HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: Alternative Mobility Standards
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
c
Work Session: Alternative Mobility Standards
Meeting Date: October 23,2006
Department: Public Works - Engineering
www.eugene-or.gov
Agenda Item Number: B
Staff Contact: Mark Schoening
Contact Telephone Number: 682-5243
ISSUE STATEMENT
This is an information item to be presented by Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) staff. The
development and adoption of alternative mobility standards by the Metropolitan Policy Committee will
complete the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) both with respect to meeting the state requirements set
forth in the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) and in refining the region's mobility expectations for the state
highway system to better support and inform the implementation of the RTP.
BACKGROUND
The OHP contains both policy language and standards for mobility on the state highway system. This
set of policies and standards are used by ODOT as part of development review and in regional
transportation planning in identifying system needs and priorities.
Where the mobility standards cannot be met, the OHP provides for the development of alternative
mobility standards. Successful development of alternative mobility standards must satisfy specific
requirements in the OHP, including the identification oflocal commitments to "specific actions to
manage transportation demand and ensure efficient use of the capacity of the state highway system."
Analysis of the current and future (2025) congestion on the state highway system within the Central
Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) area indicates several parts of the state system will not
meet current mobility standards. MPO staff is developing an alternative mobility standards proposal for
consideration and adoption by the MPC and Oregon Transportation Commission.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
Transplan Objective #1: Accessibility and Mobility - Provide adequate levels of accessibility and
mobility for the efficient movement of people, goods, and services within the region.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
Not applicable
LICMOl2006 Council Agendas1M0610231S061023B.doc
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Not applicable.
ATTACHMENTS
A. LCOG Memo - ODOT Alternative Mobility Standards Overview with Two Attachments
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Mark Schoening
Telephone: 682-5243
Staff E-Mail: mark.a.schoening@ci.eugene.or.us
LICMOl2006 Council Agendas1M0610231S061023B.doc
, \.~t4'%.
LCOG ~
LANE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS ,
"
October 9, 2006
To:
Eugene City Council
From:
Tom Schwetz
Subject: OOOT Alternative Mobility Standards Overview
. Summary Memo (pages 1-4)
. Attachment 1 - Overview of OOOT Mobility Standards (pages 5-6)
. Attachment 2 - Excerpt from MPC presentation on Regional Congestion
Overview (pages 7-18)
Action Recommended: None. Information Only.
Issue Summary:
The Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) contains both policy language and standards for
mobility on the state highway system. This set of policies and standards are used by
OOOT as part of development review and in regional transportation planning in
identifying system needs and priorities.
Where the mobility standards cannot be met, the OHP provides for the development of
Alternative Mobility Standards (AMS). Successful development of these alternative
standards must satisfy specific requirements in the OHP, including the identification of
local commitments to "specific actions to manage transportation demand and ensure
efficient use of the capacity of the state highway system."
Analysis of the current and future (2025) congestion on the state highway system within
the Central Lane MPO area indicates several parts of the state system will not meet
current mobility standards. Staff is currently working to establish a proposal for
Alternative Mobility Standards. This proposal would be considered and adopted by
both the Oregon Transportation Commission and MPC.
This memo provides an overview of the effort to date. As background to the
discussion, Attachment 1 provides an overview of the Highway Mobility Standards
contained in the Oregon Highway Plan and the state's requirements for establishing
alternative mobility standards.
Alternative Mobility Standards Overview to Eugene Council
Approach and Status to Date
Purpose of this Effort
Oevelopment and adoption of Alternative Mobility Standards "completes" the Central
Lane MPO Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) both with respect to meeting state
requirements set forth in the OHP and in refining the region's mobility expectations for
the state highway system to better support and inform the implementation of the RTP.
MPO staff has been working on a project to develop a set of recommendations for
Alternative Mobility Standards. These standards would apply only to the OOOT portion
of the region's highway system. The anticipated result of the project is to make the
RTP consistent with the OHP through adoption of amendments to the RTP and to the
OHP, instituting the alternative mobility standards. This effort also provides the
foundation for development of the region's Congestion Management Process (CMP)
required under SAFETEA-LU.
Local Commitment Reauired
As indicated in Attachment 1, requirements for AMS development include identification
of local commitments to:
"specific actions to manage transportation demand and
ensure efficient use of the capacity of the state highway
system. "
Generally, these commitments are already reflected in the RTP and include:
. Bus Rapid Transit
. Nodal Oevelopment
. Priority Bike Projects
. Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Investments
. Transportation Oemand Management Strategies
. Local Road System Improvements
As the draft proposal is developed, more specific local actions may be identified.
These actions will be thoroughly discussed by local staff and policy makers before
being included in the formal proposal for Alternative Mobility Standards.
Policv Interests in Alternative Mobilitv Standards
Alternative mobility standards touch on several policy interests which need to be
balanced as the proposal is developed, including:
1. Achieving desired land use patterns as the region grows,
2. Providing for efficient and balanced transportation access to land,
3. Providing mobility for through traffic,
4. Providing for freight mobility
Page 2 of 18
Alternative Mobility Standards Overview to Eugene Council
'Good' and 'Bad' Conqestion: A Useful Framework for Oiscussion
Balancing these interests requires consideration of a combination of factors including:
. increasing congestion,
. extremely limited resources, and
. an expressed desire on the part of the region to pursue a balanced and
integrated land use-transportation strategy.
This complicates the use of mobility standards in establishing mobility performance
expectations on state facilities. Where the region is achieving desired land use
patterns (e.g., nodal development and other forms of mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly
land uses), transportation and the adjoining land uses may be 'conqestion-tolerant'. In
these cases, mobility standards are a lower priority and accepting more congestion
may be the appropriate policy response.
Where significant concentrations of through trips and freight-related trips exist, the
transportation facilities can be characterized as 'mobilitv-dependent'. In these cases, it
may be important to maintain the existing mobility standard, thus retaining the value of
a facility's capacity to facilitate freight and through traffic movement.
In this framework, congestion can be viewed as 'Good' or 'Bad' depending on a
facility's surrounding land uses and the types of trips using that facility. The table
below provides more information on this concept:
Comparison of Congestion-Tolerant and Mobility-Dependent
land Uses and Facilities
Congestion Tolerant land
Use/Facility
Congestion-tolerant land uses
provide a high value-to-volume,
for example, high density, high-
end retail, or various services
(restaurants, professional
services, etc).
Effects of lower Standard Transportation costs are a small
(i.e., more congestion) part of the business's cost
structure. Congestion is a sign of
a more vibrant business
envi ron ment.
Reduce modal conflicts (auto-
pedestrian, auto-bike, auto-
transit); enhance alternative
mode infrastructure in area.
. Small Scale: 5th Street
Public Market
. Laroe Scale: Gateway Blvd
between Harlow Rd and
Beltline Rd.
Characteristic
Adjacent land Use
Examples of local
Commitments
Regional Examples
Mobility Dependent land
Use/Facility
Mobility-dependent land uses
provide a low value-to-volume, for
example, resource extraction
activities, warehousing, and other
industrial activities.
Transportation costs are a
significant part of a business's cost
structure. Congestion is a sign of
higher costs, lower efficiency, loss
of competitiveness.
Access management policies; local
road network improvements; TOM
measures; effective regional transit
connections (BRT)
. West Eugene industrial area
. North Springfield industrial
area adjacent to Hwy 126
Page 3 of 18
Alternative Mobility Standards Overview to Eugene Council
Oevelopinq the Proposal
Through the use of this framework, MPO staff, together with review and input by OOOT
and local agency staff, have been working to determine locations where balancing
regional planning goals (e.g., desired land use patterns vs. protecting through
movements) suggests the need for alternatives to the OHP mobility standards.
Work is under way to identify potential solutions to address specific areas of current
and anticipated traffic congestion above current standards along segments of the state
highway system in the region, depending upon the nature of the congestion. For
example, as described in the table above, solutions to congestion in areas with
desirable land use patterns might focus on lowering the mobility standard (allowing
more congestion), while addressing modal conflicts and enhancement of alternative
mode systems such as bike, transit, and pedestrian. This analysis will form the basis
for the development and evaluation of alternative mobility standards that meet the
requirements specified in Attachment 1.
Process From Here
The steps needed to complete the process through adoption of the standards into the
Oregon Highway Plan by the OTC include:
1. Complete draft proposal for Alternative Mobility Standards
2. Public Review - including local agency review and consultation
3. Adoption of Regional Transportation Plan amendments - MPC
4. Adoption of Oregon Highway Plan amendments - OTC
When the draft proposal is ready, staff will facilitate additional local agency review and
consultation as well as an opportunity for public comment. Concurrently, the proposal
will be reviewed with OOOT. At the point where the proposal is ready for adoption
consideration, it will be brought to MPC and the Oregon Transportation Commission.
Additional Information on Regional Congestion
Staff has made two presentations on this topic to MPC with additional presentations
anticipated. The last presentation to MPC, made in August 2006, provided on overview
on regional congestion. While the presentation to local agencies will touch on the
status of regional congestion, it will not go into the detail provided to MPC. Attachment
2 provides a copy of the material presented to MPC on the Regional Congestion
Overview for those who desire more detailed information on this topic.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: OHP Mobility Standards and Requirements for the development of
Alternative Mobility Standards
Attachment 2: Excerpt from MPC presentation on Regional Congestion Overview
LCOG: T: I Trans ProjectslAlt Mobility StdslLocal Agency BriefingslAMS _Overview _to_Eugene _ Council. doc
Last Saved: Monday, October 09, 2006
Page 4 of 18
Attachment 1 - OHP Mobility Standards and Requirements for the development of Alternative Mobility
Standards
Overview of ODOT Mobility Standards
The Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) Policy 1 F establishes highway mobility standards
to "maintain acceptable and reliable levels of mobility on the state highway system."
The mobility standards are expressed as maximum allowable volume to capacity
(V/C) ratios in the peak hour. The standards vary by facility type, and different
standards are applied to urban and to non-urban areas; to Portland Metro, to other
Oregon MPO and to non-MPO urban areas; and to Special Transportation Areas
(STAs). These Standards are referenced in Appendix B of the RTP. The OHP
recoqnizes that it may be infeasible. in some cases. to meet the standards in OHP
Policv 1 F. and allows for the adoption of alternative mobilitv standards in
metropolitan areas or portions thereof. provided that the local plan also includes
specific actions to manaqe transportation demand and ensure efficient use of the
capacity of the state hiqhwav system.
Alternative performance standards have already been adopted for the Portland and
Medford metropolitan areas. In addition, both the Portland and Medford areas have
'interim' alternative standards for specific highway segments, pending completion of
refinement plans and new capacity additions.
Requirements for Alternative Mobility Standards
The OHP has the following applicable requirements involving the process for
development of alternative mobility standards:
"The standards shall be adopted as part of a regional and/or local transportation
system plan." (OHP, page 77)
"In metropolitan areas, the alternate highway mobility standards will become
effective only after the standards have been approved by the metropolitan
planning organization and adopted by the Transportation Commission." (OHP,
page 78)
In addition, the OHP lays out the following requirements for the alternative standard
itself:
The alternate standards shall be
1. Clear and objective;
2. Related to volume to capacity ratios (V/C); and
3. Adopted as part of a regional and/or local transportation system plan.
The analytical basis for the alternative standard must:
1. Oemonstrate that it would be infeasible to meet the highway mobility
standards in Policy 1F of the 1999 OHP.
2. Include all feasible actions for:
Page 5 of 18
Attachment 1 - OHP Mobility Standards and Requirements for the development of Alternative Mobility
Standards
a. Providing a network of local streets, collectors and arterials to relieve
traffic demand on state highways and to provide convenient pedestrian
and bicycle ways;
b. Managing access and traffic operations to minimize traffic accidents,
avoid traffic backups on freeway ramps, and make the most efficient
use of highway capacity;
c. Managing traffic demand, where feasible, to manage peak hour traffic
loads on state highways;
d. Providing alternate modes of transportation; and
e. Managing land use to limit vehicular demand on state highways
consistent with the Land Use and Transportation Policy (Policy 1 B).
3. Include a financially feasible implementation program; and
4. Oemonstrate strong public and private commitment to carry out the identified
improvements and other actions (OHP, pages 77-78).
The approval process of implementing alternative mobility standards requires
approval of the alternative mobility standards by both the MPO and OTC, followed
by amendment of the RTP by the MPO to incorporate the approved alternative
mobility standards.
Page 6 of 18
Attachment 2 - Excerpt from MPC presentation on Regional Congestion Overview
Regional Congestion Overview
For analysis purposes, the state highway system is defined by 10 separate major
corridors in the Central Lane MPO region:
1. 1-5 - running from the North TMA boundary to the South TMA boundary;
2. 1-105/Hwy 126E - running east-west from the Washington/Jefferson
Bridge in Eugene to Main Street in Springfield;
3. Beltline - running from mp 3.1 (intersection with West 11th) to 1-5.
4. Highway 99W (State Highway 091)- running from the North TMA
Boundary to the Washington/Jefferson Bridge;
5. 6th-7th/Broadway/Franklin - running from the Washington/Jefferson Bridge
to the Springfield Bridges;
6. Main Street - running from Mill Street in Springfield to the East TMA
Boundary;
7. McVay Highway - running between 1-5 and Franklin;
8. Springfield-Creswell Highway - running from the Southern boundary of
TMA to 42nd St & Jasper Rd, Springfield;
9. Pioneer Parkway - running from Main Street to OR 126E;
10. OR 126W - running from the intersection of W.11 th at mp 3.1 of Beltline
Hwy to West TMA boundary.
Attachment A provides a congestion status summary for each of the 10 state
corridors within the MPO. For each corridor, the mobility dependence is
described and the existing mobility standard is stated. Summaries of both the
2002 and 2025 conditions are provided noting where standards are exceeded on
a sub-corridor level. The Corridor summaries also include identification of where
shorter segments of sub-corridors exceed standards.
Attachment B is a map showing congestion levels for corridor segments for 2002.
A similar map is provided as Attachment C showing congestion levels for 2025.
As can be seen in these maps, at least one segment of each of the 10 state
corridors exceeds the current mobility standards for 2002, with several additional
segments exceeding the mobility standards in 2025.
Specifically, the results from the base year analysis indicate that the following
major segments exceed the mobility standard in 2002:
(1) Beltline Highway (expressway classification) from River Road to Oelta
Highway - eastbound in the AM, both eastbound and westbound in the
PM
(2) 1-105/0R126E - westbound between Pioneer Parkway and Coburg Rd
in the AM, and eastbound between 1-5 and Mohawk Blvd in the PM
(3) Hwy 99 - northbound between Garfield St and just north of Roosevelt
Blvd in the PM
(4) 1-5 - southbound between 30th Ave and OR58 in the PM
Page 7 of 18
Attachment 2 - Regional Congestion Overview
The following highways have long stretches that exceed mobility standards in
2025 under the RTP Fiscally Constrained scenario:
(1) 1-5 - north of Beltline Highway in the PM and south of Franklin Blvd. in
the AM and PM
(2) Beltline Highway - between River Road and Coburg Road in the PM,
(3) 1-105/0R126E - eastbound between 1-5 and Main St in the PM, and
westbound in the AM
(4) Main St - eastbound between 21st St. and 52nd St. in the PM
Page 8 of 18
Attachment A - Corridor Congestion Summary
Central lane MPO State Highway Corridor Congestion Status Summary
This report provides a summary of 2002 and 2025 congestion status for each of the 10
state highway corridors within the Central Lane MPO. For each corridor, the mobility
dependence is described and the existing mobility standard is stated. Summaries of
both the 2002 and 2025 conditions are provided noting where standards are exceeded
on a sub-corridor level. The Corridor summaries also include identification of where
shorter segments of sub-corridors exceed standards.
Interstate-5
As might be expected, this is the roadway in the MPO with the greatest importance for
mobility dependent travel. It has the highest mobility score in each of the sub-corridors,
indicating that the largest volume of mobility dependent trips take place on this facility.
These mobility dependent trips also constitute a high percentage of the total volume on
each sub-corridor, from 70-1000/0.
The northernmost sub-corridor, Beltline to the north TMA border, has two mobility
standards as it crosses the UGB boundary - 0.7 for rural interstate, and 0.8 for urban
interstates.
2002 Conqestion Status:
All sub-corridors pass the standard based on the VMT-weighted V/C ratio of each sub-
corridor.
Individual segments of the sub-corridor "South TMA boundary/30th Ave" fail the standard
based on VMT-weighted V/C ratio::
AM northbound
PM northbound, southbound
This sub-corridor has rural mobility standard of 0.7. If the mobility standard was
matched to the standard inside the UGB (0.8), then this sub-corridor would fail the
standard only in the PM southbound direction between 30th Ave and OR58 exit.
2025 Conqestion Status:
In 2025 under the RTP-Financially Constrained scenario, only the sub-corridor from
Franklin to Beltline meets the standard, based on the peak hours VMT-weighted V/C
ratios. (However, there are segments of this sub-corridor which do not meet the
standard (i.e., the maximum V/C on one or more links in the sub-corridor exceed the
mobility standard)).
The table below is based on examining the V/C results for the AM and PM periods of
the 2025 RTP- Financially Constrained scenario. It notes where the corridor meets the
performance standard (~) and also where a segment within that corridor may fail (*).
Shaded cells indicate that the sub-corridor exceeds the existing standard for that time
period.
Page 9 of 18
Attachment A - Corridor Congestion Summary
Sub-corridor
AM AM PM PM
Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound
1. Beltline to North TMA boundary
2. Franklin to Beltline
3. 30th Ave to Franklin
4. South TMA boundary to 30th Ave
Interstate 1-105/0R126 E
This roadway carries a substantial amount of mobility dependent travel. In the AM
period, the three westbound sub-corridors from Main to 1-5 have the highest mobility
dependent score following Interstate-5 and the River Rd to Oelta Hwy sub-corridor of
Beltline Highway. Mobility dependent trips constitute 71-940/0 of the volume on this
faci I ity.
The current OHP mobility standard is 0.8.
This corridor exhibits a strong AM/PM directional split (heavy west-bound in the
morning, heavy east bound in the evening).
2002:
Based on the VMT weighted V/C ratio for each sub-corridor, the facility meets the
performance standards of the OHP. Some small stretches of this facility fail the
standard by a large degree including 1-105 at 1-5, and the Washington/Jefferson
Bridge crossing north of the river.
2025:
Under the 2025 RTP- Financially Constrained scenario, and based on a VMT
weighted average V/C for the daily peak period, the eastbound 1-5 to Pioneer
Parkway sub-corridor is the only sub-corridor that will not meet the OHP standard.
The table below examines the V/C results for the AM and PM periods of the 2025
RTP- Financially Constrained scenario where the ~ mark indicates compliance with
the standard on a V/C weighted corridor basis but with a segment failure within the
sub-corridor indicated by *:
Sub-corridor
AM AM PM PM
Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound
1. (1-10S) Washington/Jefferson Bridge to Coburg
Rd
2. (1-10S) Coburg Road to I-S
3. (OR126) I-S to Pioneer Parkway
4. (OR126) Pioneer Parkway to Main Street
~ (*) ~ (*) ~
~ ~ (*) ~ (*)
~ ( *) ~
~ ~ (*)
Page 10 of 18
Attachment A - Corridor Congestion Summary
Beltline Hwv
This roadway carries a significant percentage of the mobility dependent trips of the TMA
in three of the four sub-corridors. The West 11th to Barger corridor in 2025 is only a
minor facility for these trips. In 2025, the eastbound River Rd/Oelta Highway segment
ranked 9th in mobility score among all 56 sub-corridors analyzed, highest of all except
for the 8 1-5 sub-corridors. The westbound direction ranked 11th. These mobility trips
constitute from about 81 % - 900/0 of the volume on Beltline east of River Road.
The OHP mobility standard for this state expressway is 0.8.
2002:
The eastbound River Rd to Oelta Hwy sub-corridor fails to meet the standard based on
the daily peak period VMT weighted average V/C within the sub-corridor. In the AM, the
traffic flow is highly directional, heading eastbound. In the PM, however, the mobility
standard is exceeded in both directions on this sub-corridor. The V/C ratio exceeds 1.0
in a portion of the westbound direction in the PM peak period, although the daily statistic
is in accord with the mobility standard.
2025:
In the RTP- Financially Constrained scenario, the River Rd to Oelta Hwy subcorridor
exceeds the OHP standard in both the westbound and eastbound directions with a
portion of the sub-corridor reaching 1.24. Further, although the Oelta Hwy to 1-5 sub-
corridor passes the standard on a VMT weighted average, there are segments of this
sub-corridor that fail the standard in both eastbound and westbound directions due to
PM flows.
The table below examines the V/C results for the AM and PM periods of the 2025 RTP-
Financially Constrained scenario, noting where the corridor meets the performance
standard (~) and also where a segment within that passing corridor may fail (*).
Sub-corridor
AM
AM
PM
PM
1. West 11 th A ven ue to Barger
2. Barger to River Road
3. River Road to Delta Hwy
4. Delta Hwy to Interstate 5
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
--
--
Page 11 of 18
Attachment A - Corridor Congestion Summary
Hiahwav 99
This roadway carries a relatively minor percentage of the mobility dependent trips of the
TMA in four of the five sub-corridors. The Washington/Jefferson Bridge to Garfield sub-
corridor carries levels of mobility dependent trips similar to those seen on 1-105 and
Beltline.
The OHP mobility standard for this highway is 0.85 to the Eugene Urban Growth
Boundary and 0.70 north of that point.
2002:
All of the sub-corridors meet the standard based on the average peak period VMT
weighted V/C within each sub-corridor.
In the PM, there is a congested segment in the northbound traffic flow between Garfield
and Elmira Rd with V/C approaching 1, and for southbound/eastbound traffic at Garfield
St. with V/C at 0.96.
2025:
In the RTP- Financially Constrained scenario, the Washington/Jefferson Bridge to
Garfield sub-corridor slightly exceeds the OHP standard in the northbound direction with
a portion of the sub-corridor reaching 1.05. This sub-corridor fails because of high PM
flows throughout the length of the sub-corridor - Washington/Jefferson Bridge through
to Roosevelt.
Further, there are segments of the sub-corridors between Airport Road and
Washington/Jefferson Bridge northbound/westbound and Roosevelt to Washington/
Jefferson Bridge southbound that fail the standard. Most of these are due to
interchange interactions - Beltline at Hwy 99 northbound in the PM, 1-105 at W.7th in the
AM and PM, and also W.7th at Garfield in the AM and PM, at 5th Place in the AM.
The table below summarizes the V/C results for the AM and PM periods of the 2025
RTP- Financially Constrained scenario, noting where the sub-corridor meets the
performance standard (~) and also where a segment within that passing corridor may fail
(*) .
Sub-corridor AM AM PM PM
Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound
1. Airport Road to north TMA boundary ~ ~ ~ ~
2. Beltline to Airport Road ~ ~ ~ (*) ~
3. Roosevelt to Beltline ~ ~ ~ (*) ~
4. Garfield to Roosevelt ~ ~ (*) ~ (*)
5. Washington/Jefferson Bridge to Garfield ~ ~ (*) ~ (*)
Page 12 of 18
Attachment A - Corridor Congestion Summary
McVay Hiahway
This roadway carries a minor percentage of the mobility dependent trips of the TMA.
The OHP mobility standard for this highway is 0.9.
2002:
This corridor is composed of only one sub-corridor in each direction. Both of the sub-
corridors meet the standard based on the peak period VMT weighted average V/C
within each sub-corridor and have no segments exceeding the standard.
2025:
In the RTP- Financially Constrained scenario, each direction is within the existing
standard, though there are segments of each sub-corridor that exceed the standard. In
particular, these segments are at this corridor's junction with Franklin Avenue, and on
the southbound 1-5 to 30th Ave segment in the AM, and on the southbound Franklin to 1-
5 section in the PM.
The table below summarizes the V/C results for the AM and PM periods of the 2025
RTP- Financially Constrained scenario, noting where the sub-corridor meets the
performance standard (~) and also where a segment within that passing corridor may fail
(*) .
Sub-corridor
AM
Northbound
Southbound
~
~ (*)
Sprinafield-Creswell Hiahway
This roadway carries a very minor percentage of the mobility dependent trips of the
TMA. The OHP mobility standard for this highway is 0.9.
2002:
All of the sub-corridors meet the standard based on the peak period VMT weighted
average V/C within each sub-corridor. No segments fail the standard.
2025:
In the RTP- Financially Constrained scenario, all the sub-corridors continue to meet the
existing standards. There are no segments of sub-corridors that do not meet the
existing standard.
Page 13 of 18
Attachment A - Corridor Congestion Summary
OR126W
The portion of OR126W (also known as West 11th Ave) analyzed in the base, nobuild
and MTIP scenarios is the section from the west boundary of the TMA to mp 3.1 of
State highway 069 (Beltline Hwy). In the 2025 RTP scenarios, this sub-corridor is
replaced by the West Eugene Parkway sub-corridor running east from the west
boundary of the TMA to the intersection with Beltline Hwy. As such, a revised 2025
analysis of OR 126 West is currently being developed.
The eastbound sub-corridor of OR 126W carries a moderate portion of mobility
dependent traffic, while the westbound corridor is not important for mobility dependent
traffic.
The OHP mobility standard for OR126W is 0.85 to the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary
and 0.70 west of that point.
2002:
Both eastbound and westbound sub-corridors of OR126W meet the standard in 2002,
and no segment fails the standard.
2025:
As noted above, an analysis of OR 126 West is currently being developed.
Main Street
Except for the westbound sub-corridor from the eastern TMA boundary to OR 126E
which carries a moderate percentage of the mobility dependent trips, this roadway is not
otherwise important for mobility dependent trips.
The OHP mobility standard for this highway is 0.85 to the Springfield eastern Urban
Growth Boundary and 0.70 east of that point to the eastern TMA boundary. There is a
STA specified in the OHP on Main St from Mill St to A St with standard of 0.9.
2002:
All of the sub-corridors meet the standard based on the peak period VMT weighted
average V/C within each sub-corridor. There are segments that exceed the standards
but these appear to be related to highway interchange areas - at OR 126E from the
westbound direction in the AM and from the eastbound direction in the PM; at Pioneer
Parkway from the westbound direction in the AM. The eastbound segment of roadway
between 28th St and 32nd St is modeled as exceeding the standard in the PM.
2025:
In the RTP- Financially Constrained scenario, no sub-corridors are predicted to fail the
standard, based on the VMT weighted V/C statistic. However, as was the case for 1-
105, the Main St corridor is highly directional in the AM and PM peak periods, causing
Page 14 of 18
Attachment A - Corridor Congestion Summary
the peak period average to be misleading. In the PM, many segments of the eastbound
corridor fail the standard, including the Willamette River Bridge section into Springfield,
21st to 52nd Sts, and then certain segments further east near OR126E intersection. The
westbound segments have similar problems in the AM.
The table below summarizes the V/C results for the AM and PM periods of the 2025
RTP- Financially Constrained scenario, noting where the sub-corridor meets the
performance standard (~) and also where a segment within that passing corridor may fail
(*) .
~
~
~
PM
Westbound
Sub-corridor
AM
Eastbound
1. Mill Street to 42nd Street
2. 42nd Street to OR 126
3. OR 126 to east TMA boundary
~ (*)
~
~ (*)
6th/7th - Broadwav/Franklin Boulevard (subcorridor of OR99W)
This roadway carries a moderate amount of the mobility dependent trips of the TMA
with the westbound sub-corridor from 1-5 to Alder carrying the most mobility dependent
traffic of the corridor (approximately equivalent to the amount using the Beltine River
Rd-Barger sub-corridor).
The OHP mobility standard for this highway is 0.85 except for 0.9 in the OHP specified
STA specified on the W.6th/W. 7th St couplet from Lincoln to Pearl Sts.
2002:
All of the sub-corridors meet the standard based on the peak period VMT weighted
average V/C within each sub-corridor. There are some hot spots which exceed the
standard - in the AM eastbound direction at the merge of the northbound 1-5 off-ramp.
Merge, and in the PM at the Willamette River Bridge/McVay highway intersection
segment eastbound into Springfield, as well as eastbound on W. 7th St at the
Washington/Jefferson Bridge.
2025:
In the RTP- Financially Constrained scenario, all sub-corridors continue to meet the
standard based on the peak period VMT weighted average V/C.
However, problems persist at various intersection areas (Washington/Jefferson 1-105
area in the AM on W. 7th, and in the PM westbound on W. 6th St; at the Ferry St Bridge
area in the PM). Congested road segments also include the AM westbound and the PM
eastbound 1-5 to Walnut section, and the AM westbound and the PM eastbound
Willamette River Bridge to McVay intersection.
Page 15 of 18
Attachment A - Corridor Congestion Summary
Pioneer Parkway
The OHP mobility standard on this roadway is 0.9. It is not important for carrying
mobility dependent trips.
2002:
Based on the peak period VMT weighted V/C, both northbound and southbound
corridors meet the standard. In the PM, there is an isolated segment in the northbound
direction at the interchange with OR126E.
2025:
Again, with the RTP- Financially Constrained scenario, the sub-corridors meet the
standard, with the exception of two interchange areas. In both the AM and PM periods,
the northbound approach to OR 126E exceeds the standard; in the PM period the
southbound route at this interchange also exceeds the standard. In the PM period only,
the southbound approach to Mill St is excessively congested.
Page 16 of 18
Attachment B.. 2002 PM Peak Hour Congestion Map
'U
'"0 ~ "0
L.. "'C CT3
~
"'0 c:: '"0
C ~ C
+-" ((J r.J) cu
.0 ~ 4- ......
(JJ
ro 0 0
'" ae
(ti ~
0 0 ~
{1) 0
Qj () 0 0
x ~ O".l
E I
{1) 0 v
:=; m
(5
> Q.) ~
'"0 en 0
~ ro
Q) tT.i
a: ?.- m
0
.:;/t
I
\
(~~. (
, '-
---.......J"l
~
i
/
,/'"
~ __~..... r
I.,
J~
I
..-. /' ~LI" '-. .--1
r.....
)
0)
C)
a:::
o
J
~-
I~
'\
\
j
~
r
,,-../
_J
\
\
.....1
~
c..... -.,.J' - ----_
f
~ ,J
/ ~~I
r
(
J
(
\...
\
"
../
/'
, 0-"'"
Lj
I
.F
I-~
_J
>.
~
:E:
-;
~
IilJ
U
-c
cu
'i:
C)
.~
a.
(lJ
co
~
'+-
o
f'...
ill
0>
rn
a.
c:.
0)
0:::
o
--
-I
I
\,
t:
o
:z:;
(f)
Q.)
0)
C
o
'-'
E
5- 0)
=:J 00
o ~
I(f)
~ ~
~ ~
o....c:
;2 0)
0... I
NjB
a OJ
o -.I-'
NC/)
AttachmentC. 2025 PM Peak Hour Congestion Map
u
~ i... ~
ro
(ti "'0 m
"'C c ""'0
c .s c
ro M .$
-5 ~ 'I- (/)
ro 0 "+-
rn
ro "'C eft 0
0 Q) a ~
Q) c
W 0 0 0
E ~ ...- 0)
I
0 V
:::i en
"'5
> ill ~
"'C 01 (J
Q) r ro
ro
n:: l-,.. CJ
0
~
r-- _ .-
'I
J
r
L
I.U-
r
II
....--
en
01
0::
o
r"
I --
J
J
l.
._f
J
J
\
_J
,""""
_J
L
1....-0 ____ --: ~
:::-..
l'C
-~
~~
.:.:: c
Q.. ::;:J
a:. U'l
c: -
d) rI'I
en?
::::l l'C
W !I:::
..... l'C
~ ~
~t"'II
-tt;
o
,!
~~.-!
.J
,
j
~1
co
~
'+-
o
co
~
~
1
UI
CI.I
U
,;
Qi
~
c
.;:
c.
CI.l
ill
0>
rn
a.
0:::.
an
~
o
~
--.
~
,.---r-
I"'"
_.,,-_1
r
.J
c
0
:0 c
(j')
Q} ro
OJ a:
C "'C
0 (J)
u E c
~ OJ .~
:=J +-' t5
0 (fJ c:
I >- 0
(/J (j
~ ~ ~
CO ro m
Q) 3: u
(i U)
.c u:
2 ,S!' a..
a.. I I--
LO ill Ct:::
N ..... LO
.s N
0 0
N (/) N