Regional Mobility Policy Update Examples of Current Approaches | Overview oregonmetro.gov/mobility
April 2021
This overview and the factsheets
OC NOTGNIHSAW OC O
OC HAMONTLUM OOC
C Introduction C N that follow summarize current H
O in BBlvl A Pla vd Metro and the Oregon T urth P M o G E¡¢ £F C¤¥¥ A¥¦¢ practices related to how the R NNEE Four
O
N
I Department of Transportation N mobility policy in the RTP and H T
L
S
U (ODOT) are working together A
M the OHP are used in different M W d
R N Marine Dr s
to update the policy on s
s s
a
planning applications and a
P P
s
us
P u N how mobility is defined and N VVancouverancouver i li
identify opportunities for l W C e S o n t l measured in the Portland area r H u
improvement in an updated o e m C
C le b n ia U s B in the Regional Transportation W llv e C L A R K C O R v NNEE M N v arinein D L A R K policy. The factsheets were d d e Dr A M U LT N O M A H CO C O r LT N O M A H
Plan (RTP), local transportation e v Camas
d
developed through document n d
v
v C
e e l
N l O
B B D
L D
system plans (TSPs), and when oombm r b r
review and interviews conducted aar J N rd N WWashougalashougal
St g
In I nng J
evaluating the traffic impacts n i te with agency staff on 12 examples t K N e E
r r ve r NNEE KKilliilling swo
e s
s rtthh Airp t t 3 o h of local comprehensive plan A S rt d a
NW Yeon Ave t t WWaa NE Ma r R
of recent system plans, plan R y rinnee DD
t u e e NE Sandy Blvd
Y L s s eon Sandy s A n Luther K amendments. ve 4 a Blvd A i
185th v
t amendments, and development P ve e ve
r PPortlandortland A
s Pas a FFairviewairview ellll RdRd A C rrnn u o i E NW 185th Ave ve M N lliu
proposals. e The current regional mobility E Rd A n eellll R NW n 122nd r Corrn NNE Mart FoForestrest GGroverove Cornelius SE Baseline St 82nd WWoodood
S o t Bu TTroutdaleroutdale W rrns NE122nd Ave t C nsiddee St E Burns policy (RMP) is contained in St iddee St NE 82nd Ave Village
S
181st E SW B St B HillsboHillsbororo d SE SStarktark SStt N B R 2 NW Burnside Rd a NE181st Ave both the RTP and the Oregon rn e s Rd y SE Hawthorne Blvd Burnside SW Tualatin Valley Hwy wwy k GGreshamresham P R SE Division St d Highway Plan (OHP) Highway RRdd o P St n t
oon iit S y S SSEE PowePowellll B
n a lvd W Ca W ellll BlvdBlvd W Can NOTGNIHSAW OC O S NNa
11 HAMONTLUM OOC ooww
C M Mobility Policy 1F. M 12 C P N
W 10 H
S aacA
c
O A
A
d d T The current policy is vehicle- M ve R a SE Foster RRdd on Rd G t m O
A g N SSE n I d E N O i BeaBeavertonverton v A r focused and measures S Bl 1 ien m W H T v t r r D
L H S u e M U LT N O M A H CO r Fa a rbbur Blvd 82nd LT N O M A H C O U SW llll B A BBaa congestion levels using the ratio lv d SE82nd Ave d M W W RRd C LL ACA K A M A S CO ES dn242 eevA S C K A M A S C O SW Murray Blvd y v d r Milwaukie r y RR A r d
Ferrr e Fe of the number of vehicles on olllls F h s n S c ne 2
o 4 W ooo SSW 2 a roadway (known as volume) E 9 B Happy VValleyalley W S SSW SE 1 2018 Regional Transportation Plan TigaTigardrd A AAveve SSuunn during the typical commute ys iddee Rd WWASHINGTONASHIN GTON CO C O LaLakeke time to its vehicle capacity. The SE McLoughlin Blvd 2 PortlandYYAMHILLAMHILL Central CO City 2035 Plan and MMA OsOswegowego measure is known as the volume- C O 5 W 3 Colwood Industrial District Plan Amendment iilll to-capacity ratio (v/c). la Cla rD m S ckam Ri ve r e aass Ri t t TTualatinualatin d 8 e Since the 1990s, the current 4 Troutdale Reynolds Industrial Park R D y r r rrry R S
e F F WWestest S regional mobility policy has pri 5 Rock Creek Mixed Employment District s n e Rd Linn gw n rd a
o tte guided how streets and SheSherwoodrwood fo e ooon fffor
a r B B t 7 R
S d
W 6 Oregon City TSP and OR 213 Mobility Standards W
S highways are planned for and S S WWS R S eddlan W A SHSH I NN GGTOTO N CCOO OOregonregon City la n managed in communities in the d 7 Willamee Falls District Plan and Downtown District/MMA C LL ACAC K K A A M M A A S S CO CO 6 R greater Portland area. Policy d 8 Commons on the Tualatin Apartments 1F of the OHP supports and Wilsonville NewbeNewbergrg
OC SAMAKCALC OOC
C offers flexibility for the region to O 9 Tigard Triangle District Plan S N
C E
A develop a more comprehensive WWi
M
i
l A 10 West End District Mixed-Use Developments
o K approach to defining and nnvil CL ACK A M A Y A M H I C SCO C SA M AKC ALC v AMHILL L L i ll A C YYAMHILL CO e M A R I O N CO C O O L M ARI ON RRd C measuring mobility—that is the 11 Tualatin Valley Highway/OR 8 Corridor CPlan d O S focus of this effort. B e 12 South Hillsboro Community Plan Development avverc 0 5 10 er cr e ek Miles R Dated 7/15/2020 System Planning
Under Oregon’s land use program, system planning results in a land use decision that integrates land use and transportation to provide long- range direction on the development of transportation facilities and services for all modes to serve adopted land use plans. System planning includes regional and local TSPs, corridor plans, ODOT facility plans, and other area plans.
Current Practice Key Takeaways • The RTP RMP and Table 7 of the OHP Policy 1F v/c measure and thresholds are used as targets • V/c is one of many measures being used in system planning and in balance with other policies in conjunction with other multimodal policies, measures, and targets to define acceptable levels and measures. However, there is broad support for the updated mobility policy to include a more of traffic performance, identify transportation needs where those performance levels are not complete definition of mobility and multimodal measures by which to evaluate whether system met, and prioritize transportation investments to meet those needs. plans are achieving desired mobility outcomes. • Using v/c as the only measure of mobility is not consistent with the current view of mobility • The RTP and OHP do not provide clear guidance for how to balance multiple policies and being about people and goods, not just motor vehicles. The updated mobility policy and needs. Oregon’s Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires consideration of a number of measures need to reflect the many aspects of mobility, including all users’ ability to get to the criteria when developing TSPs, including reducing reliance on any one transportation mode and places they want or need to go by a range of modes. Flexibility is needed to apply different reducing vehicle miles traveled, but does not set expectations for how to prioritize projects to approaches in different areas based on land use and transportation contexts and multimodal, address needs. functions of transportation facilities.
• Other policy objectives and considerations besides meeting adopted v/c targets are taken into • The current policy does not uniformly reflect the fiscal capacity of ODOT, Metro and local account during system planning as well as during project prioritization and when developing the governments to construct transportation projects necessary to meet the mobility policy targets. financially-constrained RTP project list. • The updated policy should result in consideration of both policy tools—such as parking management, road pricing, and TDM programs—and multimodal investments as means to • The financially-constrained RTP project list developed during system planning serves as the achieve the updated policy. basis for making subsequent plan amendment decisions under the TPR (Section -0060). • Establishing mobility measures and targets that can reasonably be achieved in system plans will reduce frustrations with the policy as it is applied to plan amendments. • Metro applies the RTP RMP v/c targets on arterial roadway links during development of the RTP, while local governments and ODOT apply the RTP and OHP v/c targets at both the roadway link • The implementation plan for the updated policy should provide guidance for: and intersection levels. The OHP v/c targets are applied to state transportation facilities. » how to balance and integrate the updated mobility policy with other policies and desired outcomes in TSP and RTP decision-making • While projects on ODOT facilities or financed with State or federal money are reflected in the » consistency in how the updated policy is measured financially-constrained RTP project list, they are not consistently reflected in local TSPs. » consistency in how local jurisdictions include projects on ODOT facilities in their TSPs and • Unlike the RTP, local TSPs are not required to include a financially-constrained project list, what level of funding they should assume in their financially constrained TSP though some jurisdictions choose to do so. Examples of Current Approaches (see the pages that follow for details) 01 06 11 Regional Oregon City Tualatin Valley Transportation Plan TSP and OR 213 Highway Corridor (2018) Alternative Plan
Introduction | p 2 Plan Amendments
Under Oregon’s land use program, plan amendments are city or county land use decisions that change a comprehensive plan or zoning text or map within their boundary. Plan amendments must comply with the TPR (Section -0060). This means a jurisdiction must determine if there are significant impacts to planned transportation facilities, and if so, mitigate those impacts.
Current Practice Key Takeaways • Per TPR 0060, adopted standards of an affected transportation facility or service apply to the • In effect, the OHP v/c standard is more important in plan amendments than during system planning. evaluation of plan amendments. • There is consistent agency support for a broader set of mobility measures that can be applied to the determination of significant effects and potential mitigation measures for plan amendments. • The OHP Policy 1F Table 7 mobility policy v/c thresholds are applied as standards to determine • Different measures, targets or methods may be needed for plan amendments versus transportation whether the plan amendment has a significant effect on State transportation facilities. The v/c system plans. The system plan establishes the planned multimodal transportation performance for an measure is the only adopted measure in ODOTs various modal and topic plans and therefore the area, and a plan amendment should look at consistency with that system plan, not just consistency only standard that can legally be applied to plan amendments. with the mobility policy, as the primary evaluation method. • Local governments are required by the OHP and the TPR 0060 to provide notice and coordinate • While plan amendments rely upon the local, regional, and state projects adopted in the RTP with ODOT on land use changes that have a potential “significant effect” on state transportation financially-constrained project list for the traffic analysis, these projects may not be constructed at facilities. This ensures ODOT is able to participate in decision-making. the time of development. This can be a barrier to development when assumed projects have not been constructed. • There are a variety of mitigation options available (provided in TPR 0060 and the OHP) to • A mechanism for plan amendment applicants to make contributions towards adopted TSP projects is help meet the mobility policy when the OHP Table 7 v/c standard cannot be met on State needed, not only on city or county streets but also on State highways. transportation facilities. However, the process of agreeing on methods and assumptions in • Clear guidance on methodologies and assumptions to be used in transportation impact analyses pursuing these options can be time consuming and costly. is needed. The updated policy and associated measures and methods should allow consideration and evaluation of the entire range of mitigation strategies listed in TPR 0060 and the OHP, • The v/c target used during system planning is often not met in many locations within financially- including safety improvements, multimodal improvements, and transportation system and demand constrained TSPs. This makes it difficult for subsequent plan amendments to meet the adopted management actions. This may require changing local development codes and the ODOT Analysis mobility standard . Procedures Manual.
Examples of Current Approaches (see the pages that follow for details) 02 03 05 07 09 12 Portland Central Colwood Industrial Rock Creek Mixed Willamette Falls Tigard Triangle South Hillsboro City 2035 and MMA District Plan Employment District District Plan District Plan Community Plan & Downtown District/ Amendment Multimodal Mixed-Use Area Development
Introduction | p 3 Development Review
Under Oregon’s land use program, development review is a city or county process to evaluate development proposals for compliance with the jurisdiction’s adopted development code. The process determines if the proposed development is permitted and consistent with those regulations. The complexity of the process varies depending on the size and complexity of the proposed new development being considered, including potential transportation impacts. The development review process and standards for determining compliance vary across jurisdictions.
Current Practice Key Takeaways • While ODOT does not have jurisdiction over development decisions for permitted land uses that do • The implementation plan for the updated policy should clarify local application of OHP Table 7 to not require a plan amendment, coordination with ODOT is required when direct access to the State development review. transportation system is requested. Many jurisdictions coordinate with ODOT when a development • Local jurisdictions should establish multimodal targets and standards in their plans and implement is expected to generate significant traffic on a State highway. regulations consistent with the updated RMP, OHP Table 7, and their transportation system plans. The • ODOT applies OHP Policy 1F Table 7 as standards to development review when ODOT has updated RMP and OHP Table 7 could serve as a model for them, with some flexibility to set their own permitting authority for site access and when providing comments to local jurisdictions during standards for development review. public review of the proposed development. • There is consistent agency support for a broader set of measures that can be applied to development • When development proposals may affect state transportation facilities, ODOT participates in review. the public review of a development application and may make recommendations about how a • Local jurisdictions would like to apply updated multimodal measures and their associated targets and land use approval may be conditioned to protect the function and performance of affected State standards to support a proportionality evaluation to help obtain off-site multimodal improvements transportation facilities. from developers consistent with their TSPs. • ODOT’s comments are frequently based on whether or not the development can meet the v/c mobility targets in the OHP, and may include consideration of impacts to safety, operations and bike, pedestrian, transit and other transportation facilities. The comments on needed improvements are handled differently by each jurisdiction. • Some local jurisdictions apply OHP Table 7 v/c thresholds as standards for state facilities, but they are not required to. Some jurisdictions apply the v/c thresholds as development requirements whether or not specified in their development code. • Transportation projects identified in the financially-constrained RTP project list and local TSP are not always funded or in place at time of development.
Examples of Current Approaches (see the pages that follow for details) 04 08 10 Troutdale Reynolds Commons on the Beaverton West End Industrial Park Tualatin District Mixed-Use Development
Introduction | p 4 Regional Mobility Policy Update Examples of Current Approaches | Transportation System Plan oregonmetro.gov/mobility Example Regional Transportation Plan (2018) April 2021 01 Portland Metropolitan Area, OR
Overview
The 2018 Regional Figure 3.13 Regional motor vehicle network Transportation Plan (RTP) is a long-range blueprint that guides local and regional planning and investments for all forms of travel throughout the Portland metropolitan area— motor vehicle, transit, bicycle, walking, and goods and freight Location: movement. Portland Metropolitan Area The RTP is outcomes-based. It defines goals, objectives, Plan Type: Regional Transportation performance targets, policies System Plan for the and investment priorities Portland metropolitan area to implement the following strategies: • Climate Smart Strategy Each of the strategies is • Transportation System accompanied by a map showing Management and Operations the functional classifications Strategy or designations of the facilities and services that comprise the • Regional Transit Strategy regional system relevant to the • Regional Freight Strategy given mode or topic. • Regional Active The RTP also establishes the Transportation Plan region’s federally-required congestion management process • Regional Travel Options and related policies. Strategy Current and future • Regional Transportation transportation needs and the Safety Strategy investments required to meet • Regional Emerging them are identified in the plan. Technology Strategy The plan also identifies funds the The RTP defines what a region expects to have available complete transportation system during a 20-year time horizon should look like and how it to build priority investments as NOTE: Throughways are designated in the 2018 Regional Transportation Plan and should be designed, managed well as maintain and operate the generally correspond to Expressways designated in the Oregon Highway Plan. and maintained. transportation system. (cont’d) The RMP v/c target is one of five Outcome Methodologies • Other parts of the RTP Overview How was the key performance measures used offer potential strategies for In addition to meeting federal current mobility to evaluate system performance The 2018 RTP found that the and Measures moving closer to the RMP v/c region cannot achieve the v/c requirements, the plan serves and progress toward achieving • The 2018 RTP relies on targets when the system is as the regional transportation policy a factor? targets in many locations listed Goal 4 for throughways, arterials, multiple system performance built out, or to better manage system plan (TSP), consistent The RTP defines mobility as in Table 3.6 within current and the regional freight network. measures and targets congestion. with Statewide Planning Goals, “the ability to move people and funding levels or with the mix of Other measures are: freight to support the region’s the Oregon Transportation goods to destinations efficiently investments included in the plan. The Congestion Management delay, transit productivity, transportation planning and Planning Rule (TPR), the and reliably.” Process defined in the multimodal travel, and Other parts of the RTP and decision-making. RTP motor vehicle policies Metropolitan Greenhouse Gas Chapter 2 of the RTP lays out multimodal travel times. other regional planning policy, Performance measures provides a wide range Reduction Targets Rule, and the 11 goals and more than 40 The RMP v/c measure is included including the congestion identify gaps and deficiencies. of strategies focused on Oregon Transportation Plan and objectives that guide the region’s in the 2018 RTP in Section 3.5.4 management process (CMP), Performance targets are for community design, incentives, its modal and topical plans. transportation planning and Regional Mobility Policy. The v/c define strategies for local tracking progress. system management/ decision-making. The plan also addresses a listed in Table 3.6 are used to governments that wish to move operations, congestion Chapter 2 of the RTP identifies broad range of State and The plan includes 16 evaluate roadway congestion. closer to the RMP v/c target. pricing, active transportation, key system performance regional objectives, including performance measures that are While they can apply to any These prioritized strategies transit, and street/throughway measures. These are listed in implementing the following: used to evaluate performance of part or all of the roadway aimed at efficient operations, capacity. the table on the next page. the overall system. system within the region, they land use, active transportation, • 2040 Growth Concept. The Goal 4 (Reliability and Efficiency) are especially applicable to all managing demand, and other • The RMP sets minimum motor region’s adopted land use plan states “The transportation State of Oregon-owned facilities. strategies. vehicle performance targets under State law. This is because they reproduce (v/c). These targets help system is managed and The RTP includes a broad • Climate Smart Strategy. The Policy 1F of the Oregon Highway planners evaluate the extent optimized to ease congestion, set of measures that are not region’s adopted strategy Plan, which lists performance of motor vehicle congestion and people and businesses specifically listed in the RMP, for reducing greenhouse gas targets for statewide operations on throughways and arterials are able to safely, reliably many of which address mobility- emissions from cars and small in Table 6, and for the Portland at different times of day Throughway Network Miles Not and efficiently reach their related performance outcomes. trucks under State law. destinations by a variety of travel metropolitan area in Table 7. and determine if there are Meeting the RMP adequate facilities to meet the between 4:00-6:00 PM The last RTP update was options.” The RMP is centered solely on The RTP also includes a diverse region’s needs and planned adopted in 2018. measuring vehicle congestion set of policies that help manage 50.8 Objective 4.1 (Regional Mobility) land uses. (v/c). It does not include current and future travel demand 39.6 states, “Maintain reasonable 36.3 person-trip and freight mobility measures of mobility for transit, in the system. These targets were amended and reliable travel times for all biking, or walking. in the Oregon Highway modes in the region’s mobility Plan in 2000 and indicate a 10.9 corridors, consistent with the performance level “deemed designated modal functions of acceptable at the time of... each facility and planned transit adoption.” service within the corridor.” • The RMP language also states that “the system analysis Figure 3.9 Regional mobility corridor concept 2015 Base Year2040 No Build 2040 Strategic described in Chapter 7 finds 2040 Constrained Regional Mobility Corridor Concept that the region cannot achieve the mobility policy listed in Table 3.6 within current Arterial network miles not meeting funding levels or with the mix the RMP between 4:00-6:00 PM of investments included in the 58.9 analysis.” 46 41.8 In practice, the RMP targets listed in Table 3.6 are used to diagnose areas with significant 14.4 congestion to inform strategies to improve system performance.
2015 Base Year2040 No Build 2040 Strategic 2040 Constrained Example 01 | Regional Transportation Plan (2018) | p 2 Note: Idealized concept for illustrative purposes showing recommended range of system analysis for the evaluation, monitoring, management and phasing of investments to throughways, arterial streets and transit service in the broader corridor. The illustration is modeled after the Banfield corridor that links the Portland central city to the Gateway regional center.
Figure 3.10 shows the general location of mobility corridors in the region.
Figure 3.10 Mobility corridors in the Portland metropolitan region
� 3-56 Chapter 3 | System Policies to Achieve Our Vision 2018 Regional Transportation Plan | December 6, 2018 Strengths & Projects built to the current Key System Performance Measures Weaknesses of mobility policy may not be consistent with State Current Policy/ VIBRANT HEALTHY and regional climate, 1 COMMUNITIES 6 ENVIRONMENT Approach equity, safety, vehicle • Access to transit • Potential habitat miles traveled (VMT), and • Access to impact • The RTP is not limited air quality goals, among community places • Potential historical to measuring vehicle others. congestion or bound to resources impact • V/c values where volume is SHARED PROSPERITY achieve the v/c targets • Potential tribal lands greater than capacity are listed in the policy. • Access to jobs impact not logical measurements. 2 Because of that, the • Access to industry This condition reflects RTP is not constrained and freight facilities HEALTHY PEOPLE unmet demand. to evaluating the motor • Multimodal travel 7 • Public health vehicle system. • RTP performance targets • Affordability • Clean air are tied directly to • The current v/c target • Access to bicycle outcomes-based goals does not measure and pedestrian CLIMATE LEADERSHIP across nine categories, mobility for people using parkways • Greenhouse gas ensuring both the region 8 transit, biking, or walking. emissions and local jurisdictions However, the RTP does TRANSPORTATION have policy guidance for • Vehicle miles measure other aspects of CHOICES holistically and equitably 3 traveled mobility, such as system improving transportation • Mode share • Climate smart completeness for active system performance. These • System implementation transportation; non- Source: ODOT provide more guidance for completeness single-occupant-vehicle RTP and TSP development EQUITABLE mode share; vehicle miles • Access to transit than for the RMP. TRANSPORTATION These outcomes-based 9 traveled per capita; transit • Access to bicycle • Access to transit ridership; and access to goals and objectives (and and pedestrian • Access to jobs jobs, community places, associated measures) can parkways and ports/industry. Opportunities for be used to help design • Access to community an updated RMP that places • The 2018 RTP failed to RELIABILITY & Improvement holistically addresses more • System completion show that the roadway EFFICIENCY mobility elements beyond 4 • Affordability system can meet can meet • The definition of mobility • Multimodal travel just vehicle congestion. the v/c targets the RMP and the measures by • Multimodal travel FISCAL STEWARDSHIP and Oregon Highway Plan which the region evaluates times • Infrastructure Table 7 within the 20-year it should be addressed in • Congestion 10 planning period. an updated policy. condition Source: ODOT • Freight delay • Sustainable funding • The current policy does • The narrow focus of the • Transit productivity not reflect the fiscal v/c measure of “mobility” TRANSPARENCY AND capacity of ODOT, Metro, in the RMP does not SAFETY & SECURITY adequately reflect the ACCOUNTABILITY and local governments to • Crashes (fatal and 11 broader mobility corridor 5 • Meaningful construct transportation severe injury) projects needed to meet concept policy in the RTP. engagement the mobility policy. • The RTP reports findings • Performance-based planning This is especially true in on how well it performs planned growth areas across many outcomes- including urban growth based goals and objectives boundary expansion areas. relative to the plan’s The Regional Mobility Policy performance targets. Update is a joint effort between Metro and ODOT. Additional Source: ODOT information is available at oregonmetro.gov/mobility.
Example 01 | Regional Transportation Plan (2018) | p 3 Updated April 14, 2021. Regional30 Mobility Policy Update Examples of Current Approaches | Legislative Plan Amendment oregonmetro.gov/mobility Example Central City 2035 and MMA April 2021 02 Portland, OR • An understanding that Portland Central City increased automobile Portland congestion within and around Central City 43 the MMA is acceptable as a potential trade-off for achieving these multimodal mixed-use characteristics Outcome Location: CC35 was adopted as a 405 Portland, OR legislative amendment with Multnomah County ODOT concurrence, enabling the City to pursue more dense Plan Type: development in the Central City, Legislative Plan served by a robust network Amendment of multimodal transportation options. Source: ODOT A written agreement between By designating the Central well as procedures for review ODOT and the City of Portland Overview City as an MMA, the City was and adoption of future plan affirms the City’s understanding In 2016, the City of Portland able to shift evaluation of amendments. that the MMA designation is an adopted an update to its its transportation system’s The TPR requires the following acknowledgment that increased comprehensive plan. Central 99E performance away from focusing characteristics for MMA congestion will no longer City 2035 (CC35) was developed purely on congestion for motor designation: be evaluated in determining as the first amendment to the vehicle travel to consider, “significant effect,” for plan comprehensive plan. In adopting measures for safety, climate • High-quality connectivity to amendments but that safety CC35 as an amendment, the City change, access to destinations and within the area by modes considerations still apply. also designated the Central City and equity. of transportation other than as a Multimodal Mixed-Use Area the automobile The agreement identifies specific The MMA designation projects to be added to the (MMA), a designation provided Throughway High capacity transit was adopted with ODOT • A denser level of development for in the TPR. City’s transportation system concurrence. ODOT was a of a greater variety of plan. The roadway projects were Arterial Employment area Within a designated MMA, local partner in the evaluations residential, office, retail, identified to address potential Arterial outside UGB Industrial area governments are no longer and assessments leading to restaurants, public, open queuing at ramp interchanges, Branchline freight rail Station communities required to consider traffic the designation, including a space, civic and cultural uses which can be a safety deficiency congestion as a performance substantial role in technical than in surrounding areas if queues spill back onto the Mainline freight rail Urban centers measure when evaluating plan analysis. • A plan and implementing freeway travel lanes. Rail transit station Parks and natural areas amendments. Evaluation of The written concurrence measures to encourage and traffic safety and operations Bus stop between Portland and ODOT maintain these multimodal remains a requirement. included specific transportation mixed-use characteristics investments needed to address through development identified safety deficiencies, as standards How was the current mobility policy a factor? The Oregon TPR, Section -0060 requires local governments to take coordinated measures if an amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. The OHP Policy 1F identifies the mobility targets (v/c) for congestion on state facilities. Nine state roadways fall within the proposed Central City MMA: • Interstate 5 • SE McLoughlin Boulevard (OR 99E) • Interstate 84 • SW Naito Parkway/SW Barbur Boulevard (OR 99W) • Interstate 405 • SW Macadam Avenue (OR 43) Source: Oregon Department of Transportation Source: ODOT • Sunset Highway (US 26) designs for I-405 ramps to applicant) for plan amendments Outcome (cont’d) • Lower Columbia River improve safety and reduce that require mitigation: These projects include: Highway (US 30) weaving conflicts • Legislative: Provide ODOT • SE Powell Boulevard (US 26) • SE Yamhill at SE Water • A number of bicycle approved mitigation or do Avenue Traffic Improvements, and pedestrian safety not proceed with legislative Under the 2012 amendments to to install a signal at the improvements were also change. Mitigation could the TPR, this amendment was intersection to reduce queue added include, but may not pursued to be in compliance length and provide advanced be limited to, physical The MMA substantially removes with the MMA designation, warning sign of queues at exit improvements with many of the traditional traffic effectively waiving or bypassing ramp implementation agreement, analyses required for plan the OHP mobility standards. The City agreement to operational • SW Broadway Traffic amendments. The written process and analysis, including changes, use or floor area Improvements, which would agreement between ODOT and coordination with ODOT and ratio restrictions, addition of improve SW Broadway and the City lays out a new 10-step obtaining ODOT concurrence, Source: ODOT Source: ODOT other surface streets to reduce process for evaluating plan projects to the transportation was consistent with the TPR and vehicle queue on the I-405 SB amendments. system plan; project list and/ OHP policy and requirements. or Regional Transportation Exit Ramp that connects to The regional mobility policy is SW Broadway Some notable steps include Plan project list. specific trip generation not a factor in plan amendments. • I-405/NW Glisan Traffic thresholds for determining • Quasi-judicial: Provide Improvements, which would significant effect and guidance ODOT approved mitigation reduce queues on the exit on procedures for conducting or deny quasi-judicial change. ramp queuing analysis. The agreement Mitigation could include, but may not be limited to, physical • I-405 Safety Study, in the also makes a distinction between improvements, operational transportation system plan legislative (where the local changes, or approval studies list, which involves government is the applicant) conditions. developing conceptual and quasi-judicial (where a development interest is the
Example 02 | Central City 2035 and MMA | p 2 Safety analysis Methodologies & ODOT conducted much Measures The assessment of safety risk of the analysis, including factors on these highways the queuing at the off- The evaluation of potential traffic focused on five potential ramps, and funded the and mobility under the MMA contributing factors: City’s multimodal and designation focused on traffic • Speed differential land use analysis through safety, multimodal access, and a Transportation Growth travel demand characteristics for • Weaving distance Management grant. the proposed study area. • Merging distance • ODOT’s perspective was Travel demand analysis was • Driver expectation that the MMA was new conducted for the base and and if it was going to work forecast years. • Gap acceptance anywhere, the Central City Travel demand was estimated ODOT and Portland Bureau should be an example. using the Metro RTP demand of Transportation (PBOT) also But they were very careful model (financially constrained) conducted a comprehensive and comprehensive in to estimate land use inventory of access at key their analysis, and have a characteristics, trip demand, portals of the City, including clear, written agreement of mode split, and vehicle miles bicycle and pedestrian understanding. traveled (VMT) per capita in the connections as well as a crash MMA area. analysis. • A possible weakness of this approach is the need A summary of the daily VMT for comprehensive analysis estimates is shown in the table Strengths & and coordination. This below. The table compares base is probably appropriate year (2010) and future (2035) Weaknesses of for a large, dense area VMT for the MMA area for Current Policy/ with multiple freeway citywide and regional VMT. interchanges, but likely the Source: ODOT The table shows that overall Approach approach could be right- VMT is expected to decline • The MMA designation sized for smaller cities. substantially in the Central allows the City to plan for City, while it shows a modest growth and development Local Partner reduction citywide and virtually with a focus on local Working together to help update no change regionally. This goals of climate, equity, Opportunities for how the region defines mobility and reflects a greater efficiency of safety, and access to Improvement measures success in the greater central city growth with respect destinations. Portland region. to daily travel needs. • No specific opportunities • A collaborative approach were identified; however, Daily VMT Per Capita with ODOT gave it was noted that a more both state and local streamlined process may 2010 2035 agencies an opportunity help with application of MMA area 7.5 5.4 to consider priority this approach for smaller issues. The written (Central City) areas and jurisdictions. agreement gives ODOT some assurance that safety-related projects Citywide 12 11.4 will be addressed in transportation planning and future plan amendments. 15 15 Regional • With nine state highways The Regional Mobility Policy going through and around Update is a joint effort between this area, ODOT worked Metro and ODOT. Additional information is available at closely with PBOT to support the analysis. oregonmetro.gov/mobility.
Example 02 | Central City 2035 and MMA | p 3 Updated April 14, 2021. Regional Mobility Policy Update Examples of Current Approaches | Quasi-Judicial Plan Amendment oregonmetro.gov/mobility Example Colwood Industrial District Plan Amendment April 2021 03 Portland, OR • NE Alderwood Road/NE 82nd Middle Columbia Corridor Area Colwood Avenue: Convert the existing Industrial District eastbound right-tum lane into a shared through/right lane and modify traffic signal to accommodate the conversion. • NE Killingsworth Street/ Interstate 205 Southbound Ramps: Provide a free- Location: flowing eastbound right-tum Portland, OR movement onto the I-205 Multnomah County southbound on-ramp. Plan Type: How was the Quasi-Judicial Plan Amendment current mobility policy a factor? 30 Source: Portland Parks and Recreation Transportation Planning Rule Section -0060 (TPR 0060) Overview Outcome requires that proposed plan and This 2013 quasi-judicial plan use actions, including a 2008 The amendment was land use regulation amendments amendment to the City of amendment proposal that conditionally approved by the be consistent with the identified Portland Comprehensive Plan would have allowed industrial City of Portland with ODOT function and capacity of existing rezoned a 48-acre portion of development. The 2008 support. In addition to the City’s and planned transportation the Colwood National Golf amendment was denied by required frontage improvements facilities. Course site near Portland Portland City Council after a and systems development TPR 0060 includes criteria for International Airport. The Open determination that the approval charges paid at the time of identifying significant effects Space designation and zoning criteria for a Comprehensive Plan permitting, the applicant was of plan or land use regulation was changed to Industrial amendment were not met. required to complete three amendments on transportation Sanctuary designation and The 2013 amendment was intersection projects aimed at facilities. Because the site is Throughway Employment area General Industrial zone. Under improving traffic operations: near two ODOT facilities (NE seen as a “redo” of the 2008 Arterial Industrial area the proposed amendment, Killingsworth Street and I-205), submittal with a new proposal • (! (! (! (! NE Alderwood Road/ Proposed arterial Station communities 43 approximately 90 acres of the for a park, improved habitat and NE Cornfoot Road: Add a the plan amendment was golf course site would retain the other environmental mitigations, separate northbound left-tum subject to the mobility policy v/c Rail transit station Urban centers Open Space designation and and an increase in Open Space. lane. standards in Table 7 of Policy Bus stop Parks and natural areas zoning. 1F of the Oregon Highway Plan This resulted in considerably High capacity transit This site was annexed from lower expected trip generation (OHP). Multnomah County in 1986, than in the initial proposal. which initiated a string of land 405
99E » An adopted Interchange The City of Portland review also Area Management Plan included comprehensive plan Strengths & Opportunities for (IAMP) is present, or policies to improve conditions through an IAMP adoption on arterials and local streets for Weaknesses of Improvement process, which must be pedestrians, bicyclists and transit Current Policy/ • The ongoing revision approved by the Oregon riders. The review found that the of the City’s mobility planned frontage improvements Approach Transportation Commission. standards should better and a planned off-street trail met Amendments to the TPR in • A benefit of the overall align them with the City’s those policy objectives. 2012 added Section 2e, allowing approach was that the multimodal policies. For the state roadways, findings local governments to consider a traffic impact analysis, • The updated mobility were made using TPR 0060- “balancing test,” whereby they traditional mobility policy and measures 2e. The traffic impact analysis may approve a plan amendment standards and other should provide more even when the performance found that the NE Killingsworth/ policies were used to clarity on how to make standard might not be met. Southbound I-205 ramp require roadway capacity findings that shift intersection would not meet projects at two local street focus from traditional If a local government determines mobility standards in the Oregon intersections, along with that the performance standard “traffic” impacts to Highway Plan. However, under multimodal improvements cannot be met, it can approve “transportation” impacts, TPR 0600-2e, a planned safety to the system. a plan amendment on the improvement at the intersection focusing first on safety On the State system, the condition that alternative was found to have sufficient and operational impacts application of TPR 0060- improvements be made, such as systemwide benefit. and impacts to other projects at a different location 2e provided flexibility modes, including freight, Specifically, construction of or for a different mode, provided for the City to work with to meet broader goals. a third on-ramp meter lane there is benefit to the system as ODOT to identify a project to southbound I-5 from NE a whole. that could meet ODOT’s Killingsworth was found to safety goals and gain their Methodologies & improve automobile and freight support for the proposal, Source: Prosper Portland movement for industrial and even though the OHP Measures commercial uses throughout mobility standard would the better indication is a The traffic impact analysis for the Columbia Corridor. These not be met. Current Mobility maximum volume-to-capacity this proposed plan amendment benefits were anticipated to Policy (cont’d) ratio for the ramp terminals • The flexibility provided by Local Partner included traditional metrics, balance the significant effect, of interchange ramps that is the TPR enabled officials Working together to help For interchanges, the OHP has a including trip generation even though improvements the more restrictive volume to prioritize broader update how the region defines more restrictive standard (i.e., a estimates, intersection would not result in meeting OHP to capacity ratio of either the community goals, such mobility and measures success lower v/c) than for other roads. operations and queuing analyses. performance standards. The OHP, page 76, states the crossroad, or 0.85. as safe operations and in the greater Portland region. Intersection capacity projects economic development, following: • At an interchange within an were required at two locations: when considering urban area the mobility target • Although an interchange • NE Alderwood Road/ transportation impacts used may be increased to serves both the mainline and NE Cornfoot Road: Add a from development activity as much as 0.90 v/c, but no the crossroad to which it separate northbound left-tum that ordinarily would not higher than the target for the connects…(t)he main objective lane. be acceptable. is to avoid the formation crossroad, if: • NE Alderwood Road/NE 82nd of traffic queues on off- » It can be determined, with Avenue: Convert the existing ramps which back up into a probability equal to or eastbound right-tum lane into the portions of the ramps greater than 95 percent, a shared through/right lane needed for safe deceleration that vehicle queues and modify traffic signal to from mainline speeds or would not extend onto accommodate the conversion. onto the mainline itself. This the mainline or into the is a significant traffic safety portion of the ramp needed concern. The primary cause of to safely accommodate The Regional Mobility Policy traffic queuing at off-ramps deceleration; and Update is a joint effort between is inadequate capacity at the Metro and ODOT. Additional intersections of the ramps information is available at with the crossroad.…Therefore, oregonmetro.gov/mobility.
Example 03 | Colwood Industrial District Plan Amendment | p 2 Updated April 14, 2021. Regional Mobility Policy Update Examples of Current Approaches | Development Review oregonmetro.gov/mobility Example Troutdale Reynolds Industrial Park April 2021 Troutdale, OR 04
How was the Troutdale Reynolds Industrial Park Vicinity Troutdale Reynolds Industrial Park current mobility policy a factor? The RMP does not apply to development review. However, ODOT reviewed the development master plan and applied the mobility targets Location: in Policy 1F of the Oregon Troutdale, OR Highway Plan because ODOT Multnomah County has permitting authority for site access. ODOT also provided Plan Type: comments to local jurisdictions Development Review on an individual proposed development. 30 As noted above, traffic analyses were completed in 2007 (Phase 1) and 2012 (Phases I and II). The
Source: Port of Portland studies evaluated intersection operations using the Oregon Overview Outcome Highway Plan volume-to- The Troutdale Reynolds Most of the projects identified capacity (v/c)-based standards The Port of Portland purchased for existing conditions (year Industrial Park (TRIP) is a 700- the property in 2007 for in the IAMP have been acre brownfield redevelopment completed. This has supported 2006 or 2010 were used) and redevelopment. The Port worked future conditions (year 2015). site with a mix of industrial with the City of Troutdale and the roadway capacity needed and natural resource areas. ODOT to gain approval of a for site development and For intersections with planned Approximately 350 acres are three-phase development improved freight access. While improvements (Interstate 84 available for industrial uses. master plan, with traffic impact there is still room for additional interchange ramps), ODOT The site was designated by the studies conducted in 2007 and development, all three phases of utilized standards from the Throughway Employment area Oregon Highway Design Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection 2012. Individual development the TRIP master plan have had Arterial Industrial area Agency as a Superfund site in substantial development. These standards apply to the projects have also provided (! (! (! (! Proposed arterial 43 Station communities 1994. their own traffic impact studies. design of capital projects and are more rigid than the mobility Urban growth boundary Urban centers The property has direct access Meanwhile, ODOT developed an standards in the OHP. Parks and natural areas to Interstate 84 and is near Interchange Area Management County line Plan (IAMP) with the City. The Interstate 205 and the Portland Proposed high capacity transit International Airport. IAMP was finalized in 2011.
405
99E Strengths & Opportunities for Weaknesses of Improvement
Current Policy/ • Consider expanding Approach analysis of traffic impacts to address safety and • The costs and complexity employee access to of the interchange jobs, transit, and active improvements transportation options. necessitated construction of the needed facilities • Provide guidance on at the outset rather how agencies can than via incremental implement transportation improvements. demand management Accordingly, project activities while designers applied the growing transportation more rigid HDM v/c infrastructure and standard to ensure that services. the new facilities could facilitate short and long- term freight mobility. • The transportation Source: Metro impact analyses did not include evaluation or Funding for these improvements recommendations for was programmed in the STIP; safety, transportation Methods and therefore, the analysis assumed Methodologies that these improvements would demand management, be in place before Phase 2 was transit or active The 2012 Transportation Impact constructed. transportation modes. Analysis (TIA) described While, freight mobility is evaluation of 10 intersections, The analysis also assumed the a priority, the industrial Local Partners improvements would meet including four at the I-84/ area is also a significant Working together to help update Marine Drive and I-84/Graham standards established in the employee destination Oregon Highway Design Manual how the region defines mobility and Road interchanges. These ramp and there is a desire measures success in the greater intersections were evaluated (HDM). Because of the planned to improve employee Portland region. according to the v/c standard capital investments at the three access with safe active documented in Policy 1F of the intersections, the HDM’s 0.75 v/c transportation options and Oregon Highway Plan. design standard was applied. For transit investments. the remaining ramp intersection, The TIA evaluated weekday the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) morning and evening peak hour 0.85 v/c standard was applied. traffic conditions, including v/c and level of service (LOS), which corresponds to average delay. These analyses are consistent with the methodologies outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual. ODOT was developing improvements for three of The Regional Mobility Policy the four interchange ramp Update is a joint effort between intersections as part of an IAMP. Metro and ODOT. Additional information is available at oregonmetro.gov/mobility.
Example 04 | Troutdale Reynolds Industrial Park | p 2 Updated April 14, 2021. 99W
Regional Mobility Policy Update Examples of Current Approaches | Legislative Plan Amendment oregonmetro.gov/mobility Example Rock Creek Mixed Employment District April 2021 05 Happy Valley, OR adequacy standard could not Rock Creek Mixed Employment District be met and therefore the area could not be fully developed in the short term without Rock Creek substantial additional investment ME District in transportation infrastructure. ODOT agreed to deferring future traffic impact analyses to when a master plan for the area was developed. Since then, an Location: interim four-lane Sunrise Phase Happy Valley, OR II construction project has been Clackamas County adopted in the RTP Financially Constrained project list. Now the Plan Type: development of this area as well Legislative Plan as any future plan amendments Amendment in the vicinity can assume construction of the interim additional transportation analysis Source: Wikimedia Commons, by Esprqii Sunrise Phase II project in its or mitigation was required. analysis. Overview However, Section -0060 of The City of Happy Valley system could accommodate the Oregon Transportation Outcome Planning Rule (TPR) had recently amended its comprehensive the land use changes. As was The City adopted the RC-ME been amended to require plan in 2008, creating the Rock customary, they assumed in development district in 2008 that for planned projects in a Creek Mixed Employment (RC- their analysis of future traffic and the comprehensive plan/ metropolitan area to be assumed ME) development district on (2035) conditions, construction zone map amendment was in a traffic impact analysis, the land brought into the urban of projects listed in the Regional approved in 2012. growth boundary in 2002. Transportation Plan (RTP) project must be in the RTP In 2011, the City conducted Strategic project list, including Financially Constrained project The traffic analysis supporting an Economic Opportunity Sunrise Phase II, a major highway list. At the time of the plan the action concluded that the Throughway Employment area Analysis (EOA) to adjust project. amendment, the construction RC-ME district could not be phase of the Sunrise Phase developed to its full potential in Proposed throughway Industrial area strategies for possible land The analysis revealed that traffic II project was not in the RTP the short term, that substantial uses in the area and modified at the intersection of 172nd Arterial Urban centers Financially Constrained project additional investment in (! (! (! (! the land use designation from Avenue withOR 212 would Proposed arterial Parks and natural areas list and therefore could not be transportation infrastructure Industrial Campus to Mixed Use exceed mobility standards in included in the analysis. ODOT was needed to provide adequate Urban growth boundary Employment and Institutional the 2035 horizon year based requested the City conduct capacity, and that deferring County line and Public Use through a public on both existing and proposed additional analysis without the future detailed traffic impact planning process. zoning. Notably, the proposed Proposed high capacity transit Sunrise Phase II project. analyses to a master plan The City conducted a traffic changes to zoning would not process was acceptable. analysis in 2012 that concluded further degrade performance as The updated traffic analysis the surrounding transportation measured by v/c. Therefore, no without the Sunrise Phase II concluded that the TPR intersection is a maximum v/c of 0.99. The analysis was not be developed to Opportunities for conducted according to ODOT’s its full potential in the Improvement Analysis Procedures Manual. No short term. Development substantial analysis or metrics projects have been stalled • Analysis methods and to evaluate multimodal mobility or abandoned because practices for evaluating were identified through planning developers cannot meet transportation impacts of document review or interviews the trip caps imposed on plan amendments should with agency staff. the parcels in this area. be broadened to include consideration of vehicle • The original traffic trip reduction strategies, analysis in 2008 was able transportation system, Strengths & to assume the planned and demand management Sunrise project, which the Weaknesses of strategies, transit and City considered regional active transportation. Current Policy/ in scale and beyond Approach the funding capacity • Adequate funding of local government mechanisms are necessary • The TPR requires and developers. TPR to build multimodal planned transportation amendments in 2012 in investments that are systems to be adequate effect changed what could needed to adequately to meet the needs, be assumed in the traffic serve planned land uses in of planned land uses. analysis. Prior to 2012, the urban area. Adequacy is defined by TSPs and subsequent • A mechanism to require local, regional and state comprehensive plan plan amendment performance standards, amendments and applicants to make depending on who owns zoning changes could contributions towards the facility or service. Source: Wikimedia Commons, by Adam Luchini assume projects on the adopted TSP projects is When a comprehensive RTP Strategic list to needed, not only on city In 2008, the City included the upon as a mitigation measure for plan amendment is (cont’d) demonstrate consistency or county streets but also Outcome Sunrise Phase II within the a plan amendment, development proposed, adopted with the TPR -0060. on State highways. The City adopted the RC-ME future background conditions, can only occur up to that vehicle adequacy standard(s) • Shifting from a vehicle- zone change with a vehicle trip and determined there was trip cap level of traffic. apply. Because most focused volume/capacity cap agreement to optimize the no significant effect and the comprehensive plan and measure to multimodal urban development potential transportation system was zoning designations allow Methodologies and mobility measures may of the land in the area; no adequate. On this basis, the a wide range of land uses, Local Partner commitments or specific plans action would have required no Measures especially in commercial not make a difference at Working together to help update were made to address identified additional transportation analysis The Metro travel demand model and mixed use zones, a an intersection like 172nd how the region defines mobility and mobility issues on OR 212. or mitigations. created the basis upon which practice has emerged Avenue/OR 212 because measures success in the greater the area is currently auto future traffic volumes were of doing the TPR -0060 Portland region. How was the However, consistent with 2012 estimated. Trip generation was traffic analysis based on dependent with limited amendments to the TPR, the estimated for the anticipated “reasonable worst case” street connectivity current mobility subsequent analysis of future reasonable worst case land uses regardless and transit and active conditions without the planned policy a factor? development for the site, which of what development transportation options. Sunrise Corridor project showed The 2008 and 2012 actions were is consistent with TPR practices. subsequently occurs. that the transportation system plan amendments, requiring would not have adequate The analysis evaluated • Where the transportation traffic impact analyses related capacity to meet the standards transportation performance forecast showed the to Oregon TPR Section -0060 identified in the Oregon Highway relative to the mobility standards system would not meet requirements. Plan (OHP) mobility policy, in Policy 1F and associated mobility standards for OR Policy 1F. The City worked with Table 7 of the OHP, which 212, a vehicle trip cap was The original traffic analyses utilizes v/c as the performance The Regional Mobility Policy assumed the planned Sunrise ODOT to identify a vehicle trip used to limit development Update is a joint effort between cap that established a limit on standard when evaluating plan to ensure compliance with Corridor project would be amendments. Metro and ODOT. Additional completed. development in order to meet the mobility standard in information is available at the OHP mobility standard. The mobility standard for the OHP. In this example, oregonmetro.gov/mobility. When a vehicle trip cap is agreed the 172nd Avenue/OR 212 the RC-ME district could
Example 05 | Rock Creek Mixed Employment District | p 2 Updated April 14, 2021. Regional Mobility Policy Update Examples of Current Approaches | Transportation System Plan oregonmetro.gov/mobility Example Oregon City TSP and OR 213 Alternative Mobility Target April 2021 06 Oregon City, OR Outcome Oregon City The Oregon City TSP update was adopted in 2013 and amended in 2018 with the adoption of the OR 213 Alternative Mobility Target by the City and the Oregon Transportation Commission. The alternative mobility target Location: amended the 2013 TSP with Oregon City, OR a new target for the OR 213/ Clackamas County Beavercreek Road intersection. It also added safety and minor Plan Type: capacity improvement projects Transportation System to the financially constrained Plan and subsequent TSP project list. This allowed the City to adopt zoning changes 30 amendment (alternative mobility target) consistent with the Beavercreek Concept Plan area while meeting the requirements of the
Source: Wikimedia Commons, by Akampfer Transportation Planning Rule because it was deemed (Section -0060). Overview financially unrealistic. In 2013, Oregon City updated The 2013 TSP identified several How was the robust network of collector and local improvements, such as its Transportation System Plan local streets to serve this area. current mobility (TSP). The previous TSP had extending turn lane length and been adopted in 2001. The 2013 TSP established a improving local circulation. It policy a factor? long-term vision for Oregon also determined the need to For transportation system plans, Among the changes between City’s overall transportation develop alternative mobility both the RTP, RMP, and OHP the 2001 TSP and the 2013 system and identified projects targets for the segment of OR Policy 1F identify v/c mobility TSP was the inclusion of the to address existing and future 213 between Beavercreek Road targets for state highways Throughway Employment area Thimble Creek (Beavercreek transportation needs. Its and Redmond Road, because the and their intersections. The Road) Concept Plan area that emphasis is on smaller projects Oregon Highway Plan (OHP)/ TSP update process used the Arterial Industrial area had been include within the 43 (! (! (! (! with a realistic expectation of Regional Transportation Plan mobility targets in the RTP and Proposed arterial Parks and natural areas City’s urban growth boundary being funded. mobility targets would not be OHP to identify deficiencies in in 2002 and 2004. The 2013 Urban growth boundary The 2001 TSP included a grade- met. the roadway network. TSP incorporated and expanded County line upon the 2008 Thimble Creek separated interchange at OR Following adoption of the 2013 These amendments were Concept Plan that identified 213/Beavercreek Road. The TSP, the City began a planning necessary to allow zone changes Bus stop various transportation project was removed from the process to identify alternative as the OHP mobility targets are improvements including a more 2013 TSP at ODOT’s direction mobility targets for OR 213. applied as standards to zone changes and plan amendments. 405
t
99E Safety Measures • A weakness of the Opportunities for • Crash rate approach is that it • Crash frequency focused on motor vehicle Improvement intersection performance • Excess proportions of specific in establishing the adopted • The alternative mobility crash types alternative mobility target process could be Despite exploring alternative standard, and did not made more effective approaches to measuring account for the broader through streamlining— performance, the City chose to system performance that perhaps by allowing its continue using v/c, consistent was documented in the adoption as part of the with the current OHP and RMP analysis. TSP, rather than a separate approaches. This decision was amendment process, as is • The process required based on ease of application typically required to meet significant resources for future development review the TSP schedule. and consistency with previous in staff time, advisory committee engagement, • Account for other modes Oregon Transportation of travel and when Commission decisions. public meetings, and consultant support. Having developing alternative The v/c standard in the OHP was taken 14 months in a mobility standards (and adjusted to allow slightly more planning process, the OR associated measures). congestion (from v/c of 0.99 213 Mobility Standards to 1.00). Also, the alternative project was adopted five standard was to be applied years after the TSP update. over the peak three-hour period rather than the two-hour period, • The community was thus accepting congested frustrated with a sense Source: Wikimedia Commons, by Oregoncitywiki conditions for a longer period on that the majority of traffic a typical weekday. at the intersections is not Methodologies & tasks completed during the single-occupancy vehicle local, and they didn’t want TSP update are listed below, travel, and climate change, and to accept more congestion Measures organized by modal network. evaluated how the system would but had no options. Local Partner The 2013 TSP Update included For walking, bicycling, transit, perform through 2035. Strengths & Working together to help update analysis of gaps and deficiencies and auto systems, the evaluation The alternative mobility target in the existing and future included a review of system planning process explored a Weaknesses of how the region defines mobility and transportation systems. This completeness (including variety of types of performance Current Policy/ measures success in the greater was done by reviewing modal basic facilities, crossings, and measures addressing traffic Portland region. networks individually as well amenities); access to activity operations and safety. The Approach as reviewing multimodal generators; and a review of following measures were connectivity between those crash history. For vehicle traffic considered: • The current approach has networks. mobility, the analysis also been valuable to the City Mobility Measures because it provides a way The targets are set by ODOT, included: • v/c to meet the requirements Clackamas County, or Oregon • Peak seasonal intersection of TPR Section -0060, by City based on the jurisdictional performance • Intersection delay enabling an alternative ownership of the intersecting • Evening peak period motor • Intersection level of service roadways. Targets for local mobility standard and vehicle speeds arterials and state highways • Critical movement delay allowing development as relate back to the RTP RMP and • Street connectivity and • Average travel time planned for the Thimble OHP Policy 1F, respectively. spacing Creek (Beavercreek Road) • Travel time reliability (buffer Concept Area. Considering projects to address The Oregon City TSP highlights index and planning time index) seven targets for system identified gaps and deficiencies • Average speed The Regional Mobility Policy involved further evaluation performance related to safety, Update is a joint effort between and analysis for each of the congestion, freight reliability, • Congestion duration Metro and ODOT. Additional modal networks. The analysis walking/biking/transit/non- • Intersection completeness information is available at oregonmetro.gov/mobility.
Example 06 | Oregon City TSP and OR 213 Alternative Mobility Target | p 2 Updated April 14, 2021. Regional Mobility Policy30 Update Examples of Current Approaches | Quasi-Judicial Plan Amendment oregonmetro.gov/mobility Example Willamette Falls District Plan & Downtown District/Multimodal Mixed-Use Area April 2021 07 Oregon City, OR related to safety, walking, biking, Willamette Falls District & Oregon City Downtown District driving and transit infrastructure, as well as freight, rail, and water transportation, in lieu of vehicle congestion. They identified a list 43 of projects needed to improve safety and multimodal access to the site. Outcome Location: The City of Oregon City adopted 405 Oregon City the Willamette Falls Riverwalk 0.25 miles Clackamas County, OR Master Plan in 2014. The City and Oregon Department of Plan Type: Transportation (ODOT) adopted Plan Amendment an intergovernmental agreement Quasi-judicial consistent with the master plan’s conditions of approval. MMA Boundary Overview and the Governor’s Regional Special Transportation Area (STA) This effort, combined with Solutions Team and a robust designation adopted in 2004 Oregon City Transportation The City of Oregon City enacted public process, adoption of by the Oregon Transportation System Plan goals, spurred the Willamette Falls Legacy the Willamette Falls Riverwalk Commission for McLoughlin redevelopment in the downtown Project (WFLP) by adopting Master Plan included a zone Boulevard between the railroad area and development of the 99E the Willamette Falls Riverwalk change and comprehensive plan underpass and 14th Street. City’s transportation demand Master Plan in 2014. The map and text amendments for management plan in 2017. WFLP Boundary Riverwalk will occupy the 22- the site. How was the acre former Blue Heron Paper Methodologies Mill site. It will bring visitors The City’s action included current mobility close to North America’s second designating the site a Multimodal policy a factor? and Measures most powerful waterfall, long Mixed-Use Area (MMA) to allow • While an evaluation of vehicle Because of the MMA designation obscured by industrial buildings. more intensive uses consistent congestion is not required Throughway Employment area in the Oregon City’s Willamette The site is an important Oregon with the master plan. The MMA within the MMA, ODOT Arterial Falls Master Plan, the Oregon Industrial area historical and cultural treasure covers downtown Oregon City and the City still needed to Highway Plan mobility standards Bus stop that for centuries has been on either side of Main Street, address other transportation Urban centers for 99E/McLoughlin Boulevard a significant cultural, fishing, south from 11th Street through performance standards that Proposed high capacity transit Parks and natural areas did not apply in the project area. and gathering place for Native downtown and into the proposed applied to their facilities, However, as required by the American Tribes. Willamette Falls Downtown including those addressing Oregon Transportation Planning District. safety, other transportation Rule (TPR Section -0060) for The result of a collaborative modes, network connectivity, partnership between Oregon The MMA supports planned areas designated as MMAs, and freight movement. City, Clackamas County, Metro growth in downtown Oregon planning staff evaluated existing City and is consistent with the and future travel conditions Strengths & biking, walking, and Opportunities for transit use, improve Weaknesses of information on travel Improvement Current Policy/ options and manage Approach parking efficiently in the • The MMA requires local area. jurisdictions to address safety and pedestrian, • Adopting the MMA enabled • The City’s adopted bicycle, and transit development as envisioned intergovernmental adequacy but not in the master plan by agreement with ODOT vehicle congestion. If allowing flexible operation identifies needed a new mobility policy of the State-owned facility. safety improvements considered additional • The MMA met applicant to OR 99E/McLoughlin aspects of mobility, such and City objectives, Boulevard. State and local as safety and multimodal enabling zoning that financial commitments mobility, an MMA supports the urban for the needed projects approach may not be densities envisioned in are included in the needed. downtown and at the agreement. • ODOT’s Blueprint for Willamette Falls site, which • Vehicular trip demand Urban Design (BUD) will in turn support Metro 2040 (thresholds) drive the allow for transportation Growth Concept objectives construction timing of infrastructure (highway) for regional centers. several planned OR 99E/ design in urban areas that better aligns with • The MMA designation McLoughlin Boulevard Oregon cities’ multiple enabled the City to focus safety improvements, and unique land use and on multimodal and safety ensuring that needed require that during the highest turn geometry from 99E/ transportation objectives. improvements in the improvements are Methodologies one-hour period of the day a McLoughlin Boulevard to A designation of an MMA planning area rather than done at the time of (continued) maximum v/c of 1.10 must be Railroad Avenue to allow an to achieve the flexible meeting the OHP mobility development. • For this reason, ODOT and the maintained at all intersections. indirect left turn movement. operation of a highway, standard for OR 99E/ City evaluated the study area’s These changes aim to • A trip threshold is the such as was achieved • Traffic analysis estimated 95th McLoughlin Boulevard. transportation infrastructure percentile vehicle queues at create a safer condition on trigger that allows the for OR 99E/McLaughlin using a variety of measures to the study intersections to 99E/McLoughlin Boulevard • Similar to the 99E/ City and ODOT to require Boulevard through document deficiencies. identify potential mitigations. along a curve with limited McLoughlin Boulevard a safety audit as part Oregon City, may not be sight distance. Special Transportation Area of development plan necessary if the design • Information reviewed included • In conditions of approval for designation, which enables review to address issues options allowed in the roadway and intersection the master plan and echoed » Addition of a raised median modifications to roadway unforeseen in the long- BUD can be employed in safety and motor vehicle in the intergovernmental at the Water Avenue/OR design standards, the range planning process. urban areas. operational performance as agreement, the City and 99E/McLoughlin Boulevard MMA recognizes that OHP well as walking, biking and ODOT agreed on three key intersection to prevent • The MMA addresses mobility standards are not transit infrastructure. transportation improvements unsafe movements and safety on OR 99E/ reinforce right-in, right-out compatible with the vision • The MMA boundary is more along OR 99E/McLoughlin McLoughlin Boulevard, Local Partner access. and multimodal needs of than one-quarter mile from Boulevard to maintain safety but does not address the downtown regional Working together to help any of the interchange ramp and improve site accessibility: » A plan for future OR 99E/ freeway interchange center. update how the region terminal intersections in the » An intelligent transportation McLoughlin Boulevard improvements or impacts defines mobility and improvements and a safety on I-205. vicinity. As result, ODOT- system (ITS) for traffic • Zoning for increased measures success in the audit, to be triggered by written concurrence with the approaching the tunnel density and including greater Portland region. MMA designation was not on OR 99E/McLoughlin peak hour trip thresholds. the MMA in the City’s required. Boulevard. comprehensive plan led to development of a The Regional Mobility Policy • The traffic analysis applied the » Prohibiting left turns transportation demand Update is a joint effort between Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) northbound from OR 99E/ management plan Metro and ODOT. Additional motor vehicle volume-to- McLoughlin Boulevard that aimed to manage information is available at capacity standards for streets to Main Street and congestion, encourage oregonmetro.gov/mobility. in the study area, which modification of the right
Example 07 | Willamette Falls District Plan and Downtown District Mixed-Use Multimodal Area | p 2 Updated April 14, 2021. 99W
Regional Mobility Policy Update Examples of Current Approaches | Development Review oregonmetro.gov/mobility Example Commons on the Tualatin April 2021
08 Tualatin, OR EXHIBIT J Outcome Tualatin Area This project was approved but has not been constructed. The Commons on approval requires the developer the Tualatin to pay Washington County’s Transportation Development Tax and make required frontage and access improvements.
Location: Methodologies Tualatin and Measures Washington County, OR The City identifies level of service (LOS) E as the standard Project Site Plan Type: at intersections and Washington Development Review County sets the target for volume-to-capacity (v/c) at 0.90. Oregon Highway Plan Policy 1F &RPPRQVRQWKH7XDODWLQ 3(563(&7,9( 1\EHUJ5RDG3URSHUW\//&7DQGHP3URSHUW\0DQDJHPHQW Overview '5 sets a target v/c of 0.85 or less How was the at freeway ramp intersections, The Commons on Tualatin The project was allowed by or 0.90 or less if analysis can is a five-building, 264-unit right under the site’s current current mobility demonstrate that queuing does apartment complex proposed zoning designation (High Density policy a factor? not spill back onto the freeway’s for development on a former Residential [RH]), subject to main line. recreational vehicle (RV) park review by the Tualatin City The RMP does not apply to site at 6645 SW Nyberg Lane in Engineer and Architectural development review. This The traffic impact study Tualatin. Review Board. development was allowed completed in 2018 applied the outright based on current following approach: The nearly-11-acre site is four The developer contracted a zoning, and is accessed by blocks east of the SW Nyberg transportation impact study • Traffic operations, including local roads. Though ODOT did v/c and LOS, were analyzed Street/I-5 Interchange and in 2018 and included it in not have jurisdiction, the City Throughway Proposed high capacity transit immediately south of the Tualatin the project’s development for weekday a.m. and p.m. requested comment from their peak hours at five study Arterial Employment area River. It is adjacent to the application. development review staff. Tualatin Town Center identified intersections, including the I-5 Urban growth boundary Industrial area Because the project is close to in Metro’s 2040 Growth Concept ODOT’s review of the I-5 ramp ramps and SW Nyberg Street. County line Urban centers a freeway interchange, ODOT and the Tigard to Wilsonville intersections was based on was given an opportunity to • Crash history and sight Rail transit station Parks and natural areas Mobility Corridor in the Regional Oregon Highway Plan 1F mobility distance at the site access review the transportation impact targets. These targets are more Bus stop Transportation Plan (Mobility driveway were evaluated for study’s scope of work and stringent than those developed High capacity transit Corridor 3). the safety assessment. analysis and provide comments by the City of Tualatin and It is also in an Equity Focus prior to the project decision. Washington County. Area identified in Metro’s 2018 t Regional Transportation Plan. AR 18-0007 – Commons on the Tualatin November 6, 2019 Page 2 of 31
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Applicable Criteria The following Chapters of the Tualatin Development Code (TDC)* are applicable to the subject proposal: • TDC Chapter 31: General Provisions • TDC Chapter 34: Tree Removal Permit/Review • TDC Chapter 43: High Density Residential Planning District • TDC Chapter 73: Community Design Standards
* Application submitted beforeEXHIBIT adoption J of Ordinance No. 1414-18 Amending Tualatin Development Code Chapters
B. Project and Site Description
The subject site is a 10.99-acre lot which is zoned HighStrengths Density Residential& (RH).Opportunities The site is located for north of the intersection of Nyberg Road and Nyberg LaneWeaknesses (6645 SW Nyberg of Lane). ImprovementThe property has historically Current Policy/ been used as an RV park, but has remained vacant since 2012. The property• Funding slope toolss from and the western property line down to the northeast and southeastApproach corners. Nyberg River is locatedanalysis methods to the that north of the enable agencies to assess • While ODOT staff property. developer contributions were invited to review for off-site mitigation and comment on the projects that maintain development application, multimodal mobility there was no mechanism The applicant, Westlake Consultants on behalf of Nyberg Road Property LLC, requestswould be helpful. approval The of a 264- for the development to tools and methods unit multifamily development, tentatively named Commonscontribute to on improvements the Tualatin. The development includes must demonstrate at the I-5 Southbound/ there is a link between five residential buildings, a community center, and aNyberg swimming Street intersection. pool. The residential buildings are three the mitigation project stories tall and feature a variety of finishes including• City wood of Tualatin grain, staff cultured stone,and the and development’s concrete. Onsite noted they were unable to transportation impact. parking (495 stalls of surface and structured), landscaprequireed anyopen contribution space, to and children’s play areas are also • The definition of mobility interchange improvements policy and measures for proposed with the application. A single vehicle accessfrom point the developer, is proposed since to Nyberg Lane, on the eastern evaluating transportation those improvements had side of the property. Frontage improvements and other transportation relatedimpacts considerationsof development were not been defined and costs should be broadened to for them had not been reviewed as part of the separate, but related, Type-II Public Facilities Decision. include other mobility identified. elements such as active • Frequently such a project transportation, transit and Figure 1: Aerial view of subject site (highlighted) would be included in either transportation demand the development’s fair share the local transportation management. Methodologies system plan (TSP) but the &RPPRQVRQWKH7XDODWLQ contribution to interchange 3(563(&7,9( 1\EHUJ5RDG3URSHUW\//&7DQGHP3URSHUW\0DQDJHPHQW (cont’d) improvements and did not '5 city had not included it in This evaluation found that the pursue mitigations. their most recent TSP, and ODOT had not conducted an Local Partner Southbound I-5/SW Nyberg Frontage improvements were independent plan. Working together to help update Street interchange would required, along with ADA how the region defines mobility and operate with a v/c of 0.91, improvements at the nearest measures success in the greater exceeding ODOT’s target, with interchange. The developer and without the addition of was also required to provide Portland region. project trips. an easement for and construct ODOT requested that the the portion of the Tualatin River development contribute Greenway connecting through to improvements at the the north end of the site. No off- interchange, because the project site mitigations were required. would add trips exceeding the interchange’s capacity. However, neither ODOT nor the City’s TSP had identified specific improvements and associated costs to add road capacity at this location. Further, The Regional Mobility Policy the proposed development Update is a joint effort between added relatively few trips to the Metro and ODOT. Additional intersection at the interchange information is available at ramp. As a result, the City of oregonmetro.gov/mobility. Tualatin was not able to calculate Example 08 | Commons on the Tualatin | p 2 Updated April 14, 2021. C. Previous Land Use Actions • PMA 94-04 Rezone Lot 2601 from RMH to RH • PMA 16-0001 Rezone Lot 2600 from CG to RH
Regional Mobility Policy Update Examples of Current Approaches | Legislative Plan Amendment oregonmetro.gov/mobility Example Tigard Triangle District Plan April 2021 09 Tigard, OR during the traffic impact analysis. Tigard Triangle Area The mitigation projects include: Tigard Triangle • OR 217 Northbound Ramps area, 1950 at SW 72nd Avenue: Modifies Tigard Triangle a current TSP project with the potential addition of a second northbound right-turn lane as part of the potential interchange improvement. 99W Location: • Interstate 5 Southbound Exit Tigard, OR Ramp at Barbur Boulevard/ Washington County OR 99W: Modifies a current TSP project with the potential Plan Type: removal of the northbound Legislative Plan left-turn lane or other Amendment capacity improvement as part of planned 99W access Source: Metro management improvements. This project is outside Tigard Overview appropriate mitigations to city limits and requires support the zone change. The Tigard Triangle, in the city’s In 2017, the City sought to amend coordination and support from northeast corner, is home to big- current zoning to implement Outcome City of Portland and ODOT box retail stores, large offices, the Tigard Triangle District for inclusion in the Regional The City coordinated with ODOT auto sales and services, and Plan. The proposed amendment Transportation Plan. several undeveloped parcels, changed zoning of some land to conduct a traffic impact along with some low-density within the district from Mixed- analysis to estimate traffic • I-5 Northbound Ramps/SW residential uses. Use Employment (MUE) (which impacts of the zone changes and 65th Avenue at SW Haines identify intersection mitigations Street: Adds a new TSP In pursuit of the City of Tigard’s permits both commercial needed to meet the mobility project. Signalization of this vision of a more walkable urban and multi-family residential development) and General standards contained in Policy intersection is an identified environment, several years of Throughway Employment area 1F of the Oregon Highway Plan mitigation for the TriMet planning have been devoted to Commercial (C-G) to a new (OHP). The City Council adopted Southwest Corridor Light Rail Arterial Industrial area the Tigard Triangle. In recent Triangle Mixed-use Zone. the proposed zone changes in Project. County line years, the City adopted a Tigard As required by the Transportation Station communities conjunction with amendments Triangle Strategic Plan and Planning Rule, the City conducted • I-5 Southbound Ramps at SW Rail transit station Urban centers to the Tigard Transportation formed an urban renewal district, a traffic impact analysis. The 68th Ave: Modifies current Bus stop System Plan (TSP). The TSP Parks and natural areas in the context of planning for analysis helped to determine TSP project to show the amendments included selected High capacity transit the potential Southwest Corridor whether the proposed zone potential addition of a second mitigation projects to provide Light Rail line connecting Tigard changes would have a significant westbound through lane and Proposed high capacity transit capacity at interchange ramps to to downtown Portland and effect on traffic operations dedicated westbound left-turn address safety issues identified Bridgeport Village. and identify, where needed, lane to the intersection. Mobility Standards How was the • In collaboration with Opportunities for For this plan amendment, the current mobility ODOT, the City agreed following mobility standards amend the TSP to add Improvement contained in Table 7 of the OHP policy a factor? eleven intersection • For large legislative plan Policy 1F applied: The traffic analysis was capacity projects, amendments, improve/ • ODOT freeway ramp conducted to meet TPR designate the Tigard clarify the scoping process intersections have a peak requirements for a zone/ Triangle as a town and reduce the need for hour volume-to-capacity (v/c) comprehensive plan amendment, center and develop and iterative discussions. standard of 0.85. based on the mobility standards implement a parking in the OHP Policy 1F. The • A peak hour v/c standard management plan. • Develop measures and RMP does not apply for plan of 0.99 was applied to one These actions are meant methods based on amendments. intersection on OR 99W/ to encourage a more estimated person trips Barbur Boulevard in Portland. ODOT requested analysis of the pedestrian-oriented rather than vehicle trips. intersections with freeway ramps development pattern, • ODOT did not require • Develop methods to with an emphasis on potential improve walking and v/c analysis at OR 99W better estimate reasonable safety issues resulting from biking options, and intersections because the worst case vehicle trip capacity and queuing. While manage the parking generation of mixed-use, previously-completed corridor some capacity and operating supply in the area in plan had capped OR 99W at transit-supportive urban issues were identified, the City support of reducing the centers. four through lanes plus turn and ODOT were able to agree on need to drive and meeting lanes, consistent with the RTP specific project list amendments mode share targets in the Street Design Policy for major in the Tigard TSP to meet newly designated town arterials. Source: Metro the OHP Policy 1F mobility center. If an amendment is expected standards. • Estimating trip generation The following steps were taken to either cause an intersection Outcome (cont’d) for mixed-use zoning to determine whether the to be deficient, or to cause an • Parking Management Plan: for legislative plan proposed zone change would already deficient intersection to The City agreed to develop Strengths & amendments is complex. have a significant effect: worsen, mitigation is required. a parking management plan Weaknesses of When a variety of land Compare for the Triangle to manage Queuing uses is allowed over parking supply and enhance reasonable Current Policy/ multiple parcels, there has 1 While the OHP v/c standard for Local Partner the environment for walking, worst case trip Approach to be agreement on what OR 99W was used to evaluate Working together to help update biking, and transit. generation under constitutes a reasonable • A collaborative approach how the region defines mobility and current zoning mobility, queuing was used to worst case. Moreover, the between the City and Methodologies and to reasonable evaluate safety. Safety impacts ITE Trip Generation Manual measures success in the greater were assessed based on the ODOT enabled the City’s worst case trip does not address mixed- Portland region. Measures proposed zoning to meet the proposed amendment generation under use, transit-supportive following criteria: to focus on local goals The City conducted a traffic proposed zoning. development patterns and priorities while impact analysis for this study • Safe stopping sight distance very well. supporting the OHP policy to meet TPR Section -0060 If proposed zoning on exit ramps with proposed of prioritizing interchange requirements for a zone change. generates the zoning. The steps for addressing those 2 operations and safety. same or fewer • Maintain current zoning requirements are outlined below. • Though the mobility policy vehicle trips queue length on exit ramps, if was not a significant than the current current zoning is beyond safe Trip Generation barrier to gaining approval zoning, there is no stopping sight distance. The trip generation estimate significant effect. of the plan amendment, was developed using Institute Tigard staff noted that of Transportation Engineers it was less effective for If proposed zoning (ITE) Trip Generation Manual addressing transportation- generates more procedures. It considered gross 3 related issues of higher The Regional Mobility Policy trip generation, internal trip trips than current Update is a joint effort between zoning, evaluate importance to the City, reduction, pass-by trip reduction, like walkability and Metro and ODOT. Additional and net new trip generation. impacts relative to information is available at mobility standards. improvements needed on local streets. oregonmetro.gov/mobility.
Example 09 | Tigard Triangle District Plan | p 2 Updated April 14, 2021. Regional Mobility Policy Update Examples of Current Approaches | Development Review oregonmetro.gov/mobility Example West End District Mixed-Use Development April 2021 10 Beaverton, OR
West End District West Beaverton Area Mixed-Use In addition to frontage Development improvements, the TIA identified the following needed improvements: • Prohibition of left turns into the driveway from Tualatin Valley Highway due to safety 99W concerns for vehicles turning Location: left across multiple lanes. This Beaverton, OR was required as part of final Washington County approval. Plan Type: • A bus pull-out was Development Review recommended by ODOT, in coordination with TriMet. The pull-out was required with final approval for the project.
Overview related to overall site access and How was the This project initiated The analysis determined that circulation. current mobility development review for the redeveloped site would The intersection was found to the proposed mixed-use generate less traffic than it did exceed the maximum v/c in policy a factor? redevelopment of a former when it supported a K-Mart future conditions, with or without While ODOT does not issue K-Mart site in Beaverton. The and other activities. As such, the proposed project. Because permits for land development, site is zoned general commercial the traffic impact analysis (TIA) the project was not the cause of it has authority to grant access (GC). requirements were limited to site the intersection operations issue, onto State of Oregon highways. Tualatin Valley Highway is under The new development would access and circulation. there was no expectation that State jurisdiction, giving ODOT replace the site’s existing the developer provide mitigation. permitting authority. commercial buildings and gas Outcome The TIA also included a Throughway Employment area ODOT applies the mobility station with approximately 424 This project was approved and is quantitative safety assessment Arterial Industrial area standards in the Oregon apartments, 22,076 square under construction. and qualitative review of overall (! (! (! (! feet of ground-floor retail, and access for other modes. Highway Plan mobility policy in Proposed arterial Station communities While the anticipated reduction 10,000 square feet of restaurant its traffic analysis for permitting Rail transit station Urban centers in overall traffic meant the space. access onto Tualatin Valley Bus stop Parks and natural areas developer was not required to Highway. The RMP is not a factor The project site is at the corner High capacity transit study off-site traffic impacts, in development review. of Tualatin Valley Highway and their TIA included analysis of Proposed high capacity transit SW Murray Blvd, which are the Tualatin Valley Highway/SW under ODOT and Washington Murray Blvd intersection as it County jurisdiction, respectively. • The TIA made specific recommendations addressing view of mobility. Further, site access, including mitigation measures too removing two driveways on frequently rely on adding Tualatin Valley Highway and physical capacity to the one on SW Murray Boulevard, roadway. The City of and prohibiting left turns Beaverton has identified from Tualatin Valley Highway. safety issues and The requirement to reinforce conditions for pedestrians this left turn restriction with as high priorities for its a physical traffic separator upcoming Transportation introduced requirements and System Plan update. process under the Oregon • The City, County, and Highway Design Manual, ODOT all use v/c as their and potentially the Design operating standard, but Exception Process. with slight differences in • The development provided the way they are applied. frontage improvements While not a barrier for consistent with ODOT this specific project, that standards on Tualatin Valley could result in confusion Highway and consistent with or inconsistency with County standards on SW planning and desired Murray Boulevard. These development outcomes improvements included for the system. upgrades to existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Opportunities for delay. • Washington County Methodologies and Transportation Development Improvement pullout and pedestrian • Washington County sets Taxes (TDTs) were collected improvements. However, Measures • The TIA noted that operating standards for both from the development to these were not evaluated adding a lane at the Based on direction from the City signalized and unsignalized fund countywide capacity for their effect on overall of Beaverton, the TIA included intersection of Tualatin Local Partner intersections with a v/c no improvements. No local fees vehicle demand. If v/c analysis of access operations Valley Highway and SW Working together to help update greater than 0.99 over a were assessed for citywide ratios are maintained as and safety at two driveways Murray Boulevard would 60-minute period. transportation improvements. the mobility standard, the how the region defines mobility and on SW Murray Boulevard and be cost prohibitive due to • requires all signalized process would benefit measures success in the greater one driveway on Tualatin Valley ODOT surrounding constraints. and unsignalized intersections from additional guidance Portland region. Highway. This is a common issue within urban areas on on how to quantify the Strengths & in developed areas The intersection of Tualatin Statewide Highway facilities impacts of changed Weaknesses of throughout the region. Valley Highway/SW Murray to operate at or below a v/c conditions for people Boulevard was included to clarify of 0.99, per Policy 1F of the Current Policy/ • Lower-cost strategies walking, biking and taking the impacts on site accesses, Oregon Highway Plan. such as signal timing transit. but was not in the City’s scoping Approach changes or other system The scope and methodology requirements. • The Oregon Highway Plan management could be was determined to meet the more practical, especially Intersection v/c standards requirements of each of the v/c did not pose a barrier for smaller traffic were identified for each of the agencies. to developing a mixed-use agencies and applied depending project with lower overall increases. • Analysis was completed using on the roadway jurisdiction. trip generation than the • Measures that improve methodologies outlined in existing use. non-auto access were The Regional Mobility Policy • The City of Beaverton ODOT’s Analysis Procedures provided, such as the bus Update is a joint effort between requires that the v/c for each Manual. • In general, the practice of lane group not exceed 0.98. relying on v/c standards Metro and ODOT. Additional The City also has standards reinforces a narrow, information is available at based on average vehicle motor vehicle-focused oregonmetro.gov/mobility.
Example 10 | West End District Mixed-Use Development | p 2 Updated April 14, 2021. Regional Mobility Policy Update Examples of Current Approaches | System Planning oregonmetro.gov/mobility Example Tualatin Valley Highway Corridor Plan April 2021 11 Washington County, OR Commissioners in 2014. The Tualatin Valley Highway Corridor TV Highway Corridor Plan informed the Washington County Transportation System Plan update as well as the South Hillsboro Community Plan, and led to construction of capital projects in the corridor.
99W The Corridor Plan also influenced Location: two additional planning efforts Washington County, OR aimed to refining future improvements: Plan Type: • Completed in 2019, the System Planning 2019 Transportation Growth Management-funded Moving for motor vehicle capacity Forward TV Highway corridor to two through travel lanes refinement plan evaluated in each direction, consistent transit and safety design with the direction of the Policy alternatives between SW Group leading the effort. This Cornelius Pass road and SW Source: Wikimedia Commons, by Visitor7 maintained the design and 160th Avenue. Overview function of TV Highway as an • The 2020 Basis of Estimate urban arterial with a five-lane The Tualatin Valley Highway The effort was coordinated and Design Report (project cross section. (TV) Corridor Plan evaluated through technical and development) prioritized TV Highway (OR 8) along the community advisory committees, In addition to changing the a package of safety, approximately 8.5 miles between as well as a Policy Group of roadway cross section serving connectivity, and transit the Hillsboro and Beaverton agency leaders. automobiles, the Corridor priority projects and included Plan also identified specific cost and design information. regional centers. The final plan The introduction describes “an improvements to bicycle, was adopted in 2013. overarching goal… to reflect Also identified in the TV Throughway High capacity transit pedestrian, and transit facilities Development of the community needs and desires Highway Corridor Plan are a to enhance safety, connectivity, Arterial Proposed high capacity transit Corridor Plan was funded for the corridor to evolve into a set of performance measures (! (! (! (! and accessibility. Proposed arterial Employment area by a Transportation Growth thriving, welcoming place that for monitoring and for Management grant from connects this vibrant, growing Outcome evaluating future land use plan Urban growth boundary Industrial area ODOT to Washington County, community now and for future amendments. County line Urban centers which conducted the work in generations.” The Corridor Plan led to an amendment of the motor Rail transit station Parks and natural areas partnership with ODOT, Metro, Where TV Highway had been vehicle classification of TV Bus stop Station communities and the City of Hillsboro and the shown in previous plans as a City of Beaverton. Highway in the RTP. The plan seven-lane facility, the final was acknowledged by the plan reduced the cross section Washington County Board of ODOT Analysis Procedures • A strength is that this Manual. Growth anticipated to occur by 2035 was based on corridor planning process forecasts from Metro’s 2035 was able to focus on travel demand model. multimodal, safety and other goals. A weakness is In addition to intersection that the current mobility v/c analysis, the corridor policy does not include plan included qualitative multimodal and safety and quantitative evaluation measures of other modes: crash rates at intersections for autos, pedestrians and bicyclists, connectivity gaps for bicyclists Opportunities for Source: Wikimedia Commons, by Steve Morgan and pedestrians, access for Improvement pedestrians and transit, transit frequency and facilities. • A more holistic definition of the mobility and multimodal measures by Strengths & which the plan is evaluated Weaknesses of should be developed. This corridor refinement plan Current Policy/ is an example of a case Approach where v/c alone does not advance (and sometimes • The current approach are in conflict with) other was effective for the local and regional goals intended purpose, in for the corridor. Source: Wikimedia Commons, by M.O Stevens that the v/c targets were • As part of the TV Highway Source: Wikimedia Commons, by Steve Morgan used to identify roadway and Design Report findings and and states that the measures Corridor Plan process, (cont’d) deficiencies and inform Outcome recommendations. are used to diagnose the a set of measures was a multimodal strategy to These measures are intended to extent of auto congestion. The developed for potential achieve broad community address mobility, reliability, and How was the RMP notes that the evaluation ongoing monitoring of the goals. safety for active transportation current mobility is intended to help identify corridor’s performance. and transit operations, and roadway deficiencies and • A major outcome was These measures could Local Partner motor vehicles, and would policy a factor? inform a strategic approach that the decision to adopt a be considered for a more consist of: Both the Oregon Highway Plan recognizes limited transportation five-lane cross section multimodal approach in Working together to help update • Vehicle miles traveled per (OHP) mobility policy (Policy 1F) funding and potential for TV Highway, a change this RMP Update. how the region defines mobility and and the RTP Regional Mobility environmental and community from the seven-lane measures success in the greater capita • Better data and analysis Policy (RMP) are applied impacts. cross section identified Portland region. • Duration of congestion tools are needed to in system planning efforts, in planning documents at effectively evaluate the • Hours of delay including corridor refinement Methodologies & the beginning of the TV performance of proposed plans. Highway Corridor Plan. • P.M. peak travel time for Measures actions (e.g., adding automobiles and transit The OHP mobility policy includes The TV Highway Corridor Plan • Most technical analysis active transportation • Transit ridership Table 7, which lists the volume- included analysis of v/c using and improvements enhancements) within the to-capacity (v/c) targets to be identified for TV Highway • Travel time reliability targets identified in Table 7 of time period that they are used to evaluate state highway the OHP. These targets were focused on improving recommended. • Bicycle and pedestrian system performance. The OHP also used to identify areas where safety and supporting land completeness acknowledges that additional roadways are not expected to use, active transportation The measures listed above are methodologies and targets meet ODOT performance targets and transit goals, including may be needed to balance The Regional Mobility Policy consistent with RTP system listed in the OHP mobility policy development of a Town Update is a joint effort between performance measures and regional and local performance and the RMP. Center in Aloha, and expectations. Metro and ODOT. Additional were considered as part of The analysis included base designation of TV Highway information is available at Moving Forward TV Highway The RMP replicates the list of year and 2035 conditions and as a 2040 Corridor and oregonmetro.gov/mobility. and the 2020 Basis of Estimate v/c ratios from OHP Table 7, was completed based on the high-capacity transit corridor. Example 11 | Tualatin Valley Highway Corridor Plan | p 2 procedures described in the Updated April 14, 2021. 99W
Regional Mobility Policy Update Examples of Current Approaches | Legislative Plan Amendment oregonmetro.gov/mobility Example South Hillsboro Community Plan April 2021 12 Hillsboro, OR Key transportation issues South Hillsboro Area included the need to extend Cornelius Pass Road and South Hillsboro Blanton/Alexander Road before development could occur in South Hillsboro. Safety issues were identified related to Cornelius Pass Road and it was necessary to ensure traffic could safely cross the railroad tracks Location: south of TV Highway without Hillsboro, OR affecting rail traffic or causing Washington County major delays in this area. Plan Type: The City, County, and ODOT Plan Amendment, entered into two rail order Legislative; Development agreements to ensure the Review; Project Design improvements would be developed according to key milestones within the planning The plan area is expected to period. develop over 20 years. Source: Wikimedia Commons, by M.O. Stevens How was the Overview Outcome current mobility The City of Hillsboro developed Despite the reclassification The Community Plan was the South Hillsboro Community limiting capacity to serve adopted along with the South policy a factor? Plan in 2015 as an appendix to east-west travel demand, Hillsboro Transportation TPR 0060 requires local its comprehensive plan. This analysis supporting the change Financing Plan to ensure that governments to take action was based in part on the concluded that mobility would needed roadway capacity coordinated strategies if an outcomes of the Tualatin Valley be preserved through the improvements were funded amendment to an acknowledged Highway Corridor Plan, which addition of intersection lane and in place prior to urban comprehensive plan would Arterial Employment area was adopted in 2013 after a improvements and the addition development. significantly affect an existing or (! (! (! (! Proposed arterial Industrial area collaborative planning effort of capacity on north-south A trip cap mechanism limited planned transportation facility. Urban growth boundary that included ODOT, Washington roadways. net new trips the area could Urban centers County, and other regional The plan area covers generate, with identified County line Parks and natural areas partners. approximately 1,400 acres of transportation improvements in Bus stop Station communities The Tualatin Valley Corridor Plan developed and undeveloped four phases needed to mitigate High capacity transit reclassified Tualatin Valley (TV) land. Portions of South Hillsboro the effect of the estimated 8,100 Highway from Regional Arterial were brought into the urban peak hour trips associated with Proposed high capacity transit to Arterial. The Transportation growth boundary in 2002. Metro the development of the plan Planning Rule (TPR) considers brought the remainder of South area. such a change in classification to Hillsboro into the urban growth constitute a “significant effect.” boundary in 2011. The City contends that facilities timing of adding traffic otherwise would have been Opportunities for control devices, adding undersized for expected growth. parking demand, scale of Roadway improvement projects Improvement local streets, intersections are based on the mitigations Local agency staff identified of collectors/arterials and identified in the annexation the following specific local streets. The OHP agreement traffic impact recommendations for standard only applies to analyses for the arterial, collector consideration: Tualatin Valley Highway and neighborhood route system. intersections. • Prioritize preserving right of way; for example, • As a weakness, staff noted design facilities to that there is disconnect allow for bus loading, Strengths & between the standards signal preemption, bus Weaknesses of applied for facility design stop shelters and other and needed improvements Current Policy/ amenities. identified in the long-range Approach planning documents and • Performance measures current planning needs. should recognize the • The current OHP v/c difference between cities Currently in project standards were generally within the region; a one- development, ODOT consistent with the City of size-fits-all approach won’t is requesting that Hillsboro’s vision for future work. designs comply with the investments and growth. Highway Design Manual • V/c is a key tool but it is The City applied the OHP Source: Wikimedia Commons, by M.O Stevens performance standard, not a valid measurement v/c standards to support which has a more rigid for congested roadways. transportation capacity (lower) v/c standard. Delay and queuing railroad. The plan developed Tualatin Valley Highway and projects. Mobility Policy guidelines for supplemental the completion of the new Requesting a design using simulation tools As noted above, (cont’d) traffic impact analyses to roadways within and adjacent exception to ODOT’s are more appropriate development conditions facilitate phased development to South Hillsboro pursuant to Highway Design Manual measures for congested When the City of Hillsboro of approval need to be and to implement the financing the TSP. This can be achieved v/c standard instead of roadways, rail crossings, amended the comprehensive applied to ensure the plan. by applying development using the previous agreed and unique intersection plan and the local TSP to change pace of South Hillsboro conditions of approval. The upon v/c from the land configurations. the classification of Tualatin The net new weekday p.m. development doesn’t supplemental traffic impact use process has resulted Valley Highway from a Regional peak hour trips are defined as outpace the delivery of analyses submitted as part of in additional cost to the Arterial to an Arterial, this total vehicle trips less pass-by Tualatin Valley Highway development applications ensure city and risk of delaying constituted a significant effect. diverted link, mode split, and capacity improvements that the number of actual trips projects. As such, the OHP mobility policy internal capture trips. The peak or the completion of new Local Partner expected from development applied to the analysis of Tualatin hour is defined as the highest roadways identified in Working together to help update do not exceed the trip cap, Valley Highway. sixty (60) consecutive minutes the TSP for the area. This how the region defines mobility and evaluates the local road system of traffic demand between 4:00 includes needed capacity The RTP Mobility Policy does not not previously analyzed, and measures success in the greater P.M. and 6:00 P.M. expansion at intersections apply to plan amendments. determines any additional Portland region. and rail crossings. The traffic impact analysis used mitigations within the local Methodologies & OHP v/c standards for Tualatin improvement district. Supplemental traffic Measures Valley Highway. All subsequent impact analyses address traffic impact analyses must be The Community Plan does The plan amendment was local road networks that developed in accordance with not include actions to lower developed using mostly are not included in the City standards and the County, mobility standards or trip traditional steps for traffic comprehensive planning and ODOT standards depending generation rates within the impact analyses, including trip process, and include the on facility ownership. planning area. The plan generation and intersection amendment was developed to The Regional Mobility Policy operations analyses. The pace of South Hillsboro allow for facility planning and development must match Update is a joint effort between Queuing analysis was also financing that meets the needs the timing of capacity Metro and ODOT. Additional conducted, with an emphasis on of new developments and local improvement delivery along information is available at potential interactions at the P&W priorities. oregonmetro.gov/mobility.
Example 12 | South Hillsboro Community Plan Development | p 2 Updated April 14, 2021.