Corridor Plans OR 38-Reedsport to Interstate 5 OR 42-400s Bay to Roseburg Volume 1
An element of the Oregon Transportation Plan Adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission
Implementation of these corridor plans depends on the availability offunding. Adoption of the plan by the Oregon Transportation Commission does not guarantee adequate financial resources to carry out the projects nor can the Commission commit the financial resources of other agencies or public bodies.
Copyright O 2001 by the Oregon Department of Transportation. Permission is given to quote and reproduce parts of this document if credit is given to the source. This project was funded in part by the Federal Highway Administration U.S. D.O.T.
To obtain additional copies of this plan, contact: Oregon Department of Transportation Region 3 3500 Stewart Parkway Roseburg, Oregon 97470 Phone: (541) 957-3500 FAX: (541) 597-3547 Acknowledgements
Oregon Transportation Commission Steven Corey, Chair Stuart Foster John Russell Gail Achterman Randy C. Pap6
ODOT especially appreciates the patience and diligence the Corridor Plan Management Team displayed in helping to create the OR 38 and OR 42 Corridor Plans.
Corridor Plan Management Team City of Drain Bra eek Band sf Umpqua Sue Shaffer Carl Patenode Indians City of Elkton Linda Higgins Coos County Patti Everndon Alfred Tyson City of Reedsport Jeff McIlvenna Douglas County John Boyd
Confederated Tribes of Coos, Gregory Norton URCOG Jason Lien Lower Umpqua, Siuslaw City of Coquille Terrence O'Conor Coquille Indian Tribe Ed Metcalf Jerry Runningfox City of Myrtle Point Arthur Schmidt BLM Larry Johnston
City of Powers Terry North City of Coos Bay Steve Doty Bill Grile City of Winston Bruce Kelly City of North Bend Aaron Geisler Jim McClellan Janelle Evans City of Roseburg Dan Huff Oregon Int'l Port of Coos Bay Martin Callery
Consultants for Initial Plan EIem JRH Transportation Engineering Jeanne Lawson Associates Jim Hanks Jam~eDamon Graham Carey Don Galligan
Oregon Department of Transportation Staff Region 3 Planning Unit Statewide Corridor Planning Manager Ken Norton Matt Malone Dick Reynolds Rick Willlams Mlke Baker Mark Leedom Table of Contents
Chapter Page Executive Summary ...... ii 1. Introduction to Corridor Planning ...... 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope 1.2 Overview of Comdor Planning Process 1.3 Overview of the Corridor Plan Documents 2. Overview of the Corridor Region ...... 4 2.1 A Regional Perspective 2.2 Comdor Descriptions 2.3 Demographic Trends 2.4 General Traffic Trends 2.5 Implications for the Corridor Region 3. Management Direction for the Corridor Region ...... 16 3.1 Introduction 3.2 General Management Direction 3.3 Specific Comdor Management Objectives 4. OR 38: Conditions and Needs ...... 22 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Transportation Balance 4.3 Regional Connectivity 4.4 Congestion 4.5 Roadway Conditions and Safety 4.6 Environmental Impacts 4.7 Land Use Impacts 4.8 Economic Impacts 4.9 Proposed Improvement Projects on OR 38 5. OR 42: Conditions and Needs ...... 50 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Transportation Balance 5.3 Regional Connectivity 5.4 Congestion 5.5 Roadway Conditions and Safety 5.6 Environmental Impacts 5.7 Land Use Impacts 5.8 Economic Impacts 5.9 Proposed Improvement Projects on OR 42 Appendix A: Highway Plan Land Use Designations Appendix B: Summary of Evaluation Data for Project Locations
This document contains a summary of the background data used to create the OR 38 and OR 42 corridor plans, as well as the management objectives and prioritized solutions identified for each corridor. A second volume is available for each corridor which contains a detailed rliscussion of existing conditions and corridor resources and a more complete discussion of issues and policy relating to various plan topics. Also included in the Supporting Documentation volumes are more detailed discussions of the corridor solutions, inclziding Project Summary Sheets for each proposed project. The supporting documentation should be consulted for all data or analysis.
- - Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page i List of Tables and Figures
Figure 2.1 The OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Region ...... 5 Figure 2.2 OR 38 and OR 42 Corridor Segments ...... 6 Table 2.1 Local Population Forecasts ...... 8 Table 2.2 Historic Manufacturing and Non-manufacturing Unemployment Rates ...... 9 Table 2.3 Projected Percent Change in Nonfarm Employment ...... 9 Table 2.4 Traffic Volumes on OR 38, OR 42 and OR 126' ...... 11 Figure 2.3 1998 ADT on OR 38 and OR 42. Selected Locations ...... 12 Table 2.5 Projected Average Daily Traffic on OR 38, 1998-2020 ...... 13 Table 2.6 Projected Average Daily Traffic on OR 42. 1998-2020 ...... 14 Figure 4.1 Airports in the OR 38 Corridor Region ...... 23 Figure 4.2 Rail Lines Serving the OR 38 Corridor Region ...... 27 Table 4.1 Recommended Passing Lane Improvements on OR 38 ...... 30 Table 4.2 Other Passing Lane Improvements on OR 38 ...... 31 Table 4.3 Proposed Geometric Improvements on OR 38 ...... 32 Table 4.4 Shoulder Widening Improvements on OR 38 ...... 33 Table 4.5 Bridge Deficiencies on OR 38' ...... 34 Table 4.6 Recommended Intersection Improvements ...... 35 Table 4.7 General Safety Improvements on OR 38 ...... 36 Figure 4.3 Boundary of Reedsport Potential STA ...... 40 Table 4.8 Estimated Costs for Unfunded Projects, 2000-2020 ...... 45 Table 4.9 Summary of OR 38 Corridor Plan Projects by Funding Type ...... 46 Figure 5.1 Airports in the OR 42 Corridor Region ...... 51 Figure 5.2 Rail Lines Serving the OR 42 Corridor Region ...... 54 Table 5.1 Recommended Passing Lane Improvements on OR 42 ...... 59 Table 5.2 Additional Passing Lane Improvements with Alternative Locations ...... 59 Table 5.3 Geometric Improvements on OR 42 ...... 61 Table 5.4 Bridges on OR 42 Listed in the Statewide Bridge Priority List ...... 62 Table 5.5 Intersection Improvement Needs Not Related to Capacity ...... 64 Table 5.6 General Safety and Maintenance Improvements on OR 42 ...... 66 Figure 5.3 USlOlIOR 42 Expressway Segments ...... 71 Table 5.7 Estimated Costs for Unfunded Projects. 2000-2020 ...... 76 Table 5.8 Summary of OR 42 Corridor Plan Projects by Funding Type ...... 77 Figure A . 1 Boundary of Potential Reedsport STA ...... 3 Table A . 1 Transportatiodand Use Designation Matrix ...... A- 1 Table B . 1 Summary of Assessment Data for Recommended Improvement Locations on OR 38 ...... B-3 Table B.2 Summary of Assessment Data for Recommended Improvement Locations on OR 42 ...... B-5
Oregon Department of Transportation March 200 1 Draft Page ii OR 38/OR 42 Conidor Plans Executive Summary
Executive Summary
introduction to Corridor Planning
Purpose and Scope of the OR 38 and OR 42 Corridor Plans The OR 38 and OR 42 Conidor Plans are the product of a cooperative effort between the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), local and regional governments, other agencies and interest groups, and the general public. The purpose of the plans is to outline how ODOT will manage each highway. The plans also discuss how non- ODOT services and facilities can be improved to coordinate with the overall corrldor transportation system. Because the OR 38 and OR 42 highways serve much the same role and essentially the same region, this summary addresses conditions, policy, and proposed projects for both corridors. The Corridor Plans are based on: A description of current and future conditions on each corridor, as they relate to the function of the highway, including several transportation modes, roadway conditions, environmental factors, and land use concerns; A summary of existing state and local policy direction; e An implementation program of planned (funded) and other recommended (unfunded) projects and general goals and objectives for management of each corridor; and Mapping for roadway conditions and identified improvement projects. Adoption of the corridor plans does not ensure that the identified projects will be constructed. Instead, the plans serve as a "first-cut" analysis to identify needs which may be addressed as funding and conditions allow. In some cases, the plans refer to solutions that are already funded through the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), ODOT's four-year improvement plan. In other cases, the plans recommend potential solutions. Projects programmed into the STIP are considered "planned" projects, while those not programmed into the STIP are recommended for further study and cannot be considered to be planned projects.
Overview of the Corridor Planning Process The corridor plans were developed through the identification of general issues and specific needs on each corridor. These were analyzed in light of existing state and local policy and existing and future conditions and needs. Specific management objectives were identified and incorporated into the plans. The Corridor Plan Management Team (CPMT), made up of representatives from local jurisdictions, regional Indian tribes, and the BLM, provided initial input on issues relevant to the corridors.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page iii OR 38lOR 42 Comdor Plans Executive Summary
Based on the analysis of existing conditions, ODOT identified a general list of improvement needs on each conidor. Potential projects were evaluated in terms of safety, capacity, travel times, environmental constraints, and whether current standards are met. As projects were identified, they were expected to (a) address an identified need or deficiency; (b) meet conditions or minimums established by state and local plans and the various ODOT Management Systems; and (c) implement the corridor plan goals of safety, efficient operation, and local access. As the plans were developed, the CPMT provided input on the analysis, the management objectives, and the implementation projects. [i"70TE: hrzguage will he irzser-ted as appropri~tsstatirtg fJtaf th4 complft~dPlan hrrv been adopted by tlze Oregon 2i.uttspovtntion C'ommission, endorsed tiy local governments, and wilf be used in managel~zerztof ffze Cctrridor in the future,]
Overview of the Corridor Region
A Regional Perspective Both OR 38 and OR 42 play an important role in the communities of Coos and Douglas Counties. These highways work together with Interstate 5, US 101 and a number of other state and local roads to form a regional transportation system that serves both personal and freight travel. Just as importantly, OR 38 and OR 42 support one another, serving as alternative routes through the coast range when travel along the other is hindered by construction or natural disaster. Both routes are designated as Statewide Freight Routes on the National Highway System as they serve an important economic role in terms of freight movement between the coast and Interstate 5. OR 38 is generally considered a good route for all types of travel through the Coast Range because it is relatively flat with only two small hills to negotiate, and with the exception of the section between Reedsport and Scottsburg, provides many passing opportunities. While OR 42 has historically been considered a slow, winding route that can be difficult to negotiate. Improvements to the highway over the last 25 years have helped to widen and straighten the highway, provide safe shoulders, and provide passing opportunities, making it a much safer and faster route over the Coast Range.
Future Traffic Trends As in the past, regional changes in population and the economy will affect traffic on both corridors. In general, the counties that make up the Corridor Region (Coos and Douglas) have experienced slow population growth over the last 20 years (less than two percent per year). This relatively low growth rate is expected to continue over the next 20 years. The region's employment base has historically been tied to natural resources, such as timber and fisheries, and to recreational uses. Because of declines in resource- dependent industries, the economy of the corridor region has been outpaced by the state of Oregon as a whole. The economy of Coos County in particular has been slow when
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page iv OR 38/OR 42 Corridor Plans Executive Summary
compared to the state, or even the counties of southwestern Oregon. This trend is expected to continue over the next 20 years, with overall employment growing slowly, but manufacturing employment continuing to decline or remain stagnant in both counties. These trends will likely be reflected in traffic volumes on both highways. Tables E-1 and E-2 show expected traffic volumes on OR 38 and OR 42, respectively.' In general, traffic volumes on OR 38 are expected to remain at low to moderate levels, averaging between 3,300 and 7,900 vehicles each day. Expected increases in Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is not expected to significantly impact the highway overall in terms of congestion or safety. Growth on OR 42 is expected to effect the operation of the highway in some !ocations, with volumes reaching 25,000-30,000 or^ the eastern end. However, the majority of the corridor will continue to see moderate traffic volumes. With the exception of the Winston to Interstate 5 segment and a short segment west of Goquille, increases in traffic on the highway are not expected to be beyond acceptable congestion or safety standards.
Table E-I Projected Average Daily Traffic on OR 38, 1998-2020
Source: ODOT Traffic Volume Tables, 1998; ODOT Transportation Planning Analysis Unit projections to 201 7 extrapolated to 2020
' The expected growth rate has been established by ODOT's Transportation Planning Analysis Unit (TPAU) and is based on differing expectations for each counter location.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 200 1 Draft Page v OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans Executive Summary
Table E-2 Projected Average Daily Traffic on OR 42, 1998-2020
Projected Location MP 1998 Segment 20201 0.70 mile south of Oregon Coast Highway (US101) 0.70 9,700 11,821 1 South city limits of Coquille 12.80 8,900 14,845 1 South city limits of Myrtle Point 21.83 5,100 6,697 1 Myrtle Creek Road 1 30.49 / 4,400 / 6,545 1 2 1 Coos-Douglas County Line 44.95 1 3,800 1 5,953 1 2 East Camas Road 56.10 4,400 5,784 3 Brockway Automatic Traffic Recorder 70.51 6,100 8,658 3 Dillard Road (OR 99) 73.47 16,700 20,626 4 1 S. W. Carnes Road (Keiley's Korner) 75.71 20,800 31,650 4 0.25 mile southwest of 1-5 76.40 17,100 28,559 4 Source: ODOT Traffic Volume Tables, 1998; ODOT Transportation Planning Analysis unit projections to 2017 extrapolated to 2020
Implications for the OR 38 and OR 42 Corridors In short, both OR 38 and OR 42 serve both personal and freight traffic well. With the exception of only a few locations on OR 42, both highways operate well within acceptable capacity standards. Similarly, with a few notable exceptions, the number of accidents and accident rates occurring on each highway is lower than the average for similar non-interstate highways in Oregon. These trends are expected to continue into the future and both highways will provide relatively safe and efficient access between the coast and Interstate 5. General increases in population in the corridor region will result in a natural increase in traffic on both highways. As the regional population increases, traffic volumes will increase, both in terms of through-traffic, as well as in local traffic on the highway. However, significant changes in traffic volume along the corridors will be tied to economic changes in the Corridor Region, most likely in the Coos BayINorth Bend area. If major employers move into the region, traffic volumes may see a noticeable increase. If the region's economy remains relatively stable, or experiences smaller, occasional increases in economic activity over the 20-year planning horizon, traffic volumes will see only slow, steady increases. Non-manufacturing industries, such as those tied to tourism, will have less of an impact on the highway both in terms of number of trips generated and in the type of vehicles using the highway. OR 38 serves as a route for tourist traffic traveling to the Oregon Coast, as well as to fishing and water recreation opportunities on the Umpqua River and at Loon Lake. OR 42 also serves tourist traffic, although the percentage of such traffic is not believed to be as high as on OR 38. However, because neither route is the only or even the primary tourist route to the region and, in the case of OR 38, does not directly access an interior
- Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page vi OR 38/OR 42 Conidor Plans Executive Summary
population center, it is likely that tourism traffic will not increase rapidly on either corridor. In conclusion, based on historic and expected trends in population and employment, traffic on the OR 38 Corridor will not increase significantly over the next 20 years. Residents in the urban areas may notice some increase in traffic volumes at local intersections over time, but this is not expected to cause any capacity problems in the future. Growth in traffic volume on OR 42 will not be significant in the rural areas. Growth in Coquille and Myrtle Point may be noticed by residents, but is not expected to overwhelm the system. Growth in the WinstonIGreen area may negatively impact the highway. A number of intersections in the eastern portion of the corridor are expected to become congested by the year 2020.
Corridor Management Direction ODOT Corridor Plans are designed to support the Oregon Transportation Plan and related modal and topic plans. In general, the management direction for the corridors must come from these guiding documents and other state facility guidelines. To a large extent, the corridor plan objectives summarize existing statewide policy and, as appropriate, provide more specific management direction. At the same time, the plans are consistent with local Comprehensive Plans or Transportation System Plans (TSPs), as well as other local, regional, or mode-specific transportation plans, including special district or public agency plans. The CPMT has played an important role in ensuring that local policy is accurately reflected in the Corridor Plans. The general management direction outlined below summarizes the overall goals ODOT and the local communities hope to meet in maintaining and improving both the OR 38 and the OR 42 corridors. In general, both the overall management direction and the specific management objectives are similar for these two corridors; only in a few cases are they different. More detailed management objectives for each topic area are presented in the combined corridor plan document.
General Management Direction The OR 38 and OR 42 corridors serve two primary roles: 1. As the primary routes for personal and freightfbusiness travel between Interstate 5 and Coos County and the South Coast; and 2. As Main Street for the cities of Reedsport, Elkton, Drain, and Winston. The highways also serve as the primary arterials for the cities of Coquille and Myrtle Point and for the unincorporated communities of Scottsburg, Wells Creek, Camas Valley, and the Green Unincorporated Urban Area. The overall management direction for each corridor seeks to balance these competing needs through these management goals. These are summarized in the statements below.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 200 1 Draft Page vii OR 38lOR 42 Comdor Plans Executive Summary
Safety. ODOT is charged with ensuring the traveling public is provided a safe and efficient transportation system. Freight movements and economic development. As Statewide Freight Routes, both highways serve as a primary link between the South Coast and the 1-5 corridor. As a result, the freight function of the OR 38 and OR 42 Corridors must be protected and enhanced. Specifically, maintaining travel times and highway capacity will ensure efficient freight movement and therefore support the regional economy. Local Transportation Needs. The highways will continue to serve as primary arterials in the cities along the Corridor. Providing access to local land uses and adequate pedestrian facilities will continue to be a consideration in the operation of both facilities. These goals are to be met through a number of facility improvements and by managing accesses throughout the Corridor. Access management strategies have been shown to increase safety while improving travel times and conditions for both through- and local traffic. Land uses along both corridors will continue to be important to the development of the transportation system, both in terms of ensuring that future development can be adequately served and that development does not overwhelm the existing and planned transportation system. Local Comprehensive Plans and state land use planning goals rather than the corridor plans will guide land use decisions. ODOT will continue to work with jurisdictions as appropriate to address development along the highways. At the same time, ODOT can designate certain highway segments as Special Transportation Areas (STA) to help balance local access with through-movement on the highway. The designation is intended to allow less restrictive access spacing and capacity performance standards on the highway within the STA, in conjunction with tighter controls outside of the designated area. Currently, the city of Reedsport has been identified as a potential STA and will work with ODOT to determine if the benefits of an STA are great enough to move ahead with the designation. The city of Drain may also be designated as a potential STA and ODOT and the city will discuss whether benefits may be achieved through such a designation. The Urban Business Area (UBA) designation, may be appropriate for a segment of the city of Winston. The UBA designation provides less benefit to the community but also does not require stricter standards outside of the designated area. An additional designation established through the OHP is the Expressway, which is applied to highway segments that must be maintained for high-speed (55 MPH) through-traffic. Local access is a secondary consideration within an Expressway segment. No segments of OR 38 have been designated as an Expressway. The following portions of OR 42 have been designated as Expressways by the OTC:
OR 42, US 101 to W. Central in Coquille (mile points 0.00 to 9.97) ; OR 42, Filter Plant Road, Coquille to Ash Street, Myrtle Point (mile points 13.19 to 20.53); and
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page viii OR 38/OR 42 Corridor Plans Executive Summarv
OR 42, Lookingglass Road to Interstate 5 Exit 119 (mile points 73.88 to 77.17). In addition, the section of US 101 between OR 42 and Bunker Hill, south of Coos Bay (mile points 239.89 to 244.27), has also been designated as an Expressway segment. A management plan will be developed for these segments in FY 2002. While both corridors will continue to be dominated by the automobile, the OR 38 and OR 42 corridor plans contain objectives encourage opportunities for additional use of alternative modes. In particular, continued rail freight service to both the Bay Area and to the RoseburghVinston area are important to the overall transportation. Transit, bicycling and pehestrian modes can play a role in the Corridor urban areas by providing options for the transportation disadvantaged, low-income, and those who prefer to use other modes for their transportation.
Improvement of OR 38 and OR 42
Introduction As mentioned above, both OR 38 and OR 42 are expected to serve both personal and freight traffic effectively through the next 20 years. This does not mean, however, that improvements are not needed. Focusing on improving the safety and efficiency of travel on the highway, as well as on mobility and access, a number of potential improvements have been identified through the planning process. A key step in developing the corridor plans was to examine existing and anticipated needs and identify potential improvement projects that will address those needs. However, while ODOT can generate general revenue projections, no accurate forecast of funding for a given highway can be made. This makes it difficult to prioritize projects beyond funding identified in the current STIP. As a result, only those projects in the corridor plans that are programmed into the current STIP can be considered "planned" projects; all other projects are only recommended for further study and possible implementation. Inclusion of a project in the corridor plan does not ensure that it will be forwarded to the STIP, nor does it represent a commitment by ODOT or any local government to fund, allow, or construct that project. Further, it is important to remember that while ODOT has committed funds to construct projects that are in the STIP, changing project budgets or unanticipated conditions such as environmental constraints may cause some projects to be altered or cancelled. All Modernization projects must be amended into the appropriate local Transportation System Plan or Capital Improvement Program before being considered for the STIP. The various Management Systems within ODOT are responsible for forwarding other project types to the STIP.
Project Funding ODOT funding is divided up into several categories, each having specific definitions of qualifying projects and limits on how the funds can be spent. Below is an overview of the primary types of ODOT highway projects. Projects recommended in the corridor
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page ix OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans Executive Summary
plans fall within one of these categories, although at times it is possible to use two or more types of funding to address a problem location. Modernization projects are designed to add capacity to the highway system to facilitate existing traffic andlor accommodate projected traffic growth. These projects center on the addition or widening of travel lanes, bridge widening, etc. Preservation includes improvements to extend the life of existing facilities without increasing its capacity. Preservation projects include work such as paving, striping, and reconstruction of the highway without widening. Bridge projects include bridge reconstruction or replacement, painting, seismic retrofitting, and overpass screening, as well as major work on tunnels and large culverts. Maintenance projects cover many areas relating to the appearance and functionality of the highway system, including surface repairs, bainage work, vegetation removal, minor structural work, etc. Operations projects increase the efficiency of the highway system, leading to safer travel and greater system reliability. Operations programs include interconnected traffic signal systems, new traffic signals, signs, Intelligent Transportation System features, and rock fall and slide repairs. Safety focuses on investments that address priority hazardous highway locations and corridors, in order to reduce the number of fatal and serious injury crashes. Projects funded through this program must meet strict benefidcost criteria. Safety projects may include access management features, intersection realignment, guardrails, illumination, signing, rumble strips, and railroad crossing improvements.
Expected Funding The needs identified through the corridor plans far exceed even generous revenue projections. For example, over the last two STIP periods, the Southwest Area has received about $5.8 million each 4-year funding cycle for Modernization improvements. Not accounting for inflation or declining revenues, this would result in about $29 million over 20 years for Modernization, for the entire Southwest Area. However, funding for Modernization projects is not allocated directly to each highway. Instead, a target budget is established for the Southwest Area of Region 3, which includes all of Coos, Curry, and Douglas counties. These Modernization funds must address needs on US 101, OR 38, OR 42, OR 138, and some needs associated with Interstate 5. At the same time, the OR 38 and OR 42 corridor plans identify $56.4 million in Modernization needs over 20 years, far beyond the amount available for the entire Southwest Area. Put another way, it would require all of the Modernization funding that is currently received for the entire Southwest Area over the next 20 years to meet the needs identified on just OR 42. Other project types, such as Bridge, Safety, Operations, and Preservation, are funded through ODOT's Management Systems, at either the Region or Statewide level. Again,
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page x OR 38/OR 42 Conidor Plans Executive Summary
funding levels for these projects are not established beyond the current STIP and historical spending is not an accurate indicator of what funding will be available in the future. Further, project priorities are established every two years in conjunction with the STIP and then updated as needed in the interim. The corridor plan cannot show all of the projects that may be funded through these Management Systems; nor will the corridor plans be updated on a regular basis to reflect changing priorities. Table E-3 shows the total cost of projects in the current STIP and for projects proposed in the draft STIP for both OR 38 and OR 42. Approximately $6.5 million have been committed to OR 38 improvements and $7.4 million on OR 42 during the current STIP
Table E-3 Costs for 2000-2003 STIP and Drafa 2002-2005 STIP Projects OR 38 and OR 42 Corridor Plans
Table E-4 shows the total cost of all projects identified in the OR 38 and OR 42 corridor plans that are unfunded. The cost of addressing the needs identified in the two plans far exceeds even generous estimates of future revenues for the Region. A total of $73 million in projects are identified for OR 38 over the 20-year planning horizon, while nearly $69 million in improvements are identified for OR 42.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 200 1 Draft Page xi OR 38/OR 42 Conidor Plans Executive Summary
Table E-4 Estimated Costs for Unfunded Projects, 2000-2020 OR 38 and OR 42 Corridor Plans
Source: ODOT Region 3 Planning, 2000 Note: Costs shown do not include STlP or draft-STIP projects
Project Prioritization Projects in the plan have been given a "High", "Medium", or "Low" priority ranking based on existing and expected needs, as well as the seriousness of the need or deficiency. Projects are only prioritized within each funding type. For example, the Modernization projects are prioritized only within that group; Safety projects are prioritized as a group; and so on. Priorities in the plans are only relevant to each particular highway and only represent a "snapshot" of conditions at the current time. These priorities do not necessarily reflect priorities for the entire Southwest Area or for Region 3. Further, changing roadway conditions and revenue streams may cause plan priorities to change in the future. The project lists will primarily serve as a first cut analysis of need that will be forwarded for additional analysis when the SWACT or the Management Systems are evaluating projects for future funding. The project list for each corridor is supported by the CPMT.
Description of Corridor Projects Tables E-5 lists projects for OR 38 and Table E-6 presents proposed projects for OR 42. Both lists show project locations, a brief description, estimated costs, and project priorities. Detail regarding the modes affected by each improvement, and the general types of benefits to be gained if the project is built can be found in the combined OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans document, as well as in the Supporting Documentation for each corridor.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page xii OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans Executive Sumrnarv
Table E-5 OR 38 List of Planned and Recommended Projects Priorities by Funding Type
Total Cost STlP Proiects: $6.453.000 --- , , Draft 2002-2005 STlP -- $305,000 BRIDGE 2004 $508,000 OPS 2004
ent through intersection. Provide
$1,535,000 BRIDGE 2005 Total Cost DraR STEP Proiects: $2.348.000
$900,000 High ODOT
$22,000,000 High ODOT
$900,000 Medium ODOT
$1,800,000 Medium ODOT Total Cost Modernization Projects: $25,600,000 Continued ...
Oregon Department of Transportation March 1,2001 Draft Page xiii OR 38JOR 42 Corridor Plans Executive Summary
ern approach to Umpqua River Bridge
Continued...
Oregon Depart -nt of Transportation R/r-t-ch 1,2001 Draft Page xiv OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans Executive Summary
Unfunded Projects
Begin Est. Total Proj. # Location End Description MP Source ------Proj. Type
40 Jack Creek Road 46.34 46.34 Improve intersection geometry and alignment $150,000 Low ODOT 48 Commercial Ave. Intersection 50.97 50.97 Improve intersection geometry; Widen local street approach to two $200,000 Low ODOT lanes I 50 1 Laurel Hills Drive Intersection 1 51.74 1 51.74 1 Create left turn refuge 1 $350,000 1 Low 1 ODOT 1 51 1 Uooer Smith River Road Intersection 1 52.43 1 52.43 1 lm~roveintersection aeometrv: Realian frontaae road at intersection 1 $175.000 1 Low ~ODOT I I 52 1 Rock Creek Road Intersection 1 53.91 1 53.91 1 Improve intersection geometry $175,000 1 Low 1 ODOT Total Cost Safety Projects: $28,720,000
Total Cost Bridge Projects: $1 5,600,000
Total Cost Operations Projects: $750,000 Maintenance 19 1 Golden Creek to Burchard Creek 1 19.65 1 21.48 1 widen shoulders to 5' minimum $250.000 / Low 1 ODOT $200,000 Low ODOT $1 75,000 Low ODOT Total Cost Maintenance Proiects: $625,000 Continued.. .
Oregon Department of Transportation March 1,2001 Draft Page xv OR 38JOR 42 Corridor Plans Executive Summary
- Unfunded Projects Priority Begin Est. Total project Proj. # Location End Description MP Cost Source Proj. Type
City of Elementary School--Off-system e. Add sidewalk on N side of OR 38 from Binder Dr. to school Elkton
City of coniunction with Proi. #44 and #46 Drain r 4T~eeds~ortpedestrian improvements 1 0.23 1 0.63 1 Complete sidewalks, add curb extensions at Old Town intersections 1 $200,000 1 Medium I City of I
Reedsport to Dean Creek Bike Path 3.66 Construct BicycleIPedestrianpath from Old Town ReedspoFt to Dean City of I 07 ICreek Elk Viewing Area Elkton Downtown Pedestrian Improve pedestrian crossings, investigate and, as feasible, provide Improvements curb-outs at 1st and 2nd St. intersections; Investigate moving lighted ~ed.sian to 1st St. Total Cost BikeIPedestrian Projects: $1,050,000 1 Planning 1 43 Drain Downtown Improvement 99.99 99.99 Develop alternatives for improving alignment of 1st and B Streets & Planning Cedar and B St intersections, as well as addressing deteriorating sidewalks and ped. crossings, drainage, and local street connections 53 North Douglas Transit Planning 99.99 99.99 Transit feasibility study for north Douglas County Umpqua Public Transit 54 US 101Management Plan 99.99 99.99 Examine capacity, safety, and access concerns on US 101 between $1 60,000 High ODOT OR 38 and OR 42. Develop manaaement plan. Total Cost Plannina Proiecks: $280.000
Total Cost STlP & Draft STlP Proiects $8.801.000 Total Cost Non-STIP Proiects $73.375.000 Total Cost All Projects $82,176,000
Source: ODOT Region 3 Planning, 2000
Oregon Depart--cnt of Transportation March 1,2001 Draft Page xvi OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans Executive Summary
Table E-6 OR 42 List of Planned and Recommended Projects Priorities by Funding Type
" ,".stk a b '.b ' v , +emi'%.,*s'@ ' 7 *A .r 4 %$* ":B'ein End: ' tV CFie: Estimated project Proj. # Location *, Description si k , Tlmlng MP MP --- Total Cost Type 2000-2003 STlP projects - -. -- verland Road to China Creek Rd. iden shoulders, left turn lane, guardrail and bridge
Total. - - - . Cast- - - - STIP- . .. Proiec Draft 2002-2005 STlP Projects I I 1 I 17 l~lenAiken Cr. to N. Fork Coauille 1 15.1 5 1 19.34 1 rind and inlay, seal pavement 1 $836,000 1 Preservation 1 2004 1
lirninate ditches; improve sidewalk on north side. Exarnine accesses
Continued.. .
Oregon Department of Transportation March 1,2001 Draft Page xvii OR 38lOR 42 Comdor Plans Executive Summary
- ',1 ist ?* ' ,.*I Priority " Location Begin End Estimated - xq ~ii*A. project' Proj. # * '8 ' - Description within MP MP Total'Ost Source .--.- Proj. Type Coffee Cup Curve
43 Ireland Rd. to Benedict Rd. passing 62.12 63.70 Realign vertical curves and add eastbound passing lane; widen lane shoulders through section; improve drainage between MP 63.00 and 63.70 and secure drainage easements as needed; combine with Proj. #44 ~lGkwa~assinglane 71 .OO 71.22 Extend westbound passing lane from ODOT weigh station to curve I / I east of Hoover Hill Road I $950.000/ Low /=1 55 Brockway Road to Lookingglass Widen 2-lane roadway from Brockway Rd. to Lookingglass Creek, 1 $3,000,000 LOW ODOT I 1 ICreek including Bridge #00805C; add left turn pockets at High School and others as needed: im~rovedrainaae near Brockwav intersection. -- - Total Cost Modernization Projects 1 $30,800,000 1 Safety 56 Brockway Road intersection 71.73 71.73 Add left and right turn lanes on highway and on local roads; signalize 1 $600,0001 High ~ODOT 1 when warrants are met 66 Lookingglass Rd. intersection right 73.88 73.88 Create westbound right turn refuge. $1 00,000 Medium ODOT
15 I South Coquille business access 12.23 12.38 Create frontage road and consolidate accesses on north side of the 1 $450,000/ Medium IODOT ( I I I hiahwav; resolve ~arkinaand sian placement issues relatina lo WW I
Continued ...
Oregon Depar+--snt of Transportation March 1,2001 Draft Page xviii OR 38fOR 42 Corridor Plans Executivt, oummary
Total Cost Safetv. Proiects- $13,375,000 Operations 36 Passing area west of Coos-Douglas 43.84 44.09 Address accidents through area used for passing; improve sight $1,000,000 High ODOT county line - MP 44.00 distances on roadway and from wide shoulder area at MP 44.00 40 Curves west of Slater Creek Road - 45.90 46.60 Realign curves and widen roadway to address accidents and geologic $1,500,000 High ODOT MP 46.00 hazards 1 19 /spruce & Harris Streets, Myrtle Point 1 20.58 1 20.77 1 Signal replacement and ADA requirements $657,000 1 Medium ( ODOT Continued.. .
Oregon Department of Transportation March 1,2001 Draft Page xix OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans Executive Summary
' Priority Begin End Estimated ~ocation Description Plojed Proj. A MP PAP Source --- - Proj. Type 33 Curves near Upper Rock Creek Rd. 41 .OO 42.75 Real~gncurve and wiaen roadway to address accicerlt: a~c!;er!oglc $3,700,000 Medium ODOT
37 Curves west of Coos-Douglas 44.46 44.88 Realign curves and widen roadway to address accrdents Medium ODOT county line - MP 44.60 hazards I 38 Curves at Coos - Douglas county 45.00 45.57 Realign curves and widen roadway to address accidents line - MP 45.20 hazards 63 OR 99 (Main St.)/OR 42 intersection 73.37 73.37 Create left turn refuge from OR 42 to Cheetah Junction: prov~de Medium ODOT signal control for traffic leaving Cheetah Junction; concrete intersection. 1 22 Myrtle Point Weigh Station Move weigh station east of present location; If cannot be moved, provide better warning that approach is not a travel lane. Cbse or I I consolidate accesses located on a~~roach
76 Grant Smith Road intersection 76.22 76.22 Add additional left turn lane from OR 42 to Grant Smith Road at full 1 $250,000I LOW IODOT 1 development of surrounding area
Total Cost Operations Projects $1 3,372,000. .
Bridge ---..- 12 Cunning ham Creek Bridges 10.43 10.45 Raise pavement at approaches to bridges $250,000 Medium ODOT 5 Coaledo Bridge 5.30 5.30 Rebuild or widen bridge $1,250,000 Low ODOT 25 Big Creek Rd. Intersection/Bridge 30.00 30.15 Widen bridge and improve sight distances from intersection $500,000 Low ODOT #to8936
Total Cost Bridae- Proiects $2.000.000, , Maintenance 11 Cedar Point log ponds 10.03 10.18 Dredge log ponds and strengthen highway fill. $200,000 Medium ODOT 10 Cedar Point Road 9.59 9.62 Improve sight distances to the west. Will be addressed in conjunction $175,000 Low ODOT with Project #7 if built. Continued.. . 67 1 Lookingglass Rd. to 1-5 1 73.89 1 76.50 1 Plant trees along OR 42 between Winston and 1-5 to enhance $50,000( LOW ~ODOT
Oregon Depar' snt of Transportation FA-rch 1,2001 Draft Page xx OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans Executive Summary
Continued..
Oregon Department of Transportation March 1,2001 Draft Page xxi OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans Executive Summary
OR 38 and OR 42
Total Cost STlP & DraR STlP Projects $8,932,000 Total Cost Non-STIP Projects $68,737,000 Total Cost All Projects $77, 669,000
Source: ODOT Region 3 Planning, 2000
Oregon DeparA -snt of Transportation March 1,2001 Draft Page xxii Introduction OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans Introduction to Corridor Planning
Introduction to Corridor Planning
1.1 Purpose and Scope The OR 38 and OR 42 corridor plans are the product of a cooperative effort between the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), 15 local and regional governments, other agencies and interest groups, and the general public, The plans contain a long-term program for management of and improvements to both the OR 38 and OR 42 corridors. The purpose of the corridor plans is to establish 0DOT7s management direction for the operation of the transportation system for which it is responsible and to identify and prioritize potential solutions for identified needs. The plans discuss how non-ODOT services and facilities can be managed to coordinate with the overall corridor transportation system. Corridor planning helps ODOT make funding decisions necessary to build and maintain a statewide transportation system that meets the growing demand for transportation over the next 20 years. These plans identify general management objectives, existing and expected needs, and proposed improvements to transportation facilities and services within each corridor. Identified improvements to corridor facilities and systems provide the basis for updating the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which is the first step in distributing the State's transportation funds. The plans identify both programmed solutions-those that are adopted into the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (ST1P)-as well as potential solutions that may be suitable for addressing other needs. Inclusion of a project in the corridor plan does not ensure that it will be forwarded to the STIP, nor does it represent a commitment by ODOT or any local government to fund, allow, or construct that project. All Modernization projects must be amended into the appropriate local Transportation System Plan or Capital Improvement Program before being considered for the STIP. The appropriate section of ODOT must forward other project types to the STIP. Key elements of the plans include: A description of current and future conditions in each corridor, as they relate to the function of the facility. This includes all modes present on the corridors, roadway conditions, environmental factors, and land use concerns; A summary of existing state, regional and local policy direction as it relates to plan topics; Proposed projects to address identified needs; and Mapping for roadway and other conditions and for proposed facility projects.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 1 OR 38/OR 42 Corridor Plans Introduction to Corridor Planning
1.2 Overview of the Corridor Planning Process The OR 38 and OR 42 corridor plans have been developed with input from local and regional governments, interest groups, state and federal agencies, and the general public. The Corridor Plan Management Team (CPMT), comprised of members of jurisdictions along both OR 38 and OR 42, as well as from jurisdictions affected by these corridors, contributed to the creation of the plan through the identification and refinement of corridor issues and solutions and comment on the analysis of need and proposed solutions. As the final plans were developed, the CPMT provided input on the analysis, the management objectives, and the implementation projects. Below is a summary of the steps used to complete the OR 38 and OR 42 corridor plans: Research and analysis of current conditions and current and expected needs; * Identification of relevant state and local policies which serve as the basis for all management objectives and projects;
a Identification of community and stakeholder issues, concerns and ideas relating to transportation in the corridors; Identification and prioritization of specific strategies and improvement projects to maintain and improve the corridor; and Solicitation of public input on key strategies and improvement projects. [NOTE: Language will be inserted as appropriate stating that the completed plan has been adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission and will be zcsed in management of the corridor in the future. All jurisdictions supporting the plan will be listed as well.]
1.3 Overview of the Corridor Plan Documents Because OR 38 and OR 42 are closely linked in providing access between the South Coast and the interior, the two corridor plans are presented together in one document. Although presented together, the OR 38 and OR 42 corridor plans should be thought of as separate, but related documents. While both highways serve the same region in much the same way, the day-to-day management and improvement of each corridor is carried out separately by ODOT. This document summarizes the management objectives, conditions, and proposed improvements on both the OR 38 and OR 42 corridors. The plans discuss conditions and needs on each corridor related to several modes and topic areas and then presents overriding policy and implementing actions for continued operation and improvement over the next 20 years. Following this introduction, the plan provides an overview of the corridor region and the role the individual corridors play in the region's transportation system. Next, the plan provides a summary of the corridor management objectives. Because the highways play similar roles, the objectives are essentially the same for both and are presented as such.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 2 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans Introduction to Corridor Planning
The maintenance and improvements on these two highways will be carried out independent of one another. Therefore, each plan presents the summary of conditions and needs on each corridor separately. Each of these summaries includes a series of 11" x 17" fold-out maps which show existing conditions for most themes on the corridors (e.g., ADT, accident locations, land uses, slide locations, etc.). The maps include a plan view of the corridor, as well as ODOT's straightline charts and thematic strip charts which detail most of the information described in the plan text. Similar fold-out maps are included in Appendix B which show the locations of all proposed projects for each corridor. A volume referred to as the Supporting Documentation is also available for each cnrridor. These documents present the data and analysis used to create the OR 38 and OR 42 corridor plans and contain more detail regarding the needs and policy analysis used to identify the corridor management objectives and implementation projects, Because of the amount of information contained in these volumes, the Supporting Documentation reports for OR 38 and OR 42 are presented separately. Either Supporting Documentation volume can be obtained from ODOT Region 3 Headquarters in Roseburg.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 3 Overview of the Corridor Region OR 38/OR 42 Corridor Plans Overview of the Corridor Region
Overview of the Corridor Region
2.1 A Regional Perspective Both OR 38 and OR 42 play an important role in the communities of Coos and Douglas Counties. The highways work together with Interstate 5, US 101, to form a regional transportation system that serves both personal and freight travel. Just as importantly, OR 38 and OR 42 support one another, serving as alternative routes through the Coast Range when travel along the other is hindered by construction or natural disaster. A number of other roadways also work with these larger highways to provide the regional transportation system: OR 138, connecting Elkton and Sutherlin on 1-5; OR 99, between Roseburg and Winston and continuing south to Dillard, provides connections to OR 42 from 1-5; OR 42s connecting the city of Coquille and US 101 at Bandon; Douglas County Road 389 (Cedar Ave. in Drain) connecting Drain and Yoncalla on 1-5; and
e OR 242, which connects OR 42 to the city of Powers and the Siskiyou National Forest, providing access to timber and recreational opportunities. In addition, OR 126 between Florence and Eugene plays a related role to this regional transportation system, serving as a link between west Eugene and the central and southern coast. For example, those traveling from the Bay Area to the Eugene Airport often use US 101/OR 126 rather than travelling up 1-5. While this plan recognizes the importance of these roadways, it does not address needs along them, or plan for their operation or improvement. Planning efforts are under way for OR 126 and are planned for US 101 and for specific locations on 1-5. Corridor planning will not be conducted for OR 138 or for any District-level highway such as OR 42s or OR 242. Planning for local streets is the responsibility of each jurisdiction should be addressed in city and county Comprehensive or Transportation System Plans. Figure 2.1 provides an overview of the corridor region and the main transportation system, including OR 38 and OR 42.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 4 OR 38/OR 42 Corridor Plans Overview of the Corridor Region
Figure 2.1 The OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Region Coos and Douglas Counties
[ Legend
Corr~dorCities 0 UnincorporatedComrnunlties OR 38 and OR 42 Corridors Interstate Highway 0 5 10 15 20 Statewide or US Hwy - District or Regional Hwy
-- Base maps ODOT Inventory and Mappbng, 1999
Source: ODOT Region 3 Planning, 1999 Note: Coos and Douglas counties make up the OR 38/OR 42 corridor region. While portions of Lane County and OR 126 also play a role in the regional transportation system, Lane County is not considered part of the corridor region. Based on the importance of this larger transportation system to the regional economy, the plan uses Coos and Douglas counties to define the OR 38 and OR 42 corridor region. The analysis, objectives, and solutions were developed with this larger transportation system in mind, but are targeted to OR 38 and OR 42. Much of the discussion in the corridor plans is on a corridor-wide level. However, to facilitate a more specific discussion for some topics, each corridor was divided into four segments. Figure 2.2 shows the corridor segments referred to in this study.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 5 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans Overview of the Corridor Region
Figure 2.2 OR 38 and OR 42 Corridor Segments
Legend
0 Corridor Cities and Communities I # OR 38 and OR 42 Corr~don / Interstate H~ghway 0 5 10 15 Statewide or US Hwy 11 Miles Dlstrlct or Reg~onalHwy N - i Corr~dorSegments /2 1 i I Base maps ODOT Inventory and Mapp~ng,1999
Begin End Actual Segment Description MP MP ~ilea~e' OR 38 1 Reedsport to Scottsburg Rd. 0.00 16.88 16.81 2 Scottsburg Rd. to E. Elkton City Limits 16.88 36.39 19.51 3 E. Elkton City Limits to W. Drain Ctty Ltm~ts 36.39 50.15 13.69 4 W. Drain City Limits to 1-5 50.15 57.13 6.88 Total Reedsport to 1-5 0.00 57.13 56.89 OR 42 1 US 101 to Junct~onwith ORE 242 (Powers Hwy) 0.00 23.43 22.62 2 ORE 242 to Camas Valley 23.43 52.41 28.49 3 Camas Valley to Brockway Automat~cTraffic Recorder (ATR) 52.41 70.51 16.53 4 Brockway ATR to Interstate 5 70.51 77.20 6.69 Total US 101 to 1-5 0.00 77.20 74.33 Source: ODOT Region 3 Planning, 1999 1 Actual segment mileage may not equal posted mileage due to realignments.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 6 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans Overview of the Corridor Region
2.2 Corridor Descriptions 2.2.1 Oregon Route 38 (Highway #45) The OR 38 corridor is comprised of the Reedsport to Interstate 5 Highway (Highway #45), beginning at the junction of US 101 in Reedsport and ending 56 miles to the east at Interstate 5, approximately 10 miles south of Cottage Grove. The section between Drain and Interstate 5 is also designated OR 99, but for the purposes of this study the entire length will only be referred to as OR 38. The highway winds eastward from Reedsport (pop. 4,855) along the Umpqua River, perched for much of the way between the river and rock walls or severely sloped hills. Scattered rural residential and commercial development can be found throughout this portion of the corridor. The highway crosses the river at the unincorporated community of Scottsburg and continues through the community of Wells creek.' The terrain on either side of the highway is still quite steep as the highway continues east in some locations and sections of the highway run adjacent to the river. At Elkton (pop. 180), the Umpqua River turns south while the highway continues eastward over alternating low ridges of coniferous and deciduous forest and small valleys which contain limited agricultural land uses. This mix of forest and farm land continues to the city of Drain (pop. 1,145). The remainder of the corridor runs through mixed agricultural and rural development to Interstate 5. The eastern terminus of the OR 38 Corridor is somewhat unique in that it is in a rural area, rather than urban. This situation influences both the volumes and types of traffic that use the highway with the corridor serving more as a link between regions than between urban areas located at either end.
2.2.2 Oregon Route 42 (High way #35) The OR 42 Corridor, between US 101 and Interstate 5 is made up of the Coos Bay to Roseburg Highway (Highway #35) and OR 99 (between Winston and Interstate 5). For the purposes of this study the entire length will only be referred to as OR 42. Beginning at the junction of US 101, approximately five miles south of Coos Bay, the highway runs approximately 76 miles to the east, ending at Interstate 5, about five miles south of Roseburg. From US 101, the highway follows the Isthmus Slough Estuary southward for approximately three miles, then crosses over into the Coquille River drainage. In the Coquille Valley, the highway passes through low-intensity agricultural Iand and through the cities of Coquille (pop. 4,300) and Myrtle Point (pop. 2,695). From Myrtle Point, the highway turns eastward, following the Middle Fork of the Coquille River into the Coast Range. This portion of the corridor is severely constrained by the river and steep hillsides or rock slopes. Unlike the OR 38 corridor, OR 42 climbs
I Some maps refer to the community near Wells Creek as "Wells Creek" while others denote the area as "Greenacres." To avoid confusion, the community will be referred to as Wells Creek in this plan.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 7 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans Overview of the Corridor Region
steadily through coniferous and deciduous forest and few of the small, agricultural valleys are encountered until the highway passes into the South Umpqua River basin east of Camas Valley. The highway then descends to the city of Winston (pop. 4,655) and continues to Interstate 5 through a mix of agricultural, rural residential, and commercial uses found in the Green Unincorporated Urban Area (UUA).
2.3 Demographic Trends Transportation systems can have a significant economic impact on their surroundings. New transportation services and system improvements can act as a catalyst for new businesses, job creation, and the promotion of tourism. In general, the economy of the corridor region is closely tied to resource and tourist industries with Coos BayJNorth Bend and Roseburg serving as economic centers. In the rural areas, agricultural and forest lands support the local economy. Both OR 38 and OR 42 serve as a major route between Coos BayJNorth Bend and Interstate 5. As a result, growth in the Bay Area affects activities on both condors.
2.3.1 Regional Population Coos and Douglas counties are expected to see some growth in population during the next 20 years, although growth in Coos County will be slower. As seen in Table 2.1, the communities along the corridor are expected to see growth over the next 20 years. However, population projections for small areas should be taken with caution, especially urban areas such as those found along both corridors. Small urban areas that have a number of urban services available can experience a rapid increase in population should a large employer relocate to the area.
Table 2.1 Local Population Forecasts
Source: US Census; Local Comprehensive Plans; Portland State University Center for Population and Census Research 1 Average Annual Growth Rate
Oregon Department of Transportatlon March 2001 Draft Page 8 OR 381OR 42 Corridor Plans Overview of the Corridor Region
2.3.2 Employment According to the Oregon Employment Department, total nonfarm employment increased between 1988 and 1998 in Douglas County by 13.0 percent and 6.6 percent in Coos and Curry ~ounties.~During this period, however, manufacturing employment decreased by more than 17 percent in Douglas County and by more than 38 percent in CoosICurry County. Most of this decreased was in the Lumber and Wood Products sector. Historically, OR 38 and OR 42 have served as a link between timber-related manufacturing and shipping activities on the Port of Coos Bay and the 1-5 corridor. Table 2.2 sunlmarizes historic unemployment rates in the corridor region.
Table 2.2 Historic Manufacturing and Non-manufacturing Unemployment Rates Douglas Co., Coos Co., 1988-1998
Source: Oregon Employment Dept., 1999
As seen in Table 2.3, the Employment Department expects statewide employment to increase by 18.5 percent between 1998 and 2008. For the same period, employment in Douglas County is projected to increase by 14.3 percent and Coos/Curry counties by only 7.6 percent. The loss of manufacturing jobs is expected to be offset by an increase in non-manufacturing employment.
Table 2.3 Projected Percent Change in Nonfarm Employment Oregon, Douglas Co., CoosICurry Co., 1998-2008
Douglas CoosICurry Category Oregon Co. Co. Total Nonfarm Employment 18.5% 14.3% 7.6% Manufacturing 8.6% 1.3% -7.8% Nonmanufacturing 20.3% 18.2% 10.1% Source: Oregon Employment Dept., 1999
COOSand Curry Counties represent the Employment Department's Region 7 and are not reported separately. Data for this employment region is assumed to represent conditions in Coos County for this analysis.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 9 OR 38/OR 42 Corridor Plans Overview of the Corridor Region
The South Coast is a destination for tourists and recreation enthusiasts. Although no data regarding traffic generated by tourists or visitor exists, general tourism data is available which provides a sense of changes in the tourism market in the corridor region. In general, employment and revenues generated in tourism businesses has increased in the region. However, these increases are not as great in Coos County or in western (coastal) Douglas County as in eastern Douglas, western Lane, or Curry counties. This growth trend is expected to continue in the future, with some increase in visitors, although not as great an increase as in neighboring regions. We cannot project how much additional traffic will be generated on OR 38 or OR 42 due to increases in tourist traffic.
2.4 General Traffic Trends 2.4.1 Existing Traffic Volumes ODOT maintains one permanent traffic recorder station on both OR 38 (located approximately seven miles east of Scottsburg) and OR 42 (located approximately two miles west of downtown Winston). Volumes are recorded every three years via hose counters at several other locations throughout each corridor. Over the last 10 years, traffic volumes on both corridors have been relatively low in the rural areas, averaging between 3,000 and 4,000 vehicles each day. Volumes in the urban areas are higher, particularly on OR 42 where average daily traffic (ADT) has been around 10,000 vehicles in Coquille, approximately 15,000 in Winston, and about 20,000 in the Green UUA. Urban volumes on OR 38 are significantly lower, with 4,000-7,000 vehicles in Reedsport each day and approximately 5,000 vehicles in both Elkton and Drain. A comparison of growth rates shows that both in the long term (1970-1998) and the short term (1990- 1998), traffic on OR 42 and OR 126 increased at higher rates than that on OR 38. Both OR 42 and OR 126 saw rates of increase slow or level off during the 1990s, but neither corridor experienced the decreases in growth rates that were experienced on OR 38. Also, volumes on the eastern end of each corridor reflect whether the corridor ends in an urban or rural area. Volumes are high at the eastern termini of OR 42 and OR 126 which end in urban areas (the Green UUA and Eugene, respectively), whereas OR 38 ends along a rural section of 1-5 with the closest urban area, Cottage Grove, 10 miles to the north. Table 2.4 presents traffic volumes on OR 38 and OR 42. Volumes are also shown for OR 126 between Florence and Eugene to provide a comparison of a highway which also provides a link between the coast and the 1-5 corridor. Figure 2.3 graphically presents 1998 ADT at selected locations along OR 38 and OR 42.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 10 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans Overview of the Corridor Region
Table 2.4 Traffic Volumes on OR 38, OR 42 and OR 126' Selected Years Between 1970 and 1998
- - - - Avg. Annual Change Location MP 1970 1980 1990 1998 1970-1998 1990-1998 OR 38 I I East of US 101 (Reedsport) 0.01 1 6,200 8,900 7,900 7,400 1 0.5% -1.4%
Scottsburg ATR 8 23.65 ' 2,300 3,000 3,850 3,700 2.2% -0.5% Drain Downtown (B Ave.) 50.41 5,300 5,500 6,000 ---5,300 0.0% -1 5% 1 West of Interstate 5 1 56.83 2,800 1 3,200 1 3,700 4,200 1 1.8% , 1.7%
Southwest of Interstate 5
East of US101 0.07 5,000 6,600 8,400 7,900 7.3% -0.7% East of Knowles Creek Tunnel 19.82 1,500 2,500 3,800 4,300 23.3% 1.6% Noti ATR 43.86 2,850 4,100 5,000 6,100 14.3% 2.8% East of Territorial Highway (Veneta) 46.93 2,850 4,900 10,600 11,400 37.5% 0.9%
West of Belt Line Road 52.55 N/A N/A 9,900 21,500 , - 14.6% Source: ODOT Traffic Volume Tables, 1970-1998 1 Permanent Automatic Traffic Recorder
2 Some counter locations have changed slightly, but continue to reflect traffic volume through a given portion of the corridor.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 11 OR 38tOR 42 Corridor Plans Overview of the Corridor Region
Figure 2.3 1998 ADT on OR 38 and OR 42, Selected Locations
Legend
0Corridor Cities 0 Unincorporated Communit~es @ OR 38 and OR 42 Corridors 0 5 10 15 20 N -Miles Base maps ODOT Inventory and Mapplng, 1999
Source: ODOT Region 3 Planning, 1999
2.4.2 Future Traffic Volumes Using historic rates to project future traffic volumes is difficult because unforeseen changes in the local economy can cause significant increases or decreases in traffic volumes. What has occurred in the past is not necessarily an accurate predictor of future trends. Table 2.5 shows expected traffic volumes for the year 2020 on OR 38
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 12 OR 38/OR 42 Corridor Plans Overview of the Corridor Region
based on historic trends, as well as expected growth in the corridor region.3 Table 2.6 shows expected traffic on OR 42. In general, traffic volumes on OR 38 are expected to remain at relatively moderate levels, ranging between 3,300 and 7,900 vehicles each day. These increases are not expected to significantly impact the highway overall in terms of congestion or safety. Volumes are expected to increase at a higher rate along the western and eastern portions of OR 42, particularly between Winston and Interstate 5. While the rural, county-line section of the corridor is expected to only see volumes increase to about 6,000 ADT by 2020, the Green UUA is expected to experience volumes over 30,000 vehicles each day.
Table 2.5 Projected Average Daily Traffic on OW 38, 1998-2020
Elkton City Limits (east) 35.87 4,300 6,593 2 Parker Creek 43.78 2,400 3,342 3 Drain City Limits (west) ---50.20 4,200 5,014 3 Drain downtown (B Ave.) 50.41 5,300 6,328 ' 4 1 West of Interstate 5 ' 56.83 4,200 5,014 , 4 Source: ODOT Traffic Volume Tables, 1998; ODOT projections 1 Average annual growths rates projected by ODOT's Transportation Planning Analysis Unit (TPAU), by counter location.
The growth rates for each corridor have been established by ODOT's Transportation Planning Analysis Unit (TPAU) and are based on differing expectations for each counter location, based on historic and current volumes, as well as projected population trends.
- -- Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 13 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans Overview of the Corridor Region
Table 2.6 Projected Average Daily Traffic on OR 42, 1998-2020
Projected Location MP 1998 ADT Segment 2020i 0.70 mile south of Oregon Coast Highway (US101) 0.70 9,700 11,821 1 South city limits of Coquille 12.80 8,900 14,845 1 1 South citv limits of Mvrtle Point 1 21.83 1 5,100 / 6,697 / 1 1 1 0.01 mile west of Myrtle Creek Road 1 30.49 / 4,400 / 6,545 1 2 Coos-Douglas County Line 44.95 3,800 5,953 / 2 1 0.08 mile northeast of E. Camas Road 56.10 4,400 5.784 / 3 Brockway Automatic Traffic Recorder 70.51 1 6,100 8,658 ' 3 0.10 mile north of Dillard Road (QRE99) 73.47 I -. 16,700 20,626 4 + 0.01 mile SW of S. W. Carnes Road (Kellv's Corner) 75.71 1 20.808 31.650 4 1 0.25 mile southwest of Pacific Highway (1-5) 1 76.40 / 17,100 1 28,559 / 4 1 Source: ODOT Traffic Volume Tables, 1998; ODOT projections 1 Average annual growths rates projected by ODOT's Transportation Planning Analysis Unit (TPAU), vary by counter location.
2.5 Implications for the Corridor Region Both OR 38 and OR 42 serve both personal and freight traffic well. With the exception of only a few locations on OR 42, both highways operate well within acceptable capacity standards. Similarly, with a few notable exceptions, the number of accidents and accident rates occurring on each highway is lower than the average for similar non-interstate highways in Oregon. These trends are expected to continue into the future and both highways will provide relatively safe and efficient access between the coast and Interstate 5. General increases in population in the corridor region will result in a natural increase in traffic on both highways. As the regional population increases, traffic volumes will increase, both in terms of through-traffic, as well as in local traffic on the highway. Any significant changes in traffic volume along the corridors will be tied to economic changes in the corridor region. If major employers move into the region, traffic volumes may see a noticeable increase. If the region's economy remains relatively stable, or experiences smaller, occasional increases in economic activity'over the 20- year planning horizon, traffic volumes will see only slow, steady increases. Non- manufacturing industries, such as those tied to tourism, will have less of an impact on the highway both in terms of number of trips generated and in the type of vehicles using the highway. Based on historic and expected trends in population and employment, traffic on the OR 38 corridor will not increase significantly over the next 20 years. Traffic volume growth rates used by ODOT reflect this expectation with slight increases in volumes projected for Segments 1 and 4 and moderate annual increases in Segments 2 and 3. ADT is expected to reach about 7,800 vehicles in Reedsport and 6,300 in Drain.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 14 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans Overview of the Corridor Region
Growth in traffic volumes on OR 42 will average between 1 and 2 percent each year and will result in ADT in excess of 30,000 vehicles in the Green UUA. Volumes will range between 6,800 and 15,000 in Segment 1, but will remain below 6,000 vehicles per day in Segment 2. OR 38 serves as a route for tourist traffic traveling to the Oregon Coast, as well as to fishing and water recreation opportunities on the Umpqua and at Loon Lake. OR 42 also serves tourist traffic, although the percentage of such traffic is not believed to be as high as on OR 38 because of the proximity of the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area and Salmon Harbor to the latter. Recent efforts by Douglas County to increase tourist activity in the coastal portion of the County, particularly at Salmon Harbor, may increase traffic on the corridor. Similarly, efforts to gain a Scenic Byway designation for the OR 38 corridor may also draw additionai tourist traffic to the area. However, because neither route is the only or even the primary tourist route to the area and, in the case of OR 38, does not directly access an interior population center, it is likely that tourism traffic will not increase rapidly on either corridor.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 15 Corridor Management Direction OR 38/OR 42 Corridor Plans Corridor Management Direction
3.0 Corridor Management Direction
3.1 Introduction ODOT's corridor plans are designed to support the Oregon Transportation Plan and the modal and topic plans. In general, the management direction for the OR 38 and OR 42 corridors must come from these guiding documents and other state facility guidelines. To a large extent, the plan objectives summarize existing statewide poiicy and as appropriate provide more specific management direction. At the same time, the corridor plan should be eonsistent with local Comprehensive Plans or Transportation System Plans (TSPs), as well as other local, regional, or mode- specific transportation plans, including special district or public agency plans.4 The CPMT has played an important role in ensuring that local policy is accurately reflected in the corridor plans. The general management direction outlined below summarizes the overall objectives ODOT and the local communities hope to meet in maintaining and improving both the OR 38 and the OR 42 corridor. In general, both the overall management direction and the specific management objectives are similar for these two corridors; only in a few cases are they different. Specific management objectives for each topic area are presented below and are assumed to be the same for each corridor, except where noted.
3.2 General Management Direction The OR 38 and OR 42 corridors serve two primary roles: 1. The primary routes for both personalhusiness travel and for freight between Interstate 5 and Coos County and the South Coast; and 2. As Main Street for the cities of Reedsport, Elkton, Drain, and Winston, as well as for the unincorporated communities of Scottsburg, Wells Creek, and Camas Valley. OR 42 serves as the primary arterial for the cities of Coquille and Myrtle Point and for the Green Unincorporated Urban Area. The overall management direction for the corridors seeks to balance these competing needs through a number of management goals. These are summarized in the statements below and are detailed in the management objectives which follow. Safety. ODOT is charged with ensuring the traveling public is provided a safe and efficient transportation system.
4 Only Coos County and Douglas County had adopted TSPs at the time of the pulbication of this document. However, neither TSP deals directly with OR 38 or OR 42 in terms of specific policy. The Supporting Documentation discusses the TSPs, as well as relevant Comprehensive Plans and draft TSPs form the cities along the corirdors.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 16 OR 38/OR 42 Corridor Plans Corridor Management Direction
Freight movements and economic development. In serving as a primary link between the South Coast and the 1-5 corridor, the freight function of the OR 38 and OR 42 corridors must be protected and enhanced. Specifically, maintaining travel times and highway capacity will ensure efficient freight movement and therefore support the regional economy. Local Transportation Needs. The highways will continue to serve as Main Street or as primary arterials in the communities along the corridor. Providing access to local land uses and adequate pedestrian facilities will continue to be a consideration in the operation of both facilities. The first two goals are to be met primarily through facility improvements such as intersection and roadway segment realignment and limited passing lane improvements. At the same time, managing accesses throughout the corridor will continue to be a strategy used to slow the increase of at-grade intersections along both OR 38 and OR 42. Access management can enhance the safety of motorists and pedestrians accessing the highway, as well as improve conditions for through-traffic. Land uses along both corridors will continue to be important to the development of the transportation system, both in terms of ensuring that future development can be adequately served and that development does not overwhelm the existing and planned transportation system. Nonetheless, local Comprehensive Plans and state land use planning goals rather than the corridor plans will guide land use decisions. While both corridors will continue to be dominated by highway modes, the OR 38 and OR 42 corridor plans contain objectives to ensure that opportunities for additional use of alternative modes are provided where feasible. In particular, continued rail freight service to both the Bay Area and to the RoseburgNinston area are important to ODOT. Transit, bicycling and pedestrian modes can play a role in the corridor urban areas by providing options for the transportation disadvantaged, including the elderly, disabled, and low income, as well as for those who choose to use alternative modes for their transportation. Specific bicycle and pedestrian improvements are included in the plans. For transit improvements in the corridor region, ODOT defers to plans developed by the appropriate transit providers. In most cases, these services will not necessarily improve conditions on the highway facility, but will enhance options for these other modes.
3.3 Specific Corridor Management Objectives Because of the connected role of the two highways, the management objectives are similar for both with only slight differences in some specific topic areas. Rather than presenting the same material twice in this document, once in each corridor section, the corridor Management Objectives are presented below for both corridors. These objectives are consistent with local Comprehensive Plans and TSPs (where applicable). The CPMT has played an important role in ensuring that local policy is accurately reflected in the corridor plan. Further, each jurisdiction has had an opportunity to review and provide input into the management objectives. The Management Objectives are listed below by mode or topic area and are intended to provide specific direction regarding each mode or topic.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 17 OR 38/OR 42 Corridor Plans Corridor Management Direction
3.3.1 Transportation Balance Overall TB.1 Maintain or improve through-traffic on the highway while addressing the needs of local traffic as possible. TB.2 Work with communities and other transportation providers to develop a balance of freight movement between appropriate modes in order to create a balance of modes, reduce the need for highway maintenance, and preserve highway capacity. TB.3 Work with communities and transportation providers as appropriate to develop or enhance access to alternative modes of transportation for those who cannot or prefer not to travel exclusively by automobile. Automobile No specific objectives were identified related to the automobile as a modal choice. Air Sewice TE.4 Encourage and where feasible participate in facility improvements at airports within the corridor region. TB.5 Where possible, work with jurisdictions, airport management, and others to provide safe and efficient connections between airports and state highways. Bicycle TB.6 Incorporate bicycle facility improvements into new or reconstructed transportation facilities where not limited by physical constraints. Pedestrian TB.7 Maintain existing sidewalks to ensure safe and efficient pedestrian travel. Repair sidewalks that are in poor condition as funding allows or in conjunction with highway projects. TB.8 Provide sidewalks within the corridor's urban areas to increase pedestrian mobility and safety. Wherever feasible, sidewalks should be a minimum of six feet in width. TB.9 Balance pedestrian safety and access with the needs of through traffic when considering pedestrian crossings and, where feasible, incorporate "Main Street7'design elements such as curb extensions, street trees, etc. Transit TB.10 Support feasible transit opportunities in corridor urban areas through funding assistance and technical expertise. TB. 11 As demand increases, encourage the development of transit connections in the corridor region, such as Roseburg, Coos BayINorth Bend, as well as to other regions such as the Willamette Valley. Rail TB.12 Work with stakeholders to address issues related to rehabilitation or replacement of facilities such as the rail swing bridge on Coos Bay and sections of track that are speed-reduced.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 200 1 Draft Page 18 OR 38/OR 42 Corridor Plans Corridor Management Direction
TB.13 Encourage local jurisdictions to ensure that local land use decisions do not decrease access to rail facilities or rail service. Freight TB. 14 Consider freight movements in decisions regarding corridor improvements and prioritization of projects. Consideration of the through movement of freight should be included in decisions regarding improvements which enhance movements of other modes on and across the highway. TB.15 Improve truck access to industrial sites within the corridor region, including turn and acceleration/deceleration lanes where appropriate. Ports/Water Transport TB.16 Improve access and intermodal connections to port facilities within the corridor region. Pipelines and Telecommunications 23.17 Accommodate utilities in highway right-of-way where feasible. TB. 18 Encourage the siting of communication facilities to eliminate "dead spots" in the corridor and work with providers to allow proper access to the highway for construction and maintenance roads. 3.3.2 Regional Connectivity RC.l In lieu of major capacity expansions, strive to maintain existing travel times for both autos and freight through facility management (turn refuges and access management). Construct additional or lengthen existing passing lanes in each corridor to enhance regional connectivity. RC.2 Ensure that travelers have access to information regarding route conditions through signing and, as appropriate, ITS technologies. RC.3 Improve highway-to-highway connections between OR 38 and OR 42 and the rest of the regional highway system. Ensure that connections to Interstate 5, US 101, and OR 138W function safely and efficiently. 3.3.3 Congestion CG.l Improve intersections which pose capacity problems andlor are poorly aligned; provide new or extend existing passing lanes in limited locations to improve through-travel times. CG.2 As possible, assist cities and Douglas County in improving local street systems to reduce need for capacity expansion projects on OR 38 and OR 42. 3.3.4 Roadway Conditions and Safety Roadway Geometry RS. 1 Improve poor approach road angIes, sight distances, and roadside obstacles at locations which experience high accident rates or where current standards are not met.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 19 OR 38/OR 42 Corridor Plans Corridor Management Direction
Surface Condition RS.2 Maintain roadway surface conditions at highest level funding allows; 85 percent fair or better will be the target minimum. RS.3 Develop shared maintenance agreements with local governments for sweeping, leaf removal, etc. High Accident Locations RS.4 Encourage changes in driver behavior through Corridor Safety Program measures as a preference to physical improvements. RS.5 Mitigate high-accident locations as feasible based on accepted analysis methods. RS.6 Apply access management standards as outlined in the Oregon Highway Plan and OAR 734.05 1. 3.3.5 Environment Water Resources EE.! Design roadway improvements and other facilities to minimize or treat surface run-off. Create construction run-off management plans for all appropriate projects. Sensitive Species EE.2 To the extent possible, avoid or minimize impacts to natural and cultural resources during construction and maintenance activities. Mitigate unavoidable Goal 5 impacts of transportation system improvements during construction. EE.3 Design new improvements and retrofit existing transportation improvements to encourage the conservation, restoration, and protection of sensitive fish habitat. Recreational/Scenic Resources EE.4 Protect access to recreational uses along the corridor, including the Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area, Loon Lake, and others.
EE.5 (OR 38 only) Encourage local proponents in efforts to gain state Scenic Byway designation for OR 38. As appropriate, work with jurisdictions in developing Scenic Byway inventory and management plan. Cultural/Historic Resources EE.6 Consult with Native American Tribes, state agencies, and local governments during planning and project development projects concerning the presence of significant cultural resources and uses.
3.3.6 Land Use LU.l Work within local land use processes to protect or enhance operation of the highways, airports, and rail lines.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 200 1 Draft Page 20 OR 38/OR 42 Corridor Plans Corridor Management Direction
LU.2 Use access management to minimize impacts of new development on the state highway. LU.3 Design highway improvements to limit adverse land use impacts, consistent with the TPR and local land use regulations. LU.4 Consider strategies that foster coordination and cooperation between ODOT and Tribal governments and which benefit both the development and the transportation system. LU.5 (OR 38 only) Cooperate with cities to investigate and, as appropriate, designate an STA along the highway. LU.5 (OR 42 only) Implement designation of segments of OR 42 as Expressways and develop management plans for each segment. Investigate and, as appropriate, designate an UBAs along the highway.
3.3.7 Economy EC. l Promote projects that enhance the development of existing industrial and commercial sites and the tourism economy. EC.2 Improve access to industrial and commercial uses by working with local jurisdictions to improve local street networks.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 2 1 OR 38 Corridor Conditions and Needs OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 38: Conditions and Needs
4.0 OR 38: Conditions and Needs
4.1 Introduction Using the overview of the corridor region outlined above for context, this chapter summarizes existing and expected conditions on OR 38. Each section of this chapter discusses a transportation-related topic, including modal balance, regional connectivity, congestion, roadway conditions and safety, and environmental and iand use impacts. In terms of modal balance, the plan discusses expected levels of activity for automobiles, air service, bicycles, pedestrians, transit services, trains, trucks, regional ports, pipelines, and telecommunications.
4.2 Transportation Balance 4.2.1 Automobile Use Currently, approximately 70 percent of all traffic on OR 38 is comprised of automobiles. Because of the rural nature of the corridor, the automobile will likely continue to be the dominant mode throughout the corridor through the planning horizon.
Specific Needs No needs have been identified to relating to the use of the automobile as a modal choice. Decisions related to other modes are presented below.
4.2.2 Air Services Although no airports are found directly on the corridor, five airports are found within proximity to OR 38: North Bend Municipal Airport, Roseburg Regional Airport, Cottage Grove Sate Airport, Lakeside State Airport, and George Felt Airfield (Roseburg). Figure 4.1 shows the location of these facilities.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 200 1 Draft Page 22 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 38: Conditions and Needs
Figure 4.1 Airports in the OR 38 Corridor Region
I 1 Legend
Corr~dorCtttes Commerctal Servlce Alrpori 0 Un~ncorporatedCommunltles General Avtat~onAbrpori OR 38 Corrdor -f( Interstate Htghway Statew~deor US Hwy 0 5 10 N D~strtctor Reglonal Hwy -M~les Base maps ODOT inventory and Mapping, 1999
Source: ODOT Region 3 Planning, 2000
Specific Needs ODOT recognizes that increased air service to North Bend can help in decreasing traffic on OR 38, although this impact is likely to be small. A more significant outcome to increased air service, at all airports in the corridor region, is the expansion of transportation options for residents. To that end, ODOT encourages improvements to the facilities and to expansion of services. Specific recommendations for each of the corridor airports are included in the Oregon Aviation Plan as well as in individual facility master plans and will not be repeated in this document. Beyond these, ODOT is interested in improving access to airports, especially for freight shipments. As possible, ODOT will work with local jurisdictions to provide
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 23 OR 38/OR 42 Corridor Plans OR 38: Conditions and Needs
safe and efficient access to airports. In North Bend, access to the terminal is an important issue. Currently, traffic is directed off Cape Arago Highway (Virginia Avenue) along a residential street (Maple) to the airport business park and terminal. Should the city move ahead with plans to relocate the airport terminal, ODOT will work with the City, the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay, the FAA, and others to ensure safe and efficient access to the highway is provided.
4.2.3 Bicycles OR 38 is not expected to be used for bicycle commuting or as a significant tour route in the future. Local streets in the corridor cities are expected to accommodate most local bicycle traffic. Specific Needs The City of Reedsport and the Bureau of Land Management have expressed interest in creating a bicyclelpedestrian connection between the city and the Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area, three miles to the east. The path would provide opportunities for alternative access to a regional recreation area, as well as provide a safe way for bicyclists to traverse the hiii just east of Reedsport. It is unclear at this time whether such a path would follow OR 38 over the hill, or run along the base of the hill closer to the Umpqua River. In either case, issues relating to the instability of the hillside will have to be resolved prior to construction of the path. As discussed above, much of the corridor has narrow shoulders, ranging in width from less than one foot to three feet. Many of these sections are constrained by topography or structures. As possible, these sections should be widened to improve general highway safety, which will also benefit bicyclists and pedestrians. However, this will only be completed in conjunction with Modernization or bridge widening projects and will not occur along most of the corridor. Two sections of the highway have been identified where specific shoulder widening projects would be beneficial and not too costly.
4.2.4 Pedestrians The three cities along the corridor have sidewalks along most the highway. The most notable exception is the section of OR 38 in Reedsport between US 101 and Old Town. Specific Needs Reedsport The section of highway between US 101 and Old Town currently does not have sidewalks and the roadway has shoulder of only 1-2 feet in width. Further, the rail crossing in this section is narrow forcing pedestrians to negotiate the tracks while very near the highway travel lanes. This section of OR 38 should be rebuilt to provide sidewalks. Reedsport currently has 12-foot sidewalks in the Old Town area. The City has recently worked to improve this area by adding pedestrian-scale lighting, plantings, and decorative paving. However, because of the width of the highway in this section,
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 24 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 38: Conditions and Needs
crossing can be difficult. The addition of curb-outs at the intersections of 3rd,4th, and 5thstreets in the Old Town section will improve sight distances for pedestrians and allow motorists to see those waiting to cross the highway. These facilities are proposed to extend to the outside edge of the current bike lane and would not interfere with bicycle or vehicular traffic. As mentioned in the Bicycle section above, the City of Reedsport and the BLM have expressed the desire to create a bicyclelpedestrian connection between the city and the Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area, three miles to the east. The path would provide opportunities for alternative access to a regional recreation area, as well as provide a safe way for bicyclists to traverse the hill just east of Reedsport. It is unclear at this time whether such a path would follow OR 38 over the hill, or run along the base of the hill closer to the Umpqua River. In either case, issues relating to the instability of the hillside will have to be resolved prior to construction of the path.
Elkton Elkton has sidewalks through the downtown extending most of the length of the commercial district. However, the sidewalks are not complete between the commercial areas to the high school or from the high school to the elementary school on the west end of the community. These sidewalk sections should be completed to ensure safe pedestrian passage. It is recommended that the connection between the high school and the elementary school be made on River Ave. rather than on OR 38. Concern has also been expressed by Elkton residents over the difficulty in crossing the highway in the downtown area. Crosswalks exist at the city's busiest intersections-lst and 2ndStreets-and a lighted warning sign hangs over the 2nd Street crossing. The City has indicated that these facilities do not provide sufficient safety for pedestrians and has requested additional crossing improvements such as curb-outs at the marked intersections and relocating the lighted sign. Additional data regarding pedestrian movements would have be needed to determine if these changes are warranted and appropriate for the location.
Drain The city of Drain has sidewalks along most of the highway, although they are somewhat narrow (5 foot) and are in poor condition. Drainage from some buildings fronting the street causes excessive wear at many locations through the downtown. Additionally, because of the tight vehicle turning radius at the intersection of IS' and B Avenues, trucks traveling often ride onto the sidewalks. Downtown improvements to the highway in Drain should include sidewalk improvements as well, including widening as possible and resurfacing where needed. Additional crossing locations should also be investigate, although because of the narrow width of the roadway and the need for parking along the highway through the downtown, curb extensions are not recommended.
4.2.5 Transit State policy and general demographics do not support the development of intercity transit through the corridor. In all likelihood, service through the corridor will be of less importance than service from the small corridor cities to larger regional centers.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 25 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 38: Conditions and Needs
For example, demand is more likely to increase for service between Reedsport and the Bay Area or between Drain and Roseburg or Cottage Grove than for service between Reedsport and Drain. Commuter service between Coos BayINorth Bend and Reedsport is planned as part of the larger Coos and Curry County transit system.
Specific Needs The completion of a feasibility study for transit services in the north Douglas County area is needed to establish service levels over the next 20 years. ODOT supports the development of this service once demand is shown to be adequate. Other regional connections are not planned at this time.
4.2.6 Raii Service Figure 4.2 shows the locations of the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad (CORP) rail lines that serve the corridor region. There is currently no regularly scheduled passenger rail service in the corridor.
Specific Needs Both lines in the corridor suffer from severely constrained sections which limit speeds to 25 mph or less. Further, each line has tunnels and bridges which must be . maintained or repaired to ensure safe and reliable rail service. The rail swing bridge on Coos Bay is in need of repairs to ensure continued operation of the line south of the North Spit. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21StCentury (TEA-21) identified $5.5 million dollars to be spent on rehabilitation of the swing bridge over five years. Issues regarding federal funding match and ownership of the structure and the tracks located to the south of the bridge are being addressed so repairs can proceed. The at-grade public highway-railroad crossing of OR 38 and the Coos Bay Branch of the Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad (CORP) has flashing lights, but no automatic gates. The crossing, as it currently exists, could be improved by adding gates, widening the roadway and improving pedestrian and bicycle access. Projects eligible for the limited state and federal funds specifically dedicated to highway-railroad grade crossing improvements are selected based on a number of criteria, including traffic volumes on the highway and the rail line, accident history and general physical attributes of the crossing. At present, this crossing is not eligible for funds specified for crossing safety improvements.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 26 OR 38/OR 42 Corridor Plans OR 38: Conditions and Needs
Figure 4.2 Rail Lines Serving the OR 38 Corridor Region
Corridor Cltfes and Paclflc Ralroad 0 Unincorporated Commun~tles
&& Interstate Hlghway Statewlde or US Hwy
% Dlstrlct or Regional Hwy
Source: ODOT Region 3 Planning, 2000
4.2.7 Truck Freight OR 38 is designated as a Statewide Freight Route. This designation ensures that the needs of freight movement will be considered in discussions regarding local circulation, safety, and access. Consideration of freight travel times will also factor into the selection of projects for improvement of the corridor.
Specific Needs No projects are recommended only to improve truck operations. However, four locations are of particular importance to truck movement. In general, improving the
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 27 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 38: Conditions and Needs
overall reliability of operations and travel times on the corridor will aid truck travel as well. The Elk Creek Tunnel and the Umpqua River Bridge at Scottsburg require the use of flaggers to stop traffic when loads over 12 feet wide are passing through. Both of these structures are identified for improvements. The tunnel should be widened to improve operation for all vehicles, including trucks, autos, and bicycles. The bridge at Scottsburg is identified for replacement on a different alignment to address both the narrow width of the structure, as well as the poor alignment of both approaches. Both of these improvements will cost more than is likely to be spent in Bridge or Modernization dollars on the corridor during the planning horizon and so alternative sources of funding will have to be found. Of the two, the replacement of the Scottsburg bridge is the higher priority because of its proximity to the community of Scottsburg and recreational opportunities, as well as a slide that is located just west of the bridge. In the short term, the east approach to the bridge should be realigned to allow trucks to negotiate the curve fully before reaching the structure. Increasing the turn radius at lStand B and widening reconfiguring the intersection of OR 38 and Cedar in Drain will improve operation of this segment of the highway for both truck and automobile traffic. Improvements to the former will also reduce wear to the local sidewalks which currently are worn by trucks maneuvering through the curve. An important component of the region transportation system is the section of US 101 between OR 38 and OR 42. ODOT will participate with jurisdictions and other interested stakeholders in a refinement study of management objectives and possible improvements to this section of US 101. The dual role of freight route and tourist routelscenic Byway of this section of 101 and access management on the highway should be analyzed and addressed through such a plan.
4.2.8 Water Transport No National Highway System Intermodal connectors exist on OR 38, although several are located in the Coos BayINorth Bend area. These facilities are expected to continue to serve expected industrial development in the future. Local roads in Drain, Elkton, and Reedsport serve as connections to the highway from industrial lands. Cooperation between local governments, businesses and ODOT will ensure that these connections continue to facilitate the movement of freight via trucks.
Specific Needs No specific needs or improvements were identified for OR 38 relating to the Port of Umpqua or the Port of Coos Bay. However, both agencies are concerned with the function of the highway as a Statewide Freight Highway. The consideration of freight movements in all improvement projects is of great importance to the future operation of both ports.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 28 OR 38/OR 42 Corridor Plans OR 38: Conditions and Needs
4.2.9 Pipelines and Telecommunications There are no pipelines on the OR 38 corridor. The development of a natural gas spur line from Roseburg to Coos Bay may generate new industry which will increase traffic on OR 38. However, there is no projection of what this impact will actually be. A fiber optic consortium has been formed to encourage and extend fiber optics in both Coos and Douglas counties. Recently a major fiber optic line was installed from Bandon to Eugene, a portion of which extends the length of the comdor and is located in the highway right-of-way. The direct effect of any future improvements on .OR 38 is expected to be minimal.
Specific Needs No specific needs relating to pipelines or telecornrnunica~ionshave been identified along the corridor. ODOT has participated with providers of these services in the past and will continue to do so in ihe future as possible.
4.3 Regional Connectivity Regional Connectivity relates to the role the corridor plays in connecting the region to other parts of the state, as well as how areas within the region are connected. Connectivity also refers to the concept of modal connections, such as facilities that allow the transfer of products from trucks to ships. Within the corridor region, there are generally few, if any, alternatives to the use of OR 38 for eastlwest movement. Apart from OR 42, only Upper Smith River Road and Dora-Sitkum Road parallel the length of OR 38 in either Coos or Douglas County. To the south, OR 242Merlin-Galice Road through Powers also provides an east-west connection from the coast to the 1-5 corridor. However, each of these are narrow, winding routes that can only accommodate limited traffic. Other county roads parallel portions of the highway, but only for short distances. The cities along the corridor have local street networks which provide parallel routes although most commercial activities are located along the highway and nearly all local trips access the highway.
Alternative Highway Routes The feasibility of an alternative east-west route to provide access to the South Coast from the interior has been discussed with ODOT. Although several different routes have been suggested, the basic idea is to allow a more direct route from the Bay Area to Interstate 5 than is offered by either OR 38 or OR 42. Although no in-depth estimate of costs for such a facility has been completed recently, preliminary estimates of the initial environmental and geotechnical work that would have to be completed, show its construction would not be feasible. Further, dedicating resources to a third route would divert funds from both OR 42 and OR 38.
Specific Needs No specific connectivity improvements are recommended through this plan, although improvements to the local street network may aid operation in the future.
- --- Oregon Department of Transportat~on March 2001 Draft Page 29 OR 38/OR 42 Corridor Plans OR 38: Conditions and Needs
Although no NHS Intermodal Connectors exist in the corridor, those local streets which provide connections for freight movements should be enhanced where possible. These include Cedar Street in Drain and Riverfront Way, Water Avenue, and Railroad Avenue in Reedsport.
4.4 Congestion No intersections on OR 38 fall below volume-to-capacity standards established in the Oregon Highway Plan. No congestion is expected on the corridor during the planning horizon. Several segments experience long traffic queues because of limited passing opportunities, particularly for eastbound traffic in Segments 1 and 3. However, neither of these sections fall below Highway Plan standards and are not considered congested.
Specific Needs Travel through Segment 1 is constrained by the Umpqua River and extremely steep slopes. Two westbound passing lanes exist, one just east of Reedsport and the other at mile point 7.00. No eastbound passing lanes exist in Segment 1. A current STIP project will construct a new westbound lane at mile point 11.OO and convert the lane at mile point 7.00 to eastbound. This lane should be lengthened in the future to improve safety and the distance available to pass slower vehicles. Other passing improvements call for lengthening of existing lanes. Of highest priority is the eastbound lane up Hancock Hill east of Elkton. While this passing lane is within preferred standards for the corridor (passing lanes should be at least 0.5 miles in length), extending the lane westward to the intersection of OR 38 and OR 138 would improve safety and provide greater opportunity for traffic to pass slow-moving trucks climbing the hill out of Elkton. In addition, the westbound lanes at Golden Creek, west of Grabb Creek, and at Sawyers Rapids are shorter than recommended and should be lengthened to increase safety and improve travel times. Tables 4.1 and 4.2 summarize recommended and other possible passing lane improvements on OR 38.
Table 4.1 Recommended Passing Lane Improvements on OR 38
I Location I MP I Description I / Salabasgeon Resort Convert westbound lane to eastbound and extend lane to the west / Golden Creek, westbound 19.59 Extend existing passing lanes to recommended .50 I 1 mile standard Grabb creek, westbound 1 24.64 1 Extend existing passing lanes to recommended .50 mile standard Sawyers Rapid, 26.13 Extend existing passing lanes to recommended .50 westbound mile standard 36.74 Extend eastbound climbing lane west to OR 38lOR 1 HancOck Hill 1 I 138 intersection
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 30 OR 38/OR 42 Corridor Plans OR 38: Conditions and Needs
Table 4.2 Other Passing Lane Improvements on OR 38
Begin Location Description MP - Buchard Creek westbound passing lane to the west to create a four-
Scott Creek to west of Sawyers Rapids passing lane to the west Elk Creek to Green Creek 39.97 Construct slow moving vehicle pullouts
4.5 Roadway Conditions and Safety Roadway conditions include geometry-the hills and curves drivers experience on the road, lane and shoulder widths, pavement condition, bridge and culvert conditions, and geologic hazards that may impact the roadway. Safety generally refers to accident locations and rates and may be related to alignment, speed, sight distances, or other factors such as wildlife, or the inattentiveness of drivers. While no highway accident is considered acceptable, a number of locations throughout the corridor experience accident rates that are high relative to the rest of the corridor, but may not be beyond rates that are considered the norm for the given conditions. Further, a highway segment may also experience a higher than normal number of accidents purely out of circumstances-animals darting into the road, a drunk driver, or a driver falling asleep at the wheel. In all cases, ODOT investigates crashes to determine whether roadway conditions contributed to the accident. Those locations that are identified as experiencing high accident rates are investigated further to see if the design of the roadway is contributing to the problem, if a solution tot the problem can be identified, and if the solution is feasible given the costs involved.
Specific Needs Roadway Geometry OR 38 is preferred as a truck route because there are few hills to negotiate. The hills east of Reedsport and Elkton are the only significant grades; both have westbound climbing lanes and a westbound climbing lane is present at Elkton. The extension of the existing eastbound climbing lane on Hancock Hill east of Elkton is recommended to aid traffic in passing slow-moving trucks. No such climbing lane is suggested for the hill east of Reedsport because of the topography and presence of geologic hazards in the area. Several locations are hindered by poor horizontal alignment. In most cases, these are the result of physical constraints such as the Umpqua aver and/or steep slopes and slide areas. Most significant of these locations are the section of roadway west of Scottsburg (mile points 14.00 to 16.54), the approaches to the Umpqua River bridge,
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 3 1 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 38: Conditions and Needs
between Scottsburg and Wells Creek (16.80 to 18.80), Bunches Bar curve (30.50), the curves west of Hardscrabble Creek (46.80 to 47.60), and the 90 degree curve at lSt and B Streets in Drain (50.40). Table 4.3 summarizes geometric deficiencies that should be addressed over the next 20 years. Geologic hazards at locations on the western end of the corridor, particularly west of Scottsburg to Bunches bar curve, make straightening the roadway difficult and may cause existing slides to become more active.
Table 4.3 Proposed Geometric Improvements on OR 38
Begin End MP Description Location / IMP1 I I I Hinsdale Slough Bridge 4.50 1 5.25 1 widen bridge and roadway and
and MP 16.35; Widen to include acceptable shoulder w~dths Umpqua River Bridge at 16.00 20.50 Replace structure on new alignment Scottsburg Umpqua River Bridge at 16.00 16.36 Realign western approach to Umpqua Scottsburg - Western approach River Bridge Umpqua River Bridge at 16.52 16.88 Realign eastern approach to Umpqua Scottsburg - Eastern approach River Bridge Scottsburg to Wells Creek 16.80 18.80 Straighten curve at MP 17 (Scottsburg) and curves between MP 17.80 and 18.70; Widen shoulder widths as possible where not constrained by geology Bunches Bar curve 30.25 31.05 Realign severe curve Tom Foley Road to MP 43.00 42.82 43.00 Lower vertical curve; Widen shoulders to 5' minimum Hardscrabble Creek Curves 46.79 48.50 Straighten curves; Develop frontage road for residences west of Hardscrabble Creek Road; Relocate private access closest to Hardscrabble Creek Road to County road
Shoulder Improvements Most of OR 38 has shoulders of five feet or less. Over 30 percent of the roadway has shoulders of less than four feet. All modernization and bridge widening projects will incorporate shoulder improvements as feasibIe to bring shoulder widths closer to acceptable standards over time. However, several specific shoulder widening projects are included in the plan as well, including Reedsport between US 101 and the railroad tracks, the elk viewing areas at Dean Creek; between Golden Creek and Burchard
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 32 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 38: Conditions and Needs
Creek; between Beener Creek and Hart Creek, near Tom Foley Road; and east of Drain. Table 4.4 summarizes shoulder improvements that could be made on OR 38.
Table 4.4 Shoulder Widening Improvements on OR 38
Begin End Description Location MP MP US 101 to CORP Rail Crossing 0.00 0.23 Address intersection concerns at US 101; access managementlintersection alignment, shoulder widening from US 101 through RR crossing - Dean Creek Elk V~ewingArea to Prov~delonger and wider pullouts to Dean Creek ~mprovesafety of elk viewrnq k$Fyzto Scottsburg 1 14.00 / 16.35 ( Straighten curves; wlden to accommodate standard shoulders - /den Creek to Buchard Creek I 19.65 / 21.48 / Widen shoulders to 5' minimum I Beener Creek to Hart Creek 34.22 34.95 Widen shoulders to 5' minimum Drain downtown to Krewson 50.50 52.43 Relocate/Underground overhead uiiiities / Creek and widen shoulders
Bridge Improvements Non structures on OR 38 are rated as structurally insufficient, although several are considered functionally obsolete. This rating means the bridge is structurally sound, but may not be able to adequately handle traffic volumes, have insufficient or no pedestrian facilities, be in need of rail replacement, etc. Safety concerns at the intersection of OR 38 and OR 138 near Elkton will likely require widening of the IS' Elk Creek bridge (see intersection improvements above). Other Elk Creek crossings should be upgraded as possible, particularly the bridge rails. The Umpqua River Bridge at Scottsburg is narrow with no pedestrian facilities, is on a poor alignment, and should be replaced or upgraded. However, expected costs for replacing the structure on a new alignment likely require that funding be secured from other than bridge funds, such as those appropriated by Congress to repair the rail swing bridge over Coos Bay. Table 4.5 summarizes structures on OR 38 considered functionally obsolete.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 33 OR 38/OR 42 Corridor Plans OR 38: Conditions and Needs
Table 4.5 Bridge Deficiencies on OR 38'
1 Feature Intersected Mill Creek (Loon Lake 01 688A 13.24 Road) I Umpqua River 1 01318 1 16.35 1 / Wells Creek 1 01486 1 19.05 1 Elk Creek (1'' crossing) 01 61 4 36.39 Elk Creek (2"dcrossing) 01 601 38.76 Elk Creek (3rdcrossing) ' 01465 39.64 Elk Creek (4'h crossing) 01 406 39.97
Hardscrabble Creek 01424 , 47.50 1 1-5 Overcrossing 1 074708 1 57.00 1 Source: ODOT Bridge Sufficiency Ratings, 1999 1 All structures shown are considered Functionally Obsolete
High Accident Locations ODOT cannot address all safety problems on the highway system. Crash locations must be prioritized in terms of the rate and severity of crashes and the likelihood of improvements to reduce crashes. Once prioritized, the number of locations that can actually be addressed is limited by the funds available for Safety improvements.
Identifying Crash Locations The Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) is a method developed by ODOT to identify hazardous locations on state highways. The SPIS score is based on three years of crash data and considers crash frequency, crash rate, and crash severity. ODOT's Safety Investment Program (SIP) is also used to identify safety problems on the highway based on the severity of crashes. The SIP results in highway segments being ranked on a scale of 1 to 5 based on serious injury and fatal crash histories, with Category 5 sites being the worst. With both of these indicators, a high ranking does not automatically mean the location will see improvements. Instead, these locations are analyzed further based on specific cost-benefit criteria to determine if improvements will address the identified safety problem and where these locations rate in terms of Region- or District-wide funding priorities. A total of 119 SPIS sites were identified along OR 38 in the 2000 SPIS report, down from 135 sites listed in the 1998 report. No highway segments are in the top 10 percent of the 2000 Region 3 SPIS ratings. No Category 5 or Category 4 locations exist on OR 38. The section between Scottsburg and Wells Creek is a Category 3.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 34 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 38: Conditions and Needs
Intersection Improvements Not Related to Capacity A number of intersections and roadway segments on OR 38 experience accidents, but may not be ranked high, or even appear in the SPIS or SIP. The following sites have been identified as locations which, because of deficiencies related to alignment, sight distances, access andlor congestion, may experience safety problems. The following locations are the most significant in terms of affect on the function of the highway and should be addressed in the near to mid-term (not listed in order of importance): Between US 101 and the CORP rail crossing; Fir Avenue and 61h Street e Loon Lake Road; e OR 38 and OR 138, Elkton; Cedar Avenue and OR 38, Drain; and IS'Street and B Avenue, Drain; The intersection of OR 38 and OR 138 is not considered a high accident location in ternis of the n~mberof accidents, but is noted because of the accident rate and the configuration of the highway. The intersection is located on a long curve at the bottom of a steep grade. The location is constrained by steep slopes to the north and south and by the Elk Creek Bridge to the west. Sight distances are within acceptable limits at this location, but could be improved with the widening of the bridge. The addition of a left turn lane from OR 38 to OR 138 may be warranted in the future, although, again, the addition of such a lane is limited by the structure to the west- there is not sufficient room to allow through traffic to maneuver past left-turning vehicles and safely align with the approach to the bridge. A number of other intersections may be addressed through the planning period based on deficient alignment or possible safety problems. Potential intersection improvements on OR 38 are summarized in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6 Recommended lntersection Improvements
Begin End Description Location MP MP US 101 lntersect~onto RR Crosslng 0.00 0.22 Real~gnlcloselntersectlons between US 101 and RR crossing; Widen shoulders between US 101 and Old Town to allow bikelpedestrian facll~tles Fir Ave. and 6th St. lntersectlon - 0.33 0.33 Improve alignment of Flr Ave.16th St./OR 38 Reedsport Intersection Winchester IRiverfront Way 0.63 0.63 Improve alignment of ~ntersect~onat OR lntersectlon - Reedsport 381Winchester Ave.12nd St./R~verfront Waywater Ave. OR 38 1 Loon Lake Road and M~ll 13 24 13.24 Replace br~dgeand Improve s~ghtd~stances; Creek Brldge Cons~derrelocation of ~ntersectlonto east side of Mill Creek to allow addrng left turn refuge.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 35 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 38: Conditions and Needs
Begin End Description Location MP MP River Drive and Binder Drive 35.62 35.62 Improve intersection geometry and alignment; Intersections wl OR 38 add pedestrian facilities. Umpqua Hwy Q Elkton-Sutherlin 36.44 36.44 Add westbound left turn lane on OR 38; Hwy. Intersection Improve intersection geometry and sight distances; Will require widening Elk Creek Crossing #1 Sunnydale Cemetery Road (Snell 45.08 45.08 Close eastern Sunnydale Cemetery Road Rd.) - East Intersection (Snell Road) Intersection Jack Creek Road 46.34 46.34 Improve intersection geometry and alignment Drain lntersections - Cedar Street 50.23 50.42 OR 3811st Street - Purchase WW, widen and 1st Street radius, close northbound leg (1st St.), improve sidewalks; OR 38lCedar Street - Close existing south to west lane, purchase
General Safety Improvements Based on current standards, a significant portion of the corridor warrants the installation or upgrade of guardrail. ODOT is currently prioritizing locations in need of guardrail based on safety and design considerations. As this prioritization is completed, specific locations for improvement will be identified.
Table 4.7 General Safety lmprovements on OR 38
Begin End Description Location MP MP Scott Creek Boat Ramp 25.25 25.25 Improve parking area to allow more parking (off system) Parker Creek Quarry 43.80 43.80 Improve Visib~lity Drain to Upper Smith River Rd. 50.50 52.43. Relocate/Underground Overhead Utilities and Widen Shoulders
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 36 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 38: Conditions and Needs
Geologic Hazard Locations Over 100 slides, debris flows, and rockfall locations are located within the first 25 miles of the comdor. The Region 3 Geologist prioritizes hazard locations for repair and will identify locations on OR 38 which should be addressed, based on available funding. ODOT generally must focus on addressing emergency slide repair before working on slide prevention. As possible, geologic hazards will be addressed in conjunction with other improvement projects.
4.6 Environmental Impacts Environmental issues on the corridor center on protection of water quality and sensitive species protection, land management practices, and the protection and enhancement of recreational, cultural and historic resources.
Specific Needs As a participant in the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, ODOT's primary objective is to make all of its culverts in salmon bearing streams fish passable. In addition, ODOT is working to lessen impacts to habitat through consideration of alternatives to riprap where highway structures intersect streams. Finally, the development of construction projects must consider impacts to streams and wetlands and, where appropriate, include surface run-off management plans. Nearly 60 locations have been identified along the corridor which either are listed on the National Register of Historic Places or which have the potential to be listed. Included in this list are several of the highway bridges. These resources will be considered when developing improvements to the highway. Portions of the OR 38 corridor were used by humans long before the highway was built. Several locations, particularly in Segments 1 and 2, have evidence of native habitation dating back several thousands of years. The exact location of known sites are not included in the corridor plan, but will be considered in the development of any change to the highway, including construction or maintenance activities.
Scenic Byway Designation The Oregon Scenic Byway Program is intended to achieve three primary goals: 1. To create a unified, statewide network of scenic highways that would recognize and manage Oregon's most outstanding scenic routes; 2. To preserve or enhance the natural, scenic, historical, cultural, recreational, andlor archaeological qualities of Oregon's byways; and 3. To provide a pleasurable attraction for in-state and out-of-state travelers. ODOT encourages the CPMT andlor other interested groups to pursue a byway designation for the corridor and will work with such an effort as possible. Limited funding is available for the creation of a Scenic Byway management plan and promotional materials.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 37 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 38: Conditions and Needs
4.7 Land Use Impacts The corridor plan recognizes the responsibility of local governments for land use planning, while acknowledging the coordination needed between state and local governments to ensure that the transportation system supports local land uses while those uses do not overburden transportation facilities. In general, land use actions which impact the highway cannot be anticipated through the corridor plan and will be addressed through existing land use mechanisms such as the Transportation Planning Rule and Statewide Planning Goal 12. Figure 4.3 shows a generalized view of land use along OR 38, based on Douglas County plan designations and ODOT's 1994 Potential Development Impact Analysis
(PDIA) data. In addition to the locations shown on the map, scattered rural residential ' and agricultural uses are found throughout the rural portions of the corridor. None of these Iocarions are expected to significantly impact the highway under existing zoning.
Figure 4.3 Generalized Land Use on OR 38
Incorporated Urban Areas Unincorporated Rural Communities Reedsport (pop. 4,855) Scottsburg 0 Elkton (pop. 180) 0 Wells Creek Drain (pop. 1,I 55)
1 I Farm and Forest Uses Rural Residential Uses
Base data ODOT lnventoly and Mapping, 1999 I and Coos And Daualas Countv Plan Desionations. 1999
Source: Douglas County Comprehensive Plan; ODOT Potential Development Impact Analysis, 1994
If development is proposed in the future where the transportation system is inadequate, the local jurisdiction, private parties, and ODOT must work together to
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 38 OR 38/OR 42 Corridor Plans OR 38: Conditions and Needs
either adjust the development design in a way that avoids the anticipated traffic problem or to determine how the needed highway improvements can be provided. In the former case, ODOT will work with the developer or land owner to explore possible design alternatives. When improvements to the highway are needed, ODOT will work with all parties to determine appropriate facilities and equitable sharing of the project cost. In some cases, the additional facilities will be paid for by the State, although that may result in the improvement being delayed until funds are available, possibly years from when the development is proposed. In other cases, the appropriate jurisdiction andlor developer will participate in the provision of transportation improvements or be responsible for the improvement entirely.
Specific Needs Special Transporlation Areas (STAs) The Oregon Highway Plan recognizes that state highways serve as Main Street in many communities while also serving as the primary regional through-route. The OHP contains policies to maintain a balance between these roles. To this end, the Special Transportation Area (STA) designation is available to communities that qualify which allows loosening of access spacing standards and performance standards on the highway. Appendix A contains more detail on STA and other land useltransportation designations. Also included is an evaluation matrix showing whether each city meets the criteria of the Highway Plan designations. Currently, the city of Reedsport has been identified as a potential STA. Designation as a potential STA does not ensure that an STA will applied in Reedsport. If the city wishes to pursue the designation, they will participate with ODOT in the development of an STA management plan that describes the area and relevant goals and objectives, as well as design standards and strategies for addressing the movement of freight, local traffic and other concerns. Drain may meet the criteria for a short segment, but it is less clear whether the city would benefit form such a designation. ODOT and the city will continue to discuss the possibility of an STA in the future. Elkton does not meet the criteria and is not likely to benefit from an STA designation. Figure 4.4 shows approximate boundaries for a potential STA in Reedsport. The boundaries shown are not final and may be altered should an STA designation be pursued. Also shown is the area along US 101 that would be included in discussions with the city should tighter standards be required to offset concessions made within the STA. No development is anticipated to the east of the STA, although further investigation may reveal the need to tighten standards in this area as well.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 39 OR 38/OR 42 Corridor Plans OR 38: Conditions and Needs
Figure 4.4 Boundary of Reedsport Potential STA
Source: ODOT Region 3 Planning, 2000
Tribal Development The corridor region is home to three Indian tribes-the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe; the Confederated Tribe of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw; and the Coquille Tribe. Each tribe exists as a sovereign nation located within the boundaries of the United States. As such, the state of Oregon and local jurisdictions must address them differently in regard to development on lands held in trust. Although Oregon's land use laws provide an avenue for coordination of land use and transportation improvements between state and local governments, these laws do not provide for similar coordination between the State and Tribal governments and do not provide the means to ensure that developments on trust lands do not overwhelm existing infrastructure. ODOT, as the representative of the State of Oregon on transportation issues, must find ways to coordinate with the Tribes when highway projects will affect their development. At the same time, the Tribes are encouraged to coordinate development on trust lands with planned improvements on the highway. In order for such cooperation to be effective, both parties must work together and enter into discussions regarding what is best for both states. Agreements regarding notification of planned projects and joint participation in project development will be essential elements to ensuring cooperation between the region's tribes and the state of Oregon on transportation and development issues.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 40 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 38: Conditions and Needs
4.8 Economic Impacts ODOT's Economic Development Analysis groups the 3 1 corridors of statewide significance into four classes: Highest Economic Potential, Relatively High Economic Development Potential, Relatively Low Economic Development Potential, Lowest Economic Development Potential. The Analysis reports OR 38 was ranked in the third class while OR 42 is ranked in the second class. However, only Douglas County was considered in the analysis of OR 38, rather than Coos and Douglas Counties as with OR 42. If both counties were considered in the OR 38 analysis, it would have been placed in the second category along with OR 42.
Specific Needs No needs specific to economic development have been identified. It is assumed that most improvements on OR 38 will bring economic benefit to the corridor region. However, no estimate of the actual value of that benefit has been made for individual projects or for the entire improvement plan.
4.9 Proposed Improvement Projects on OR 38 The corridor plan identifies needs which may be addressed as funding and conditions allow. The plans identify both programmed solutions-those that are adopted into the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)-as well as potential solutions that may be suitable for addressing other needs. Inclusion of a project in the corridor plan does not ensure that it will be forwarded to the STIP, nor does it represent a commitment by ODOT or any local government to fund, allow, or construct that project. All Modernization projects must be amended into the appropriate local Transportation System Plan or Capital Improvement Program before being considered for the STIP. The various Management Systems within ODOT are responsible for forwarding other project types to the STIP. Projects included in the plan which are located on or which affect a state highway cannot be considered mitigation for future development or land use actions until such a time as they are programmed into the STIP. Finally, STIP projects may be altered or canceled later to meet changing project budgets or unanticipated conditions such as environmental constraints.
Project Types ODOT funding is divided up into several categories, each having specific definitions of qualifying projects and limits on how the funds can be spent. Below is an overview of the primary types of ODOT highway projects. Projects recommended in the corridor plans fall within one of these categories, although at times it is possible to use two or more types of funding to address a problem location. Modernization projects are designed to add capacity to the highway system to facilitate existing traffic andlor accommodate projected traffic growth. These projects center on the addition or widening of travel lanes, bridge widening, etc.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 41 OR 381OR 42 Corridor Plans OR 38:Conditions and Needs
Preservation includes improvements to extend the life of existing facilities without increasing its capacity. Preservation projects include work such as paving, striping, and reconstruction of the highway without widening. Bridge projects include bridge reconstruction or replacement, painting, seismic retrofitting, and overpass screening, as well as major work on tunnels and large culverts. Maintenance projects cover many areas relating to the appearance and functionality of the highway system, including surface repairs, drainage work, vegetation removal, minor structural work, etc. Operations projects increase the efficiency of the highway system, leading to safer travel and greater system reliability. Operations programs include interconnected traffic signal systems, new traffic signals, signs, Intelligent Transportation System features, and rock fall and slide repairs. Safety focuses on investments that address priority hazardous highway locations and corridors, in order to reduce the number of fatal and serious injury crashes. Projects funded through this program must meet strict benefiucost criteria. Safety projects may include access management features, intersection realignment, guardrails, illumination, signing, rumble strips, and railroad crossing improvements.
4.9.1 Identification of Potential Projects During the initial phases of the planning process, general management direction and needs were identified by the CPMT, ODOT management, and corridor residents. This was followed by an analysis of current and future conditions and relevant state and local policies. Based on this analysis, ODOT staff identified a general list of projects for the corridor. The projects were expected to (a) address an identified need or deficiency; (b) meet conditions or minimums established in state and local plans and the various ODOT Management Systems; and (c) implement the comdor plan goals of safety, efficient operation, and local access. Potential projects were then evaluated in terms of safety, capacity, travel times, environmental constraints, and whether current standards are met. The resulting project list is presented in Table 4.9, at the end of this section. The project evaluation did not examine these criteria to the level of detail at which projects are scoped during project development. Once a project is scoped for funding and development, it may be found that the project cannot be built as described or for the costs presented in the corridor plan. The majority of improvement projects related to bridge, pavement, congestion, safety, slides, transit and others are developed by ODOT in response to existing needs. These needs are re-evaluated every two years for the STIP. While the corridor plan includes some of these types of projects, it does not represent all of the projects that will be funded under these categories. Further, the plan will not be updated to reflect changes in project priorities for these types of projects each STIP cycle.
Each STIP period is a four-year funding program, which is updated every two years.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 42 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 38: Conditions and Needs
4.9.2 Project Prioritization Projects in the plan have been given a "High", "Medium", or "Low" ranking based on existing and expected needs. Because most of these needs currently exist, the priorities are also consider the severity of the need or deficiency as well as when the project is needed. Projects are only prioritized within each project type. For example, the Modernization projects are prioritized only within that group of projects; the Safety projects are prioritized as a group; and so on. It must be remembered that all ODOT project priorities are tied to funding decisions and are made in conjunction with the STIP, not the corridor plans. Funding decisions are made either at the Statewide, Region, or Area level, not on a highway-by-highway basis. Project priorities shown in the corridor plan are recommendations relative to other projects within the plan and do not reflect project priorities that will be made across the Southwest Area or the Region.
4.9.3 Project Funding This document is not intended to establish a plan for funding projects on the corridor-that is not possible without knowing future revenue streams. Instead: the corridor plan serves to show what problems exist along the highway and to help decision makers identify which needs should be addressed first, should funding become available.
4.9.3.1 Past Performance is not an Indicator of Future Trends Historical spending cannot be used to forecast future spending on OR 38. However, it is useful to compare how much has been spent in the past on a particular type of project to how much would be needed to address all of those needs identified in the plan. This comparison is possible for Modernization dollars, but only in very general terms. Such a comparison is much more difficult for other project types such as Bridge or Safety. The following discussion is intended to give an idea of the gap between likely revenues and project needs on OR 38. This information should not be interpreted as a forecast of revenues expected to be available for improvements on the highway.
4.9.3.2 Spending on Modernization Projects The needs identified through the conidor plans far exceed even generous revenue projections. For example, over the last two STIP periods, the Southwest Area has received about $5.8 million each 4-year funding cycle for Modernization improvements. Not accounting for inflation or declining revenues, this would result in about $29 million over 20 years for Modernization, for the entire Southwest Area.
"or simplicity, all forecasts of future revenues are in 2000 dollars and are not adjusted for inflation. However, rising costs have significantly diminished the amount of money ODOT has available for improvements to the highway and will continue to do so in the future. ODOT does, however, factor inflation into project costs when creating forecasts for each STIP.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 43 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 38: Conditions and Needs
The OR 38 corridor plan identifies approximately $26 million in Modernization needs over the next 20 years. However, funding for Modernization projects is not allocated directly to each highway. Instead, a portion of the Region 3 Modernization budget is used for projects in the Southwest Area of Region 3, which includes all of Coos, Curry, and Douglas counties. These Modernization funds must address needs on US 101, OR 38, OR 42, OR 138, and some needs associated with Interstate 5. In addition to the project costs on OR 38, the OR 42 corridor plan identifies approximately y $3 lmillion in Modernization needs over 20 years, totaling $56 million for the two highways. Obviously, the addressing the identified needs would cost far beyond even the amount expected to be available for the entire Southwest Area. Put another way, it would require nearly all of the Modernization funding that is currently received for the entire Southwest Area over the next 20 years to meet the needs identified on just OR 38. As a result, only a few of these projects will be built over the 20 year life of the plan and then only if these projects are ranked highly in funding prioritization in the future.
4.9.3.3 Other Project Types While the corridor plan does not identify all Management System projects that will be built on the highway over the next 20 years, it does recommend some of these types of improvements. We assume that the plan understates the likely cost of these types of projects. Nonetheless, the OR 38 plan specifically identifies $15.6 million in bridge needs; $750,000 for preservation; $28.7 million in Safety needs; and $750,000 for Operations projects. Table 4.8 summarizes the cost of projects included in the conidor plan by project type. For comparison, the table also shows total costs identified through the OR 42 corridor plan and the total costs for both corridors.
' The replacement and realignment of the Umpqua River Bridge will cost in excess of $22 million. This project would likely include both Bridge and Modernization dollars, although the majority would be Modernization funding.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 44 OR 38/OR 42 Corridor Plans OR 38: Conditions and Needs
Table 4.8 Estimated Costs for Unfunded Projects, 2000-2020 OR 38 and OR 42 Corridor Plans
Source: ODOT Region 3 Planning, 2000 Note: Costs shown do not include STIP or draft-STIP projects
4.10 Project List The following table summarizes planned and recommended projects for OR 38. The projects are listed by mile point and include information regarding project location, description, general problem or need addressed, and project priority. Projects included in the current 2000-2003 STIP and the draft 2002-2005 STIP are presented first, followed by other potential projects by funding type. Following Table 4.9 are project location maps showing where each project is located on the corridor. Each project location is denoted by a project number that corresponds to the Project Number in the project list. Projects shown in red on the maps are those included in the 2000-2003 STIP; projects shown in green are those included in the draft 2002-2005 STIP at the time of final plan review. Locations shown in blue are potential projects identified through the corridor plan analysis. Additional data regarding projects including the modes affected, the benefits achieved and associated safety and capacity data can be found in the OR 38 Corridor Plan Supporting Documentation. Project Summary Sheets, which provide detail regarding each proposed project, can be found in Appendix D of the Supporting Documentation.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 45 OR 38/OI\ iorridor Plans OR 38: Conc ;and Needs
Table 4.9 Summary of OR 38 Corridor Plan Projects by Funding Type
Total Cost STlP Projects: $6,453,000 Draft 2002-2005 STlP 31 11848 Elk Creek Bridge 2nd Xing 38.76 38.76 Replace rails and transitions; or widen or replace structure $305,000 BRIDGE 2004 44 1171 9 Cedar Street and 1st Street 50.23 50.42 OR 38llst Street - Purchase R/W, widen radius, close $508,000 OPS 2004 northbound leg (Ist St.), improve sidewalks; OR 38lCedar Street - Close existing south to west lane, purchase RNV to allow S to W truck movement through ~ntersection.Provide WB left and through lanes 12 1 11823 I ill Creek Bridge 1 13.24 1 13.24 1 Replace bridge and improve sight distances 1 $1,535,000 1 BRIDGE I 2005 Total Cost Draft STlP Proiects: $2,348,000
l Modernization I
Total Cost Modernization Projects: $25,600,000 Continued.. .
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 46 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 38: Conditions and Needs
Continued. ..
Oregon I? ?ment of Transportation Marc' '101 Draft Page 47 OR 38/G Corridor Plans OR 38: Cor 1s and Needs
Total Cost Safetv Proiects: $28.720.000 Preservation 47 1 1st & B St. to Krewson Creek 50.40 1 51.20 W~denshoulders and relocate utilities $750,000 1 Medium (ODOT Total Cost Preservation Projects: $750,000
Total Cost Bridge Projects: $1 5,600,000 Operations 7 MP 3.20 to Koepke Slough 3.20 4.1 1 Install bank stab~lizingmaterials on north side of highway to slow river $750,000 Medium ODOT erosion Total Cost Operations Projects: $750,000 IMaintenance
Total Cost Maintenance Projects: $625,000 Continued ...
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 48 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 38: Conditions and Needs
Elementary School--Off-system
54 US 101Management Plan 99.99 99.99 Examine capacity, safety, and access concerns on US 101 between $160,000 High ODOT OR 38 and OR 42. Develop management plan. Total Cost Plannina Proiects: $280.000
Total Cost STIP & Draft STlP Proiects $8,801,000 Total Cost Non-STIP Proiects $73.375.000 Total Cost All Projects $82,176,000
Source: ODOT Region 3 Planning, 2000
Oregon D 'ment of Transportation Marc' 1 Draft Page 49 Region 3 District 6 UMPQUA HIGHWAY NO. 45 Sheet I of 4 NOVEMBER 1996
mol r cm mN- NNm-C W ;.-a 2%; y??:: i &.Z NO!-- S- '-.?-- I- 0 PPP -- - --
msnpgua iJVe3wlds We Park M.P. 12.85 M.P. 13.48 Region 3 District 6 UMPQUA HIGHWAY NO. 45 Sheet 2 of 4 NOVEMBER 1996
NORTH
Project Funding at Corridor Adoption: Current $TIP @ or Draft SBlP @or """""""
SCALE 1 MILE
-m.a 85
m v m N DI am mfflnm m m u1 am - ((I mri a - $1 E %?qq ; " ze F~P r"ie 2 m svl c ;A 4 2 g $ 22 id J z N ~1 SEE ~rec 8 ZG 6 NN E.i =i Lid NN Zi NN d %?'P%? 1l1 2 ~s w W 2 N N NN Sf P I 83
SCBnmURQ @RENACRES M.P. 16.08 M.P. 19.14
r941rS U~PglllsPOrJ
I I VI Vlw VIVl "7 Ln VWVIyiLn *I L" % E ooopp ID """" g $$$y 4 . . , JZ s = a a = $g$ 0 4m N- W ; ; ; ; GOO N- -m D w ;%&Z om k 3:;s 6 04 m 0 9 amm ?.c. .A. iP ? ? \. ? ?I 11 119 I II
I 9661 U38N3AON b $0 b +ws S.b 'ON AVMH9IH VnbdWfl OR 42 Corridor Conditions and Needs OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
5.0 OR 42: Conditions and Needs
5.1 Introduction Using the overview of the corridor region outlined above for context, this chapter summarizes existing and expected conditions and needs on OR 42. Each section of this chapter discusses a transportation-related topic, including modal balance, regional connectivity, congestion, roadway conditions and safety, and environmental and land use impacts. In terns of modal balance, the plan discusses expected levels of activity for automobiles, air service, bicycles, pedestrians, transit services, trains, trucks, regional ports, pipelines, and telecommunications.
5.2 Transportation Balance 5.2.1 Automobiles Currently, about 80 percent of all traffic on OR 42 is comprised of automobiles. Because of the rural nature of the corridor, the automobile will continue to be the dominant mode throughout the corridor through the planning horizon.
Specific Needs No needs have been identified to relating to the use of the automobile as a modal choice. Decisions related to other modes are presented below.
5.2.2 Air Services Although no airports are found directly on the corridor, six are located within proximity to OR 42: North Bend Municipal Airport, Roseburg Regional Airport, Bandon State Airport, Myrtle Creek Municipal Airport, Powers Airport and George Felt Airfield (Roseburg). Figure 5.1 shows the location of these facilities.
-- Oregon Department of Transportation March 200 1 Draft Page 50 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
Figure 5.1 Airports in the OR 42 Corridor Region
Legend
0Corndor C~t~es Commerc~alSelvlce krport 0 Un~ncorporatedCommun~tles -(4 General Avlatlon Aport (Y OR 38 Corr~dor Interstate Hlghway N &%+@ Statew~deor US Hwy 0 5 10 Distnct or Reg~onalHwy -M~les I Base maps ODOT Inventory and Mapping, 1999
Source: ODOT Region 3 Planning, 2000
Specific Needs ODOT recognizes that increased air service to North Bend can help in decreasing traffic on OR 42, although this impact is likely to be small. A more significant outcome to increased air service, at all airports in the corridor region, is the expansion of transportation options for residents. To that end, ODOT encourages improvements to the facilities and to expansion of services. Specific recommendations for each of the corridor airports are included in the Oregon Aviation Plan as well as in individual facility master plans and will not be repeated in this document.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 5 1 OR 38/OR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
Beyond these, ODOT is interested in improving access to airports, especially for freight shipments. As possible, ODOT will work with local jurisdictions to provide safe and efficient access to airports. In North Bend, access to the terminal is an important issue. Currently, traffic is directed off Cape Arago Highway (Virginia Avenue) along a residential street (Maple) to the airport business park and terminal. Should the city move ahead with plans to relocate the airport terminal, ODOT will work with the City, the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay, the FAA, and others to ensure safe and efficient access to the highway is provided.
5.2.3 Bicycles Because of terrain, the presence of trucks on the highway, and many low-volume local roads, OR 42 is not expected to serve as a bicycle tour route for more than the occasional rider. The exceptions to this may be in short sections such as between Porter Creek and Winston where OR 42 may serve as one leg of a rural bicycle route.
Specific Needs In Myrtle Point and a portion of Winston, the roadway is constrained by sidewalks and adjacent properties-little room exists for bike lanes. This is particularly the case in Myrtle Point. Similarly, the section of Winston between OR 99 and Jorgens Avenue currently provides adequate width for bicyclists. However, this width may be lost in conjunction with the addition of a right-turn lane at the Cheetah intersection that will be constructed within the planning horizon. As discussed above, many portions of the corridor have narrow shoulders, ranging in width from less than one foot to three feet. Many of these sections are constrained by topography or structures. As possible, these sections should be widened for general highway safety which will also improve access and safety for bicyclists and pedestrians.
5.2.4 Pedestrians The three cities along the corridor have sidewalks along most of the highway. The community of Camas Valley and the Green UUA also have pedestrian facilities. However, several of the sidewalks throughout the corridor are either in poor condition or should be lengthened to provide better pedestrian access.
Specific Needs Coquille Existing sidewalks in Coquille are good to very good condition. Older sidewalks exist between Adams and Folsom Court and will likely need to be upgraded within the planning horizon. This sidewalk should also be extended to the east in conjunction with any improvements made near the south Coquille business area. Pedestrian facilities should be considered an integral part of improvements to the Georgia- Pacific mill site, offering a connection between the downtown and new commercial opportunities and the river.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 52 OR 38JOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
Myrtle Point Sidewalks exist along OR 42 through the commercial section of Myrtle Point. Unimproved sidewalks and footpaths stretch to the residential areas in to the southern portion of the city. In general, these facilities are relatively narrow (4-5 feet) and are in poor to fair condition. Only two street corners provide curb cuts for wheeled access. Several sidewalk sections are cracked and poor roadway drainage results in flooded walks. Existing sidewalks should be rebuilt to improve the surface and drainage, and to meet ADA requirements. Pedestrian connections should also be improved by extending sidewalks from Maryland Avenue eastward to Carlise Lane. These additional facilities may be incorporated into any improvement of Coffee Cup Curve, but should be constructed regardless of whether this larger project is built.
Camas V.'aEley The sidewalk on the north side of OR 42 through Camas Valley is in excellent condition while the south-side walk is unpaved gravel. The south side should be paved in the planning horizon to provide a surface that is accessible to wheelchairs and strollers.
Winston The multi-use path extending on the north side of the highway from Brantley toward the high school is not complete and should be extended to the west to connect to the school grounds. Sidewalks are needed on the south side of the highway between Brantley and Glenhart and should be provided in conjunction with improvement and widening of this section of the highway.
5.2.5 Transit The RoseburgfWinston area is served by Umpqua Public Transits (UPT) fixed-route and dial-a-ride services, as well as the Winston Dial-a-Ride. Dial-a-ride services also operate in both Coquille and Myrtle Point, operated by the South Coast Business Employment Corporation (SCBEC). No intercity service exists through the corridor.
Specific Needs Demand for public transportation services are expected to continue in the both the western and eastern portions of the corridor. However, while demand is expected to continue, local government funding contributions to UPT are uncertain. Resolution of this issue will be crucial in determining the level of service that will be provided along the corridor in the future. ODOT will continue to work with UPT as possible in addressing these issues. A specific demand assessment for the Roseburg-to-Winston corridor would be beneficial in determining service levels in the future. Expansion of service between Coquille and Myrtle Point and to other portions of the western portion of the corridor region are expected in the future. The need for improved "community connector" and dial-a-ride services in the area has been identified by SCBEC. Proposed service improvements would provide up to four daily connections between Coquille, Myrtle Point, Bandon, and Coos Bay. Implementation of this plan depends on the availability of local, state, and federal funds. ODOT supports this service should demand be sufficient in the future.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 53 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
Intercity service through the corridor should be restored as demand allows. No projection of when this service may be restored is available from transit providers.
5.2.6 Rail Service Figure 5.2 shows the locations of the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad (CORP) rail lines that serve the corridor region. There is currently no regularly scheduled passenger rail service in the corridor.
Figure 5.2 Rail Lines Serving the OR 42 Corridor Region
1 Legend
0Irri&r Cities Rail Lines Operated by the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad (Y OR 38 and OR 42 Corridors & Interstate Highway -0 5 10 15 20 ~*~hbStatewide or US Hwy -
Source: ODOT Region 3 Planning, 2000
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 54 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
Specipc Needs Both lines in the corridor suffer from severely constrained sections which limit speeds to 25 mph or less. Further, each line has tunnels and bridges which must be maintained or repaired to ensure safe and reliable rail service. The rail swing bridge on Coos Bay is in need of repairs to ensure continued operation of the line south of the North Spit. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21StCentury (TEA-21) identified $5.5 million dollars to be spent on rehabilitation of the swing bridge over five years.
5.2.7 Truck Freight OR 42 is designated as Statewide Freight Route, This designation ensures that the needs of freight movement will be considered in discussions regarding local circulation, safety, and access. Consideration of freight travel times will also factor into the selection of projects for improvement of the corridor. No locations on the corridor are height or width restricted for freight transport. Portions of the corridor have been designated as Expressways by the OTC. Expressways are complete routes or segments of existing two-lane and multi-lane highways and planned multi-lane highways that provide for safe and efficient high speed and high volume traffic movements. ODOT will develop management plans for these segments as directed through the Oregon Highway Plan. More information about Expressways can be found in the Land Use Znzpacts section below.
SpeciBc Needs No projects are recommended specifically to improve truck operations. Improving overall reliability of operations and travel times on the corridor will aid truck travel. However, several locations are of particular importance to truck movement. For example, widening the Chrome Plant section to four lanes will enhance freight movement through one of the few sections of highway projected to be congested by the year 2020. Improvements to horizontal and vertical alignment of the Coffee Cup curve in Myrtle Point will provide for safer and more efficient operation for trucks as well as automobile traffic. The straightening of several curves through the county-line segment of the corridor will also improve safety and travel times for truck traffic. An important component of the regional transportation system is the section of US 101 between OR 38 and OR 42 which is also designated as a Statewide Freight Route and will likely be designated as an Expressway in the future. The dual role of freight route and tourist routelscenic Byway of this section of US 101 will factor into any Expressway or
5.2.8 Water Transport No National Highway System (NHS) Intermodal connectors exist on OR 42, although several are located in the Coos BayJNorth Bend area. Of particular importance to OR 42 are the connections between the Bunker Hill industrial areas and US 101, namely Mullen Street and a short section of the Coos River Highway. These facilities are expected to continue to serve expected industrial development in the future. Cooperation between local governments, businesses and ODOT will
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 55 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
ensure that these connections continue to facilitate the movement of freight via trucks.
Specific Needs No specific needs or improvements were identified for OR 42 relating to the Ports of Coos Bay, Bandon, or Coquille River. However, each of these agencies are concerned with the function of the highway as a Statewide Freight Highway. The consideration of freight movements in all improvement projects is of great importance to the future operation of both ports.
5.2.9 Pipeiines and Teieeommunicafisns There are no existiilg pipelines in the OR 42 corridor. However, Coos County is working to construct a natural gas line spur from Roseburg to Coos Bay to provide natural gas to industry and urban residents. At one time, the OR 42 right-of-way was considered the preferred option for routing the line. However, because of existing fiber lines and severely constrained topography in several locations, this is no longer considered a good option. The County is currently working on identifying an alternative route. Beyond any physical impacts in terms of routing the line, the OR 42 corridor will only be impacted if the gas line attracts new manufacturing industries to the Bay Area which must ship goods on the highway. A fiber optic consortium has been formed to encourage and extend fiber optics in both Coos and Douglas county. Recently a major fiber optic line was installed from Bandon to Eugene, a portion of which extended the length of the corridor. The purpose of the consortium is to encourage additional development within the two counties, particularly in the high-tech field and to improve emergency communications. The direct effect upon OR 42 is expected to be minimal.
Specific Needs No specific needs relating to pipelines or telecommunications have been identified along the corridor. ODOT has participated with providers of these services in the past and will continue to do so in the future as possible.
5.3 Regional Connectivity Within the corridor region, there are generally few, if any, alternatives to the use of OR 42 for eastlwest movement. Apart from OR 38, only Upper Smith River Road, Dora-Sitkum Road, and OR 242Merlin-Galice Road through Powers parallel the length of OR 42 in either Coos or Douglas County. However, each of these are narrow, winding routes that can only accommodate limited traffic. Other county roads parallel portions of the highway, but only for short distances. The cities along the corridor have local street networks which provide parallel routes. The cities of Coquille and Myrtle Point both have local street connections that provide access between main sections of town, although local traffic in Myrtle Point must use the highway for trips between the southern residential section and the main commercial and downtown areas.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 56 OR 3 8lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
The city of Winston is divided by OR 42 and most commercial activity is located along the highway. Some local connectivity exists, although no strong easttwest connection exists north of OR 42 to encourage local traffic to use city streets instead of the highway. Improvement of Lookingglass Road and connections to OR 42 and to Winston Section Road and connections to east-side local streets are encouraged in order to protect capacity on OR 42. ODOT will work with the city of Winston in developing the local street system in the future. The city will identify these improvements through its TSP. As the Green UUA develops, strengthening local connections will improve local travel and will aid in improving the operation of OR 42. ODOT will work with Douglas county as possible to develop local streets that help protect the capacity of OR 42.
Alternative Highway Routes The feasibility of an alternative east-west route to provide access to the South Coast from the interior has been discussed with ODOT. Although several different routes have been suggested, the basic idea is to allow a more direct route from the Bay Area to Interstate 5 than is offered by either OR 38 or OR 42. Although no in-depth estimate of costs for such a facility has been completed recently, preliminary estimates of the initial environmental and geotechnical work that would have to be completed, show its construction would not be feasible. Further, dedicating resources to a third route would divert funds from both OR 42 and OR 38.
Specific Needs In Winston, improvements to Lookingglass Rd. and local streets between Lookingglass and OR 42 and to Winston Section Rd. and connections to local streets on the east side of Winston may help operation of the highway and local connections --I.Y( --I.Y( -.--L------I- in the future. In the Green UUA, completion of Rolling Hills Rd., creation of a frontage road between Melody Lane and Rolling Hills and the improvement of access between Grange Rd. and OR 42 are also expected to benefit operation of the highway and local street network as well. Several intersection improvements are detailed in the Congestion and Roadway Conditions and Safety sections below.
5.4 Congestion In general, OR 42 is free from congestion and is expected to remain so through the year 2020. Only the eastern portion of Segment 4, essentially the Green UUA, is currently congested, with volume-to-capacity (VIC)' ratios ranging between 0.70 and 0.95 or higher. By the year 2020, ODOT projects that most of Segment 4 will be
Volume to capacity is the measure of highway segments and intersections to handle traffic volumes. Capacity performance standards are contained in the Oregon Highway Plan and vary according to highway classification, speed, land use designation, and type of approach or intersection. These performance standards assume the highway is at its preferred capacity level before it reaches total capacity.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 57 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
congested, with VIC ratios in excess of 0.90. ODOT also projects that the two-lane Chrome Plant to Cedar Point section west of Coquille will be congested by the year 2020.
Specific Needs Intersections A number of specific intersections on OR 42 are expected to fall below acceptable performance standards within the planning horizon. These include: Adams Street, Coquille; Brockway Road, Winston; OR42/0R 99; a Rolling Wills Road, Green UUA; * Kelley's Corner, Green; and Grant Smith Road, Green. Projects designed to address these congested locations are included in the implementation section below (Section 5.9). In some of the locations identified above (Adams Street, Brockway Road, OR 42lOR 99, Lookingglass Road, Rolling Hills Road, and Grant Smith Road), development approved by the local jurisdiction is expected to result in levels of traffic that cause the intersection to fail. In these cases, the responsibility for capacity improvements will be up to the jurisdiction or shared by the jurisdiction and ODOT. In the case of those intersections located in the city of Winston, an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) exists requiring the City to make improvements when specified levels of development occur.
Roadway Segments Two roadway segments have been identified as needing improvement to ensure capacity standards are not exceeded. The first, Chrome Plant to Cedar Point (mile point 7.52 to 9.92) currently operates below preferred level of service standards and is expected to exceed V/C standards before the year 2020. This is the only section of OR 42 between Myrtle Point and Coos Bay that is not four lanes. A project has already been developed to convert this section to four lanes which would facilitate freight movement, improve overall travel times, and keep the segment from falling below capacity standards. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been completed for the project, much of the right-of-way has been purchased, and some of the excavation has already been completed. However, lack of funds and changing priorities has caused the project to be delayed indefinitely. The "county line" section of the corridor, roughly between Remote and Slater Creek Road (mile points 39.00 to 46.50), is severely constrained by steep slopes and the Middle Fork of the Coquille River. Traffic must slow for several sharp curves through this section. Overall, the section is not expected to fall below V/C standards through the planning horizon. However, shorter segments of the county line section may perform as congested when a long queue forms behind a slower-moving truck.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 58 OR 3 $/OR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
Potential Passing Lane Improvements Tables 5.1 and 5.2 summarize passing lane improvements that are recommended for the corridor. Table 5.1 shows recommended passing lane improvements, while Table 5.2 shows alternative locations for three additional passing lanes. The priority for the passing improvements focuses on adding lanes in a few locations to address existing or anticipated capacity and safety concerns, and to bring passing lane spacing to recommended spacing standards and improve capacity and travel times through the corridor.
Table 5.1 Recommended Passing Lane lmprovements on OR 42
- -- .--- .-. .- --- . - Begin End I Location Description MP MP I Chrome Plant Is Cedar 7.25 9.92 Widen highway to four fanes with left 1 Plant turn refuges East of Cedar Point 8.25 9.02 Extend existing westbound passing iane to the west; Construct if widening to four lanes is not to be implemented within 15-20 years
Table 5.2 Additional Passing Lane lmprovements with Alternative Locations
-OR- Big Creek Rd. to King Creek 29.92 29.20 Add passing lane
Eastbound King Creek to Big Creek Rd. 1 29.20 1 29.29 / ~ddpassing lane -OR- Sleepy Hollow RV Park 31.40 32.00 Add passing lane -OR- Small Creek to Belieu Creek 32.95 32.20 Add passing lane Continued. ..
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 59 OR 38/OR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
Begin End Description Location MP MP Westbound Ireland Road to Benedict Road 1 62.1 5 1 63.50 1 Add passing lane -OR- Crater Road to Benedict Road 63.10 1 63.60 1 Add passing lane Source: Region 3 Planning, 2000
5.5 Roadway GsndItions and Safety Roadway conditions include geometry-the hills and curves cfrivers expefience on the road, lane and shoulder widths, pavement condition, bridge and culvert conditions, and geologic hazards that may impact the roadway. Safety generally refers to accident locations and rates and may be related to alignment, speed, sight distances, or other factors such as wildlife, or the inattentiveness of drivers. A number of locations throughout the corridor experience accident rates that may appear high relative to the rest of the corridor, but in reality are not beyond rates that are considered the norm for the given conditions. Further, a highway segment may also experience a higher than normal number of accidents purely out of circumstances-animals darting into the road, a drunk driver, or a driver falling asleep at the wheel. In all cases, ODOT investigates crashes to determine whether roadway conditions contributed to the accident. Those locations that are identified as experiencing high accident rates are investigated further to see if the design of the roadway is contributing to the problem, if a solution tot the problem can be identified, and if the solution is feasible given the costs involved.
Specific Needs Roadway Geometry A number of locations have been identified as needing either vertical or horizontal realignment as shown in Table 5.3. Vertical grade adjustments are suggested to improve sight distances and travel times. The most significant grade in the corridor that does not provide climbing lanes is west of Camas Valley. However, the cost of adding a passing lane through this section is prohibitive because several bridges would also have to be widened. Straightening of several sections of horizontal curves is recommended to improve safety and travel times. Specifically, the following sections should be straightened or minimized to address capacity and safety concerns.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 60 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
Table 5.3 Geometric Improvements on OR 42
Begin End Location Description Justification MP MP b Wall Gulch to Coos Realign horizontal curve Sharp curve is County Speedway and decrease grade constrained by RR and separation at Wall Gulch; slough on north and Remove overhead utilities grade on south. from clear zone, widen Decreasing grade shoulders, and reduce separation will allow for grade separatior! rea!igning curve; throughout Shoulder safety should be improved by widening and removing poles. Coffee Cup Curve Address poor vertical and Curves are too severe, horizontal geometry on causing accidents. new alignment; Solution should be combined with MarylandlB St. intersection alignment to the west Realign curve; remove Corner too severe, rock hazard on north side causing accidents; Rock of highway wall creates hazard and rockfall. Realign curves; complete Recommended speed in conjunction with passing on curve is below lane if possible. highway posted speed; Location has a history of accidents. Curves east of Realign curve and widen Curves on section do not Upper Rock Creek roadway to address allow design speeds. Rd. accidents and geologic hazards -- -- Curve east of Bridge Realign curve and widen Curves on section do not #09216 - MP 43.70 roadway to address allow design speeds, accidents and geologic resulting in accidents hazards and reduced travel times. Realign curves and widen Sharp curves, Coos-Douglas roadway to address particularly at MP 44.55 county line - MP accidents and geologic - 44.71 cause accidents 44.60 hazards and slow travel times. Curves at Coos - Realign curves and widen High accident location; Douglas county line roadway to address curves slow travel times; - MP 45.20 accidents and geologic 1 shoulders are hazards inadequate; several rockfall locations; poor drainage causes roadway damage.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 6 1 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
Begin End Location Description Justification MP MP Curves east of Realign curves and widen Poor horizontal county line - MP roadway to address alignment; curves cause 45.70 accidents and geologic accidents and slow hazards travel times. Curves west of Realign curves and widen Poor horizontal Slater Creek Road - roadway to address alignment; curves cause MP 46.00 accidents and geologic accidents and slow hazards travel times. Tenmile curves 1 63.80 Realign curves and Lower Sharp curves limit Tenmile Creek Bridge; speeds and sight widen shoulders; improve distances for vehicles Moonhill road intersection leaving and entering highway via Moonhill Rd. Straighten curve east of Substandard curve is curve Hoover Hill Road high accident location I and slows travel times.
Bridge Improvements ODOT ranks structure bridge needs on a statewide basis, in terms of structural sufficiency, functional obsolescence (how well they carry expected traffic levels), and on the effect of the structure on the stream and vice versa. Several bridges on OR 42 are identified in the statewide priority, as shown in Table 5.4. However, none of these are likely to be addressed within the next 10 years.
Table 5.4 Bridges on OR 42 Listed in the Statewide Bridge Priority List
Bridge Mile Rating Sufficiency Deficiency Feature Intersected Number Point Status Middle Fork Coquille River 08936 30.1 64.9 Not Deficient Scour Middle Fork Coquille River 08875 25.5 64.9 Not Deficient Scour Middle Fork Coquille River 08842 23.4 64.9 Not Deficient Scour South Umpqua River 01923 74.5 44.9 Functionally Rail (Winston Br) Obsolete Lower Looking Glass Creek 00805C 72.5 45.9 Functionally Deck Obsolete
Source: ODOT Bridge Sufficiency Ratings, 2000
High Accident Locations ODOT cannot address all safety problems on the highway system. Crash locations must be prioritized in terms of the rate and severity of crashes and the likelihood of
Oregon Department of Transportation March 200 1 Draft Page 62 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
improvements to reduce crashes. Once prioritized, the number of locations that can actually be addressed is limited by the funds available for safety improvements.
Identifying Crash Locations The Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) is a method developed by ODOT to identify hazardous locations on state highways. The SPIS score is based on three years of crash data and considers crash frequency, crash rate, and crash severity. ODOT's Safety Investment Program (SIP) is also used to identify safety problems on the highway based on the severity of crashes. The SIP results in highway segments being ranked on a scale of 1 to 5 based on serious injury and fatal crash histories, with Category 5 sites being the worst. With both of these indicators, a high ranking does not automatically mean the location will see improvements. Instead, these locations are analyzed further based on specific cost-benefit criteria to deternine if improvements will address the identified safety problem and where these locations rate in terns of Region- or District-wide funding priorities. A total of 264 SPIS sites were identified along OR 42 in the 2000 SPIS report. However, only one section of highway, between the access to Grange Road and Kelly's Corner, falls within the top 10 percent of the 2000 Region 3 SPIS ratings. This segment, identified as six individual top ten locations in the SPIS, is one of the busiest intersections on the entire corridor. Recent improvements to this section of roadway appear to have reduced the number of accidents occurring, but has changed the type of accidents that occur. These improvements have not been in place long enough to determine what their full effect will be on reducing accidents, but will be monitored in the future as more data is available. No Category 5 locations were identified on OR 42 in the 2000 SIP. Segment 1, between US 101 and Coquille, is the only section containing Category 4 locations. These will be evaluated with other SIP sites throughout Region 3 and addressed based on cost-benefit feasibility and as funding allows.
Intersection Improvements Not Related to Capacity A number of intersections and roadway segments on OR 42 experience accidents, but may not be ranked high, or even appear in the SPIS or SIP. The following sites have been identified as locations which, because of deficiencies related to alignment, sight distances, access and/or congestion, may experience safety problems. Most significant of these are (not listed in order of importance): Accesses associated with the Georgia-Pacific mill site in Coquille; The South Coquille commercial accesses; Winston Section RoadIPepsi Road intersections; The section between Rolling Hills Road and Landers Avenue; and The section between the Grange Road access and Kelly's Comer.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 63 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
Table 5.5 lntersection Improvement Needs Not Related to Capacity
Begin End Location Description Justification MP MP Beaver Creekloverland Road accesses
Road access at MP 5.1 5
Spruce & Harris Streets, 20.58 20.77 Signal replacement and ADA Inadequate signal and Myrtle Point requirements sidewalks. Maryland Ave. 21.09 21 .I 0 Realign intersection and close Poorly designed intersection Intersection either Maryland or B St. with two local streets accessing intersection. highway in close proximity; Maryland intersects at poor angle. Myrtle Creek Road west 30.50 30.50 Add eastbound deceleration Vehicles must slow for right turn of Bridge lane in eastbound travel lane. Bridge intersection 30.60 30.75 Construct left turn pockets Provide safer access for residents to local services. Benedict Road 63.74 63.74 Relocate Benedict road Limited sight distances hinder intersection approx. 0.02 egress and ingress to highway. miles to the west for better sight distance. Reston Road 64.20 64.20 Realign intersection Poor intersection alignment, intersection accident history Coates Road 64.45 64.45 Realign intersection Poor intersection alignment; intersection improve access to Tenmile school. Continued.. .
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 64 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
Begin End Location Description Justification MP MP Brockway Road Add left and right turn lanes Important freight intersection intersection on highway and on local expected to fall below v/c roads; signalize when standards; existing eastbound warrants are met right turn lane is on private property; City of Winston will be participate in providing improvements in response to development north and south of the highway. Douglas High School 72.08 Work with the school district Closely spaced accesses cause accesses 1 and the City of Winston to difficulties for traffic entering the provide alternative routing for highway and for through traffic. bus traffic to allow closing one of the two existing access to
Abraham Avenue Development north and south of intersection lanes at Abraham; May be intersection is expected to completed in conjunction w/ cause operation of intersection project #63; City of Winston to deteriorate. Improvements responsible for improvements will maintain safety and as development occurs which capacity.
OR 99 (Main St.)/OR 42 Access in and out of properties intersection OR 42 to Cheetah Junction; on east side of intersection is provide signal control for confusing; Vehicles entering traffic leaving Cheetah intersection from the east have Junction; concrete no signal control.
-- Lookingglass Rd. 3.88r73.88 1 Signalize intersection as Signalization expected to intersection warrants and other criteria are address traffic flow and capacity. - met and if approved by State issues, but must meet signal I I Traffic Engineer; add I warrants and urbanlrural eastbound left turn and conditions and Highway Plan westbound right turn lanes. requirements. Winston Section Road Close Winston Section Rd. Sight distances limited to east and Pe~siRoad intersection and divert traffic by South Umpqua River bridge intersections to Pepsi Rd.; improve Pepsi making turns-from the local road Rd. to handle additional traffic onto the highway hazardous. Helweg Rd. intersection Close Helweg Rd. Sight distances from Helweg intersection; create frontage Rd. limited by South Umpqua road connecting with OR 42 River bridge. west of existing intersection Rolling Hills Rd. Extend Rolling Hills north to Development to the north is intersection and off- Happy Valley Rd.; Create expected to create additional system improvements frontage road between Rolling demand on intersection. Hills Rd. and Jackie Ave. and Projected to fall below v/c close all accesses between standards in future. Access Rolling Hills and Landers; management and improved Signalize intersection once local circulation needed to warranted and when local protect operation of the roads are built hiahwav. -- - Grange Road Access Delineate left and right turn Accidents are primarily rear end ' lanes on local street; add right on OR 42 or involve left-turn turn lane from 42 onto local and through traffic on local street; in future evaluate roads; poor vertical alignment may also contribute. Traffic
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 65 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
End Description Location MP connections between Grange growth on OR 42 may lead to Rd. and Roberts Creek Rd. need to close intersection and and Rolling Hills Rd. construct alternative routes. Kelly's Corner Replace signal hardware & Top 10 SPlS site; expected to adjust phasing; add left turn fall below vlc standards; lanes on local roads, right insufficient phasing (poor turn lanes from 42 to local vertical alignment may also roads; improve vertical curve contribute); concrete wears on local legs; move signs; longer in high traffic location; consolidate accesses on local poor accesses contribute to roads; replace intersection congestion asphalt with concrete
General SalfeQ and Maintenance lnzprovements Table 5.5 identifies other general safety and maintenance improvements identified for OR 42.
Table 5.6 General Safety and Maintenance Improvements on OR 42
the southeast or improve
accesses on eastern private accesses intersect approach approach. Sandy Creek Rest 37.45 37.45 Improve Sandy Creek rest No other rest areas exist on Area, Remote area to accommodate trucks the corridor; existing and provide permanent facilities only provide facilities portable restrooms; no water. Passing area west of 43.84 44.09 Address accidents through Section used for passing Coos-Douglas county area used for passing; although roadway is not line - MP 44.00 improve sight distances on straight and is constrained roadway and from wide by river and steep slopes. shoulder area at MP 44.00 Sharp curves located at each end of section require passing vehicles to slow suddenly. Accident history highest at MP 43.85 and at MP 44.00 Brockway weigh station 71 .I 5 71.27 Realign approaches and Substandard scale property separate weigh station from and approaches travel lanes
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 66 OR 38fOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
Geologic Hazard Locations A number of debris flows, slides, and rockfall exist along Segment 2 which will be addressed as funding allows. ODOT will prioritize hazard locations on OR 42, OR 38, and US 101 in terms of which should be addressed first. However, funding constraints require ODOT to focus primarily on addressing emergency slide repair before working proactively on slide prevention. Some geologic hazards will have to be addressed in conjunction with other improvement projects.
5.6 Environmental Impacts Environmental issues on the corridor center on protection of water quality and sensitive species protection, land management practices, and the protection and enhancement of recreational, cultural and historic resources.
Specific Needs As a participant in the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, BDOT's primary objective is to make all of its culverts in salmon bearing streams fish passable. In addition, ODOT is working to lessen impacts to habitat through consideration of alternatives to riprap where highway structures intersect streams. Finally, the development of construction projects must consider impacts to streams and wetlands and, where appropriate, include surface run-off management plans. One property on the corridor is currently listed on the National Historic Register-the Logging museum located at 7" and Maple in Myrtle Point. Approximately 30 other locations have been identified which have the potential to be listed on the National Register, including the South Umpqua River bridge near Winston. These resources will be considered when developing improvements to the highway. Much of the OR 42 corridor was used by humans long before the highway was built. Several locations, particularly in Segments 1 and 2 have evidence of native habitation dating back several thousands of years. The exact location of known sites will not be included in the corridor plan, but will be considered in the development of any change to the highway, including improvements or maintenance activities.
5.7 Land Use Impacts The corridor plan recognizes the responsibility of local governments for land use planning, while acknowledging the coordination needed between state and local governments to ensure that the transportation system supports local land uses while those uses do not overburden transportation facilities. In general, land use actions which impact the highway cannot be anticipated through the corridor plan and will be addressed through existing land use mechanisms such as the Transportation Planning Rule and Statewide Planning Goal 12. Figure 5.3 shows a generalized view of land use along OR 38, based on Coos and Douglas County plan designations and ODOT's 1994 Potential Development Impact Analysis (PDIA) data. In addition to the locations shown on the map, scattered rural residential and agricultural uses are found throughout the rural portions of the corridor. With the exception of a few locations discussed below, most notably in
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 67 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
Winston, none of these locations are expected to significantly impact the highway under existing zoning.
Figure 5.3 Generalized Land Use on OR 42
1 Legend
Incorporated Cities (1998 pop.) Unincorporated Rural Communities Coquiile (pop. 4,300) CI Bndge RC a Myrtle Point (pop. 2.695) I3 Camas Valley RC a Winston (pop. 4,655) I3 TenmilelPorter Creek RC Unincorporated Urban Area Farm and Forest Uses ,;j:;>::;>j: ,.,., :;:;:;>;.,. Not to scale fB Green UUA ...... < .,.,.,.,. .,.,...... , ,.,.,... ..'.,.,.,.,.,.;>.\.. :...,:<.,. ..o Rural Resldentlal, Commercial, or industrial Uses Generalbed base data OW7Inventor/and Mapping, 1996 and Cws and Douglas County Plan Designations, 2000
Source: ODOT Region 3 Planning, 2000
If development is proposed where the transportation system is inadequate, the local jurisdiction, private parties, and ODOT must work together to either change the development design in a way that avoids the anticipated traffic problem or to determine how the needed highway improvements can be provided. In the former case, ODOT will work with the developer or land owner to explore possible design alternative. When improvements to the highway are needed, ODOT will work with all parties to determine fair cost sharing. In some cases, the additional facilities will
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 68 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
be paid for by the state, although that may result in the improvement being delayed until funds are available, possibly years from when the development is proposed. In other cases, the appropriate jurisdiction andor developer will participate in the provision of transportation improvements or be responsible for the improvement entirely.
Specific Needs Beyond the development of the Georgia-Pacific mill site in Coquille, land uses and development in Coquille and Myrtle Point are not expected to impact the operation of the highway. Traveling eastward, the corridor is rural in nature with scattered residentiai uses and the rural communities of Bridge, Camas Valley, and Tenmile/Porter Creek. Again, land use in these communities is not expected to change significantly in the future and will not affect the highway beyond cunent growth levels. A number of proposed developments within the Wnston UCB and in Green threaten to cause intersections on OR 42 to fall below acceptable standards for capacity and safety. An Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) is in place which commits the city of Winston to improve OR 42 at Brockway, Abraham, and OR 99 when development results in specified increases in traffic at these intersections. Other development proposed for the north side of the city will also likely impact OR 42, particularly at Lookingglass Road, but is not part of the IGA. This agreement will be updated as needed through discussions between the city and ODOT planning units. The Green UUA is also experiencing growth. As a result, more traffic is expected to enter the highway for both local and regional trips, thereby impacting both capacity and safety on the highway. Of particular concern are the segments between Rolling Hills Road and Landers Avenue; between the Grange Road access and Carnes RoadRoberts Creek Road (Kelly's Comer), and between OR 99lGrants Smith Road and eastern side of the 1-5 (generally, in proximity to Interstate Exits 119 and 120). Development north of Rolling Hills Road, along with the eventual extension of that street will cause the Rolling Hill intersection to fail in the future. Kelly's Comer currently falls below acceptable V/C standards and is the only location on OR 42 in the top 10 percent of all Region 3 SPIS sites. Additional development will put more pressure on this intersection. The new Grants Smith Rd. intersection is expected to operate within acceptable levels under existing land uses. However, if the land between the intersection and 1-5 is converted to non-agricultural uses, the new intersection may fail and will have to be re-examined through a specific study which considers proposed land use changes. ODOT will examine possible refinements to the 119 and 120 interchanges in the future which will also consider land use and accesses in the area.
Transportation/Land Use Designations None of the cities along OR 42 meet the criteria for a Special Transportation Area (STA) or Commercial Center as defined in the Oregon Highway Plan. However, the western section of Winston may be designated as an Urban Business Area (UBA). Detail regarding these designations can be found in Appendix A, aldng with a matrix showing the extent to which each community meets the designation criteria.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 200 1 Draft Page 69 OR 381OR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
Express ways Expressways are complete routes or segments of existing two-lane and multi-lane highways and planned multi-lane highways that provide for safe and efficient high speed and high volume traffic movements. Their primary function is to provide connections between urban areas and to ports and major recreation areas with minimal interruptions. In rural areas, speeds are high. Highway segments are important to both local and regional traffic and are designated as Expressways in order to protect their operation from being degraded by development in the future. Designation as an Expressway does not imply the roadway will be converted to a freeway or that speeds will be increased. Rather, the designation simply provides ODOT with clearer directior. concerning management of these highway segments, Three segments of OR 42 and one related segment of US 101 have been designated as Expressways by the OTC. Because Expressways are intended to allow high-speed travel, most segments are outside of city limits. Figure 5.4 shows the location of the proposed Expressways including: o US 101, IS' Street to Junction OR 42 (mile points 239.89 to 244.27); OR 42, US 101 to W. Central in Coquille (mile points 0.00 to 9.97) ; OR 42, Filter Plant Road, Coquille to Ash Street, Myrtle Point (mile points 13.19 to 20.53); and OR 42, Lookingglass Road to Interstate 5 Exit 119 (mile points 73.88 to 77.17). ODOT will develop a long range plan for each of these segments in the future. The purpose of these plans will be to identify intersections on the highway that can be closed as opportunities occur or as alternate access becomes available. The plans will also discuss possible changes to the roadway such as non-traversable medians which will improve the function of the highway as an Expressway.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 70 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
Figure 5.4 US1O1IOR 42 Expressway Segments
I I Proposed Expressway Segments @ US 101 Bunker Hill to Jct.OR 42 @ OR 42 Jct. US 101 to Coquille @ Coquille to Myrtle Point (;i) Winston to 1-5 I - I Base data ODOT Inventory and Mapping. 1999
Source: ODOT Region 3 Planning, 2000
Tribal Development The corridor region is home to three Indian tribes-the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe; the Confederated Tribe of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw; and the Coquille Tribe. Each tribe exists as a sovereign nation located within the boundaries of the United States. As such, the state of Oregon and local jurisdictions must address them differently in regard to development on lands held in trust. Although Oregon's land use laws provide an avenue for coordination of land use and transportation improvements between state and local governments, these laws do not ensure similar coordination between the State and Tribal governments and do not provide the means to ensure that developments on trust lands do not overwhelm existing infrastructure.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 7 1 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
ODOT, as the representative of the State of Oregon on transportation issues, must find ways to coordinate with the Tribes when highway projects will affect their development. At the same time, the Tribes are encouraged to coordinate development on trust lands with planned improvements on the highway. In order for such cooperation to be effective, both parties must work together and enter into discussions regarding what is best for both states. Agreements regarding notification of planned projects and joint participation in project development will be essential elements to ensuring cooperation between the region's tribes and the state of Oregon on transportation and development issues.
5 8 Economic Impacts ODOT's Economic Development Analysis groups the 3 1 corridors of statewide significance into four classes: Highest Economic Potential, Relatively High Economic Development Potential, Relatively Low Economic Development Potential, Lowest Economic Development Potential. The Analysis reports OR 42 was ranked in the second category-relatively high development potential.
Specific Needs No needs specific to economic development have been identified. It is assumed that most improvements on OR 42 will bring economic benefit to the corridor region. However, no estimate of the actual value of that benefit has been made for individual projects or for the entire improvement plan.
5.9 Proposed Improvement Projects for OR 42 The corridor plan identifies needs which may be addressed as funding and conditions allow. The plans identify both programmed solutions-those that are adopted into the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (ST1P)-as well as potential solutions that may be suitable for addressing other needs. Inclusion of a project in the corridor plan does not ensure that it will be forwarded to the STIP, nor does it represent a commitment by ODOT or any local government to fund, allow, or construct that project. All Modernization projects must be amended into the appropriate local Transportation System Plan or Capital Improvement Program before being considered for the STIP. The various Management Systems within ODOT are responsible for forwarding other project types to the STIP. Projects included in the plan which are located on or which affect a state highway cannot be considered mitigation for future development or land use actions until such a time as they are programmed into the STIP. Finally, STIP projects may be altered or canceled later to meet changing project budgets or unanticipated conditions such as environmental constraints.
Project Types ODOT funding is divided up into several categories, each having specific definitions of qualifying projects and limits on how the funds can be spent. Below is an overview of the primary types of ODOT highway projects. Projects recommended in the
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 72 OR 38/OR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
corridor plans fall within one of these categories, although at times it is possible to use two or more types of funding to address a problem location. Modernization projects are designed to add capacity to the highway system to facilitate existing traffic andlor accommodate projected traffic growth. These projects center on the addition or widening of travel lanes, bridge widening, etc. Preservation includes improvements to extend the life of existing facilities without increasing its capacity. Preservation projects include work such as paving, striping, and reconstruction of the highway without widening. Bridge projects include bridge reconstruction c?r replacement, painting, seismic retrofitting, and overpass screening, as well as major work on tunnels and large culverts. Maintenance projects cover many areas relating to the appearance and functionality of the highway system, including surface repairs, drainage work, vegetation removal, minor structural work, etc. Operations projects increase the efficiency of the highway system, leading to safer travel and greater system reliability. Operations programs include interconnected traffic signal systems, new traffic signals, signs, Intelligent Transportation System features, and rock fall and slide repairs. Safety focuses on investments that address priority hazardous highway locations and corridors, in order to reduce the number of fatal and serious injury crashes. Projects funded through this program must meet strict benefitlcost criteria. Safety projects may include access management features, intersection realignment, guardrails, illumination, signing, rumble strips, and railroad crossing improvements.
5.9.1 Identification of Potential Projects During the initial phases of the planning process, general management direction and needs were identified by the CPMT, ODOT management, and corridor residents. This was followed by an analysis of current and future conditions and relevant state and local policies. Based on this analysis, ODOT staff refined the list of needs and identified a general list of projects for the corridor. The projects were expected to (a) address an identified need or deficiency; (b) meet conditions or minimums established in state and local plans and the various ODOT Management Systems; and (c) implement the corridor plan goals of safety, efficient operation, and local access. Potential projects were then evaluated in terms of safety, capacity, travel times, environmental constraints, and whether current standards are met. The resulting project list is presented in Table 5.8, at the end of this section. The project evaluation was conducted at a broad level and did not examine the criteria to the level of detail at which projects are scoped during project development. Once a project is scoped for funding and development, it may be found that the project cannot be built as described or for the costs presented in the corridor plan.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 73 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
The majority of improvement projects related to bridge, pavement, congestion, safety, slides, transit and others are developed by ODOT in response to existing needs. These needs are re-evaluated every two years for the STIP. While the corridor plan includes some of these types of projects, it does not represent all of the projects that will be funded under these categories. Further, the plan will not be updated to reflect changes in project priorities for these types of projects each STIP cycle.
5.92 Project Prioritization Projects in the plan have been given a "High", "Medium", or "Low" ranking based on existing and expected needs. Because most of these needs currently exist, the priorities are also consider the severity of the need or deficiency as well as when the project is needed. Projects are only prioritized within each project type. For example, the Modernization projects are prioritized only within that group of projects; the Safety projects are prioritized as a group; and so on. It must be remembered that all ODOT project priorities are tied to funding decisions and are made in conjunction with the STIP, not the corridor plans. Funding decisions are made either at the Statewide, Region, or Area level, not on a highway-by-highway basis. Project priorities shown in the corridor plan are recommendations relative to other projects within the plan and do not reflect project priorities that will be made across the Southwest Area or the Region.
5.9.3 ProjectFunding This document is not designed to establish a plan for funding projects on the corridor-that is not possible without knowing future revenue streams. Instead, the corridor plan serves to show what problems exist along the highway and to help decision makers identify which needs should be addressed first, should funding become available.
5.9.3.1 Past Per3cormance is Not an Indicator of Future Trends Historical spending cannot be used to forecast future spending on OR 42. However, it is useful to compare how much has been spent in the past on a particular type of project to how much would be needed to address all of those needs identified in the plan. This comparison is possible for Modernization dollars, but is much more difficult for other project types such as Bridge or Safety. The following discussion presents Modernization project costs by type compared to recent Modernization spending within the Region and is intended to give an idea of the gap between likely revenues and project needs on OR 42. This information should not be interpreted as a forecast of revenues expected to be available for improvements on the highway.
5.9.3.2 Spending on Modernization Projects The needs identified through the corridor plans far exceed even generous revenue projections. For example, over the last two STIP periods, the Southwest Area has received about $5.8 million each 4-year funding cycle for Modernization improvements. Not accounting for inflation or declining revenues, this would result
Each STIP period is a four-year funding program, which is updated every two years.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 74 OR 38/OR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
in about $29 million over 20 years for Modernization, for the entire Southwest Area. 10
The OR 42 corridor plan identifies approximately $30.6 million in Modernization needs over the next 20 years. " However, funding for Modernization projects is not allocated directly to each highway. Instead, a portion of the Region 3 Modernization budget is used for projects in the Southwest Area of Region 3, which includes all of Coos, Curry, and Douglas counties. These Modernization funds must address needs on US 101, OR 38, OR 42, OR 138, and some problems associated with Interstate 5. In addition to the project costs on OR 42, the OR 38 corridor plan identifies approximately y $25.6 million in Modernization needs over 20 years, totaling $54 million for the two highways. Obviously, the addressing all of the identified needs would cost far beyond even the amount expected to be available for the entire Southwest Area. Put another way, it would require all. of the Modernization funding that is currently received for the entire Southwest Area over the next 24) years to meet the needs identified on just OR 42. In reality, only a few of these projects will be built over the 20 year life of the plzn and then only if these projects are ranked highly in funding prioritization in the future.
5.9.3.3 Other Project Types While the corridor plan does not identify all Management System projects, it does include recommendations for some of these needs. Undoubtedly, the cost of addressing all of these needs are understated in the corridor plan. Nonetheless, the OR 42 plan specifically identifies $2.0 million in bridge needs. The corridor plan also identifies $13.4 million in Safety needs and $13.7 million in Operations needs. Table 5.7 summarizes the cost of projects included in the corridor plan by project type, as well as costs identified through the OR 38 corridor plan.
lo For simplicity, all forecasts of future revenues are in 2000 dollars and are not adjusted for inflation. However, rising costs have significantly diminished the amount of money ODOT has available for improvements to the highway and will continue to do so in the future. ODOT does, however, factor inflation into project costs when creating forecasts for each STIP. " The replacement and realignment of the Umpqua River Bridge will cost in excess of $22 million. This project would likely include both Bridge and Modernization dollars, although the majority would be Modernization funding.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 75 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
Table 5.7 Estimated Costs for Unfunded Projects, 2000-2020 OR 38 and OR 42 Corridor Plans
Source: ODOT Region 3 Planning, 2000 Note: Costs shown do not include STIP or draft-STIP projects
5.10 Project List The following table summarizes planned and recommended projects for OR 42. The projects are listed by mile point and includes information regarding project location, description, general problem or need addressed, and project cost and priority. Projects included in the current 2000-2003 STIP and the draft 2002-2005 STIP are presented first, followed by other potential projects by funding type. Following Table 5.8 are project location maps showing where each project is located on the corridor. Each project location is denoted by a project number that corresponds to the Project Number in the project list. Projects shown in red on the maps are those included in the 2000-2003 STIP; projects shown in green are those included in the draft 2002-2005 STIP at the time of final plan review. Locations shown in blue are potential projects identified through the corridor plan analysis. Additional data regarding projects including the modes affected, the benefits achieved and associated safety and capacity data can be found in the OR 42 Corridor Plan Supporting Documentation. Project Summary Sheets, which provide detail regarding each proposed project can be found in Appendix D of the Supporting Documentation.
Oregon Department of Transportation March 2001 Draft Page 76 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
Table 5.8 Summary of OR 42 Corridor Plan Projects by Funding Type
e. Examine accesses
. Continued.. .
OR 38/42 C .or Plans March Draft Page 77 OR 381OK ,orridor Plans OR 42: Cone . and Needs
Continued...
OR 38/42 Corridor Plans March 2001 Draft Page 78 OR 38/OR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
Priority Begin Estimated Project Location End Description within Proj. # Source MP MP Proj. Type 73 Grange Road Access 75.63 75.63 Delineate left and r~ghtturn lanes on local street; add r~ghtturn lane $750,000 Medium ODOT from 42 onto local street; In future evaluate closlng access and Improving connect~onsbetween Grange Rd. and Roberts Creek Rd. and Rolling H~llsRd. 1 Wall Gulch to Coos County 0.99 2.31 Realign hor~zontalcurve and decrease grade separation at Wall $2,500,000 Low ODOT Speedway Gulch; Remove overhead utilities from clear zone, w~denshoulders, and reduce grade separation throughout 4 Beaver Creekloverland Road 4.81 5.20 Close Overland Road access at MP 4.81 and close leg to Overland $175,000 Low ODOT at MP 4 99; Real~gnsouth Beaver Creek Road access at MP
50 Ollala Road intersection 67.76 67.76 Rebulld Ollala approach to improve vertical al~gnmentwlth highway $100,000 Low ODOT 58 Douglas Hlgh School accesses 72.07 72.08 Work with the school distr~ctand the City of W~nstonto provide $750,000 Low ODOT alternative routlng for bus traffic to allow closing one of the two existing access to the school. 69 Helweg Rd. ~ntersect~on 74.34 74.34 Close Helweg Rd. Intersection; create frontage road connecting wlth $750,000 Low ODOT OR 42 west of existlng intersection Total Cost Safety Projects $1 3,375,000 Operations 36 Passlng area west of Coos-Douglas 43.84 44.09 Address acc~dentsthrough area used for passing; improve slght $1,000,000 Hlgh ODOT county line - MP 44.00 distances on roadway and from wide shoulder area at MP 44.00 40 Curves west of Slater Creek Road - 45.90 46.60 Realign curves and widen roadway to address acc~dentsand geologic $1,500,000 Hlgh ODOT MP 46.00 hazards 19 Spruce & Harris Streets, Myrtle Polnt 20.58 20.77 Signal replacement and ADA requirements $657,000 Medlum ODOT Continued.. .
OR 38/42 -idor Plans Marc' >01 Draft Page 79 OR 38/01 Corridor Plans OR 42: Con s and Needs
a travel lane. Close or
Total Cost Bridge Projects $2,000,000 Maintenance I 11 Cedar Point log ponds 10.03 10.18 Dredge log ponds and strengthen highway fill. $200,000 Medium ODOT 10 Cedar Point Road 9.59 9.62 Improve sight distances to the west. Will be addressed in conjunction $175,000 Low ODOT with Proiect #7 if built. Continued.. .
OR 38/42 Corridor Plans March 2001 Draft Page 80 OR 38lOR 42 Corridor Plans OR 42: Conditions and Needs
system improvements
Continued.. .
- - - - - OR 38/42 id or Plans Marc' 101 Draft Page 8 1 OR 38/01 lorridor Plans OR 42: Con s and Needs
Total Cost Planning Projects $350,000
Total Cost STlP & Draft STlP Proiects $8,932,000 Total Cost Non-STIP Proiects $68.737.000 Total Cost A!! Projects $77, 669,000
Source: ODOT Region 3 Planning, 2000
OR 38/42 Corridor Plans March 2001 Draft Page 82
Region 3 District 7 COOS BAY - ROSEBURG HIGHWAY No. 35 Sheet 2 of 6 I FEBUARY 1997 1
NF m .n NO- om ~m
NN N N NNN
aMahnm Planned
Region 3 District 6 COOS BAY - ROSEBURG HIGHWAY No. 35 5haet 5 of 6 I FEBUARY 1797
Appendices OR38lOR42 Corridor Plans Appendix A
Appendix A: Highway Plan Land Use Designations
A.l Introduction The Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) recognizes that state highways serve as Main Street in many communities while also serving as the primary regional through-route. The OHP contains policies to maintain a balance between this local role and the needs of through traffic. Policy 1B addresses the connection between land uses and transportation through the designation of special highway segment classifications. In short, these designations are intended to emphasize local access in limited areas while making through-traffic the priority in areas outside of the designated area. The OHP provides four segment designations to be applied in specific situations for specific purposes.
A.2 Special Transportation Areas (STA) The primary objective of managing highway facilities in an STA is to provide access to community activities, businesses, and residences, and to accommodate pedestrian movement along and across the highway in a downtown, business district andlor community center. An STA is a highway segment designation that may be applied to a highway segment when a downtown, business district, or community center straddles the state highway within an urban growth boundary or in an unincorporated community. Local street connections are encouraged in an STA. However, direct property access is limited. Shared on-street parking is encouraged and local auto, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit movements to the business district or community center are generally as important as the through movement of traffic. Traffic speeds are slow, generally 25 miles per hour (40 kilometers per hour) or less. Within the STA, mobility standards are relaxed allowing for slightly more congested conditions before mitigation is required. For example, most urban intersections on OR 38 and OR 42 must operate at a volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.75. Within an STA that standard is relaxed to 0.85. A preliminary look at capacity of intersections within the corridor cities show that they are either far below the non-STA standard, or are expected to exceed the STA standard by the year 2020. In either of these cases, the STA standard does not affect mobility through the area. Public access to the highway is allowed at spacing standards established in the local jurisdiction's Transportation System Plan or Comprehensive Plan, regardless of whether those standards are lower than those established in the OHP. Private driveways are not allowed or are discouraged within the STA. In order to provide the desired benefit to through traffic the STA designation brings, ODOT may negotiate for more restrictive access spacing standards outside the STA boundaries, as a trade- off for relaxed standards within the boundary.
Oregon Department f Transportation March 2001 Draft Page A- 1 OR38/OR42 Corridor Plans Appendix A
Designation of an STA begins with the discussion of a "potential" STA through a corridor plan, Transportation System Plan. Once a potential STA is identified, ODOT will discuss the possibility of an STA designation with those communities that appear to be likely candidates. Identification of a potential STA does not imply that the area will meet all the criteria upon closer examination. More importantly, it does not mean that the application of an STA would benefit either the community or ODOT. Each local jurisdiction must decide if they wish to apply for the STA designation. ODOT and the OTC will work with the jurisdiction to determine the appropriateness of the designation. Once an STA is identified, the jurisdiction must complete a management plan for the area which will guide land use and transportation development and access in the STA. The STA is to be viewed as a trade-off for overall mobility of a highway segment or corridor. ODOT agrees to relaxed standards within the STA, which will slow the overall performance of the corridor. The city must agree to tighter standards outside of the STA so that performance that is lost within the designated boundary can be regained outside of the boundary. No cities on OR 42 meet the criteria for an STA. Along OR 38, the Old Town section of Reedsport may qualify as an STA and has been identified as a "potential" STA. The following map shows the boundary discussed for the area, as we11 as the section of US 101 that would be subject to tighter standards in trade for relaxed standards within the STA. The city and ODOT will continue discussions regarding the appropriateness of an STA designation within the next year.
Oregon Department f Transportation March 2001 Draft Page A-2 OR38lOR42 Corridor Plans Appendix A
Figure A.l Boundary of Potential Reedsport STA
Source: ODOT Region 3 Planning, 2000
An STA has also been considered in the city of Drain, along OR 42 between "A" Street and "E" Streets. However, Drain does not clearly fit the criteria for an STA and, more importantly, may benefit little from such a designation. The corridor plan recommends that the city and ODOT not consider an STA in Drain at this time, but re-examine the issue in the future.
A.3 Urban Business Areas (UBA) The Highway Plan also allows ODOT to designate some sections of highway as Urbm Bgsiness Areas (UB.4). A UE-A is a highway segment designation which recognizes existing areas of commercial activity within urban growth boundaries where vehicular accessibility is important to continued economic viability. The primary objective of the state highway in a UBA is to maintain existing speeds while balancing the access needs of abutting properties with the need to move through traffic. A UBA may apply to an existing area of commercial activity or to an area which may develop into a commercial node in the future. UBAs can be located on District, Regional, or Statewide Highways where speeds are 35 mph (55 kilometers per hour) or less. The designation of an existing UBA on a Statewide highway shall be limited to locations where, from a system-wide
Oregon Department f Transportation March 2001 Draft Page A-3 OR381OR42 Corridor Plans Appendix A
perspective, the need for local access clearly equals or is greater than the need for mobility. For future development areas, the need for local access must be shown to be greater than the need for mobility. Vehicular accessibility is often as important as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit accessibility in a UBA. Safe and regular street connections are encouraged and transit turnouts, sidewalks, and bicycle lanes are accommodated. The UBA designation does not allow the same relaxing of capacity standards allowed with an STA. Mobility standards remain as specified in the OHP for Statewide Freight Highways. Access management standards are relaxed in a UBA, however. In UBAs where speeds are 30 or 35 MPH, accesses are allowed to be spaced 50 feet closer than outside a UBA. In UBAs where speeds are 25 MPH or less, the standards are relaxed by 30 feet. No plan specific to management of the UBA is required. On OR 38, a UBA designation may apply to Elkton and some portions of Reedsport. On OR 42. sections of Winston west of the Cheetah intersection will be considered.
A.4 Commercial Centers ODOT may designate a sections of highway as a Commercial Centers in order to maintain thorough traffic mobility in accordance with the highway's function. A Commercial Center may be applied to a highway segment adjacent to an existing or future center of commercial activity which may generally have 400,000 square feet or more of gross leasable area or public buildings. The majority of the average daily trips to the center must originate in the community in which the center is located. No changes in capacity or access spacing standards are allowed in conjunction with a Commercial Center designation. The jurisdiction is responsible for creation of a plan outlining management of the commercial center area, however. No Commercial Centers are located on OR 38 or OR 42, although the section of the Cape Arago Highway adjacent to the Pony Village Mall in North Bend may qualify.
------Oregon Department f Transportation March 2001 Draft Page A-4 OR38/OR< rridor Plans Appendix A
Table A.l TransportationJLand Use Designation Matrix
problems expected
problems expected
Oregon Department f Transportation March 2001 Draft Page A- 1 OR38lOR42 Corridor Plans Appendix A
local street and intersection improvements Source: ODOT Region 3 Planning, 2001
1 Scale of access orientation: 1-predominantly autoiroadway, may be some pedestrian or bicycle use; 2-pedestrian, bicycle, transit significant share of traffic through and into area; 3-dominant mode not auto/roadway oriented
2 STA-Special Transportation Area. Location currently meets Oregon Highway Plan criteria and will bring capacity and access benefit to the community and ODOT; Potential STA-Area is expected to meet Oregon Highway Plan criteria and bring benefit to the community and ODOT within 20 year planning horizon (e.g., capacity and access needs will warrant designation within 20 years). UBA-Urban Business Area. Location currently meets Oregon Highway Plan criteria and will bring benefit to the community and ODOT.
Oregon Der lent f Transportation * -h 2001 Draft Page A-2 OR381OR42 Corridor Plans Appendix B
Appendix B: Summary of Evaluation Data for Project Locations
B. 1 Introduction Improvement locations were initially identified by Region 3 personnel and through discussions with members of the CPMT and with the general public. Project locations were then analyzed for safety, capacity and environmental concerns. Table B. 1 summarizes these data for OR 38 and Table B.2 summarizes the data for OR 42. The evaluation criteria are discussed in brief below, and in greater detail in the plan text above and in the Supporting Documentation for each corridor. For any indicator in the table, a high value does not necessarily mean the location will or should be mitigated, just as a low value does not mean an improvement would not be beneficial. Instead, this data is only intended to help characterize conditions at specific locations along the corridor. In all cases, additional study is required before improvements can be made and that analysis must come through methodologies accepted by ODOT. This assessment is general in nature and is not a complete inventory of environmental factors related to any particular location. Further, this assessment does not replace any environmental analysis that will be required as improvement projects are developed in the future.
B.l.l CrashData As discussed in the plan text, several indicators of highway safety are use to determined locations to be addressed to improve safety. These include the Safety Improvement Program (SIP) and the Safety Priority Index System (SPIS). These serve as the primary tools for ODOT to use in identifying safety improvements. In short, if a location is not a SIP site or is not in the top 10 percent of all SPIS sites in Region 3, it is not likely to be addressed with Safety funding. The corridor plan analysis considered these indicators, but also includes specific indicators, which may or may not be used in establishing the SIP and SPIS. These are useful in characterizing accident locations, but cannot be used independently to determine safety expenditures. These indicators include the number of accidents, the computed accident rate (based on accidents per million vehicle miles traveled), and the accident rate as compared to the statewide average rate for similar highways."
12 The 1999-1999 averages for Urban and Rural Statewide highways was not available when this analysis was completed. The averages used for the OR 38 and OR 42 Corridor Plans were for the years 1997 and 1998 and only approximate the actual statewide averages. The following rates were used: Urban-3.75; Rural-0.72.
Oregon Department f Transportation March 2001 Draft Page B- 1 OR381OR42 Corridor Plans Appendix B
B. 1.2 Capacity Assessment Tables B.l and B.2 include three indicators of capacity, including whether the location met capacity standards set through the Oregon Highway Plan in 2000, the study year, and if the standards are expected to be met in the year 2020. Details of these data are presented in the plan text. The third indicator of capacity is more subjective and is based on the extent to which the proposed improvement is expected to improve the movement of freight through the corridor and general travel times. This expectation is expressed in general High, Moderate, and Low terms, referring to the likelihood of improvement freight movement and/or travel times. In general, roadway realignment and passing lane improvements are assumed to have a high likelihood of improving travel times, whereas the addition of a left turn lane or a preservation project will have little effect. Pedestrian improvements are assumed to improve conditions for those walking along the highway, but will have little effect on the time it takes for pedestrians to move through a section of the corridor.
B. 1.3 Affected Environmental Conditions The Environmental criteria is also subjective and is based on an estimate of how extensive the impact of a given improvement would be on the environment. Again, this expectation is expressed in general High, Moderate, and Low terms, referring to the extent the proposed improvement will impact the environment, including plants and animal species, geology, streams and wetlands, and historical or cultural resources. Locations involving roadway realignment or which are adjacent to a body of water or steep slope are rated High in terms of environmental impact. Pavement overlay projects were ranked Low, not because they will have no impact, but because their relative impact will be lower than projects involving realignment or adding lanes.
Oregon Department f Transportation March 2001 Draft Page B-2 OR38/OR42 Corridor Plans ~~pendixB
Table B.l Summary of Assessment Data for Recommended Improvement Locations on OR 38
22 Scott Creek Boat Ramp 25.24 25.251 0.001 No 0.001 No I No I No No I Low ]High
Oregon Department f Transportation March 2001 Draft Page B-3 OR38lOR42 Corridor Plans Appendix B
Oregon Department f Transportation March 2001 Draft Page B-4 OR38lOR42 Corridor Plans ~~pendixB
Source: 2000 ODOT Accident Summary Database; 2000 §PIS Report; 2000 update of Overview of Statewide Corridors, ODOT TPAU; ODOT Region 3 Planning estimates, 2000 ' Computed Accident Rate--Accidents per million Vehicle miles traveled The 1999-1999 averages for Urban and Rural Statewide highways was not available when this analysis was completed. The averages used for the OR 38 and OR 42 Corridor Plans were for the years 1997 and 1998 and only approximate the actual statewide averages. The following rates were used: Urban-3.75; Rural--0.72.
Oregon Department f Transportation March 200 1 Draft Page B-5 OR38/OR42 Corridor Plans ~~pendixB
Table B.2 Summary of Assessment Data for Recommended Improvement Locations on OR 42
Oregon Department f Transportation March 2001 Draft Page B-6 OR38lOR42 Corridor Plans Appendix B
Oregon Department f Transportation March 2001 Draft Page B-7 OR381OR42 Corridor Plans hppendix B
Source: 2000 ODOT Accident Summary Database; 2000 SPlS Report; 2000 update of Overview of Statewide Corridors, ODOT TPAU; ODOT Region 3 Planning estimates, 2000 ' Computed Accident Rate-Accidents per million Vehicle miles traveled The 1999-1999 averages for Urban and Rural Statewide highways was not available when this analysis was completed. The averages used for the OR 38 and OR 42 Corridor Plans were for the years 1997 and 1998 and only approximate the actual statewide averages. The following rates were used: Urban-3.75; Rural--0.72.
Oregon Department f Transportation March 2001 Draft Page B-8