and "Tier 2"project lists for both the Street System and Transit Elements were prepared. The Tier 1 list includes only those projects that are within the present financial limitations ofthe implementing agencies. The Tier 1 project list meets the defmition ofa financially-constrained transportation plan. AsummaryofthefinancialanalysisisdiscussedinSection 16. The projects in the Tier 2 list may not be relied upon as planning improvements to fulfill the requirements ofOAR 660-12-060 until a funding source has been identified. Projects included in this "unfunded" category include the Tier 2 street projects discussed in Section 8.0. Apri120001nterim Update April /2, 2000 2-5 3.0 Goals aitd Objectives This section ofthe Plan restates the Goals and Objectives adopted in the initial phases ofthis study. These Goals and Objectives guided the development and evaluation ofalternatives for the RTP. They will also serve to guide implementation ofthe Plan. They were used as a "measuring stick" tojudge how well the alternatives and the final plan reflect key public values expressed by the corrununity. The Goals and Objectives were developed at the inception ofthe project by the MPO Policy Committee with recommendations and suggestions from the TAC and the PAC. The Goals and Objectives were formally adopted by the Policy Committee. They were reviewed again toward the end ofthe planning process and were found to be consistent with the values of the conununity. Goal 1. Plan for, develop, and maintain amulti-modal transportation system that will address existing and future needs for transportation of people and goods in the region, recognizing the importance of the street network to most surface travel modes. Objectives 1.1 Design a transportation system for the future (2015 and beyond) that learns from and builds on the past. 1.2 Provide for smoother traffic flow and less congestion, particularly as it relates to commuter transportation. 1.3 Create an integrated and linked network of arterial and collector streets (such as a "beltline"). 1.4 Explore innovative alternative travel modes and fuel sources in order to reduce single-occupancyvehicles, vehicle miles traveled, and reliance on fossil fuels. 1.5 hnprove accessibility, availability, efficiency, and viability ofpublic and private mass transportation systems for all users (including disabled, elderly, and children). 1.6 Improve bicycle and pedestrian access and viability. 1.7 Provide for intermodal connections -- present and future. 1.8 Ensure the safety of all current and future travel modes for all. 1.9 Make the transportation system accessible to all users. 1.10 Ensurethattheexistingelementsofthemulti-modal transportation system are conserved through maintenance and preservation, sustained system operations, and equipment replacement scheduling, all through utilization of sound fiscal planning. 1995 RTP Januay 8, 1997 3-1 4.0 Evacuation Criteria The Goals and Objectives reiterated in Section 3 serve as the foundation to the RTP and act to guide the planning process and transportation investment decisions. At the onset ofupdating the RTP, the selected altemative identified in the 1995 RTP was evaluated and reviewed by the RVMPO and member jurisdiction. Each transportation alternative was reviewed to ensure that the project was still consistent with identified deficiencies in the travel demand model and the mobility needs ofthe community. Additionally, each project was reviewed to ensure that the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the RTP and met the evaluation criteria as identified in this section. The project list in the Interim Apri12000 RTP Update was reviewed using these criteria to ensure consistency with the goals ofthe RTP. This needs assessment analysis led to the development of the transportation system improvement strategy. Priorto the development ofthe transportation system improvement strategy, additional evaluation criteriaweredevelopedtosupplementtheGoalsandObjectivesspecifiedintheprevioussection. The criteria described below were used to compare transportation improvements and are based on local goals and objectives, TEA-21, Oregon TPR, and the Oregon Transportation Plan. Seven criteria developed by the Technical Advisory Committee are described below. Following eachofthecriteria are measures of comparison which can be usedto help evaluate transportation improvement options. Some measures of comparison are subjective and qualitative, while others are quantitative. It is important to emphasizethat the purpose ofthese criteria is to generate discussion bytheTechnical Advisory Comrittee about transportation system improvement strategies and community goals. As the plan is implemented, the measures of comparison generated under each criterion can be used as performance measures to gauge plan implementation performance. Criterion l: Reduce Reliance on the Single-Occupant Automobile The TPR and the Goals and Objectives ofthe RTP have stressed the need to reduce reliance on the single occupant vehicle by providing an opportunity for different choices of transportation. This criterion attempts to show how this is completed. Measures of comparison Per capita vehicle trips Per capita vehicle miles of travel (VMT) Number of lane-miles of new roadway construction Apri120007nterim Update April 12, 2000 4-I Criterion 4: Improve Efficient Utilisation of Existing Transportation Ltfrastructure The existing transportation infrastructure, basically the road network system, including the bikeways and sidewalks, has many positive features that can be enhanced. The purpose ofthis criterion is to ensure improvements to the existing system and enhancing the efficiency ofthe system is considered. Measures of comparison Capital improvement cost for the following types ofexisting transportation infrastucture: signalization, other transportation system management-type improvements, minor widening (cost and distance), major widening (cost and distance), new roads on new alignments (cost and distance), and high occupancy vehicle lanes and facilities (cost and distance). Use abandoned rights-of--way (e.g., corridor preservation) Maximize use of I-5 for inter-urban travel Criterion 5: Provide Environmentally-Sensitive Transportation The Rogue Valley'sairqualityproblem,althoughdiminishedoverthepastyears,stillexists. Quality of life, and the importance of sustaining natural resources was recognized in the Goals and Objectives of the RTP. Although the measures of comparison are prescriptive, this criterion describes the preferable transportation system improvement strategy that would minimize impacts and provide for environmentally-sensitive transportation solutions. Measures of comparison Minimize impact on air quality Minimize impact on agricultural and forest land/open spaces Minimize right-of--way impacts April 2000 Luerim Update April 12, 2000 4-3 5.0 Forecast Demographics and Travel Demand The number and location ofworkers and dwelling units have a significant impact on regional travel. Population and employment are key inputs to the computer-based ri~ansportation model. Estimates of base year dwelling unit and employment, and future projections ofthese same variables are needed to forecast future traffic. The population and employment ofthe Rogue Valley region are expected to increase by 30% during thenext20years. This increase in growthisamajorfactorforthetransportationneedsoftheregion. However, the transportation needs ofthepopulationwillbechangingaswell. An agingpopulationwill be more reliant on alternative modes oftransportation. At the same time, the rapid growth ofthe intemetwillgreatlyaffecttravelpatternsandbehavior. Therefore, notonlyistheamountofgrowth important, but also the forecast characteristics of the population. 5.1 Historical Population Growth and Recent Trends People are attracted to Southern Oregon because ofthe high qualityof life enjoyed here, which has resulted in relatively high population growth rates. As shown in Table 5-1, the growth has been especially high in the last five years. Table 5-1 Population Growth 1960-1999 1960 1970 1980 1990 1995* 1999** Change 90 - 99 Jackson Count 73,926 94,533 132,456 146,389 164,400 ]74,550 19.2% Central Point 2,289 4,004 6,357 7,509 9,620 11,700 55.8% Medford 24,425 28,454 39,603 46,951 55,090 59,990 27.7% Phoenix 769 1 287 2 309 3 080 3 615 3 970 28.9% Source: US Bureau of Census for 1960, 1970, 1980, ] 990; *Office of Economic Analysis, Long-Term Population and Employment Forecasts for Oregon, January 1997, Tahle 14, County Population Forecasts, Jackson County. **From Portland Statue University Center for Population Research and Census. Ofparticular interest to the future transportation needs ofthe region is the growth in the population of people age 65 and over. The mild climate and excellent health care facilities help make the area an attractive location for retirees. Between 1970 and 1990, this age group more than doubled in Jackson County. In the MPO, the 65 and over group makes up a relatively large portion of the population: Central Point (14%); Medford (17%) and Phoenix (27%). Apri120007nterim Update Apri112, 2000 5-I increase. Further details onpopulation and employment data and projection methods are contained in RVMPO 2000 Regional Transportation Plan Update, Land Use Techtlical Memot. Figure 5-1 illustrates dwelling unit and employment infomlation for existing and future conditions for theplanningarea. ForthepurposesofpresentingthisinformationinFigure5-2theplamlingareawas divided into a series ofdistricts. However, for the actual computermodeling, the areawas divided into approximately 400 individual transportation analysis zones. The dwelling unit and employment information for this many zones can not be easily Figure 5-l: Employment and Population Comparison Population Comparison 1995 -2020 20000 ~~^ '7 1 ~ t~ ,'5~5~ 1 ~Y L 4 t , yt c „ 15000 u ° ' .. > : s °~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ulation ®1995 Po F -v~ , t x ~ f,` ~+i` td Sh ~,.^3 "' ~. vv^I ~ ~.z" sKr ~ i. si ~ il~ p Y ~ F x~ : h a 6 ~ ~ ~ `~~ " I ~ ~ ` '~ ~ ~ a ~ 5000 ~ ®2020 Population Q 'ti M h 1 A ti> ti'h ,5 tit •~ Districts N]nployment Comparison 1995 - 2020 12000 , t t +~. 10000 -" ` ~` i O w in`s~1 >~.,~ t .~', '~~djt s Yj ? ~ ~i1 r' r{ t „ay2 F.~1 ~ a.. a 8~0~ N ~~~1`(~5 y~{.~. `1 li ~j C iFUl`a' c z>x~~~3s~,'"<.s ~ ~' ~, ~~ rr~ ~~ ~ Y~w~ >=~3~ ~?i~ ~ 1995 Employment R. 6000 ~ ~. zya ; ,e- rr : e ~ '~' --'. ,~ 4000 ~ ~p ~ <, ~ ,~, ' ~. ~ -~~ ~ ~ 2020 Em to ment 2000 ~ ~~ "~~`` ar". ® P Y .rs- s -~z`~' 0 1 '~ h 1 9 .~~ ~M 15 tit 1~ DIStt'IC2S ~RVMPO 2000 Regional Transportation Plan Update, Land Use Technical Memo, Feb. 16, 2000. Apri[2000Interim Update Apri! l2, 2000 5-3 presented in this report, so Figure 5-2 shows districts level data. Figure 5-1 shows the actual population and employment information from 1995 and the projected population acrd employment for the year 2020. The districts are derived from the 1994 Oregon Travel Behavior Survey. These districts represent relativelyhomogeneous areas ofthe RVMPO study areawith respect to trip making characteristics. Transportation Analysis Zones are the fundamental geographic unit of analysis used intheRVMPO travel demand model. This is the smallest scale atwhich population and employment characteristics are collected by the RVMPO. 5.3 Vehicular Travel Demand Locations with high traffic volumes today are expected to be the locations with the highest traffic volumes in the future. The highest traffic volumes in theregion are forecast to occur on Interstate 5. Otherhigh traffic volume locations are expected to be the Rogue ValleyHighway (Oregon Highway 99), CraterLake Highway(Oregon Highway62), BarnettRoad, McAndrews Road, and Crater Lake Avenue. The highest percentage increases in forecast 2020 traffic volumes over current traffic volumes occurinportionsofthecommunitywherelandusesazetransitioningfromruraltourbanuses. Example areas with high percentage increases in forecast traffic include Medford east ofI-5, unincorporated Jackson County west of Central Point and Medford, and to the north of Medford. Dailyvehiclemiles oftravel (VMT) intheregionis currentlyestimatedtobe approximately2.25 million milesperday. By2020,dailyVMTwithintheregionisexpectedtobebetween3.land3.2million milesperday. The higherfigure(3.2millionmilesperday)representstheexpectedincreaseintotal regional traffic if existingtransportationtrends continue andis approximatelyinproportionto increases in both population and employment. The 3.1 million daily vehicle miles of travel represents the prof ected traffic resulting in part from the special efforts made in this plan to encourage the use of alternative modes oftravel and alternative land uses. In 1997, the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule was amended to require the smaller MPOs in the state to achieve a 5% reduction in internal per capita VMT within the 20 yearplanninghorizon. Internal VMT includes onlythose trips inwhichthe origin and destination are within the MPO study area. Trips thatpass through the area or trips with either the origin or destination outside of the area are included in the calculation of internal VMT per capita. In spite of the best efforts of the region, a maximum reduction of 3.8% is achieved with the transportation system improvement strategy set forth in this plan. The 3.8 %reduction in VMT per capita is very reasonable when compared to the reductions achieved by other MPOs in the state. Further efforts to reduce VMT per capita will continue as alternative land uses and enhancing the attractiveness ofaltemative transportation modes is explored. It is important to know that while overall VMT is increasing, internal VMT (which is a measure of automobile use within the region) is being decreased. Further information including calculations related to the VMT implications ofthe RTP are included in Appendix E. Apri120001nierim Update April !Z, ZUOV 5-5 6.0 Transportation System Management Element The Oregon TPRdefines 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 ofthe existing transportation infrastructure, thus reducing the need for costly roadway capacity expansions. Example techniques include coordinating traffic signals, re-striping lanes, usurgone-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. TSMprojectsalsohavetheadvantageofcausinglittleorno 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. Local agencies have a good record of implementing TSM prof ects and are expected to continue to do so during the implementationperiodoftheplan. Many TSM projects have relatively low capital costs, at least in comparison to constructionofnewstreets. TSM projectsseldomrequire 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 region's 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 aresult, the TSM element emphasizes policies that can guide implementation ofsolutions to problems discovered as the region develops. BecausemanyTSMprojectscanbeimplementedwithoutmajor capital expenditures, only a portion ofthe TSM prof ects that are likely to be implemented over the next 20 years are included in the list of capital needs in the long-range transportation plan. Many others will likely be a part of individual agencies' capital improvement or maintenance plans over the coming years. Specific TSM measures mostapplicabletotheRVNII'Oregionarepresentedbelow. Wherepossible, specific projects have been identified. The listing and discussion ofTSM strategies below does not represent any priority order. The broad range ofTSM strategies mustbe considered forthe individual problems associated with traffic operations at each location. Apri(20001nterin: Update Apra ~~, ~uuv 6-1 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 ofautomobile-generated emissions is also cited as a possible benefit of improved signal systems. Whenever additional intersections are signalized, agencies need 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. Candidate corridors forconsideration orfor re-evaluation of existing traffic signal systems include the following eleven corridors: • Rogue Valley Highway between Stewart Avenue and Table Rock Road in Medford, • Rogue Valley Highway between First Street and Fern Valley Road in Phoenix, • Crater LakeHighwaybetweenRogueValleyHighwayandCokerButteRoadinMedford, • Biddle Road between Jackson Street and Hilton Street in Medford, • Main StreeUHillcrestRoad/EighthStreetbetweenColumbusAvenueandNorthPhoenix Road in Medford, • McAndrews Road between Crater Lake Avenue and Ross Lane in Medford, • Crater Lake Avenue between Main Street and McAndrews Road in Medford, • Springbrook Road/Sunrise Avenue between Jackson Street and Delta Waters Road in Medford, • Stewart Avenue between Barnett Road and Kings Highway in Medford, • East PineStreetbetweentheI-5 interchangeandRogueValleyHighwayinCentralPoint, and • Fern ValleyRoadbetweenRogueValleyHighwayandNorthPhoenixRoadinPhoenix. Installation ofmaster controllers, interconnection systems, and other equipmentmay help to achieve increased efficiency and reduce congestion of the street system. 6.3 Eliminate Unnecessary Traffic Signals Policv: Local governments shall consider removal of traffic signals where they are no longer justified due to land use changes and the resultant change in traffic atterns. Intersection traffic control improvements such as traffic signals are generally based on identified traffic congestion and safety problems. Overtime, 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 Apri120007rrterim Update Aprt1 i[, [uvu 6-3 Segregate non-homogenous flows. Separate laces should be provided where appreciable volumes oftraffic are haveling at different speeds (e.g. turning lanes for slowing vehicles). Consider the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists. 6.5 Intersection Turning Movement and Lane Use Restrictions Policv: Local governments shall consider prohibition of turn movements at major intersections to increase vehicular capacity and minimize conflict among motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Left-fuming traffic along majorundivided highways can impede the flow ofthrough traffic, especially when storage lanes are not provided for left-turning traffic. Turning movements are sometimes prohibited at arterial intersections to minimize conflict between turning vehicles and pedestrians and between turning vehicles and other vehicles approaching from the opposite direction, thereby reducing delay and safety problems. In such cases, the turn movements should be prohibited only duringthose hours when study data indicate that a significant capacity or safety problem exists and when a suitable alternative route is available. Alternatively, at signalized intersections, fuming movements can be restricted to certain phases ofthe signal operation by use of separate displays and appropriate signs. This type ofturn restriction is generally most effective only when a separate lane is provided for the use of turning vehicles. Turn prohibition studies should consider the following: • amount of congestion and delay caused by turning movements, • number of collisions involving vehicles making the turning movements, • possible impact oftraffic diversion on congestion and accidents at intersections required to accommodate traffic diverted by the prohibition, • reaction from local property owners, • possible adverse environmental impacts caused by re-routed traffic, and • feasibilityofalternativesolutions,suchasprovidingseparatestoragelanesforturning movement, and separate turn-movements phasing at signalized intersections. The metropolitan area currently has few intersections where left-turns are prohibited. Additional candidate locations may be identified as the region grows. Turn prohibitions may be a viable solution where a separate left-turn lane and signal protection cannot be provided because ofexpense orright- of-way constraints. Apri12000 buerim Update April !2, 2000 6-5 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 hying to satisfy traffic demands, which are often a result of increased business activity, which is influenced by improved traffic conditions, which leads to further traffic demands. The number of conflict points among vehicles rises as a result of an increase in the number of driveways, causing capacity to diminish. Vehicle delay increases, and safety and comfort are reduced. The cost of allowing unplanned development to occur along arterials can be great because the inevitable solution calls for more capital expenditure as the traffic conditions reach intolerable proportions. However, ifproperplanningisutilized,intheformofanaccessmanagementsystem, costs can be minimized. The following are some of the more important elements of an access management strategy that would be applicable to the metropolitan 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 connectionsbetweenadjacentpropertiesthatdonotrequiremotoriststo traverse the public streets. • Require adequate internal site design and circulation plan. • Regulate the maximum width of driveways. • Improve the vertical geometries of driveways. • Optimize traffic signal spacing and coordination. • Install raised median divider with left-turn deceleration lane. • Install continuous two-way left-turn lane. Key elements ofthe proposed access guidelines forthe RVMPO planning area are summarized in Appendix F. April Z000Interim Update Apri! !Z, ZUUu 6-7 6.8 Install New Traffic Signals At Intersections Polic :Local governments shall consider the installation of new traffic signals when warranted at major intersections in the metropolitan area. New traffic signal locations shall be identified based on guidelines established in the Manual o 77nifnrm Traffic ControZDevices (MUTCD). 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 within the metropolitan area intersections that are currently under two-way orfour-way stop-control was evaluated based on the roadway and intersection capacity deficiencies identified for the year 2020. The computer-based traffic model was used to forecast year 2020 traffic volumes. These forecast volumes were compared with the capacitytypical oftwo-way and four-way stop-controlled intersections. Ifforecast volumes substantially exceeded the capacity, it was judged likely that warrants for signalization of the intersection would be needed. Traffic control improvements in the form ofnew signals are estimated to be required at approximately 40 intersections in the Rogue Valley metropolitan planningregion. These locations, along with other street system improvements, are identified in the Street System Project List (Table 8-2 and Table 8-4) in the Street System Element (Section 8.0) of the plan. 6.9 Ramp Metering ODOT, in consultation with local governments, shall consider the lion of ramp signals at freeway on-ramps to meter the amount of traffic the freeway, thereby maintaining optimum flow conditions on the freeway Ramp meters are employed atfreeway on-ramp entrances with the objective of optimizing throughput capacity on the mainline freeway. The optimization is achieved by regulating the entry ofvehicles onto thefreewayduringthepeakhoursofoperationthroughtheuseoframpsignalsattheon-ramps. Very often, optimization of freeway throughput capacity is achieved at the expense of additional delays at the metered on-ramps. Another key consideration is the ability to provide adequate queuing or storage capacity for the stopped vehicles on the ramps leading to the through road. Ramp metering has proven to be one ofthe most cost-effective teclmiques 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 increasedby 29 percent after installingramp metering. An analysis ofthe system in Seattle revealed that in addition to speed and corresponding Aprill000biterim Update Apra i~, wvv 6-9 7.0 Transpof~tation Demand Management Element The purpose of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is to reduce the number ofsingle- occupantvehicles using the road system while providing a wide variety ofmobility options to those who wish to travel. Put another way, TDM measures increase the carrying capacity ofthe transportation system, without the expense and inconvenience of adding capacity to the system. Ifimplemented on an area-wide basis and actively supported by agencies, businesses and residents, TDM strategies may be able to reduce or delay the need for street improvements as well as reduce energy consumption and air quality problems. TDM strategies are aimed at reducing travel demand by influencing people's travel behavior in one oftwo ways: by reducing the need to travel or by encouragingtravel by a mode other than asingle-occupant automobile. To manage the demand upon a transportation system, there are a number ofbasic approaches that a community may take. First, a community could attempt to decrease peak demand eitherby shifting person-trips from the peak hour ofdemand orby eliminating person-trips (Person trips represent the number oftrips made by an individual, while vehicle trips account formultipleperson trips depending upon the number ofpeople traveling in the vehicle). Second for the person-trips that are necessary during the peak hour ofdemand, a community may encourage non-vehicular and vehicular alternatives to single-occupant vehicles(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 systemby decreasing the distances traveled by vehicle trips through differentmethods including, but not limited to:transit-oriented type development and increasing the amactiveness of alternative modes oftransportarion such as transit, bicycling and wallcing. There is an important inter- relationshipbetweentheTDMelementandlanduse. Someoftheimplicationsoflandusechangesare presented in Section 12.0. The major effect of the TDM programs would be on the home to work and return trips, which comprise about one-fifthofthetotaldailytrips,andabouthalfofthepeakhourtraffic. 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 metropolitan area focus on the home to work and return trips. These include establishing alternative work arrangements, promoting telecommuting andridesharing, and adopting a trip reduction ordinance. TDM strategies are also closely tied to the provision of adequatepedestrian/bicyclefacilitiesandtrausitservices,andmodifyingparkingrequirements. Specific actions related to parking are included in the Parking Element (Section 9.0). Strategies aimed at improving pedestrian and bicycle service are discussed separately in the Bicycle and Pedestrian System Element (Section 10.0) ,and recommended transit service improvements are discussed in the Apri120001nterim Update April 12, 2000 7-1 hours have to be considered in light ofthe 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 hoursoveratwo-weekperiod. With the 4/40 schedule, the employee gets one businessdayoffeach 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" ofa work trip per working day (either the arriving or departing "leg") out ofthe peak hours. The 4/40policy additionally eliminates an entire work trip every five business days (I/5 ofthe work trips). The 9/80 policy eliminates an entire work trip every ten business days (1/10 of the work trips). One ofthe problems with any ofthe compressed work schedules is the potential for increases innon- worktrips during the "ofI'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. 7.2 Telecommuting 'POIICV: Local Qovernments and major employers shall encourage telecommuting. ~ Telecommuting is another opportunity available to employers to affecttotal 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 bymore than one employer, orby an agency. Recent advances in communications technology (e.g., Internet capabilities) should greatly enhance telecommuting options. Due to the distance and volume oftrips between Medford and Ashland, trips between these two cities may be the easiest to replace with telecommuting. Southern Oregon State College in Ashland would be a logical site for a telecommuting center if sufficient demand exists among Medford employers. Similarly, Rogue Community College in Grants Pass might be able to service telecommute trips between Grants Pass and Medford. 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. Apri! 2000Giterim Update Apri[ tz, ~uw 7-3 7.4 Trip Reduction Ordinance Polic :Local governments shall encourage major employers to adopt trip reduction goals designed to reduce site vehicular trip generation. A voluntary Trip Reduction Ordinance (TRO) is recommended forthe 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 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategy itself, but is a device by which TDM measures are implemented. TROs typically require employers/developers to share some ofthe responsibility for reducing single-occupant automobile use by their employees. Some communities place the burden on the initial developers ofofficeparks or othermajor employment centers, including obligating them to fundatransportationmanagementorganization. The developerthenpassesthese costs onto tenants ofthe facilities. TROs identify specific trip reductiontargets, such as thepercentage reduction of commuter vehicle trips. The decrease in trip generation can be achievedby 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 deternune ifvoluntary compliance is meeting the community trip reduction goals. Ifthe goals are not met, then a community may choose to make the trip reduction goals mandatory for maj or employers and/or expand it to smaller ones. 7.5 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Programs Bicycle, pedestrian, and transit are often treated as TDM measures because promotional programs aimed at encouragingtheiruseareamajorpartofanareaplan. For theRVMPOarea,thisplancalls 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. Strategies aimed at improving pedestrian and bicycle service are discussed separately in the Bicycle and Pedestrian System Element (Section 10.0), and recommended transit service improvements are discussed in the Transit System Element (Section 11.0). Apri120007nterim Update Apri112, 2000 7-5 8.0 Street System Element 8.1 Introduction The street system element ofthe RTP consists ofa list and maps ofprojects on the street system that provide facilities for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians. The list identifies improvements needed on the region's arterial and collector street system to serve the region's long-range needs for mobility and accessibilitybaseduponanticipateddevelopmentdu~oughtheyear2020. Projects included in the RTP are regionally significantprojects. Locally significant projects are included in localjurisdiction's Transportation System Plans (TSPs), but not necessarily in the RTP. Local TSPs also include the regionally significant prof ects in the RTP that are within their jurisdiction. The growth anticipated in the region is summarized in Section 5.0. In many cases, the street system improvements provide for upgrades to urban and rural cross sections that will include bicycle lanes or wider shoulders for safe bicycle travel, and the addition ofsidewalks to allow for safe and accessible pedestrian use. Accessibility to transit routes is materially improved by the construction of sidewalks as part of street improvement projects. The proj ect list was based on an evaluation ofthe existing roadway system, identified long-range needs (based on the growth assumptions in Section 5.0), the metropolitan area Goals and Objectives (Section 3.0), and to relevant state and federal regulations. The Goals and Objectives plus the Evaluation Criteria (Section 4.0) relate to making the most efficient use ofthe existing transportation infrastructure and to providing adequate mobility, safety, and accessibility for users ofall modes of transportation. The street and highway project list has been developed as atwo-tiered list. Tier 1 projects represent needed projects for which funding is likely to be available based on existing revenue sources. These proj ects meet the "financially constrained" criteria for federal and state funding and air quality analysis. Tier 2 projects represent those that exceed the region's current financial capabilities. Taken as a whole, the Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects are a comprehensive list of street and highway projects necessary to accommodate regional travel needs based on the growth assumptions outlined inSection 5.0 and the adopted Goals and Objectives reiterated in Section 3.0. This determination of Tier 1 and 2 projects is based on estimates of revenues summarized in the Financial Element (Section 16.0). Since the region's needs exceed available revenues, someprojects had to be included in the Tier 21ist in spite oftheir importance to the region. The Tier 2 projects were not utilized for the air quality analysis because these projects do not meet the financially-constrained requirements. Both Tier I and Tier 2 projects will be forwarded as the region's vision for the future and will be used as the basis for updates of the RTP. Apri120007ruerim Update April 12, 2000 8-1 Table 8-1 Number of Tier 1 and Tier 2 Street Projects By Jurisdiction Tier 1 List Sub- Tier 2 Total Jurisdiction Short Medium Long Total List ODOT 14 17 16 47 6 53 Jackson Co. 12 10 29 51 10 61 Medford 41 8 3 52 55 107 Central Point 9 9 22 40 15 55 Phoenix 5 9 5 19 7 26 Totals 81 53 75 209 93 302 Table 8-2 groups the projects first according to the principal agency and, second, according to the project phase. The following information is included for each project in Table 8-2: • project location; • improvement category; • general project description; • project improves travel by mode; • project justification; • project phasing; • financial partners; • project distance in miles (where applicable); • unit cost; and • project cost. The projects included in Tier 1 are included in the region's financially-constrained plan. These projects are within the existing financial capabilities estimated for the region's implementing agencies. (See Section 16.0 for more discussion.) Each of the above items identified in the draft project list is explained in the followingdiscussion. Foradescriptionoftheprocessusedtoidentifytheprojects within the Tier 1 and Tier 2 lists, refer to RTP Update 2000, Needs Analysis Technical Memo. 8.2 Project Location For most projects, the description of location is a street segment defined by the street name and termini. For others, the location is an intersection. Intersection improvement locations are generally described with the north-south street listed first, and then the east-west cross street. Location information will be refined when fiirther analysis and preliminary engineering is conducted prior to constriction. Apri120001n[erim Upcla[e Apra t<, ~uuv 8-3 6. Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvement projects include those where new constuction would add both sidewalks and bike lanes. These projects are ones where the principal reason for the project is related to these modes rather than motor vehicle travel. 7. Minor Capacity Improvements include roadway widening projects that add one lane, such as a center turn lane, and where the completed road does not exceed three lanes. This category also includes projects where realignment ofa short segment ofroad, such as near an intersection, is anticipated. 8. Major Capacity Improvements include all roadway wideningprojectswheremorethanone vehicle lane is added, or where the final configuration is four or more lanes. 9. New Construction projects are those where a roadway would be constructed where no public roadway now exists. Aright-of--way may or may not presently exist. 10. Other projects include those not fitting into the above categories. 8.4 Project Description Only a general descripfion ofeach project is included. Project information will be refined several times between a proj ect's inclusion in this list and its construction. A prof ect is analyzed before it is added to a capital improvement program and again when preliminary engineering is undertaken a year or two prior to construction. When planning is undertaken for specific projects, many variables are considered including: traffic volumes and turns, the percentage of trucks and buses, the location of intersecting streets and driveways, the available tight-of--way, topographic constraints, accident history, utility conflicts, and impacts on property owners. After such information has been analyzed, general descriptions from this plan can be refined and more specific information can be made available. In many cases, the project description specifically lists bike lanes and sidewalks. Local governments routinely include these features in road construction projects. In addition, Oregon's Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires that local governments plan for sidewalks and bicycle facilities. Sidewalks and bike lanes are linear features whichusually run the entire length ofa roadway section and are most usefulifprovidedfortheentireprojectlength. Likemotorvehicletravellanes,sidewalks and bike lanes work best when they are continuous and interconnected with like facilities. In addition to sidewalks, which have an obvious benefit to transit riders, other features that benefit transit are also often included in roadway projects. In contrast to continuous or linear sidewalks and bike lanes, transit features that are likely to be included on many street system projects tend to be Apri12000 brterim Update April 12, 2000 8-5 During the design phase ofa street improvement project, both transit and trucks need to be considered. Some ofthe features that may need to be included are lane width, turning radii, longer acceleration or deceleration lanes, and pull-outs forpicking up transitpassengers. These are design details thatare too specific for the general descriptions included in the list ofstreet projects in the long-range plan. The policies included in the transit, freight, bicycle and pedestrian elements can be used to specifically support the inclusion of these features when the design phase of a project begins. 8.6 Project Justification Seven different projectjustificationsareshownintheroadwayprojectslist. Multiplejustificationsare indicated for most projects. The following is an explanation of the project justifications: Access improvements are specified as a justification for about one-quarter of the street and highway projects. New collector and arterial streets designed to serve presently undeveloped land are labeled as access improvements. Many existing streets proposed for upgrading also qualify since aportion of the forecast traffic increase is from land, which is presently undeveloped. Economic development is indicated on about twenty projects where access would be improved for land designated for commercial and industrial use. Economic development is generally defined as the attraction and expansion ofemployment sites, thus there is an emphasis on commercial and industrial sites. Safety is indicated as a justification formost ofthe proposed projects on the street and highway list. Some ofthe proposed projects are designed to correct existing safety problems. In other instances, such as outlying collector streets, safety problems do not presently exist. However, as the area grows and traffic increases, many other streets and intersections will experience safety problems. Thus, "safety" is shown as a project justification for some projects in anticipation ofproblems as well as locations where problems presently exist. Operations improvement is included as a justification for approximately one-halfof the projects in the list. Most ofthese projects are intersections where excessive delays occur or are anticipated. Some other projects include widening ofthe roadway to accommodate additional travel lanes, a raised median, or a continuous two-way left-turn-only lane. Truck traffic is used as a project justification on several projects and reflects community desire to keep trucks onnon-residential streets and away from other areas where they are not wanted. Inmost cases, streets where "truck traffic" is used as a project justification are in or adjacent to industrial areas. Upgrade to urban standards isincluded as ajustification onone-third oftheprojects inthe list. In developing the list, urban standards (including curbs, gutters and sidewalks) were determined to be Apri12000Guerirrt Update Apri112, 2000 8-7 Cost estimates will be refined as the construction date approaches. More precise cost estimates are prepared when projects ate proposed for inclusion in local agencies' capital improvement programs. Even more detailed estimates are made during preparation of design engineering and construction specifications. Among the variables that influence the cost aze storm drainage facilities and utility re- locations. The cost ofthese can vary greatly and may not be known until engineering work is complete. No estimate was made ofpotential costs ofstorm drainage facilities orutility re-locations otherthan what is typically encountered on similar projects. For the purposes ofthis plan, general estimates forright-of--way acquisition were included only for new roadway projects and for major widening projects. Right-of--way acquisition costs for these two categories ofprojects were based on simple unit costs for land. For new roadway projects, only the cost associated with acquisition ofundevelopedlandwasassumed. Forthemajorwideningprojects, only theright-of-wayexpansion necessary to add theplannedvehicletravellaneswasestimated. (It was assumed that sufficientright-of--way exists at present to accommodate two orthree vehicletravel lanes plus bike lanes and sidewalks.) Minor allowances were made in the unit cost figures for the widening for landscaping repair, fence replacement, and other minor mitigation related to the adjacent property. No costs were included for any project for relocation ofresidents or businesses or other "major" disruptions. Because the region's street improvement needs exceed the existing revenue sources, some ofthe street and highway projectscannotbeincludedafinancially-constrainedplan. Based upon the financial assumptions described in Section 16.0, a financially-constrained project list was developed. Table 8-3 lists the unit costs on which the project costs in Table 8-2 were calculated. Figure 8-1 illustrates the Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects by improvement category. Figure 8-2 illustrates the Tier 1 and 2 projects. Figure 8-3 illustrates the Tier lfinancially-constrained projects only. Apri12000Interim Update April 12, 2000 8-11 V o _ _ _ _ _ h lo U .E ~ ~. _ r:o < z.z a o~ o o ,mn o x~aao~( a ~n~oA ~u wa p - v~iwi t Auno p 104 0 • ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ O! ` C C C C L C C p p a _< ape,9J~.lo,ng arasan:~isa,n ~ - auie;~n, > > > > > > > no~i¢i~ao i > > > > > ry+ies > > > > > wrouoog > > > > > 3saaib l l 1 l l l l l /~!14~iaig ~ • • ~ i~sa¢,y ~ E uetii35~ad • ~ ~ ~ ~ aPlaip • ~ ~ ~ ~ >Ii~yaA • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 - _ 1 ~ a - v ~ ~ x o ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ _ _ - 3 ~ _ - ' ~. S °~ 3 3 .'e r s e ~ 6 3 _ 2 T ~ ~ ? ° s ~ V ~ " c = 3 _~ v Z c E i_ S 2 _ _ ~ 2 _ - ~ _ - U U U i V U C K 6 ~ 6 Y+ .c,o8alap L. o mwaemtlwt. ~ E c c E c - _ E m o a d _ z r ~ w "~ . o :~ J T Y .c C `o `p p y ~_ 5 N rv o O> .°. `° O L o ~ o e e ,; .'z c z _ _ L U U i ~ j C~ C E c C ~ r - - - o a ,a ,~ ~^, u o ^-`. > _ ' F F F C C C 4 Q F G O f C o e E i F- f m F N J V [a 0 a ~a' O O N ~1 W F o 6 G G G 6 G G U O •~~~~~~~~r •~~~~~~ h c K °n G<<<< G V J .1 J J J .l J c Z Z Z Z Z Z i H l 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1\ l l l l l \\ l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 1 1 7 l l l l l l ) l l l l l l l • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • • • • ~ t ~ • ~ \ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 3 3 ~ ~ E _ '3 F S ~~ aT 'E .c - '^ ~ .yo ' a~= ~ E ~ ~ m ~ E a ~ c - _ 3 , 2 T 3 3 ~ v 3 _______ .iz _ ~_r _ ? 3 3 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ; '; 2 c ~ 2 ' v 3 3 v > u° E e < ^~ ~j _ _ ~_ C n - _ '~ ,.u _ ~ C U n _ n ~ ; y ~yCU Kw<q w u 5 N ``3 _ Y >= ~ `TUC~T ax .~ ?>tUC ~ ~ = . u J a _ > > > ~• c _ C > ~ ~C o j J V~ Y 5 v [-'.1 LL 2 V o - G V E - _ _ _ _ ~ v - ~ L E ~ z _ ¢ _ > o . o nyl0 _ oqd Iniud lciluaj - r,o1QaW _ ,cjuno~ ~ O O O O i P 4 P LOQO a`: a`.. L - L L L L L L L L L L L are;sartie,~H > > > > al)v,y yin,l ~ 1 ~o~~e,aa6 > > > > > > Hams > > 1 17 1 i >>>> > oaf mw > > > ntaatl ~ l > > l l -..:: y~y~a~j • • ~~rs'uo. s uei+i.>r~a alaFa~{~ • • • • • • • • • • • 0. Sli~yaA • • • • • • • • • • • 3 ~ Y _ _ ~ 3~ 3 3 3 3? .$ ~ ~ L ~ - _= 3 3 w O y 3 k ` ` ~ D ~ 3 m ~ 3 3 3 ~ '3 C - ~ »< d ~ ~ 3 ~ - - - S +Y o 3 c c 3 2 ~' t 2 2' Z c U 3 z` 3 ? 3 3> 3 3 3 3 x 6,oaawp ~ ~mwanmJw~~ h ~E E E E~ c E 2 2 E ~ V T a ~ C ~ . ~ ' p' o [' ~ ~ i 1 . r 3 K U o D- r C i m i ~ ~ ~ _ <~ U K >O 9~ o~j<= c o L o ~ L . a ~ 5 _ s j ~ o ' U o ~ . c __ ~ a C 5 y _ C 1 C K ~ K ~ _ ` C - ~ ~ n O O _ - Z < 'J. _ H a V a a r 0 U Q Y~ U ti ro !y 0.l I- U V m4 ~ W 'c E E E E E E E E E E 55SS5SE~F~~_ C U - 4 V E E F o - C Z / o _ _ _ ~i~li0 _ aotld pmod Iciiuap - P.ol Pate n LL Ffu~oj • ! ~ 0 0 ! 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 0 i ~ 0 i G i 0 i i A i i ~ Y 10(10 y. d J .J .J . .] .~] J J J ..1 . J ..l .] ~ J J _I J J J . ] ..l . J .! .! ..) ~ J . J ..1 aP~supid;nv l l ~ 1 l l 1 ~ l 1 1 l l 1 l l l l l arsdrt ~ea:~ ~ s > > > i ~ _ - awe+;iv: > > suajid:3do > > > > > > > > .Uaies l l ~ l l l l l l l l l l l \ l l l l l l 1 l l l l l \ l a~WOU 6a,~ 1 1 zfi'iiV l 1 l 7 1 l l l Job aig p~SYVI' • E ti~]ISaFad • • • • • aPFS~g • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • y q 3 Y n i x y n ~ u 3 s q a ~ r i i i s r 3 >. s u > ~ , a ? ~ . a u 3 . r > 3 u . i y u u u ~ n _ a ~ 3° -- 3 3 3 ~3 ~ c 3 5. 3 5 3 5 5 3 ~3 y r ° 3 t t 3 3 t 3 0. V 3 m ~ ~ ~ t 3 L .$ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ '~ ~ `A .`J '~ a ~ 5 ' 2= 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 t 2 " 2 3 3 v -. 2c 2 _ 0 ~ 3~ 3= 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 x`3 33 3> 33 3 Ao9aiep ~uawanmawj;y _ E E F 2 E 2 2 2 2 2 E 2 2 E E 2 2 2 E 2 2 2 2 C ~ ~ _ 3 _ C - c o ~ E _ a .~ C O S_ ~ aTi C C J U u C i ~ ~ n C ~ C ~ o o o - U - o N -. . 7 ~ y s c o _ O o o i a c S° C' > K _~ U~ C ~' n J - p. et 2 ~ O w ~ J v a U C ~ C :.. c ..] J ~ ~ _` E w ~' L' 2` C .. u C 5 _ - ~ V J - ~ U 'C .. O O J ~ J U J J $ .L Y i i N n ~- J J 7 ~ G V 0. mL G a J < G n r G c 0 - 0 7 - • ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ < G G G G G G 6 4 G z -% i z z z z z z z > > > > > > 1 l l l > > l l l l > > l l l l l ^ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3 Y_ ~ ~ 3 T u S ~ _ _ i _ 3 ~ 3 - 3 `d 3 e_~3 .~ - _ 2 _ _ _ _ _ 2 , 3 3 B a 3 3 3 3 3 `o E c a E E 2 2 U ~ S s _ U ° C" C C v - S r uIu y U ~ N_ 1 N ~ C G _ C v C ~ _ c G ~~~ ^J > ~ C vJ J J V 6 V E ~5 4 0 ° ialp y lu~od Iv~1W PaolPVl - puny LOU arr,adn ?uta%i i 'J loaf prsue3j E ua~ijiap, N ala (a~f `~ `ajiiyaA H a V W a d V] 5_ N a a` m Q d FwBaavj ~mwano~dw~: .°a 7 ¢ rv Z- < G j j w o r< o] n a ° n e n o 4< Z Z r~ G o Z <¢¢< Z% f G < ~ Z ~.. 4 °] << ] Z < 6 7 Z < 6 Z% ¢ G G¢ Z Z Z L < Z n o n 0 ~ ~ ~ d V • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C ~ N ~n •n ~n vi to vi ~n ~n vi vi vi h vi N N ~n ~n vi ~n en vi vi vi v~ v~ vi to rn vi vi N N N N N vl N N ~n N 1 > > > > > > > > > > s s > > > > > > i > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i > > > > > > > > > > > i > > > > > > > > > > s > > > > > > > i > > > i ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ `-+ 3 ~ - 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ - 3 S .. ~ 3 3 ~ 3 a ` ~ m ` 3 ~ S ~ - uu '-°E - m E m ~ _ S E a 3 e c E u 5 ~ - _ a ~ q - E _ 3 a 39 a3 w3 3 °e °`-c' m~3 U~ ~ S E m_ a~ F~ `-5 `-~ S S E E .5 E E ' 3 c - _ ` m m y 3~ ? 3 ~ 3 E 3 3 3 9 o 3 " ~ L y ~ °o a e m- -~ ~ w m m ~ m~ ~ _ ` c 2 ~ 3° ` 2 ° '0 2 ° .~ 2 ° 2 °° ~ 2 o Y ~.' ~ ~ ` 3 2 3~ c 9 3 o ` c 7 'j ,7 . , ~ ~ m ? - _ _ _ 0 . 3 e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ° ¢ ~° r = 8 u v ~ `° 3 ci u° ~ 3 3 s"" ~ _ _ _ 5 r o B `_ _ _ _ ____ 3 3 0 o` o° E o c `o ~E c o` E c `o c E o` o o` ~E EE c o ~ E >. `c a E N `o o` `o ~ E E E = t= o z o < °~ O u t ~ v ~ _ ~ u _ E 3 ~ ~. ~ ~ 5 z m~3 m m''- _ r ~3 _ _ > ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ o r3 p g - _ r ~ U' ' ~ _ 6 b ' _ a ' m ° o ' v ~ t o ' v G H C 9 O V C ~ o< Q o Q G n U _ y a U _ E a~' _ Y <: °c U -r s __ = 5 ~ L G c o a ' 3 o s~c a 3= U ~ ~ C ,'J. ` v _ p 3 . :. $_ V V ~ ~ V` o ~.. .".. ~ ~ .. ~ o .±i _ ~ U F a. .i: C V vG ' U U U $ Z v+ .'sl 1 s ~ ~ °- >_ » w' V !c U ^~ s ° a_ _ a a r m _ _ _ ' _ J ~a e F N `t H U O a W s J m F' w' o o j __ di ¢ < 6 ¢ G G 6 f ¢ < 6 6 ~' ¢ ¢ ~ 6 < < 6 6 G G ¢ G < < G ¢ < ¢ G < S z S S Z_ S_ % >_ % z Z S z S S S S S% Z_ % S_ S_ T% z Z Z% Z% S >.. 1 1 1 \ l 1 l l l l l l l 1~ l l l l l l 1 l 1 l 1 l l l l l l l 1 \ ~ l \ l l l 1\ l l l l 1 l 1 1 l l 1 l l l l l 1 1 1 1 l l l l 1 l l l l 1 1 l l l l l u l l 1 1 1 • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 3 3 ~ ~ = 3 y - ~ y 0 ~~ 3 ~ ~ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 n 3 - 3 a 5 a° S g 5 ~~ `~' ~ ~~ ~~ S~ S ~ a a~ a~ Y o - S S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < S a S ~ _ _ ~ - ~ s 'a S - ~ - - 3 .3 a' D ~ - ~ y N ~ _ _ _ _ _ o o L 3 _ r ~ ?- e S .$ a i 3 3 .3 .3 a `-~ A _ c .3 := u .3 < 3 .s c 3 < :5 . ~ o .3 ~ .3 v .6 ~ ` ` a e rl ~ e a ~ o ~ ~ ed ~ `-~ `- i w `-~ ~ ~ ~ e3 ~ ~ _ `_ f c _ ~ t r ~ z _ _ _ , _ •`+ 3 e 3 g 3 ` ~ ~ S _ ~ _ _ v _ u u u ~ ~ u F v u v u _ ~' u 2 u '~ ~ ` _ . + ~ - . + 9 E i ^ F i . + G u u „ - 3 3 3a' 3 3 = 3 3 3 3 3 z` 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 °< 3 3 u° u° 3 3 3 3 8 u° E> > E E~E N E 'a ~ ~E E a ~E ~ a ~E c a E ~E `c c E ~E G C O C 3 aj V 5 - ~y C 5 C ~ E n $ > C a. 4 ~ _ r G '' e P V ~- 0 1 Y~ o U o° O O o p >° U ° $ ~ 9 3 = ~_ 'e '+ ~~ Y i C cl a _ v Y _'e C _ ~ K 0 _ O - c L _ u ° ~ _ -C- L _~ J K m': J ei L ~j~ CC ~- C6 ~ G G -"c ~ O eo ~ry c: _ - U ~ _ ~ U v _ i _ ~ ` C Y K O a. - o f ` o U L U E _ J° ` .~~ ~ r G O < o < .~.<4 G rv < aay10 aogA ~.° qurod{v-0naj - WgPa IK ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ L quno p a0a o _ < G ¢ < G < G < < < < G < 6 6 < < " 6 < G f ~ . 7 ZZ 2% ].. Z '1_Z Z> Z,~Z Z,2~.27 72 SZ Z E' F ano,xan w,~ a ~ _ aPv.Bdp uu4, ~ 1 ~ \ ~ - aui¢u:+iips . oaa uo' o > > 1 > > > > , , 1 1 1 1 > 6aaJe 5 > > > 1 ~ 1 > > > > > > 1 1 w wovm g 1 > • 1 1 1 1 1 --si3ai b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 pq8 al j 1,SY e~ • ^ ~ ~ ~ E e UsaPad • • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y alaRa~g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 al>14aA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a . e 3 ' vs _ 3 . e 3 . 3 _ 3 _ 3 ~ ~ $ _ 3 3 ~ o `a _ I _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ E I A - y ; _ 3 3 3 _ e ~ l 3 3 j 3 3 `^ E a° v 3 a ° v . . ~ o ~ 3 3 c ~ c ~~ L~ c E m E' E~3 3 E e t _ 3 s ~ r v ~ ° ° ~ ~ ~ n _ ,.. ` v. L ~ ~ , _ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 C E E E r ~~ ~ a 2 ~ ~_ _ 2 2 2 2 3 2 ~ $ B z ° 3 u ° = ° u 3 u v v v v = u v. v 3 = 3 3 R,ozaw~ „~wano.awij E E ~E E ~E E ~E L 7 - z < = - 9 Y 3 .. ,`~ ~_ _ __ `s 5 n - °a ~ ~~ ~ _ _ a _ _ .5 ~ u~ r ~ Fs i ~ ~ M ~ ~ o U m ° C U C o i o n - ~ ~ O r ~ 0 ~ o U . o U ' N J o ? 5 ~ o V i S U L _ 4 ' E _ u u Y E _ ~ n Q ~ ~ F U' ~ C _ E - j ~ F ~ ~ LL - _ _ _ J U U J ~ V U u J v v: j 3 i ~ 9 , n Z ?,~ ' U i V ~ c M L 0.'.y ~. 4 E L` A L .oea,~~~~~>war.oiaw~.; J 4 j Lc 6 I - . J J~ J mi . f . 1 . 1 . l J . l J ..1 .-1 J J J J J J ~ l l l l l l 1 l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l\ l l l l l l l l l 1 1 l 1 l l l l l l l l l l l • ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ e a m ~ .tea - ., a '.~" s A 3 3 3 y K _ U _ _ 3 u ~ ~ ` ° ~ ~j v` _ _ 9 .r3 d` .5 ~ .3 9 a c3 ~ c ai ~ ci ~ ~ ~~Y. i U ~ 9 .d n ~ .$ ~ ~ `~ o y ` x a" s H a S S A ~ c ~ ~ c ~ , e-~1 ~ s Y i[ ` - E 3 3 `~' y `~ 7 m 3 3 3 e' c c N c c c e_ v_ `_w w =5 w ~ ~z ,m _ ~ __ v~ _ 3¢ 3 3 d ` o " a ~ d 3 < 3 3 3 a . a C~ c ~ a E E E~E E E E a ~ E '_ = m _ ~° S A _ a ~ n` a" p` ° Z p y ~ 3 o a s~ r - r e - m V o C q : o V < C C I ° F - O ~. S 3~ 2 U U ~ ~ Z' ` .may C O j w P Q a r ~ G G :n y ~ o r a_ __ 4 >' r o ~ 3 _ _ __ __ .] J I< rn E f E B F U U E j 'E [] aaip0 - aoyd mod:JagimJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - Dl0JPa1V _ qu~op y0a0 4 < f 6 f ¢ f f f 6 f f 4 < i aee~sun ie;ny _ vemsaa uayip > > 1 > > > 1 ~ _ ajjoiy!ryiniy saoilvaau0 1 1 ~ \ 1 l gaJvg l l l l l l l l l 1 l l 1 l uoog l l 1 1 l l aiay 1 l l l l l ;48Wd ~l~sutli' • ~ ~ ~ ~ E nulsap>a • ~ ~ ~~ ~ t ~ ~ ~~ ~~ • aloFap • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ., al?f4aM1 • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l 1 ~- 3 ti 1 1 - ~ 3 3 ~ 1 A ~ ~ ~' ~ I w I - a _ - ? 3 9 _ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ y g t a ~ S w° __ __ _ 3 ,aasaroJ rvaw ..e;dw~, - a c a' _ ` ~ F - _ E _ u V _° - " Z f ° - - in C o> .- _ _ - _ ~ _ _ T >. L ~ _ - c -_ 4 _ U :.. - s' ~ -- z 3 >° _ - _ _ _ _ f` a V !y O a a x W a J f F U J " F ~ E ao4d y Imod leq nab - PIO1PalV 6lunop 4u /a`. c y a'6i8 Pea3o L^ ~. °~ a` a` ~;: LL i V 0. 0 00 W _ G f G< f f V J J .~ 7- Z G >_ > Z~ J ~ < F 1 1 1 1 1 1 l l l l l l l 1 l 1 l l l l l 1 1 l l l l 1 1 l l l l l l l 1 l l ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ • • ~ ~ • ~ ~y 3 3 3 3 ? ~ ~ 3 S S ~ S 5~`$ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ ' 3 0 _____ 1 3 3¢ 3 3 3 C ~ ~ c _ ~ p` a UyU ~~`'U~ _ _ - _ ~ U - ['J Q N ~ ~ N J S d E F `u' i< o~ n 9 0 V J~'~ V ; 'K ~ - ~ 30 _>Uv ~[ C N v .° _°. U .. v C ~ _ .~: U U U a ^~ o' U O C ~~~S~E ~Il~~ ,LEA I~~~ ~I~~II~~ `~'~I~i~~~~`I'~ ~ ~~®1'~T ~'I.AI~i, 2000 - 2020 Major Capacity Improvement .; Minor Capacity Improvement - -' New Construction Urban Upgrade ~~ ~ Rural Upgrade ~__! MPO Boundary Bear Creek Greenway Bear Creek Greenway (Planned) r Signalization Pedestrian Improvement N --~-~~-. Bicycle Improvement oe Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements s ~~~ Other iR O G U E: Vn~teyl ~._,~.~ (COUNCIL Safet ~ o t 2 mae: F~QIar0 8'~ Enlarged View of the City of Phoenix L_____._____ __ .__._.-..~ Street and Highway Projects by Type +~~°`~s"~~c"o`"~°"'"' eo mans cf Improvement (Tier 1 and Tier 2) ~^~~~~~-oasssr April 12. k G°x~~~~ ~~~~.~~ ~~ `JALLE~7' - ,~` {`'' - ~ ~h©~ Rangy ~ ~ ~ ,~ ib! LL ~~ 5~le~aiasen Range (COUNCIL i?- _- L0i2g R¢~Ydge ~.s_ _ R«3 v n rcoNnoil orcovernmems ~. us noon 1s! so-ee! ~d~P~ i o I 2 3 0/.files PO. Box 32]5 ______~~- ,~_.,_~ Cenlal POinl, Oregon 9]502 (501) E5466IC P' ~.... UUhrte Crty __ ~-` - J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F~ f _d~ e s f ~m ~- r iCE:.. y@AL P®I~"r r r ~'~ ~$a~r Ie I ~` l: ~~~ ..a..0 ~ :fa - -.-. _ _ . ~, d"r ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ,- 1.,... ~~ ,;s ~7r ~.x> I69EDF0RD i ' 1 .~.. ~' ~ i +.4 _. _. ~ ~ 61 f ~ ~ ~ m" ~ ~ i; ~ a< Enlarged View of Cenfral Poinfi a'v' \ ~.,: ~ -.. ~ y - lla ~ -..a„-.. a,...,., P ScENI AV o ~ "-' . R.GFL i~ \^~,y 3i {i'(Y" p ~. ~~~ '. r%4]I elL~ 1 ~~~ fEAAVfLLEY4( E we sis ' by ly Vd9 ,~ p~ 31) p ay~~} ~ ~a 3'~ '4e g. ~,-a ~~b 4~m^ irtYLOR qp Y .}+~~ ~ !'~'/ "~ ~ `din i~1j4,~Qfla ~`< 203 ., y ~°x QN~s<~~ v'Eray '. .. - {u, 9 " so PHOENIX ~`q ~> ~ J ~ w '] ~~~ w S ~. eFnu lone J~ ^-~, 4 ~F t ~~P nv,rs no may . 2,. grog enc3 Highway Pro:'ecG by r~hzse (7i2° i are:! Tier 2) MAP LEGEND - I.PO Nea 3Ueamx Rows saw --- - ramo.~a CompINM CIemr+ay PUnmd Geemvay mvo ew,~aary 9 a \ ~o"L ~n4.eY P ( s~ ~ ~ \~g~~+ ~ _ i ~i ~, Enlarged View of the City of Phoenix s:uril .2,2000 ~~~~Ode`~~2, ~8@3a~N IAA AV B 4"A~~~5F7 ~~r7~Ltl Fiy ~~%/i@N 2"d0~85 ~ ~> _ o. -` -- ~ha¢~ rdange Y u w~e __: -... -__ _._:...._....__. LaYlf~ ~~nge s 1 0 1 2 3 Miies i~ALLvE~%~ \i i ~~s~ - I ~ IGO~UNCILJ Re9oe Valley Comcil of Governments 155 NGtlF isl Street P.O. Box 3215 Cenlrzl Point, Oregon W502 (Sdi)66d~66]d f-~ s ~ ~ ? .~ ~-~_ . f ~ C ,. ---~ _ ~ .Z~ w ~~ , - WhiYe City ~ - b ~~ ~~ r ~ ~ __ ~~_ - s ` ~~ ~ . _ --_. f ~~~ e~ ~ l € ~i i I' I `J i~`'i 1 ' ~ 1~ a w~ `ate r-,~ I i ' C. EPIr L POINT ~ ~w A -~ . ~A~f- JG _ I _ _ / ~ ~.i 4 ~ z ~ ~~~ .~ ~ ; ,~ 1 g ~_ i I t , f s ,) ~ _ ~ s, `~ ~~ a L. ~~a` 1 3 ~i ~-„) q s Enlarged View of Central Point ~~ ve, °~~ , ~ ~ I~ ,a"" ~ ' ~~,- ~ N E ~i Hopei P /1 ~~h ~ 9 u °~ ~~ N3~ ~rr. 1~ iAnOR 0~~ ~~)~ 1 YA4RG(RO: i •r.~. ~` N PH \ f, e43.k PNO i' ..... , E 4 +y ^N y 2Ci o ~. a s ~' r a3LltA~ ~ d~ ~ i Piaure 8-3 34reet and Highway P; ojects by Phase (Tier 9, Financially-Constrained Projec4s Only) tiAAP LEGEND /.PO Arto Slraanv Roatl 85heKs -'--- RaIIrwE wmP~aze c ezrour PbnnM Getenway 1.•Po ROUMary .._nL4' ~ . ~ \ M ~ 5i _. ___ ._ - ~_ - _ __ Enlarged View of the City of Phoenix i npea rz, zooo ~y cu a~ E a~ E v E v 8 n~ ~ v C a> C a~ E v E a~ ~ v C v E ~ a~ E v E m E ~ " ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X p 0 X ~O N 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 h t~ 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 M O O O O O X) O O O O O M O O O O O b O O O O O V O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O tb O O O O O O O O O O O a w O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q N fA fH fA .-. 69 V3 .-. .-. N M 7 V M M V vl M ~ fli fH fA Vi E.9 (f1 Ef3 fag 69 fA EA ~ M d H O U C 0 ;° W N U W 3 y z ~ O •°p .F-. y Y b ~ ° 0 ro w 3 3 3 3 3 ~ ~ 0 ~ 3 [ o ro°' v~' ro°' o ~r o o° ° o w° 3 .3 3 w° o° 3 o w° N ~„ ~ ~ O O O ~ N ro b . O ~ ti o w w w° ° N 3 b y C 3 'D O ~O N l~ 7 oo D O O O C ~ v' ~ O .y U O ~ L O O w .C O ~ b 'O ro 'O .n A .n ro b O C ti ro d C ~ 3 y ~ G ° °~ ° ~ v G y C 7 o . G o ro v :d ro o c .~ m ~ ° y N O O p C O O W V C C ~ ~ U ~ ti p C C U v0 m . V~ .ti ° O d X ~ ~ U .D C N C C y m y U m G rn N N C C U y ~ N ,~ U > ~ N O O a ~ .° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ > C 3 m w ~ ° > ° o E ~ '° ~ ~ ~ ~ '? P o . ~ v p a w P, . M oC0 ~ a ~ m m C m y ?C e aCi .°° .c $ b b N '~ ' X '~ A . i . . w .n y0 ~ .d ti x ti b O A ~ an F r j U O ~ ~ w . ' ~° a :° F , '« o b a C o o N ~ ,d ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ m ~ z z ~ b E 'y > O .y C F U N N .C O ° ..C U ~ N C .N ~ vi L N ~ L b C O ° N y C m o o ° tl W t ~ o o ~ .~ '° ~y 3 a C Y v C ro _ 3 m x o o C ' x 3 y b ~~ 3~ x x~ 3~ m ~°^ ~ ~~ ~ C w o x o ~ m ~ ro ~ ro N oo "N ro 'd b y' ~ ti ~ ro "~ ti b ai ro C C ~ N ~C N ~ .C N ti h C N C N G N C N~ N N N° W C X •^ OD ~ ,^ U ^~ .d ~ N b ^ 'd ro ~ y ~ G N C A . N C ro . O y o YO ro vi ' G ~ ~ ° a C b o m .` E G "COC ro ro w N Fj ' .ro ~ N d 0 m 0 N N c J A N N .~ N N ~ N ro G k ro ~ X 3 C ° E o ai °~ c% -' v ° v w° ~; o ,m '" >, N C ° x ._° .a o m 'an k °' y ~ ° _ ~ ~ m W C ~ ~ '° y m ' ° ~ d x F w : o a O O y ti N '~ d . x ' x ,x_ o O ~ v ' N A m ~ : . ~ J N y A O y N C N Pn .D ~. 'p w N p C .D .R ^ N ~ A ~ .~ 'p U p Z L y t3 ^ ~ v uan. v '~ O ao w u9 ~O ~ ~ m .,, CO ro ,.C U~ ^ y Y x ~ w U b a"i E ti ro '~ C b b X A ~ '~ U 00 C ti C ~ O .D CA O T C ~ at ~~ bA O C C , ~. ti tCi ~ P O ~ u ti ~ ~'°-' ~ O A U ~~ bCp n o n p~ y N U O F C U y b 3 o P, x .n" w ~ °.: m o p .y .a .o v :d F o Y~ . '3 ~ « :b . ~ ~ o .3 v .C b b b 3 ° X . O ° ' ' C o m N ~ ~ 3 ' ~ 3 Y i 0 o ' N ~ ~ c ~, ~ ~ N o x b ~ c C ~ 3 ~ 3 v o .5 ~ ° d 4 ' d o ~ .c C ~n ~ p m _ c o C C C N N N y3 . ~ :b y~ p RS y , O C U N O N O N O N ~ U t Ot.~ m N y° ti y« N ~ O~ b ro N O y~ eVJ 'C N 'C U 'C ~ y O ~ O~ 0~ p~ 3 N ~n p~ N fn y 0 `" an 0 N O y U O ~ U N ~ A ro 0 C o an :b O N ~ '~ v rr' ~ C O C C ~ ~ G m _ D N . N W O ro U O O i ~ v a~ C ~ N '".' . ,n i-. N ~ y O ~ U ~ ti 'C .O v w ~ ~ ~ ° C - C ro > m m k > ~ ~ N A '~ cs O r i~ U ~ a> a> 'd U ro ~ z z F ° ~ o .. w w « ~: « 'v, cs a i O y ° ~ of U ~. 0 4 w ro ro ro ro C . a'i Z C °> z C Z C id C C~ G C C C G ry 3 ~ ~ O ° D y 4. U ~ G R O p c CJ . ~ O p w W a W ~ G C C ~, C ' C V . ' . X p ~ O ~ O O O~ ~~ O; O~ O M O O N O~ U ~ v i0 U v F :L? G ~ [ a C G v ~^ ~ ~ v ~- v o o G x C G - ~ ~ ~ N 2 a i . > a i i ' . i c S a r.. '° ' 3 `" . a i `' i . a " a i . 3 -' 3 3 ty ~ b ro ro ro ° d b ro d C C C 3 w 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 v v v ~ w -w U y C O U .G. ti ° U O O N ^1 tea, N N 00 .n ~0. y ti O O 0 9.0 Parking Element Oregon's TPR requires that metropolitan area jruisdictions reduce their overall parking capacity by ten percent per capita over the next 30 years. 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 ofthis goal is to reduce the amount ofparking 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 metropolitan area meet the requirements ofthe TPR. These include parking code and policy changes, redesignation of existing parking, and management ofroadway space. Next, the potential impact of strategies is calculated, given the limited availabilityofdata. Finally,somepazkingoptimizationtechniquesarepresented,which may make it easier for residents, employers, and employees to make use of parking which remains. 9.1 Parking Code and Policy Changes Cutrentparking regulations specify only minimum standards, thereby implicitly encouraging some developments, such as retail stores, to provide an excess ofparking 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 pazking and lowering minimumparking requirements wouldhave 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 Policv: Localgovernmentsshallconsiderestablishingmaximumparkingrequirements(or arking caps) in their current zoning codes to reduce the amount of off-street parking supply provided by businesses. As indicated above, current parking regulations specify minimurrt numbers of spaces for a development, but notthe 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 and jurisdictions are spared the expense oftime 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. dpril 2000 Luerim Update April 11, 1000 9-I 9.2 Redesignation of Existing Parking Policv: Local governments shall 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, tospecial-use parking can be used to promote the use ofalternative modes and meet the requirements ofthe TPR. General parking provided on-street or in lots can be reclassified for otherpurposes. These might include preferential parking for carpools or the designationofspacesforhandicappedparking. Preferential parking, especiallyclosetobuilding entrances, for carpooling or vanpooling is a common way ofhelping 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. As a side benefit, reclassification from general parking to carpool parking may help meet TPR requirements. Under TPR definition 660-12-005 (13)x, park and ride lots, handicapped parking and parking spaces for carpools and vanpools are not considered parking spaces for purposes ofthe TPR. The reclassification of 10 percent ofthe parking supply as permanent high occupancy vehicle (HOV) space may satisfy the TPR's parking reduction requirement. In areas where easy access tofree orlow-costparking has always been readily available, restrictions on parkingmaybepoorlyreceivedbythepublic. Widespread conversionofgeneral-use parking spaces to reserved parking for carpools or other restricted uses may lead to a high level ofparking violations. Thismayplaceanundueburdenonagenciesfortheenforcementofparkingregulationsat the expense of other activities. 9.3 Management of Roadway Space Policv: Local governments shall consider management of the roadway space so as to have a measurable impact on the amount ofparking in the region. Such strategies shall include the redesignation ofparking 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 ofthe paved roadway space: through lanes and turn lanes for motor vehicles, bicycle lanes, on-street parking spaces, loading zones, and bus stops. Management ~ May 1, 1995 Draft as quoted in the Transportation Planning Rule Bulletin. Aprit 2000 Interim Update April 12, 2000 9-3 9.4 Estimated Reduction in Parking Supply Parking reductions were estimated based on a current inventory ofinetropolitan area parking spaces. The inventory revealed that the metropolitan area currently has approximately 76,200 on-street and off-street parking spaces. Downtown Medford currently contains approximately 3,000 on-street and off-streetparking spaces. The remaining on-street parking spaces in the metropolitan area number 21,100, ofwhich 11,500 are located in Medford and the remaining 9,600 are located in Central Point, Phoenix, and Jackson County. The remainder 52,100 metropolitan area parking spaces are located off-street. Medford, outside ofthe downtown area, has 38,900 spaces, Central Point has 4,900 spaces, Phoenix has 1,100 spaces, and Jackson County has 7,200 spaces. Assuming parking were to grow at a rate equal to planned population and employment (approximately 50 percent in the next 20 years), the parking inventory might reasonably be expected to grow from 76,200 today to be approximately 116,770 ifparking remains relatively unregulated. Since both population and employment are projected to increase at approximately similar rates by about 30 percent over the next 20 years, the TPR requirement for a ten percentper capita reduction in parking supply over the next 20 years is equivalent to a 10 percent reduction from the projected 116,770 spaces estimated in 2020. To achieve a 10 percent reduction in parking spaces, the supply would need to be reduced by 11,677 spaces through a combination of individual measures A reduction of 11,500 spaces might reasonably be achieved by establishing maximum parking requirements for new developments (2,500 spaces), designating carpool spaces (800 spaces), eliminating parking on collectorand arterial streets fortheplacement ofon-street bike lanes and bus stops (8,000 spaces), and prohibiting parking within 100 feet ofintersections for the provision oftum lanes at 50 candidate locations (200 spaces). Calculations that support these estimates are summarized below. Parking Code and Policy Changes Currently, off-street parking provided by commercial and industrial developments accounts for approximatelytwo-thirds ofthe 76,200 total on-and off-streetparking spaces provided in the Rogue Valley region. In the absence of any parking code policy changes, the number ofoff-street parking spaces is estimated to keep pace with the estimated 50 percent growth in regional employment, thereby increasing to approximately 76,000 spaces by 2015. Parking code and policy changes could be used to establish a maximum parking requirement (i.e., parking caps) for new developments. Some large-scale developments appear to develop at least twice April Z000Interim Update April !2, 2000 9-5 9.5 Parking Optimization Policv: LocaZgovernrnentsshallconsiderparkingoptimizationstrategiesthatwould make better use of parking that remains fallowing irnplementation of parking reductions required by the TPR. Such strategies shall include, for example, the lowering of the rninimum parking requirements, allowing shared parking among adjacent businesses, and forming Parking Management Associations (PMAs) in specific areas such as downtown Medford. I There are a variety of techniques that can be used to make better use ofparking. These techniques may make it easier for residents, businesses, and employees to "live with" the parking reduction requirements ofthe TPR. However, optimizing the use ofparking may in some ways defeat the other goal ofthe TPR, namely the reduction in per capita vehicle miles oftravel. This is because the easy availability offree or low costparking remains a significant factor in the individual's choice ofmode for trips to work, shopping, etc. 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 ofday and the month ofthe 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 ofpeak 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 ofbuildings may include such land uses as restaurants, theaters, offices, and retail -- all ofwhich have varying peak use times. A restaurant generally experiences parking peaks from 6 to 8 p.m., while offices typically peak around 10 a.m. and again around 2 p.m. on weekdays. Some retail establishments have their peak usage on weekends. Theaters often peak from 8 to 10 p.m. Without a shared parking plan, these uses would develop parking to serve each 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 ofparking at any one time, due solely to the different peak periods for parking. One ofthe major stumbling blocks to implementing shared parking schemes is local jurisdictions themselves. Quite often, parking codes are written to express parking mi~eimums as opposed to Apri12000Interim Update April l2, 2000 9-7 10.0 Bicycle and Pedestrian System Elerrrerrt The purpose ofthe bicycle and pedestrian element is to provide viable, safe transportation alternatives to the automobile. The RTP reconunends development ofintegrated bicycle and pedestrian networks to make it more convenient for people to bike and walk. The bicycle and pedestrian system element is aimed at increasing the mode share of thejourney-to-work trips as well as the non-work trips. Jotuney-to-worktrips azeparticulazly importantbecause many occur during times ofpeak traffic during the morning and afternoons. Work trips account for only about one of five trips in the region. Very little non-work related data forbicycling and walking trips has been collected. However, using the 1994 Oregon Travel Behavior Survey, some very reasonable regional estimates for the no~t- motorizedmodes as awhole can be derived. RVMPO estimates that in the year 2000, the regional transportation system will carry, on a daily basis, some 273,000 person trips. Ofthese, almost 42,300 will be a mile or less in length. At the same time, approximately 22,300 travelers will utilize non- motorizedmodes, which include both bike and pedestrian travel, on a daily basis. The difference between these values represents a potential 20,000 new users of the non-motorized modes. Further distinctions between non-motorized modes are difficult, however, using the 1990 census data, bicycling currently accounts for a higherpercentage ofthejourney-to-work trips (1.1 percent) in the metropolitan area than the national average (0.4 percent). An even higher level ofbicycle use than today isexpected forbothjourney-to-work and non-work trips through an expansion ofthe bicycle system, correction ofsome existing deficiencies, and the provision ofsecure locking areas protected from weather. Walking currently accounts for a lowerpercentage ofthejourney-to-work trips (2.7 percent) in the metropolitan area than the national average (3.9 percent). Upgrading the pedestrian facilities in the metropolitan area is planned to help bring the mode share for journey-to-work trips up to the national average, and also more importantly increase the use ofthe walking mode for non-work trips. The upgrading ofpedestrian facilities would include in-filling of missing sidewalk links, and subdivision layout, which provide for non-roadway pedestrian links between subdivisions and neighborhood commercial areas and schools. Apri120007nterim Update April /2, 2000 10-1 10.2 Sidewalk Requirements Policy: Local governments 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 the metropolitan area 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 constructions is recommended. Currently,one-halfofthemajor streets in the metropolitanareahavenosidewalks. The OregonTPR requires sidewallcs 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 highestpriority for sidewalkconstruction shouldbe given to locations nearschools,public facilities, and heavily-used transit corridors. Safety should be a prime consideration in evaluation and design. The provision ofsidewalks is vitally importantto transit, too. Pedestrian access to transit stops canbe the determining factor as to whether or not an individual chooses a trip via transit or automobile. RVTD makes the point very succinctly, "Transitrelies upon pedeshians forridership." Priority should be given to provision of sidewalks where they can benefit transit. The project list (Table 8-2) includes ofa variety ofprojects on the major streets in the metropolitan area that are specifically aimed at increasing the safety for pedestrian travel. These include: urban upgrade projects for streets within the UGB which convert two-lane rural roads to urban streets with curb, gutter, sidewalks, and in mostplaces, bike lanes. Examples ofurban upgrade projects that would improve travel by the pedestrian mode include Peach Street, Stewart to Garfield, and B fiddle Road between Table Rock Road and Hamrick Road. pedestrian improvementprojects that include the conshvction of sidewalks along urban streets where curbs and gutters already exist. Examples would include sidewalks along Hazel Street between Third Street and Tenth Street, Manzanita between Rogue Valley Highway and Tenth Street, and Jackson Street between Berkeley Street and Valley View. Apri12000bzterim Update Aprit 12, 2000 10-3 Trip reduction ordinances or other code provisions can be used to promote bicycle and pedestrian travel formajoremployers(SOormoreemployees). Majoremployerscanbeencouragedorrequired to provide amenities that would make it safe and convenient for bicyclists or pedestrians to conunute to work. Showers, lockers, and related facilities should be included in new construction by major employers. These facilities are popular among bicyclists and pedestrians who commute to work. 10.5 Promotion Programs Policv: Local governments shall consider the use of the media, bicycle committees, 'bicycle plans, and other methods to promote use of bicycling and walla'ng for transportation purposes. Promotional campaigns and other strategies that encourage the use of bicycling and walking for transportation can have apositive impact. Health benefits are often mentioned in pedestrian 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. 10.6 Bear Creek Greenway The Bear Creek Greenway has been a project 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 inthe I-5/OR 99 corridor. The Regional Transportation Plan includes connections to the Greenway that will improve its function as a transportation alternative. The Greenway currently includes two primary sections: l) Pine Street in Central Pointto BarnettRoad 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 City of Medford is providing part of the required local funding match. 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. Apri12000 Interim Update April 12, 2000 10-5 11.0 Transit System Element 11.1 Introduction The Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD), the provider oftransit service in the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO) plaiming area, provides a combination ofservices including afixed-route, fixed-schedule bus system and paratransit (Valley Lift) service - a specialized service forpeople with disabilities thatpreventthem 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 ofaccommodating a greater portion oftotal 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 (Sections 7.0,10.0, and 12.0), respectively). Access to transit routes and stops will be improved by development ofmore sidewallcs as specified in the Bicycle/Pedestrian Element. Development ofmixed use activity centers and higher densities adjacent to major corridors are among the proposals in the land use element which would make travel by transit between activity centers a viable option. With the support ofpolicies and projects in other elements of the plan, transit may be able to help reduce the need for street and highway system improvements. Like the Street System Element, this Transit System Element presents atwo-tiered approach. However, rather than presenting a list ofcapital projects, the Transit System Elementpresents three operational plans with varying service levels - afinancially-constrained Tier 1 plan, and two (Tier 2a and Tier 2b)financia1ly-unconstrained plans. The Tier 1 plan represents areduction ofcunent service levels. The Tier 2a plan represents a continuation of current service and the Tier 2b (preferred) plan wouldresult in a dramatic expansion ofcurrent service levels. The firstpart of this Element describes the Tier 2b (preferred) plan, which exceeds the present financial capabilities ofthe District. The second part of-this Element describes the Tier 1 plan, which can be provided ifthe District is forced to live within its existing revenues. The preferred Transit System is based on the Goals and Objectives (Section 3.0) and is designed to accommodate aneight-fold increase in transit ridership. This system is based on cost calculations and service descriptions consistent with the Tier 2b plan describedbelow. Time phases shown for the various plans are short (years 2001-2005), medium (years 200-2010) and long (years 2010-2020). Apri12000 buerim Update ~Ipri112, 2000 11-1 University ridership has increased from 12,200 hips peryear to more than 80,000 per year. RVTD's experience in Ashland demonstrates that gradually introducing services aimed to accomplish specific objectives will increase ridership. RVTD has similarly demonstrated this in the Ciry ofMedford through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) demonstration project. Like the Ashland service, RVTD increased service to fifteen minutes on one route and thirty minutes on three east-west connections. The first year ofthis project, these new routes provided over 100,000 trips. The second and final year of the project they collectively provided over 220,000 trips. Priority should be given to improving the quality of service on existing routes by adjusting route alignments, increasingthe frequency ofservice, changing to seven day perweek operations, expanding the hours ofservice, and increasing shuttle service to neighborhoods currently without transit services. Support of other RTP elements, especially the land use element, will be required. The following paragraphs summarize these changes under route alignment, headways, service days, service hours and new routes. These recommendations begin by upgrading the level of service currently provided on existing fixed routes. The level of service upgrades include establishing minimum standards for headways, service days, and service hours. The level ofservice provided on proposed new routes includes minimum service standards. Route Alignment Policv: RVTD shouldperiodicallyreviewridershipandservicethroughouttheregion and adjust routing to maximize ridership potential and ensure service availability. It may be desirable for RVTD to structure routes so a transit trip takes no longer than 50 to 75 percent more time than a trip taken by automobile. Although most routes generally meet the needs ofthe communities served, some route realignments appear to offer opportunities for ridership increases or to provide service in areas where service is not currently available. Route Headway Policv: Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) shall operate all transit routes with route headways no greater than one-half hour during peak periods. While there are many factors that contribute to transit ridership, the level and frequency ofservice on the street is a key element in maintaining and/or attracting a ridership base. Currently, only two of RVTD's seven routes operate on half-hour headways. dpri12000lnterirn Updale Apri112, 2000 I1-3 3. Add service route from Medford Central Business District(CBD) to Roxy Anne/Brookdale neighborhoods via Spring Street. 4. Add service route from Rogue Valley Mall to Cedar Links/Lone Pine neighborhoods. 5. Add service route &~om Medford CBD to Sage Road Industrial Area. 6. Add service route from South Gateway to Columbus and Garfield neighborhoods. 7. Medford CBD - Add transit trunk route from Rogue Valley Mall to South Gateway, also serving Medford's Civic and Business Centers. 8. Add service route from Medford CBD to Hillcrest area via Jackson Street/Hillcrest. 9. W. Medford -Add service route that travels between Garfield and Jackson Streets via Columbus Avenue. 10. White City -Add service route that travels between the White City's Industrial and residential areas. 11. Ashland-Addserviceroute thattravelsfromTolmanCreekPlazatoRailroadDistrictvia East Main Street. 12. E. Central Point/N. Medford/White City -Add service route that travels from Rogue Valley Mall to White City via Table Rock Road. 13. Express commuter service between Ashland and Medford, Medford and Central Point, and Medford and White City. All new routes wouldprovide the minimum level ofservice described in the sections on headways, service hours, and service days. Employer-Subsidized Transit Policy Local governments shall consider requiring major employers to encourage transit use by their employers through transit subsidy programs. Subsidizing transitpasses is a proven way for employers to increase transit use by their employees. Some employers find that costs are comparable to or less than subsidizing employee parking. Shifting subsidies away from employee parking and towards transit saves land that would otherwise be paved and generally promotes better land use practices. Finally, there are tax incentives available to employers who provide transit passes to their employees. Roadway Design Features to Benefit Transit Policv: RVTD and local governments shall cooperate to the maximum extent to identify and includefeatures beneficial to transitriders and transit district operations when developing plans for roadway projects. Apri[ 20001nterim Update ~fpril /2, 2000 11-5 Table 11.1 shows the projected revenues and expenditures for the preferred, Tier 2b Transit System Plan. Revenues assume an increase in property taxes and the addition of a new revenue source, a payroll tax and are described in more detail in the Financial Element (Chapter 16). Expenditures are based on an expanded transit network as described above. Note that the Tier 2b plan is the one that seeks to achieve the transit ridership goals included in the RTP. Figure 11.2 illustrates this plan, reflecting afpotential route additions. Actual routes will be determined tluough a public involvement process. Approximately 211,000 service hours per year would be represented by this plan. Daily ridership would be approximately 18,500. Table 11.1 Projected Revenues and Expenditures Preferred Transit System -Tier 2b Plan (in current / yr. 2000 dollars X 1,000) z Revenue Fu d Time Frame ~ ~ ' : ~ r, ~ Totals ~ ; .;'Source', n s~,~^P .='- r %~Short~`~~~ 2~3=Mediurri", :Long .~.,. ~ ~ „'~~,,.:,~;~:s< S5307 $3,426 $3,454 $6,995 $13,875 F d l S5311 $605 $605 $1,211 $2,421 e era Title XIX $554 $622 $1,483 $2,659 TDM/Rideshare $593 $630 $1,260 $2,483 S STF $780 $904 $2,264 $3,948 tate In-Lieu-of (Tax) $1,200 $1,200 $2,400 $4,800 Property Taxes $37,294 $44,391 $113,363 $195,047 L l Payroll Taxes $28,933 $34,699 $89,101 $152,732 oca Farebox Returns $2,290 $2,290 $4,580 $9,160 Miscellaneous $964 $964 $1,927 $3,855 Totals `~ y5 d)*" ~t 3' LJ t i .. ,~. {!b I 5A Ti l5 -~Expen~es~,...a~,lr £.sr„~,~t~~t $76,639YI 'TF r~"dkG A.Y 4 JT~ '~~~s~~.x~~ $89,758 d 'F4Y" G'1 f x`i'. t ~.~',~~~~~?s~ $224,583 + j t ,~(~'h0 3 y~~^F3 ~'i L Y'1 ~ ~~~', ,~~. .. , $390,980 S3}~ .. ,~T,._;u .~r Operations $36,400 $43,130 $107,965 $187,495 Alt Operations $25,400 $29,450 $73,715 $128,565 Maintenance $8,842 $10,252 $25,660 $44,754 Administration $5,520 $6,398 $16,018 $27,936 Legislative $318 $352 $817 $1,487 Capital Match $159 $176 $408 $743 Totals $76,639 $89,758 $224,583 $390,980 April 2000 baerim Update April I2, 2000 11-7 Table 11.3 shows the projected revenues and expenditures for the Tier 2a -current Transit System Plan. This System is illustrated in Figure 11.3. Revenues assume a modest increase in property taxes and the addition ofa new revenue source, a payroll tax. Expenditures are based on the current level of service provided by the RVTD which equals 27,600 service hours per year and a daily ridership of 2,100. Table 11-3 Projected Revenues and Expenditures Current Transit System -Tier 2a Plan (in current / yr. 2000 dollars X 1,000) T ;Revenue" z Source ~ Sri. .K. A! tf ~ a~~ f ,Fund ~ ~ ~~ ,~~ ~~,f ~ n i ~' - t'~9.1t Y k` µ '}t rt Imo, ~q ,Time Frame ~ ~~ ~ 4 v r ~- EK Shorter ry Metlmt~~ x X . F.a ]r r +y RYa . ~. x . I t .. l +G%Sa.f'-F lL ~~dy~d a ly i ~ At1 : ~,~„~,; h }-0 ~,aFLong ~~;~ ) +'~ _ ~•.l y 4 l U,~ "' _ ~ ,~ ~ t '~Tota s ~~_ ~ ~ ~ S5307 $3,426 $3,454 $6,995 $13,875 S5311 $605 $605 $1,211 $2,421 Federal Title XIX $554 $622 $1,483 $2,659 TDM/Rideshare $593 $630 $1,260 $2,483 S STF $780 $904 $2,264 $3,948 tate In-Lieu-of (Tax) $1,200 $1,200 $2,400 $4,800 Property Taxes $g,gg4 $11,196 $30,271 $50,451 Payroll Taxes $623 $1,504 $6,009 $8,136 Local Farebox Returns $2,290 $2,290 $4,580 $9,160 Miscellaneous $964 $964 $1,927 $3,855 Totals FY ~y 3 ~ 1"^u' ate t ~ Operations $20,019 5 5 3~.~' Y' £ $7,280 $23,369 ~ d+o : •' ~ $8,626 $58,400 ry~e•~ ~' yr .S~T. $21,593 $101,788 ~ ms .'• $37,499 Alt Operations $5,080 $5,890 $14,743 $25,713 Maintenance $4,421 $5,126 $12,830 $22,377 Administration $2,760 $3,199 $8,009 $13,968 Legislative $318 $352 $817 $1,487 Capital Match $159 $176 $408 $743 Totals $20,018 $23,369 $58,400 $101,787 Figures 11.1,11.2, and 11.3 consist of a set ofthree maps showing each ofRVTD's service options. Figures 11.1 and 11.2 show areas ofcoverage and possible routing scenarios for the financially- constrained (Tier 1) and preferred (Tier 2b) transit system plans. Actual routing changes for these plans will be determined through a future public input process. Figure 11.3 shows routing forRVTD's current (Tier 2a) transit system. Apri! 2000Inlerim Upclale April 12, 2000 11-9 Figure 11.2 -- - _ - .: - r _ __ _. , ~. -- ~ ~ r ,, , =-- i> '~ _._ _ i ~ ~: ; ~ x ~ i ___._. __. _._. __.. r _ ,~ _.. ~ ,, ., _. ~`- ...~. N b .~ i _ o --- g'~- a----_ ..__. - .. ~ 0 ~ ~ 3' a P ~~~0 .., ~ _ T ~; %. S ~ _.___ - Ci-.. ~ - ~.A 1 - a . ~ !., „ ~ s~ ~~/ 1~ ~ a ~ '_. ~~~ Fti . ~~ Y i l W _~__ 9` ,.J, ~ -- r~` ' ~ O O W a ~ ;: , - - I~~~_ ~ ? Rogue Valley Transportation 1)i$trict Tier 2b: Preferred/ Expanded Service ~°~ ~_; a ;, z „__._ . RVI'D Tie~2 ROWa ~ -_..!J,_ •... _. ~Tablc Rork Rd '„ West Medford 0. O ~ S- n.['' -~ .ImVaomille ~~ ~/ziLLE _ ~~ BaratlRd ~ Cmtal Pdn[ ~ - '~"- __ /~~Hiddle Rd. - - ~PtwemxRd .. ~>Nnite GSty . ~ ' t6Vcrert UD(INCIC Cnt¢Lakc Ave •- •„ ^'•• Poodw~Rd. 1 0 1 2 tvfiles /Roads _~ _ - ~- 0 0 a Rogue Valley Transportation ---- -- District Tier 2a: Existing Service _ AVPD E~osti~ Aaves ~Bidme Rd NNest Mcdfad "~ :' Ixksomillc .l°~'s..''~ Bacett Rd Central Pant `' p°'Whice City ~Ash}aM i Roark 1 _ ~''•- ~N~. a `-` c=_. _._-.__-_ 12. D Land Use L'Zeinent Tota] metropolitan employment and population are key factors determining travel demand in the Rogue Valley region. AsindicatedinSectionS.O,thepopulationoftheRogueValleymetropolitanplarming region is forecast to increase from 84,765 in 1995 to 129,895 in 2020, 1.7 percent average annual increase. The regional employment is projected to increase from 50,301 in 1995 to 69,235 in 2020, a 1.3 percent average annual increase. 12.1 Transit-Oriented Design PoZicv: Utilize transit-oriented design strategies to encourage the use of local ublic transportation and discourage reliance upon single-occupancy vehicles. Transit-oriented design (TOD) is a general description of a set of development strategies that are designed to encourage the use ofpublic transit by creating an atmosphere that is safe, convenient, and easily accessible by foot, bicycle and transit. One purpose oftransit-oriented design is to increase ridership by shaping and intensifying land use through the integrafion 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. Byreducingreliance onsingle-occupant vehicles, TOD improves air qualitybyreducingthenumberofvehicletrips. AnotherbenefitofTODisthepromotiono(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, RVMPO undertook the Transit-Oriented Design and Transit Corridor Development Strategies Study (TOD Study). The intent ofthe TOD Study was to provide an alternative land use scenario that would 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 previously identified inthe 1995 RTP. Through the TOD analysis, two ofthe potential TOD sites were dropped from further consideration due to adequate TOD supportive housing densities that could not be achieved in the 20 yearplanning horizon. Currentmodelinganalysisindicatesthat,thealternativelandusepatternsidentifiedintheTOD Study do not yield the TPR mandated 5% reduction in 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 ~pri12000bnerim Update April l2, 2000 12-1 for the Central Point TOD. The Medford SE Plan has been adopted by the City ofMedford and The Phoenix City Center Plan is cun~ently under review by the various state agencies. These tlxree TOD areas were included in the future year scenarios that were used in the RTP analysis. The population and employment for these areas was supplied by each jurisdictions planning staff. They were then incorporated into the analysis. The MPO will continue to seek funding so that further analysis ofthe recommended TOD land use pattern and the related TPR mandated VMT changes can be conducted. Continued analysis and refinement ofthe TOD land use scenario will focus on the sensitivity ofthe travel demand model related to TOD land use scenarios and population densities required for successful TODs. This will allow the MPO to define and pursue the appropriate TOD land use scenario for the region. 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 12-1, shows the location ofeach TOD. An in-depth description ofthe TOD Study is included in the August 1999, Transit Oriented Development and Transit Corridor Design Strategies Final Report. 12.2 Protection of Transportation Corridors Policv: Local governments should consider enacting ordinances or amending thei 'Comprehensive Plans to protect and preserve corridors for transportation purposes. The preservation and protection of corridors may prove to have significant financial benefits for local agencies. By identifying needed corridors for streets, bicycle/pedestrian ways, transit corridors, railroad corridors, and other uses, agencies may be able to avoid development, which interferes with a fixture public need and causes the agencies to compensate property owners for developments that might not otherwise have occurred. When enacting ordinances or making plan changes, agencies must comply with applicable laws regarding property rights and may incur financial obligations as a result of such actions. dpriZ2000GUw~im Updale APrrr i2, 2000 12-3 13.0 Air Transportation Element The Rogue Valley metropolitan planning region is served by the Medford-Jackson County International Airport located north and east of I-5, between Crater Lake Highway and Table Rock Road. Airport activities have increased recently and show potential for airtransportation as an important componentoftheregionalh~ansportationsystem. The airportandrelatedservicesoffersairpassenger andairfreighttransportationopportunitiestotheRVMPOplanningarearesidentsandbusinesses. The airport provides a national and international connection to the region. Policv: Local governments shall take actions to promote air transportation in the region and its connections with the other areas in the state, nation, and abroad. This ,includes ensuring that good ground transportation is available for passengers and freight, and that the Airport Master Plan is periodically updated as necessary. The Medford-Jackson County Airport Master Plan Update serves as the airport's guiding document providingplanningassurnptions and governing anticipated development ofthe airport. Key information gleaned from theAirportMasterPlan Update important to the development of this multi-modal RTP includes forecasts ofpassenger enplanements (the number ofpassenger movements by plane), and employment in the developing Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ). According to the Airport Master PZan Update, passenger enplanements are forecast to increase substantially from the 1991 level ofapproximately 140,000. The baseline growth scenario predicts a 58 percent increase and the high growth scenario predicts a 101 percent increase above 1991 levels. The FTZ is designed to help the airport develop to its fullest potential and boost the local economy in the southern Oregon region. The FTZ is projected to boost employment in the immediate vicinity of the airport and produce an annual increase in revenue of more than $3 million. Those who work in the FTZ are expected to live throughout the region just as do workers at the Rogue Valley Mall, or any other employer in the region. These important forecasts ofairport characteristics were accounted for in developing the multi-modal RTP. Both the airline passenger traffic forecasts and the increased development in the FTZ were accounted for under future employment assumptions at the airport and the surrounding zones. These employment assumptions are critical inputs into the regional traffic model. The employment assumptions led directly to increased traffic volumes on the airport access road and all the roadways leading to the airport and the Foreign Trade Zone, The roadway traffic increases caused by forecast airport and FTZ activity includes both trips inbound and outbound from the airport and includes destinations in the Rogue Valley region as well as all of southern Oregon. l99S RTP Janumy $ 1997 13-1 14.0 Rail Transportation Element The rail transportationelementofthePlanaddressesbothfreightandpassengercomponents. The potential for both freight and passenger service for the Rogue Val ley region is greater than present service. Policy: Local governments shall take actions to promote rail transportation in the region and its connections with the other areas in the state and nation. This includes ensuring that good ground transportation and intermodal connections are available or freight. Local governments shall explore passenger service as part of regional and statewide rail transportation planning efforts. 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 oftrack is limited to an operating speed ofonly 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 Overby Central Oregon & Pacific (COP). Servicehas 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 ofthe 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. As indicated in Technical Memorandum #9, outlined in Appendix B, the combined highway and rail freight tonnage inthe I-5 corridor alone is estimated at 25 million tons annually. The rail freight portion accounts forbetween 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) April 2000 Interim Update ~lprit 12, 2000 14-1 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 ofseveral 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 ofthe study is to define costs, benefits and impacts ofthe project well enough that the regional partners can compare it with other regional transportation priorities. The study is scheduled to be completed March 2001. Apri! 2000Interim Update ~tyri[ l2, 2000 14-3 IS.O Freight Transportation Element Freight transportation in the Rogue Valley metropolitan plamring region takes place primarily via the highway, but also via rail, air, and pipeline modes. The highway freight transportation element is discussed below; freight transportation via the air and rail modes is also discussed under Air Transportation Element (Section 13.0) and Rail Transportation Element (Section 14.0), respectively. Freight transportation has often been overlooked as a major contributor in the Rogue Valley. As some ofthe key roadway links continue to show significanttraffic volume increases and capacity constrains, freight impacts are being reviewed. -__ _ __ Policy: Local governments shall take actions to promote access to all modes o transportation for freight movements to serve the needs of residents and businesses in the RVMPO planning area. Local actions include ensuring access to freight acilities via the local streetsystem and actively supporting thefreight transportation ,policies set forth in the Oreyon Hi~way Plan. including: (I) Identifying roadway 'obstacles and barriers to efficient truckmovements onstate highways (2)encouraging commercial vehicle regulations that improve safety, (3) supporting Intelligent Transportation System Commercial Vehicle Operation technology, (4) maintaining and improving roadway facilities serving intermodal freightfacilities, (S) supporting the establishment of stable funding or financing resources to improve the efficiency of freight movement, (6) improving planning coordination between public investments in highways and other investments in the freight movement infrastructure, and (7)supporting the maintenance and improvement ofnon-highway infrastructure thatprovides alternativefreight-moving capacity in critical corridors. The keys to providing good freight movement in the region are ensuring that the collector and arterial street systems provide an adequate level of service and continuous connections to intermodal facilities and inter-regional routes, such asInterstate-5, Highway 62, and Highway 140. Truck routes and major intermodal facilities are illustrated on Figure 15-1. Some guidance relative to the standard of performance which should be provided for freight movements is found in the Oregon Highway Plan. The 1999 Oregon HighwayPlan sets mobility standards using volume-to-capacity ratios rather than Level of Service letters to identify the presence ofcongestion. Ifthe v/c ratio for a highway segment exceeds the v/c ratio established in the plan, then the highway segment does not meet ODOT's minimum operating conditions. Acceptable v/c ratios are higher for the MPO than for sparsely settled rural areas, which means that relatively greater congestion is acceptable in the MPO area than in rural areas. Acceptable v/c ratios for freight routes are slightly lower than for other highways. This means that slightly more congestion would beacceptable onnon-freight routes. The maximum acceptable v/c ratio for the MPO ranges from 0.80 for I-5 to 0.85 for Highway 62. 1995 RTP January 7, 1997 15-1 The street project list contains 300 projects designed to help ensure an adequate level of service on the region's collector and arterial street system. Although relatively few are on designated truck routes, all will help to provide adequate service for freight movements. Several projects on the list have "economic development" or "truck traffic" as a project justification. 15.1 Foreign Trade Zone Southern Oregon businesses have responded to economic shifts and new marketing environments to be competitive in the future global economy. The Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) of Jackson County is designed to open the region to increased trade opportunities and enhance the ability to more efficiently reach global markets with locally-produced products. The FTZ provides a southern Oregon temunal and international customs for foreign markets. With the increase in international commerce, surface transportation impacts are on the rise. There are several FTZ sites within Jackson and Josephine Counties that will increase the amount oftraffic in and out ofthese areas. Access to these sites will be from Highways 62, 99 and 140, along with I-5. Traffic volume increases around these areas will bring up many transportation issues that will have to be faced and resolved in the near future. The heart ofthe FTZ is located on the east side ofthe Jackson County International Airport, adjacent to the old Medco Haul Road. It consists of approximately 95 acres owned by the county. Truck haffic expected in this area is consistent with normal industrial areas and would be primarily accessible via Highway 62. As the FTZ operations grow and business interests increase, there are opportunities to move not only goods and products, but also passengers through an International Terminal on the east side ofthe airport. Both the increase in cargo handling and international passengermovement will necessitate an adequate transportation system in and out ofthis area. There are other adjacent sites accessing Highways 62,140 and I-5 for cargo via industrial and warehousing operations. It becomes apparent that with the start-up ofFTZ operations on the east side ofthe Rogue Valley International Airport, and future development of the zone areas, traffic volume and cargo handling will continue to increase. A significant increase ofcargo moving in and out ofthe southern Oregon region could provide the impetus for development of an intermodal system for handling (eight containers and trailers. One would expect acontainer-oriented intennodal facility to increase the efficiency of cargo movement into and out ofthe area. This could also allow easy inventory control when shipping overseas since the containers would not have to be repacked. With a significant increase in airplane-truck freight transfers, one can develop scenarios that either increase or decrease truck transportation demands on the region's major highways. On one hand, air freight could substitute for existing truck freight, but on the other hand, intermodal features could draw trucks to the airport from a wider area. Operations and growth of the FTZ should be monitored so that the impacts can be more accurately addressed in future updates ofthe Plan. See also the discussion ofthe FTZ in the AirTransportationElement (Section 13.0). 1995 RTP January 7, 1997 15-3 16.0 Financial Element 16.1 Introduction This chapter provides an overview of the funding required to implement the Sheet and Transit System Elements described in this Plan. Fundinghas been estimated over the 20-year duration ofthe plan and is linked to projects that comprise the Tier 1(financially-constrained) project lists. Tier 2 (financially- unconstrained)projects cannot be fundedwith anticipated revenues and require new revenue sources which are also described here. Otherplan elements, requiring no direct financial commitments, have not been included in this analysis. The 20-yearplanningperiod has been divided into two five-yearphases and one ten-yearphase. 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 ofTransportation, Jackson County and the cities ofMedford, Central Point and Phoenix. 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 ofMedford Interim Transportation System Plan, Discussion Draft, W&H Pacific, June 24, 1998 • City of Central Point Adopted Budget, FY 1999-2000 • City of Phoenix Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Transportation Element, Draft, March 31, 1999 • 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 Palley Council of Governments. This element describes the financially-constrained Street and Transit Elements project lists in conformance with both Federal and State air quality requirements (OAR 342-252-0090). Apri12000Iuterim Update April !2, 2000 16-1 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 foi7nula 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 airpollution. States with areas which are designated asnon-attainment for ozone or carbon monoxide (CO) mustuse 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) orbe good candidates to contribute to attainment ofthe National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). If a state has nonon-attainment areas, the allocated funds maybe used for STP or CMAQ projects. CMAQ requires a 20 percent local match unless certain requirements are met. STP Transportation Enhancements Program Each state must set aside 10%ofits yearly STP revenues for Transportation Enhancement Activities, which comprise a broad range ofprojects. Enhancement funds are allocated to local jurisdictions throughout the state on a competitive basis. Eligible transportation enhancement projects include .pedestrian and bicycle facilities; preservation ofabandoned railway corridors; landscaping and other scenic beautification; control and removal of outdoor advertising; acquisition ofscenic easements and scenic or historic sites; scenic orhistoric highway programs; historic preservation; rehabilitation and operation ofhistoric transportation buildings, structures, or facilities; archaeological planning and research; and mitigation ofwaterpollution due to highway runoff. Enhancementprojects require a 20 percent non-federal match. STP Safety Funds Each state must set aside 10 percent ofits base STP funds for safety programs (hazard elimination,rail- highwaycrossings, etc.). The match rate for safety projects is 80 percent federal, 20 percent state or local. Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRR) The HBRRProgram provides funds to replace ormaintain existing bridges; new bridges are not eligible for funduig under this program. Currently, Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation funds are distributed through the STIP process. In the fuhire, these fields 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. April 2000 buerim Update April 12, 2000 16-3 Traff c Control Projects (TCP) The State maintains a policy ofsharing installation, maintenlnce, and operational costs fortraffic 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 % ofthe Highway Fund received by ODOT, counties, and cities be expended for the development offootpaths 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 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 ofa firm or development depends on those transportation improvements, and the jobs created by the development must be "primary" jobs such as manufacturing, distribution, or service jobs. 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 ofregional representatives. Projects are eligible for a maximum of $25,000 each. 16.2.3 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 Apri12000 Laterim Update April 12, 2000 16-5 16.3 Street System Revenue Projections Projecting revenues over long time periods- in this case, 20years-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- capitalneeds projections have been made in coordination with the cities ofMedford, Cenh~al 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 bnprovemetat Program, 2000-2003, Preliminary Version, Oregon Department ofTransportation, January 1999; RVMPO's Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program, FY2000-2003, Rogue Valley Council of Governments, Draft, April, 2000. Table 16.2 shows the projected 20-year capital funding scenario for Street Systemprojects. The cities ofMedford, Central Point and Phoenix have had projected transportation revenues broken down by funding source and then the estimated non-capital needs (operation, maintenance, etc.) subtractedto yield the final column-capital funds available. The revenues shown in this column are anticipatedto 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 forthese agencies. Such estimates have been considered "not applicable" in Table 16.2. Rather, projections ofcapital 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 ODOTassumes thatnon-capital (operation and maintenance) needs are fully funded. The combination ofusing 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 withprimary emphasis on the maintenance and operation ofthe existing system. For further information on the revenue andnon-capital needs assumptions that were used to arrive at the figures in Table 16.2, please refer to Appendix A on page 16-18. Apr'i12000Interim Update Apri112, 2000 16-7 16.4 Street System Implementation Costs As indicated in the Street System Element, the capital funding needs in the MPO Area exceed anticipated revenues. Atwo-tiered approach is therefore presented in order to separate projects ]inked to anticipated revenues from those where new revenue sources are required. The Tier 1(financially- constrained)Street System project list (Table 8-2) is based on the revenue projections as summarized in Table 16.2. In addition to anticipated revenues, Table 16.2 shows projected Tier 1 implementation costs forthe Street System Element. Table 16.3 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 16.3 Street System Projected Revenue Shortfall Over Entire 20-Year Planning Period (in current / yr. 2000 dollars X 1,000) Jurisdiction Available Capital Furiiiing Tier 1 and 2 Project C,osts:`, Revenue `Shortfall Medford $41,024 $149,879 ($108,855) Central Point $25,388 $29,821 ($4,433) Phoenix $867 $2,988 ($2,121) Jackson Co. (MPO Area) $46,810 $56,334 ($9,524) ODOT (MPO Area) $60,797 $174,029 ($113,232) Totals $174,886 $413,051 ($238,165) 16.5 Street System Funding Shortfall and Potential Revenue Sources Table 16.3 shows the revenue shortfall that is anticipated for funding ofboth Tier 1 and 2 projects. Revenue sources that can potentially be used to make up the funding shortfall forTier 2 projects are shown in Table 16.4 and summarizedbelow by jurisdiction. The column" 20-YeazPotential Funding" in Table 16.4 shows that the potential "Increased annual funding" will coverthe anticipated revenue shortfalls over the 20-year planning period. Apri12000lnterirn Update April I2, 2000 16-9 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. City of Phoenix The funding needed to construct the projects for which Phoenix is flagged as the lead jurisdiction exceeds theirprojected revenues by about $2.1 million. A three-fold increase in current SDC revenues would result in an additional $70,000 per year. A doubling of the City's Transportation Utility Fee could increase funding by about $50,000 annually. Jackson County (MPO Area) The funding needed to construct the projects for which Jackson County is flagged as the lead jurisdiction exceeds their projected revenues by about $9.3 million. Since approximately 55% of Jackson County's population lives in the MPO area, it would be appropriate to assume that a similar percentage ofpotential revenues could be used to fund County projects in the RTP. These percentages are reflected in Table 16.4. Jackson County's annual revenue from SDC's is approximately $500,000. Iffees were increased by 50%, an additional $250,000 per year could be generated, $137,500 in the MPO area. While many cities in Jackson County use Street Utility Fees, the County does not. If the County charged a fee to households and businesses outside ofincorporated areas and in cities without a Street Utility Fee, it could raise about $1.4 million annually, $770,000 in the MPO area. A local option gas tax would require county-wide voter approval as a source ofnew revenue. Each penny of gas tax would raise about $800,000 annually County-wide, $440,000 in the MPO area. An annual $5/year vehicle registration fee would raise another $800,000 County-wide, $440,000 in the MPO area. ODOT (MPO Area) The funding needed to construct the projects for which ODOT is flagged as the lead jurisdiction exceeds their projected revenues by about $93 million. A proposal to raise the State's gas tax will go before voters this year (2000) and potentially result in the firnding of $54 million worth ofprojects in the MPO area. This would equate to an annual funding increase of $2.7 million over the 20 year planning period. ODOT's ability to fund local projects could also be dramatically affected by Federal earmarks in future transportation legislation. Historically, eamarks have reached levels ofup to $20 million per legislative period. There will be three opportunities for earmarks during the 20-year planning period. Ifearmarks were granted during each of these legislative periods at historic funding levels, ODOT would have an additional $60 million forprojects in the MPO area equating to an annual funding increase of$3 million. Apri12000 haterim Update ~ipril I2, 2000 16-11 Transit Section 5307 Funds The Section 5307 Formula Grant Program makes funds available on the basis ofa statutory formula to urbanized areas (over 50,000 population). For capital projects, the match rate is 80% federal, 20% state or local. Capital funds can be used for any capital and planning activity. For operating assistance, the match rate is 50% federal, 50% state or local. Operating assistance is capped at a percentage of the total Section 5307 apportionment for each urban area. Transit Section 5311 Funds The Section 5311 program provides transportation services forresidents innon-urban areas. The funds may be used for both operations support and capital support. Section 5311 funds are awarded on a competitive basis to qualified applicants and are programmed annually by the State. Title XIX This fund source pays for non-medical transportation services for the those with disabilities. TDM/Rideshare This funding is received from the Federal Highway Administration to promote Transportation Demand Management and Ridesharing activities managed by RVTD. Ridesharing activities sponsored by RVTD include their carpool matching service for commuters in the District. Other TDM activities undertaken by RVTD include the monitoring and promotion of the group pass program such as those offered by Bear Creek Corporation and Rogue Community College and the School Education Program. 16.6.2 State Revenue Sources State Special Transportation Fund (STF) ODOT's Public Transit section administers a discretionary grant program derived from state cigarette tax revenues that provides supplementary support fortransit-related projects serving the elderly and disabled. RVTD uses theirallocation for Valley Lift operational support. A competitive process has been established for awarding STF funds which are programmed on an annual basis. In-Lieu-of (Tax) In some areas ofOregon, a payroll tax is levied to support transit. In areas without this payroll tax, such as the area within RVTD's boundaries, the State pays an "in-lieu of tax to transit districts equal to the amount that would have been paid by State employees who work within the District's boundaries. __ April 2000 Interim Update Apri! 12, 2000 16-13 a transit system competitive with the private auto. Further information on how implementation costs were estimated for the various tiers can be found in Appendix B on page 16-17. In contrast to the capital projects listed in the SU~eet System, implementing the Transit Systemprimarily involves operational expenditures. Table 16.6 shows the costs ofimplementing the Tier I (financia](y- constrained)Transit System. Cuts in current service levels have been estimated in the Operations, Alt. Operations, Maintenance and Administration expenses to reflect projected revenues shown in Table 16.5. This Tier 1 plan represents a reduction in current service levels from the seven transit routes currently offered to three transit routes over the 20-year planning period. Tables 16.7 and 16.8 show the implementation costs for the Tier 2a and Tier 2b transit plans and the revenue shortfalls that would exist over currently projected revenues. The Tier 2a plan represents a continuation ofcunent transit service levels while the Tier2b plan would expandtransit service to levels similar to those in the Eugene-Springfield (Lane Transit District) area. TABLE 16.7 Tier 2a -Current Service Implementation Costs (in current / yr. 2000 dollars X 1,000) Is^`. 7Q`E t s4cr y x„i .n h {4qy N` <~ ~ ~ '~ v u~"~ " ~ ~~ '~~ E r ~ :' ~~ of }. *r ~ r"~~„~>at~S~ s , ~aTimeFta~tte f t, 2 ~ re ~ ~ ~u i , T tal's r ~ « xpenses < ~ b ' ~ 1~ 4 ' ' ` ' k" r'`~S~ort ~~ :Long c ,: "> Medium z o r h . : ~~ ; .~ .~ ~ ., ~ .. r . ~ . ~ ;:. „ „ Operations $7,280 $8,626 $21,593 $37,499 AIt Operations $5,080 $5,890 $14,743 $25,713 Maintenance $4,421 $5,126 $12,830 $22,377 Administration $2,760 $3,199 $8,009 $13,968 Legislative $318 $352 $817 $1,487 Capital Match $159 $176 $408 $743 Totals $20,018 $23,369 $58,400 $101,787 Revenue Shortfall ($1,245) ($3,008) ($12,018) ($16,271) ~Iprt12000hiterim Update Apri112, 2000 16-15 Table 16.9 shows how increased property taxes and a new payrol l tax would affect someone who owns a house with an assessed value of $100,000 and who earns $30,000 per year. Dollar amounts shown would be paid annually to fund either the Tier 2a or 2b plans during the short, medium or long term years ofthe plan. For estimation purposes, it was assumed that revenues from property and payroll taxes would contribute equally to make up the revenue shortfall. The "total potential revenues" row shows how much would be generated by these revenue somroes tluoughout the RVTD bomidaries -over the five-year short and medium range time frames and the ten-year long range time frame. Appendix B on page 16-17 presents more detailed information on the property and payroll tax rates. 16.9 Other Plan Elements Projects listed in the RTP and funded under MPO jurisdictions are limited to those identified in the Street System Element (Section 8.0) and the Transit System Element (Section 11.0). Other elements ofthe plan either do not share the same direct relationship with funding or are financed as a component of these two elements. April 2000 Literlnv Update April I2, 2000 16-17 Appendix A Financial Assumptions -Street System Element $500,000 per year, reserved to help fund the Small City Allotment (SCA) Program, was subtracted from the totals. 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 ofPhoenix, 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 IOFand 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 ofthe ODOTAssumptionsappendrx. Medford and Central Point amounts were split according to the population size ofthese jurisdictions relative to the MPO total. Phoenix's funding from these sources is taken from page B-3 oftheirTransportationE1ement. Years 2000-2004, 2005-2009 and 2010-2019 were totaled (year 2020 estimates are not provided). Locat Revenue Sources Medford System Development Charges (SDC's) Medford has indicated that this source should contribute approximately $1.5 million/yr in 2001 and increase by 3%per year through 2013 due to anticipated growth. In 2013 this revenue should drop approximately 15 % due to the expiration of an SDC increase that was made in 1998 and then increase again by 3%per year to 2020. The City ofMedford increased SDC's by 15%and local fees by 30% in 1998 when revenue bonds were used to finance specific capital projects. The ordinance that established the SDC and local fee increases specified that the increases would sunset with the payment ofthe revenue bonds. This would occur in 2013. Fees Medford has indicated that this source should contribute approximately $2.1 million/yr in 2001 and increase by 3%per year through 2013. In 2013 this revenue should drop approximately 30% due to the expiration of a fee increase that was made in 1998 and then increase again by 3%per year to 2020. dpri! 2000InGerim Upda(e ~tprit l2, ~~~~ 16-19 Appeua'ix A Financial Assumptions -Street System Element Road andStreetQuestionnaire ($3.537 million) and then adding in payments on bonds which will total $32.635 million overyear the 20-yearplanningperiod. Ahighly-conservative increase of6%per year includes 3%per year inflation and 3%per year for system growth through development and annexation assumed due to Medford's expanding infrastmcture increasing maintenance responsibilities. Years 2001-2005, 2006-2010 and 2011-2020 were totaled. Central Point Estimates for Central Point's non-capital h~ansportation 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. Phoenix Estimates for Phoenix's non-capital transportation needs are from page B-1 oftheir Transportation Element ("operation and pavement management"). Years 2000-2004, 2005-2009, and 2010-2019 were totaled. Added to the Phoenix non-capital needs totals are capital projects on local roads. OTHER CAPITAL FUND SOURCES Although revenue and expenditure projections can be made for Jackson County and ODOT in their entirety, itwas determinedto beinfeasible and/orimpractical to show these figures forthe MPO area. Therefore, revenue and non-capital expenditures for these jurisdictions have been considered "not applicable" onthe table. Estimates ofcapital funding availability (termed "modemization" by ODOT) have been made using the following information sources and assumptions. Jackson County (MPO Area) Staff from Jackson County has indicated that approximately $1.96 million should be available annually for Capitalfunding inthe MPOArea inshort-term years, $2.2 million annually inmedium-term years and $2.6 million annually inlong-term years. It is Countypracfice to prioritize spending on maintenance and operation. Historically, the Countyhas spent at least 70%oftheir Road Budgetonmaintaining the current transportation system. ODOT (MPO Area) The recently adopted STIP (2000-2003) identifies over $20 million ofODOT modernization funds for projects in the MPO over the four year time period of the STIP. This arnount, plus an additional year's worth of funding ($1.6 million) was added to equal the total funding available for short-term years. Apri12000Tn(erim Update Apri[ 12, 2000 16-21 Appendix B Revenue and Expense Assumptions -Transit System Element REVENUES Federal Revenue Sources Section 5307 Maintains current 1 % growthper year. Reflects the last two years and continues through the planning period. After the population within the District exceeds 200,000, these funds will be eliminated completely. It is assumed this will not happen within the planning period. Section 5311 Stagnant growth, ornet decrease over time due to inflation. With the increase in rural transportation providers throughout the state, this limited resource will be used to cover a growing number of applicants. Also, population is assumed to increase within what is considered the urban area thus reducing the areas that these funds service. Title XIX Maintains current 3% growth every two years throughout the planning period. TDM/Rideshare Anticipate an increase in 2002 then remain constant. The current funding level has remained the same since the fund was created (Syears). State Fu~rding Sources Special Transportation Fund (STF) Maintains current 3% annual growth throughout the planning period. In-Lieu-of (Tax) Stagnant growth, or net decrease over time due to inflation. Local Funding Sources Property Taxes 3% growth per year. Fare Revenue Stagnant growth. There will be attempts to maintain current fare revenue in spite of a ridership decline. This will be achieved through fare maximization policies (pricing levels, fare system type). Represents a best-case scenario or absolute maximum farebox return over time. A constant fare revenue Apri12000 Literim Update April l2, 2000 16-23 Appendix S Revenue artd Expense Assumptions -Transit Systevt Element Anticipate 3% annual growth rate throughout the planning period. Maintenance Anticipate 3% annual growth rate throughout the planning period. Adrninistratiota Anticipate 3% annual growth rate throughout the planning period. Legislative This represents board member election expense, elections for funding increases and legal fees for union negotiations. Due to wide fluctuation in this expense overtime it is increased from the final base year by 2% annually. Capital (match) Anticipate a 3% growth rate throughout the planning period. Tier Zb -Expanded Service Levels Operations Anticipate 5 fold increase over current (Tier 2a) operation expenses in each time period. Alt. Operations Anticipate 5 fold increase over current (Tier 2a) operation expenses in each time period. Maintenance Anticipate 2 fold increase over current (Tier 2a) operation expenses in each time period. Administration Anticipate 2 fold increase over current (Tier 2a) operation expenses in each time period. Legislative Remains consistent with current level (Tier 2a) estimates. Capital (match) Remains consistent with current level (Tier 2a) estimates. Apri12000 Lsterim Update April /2, 2000 16-25 I7.0 Related MPO Issues 17.1 Federal Requirements and MPO Designation The 1962 Federal Aid Highway Act required that all federally-funded highway projects be based on a continuing, comprehensive, and coordinated 3-C planning process involving states and local agencies. States may designate Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) to carry out the 3-C planning process in urban areas with populations of at least 50,000 people. In 1982, the Rogue Valley Council of Governments was designated by the Governor as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the greater Medford area. The area became eligible for this designation following the 1980 census, when the urbanized areapopulation surpassed 50,000 for the firsttime. RVCOG'sBoardofDirectorsdelegatedresponsibilityforpolicyfunctionstoacommittee ofelected officials representing the MPO communities and affected agencies. The MPO Policy Committee includes representatives from Central Point, Medford, Phoenix, Jackson County, the Rogue Valley Transportation District, and a senior staff member from the Oregon Department of Transportation. Under existing federal and state legislation, the MPO is responsible for completing several activities, including development and maintenance of a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Following is a brief discussion of these issues to illustrate how the RTP fits into the overall MPO process. 17.2 Coordination of Transportation Decisions A significant responsibility ofthe MPO is to coordinate transportation discussions and decisions among the public, and appropriate federal, state, and local agencies. The RTP will provide a framework for these discussions in the future. Local, state, and federal representatives sit at the table together in two forums. The Technical Advisory Committee comprises staff members from local MPO agencies and jurisdictions, the Oregon Department ofTransportation, OregonDepartment ofEnvironmental Quality, DepartmentofLand Conservation and Development, and the Federal Highway Administration. This group is responsible for providing technical guidance and input into the MPO planning process, and for making formal recommendations tothe Policy Committee. Staffmembers bring their individual community issues to the technical review discussions. The MPO Policy Committee is responsible for balancing specific jurisdictional concerns with the overall regional needs. Both groups have aided in completing the RTP, and will serve as the coordination bodies for implementation of the plan once it is adopted. Apri120001nterim Update April 12, 2000 17-1 Conformity determinations for the RTP and MTIP must include PM~o transportation emissions for the entire Air Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA). The conformity process is greatly complicated in ow• region because much of the PM~o AQMA is outside the current MPO boundary. An agreement between the MPO, all of the affected jurisdictions within the AQMA, ODOT, and DEQ was developed to describe the process for cooperative plarming, interagency consultation, and analysis of transportation air quality emissions. Besides the regional conformity determination discussed above, individual project level air quality conformity analysis is required for all regionally significantprojects. Any regionally significant project, as determined by the MPO Policy Committee, must demonstrate air quality conformity on aprojectbyprojectbasispriortoconstruction. The process for identifying and conducting conformity analysis is detailed in the Intergovernmental Agreement signed by all ofthe jurisdictions in the AQMA. 17.6 Major Investment Studies The maj or investment study (MIS) process was initiated as part of the 1991 ISTEA legislation, and revised as part ofthe 1998 TEA-21 legislation to putmore emphasis on the environmental impact study (EIS) aspects of major investment studies. Under TEA-21, an EIS/MIS process involves a comprehensive evaluation ofalternatives for significant transportation system and transit investments, and an environment impact study ofthe preferred alternative that meets the requirements ofthe National Environmental ProtectionAct(NEPA)process. AnMIS/EISisinitiatedthroughacooperativeprocess ofthe MPO, ODOT, FHWA, and FTA. Currently, there are two MIS/EIS's underway in the MPO area; the South Medford Interchange and Highway 62 Corridor Solutions prof ects. Both ofthese projects are identified in the RTP. The MIS/EIS's are scheduled to be completed in the Spring of 2002. 17.7 Local Transportation System Plans The RTP will be implemented by local jurisdictions through individual transportation system plans and development review processes. Some implementation work has already been completed by the respective MPO agencies. The MPO Policy Committee and Technical Advisory Committee will serve as the regional forums to discuss RTP implementation and links to individual transportation plans. Apri[ 2000Inler'irn Update April 12, 2000 17-3 Appendix A Transportation Planning Rule and TEA-21 Compliance for the 2000 - 2020 Regional Transportation Plan Update Federal and state planning guidelines are specified for the transportation planning conducted in urban areas including the Rogue Valley MPO area. This Appendix explains how the federal and state guidelines were met in the preparation of the 2000 - 2020 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update and the 1995-2015 RTP. The first portion of this Appendix deals with the 2000-2020 RTP update and how the plan complies with the Oregon's Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) and the seven planning factors from the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21~` Century (TEA-21). The second portion of this Appendix outlines how the original 1995-2015 RTP complied with state and federal transportation planning requirements. Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) Compliance for 2000-2020 RTP On January 8, 1997, the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Committee adopted the 1995-2015 Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), 1997 - 2001 MTIP, and Air Quality Conformity Determination. These documents were forwarded and jointly approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), ODEQ and ODOT. On July 2, 1997, following the City of Medford's adoption of the RTP, the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DECD) appealed the RTP based on the following factors: The identification of transportation needs has not taken into consideration measures to reduce the reliance on the automobile. OAR 660-12-030 (3) & (4). 2. Implementation of the plan will not achieve the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita objective established for MPO areas. OAR 660-12-035 (4), (S), & (6). 3. The plan does not adequately describe or identify the funding mechanisms necessary to implement the plan. OAR 660-12-040. 4. The plan does nat adequately ensure that acknowledged land use plans are consistent with the function, capacity, and level of service of the planned transportation system. Apri120001nterim Update April /1, 1000 A-I 3. The plan does not adequately describe or identify the funding mechanisms necessary to implement the plan. OAR 660-12-040. In order to fully comply with TPR rule 660-12-040, the financial element of the RTP includes a discussion of local guidelines and policies to implement the unfunded portion of projects listed in the RTP. The RTP contains a Tier 1 list of projects and a Tier 21ist of projects. Tier 1 is the financially constrained list of projects. The 1995 RTP provides a description of the funding that is reasonably expected to be available within the planning period to fund Tier 1 projects. The 1995 RTP does not identify funding sources or strategies for Tier 2. The Apri12000 RTP Amendment will include recommended policies and general guidelines that describe the steps necessary to implement street system improvements (Tier 1 and Tier 2) of the preferred plan. Finding: The MPO Policy Committee finds that the updated RTP financial element adequately describes or identifies the funding mechanisms necessary to implement the plan, which complies with OAR 660-12-040 (see Section 17 Financial Element). 4. The plan does not adequately ensure that acknowledged land use plans are consistent with the function, capacity, and level of service of the planned transportation system. OAR 660-12-060. In order to assure that the allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and Zevel-of-service of the existing and planned land uses and future conditions of the roadways, the following three comparisons will need to be made of all Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects listed in the RVRTP. 1. Analyze functional classification of street projects listed in the RTP and compare with adjacent land use. 2. Analyze existing and future capacity of streets compared with adjacent land use. 3. Determine LOS of selected intersections at build out and compare with adjacent land uses. The same type of analysis will take place for the proposed land use and zoning changes identified in the "Trarssit Oriented Design and Transit Corridor Development Strategies. " Finding: The RTP is financially constrained. However-, several projects that are needed to address future level of service (LOS) problems on the state highway system cannot be funded because offnancial limitations. These projects were moved onto the Tier 2 unfunded list until additional funding can be identified. This means that there are still LOS problems on the ~1priL2000Interim Update dpri! 12, 2000 A-3 CONTNUATION OF PLANNING EFFORTS FOLLOWING THE APRIL 2000 RTP UPDATE Following adoption of the Apri12000 RTP update and associated air quality conformity determination, the MPO will continue pursuit of the alternative measures strategy for demonstrating reduction of reliance on the single-occupant vehicle as identified in the TPR. The work also includes completing the work necessary to comply with the federal TEA-21 Metropolitan Transportation Planning requirements. This work includes: A. Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Compliance With tlee to meet Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-IZ-000) and Subsequent Acknowledgrrsent by DLCD. During FY 2000, the RVMPO amended the RTP project list, and adopted the 2000-2003 MTIP and air quality conformity determination to meet federal requirements as defined in TEA-21. In the past fiscal year, RVMPO's primary focus was to ensure RTP compliance and consistency with TEA-21 requirements and FHWA approval of MTIP and supporting regional air quality conformity determination. Federal approval of the RTP and supporting MTIP and conformity determination is paramount to the receipt of federal and state transportation dollars. However, the RTP must now move ahead in the process to be compliant and consistent with state transportation planning requirements under the TPR. DLCD originally appealed the Plan in the Spring of 1997 for failing to meet the requirements of the TPR. Specifically, DLCD outlined areas where the RTP failed to reduce reliance on the automobile and meet the required 5% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction mandate for MPO areas. DLCD in coordination with the RVMPO has developed a work plan outlining issues and specific work tasks to bring the RTP into compliance with the TPR and subsequent acknowledgment of the RTP by DLCD. The work plan itself will pursue alternative measures strategy, as defined in the TPR and under the direction of DLCD, for demonstrating reduction of reliance on the single-occupant vehicle for the MPO's regional transportation system.. As stated by DLCD, "the RVMPO may proceed with adoption of an updated RTP and obtain an air quality conformity decision if the plan includes a clearly defined work program and schedule to address the Transportation Planning Rule's VMT reduction requirement". Similarly, in accordance with DLCD, the work program must include the following: A finding of compliance with the VMT reduction requirement of the TPR remains an outstanding issue. This finding will summarize efforts to meet the VMT reduction requirement and forecast results. 2. A policy and a schedule committing the region to revise the regional plan as necessary to address this issue over the next two years. This policy will be based on the following ~Ipri12000 Guerim Update flpri/ /2, 2000 A-5 1. Inclusion of the land use elements; 2. Alternative measures that track reduced reliance on the automobile 3. A TDM program; 4. The transit plan identified in the TOD study; 5. A schedule for the implementation of key measures by local governments; and • Benchmarks document, including the measurement of current benchmarks, the targets for benchmarks, and the method the RVMPO will use to track key benchmarks in the future. Revision to the model and the RTP based on discrepancies identified in MPO member jurisdictions' TSPs. B. Regional Transportation Plan Update -TEA-2I Cornpliance In FY 2000, RVMPO amended the existing 1997 RTP to include a revised transportation project list, supporting MTIP, and regional air quality conformity determination. With the assessment and approval of the RTP amendment, FHWA directed the RVMPO to initiate and undergo the update of the RTP as required by TEA-21 (MPO plans are required to be updated every two years). The RTP update will include reassessing and refining all the previous '97 RTP underlying planning forecasts, factors, assumptions, and processes. Specifically, the RVMPO will revisit and update the following; 1. Revise 20-year planning horizon and supporting regional population forecasts, 2. Evaluate and update RTP land use assumptions, 3. Revise and determine regional transportation network deficiencies, 4. Revise and determine transportation solution functions and alternatives, 5. Revise and determine multimodal solutions and supporting performance measures, 6. Update transit network service and supporting performance measures, 7. Revise and determine transportation solution performance measures, 8. Revise and determine effective regional congestion mitigation strategies, 9. Identify regional funding mechanisms and strategies. 10. Revise existing RTP Goals and Objectives guided by public outreach and input. 11. Further refinement of the MPO's land use model to assess and document the travel benefits of the TOD sites and neighborhood commercial center. 12. Development of alternative standards and performance benchmarks for TPR compliance under section 035 (5) of the TPR. 13. Identify funding to conduct a regional freight study. 14. If Oregon Highway Plan mobility standards cannot be met through the financially consh~ained metropolitan transportation improvement project list in the April 2000 RTP amendment, the MPO will investigate alternative methods for meeting prescribed mobility standards, following the April 2000 Amendment. Potential resolutions may Apri! 20007rrterim Update April 12, 2000 A-7 Adoption of compliant RTP by the RVMPO. This work includes: I. Inclusion of the land use elements of the integrated land use plan; 2. Alternative measures that track reduced reliance on the automobile; 3. A TDM program; 4. A schedule for the implementation of key measures by local governments; and 5. Benchmarks document, including the measurement of current benchmarks, the targets for benchmarks, and the method the RVMPO will use to track key benchmarks in the future. Revision to the model and the RTP based on discrepancies identified in MPO member jurisdictions' TSPs. Documentation of "non-traditional" funding sources to address the funding shortfalls identified in the RTP. Public Involvement Plan Apri12000Interim Update ,Ip,ulz, zooo A-9 significant projects must meet air quality standards. Planning for a balanced transportation system helps promote energy conservation and improves the quality of life in the area. The conservation of natural resources are addressed in Goal 2. Conservation issues are addressed during the development of project alternatives. Emphasis is placed on projects that improve the efficiency of the transportation system and reduce the reliance on the single occupant automobile. The RTP focuses on alternative modes of transportation such as, walking, biking, and transit, which help to meet energy conservation goals. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight; Integration and connectivity of the various modes are provided through the park-and-ride lots, pedestrian access to transit, connectivity among modes (such as bikes on buses), and freight transfer facilities. Promote efficient system management and operations; and Medford has signal timing plans for many of the major corridors in the city. The RVMPO is involved in an Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) study which will identify projects to increase safety and efficiency in the area. Also, TSM projects are identified for the Highway 62 corridor. EmpltasiZe t{ze preservation of the existizzg transportation system. The RVMPO's project selection process strongly emphasizes preservation of the existing transportation system. Maintenance and improved efficiency of the existing transportation system were key considerations in developing the RTP. Current annual non-capital expenditures identified for each jurisdiction were "earmarked" for maintenance in the future. Transportation System Management (TSM) measures were considered a priority in programming future investments in the system. In addition, the MPO addresses the seven (7) TEA-21 Planning Factors through its Livability and Economic Opportunities project selection criteria. The selection criteria is used to rank and prioritize regionally-significant projects for inclusion in the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP). Regionally-significant projects included in the MPO's MTIP and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) must address seven regional goals and several evaluation criteria. All projects must support the economy, increase safety, improve mobility and accessibility, protect the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, Apri12000 htterim Update April 12, 2000 A-11 Transportation Planning Rule and ISTEA Compliance 1995 - 201 S Regional Transportation Plan Federal and state planning guidelines are specified for the transportation planning conducted in urban areas including the Rogue Valley MPO area. Technical Memorandum #2, which was prepac•ed at the beginning of the planning process for the RTP, included a discussion of what was applicable. This section of Appendix `;4 "explains how the federal and state guidelines were met in the preparation of the 1995 - 2015 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The first portion of this Appendix deals with Oregon's Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The second portion of this Appendix recites the guidelines from the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and explains how these guidelines were addressed. TPR Compliance In April 1991, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), with the concurrence of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), adopted the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), OAR 660 Division 12. The TPR requires that each of the state's four Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) prepare and adopt a Transportation System Plan (TSP) by May 1996. Outlined below is a list of recommendations (designated by italics) and requirements for a regional TSP for MPO areas. Requirement Coordinate Plan with other agencies, special districts, and service providers. RTP Compliance The objective of the entire planning process was to develop a regional transportation system plan, which helped to ensure a coordinated approach. Coordinate Plan with state TSP. Ensure consistency with state plans. The Oregon Transportation Plan, and each of the modal plans including the Highway Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, and Rail Freight Plan were reviewed and used as part of the planning process. Key items from state plans were referenced. Apri(2000 Interim Update Apri! 12, 2000 A-13 Engineering standards, perti~zent laws and Jackson County Standards and specifications regulations for county roads 1976. County wide road projects systems development charge handbook, 1992. Existing significant transportation studies Existing capital improvements programs/public facilities plans Pacific Highway No. 1 (I-5) Corridor Study; Traffic Management and Access Plan for Crater Lake Highway; Pacific Highway -Central Point Phase 2 Study (1988); Pine Street -Rogue Valley Highway to 4'h Street Environmental Assessment Medford Area Transportation Study 1981; and Highway 62 Corridor Study. 1993-1998 Transportation Improvement Program (MPO); Five-year Pavement Management Plan for Jackson County 1988; Adopted CIPs or annual budget documents for the cities of Medford, Central Point, and Phoenix; RVTD's adopted budget; and ODOT's Transportation Improvement Program. Americans with Disabilities Act requirementsADA Paratransit Plan 1993. Apri12000 tnlerini Update April /2, 2000 A-15 Air transportation Freight transportation Water transportation Pipeline transportation Existing population and employment Final Technical Memorandum # 4 includes a section on air transportation and the Jackson County International Airport. This chapter estimates and forecasts ridership. Air Transportation is an element of the RTP. Final Technical Memorandum # 4 chapter on freight transportation facilities discusses highway freight movements and rail freight movement. Freight Transportation is an element of the RTP. Final Technical Memorandum # 4 indicates there are no water transportation facilities in the area. Bear Creek is not a navigable waterway. Pipeline transportation is discussed in the chapter with that title. The area is served by natural gas distributors. The RVCOG's report: Analvsis Methodoloav for Roadway, Land Use and Alternative Mode Options presents existing demographic information. Determine Transportation Needs Forecast population and employment. The RVCOG's report: Analvsis Methodoloav for Roadway, Land Use and Alternative Mode Options presents future demographic information. April 2000 htterirn Update ~tprsl 12, 2000 A-17 Update community goals and objectives. Establish evaluation criteria. Conmiunity goals and objectives were updated at the beginning of the planning process. They have guided development and evaluation of alternatives. Draft RTP presents the goals and objectives (Sectiozz 3.0). Evaluation criteria included community goals, as ISTEA, Oregon TPR and the Oregon Transportation Plan. These evaluation criteria are listed in Section 4.0 of the draft RTP. Develop and evaluate alternatives (no-build Three transportation system alternatives were system, all build alternatives, transportation developed. Each alternative combined the system management, transit following six component system elements to alternative/feasibility, improvements /additiorrsieet the area's transportation needs: (1.0) to roadway system, land use alternatives, transportation systems management; (2.0) combination aiternati-ves). Select recommended alternative. Produce a Transportation System Plan transportation demand management; (3.0) transit service; (4.0) bike and pedestrian facilities; (5.0) land use strategies; and (6.0) street and highway system improvements. The Draft Regional Transportation Plan recommends an alternative transportation system. This choice followed public review of the systems alternatives and technical evaluation. Transportation goals, objectives, and policies The Draft RTP restates the goals and objectives (Section 3.0) adopted in the initial phases of the study. dpri12000Interim Update ~Ipril I2, 2000 A-19 A parking plan to achieve a 10 percent The Regional Transportation Plan contains a reduction in the member of parking spaces perparking element that responds to the TPR capita in the MPO area over the planning requirement to achieve a reduction in parking period per capita. This element proposed a number of parking reduction strategies, including parking code and policy changes, redesignation of existing parking, and management of roadway space. This element also assesses the potential impacts of these strategies. A transportation financing program identifying) draft financial analysis has been completed. planned transportation facilities and This will be updated and revised to form the improvements, a general estimate of the timin~asis of the transportation financing program. of these improvements, rough cost estimates for these improvements, and a discussion of the availability of the providers existing funding mechanisms and new mechanisms to fund the development of each transportation facility and major improvement Plan Review and Coordination Consistent with ODOT and other applicable Appendix E discusses the relationship of the plans RTP to the TPR requirements for per capita VMT and parking reductions. Appendix G presents the basics for a VMT monitoring program. Adoption Implementation Ordinances (facilities, services and improvements; land use or subdivision regulations) flpri12000huerim Update April 12, 2000 A-21 Compliance with IST>/A Planning Requirements The federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, profoundly changed the transportation planning process in metropolitan areas. At a national level, greater emphasis was placed on multimodal transportation, interagency coordination, and community involvement in the planning process. Technical Memorandum #2 (ISTEA and Goal 12 Requirements, July 12, 1993) provides a detailed discussion of the ISTEA requirements for the Regional Transportation Plan. Specifically, ISTEA includes 16 areas that must be considered in the preparation of an MPO's transportation plan. Following is a description of these considerations, and a brief explanation of how they were addressed in the Regional Transportation Plan. 1. Preservation of existing transportation facilities and, where practical, ways to meet transportation needs by using existing transportation facilities more efficiently Maintenance and improved efficiency of the existing transportation system were key considerations in developing the Regional Transportation Plan. Current annual maintenance expenditures identified for eachjurisdiction were "earmarked" for maintenance in the future. Transportation System Management (TSM) measures were considered a priority in programming future investments in the system. Six specific areas were considered to meet the future transportation needs of the region: I) Transportation System Management (Section 7.0); 2) Transportation Demand Management (Section 8.0); 3) Transit System (Section 12.0); 4) Bicycle And Pedestrian System (Section 11.0); 5) Land Use (Section 13.0); and 6) Street System (Section 9.0). In addition, the Parking Element (Section 10.0) includes specific parking strategies to help improve the efficiency of the transportation system. 2. The consistency of transportation planning with applicable federal, state, and local energy conservation programs, goals, and objectives Consistency with federal and state requirements is addressed in the Goals and Objectives (Section 3.0) of the RTP. Goal 3 and its objectives specifically address this planning requirement. The conservation of natural resources were addressed in Goa12 and its objectives. Furthermore, these issues were expressly provided for by developing alternatives that improve the efficiency of the transportation system and reduce reliance on the private automobile. Increased focus on alternative modes of transportation, including walking, biking, and public transportation, will also help meet energy conservation goals. 3o The need to relieve congestion and prevent congestion from occurring where it does not April 2000 brterinr Update ~Ipril 12, 2000 A-23