Technical Appendix B-1 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 1 of 10 Roadway System Needs

The year 2020 transportation system deficiencies and needs in Washington County were evaluated based on selected performance measures. The 2020 travel forecasts considered the Regional Transportation Plan (priority scenario) as well as no-build scenario (including committed projects). The following section describes the analytical process and motor vehicles system results. Separate approaches were taken for evaluating urban and rural roadways to better address the characteristics of each type of facility.

Performance Analysis in Urban Area Planning performance measures for the roadway system in the urban area include peak period travel demand, mobility, connectivity and accessibility. These performance measures were combined to refine the initial 2020 travel demand model forecasts using a three-tiered analysis. These measures represent a new paradigm for assessing roadway and highway travel performance for Washington County. The previous plan process (1985) used only the first step as described below. Since that time, further research in system performance has provided a broader array of planning tools.

Step 1: Demand vs. Capacity — Demand to capacity (D/C) ratios1 were evaluated on roadway segments and conditions where the demand to capacity ratio exceeded 1.0 were identified. Model roadway networks are coded based on the general speed and throughput characteristics of similar facilities throughout the county. See the attached Committed System - Motor Vehicle Performance Deficiencies map (B-1).

Step 2: Arterial Congested Speeds — The D/C ratio is taken from the above step, then further refined to consider specific traffic signal density and system coordination along the arterial segments in the county. Signal density (number of traffic signal per mile) has a significant influence on the average travel speeds, especially during peak periods.

Urban Street Level of Service Criteria Typical free-flow 50 mph 40 mph 35 mph 30 mph speed Level of Service Average Travel Speeds (mph) A >42 >35 >30 >25 B >34-42 >28-35 >24-30 >19-25 C >27-34 >22-28 >18-24 >13-19 D >21-27 >17-22 >14-18 >9-13 E >16-21 >13-17 >10-14 >7-9 F ≤ 16 ≤ 13 ≤ 10 ≤ 7 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Chapter 15, Exhibit 15-2, 2000.

1 Demand to capacity ratio is similar to volume to capacity (V/C) ratio. The difference is that in the future, demand is being estimated and therefore the term demand is utilized. For existing conditions, volume refers to the actual traffic on the roadway. While a demand to capacity ratio can exceed 1.0, a volume to capacity ratio would never exceed 1.0. Technical Appendix B-1 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 2 of 10

Refined travel speed estimates were prepared based on forecasted peak period usage, traffic signal density, presence of signal coordination and free-flow travel speeds on arterial roads. The refined arterial speed calculation was based on Quantifying Congestion (NCHRP Report 398) research2. Future signal density (number of traffic signals per mile) was determined from the existing traffic signal inventory provided by county staff plus assumptions3 regarding new traffic signals that may be constructed with land development. Future traffic signal coordination was determined based on conversations with county staff regarding planned signal system upgrades. The resulting congested speed was related to the definition in the Highway Capacity Manual for Urban Streets4 to determine a facility level of service. Cases where a corridor segment dropped below Level of Service E were flagged for poor or unacceptable performance.

Step 3: Intersection Performance — Intersection level data were developed for about 25 intersections in Washington County (based on staff input, for primarily arterial intersections). The 2020 model forecasts at these intersections were adjusted to correct minor calibration errors that may occur compared to current year traffic counts. This refinement step can significantly enhance the accuracy of the model forecasts and the resulting performance assessment.

The intersections were selected because they are the most likely pressure points where system capacity could be exceeded. However, there may be other locations that may have capacity deficiencies/needs. Other county arterial intersections were investigated in separate studies for the various city transportation system plan updates. Any needs shown at these locations will be addressed in the county plan update. Capacity needs were identified where D/C ratios exceeded 1.0 or Level of Service (LOS) was at F or worse.

The three-step approach was not applied to roadway facilities in the rural area. The influence of traffic signals and mid-block driveways is generally not significant in the rural area. An alternative method was developed to consider roadway terrain and limitation to passing zones, which are more significant to rural travel conditions.

2 Quantifying Congestion: Volumes 1 and 2, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Report 398, Transportation Research Board, 1997. 3 Future traffic signals were assumed to be added to the existing system within the urban area for the following cases: 1) where two arterial roads intersect, and 2) as in-fill along arterials with bordering commercial or industrial at least one-quarter mile from an arterial or other existing traffic signal. 4 Highway Capacity Manual, Chapter 15 – Urban Streets, Transportation Research Board, 2000. Technical Appendix B-1 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 3 of 10

Refined Capacity Analysis Process for Urban Area Refinement Step Process /Purpose Threshold (acceptable performance indicator) 1- Link Demand Model volume divided by model D/C less than 1.00. to Capacity capacity. General link performance.

2 - Congested Arterial road performance based D/C Level of service E or better. Speed ratio (Step 1), traffic signal density and control systems, and speed reduction relative to free-flow.

3 - Intersection Arterial intersection average delay for Level of service E or better. Total Conditions all movements. Adjust model control delay less than 80 seconds forecast relative to counts. on average for all movements

(source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000).

The results of the urban area corridor evaluation are summarized on the next page for the Committed Project and Priority RTP scenarios. The table highlights roadway links that fall below the performance measures.

All 37 of the links listed in the table have demand to capacity ratios over 1.00 for the Committed Base scenario (Step 1). The majority of these corridors also have average travel speeds in the peak direction below Level of Service E (Step 2). Cells that were grayed out do not have traffic signals installed or planned within the corridor limits. The node capacity analysis (Step 3) shows that the majority of the corridors also have major intersections that will perform below LOS E during the peak period. Cases where intersection traffic volume data was not readily available for analysis are shown as shaded. An important finding was that, in most cases where data were available, the Step 1 deficiency was confirmed by inadequate conditions based on travel speed and/or intersection LOS.

The Priority scenario analysis showed 14 of the 37 links operating below capacity. The other 23 links would be adequate during peak periods with implementation of the additional system projects identified in the Priority scenario program. In a few cases, the corridor speed was the critical indicator instead of link capacity. These included Highway 99W and Cornell Road in sections where traffic signal spacing is very close, and the impact on travel speeds is significant. Technical Appendix B-1 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 4 of 10

Overview of 2020 Forecasted Corridor Deficiencies for RTP Scenarios

No Build Priority Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 East-West Corridors (1) Link Speed Intersection Link Speed Intersection Germantown Road – Cornelius Pass to Kaiser Rd n n Springville Road – 185th Ave to Kaiser Road n n West Union Road – Cornelius Pass to 185th Ave nn n n Cornell Road – 185th Ave to US 26 nn n Cornell Road – 143rd Ave to Saltzman Road nn n US 26 – ORE 217 to Canyon Road n Walker Road – ORE 217 to Stucki Ave nn n Jenkins Road – Murray Blvd to 158th Ave nn Baseline Road – 185th to 231st Ave nn TV Highway – Hocken Ave to Cornelius Pass nn n Highway 8 – Cornelius/Schefflin to Hwy 47 nn n n Farmington Road – Hocken Ave to 185th Ave nn n Allen Boulevard – ORE 217 to Murray Blvd n Hart Road – Hall Blvd to Murray Blvd n Scholls Ferry Road – ORE 217 to 125th Ave nn n Tualatin-Sherwood Road – I-5 to Boones Ferry nn n n Road Tualatin-Sherwood Road – Avery Street to Hwy n 99W Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 North-South Corridors (1) Link Speed Intersection Link Speed Intersection Brookwood Avenue – TV Hwy to Cornell Road n n Cornelius Pass Road – TV Hwy to US 26 nn n Cornelius Pass Road – US 26 to Germantown nn n n Road 185th Avenue – Farmington Road to Springville nn n Road 170th Avenue – Bany Road to Merlo Road n Bethany Boulevard – US 26 to Kaiser Road nn Kaiser Road – Germantown Road to West Union n nn Road Beef Bend Road – Scholls Ferry Road to Elsner nn Road Highway 99W – Bell Road to Durham Road nn n n Highway 99W – Durham Road to ORE 217 nn n nn n Highway 99W – ORE 217 to I-5 n Murray Boulevard – Brockman Road to Jenkins nn n n Road Cedar Hills Boulevard – Hall Blvd to Walker Road n Hall Boulevard – Greenway to Oleson Road nn ORE 217 – Denney Road to BH Hwy n ORE 217 – I-5 to Greenburg Road n Scholls Ferry Road – Denney Road to US 26 nn Interstate 5 – Wilsonville Road to ORE 217 n n Boones Ferry Road – Elligsen Road to Avery nn n Street Baker Road – Westfall Road to Tualatin- n n Sherwood Road Technical Appendix B-1 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 5 of 10 The major intersections and interchanges were reviewed based on forecasted volumes to identify locations that are expected to exceed planned capacity.

Forecasted (2020) PM Peak Hour Intersection Performance (Urban Area) No Build 2020 No Build 2020 w/ Intersection Improvements Intersection Level of Service Demand/ Level of Service Demand/ Capacity Capacity Quince/Hwy 47/TV Hwy F 1.30 E 1.40 10th/Baseline E 0.99 C 0.67 Cornelius Pass/Baseline F 1.26 D 0.91 Cornelius Pass/West Union F 1.19 D 0.98 185th/TV Highway F 1.31 N/A N/A 158th/Walker F 1.30 D 0.96 Murray/TV Highway F 1.20 N/A N/A Murray/Cornell F 1.26 D 0.83 Scholls Ferry/Hall F 1.18 D 0.76 Scholls Ferry/Murray F 1.58 D 0.81 Hall/ORE 99W F 1.34 F 1.20 ORE 99W/McDonald/Gaarde F 1.20 E 1.01 72nd/Carman E 1.04 F 1.17 Boones Ferry/Tualatin-Sherwood F 1.14 F 1.24 ORE 99W/Tualatin-Sherwood E 1.07 E 0.99 185th/West Union F 1.35 F 1.47 185th/Springville F 3.20 C 0.98 Kaiser/Bethany F 2.39 F 1.43 Bethany/Laidlaw F 2.28 E 0.97 209th/Kinnaman F N/A B 0.89 198th (South)/Kinnaman D N/A A 0.65 198th (North)/Kinnaman F N/A C 0.81 Note: The 2020 Priority Scenario assumes an interchange at Murray/TV Highway and TV Highway/185th Technical Appendix B-1 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 6 of 10

Rural Roadway Analysis The general trends for traffic growth for the rural highways, arterials, and collector roadways is summarized in the following. The growth forecast for local streets is expected to be similar to the minor collector roadway growth. The last two rows of the table present the average percent growth by facility class. The growth from 1994 to 2000 has already occurred. On average, the highest rate of growth is seen on the lesser collector facilities (88%) whereas the high functional class arterials have had much more modest growth (14% to 26%). The last row shows the growth from 2000 to 2020 based on model forecasts. For this case, the highest expected rate of growth is on the Major Arterials (80%) with more moderate growth on the collectors (50% to 60%).

Rural Daily Traffic Growth Trends by Functional Class Average Daily Volume by Existing Functional Class Principal Major Minor Major Minor Description Arterial Arterial Arterial Collector Collector 1994 4,850 8,169 4,667 1,302 453 Recent (1998/2000) 5,532 10,278 7,508 2,435 854 Forecasted 2020 6,776 18,417 10,563 3,901 1,254 Average Growth from 1994 to 2000 14% 26% 61% 88% 88% Average Growth from 2000 to 2020 22% 79% 41% 60% 47%

The above information presents an overview of the total rural street traffic volume growth trends. A more detailed analysis of rural roadways was made and they are presented in later sections of this chapter. These detailed analyses were the basis for making capacity and safety improvements recommendations to better serve future needs.

Roadway Capacity Analysis The forecasted 2020 traffic volumes on the major roadways were evaluated to determine where sufficient system capacity is not provided in rural Washington County. The same analytical process applied for the Existing Conditions analysis was used for the 2020 volumes. This method considers roadway grades, trucks volumes, narrow travel lanes, and posted speeds to estimate the peak vehicle carrying capacity. The hourly capacity for roadways is re-stated below in Table 3 ranging from 390 to 1160 vehicles per hour. These capacities apply to paved roadway facilities, and are not applicable for gravel roads. Technical Appendix B-1 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 7 of 10 Summary of Estimated Rural Roadway Capacities by Terrain Type Terrain Type Directional Peak Hour Capacity (vehicles/hour) Minimum Average Maximum Level 830 990 1160 Rolling 450 770 950 Mountainous 390 635 710 Source: DKS Associates based on NCHRP Report 387 methodologies.

Roadways where the 2020 volumes are expected to exceed planned capacity are summarized in Table 4 below. The last two columns indicate the percentage of daily volume relative to capacity, a value of 100% shows that the 2020 volume is equal to the capacity of the facility. All of the roadways shown in the table are two-lane facilities today.

Rural Roadways Approaching or Exceeding Planned Capacity Base Year 2020 Base Year 2020 D/C Road From To ADT ADT D/C Ratio Ratio 185th Avenue Springville Rd. W. Union Rd. 12,030 27,500 88% 201% Beef Bend Rd. Scholls Ferry. Rd. Elsner Rd. 9,560 17,400 83% 121% Cornelius Pass Rd. Skyline Rd. Germantown Rd. 8,100 15,800 126% 246% Cornelius Pass Rd. Germantown Rd. W. Union Rd. 10,940 21,800 84% 167% Scholls-Sherwood Elsner Rd. Beef Bend Rd. Rd. 5,160 13,000 45% 113% Glencoe Rd. US 26 Zion Church Rd. 15,600 18,400 104% 123% Scholls Ferry Rd. 175th Avenue Beef Bend Rd. 13,100 25,100 70% 134% Scholls Ferry Rd. Beef Bend Rd. Barrows Rd. 13,100 25,100 70% 134% Scholls-Sherwood Rd. Elsner Rd. Hwy 99W 7,690 14,200 71% 131% W. Union Rd. Cornelius Pass 185th Avenue 8,320 17,700 63% 134% Zion Church Rd. Kerkman Rd. Milne Rd. 13,000 15,600 84% 101% Zion Church Rd. Milne Rd. Gordon Rd. 13,000 15,600 84% 101% Zion Church Rd. Gordon Rd. Glencoe Rd. 13,630 15,900 90% 105%

The 2020 capacity analysis indicates the following findings:

• Roy Rogers Road, Elsner Road and Scholls-Sherwood Road will carry 13,000 to 17,400 vehicles daily by 2020. This route between westerly Scholls Ferry Road and Highway 99W in Sherwood is an important route for this sector of the county. The roadway was recently improved by a MSTIP project to enhance capacity and travel speeds. The resulting capacity should be adequate most hours of the day. The forecasted 2020 demand is not sufficient to justify future widening. Technical Appendix B-1 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 8 of 10

• Zion Church Road and Glencoe Road (between Zion Church and US 26) traffic volumes have increased dramatically since 1994, up from about 4,000 vehicles daily to over 13,000 vehicles daily. The remaining growth to 2020 is relatively small compared to recent trends. Separate left-turn pockets at all non-residential uses in this segment could improve safety. A full three-lane treatment is not recommended since most of this segment length is outside the UGB and it will have low intensity uses. The area near the US 26 interchange will need turn lanes and/or access control.

Road Junction Capacity Analysis A separate analysis was made for rural locations to account for the absence of traffic signal controls. All of the rural locations analyzed have stop sign controls which have a different methodology and results than intersections that are controlled by traffic signals as in the urban area.

Forecasted (2020) PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service (Rural Area) Intersection Worst Approach Delay Minor Approach Level Major Approach Level (seconds per vehicle) of Service of Service Highway 47 / Verboort-Purdin 38.2 E C Highway 47 / Scoggins Valley 21.3 C A Zion Church Road/ Susbauer Road 15.3 C A Scholls Ferry / 175th Ave. > 60 F A Highway 210 / Scholls – Sherwood > 60 F A Elwert / Edy 14.8 B B River Road / Farmington Road 27.5 D C Clark Hill Road / Farmington Road 11.2 B A Highway 210 / River Road > 60 F A Highway 219 / Tongue Lane 18.5 C A Highway 219 / Farmington Road 39.2 E A Highway 219 / Hwy. 210-Scholls 18.0 C A Scholls-Sherwood / Lebeau 37.7 E C 209th-Grabhorn / Farmington Road > 60 F A Cornelius Pass Rd. / Old CPR 27.3 D C Technical Appendix B-1 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 9 of 10 Rural Intersection Capacity Needs Location Type of Problem Possible Improvements Glencoe Road / US Rural capacity interchange cannot Modify interchange to separate ramp 26 support existing and future volumes. junctions. Access control for nearby Re-design of interchange and its ramp driveways. Widen bridge crossing over junctions is required. US 26. Jackson School At-grade intersection cannot service Grade-separated interchange. Road / US 26 existing or forecasted travel demands. Helvetia Road-Shute Existing configuration not sufficient to Modified interchange on north side of Road / US 26 serve long-range growth to and from freeway to resolve proximity of the south in urban area. Jacobson Road with north junction. Helvetia Road / West Existing offset T-intersections not Re-align West Union approaches to a Union Road sufficient for long-term volume growth single intersection. Control with traffic on West Union Road. signal or roundabout. 185th Avenue / Existing T-intersection not effective for Possibly re-align east and south Springville Road long-term growth. Major movements approaches function as a “continuous” between east leg of Springville Road route eliminating high volume turn and south leg of 185th Avenue. movements. North leg would become minor approach. Install traffic signal controls. Highway 47 / High speeds on Hwy. 47 and growth in Install traffic signal or rural roundabout. Verboort Road – cross traffic needs more capacity. Purdin Road River Road / All-way STOP control inadequate at Install roundabout or traffic signal Farmington Road peak periods. controls. River Road-Scholls Unconventional 2-way STOP control on Install roundabout or traffic signal Ferry Road / Hwy. T-intersection needs higher capacity controls. 210 and safety solution. Highway 219 / All-way STOP control inadequate at Install roundabout or traffic signal Farmington Road peak periods. controls. Scholls Ferry Road / Two offset T-intersections inadequate Re-align 175th Avenue leg to match 175th Avenue – Roy with forecasted high traffic volumes. Roy Rogers Road. Eliminate existing Rogers Road north leg of intersection. Highway 99W / Increased volumes on Cipole Road Expand Cipole Road approach, re-align Cipole Road cannot be adequately served. roadway as needed.

Operational Issues Roads in the rural area have certain operational issues and characteristics that are not common throughout the county. Possible resolutions to these issues are listed in the table below. Technical Appendix B-1 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 10 of 10 Other Rural Operational Issues and Needs Operational Issue Possible Resolution

Residential Driveway Access — Rural residential Consider limited improvements to appropriate (or farm) driveways have difficulty merging onto residential use driveways on arterial facilities. This high-speed roadways during peaks. could include paving the driveway within the right- of-way. Criteria for vehicle volume and speeds would be required for the arterial to target most critical locations.

Farm Equipment Transport — Many farm vehicles Identify traffic volume threshold and other move at maximum speed of 15 miles per hour. appropriate criteria along agricultural uses where When these vehicles use collector and arterial extra wide gravel shoulders would benefit farm facilities for transportation, there are recurring equipment. conflicts between them and other vehicles that can travel at higher speeds.

Non-Standard Roadway Conditions — Many of the Modify “Priority Matrix” funding index adopted in rural local roads have less than standard width for 1988 to allow operations staff to better serve vehicle travel and they may also have narrow where needs occur. A similar principle applies to shoulders for vehicle recovery, and bike and funding for Rural Resource Roads. pedestrian travel.

Commuter Traffic — Rural residents with urban Provide adequate traffic control and capacity area jobs have long commute trips along rural improvements at major intersections to service routes that can have higher vehicle speeds than arterial travel. This should reduce incentives for local traffic. Speed differentials can degrade safety longer trips to “cut through” local streets. for motor vehicle and pedestrian travelers.

Deteriorating Bridges -- It is projected that many Periodically inspect bridges to identify existing and rural timber bridges will be approaching the end of potential bridge deficiencies. Perform necessary their life expectency between now and 2020. Due routine maintenance to to minimize the need for to the limited number of alternate routes in the costly bridge replacements, while anticipating and rural area, closure of a deteriorated bridge can budgeting for needed future replacements listed negatively impact rural as well as urban residents, on the Near- and Far-Term Bridge Replacement resulting in increases in out-of-direction travel, project list located at the end of this section. longer travel times and higher costs for delivery of farm products.

hw2RGQHGHP

l—yout2I sX’wpsh—re’y‚hPHHP’y‚hSVV’working’exhi˜its’dori—’™ommitted•losF—pr x „e™hni™—l2eppendix2fEI ƒignifi™—nt2gongestion †olume2ex™eeds2™—p—™ity †g2b2IFH ere—2within2the r˜—n2qrowth2found—ry gountyline wotor2†ehi™le ‡—shington2gounty PHPH2gommitted2ƒystem

€erform—n™e2hefi™ien™ies

‰

‚

‚

i p sES

h

‚ e † i

V

2

2

‰

x h P U

‡

T r

e i

P † h

h 2

2

‚ ‚

ƒ

x ƒ

v

y v

„ x y y

‚ ƒ

r x

h

i

i g

i v ‚

ƒ 2

†

„

y 2

h † h v 2

e f

‚

‚ revv x

i

i e

i

ƒ f

q

q

h hurh—m

ƒ

i

v f e ‚ † h v v e r q x ƒ s

‚ v

e q v

f ‚ i

v f

v x h

i i ‚

‚h ‚h

x

i i h † e h

‚ † ‚

‚

y v q

h

2 f ‚ 2 2 „ig—rd ‰ g ‚ ‚ i p 2 2 ƒ 2 i x y y h f

‚

x „u—l—tin „ y ƒ

‰ 2

‡ PIU 2 ‰ r

x w™hyxevh2ƒ„ ‰

x e h

w ‚

e y

fv†h h

i i

g w s „

v y

†

e

v ‡

e

r e ‚

x

r ‚ i s

r „ h ƒ

„

h e ‚ ‰

v

ƒ

i

2 „ e

i

x ƒ

h ƒ x

„ evvix

v i

‚

v

s h e

r

I P I

e x ƒ

i † „ e 2 2 s

q „

e

v

e

2 e † i „ S P I r

„

‚

e „

h

i ‚ g x i v uing2gity u e v e ‡

‡

h

I † ‚ i e 2 r „ S Q

h

‚

i † e 2 h ‚ Q R

I fe—verton h

‚h ‚

h

† v ‚ f ‰ e ‚ ‚ w

h i

sƒ ‡

‚

ue W

full h W

wtn x

ƒ 2

s 2 x ‚ 2

s e 2

2

‰ „ 2 „

u h

2

2 ƒ

x x ‡ ‚

e † „ 2 H r S I 2

h i r 2

t 2 h x h y 2

2

i

‚ ‚

‰

2 w

i h

r † e 2 2 V S I f „

2 x

2 h

2 2 ‚ ‰

2 y 2

2 i

h

2

h 2 ‚

„

2 h q

p †

2 ‚

x ‚

‚ 2 i

h ‚

v 2 i i

2

‚

2 e ‚ p

‡ ‚ f i

s 2

2

2

2 y

r ƒ

f

y i

y v

ƒ

„ s v

v

‡

h y

x

†

i ‚ h

‚ r

e e ‚ v i g

w v h ƒ

s w ‚ i x ƒ v

‚ i

†

i e†i

q r „ H U T I

q x P

x 2

s y 2

F

s h ƒ ‚ 2 2 ‚

q i

2 y ‚

‚ y 2 ‰

‚ x 2 F h ƒ ‚ 2 ‚ q i 2 y ‚

‚ y

€ ƒ ‰

‚ x

ƒ

i y h ‚

h t S U I

u „ „

i v q

e x ƒ s

‡ x w

‚

eloh— ƒherwood

‰ h ƒ e

p ‚ e†i ‚

2

r „ S I

V ‚

x

i † e 2 2 2 2 2 r „ S V i

I e p

w

u

„

h

wtn

y

‚h ‚

ƒ h ‚ „ ‚ i ‡ v gooper i y i

‚h ‚

‡

f h ‚ e„

‰ pv

‡ h

i † ‚ 2 2 e 2 2 2 r „ V W u I

2€ h

x ‚

v i

i

ƒ i v v ‡est2 nion

ƒ s

i i x e s „ € ‚ x v

q ‚ i

‚ y ƒ

e i g

ƒ

f

† h

ƒ i

† v

e 2 2

2

s 2

i 2 ‚ r h y „ v

v W H P

i

x y

y

‰ ‚

y r g ‡ h gy‚xivs ƒ2€eƒƒ2‚h g

i

‚

ƒ

i

r

i

ƒ

w

y

‰

r

h ‚ 2

2 2 2 v v s 2 2 2 r 2 2 2

‡ u ‚ e v

r g

h ‚ ƒgryvvƒ

h

‚

2

2

2

2

2

‰ i

v

e i

s

„ e

i v

†

H

v x

I i v h

P 2

r

‰ e y i ‡

r

† ƒ „ q

y

x

‚ s

w

‚ ‰

Īholls

e

p ‡ h ‚

u i e †

€

2

h

y

y

h ‡ y y ‡ u y

y ‚ f u

y h

x

y 2‚

s ‚

i

h ‚ i † s ‚ f „ w ‚ y 2 e h 2 ‚ r v 2 2 2 2 2 22 wy sx 2 x„e e 2 h ‚ x

‚ h i h i „

‚ ‚ † i s ‚ ‰ ‚

‡ q 2r ‚

2 i „

i †

i h

‚

ƒ 2

i

x q

v

i h

s v ‚ f 2 y ‚ h ƒ x y s i

v

x

i

‚

ƒ

y

e

g f

h 2 ‰ e ‚ w s h ‡

W

rills˜oro I

P

2

‰

i ‡

† e

h

‚ 2 r r 2 2 „ H I 2 2 x y ƒ u g e t

h W ‚ I 2 2P ‚ 22 ƒ„ i ‰

„ ‡

i v 2 † e 2 r „ S e r „ r

ƒ u ‚

f

P I W 2 2 ‡ r ‰

u

i

† e 2 2 e 2 2 „ ƒ I 2

r ‰ ‡ 2 r v ƒ v f s y ‚ y y

i

x s s n h i v —

‚ t

i

2 n 2

h ƒ 2 u

‚ 2 o

2

e

i y g x w i v q v 2 f 22 i 222 ‚ 2 222 m e le v — ‚h h he h g

‚

h 2

‚ ‚ h

‚

2

2 2

2 h x i y

h ‚

‚ u y q g

i

x

x

y

V ‚

2

2 ƒ

y 2

2

x

2

r s

‰

f r

y

h g ‡

‚ ‚

‚ r

v

i

y

r x

g e y

v

r

2

2

2 g

2

u

2 ƒ

e i

i

x €

q

y s x

ƒ



y

h i

‚

2 „

2 2

2 v

2 t

‚ yrxƒy i x

‚

e

f

ƒ e

ƒ r

h

g

v

e

qyvp2gy ‚ƒi2‚h f

‚h h ‚ 2 2 v v s r 2 2 e ‡ y s

gornelius

h 2 s 2 x 2 ‚

v p i r

g E ƒ ƒ

v i s

g y x ‚

i

†

e 2 2 r „ P I

‰

w e h ‚ 2 2 x s „ y ‚

‚ h h

‚ ‚

„ ƒ

†er˜oort i

g

x

s

 h y y

‡

v

i

h ‚ h v

v ‚

‚ s

2 w

„ e

v v ‚ v s

r y

v—urelwood y

f

‚

i

†

U R 2 2

x ‰ r

‡ i

† ‚ x i e p

y 2

ˆ

r

s

„

h

W

I

h

‚ h ‚h ‚ 2 2 2 v2 x v s s 2r h 22 ‚ porest q qrove sx € ‚ ƒ€

h

‚ 2

2 ‚ h

x e ‚ ‚h ‰ y

€ h svvi ‚ h „

w V ƒ

i

i‚ e

u r

e„g q

r ‰

„ ‰ U

R i

2 2

‰

r

‡ ‡

r g

r

„ s ‚

‚h

‡x „y h q ‚ h sx ‚ q—ston ‚ ƒ„

‰ h i i ‚ v h s v

ƒ e v sv † r

‚h ‰ i v v e

†

x y Capacity Enhancement Projects Technical Appendix B-2 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Project Road Limits Description Cost Time 5 170th Avenue Merlo to TV Highway Widen to five lanes $12.3 Long Term 6 173rd Bronson to Cornell under US 26 US 26 Under-crossing 3 lanes $11.0 Long Term 7 173rd Bronson to Meadowgrass Widen to three lanes $13.9 Long Term 9 185th Avenue North of Westview High School to Springville Rd Widen to five lanes $9.2 Near Term 12 209th Avenue TV Highway to Farmington Road Realign and Widen to three lanes $21.0 Long Term 14 231st/234th Avenues Baseline Road to Evergreen Widen to three lanes $18.0 Near Term 21 Baseline Road 185th to Brookwood Widen to five lanes $34.8 Near Term 23 Bethany Boulevard West Union Rd to Cornell/Bethany Interchange (US 26) Widen to five lanes $8.3 Long Term 27 Brookwood TV HWY to Alexander 3 lanes $2.0 Long Term 31 Cornell Road 119th to Leahy Widen to three lanes $5.0 Long Term 32 Cornell Road Murray to 179th Widen to five lanes $26.1 Near Term 35 Durham Road ORE 99W to Boones Ferry Road Widen to five lanes $28.9 Long Term 40 Farmington Road 170th to 185th Avenue Widen to five lanes $9.0 Long Term 55 Jenkins Road Murray to 158th Widen to five lanes $7.3 Near Term 56 Johnson Street 185th to 170th Connection New connection $7.6 Near Term 57 Kaiser Road Bethany Boulevard to Cornell Road Widen to three lanes $18.6 Near Term 59 Kaiser Road Springville to Bethany Boulevard Widen to five lanes $4.6 Long Term 63 Murray Boulevard Cornell Road to Science Park Widen to five lanes $1.2 Near Term 72 175th Realign 175th to Beef Bend Road at Scholls Ferry Rd Realignment $15.4 Long Term 74 Springville Road 185th Avenue to PCC Access Widen to five lanes $3.8 Long Term 76 Springville Road PCC Access to Kaiser Road Widen to three lanes $9.6 Long Term 79 Taylor’s Ferry Road Washington Drive to Oleson Road New 2 lane road $2.0 Long Term 80 Tualatin-Sherwood Road ORE 99W to Teton Widen to five lanes $32.0 Near Term 87 Walker Road 185th Avenue to Stucki Widen to five lanes $8.6 Near Term 88 Walker Road 185th to ORE 217 Widen to five lanes $52.4 Near Term 93 West Union Road Springville Ext to 143rd Widen to three lanes $21.3 Long Term 94 103rd Ext Beaverton/Hillsdale HWY to Walker Road New 2 lane road $7.0 Long Term 100 Barnes Road Hospital to Leahy Widen to five lanes $4.0 Long Term 101 Barnes Road Leahy to County Line Widen to three lanes $7.5 Long Term 103 Farmington Road 185th to 209th Widen to three lanes $11.2 Near Term 104 West Union Road Cornelius Pass to Springville Ext Widen to five lanes $12.4 Long Term 106 Saltzman Cornell to Burton Widen to three lanes $7.3 Long Term 107 Scholls Ferry Allen to Beaverton-Hillsdale Widen to three lanes $13.3 Long Term 108 Laidlaw West Union to Kaiser Widen to three lanes $11.0 Long Term 111 Glencoe Highway 26 to Commercial Widen to three lanes $4.3 Long Term 112 Merlo / 158th 170th to Walker/158th Widen to five lanes $12.7 Long Term 113 Millikan Hocken to Murray Widen to three lanes $4.8 Near Term Capacity Enhancement Projects Technical Appendix B-2 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Project Road Limits Description Cost Time 114 Barnes Road Highway 217 to 119th Widen to five lanes $13.8 Near Term 116 Butner Murray to Cedar Hills Widen to three lanes $10.3 Long Term 117 Brookwood Baseline to TV Highway Improve 3 lane road $12.5 Near Term 118 185th Avenue TV HWY to Farmington Widen to five lanes $12.3 Long Term 119 185th Avenue Farmington to Bany Widen to three lanes $9.4 Near Term 121 Alexander 170th to 209th Widen to three lanes $15.3 Long Term 122 Johnson Street 185th to Cornelius Pass Widen to three lanes $13.5 Near Term 123 198th/197th TV HWY to Baseline Widen to three lanes $13.9 Long Term 124 170th/173rd Baseline to Merlo Widen to three lanes $10.0 Long Term 125 175th Outlook LN to Horse Tale Dr Straighten $4.0 Long Term 128 Cornelius Pass Road Amberwood to TV HWY Widen to five lanes $29.4 Near Term 131 Grahams Ferry Tonquin to Cutter Rd Widen to three lanes $8.4 Long Term 132 Day Grahams Ferry to Boones Ferry Widen to three lanes $4.5 Long Term 133 Clutter / Ridder Grahams Ferry to Boones Ferry Widen to three lanes $8.2 Long Term 135 95th Extension Barnes to Leahy New 3 lane road $5.6 Long Term 138 Tonquin Rd Grahams Ferry to Oregon St Realign and widen $20.0 Long Term 153 Glencoe Evergreen Parkway to Jackson Widen to three lanes $14.8 Long Term 156 205th/206th Baseline to Quatama Widen to five lanes $6.6 Near Term 200 Kinnaman Road Farmington to 209th Widen to three lanes $15.4 Long Term 201 Greenburg Road Hall to North Dakota Widen to five lanes $14.9 Near Term 202 Hall Blvd Locust St to Durham Rd Widen to five lanes $41.6 Near Term 203 Bonita Road Hall to Bangy Widen to 4 lanes $14.0 Near Term 204 Upper Boones Ferry Road I-5 to Durham Rd Widen to 5 lanes $8.2 Long Term 205 Dartmouth St Ext Construct extension over HWY 217 to Hunziker Rd. New 3 lane road $4.7 Long Term 206 Dartmouth St 72nd Ave to 68th Pkwy Widen to 4 lanes $3.2 Near Term 212 Scholls Ferry ORE 217 to 121st Widen to 7 lanes $13.3 Long Term 300 113th Extension Rainmont to McDaniel New 2 lane road $3.3 Long Term TOTAL $810.4

Other improvements are not precluded. Near Term is present until 2010. Long Term is 2011 to 2020. Timing of projects is subject to change, based on availablity of funding and other factors. Capacity Enhancement Projects* Technical Appendix B-2 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan

Grade Separate East/West Street North/South Street Candidate Cost Estimate Time Barnes Cedar Hill Blvd $ 1,800,000 Near Term Baseline 10th $ 900,000 Long Term Baseline Cornelius Pass $ 1,150,000 Near Term Baseline 185th yes $ 17,500,000 Long Term Baseline 1st $ 165,000 Long Term Baseline/Adair 14th $ 1,500,000 Near Term Beaverton-Hillsdale Scholls Ferry + Oleson $ 13,000,000 Long Term Bethany Kaiser $ 900,000 Long Term Blanton 198th $ 1,500,000 Long Term Carman 72nd $ 650,000 Long Term Cornell Murray $ 650,000 Near Term Cornell 143rd $ 4,000,000 Long Term Cornell Cornelius Pass yes $ 15,000,000 Long Term Evergreen 185th $ 650,000 Long Term Hall Highway 99W $ 1,400,000 Near Term Jacobson Helvetia $ 400,000 Long Term Jacobson Cornelius Pass $ 650,000 Near Term Johnson 198th $ 650,000 Long Term Kinnaman 198th $ 650,000 Long Term Kinnaman 209th $ 150,000 Long Term Laidlaw Bethany $ 150,000 Long Term Laidlaw Saltzman $ 500,000 Long Term Main 10th $ 1,500,000 Long Term McDonald/Gaarde Highway 99W $ 900,000 Near Term Oak 1st $ 165,000 Long Term Rock 198th/197th $ 3,000,000 Long Term Scholls Ferry Hall $ 1,650,000 Near Term Scholls Ferry Murray $ 900,000 Long Term Scholls Ferry Laurelwood $ 400,000 Near Term Springville 185th $ 400,000 Near Term Tualatin-Sherwood Boones Ferry yes $ 15,650,000 Long Term Tualatin-Sherwood Highway 99W $ 900,000 Near Term TV Highway 209th $ 2,500,000 Near Term TV Highway Quince/HWY 47 $ 400,000 Long Term TV Highway / Farmington Murray yes $ 20,000,000 Long Term Wagon Way Cornelius Pass $ 650,000 Near Term Walker 158th $ 1,650,000 Near Term West Union Cornelius Pass $ 150,000 Near Term TOTAL $ 114,730,000

* These improvements were identified to address link deficiencies. Other intersection improvements are not precluded. Near Term is present until 2010. Long Term is 2011 to 2020. Timing of projects is subject to change, based on availablity of funding and other factors.

10/11/02 Bridge Replacement Projects Technical Appendix B-2 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan

Near and Far-Term Bridge Replacement Projects

Bridge Bridge Assumed Dimensions (ft.) Temp. Estimated Number Name Width Length Bridge? Cost Near-Term Needs (2000-2010)1 1431 Timber Rd. (Beaver Ck.) 36 80 $560,570 18840 Northrup 32 87 $696,000 1365 Murtaugh 24 28 $168,000 19033 Germantown 40 66 $1,200,620 Chicken Creek 64 115 $1,840,000 Roy Rogers #2 46 57 $655,500 RR 3 46 75 $862,500 1429 Baseline Road 86 136 $2,924,000 18951 Clapshaw Hill Road 32 115 $356,648 Oregon Street Bridge 77 69 $600,000 1233 Minter Bridge 38 207 $1,966,500 1234 Minter Bridge 38 190 $1,805,000 1235 Rood Bridge 45 682 $5,063,850 1245 Lafollet Road 37 94 $869,500 Culvert to Bridge $1,000,000 1305 Spieschart Road 24 60 Yes $460,000 1304 Cornelius Schefflin Rd. 66 80 $1,320,000 Culvert to Bridge $1,000,000 1321 Baseline Road 64 100 $1,600,000 1322 Baseline Road 64 175 $2,800,000 1364 Meacham Road 28 80 Yes $1,060,000 Culvert to Bridge $1,000,000 1367 Greener Road 32 80 $640,000 1237 229th Ave. 40 75 $750,000 1298 Roy Road 36 60 $540,000 1302 Roy Road 36 100 $900,000 1296 Porter Road 32 60 $480,000 1201 Oleson Road 66 60 $990,000 1309 Hobbs Road 28 80 $560,000 Culvert to Bridge $1,000,000 459 Old Hwy 47 48 150 $1,800,000 736A Old Hwy 47 48 120 $1,440,000 1421 Scholls Ferry Road 66 70 $1,155,000 1239 SW 192nd Ave. 48 40 $480,000 1269 Old Hwy 47 28 80 $560,000 1381 Fisher Road 28 100 $700,000 Culvert to Bridge $1,000,000 1316 Glencoe Road 66 110 $1,815,000 1388 Timber Road 36 130 Yes $1,670,000 1389 Timber Road 36 130 Yes $1,670,000 1311 Padgett Road 32 40 $320,000 1344 Old Cornelies Pass Rd. 28 70 $490,000 Culvert to Bridge $1,000,000 1323 NW 227th Ave. 48 120 $1,440,000 1394 Cochran Road 28 100 $700,000 Bridge Replacement Projects Technical Appendix B-2 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan

1284 Greenville Road 28 90 $630,000 1314 Scotch Church Road 28 120 $840,000 1303 Cornelius Schefflin Rd. 48 150 $1,800,000 1265 Mt. Richmond Road 28 70 $490,000 1263 Mt. Richmond Road 28 80 $560,000 Culvert to Bridge $1,000,000 1255 Springhill Road 48 250 $3,000,000 1275 Gales Creek Road 48 100 Yes $1,700,000 1238 SW 205th Ave. 66 40 $660,000 1232 Minter Bridge Road 28 80 $560,000 Culvert to Bridge $1,000,000 1327 SW 205th Ave. 66 120 $1,980,000 1343 Cornelius Pass Road 48 80 Yes $1,460,000 1204 SW 92nd 66 80 $1,320,000 1362 Uble Road 24 100 $600,000 1391 Vernonia Road 36 130 Yes $1,670,000 Total Estimated Near-Term Costs $71,178,688

Far-Term Needs (2011-2020)1 H001 River Rd. $2,000,000 1333 170th Ave. $630,000 1405 Old TV Hwy. #47 $500,000 1361 Dairy Creek Rd. $900,000 1238 185th Ave. $350,000 1418 Scholls Ferry Rd. $6,000,000 1341 185th Ave. $500,000 1220 Rein Rd. $340,000 1424 Collins Rd. $770,000 1353 Shadybrook Rd. $620,000 1403 Old TV Hwy. #47 $320,000 1374 Turk Rd. $550,000 1326 216th Ave. $1,060,000 1228 Vanderschuere Rd. $540,000 1339 West Union Rd. $1,280,000 1406 Old TV Hwy. #47 $520,000 18738 Stringtown Rd. $470,000 1266 South Rd. $850,000 1249 Fern Hill Rd. $1,320,000 1340 185th Ave. $760,000 1279 Roderick Rd. $1,500,000 1390 Timber Rd. $660,000 1329 197th Ave. $810,000 1407 Old TV Hwy. #47 $1,010,000 1280 Stringtown Rd. $2,000,000 1290 Cedar Canyon Rd. $730,000 1225 Scholls-Mtn. Home Rd. $610,000 1227 Midway Rd. $610,000 1408 Murray Blvd. $4,010,000 1409 Jay St. $410,000 1373 Green Mountain Rd. $610,000 Bridge Replacement Projects Technical Appendix B-2 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan

1402 West Shore Dr. $2,000,000 1256 Spring Hill Rd. $1,800,000 1300 Harrington Rd. $590,000 1351 West Union Rd. $1,110,000 1297 Evers Rd. $750,000 1401 West Shore Dr. $2,450,000 1376 Pihl Rd. $840,000 1202 Nicol Rd. $220,000 1203 Bowmann Pky. $450,000 1206 86th Ave. $310,000 1214 198th Ave. $250,000 1400 Butner Rd. $420,000 1211 65th Ave. $1,270,000 1335 Jenkins Rd. $520,000 H003 Brookwood Ave. $1,500,000 1355 Murray Blvd. $840,000 1420 Scholls Hwy. $710,000 1263 Mt. Richmond Rd. $400,000 1425 Collins Rd. $480,000 1293 Reilling Rd. $290,000 18741 Fern Flat Rd. $410,000 1382 Staley Rd. $340,000 1273 Soda Springs Rd. $310,000 1393 Cochran Rd. $380,000 1218 Oberst Rd. $210,000 1219 Labrousse Rd. $210,000 1229 McCormack Hill Rd. $250,000 1264 Mt. Richmond Rd. $1,090,000 1277 Parsons Rd. $1,240,000 1294 Evers Rd. $390,000 1299 Harrington Rd. $580,000 1349 Jackson Quarry Rd. $240,000 1354 Jarrel Rd. $210,000 1371 Fern Flat Rd. $260,000 1377 Pongratz Rd. $210,000 1315 Jackson School Rd. $540,000 18034 Greenville Rd. $890,000 18035 Cedar Canyon Rd. $540,000 1258 Ritchey Rd. $830,000 1287 Cedar Canyon Rd. $320,000 1310 Susbauer Rd. $1,150,000 1312 Padgett Rd. $1,400,000 1313 Hornecker Rd. $1,600,000 1360 Mountaindale Rd. $250,000 1217 Elsner Rd. $3,390,000 1243 Gaston Rd. $820,000 1246 Golf Course Rd. $5,300,000 1366 Dairy Creek Rd. $620,000 1417 Vernonia Rd. $230,000 Total Estimated Far-Term Costs $74,650,000 Bridge Replacement Projects Technical Appendix B-2 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan

Notes: 1 Far-term need may be addressed before a near-term need if the project qualifies for highly competitive HBRR program funding, a catastrophic failure occurs, or a sudden critical deficiency is identified that requires immediate action. „e™hni™—l2eppendix2fEP

h 2‚ v sv r x2 ƒ ƒy 2 h e 2PT w ‚ 2

u

y ‡—shington2gounty wy x„ y esx ‚ hev f i ‰ h e ‚h r ƒ ‚o—dw—y2€roje™t2w—p x y‚„r 22e†i xorth €l—ins ‡iƒ„ xsyx III relveti— ÷ø ‚ h ÷øIQR €roje™t2xum˜er h

‚ 2 2 2 2

x

y

h

‚ y ere—2outside2the q ex„y‡x ƒ qi‚w r˜—n2qrowth2found—ry ‚ x h ƒi h ‚gr h „ ‚ gr ‚ 22 ‚h r‡ syx ‰

e s ƒ „ ƒ i i e

y € †

g v i x

i r

v ‚h

q ‡est2 nion

ƒ ƒ€‚sx vi h q†sv s ‚ U 2 v UR T 2 SW 2 i 2 óô 2 ô x ‡ ó u i ô I R ƒ ó H „ e x ‚ ø sƒ y y ÷ i

ƒ g ‚ u IHV g xsy e ÷ø x t i†i‚ q‚iix22222‚h W WQ óô óô‚ ry‚xi h IHP gu i i‚2‚h ‡‰ i† ø u i † ÷ ‚q 2€ ‚iix ‚ e 2 h 2 h € 2 u 2 ‡ 2 y

2 ‰ y „

ƒ h ‡

I ‚ u 2 2 2 y U 2 2 y gy‚ ô ‚ x ó ‚ i f vv ƒ i 222 i 22 PT ISQ † e

ø e f ÷ PQ i ƒ SU óô † ‚h T ôe

ó2 ‚h ƒ QPô ó h gy‚xivv óô

‚

i Q

R

† QP I

e

2 2 VU óô r óô IHT „ ÷ø S ‡ e ivv IPV vu gy‚x ÷ø i‚ r‡‰22222V feƒ feƒivsxi ivsxi i Q I ƒ„ † TQ ô

r ó i ‚h e

2 „ óô † VV S P I IST r gy‚xivs ƒ2€eƒƒ2‚h ‚ e V ô h „ ye ø ó u ô ÷ ƒ ó I „ V

S

h

I

y r ‚h

y „ feƒivsxi H

‡ i I rills˜oro I u † P y e óô IIP y

‚ ÷ø I I h H f IIT IPV IIR IQS ÷ø‚ W ÷ø ÷ø ø I ÷ø ÷

P PU

2 IPR 2 ô fe‚xi ó ƒ ‰ ÷ø IP ti Q x ‡ IHH ‡ u q ø sx ÷ e ƒ ø r ÷ y „ e IIP vu ƒ22PT

v h v SS

e„sx wøi i‚ vƒ p ÷‚ vy2‚ ô v ó ‚ s

2 h r g †evv

y i‰ VV

IPP ô 2V ó 2 r‡

‚ ‰ ø ‚ ‰

÷ h ƒ ST ‡

i óô r

2 ‚ IIU ‚h h ÷ø ‚ IP I eloh— S e ô h ÷ø ó i IIQ g x ø ex‰y ÷ g fe—verton „yx PHH ‰ q i22222vexi ø WR ‚ ÷ ‚

II óô i t V

p y

i

ø e†i ÷i

fie†i‚„ r h yx † ‚

i † x e

e † 2

2

2 ƒ

2 Ie 2 P 2 2 2

2 y h 2 2 2 ô2 ó2

r x ‚ 2 2 r x vƒ „ y v i „ r „ h V y q „ S q r W

‚ x V g W s 2 h s I w ƒ 2 H I ‚ R v H ‚ ‰ e P p v ƒgryyv f s óô 2 ‡ he†sƒ22222 IHU r ‚ ‚ evvix fv†h h 2 h r h ø 2 2 ÷

y

e

y

y h

r ‚

‡

‚

‚ „

y y

H r s

f ‚yƒih h evi22222 U ‚h ‡

ƒ I ‚

v IHQ

‰ h

v

s ø ÷ † hixx IIW i‰ ‚h

v r ø f ÷ f

‚ re‚„22222‚ ur h e v ‚ qe‚hix „i i R ‚ P Q 2 †

‚ I h s óô U

‚ x y re ƒ vv i

‰ v y

e

gr ‚ e‚v h iƒ ‚yfsxƒyx ‚

‚ ‚h fv

w † ‚h h UW x óô y sxq„ pe‚w gooper ‡is‚222 i 22‚h †

e

wtn 2

r i

„

S PIP PH† I P ø e

h ÷ I ÷ø r t ‡ S ‰ U 22 I 2 h P h

I ‚ h

† W 2 ‚

2

v

2

2 q

‚ 2 s† IPS f i v ‚ ø i i ‚ v ÷ i x s

2 † f 22 2 r

e ‚ 2 2 ‚ 2 2 x q 2 2 e ‚ 2

h „svi ‰ i „ h 2 ‚ w

p †

u v ‚ ƒ h i e I ‚ e p 2 si

„ 2 P e ƒ r I v „ P v HT v „ ƒ„

g S ø y ÷

r Q ‚ g h h UP ƒ I ‡evx „ PHS ‚ pi‚‚‰ óô ÷ø S

E

s fevh €ieu full ve F ‚iv22222‚h h wtn „ig—rd ‚

H 2 I ƒgry ƒ P vvƒ 2 ‚ i revv

‰ i qee‚hi2ƒ„ PHP †

q w™hyx e e ‡ vh2ƒ„ ÷ø r y

‚ wy 2 x„esx

‰ ‚h h

y †

‚ v PHQ f ÷ø g h e † h e 2 — h

r l x

e h

„ m uing2gity P

‚ H v

U

2

S 2 v

2 ‰ 2 I 2 h ‚re e 2 e w ‚h PHR 22 ƒ r

‡ 2 g ø fi h ÷ 22 ip2222 xh22222‚ h w r i s f QS

o y w ƒ™holls ô u ó n v t v — ƒ in s h ‚

F ‚

h i hurh—m

‚ x

2

ƒri‚‡yyh ƒ ‚h ƒ v

‚

i

i „ eve„sx

q w

y y

‚ ‚h 2

‰ x

„ y

e

‚ s W‡ x 222W 2r ‡‰ y r „u—l—tin w i 2‚ ‚h h yh y ‚‡ ri ƒeqi‚„ ‚h h ƒ

‚ e†i‚‰22ƒ„ ve„sx ih‰ ‚h „ e ih‰22222‚h óôVH

W „ I ‚ ƒ„ P rywi i x 2 y ‰ q ‡ i v ‚ ‡ y i

r ‚

h ƒherwood

h

‚

2

2

2

‰

‚

ƒ xƒi„ fv†h ‚

i

p

2

IQV 2

2

÷ø ƒ

i

x

y

f‚yyuwex2‚h IQI y

i ø f ÷ † ÷øIQP e I I ÷øQ ivvsqƒix222‚h ‡ilsonville÷øIQQ

xoteX „he2inform—tion2presented2on2this2m—p2illustr—tive2 purposes2onlyF22€le—se2refer2to2the2g—p—™ity2 inh—n™ement2€roje™ts2—nd2the2snterse™tion2 smprovements2t—˜les2in2„e™hni™—l2eppendix2fEPF sX’plng’wpsh—re’y‚hPHHP’y‚hSVV’working’exh˜its’dori—’proje™tsF—pr l—yout2IIGIUE r˜—n2f‡•™ounty hw2RGQHGPHHP Technical Appendix B-3 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Level of Service Descriptions

The term Level-of-Service (LOS) is used to describe how a roadway performs. Like school grades, vehicular congestion is ranked from A to F. Rank ‘A’ is considered very good (virtually free flow conditions), and rank ‘F’ is bad (forced flow conditions). For this planning effort Washington County used a computer model to translate existing and future residential and employment into future travel demand. This analysis was conducted for a twenty year planning horizon (2020). The following table describes how LOS is evaluated.

LEVEL-OF-SERVICE (LOS) DEFINITIONS

LOS Freeway Arterial Signalized Traffic Flow Characteristics 1 2 (average travel (average travel Intersections speed assuming 70 speed assuming a (average controlled delay mph design speed) typical free flow per vehicle) speed of 40 mph)

Greater than 60 mph Less than 10 seconds; Virtually free flow; completely unimpeded Average spacing: Greater than 35 mph most vehicles do not stop A Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratio less than of equal to .60 22 car-lengths at all

57 to 60 mph 10.1 to 20 seconds; more Stable flow with slight delays; reasonably unimpeded Average spacing: 28 to 35 mph B vehicles stop than LOS A Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratio .61 to .70 13 car-lengths

54 to 57 mph 20.1 to 35 seconds; Stable flow with delays; less freedom to maneuver Average spacing: 22 to 28 mph individual cycle failures C Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratio .71 to .80 9 car-lengths may begin to appear 46 to 54 mph 35.1 to 55 seconds; High Density, but stable flow Average spacing: 17 to 22 mph individual cycle failures are D Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratio .81 to .90 6 car-lengths noticeable 30 to 46 mph 55.1 to 80 seconds; Operating conditions at or near capacity; unstable flow Average spacing: 13 to 17 mph individual cycle failures are E Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratio .91 to 1.00 4 car-lengths frequent; poor progression Less than 30 mph More than 80 seconds; not Forced flow, breakdown conditions Average spacing: Less than 13 mph F acceptable for most drivers Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratio greater than 1.00 Bumper to bumper Demand exceeds roadway capacity, limiting volume that can be carried and Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratios of greater than 1.10 >F forcing excess demand onto parallel routes and extending the peak period.

Definitions: Average speed: the total speed of all vehicles divided by the number of vehicles. Average delay: the total delay experienced by all vehicles divided by the number of vehicles. Controlled delay: the delay a signal causes a vehicle, from the point the vehicle begins to decelerate until it is back up to speed. Average spacing: the average distance between vehicles. Cycle: A complete sequence of signal indications. Cycle failure: When a vehicle must wait for more than one cycle.

Notes: 1. The following Travel Flow Characteristics (V/C Ratio) were used to determine needs and deficiencies during the planning process. Generally when a roadway approached LOS “F”, a project was added to the plan to address the deficiency problem: A Virtually free flow; completely unimpeded: Volume/Capacity ratio less than of equal to .60. B Stable flow with slight delays; reasonably unimpeded: Volume/capacity ratio .61 to .70. C Stable flow with delays, less freedom to maneuver: Volume/Capacity ratio .71 to .80. D High Density but stable flow: Volume/Capacity ratio .81 to .90. E Operating conditions at or near capacity; unstable flow Volume/Capacity ratio.91 to 0.99. F Forced flow, breakdown conditions Volume/Capacity ratio greater than 0.99. >F Volume/Capacity ratios of greater than 1.10.

2. Signalized Intersection Delay will typically be used to assess the transportation system during development review and project development. Technical Appendix B-4 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 1 of 5 Transportation System Management Needs

Background The movement of people, goods, and services is a key factor in the Washington County’s competitive marketplace. An efficient transportation system is essential for mobility and transportation infrastructure is a crucial element of this system. Expansion of the roadway system is encountering significant resistance in terms of infrastructure costs, available land and environmental constraints along many corridors. Despite investments, the county is experiencing increasing congestion and this is resulting in extensive delays, reduced productivity, wasted energy, and a frustrated driving public. The advent of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) in the past ten years has revolutionized the tools available to transportation providers. These alternative measures for serving growth in travel demand improve both the efficiency and functionality of the current system.

While considerable investment has been made in the transportation infrastructure to accommodate growth, significant congestion has occurred on freeway and arterial facilities over the past several years. Several corridors in Washington County are at or nearing their peak operating levels including: • 185th Avenue • Canyon Road • Cornell Road • ORE 217 • Scholls Ferry Road • Tualatin Valley Highway • Tualatin-Sherwood Road • US 26

Numerous agencies throughout the county are responsible for construction, operation and maintenance of the existing and future transportation systems.

The following needs evaluation represent categories of ITS projects. Each section is often dependent on elements from the other sections, and involves functions and issues that span all sections.

A. Communications Infrastructure Communications infrastructure is the backbone of any Intelligent Transportation System. It becomes necessary for government entities to rely more telecommunications infrastructure, in order to support the communications needs of an ITS environment. The challenge will be to plan and accommodate communication needs in such a way as to cover requirements.

Needs The following needs have been identified for improving communications in the Washington County area: • Provide communication network between each of the local agencies Technical Appendix B-4 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 2 of 5

• Expand the communications network for freeway and arterial control and surveillance devices • Provide network connections to schools and other key traffic generators

B. Traveler Information Traveler information provides travelers with the ability to make an intelligent choice, regarding mode, route and travel time. Traveler information systems are multimodal and support many categories of drivers and travelers. They apply a variety of technologies to allow customers to receive roadway, transit network, and other information important to their trip.

This information assists the customers in selecting their mode of travel (auto, train, bus, etc.), route and departure time. Transit schedule and status information may be obtained from Transit Management Systems. Most of the roadway-based information is collected by surveillance equipment (vehicle detectors, cameras, automated vehicle location systems) and is processed by computers in transportation management centers for further distribution to traveler information systems. Other information used in ATIS may be static in nature, such as; map databases, emergency services information, and information on motorist services and tourist attractions and services. The technologies for requesting, receiving, and interacting with all of this information can be based in the home, office, passenger vehicle, commercial vehicle, transit vehicle, public transit station, or in the case of personal communication devices, can travel with a person.

Needs The following needs have been identified for improving the traveler information systems in Washington County: § Advertise existing and future transportation information services § Use radio for broadcasting traffic conditions § Provide traffic information at major employment centers § Provide travel time information on freeway message signs § Encourage local media to provide more traveler information about Washington County area traffic conditions § Provide toll free telephone number for traffic conditions § Tailor traffic information in response to traveler’s request § Provide route planning and guidance based on real-time traffic conditions § Provide dynamic ride sharing and ride matching information § Provide traffic/travel advisory information to drivers through in-vehicle devices § Distribute traffic information via Highway Advisory Radio § Monitor weather conditions with roadway sensors § Promote transit with real-time arrival/departure information § Provide easy to use and easy to access traveler information § Provide easy to maintain traveler information components § Reduce information distribution costs through public-private partnerships.

C. Incident Management The freeway and arterial incident management plan covers operation of any function, device or system that is dedicated to the response to or monitoring of incidents on arterials and freeways. Technical Appendix B-4 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 3 of 5

The only existing incident management function operated in Washington County’s various transportation management agencies is an incident response truck that is used by ODOT in the Portland Region, the COMET Truck. These trucks operate on the region’s inner freeway system bounded by ORE 217, US 26, I-5, I-84 and I-205. The only device deployed in this region for emergency management is Emergency Vehicle Signal Preemption equipment. ODOT, Washington County and the Cities within Washington County have Emergency Vehicle Preemption equipment on over 95% of their traffic signals. ODOT has CCTV cameras installed along ORE 217 and Interstate 5 within the county limits for the purpose of managing incidents and monitoring congestion. The County will also use them for monitoring their traffic signals.

Needs The following needs have been identified for improving the management of incidents in the Washington County area: § Real-time traffic and incident severity information to fire, police and 911 § Incident response vehicles § Real-time congestion and incident information for dispatchers § Automated incident detection § Coordinated response to incidents with local agencies § Tracking system for vehicles carrying hazardous materials § Predefined hazardous material routes § Computer aided dispatch system and wireless communication equipment for emergency response § Dynamic routing of emergency vehicles based on current traffic conditions § Support private sector deployment of mayday1 system § Information to residents about movement of hazardous materials in their neighborhoods

D. Transportation Management The freeway and arterial transportation management plan covers the operation of all functions, devices and systems installed or developed for managing freeways and arterials. Currently, Washington County has the following freeway and arterial operation and management elements in use or under construction: § ODOT has ramp meters on all eastbound ramps on US 26 from Shute Road to ORE 217 § ODOT has ramp meters on all westbound ramps on US 26 from ORE 217 to 185th Avenue § OODT has ramp meters on all ramps (both directions) on ORE 217 § ODOT has changeable message signs (CMS) for disseminating incident or event information to motorists § ODOT has CCTV cameras positioned at the Cedar Hills Shopping Center (ORE 217/US26) and along ORE 217.

The existing ramp meters operate on a time-of-day control based on historical volume counts. ODOT plans to upgrade this system to dynamically respond to real-time freeway conditions.

1 A mayday system includes an in-vehicle device for determining vehicle crash locations and transmitting that information. Technical Appendix B-4 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 4 of 5

Needs The following needs have been identified for improving the management of the transportation system in the Washington County area: § Install variable speed limit signs for use during harsh weather conditions and/or incidents § Construct traffic management center(s) § Coordinate ramp meters with traffic signals § Share CCTV cameras with all regional agencies § Improve traffic management during special events § Provide a centrally managed data warehouse § Provide network surveillance equipment such as detectors and cameras § Provide real-time travel time information § Improve monitoring and control capabilities for surface street equipment such as traffic signals § Improve monitoring and control capabilities for freeway equipment such as cameras, detectors, ramp meters, HOV facilities (future), and message signs § Use historic traffic data to predict roadway conditions during special events and incidents § Provide electronic toll collection on any future toll roads § Support private sector ventures in advanced vehicle safety systems § Monitor the movement of trains near at-grade intersections in real-time

E. Traffic Signal System The existing traffic signal systems in Washington County, while functional, will not continue to meet the growing needs of the signal system operators and local residents. ODOT, Washington County, and the Cities of Hillsboro, Beaverton, Tigard and Tualatin all operate traffic signals within the County. Between these agencies, there are several different types of traffic signal controllers in use and several different remote-monitoring systems used to communicate to local traffic signal controllers. The majority of traffic signals in the region do not have a communications link back to any of the agency headquarters, therefore when a change needs to be made to a timing parameter, a technician must go to each signal location in the field.

On most of the major corridors in the area, the local agencies are using either time-of- day or in a few locations, traffic responsive signal coordination to improve the progression of traffic through these corridors.

Needs The following needs have been identified for improving traffic signal system in Washington County: § Improved monitoring and control capabilities for traffic signals § Control and monitoring of traffic signals across jurisdictional boundaries § Upgrade pre-timed signals to actuated § Improved signal coordination for key corridors in the region § Improve signal coordination across agency boundaries § Compatible traffic signal equipment amongst all agencies § Automated signal timing records database Technical Appendix B-4 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 5 of 5

F. Transit Priority Public transit plays an important role in passenger transportation in Washington County. The Tri-Met bus system carries some 90,000 passengers on an average weekday on 33 routes including Westside MAX light rail trains. Priority measures for Tri-Met buses can make transit more attractive to travelers by helping make bus travel times shorter and more consistent.

In the realm of Intelligent Transportation Systems, buses can benefit from active priority at traffic signals. Tri-Met buses currently receive active priority treatment at only a few traffic signals in the County. Installation of new or upgraded equipment at traffic signals and on buses would be required to expand bus priority service in the County.

Needs The following needs have been identified for improving transit priority in Washington County: § Improve travel time § Coordination with local agencies for operation of transit priority equipment § Increase transit ridership § Increase transit reliability in congested environments

G. Transit Operations and Management Advanced Public Transportation System (APTS) technologies address two major aspects of transit operations: (1) transit traveler information systems and (2) transit agency operations and management. As with ATIS technology focused on the automobile driver, APTS traveler information technologies provide public transportation riders with information needs to make appropriate travel choices. Advances in vehicle location technologies and data communications permit the delivery of real-time bus location information to transit users via a number of modes including: bus stop signs; the internet: freeway variable message signs (VMS); personal communications devices; and kiosks in employer locations and throughout the city. Most of these modes also provide information to automobile users and transit information should be integrated with traffic information.

Transit operation and management tools also benefit from technological advances, and help transit providers increase efficiency and improve quality of service provided to the public. Automation and integration lead to improvements in transit service planning, emergency situation handling, operations monitoring, and vehicle maintenance record keeping.

Needs The following needs have been identified for improving the transit operation and management in Washington County: § Monitor Tri-Met buses in real-time § Provide transit arrival/departure information on the internet § Provide real-time transit information at transit stops and on-board transit vehicles § Share traveler information with other regional agencies § Recommend an optimum route per travelers request § Provide automated fare collection § Provide additional security at transit stops and in vehicles Technical Appendix B-5 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Existing Bridge Conditions

Existing bridge conditions are shown on the following map and summarized in the table below. A majority of the 181 bridges maintained by Washington County meet structural and operational standards, however, a number of them are functionally obsolete, structurally deficient, listed as an accelerated inspection location, or weight limited. A brief description of each of the substandard categories follows, in order of best to worst conditions: § Functionally Obsolete — Functionally Obsolete means that the deck geometry, vertical clearances, or approach alignment are inadequate (appraisal ratings of three or less) or if the structural condition or waterway adequacy have an appraisal rating of three or less. § Structurally Deficient — Structurally Deficient requires that the condition rating be four or less for the deck, superstructure or substructure or an appraisal rating of two or less for structural condition or waterway adequacy. A four-condition rating is defined as "Poor Condition - advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling or scour." An appraisal rating of two is defined as " basically intolerable, requiring high priority of replacement." § Accelerated Inspection — The accelerated bridge inspection schedules are set up primarily to inspect bridges for known problematic characteristics, identified either by load rating calculations or by standard routine bridge inspections. Accelerated inspections allow for monitoring known problematic areas on these bridges to ensure integrity of the structure until such time that the members are replaced. § Weight Limit — A load restriction to prohibit heavy vehicles allows for limited vehicle passage until adequate maintenance funding becomes available.

As indicated in Table 1 below, the vast majority of Washington County bridges meet standards, with only 2 percent being rated as structurally deficient. However, the aging of the County’s bridge system has caused 27 bridges to be weight-limited and 22 bridges to be placed on the accelerated inspection program to monitor sudden changes in condition. Approximately 25 percent of the County’s bridges, most located in the rural area, are functionally obsolete.

Table 1: Bridge Condition Status, January 20011

Bridge Number (% of Total) Meets Standards 89 (49%) Functionally Obsolete 46 (25%) Structurally Deficient 4 (2%) Accelerated Inspection Program 27 (15%) Weight Limit 22 (12%)

Notes: 1Bridge may be in more than one category. r ‡‰

P T 5 5 ƒ5 5 6 ixisting2fridge2gonditions 55 ƒ xƒi„222r‡‰ „e™hni™—l2eppendix2fES

U ÊÚ ƒr R i ‚ w e x 2w Êڄi m˜e r s v v 22 2 ‚ 6h

‰

‡ ƒ5 5 r

55 5 ƒ5ƒ5fuxton ÊÚ ƒ 5 PT 5 56 55 5 qlenwood 5 6 ÊÚ 5 ƒ5 5

r ‡ ‰ 6„ 7 V 665 fexuƒ2‚h 5 6 h f—nks 5 ‚ 6 2 v sv 2r ‰ x r‡‰ 2r‡ ƒ ƒy 5 i‚ s† 22 h e T x2‚ PT w ƒy ‚ ‡sv 2 u wy y x„ y esxh ‚ evi f 6 ‰ 5 h e ‚ r h ƒ

xy‚ 5 „r22e †i 5 6 xorth 6 ‡iƒ„ q‚iix†svviE‚y‰222‚h €l—ins 5 5 syx 5 x ÊÚ relveti— ‚ h 5 65 h ‚ 5 q 2 r 2 e sv 2 6 2 v vƒ i sh x i ‚ ƒ y y ‰ h

‚

y

q ‚ „y‡x h 6 i‚wex ƒ q 6 ‚ x 5 h ƒi h r ‚gr h „2 ‚ g ‚ 2 ÊÚ ‚h r‡ g syx ‰ ÊÚ ‚  i i u 6 se ƒ „ ƒ 6 i e

y € uiw€e‚ †i

g v i ‚h x i 5r 5 v ‚h

„ q ‡est2 nion r ‚ e 5 6 h ƒ „ 6 ƒ ƒ€‚ i g h sxq v †sv r s ‚ U 2 v i 2 R 2 i 2 ‚ 2 5 2 2 x ‡i u ƒ„ e ‰ x ‚ sƒ 5 y y ‡ i ƒ g r ‚ †er˜oort u

5 g 6 ƒ x € 6„ e sy ‚ x hsx2‚h h t †i‚fyy‚„2‚ i†i‚q‚iix22222‚h

h ‚

‚ h

2 2 ry‚xigui ‰ ‚2‚h i ‡ ‚ x i† † u s i‚q 5 € ‚ ‚ h 2 ii

„ x e 2 h 2 h €

2 ‚ u 5 2 ‡

y 2 e 2 ‰ y h

„ w

‚ 5 ƒ h ‡ 2

2 I

2 ‚ u 52 2 y x 2 s 5 2 2 y v gy‚ ‚ ‚ x

p i f vv ƒ2 5 „ i i 22 2 i 2 ƒ r PT 5 † e

V g

e ‡‰ f i

r ƒ

E ƒ ƒ † 5 ƒ ‚h „ e i ‚h 2

ƒ

‚ s

ÊÚ h s g gy‚xivv x v 5 x ‚ q s i ÊÚ „ 6 i Q

x y R †

I

 6‚

‡ e

2

y 2 x ÊÚ

g r

porest ÊÚ „ S 6 ‡ h e ivv ‚ vu y‚x qrove i‚ g r‡‰22222V fe feƒivsxi ƒivsxi i

ƒ„ † 2 r 5 IW„r e†i ‚h e 6„ „ 2 ‰ gornelius S r fridgesEnotE—™™eler—ted2list i gy‚xivs ƒ2€eƒƒ2‚h e†i ‚

r V g yeu ƒ„ h „ „ I s V

6„ S ‚ h i 6

6 I † y 6 e r ‚h 2 y 2 „ feƒivsxi H

r ‡ ‚ i I rills˜oro

„ u h † ƒ5 P

y e I 5 y 6 ‚ 6„ h f ‚

h W 5 xo2hefien™y s 5 6

I v

P

v 2 fe 2 ‚ i 6 ÊÚ xiƒ

‰ ‰ 5 t 5 ix ‡ h u 5 q ‡ s xƒ e

ÊÚ r ‚ 5 y 5 v 5 u „ ƒ22PT ev h

5 v i 5 e„s ƒ x 5 ‚ v wi‚

5 p vy2‚ 5 ‚ sv h

‚ 2 r g †ev h vi

y ‰ V r‡ ‚ 22

‚ ‰ h ‰

ƒ pun™tion—lly2y˜solete

6 ‡ i 6

5 r 2

‚ h

‚ ‚ h e v eloh— 5 h v s i r g ‰yx gex

fe—verton ‰ ƒ g „yxq i222 ÊÚ ‚ 5 22vexi y x ‚ 7 ƒtru™tur—lly2hefi™ient q i‚ i q p t ÊÚ p

i y

i sx e†i fie†i‚„y

ƒ r † ‚h x

6„ i †

e x

e

† 2

2 2 ƒ e 2 2 2 2 2

2 y 7 2 h 2 2 5 2

2 r

x ‚ 2 2 r x ƒ

6 „ v y i „ r „ v h V 5 y „ S q 6„ q U W x r ‚ W V s g R 2 h ƒ I w 2 ÊÚ s H 5 I ƒ 2 2 € ‚ v ‚ P e ‰ ‚ ‰ p v ƒg s s ryyv f x 2 † ‡ ‡ he†sƒ22222 r ‡eight2vimited e ‚ fv†h q 2 ‚ h h evvix r

v r 2 h

v 2 2 ÊÚ 2 y i 2 e ‰ r y

s y h r ‚ v ‡

„ v ‚ ‚

y

y

2 H r 7 s

2 f 2 h ‚yƒihe 2 2 U ‚ vi22 2 ‚h ‡

ƒ

h I ‚

v

‰ h

6 v

s ixx † h i‰ ‚h v r f ‚h ÊÚ f 6 gherry2qrove ‚ 2 2 6„ u re‚„22 2 ‚h 5 r e ‚ 6qe‚hix v 5 „ i i‚ PI 2‚h † s ÊÚ U ‚ x y fridgesE—™™eler—ted2list 5 r ƒ 5 e vv i ‰ v

e y e ‚ †e gr ‚ h ‚ vvi‰ viƒ ‚yfsxƒyx ‚ ‚h fv

h w † ‚ h 5 ‚h 5 x x 7 „„y „y e sxq € pe‚w gooper xo2hefi™ien™y i ƒ5 ‡is‚22222‚h yx † 5 „ 2 e ƒ 2‚h qe hsˆyx wtn 2

r i w „ † s v S 6 P v e

h

I t 5 6 ‚h r ÊÚ ‡ S q—ston ‰ U ÊÚ I 2 ÊÚ 22P h h I ‚ W 2 ‚ 2

2

2

‚ 2 q pun™tion—lly2y˜solete s† fv†h 6„ i v ‚

i i ‚ v i 2 s xf 22 5 † ƒ 2 r 2 2 e ‚ ‚ 2

2 x 2 q 2 ‚ h 2 e

i

2 „s vi ‰ „ h ‚ w

u p †

ƒ5 v ‚ ƒ h i

‚ e p e I i

2 s 2 P e „ ƒ

r ve v I „ ‚iv v ‡y v „ ƒ„ g y y r S h ‚ g Q

‚ h h ƒ I ‡evx „ h ‚ pi ‚‚‰ ƒtru™tur—lly2hefi™ient S 7 E

s v—urelwood fevh €ieu full ve F 6 h ‚iv22222‚h „ig—rd ‚ wtn H 2 I ƒgryvvƒ ƒ P 2 ‚ revv

i ‰ qee‚hi2ƒ„ q w™h xevh2ƒ„ ‡ y e†i

y r ‚ wy 2 x„esx ‚

‰ h ‡eight2vimited h

y

† ÊÚ

‚

6„ v

f

g h e † h e

h — 2

r l x e h

P m „ uing2gity ‚ v

H U

2

v 2 5 S 2 ‰

e 22 I h ‚re 2 e w ‚h 22 ƒ r 2 ‡ g 222fixh22222‚h 22 ip2 w h r i s w—jor2‚o—ds f o y

u w Īholls v

n v

t— ƒ in 5 s 6 5 h ‚

5 F ‚

h i hurh—m

‚

x i‚‡ 2 xoteX ƒ ƒ r yyh ‚h ƒ 5 v

‚

i

i „ eve„sx

q ere—2within2the w

y fridge2™ondition2is2˜—sed2on2d—t—2provided2˜y2‡—shington2gountyF2 y ‚ ‚h

2 5

‰ x

„ y r˜—n2qrowth2found—ry e ‚ ‡ e™™eler—ted2˜ridge2inspe™tion2s™hedules2—re2set2up2 s x WW 222 2r ‡‰ y r „u—l—tin w i 2 ‚h prim—rily2to2inspe™t2˜ridges2for2known2pro˜lem—ti™2 ‚ 5 h yh y ‚‡ ere—2outside2the i ƒeqi‚„ ‚h ™h—r—™teristi™sF2 5 ƒr ÊÚ ‚h e†i‚‰22ƒ„ x r˜—n2qrowth2found—ry s pun™tion—lly2y˜solete2refers2to2˜ridges2th—t2—re2too2 ih‰ „ eve „ ‚h n—rrow2to2serve2the2tr—ffi™2dem—ndF22 ih‰22222‚h

W „ I ‚ ƒ„

i x ƒtru™tur—lly2hefi™ient2refers2to2˜ridges2th—t2h—ve2 2P ryw i y ‰ q ‡ i v ‚ ‡ y i

r ‚ stru™tur—l2defi™ien™iesF22 h ƒherwood

h

‚

2

2

2

‰

‡eight2vimited2refers2to2˜ridges2th—t2h—ve2—ssigned2 ‚

ƒ xƒi„ fv†h ‚

i

p

2

2

2 vehi™le2weight2restri™tionsF ƒ

i

x

y

f‚yyuwex2‚h y

f i

† 55 e x 5 ivvsqƒix222‚h ‡ilsonville sX’plng’wpsh—re’y‚hPHHP|y‚hSVV’working’exhi˜its’dori—’˜ridgesF—pr ˜ridges2l—yout hw2SGIGHP Technical Appendix B-6 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan

1997-1999 Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) Map and List

The following map reflects all intersections with three or more recorded accidents or a fatality evaluated in developing the official 1997-1999 Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) List adopted in accordance with Resolution and Order 86-95. Solid circles on the map represent those intersections scoring in the 50th percentile or higher of all evaluated intersections, and they constitute the adopted SPIS list. Open circles represent those additional accident locations evaluated, but scoring below the 50th percentile. The accompanying table provides additional information about the adopted list. Various field abbreviations on this table are defined as follows:

Prev. = Previous ranking from the 1996-1998 SPIS list Rank = Current 1997-1999 list ranking Type = Jurisdiction of intersecting roads (i.e. County with other county, city or state routes) ADT = Average Daily Traffic SPIS = SPIS score #Acc = Number of accidents recorded from 1997-1999 F&A = Number or fatal and class A severe injuries B&C = Number of class B moderate and class C minor injuries PDO = Number of property damage only vehicles (i.e., nobody injured or killed in the vehicle) Technical Appendix B-6 Washington County 2020 WASHINGTON COUNTY Transportation Plan SAFETY PRIORITY INDEX SYSTEM 1997-1999 SPIS RANK Page 1 of 6 Prev Rank type LOCATION INTERSECTING ROAD ADT SPIS #ACC F&A B&C PDO COMMENTS 1 1 co/co Baseline Rd 185th Ave 39110 192.14 100 4 48 48 Jughandle, signal change 1998 4 2 co/state Murray Blvd TV Hwy 67212 132.48 133 0 49 84 13 3 co/city Evergreen Pkwy 185th Ave 39451 119.39 88 0 46 42 3 4 co/state Hall Blvd Scholls Ferry Rd 45707 118.8 85 2 25 58 6 5 co/state Millikan Way/160th Ave TV Hwy 47401 117.76 37 3 25 9 n/b Rt Trn modified 2000 5 6 co/state Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy Scholls Ferry Rd 48120 108.29 47 3 16 28 Feasibility study 98-99 2 7 co/state TV Hwy 185th Ave 63137 106.3 91 0 39 52 18 8 co/state Farmington Rd 170th Ave 31530 102.14 31 3 15 13 Reconstruction 1998/99/170th project 2001 10 9 co/city Nimbus Ave/Dr Scholls Ferry Rd 57877 99.42 50 2 21 27 Loops repl 1998/re-timing planned 1999 17 10 co/state TV Hwy (Canyon Rd) 110th Ave 35797 92.94 29 3 10 16 46 11 co/co Kinnaman Rd 185th Ave 27600 91.37 29 3 8 18 7 12 co/co Garden Home Rd Oleson Rd 27498 90.83 40 2 15 23 14 13 co/city Farmington Rd Murray Blvd 57370 89.7 74 0 31 43 Signal work west leg 1999 20 14 co/state Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy Western Ave/103rd Ave 44709 89.21 47 2 14 31 24 15 co/state River Rd/013th Ave TV Hwy 35259 87.27 39 2 14 23 19 16 co/co Oleson Rd Scholls Ferry Rd 25555 87.16 44 1 22 21 16 17 co/co Walker Rd 158th Ave 39444 86.15 69 0 28 41 11 18 co/state Cornelius Pass Rd TV Hwy 47405 85.87 47 2 12 33 Signal change/Widening 1997 42 19 co/state Farmington Rd River Rd 12140 85.64 17 3 6 8 studied 1998 no change 15 20 co/state TV Hwy 209th Ave 46005 85.08 34 2 15 17 12 21 co/city Allen Blvd Murray Blvd 31016 83.86 70 0 25 45 Signal change 1998 23 22 co/co Barnes Rd 098th Ave (Baltic Ave) 37460 82.11 35 2 12 21 Minor changes 1999 On going work 49 23 co/state Farmington Rd 195th Ave 15884 80.53 13 3 6 4 21 24 co/state Highway 047 Purdin/Verboort 10056 80.45 20 2 11 7 74 25 co/state TV Hwy Witchhazel Rd 37869 79.66 30 2 12 16 35 26 co/co Cornell Rd 185th Ave 34502 79.51 45 1 18 26 signal timing revision 2000 37 27 co/co Rosa Rd 185th Ave 17646 76.25 24 2 9 13 30 28 co/co Cornell Rd 143rd Ave 24995 76.2 25 2 10 13 32 29 co/state Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy 078th Ave 41947 73.63 25 2 10 13 9 30 co/state TV Hwy 198th Ave 51645 73.6 40 1 17 22 Signal change 1997 28 31 co/state Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy 110th Ave 39063 73.54 47 0 25 22 27 32 co/state Highway 099w Kruger Rd/Sunset Blvd 35015 72.74 22 2 10 10 Signalized 1997 34 33 co/state Bull Mountain Rd Highway 099w 45568 71.15 51 0 23 28 8 34 co/co Walker Rd 185th Ave 39405 70.56 40 1 14 25 51 35 co/city Martinazzi Ave Tualatin Sherwood Rd 41834 69.15 31 1 16 14 31 36 co/state Beef Bend Rd Highway 099w 45460 69.06 20 2 9 9 36 37 co/city Hart Rd Murray Blvd 36438 68.39 20 2 8 10 47 38 co/state Brookwood Ave TV Hwy 39042 67.49 27 1 16 10 39 39 co/co Jenkins Rd Murray Blvd 44286 67.06 44 0 22 22 Add Left Turn Lane sig modified 1998 63 40 co/co Kinnaman Rd 175th Ave 12426 64.84 11 2 7 2 Left turn 96-97 58 41 co/co Evergreen Pkwy/Rd Shute Rd 28178 64.66 27 1 13 13 Dual Rt Turns added s to w 98 76 42 co/state Farmington Rd 209th Ave 12545 64.5 23 1 11 11 55 43 co/co Burton St/Oak Hills Dr 143rd Ave 12634 64.14 15 2 4 9 Beacon 95-96/trn lns sig 200? 53 44 co/state Boones Ferry Rd Tualatin Sherwood Rd 49005 63.9 45 0 20 25 230 45 co/state Highway 219 Laurel Rd 4450 62.96 8 2 4 2 109 46 co/state Highway 026 Sellers Rd 11300 62.74 10 2 6 2 Technical Appendix B-6 Washington County 2020 WASHINGTON COUNTY Transportation Plan SAFETY PRIORITY INDEX SYSTEM 1997-1999 SPIS RANK Page 2 of 6 Prev Rank type LOCATION INTERSECTING ROAD ADT SPIS #ACC F&A B&C PDO COMMENTS 73 47 co/co Susbauer Rd Wren Rd 4040 62.2 8 2 3 3 52 48 co/co Nyberg Ln/Rd 065th Ave 18922 61.67 13 2 5 6 43 49 co/co Cornell Rd Murray Blvd 28237 61.22 38 0 18 20 Signal change 1997 59 50 co/state TV Hwy (Canyon Rd) Walker Rd 32290 61.07 15 2 5 8 83 51 co/state Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy 107th Ave 39947 60.99 46 0 17 29 38 52 co/city Boones Bend Dr/121st Ave Scholls Ferry Rd 36158 60.39 30 1 10 19 40 53 co/co Murray Blvd Walker Rd 51992 58.98 41 0 18 23 Dual left turn lanes e/b to n/sig modified 1998 26 54 co/co Cornell Rd Saltzman Rd 31039 58.97 41 0 16 25 61 55 co/co Murray Blvd Scholls Ferry Rd 25442 58.85 19 1 12 6 68 56 co/co Cornelius Pass Rd Cornell Rd 41885 58.55 34 1 8 25 62 57 co/co Johnson St 198th Ave 12006 58.11 22 1 7 14 Traffic Signal 2001/Trn Lns 139 58 co/state Highway 219 Midway Rd 5580 57.92 6 2 4 0 25 59 co/city Cornell Rd Grant St 19808 55.15 11 2 2 7 81 60 co/co Alexander St 198th Ave 12454 54.74 24 0 15 9 Flashing Beacon 1997 91 61 co/co Mayfield Ave Walker Rd 28264 54.68 18 1 10 7 79 62 co/co Day St Grahams Ferry Rd 5835 54.21 5 2 3 0 45 63 co/state Highway 099w Scholls/Tualatin Sherwood Rds 43570 53.39 33 0 16 17 93 64 co/co Baseline Rd Cornelius Pass Rd 30656 53.19 38 0 13 25 98 65 co/city Walker Rd 173rd Ave 25090 53.05 15 1 10 4 50 66 co/co Cornell Rd 158th Ave 32298 52.96 35 0 14 21 96 67 co/state TV Hwy 211th Ave 37564 52.85 9 2 3 4 70 68 co/state TV Hwy 192nd Ave 42148 52.83 20 1 9 10 71 69 co/co Glencoe Rd Scotch/Zion Church Rds 13831 52.77 13 1 9 3 44 70 co/state TV Hwy (Baseline St) 010th Ave 37804 52.59 43 0 12 31 67 71 co/state Farmington Rd 185th Ave 28425 52.18 38 0 12 26 41 72 co/state Highway 026 Jackson School Rd 35305 52 28 0 16 12 22 73 co/state Farmington Rd Kinnaman Rd 28085 50.62 26 0 15 11 299 74 co/city Barrows Rd (E) Scholls Ferry Rd 31305 50.4 19 1 7 11 75 75 co/co Cornelius Pass Rd Rock Creek Blvd 17290 50.02 25 0 13 12 Beacon 1998 78 76 co/co Cornelius Schefflin Rd Roy Rd 10783 49.74 13 1 6 6 48 77 co/city Scholls Ferry Rd 135th Ave 30654 49.74 28 0 14 14 82 78 co/co Shaw St 170th Ave 9703 49.4 15 1 4 10 170th project 2001 97 79 co/state TV Hwy (Canyon Rd) 108th Ave 29766 49.28 17 1 7 9 237 80 co/city Cornell Rd John Olsen Ave 22176 49.1 15 1 7 7 101 81 co/co Burkhalter Rd/Simpson Rd Highway 219 10430 48.91 12 1 6 5 108 82 co/co Helvetia Rd West Union Rd 4062 48.65 8 1 5 2 80 83 co/state Highway 219 Mtn Home/Vanderschuere 3939 48.26 3 2 1 0 56 84 co/co Barnes Rd Miller Rd 23274 48.09 14 1 7 6 Protected left turn implemented 1997 310 85 co/co Clark Hill Rd Scholls Ferry Rd 8450 47.63 11 1 5 5 121 86 co/co Barnes Rd Cedar Hills Blvd 27167 47.42 28 0 12 16 Cedar Hills Extension opened 1997 125 87 co/co Rigert Rd 185th Ave 4935 47.2 8 1 5 2 33 88 co/state TV Hwy (Baseline St) 001st Ave 30661 47.19 38 0 9 29 113 89 co/city Schendel Ave 158th Ave 25448 46.99 15 1 6 8 304 90 co/co River Rd Scholls Ferry Rd 11640 46.76 12 1 5 6 Studied 1998 no change 138 91 co/city Jenkins Rd Terman Rd (Hocken Ave) 17495 46.67 11 1 7 3 Changed to Hocken Ave ? 2000/signal 12/99 288 92 co/city Greenburg Rd Locust St 15358 46.48 15 1 4 10 Technical Appendix B-6 Washington County 2020 WASHINGTON COUNTY Transportation Plan SAFETY PRIORITY INDEX SYSTEM 1997-1999 SPIS RANK Page 3 of 6 Prev Rank type LOCATION INTERSECTING ROAD ADT SPIS #ACC F&A B&C PDO COMMENTS 107 93 co/co Blanton St 185th Ave 21185 45.59 16 1 4 11 84 94 co/state Greenburg Rd/Oleson Rd Hall Blvd 34761 45.03 35 0 9 26 126 95 co/state Farmington Rd 198th Ave 15570 44.94 23 0 10 13 105 96 co/co Murray Blvd Science Park Dr 25908 44.81 31 0 9 22 118 97 co/state Farmington Rd 188th Ave 16900 44.21 13 1 4 8 146 98 co/co Baseline Rd 231st Ave 20433 44.17 14 1 4 9 mstip3 137 99 co/co Evergreen Rd Jackson School/Jackson Lp Rds 12915 44.15 13 1 3 9 478 100 co/co Butner Rd Cedar Hills Blvd 22530 43.73 14 1 4 9 127 101 co/co Cornell Rd Trail Ave 23060 43.32 22 0 11 11 66 102 co/state Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy 109th Ave 39111 43 29 0 10 19 54 103 co/state Clark Hill Rd Farmington Rd 8380 42.83 12 1 1 10 131 104 co/city Beard Rd/Brockman Rd Murray Blvd 28298 42.79 16 1 3 12 Changed to protected phase 1998 94 105 co/city Millikan Way Murray Blvd 36826 42.78 28 0 10 18 bridge to the north widened 2000 130 106 co/city Evergreen Pkwy Stucki Ave/Pl 17614 42.64 10 1 5 4 Signal 3/98 112 107 co/co West Union Rd 185th Ave 20101 42.62 22 0 10 12 widening scheduled 2000/01 all legs 329 108 co/co Cornell Rd Evergreen Pkwy/179th Ave 30797 42.44 12 1 5 6 117 109 co/co Cornelius Pass Rd Francis St 19395 41.62 8 1 6 1 Signal 2000 428 110 co/co Cornelius Pass Rd West Union Rd 16410 41.43 10 1 4 5 Reconstruct 2001? 148 111 co/co Oregon St Tualatin Sherwood Rd 28930 40.89 20 0 11 9 Signal 1997 158 112 co/city Jenkins Rd 153rd Dr 24900 40.77 21 0 10 11 Jenkins widened 1999 161 113 co/co Bronson Rd 185th Ave 32468 40.37 20 0 11 9 143 114 co/city Cornell Rd 025th Ave 34415 40.02 25 0 9 16 Rt Trn Ln added 8/99 s to w 95 115 co/state Farmington Rd 160th Ave 27705 39.77 18 0 11 7 new signal 1999 147 116 co/city Cornell Rd Sturgess Ave 24548 39.41 8 1 5 2 111 117 co/city Allen Blvd Scholls Ferry Rd 23207 39.38 28 0 6 22 114 118 co/co Park View/Rock Creek Blvds 185th Ave 30328 39.15 25 0 8 17 104 119 co/co Cornelius Pass Rd Quatama Rd 20572 39.03 10 1 3 6 Signal/Turn Lane 12/97 100 120 co/state Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy Oleson Rd 43603 38.95 31 0 7 24 165 121 co/co Long Rd Susbauer Rd 5290 38.74 6 1 2 3 203 122 co/co Scholls Ferry Rd Scholls Sherwood Rd 9122 38.7 9 1 1 7 247 123 co/state Farmington Rd 154th Ave 23150 38.46 7 1 5 1 widened 1999 152 124 co/co Cornelius Schefflin Rd Wren Rd 9876 38.44 8 1 2 5 115 125 co/co Elwert Rd/Lebeau Rd Scholls Sherwood Rd 9665 38.36 16 0 7 9 151 126 co/city Cornell Rd 017th Ave 26355 38.33 20 0 9 11 111 127 co/state Highway 219 Tongue Ln 10370 38.19 8 1 2 5 93 128 co/co Marsh Rd/Martin Rd Verboort Rd 7635 38.15 14 0 7 7 326 129 co/co Jackson School Rd West Union Rd 2920 38.07 9 0 6 3 172 130 co/city Tualatin Sherwood Rd 090th Ct 31321 37.89 16 0 11 5 29 131 co/state TV Hwy 170th Ave 50497 37.87 24 0 9 15 Signal change 2001-02 mstip 150 132 co/state Edy Rd/Sherwood Blvd Highway 099w 38480 37.8 9 1 4 4 193 133 co/city Cornell Rd 021st Ave 26060 37.75 8 1 4 3 381 134 co/state Highway 047 Kemper Rd/Osterman Rd 6495 37.55 6 1 2 3 120 135 co/city Cornell Rd/010th Ave Main St 24737 37.3 18 0 9 9 Re-Construct 1998/West side Max 191 136 co/co Baseline Rd 194th Ave 22821 37.28 6 1 5 0 Temp reduced speed & cross road signs 1997 136 137 co/city Cornell Rd Shute Rd 32570 37.21 8 1 4 3 116 138 co/city Cornell Rd Lincoln St 26008 37.14 16 0 10 6 Technical Appendix B-6 Washington County 2020 WASHINGTON COUNTY Transportation Plan SAFETY PRIORITY INDEX SYSTEM 1997-1999 SPIS RANK Page 4 of 6 Prev Rank type LOCATION INTERSECTING ROAD ADT SPIS #ACC F&A B&C PDO COMMENTS 155 139 co/city North Dakota St/125th Ave Scholls Ferry Rd 34907 37.08 31 0 5 26 177 140 co/co Bethany Blvd West Union Rd 22723 36.63 8 1 3 4 373 141 co/city Gales Creek Rd Thatcher Rd 7300 36.6 5 1 3 1 133 142 co/city Teton Ave Tualatin Sherwood Rd 28272 36.5 20 0 8 12 timing modified 97 154 143 co/city Conestoga Dr Scholls Ferry Rd 38496 36.31 17 0 10 7 102 144 co/co Baseline Rd 205th Ave/206th Ave 20094 36.12 17 0 8 9 Protected LT (n/b & s/b) phasing 1/2000 144 145 co/co Jay St Jenkins Rd 25369 35.85 9 1 2 6 Reconstructed/signal 1999 468 146 co/co River Rd Rosedale Rd 8880 35.75 5 1 3 1 142 147 co/state Fischer Rd Highway 099w 38825 35.73 21 0 8 13 232 148 co/co Cornell Rd 169th Pl 23402 35.73 6 1 4 1 65 149 co/co Cornell Rd 153rd Ave 17591 35.58 9 1 1 7 Signal 1997 239 150 co/city Waterhouse Ave 158th Ave 26690 35.53 16 0 9 7 134 151 co/state Boones Ferry Rd Lower Boones Ferry Rd 25359 35.53 20 0 7 13 - 152 co/co Dairy Creek Rd Mountaindale Rd 914 35.51 2 1 0 1 194 153 co/state TV Hwy (Canyon Rd) 091st Ave 33365 35.45 15 0 10 5 195 154 co/co Barnes Rd Monterey Pl 19959 35.39 18 0 7 11 72 155 co/co Cornelius Pass Rd Evergreen Pkwy 29887 35.36 21 0 7 14 60 156 co/co Evergreen Pkwy 188th Ave 26450 35.32 20 0 7 13 Signal change 1997 135 157 co/state Benz Park Dr/Crestdale Dr TV Hwy (Canyon Rd) 24900 34.87 8 1 2 5 199 158 co/co Aloclek Dr/Pl Evergreen Pkwy 17675 34.37 14 0 8 6 Signal 1998 - 159 co/co Germantown Rd 185th Ave 6657 34.04 5 1 1 3 240 160 co/city Washington St 010th Ave 23240 33.89 15 0 8 7 167 161 co/state Highway 047 Willamina Ave 10291 33.68 5 1 2 2 - 162 co/co Heritage Ct 170th Ave 10465 33.61 5 1 2 2 197 163 co/co Barnes Rd Leahy Rd/082nd Ave 24220 33.61 13 0 9 4 159 164 co/co Old Scholls Ferry Rd (092 Ave) Scholls Ferry Rd 16462 33.42 16 0 6 10 327 165 co/co Baseline Rd 170th Ave 18997 33.15 13 0 8 5 156 166 co/co Cornelius Pass Rd Lois St 22617 33.12 20 0 5 15 Signal 2000 236 167 co/co Clark Hill Rd Tile Flat Rd 4405 33.11 10 0 4 6 122 168 co/co Bethany Blvd Cornell Rd 27139 33.04 19 0 6 13 128 169 co/co Alexander St 209th Ave 9183 32.61 5 1 1 3 274 170 co/state Gales Creek Rd Highway 006 4910 32.24 8 0 6 2 178 171 co/city Schendel Ave Walker Rd 20774 32.09 14 0 7 7 69 172 co/city Evergreen Pkwy John Olsen Ave/Pl 14615 32.01 12 0 7 5 Signal 1998 164 173 co/city Cornell Rd 229th/231st Aves 33171 31.75 14 0 8 6 231 174 co/state Dudney Ave Highway 047 12650 31.52 6 1 0 5 141 175 co/co Evergreen Rd Jackson School Rd w/i 13165 31.49 14 0 5 9 204 176 co/city Bonnie Brae St Murray Blvd 36598 31.46 7 1 1 5 226 177 co/city Cornell Rd Twin Oaks Dr 24606 31.31 5 1 2 2 185 178 co/co Shaw St 198th Ave 16100 30.76 5 1 1 3 Re-aligned/Signal 1997 64 179 co/co Barnes Rd Stark St 16646 30.57 4 1 2 1 198 180 co/co Ecole Ave Jenkins Rd 17411 30.56 5 1 1 3 - 181 co/co Amick Ln Scoggins Valley Rd 2521 30.36 2 1 1 0 285 182 co/co Gaston Rd Spring Hill Rd 1979 30.14 5 0 4 1 205 183 co/co Monti Verdi Blvd 185th Ave 11122 30.1 4 1 1 2 179 184 co/co Barnes Rd Cornell Rd 19360 30.07 13 0 6 7 Technical Appendix B-6 Washington County 2020 WASHINGTON COUNTY Transportation Plan SAFETY PRIORITY INDEX SYSTEM 1997-1999 SPIS RANK Page 5 of 6 Prev Rank type LOCATION INTERSECTING ROAD ADT SPIS #ACC F&A B&C PDO COMMENTS - 185 co/city Taylors Ferry Rd 070th Ave 5957 29.96 3 1 1 1 128 186 co/co Jenkins Rd 158th Ave 30027 29.58 19 0 4 15 West leg widened 96-97 160 187 co/state TV Hwy (Canyon Rd) 097th Ave 29829 29.58 4 1 2 1 166 188 co/city Murray Blvd Teal Blvd 25748 29.54 12 0 7 5 175 189 co/co Ash St/102nd Ave Cornell Rd 11470 29.48 3 1 2 0 217 190 co/city Hart Rd 165th Ave 11616 29.45 3 1 2 0 252 191 co/state Hall Blvd Oak St 16338 29.45 10 0 7 3 Signal 1999 89 192 co/co Johnson St 185th Ave 35429 29.29 13 0 7 6 - 193 co/city Lynnly Way Scholls Sherwood Rd 7437 29.18 3 1 1 1 482 194 co/state TV Hwy 226th Ave 37442 29.14 5 1 1 3 90 195 co/state Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy 091st Ave 35259 29.12 17 0 5 12 400 196 co/co Locust St 080th Ave 7619 29.1 3 1 1 1 88 197 co/state Cipole Rd Highway 099w 38574 29.04 13 0 7 6 57 198 co/state TV Hwy 178th Ave 40846 28.79 15 0 6 9 - 199 co/city Crestwood Dr Scholls Ferry Rd 16792 28.72 3 1 2 0 215 200 co/co Brookwood Pkwy Cornell Rd 31019 28.72 10 0 8 2 s to w Ln added 9/2000 s/leg to be added 2001 - 201 co/co Walker Rd 107th Ave 10333 28.24 3 1 1 1 214 202 co/state TV Hwy 187th Ave 41445 28.06 14 0 6 8 227 203 co/city Cornell Rd Elam Young Pkwy (combined) 32540 28.04 15 0 5 10 183 204 co/city Greenbrier Pkwy 158th Ave 31655 28 4 1 1 2 254 205 co/co Salix Ter 185th Ave 27082 27.98 14 0 5 9 124 206 co/state Garland Rd Highway 099W 34200 27.91 4 1 1 2 228 207 co/co Butner Rd/Marlow Ave Park Way 10584 27.82 12 0 3 9 288 208 co/state Hall Blvd Locust St 15195 27.82 11 0 5 6 220 209 co/state TV Hwy 334th Ave 33415 27.8 5 1 0 4 - 210 co/state Anderson Rd/Old Hwy 047 Highway 047 12501 27.79 3 1 1 1 190 211 co/state Highway 219 Scholls Ferry Rd 7350 27.72 3 1 0 2 188 212 co/city Lincoln St 001st Ave 12665 27.22 14 0 2 12 signal & realignment 2000 271 213 co/co Beef Bend Rd Elsner Rd 6710 27.14 8 0 4 4 243 214 co/state Highway 219 Wolsborn Ave 3975 27.11 6 0 4 2 402 215 co/co Walker Rd 167th Ave 18689 27.05 3 1 1 1 246 216 co/city Main St 030th Ave 15693 27.04 9 0 6 3 238 217 co/city Cornell Rd Jackson St 24756 26.92 9 0 7 2 249 218 co/city Scholls Ferry Rd 130th Ave 34773 26.92 10 0 7 3 99 219 co/co Walker Rd 123rd Ave 24867 26.83 4 1 0 3 - 220 co/co Bell Rd Chehalem Station Rd 1249 26.72 1 1 0 0 171 221 co/co Beef Bend Rd Bull Mountain Rd 12128 26.69 9 0 5 4 Reconstruct 2000 bbsse 123 222 co/state Canyon Dr TV Hwy (Canyon Rd) 24720 26.69 12 0 5 7 284 223 co/co Denney Rd Scholls Ferry Rd 24986 26.65 12 0 5 7 212 224 co/co Barnes Rd 084th Ave 26172 26.6 3 1 1 1 96 225 co/co Cornelius Pass Rd Johnson St 22614 26.39 13 0 4 9 Signal/Turn Lanes 1997 169 226 co/state TV Hwy 341st Ave 33420 26.35 3 1 1 1 153 227 co/co Rigert Rd 175th Ave 4729 26.31 7 0 3 4 Beacon/illumination installed 1998 - 228 co/state Farmington Rd Marlin Ave (w) 12650 26.26 3 1 0 2 270 229 co/co Blanton St 160th Ave 12784 26.1 10 0 4 6 149 230 co/co Cornelius Schefflin Rd Verboort Rd 11939 26.06 11 0 3 8 Traffic control change 1997 Technical Appendix B-6 Washington County 2020 WASHINGTON COUNTY Transportation Plan SAFETY PRIORITY INDEX SYSTEM 1997-1999 SPIS RANK Page 6 of 6 Prev Rank type LOCATION INTERSECTING ROAD ADT SPIS #ACC F&A B&C PDO COMMENTS 213 231 co/city Main St 032nd Ave 21013 25.83 12 0 4 8 Signal Upgrade 1998 173 232 co/co Old Scholls Ferry Rd 092nd Ave 1431 25.43 4 0 1 3 225 233 co/co Alexander St 187th Ave 4362 25.38 7 0 2 5 106 234 co/co Park Way/139th Ave Walker Rd 22164 25.26 10 0 5 5 257 235 co/state Farmington Rd 179th Ave 22335 25.24 10 0 5 5 245 236 co/co Clutter St Garden Acres Rd 1870 24.9 1 1 0 0 457 237 co/state Brookman/Chapman Rd Highway 099w 32823 24.87 3 1 0 2 207 238 co/co Koll Pkwy/150th Ave Walker Rd 21418 24.84 11 0 4 7 signal 1999 260 239 co/co Meadow Dr/Nike Ent Walker Rd 25921 24.74 10 0 5 5 Signal 1999 235 240 co/city Main St 001st Ave 15470 24.73 11 0 3 8 210 241 co/city Cornell Rd 173rd Ave 28591 24.68 12 0 4 8 e/b Rt Ln added 2000 6„ „e™hni™—l2eppendix2fET

r ‡ ‰

V fexuƒ2‚ 7 h 6„ f—nks h 7 2‚ v sv 2r x r‡‰ r‡‰ ƒ2 ƒy i‚2 2PT e T x2‚s† w svƒy ‡ h

‚ 2

w u y x ˆ@ „e y sx he y vi ‚ f ‰ h e ‚ r h ƒ

xy ‚„r 22e†i

xorth ‡iƒ„ q‚iix†svviE‚y‰222‚h €l—ins xsyx relveti—

‚ ˆ@ h ‡—shington2gounty

q e rsv h v v ‚ ƒ 2 i s 2 h 2 ƒ i 2 ‚y x ‰ y

h

‚

y

q ‚h 6„ x„y‡x we ƒ€sƒ2@IWWUEIWWWA 7 qi‚ ƒ ‚ x h ƒ ˆ@ i„ gr h 22 h gr ‚ r‡ ‚ ‚h ‚ ‰ g 6„ ‚ syx i i 6„ u

e ƒ s ƒ „ e

uiw€e‚ i i € † y v

6„ g i

‚h x r

i

v ‚h „ q ‡est2 nion r ˆ@ ‚ e h „ g ƒ€‚sxq† r svvi i 6„ ƒ ‚ s h v U

‚ i u R ‡ 2 i 2 2 ƒ e 2 x „ 2

2 6„ ‚ s ‰ 2 ƒ y i x

‡ g ‚ y ˆ@ @ r †er˜oort ˆ ƒ

u 6„ x € g s yx ‚ e hs 6„ t x ˆ@7 2‚h 5†i‚fyy‚„2‚h ˆ@ 7 6„ i†i‚q‚iix22222‚h 6„ ‚ h ry‚xigui‚2‚h 22‚h i† ‚ ‰ i‚q‚ ˆ@ h i i i ‚ x ‡ x2€

s u † u ‡ h

„ @ 7 ˆ ‰ e 6„ € 2

‚ 2 2 ˆ7@ 2

e 2 h 2 6„ y

w „ y h ˆ@ƒ 7 I 6„ ˆ@ ‡ ‚ u h h y ‚

‚ 2 y

2 2 2 2 @ ‚

2 ˆ 2 6„ 2 f 6„ ƒ2

x 2 „ ‚ 2 s gy‚x 22P

v T ƒ i ivv V p ˆ@ ˆ@ 7

i e 6„5e†i ‡‰ r f

r ƒ ƒ g i „ @ ‚h ˆ ƒ 7 † @ E ‚h‚h 6„ ˆ ‚ ˆ@ ƒ 7 e ƒ 7 6„ 2 s x i gy‚xivv 7 q ˆ@7 6„ h „ g s ˆ@ y ‚ x v s ‡ Q i ˆ@ˆ@ @ R

x i ˆ x  I ‚ † 6„

y e 2 7 2 @ g ˆ porest r 5 7 6„ „ 6„6„

S ˆ@ ‡ e ˆ@ 5 v h ˆ@7 v 6„ iv ‚ qrove u ˆ@ y‚x 7 6„ i‚ 7 g r‡‰2222 7 fe 6„ 2V feƒivsxi 6„ ƒivsxi 7 ƒ„ 6„

6„ i 6„ ˆ@7 IW„r2e† 7 7 7 ‚h i r †

i ƒ

6„ „

e

† gornelius ƒ 6„ 7 6„ 2 ‰ S ‚ @ e ˆ i e 7 r r yeu V h

€ @

„ ˆ@ I 6„ „g ƒ„ s 7 V ‚ S ˆ@

6„I i

h 7 † r ‚h 77@ 6„ @y ˆ e „ ˆ feƒivsxi 2

2 H ‚ y I rills˜oro @ r ˆ i

h ‡ 6„ 5 „ † 6„ 5 P u

e

I y 7 6„ y ˆ@ 6„ ‚ ˆ@7 7 h f 7 5 @ ‚ h ˆ s @ v ˆ

W ƒ

v I 6„ @ ˆ i 6„s ˆ@ P 7 @ fe‚x ‰ 2 ˆ i v ƒ 2

i ‰ t 5 ix x 7 @7 u 6„‡ ˆ 7 ‡ 7 sx h 6„ q ˆ@7

ˆ@ ‚ ƒ e @ r v ‚ @ ˆ y ˆ y u ˆ@ „ i v e ƒ22PT @ g ˆ ve„ ˆ@ ‚ ˆ@

p sx wi‚vy vƒ

2 2‚h g ‚h sv @ r

‚ ˆ y

h † 6„ evv i‰ ‚ 6„6„ 6„7 ˆ@ˆ@ ˆ@ ƒ r‡ 6„ 22V ‰ ‚ i 7 ˆ@7 h 7 @ 6„ ‰

2 ˆ ‚ 7 6„7 ˆ@ ‡ h 5 6„7 6„ r 6„ 7 ˆ@ h 5 6„ ‚ 7 ‚ 7 eloh— e v 5 7 sv 6„ h 7 i 7 r 7 5 6„7 6„ g 7 x 6„ 6„ ex‰y 7 6„ g 6„ 5 fe—verton 6„ ƒ g „yxq i 5 ‰ 22222vexi 7 y 5 ‚ q x ‚ ‚ ˆ@ i q i t 6„7 p s x p y ƒ 6„ e†i fie†

r ‚h i‚„yx x

i 6„ i 6„6„ ƒ 5 † 56„ 7 † 6„ i y ˆ@ e 6„ 56„

2 e 6„

2 5 † 2 x 6„ 2 2 6„ e 2 2 ˆ@

2 2 2 2 2 2

r 2 r ƒ 2 6„ 5 h „ x v „ v

‚ V 2 r y y S „

W r „ 5 i q ƒ€sƒ2‚exu V x g W I s

U ƒ h ƒ I q H w R € ‚

2 ‚ h P 6„ e

2 ‚ 2 s ˆ@ @ 2 ƒ p 7 ˆ ‰ s gryyv 7@ x v ‚ ˆ † q he†sƒ22222‚ ‡ v f h e s @ 2 fv† h ‰ ˆ 2 ‚ evvix v r 2 h 2 r v h

r 2

i ‡ ‰ s 2

y 6„ 5 v r

e

v 2 y 22 h y

‡ 2 r ‚ ‚ ‚ 6„

‚

„ h y r @ s ˆ xot2‚—nked H @ 7 y ˆ ‚yƒihevi22222‚ ‡

h h U

f

I

‰ ‚ ƒ 6„ 7 v 7 7 76„ h v ixx s h 6„ i‰ ˆ@ † ‚h

r v

‚h f f gherry2qrove 6„ ‚ ˆ@ 7 ur 6„ re‚„22222‚h ev ˆ@ „i 7 qe‚hix 5 I2E2PS ‚ ‚ 6„ 2‚ i h PI

†

s U 5 ‚ 6„ 7 ˆ@ x re ˆ@ y v ƒ @ v i ˆ 7 v y

‰ e ˆ@ 6„ PT2E2ISH i †evvi gre‚viƒ ‚

‰ † ‚yfsxƒyx ‚

‚h e f v†

6„ w 5 ‚h h ‚h 6„ 7 yx x 6„ „ y e„ 6„ xq„ ws 7 ISI2E2PRI € pe‚ gooper ‡is‚22222‚h yx22‚ i eƒ„ h hsˆyx wtn † @ q e ˆ

2

7 w r i „ 5 s v † S ˆ@ v

r P @ e ˆ@7 7 „ ˆ I ˆ@ ‚h r S 5 ‡ U 6„ PRP I ˆ@ q—ston ‰ 7 2 7 2 2P IW h 6„ h 7 ‚ †

v h ˆ@ ‚ q

f

s† ‚ i 2 ‚ 2 i ‚ 2 6„ i 2 2 x 222 2 f

2 v ‚ ‚ i q

v

s h ˆ@7 †

r

e ‚ 2 @ 2

ˆ x „svi 2 h 2

2 e gounty2line 2 „

2 p

‰ i w v ƒ

u h

e ‚ †

„ ‚ I i

‚ P i e s

2 e p I ve ‚ 2 „

iv v r ‡y vƒ ƒ„

y „ h g v y S

‚ r Q g I ‚ h h ƒ ‡evx „ h ‚ pi‚‚‰

S

ˆ@ E v—urelwood ˆ@ full s ere—2outside2the2 r˜—n fevh €ieu ˆ@ ve ‚ iv22222‚h @ wtn „ig—rd qrowth2found—ry ˆ H ˆ@ ƒgryvvƒ I P revv 2 i

‚ † ‰ qee hi2ƒ„ w™hyxevh2ƒ„

‡ e r wy ‚h x„esx 6„ ˆ@7 ‚h 6„ ˆ@ fv†h g h 6„ e h — †

e

h le 2

x m r

P 2 „

uing2gity U

2 H h 2 v

2 S

ƒ 2 ‚ v

2

2 I

2 e ‚ h ‚rew 22 ‰ ‚h i

2 ƒ r

w e g

o q 222fixh22222‚h ‡ r 2

u y iip h y s 7 n ‚ f

t v w 7 ƒ™holls — i v n ƒ s 6„ ‚h ‚y‰ ‚ hurh—m i x ƒ ƒri‚‡yyh ‚h iv xoteX „ eve„sx x

w 7

y ˆ@

‚h

x 6„7

„ e

s

x

2 ƒ€sƒ2h—t—2is2™olle™ted2only2—t2interse™tions2of2 r 6„7 ‡ y 6„ 2WW 22 w ˆ@ ‡‰ i r „u—l—tin 2‚ h h 6„ ‡—shington2gounty2p—™ilitiesF22„he2interse™tions2 ‚ 6„ h yy 6„ ‡ i‚ ƒeqi‚„ ‚h ƒr ‚h —re2r—nked2˜y2™riteri—2determined2˜y2‡—shington2 7 ˆ@ e†i‚‰22ƒ„ ih‰ ‚h 6„ gounty2—nd2—ll2interse™tions2th—t2do2not2m—ke2the2 „ eve„sx ˆ@ SHHH H SHHH IHHHH peet

„ W ‚ ƒ„ I rywi P i x r—nking2—re2depi™ted2—s2not2r—nked 2 qy ‰ ‡ i

v ‚

‡ y i

r ‚

h ƒherwood

6„ h

‚

2

2 ˆ@ 2 ƒ xƒi„ fv† h ‰

‚

‚

i

p

2

2

2

ƒ

i

x uw y f‚yy ex2‚h y

f sXGwpsh—reGy‚hPPHHPGy‚hSVVGworkingGte™hni™—l—ppF—pr spis2l—yout hw2IHGIRGHP 7 6„ ˆ@ e†i Technical Appendix B-7 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 1 of 2

Pavement Condition by Functional Class

The following table shows existing pavement condition ratings by functional classification for paved roads under Washington County jurisdiction. Pavement conditions are periodically visually assessed and this data is entered into a computerized Pavement Management System (PMS) that assigns a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) to each segment of roadway. Qualitative Pavement Condition descriptions and corresponding PCI ratings are described below:

• Very Good Condition (PCI 90-100) – Pavement structure is stable, with no cracking, no patching, no deformation evident. Roadways in this category are usually fairly new. Nothing is needed to improve this roadway.

• Good Condition (PCI 70-89) – Pavement structure is stable, but may have surface erosion or minor cracking, which is generally hairline and hard to detect, minor patching, and possibly some minor deformation. Riding qualities are very good. The pavement has a dry or light colored appearance. Some type of surface rejuvenation is all that is required to improve the roadway.

• Fair Condition (PCI 50-69) – Pavement structure is generally stable with minor areas of structural weakness evident. Cracking is easier to detect. The pavement might be patched, but not excessively. Although riding qualities are good, deformation is more pronounced and easily noticed.

• Poor Condition (PCI 25-49) – Roadway has areas of instability, marked evidence of structural deficiency, large crack patterns (alligatoring), heavy and numerous patches, and very noticeable deformation. Riding qualities range from acceptable to poor. Spot repair of the pavement base may be required.

• Very Poor Condition (PCI 0-24) – Cost of saving the pavement structural section would equal or exceed complete reconstruction of roadway.

Generally, the County has sought to maintain ratings of “Good” or better for all arterials and collectors, and a rating of “Fair” or better for all local roads. As seen in Table B-1, 88 percent of all urban arterials and 98 percent of all rural arterials are in good or better condition. Approximately 85 percent of all urban collectors and 92 percent of all rural collectors are in good or better condition. Although 98 percent of all urban local roads are in fair or better condition, only 78 percent of all rural local roads are above this threshold. Approximately 21 percent of all rural local roads are in Poor or Very Poor condition. Technical Appendix B-7 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 2 of 2

PAVEMENT CONDITION (Road Miles) Very Good Fair Poor Very Poor Good Road % of Road % of Road % of Road % of Road % of Total Miles Functional Miles Functional Miles Functional Miles Functional Miles Functional Road Class total Class total Class total Class total Class total Miles

Urban Arterial 21 20.6% 69 67.6% 10 9.8% 2 2.0% 0.0% 102 Collector 23 18.6% 83 66.9% 16 12.9% 2 1.6% 0.0% 124 Local 69 19.5% 246 69.7% 30 8.5% 7 2.0% 1 0.3% 353 Total Urban 113 19.5% 398 68.7% 56 9.7% 11 1.9% 1 0.2% 579

Rural Arterial 8 16.6% 39 81.3% 1 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 48 Collector 22 9.0% 203 82.9% 17 6.9% 3 1.2% 0.0% 245 Local 9 7.4% 57 47.1% 29 24.0% 20 16.5% 6 5.0% 121 Total Rural 39 9.4% 299 72.2% 47 11.4% 23 5.6% 6 1.4% 414

Total 152 15.3% 697 70.2% 103 10.4% 34 3.4% 7 0.7% 993 Urban & Rural Technical Appendix B-8 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 1 of 13 Functional Classification and Street Connectivity Comparison by Jurisdiction; Proposed Washington County Functional Classification System Structure and Definitions and Typical Street Design

The purpose of this technical memorandum is to provide:

1) A discussion of Functional Classification and street system connectivity, and a summary of how they are utilized by four Oregon jurisdictions; and 2) A proposed Washington County Functional Classification System Structure and Definitions, including examples of typical street designs.

These elements are required in the transportation planning process by Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012), however each jurisdiction is given a measure of discretion as to how each are applied. The purposes of this memo are to highlight similarities and differences in the methods different jurisdictions use to define their functional classification system, to identify any significant issues to be considered during the update to the Washington County Transportation System Plan, and to provide the functional classification structure and definitions necessary to guide development of Washington County’s functional classification system.

The Oregon agencies selected for the comparison were Washington County, Marion County, Linn County, Beaverton and Tualatin. The following information is based on published transportation system plans, and discussions with agency staff. It was noted during the review of the plan documents that in a few cases the narrative presented did not clear explain the agency approach to specific issues that made it unclear as to how the plan was developed. These cases are noted in the following discussion.

Functional Classification The functional classification system for the roadway network (i.e. arterial, collector , etc.), includes characteristics for each classification, including volume, trip length, facility length, spacing, land use, speed and/or any other characteristics that are used. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the various jurisdictions’ functional classification naming system and their approaches to functional classification.

Generally, the relationship between functional classifications in terms of mobility and access is illustrated to the right.

Typically, each jurisdiction has some means of separating freeway and higher capacity highways from other arterial routes. Terms such as “principal arterial”, “freeway” and “expressway” are used to categorize these types of facilities. Remaining arterials are either lumped together in one category or broken into major and minor arterials.

Beaverton and Tualatin both use a single arterial classification. Their street design standards are flexible to allow for the integration of certain design features (landscape buffer, raised median, etc.) and variable widths (e.g., 10-foot sidewalks in urban settings) so that an arterial Technical Appendix B-8 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 2 of 13 facility can be adapted as appropriate to the adjoining land uses. Collectors are handled is a similar way. Beaverton and Tualatin have one category of collector and the other jurisdictions have a major and minor category. Beaverton has separated out “neighborhood routes”, which are typically local streets that provide more connectivity and carry more traffic than a typically local street. A distinct designation for Neighborhood Route allows for special consideration compared to other functional classes for neighborhood traffic management monitoring and implementation of traffic calming measures as needed. Tualatin has separated out “cul-de- sacs”.

Table 1: Approach to Functional Classification by Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction Classifications Comments Beaverton § Principal Arterial (freeway Principal Arterials (freeways and state highways) and state highway) have their own arterial classification. Otherwise only § Arterial one classification of arterial, collector and local § Collector street. Separate neighborhood route designation is § Neighborhood Route identified. § Local Tualatin § Freeway Similar to Beaverton in that, other than Freeways § Expressway and Expressways, there is only one classification of § Arterial Street arterial, collector and local. Cul-de-sac streets are § Collector Street called out separately from local streets. § Local Street § Cul-de-Sac Street Marion § Principal Arterial Arterials and collectors are each broken into two County § Arterial categories. Only one category of local street. § Major Collector § Minor Collector § Local Linn County § Major Arterial Arterials and collectors are each classified as either § Minor Arterial “major” or “minor”. Only one classification of local § Major Collector street. § Minor Collector § Local

The methodologies jurisdictions use to determine the functional classification of a roadway vary significantly as shown in Table 2. The main elements are connectivity, expected usage, adjoining land uses. This combined approach appears to provide a basis for allowing flexibility in street design standards, as was mentioned previously for Tualatin and Beaverton. A few jurisdictions still use the traditional spacing hierarchy (i.e. arterials should be spaced approximately every mile or so, while collectors should be spaced every half mile or so. Generally, a combination of more than one of these approaches is used to determine functional classification in each jurisdiction. Technical Appendix B-8 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 3 of 13

Table 2: Functional Classification Application by Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction Characteristics of How Functional Classes are Applied Beaverton § Extent of connectivity § Frequency of facility type § Typically one mile for arterials, one-half mile for collectors, etc., but depends upon other factors such as topography, environmental issues, linkages to regional and town centers, etc. § Cross-section is outcome of function and land use (i.e. volume), but it is not defined by function alone Tualatin § Linkages—extent of connectivity § Areas served (size of traffic generators) § Traffic volume § Truck routes may also be designated for various classifications Marion County § Linkages—extent of connectivity § Areas served—higher classification serve higher population areas (cities, activity centers, etc.) § Spacing—frequency of facility type Linn County § Defined by level of access to adjacent property—i.e. local streets provide unlimited access to property, while arterials, especially major arterials, provide little or no access to individual properties. Street System Connectivity Table 3 summarizes street connectivity requirements for the various jurisdictions. Several of the jurisdictions did not have street system connectivity standards in their current Transportation System Plan (or comparable document). Beaverton has very specific local street spacing standards, while Linn County defines access categories that limit driveway access, but require the public roads are required at designated spacing.

Table 3: Street Connectivity Standards by Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction Criteria Used Comments § Beaverton Transportation System Plan: Connector roadways § Every 300 to 500 foot grid for pedestrians should incorporate and bicycles neighborhood traffic § Every 1,000 foot grid for automobiles management into their Development Code: design to protect existing § Local streets every 530 feet in new neighborhoods from residential, commercial and mixed-use potential traffic impacts development (Except where impractical due to physical or topographic § Development shall constraints) encourage pedestrian and § Local streets every 330 feet in areas bicycle travel by providing planned for the highest density mixed-use short, direct public routes development to connect residential uses § Accessways for pedestrians, bicycles with nearby activity centers and/or emergency vehicles where full street connections are not feasible, at least every 330 feet Tualatin Do not have any street connectivity standards in place Technical Appendix B-8 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 4 of 13

Jurisdiction Criteria Used Comments

Marion County Cannot be determined from existing Rural TSP § Linn County § No general access spacing requirements County owned major and found in Transportation Plan Code minor arterials use “Category 4 Access,” which limits access. Public road required no less than every mile

§ County owned major and minor collectors use “Category 5 Access,” which offers partial access. Public road required no more than every ½ mile

Recommendations:

The foregoing review provides some insights that could be applicable to the Transportation System Plan update in Washington County. Our findings and recommendations are that, generally:

1. The selection of functional classification should provide for a multi-dimensional assessment of the roadway usage and its affects on adjoining planned land uses. We recommend that connectivity be the primary indicator of function followed by adjoining land uses. This will be important for guiding the development of a Neighborhood Route facility class within the existing hierarchy.

2. Incorporating a flexible street design standard requires that the functional class designations also be flexible. We recommend that the county consider combining major and minor arterial classes into one category, and also combining major and minor collector classes.

Washington County Functional Classification System Structure and Definitions: The recommended Washington County Transportation Plan functional classification system is defined and has general characteristics as follows:

Functional Classification Descriptions:

A Principal Arterials (Freeways and Highways) form the backbone of the motor vehicle network. These routes connect over the longest distance (sometimes miles long) and are spaced less frequently than other Arterials or Collectors. Generally, Principal Arterials provide connections for the movement of people, services and goods between the central city and regional activity centers. These highways may extend through several jurisdictions and often are defined as having statewide importance. At a minimum, highways that are classified by ODOT as Interstate or Statewide Highways are considered Principal Arterials.

Typically, Principal Arterial characteristics are as follows:

• Freeways have the highest level of access control, including grade-separated interchanges. No at-grade driveways or connections are allowed. Technical Appendix B-8 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 5 of 13

• Highways generally have limited at-grade connections.

• Freeways and highways provide connections for the movement of people, services and goods between the central city, regional centers and destinations beyond the region.

• Principal Arterials that aren’t freeways will be managed to minimize the degradation of capacity while providing limited access to abutting properties.

• Principal Arterials are typically over 5 miles in length, and are spaced 2 or more miles apart.

• Mobility has a much higher priority than access. Access is highly controlled, as exhibited by grade-separated interchanges and/or relatively long distances between at-grade connections.

• Motor vehicle traffic volumes are typically 30,000 to 100,000 vehicles per day.

B Arterial streets interconnect and support the Principal Arterial highway system. Arterials are intended to provide general mobility for travel within the region. They generally provide connections for the movement of people, goods, and services between major residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional activity centers within the County, and in some cases beyond the County. Correctly sized Arterials at appropriate intervals allow through trips to remain on the Arterial system, thereby discouraging use of Local streets for cut-through traffic. Arterial streets link major commercial, residential, industrial and institutional areas.

Typically, Arterial characteristics are as follows:

• Arterials serve as primary connections to Principal Arterials, and should also connect to other Arterials, Collector and Local streets, where appropriate. • Arterials in the rural area provide urban-to-urban secondary connections to neighboring cities, and farm-to-market access between urban and rural areas. Urban-to-urban rural Arterials provide key connections to the regional motor vehicle system and 2040 land- use components inside the urban growth boundary. Farm-to-market rural Arterials provide farm-to-market access between urban and rural areas. Most rural Arterials serve a mix of urban-to-urban and farm-to-market traffic.

• Arterials provide for freight movement in support of Principal Arterials.

• Arterials have moderate access control for cross streets and driveways. Typically, residential driveways are not allowed access to Arterials.

• Arterial Streets are typically 2-10 miles in length, and are typically spaced a mile apart.

• Mobility has a higher priority than access. Arterials have relatively moderate access control, as demonstrated by standards calling for moderate to moderately-long distances between access points.

• Motor vehicle traffic volumes are typically 10,000 to 40,000 vehicles per day. Technical Appendix B-8 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 6 of 13

C Collector streets provide both access and circulation between residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural community areas and the Arterial system. As such, Collectors tend to carry fewer motor vehicles than Arterials, with reduced travel speeds. Collectors may serve as freight access routes, providing local connections to the Arterial network.

Typically, Collector characteristics are as follows:

• Collectors connect neighborhoods to nearby centers, corridors, station areas, main streets and nearby destinations in the urban area. Land development should not be sited to obstruct the logical continuation of Collector streets.

• In the rural area, Collectors are a primary link between the local street system and Arterials for freight, people, goods and services.

• Access control on Collectors is relatively low, with moderately frequent access points; direct driveway connections from residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural uses are allowed within spacing parameters.

• Collector Streets are typically over 1-2 miles in length, and are spaced ½ mile to 1 mile apart.

• There is a balance between mobility and access. Traffic management measures generally are not appropriate.

• Motor vehicle traffic volumes are typically 2,000 to 10,000 vehicles per day.

D Neighborhood Routes (generally former Minor Collectors) are in residential neighborhoods and provide connectivity to the Collector and Arterial system. They do not serve citywide or community circulation. Because traffic needs are greater than a Local street, certain measures should be considered to retain the neighborhood character and livability of these routes. Neighborhood traffic management measures are allowed (including devices such as speed humps, traffic circles and other devices). New neighborhood routes may be established via the land development process.

Typically, characteristics of Neighborhood Routes are as follows:

• The Neighborhood Route designation is appropriate for urban areas where neighborhood forms are more compact and the routes are much shorter than typically occur in the rural area.

• Traffic management measures are allowed.

• Neighborhood Routes are typically up to 2 miles in length, and are spaced ½ mile to 1 mile apart.

• Motor vehicle traffic volumes are typically up to 5,000 vehicles per day.

E Commercial/Industrial Streets are intended to provide access to commercial or industrial properties. The application of this designation through the development review process Technical Appendix B-8 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 7 of 13

may require a different design standard than the underlying functional classification designation.

F Local Streets primarily provide direct access to adjacent land. While Local streets are not intended to serve through traffic, the aggregate effect of local street design impacts the effectiveness of the Arterial and Collector system when local travel is restricted by a lack of connecting routes, and local trips are forced onto the Arterial street network. Local street connectivity maps in the Community Plans identify new local street connections that are required by the Community Development Code in conjunction with new development.

Typical characteristics of Local streets in the urban area are as follows:

• Traffic calming measures are allowed.

• Access control is minimal with direct driveway connections permitted from all land use types.

• A connected network of local streets is required as set forth in the Local Street Connectivity Maps of the Community Plans and in the Community Development Code.

• Local Streets in the urban area are typically a few hundred feet to 1,000 feet in length

• Motor vehicle traffic volumes are typically 100 to 1,000 vehicles per day, although on some urban Local Streets traffic can reach 2,000 vehicles.

Rural local roads may be unpaved (gravel), and serviceability can vary with rainfall and maintenance. Rural local roads provide direct access to a variety of rural land uses including agriculture, forestry, quarry activities, low-density rural residential uses as well as rural commercial and industrial uses. An objective of this Transportation Plan is to minimize the impacts of urban travel on rural land uses.

Typical characteristics of Local streets in the rural area are as follows:

• Paved or oftentimes unpaved surfaces

• Narrow lane widths with roadside ditches to provide drainage

• No access control and access points spaced far apart

• Rural local streets may be several miles in length due to large parcels and relatively sparse street network.

• Lack of traffic calming measures, sidewalks and illumination

Special Area Streets. In areas where transit-oriented development is planned, such as Regional Centers, Town Centers and Light Rail Station Area Communities, different street designs may be appropriate. To support the type of activities anticipated in these areas, special area streets of the following types may be developed.

A. Special Area Collectors are intended to link traffic from Special Area Local Streets, Special Area Neighborhood Routes, and some Special Area Commercial Streets to Arterials. Technical Appendix B-8 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 8 of 13

Speeds should be low to moderate. A moderate degree of non-transit oriented development traffic would be appropriate for these facilities.

The design of a Special Area Collector should provide multi-modal access to the Arterial system, station area employment and high-density residential areas while discouraging traffic infiltration on local streets. In addition to autos, these facilities should accommodate primary and secondary bus lines, bike lanes, and sidewalks separated from the street by a landscape strip. Left turn lanes in medium and low-density residential areas would be provided at intersections with Arterials.

Developments that are oriented to Special Area Collectors should be employment based or multi-family residential. Single-family residential developments that abut a Special Area Collector should be oriented away from this type of facility.

B Special Area Neighborhood Routes are intended to serve both a traffic collection and distribution function and to provide access to adjacent properties. These facilities are intended to have less volume and less through traffic than Special Area Collectors do. Speeds should be low. A limited degree of non-transit oriented development traffic would be appropriate for these facilities.

The design of Special Area Neighborhood Routes should emphasize neighborhood orientation by accommodating on-street parking, transit service, and bicycles in a relatively narrow paved width that includes the use of traffic calming measures where and as appropriate. Exclusive turn lanes are not appropriate for these facilities, unless needed for safety at intersections with Arterials.

Special Area Neighborhood Routes should primarily serve residential land-uses. Development that includes small to medium scale mixed use (commercial/residential) development is also appropriate.

C. Special Area Commercial Streets are intended to serve local access and service needs associated with urban high density residential, mixed use and employment oriented land uses. These roads are not intended to serve through trips but may have significant traffic volumes. The street may not exceed two travel lanes in each direction. Speeds should be low.

The design of Special Area Commercial Streets should reflect local intensive urban use by all modes. The road must accommodate autos, trucks, buses and bicycles while also providing transit stop amenities and frequent opportunities for pedestrian crossings. Sidewalks should be wide with tree wells.

Special Area Commercial Streets should serve high density residential, mixed use and business districts.

D. Special Area Local Streets are intended to provide direct property access. They are not intended to serve through traffic. Speeds should be low. Non-transit oriented development traffic would be inappropriate for these facilities.

The design of Special Area Local Streets should reflect the residential neighborhood function by accommodating on-street parking on a narrow paved width and which includes traffic calming measures that compel autos to drive slowly. Technical Appendix B-8 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 9 of 13

Typical Street Design

General parameters within which designs for roadways of different functional classifications are implemented are identified in Table 6 in Ordinance 588 (Exhibit 12, page 9). Design standards applied to these roadways are contained in the Washington County Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards manual. As noted in Ordinance 588 Strategy 6.7 (Exhibit 8, page 6), regional street design guidelines (see Metro’s ‘Creating Livable Streets – Street Design Guidelines for 2040’) will be considered where applicable in the application of these standards.

The following typical cross sections are examples of designs for different functional classifications that are consistent with the general parameters contained in the plan, the regional street design guidelines and Washington County street design standards. Technical Appendix B-8 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 10 of 13 Technical Appendix B-8 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 11 of 13 Technical Appendix B-8 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 12 of 13 Technical Appendix B-8 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 13 of 13