Regional Mobility Policy Update Examples of Current Approaches | Overview oregonmetro.gov/mobility April 2021 This overview and the factsheets OC NOTGNIHSAW OOC 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 VancouverVancouver 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 ariinen D L ARK policy. The factsheets were d d e Dr A MUMULTNOMAH C CO O r LTNOMAH 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 rthth 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 NE 122ndAve 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 HillsboroHillsboro d SE SStarktark SStt N B R 2 NW Burnside Rd a NE 181st Ave both the RTP and the Oregon rn e s Rd y SE Hawthorne Blvd Burnside SW Tualatin Valley Hwy wwy k GreshamGresham 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 OOC S NNa 11 HAMONTLUM OC O 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.