LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

1 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

ADOPTION

The Roads Advisory Committee recommended adoption of the County Road Fund portion of the Fiscal Year 2010-2011 to Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Capital Improvement Program in April 2010. The Board of County Commissioners adopted this program in May 2010.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

William Fleenor, Chair, West Lane Rob Handy, Vice Chair, North Eugene Faye Stewart, East Lane Pete Sorenson, South Eugene Bill Dwyer, Springfield

ROADS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

John Anderson, Chair, East Lane Jack Radabaugh, Vice Chair, Springfield George Goldstein, West Lane Sean Barret, Member-at-Large Jody Ogle, Member-at-Large Jim Wilcox, South Eugene Kent Fleming, North Eugene

PUBLICATION

The Capital Improvement Program is Published by Lane County Public Works Department Marsha Miller, Public Works Director Bill Morgan, County Engineer Arno Nelson, Road Maintenance Manager Celia Barry, Transportation Planning Manager Ed Chastain, Traffic Engineer Shashi Bajracharya, Engineering Analyst

COVER DESIGN

Brook Eastman, Transportation Planning Geographic Information Systems

ONLINE PUBLICATION

This publication is available online for download from the Lane County Transportation Planning web site at http://www.lanecounty.org/Departments/PW/TransPlanning/Pages/1115cip.aspx

2 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Table of Contents

ACRONYMS / ABBREVIATIONS ...... 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 5 INTRODUCTION ...... 6 INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITION...... 7 CIP FUNDING...... 9 RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER PLANNING DOCUMENTS...... 11 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN ...... 11 STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM...... 12 CIP PROCESS...... 12 STAFF DRAFT ...... 12 PRIORITIZATION MATRIX FACTORS ...... 13 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ...... 14 ROADS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTION...... 14 BOARD ACTION ...... 15 CIP CATEGORIES...... 15 CIP 11-15 OVERVIEW ...... 17 FY 11/15 CIP SUMMARY TABLE ...... 21 PROJECT LOCATION MAP...... 29 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS...... 33 (1) Sweet Creek Retaining Wall...... 35 (2) Five Rivers Culvert Replacement...... 37 (3) Deadwood / Pengra / Wendling Covered Bridge...... 39 (4) Railroad Crossing Project at Irving Road...... 41 (5) Hyacinth Street Sidewalk Installation ...... 43 (6) 30th Ave Overlay ...... 45 (7) Goodpasture Covered Bridge ...... 47 (8) Layng Covered Bridge ...... 49 (9) Traffic Signal Upgrade in Metro area...... 51 APPENDIX A...... 53 PAST CIP PROJECT STATUS ...... 53

3 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Acronyms / Abbreviations

Following Acronyms /Abbreviations are used in this document. They have been described at first occurrence, listed here for quick reference.

AASHTO – American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials AC – Asphalt Concrete ARRA- American Recovery and Reinvestment Act BCC- Board of County Commissioners CE- Construction Engineering CIP- Capital Improvement Program DEQ – Department of Environmental Quality FHWA- Federal Highway Administration FHWA-RR- FHWA Railroad Division FY- Fiscal Year HB – House Bill HBP- Highway Bridge Program, formerly HBRRP HBRRP- Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program HMAC – Hot Mixed Asphalt Concrete HTAP- Highway Trust Funds for Aquatic Passage I-5 Interstate 5 IAMP- Interchange Area Management Plan IGA- Intergovernmental Agreement JTA- Oregon Jobs and Transportation Act 2009 LC- Lane County, Lane Code MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization MUTCD- Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways NHCBP- National Historic Covered Bridge Program NEPA- National Environmental Protection Act OAR- Oregon Administrative Rule ODOT- Oregon Department of Transportation ODFW- Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ORS- Oregon Revised Statute OTIA III- Oregon Transportation Investment Act III PCI- Pavement Condition Index PE- Preliminary Engineering PFD- Projects for Development RAC- Roads Advisory Committee SAFETEA-LU- The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SR- Sufficiency Rating SRS- Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act 2000 STP-U Surface Transportation Program-Urban (for the Metro Area) TE- Transportation Enhancement TPR- Transportation Planning Rule TSP- Transportation System Plan UPRR- Union Pacific Railroad USFS- United States Forest Service

4 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Executive Summary

Lane County Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2011 through 2015 (CIP) is a five-year planning document containing potential projects that will be publicly bid for construction during the next five years. It is prepared with consideration of the County’s fiscal forecast for the next five years and with public input. The CIP was reviewed and discussed at Roads Advisory Committee (RAC) meetings held in Eugene this winter, including a public hearing held in February 2010. The Board of County Commissions adopted the document after a second public hearing in May 2010. This publication becomes effective July 1, 2010.

This CIP is prepared responsive to county’s fiscal position. Lane County anticipates spending about $22.152 million road fund dollars for capital improvement projects under the program. A good portion of the Road Fund (about $20.279 million) is allocated towards pavement preservation needs during this update cycle.

This CIP update continues to show one previously committed projects involving external funding which is scheduled to be complete by the end of the first year. The County is providing roadway related improvements to complement the ODOT-Rail initiated railroad crossing safety improvement project on Irving Road. The project is in the design phase.

Per the Board’s decision, the previously committed local match contribution in the amount of $1,030,000 towards an Oregon Department of Transportation initiated local improvement project in the Coburg I-5 Interchange area is discontinued in this CIP.

The remaining allocations are mostly for the local match required for securing external funding. The match money will bring in additional $13.4 million in external funding for county roadway improvements in the next five years. This adopted CIP contains no general construction projects for this update cycle.

The CIP also provides project information sheets at the end of the document describing project scope, cost, and proposed solutions for each project included in the CIP.

The project status sheet at the end of this document provides the status of past CIP projects.

5 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Introduction Primary obligations of Lane County are to ensure personal safety, security of property, and preservation of infrastructure. Lane County Public Works Department is tasked with protecting public assets, namely roads and bridges, by maintaining, replacing, or upgrading the County’s investments in the transportation system and infrastructure. The Public Works Department’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) delivers this essential service for maintaining the large inventory of roads and bridges in the Lane County transportation system.

Lane County Capital Improvement Program is the document that describes the County’s five-year transportation related capital improvement projects. The five-year program is reviewed and adopted annually by the Board. The plan is updated annually to allocate limited financial resources to projects providing the greatest return for moving people and goods safely and efficiently throughout the County. It identifies candidate projects and their funding, and schedules projects within the planning period. The plan also helps provide for the most efficient scheduling and allocation of staff and other resources. One of the purposes of this publication is to disseminate public information. Lane County is publishing public information related to procurement of construction services in conformance with ORS 279C.305 Least-cost Policy for Public Improvements; cost estimates in budget process; use of agency force, and record of costs. As the owner of public infrastructure, the County undertakes several public improvement projects each year that are of public interest.

Lane County maintains about 1446 miles of roads and 415 bridges. Maintaining and repairing the road and bridge system includes surface and shoulder maintenance, drainage work, vegetation management, guardrail repair, signing, striping, pavement marking, and signal maintenance. When additional funding is available, the County allocates available resources to upgrade its existing infrastructure through the CIP planning process.

Lane Manual Chapter 15 spells out how capital improvements shall be carried out. It mandates that major improvements to the County road system be scheduled through the Capital Improvement Program with public involvement and prioritization processes. Projects that require competitive bidding are included in the CIP. Major improvements to the road system such as adding new road sections, widening existing roadway, providing bike lanes, and sidewalks constitute capital improvements. Typically, general construction, structures, safety improvements, pavement overlay, and direct payments to other agencies fall under the CIP scope.

The capital improvement and maintenance programs are planned and executed through three divisions in the Public Works Department, namely Transportation Planning and Traffic, Engineering and Construction Services, and Road Maintenance. The Transportation Planning and Traffic Division is responsible for processing the CIP and publication of this document.

6 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Infrastructure Condition The County currently maintains about 1446 miles of road and 415 bridges that are open to vehicular traffic. Thanks to reliable federal funding, the county has been able to keep the roads and bridges in good shape.

Table 1: Road Inventory Total Pavement Type Functional Class Miles1 AC2 Oil Mat Concrete Gravel Rural Local 538.340 179.881 264.581 93.878 Urban Local 120.212 110.514 9.242 0.456 Rural Minor Collector 363.339 199.136 89.744 74.459 Urban Minor Collector 16.884 16.884 Rural Major Collector 151.093 140.272 10.821 Urban Major Collector 25.309 25.015 0.294 Major Collector (Fed) 181.939 180.692 1.247 Rural Minor Arterial 16.867 16.867 Urban Minor Arterial 23.515 23.515 Urban Principal Arterial 7.911 7.911

Table 2: Bridge Inventory Restricted Bridge Material / Construction Quantity Weight or Width Concrete 5 Continuous Concrete 29 6 Steel 3 1 Continuous Steel 1 Pre-stressed Concrete 356 10 Continuous Pre-stressed concrete 5 Wood / Timber 16 12 Total 415

Collector and Arterial Roads comprise about 54% of the road network. They carry more vehicular traffic and freight than do Local Roads, so they require frequent maintenance. Hence, the Road Fund prioritizes work on these roads.

There are less than 27 miles of roads under county jurisdiction inside city limits. Since they carry higher traffic volumes, past CIPs have prioritized and completed several urban improvement projects. With federal funding uncertain in future years, urban improvements are receiving less focus in the County CIP.

1 Road inventory as of April 2010 2 Asphalt Concrete

7 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Figure 1: Bridge Conditions

Sufficiency Ratings for Lane County Bridges

Poor 3% Fair 14%

Good 83%

All of the 415 county owned bridges are inspected periodically under the state’s bridge inspection program, which informs local agencies about bridges within their jurisdiction that need attention. The overall physical condition of a bridge is expressed in terms of “sufficiency rating” on a scale of 0 to 100. A sufficiency rating of 50 or less is considered poor. Poor rated bridges are candidates for bridge replacement or rehabilitation, and are weight limited or closed. Fair rated bridges are provided with regular maintenance with minor repairs. The pie chart above shows the condition of Lane County bridges as of April 2010.

While there is a large inventory of road and bridges to keep in repair, the County’s fund sources are projected to diminish, based upon current information. The Lane County Capital Improvement Plan has been responsively reduced in scope, now emphasizing preservation as opposed to improvement projects. The following section discusses the County’s fund sources.

8 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

CIP Funding CIP projects are funded through a variety of funds, mostly the Road Fund. The Road Fund is comprised of revenues from several sources. Federal and state grants / assistance constitute the major sources of revenue.

Federal Sources of Revenue The majority of Lane County land is forested. Historically Lane County generated revenue from timber harvesting. In the early 1990s, timber harvests on National Forest lands and associated revenues declined significantly. In the latter years of the decade, to address this decline, Congress enacted legislation that provided a guaranteed minimum payment in the event actual receipts dropped below a predetermined level. This guarantee was modified and extended under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (SRS). Under the bill, the County received annual payments from the federal government.

When the SRS lapsed in 2006, Congress extended the bill one more year to 2007. In October 2008, legislation again reauthorized the SRS bill with a modified “step down” payment plan. According to the new SRS bill, payments will be continued at 90%, 80%, and 70% of the 2006 payment level until 2011. According to an Association of Oregon Counties forecast, the final year payment in 2012 will be less than $6.50 million. Timber payments without the SRS will be $1.68 million or less than 10% of historic levels. The table below shows the SRS contribution in the past and projected funding in future years.

Table 3: SRS Funding Levels Fiscal Year Payments Remarks 2002-03 $19.36 million 2003-04 $19.60 million 2004-05 $19.80 million 2005-06 $20.03 million SRS 2000 expired 2006-07 $20.50 million One year extended 2007-08 $20.60 million 2008-09* $18.45 million 90% level 2009-10 $16.60 million 80% level 2010-11 $14.96 million 70% level 2011-12 $6.48 million Final payment 2012-13 $1.68 million Timber payment without SRS

The SRS funding source, which historically constituted more than one-half of the County Road Fund, is uncertain beyond Fiscal Year 2011. Responding to the diminishing SRS funding trend, the county CIP has aggressively scaled back its general construction projects and none are currently planned after Fiscal Year 2010-11.

* Source: Association of Oregon Counties forecast dated December 31, 2009

9 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Lane and other counties are working with congressional representatives to find a long term solution to SRS funding. On April 14, 2010, in a bipartisan effort, twenty five representatives requested language to be inserted in the 2011 House Budget Resolution to establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to provide for possible changes to or reauthorization of SRS in 2011.

Federal Aid Programs The County receives federal road funds though several federal aid programs created under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Some of the programs the County has participated in the past are: Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U), Highway Bridge Program (HBP), Transportation Enhancement (TE), and the Forest Highway Program. The majority of the federal programs, such as the STP-U program, require a non-federal match, typically 10.27% of the total project cost.

Title II Funds The SRS also created Title II Funds that provide resources to improve watersheds, enhance fish and wildlife habitat, reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires and similar projects on federal land. The County receives a portion of such funds for fish passage projects on county roads.

Other Federal Funds The County continues to explore other federal funding available for projects. In the past, the CIP has successfully leveraged the federal Highway-Rail Crossing Program Section 130 funds. Recently, the County participated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 economic stimulus package. The one-time ARRA package provided the County about $1,264,000 for projects in the Metropolitan Planning Organization area and $1,700,000 for projects countywide.

State Sources of Revenue State Highway Users Fees consist of state motor fuel taxes (currently 24 cents per gallon), state weight-mile taxes for heavy vehicles, motor vehicle registration fees, fines, licenses, and other miscellaneous revenues. The fees and taxes collected are distributed to government agencies approximately as follows: 68% state, 20% counties, and 12% to cities. The county portion is distributed to all counties based on the ratio of registered vehicles to the statewide total.

HB 2001, Jobs and Transportation Act 2009 (JTA) The Oregon Legislature House in 2009 passed the Jobs and Transportation Act of 2009 (House Bill 2001). The JTA aims at funding investments in transportation infrastructure, including roads, bridges, bike and pedestrian facilities. The $273 million per year (when implemented fully) revenue generated by vehicle fees, fuel taxes, and non-highway fee increases will be shared with cities and counties. The counties share of the revenue is 30%. Lane County’s share is estimated to be about $1.5 million in FY 2010, $4.8 million in FY 2011, and $7.1 million in FY 2012. The distribution is based on the number of county registered vehicles in 2008.

10 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

The estimated Road Fund revenue may vary substantially from the figures shown above, subject to collection. There is an effort currently underway to put a measure on the ballot that would require voter approval of the fees increases retroactive to when the legislation became effective.

Oregon Transportation Act The 2001 Legislature passed House Bill 2142, also known as the Oregon Transportation Act I. This bill was later extended in 2002 as OTIA II and to OTIA III in 2003. While OTIA I and II addressed roadway and interchange capacities, OTIA III focused on bridges. The multi-billion dollar program addressed Oregon’s aging bridge problem, which included $361 million for city and county bridge maintenance and preservation projects. Lane County used this funding for rehabilitating and replacing aging county bridges.

Other Funding Sources In the recent times, the County has completed several projects on county roads within city limits that benefited both cities and the County. For these projects, the cities provided a match to the Road Fund dollars.

CIP Trend: Looking Ahead As the sunset of SRS approaches and uncertainty about alternative revenue sources looms, CIP funding has significantly diminished from a peak of $107 million in Fiscal Year 2005 to $26 million in Fiscal Year 2010. This declining trend is expected to continue in coming years, including this CIP cycle.

Relationship with Other Planning Documents Transportation System Plan The Lane County Transportation System Plan (TSP) guides how capital improvement projects are prioritized. Staff consults the TSP project list for potential projects every CIP update cycle. The TSP was most recently adopted in 2004. Lane County is also governed within the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan area by TransPlan, the Transportation System Plan for the metro area. Both documents must be consistent with the administrative rules for Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 12, the "Transportation Planning Rule" (TPR). The TSP and TransPlan describe goals and policies, the latter of which has the force of law.

In addition, of particular note to the CIP are policies related to Financing and Recommended Improvements. The TSP lists three relevant Board-adopted goals in this regard:

Maintain long-term County Road Fund stability by making annual budget adjustments and following adopted priorities.

11 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Use the County Road Fund effectively by following the priorities established in the 1991 Road Fund Financial Plan (updated 1995).

Maintain effective partnering relationships with cities and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT).

To accomplish these goals, adopted policies provide for, among other things, setting priorities for expenditure of the CIP. The first priority is to maintain and preserve the County Road and bridge system and to provide a safe roadside environment for the traveling public. The second priority, given available funds, is to enhance the County Road system. The third priority, given available funds, is to provide economic development infrastructure financing and assist cities and the ODOT with projects of mutual interest.

The TSP identifies a list of unfunded projects that serve the community within at least a 20-year planning horizon. A technical Needs Assessment process, described in the TSP, resulted in the project list. The list also includes county road projects identified in adopted city TSPs.

The TSP project list is based solely upon a physical assessment of the road network and not on a predicted revenue stream or on priorities established through public involvement. Priority setting occurs as part of the yearly budget and CIP adoption process. As revenues contract, the emphasis is on basic county operation, maintenance and preservation. As revenues expand, priorities will include more county modernization projects and a broader sharing of resources with cities and ODOT. Statewide Transportation Improvement Program The Lane County Capital Improvement Program is comparable to the function of the State’s Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). These two documents may show identical projects when the CIP leverages ODOT or federal funded projects in the County. Such projects must be adopted in the STIP before any grant pass-thru occurs.

CIP Process Staff Draft The CIP process begins each fall with staff evaluation of the previously adopted CIP program. The projects in the first fiscal year of the program in the current CIP are reviewed for project status. Those projects that will be completed or under construction by fall are removed from the list and projects in the following year are moved up for execution. County staff evaluates the progress of projects in the latter four years of the program and adjusts the program as needed to reflect best estimates of schedules, project scope, and cost. Staff also evaluates projects in relation to other candidates and makes any recommendations for additions or deletions from the program. If additional

12 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

funding is available through external sources, staff identifies a list of candidate projects for prioritization and accommodates new projects as needed.

To assist in this prioritization process, staff uses a Prioritization Matrix tool. The matrix considers traffic condition, crash history, and the benefits the project brings to the community. Each project is rated on eleven different prioritization factors described below. The factors are presented in the form of a matrix (see Project Description sheets beginning on page 33). Staff assigns a score based on internal consultation and engineering analysis. Staff uses the total score of the eleven factors as the basis for a recommendation to the Roads Advisory Committee. Prioritization Matrix Factors Structural Deficiency Improvement: This priority factor identifies whether the proposed project fixes an existing road or bridge structural problem. Bridge deficiencies are reported in the state bridge report in terms of sufficiency rating. Similarly, pavement structural quality can often be estimated from the pavement condition index (PCI) evaluated through annual pavement inspection.

Road Performance / Congestion Improvement: This factor is assigned if the proposed project helps to ease congestion where it is an identified problem, or improve roadway performance. Typically, projects involving roadway lane addition, signal installation, paved shoulders, or roadway alignment improvements can improve roadway performance or “level of service”.

Bike /Ped/Alternative Mode Improvement: This factor measures a project’s inclusion of bicycle lanes, sidewalks, pathways, paved shoulders, or improvements to the dedicated transit system, balanced with the need and probable use.

Degree of User Benefit: This factor compares the overall cost of the project to its public benefit. In general, projects that are located inside an urban area will rate higher because of higher traffic volumes. For this reason, the County’s capital investments in the past have leaned more towards urban roadway improvement than rural roadway improvement. However, rural road projects also rank high for this factor when safety is an issue.

Safety Enhancement: This factor is considered when the proposed project can potentially address pre-existing safety issues indicated by crash history.

Leverage Other Funds & Projects: This factor is used when the proposed project can potentially use external funding other than the road fund. It considers a wide array of benefits of associating the project with other proposed plans, projects, or opportunities such as bundling a project with other projects, cost savings, and jurisdictional transfer. As the Road Fund diminishes in value, this factor has gained in importance.

13 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Plan Consistency: This factor evaluates consistency of the project with the County’s Transportation System Plan and the Eugene / Springfield Metropolitan Area TransPlan. Projects must be consistent with these plans to be considered.

Economic Development: This factor recognizes the role of infrastructure in local economic development.

Recreation/Tourism/Rural Promotion: Each proposed project is weighed for its contribution towards rural recreation development and tourism promotion.

Maintain/Preserve County Road & Bridge System: The ultimate purpose of the CIP is to maintain integrity of the County’s transportation system. Any proposed projects that help in this effort are given a higher priority.

Public Support/ Readiness: This factor assigns importance to public comments in the project selection process, and whether the project is feasible or achievable within the desired timeline.

Public Participation Public participation is an essential part of the CIP process. The public can participate in the process by providing written or oral testimony at two public hearings, conducted before the Roads Advisory Committee (RAC) and the Board of County Commissioners (Board). Public notices for each hearing are sent to the citizens, interested parties, and city officials in the Newspaper and emails. Alternatively, the public can participate by sending their written comments to staff. The citizens can also receive CIP related information through the County’s web site. The County’s Roads Advisory Committee exists to promote public participation in the CIP draft and other roadway related issues. Roads Advisory Committee Action The Roads Advisory Committee is a committee comprised of volunteer citizens appointed by the Lane County Board of Commissioners. The RAC is tasked with helping the Board on transportation matters including developing the Capital Improvement Program. Citizen input plays an important role in the project selection and delivery process. The RAC seeks public comments on the staff proposed CIP before making a recommendation to the Board. This normally occurs in March. The RAC may change priority factors assigned to any project in the matrix and ultimately give preference to certain projects. The public also has an opportunity to comment on the prioritization process during a public hearing before the RAC. The public hearing with the RAC typically occurs in February. After considering information provided by staff and by the public, the RAC deliberate on the Draft and forwards a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.

Once projects are adopted and scheduled for design, citizen input is again sought on specific design concepts for individual projects. In this context, the RAC may elect to set

14 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

a public hearing before adopting a board recommendation on a preferred project alternative.

Board Action The Board reviews the recommendation forwarded by the RAC. Changes proposed by the public, staff, and the RAC are advisory to the Board. The Board has final approval authority for the CIP and expenditure of the County Road Fund. The Board holds a second public hearing on the draft CIP before adopting it at least 30 days prior to adopting the county budget. The Board may change project priorities at any time; projects may be added, deleted, or combined with new projects as situations arise.

In order to meet the county budget requirement, the Board is typically asked to adopt annual CIP updates around May each year. The following section provides an overview of the CIP 11-15 approved by the Board in May 2010.

CIP Categories The adopted CIP projects are grouped in several categories. Projects in each category are shown in a table format in the executive summary. The program categories used in this CIP are described below.

Right of Way This program category lists cost estimates for right-of-way acquisition for CIP projects. Individual amounts are shown for most General Construction projects. These estimates are preliminary and subject to change based on final design of each project and individual acquisitions. County acquisitions are based on appraisals of the land and improvements to be acquired and any associated compensable damages.

General Construction This category of program addresses improvement needs arising from geometric standards, pavement structure, or safety issues. Lane County has more than 27 miles of collector roads inside the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. Many of these roads do not meet modern geometric standards. Historically, this category of improvements constituted almost one-third of the CIP allocation. This is not the case now; no general construction or urban improvement projects are proposed in this CIP.

Preservation/ Rehabilitation Fund The pavement preservation fund is used for annual pavement overlay and rehabilitation projects and bridge rehabilitation projects, to respond to current pavement and bridge conditions. Asphalt Concrete (AC) overlay or chip sealing are used for preserving pavement. Although AC overlay projects are maintenance projects, they fall under the

15 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

definition of public improvements3 when the depth of AC is two inches or more, or when a proposal has an estimated cost of $125,000 or more. Therefore, AC projects are included in the CIP while Chip Seal projects are typically not included.

Pavement condition information is gathered annually and reported as the Pavement Condition Index (PCI). The PCI is the basis for prioritizing preservation and rehabilitation projects for the existing road system. Lane County uses the computer- based Pavement Management Program application and field inspections to prioritize annual pavement preservation projects. The program also identifies suitable treatment type and time.

Likewise, the condition of bridge condition is assessed through the statewide bridge inspection program. The inspection report identifies and recommends maintenance for bridges needing repair. In recent years, most covered bridge preservation projects have been funded through the National Historic Covered Bridge Program. Bridge rehabilitation projects are generally major in scope and too costly to categorize as rehabilitation. Such projects are categorized instead as Structures.

Structures Structures are generally localized projects such as bridges and retaining walls. The Structures program deals with bridge rehabilitation and replacement as indentified by bridge inspections or similar localized improvements.

Historically, the funding for Structures projects mostly came from state or federal grant program. In recent years the County replaced or rehabilitated aging bridges under the Oregon Transportation Investment Act of 2003 (OTIA III) or through the Highway Bridge Program (HBP), formerly known as federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation (HBRR) program. The County is also actively seeking other funds as they become available. However, new funding sources will not address seismic deficiencies in the remaining bridges.

Safety Improvement Safety improvement projects are intended to address localized problems that do not require major reconstruction. Staff recommends projects as locations are studied and identified. Generally, these projects will have low cost, are small in scope, have limited impact on adjacent properties, and are relatively easy to implement.

Fish Passage Projects The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has identified nearly 300 culverts under Lane County roads that they believe impede Coho or Chinook salmon passage at some stage in their lifecycles. The establishment of this fund is intended to dedicate Road Fund resources to replace these culverts and make them fish passable.

3 ORS 279C.305 defines resurfacing of highway, roads, or streets at depth of two or more inches and at an estimated cost that exceed $125,000 as a public improvement.

16 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Project for Development The projects for development category encompass projects that are unfunded but are highly ranked and prioritized. These projects are candidate CIP projects if funds become available.

CIP 11-15 Overview This CIP 11-15 is about $22.15 million which is less than the previous year’s CIP. The table below compares the allocation of CIP Road Fund dollars between the previous allocation and the current allocation for each CIP category.

Table 4: Program Totals by Category CIP 10-14 CIP 11-15 PROGRAM TOTALS BY CATEGORY Amount Percent Amount Percent Right-of-Way $10,000 0.04% $50,000 0.22% General Construction $325,000 1.25% $0 0% Structures $204,040 0.77% $624,4504 2.82% Preservation / Rehabilitation $23,462,000 89.59% $20,279,000 91.54% Safety Improvement $830,000 3.17% $205,000 0.93% Payment to other Government $1,030,000 3.93% $0 0% Agencies Fish Passage Projects $325,000 1.25% $950,000 4.29% Bike Ped Improvements 0 0 44,000 0.20% Total $26,186,040 100% $22,152,450 100%

As in the preceding CIP, this CIP allocates a significant percentage of the Road Fund towards the pavement preservation and rehabilitation program. It allocates $4.5 million annually for the pavement preservation program for the first three years. The outlying two years are allocated at $3.0 million per year, responding to declining revenue projections.

This CIP continues to cut back on Road Fund expenses by reducing expenses in the General Construction category; no projects have been included under this category.

The Structures category expenses are higher this cycle due to a major structure project on a County road. The Sweet Creek Retaining Wall project is a large project the County is undertaking. The County is performing all project related activities, including design and construction management. Unlike other federally funded projects in Lane County, the full construction cost is shown in the CIP because the County will be managing the construction contract. However, Table 4 above compares only the net Road Fund expenses allocated for this category.

This CIP shows a new metro area safety project consisting of an upgrade to existing traffic signals in the metro area. The Irving Road Railroad Crossing improvement project

4 Adjusted Road Fund expense after deducting a grant of about $4.0 million

17 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

is carried forward from previous CIPs. This CIP cycle also included a project in the Bike and Ped Improvement Category. The Hyacinth Street Sidewalk Installation project provides sidewalk on one side of Hyacinth Street to facilitate walking and biking to an elementary school on the street. These three metro area projects are made possible by federal Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U) funds, through the Central lane Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).

The Payments and Matches to Other Agencies category does not include any project in this CIP cycle. The Board’s decision to discontinue allocation of the local match in the amount of $1.03 million for the Oregon Department of Transportation initiated Coburg I- 5 Interchange Area Improvement project is reflected in this CIP.

The summary tables beginning page 21 in the next section show detailed project listings and estimated project costs.

18 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Executive Summary Tables

19 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Intentional Blank Page

20 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

FY 11/15 CIP Summary Table

Table 5: Annual Expenses by CIP Category ANNUAL TOTALS BY CATEGORY FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 5 YR Total RIGHT OF WAY (see page 22) $50,000 $50,000 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION STRUCTURES (see page 23) $620,750 $4,007,700 $4,628,450 PRESERVATION/REHABILITATION FUNDS (see page 24) $5,125,000 $4,521,000 $4,612,000 $3,021,000 $3,000,000 $20,279,000 SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS (see page 25) $205,000 $205,000 SUBTOTAL COUNTY PROJECTS $6,000,750 $8,528,700 $4,612,000 $3,021,000 $3,000,000 $25,162,450

PAYMENTS AND MATCHES TO OTHER AGENCIES (page 26) FISH PASSAGE PROJECTS (see page 26) $950,000 $950,000 BIKE PED IMPROVEMENTS (see page 27) $44,000 $44,000 SUBTOTAL-PAYMENTS & SPECIAL PROJECTS $950,000 $44,000 $994,000

Annual CIP $6,950,750 $8,528,700 $4,656,000 $3,021,000 $3,000,000 $26,156,450 Project Specific Revenue / Grants (see page 27) $500,000 $3,504,000 $4,004,000 Net County CIP Cost $6,450,750 $5,024,700 $4,656,000 $3,021,000 $3,000,000 $22,152,450

21 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Table 6: Right of Way CATEGORY: RIGHT OF WAY 1 FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 5 YR Total n Irving Road at NW Expressway and UP Railroad Crossing 2 Sweet Creek Retaining Wall3 $50,000 $50,000 TOTAL $50,000 $50,000

Table 7: General Construction CATEGORY: GENERAL CONSTRUCTION FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 5 YR Total

None4 TOTAL

1 Right-of-Way costs are approximate and based on an anticipated Right-of-Way impacts that are not defined in the early stages of project development. These costs are subject to change as design concepts are refined.

2 The Irving Road Union Pacific Railroad Crossing project is currently in the preliminary engineering stage. All Right-of-Way related works are expected to be complete by the end of the current fiscal year. The previously approved $10,000 fund in Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Right- of-Way is not shown in this CIP cycle.

3 Right-of-Way related expenses for the Sweet Creek Retaining Wall project are not eligible for reimbursement. The amount shown is allocated for any Right-of-Way related work that may be needed to complete the project.

4 No general construction project in this update cycle

22 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Table 8: Structures CATEGORY: STRUCTURES FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 5 YR Total

Sweet Creek Retaining Wall 5 $500,000 $3,905,000 $4,405,000

Goodpasture Covered Bridge 6 $120,750 $120,750

Layng Covered Bridge 7 $102,700 $102,700 TOTAL $620,750 $4,007,700 $4,628,450

5 The Sweet Creek Retaining Wall project is funded through the Oregon Forest Highway Program in the amount of $3.9 million, excluding Preliminary Engineering (PE) and Construction Engineering (CE) costs. Lane County is performing PE, CE, Environmental and permitting activities which are reimbursable. Intergovernmental Agreement defining reimbursable amount is forthcoming. The amount shown in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 is the anticipated National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) review cost. The FY 2012 expense is the construction cost which includes the Lane County committed local match of $401,000 (10.27% of construction cost). See the Project Information Sheet for additional footnotes.

6 The Goodpasture Covered Bridge is partially funded through the National Historic Covered Bridge Program (NHCBP) at 89.7% of total construction costs. The amount shown is local match for the repair work ($20,750) and bridge painting work ($100,000) coming from the Road Fund. A recent discovery of patches of rot in the bottom chords may necessitate a complete bridge replacement, which is beyond the scope of this project. See the Project Information Sheet for additional details.

7 The Layng Covered Bridge is in need of rehabilitation for its poor sufficiency ratings. The rehab work is estimated to cost around $1.0 million. Staff is seeking National Historic Covered Bridge and Highway Bridge Program funds for this project. The amount shown is the estimated (10.27%) local match required for the federal funds. See the Project Information Sheet for additional details

23 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Table 9: Preservation / Rehabilitation Funds CATEGORY FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 5 YR Total PRESERVATION/REHABILITATION FUNDS Overlays and Pavement Rehabilitation 8 $4,500,000 $4,500,000 $4,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $19,500,000 30th Ave. Overlay 9 $91,000 $91,000 Bridge Rehabilitation and Preservation 10 $300,000 $300,000 Covered Bridge Rehabilitation 11 $325,000 $325,000 Deadwood Covered Bridge 12 $21,000 $21,000 Wendling Covered Bridge 12 $21,000 $21,000 Pengra Covered Bridge 12 $21,000 $21,000 TOTAL $5,125,000 $4,521,000 $4,612,000 $3,021,000 $3,000,000 $20,279,000

8 These funds are programmed by County staff to respond to current pavement condition information and are needed to meet the priority of preserving and maintaining the existing road system. The Pavement Management Program helps to identify individual roads, appropriate time, and type of treatment needed for the roads. Funding for the last two fiscal years is reduced in conformity with the County's budget documents.

9 Lane County has applied for the Surface Transportation Program for the Metro area (STP-U) funds for an estimated $880,000 Pavement Preservation project for 30th Ave. The amount shown is the local match necessary to secure the fund which is calculated at 10.27% ($91,000). There is the possibility that the project may need to be rescoped to include additional works when field data is available. If the scope is changed, additional funding from the Road Fund (Overlays and Pavement Rehabilitation line item) may be needed to supplement STP-U funds. See related Project Information Sheet for additional details.

10 These funds are programmed by County staff to respond to minor repair and maintenance needs on bridges

11 These funds are programmed by County staff to respond to repair and maintenance needs on covered bridges such as re-roofing, painting, and other minor repairs.

12 These Covered Bridges are in need of reroofing. Lane County staff has submitted applications to fund these projects under the National Historic Covered Bridge Program (NHCBP). This CIP update included these projects given the history of successful funding applications in the past for similar projects. The NHCBP Funds require a 10.27% local match. Each roofing project is estimated to cost about $200,000. The target year is chosen at random and is subject to change when a decision is made on the application.

24 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Table 10: Safety Improvements CATEGORY; SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 5 YR Total Safety Improvements Fund 13 $50,000 $50,000

Irving Road at NW Expressway and UP Railroad Crossing (excludes $130,000 $130,000 railroad component) 14

Traffic Signal Improvement Project 15 $25,000 $25,000 TOTAL $205,000 $205,000

13 This line item is programmed by County staff to respond to minor safety improvement needs in the County Roads system.

14 This project is programmed in coordination with Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Rail. ODOT staff has secured federal ODOT Rail "Section 130" funds (ratified amount is approximately $546,000) to improve the railroad crossing. Lane County agreed to contribute up to $100,000 in kind or cash towards the railroad crossing improvements in addition to necessary urban roadway improvement on Irving Road. Lane County successfully sought an additional $237,000 from the Metro area Surface Transportation Program (STP-U) for the urban road improvements, which requires a local match of 10.27%. The total construction cost is estimated to be $680,000. The amount shown includes $100,000 towards Railroad crossing work and $30,000 for the local match. See related Project Information Sheet for additional details.

15 This project proposes to replace outdated hardware, dysfunctional components of signal controllers located inside the Metro area. Lane County has approval from the Metropolitan Organization (MPO) for use of STP-U fund for the project. The amount shown is the County's match for the funds. See related Project Information Sheet for additional details.

25 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Table 11: Payments and Matches to Other Agencies CATEGORY FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 5 YR Total

PAYMENTS AND MATCHES TO OTHER AGENCIES

None 16

TOTAL

Table 12: Fish Passage Projects CATEGORY: FISH PASSAGE PROJECTS FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 5 YR Total Fish Passage Project Fund 17 $50,000 $50,000 Five Rivers Rd, mp 3.9 18 $900,000 $900,000 TOTAL $950,000 $950,000

16 There is no funding allocation in the Payments and Matches to Other Agencies category in this CIP. The Board discussed whether the previously committed Lane County's contribution of $1.03 million towards a $9,000,000 federal earmark for an ODOT initiated local improvement project should be continued. The local match allocation is discontinued in this CIP.

17 This allocation in the Fish Passage Fund represents a set-aside amount that can be used for future projects and allows Public Works and partner agencies to plan for and/or request funds as projects become imminent.

18 The amount shown is the total construction cost for replacing five culverts on Five Rivers Rd. Lane County applied for $600,000 in Highway Trust Funds Aquatic Passage funds in October 2009, but recently learned that the grant is not available at this time. Staff will pursue other funding opportunities (see the Project Information Sheet for additional detail).

26 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Table 13: Bike and Ped Improvements CATEGORY FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 5 YR Total BIKE AND PED IMPROVEMENTS Hyacinth Street Sidewalk Installation 19 $44,000 $44,000 TOTAL $44,000 $44,000

Table 14: Revenue CATEGORY FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 5 YR Total REVENUE Sweet Creek Retaining Wall 20 $500,000 $3,504,000 $4,004,000 TOTAL $500,000 $3,504,000 $4,004,000

19 The Hyacinth Street Sidewalk Installation project provides one, one-sided 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the west side of Hyacinth Street. Staff will apply for the Metro area STP-U funding for this project. The amount shown is the County's local match required for securing the federal funding (see the Project Information Sheet for additional information).

20 Oregon Forest Highway Program (OFHP) has approved a grant amounting $3,905,000. Lane County is performing all project related works, including project management. PE, CE, and NEPA cost are also reimbursable. The amount shown is estimated NEPA cost during the PE phase in the first year and 89.7% of construction cost (grant). PE, CE costs are reimbursable but not related to bid, therefore not shown. See the Project Information Sheet for additional cost details.

27 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Table 15: Projects for Development Scope of Work

Estimated Project Name Limit Category Construction Description

Cost Level Others Prioritization Shoulder Bike Lane Sidewalks Alignment Turn Lanes Curb/Gutter Right-of-way Storm Drainage

General Urban improvement within Laura Street Lindale Dr to Q St $1,025,000 8 Construction City Limits Analyze Beaver Street extension in Beaver Street Division Ave to Special Studies $350,000 10 relation to Beltline study and city Extension Wilkes Drive projects Urban improvement within Harlow Road to General Game Farm Road $2,281,000 5 City Limits to provide bike and Mallard Ave Construction pedestrian connectivity to the Hospital Potential urban growth area in Bolton Hill Road General Dogwood Ln to UGB $1,200,000 8 the Veneta area due to a number of Phase II Construction new subdivision proposals A major connector road that connects General High Pass Road Hwy 99 to Oaklea Dr $2,500,000 6 Junction City Residential area with Construction Hwy 99 Rhododendron Dr General City of Florence requested project for Coast Guard Road $250,000 7 Coast Guard Rd Construction safety improvement A short section of county road that City Limits to General provides connectivity to local schools 31st/28th St $400,000 7 Yolanda Ave Construction from the south, including a new development Guardrail Various Locations Safety $1,000,000 6 Install guardrails where warranted in the upgrades county road system

28 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Project Location Map

29 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

PROJECT NOTES AND MAP KEY NUMBERS

(1) Sweet Creek Road: The Sweet Creek Road Retaining Wall project limit is between mp 1.95 to 2.15. The project replaces about 1050 feet of the existing tieback retaining wall. The existing retaining wall will be moved closer to the roadway. A guardrail along the river is also proposed. This project is funded through the Oregon Forest Highway Program.

(2) Five Rivers Road: Around mp 3.9 of Five Rivers Road five existing aged culverts need replacement. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife identified these culvert impede fish passage. This project will address the environmental issue when the culverts are replaced.

(3) Deadwood Loop Road: The Deadwood Covered Bridge on this road is proposed for reroofing. The bridge is load posted for 10 ton limit. The reroofing project will shed some weight that will free up some weight for vehicular traffic. The funding for this project is not secured. Staff anticipates this project fund through a grant from the National Historic Covered Bridge Program.

(4) Irving Road: The project is located at around mp 2.04 of Irving Road. It has roadway improvement and railroad crossing components. The Surface Transportation Program for the Metro area (STP-U) approved funding for urban improvements that will close the gap of unimproved roadway in the vicinity of the existing railroad crossing. The ODOT Rail is upgrading the existing railroad crossing, separately funded through the federal Highway-Railroad Crossing program (Section 130).

(5) Hyacinth Street: Hyacinth Street will be provided with a sidewalk on the west side of the road. The project limit starts from Calla Street and ends at the Irvington Drive. The sidewalk will provide walking connectivity between Irving Road and Irvington Drive and safe walking access for schoolchildren going to Irving Elementary School. The project is recently approved for STP-U funds in Lane County.

(6) 30th Ave: This project limit for the 30th Ave Overlay project is mp 0 to 2.0, from I-5 to Spring Boulevard. The project will overlay the road with a 3” thick asphalt concrete. This project is also funded through STP-U.

(7) Wendling Road: The Wendling Covered bridge on this road is proposed for reroofing. This is a placeholder project; the project scope and funding source will be updated as it nears construction. Staff anticipates this project fund through a grant from the National Historic Covered Bridge Program.

(8) Goodpasture Road:. The Goodpasture Covered bridge on this road is proposed for reroofing and painting. The project scope is likely to be changed to address structural issues recently found in the structural members. This project is shown as a placeholder project in this CIP and the project scope and funding information will be updated when a decision is made by the Board of County Commissioners. Staff anticipates this project fund through a grant from the National Historic Covered Bridge Program.

(9) Pengra Road: The Pengra Covered bridge on this road is proposed for reroofing. This is a placeholder project that will need to be executed in the near future. The project scope and funding information will be updated as it nears construction. Staff anticipates this project fund through a grant from the National Historic Covered Bridge Program

(10) Layng Road: The Layng Covered bridge on this road is load posted to 8 tons. The initial scope of the project is to reroof the bridge and rehabilitate some of the deteriorated structural members. The project scope and funding information will be updated as it nears construction. Staff anticipates this project fund through a grant from the National Historic Covered Bridge Program

(11) Metro Area County Roads: The county controlled traffic signals in the Metro are proposed for upgrade in this CIP. They are mostly located in the River Road / Santa Clara area. Locations for this project are shown separately on page 32.

30 F ive d R

r R i C H v w

r e T y e r e s r h H r

c i u t

d

a o lb F

e R R r e

r

e i a r

d r P r t g l C

L u

r s a

e Paris o k

t

n e

s

b

R o Lin M d g E L o Ln 9 a r #2 Rd 9 c FIVE RIVERS RD R d o s Fe rguson l e (! a 9 Lancaster im T r d 9 en H R G R W Mi n le w d d r R L

n y r e

L D v y i

FISH PASSAGE R

R w d Jaeg R k d H Butte Rd w a w w oh d M R o

s b Cox n r JUNCTION s n a r u

CULVERT REPLACEMENT P u Cory Rd b CITY a h T d h s e g l R i a

H k a

W O Deadw Horton pper oo High Pass (! d d Rd U Sw River Rd Rd a R r m

C n p n n

n

L

o o

t L Blachly r t

d o e

y y y Cr H Long l R

e p e R y s n t P Tom m r d i o w e h

o

s t

t H T P

y R Station D

. . d T R m Cheshire us N t Rd e

S m d B Reed p (! ig R l C Hall Rd e P r d ton d R o P R d d a Triangle R r w #7 WENDLING COVERED BRIDGE

R s

d o l C e

i

d n Lake (! Triangle t r s R a o

Alpha r R g b la

G T o u Lake C o ing d r r d L l R I R V r c R g n ll o r d e g i r d est r n d n a l Little Lake Rd g a e i W u a H d Millir e a on Rd (w ) b P M W

n s R H e o t o W r a n d r r n a C Marcola . F g o R C 36 e i I o l s r n d

p r d d r p ie Wilkins Rd k e (! i R

a

! A d ( H

Burp k n

. u R Lo

Rd Franklin (! Rd w ne Pine Dr P in N Hollow l y Trail Fr ank Cr Rd R R e

r L i C d Meadowvi v o ew Rd (w r C a ) e

d r r R 6 w a d l A

d l n 3 R v g r i R e l R e ls ood d w n H d F d K A l d c ir R ig R a e k d h e t d R D R #3 DEADWOOD COVERED BRIDGE d Vida . Gat N e R See Mohawk Rd d COBURG Van Duyn Rd Hwy Beaco (! (! k k n Dr r d

o (! Alvadore (w) R F R r d utle o k B C n d e Co le I R ar G e INSET A - R Rd r d d r Rd o le 5 o o o r Greenleaf . S ff R n d h e G a p N C W a S m s he r tu f e re n fl e d

r d so J R r n o p C #8 GOODPASTURE h 36 u n m (! Lake 9 S C s r o 9 r o r e h W p n D T Nelson d R p l Deadwood K R Rd l R d #5 HYACINTH STREET i

U

n d d H d M

i o F g Fern R G o

M i c r w h COVERED BRIDGE

tn ee r n k Leaburg t e d ! r (! (

Rainrock R Rd n k C #4RidgeIRVING RD ! w ( z s Nimrod d d

a r

! i R

Minerva ( Brickerville R d i h B d R N e o F 6) R

u B 2 o eltline M 1 H R y n n n t Bar Wa ger Dr r i

w Reservoir t r C ! o d rthe D p

( n e t C t y e h w d o 126 l Rd m w e H R n

T r

r n w l d w V a R o la o e C rh

R d s p AT NW EXPRESSWAY ie w d la e

l u d i a o s e

o R

d S R o D t O n M P d a c er 5 p

d t r l p wy - a . . e d U H ( (! Rd Royal I M E D R (! E Ave d x C Swisshome h p g amp

Elmira e R ac l r r Harlow Rd l e

o & UP RR Ci ROSSING c n s u r ge Suttle Rd i Walterville y ta l s r w S H b C H Noti (! e t w l o R h a d ns e y C s I - 105 e a i d J B

R F k k (! r EUGENE o Rd W. I - Cedar F n (! 10 h 1 1th 5 g Flats H d wy u Ave SPRINGFIELD Th R urston (! a Rd Rd

V Veneta (! Mapleton Hwy Cantrell Rd Rd Walton l d n il or n Hw R rh 12 H y McKenzie De e 6 e 9 h h (! P 9W t Tiernan e e r nn Perkins Rd r o (! r d G lat N C R F r R Jasp C e r d Vaughn on Fleck Rd r R lt a d d 1 o d R 2 l B t Point 6 il e t H S C d T d 30 r Terrace e R th R a r Richardson r d h i d n (! river t R y r p o e U Globe y w #1 SWEET CREEK ROAD r H B i a a

hard d Ric son l y

w l l il a R e tr w Ave d t n H e H R a t C e P Rd Seavey L Cr e e t p Rd t G t d e z l e V o

e

y n

r a e B w E l a e e u Cushman e r n l m c p l

S g v o a h r

L a h ic m i n a l o i L l s t l n G on d l i k a R r #6 30TH AVENUE

w so r i a

F a ro n B R G W

R Crow g C d W d u M (! H n

o

L w c

y C (! Jasper e e Goshen b Rd y (!

n Cr

e i d r e l

C H S l R ills r i

P ce t C i h u pen h M s S D e See l a a z d w t

e R . . h

e e d d l

m S R e J d e S w a R a R

s e R v s R a w d r p d n t o

r l e

R v r l e r e o l H

i D

x d d d e D s Fo Hadleyville p i H

l E R n d INl SET B y w a p a R rd y a o A d

w R B D R d k R d Hill Rd

r e (! R s d t g a r n #9 PENGRr A COVERED BRIDGE

r g P C i a L r y Pleasant s o M B w r a Fall ll C ir u e a o r r e F M Hill n W v ap r l ttle r l C L h l i d e n L L e Creek Canary h s o P C e r Rickets d e c Rd ig R Rd e F k R y Pla B a (! ce ll l

e w R

r r H d d r

e C R d P ow l e Rd Rd k Rd ll R a n e e e o re l x H g C Fo d

t n r r a t 5 Fall a a e 8 sula B e h Dal v Trent nnin n e o

K e l (! P a R Unity r r C d P K an o e

f u l t h o h L

W n e S CRESWELL r i Winb R e rr d y C Cama ale r Gillespie s Sw D

R e R Corners Rd d R x

d o a t r R g e C e t r Rd (! t LOWELL n W r s l e d e R D s R e Ln d e n ry s x R o i r n te s e (! r d m 9 i Ma lo w s b B R a r 9 S d e k Dexter e d e R H a Res F D Ln r id Alma R o d (! d w L d d o le e C

o r Rd s d t W Cr R k . T

c m i m r Ln Ln R Ha E d r Lo h d o

a k R ou M t

P B L C o y o un n r i x nt da r R y y y es Rd w er H H vo h ollo ir c w a

e R B d d R

d n R u G R Walker d

e r R (! H o g v n w e y y a o 5 R

tt t d o e C l -

k W

e I r

z

L u o . s

r a r a T S n a

H e a Lorane (! e g S T i e n r a r w i B t Rd o e S n (! ius n law r i e a R t l rholser Rd t d Ove Saginaw

d Rd Molito r Hill Rd R H Fi re w L y etz Cr Cr Rd 9 R 9 COTTAGE d GROVE

d R M d Rd R o R o r s w River b d S C G o le y h t w il R d y v o a r e R v d g g i R #10e LAYNG COVERED BRIDGE n e C w ri K r y D i a o a e D re r n R L d r n P a d d a d R y R h E R it h d a e 5 g i m i V 8 l s S d L te e H R IR n g G R VINGTON DR A ar ut r o

a v Cr L u o k A

c

o i

Q r

o

N n

r d

ST E y B HALLETT Hw o INSET A B n DR Scott Ln L HILL krid R ORA INSET B a ge FL WESTFIR O E Westf ir- V d R S d R R h KEL r R o o L SO AVE w OAKRIDGE d r a

A C e (See Key #4 & #5)

(See Key #6) v D n Lane County

M R i

i e

t u

M w R r R Allen Rd k E (! ive o D STILLM a r AN AVE BL Gap r e ACK s O FO R R OT AVE d M R d b s Cr y R W in Perk R Y d H BARSTOW AVE V STARK C C E T Capital Improvement Projects r A

A

L

D S E d

P TIV R OLI ST ! S ( CA R Dorena ROL AVE R

T T s D I e

N S R 2010

S FAYETTE AVE G e R H v P d

o s CE T r CIL A B VE E e

R e G R c C N i L A r r I I e B D V Culp TR - Rd R AVIS g e AVE 5 C v er D w a o o E L M t r Creek

A r t G (! e Disston L BLOO iv d (! M C o R Y BERG e I RD dar R N A C r C w H R N d e o

T R D g Projects O D D a t

N KAISER S t AVE R U R o

T

Y

T T C C

L

S

R H K A B

E W K H r BOB K F i OLINK AVE R O E O RE c M e C A ST Project Limits S R B 30T T L H E O VD AVE T N C S Rd L r C A R iso r E L T a D A L R A C

X S

N R S ) T R P M

I

R E LE R E GH D ORN ( RD A

E E. 40 E TH AVE R L R Interstate Freeways R C

D P S N d N A D E A R S D V S RY CRE S N E L K R F h R L D E A W a r L T A B p

I A A

R A s A A E H

Y M N

I d

I E S S Y C

v

L l

T T N S State Highways R

K B

T O D Irving Rd Project N London N (!

g S FED E G ERAL LN . 4 O A n 3 Rd i

T R

r D

T D A R ng N i p V r L § F t S E s

E S e E o A

G I h d Lane County Roads IRVING RD S R

M

y y

L a L l A o C n K e d ir o F n

C R r d

d (! R 31 Black Butte ampion Ch Rd d R

d

R

P r a ir i d e

R

g

n

r

L

u

s

l

l r b

i n

e d

o a e

H d n

o C r e

n il R

i u a

k R n n

Lone Pine L Q F S L S Dr

n a p

n e M r i e o Mont e morence Dr k c e

r C s a a e

b r o G p s r

y e 126 b ) l R e k e R

r u

n R d d u r L g o i n P v H e r MPO Area Signal and Specialty Sign Replacements and Upgrades

Ind ian Dr

Paiute Ln Me Vic adowview tory Dr by Road Intersection

Rd (w)

d Meadowvie R w Rd (e)

.

N

n

L Rd d

R MPO Boundary Lassen Ln C River Road / Spring Creek Drive Maxwell Road / Prairie Road o

s 1 9

C ! ! n l g e o y

R n

i b l a d l gow n u Mc

a R r

t g d S River Road / Lynnbrook Drive 30th AveC r/ REd ldon Schaefer Drive Urban Growth Boundary !2 !10 27 - Blm 16-2

I #

t n M t

i C d o

s v n u o s

Luckey Ln a

L

s b

a a R

River Road / River Loop #2 Hayden Bridge Road /e Hadrvest Lane t

u 3 11 d R n

! ! L r

n

g Roads

o W

D

s s

t a

n

a y a L River Road / Irvington Drive P Centennial Blvd / Aspen St l

o Pearl St 4 12 e Va ! ! e o n n Duyn G l c n Rd a Ln r

L

a

m Freedom Ln p R

n e M

L Beacon l G Dr i (w) o w d Botton River Road / River Loop #1 ra Hayden Bridge Way / 5th St H b o Vintage 5 13 v R r ! ! e e L s B n r Beacon Dr (e) x Way t s o Lisa Ct

n Awbrey K NW Express / Irvington Drive Ln d 6 14 Hayden Bridge Road / 19th St

R ! ! P ico St Tree a d F R r R

R d d m L

o

R i

n b k Beacon D Prairie Road / Irving Road Street Lighting r (e) 7 E E E e t r ! ts C l e Bond l 1 R i

M d k Nadeau Rd Rd " # ay n H 1 W

e y ! elb u

S r p

r F

L y n uc

A t Maxwell Road / Grove Street INnadterconnaect Cable Replacement m e i 8 au o

n r ! n " m P r a e Dr !2 e W e

n v Ac e r res Rd

i

r a a d i R n G y r i y Rd E. Enid Rd e "3 s Dr u w d S Ü ! w H i o d d n p R a E Cha man h Irvington Dr M . c Ken S Buckskin Dr Airport "6 Wilkes Dr zie W R Rd ! "4 Dr

d Kelso Ave ! Miles L

N a 0 0.5 1 2 d o R r k iv r e D e R t r Ca Edgewater v rol Ave h w i e w e l l s P i t a r A D H g e k E n a it ld ( r e hwy L Kokkeler x m B Rd r r p r d a d " h A 5 R n r ! c R e s n i h s e d R

s l

i d e

y r w

a W w G y

H Clea Irving Rd d r Lake Rd Rd rm Hunsaker R " Ln - Bea a !7 ve F r d M R ulkey Ln Ayre R d n s F R a a d L S N

i t r

Theona Dr t l h . ll t e pr i i S a e y y g u H D t M e i t Hillview t M t Cr Bass Ln n e en

n G

u

g c e B o C

o

a a k l v #1 t a a Ln

m i e n c M

C A . y k e m n o

Oaks Dr B N r n z d r el A R u t l i d R Ave in e b iver Boden l R e hamer Rd i

Ward Ln B

W u

t Kourt Dr t Cr e ossley Ln F a Cress Cr " r !9 !"8 E m p p Rd

g g m Wildrose Ln r hawk a E u o

b M C d Barge d R Inte r y o rnational Way d R R Dr E w C H ' s V d d y i l d r ew Game n r r E O Deadm o Fe D Bridges L R Beltline Rd (e) n d E B l d a O l Horn Ln d t las r Nicho y e E t

S L V p

S Dr F n e e i p l a e a U o w Et i r l r m e

H O illaire St D

y y

t Shenandoah a Ave t n Mallard t L S S w S P n Bailey L Lp Rd E e

d Pa h h rk h Ave t t R t R r s t e Worth a

9 e 3 d 7 i a v v R 3 1 G 3

r

s d e

. E a

a

r r t t O

a t

d kda l H V N V Royal Ave e n Man D era St iewmont Av e S S sf S eward iel R d S S e t t R t l i a d

l Av r d n i e l

S h y t t l o y A e t m ve Delr r os e A r E ve R t (e) r t H S r S e e e V 4 h

s R B D e

t C E n Alle am s n p e t e 3 k A m v t e h n

s h l 5 i e d e o t

t v e r a B l L

e e h 0 G d landa 7 8 d D n h G Harlow Yo Ra c n O m n R n h Ave t 3 i 2

W l H y ayde L e L n " 8 t Br Wa1y 3 D l ! r a 2

C

e

e y t

/ /

u n

W H "11 L s B Lindale D ayden r Br "S ! Rd 14 s d V s W h ! u e n i t r t

i R h t C l lla r Lom i k r on t d Av m e ve e A t in B e a ge S V M t o d i 0 tt d wnr iw o e e a S Oak r

r L Firth 2 A l ve h h S N e d w

t

a )

a P t R

C t

t e d r 9 Point Rd R a a s D d

G t S

( r n S s b 1 r S Bonnie Ln 4 r t R D 1 u

d . r

e 2 o h 3

S o h a I-105 t

N D

w t n h D h

t L 5 t India

d u n d 7 Fo o rd P

l S 5 n l R a Q 1 i i p e i iv d nn l Op ortu Av St 1 o er C o nte nity nalt o Ln H ui o e Q n h e . c m w W a r d e C Lp e S s Way h u n n G opble Ln e b t H k c c e i

ve i L K Jr Blvd r K M y e d Judy A n lo P R n L r L a e e p ( a e a M a g g n n e t r o W r r L ) G h u lvd k B t w G b H l e d . n S oia ia o a u n S r S a R rri o e q ten s y Nielson C s Ce n r Av e D d

P e t y " r H a a 12 Bonnie eights r kw d ! R S h

n t

s l d l

r i A 6 e r

t Rd R

t e

6 v e M

S

h

S v Ru Cr s t ow A h Rd t

d

a g r n u

R r r B a e n e

r e Dr Thurston i a ro F l L a v St n d n l D way p

D W i

a

y C s E t t St R n

B d l

e a

A e ie L t l l l o z D r l St R n r i d e P e

o k a C St H c p

R p

h M u

r a B St C W. 1 3th Ave L L

C

e

Rd A St d v

d )

w nzie Hwy R A (ma o n in o e St) l k ( i c

l

o

i d M k k p

e

v

w S a p

l W v i M E

n t . C . S s B O A A R e c J d t l s t S J e i v S u a a n d r F n A e d L S R n

G t s a s l o S S a

s y t E p i h W. 18t s C h J t Av 0 . t e r . e S u S d E. 17th Ave x R M 2 8

k e t t r l 7 d l i e n n C 5 i d d e s e n S v n 9 d . n t H

R A B R r s t e a S d h 20th Ave h i h t

t E. o E. 1 9 l t H v la n l n F N S 8 d S F e d E. 21st Ave t 2 n t n u t M s l o B l 2 ct L g H e a n S o vish Rd g S r s e 4 W e c t e a w o a t t Mt Vernon g e r t r a h Rd E l 22n d L d Av N S t t u y y . a No rth St S e G r u e C 7 r S Rd t L R w S n e Ash e h

B l St H 4 m h w w d H h Ave r i 4t n 2 t r

l d (

l l i e 5 o e R a .

l r i D h a e ll r n p 7 9 i t r

n P S. M St

e S e 3 l tag s d ron Rd w v

n W F

S 5 t l d D e o a h S J t 4 e D A r r y . r

d D

r b t S R e . C l i d d n Dorris St D ai l D S y R h l

l R S D t d e i S l t

R i i s e e n r z

l H r a l e

h i d H o

H L t a r l z x t Ve P M rno

R t D i n Rd o b e 6 o . . H g r n

v

B n 2 i h

n a t S n m y i l y n . A r r K

e l r 4 L

e H

e L

l n a S l h e v

s 3 i

o Rd t R n e b

u a K 9 .

a r 9

t o

o d 9

S u B 3 Har h m

S on

L ) n

a

i . k F

L

L

u r S Ln Clearwater d a Clearwater Ln

D R n

k (p n l vt) i L

3 n

n 0

y L th n

t t

t a

S

d o B g Lipins r ky s R l o r o v

h

e d

a m

Ln b

c

M

m ( M f a r Bloomberg Rd o e h F Fran R Kloutz Rd Cr st o n k C r r t d D Firland e Fir Cove a Pa W s Ln rri o t g sh oad Siesta Ln l E e Fra S R Blvd o . ) d l a d 38 n n

l i th B k ra i B d s on lv d d li

K r n H d n e R C A i u v S ve R D t ( C

n R p y e B v

t r w e S A ) Go d ny r o

e n e

l " l p a 10 v D W v o i . 40th l t !A D

L v l o o e r R o A d e t a R a d d m r d s

B h g l S y a t Av e eavey e r e B Lp R v e d a e C

f Se h 4 S E. 40th P d Ave

a l B d

p v d B 4 d e e V a o r r h

r u R d

d y

l . o t a

i l l o B W w r R c i a l e a t n f a i M e i e k

R d o W l r y g e g S

e n d H w o D r d m b E. w t i 43rd R d

m s R d d N

o B n a e n . A

r H R r v d R s n d l N R D a e o r l e l o l v d o f i d R o e l d r ( m n n i E e W o E a a G ) l S e P Gimpl S S Lp ac C t ll t S a R a eavey ainbo S m w e W D w r D Ln ro V e t i

n D k T a w r C l r l in

e d o

u y o a d r R o r R m y t r ( e Bu p l n s t o e D t m e v s d L e s H s h t o d ) R R l Rd t o C l n r d M o a i

c d e v G

R n e H b M S 52nd Av b chno e e renberg Ln l

. t i y O h H a Restwe F a ll S k s r ( R w D y d y w ) y y Rd H Laird

F e

a

l i a l l

l i s A S t

P a H w idden e Ln B M ad n ow B St

R s Lorane C St n d L Rd wl Rd Cr O D D St p y d D o 5 e e 8 r R n r o r n

S R r y p

e e L d L

n s v d Hil d ls u e

L d l r r a in n d l R O a r e C r R A

L

R

h M C S

v

b l Rd i c

e n d

b c n

i e m V

r s

r e h t Sp ce R en u d t t Cam s u

as a h aw S asp C k d J d h e c y m e i n a r k n r c L c a L ail e L P h Redt l H

S l c k k Ln n a e

M L A r r

z y n k a e a n

e e R W M y d r L t d P d

m a le I E Kestr R r R zaak d el Ln d a R p a a y p d W g l t D l W alto R L e

i r n l l r p e h t Summerville R e l R i s d R e A d u d D e e

C g l p a d w D t

A Hampton R s Te s s e

. . a

P e

R r R S n J e i N e e d i

s n l d

a s R l r r e i n R

i L d g

c n p d D i s o D H L D

e Sak e e ura L s n d T r R m n

t abh s l r t f L a Zeph w e y B o r W e e u g m ay t l

S s k H g J S l i a k e o a

d S c i i yr r

p i D L y a r r e v y n n h a L V e e L r

r H e L d l y n w a a v d g e y D e y C Private r r r l R a od e e i o S H l c L d a e R s n e e r M w d d lipp e n w n t n d y e R a Ol a e oad n o R E

r R e i r o o t l

d r d

i 32 P e F

l F H p R p d A

d d

e e . r

y y n a

N l a B l a i

r

w e

o D

k r

r L r

y R a

d P

L n LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Project Descriptions

33 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Intentional Blank Page

34 Sweet Creek Road Retaining Wall Project MP 1.95 to 2.15 Estimated Road Fund Cost $451,000

Project Scope: Remove existing retaining wall and construct a tieback-soldier pile retaining wall

Project Limit MP 1.95 to 2.15 Road Name Sweet Creek Road Functional Class Minor Collector Project Status Proposed Length 1,050 ft Project Category Structures

Existing Roadway Condition ADT 220 Crash Rate 0 Pavement Type Asphalt Concrete Sidewalk PCI 85 Curb Width 22 feet Bike Lane

Define the Problem Pavement settlement, sunken grade, and movement of the road at the top of the existing 40-year old tieback retaining wall is evident suggesting the tie backs with the anchor blocks have failed or became loose. Failure of the structure would lead to failure of the road fill and would effectively cut off the area served by Sweet Creek Road. A catastrophic failure would also release fill into the Siuslaw River.

Illustrative Retaining Wall Section

35 Sweet Creek Road Retaining Wall Project MP 1.95 to 2.15 Estimated Road Fund Cost $451,000

Proposed Solution Remove the existing retaining wall and construct a new tieback soldier-pile wall and relocate closer to the roadway, about five feet away from the river. Piles will socket into shafts in bedrock providing the required structural stability. An opportunity will exist to improve the riverside habitat by planting trees on the 5-foot strip create by relocating the wall. A guardrail will also be installed on the river side of the road.

Project Cost ($,000s) PROJECT ELEMENT TOTAL FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Pre-Engineering $200 $200 Right-of-way Phase $50 $50 Construction Engineering $600 $600 Construction $3,905 $3,905 NEPA Process $500 $500 Total Cost $5,255 $750 $4,505

Funding Source ($,000s) FUND SOURCE TOTAL FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Road Fund (match, r-o-w) $451 $451 OFHP Fund $4,505 $4,505 WFLHD Reimbursable Road Fund $299 $299 Total Fund $5,255 $750 $4,505

Factors for Project Selection Safety Improvement Plan Consistency Structural Capacity Enhancement Economic Development Congestion Improvement Supports Tourism, Recreation Provides Bike/Ped Alternative Preserves Bridge Pavements Degree of Users Benefits Has Public Support (Public Request) Leverages Other Projects/Funds Total Factor Considered 10 Footnotes

This project amounting $3,905,000, has been approved by the Oregon Forest Highway Program (OFHP). Lane County committed a maximum local match of $401,000 in kind towards construction costs. Lane County is performing all work related to the delivery of this project, including PE, NEPA process, and CE. All incurred costs are reimbursable except right-of-way acquisition, which are subject to negotiation. An IGA will be executed separately in the spring of 2010 addressing reimbursable project expenses.

This project will be bid and administered by Lane County. Construction costs will be reimbursed as incurred by the County. Therefore, the full project cost is shown in the CIP although the majority of funding is grant assistance. Non-road fund expenses are shown as revenue to reflect net road fund expense.

The project execution timeline is shown for two years; the first year showing cost estimate for PE and NEPA process with construction and CE cost in the following year. Road Funds will be used and eligible expenses will be reimbursed as expenses incur. Details of funding, responsibilities are forthcoming in the spring of 2010.

36 Five Rivers Fish Passage Culvert Project MPs 1.75, 2.72, 3.13, 3.9, and 5.18 Estimated Road Fund Cost $900,000

Project Scope: Replace five existing aging culverts with fish passage culverts on Five Rivers Road

Project Limit MP 1.75 to 5.18 Road Name Five Rivers Road Functional Class Rural Local Project Status Proposed Length 5 locations Project Category Structures

Existing Roadway Condition ADT 100 Crash Rate 0 Pavement Type Asphalt Concrete Sidewalk PCI 75 Curb Width 20 feet Bike Lane

Define the Problem Five Rivers Road alignment follows the Five Rivers and several rivulets cross the roadway. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) identified five culvert crossings on Five Rivers Road that impede fish passage and need to be upgraded to a fish passable culvert. Although the roadway serves a low traffic volume, ODFW gives high priority to fish passage culvert replacements. From a road maintenance perspective, these culverts are nearing the end of their useful life. Recurring maintenance of aged culverts are more costly.

Proposed Solutions

37 Five Rivers Fish Passage Culvert Project MPs 1.75, 2.72, 3.13, 3.9, and 5.18 Estimated Road Fund Cost $900,000

Proposed Solution Five culverts are proposed for replacement with efficient, low cost, fish friendly culverts conforming to stormwater Best Management Practices. Since these culverts will need to be replaced soon anyway, it is economical to replace all of the five aged culverts under one contract.

Project Cost ($,000s) PROJECT ELEMENT TOTAL FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Preliminary Engineering $95 $95 Right-of-way $25 $25 Construction Engineering $85 $85 Construction (HTAP) $0 Construction (County) $900 $900 Total Cost $1,105 $1,105

Funding Source ($,000s) FUND SOURCE TOTAL FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Road Fund $1,105 $1,105 HTAP Fund ODFW Fund US Forest Service Total Fund $1,105 $1,105

Factors for Project Selection Safety Improvement Plan Consistency Structural Capacity Enhancement Economic Development Congestion Improvement Supports Tourism, Recreation Provides Bike/Ped Alternative Preserves Bridge Pavements Degree of Users Benefits Has Public Support (Public Request) Leverages Other Projects/Funds Total Factor Considered 3

Footnotes

Five Rivers Road is designated as a federal Forest Highway (Highway 168) and eligible for Highway Trust Funds Aquatic Passage (HTAP) funds. A $600,000 HTAP funding request was submitted to US Forest Services in October 2009.

US Forest Service recently notified the County that the grant application is not approved at this time. Considering the urgency of maintenance works identified for the five culverts, all of $900,000 construction costs will need to be funded from the Road Fund. Staff will continue to seek alternative funding sources for this project.

Although a low priority from a road perspective, this project has been identified and prioritized based on roadway maintenance needs. From the road maintenance perspective, these culverts are nearing the end of service life. It is cost effective to bundle all five-culvert replacements as one contract package than replacing one at a time under the maintenance budget; therefore, this project is developed and proposed under the CIP.

38 Pengra, Wendling, Deadwood Covered Bridge re-roofing Project MP 0.036, 3.535, 0.307 Estimated Road Fund Cost $63,000

Project Scope: Rehabilitate Pengra, Wendling, and Deadwood Covered Bridges roofing and other structural members.

Project Limit Various Bridge Number C39004, 39C174,39C551 Functional Class Project Status Proposed Road Name Project Category Structures

Existing Bridge Condition ADT Truck Traffic Bridge Type Wooden Bridge Load Rating 15 t, 10 t,18 ton SR 55, 43, 64 Height 14.5', 12', 9' Width 20', 17', 18' Span 120', 60', 105'

Existing Bridge Views (Deadwood Covered Bridge)

Define the Problem Deadwood Covered Bridges is posted with 10-ton load limits due to poor structural condition. Roofing materials on these bridges are at the end of service life and are heavy. This project will replace heavy roofing materials to shed some weight and reduce dead load on the structures.

Existing Bridge Views (Pengra Covered Bridge)

39 Pengra, Wendling, Deadwood Covered Bridge re-roofing Project MP 0.036, 3.535, 0.307 Estimated Road Fund Cost $63,000

Proposed Solution Replace the existing roofing material with lightweight roof, thereby reducing dead load. This strategy will defer costly structural improvements needed in the bridges. Re-roofing bridge work is eligible for National Historic Covered Bridge Program (NHCBP) funding.

Project Cost ($,000s) PROJECT ELEMENT TOTAL FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Pre-Engineering $30 $10 $10 $10 Right-of-way Construction Engineering $30 $10 $10 $10 Construction -structure $603 $201 $201 $201 Consultancy Service $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Cost $663 $121 $121 $121

Funding Source ($,000s) FUND SOURCE TOTAL FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Road Fund-local match $63 $21 $21 $21 NHCBP Funding $600 $200 $200 $200 State Aid Other Total Fund $663 $221 $221 $221

Factors for Project Selection Safety Improvement Plan Consistency Structural Capacity Enhancement Economic Development Congestion Improvement Supports Tourism, Recreation Provides Bike/Ped Alternative Preserves Bridge Pavements Degree of Users Benefits Has Public Support (Public Request) Leverages Other Projects/Funds Total Factor Considered 7 Footnotes

Project Selection Factors are shown for informational purposes only. Bridge projects are not ranked, are other project types, for funding priority. These projects are prioritized based on maintenance recommendations prepared by the bridge inspectors. These bridges have been recommended for rehabilitation in the recent bridge inspection report.

It is assumed that National Historic Covered Bridge Program (NHCBP) funds will be available for repairing one bridge at a time from FY 2012 through 2014, not in any particular order.

These Covered Bridges are candidates for rehabilitation / replacement owing to its poor structural condition rating and low overall bridge sufficiency rating (SR). Bridges with an SR below 50 are generally replaced with a new structure.

Lane County applied for NHCBP funds to preserve the historic bridge to make minor repairs such as re- roofing. Staff anticipates approval of the funds in future allocation cycle FY 2012 through 2014. Structural issues may be addressed separately by seeking other eligible funding from external funding sources, namely Highway Bridge Program, as opportunities become available.

The Road Fund cost shown is required local match for federal funding, which is calculated at the required match rate, of up to 20%. The project costs shown are tentative and based on similar projects completed in the past. The cost will be updated when scope and funding details become available.

40 Irving Road Railroad Crossing Project MP 2.05 Estimated Road Fund Cost $130,000

Project Scope: Improve railroad crossing and provide urban roadway improvements needed for the railroad crossing.

Project Limit MP 2.04 Project Number 3268-3 Functional Class Minor Arterial Project Status Previously Adopted Length 0.15 mile of crossing Project Category Safety Improvements

Existing Roadway Condition ADT 8,000 Crash Rate 0.34 crash / mil veh Pavement Type Asphalt Concrete Sidewalk PCI 90 Curb Width 44 feet Bike Lane

Location / Vicinity Map

Define the Problem This railroad crossing has been identified as an unsafe railroad crossing in Lane County due to the substandard crossing equipment and roadway improvements surrounding it. Lane County improved Irving Road to urban road standards. Recognizing the need for a railroad crossing upgrade, the area around the rail crossing was left unimproved. As traffic volume increased on this road, more accidents around this crossing have been observed, including a fatal crash.

Proposed Roadway Section

41 Irving Road Railroad Crossing Project MP 2.05 Estimated Road Fund Cost $130,000

Proposed Solution The ODOT Rail Division has proposed a railroad crossing upgrade, and has collaborated with the County to provide the necessary roadway improvements needed for the crossing. The proposal is to provide necessary urban roadway improvements to complement the railroad crossing improvements.

Project Cost (in $,000) PROJECT ELEMENT TOTAL FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Preliminary Engineering $48 $48 Right-of-way 0 0 Construction Engineering $48 $48 Roadway Construction $267 $267 Roadway within rail zone $100 $100 Crossing Improvements $450 $450 Total Cost $913 $913

Fund Source (in $ ,000) FUND SOURCE TOTAL FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Road Fund- rail related $100 $100 Road Fund –local match $30 $30 STP-U $237 $237 ARRA 0 0 Federal Aid (Section 130) $450 $450 ODOT Rail (match for fed) Unkn Unkn Reimbursable Road Fund $96 $96 (Section 130) Total Fund $913 $913

Factors for Project Selection Safety Improvement Economic Development Structural Capacity Enhancement Supports Tourism, Recreation Congestion Improvement Preserves Bridge Pavements Provides Bike/Ped Alternative Has Public Support Degree of Users Benefits Total Factor Considered 11 Leverages Other Projects/Funds Plan Consistency Footnotes

 This project is programmed in coordination with ODOT Rail. FHWA-RR recently awarded Section -130 fund monies (approximately $546,000) to improve the railroad crossing. In an IGA with ODOT Rail, Lane County agreed to contribute up to $100,000 in kind or cash match towards the railroad crossing improvements. Lane County sought an additional $237,000 from Surface Transportation Program (STP for Metro Area) to complement the railroad crossing works outside the rail right-of-way. STP-U funds require a local match of 10.27%.

ODOT and Union Pacific Rail (UPRR) are working on an IGA to complete the railroad-crossing work. Civil roadway design work will be finalized as soon as UPRR completes the railway component. UPRR will design, supply material, and install railroad crossing. An ODOT appointed consulting firm will administer the project in coordination with railway work crews.

42 Hyacinth Street Sidewalk Installation Project Irvington Drive to Calla Street Estimated Road Fund Cost $44,000

Project Scope: Improve Hyacinth Street to accommodate one sidewalk within the available right-of-way.

Project Limit MP 0 to 0.664 Project Length 3,190 feet Functional Class Collector Road Project Status Proposed Road Name Hyacinth St Project Category Bike and Ped

Existing Road Condition ADT 2,000 Ped Traffic estimated 50 Pavement AC Right-of-way 60 feet PCI 86 Lanes unstriped Width 36 Feet Parking Lane street parking b/s

Location Map and Existing Road Condition

Define the Problem Hyacinth Street is a Minor Collector Road serving Irving Elementary School, neighborhood communities, and providing a convenient connection between Irvington Road and Irving Road. The road has curbs and gutters but no sidewalks to provide connectivity for walking and biking schoolchildren. The roadway is used for parking on both sides, leaving a narrow roadway shared by bike, pedestrian and autos.

Proposed Roadway Section

43 Hyacinth Street Sidewalk Installation Project Irvington Drive to Calla Street Estimated Road Fund Cost $44,000

Proposed Solution Provide a 6-foot wide sidewalk on the west side (the school side) adjacent to the existing curb and gutter, matching the existing roadway grade and profile. Accommodate bike lanes within the existing roadway width in a separate restriping project. Project Cost ($,000s) PROJECT ELEMENT TOTAL FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Pre-Engineering $68 $68 Right-of-way $10 $10 Construction Engineering $41 $41 Utility relocation $41 $41 Construction $273 $273 Total Cost $433 $433

Funding Source ($,000s) FUND SOURCE TOTAL FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Road Fund-local match $44 $44 STP-U Funding $389 $389 School Match $0 $0 Assessment $0 $0 Total Fund $433 $433

Factors for Project Selection Safety Improvement Plan Consistency Structural Capacity Enhancement Economic Development Congestion Improvement Supports Tourism, Recreation Provides Bike/Ped Alternative Preserves Bridge Pavements Degree of Users Benefits Has Public Support (Public Request) Leverages Other Projects/Funds Total Factor Considered 8 Footnotes

Sidewalks, either setback or curbside, are required on both sides of arterial and collector roads when existing arterial or collector roads are reconstructed in an urban area. This project proposes to install a one- sided sidewalk as a bike /ped retrofit project, deviating from the road standard. A separate deviation process will need to be initiated.

Irving Elementary School requested this project in 2006. School staff gathered local residents’ support for a safety improvement project. Lane County worked with school staff and applied for an ODOT Pedestrian or Bicycle Improvement Grant for a sidewalk installation project. The grant was not made available for this project.

Staff identified this project as a potential CIP project in anticipation of receiving external funds in the future. Accordingly, the project was adopted as a Project for Development in the CIP 10-14 update cycle.

The Road Fund cost shown is the required local match for federal funding, which is calculated at the existing required match rate, of 10.27%.

Sidewalk projects are typically financed through adjacent property assessments. Sidewalk installations for recently completed urban improvement projects such as Harvey Road, Bolton Hill Road, and Game Farm Road have been paid for by assessments on adjacent property owners. It is assumed that the project will not assess adjacent property owners.

44 30th Ave Overlay Project I-5 to Spring Blvd Estimated Road Fund Cost $91,000

Project Scope: Overlay roadway section with a 3” thick Asphalt Concrete

Project Limit MP 0 to 2.01 Road Name 30th Ave Functional Class Minor Arterial Project Status Proposed Length 2.01 mile Project Category Pavement Preservation

Existing Roadway Condition ADT 20,000 Crash Rate 0.1 crash/ mil veh Pavement Type Asphalt Concrete Sidewalk PCI 53 Curb Width 78 feet Bike Lane/Shoulder

Define the Problem An annual pavement inspection identified signs of pavement distress. The latest PCI reading has dropped below 60, indicating that a preservation project is due soon. If not addressed soon, the rating may slip below 40 at which point the roadway will have to be reconstructed. To avoid such a costly treatment, an overlay project should be programmed in the near future.

Existing Roadway Section

45 30th Ave Overlay Project I-5 to Spring Blvd Estimated Road Fund Cost $91,000

Proposed Solution Considering the high traffic volume the roadway serves, an overlay of 3” Asphalt Concrete is proposed. The AC thickness will be reviewed when a site survey and design is available. An adequately designed AC overlay project typically adds 10 years of pavement life. Proposed preservation work would also add durable thermoplastic striping, which enhances roadway safety. Staff is seeking an external funding source for this project.

Project Cost ($,000s) PROJECT ELEMENT TOTAL FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Preliminary Engineering $94 $94 Right-of-way Phase 0 Construction Engineering $71 $71 Construction $715 $715 Utility relocation 0 Others Total Cost $880 $880

Funding Source ($,000s) FUND SOURCE TOTAL FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Road Fund $90 $90 Federal Earmark STP-U $790 $790 Unsecured Funds Other Total Fund $880 $880

Factors for Project Selection Safety Improvement Plan Consistency Structural Capacity Enhancement Economic Development Congestion Improvement Supports Tourism, Recreation Provides Bike/Ped Alternative Preserves Bridge / Pavements Degree of Users Benefits Has Public Support (Public Request) Leverages Other Projects/Funds Total Factor Considered NA

Footnotes

Project Selection factors are shown for informational purposes only. Pavement Preservation projects are typically not ranked with other type of CIP projects. The Pavement Management Program prioritizes candidate roadway list, type of treatment, and time when the treatment should be provided.

The Board of County Commissioners approved this project for the federal Surface Transportation Program for the Metro area (STP-U) application for FY 2011-13 at their February 16, 2010 regular board meeting. This CIP assumes that the project will be funded in the ODOT Statewide Transportation Improvement Program FY 2011-13 cycle. The road fund amount shown is the local match needed for STP-U fund. There is the possibility that the project may need to be rescoped to include additional works when actual field survey is available. If the scope is changed, additional funding from the Road Fund may be needed to supplement STP-U funds.

This project is not scoped to address bike and pedestrian connectivity needs. No sidewalk improvements or bike lane addition are proposed. 46 Goodpasture Covered Bridge Rehabilitation Project MP 0.035 Estimated Road Fund Cost $120,750

Project Scope: Replace roof, replace decaying structural members, and paint Goodpasture Covered Bridge.

Project Limit MP 0.013 to 0.058 Road Name: Goodpasture Road Functional Class Minor Collector Project Status Previously Adopted Length 0.045 mile Project Category Structures

Existing Bridge Condition ADT 1,000 Truck Traffic 100 Bridge Type Covered Bridge Load Rating 15 ton SR 20 Height 15.25 feet Width 19 feet Span 240 feet

Location / Vicinity Map

Define the Problem The bridge is a 71-year old timber structure having a 240-foot long span. The long span together with decaying bridge members, heavy roof dead load have resulted in a poor bridge rating. Previous repairs using steel tie rods and glulams have added significant weight to the bridge. As a result, the bridge is progressively sagging at the mid span. The current bridge sufficiency rating is 20.The bridge was recently load rated at 15 tons due to previously undiscovered pockets of rot and cracking in the bottom chord. A complete bridge replacement is warranted.

Vicinity Map

47 Goodpasture Covered Bridge Rehabilitation Project MP 0.035 Estimated Road Fund Cost $120,750

Proposed Solution Replacing decaying structural members and substitute heavy roofing material with light roof material. A recent inspection indicates that the bridge may need additional improvements other than the previously identified mitigation measures.

Project Cost ($,000s) PROJECT ELEMENT TOTAL FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Pre-Engineering $45 $45 Right-of-way Phase 1 Construction Engineering $108 $108 Construction -structure $475 $475 Construction-Roof $202 $202 Consultancy $75 $75 Others-Bridge paints $100 $100 Total Cost $1005 $1005

Funding Source ($,000s) FUND SOURCE TOTAL FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Road Fund –NHCBP $21 $21 Road Fund-HBP $75 $75 Road Fund- Paints $100 $100 NHCBP Fund-New Roof $181 $181 HBP Fund-structural imp $628 $628 Other Total Fund $1,005 $1,005

Factors for Project Selection Safety Improvement Plan Consistency Structural Capacity Enhancement Economic Development Congestion Improvement Supports Tourism, Recreation Provides Bike/Ped Alternative Preserves Bridge Pavements Degree of Users Benefits Has Public Support (Public Request) Leverages Other Projects/Funds Total Factor Considered 9

Footnotes

The Goodpasture Covered Bridge project has been funded through the National Historic Covered Bridge Program (NHCBP) and approved in CIP10-14. Staff has since applied for additional Highway Bridge Program (HBP) funds to address structural deficiency in the bridge. The costs and fund source shown above are based on the HBP funding application. The recent discovery that the bottom chords are rotten beyond repair may require the project be re-scoped, potentially for total replacement. If the bridge replacement option is adopted, this project is likely to be cancelled.

The Road Fund cost shown includes the required match to qualify for federal dollars, calculated at 10.27%. In addition to the new roofing and structural rehabilitation, the bridge has been proposed for painting. The paintwork is not covered by either funding sources; an additional $100,000 has been allocated for this purpose.

48 Layng Covered Bridge Rehabilitation Project MP 0.218 Estimated Road Fund Cost $102,700

Project Scope: Rehabilitate the covered bridge by replacing failed members and replace roof.

Project Limit MP 0.202 to 0.235 Bridge Number 39C241 Functional Class Local Project Status Proposed Road Name Layng Road Project Category Structures

Existing Bridge Condition ADT 260 Truck Traffic 10 Bridge Type Wooden Bridge Load Rating 14 ton (9 T operating) SR 25.9 Height 12'4" Width 15.1 feet Span /Length 135 feet

Existing Bridge Views

Define the Problem This bridge is in a deteriorated condition due to traffic, weathering, vandalism, and pests. Key bridge members such as, truss members, stringers, floor beams are in a state of decay that is affecting its load carrying capacity. Currently, the bridge is posted for a load restriction (Posted Load 8 ton).

Vicinity Map

49 Layng Covered Bridge Rehabilitation Project MP 0.218 Estimated Road Fund Cost $102,700

Proposed Solution Replace the existing 89-year old bridge with a new bridge. However, considering the historic importance of the covered bridge, it may merit restoration by replacing only the members that have decayed or damaged. It may also need post-tensioning to remedy any sagging effects. The bridge will be dismantled during restoration, and rebuilt completely with sound structural members. The bridge roof will also be removed and replaced with lightweight roof.

Project Cost ($,000s) PROJECT ELEMENT TOTAL FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Pre-Engineering $85 $85 Right-of-way Phase 1 Construction Engineering $75 $75 Construction -structure $725 $725 Consultancy Service $115 $115 Total Cost $1,000 $1,000

Funding Source ($,000s) FUND SOURCE TOTAL FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Road Fund-HBP match $103 $103 HBP Fund-structural imp $897 $897 State Aid Other Total Fund $1,000 $1,000 Factors for Project Selection Safety Improvement Plan Consistency Structural Capacity Enhancement Economic Development Congestion Improvement Supports Tourism, Recreation Provides Bike/Ped Alternative Preserves Bridge Pavements Degree of Users Benefits Has Public Support (Public Request) Leverages Other Projects/Funds Total Factor Considered 9 Foot Notes

Project Selection factors are shown as informational purposes only. Bridge projects are not ranked, as are other project types for funding priority. These projects are prioritized based on maintenance recommendations prepared by bridge inspectors. This bridge has been recommended for rehabilitation in the recent bridge inspection report.

The Layng Covered Bridge is a candidate for rehabilitation / replacement owing to its poor structural condition rating and low overall bridge sufficiency rating (SR). Bridges with an SR below 50 are generally replaced with a new structure.

Lane County applied for Highway Bridge Program (HBP) funds to address structural deficiency of the bridge. Staff anticipates approval of the funds in next allocation cycle FY 2012 or later.

The Road Fund cost shown includes the required match for federal funding, which is calculated at the required match rate at 10.27%.

50 Upgrade Traffic Signals and Accessories in the Metro Area Various Intersections Estimated Road Fund Cost: $22,500

Project Scope: Upgrade Traffic Signals and accessories in the Metro area

Project Limit LC MPO Area Project Number 3268-3 Functional Class Major Collector Project Status Proposed Length NA Project Category Safety Improvements

Existing Roadway Condition ADT NA Crash Rate NA Pavement Type Asphalt Concrete Sidewalk PCI NA Curb Width NA Bike Lane Location / Vicinity Map

Define the Problem Lane County currently operates 24 traffic signals inside the metro area, mostly in the River /Road Santa Clara area. These signals were installed at different times; some signals were installed 20 years ago, which have outdated road name signs, hardware, and accessories. Lane County has not been able to update the traffic control devices with newer standards due to a lack of funds.

Proposed Solution The proposal includes replacing outdated hardware and non-functional components with industry standard units. The improvement needs vary intersection to intersection. Some intersections will merely require replacing road signs while others require hardware

Outdated / Damaged Hardware

51 Upgrade Traffic Signals and Accessories in the Metro Area Various Intersections Estimated Road Fund Cost: $22,500 updates. With the proposed new interface software and repair of existing cable interconnections, the project will enable coordination of most of city and county signals in the River Road area.

Project Cost ($000s) PROJECT ELEMENT TOTAL FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Pre-Engineering $32 $32 Right-of-way 0 0 Construction Engineering $10 $10 Construction $20.5 $20.5 Software $25 $25 Hardware $131 $131 Total Cost $218.5 $218.5

Funding Source ($000s) FUND SOURCE TOTAL FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Road Fund $22.5 $22.5 STP-U $196 $196 ARRA 0 0 State Aid 0 0 Federal Aid 0 0 Other 0 Total Fund $218.5 $218.5

Factors for Project Selection Safety Improvement Plan Consistency Structural Capacity Enhancement Economic Development Congestion Improvement Supports Tourism, Recreation Provides Bike/Ped Alternatives Preserves Bridge Pavements Degree of Users Benefits Has Public Support Leverages Other Projects/Funds Total Factor Considered 9

Footnotes

 This project is programmed in the Surface Transportation Program for the Metro Area (STP-U) for federal Fiscal Year 2010 in response to the Lane County request for a $219,000 grant for signal improvement works. The Road Fund amount shown above is the required local match of 10.27% for STP- U funds.

The project area extends to 15 intersections controlled by Lane County within the Metro boundary. The scope includes upgrading outdated or damaged hardware at the 15 identified intersections.

52 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Appendix A

Past CIP Project Status

53 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

54 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Table 16: Project History and Status

Final Cost (Year To Date) Contract CIP CIP

Project ******* Authorized Status Remarks FY Amount FY

Start Other Const

FY Amount Source Completed Road Fund ††††††† Total Structures Brice Creek mp 3.31 2009 NA $183,936 NA NA Deleted NA NA NA Clear Lake Road 2005 2005 $400,000 2006 $744,266 $744,266 100% complete Coyate Covered Bridge 2006 2006 $200,000 $316,209 2007 complete $305,240 $305,240 Dorena Covered Bridge 2006 $100,000 $115,791 $115,791 Fir Butte Road, mp 0.68 (HBBR) 2006 NA NA NA NA deleted London Road, mp 11.25 (OTIA III) $225,000 London Road, mp 13.01(OTIA III) 2007 2007 $1,500,000 $1,939,549 2009 complete $1,977,451 $1,977,451 London Road, mp 8.73 (OTIA III) $252,000 Lowell Covered Bridge 2005 2006 $2,200,000 2006 complete $493,368 $1,700,000 $2,193,368 FHEP,STP funds Maxwell Road, mp 1.29 (repair) 2006 NA $50,000 Bid cancelled Parvin Covered Bridge 2008 $83,290 k Went to bid Row River Bridge, mp 16.64 (OTIA III) 2005 2006 $799,000 $1,430,832 2008 completed $1,745,853 $1,745,853 Sharps Creek Road, mp 6.48 (OTIA III) 2005 2006 $606,000 $931,086 2008 completed $872,732 $872,732 Sharps Creek Road, mp 8.72 (HBRR) 2007 NA 2008 cancelled $0

General Construction 42nd Street, Phase 2 $1,581,064 $1,546,460 $1,546,460 Bernhardt Height Road 2004 2006 $385,000 $708,785 2008 completed $829,863 $829,863 Bob Straub Parkway, Environmental mitigation 2007 2006 $385,000 NA NA delete Project moved to WMD

Bob Straub Parkway, S 57th to Jasper Rd 2006 2007 $5,700,000 $5,810,045 2008 Complete $5,667,017 $5,667,017 100% complete Bolton Hill Road, Territorial to Dogwood Ln 2006 2008 $1,750,000 $1,650,565 2009 complete $1,387,729 $235,736 $1,623,465 100% complete Briggs Hill Road, mp 2.5 to mp 4.01 2005 NA NA NA NA deleted NA NA NA Reduced scope to AC

******* Actual construction start year ††††††† Includes grants, match from agencies

55 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Final Cost (Year To Date) Contract CIP CIP

Project ******* Authorized Status Remarks FY Amount FY

Start Other Const

FY Amount Source Completed Road Fund ††††††† Total overlay Cedar Flat Road, Hwy 126 to East Cedar Flat Rd 2005 2005 $500,000 $697,104 complete $656,834 $656,834 Game Farm Road, Springfield to Coburg Rd 2004 2005 $2,750,000 $2,214,255 2005 complete $2,242,902 $2,242,902 Project scope downgraded to overlay Hall Road, mp 4.56 to mp 5.88 project Harvey Road, Scott Ave. UGB 2008 2008 $2,500,000 $ 2,246,370 Complete $1,210,200 $850,000 $2,060,200 Includes utility project Jasper-Lowell Road reconstruction mp 10.545-11.00 2004 2005 $470,000 $609,020 2006 complete $599,407 $599,407 Lowell Assisted Housing 2008 $325,000 Paid to city re-scoped to overlay Marcola Road 2005 2007 $3,200,000 $1,135,603 2008 complete $1,121,481 $1,121,481 project only Martin Luther king Jr Blvd 2004 2005 $4,740,000 $7,648,271 2007 complete $7,352,877 $7,352,842 Mill Road Realignment at Hwy 58 2005 $208,877 $208,877 Paid in full as CaPP

Safety Improvement Brice Creek Road, mp 6.7 2005 2006 $200,000 $233,986 2007 complete $214,304 $214,304 Hwy 126 at Deerhorn Road 2006 $50,000 complete $13,007 $13,007 Payment to State School Zone speed Limit Flashers 2006 Bid Cancelled Shoestring Road Slide repair 2005 $328,417 $328,417

Preservation / Rehabilitation Delta Hwy Overlay 2006 2006 $1,556,000 2007 completed $1,148,734 $1,148,734 LGIP deposit to ODOT Harlow Road/ Haden Bridge Road 2008 $337,000 On track constn in FY 2010 Remaining cost to come from STP-U and Harlow / Hayden Bridge Road 2010 2010 $337,000 $913,227 Bid $83,094 ARRA Fish Passage Projects Replaces Nelson Nelson Mountain Road (Knapp Creek) Mountain Knapp Creek mp 5.8-5.9 2007 $50,000 Delete project County Siuslaw Road (Holland Ck), mp 29.1 2008 2009 $50,000 Force 2009 complete $60,453 $209,300 $269,753 County Thompson Creek Fish Culvert 2008 2009 $275,000 Force 2009 complete $85,660 $141,400 $227,060

56 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Final Cost (Year To Date) Contract CIP CIP

Project ******* Authorized Status Remarks FY Amount FY

Start Other Const

FY Amount Source Completed Road Fund ††††††† Total Road for Assisted Housing Heather Glen 2007 2007 $150,000 $231,933 2008 complete $222,931 $222,931 Prairie View Affordable housing 2007 $213,700 $291,303 2008 complete $284,685 $284,685 Turtle Creek Housing Project $326,832 2006 $302,320 $302,320 Westtown at 8th 2006 2008 $275,000 2008 complete $273,614 $273,614 Paid in full

Payment to Other Government Agencies 42nd Street Signal at Eug/Sprfld Hwy westbound on-ramp 2005 $200,000 2005 complete $200,000 researching County City Road Partnership Payment complete Paid in full OTIA III Pass-through Payments to Cities researching Springfield/ Creswell Hwy Bike/ Pedestrian Facility at I-5 2005 deleted Dropped Wayne Morse Federal Courthouse 2005 2005 $1,600,000 2008 complete $1566,399 $1,566,399 Paid in full Coburg I-5 Interchange Area 2010 $1,030,000 deleted Dropped Pedestrian and Bicycle improvements Latham Road, Hwy 99 to London Road 2005 deleted Ridgeway Road, Hwy 58 to mp 1 2005 deleted South Jetty Road, Hwy 101 to BLM Road 2005 deleted Warten Road, Territorial Hwy to knight Rd 2005 deleted Wendling Road, Marcola to Paschelke Road 2005 deleted

57 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Intentional Blank Page

58 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Intentional Blank Page

59 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Lane County Public Works Department 3040 North Delta Highway Eugene OR 97408-1696

60