The URL can be used to link to this page

Tigard Transportation Safety Study - October 1979 Ncft 1�'emc ",... et, 'R� STRAAM Final Rt ;p.")I h sixfe4t shmriv cit,yof i . x.1y a;' %ice: R f E i� •T`� R '�'$�e e :K ar ae. Acknowledguments Tigard City Council Mayor Alan MIrkelson Councilman'imn Brian Councilman John E. Cook fount%lwom<i, Nadv,SOmfer t'y Stmt tae ido,a fi, Bar A ez City Administrator Asert Adanns ]lief of Police Aj Aar-e? owm "fanning Director iFym* Cllr e, RE. public Works Director el4oh,n Hdqxnan Engineering Tech. III '-)TTAAIvi Engineers;Inc. z H. Matteson Traject Manage- o aaaaI_,ia:ht >rafa Ick Project Engineer STRAAM ENGINEERS, INC. 5505 S.E.Milwaukie Avenue PO Box 02201 Portland,Oregon 97202 Tel 503 234-0721 TWX 910-464-8042 rr PT-T32-01-01 November 30, 1979 Members of the Tigard City Council Attention Mr. Alan Mickelson, Mayor Ladies and Gentlemen: It is our pleasure to submit to you this report which contains an inven- tory of Tigard' s transportation system, an analysis and identification of Tigard' s transportation safety problems, and a recommended five-year program for improving the transportation safety problems in the Tigard area. In addition, this report contains recommendations on a functional classification system, street design standards, and modifications to the Tigard' s Municipal Code to incorporate these recommendations. This report not only addresses problems and improvements to Tigard' s street network, but also addresses safety improvements to the bus, rail , bicycle, and pedestrian system. It has been our intent in preparing the recommendations contained within this report to: (1) concentrate on ++� improvements to Tigard' s local street system; and (2) recommend improve- ments which are cost-effective and make maximum utilization of the existing transportation network. It has been a pleasure working with the Tigard City Council and staff in the preparation of this report. ' Sincerely, STRAAM Engineers, Inc. Carl R. Reinke, P.E. Vice President CRR:kpw ""' A Division of Qt�� CRS GROUP ENGINEERS, INC. �r err TIGARD TRANSPORTATION SAFETY ka STUDY sir im d. 10 119 '''y 9 YArOREGON 2 7, FSH M p E PT-T32-01-01 Funding for this study was obtained through a grant from the Oregon Traffic Safety Commission. hr TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION PURPOSE . . . . . STUDY AREA. 1 STUDY PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ' 2 CHAPTER 2 - SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 CHAPTER 3 - STREETS FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 EXISTING STREET CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . 7 TRAFFIC CONTROL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 w Signals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Signs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Pavement Markings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 15 TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 SPEED CONTROL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . ' . . .. ' . . ' 28 ILLUMINATION. . . . . . . 30 r�r PARKING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 wa CHAPTER 4 - TRANSIT BUS SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 RAIL SERVICE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 CHAPTER 5 - PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE 44 CHAPTER 6 - EMERGENCY SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 47 Itir� CHAPTER 7 - PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION STREETS . . . . . . 49 Congestion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Accidents . . . . . . . . 53 Intersection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Street Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Accident Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 r Traffic Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 i t�. TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) P age CHAPTER 7 - PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION (Cont.) TRANSIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Bus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Railroad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 EMERGENCY SERVICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 CHAPTER 8 - IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS STREETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 OTHER IMPROVEMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 PRIORITIZATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 CHAPTER 9 - FINANCING STATE TRANSPORTATION TAX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 COUNTY GASOLINE TAX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 OTHER FUNDING SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 FUNDING OF IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 CHAPTER 10 - TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. . RECOMMENDED TIGARD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM--1980-1984. . . . 112 DESIGN STANDARDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE REVISIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 CHAPTER 11 - PLAN UPDATE PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 APPENDICES REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 1978-79 COST ESTIMATES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 +fir �■ i i �r LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 3.1 TIGARD STREET DESIGN STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 TABLE 3.2 STREET INVENTORY - EXISTING STREET CONDITIONS. . . . 8 TABLE 3.3 TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Irr TABLE 3.4 TRAFFIC SIGN INVENTORY--1978-79 . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 TABLE 3.5 PAVEMENT MARKING INVENTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 TABLE 3.6 CITY OF TIGARD - ACCIDENT SUMMARY OF SEVERITY . . . . . 22 TABLE 3.7 SUMMARY 99W NON-INTERSECTION ACCIDENTS . . . . . . 23 TABLE 3.8 SUMMARY 99W INTERSECTION ACCIDENTS . . . . . . . . . . . 24 TABLE 3.9 SUMMARY: TIGARD NON-INTERSECTION ACCIDENTS . . . . . . 25 TABLE 3.10 SUMMARY: TIGARD INTERSECTION ACCIDENTS . . . . . . . . 26 TABLE 3.11 CITY OF TIGARD POSTED SPEED SIGNS . . . . . . . . . . . 28 TABLE 3.12 DESIGNATED SPEED ZONES ESTABLISHED BY OREGON STATE SPEED CONTROL BOARD (AS OF JULY 5, 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 TABLE 3.13 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ROADWAY AVERAGE MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL ILLUMINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 TABLE 3.14 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AVERAGE MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL ILLUMINATION FOR PEDESTRIAN WAYS . . . . . . . . . . . 37 ift TABLE 4.1 TIGARD AREA RAILROAD CROSSING INVENTORY . . . . . . . . 43 TABLE 5.1 SUMMARY OF PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE ACCIDENTS . . . . . . . . 44 TABLE 6.1 RECOMMENDED STREET nfS:rcNV STANDARDS— TUALATIN RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT . . . . . . . . 47 TABLE 7.1 ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE, DEFINED. . . . . . . . . . . . 50 TABLE 7.2 ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE, TRAFFIC VOLUMES. . . . . . . . 51 TABLE 7.3 CAPACITY ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 iii IYr LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Page TABLE 7.4 INTERSECTIONS APPROACHING OR MEETING SIGNAL WARRANTS 54 im TABLE 7.5 1978 INTERSECTION ACCIDENT RATES 99W/TIGARD. . . . . . . 57 TABLE 7.6 1978 STREET SECTION ACCIDENT RATES - 99W AND TIGARD 59 TABLE 7.7 CALCULATED CRITICAL ACCIDENT RATES FOR TIGARD INTERSECTIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 TABLE 7.8 HIGH ACCIDENT INTERSECTIONS - 1978 . . . . . . . . . . . 63 TABLE 7.9 CALCULATED CRITICAL ACCIDENT RATES FOR TIGARD STREET SECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 TABLE 7.10 CRITICAL STREET SECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 TABLE 7.11 COMPARISON OF STREET DESIGN STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . 77 TABLE 8.1 PRIORITIZATION RANKING SCHEME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 ib TABLE 8.2 PRIORITIZATION OF IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Im TABLE 9.1 TRANSPORTATION FUNDING SOURCES--1975 THROUGH 1980 (1979 DOLLARS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 TABLE 10.1 RECOMMENDED STREET DESIGN STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . 119 �r iv stir LIST OF FIGURES Page FIGURE 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . FIGURE 3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 err FIGURE 3.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 r FIGURE 3.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 FIGURE 3.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 FIGURE 3.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 FIGURE 3.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 err FIGURE 3.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 FIGURE 4.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 FIGURE 5.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 FIGURE 5.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 FIGURE 6.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 FIGURE 7.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 irr FIGURE 7.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 FIGURE 7.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 FIGURE 7.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 FIGURE 7.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 FIGURE 8.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 FIGURE 8.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 FIGURE 8.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 rr. FIGURE 8.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 FIGURE 8.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Wr v +r LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Page it FIGURE 8.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 FIGURE 8.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 FIGURE 8.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 FIGURE 8.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 FIGURE 8.10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 FIGURE 8.11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 FIGURE 8.12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 FIGURE 8.13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 �r wr �r wr vi tir .iW Wr CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The last traffic safety study for the City of Tigard was completed in 1971. rr At that time, the population of the city was 7,065, and there were approxi- mately 186 accidents which occurred annually on the City of Tigard street system. Today, eight years later, the population of Tigard is 13,697, an increase of 94 percent since the completion of the last traffic safety study. There were 492 accidents which occurred within the city in 1978, representing an increase in accidents of 165 percent over 1971. Of the ten major projects recommended for improvement from the 1971 traffic safety study, half have been or are in the process of being completed. Due to changing conditions brought on by the rapid growth rate in the area and the resulting boom in travel demand and accidents, there exists a strong im need to reassess the city' s transportation improvement needs and develop an updated program to improve transportation safety in the City of Tigard. Wft PURPOSE The intent of the 1979 transportation safety study is to: (1) identify safety problems on Tigard' s transportation network, (2) develop a five-year transportation safety improvement program to remedy the safety problems identified, (3) develop a functional classification system, (4) develop street design standards, and (5) recommend revisions to the city' s municipal code to conform with these recommendations. Funding for this study was secured under the authority of Section 402, tir► Title 23 of the U.S. Code commonly referred to as Highway Safety Funds. This program is administered by the Oregon Traffic Safety Commission with the cooperation of the National Highway Safety Administration and the Federal im Highway Administration. The consulting firm of STRAAM Engineers, Inc. , was selected to conduct the study with assistance from the City of Tigard' s staff. Under this program, ' 75 percent of the project' s costs were paid with Highway Safety Funds. The remainder of the project' s costs (25 percent and the local match) were paid through an in-kind services match by the City of Tigard. STRAAM was given the authority to proceed with the project on May 23, 1979. iW. 1 STUDY AREA The City of Tigard is located in the southwestern corner of the Portland rr Metropolitan Area (Figure 1) . It is surrounded by the suburban communities of Beaverton, King City, Lake Oswego, and the City of Portland. The area lies at the crossroads of three major state highways: 217, I-5 and 99W. The area included within this study extends beyond the existing city limits to approximate the city' s urban growth boundary. The area included within this study is bounded by I-5 on the east, the Tualatin River on the south, Beef Bend Road and Scholls Ferry on the west, and Oak Street on the north. r STUDY PROCEDURE The study was organized and completed in three major phases. The first phase consisted of an inventory of the existing transportation network. This inventory not only included the street system, but also included transit, pedestrians, bicycle, rail , and emergency services. The inventory phase is covered in Chapters 3 through 6 of this report. The second major phase consisted of the analysis of the inventory material , the identification of problem areas, and their prioritization. This process is covered in Chapter 7 and 8 of this report. The final phase of the project consisted of the implementation of the recommendations. This included the development of a safety improvement program, cost estimates, the identification of funding sources, and the adoption of city ordinances which are necessary to imple- ment these improvements. This process is covered in Chapters 9 and 10 of this report. A final chapter of this report outlines a procedure to follow in updating and reevaluating the safety improvement program. im im im w im 2 AOL CITY f TIGARD LJL®II�JUIJLurJuuLJ�� f _ .._ T4 N T/CARD 8 V/C/N/TY .:._ Q�.. _ I R4W R3W °"� ��✓� �� so R2W Columbia ---- 20U B TT E UN 30 — e ' Counf M S i AL 13LJ f—+ �`ry OC f £! r _ 4 e4 -4-\1 ........ ...._.*.___ � F. I i 15 .S .dot V15 t Lac Imat .r.. ......_ .�$ .�_..._.. . � =:.. �( eke: 5 L I N - - + - 0 d S " j :� ILLS _...... ,� i, to 2 r ! - e _ 1 0 1� _y..._ ......BpR .... 4. F' %t• 5 L O D I L E ' 5 �s7 : T ;ALA - _ _10 : o t T 15 EAV $ n �— �' c C, PPY f ti 70 GAT E `. Y tfi + ....._� T + .. 1— ,.rcmM,�,.. •. fi I 43 IG _.._.. ... ° + - t IG +.. 20 _ CIT 5 , t - - Counfy _ 2CL CiygMA O SA 230 1 50 y i 1 70 ONE ,- _y...._. M7.N000 S,p 1.- _ ..._.. L 1 i 5 y �. WES 5 f 15 1 " 55 N R D t N 4- ON - } 10 - t i t. { { I _ 5 �. n 300 D -4— - - . - R/V p _ 10 20 t 7. ra t 1tE $ _._ .. t... _......i t _+ + 5_' ACADA _ + a +? .. +..... - — t +—+ T 2 _ L f NBY 45 L M r1h ' �.. o 5 Moi � 1-._.. q c ... ,_ Rea. + ... 1.1 T 4 S 10 .. 20 20 t STUDY AREA LOCATION t o� Tigard Transportation Study 5 2 20 ° p Im 1W CHAPTER 2 No SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS rr On the basis of the transportation study evaluation contained within this report, recommendations were made to improve circulation and safety in the Tigard area. The improvement recommendations contained within this report include: im . A five-year street improvement program outlined in Chapter 10 which contains recommended improvements to 22 street sections and a schedule No of improvements to upgrade the city' s traffic signs, pavement markings, traffic hazard locations, sidewalks, street lights, railcrossings, and bike paths. . The identification and location of 53 traffic hazards along Tigard' s road system (Figure 7.5) . . A listing of streets in the Tigard area which have insufficient or no street lights (Page 35) . ' . The identification of six rail crossings which require improved crossing protection (Page 75) . . Roadway sections on Tri-Met' s existing bus routes which do not meet Tri-Met' s minimum roadway width requirements for transit vehicles (Page 74) . . Sheltered bus stop locations which have inadequate pedestrian access (Page 74) . . Pedestrian/bicycle paths and crosswalks which are inadequate, and school locations which do not have sufficient pedestrian access (Pages 75-76) . . Recommended street design standards (Table 10.1) . . Recommended functional classification system (Table 10.2) . . Revisions to the city' s present municipal code necessary to incorporate these recommendations (Chapter 10) . 4 6 ` CHAPTER 3 STREETS The dominant mode of transportation in the Tigard area is the private auto- mobile. It is estimated that there are approximately 18,360 automobiles owned by the City of Tigard' s population. Of the roughly 50,320 trips made daily by Tigard residents, it is estimated that 84 percent of these are made by private automobile.* Since the street network is the backbone of Tigard' s transportation network, most of the emphasis contained within the study has been oriented toward rrr street improvements. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Streets serve two major conflicting purposes. On one hand they serve to provide access to abutting property (local street) , while on the other they also serve to carry a high volume of traffic at high speeds between points (arterials) . Since each type of street has a different function, they each require a different design. In order to minimize this conflict, a functional classification designation serves to separate the classes of streets. The basic assumption in this process is that in order to minimize the impacts associated with high traffic volumes, traffic should be restricted to a few arterials in order that volumes on the majority of streets are kept to a minimum. In order for a functional classification system to operate properly under this theory, arterial streets must be improved to meet demand or they will become congested and traffic will seek alternative routes, often filtering through to local neighborhood streets. The current functional classification system for the City of Tigard, adopted as a part of the comprehensive plan, is shown in Figure 3.1. All streets in the area have been classified as either an arterial , collector, or local street. Those streets which are not shown either as an arterial or a col- lector are local streets. Table 3.1 shows the adopted design standards for each of the three classifications. These design standards were also adopted as a part of the city' s comprehensive plan. err w w.r *These figures were obtained from a travel survey conducted by the Columbia Regional Association of Governments in 1977. wwr 5 WR WIN m m ;1TY ! '''1GARQ TIGARD 8 V1CIN1 TY '•.� rr�o-� �a��•rr ru: ii �• � ti j Arty ,t a�]r "kI ti LEGEND Figure 3.1 EXISTING FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Tigard Transportation Study Arterial -- Collector ••�••••�•• Freeway ift 66 TABLE 3.1. TIGARD STREET DESIGN STANDARDS as Functional R/W Pavement Volume Speed go Classification (ft. ) (ft.) Lanes (ADT) (mph) Arterial 80-120 12/lane 2-4 6,000-20,000 25-45 1W Collector 50-60 36-44 2 1,500-13,000 20-35 Local 50-60 32-36 2 1,500 or less 10-25 iW EXISTING STREET CONDITIONS im An inventory was made of virtually all streets within the study area. This inventory, shown in Table 3.2, includes 47 streets consisting of i, 42 miles of arterial , collector, and local roadway. The data includes street right-of-way widths, pavement widths, pavement conditions, and curbing and storm sewer (it is assumed that if curbing exists then storm sewer exists) . Virtually all streets in the study area are constructed of bituminous con- crete or have a bituminous concrete overlay. Approximately 38 percent of the streets have some storm sewer, 23 percent have sections of poor pavement, and 79 percent do not meet the minimum street design standard width of 32 feet. Yrr TRAFFIC CONTROL The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) was used as the guide in the evaluation of traffic control devices for the City of Tigard.* This manual is a national publication designed to promote uniformity in the placement of traffic control devices. Traffic control , as defined by the MUTCD, are "signs, signals, markings, and devices placed on or adjacent to a street or highway by authority of a public body or official having jurisdiction to regulate, warn, or guide." Three types of traffic control devices, signals, signs, and pavement markings were inventoried as a part of this safety study. *Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 1W U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1971. w 7 ws raft rar �lr.+ir irwr Yr....��ir.r.r lrmrle Mr amw WMW rW4 wood amw "Nod OWN4 WON" rrowd on" TABLE 3.2. STREET INVENTORY - EXISTING STREET CONDITIONS Pavement Pavement* Pavement Pavement* Street From To R/W Width Condition Curb Street From To R/W Width Condition Curb Alderbrook Durham Lakeside 50 32 good yes McDonald Hall 93rd 40 22 good none 93rd 97th 45 20 good none Ash Hill Frewing 40 32 fair yes 97th O'Mara 45 20 good none Frewing Garett 40 22 good yes O'Mara Ash 45 20 good none Garrett Hillview 45-60 22 poor yes Ash 102nd 50 20 good none Hillview McDonald 45 22 fair none 102nd 103rd 50 20 good none 103rd 105th 50 22 good none Atlanta 67th 69th 30 36 good yes 105th 99W 50 22 good some Baylor 69th 70th 60 24 good none North Dakota 121st 119th 50 20 good none 70th 72nd 45 24 good none 119th 115th 50 22 good none 115th 106th 40 20 good none Beef Bend 99W 116th 60 21 fair none 106th Tiedeman 40 20 good none 116th 128th 60 21 fair none 128th 131st 50 29 fair none O'Mara Hall Edgewood 40 18 good none 131st 137th 50 19 fair none Edgewood McDonald 40 18 good none 137th Myrtle 50 20 fair none Myrtle 150th 50 20 fair none Pacific Hwy. 65th 69th 90 74 good yes 150th Elsner 50 19 fair none (99W) Elsner 90° bend 40 19 fair none 69th 71st 115 71 good yes 90° bend Bull Mtn. 40 20 poor none 71st Pfaffle 110 71-84 good yes Bull Mtn. Scholls Ferry 40 21 poor none Pfaffle Hwy. 217 115 60-92 good yes Hwy. 217 Hall 100 60-92 god yes Bounes Ferry 1-5 72nd 50 62 good 1 side Hall Greenburg 100 75 good yes hipper) Greenburg Johnson 85 60 god yes 72nd Durham 60 22 poor none Johnson McKenzie 85 68 god yes Durham Findlay 60 36 fair none McKenzie Walnut 85 68 god yes Walnut Frewing 85 68 god yes Bonita Hall 81st 40 20 good none Frewing Garrett 75 68 good yes 91st 79th 40 20 good none Garrett Park 80 66 god yes 79th 76th 40 22 good none Park Watkins 85 70 god yes 76th 74th 40 22 good none Watkins McDonald 80 68 74th 72nd 40 24 McDonald Gaarde 85 82 god Yes 72nd I-5 40 20 good none good none good none Gaarde Canterbury Ln. 160 120 good none Canterbury Ln. Bull Mtn. 230 36MI38S god none Bull Mtn. 99W 125th 60 26 good none Bull Mtn. Beef Bend 190 36N138S good one 125th 126th 60 23 good none Beef Bend Royalty Pkwy• 175 36N/38S god one 126th 133rd 60 21 good none 133rd 141st 60 22 good none Pfaffle 99W 78th 50 23 191st 144th 60 22 good none 78th 79th 50 23 good one 144th 150th 60 22 fair none 79th 82nd 50 22 god one Burnham Main Ash 40 20-22 good none 82nd Hall 50 20 good one Ash Hall 40 18-22 fair none Sattler 100th 98th 45 22 fair-good one Canterbury 99W 109th 50 34 good 98th 96th 50 26 good some Yes 96th Hall 40 20 god one Ln. Scholls Ferry Hall Hwy. 217 115-130 70 109th 106th 50 32 good yes Hwy. 217 Cascade 115-120 72 9 onone ne ood none 106th 103rd 50 32 good yes Cascade Springwood 60 44 god some Clinton 67th I-5 60 21 poor none Springwood 121st 70-85 47-641 good 121st 122nd 60 44-47 good none Commercial Main Scoffins Ct. 60 40 good some 122nd Sorrento 60 40 good none Scoffins Ct. Hall 60 22 good some Sorrento 125th 60 40125th 130th 60 22 good some yes 130th 135th 60 22-30 god none Durham Rd. 99W 113th 40 22 fair 135th Scholls Ferry 60 22 go- none 103rd 104th 65 22 fair none 113th 103rd 40 22 fair none Scholls Ferry Beef Bend 42 22 : none 104th Serena 65 22 fair some Serena 92nd 65 22 fair some Tiedeman North Dakota Tigard 45 22 f none Ser 92nd Alderbrook 40 22 good none Tigard Meadow 50 26 noneMeadow Walnut 50 20 ,,I some 88th 65 22 good none _ 88th Hall 65 22 good none Tigard Main 99W »0 24 ooG sane Hall 79th 40 22 good none 9gW Grant 40 22 good some 79th 76th 40 20 good none Grant Katherine 40 22 good none 76th Boones Ferry 40 20-32 good none 9 Katherine Tiedeman 40 22 good none Fonner Errol 107th 40-45 20 fair none Tiedeman 113th 45 32 good none 107th 115th 40 20 good -- 113th 115th 50 32 good none 115th 121st 40 20 fair none Walnut 99W Grant 40 28 good yes Grant Watkins 40 25 fair yes Frewing Ash fair none Watkins 106th 45-50 20-26 poor some Ash O'Mara 45 20 good none 106th Tiedeman 45-50 26-36 fair none Gaarde 99W 110th 40 20 fair none Tiedeman 112th 40-45 22-30 fair112th 116th 45 o yes 21 110th 112th 40 22 good none poor yes 112th 114th 40 20 good none 116th 121st 40 20 fair yes 114th 115th 40 23 good none 121st 124th 40 20-22 poor none 115th 117th 40 20 good none 124th 128th 45 28 good none 117th Rose Vista 45 18 poor none 128th 132nd 45 22-28 fair none132nd 135th 40 20-22 fair none G,�rrett Rose Vista 121st 45 18 good none Watkins 99W Park 50 20ood some 99W Burnham 40 20-22 poor some Park Walnut 50 34 good some Burnham Ash 40 22-32 poor some 9 Grant Walnut McKenzie 40 22 good some Villa Ridge 99W(N) 72nd Part of 22 good none McKenzie Johnson 40 22 good none 99W N/W72nd 99W(S) 23 fair none Johnson Tigard 40 22 good some Greenhurg 99W Center 60 32 good some 67th Clinton Baylor 60 36 goad none Center 90th 60 32 good some Baylor Haines 60 38 good none 90th Lincoln 60 28 good none Lincoln 91st 60 22 good none 69th Atlanta Baylor 60 18 good none 91st 92nd 60 22 good none 92nd 94th 60 28-32 fair none 71st 99W Spruce 60 36 good yes 94th 95th 60 28 good none 72nd Villa Ridge Baylor 40-45 22-26 good none 95th 98th 60 28-22 good none Baylor Clinton 40-45 28 fair none 98th North Dakota 60 28 good none Clinton Elmhurst 40 22.-24 good none North Dakota Cascade 60 32 good none Elmhurst Hermoso 40 22 good none Cascade 217 60 23-60 fair-good some Hermoso Beveland 50 28 good none 217 Oak 60 42-60 good none Beveland Gonzas 50 28 good none Hall Oak Pine 60 40 fair none Gonzas Hampton 40 22 good none Pine Spruce 60 37 fair none Hampton Hwy. 217 45-60 28-40 fair none Spruce Pfaffle 60 40 fair some Hwy. 217 Varns 50 28-40 fair none Pfaffle 99W 60 44 fair some Varns Fir 40 22 fair none Fir Cherry 40-60 22-28 good none 9gW Knoll 60 22 fair some Cherry Sandburg 40 20 ood none Knoll Hunziker 60 32 fair Hunkizker Commercial 50 18 fair none Sandburg Bonita 40 22-24 good none Commercial Burnham 40 30 fair some Bonita Kable 40-50 20-22 fair none Burnham O'Mara 50-60 40 fair none Kable Boones Ferry 40 22 poor none O'Mara McDonald 40 22 fair none 97th Murdock Inez 50 36 good yes McDonald Bonita 60-80 38-40 fair none Inez McDonald 40 22 good some Bonita Pinebrook 60 40 fair Pinebrook Sattler 60 22 fair 98th Murdock Sattler 50 22 good none Sattler Durham 60 20-22 fair none Sattler Durham 50 23 good some iiampton 66th 67th 60 27 good none 100th McDonald View Terrace 40 20 poor none 67th 68th 60 28 good none View Terrace Inez 40 21 good none 68th 69th 60 27 good none Inez Penbrook 50 20 good none 69th 72nd 60 27 good none Penbrook Murdock 40 20 good none iiunziker Hall Knoll 60 36 good yes Murdock Sattler 40 18 good none Knoll 77th 60 36 good some Sattler Kable 50 18 poor none 77th 72nd 80 36 good none 115th Gaarde Viewmont 50 34 good yes Mai Viewmont Fairhaven 50 34 good yes ain 9gW Scoffins 80 56 good yes Scoffins Commercial 80 46 good yes Fairhaven Terrace Trails 50 34 good some Commercial Tigard 80 56 good yes 121st Scholls Ferry North Dakota 60 22-44 good some Tigard Burnham 80 52 good some North Dakota Sumnercrest 50 20 good none Burnham 99W 80 56 good yes Summercrest Katherine 50 36 good none Katherine Lynn 50 22 good none Lynn Ann 50 22 good none Ann Walnut 50 20 fair none Walnut Carmen 40 20 good none Carmen Fonner 45 22 good none Fonner Howard Drive 40-45 20-23 good none Howard Drive Rose Vista 45 20-22 good none Rose Vista Gaarde 45 18 good none *Pavement condition index: good - new condition 135th Shells Ferry Walnut 40-45 22 good none fair - patched poor - broken and holes not patched Signals According to the MUTCD, signal devices include: traffic control signals, beacons, lane use control signals, drawbridge signals, emergency traffic control signals, and train approach signals and gates. As can be seen in Table 3.3, there are 17 signals currently in operation in the Tigard area. All signals, with the exception of one at Main and Scoffin, are located on +�r 99W. All signals are owned, operated, and maintained by the Oregon State Department of Transportation. All signals are either pretimed or traffic- actuated. Of the 17 signals in the study area, the one located at 99W and Garrett is a pedestrian signal , and two other signals are flashing warning signals (these are located on 99W also at Beef Bend and Royalty Parkway) . In addition to the existing signals, the Oregon Department of Transportation + " is about to embark on a signal improvement program which will add six new signals, and provide an intertie between signals on 99W so that they can be progressed successively. The location of these new signals, as well as the existing signals, is shown in Figure 3.2. The new signals are to be located at the intersections of 99W and: 69th, Pfaffle, 217 north ramps, Park, Walnut, and Bull Mountain. Thelacement of signals is strictly p g y governed by criteria or warrants as outlined in the MUTCD. These warrants include: 1. Minimum vehicular volumes 2. Interruption of continuous traffic 3. Minimum pedestrian volume 4. School crossing 5. Progressive movement 6. Accident experience 7. System 8. A combination of warrants A number of non-signalized intersections were compared with the established iw warrants to see if any met the minimum requirements for signalization. The results of this investigation are shown and discussed in Chapter 7 of this report, problem identification. Signs Traffic control signs can be used to either regulate traffic, warn traffic, or guide traffic. The MUTCD standardizes traffic signs as to their design, shape, color, dimension, symbols, word message, lettering, illumination and reflectorization, location, height, lateral clearance, and mounting. There iw are basically three types of signs: those that regulate, those that warn, and those that guide. its The City of Tigard conducted an inventory of traffic signs in 1978. This inventory was supplemented in 1979, and all signs in the city were evaluated according to the MUTCD standards. Those traffic signs that did not conform were either replaced or repaired. Table 3.4 provides a summary of the number and type of traffic signs within the study area. Figure 3.2 also shows the location of all current stop signs within the study area. I to 9 Yw ilrrns amnia *Now bona aftsm ommom buma am `worn rOMA No" "now "Now "00110 In" on" .OWN s CI TY of TIGARD k7; k•, , 7-IGARD 8 VICINITY r .. - s .w s l' v N n � " i 5 � tCe I q ' is �k l ( � sl +41P , 0 eM Is I S � Of 47 n e r Alk 6,4 00 n a I } LEGEND Figure 3.2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LOCATIONS Tigard Transportation Study 0 Stop Sign q Traffic Signal ❑ Proposed Signal TF,3LE 3.3,. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES Signal Signal Walk Year Intersection/Type Mount Head Controller Indication Installed Remarks Hwy. 217 NB Mast 12" R Eagle EF-20 none 1972 Interconnected off-ramp at 8" YG Pretimed Scholls Ferry 3-way Hwy. 217 SB Mast 12" R Econolite none 1975 Loop detection on/off-ramp at 8" YG D2000 interconnected Scholls Ferry 2 phase 4-way semi- actuated Hwy. 217 NB Mast 12" R Econolite none 1973 Loop detection on/off-ramp at 8" YG D2000 interconnected Scholls Ferry 2 phase 3-way semi- actuated 99W S.W. 71st Mast Left turn Eagle Ped. acti- 1972 Interconnected (Fred Meyers) W/NB 99W NB 12" EF-20 vated 12" 3-way left turn G arrow pretimed square lane on NB 12" span wire 3m SB 12" 99W/S.W. 74th Span 99W 12" R Singer Ped. acti- 1978 Interconnected (Family Drive- mast side 8" YG 2200 vated 12" magnetic In) street 2 phase square detectors 3-way semi- actuated 99'W/SB Span SB 12" RTL Eagle none 1972 Interconnected on/off-ramp 99W on-ramp SB left EF-20 from 217 mast NB 8" RT pretimed 4 way 99W 12" G master controller Table continued on following page Signal Signal Walk Year Intersection/Type Mount Head Controller Indication Installed Remarks 99W/S.W. Hall Mast 99W 12" R Eagle 9 " round 1972 Interconnected 4-way span Hall 8" YG EF-20 single heads NB & SB E/W left turn arrow 8" GRY Eagle 99W/Greenburg Mast 99W 12" R EF-20 12" Ped. 1972 Interconnected 4-way span Greenburg 8" YG left turn 8" G arrow 8" RY Main/Scoffin Mast 12" R Crouse- 12" Ped. 1978 Loop detection 3-way 8" YG Hinds interconnected left turn DM400 8" RY 3-phase 12" G 99W/Johnson Span SB 12" RTG Eagle 12" Ped. 1976 Interconnected 4-way 99W Mast 99W 12" R EF-20 Johnson Pretimed 8" YG 99W/Garrett Span 12" R Eagle 12" 1972 Pretimed 4-way 8" YG pedestrian actuated at school crossing side street not signalized within violation 99W/McDonald Span 12" RYG Automatic 12" Ped. 1979 Loop detection 3-way left turn signal 118 actuated 12" G arrow 5-phase 12" RY actuated Table continued on following page Signal Signal Walk Year Intersection/Type Mount Head Controller Indication Installed Remarks 99W/Bull Mtn. Span 99W 12" RYG Automatic Ped. 1971 Loop detection 3-way Bull Mtn. signal actuated 12" R 8" YG MF-10 left turn actuated N.B. 99W 8" RY 12" Greenburg Beef Bend Span 12" Y Flashing 1970 New signal 3-way 12" R mechanism system not operational as yet 99W/Durham Rd. Span N/S 12" left Multisonic 12" Ped. 1975 Loop detection 4-way Maste E/W 8" RY 901 actuated 12" G 5-phase actuated 99W/Royalty Span 12" Y Flasher 1970 Parkway 12 3-way Greenburg/217 Span 12" RYH Multisonic 12" Ped. 1978 Loop detection NB/SB left turn 911 (two intersections) 8" RY 5-phase 12" G actuated with overlaps w Illri TABLE 3.4. TRAFFIC SIGN INVENTORY--1978-79 hkv MUTCD Number of Type of Sign Code Signs Regulatory ' Stop R1-1, R1 -3, R1-4 374 Yield R1-2 1 Speed R2 162 rr Turning R3 28 Alignment R4 1 Exclusion R5 23 One Way R6 1 Parking R7, R8 261 Traffic Signal R10 9 Subtotal 860 Warning Curves W1 18 Road Crossing W2 7 im Control Ahead W3 16 Bridge W5 5 Divided Highway W6 2 RR Advance W10 21 Other W11-W13 14 Dead End W14 14 Subtotal 97 School School Advisory S1, S2 14 School Speed S4 12 Subtotal 26 Miscellaneous -- 27 TOTAL 1,010 14 F f; Pavement Markings Like signs, pavement markings can be used to regulate, warn, and guide the vehicle operator. They are used both in combination with other control devices, such as signals and signs, or alone. Like other traffic control devices, the MUTCD has standardized markings for application, materials, ib and color. The various types of pavement markings include: center line, lane line, curb markings, stop lines, crosswalks, and railroad crossings. A major disadvantage of pavement markings is their short-lived lifetime w and constant maintenance, particularly in the moist weather found in the Northwest. An inventory of pavement markings in the Tigard area was made on all street sections (Table 3.5) . A number of major streets at the time of the inventory lacked adequate markings due to a recent pavement overlay and had not been restriped. This included all or parts of nine major streets within the study area. This inventory also included an analysis of pavement markings at railroad r crossings and intersections. This inventory found inadequate pavement markings at four locations on 99W: 1. No pedestrian crosswalk markings on Bull Mountain Road 2. No stop line southbound on Pacific Highway at Johnson Street 3. No stop line northbound on Pacific Highway at Greenburg 4. No stop lines on 99W at Hall Boulevard Most city streets were found to lack stop lines at the intersections. rm TRAFFIC VOLUMES Tigard city staff has a well-established traffic count program which includes traffic count stations, traffic counters, and traffic volume index file. Due to the lack of staff and obsolete counter equipment, the city has not been capable of keeping its count program up-to-date. Consequently, as a part of this study, the City of Tigard purchased four new traffic counters which were used during the course of the study to obtain traffic counts. During the months of July and August, traffic counts were taken at 51 count stations. These counts were supplemented by previous counts taken by the City, Washington County, and the Oregon Department of Transportation. The results of this effort are summarized in Figure 3.3. 15 e iWrrr � . boom Wr bomm W r Ism" ww" am" on" am* Moral W0060 .wart r.r,,,rij r�.rr�i rr�111 TIGARD 8 VICINITY F 7860 1435= '< 8928 14.937 t 12,790 i i. 3866 ._ 700 904 M2867 # - .. - 4 .... '. • ...:•* 2544 •• • 7W9 1654 1 1 1 1 1 6300 • 37,400 •. * .,;._ '°- 11,7.88 • 37.00 4113 •1059 976 ," .. .r... 2040 • 4180 7098 8312 jw 2S 270 . 4285 912 • I 5100 41.100 _. _ _ •, 9768 10,688 `� 39,500 -. ..« 2335 • .. ^ r i • • • •1800 3396 m. ag78 51.1000 • 30 4 9608 1+0 3000 2848 p ,v: 13 6 90�• (6769 i'385 .. 228 "" ' 4197�- 5240 'tf 298� 965.7 •9478 3320 .-�3708A q g 429 29,9646 4885 ..8 80 1518• '•1 03377 1156 2549 42 _-N!3 •..3012 9�3 3997 ....� - - • 34.8257250 iF 56.81 1556 2471 2489 - 9 .q 784 8869 7316 *3916 ..': 'i•404 ....t0 `29,500 25•8720 '8 2074 1200 •1693 - _ r -. )0973 • .. �. 1218 i•. 800 0 1142 4844 _ 4028.600 �-p * « r% rx t Y -* 835 7?3 1675 532 « 493' 400 677 • _t*ryry X325 3614 ." -N �`3133 3410 2522 .. ,=•1' X155 . .2860 125440::27,900 X76 12 5� 53• 3224 0 400 02134 .-. _ -.-', - `.-. f `• c.3�8c1?�� 248.7_ a 4652 2692 •2�9�• 2584 " lsoo • •' 01581 : ,I, _. . T1450 196' ,10 x' 63$0 2953 290 1700.1 9,900 • ti„8�1* 1106 5 *3 3t' ,'. ' 1715 1838 .x 67 ' 5164• ' 1502 2 6160 1298 657 "., 1090-,y 1132 +' �.. 27913170 i 7597 3215• � 1590 3759 .3078 5269 `..5856 7797 0 ,: .. .,.. ,:".. ry • 5436 1010 • s 14• 945 S , .. 4077 • 1' Figure 3.3 TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT*) Tigard Transportation Study *Average Daily Traffic f 9 [ ' TABLE 3.5. PAVEMENT MARKING INVENTORY* Location Center Line Edge Line** Lane Line Street Between Existing Recommended Existing Recommended Existing Recommended Beef Bend Hwy. 99W & DY DY SW SW - - Scholls Ferry NPY Bonital Hall & I-5 DY DY - SW - - Boones Ferry Upper Boones DY DY SW SW - - (lower) Ferry & I-5 Boones Ferry Tualatin River & DY DY SW SW - - (upper) Durham Bull Mtn.2 Hwy. 99W & DY - SW - - Beef Bend Burnham Main & Hall DY DY SW SW - - Cascade Greenburg & DY DY - SW - - Scholls Ferry Durham2 Hwy. 99W & Upper DY - SW - - Boones Ferry Fonner 115th & Walnut DY DY - SW - - Frewing Hwy. 99W & O'Mara DY DY - SW - - Gaarde2 Hwy. 99W & 121st DY - SW - - Table continued on following page V Location Center Line Edge Line** Lane Line Street Between Existing Recommended Existing Recommended Existing Recommended Garrett 99W & Ash DY DY - SW - - Grant Walnut & Tigard DY DY SW SW - - Greenburg3 Hwy. 99W & 217 DY DY SW SW - - Hall Spruce & DY DY SW SW - - Hwy. 99W NPY Hwy. 99W & DY DY SW SW - - Durham NPY Hampton 72nd & 66th DY DY - SW - - Hunziker Hall & 72nd DY DY - SW - - NPY Main Greenburg & DY DY - - - - Johnson McDonald Hwy. 99W & Hall DY DY - SW - - North Dakota 121st & Tiedeman DY DY - SW - - O'Mara Hall & McDonald DY DY - - - - Pfaffle2 Hwy. 99W & Hall DY DY - SW - - Pacific Hwy. Durham & McDonald - - SW SW DW DW (99W) (EA. side) (EA. side) McDonald & Main DSY DSY - - DW DW Table continued on following page co Location Center Line Edge Line** Lane Line Street Between Existing Recommended Existing Recommended Existing Recommended Main & Hall DSY DSY SW SW DW DW Hall & 64th DSY DSY - - DW DW Sattler Hall & 98th DY DY - SW - - Scholls Ferry Beef Bend & 135th DY DY - DW - - 135th & Hwy. 217 DY DY SW SW Scoffins Main & Hall DY DY - SW - - Tiedeman4 Greenburg & D DY - SW - - Walnut Tigard5 Main & Tiedeman DY DY SW SW - - Walnut Hwy. 99W & 135th DY DY - SW - - Hwy. 217 I-5 & Scholls - - SW SW DW DW Ferry 71st Hwy. 99W & Oak DY DY - SW - - 72nd6 Villa Ridge & DY DY - SW - - Lower Boones Ferry 98th McDonald & DY DY - SW - - Durham Table continued on following page - ` Location Center Line Edge Line** Lane Line Street Between Existing Recommended Existing Recommended Existing Recommended 121st Walnut & Scholls DY DY - SW Ferry NPY 135th Walnut & Scholls DY DY - SW Ferry Type of Marking Code Color Code Dashed - - - - - D Solid S White W Double Solid DS Yellow Y Double Dashed = _ _ _ = DD No Passing NP Note: All lines should be 4-6" wide *Recommendations are based on the manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 1971. **Omit edge line if curbs are used; the Oregon Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (OMUTCD) recommends a pavement width of 26 feet before edge lines are to be used. 1. No pavement markings due to pavement overlay between 76th and I-5. 2. No pavement markings due to pavement overlay. 3. No pavement markings due to pavement overlay from 95th to 99W. 4. No pavement markings due to pavement overlay from Meadow St. to Walnut. 5. No pavement markings due to pavement overlay from Katherine St. just east of Tiedeman. 6. No pavement markings due to pavement overlay from Bonita to Boones Ferry. N O The traffic counts obtained by the city were taken over a three-day period and were then averaged for a 24-hour period to obtain an average week/day count. Counts were obtained during midweek to eliminate atypical volumes found on weekends, Mondays, and Fridays. The city' s established count program was updated to include count stations throughout the study area. In all , 231 counts were obtained in the study area. Traffic volumes on various sections of Tigard' s street network range from 40,000 vehicles a day to a few hundred. Street sections with the highest daily volumes include: 1. Pacific Highway (99W) - 20,000 to 40,000 2. Scholls Ferry Road - 13,000 3. Greenburg Road - 7,000 to 15,000 4. Main Street - 10,600 5. Hall - 5,100 to 10,200 6. Durham Road - 3,000 to 7,800 7. 72nd - 2,500 to 7,300 TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS Accident data from the Tigard Police Department, Washington County, and the Oregon Department of Transportation were collected for the years 1976, 1977, and 1978. A summary of the information collected from the Tigard Police Department is shown in Table 3.6 by year and is broken down by severity of accident. Over the last three years, the number of accidents „ on the Tigard street system has increased 46 percent, with nearly 1,200 accidents having occurred during the three-year period. The economic loss from all accidents over this three-year period is estimated at $3,018,067*. Accidents are generally evaluated separately as either those which occur at intersections or those which occur at non-intersections (or street sections) . In Tigard's case, since 54 percent of all accidents occurring r during the three-year study period were on 99W, accidents were also separated out between those that occurred on 99W (Table 3.7 and Table 3.8) and those that occurred on other Tigard street sections (Table 3.9 and Table 3.10) . Roughly 55 percent of all accidents were intersection accidents, 38 percent were non-intersection accidents, and 7 percent occurred off-street. " Looking at 99W and other Tigard city street accidents separately, it can be seen that during the three-year study period, 70 percent of the accidents on 99W were intersection accidents while '0 percent were on street sections. Of the accidents on the Tigard street system, 37 percent occurred at inter- sections, 48 percent occurred on street sections, and 15 percent occurred off-street. �w *Estimates are from information obtained from the Oregon Traffic Safety Commission, September, 1978. 21 wr TABLE 3.6. CITY OF TIGARD - ACCIDENT SUMMARY BY SEVERITY Wr Year/ 1976 1977 1978 TOTAL Severity Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Fatal 1 .3 1 .3 3 .6 5 .4 rr Injury 93 27.7 113 30.6 120 24.4 326 27.2 Property Damage 242 72.0 255 69.1 369 75 866 72.4 TOTAL 336 100 369 100 492 100 1197 100 err r 22 TABLE 3.7 SUMMARY 99W NON-INTERSECTION ACCIDENTS From To 1976 1977 1978 TOTAL 65th 69th 6 2 7 15 69th Villa Ridgeway(N) 6 5 5 16 Villa Ridgeway(N) Villa Ridgeway(S) 5 8 5 18 rr Villa Ridgeway(S) Highway 217 8 12 21 41 Highway 217 Hall Boulevard 5 8 7 20 +rw Hall Boulevard Greenburg Road 4 3 5 12 Greenburg Road Main(S) 4 4 5 13 Main(S) Walnut 7 7 7 21 Walnut McDonald 5 12 10 27 yrr McDonald Canterbury 2 1 1 4 Canterbury Naeve -- -- 6 6 Subtotal 52 62 79 193 Other 4 1 0 5 TOTAL 56 63 79 198 rwr wr �w 23 Wir W TABLE 3.8 SUMMARY 99W INTERSECTION ACCIDENTS rr 1976 1977 1978 TOTAL im S.W. 69th Avenue 6 2 8 16 S.W. Villa Ridge (N)(S) 6 6 14 26 S.W. 71st Avenue 7 4 8 19 Fred Meyer' s 11 13 8 32 Family Drive-In 19 7 10 36 S.W. Pfaffle 13 5 5 23 Highway 217 16 22 13 51 S.W. Garden Place 0 3 1 4 S.W. Warner 0 1 7 8 S.W. Hall Boulevard 24 12 9 45 S.W. 87th Avenue 0 1 2 3 S.W. Greenburg-S.W. Main 14 12 13 39 S.W. Johnson-S.W. Main 5 8 6 19 S.W. McKenzie 3 8 3 14 S.W. Walnut 12 6 6 24 S.W. Frewing 2 0 4 6 S.W. Garrett 3 2 2 7 S.W. School 0 2 1 3 S.W. Park 0 1 1 2 S.W. Watkins 0 1 2 3 rr S.W. McDonald 4 2 10 16 S.W. Gaarde 3 3 8 14 S.W. Canterbury 3 1 2 6 S.W. Bull Mountain 2 6 3 11 S.W. Beef Bend Road 0 0 3 3 S.W. Royal Parkway 0 0 1 1 S.W. Durham 0 0 1 1 65th 0 1 2 3 79th 1 1 1 3 Coronado 1 1 9 11 Subtotal 155 131 163 449 Other 0 0 4 4 TOTAL 155 131 167 453 err ,,, 24 iWr TABLE 3.9 SUMMARY: TIGARD NON-INTERSECTION ACCIDENTS Street 1976 1977 1978 TOTAL McDonald 3 2 3 8 Tiedeman 2 1 4 7 Gaarde 2 0 3 5 Upper Boones 2 1 5 8 Main 4 7 7 18 Commercial 0 3 5 8 Hall 9 12 20 41 Walnut 1 4 6 11 Pfaffle 2 0 1 3 Grant 0 2 3 5 iwr Greenburg 2 7 9 18 Bonita 2 3 3 8 Burnham 1 2 5 8 Tigard 1 2 5 8 72nd 3 8 6 17 Hunziker 1 1 7 9 Durham 3 1 3 7 Villa Ridge 2 0 2 4 92nd 0 0 1 1 Murdock 0 0 3 3 Subtotal 45 88 132 265 Other 5 32 31 68 Off-Street 22 23 36 81 TOTAL 67 111 168 346 +fir 25 �r w TABLE 3. 10. SUMMARY: TIGARD INTERSECTION ACCIDENTS Intersection 1976 1977 1978 TOTAL Alderbrook Dr. Alderbrook Ter. 0 0 1 1 Ash Ave. Ash Dr. 1 0 0 1 Bonita Fanno Cr. Bridge 1 0 0 1 +► Bonita Hall Blvd. 2 0 2 4 Bonita 76th Ave. 2 0 1 3 Bonita 79th Ave. 0 1 0 1 Beef Bend Rd. Frontage Rd. 0 0 1 1 Bull Mountain Rd. Frontage Rd. 1 5 6 12 Burnham St. Main St. 0 2 3 5 Burnham St. Hall Blvd. 1 4 1 6 Commercial St. Hall Blvd. 1 2 1 4 Commercial St. Lincoln 1 1 0 2 Dakota St. 99th 0 0 1 1 wr Dakota St. 115th 0 0 2 2 Durham Rd. Alderbrook 0 1 1 2 Durham Rd. Douglas 0 0 1 1 Durham Rd. Upper Boones 0 0 1 1 Durham Rd. 74th 0 1 0 1 Durham Rd. 88th 0 0 1 1 Durham Rd. 92nd 2 1 2 5 Durham Rd. 108th 0 0 1 1 Gaarde St. 110th 0 0 1 1 Gaarde St. 112th 3 1 1 5 40 Grant St. Johnson St. 0 1 0 1 Grant St. McKenzie St. 1 0 0 1 Grant St. Tigard St. 1 2 0 3 ow Grant St. Walnut St. 2 5 2 9 Greenburg Rd. Center 1 2 0 3 Greenburg Rd. Lincoln 1 0 1 2 Greenburg Rd. 90th 1 1 0 2 wo Greenburg Rd. 91st 2 0 1 3 Greenburg Rd. 95th 0 2 2 4 Greenburg Rd. 97th 0 0 1 1 ;i„ Hall Blvd. Knoll 2 0 0 2 Hall Blvd. Hunziker 1 3 0 4 Hall Blvd. McDonald 0 0 1 1 Hall Blvd. O'Mara 0 1 0 1 Hall Blvd. Safeway 0 0 1 1 Hall Blvd. Sattler 0 1 0 1 Hall Blvd. Scoffins 0 0 1 1 ON Hall Blvd. Tigard Plaza 0 0 1 1 Hampton 69th 2 0 0 2 Hunziker 72nd Ave. 1 0 3 4 go Table continued on followinq page +r 2G wr Intersection 1976 1977 1978 TOTAL Main Commercial St. 0 0 3 3 Main Electric St. 0 0 1 1 Main Fanno Cr. Bridge 1 0 0 1 Main Scoffins 0 1 0 1 Main Tigard St. 2 1 1 4 McDonald St. Driftwood 0 0 1 1 McDonald St. Hall Blvd. 0 1 1 2 McDonald St. 103rd 0 1 0 1 Pfaffle St. 79th 0 0 1 1 Pfaffle St. 82nd 0 0 1 1 Tiedeman Ave. Meadow 2 0 0 2 Tiedeman Ave. Walnut 1 1 1 3 Villa Ridge Tigard 0 1 0 1 Walnut St. Brookside-Watkins 0 1 0 1 Walnut St. Watkins 1 2 1 4 Walnut St. 124th Ave. 0 1 1 2 Walnut St. 126th Ave. 0 1 0 1 Walnut St. 128th Ave. 0 1 1 2 72nd Baylor St. 1 0 0 1 72nd Bonita Rd. 0 1 1 2 72nd Cherry 4 2 0 6 72nd Hampton 2 0 2 4 72nd Upper Boones 2 0 1 3 72nd Varns 1 0 0 1 72nd Villa Ridge 1 0 0 1 itrr 72nd Highway 217 0 0 2 2 92nd Cook Park 0 1 0 1 98th Summerfield Dr. 0 2 1 3 it 121st Burlheights 0 0 2 2 121st Dakota St. 0 0 1 1 121st Summer Crest Dr. 1 0 0 1 121st 122nd Ave. 0 0 0 1 Subtotal 49 55 66 170 Other 9 9 16 34 TOTAL 58 64 32 204 Y� ow r 27 kw ift iw SPEED CONTROL Speed control is one means of regulating the rate of flow of traffic through its and within the city in the most efficient and safest manner possible. The speed limit sign is the most widely used method of speed control . Within the City of Tigard, there are 162 speed control signs which cover speed limits from 15 mph to 45 mph (see Table 3.11) . r TABLE 3.11. CITY OF TIGARD POSTED SPEED SIGNS Speed Limit No. of Signs 15 mph 3 20 mph 19 25 mph 52 30 mph 18 35 mph 20 40 mph 30 45 mph 20 TOTAL 162 In the State of Oregon, speed limits are established by law (ORS 487.470/ 1977) as follows: 1. 15 mph when driving in an alley 2. 20 mph near school grounds or business districts 3. 25 mph in residential areas or public parks 4. 55 mph in all other areas unless designated otherwise A special review body, the Oregon State Speed Control Board (OSSCB) , has been given authority over the investigation and establishment of speeds which do not conform with state law. In effect, this gives the OSSCB authority +� over the establishment of speed limits between and including 30 and 50 mph. A jurisdiction may request investigation of a speed limit by the OSSCB. Once a traffic engineering study has been conducted by the OSSCB and a change in the existing speed limit is found to be warranted, the OSSCB serves notice to the proper jurisdictions, and the change becomes law within 30 days if there are no objections. err The speed limits, as posted, are shown in Figure 3.4 by street section. In its own determination of speed limits, the OSSCB takes the following into consideration: im L 3 iw �r.rr allow Now �r M�� Irrr logo" %OWN low" NAM" MON/ MONO "OEM Orr •ong rrmt WNW ON" WNW TiVICINITY s. 4,7 m« w ,. k, a M its, LEGEND Figure 3.4 POSTED SPEED LIMITS Tigard Transportation Study --�—� 20 mph — 25 mph --- 30 mph 35 mph 40 mph 45 mph •--- 55 mph lir 1. The 85th percentile speed 2. Traffic volume 3. Accident rate r. 4. Horizontal and vertical alignment 5. Roadway design Speed limits, as officially established by the OSSCB, are shown in Table 3.12. As can be seen from the section at the end of the table, there are sections of six roadways in the study area which are in conflict with speed limits as established by the OSSCB. A travel time and delay study was conducted on the following streets: 1. 99W 2. Greenburg 3. Walnut/135th 4. Bull Mountain 5. Durham 6. Bonita/McDonald 7. 72nd 8. Scholls Ferry 9. Hall Boulevard The "test car" method was used and travel time checks were taken at pre- determined points along each route. Delays and stops were noted as to duration and cause. Runs were made both in the peak hour and off-peak hours in both directions. The results of this survey are shown in Figure 3.5. Travel time in the p.m. peak hour are shown in one-minute intervals from 99W. The mean p.m. peak hour outbound speed is also shown for each route. The travel time on 99W in the p.m. peak hour southbound direction is shown in half-minute increments. There was virtually little notable difference in peak hour travel time by direction or between peak hour and off-peak hours on all routes except along 99W. ILLUMINATION Proper street lighting has been found to be one of the most effective means w of reducing night-time accidents. The following roadway sections are recommended to be well lighted: �r 1. Intersections and interchanges 2. Curves and hills 3. Underpasses and overpasses 4. Converging/diverging traffic lanes 5. Railroad crossings w to 30 No TABLE 3. 12. DESIGNATED SPEED ZONES ESTABLISHED BY OREGON STATE SPEED CONTROL BOARD (AS OF JULY 5, 1979) Street Between Designated Speed Resolution No. Bonita Hall & Co. line at Pacific 35 1830 Hwy. ( I-5) lit Boones Ferry Durham & 150 ft. south of 45 May 26, 1961 (upper) Southern Pacific Railroad crossing Dakota Tiedeman & 115th Avenue 40 1753 Durham Pacific Hwy. 99W & Hall 40 1832 (100 ft. W of 92nd Avenue (20 mph (1832) to 500 ft. W of Hall ) School Crossing) Hall & Boones Ferry (upper) 45 May 26, 1961 (450 ft. E of Hall to (20 mph (May 26, 1961) 150 ft. E of 79th Avenue) School Crossing) Gaarde Pacific Hwy. 99W & 121st Ave. 40 630 Greenburg Rd. Hall & 79th Avenue 40 1704 Hall Scholls Ferry & 100 ft. 40 3235 N of Pfaffle 100 ft. N of Pfaffle 30 3235 450 ft. S of Burnham (400 ft. N of Locust St. (20 mph 3235 to 450 ft. S of Locust St. ) School Crossing) 450 ft. S of Burnham to 45 3235 .2 miles N of S.W. Findley McDonald Pacific Hwy. 99W & Hall 35 632 Pfaffle 400 ft. E of 217 & 99W 35 2403 Walnut Pacific Hwy. 99W & 800 ft. 30 2518 W of Tiedeman ( includes jog on Tiedeman) 800 ft. W of Tiedeman & 40 2518 150 ft. W of 128th (50 ft. W of Tiedeman & (20 mph (2518) to 400 ft. W of Tiedeman) School Crossing) W Table continued on following page 31 lr� Street Between Designated Speed Resolution No. State Hwy. Multnomah/Washington 40 3014 99W County line & 200 ft. S of Bull Mtn. Rd. (150 ft. N of Johnson & (20 mph (3014) 150 ft. N of McKenzie) School Crossing) (200 ft. N of Garrett & (20 mph (3014) 50 ft. N of School St.) School Crossing) 200 ft. S of Bull Mtn. 45 3014 Rd. & Durham Rd. 72nd Villa Ridge Rd. & .19 miles 30 3081 N of Bonita Rd. .19 miles N of Bonita & 40 3081 250 ft. S of Findlay Rd. 1 69 (Hampton St. to Beveland St.) (20 mph (3081) School Crossing) 92nd Avenue Durham & 0.51 mile S of 35 1852 iftDurham (Cook Park) Durham & 0.28 mile S of (20 mph (1852) Durham School Crossing) 121st Avenue Scholls Ferry Ferry Rd. & 45 1596 Dakota Dakota & Gaarde 35 1596 137th Avenue Beef Bend & Watson 40 1805 State Hwy. 0.10 mile W of county 45 1884 99W line & Pfaffle Pfaffle & 400 ft. N of Watkins 40 1884 w (100 ft. N of Johnson & (20 mph (1884) 100 ft. N of McKenzie) School Crossing) (50 ft. N of Frewing & (20 mph (1884) 50 ft. N of School St.) School Crossing) 400 ft. N of Watkins & 45 1884 50 ft. S of Gaarde im 50 ft. S of Gaarde & 50 1884 200 ft. S of Bull Mtn. Table continued on following page 32 iwt in Street Between Designated Speed Resolution No. State Hwy. Scholls Ferry & 0.25 mile 50 536 ba 217 S of Greenburg Rd. 0.25 mile S of Greenburg Rd.& 65 536 m 0.24 mile S of 72nd Avenue 0.24 mile S of 72nd Avenue & 50 536 im county line at I-5 80th Avenue Oleson & Locust 40 1659 im 92nd Avenue Durham & 0.51 mile S of 35 1852 Durham (Cook Park) im Durham & 0.28 mile S of Durham (20 mph (1852) School Crossing) 121st Avenue Scholls Ferry Rd. & Dakota 45 1596 Dakota & Gaarde 35 1596 137th Avenue Beef Bend & Watson 40 1805 POSTED ZONES - WITH NO RECORD OF APPROVAL BY OREGON STATE SPEED CONTROL BOARD Designated Speed Street Between Posted Legal Resolution No. Bull Mtn. Pacific Hwy. 99W & Beef Bend 40 - Greenburg 97th Avenue & Pacific Hwy. 99W 30 - Hunziker Hall & 72nd 30 - 135th Walnut & Scholls Ferry 40 - im Dakota Tiedeman & 115th 35 40 1753 Gaarde 99W & 121st 35 40 630 Greenburg Dakota & 97th Avenue 30 40 1704 im im 33 im iYr.r. 1�i�r Wer.. W.rrr rise ftw m.orr umwm a." wmww WOMEN Wyk •wwo oI w 0r50 ■-00 3 PN 4 .:.. ... ... .5 ?'0y 20 3A 4.0 a5 .. 35.7 MPH o: a s0 30.0 MPH . r 50 .' .. r ..; .•U_ ". . :.; MPH �::r. ,. 3&6 MPH • .r , J q :... • .L.l , - 34.7 MPH "96.5 MPH .` -.75 7 Minute 3Minutes - 2Minutes 3 Minutes 2Minutes 4Minutes 1Minute 4 Minutes LEGEND Figure 3.5 SPEED AND TRAVEL TIME Tigard Transportation Study -- Average Travel Speed (miles per hour) Time Contours from 99W (minutes) Travel Time on 99W South (minutes) Portland General Electric (PGE) provides illumination for the study area' s street network. PGE is responsible for the maintenance and installation of the lighting system. The city now requires that in all new subdivisions the developer pay for the purchase of street lights, their installation, and their operation for two full years. The standards which the city has established for street lights in general is that they require 7,000 lumen lights in neighborhoods and 21,000 lumen lights on major roads and in commercial areas. In a few spots, they do have 47,000 and 48,000 lumen lights. The areas which are covered by the larger (21,000 i lumen) lights include: . Main . 99W . Commercial . Hall . Hunziker . Greenburg . 72nd r Those areas which have street lighting are shown in Figure 3.6. Those major roadways which have inadequate or no street lights include: . 135th . 121st . Walnut . Gaarde . Bull Mountain . Durham . 100th rr . 97th . 98th . 72nd south of Bonita . Hampton . Pfaffle . Bonita . Murdock . McDonald . O'Mara . Dakota . Tigard . Tiedeman The Illuminating Engineers Society of North America ( IES) has recommended illumination levels for roadways and pedestrian ways.* These recommended standards are shown in Table 3.13 for roadways by functional classification for commercial , urban, and residential areas. Table 3.14 shows the recom- mendations for the illumination of bicycle and pedestrian ways. *American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting, Illuminating Engineers of North America, July 1977. 35 lr NIO! ins Irn rr.r. MONO KNOWN soma MOWN llrNIO MONO *Now Mrr rrr a •rlt some rrai N=wd r..rrll ,± � .....: d L,F r rM gg 'fes^ �,�g t pt` 7 r' k. f E Is v , o r 5 per, -r y r `i -k - g e , , rF n t x „ : it LEGEND Figure 3.6 STREET LIGHTING Areas Having Street Lighting Tigard Transportation Study w TABLE 3.13. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ROADWAY AVERAGE MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL ILLUMINATION Urban im Commercial Intermediate Residential Classification Footcandle Lux Footcandle Lux Footcandle Lux Freeway 0.6 6 0.6 6 0.6 6 Expressway 1.4 15 1.2 13 1.0 11 Arterial 2.0 22 1.4 15 1.0 11 Collector 1.2 13 0.9 10 0.6 6 Local 0.9 10 0.6 6 0.4 4 Alleys 0.6 6 0.4 4 0.4 4 TABLE 3.14. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AVERAGE MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL ILLUMINATION FOR PEDESTRIAN WAYS Average Levels for Special Pedestrian Security Mounting Heig is Mounting Heights Minimum 9 to 15 feet 15 to 30 feet Walkway and Bikeway Average Levels (3 to 5 meters) (5 to 10 meters) Classification Footcandles Lux Footcandle Lux Footcandle Lux Sidewalks (roadside) and bikeways (road- side) Commercial areas 0.9 10 2.0 22 4.0 43 Intermediate areas 0.6 6 1.0 11 2.0 22 Residential areas 0.2 2 0.4 4 0.8 9 raw Walkways & bikeways distant from road- ways Park walkways and bikeways 0.5 5 0.6 6 1.0 11 Pedestrian tunnels 4.0 43 5.0 54 - - Pedestrian overpasses 0.3 3 0.4 4 - - Pedestrian stairways 0.6 6 0.8 9 - - �w �"' 37 PARKING Outside of the central commercial area, on-street parking is allowed on all streets except those so designated in Figure 3.7. Within the central business district, there is a two-hour time limit for on-street parking along Main Street. There is no metered parking within the study area, either on street it or off street. No parking is enforced on those streets which carry a high volume of traffic and have inadequate street width to handle both moving and stationary w vehicles. ift r. im rr r 3U wrrr.rr Ir..rr Now"* V ANN" *MONO OWM10 lwMM wwwo awwo 600" RUN" MWOM aftow WON slot! NOWM0 3i � r r b ... • N N " { LEGEND Figure 3.7 PARKING RESTRICTIONS Tigard Transportation Study -- Limited Parking ------ No Parking Anytime -7 W Taws, �0 AW! VMQ M No'm 'K,'0- '5i AN,; �A- jWt N MM Q"M r"m go Af OM' 1,-411 "'OMMAn CHAPTER 4 TRANSIT This chapter covers both public bus service as well as rail service within the Tigard study area. Although both rail and bus service are provided by independent agencies of the city, this study will address recommendations as to improvements which will enhance transportation safety in the Tigard area. BUS SERVICE + + The Tigard area is serviced by six bus routes owned and operated by the Tri-County Metropolitan Transit District (Tri-Met) as shown in Figure 4.1. Transit service is provided weekdays from 5:30 a.m. to midnight. The W time between buses (headway) varies from 15 minutes during the peak hour to 50 minutes during the off-peak hours. Of the six bus routes, two (89 and 38) provide service only during the peak hours on weekdays. All routes, tr. except 77, connect with the Portland Transit Mall in downtown Portland. There are two park' n' ride locations within the City of Tigard as shown in Figure 4.1. io RAIL SERVICE ON The Southern Pacific and Burlington Northern railroad companies own and operate trackage within the Tigard study area. The Burlington Northern operates two to four trains through the area daily between 7:00 p.m. and ` 5:00 a.m. Train activity depends on customer demand, as there is no regularly scheduled service. im Southern Pacific has a northbound train passing through the area at 9:00 a.m. and returning southbound between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. three days of the week. There is another train northbound at 9:00 a.m. which returns southbound the other three days of the week between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. In addition to this service, there are also switching operations on each of the lines. The Southern Pacific has 11 railroad crossings in the study area and the Burlington Northern has 6. Of the 17 locations gates are located at all but 6. A summary of these rail crossings and crossing protection by location is provided in Table 4.1 . w Irr rr 40 �r ln.r waft bwwon" rr..r boom own" mm" err Now" "Mm om �rrrr n G(iY of T;GAPD TM z: TIGARD I11CINI T m El w e S ty .. h J - Park and Ride -zil ------- - Park and Ride s. 1 93 1 E3 k r LEGEND Figure 4.1 TRI-MET BUS ROUTES AND PARK AND RIDE LOCATIONS Tigard Transportation Study O Park and Ride im io Table 4.1 also shows accidents at each crossing, both in terms of the number which have occurred during the last eight years and a projection of the number expected to occur over the next five years. The Oregon Public Utility Commission has projected rail/auto accidents over the next five years based on the Jaqua formula. These projections are based on rail activity, traffic volumes, crossing control , and other physical characteristics of the crossing. Over the past eight years, there have been 19 accidents between rail and motor vehicles in the study area. There are projected to be 11 accidents over the next five years. The majority of the projected accidents (80 percent) are expected to occur at crossings which do not have gates. The Oregon Public Utility Commission is responsible for the placement of railroad crossing guards. Currently, it is investigating those crossing locations in the study area which do not have gates. 42 Irr TABLE 4. 1. TIGARD AREA RAILROAD CROSSING INVENTORY r�r Accidents** Crossing Protection/Year Accidents Projected No. Location Jurisdiction Installed (70-78) (Jagua Formula) FD-752.6 Scholls Ferry ODOT 9/71 Gates, AWS 0 .11 *FD-751.9 N. Dakota Washington 9/71 X bucks, AWS 3 1.74 *FD-751.8 Tiedeman Washington 6/73 X bucks 1 2.62 FD-751.1 Main Tigard 10/72 Gates 0 .12 *FD-750.8 Hall (Hwy. 217) ODOT 9/71 AWS, fl . light 1 1.34 FD-750.7C Hunziker Tigard 9/71 Gates 0 .02 FD-749.7 Bonita Washington 10/77 Gates 4 .62 FD-749.3C 72nd Washington 1/65 Gates 0 .20 FD-749.2 72nd Washington 2/67 Gates 0 .19 FD-749.0 U. Boones Ferry Washington 11/75 Gates 0 .11 W. P-762.4 S.W. Boones Ferry OSH 217 ODOT Gates, AWS 0 .04 ift *3E-31.4 Tiedeman Washington X bucks 2 2.11 3E-32.2 Main Tigard 3/78 Gates 0 .08 *3E-32.5 Hall ODOT AWS, fl . light 3 .74 go 3E-33.5 Bonita Washington 3/78 Gates 5 .07 3E-34.3 Fanno Closed January 6, 1977 3E-34.4 Durham ODOT AWS, fl . light 0 .86 TOTAL 19 10.97 AWS: Advance Warning Signal *Currently programmed for grade improvement consideration by OPUC. **Number of accidents projected to occur at each crossing over a five-year period. 43 kC`hapter 5 titi.� irr W, CHAPTER 5 PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE Although auto and transit are the major modes of transportation, walking is one mode used considerably for short trips, and bicycle is a mode used rw primarily for recreational trips. Presently, there is little more than 30 miles of sidewalk and/or bike paths in Tigard. Most of these paths or sidewalks are in new subdivisions and in the vicinity of schools. r Figure 5.1 shows the location of all bike paths and sidewalks within the study area. As a part of the data collection for this section, all pedestrian cross- walks were inventoried. Figure 5.2 shows all marked pedestrian crosswalks, as well as those signals which have pedestrian indicators and crosswalks. Of the 15 traffic signals within the study area, all but four have pedes- trian indications. A summary of pedestrian and bicycle accidents over the last three years is shown in Table 5.1. There have been 24 reported accidents over the past three years. There has been a noticeable increase in pedestrian accidents over that time period. The location of each of these accidents is shown in Figure 5.2. w TABLE 5.1. SUMMARY OF PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE ACCIDENTS r Year/Accidents Pedestrian Bicycle Total 1976 3 3 6 1977 4 5 9 1978 6* 3 9 TOTAL 13 11 24 err *Two were fatal . Of all pedestrian accidents over the last three years, 40 percent have err occurred on 99W. There also appears to be a rather high incidence of pedestrian accidents in the vicinity of the school administration building on 99W and Walnut. Bicycle accidents, on the other hand, are fairly well ow scattered throughout the study area. No 60 144 torr ...r wrl... I... 6~ wr.r W..r ft-W UMW 6.00 ".0 r..a MMW M.W t...n/ ?aa e, N ,. ..Metzger ._. Elementary Woodward Elementary tt ' -'Fowler Jr.High Q» Phil Lewis St.Anthony .Chas.F Tigard "4 r., , Elementary Elementary., ij , t x v r a• .,. _ Twality Jr.High . ... x i y , „JamesTempleton- - Elementary r + �� 'E 1 �'• ,f s -- _. � Elementary . ) Tigard High it 4' LEGEND Figure 5.1 SIDEWALKS AND BIKE PATHS AND SCHOOL LOCATIONS Tigard Transportation Study School Concrete Sidewalk -- Asphalt Path - Gravel Il�rrrr bmw b� %slo r iilrr.n l 1 umm ftne 111 rrwo low" UNNU l` So" rrMIN ONOW on" =wood Mona .r.rri a. Y, a r { t ti ..:- .. Metzger z Elementary r.p. Fatalb. r r l;a: WoodwardTf Elementary ,'Tr '+ '"'• I`� Fowler Jr.High St.Anthony Elementary � - i, ,• ��a"fe Phil Lewis " Elementary Fatal Chas.F.Tigard Elementary•.: ° 4'. yb y ffi}v tom. • � i f `. r ... '41 *P� Twality Jr High. a: VA;, j James Templeton '•" Elementary t „ 0 s a Tigard High Durham Elementary 8 < J' LEGEND Figure 5.2 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCIDENTS (1976-78) Tigard Transportation Study • Bicycle Accidents Pedestrian Accidents — Cross Walks 0 Schools "ha n g c ' Services CHAPTFR 6 EMERGENCY SERVICES This chapter contains an inventory of emergency services as provided in the Tigard area. It primarily concentrates on the provision of fire protection services. The Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District has two stations located within the Tigard study area (Figure 6.1) ; one in King City off of 99W near the Tualatin River and the other in downtown Tigard on Commercial Street. Both stations have fire equipment, but neither currently has any ambulance or rescue vehicles. The fire district responded to approximately 2,400 calls in 1978 and expects to respond to approximately 3,000 in 1979. It is estimated that roughly 80 fr percent of the responses are from the King City and Tigard fire stations. The major emergency routes within the study area are shown in Figure 6.1. The Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District has adopted design standards for roadways which allow their vehicles the access necessary to provide fire protection within their service district. These standards include minimum street widths, turning radii , curb radii , and slope. These stan- dards are shown in Table 6.1 following: TABLE 6.1. RECOMMENDED STREET DESIGN STANDARDS— TUALATIN RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Standard Minimum/Maximum Roadway Width 20 Feet Slope 15 Percent Turn Radius 45 Feet In addition, design standards have been adopted for cul-de-sac streets which are greater than 200 feet in length. The minimum radius for a cul-de-sac turnaround is 42 feet when it has no curb parking allowed and 50 feet if curb parking is allowed. The maximum length recommended for a street ending in a cul-de-sac is 600 feet, and the minimum width for the street accessing the cul-de-sac is 24 feet. For residential streets, it is suggested that a minimum pavement width of 32 feet be used when parking is allowed on both sides, 28 feet if parking is allowed on one side only, and 24 feet if no parking is allowed on either side. i" The minimum curb radius recommended from a street which is 32 feet wide onto a street which is 24 feet wide is 28 feet. 47 r..rr r.r iwr.r. irr.r irrrri ir.�r 1r... wr�•rr boom ri..rr rr.r.r "Now n.rrt MONO r.ow rr.rirli rail PITY of TIGARD T'IGAR© 8 VICINI TTY s i , �Z, Tigard Fire j. ai� ��i Station . r 4 _ � P � t I .. .._ i t._ r i( . F � t ik Y C � i T r t� } , f, „w �i C� i {, M1 3 King City Fire Station . Figure 6.1 MAJOR FIRE PROTECTION ROUTES AND STATION LOCATIONS Tigard Transportation Study CHAPTER 7 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION The analysis and identification of transportation problems is divided into four different sections in this chapter. Each section identifies and discusses problems separately for: streets, transit, pedestrians and bicycles, and emergency services. 10 STREETS aw Three criteria were used to identify problem areas on the Tigard street system: congestion, accidents, and roadside hazards. 6' Congestion Congestion, as defined for the purposes of this study, is considered to 60 be: 1. A signalized intersection which operates at a level of service is "D" or worse. 2. An unsignalized intersection which meets signal warrants as ift specified by the MUTCD. 3. A section of roadway which exceeds 1,200 vehicles per hour during the peak hour. on The Highway Capacity Manual* defines six levels of service based on roadway operating conditions as defined in Table 7.1. At a level of service "D" and below, traffic flow begins to become unstable, and congestion is assumed to prevail . err err 61 *Highway Capacity Manual , Highway Research Board Special Report 87, 1965. 49 3rr TABLE 7.1. ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE, DEFINED Level of Service Operating Conditions A Free flow, low volume, high-operating speed, high maneuverability. B Stable flow, moderate volume; speed somewhat restricted by traffic conditions, high maneuverability. 4 C Stable flow, high volume; speed and maneuverability determined by traffic conditions. D Unstable flow, high volumes, tolerable but fluctuating operating speed and maneuverability. E Unstable flow, high volumes approaching roadway capacity, limited speed 030 mph) , intermittent vehicle queuing. F Forced flow, volumes lower than capacity due to very low speeds. Heavy queuing of vehicles, frequent stoppages. In the determination of these levels of service, it is assumed that the intersection is the most restrictive point on a roadway and, therefore, capacity for a street section is a function for the capacity of the inter- section. The computations of intersection capacity are based on such parameters as intersection width, signal phasing, truck and bus movements, etc. Once the capacity of a roadway is computed, it is compared with the actual vehicular volumes to determine if the volumes (V) exceed the roadway capacity (C) (i .e. V/C is greater than one. ) A technique similar to one developed by McInerey and Petersen*, called "critical movement summation" was used in this study to simplify this procedure. This technique is called "critical lane analysis." Instead of actually calculating intersection capacity, this technique is used to calculate a critical intersection volume and compare that volume against a bench mark intersection capacity that is stratified by level of service. The critical intersection volume is computed in terms of intersection lane vehicles per hour ( ILV/hr) . Table 7.2 relates critical lane volumes with the different levels of service. *McInerney, H. , and Petersen, S. , "Intersection Capacity Measurement Through Critical Movement Summations: A Planning Tool ." Traffic Engineering, January, 1971 . 50 �w �r TABLE 7.2. ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE, TRAFFIC VOLUMES Traffic Volume ( ILV/hr.) Level of Service 0-900 A 901-1050 B ' 1051-1200 C 1201-1350 D 1351-1500 E 1500- F An example of this technique is shown in Figure 7.1 for the intersection of Greenburg and 99W. Five signalized intersections, all on 99W, were analyzed. The results are shown in Table 7.3. As can be seen from this table, three of the intersections, 99W/Hall , 99W/Johnson and 99W/Greenburg, operate at a level of service D and, therefore, experience some congestion. wr TABLE 7.3. CAPACITY ANALYSIS Traffic Volume Intersection ( ILV/hr.) Level of Service w 99W/Johnson 1215 D 99W/Hall 1335 D irr 99W/Greenburg 1140 D 99W/217 south- bound off ramp 1030 B 99W/Bull Mtn. 1050 B/C im The second criterion used in the identification of congestion problems was the determination of those intersections which meet signal warrants as established by the MUTCD. The MUTCD has established a set of eight criteria or warrants, one or more of which must be met before a signal may be installed at an intersection. Fourteen intersections were investigated as shown in Table 7.4. Of the 14 investigated, 9 were found to meet one or more signal warrants and include: wr r" 51 STRAAM vw Engineers, Inc. Figure 7.1 go Capacity Analysis Signalized Intersection to INTERSECTION Q9W / C1ZeS1,16UQA, BY DATE An.tt1- 14$ GDUWT it TIME AMS) 1w DIAGRAM AND TRAFFIC FLOWS low- GR.EE�•1�v1U� t � INDICATE o ' �� NORTH II4 2,10 i111rI1 L, .JE VOLUMES (ILV/hr.) PHASE A PHASE B PHASE C PHASE D to r_..je ow ✓� 60 CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES (ILV/hr.) PHASE A PHASE B PHASE C PHASE D TOTAL OPERATING LEVEL (ILV/hr.) is ❑<1200 ILV/hr. -1200 but <1500 ILV/hr. Z 3 0>1500 ILV/hr. (CAPACITY) REMARKS 903119-2C ' 99W/69th 99W/Pfaffle 99W/217 northbound off ramp 99W/Wal nut 99W/Park 99W/Beef Bend Hall/Hunziker Greenburg/Tiedeman Scholls Ferry/121st im Six of these intersections are scheduled for signalization during the fall of 1979, as a part of the 99/W TSM improvements being done by ODOT. A seventh signal is scheduled to be placed at 121st and Scholls Ferry. The final criterion was the determination of sections of unsignalized two- lane roadways, other than 99W, which exceed 1,200 vehicles per hour (vph) during the peak hour. There was no two-lane roadway found to exceed this critical peak/hour volume. Scholls Ferry Road, near 135th, was found to have 1,188 vph and was the highest peak/hour volume count found on any two-lane local road in the Tigard study area. Accidents r . The major emphasis in the analysis of traffic accidents is the determina- tion of cause, whether it be natural or man-made. During the analysis, therefore, it is of utmost importance to eliminate those accidents which are most likely to have occurred by chance. A statistical evaluation method was used in this study which eliminated r accident locations which had a high probability of having happened by chance and thereby aided in the identification of those with cause. Under this technique, a critical accident rate was computed which had a 90 percent probability of having not occurred by chance. Accident rates below this critical rate were eliminated and those in excess of the critical rate were retained for further analysis. 1! ' " Accidents were inventoried by location for the year 1978 and separated between those that occurred at the intersection of two streets and those that occurred mid-block or along street sections. The accident rate for each intersection was computed on the basis of the number of accidents which occurred per million vehicle miles entering the intersection (Accidents/MEV) . The accident rate for street sections was computed on the basis of the number of accidents which occurred per million vehicle miles of travel (Accidents/MVM) on the street section. Accident rates (as opposed to raw frequency) are considered a more significant means of identifying and comparing degree of accident hazard, because they take into consideration exposure which absolute frequency does not (i .e. , one would naturally assume that a location having more traffic would experience more accidents) . 53 wr err TABLE 7.4. INTERSECTIONS APPROACHING OR MEETING SIGNAL WARRANTS Warrants 1 2 3 5 6 gra - c + +J c o a) aJ o a, C •r aJ a) •r in C i 4J rt3 U O U -I- •F- ra Cl O C +j N a) N N E r = U E i cn to C C a) (U +.) E U E i •r 4- E N N a a) W C C aJ O O r a) +-) 4- Q! 0) a) a) �a i +> •-> C C L r- +-) C r0 C T7 r O > UCa- E i C rp r r aJ O C 4- p i r a) O i 0 U X 04- ro 99W and * X Yes Yes -- Yes Yes -- �"' 69th X No Yes 99W and * X Yes Yes s Pfaffle X No Yes -- Yes Yes -- 99W and * X Yes Yes 217 NB Off-Ramp X No Yes -- Yes Yes -- 99W and * X Yes Yes Walnut X No Yes -- Yes Yes -- 99W and * X Yes Yes Park X No Yes -- Yes No -- 4W 99W and * X Yes Yes Beef Bend X No Yes -- Yes No -- iW Greenburg and X Yes Yes Tiedeman X Yes Yes -- No No Yes 40 Hall and X Yes No; 86% -- No No No McDonald X No No; 88% ik Hall and X Yes Yes -- No Durham X No; 91% No; 61% No No Hall and X Yes No; 85% Hunziker X Yes Yes -- No No Yes Hall and X Yes No; 86% Commercial X No No; 88% -- No No No Table continued on following page "' 54 rr Warrants c ++ +-1 c avi ami V c > Cu o }t i i i {-) :3 r0 •r U U -P 4J t0 a O r (n i-) +-) C iJ N O N N E r O U E i VI N C C N M +) N 0 7 CU i C •r = }) U O O CU •r C C S.- i i E U E i •r 4- E N E i E b i r M w O O r •r = N 4J 4- •r CU = CTO (V -0 S- 4-) }) i r � C f0 C '0 - O > U a E S- C C SCS r r O O C 4- O S- r CV O i 0 U X 04- CO O (.-) F-- C1 > d L Q W V O 3 TMIi — Hall and X Yes No; 86% -- No No No Burnham X No; 66% Yes err Scholls Ferry and X Yes No; 75% -- Yes No Yes 121st ** X No; 90% Yes irr Walnut and X No; 90% No; 60% Tiedeman X No No -- No No No *Scheduled for signalization by ODOT. **Scheduled for signalization by the developer of an adjacent shopping center. air Yr rr 4w r 55 to it Accident rates, as computed for the Tigard street system, are shown in Table 7.5 for intersection accidents on major streets. Table 7.5 is separated between intersections on 99W and those on the rest of the Tigard street system. As a basis for comparison, the mean accident rate for 99W in 1978 was .41 accidents per million entering vehicles (MEV) , while it was .87 accidents per million entering vehicles (MEV) , or twice as high, for all Tigard' s other major intersections. Accident rates were also computed w. for major street sections of Tigard as shown in Table 7.6. Again, this table is also stratified between 99W street sections and sections on the remainder of Tigard' s road system. The accident rate on 99W road sections 1r was 2.37 accidents per million vehicle miles of travel (MVM) in 1978. The accident rate for other street sections on the Tigard street system was 9.72 accidents per million vehicle miles of travel (MVM) during the same time period. bw Critical accident rates were computed for both intersection and noninter- section accidents on the basis of exposure level and then plotted in graphic form to derive a critical accident rate chart by which to determine which accidents are most likely to have cause and eliminate those which statis- tically indicate they may have been happenstance. Intersection: The total of all intersection accident rates, 48.8 accidents per mi'l�lion entering vehicles (MEV) , was divided by the total number of major intersections in the study area (62) to obtain an average accident rate ( .79 accidents per million entering vehicles) . This average accident rate (a) was used in the following formula to determine the critical accident rate, ac, at various exposure rates (V) : 1 � ac = a + K2V V Where: a = average accident rate err K = constant which is the function of the confidence level (F) y„ V = traffic volume rr N* 56 ks w rrr TABLE 7.5. 1978 INTERSECTION ACCIDENT RATES 99W/TIGARD Street Intersecting Roadway Accidents DEV* Rate (ACC/DEV) " 99W Coronado 9 37,902 .65 99W 65th 1 37,700 .07 99W 69th 8 37,800 .58 9rr 99W Villa Ridge (N)(S) 14 44,592 .86 99W 71st 8 40,572 .54 99W Fred Meyer' s 8 42,450 .52 99W 79th 1 36,900 .07 99W Family Drive-In 10 37,954 .72 99W Pfaffle 5 41,650 .33 99W Highway 217 13 46,054 .77 99W Garden Place 1 35,100 .08 99W Warner 7 35,200 .54 99W Hall Blvd. 9 44,054 .56 99W 87th 2 34,800 .16 99W Greenburg-Main 13 41,356 .86 99W Johnson-Main 6 35,951 .46 99W McKenzie 3 32,407 .25 99W Walnut 6 32,300 .51 99W Frewing 4 29,897 .37 99W Garrett 2 29,850 .18 99W School 1 29,550 .09 99W Park 1 29,200 .09 99W Watkins 2 28,700 .19 99W McDonald 10 29,957 .91 99W Gaarde 8 29,112 .75 99W Canterbury 2 25,394 .22 99W Bull Mountain 3 21,100 .39 99W Beef Bend 3 20,500 .40 99W Royalty Parkway 1 19,900 .14 99W Durham 1 22,000 .12 r. Subtotal 167 12.38 Alderbrook Rd. Alderbrook Ter. 1 1,440 1.9 Beef Bend Rd. Frontage Rd. 1 2,425 1.13 Bull Mtn. Rd. Frontage Rd. 6 4,529 3.63 Burnham St. Main Street 3 9,189 .89 Burnham St. Hall Blvd. 1 10,052 .27 Bonita Rd. Hall Blvd. 2 9,266 .59 Bonita Rd. 76th Avenue 1 2,873 .95 Dakota St. 115th Avenue 2 1,790 3.06 Durham Rd. 108th Avenue 1 3,468 .79 Durham Rd. Alderbrook Dr. 1 3,816 .72 Durham Rd. 92nd Avenue 2 3,755 1.46 Table continued on following page � 57 �r rr, Street Intersecting Roadway Accidents DEV* Rate (ACC/DEV) Durham Rd. 88th Avenue 1 4,950 .55 Durham Rd. Upper Boones 1 9,335 .29 Gaarde St. 112th Avenue 1 4,781.50 .57 Gaarde St. 110th Avenue 1 3,033 .90 Greenburg Rd. 97th Avenue 1 7,730 .35 Greenburg Rd. 95th Avenue 2 8,681 .63 Greenburg Rd. 91st Avenue 1 8,595 .32 Greenburg Rd. Lincoln 1 8,745 .31 Hall Blvd. McDonald 1 9, 147 .30 Hall Blvd. Commercial 1 11,423 .24 Hall Blvd. Scoffins 1 12,053 .23 Hall Blvd. Tigard Plaza 2 10,644 .51 Hunziker St. 72nd Avenue 3 8,920 .92 Main Street Electric Street 1 7,653 .36 Main Street Tigard Street 1 9,054 .30 Main Street Commercial Street 3 10,701 .77 McDonald St. Driftwood 1 3,384 .81 Pfaffle St. 82nd Avenue 1 2,654 1.03 Pfaffle St. 79th Avenue 1 2,656 1.02 Walnut Street 128th Avenue 1 2,772.5 .99 Walnut Street 124th Avnue 2 3,292 1.66 Walnut Street Tiedeman Avenue 1 5,802 .47 Walnut Street Grant Avenue 2 5,554 .99 Walnut Street Watkins 2 5,208 1.05 72nd Avenue Hampton 2 7,355 .74 72nd Avenue Highway 217 2 7,654 .72 72nd Avenue Bonita Road 1 5,773.5 .47 72nd Avenue Upper Boones 2 9,211 .59 98th Avenue Summerfield Road 1 2,184.5 1.25 98th Avenue Dakota Street 1 3,965 .69 98th Avenue Burl Heights 2 3,676 1.49 Subtotal 65 36.46 TOTAL 232 48.84 *Daily Entering Vehicles iw err 5a TABLE 7.6. 1978 STREET SECTION ACCIDENT RATES - 99W AND TIGARD Section Distance Accident Rate Street From To Accidents (miles) A.D.T. V.M.* (ACC/MVM) 99W 65th Avenue 69th Avenue 6 .227 37,400 8,490 1.94 99W 69th Avenue 71st Avenue 6 .114 37,500 4,275 3.85 99W 71st Avenue Pfaffle St. 13 .379 41,100 15,577 2.29 99W Pfaffle 79th Avenue 9 .208 39,500 8,216 3.00 99W 79th Avenue 87th 12 .379 34,608 13,116 2.51 99W 87th Greenburg Rd. 3 .076 30,490 2,317 3.55 99W Greenburg Rd. Main Street 5 .227 29,964 6,802 2.01 99W Main Street McKenzie St. 5 .152 34,825 5,293 2.59 99W McKenzie St. Frewing St. 10 .227 29,500 6,697 4.09 99W Frewing St. Watkins 3 .417 28,600 11,962 0.69 99W Watkins Gaarde 3 .265 27,900 7,394 1.11 99W Gaarde Bull Mtn. Rd. 4 .265 20,400 5,406 2.03 99W Bull Mtn. Rd. Beef Bend Rd. 2 .246 19,900 4,895 1.12 Subtotal 81 30.78 Bonita 79th 74th 3 .265 2,692 713 11.52 Burnham Hall Ash 3 .19 2,515 478 17.20 Commercial Main Ash 4 .189 8,400 1,588 6.90 Durham 113th 106th 1 .227 3,759 853 3.21 Durham Alderbrook 92nd 1 .076 3,170 241 11.37 Gaarde 99W 114th 3 .227 2,540 577 14.26 Grant McKenzie Tigard St. 3 .265 2,549 675 12.17 Greenburg Center St. 94th 5 .341 7,098 2,420 5.66 Hall 99W 217 (overpass) 5 .246 10,200 2,500 5.46 Hall Scoffin Commercial 3 .09 9,093 818 10.04 Hall O'Mara Bonita 7 .45 6,387 2,874 6.67 Hunziker Knoll Dr. Wall St. 3 .303 5,681 1,721 4.78 Main 99W (east) 99W (west) 7 .530 9,657 5,118 3.75 McDonald 105th 103rd 2 .076 3,614 275 19.95 Table continued on following page Section Distance Accident Rate Street From To Accidents (miles) A.D.T. V.M.* (ACC/MVM) Murdock 106th 109th 3 .114 196 368 22.3 Tiedeman Walnut Katherine 3 .189 2,848 539 15.27 Tigard Main Grant 4 .237 2,938 696 15.80 Upper Boones 72nd I-5 5 .227 6,557 1,488 9.20 Villa Ridgeway 99W 72nd Avenue 2 .076 41,100 3,124 1.75 Subtotal 67 174.96 *Vehicle Miles m 0 Critical accident rate calculations by use of this formula are shown in Table 7.7. A confidence level (F) of 90 percent was used. In other words, if an accident rate surpasses the critical accident rate, there is a 90 percent probability that it did not happen by chance. Each of the critical accident rates (ac) in Table 7.7 were graphically plotted to make a critical accident rate chart as shown in Figure 7.2. Any accident rate lying above the line is considered in the critical zone and deserves further analysis, while any accident rate lying below the line is considered non-critical and further investigation can be terminated. TABLE 7.7. CALCULATED CRITICAL ACCIDENT RATES FOR TIGARD INTERSECTIONS V a � a 1 a (ACC/MEV/yr.) DEV* (MEV/YR) (ACC/MEV/YR) Va/v K�V 2-Vc F = 90% tri 1,300 0.47 .79 1.30 1.66 1.06 1.39 5,000 1.83 .79 .66 .84 .27 1.36 10,000 3.65 .79 .47 .60 .14 1.24 15,000 5.48 .79 .38 .49 .09 1.19 20,000 7.30 .79 .33 .42 .07 1.14 ills 25,000 9.13 .79 .29 .38 .05 1.11 30,000 10.95 .79 .27 .34 .05 1.09 35,000 12.78 .79 .25 .32 .04 1.07 40,000 14.60 .79 .23 ,30 .03 1.05 45,000 16.43 .79 .22 .28 .03 1.04 50,000 18.25 .79 .21 .27 .03 1.03 55,000 20.08 .79 .20 .25 .02 1.02 60,000 21.90 .79 .19 .24 .02 1.01 *Daily Entering Vehicles Only one intersection, Bull Mtn./Frontage Road, was found to have an acci- dent rate which was within the critical zone. Five other intersections which were in the non-critical zone, but whose accident rates were above the average, were retained for further analysis. These six intersections which will be investigated further as to probable cause are listed in Table 7.8. i ow 61 Figure 7.2 4.0 i 3.5 IN it 3.0 wi iim 2.5 if U V .Q 2,0 CRITICAL w , H Q o: rr ~ Z w 1.5 V - V Q Wn 1.0 it 0.5 >itr NON—CRITICAL 0.0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 im ENTERING VEHICLES (DAILY) ire TABLE 7.8. HIGH ACCIDENT INTERSECTIONS - 1978 Accident Rate Intersection Accidents (ACC/MEV) 1. Bull Mtn./Frontage Road* 6 3.63 2. Hunziker/72nd 3 .92 3. 99W/McDonald 10 .91 4. Burnham/Main 3 .89 5. 99W/Greenburg-Main 13 .86 wr 6. 99W/Villa Ridge (N)&(S) 14 .86 *This was the only intersection that was critical . i Street Sections: The total of all street section accident rates (205.7 accidents per million vehicle miles of travel ) was divided by the total r miles of major street (46.2 miles) in the Tigard subarea to determine the average accident rate (4.45 accidents per million vehicle miles) . This average accident rate (a) was used in the previous formula to deter- mine the critical accident rates for street sections (ac) at various exposure rates (V) . These calculations are shown in Table 7.9. A con- fidence level (F) of 90 percent was used. Each of the critical accident rates (ac) in Table 7.9 were graphically plotted to made the critical accident rate chart as shown in Figure 7.3. Again, street sections with less than three accidents were dropped from the analysis. Ten street sec- tions with accident rates in the critical zone were identified and are listed in Table 7.10. They will be investigated further. ib 63 k err TABLE 7.9. CALCULATED CRITICAL ACCIDENT RATES FOR TIGARD STREET SECTIONS V a as 1 a (ACC/MVM/YR) VM* (MVM/YR) a 1i V KI V 2V c F = 90% �r 500 .18 4.45 4.97 6.37 2.78 8.05 1,000 .37 4.45 3.47 4.45 1.35 7.54 2,000 .73 4.45 2.47 3.17 .68 6.93 3,000 1.10 4.45 2.01 2.58 .45 6.57 4,000 1.46 4.45 1.75 2.24 .34 6.35 5,000 1.83 4.45 1.56 2.00 .27 6.18 6,000 2.19 4.45 1.43 1.83 .23 6.05 7,000 2.56 4.45 1.32 1.69 .20 5.94 8,000 2.92 4.45 1.23 1.58 .17 5.86 9,000 3.15 4.45 1.19 1.52 .16 5.82 10,000 3.5 4.45 1.13 1.45 .14 5.75 11,000 3.85 4.45 1.08 1.38 .13 5.70 12,000 4.20 4.45 1.03 1.32 .12 5.65 �"" 13,000 4.55 4.45 0.99 1.27 .11 5.61 14,000 4.90 4.45 .95 1.22 .10 5.57 15,000 5.25 4.45 .92 1.18 .10 5.54 16,000 5.60 4.45 .89 1.14 .09 5.50 *Vehicle Miles err rr TABLE 7.10. CRITICAL STREET SECTIONS Accident Rate Street Sections Accidents (ACC/MVM) 1. Burnham/Hall to Ash 3 17.2 'i" 2. Tiedeman/Walnut to Katherine 4 15.8 3. Tigard/Main to Grant 3 15.27 4. Gaarde/99W to 114th 3 14.26 5. Grant/McKenzie to Tigard 3 12.17 6. Bonita/79th to 74th 3 11.52 7. Hall/Scoffins to Commercial 3 10.4 8. Upper Boones/72nd to I-5 5 9.2 9. Commercial/Main to Ash 4 6.9 10. Hall/O'Mara to Bonita 7 6.67 rw 64 20 16 D n 0 12 0 m z --I T -DI c m CRITICAL D CD C 8 0 w C7 4 NON-CRITICAL 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 15,000 16,000 VEHICLE MILES (DAILY) Accident Diagrams Accident reports for the 16 locations shown in Table 7.8 and Table 7.10 were requested from the Tigard Police Department in order to construct acci- dent diagrams which would help further in the identification of particular problems at each one of these locations. An example of an accident diagram is shown in Figure 7.4. On the basis of this analysis, the following prob- lems were identified: . Bull Mountain/Frontage Road: The major cause of accidents at this 1W location was due to ina equate sight distance for those vehicles on Frontage Road which were crossing or turning onto Bull Mountain. The result is a high number of collisions with vehicles approaching westbound from 99W. . 99W/McDonald: Accidents appear to result from vehicles trying to gain access onto 99W from McDonald. This problem is compounded by the fact that an increasing number of vehicles are now using McDonald. A new signal has recently been installed at this location and should reduce the number of accidents considerably. . 99W/Greenburg: Heavy use of Greenburg at 99W in conjuction with an inadequate width and no turning movement separation results in a high degree of congestion and conflict between turning movements. There is a high degree of right turning movement (62%) from Greenburg onto 99W which is hampered by the short turning radius. . 99W/Villa Ridge: Conflicts here occur between high volumes of traffic going at a relatively high speed on 99W and traffic on Villa Ridgeway at either end trying to turn left or right onto 99W. . Burnham/Hall to Ash: On this section of roadway a number of vehicles were unable to negotiate the curve on Burnham near Hall . Tiedeman/Walnut to Katherine: The accidents here were the result of vehicles failing to negotiate the curve just south of Katherine. Tigard/Main to Grant: Accidents appear to have occurred due to inadequate street width and the lack of shoulders. . Gaarde/99W to 114th: A few accidents appear to have been caused by ai ure to negotiate the curve between 110th and 99W. . Hall/Scoffins to Commercial : A number of accidents occurred between Burnham and Hunzi er due to: (1) the lack of adequate sight distance for those vehicles turning from one of the side streets onto Hall and; (2) the result of vehicles on Hall Street failing to negotiate r the curves. to 66 STRAAM Engineers, Inc PROJECT -PTT 32o% O ! FILE _ Collision Diagram LOCATION l-` MT>r1 I! ��F��Q��oNTIA L��c Figure 7.4 MADE BY_-L CK. BY DATE52/1lLiZPAGE ( OF _ Period Covered NOW L IN p sl►/��" ,oma 0 3c. v►� 101► 1�8 G P+— _ 12128 /4v!• � �rP�pNtlAln C IJ13t/�8 4S' :30?.r w!►b 1�� '.00Qr-- lid ►2)� 1 -;� 4we''`�--� ��. ►Z I�b l ��- 3•°�'�w 71=300,.x. �I L 10}/}8 S-co P"' CT— —- Path of Pedestrian �9 Path of Vehicle • Person Killed - -- Path of Animal i— — — Pedestrian Killed 0 }-- Vehicle Moving O Person Injured _W_i Vehicle Stopped c—— — Pedestrian Injured Vehicle Backing s-- Property Damage (P.D.) Properly Parked �—F 6 Collision- Rear-end 0 Improperly Parked Collision--Head-on s�Tif?f- Vehicle Overturned Collision--Sideswipe -�/� Vehicle Skidded X Disregard of Traffic Control Total Collision Type Fatal Inj. P.D. Total Fatal Inj. P.D. Total Fatal Inj. P.D. Total Fatal Inj. P.D. Total Angle Head-on Rear-end Sideswipe i11 Turning Movement Parking Non-collision Fixed Object .� Pedestrian Backing im v N Misc 0 0 7=T- TOTAL Upper Boones/72nd: Accidents appear to occur here due to the failure to see the stop signs and inadequate sight distance for those exiting from the store near the corner of the intersection. . Burnham/Hall : A number of accidents occurred here due to failure to negotiate the curve on Burnham near Hall . The intersection of 99W/McDonald was dropped from further analysis because it has recently been signalized, and no determination could be made as to the cause of accidents at 72nd and Hunziker, so this intersection was also ow removed from further consideration. Traffic Hazards Roadway hazards were noted which were considered to impair the safety of those using the roadway. Problems which were considered hazardous included: 1. Fixed objects within close proximity of the roadway; this includes bridge abutments, trees, signs, utility poles, etc. tw 2. Pavement defects, lack of proper shoulder, or unprotected ditches. 3. Inadequate sight distance caused by poor roadway alignment, vege- t„ tation, or other objects. 4. Improper or inadequate traffic signing or pavement marking. According to the MUTCD, signs (or other fixed objects) should be no closer than 6 feet from the edge of roadway shoulder or 12 feet from the roadway if no shoulder exists. In urban areas with curbing, a minimum of one foot err from the curb face is allowable. Sight distance standards are considered to be a function of stopping dis- tance, which of course varies with speed. For the purposes of this report, the minimum stopping site distances were considered to be 200 feet at 30 mph, 275 feet at 40 mph, and 350 feet at 50 mph. Figure 7.5 shows the location and identification of 53 traffic hazards which were identified during the course of this study. TRANSIT Bus Two criteria were used in the analysis of safety problems as related to buses in the Tigard area: 1. Minimum roadway design standards to accommodate bus turning movements and bus lane usage were evaluated for the Tigard street system. Standards as related to bus turning movement requirments 68 ilr.r.i ilrr rr� $rr mml WNWAV +I UNOW rr..r Imomw mono "NNW momw r..rr +rrrnr ft-W MONO womw +wwWi "W" MONO CITY of TIGAR6 ��" �� J• — �c{ � + 1 til a. (+ rIGARD 8 VIC/N/rY F iFM'. C ,q ( p , , r • r -- /� is %�j„W 1 • ��j t^'' � � SY � 14 . I 1 y F \ W, e rr � 1 rw, . N l t si iti T i, . I j _ 1 . , t _ x , _ i Note: See following description of Traffic Hazard Locations. Figure 7.5 TRAFFIC HAZARD LOCATIONS Tigard Transportation Study TRAFFIC HAZARD LOCATIONS Identification Number Description of Hazard 1 Unprotected bridge abutment on Greenburg, install guardrail protection 2 Unprotected bridge abutment on Scholls Ferry, install rrr guardrail protection 3 Unprotected bridge abutment on 121st, install guard- rail protection 4 Unprotected bridge abutment on Bonita, install guard- rail protection 5 Unprotected bridge abutment on Durham, install guard- rail protection ' +wr 6 Unprotected bridge abutment on Tigard, install guard- rail protection rr 7 Unprotected bridge abutment on North Dakota, install guardrail protection 8 Unprotected bridge abutment on Tiedeman, install guardrail protection 9 Hedge and brush obstructs sight distance on 121st at Walnut, remove 10 Obscured intersection sight distance on McDonald at Hall , relocate power pole and mailbox 11 Inadequate intersection sight distance, stop sign covered by tree on Burnham at Hall , remove 12 Tree obstructs intersection sight distance on to Commercial at Hall , remove 13 Inadequate intersection sight distance 98th to at Murdock, relocate power pole and shrubbery 14 Brush and trees obscure intersection sight distance at 150th and Beef Bend, remove and install stop sign on 150th 15 Inadequate sight distance at Gaarde and 99W, relocate power pole 70 iw ww TRAFFIC HAZARD LOCATIONS (Cont. ) Identification Number Description of Hazard 16 Brush obscures and no intersection signing at Garrett and Ash, remove brush and place stop sign on Garrett 17 No warning of "Y" intersection, Scholls Ferry w and 135th, erect intersection warning sign 18 Inadequate intersection signing at Hall and Pine, erect proper stop sign on Pine 19 No intersection signing at 115th and Tigard, install stop sign on east leg of Tigard rw 20 No stop sign at Frewing and Ash, install 21 Improper intersection signing at 150th and Bull Mountain, install stop sign warning on 150th ow 22 Inadequate stop signing at 71st and 99W, install stop ahead warning sign 23 Inadequate intersection signing at 72nd and to Boones Ferry, install stop ahead warning sign 24 Stop ahead and stop signs obscured and no curve w, warning on Walnut, remove brush and install curve warning on Walnut iw 25 Curve sign obscured by brush at Walnut and Tiedeman, remove brush 26 Inadequate sight distance for stop warning, install 00 stop ahead warning on Bonita at 72nd 27 Stop sign obscured by brush at Hall and Durham, no stop ahead warning and not signed as a 4-way stop, remove brush and erect signs 28 No barricade to indicate Canterbury Lane does not continue west, erect warning barricades 2.9 Shoulder and pavement edge is eroded on Scholls Ferry, 00 replace 30 Inadequate ditch on Beef Bend near Albert Court, install culvert pipe VW 71 rw err TRAFFIC HAZARD LOCATIONS (Cont. ) Identification Number Description of Hazard 31 Add curve warning, lower advisable speed on Bull Mountain at curve 32 Inadequate pavement width and no shoulders on Gaarde and 121st 33 Inadequate pavement width and no shoulders on Gaarde and 100th err 34 Inadequate pavement width and no shoulders on Gaarde and Ash 35 Inadequate pavement width and no shoulders on Tiedeman; no curve warning, install curve warning ' 36 Inadequate pavement width and no shoulders on Gaarde and Center 37 Install signal ahead warning sign on Bull Mountain at 99W 38 School speed sign obscured by brush on Murdock, remove brush 39 No stop sign ahead warning on 121st, install 40 No advance stop warning at Scholls Ferry and Durham, install 41 No crosswalk sign at crosswalk on Durham at high school , install 42 No 4-way stop sign markings at Johnson and Grant, install 43 No pedestrian path signing on Tigard, install 44 No pedestrian signing at crosswalks on Main, install wr 45 No curve warning sign on Burnham east of Ash, install 46 Curve sign obscured, curve sign with no advisory speed on Gaarde, remove brush and install proper sign 47 No curve warning on 121st, install 72 TRAFFIC HAZARD LOCATIONS (Cont. ) Identification Number Description of Hazard 48 No curve warning southbound on Fonner, install 49 No curve warning sign in either direction on Fonner, install 50 Stop sign obscured by tree and sign on Ash, remove 51 No stop sign on 92nd and Sattler, install 52 No stop sign on 96th and Sattler, install 53 Bicycle path is not properly marked and signed on Greenburg, install bike path signs 4W ow 60 *V 73 10 and street width requirements were obtained from recent Tri-Met publications.* to 2. Each bus shelter location was evaluated to see that it had proper pedestrian access in terms of sidewalk approaches and designated and signed crosswalks. Vry In the analysis of turning movement requirements, it was assumed that the encroachment by buses on parking areas and opposing travel lanes would not be allowed. The minimum turning radius required for a bus is 15 feet. If there is parking allowed after the turn only, then a 35-foot radius is required. If there is parking before the turn only, then a 50-foot radius is required. The minimum radius required for a bus to turn around in a �w cul-de-sac is 45 feet. Currently, the City of Tigard requires a 15-foot minimum curb radius. Buses require a minimum of 24 feet of pavement width to operate safely on a two-lane roadway. Of those roadways within the Tigard study area which presently carry buses, the following do not meet this minimum street width standard: Street Existing Width Upper Boones Ferry 22 - 36 Hall Boulevard 20' - 44' . Durham 20' - 22' McDonald 20' - 22' 97th/98th 22' - 36' aw Burnham 18' - 22' Gaarde 18' - 23' 121st 18' - 44' + ' Walnut . Grant 22' . Johnson 22' Greenburg 22' - 60' . Scholls Ferry 22' - 70' There are eight sheltered bus stops along Tri-Met' s bus routes within the Tigard study area. Of these locations, three do not have adequate pedes- trian access to the shelters. These include: the bus stop on 99W at Villa Ridgeway (north) where there is no access across 99W, and the bus stops at 4W Gaarde and Walnut on 99W where there also is no access across 99W. Railroad Although the City of Tigard has no jurisdiction over the maintenance and improvements of railroad crossings, it can request that the Oregon Public Utility Commission investigate and recommend improvements to those crossings err in its vicinity. Of the 19 rail crossing accidents which have occurred 0 *"Planning__WTtT Transit, Land Use and Transportation Planning Coordination," Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District, 1979. �"" 74 rr ► during the past eight years, 53 percent have occurred at the 6 crossings in the area which do not have gates. Of the 11 accidents which are projected to occur over the next five years, roughly 86 percent are projected to occur at the six ungated crossings. Those six crossings which do not have gates include: . North Dakota (at Tiedeman) ow . Tiedeman (two, south of North Dakota) . Hall (two, north of Burnham) • Durham (north of Boones Ferry) 1W PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE to In identifying problem areas as related to pedestrians and bicycles, the major criterion was the location of those areas, particularly in the vicinity of schools, which have inadequate or improperly marked pedestrian and bicycle wo access. Chapter 5 contained an inventory of existing bicycle and pedestrian pathways, crosswalks, school locations, and pedestrian/bicycle accidents. 60 There are a number of bicycle/pathways in the Tigard area which are con- tiguous to the roadway, but separated by raised buttons. These pathways are along the following streets: to . Grant Tigard . Greenburg 60 Walnut Each of these paths should be signed as bicycle paths with the installation rr of bike path signs along the routes. There are a number of crosswalks in the area which are designated as such io by means of pavement markings. Many of these crosswalk locations were found to have insufficient or a total lack of signing in addition to the pavement markings. Those locations which lacked proper signing and should have pedestrian signs installed include: m Main Street at all intersecting streets (Burnham, Tigard, Center, Commerical and Scoffins) Walnut/Grant . Walnut/Watkins . Durham at Tigard High School In addition, there also should be a crosswalk placed in front of Tuality Junior High School on 97th. There are presently pedestrian crossing signs, but there is no pedestrian crosswalk marked on the pavement. Grant Street, in the vicinity of St. Anthony' s School , has no speed limit sign. School speed limit signs should be placed on Grant Street in the vicinity of the school . tir 75 Many of the schools lack adequate sidewalks in their vicinity and along major routes to the schools (see Figure 5.1 ) . The lack of properly marked sidewalks or pathways, forces children to walk in the roadway. Schools which have inadequate sidewalk access include: . Tuality Junior High and Templeton Elementary Schools -- Sidewalks are needed along: (1 ) Murdock from 97th to 106th to tie in with the existing sidewalk system (length - 2400' ) ; (2) 97th from McDonald to Templeton Elementary School (length - 2600' ) ; and (3) 98th from Durham to Murdock (lengh - 3200' ) . . Lewis Junior High School -- Sidewalks are needed along: (1 ) 72nd from Hermoso Way to Villa Ridge Way ( length - 3200' ) ; (2) Hunziker from 77th to 72nd (length - 1400' ) ; and (3) 72nd from Varns to Sandburg (length - 1600' ) . . Durham Grade School -- Sidewalk is needed along Durham from the �" crosswalk at Durham School to connect with the sidewalk system at Alderbrook (length - 1600' ) . Wr Fowler Junior High School -- Sidewalk is needed along Tiedeman from Walnut to Greenburg and should tie in with the paths on Tigard and Greenburg (length - 3600' ) . . St. Anthony Elementary School -- Sidewalks are needed along: (1 ) Johnson from Grant to 99W (length - 600' ); and (2) McKenzie from Grant to 99W (length - 600' ) and should tie in with the path on Grant Street. . Woodward Elementary School -- Sidewalks are needed along: (1 ) 121st err from Springwood to Walnut ( length - 4400' ) ; and (2) Walnut from 128th to 121st (length - 2400' ) . EMERGENCY SERVICES As a part of the signal improvements project on 99W, the TRFPD will have the capability of pre-empting all signals on 99W from 64th to Durham. The system being installed (OPTICOM*) sends out a radar beam from a unit installed in the emergency vehicle. On receiving the radar beam, a reciever attached to each signal interrupts the normal signal phasing to give green time to the direction of the emergency vehicle prior to its entering the intersection. Emergency vehicle pre-emption will be possible in the southbound direction on 99W, south of 217, and in both directions north of 217. When this system is installed in late 1979 or early 1980, it will establish 99W as the major emergency corridor in the Tigard area, and should greatly improve the fire district' s response time, particularly during peak hours. *Manufactured by 3M Company to 76 1W In reviewing the Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District' s (TRFPD) recom- mended street design standards with those which have been adopted and are in use by the City of Tigard, a few discrepancies were found as shown below r in Table 7.11. TABLE 7.11. COMPARISON OF STREET DESIGN STANDARDS Standard TRFPD Tigard Roadway Width 32 Feet 34 Feet wr Slope 15 Percent 12 Percent Turnaround Radius 45 Feet 34 Feet Maximum Length of Dead-end Street 600 Feet 600 Feet Curb Radius 28 Feet 15 Feet r As can be seen in the above table, the major conflicts are the required radii , cul-de-sacs, and curbs. The existing cul-de-sac radius standard set by the city is insufficient to accommodate all fire equipment and should be increased to at least 42 feet. On the other hand, the curb radius requirements adopted by the fire district appear to be excessive and it is recommended that the city retain its current 15 foot curb radius design standard. Chapter 10 contains recommended street design standards which incorporate the TRFPD' s requirements. 6W err 77 ftaproven'wnd- Options Yrir CHAPTER 8 IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS This chapter discusses improvements to those street sections and intersections which have been identified in Chapter 7 as having congestion or accident problems and are not already programmed for improvement. Other low-cost improvements (non-street) which were identified in Chapter 7 are also discussed. In the final section of this chapter a prioritization scheme is developed and used to rank each of twenty-one major street improvements identified. STREETS Improvements to the major street problem areas identified in Chapter 7 are briefly discussed. The following improvements are not discussed in order of magnitude or priority. The cost estimates shown for each improvement are err comparative only and do not include right-of-way costs. A breakdown of the estimated costs are included in the appendices. Diagrams of the street improvement recommendations are included at the end of this chapter. In a number of cases, more than one improvement option is discussed; one a low-cost "interim" option and the other a much higher cost but more "permanent solution" option. 1 . Commercial from Main to Hall (Figure 8.1 ) lir Problem: This section of Burnham from Main to Ash has the ninth highest accident rate among Tigard street sections (Table 7.10) due to unlimited access onto the roadway from abutting property. In addition, the section of Commercial from Ash to Hall (currently 22 feet wide) is not constructed to the recommended standard collector street width. Recommendation: Construct curb and gutter, limit curb cuts along the roadway, and widen the roadway to 36 feet between Ash and Hall . +r► Cost: Curb $15,000 Widening 8,000 Total $23,000 Jurisdictional Responsibility: Tigard it �"' 78 2. Hall/Commercial (Figure 8.1 ) Problem: Obscured sight distance north on Hall due to large tree. Recommendation: Remove tree. Cost: Minimal* Jurisdictional Responsibility: Tigard, ODOT 3. Burnham from Ash to Hall (Figure 8.1 ) Problem: This section of Burnham from Ash to Hall has the highest accident rate among Tigard street sections (Table 7.10) due to unlimited access onto the roadway from abutting property. In addi- tion, this section of Burnham is not constructed to the recommended standard collector street width. wr Recommendation: Construct curb and gutter, limit curb cuts along the roadway, widen the roadway to 36 feet, and erect curve warning rr signs on either end of the curve west of Hall . Cost: Curb $13,000 Widening 12,000 Total $25,000 (excluding right-of-way) Jurisdictional Responsibility: Tigard 4. Burnham/Main (Figure 8.1 ) ilk Problem: This intersection has the fourth highest intersection accident rate among the Tigard intersections (Table 7.8) due to inadequate sight distance for those vehicles on Burnham trying to gain access onto Main Street. Recommendation: Move parking back 30 feet from either side of the intersection on Main Street. Cost: Minimal* Jurisdictional Responsibility: Tigard rr *Minimal : cost less than $1 ,000 iW 79 rr 5. Burnham/Hall (Figure 8.1 ) Problem: Stop sign covered by tree foliage and inadequate sight distance to the south on Hall . Recommendation: Cut back foliage covering stop sign, replace 24-inch stop sign with 36-inch stop sign, and paint stop line on Burnham at Hall . Cost: Minimal* Jurisdictional Responsibility: Tigard, ODOT 6. Hall from Scoffins to Commercial (Figure 8.2) Problem: This section of Hall Boulevard has the seventh highest ww accident rate among Tigard street sections (Table 7.10) due to limited sight distance, inadequate street width, and lack of shoulders. +rr Recommendations: Option One. Accident and safety problems on Hall Boulevard are not Just restricted to this particular section. The ultimate improvement would be the total reconstruction and widening of Hall Boulevard to 44 feet with curb and sidewalk from 99W to Durham Road. Since this roadway is the responsibility of the Oregon Department of Transportation, it would qualify for both federal and state highway funds. tier Cost: $967,000 (excluding right-of-way) Option Two. Reconstruct Hall Boulevard to 44 feet and realign it horizontally from Scoffins to just south of Commercial . This solution is of lower cost, but would solve just one of the problem sections along Hall Boulevard. Cost: $150,000 (excluding right-of-way) Jurisdictional Responsibility: ODOT tirr im *Minimal : cost less than $1 ,000 80 t 7. Hall from O'Mara to lianitd (Figure 8.3) Problem: This section of Hall Boulevard has the tenth highest acci- m dent rate among Tigard street sections (Table 7.10) due to limited sight distance, inadequate street width, and lack of shoulders. Recommendations: Option One. As mentioned in the previous section, accidents on Hall Boulevard have not been restricted to just this section. The ultimate improvement of Hall Boulevard would be the total reconstruction from 99W to Durham Road, but the high cost would make it difficult to implement with any expediency. Cost: $967,000 (excluding right-of-way) Option Two. Widen and reconstruct Hall Boulevard from O'Mara to Bonita a and channelize the Bonita/Hall intersection for left turn and through lanes. Again, this option addresses just part of the problem on Hall Boulevard. Cost: $260,000 (excluding right-of-way) 0 tion Three. Widen Hall Boulevard at Bonita and c anne ize Hall southbound for left turn and through lanes. Although this improvement is of low cost and would be the easiest of the three options to implement, it should be realized that this would be just an interim solution until adequate funding could be secured to reconstruct and improve Hall Boulevard along its entire length (Option 1 ) . Cost: $8,000 Jurisdictional Responsibility: ODOT tiw *Minimal : cost less than $1 ,000 im 81 8. Hal 1/Flunzi ker/Scoffins (f i(lure 8.4) Problem: The intersection of Hall Boulevard and Hunziker currently � meets the MUTCD signalization warrants (Table 7.4) allowing the placement of a traffic signal at this intersection. Although this intersection did not show up as critical , it is considered a hazard- ous intersection due to the limited sight distance both north and south on Hall Boulevard. The intersection of Scoffins at Hall also has inadequate sight distance, a very sharp curve west of the inter- section, and a hazardous offset with Hunziker for those traveling between Hunziker and Scoffins. Recommendations: Option One. Realign Hunziker to the south of its existing intersec- tion to meet with Scoffins at Hall . Hunziker would be realigned south through an existing open lot. This new intersection would be signalized and left-turn lanes would be provided on all four legs of the intersection. rr Cost: Roadway realignment $ 26,000 (excluding right-of-way) Traffic signal 80,000 Total $106,000 Option Two. Realign Scoffins with Hunziker by extending Scoffins from Ash to meet at Hall . The intersection would be signalized and left turns provided on all four legs. Since Hunziker has already been improved and realigned, the realignment of Scoffins would appear to be the most cost-effective option. Right-of-way cost for this option, though, will be extremely high because the alignment would go through an existing apartment complex. Cost: Roadway realignment $ 32,000 (excluding right-of-way) Signalization 80,000 Total $112,000 Option Three. Since options one and two are high cost and would require the purchase of additional right-of-way, this option would provide an interim solution to improving the safety at this intersec- tion. A sign should be posted on Hunziker prior to the intersection at Hall indicating that the right lane is for right turns only, and the transition from one lane on Hunziker westbound to two lanes (left and right turns) should be more visibly marked. Cost: Minimal* Jurisdictional Responsibility: Tigard, ODOT iN *Minimal : cost less than $1 ,000 82 9. Hall/Durham (Figure 8.5) Problem: Although it currently does not meet traffic signal warrants, this intersection experiences congestion during the peak hours and is expected to require traffic signalization within the near future. Recommendation: The most cost-effective solution to this problem would be the signalization of the intersection, and channelization on each leg of Durham and on the north leg of Hall for turning and through movements. Cost: Intersection widening $ 8,000 (excluding right-of-way) Signalization 80,000 Total $88,000 Jurisdictional Responsibility: Washington County, ODOT 10. Bonita from Hall to 72nd Problem: The section of Bonita from 79th to 74th has the sixth highest accident rate among Tigard street sections (Table 7.10) due to poor sight distance, deteriorating pavement, and an inadequate street width. Recommendations: Option One. Reconstruct the roadway, widen to major collector street width (44 feet) , and remove the differences in vertical alignment from Hall to 72nd. Cost: $350,000 (excluding right-of-way) j Option Two. Interim improvements to Bonita, prior to its total reconstruction and which could be implemented immediately, include the placement of an advance warning sign on Bonita on either side of kL 72nd and the widening and channelization of Hall Boulevard at Bonita for left and through lane movement as already discussed in Item 7, Option 3. it Cost: Minimal* Jurisdictional Responsibility: Tigard *Minimal : cost less than $1 ,000 83 W 11 . Upper Boones Ferry/72nd (Figure 8.6) Problem: The section of Upper Boones Ferry Road between 72nd and I-5 has the eighth highest accident rate among Tigard street sections (Table 7.10) . Most of the accidents on this section are concentrated around the intersection of 72nd and Upper Boones Ferry Road. The problems are caused by the streets intersecting at skewed angles, lack of sight distance, and a confusing array of traffic im markings. Recommendations: Option One. A permanent, although expensive, solution would be to realign the southern end of 72nd to intersect Upper Boones Ferry at a right angle directly across from the existing grocery store. The intersection would need to be channelized for both left and right turning movements. The northern intersection of 72nd and Upper Boones Ferry would require the realignment of Upper Boones Ferry with 72nd at a more perpendicular angle and the channelization of the intersection for left, right and through movement. Cost: $76,000 (excluding right-of-way) �r Option_ Two. A lower cost interim solution to improving traffic safety t this intersection would be to channelize Upper Boones Ferry at its southern intersection with 72nd for left turn and right turn lanes, and channelization. The north leg of 72nd and Upper Boones would also be channelized for a free right turn and a left turn lane that would be required to stop. The southern leg of 72nd Yr at Upper Boones would be required to make a full stop. This design would still allow a free through movement for north and southbound traffic from Upper Boones Ferry and 72nd, but would require all other movements to stop. All stop signs should be replaced with 36-inch stop signs and advance warnings signs of stops would be erected. Parking at the intersection near the store should be restricted by constructing curbs along the north and south side of Upper Boones Ferry and providing limited curb cuts. Cost: $12,000 (excluding right-of-way) Jurisdictional Responsibility: Tigard im 84 im err 12. Durham/Upper Boones Ferry (Figure 8.7) Problem: Traffic volumes at this intersection are increasing r rapidly; as currently marked, this intersection is confusing and improperly designated. Recommendation: Channelize Upper Boones Ferry' s south leg for left turn and through lanes, the north leg for right turn and through lanes, and remove stop signs on Boones Ferry giving through movement priority to Upper Boones Ferry. Place advance stop warning sign, stop lines, and channelize Durham for right turn only and left turn only lanes. Eventually, when traffic signal warrants are met, this intersection will need to be signalized. Cost: $10,000 (excluding right-of-way) Jurisdictional Responsibility: ODOT, Tigard 13. Bull Mtn./Frontage Road (Figure 8.8) Problem: This intersection has the highest accident rate of all intersections in the Tigard study area (Table 7.8) . This high accident rate is due to inadequate sight distance and the close proximity of this intersection to the 99W intersection. Recommendations: Option_ One. Move the intersection of Frontage Road andf Bull Mtn. further to the west to provide more storage on Bull Mtn. at 99W and to provide more sight distance for Frontage Road vehicles to see vehicles turning westbound from 99W. The existing 24-inch stop signs on Frontage Road would be replaced with 36-inch stop signs and stop lines would be painted at the intersection. Cost: $26,000 (excluding right-of-way) 0 tion Two. The intersection of Bull Mtn. and Frontage Road would be Signa ized and interconnected to the signal at Bull Mtn. and 99W so that both intersections would act as one signal . Cost: $60,000 Jurisdictional Responsibility: Washington County, ODOT Yr 85 14. Tiedeman between Walnut and Katherine (Figure 8.9) Problem: This section of Tiedeman has the second highest accident err rate of all street sections within the Tigard study area (Table 7.10) . This high accident rate is due to the extremely tight curve at this location. Recommendation: Widen and smooth out the curve by acquiring addi- tional right-of-way on the west side of the existing alignment. The city of Tigard is currently in the process of designing and acquiring this new alignment. Cost: $28,000 (excluding right-of-way) err Jurisdictional Responsibility: Tigard 15. Tiedeman/Greenburg (Figure 8.10) Problem: Congested intersection; this intersection currently meets the MUTCD warrants for the placement of a traffic signal . Recommendation: Widen and overlay intersection, channelize Tiedeman for left and right turn lanes, channelize Greenburg for left and through lane, and install traffic signal . In addition, the intersec- tion of North Dakota and Tiedeman presents a potential traffic hazard due to the skewed intersection. The intersection of North Dakota should be realigned to meet Tiedeman at a right angle. The costs do not reflect the improvements to Tiedeman at North Dakota intersection. Cost: Channelization & Widening $21 ,000 Signal 60,000 Total $81 ,000 (excluding right of way) Jurisdictional Responsibility: Washington County ww Ow io to 86 aw y„ 16. Tiedeman/Walnut (Figure 8.9) Problem: The section of Tiedeman from Walnut to Katherine has the second highest accident rate for all street sections in the Tigard study area (Table 7.10) . The traffic problems in this area are compounded by the heavy pedestrian movement due to the high school and the sharp curve on Walnut. Recommendations: Option One. The "ultimate" solution to problems at this intersec- tion ntersec- ti o wntio ou d be to realign Walnut to the south on the west side of Tiedeman to meet directly across from Walnut on the east side. The intersection would be channelized for left turn and through movement and signalized. The cost for this improvement would be high due to the extensive right-of-way requirements. Cost: No cost estimate was made for this improvement. Option Two. Overlay Walnut and Tiedeman at the intersection and widen along the curve. Stripe for stop lines, install 36-inch stop signs on Tiedeman and Fonner, and install yellow warning flasher. Cost: $22,000 Jurisdictional Responsibility: Washington County 17. Gaarde from 99W to 110th (Figure 8.11 ) Problem: The section of Guaarde from 99W to 114th had the fourth highest accident rate for street sections in the Tigard study area (Table 7.10) . Left-turn access onto 99W is difficult, and the intersection of Frontage Road is too close to 99W. +► Recommendation: At Gaarde/99W, replace the existing stop sign with a 36-inch stop sign, channelize Guaarde with left and right turning lanes, remove the median on 99W from Gaarde north and restripe for center turn lane, place yield sign on 99W for northbound traffic on 99W turning left onto Gaarde, place a raised median on Gaarde southwest of 99W to prevent vehicles shortcutting onto the Frontage Road via Gaarde, and place a yield sign on the Frontage Road at the exit ramp from 99W. The curve signs on Gaarde near 110th need to be replaced with ones which contain an advisory speed. + w Cost: $5,000 Jurisdictional Responsibility: Tigard, ODOT 87 wr Mrr 18. Grant from McKenzie to Tigard Problem: This street section had the fifth highest accident rate for street sections in the Tigard study area (Table 7.10) . Recommendation: Erect school speed limit signs on Grant near St. Anthony School , sign pedestrian path along Grant, and mark the Grant/Johnson intersection as a four-way stop. Cost: Minimal* w Jurisdictional Responsibility: Tigard iW 19. Tigard From Main to Grant Problem: This section of Tigard had the third highest accident rate to for street sections in the Tigard study area (Table 7.10) . Recommendation: Sign the bike path along the entire length of Tigard Street on the north side from Main to Tiedeman. WO Cost: Minimal* im Jurisdictional Responsibility: Tigard 20. Greenburg/99W (Figure 8.12) No Problem: This intersection had the fifth highest accident rate for all intersections within the Tigard study area (Table 7.8) . This intersection also experiences congestion on this leg, particularly ON during the peak hours. Recommendation: Channelize Greenburg with right and through/left to lanes, relocate power pole, replace short curve radius with longer one, and improve and mark pedestrian crossing. Cost: $7,000 IN Jurisdictional Responsibility: Tigard, ODOT we to ii m im *Minimal : cost less than $1 ,000 88 rr to iio 21 . 99W/Villa Ridge Way (Figure 8.13) Problem: This intersection had the sixth highest accident rate of all intersections analyzed within the Tigard study area (Table 7.8) . The high accident rate is primarily due to the skewed alignment of Villa Ridge Way at its intersections with 99W. Recommendation: Option One. Development on 72nd is expected to result in large increases of traffic on the roadway. Due to this projected traffic demand, the ideal long-range improvement of this intersection would be to extend 72nd through to meet 99W at a right angle, move the entrance of Fred Meyer south across from the intersection of 72nd, move the existing signals south to the newly realigned intersection, cul-de-sac both ends of Villa Ridge Way restricting unsafe access and egress onto 99W, and place stop signs on Villa Ridge Way giving + + right-of-way to 72nd. Cost: $90,000 (excluding right-of-way) Option Two. 99W/Villa Ridge Way north - realign the intersection at mored a 90-degree angle with 99W, channelize, and restrict to right turn only from Villa Ridge Way onto 99W. The intersection of �"" 99W and 71st would also be channelized and left turn and cross traffic movement would be prohibited. 99W/Villa Ridge Way south - the intersection would be brought in at more of a perpendicular wo angle with 99W by moving the intersection to the north of its existing alignment. Construct curb in order to define and limit curb cuts. Villa Ridge Way/72nd - This intersection should be made io a three-way stop in order to cut down the attractiveness of Villa Ridge Way as a shortcut around the signal currently at Fred Meyer. Cost: $25,000 (excluding right-of-way) �wr Jurisdictional Responsibility: Tigard, ODOT, Washington County yr. its Ow 89 Other street improvements which would improve safety in the Tigard study area include: . Replace all 24-inch stop signs on streets intersecting with arterials and collectors with 36-inch stop signs. . Replace all striping for center line, lane lines, and channelization with four-inch reflectorized raised buttons; all other pavement markings including crosswalks, arrows, etc. , should be replaced with reflector- ized sheet material . This conversion will markedly reduce maintenance rr costs for pavement markings. . Correct the 53 traffic hazard locations as shown in Figure 7.5. . Request that the Oregon State Speed Control Board investigate speed limits on all those streets shown in Table 3.12 which are posted for speed limits but have not been so authorized by the OSSCB. The street sections would include: Bull Mtn. , Greenburg, Hunziker, 135th, Dakota, and Gaarde. . Roadways should be striped in accordance with the recommendations in Table 3.5. The following streets should contain edge lines (Note: Minimum street width should be 26 feet before edge lines are added) : Fonner, Frewing, Garrett, Hampton, Hunziker, McDonald, North Dakota, Sattler, Scholls Ferry, Scoffins, Walnut, 98th, 121st, and 135th. . Many of the roadways in the Tigard study area were found to be of +t substandard width when compared to the recommended street design based on their functional classification. Major roadways which need to be widened and brought up to standard include: to Arterials ( right-of-way 60 feet; pavement width 44 feet) Greenburg, Durham, Scholls Ferry, and Upper Boones Ferry. ow Major Collectors (right-of-way 60 feet; pavement width 40 feet) 135th, Walnut, McDonald, 72nd, and Hampton Neighborhood Collectors (right-of-way 60 feet; pavement width 36 feet) Sattler, 98th, 97th, Murdock, Burnham, Commercial , Scoffins, Pfaffle, Tigard, Grant, Johnson, Tiedeman, North Dakota, 121st, Gaarde, Beef Bend, and Bull Mtn. OTHER IMPROVEMENTS In addition to the street improvements which were previously discussed in this chapter, there are a number of low-cost safety improvement recommendations sir which relate to other modes of transportation which should be completed. These include: . Improved street lighting on the following major streets which lack proper street lighting (see page 35) : 135th, 121st, Walnut, Gaarde, "` 90 ter Bull Mtn. , Durham, 100th, 97th, 98th, 72nd south of Bonita, Hampton, Pfaffle, Bonita, Murdock, McDonald, O'Mara, Dakota, Tigard, and Tiedeman. Request that the Oregon Public Utility Commission investigate the following rail crossings which do not have crossing gates (see Table 4.1 ) : North Dakota, Tiedeman, Hall , and Durham. . Place crosswalk pavement markings and pedestrian signs at the following bus stop locations (see page 74) : 99W at Villa Ridge Way north, 99W and Gaarde, and 99W and Walnut. Pedestrian crosswalk signs should be installed at the following marked crosswalks (see page 75) : Main Street at Burnham, Main Street at Tigard, Main Street at Center, Main Street at Commercial , Main Street at Scoffin, Walnut at Watkins, Durham ` at Tigard High School . Crosswalks should also be marked on the pave- ment in front of Tuality Junior High School on 97th. r The pathways along Grant, Tigard, Greenburg, and Walnut should be marked with bicycle route signs along the routes. . Sidewalks should be constructed along the following streets (see page 76) : Murdock from 97th to 106th, 97th from McDonald to Templeton Elementary School , 98th from Durham to Murdock, 72nd from Hermosa Way to Villa Ridge Way, Hunziker from 77th to 72nd, 72nd from Barnes to Sandberg, Durham from the crosswalk at Durham Grade School to 88th, Tiedeman from Walnut to Greenburg, Johnson from Grant to 99W, McKenzie from Grant to 99W, on 21st from Springwood to Walnut, and r Walnut from 128th to 121st. PRIORITIZATION Each of the 21 major street improvement recommendations were evaluated and prioritized based on five criteria which included: Demand, congestion, iW safety, economics, and social and environmental impact. The prioritization ranking methodology is shown in Table 8.1 . Each improvement was evaluated on the basis of each of the five criteria and assigned points. The total number of points for each improvement was then totaled, with those improvements having the highest total points being considered as having the highest priority. The results of this ranking scheme for the 21 major improvements is shown in Table 8.2. In several cases, both an interim improvement and a long-range improvement were included in the prioritization. 91 TABLE 8.1. PRIORITIZATION RANKING SCHEME 1. DEMAND Traffic Volume (ADT) Points 0 - 4,000 2 4,001 - 10,000 4 10,001 - 16,000 6 16,001 - 20,000 8 20,000 + 10 2. CONGESTION Level of Service Points 6. A B 2 C/D 4 E/F 6 No 3. ACCIDENTS Rate Points Critica a— Non-critical 1 Frequency of Accidents Points 0-2 0 3-5 2 6-8 4 9-11 6 12-15 8 15+ 10 4. ECONOMICS Cost Points O- 1,000 6 $1,001-$10,000 5 $10,001-$50,000 4 $50,001-$99,999 3 $100,000-$200,000 2 + $200,000 + 1 5. ENVIRONMENTAL/SOCIAL IMPACT �r Impact Points No mpac t __T— ow Minor Impact 2 Major Impact 0 92 raw w TABLE 8.2. PRIORITIZATION OF MAJOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS Rank Project Cost* ft 1 Greenburg/99W $ 7,000 2 99W/Villa Ridge Way 25,000 ;yr +R/W 3 Bull Mtn./Frontage Rd. (Option 2) 60,000 iw 4 Upper Boones Ferry/72nd (Option 2) 12,000 +R/W 1W 5 Hall from O'Mara to Bonita (Option 3) 8,000 6 Gaarde from 99th to 110th 5,000 7 Burnham/Main minimal** 8 Hall/Hunziker/Scoffins (Option 3) minimal** 9 Commercial from Main to Hall 23,000 10 Grant from McKenzie to Tigard) minimal** 11 Burnham from Ash to Hall 25,000 +R/W 12 Burnham/Hall minimal** 13 Tiedeman from Walnut to Katherine 28,000 +R/W 14 Tigard from Main to Grant (Tiedeman) minimal** 15 Bonita from Hall to 72nd (Option 1 ) 350,000 +R/W 16 Hall/Hunziker/Scoffins (Option 2) 112,000 +R/W �r Table continued on following page fir 93 r�. tirr rr Rank Project Cost* 17 Durham/Upper Boones Ferry $ 10,000 tw +R/W 18 Hall/O'Mara to Bonita & Hall/Scoffins to 967,000 iN Commercial (Option 1 ) +R/W 19 Hall/Commercial minimal** r 20 Hall/Durham 88,000 +R/W o, 21 Tiedeman/Greenburg 81 ,000 22 Tiedeman/Walnut (Option 2) 22,000 we *Costs are preliminary only; see appendices for cost breakdown +R/W: Right-of-way costs are additional **Minimal : costs are less than $1,000 Yr �r `rr +r 94 wr x ,<, ,. MEN( s, �Fw 0, 2,001, 3 a wfir. ...✓ i9� a , f ...$'. xfi., F ."�..,.. 9Y. r .:�. '.g. .r>H s` �,� � ��_ ._ r w � _. ,,.: � M � � .. �a;., � a ,�._ �_ ,. � H ,__ �,.__ ,�_. /a,. REE _,� Y.. ,x a � ,to s� URB , ,_ ..>.,. f < ,... .,f.: ,, ..,...,._ „",4'r�:,a ,. z, .a. -», 'i" .,.: ;. .. ,_ _: as F•' ,,�,5'� ::��Jj Y/$Y': ,.....,..,..„,. ra,._, . ,, ...,.,_.a«.a,., �,,�-,a '.,.-,.. ., .w__,_,<:>, ,_ a x�',.y_.a,.,_ �,.....,.,.rr ✓ ;:a,_.,�.._: ,._lam,. ,�:,_.�.,,x,_, UXWIt�Arl,rfr MQY ST„,..;„',. .$ ,.... ., -7,7am moS.W. COMMERCIAL x � fes+ 1rwJ „«aa .. P "o, ., .. ,, 'S ��, „r ,. ., , ,.>: ,,, baa_. .,.,. ,., ,:•: ,:.. Y,:".,_ ,n«: x;,✓ :.. a. as, �✓ ✓ Y...m.. J "o "".,.. ..... ,... w 5.."" ...,.. .,. a ,,.r.!• ,..... 9.. ., , s $ $ Y « �.. z . i �n a, -', °r.;.'✓ ,,.;. ,ar:.wr ,..:: '»r ,,;�,.,. .`r .,�,�:, s� ,,, ✓,,,, _ya -✓,,,',.e'S« ,'- ,,5, ,uyih, g spa</.< „• «, r�- .,.,. ,% ,... ,g s,„ ,,..,. ,, >y:. _.. ,a a•.:, ::.,Ya� 4, 9, .li, i> f3 lz 91 as�.'.,Y.„/r'✓��r,a�r:,,.y�,.9�.r,,..:v", ' g , 'x�u'<;,> ,, -;. ,' �,�',, �za°e�„is i`r, :a 3"., '�j' 'kgB/• rs'��"nw,. a F' r• a y5 k e�� O ' ,v .., < a . N ,r r „r> y� , ^, l , , .y.:-.> °.. :. a r - ,.�� <-,r, ,.. ,. ,£; ,oY�' si mss:. :�...,: »c, `, ... »^ ” ,., a.:• - H ., �j LEGEND - s � R a f STOP rr. ,r ti ,r •q.,k n x r c $, , RIGHT TURN ONLY r £ rl+ A + « CURVE WARNING 5 � f'- 9 r�> � CUR NTNG VE WAR N PA, O PARKING G 3 k t > v li �f , I94�tii i ty 5 i• ., -:,.. l ,.::: ,o,'r,:: ,:: .n > .' ,., 5 , CURB w , x � r, w_ PARKING ❑,H ,. -• > �' ,s` «", a. . y$,. a. M S.W. BURNHA T R ' Awl � �X:I � �' CURVE ,. �. ',; as - ,. a I• WARNING q CURB ��. - , „v,a,r N. NO PARKI ❑ a < ,„; , FIGURE 8.1 s. M r „ , wF �9 c ;c N « x x`, x. « st 9 . OC >xr,, ^ :, .. � ,x „ • ;�' Wim,. ze g _N 3 9 n ., : ,� F, x. Y• i s I f P'. f ks: L., 4 n ,�, ✓� `'$''ti' ,E ,�'�r+ �. lib' a.i`, ,/ „rCf..,. �? ' Y � y x x > r y, / 4 L Y b y, k.. .ti ' 9 i" x 9„ W" , r > f, .k r a 4 rm,'e e'g �rq y9 x A nf„ a 3'. b �r 3 b r- g? 'U x / ad I I' Y.. I. °f a.. I x x 11 x � � I � d " f I I i a I «, I .. ,:rra} ,c,,, a r,.s,,. P1 ,; „•,x, ,� i rs `0' r 9 s d� r {, a y avy , Y y, s a 09 76 x Y..1 PI s t 4 /... 9., �a t s. ,s ,. 9, .gr d'a:�'s ,.«- � - N .,.,. ,,. ,.., ,�, '';, ^�,,,:, ., :, xo•. 9��'�'r�3' amry cs�.xi ,�, :r,. ,,s...;,of HALL BLVD. ' -' X. .. Vis:.:'' r � ,$,`�,, �v Y; ,. �%,y., .,.✓ ,;, ,.. ,',�i9/ 2 I ,1 a, a d�T r t. I o„ Y �I+ 4. I� 1' i, I' h. f 1' #.F �h0 h„ Ir y-r, Ifilt%' sx L N � 9 .� x-,,„' _'• y �;�'��•'� ,ry< ail II I.ISI il.I�I I I I I III,�� , -✓r e N ®."A' III ry- a �9 $ '✓ x, / / k ry f III''VIIII ! yr� NMM— ar `I I IIS 0 t f I I a i A� r r I Y� I, �t F-- ,., V LEGEND r rf • STOP r y, I RIGHT TURN ONLY d� CURVE WARNING NO PARKING .L , n FIGURE 8.2 „ « >ti 9 „10 a : , :v:. jai ” a � 4v 1 -now A WAAQ QJ ,° �' NAM Nu Mt A � �� , ��. ��..' � �$�� r. ,gig ,.•. $ V" A i01164, Asa x` c �s arc. �,:• '`. � kMW a^ � k 01 "1114,11 b a R LEFTTURN ONLY n " 1 a S.W, 130NI T A ROAD no in ae 4k \ a. OPTION 3cam TWO � ° IA 1_4 WA�� N O R T H let � .. ..•. � riillr � F ' ' LEGEND n 10 STOP rpt \� tia � WWi ,, ■ RIGHT TURN ONLY lot ♦CURVE WARNING' AM f �� 0 NO PARKING SID � - :\� € c ' a g � a FIGURE 8.3 .< VIA 0 . it, vA.. iw / ism A r y„ Mr, ]. u 4/ .g ui iW w ,. M a x s ° P m oo mo- aw t` sy F/ OPTION 2 ip NS Ice NJ so Y s l s OPTION 1 'VNIMM , - k Y LEGEND SIGNAL y , RIGHT TURN ONLY £ n � , i � ♦CURVE WARNING ME xis 5 'w �i, ✓x�h �� ❑NO PARKING ; P. f W F xn el- % AP ` FIGURE 84 'ov,y,.'. to S "4a'a s.s=',°6 �t4 a��,.. S4 '`4` ,gxi��y. 't a y, " '� .a aNg s'�s psi Al SO 711 yea " r Thr _ VWX`ky. ,- SAO w -0 F sFy as+a zr s t` ra x AN , IN Am par ki 110M x „ A 5 `Y ,X °jP', 'ui 'a ''E 3 ✓ '` mar^ � �` 3,e } 41, sst� + cc AMMwon x r ,ky lit lop 41 g ' a ay ria ', �101? 40 OWN a y .a x 1W"5o � a" IF .` a. i3f, / '3, � � a: ara a x a ' , S.W. HALL BLVD. �.. �. MAN r TF s Y �`r% , v i r 00 "Oile �r M., 5! x 3 ,F« c ws a a sa rr yps � �a��,a<� ��-, `��-; 0 ." ► � � ; X & Q Q LEGEND �' r"rs SIGNAL F s RIGHT TURN ONLY g3 $ '� F a � �.• fk _ '. rs r yah ` fy CURVE WARNING 71 m a NO PARKING �� fr M X ; 5��'' Aggsy ✓�' � X imp ION � aM a � OPTION 1z a Al x°... LEFT TURN &THRU ` . STOP OPTION 2 , C> `^ iilll QP�4 STOP �O REMOVE TREE ` k O z$ h i N O R T H : t OPTION 1 N LEGEND � r •STOP .k RIGHT TURN ONLY CURVE WARNING NO PARKING � 54, a .• :Y a r g Y FIGURE 8.6 �; 4 �` .. ,.: A x e �, w �� tigMRoN� br STOP , llYlt � � LEFT TURNyv- ONLI� N O R T HVIL �a �co LEGEND STOP RIGHT TURN ONLY a '" '' ` g ♦ CURVE WARNING PARKING y � �� s ,�• ��' tis, �� a'•; � K. f d� FIGURE 8.7 .. WIN 41 17,a s _ X : e+ � & ,• A �i n ` v , d 3` EX omp wr OPTION 2 ` e F� \ a U`U M SOUN�A W B co �C�G <3 het jk N O R T H QQ � 4. s' LEGEND STOP Al RIGHT TURN ONLY ` ♦CURVE WARNING $\ NO PARKING W71 IT sm e e FIGURE 8.8 FIMP : „v e § i, r A a ` f 7 4 a xs i, �y C r a or , t 1" { 1° :. „ r.;',,.,..n ,..., «.,y ,,. ,�.. ffiE a, .. F ,«w a, r�' r :? ,, r i ,/,✓ ,� ,:<'.,"l'`Y; ': F � i"i � - c€ v E I t 1 S �F r rr k I rr ki ' 9 r v� r. p C � r b e , ;i yds.. �1 L, , • ,> ",,. ,3/Fy, ,„ .. � ,:arc � n-: '. /r 1 1 n,a, A s t " a x- r. t' �Ii, I x 6.a, r � sew / maw� � � f II I I, I u. 91 I! ;I i M ul •� I I I II' I i / I g 9 I• ,P,r. I a` � s I tl r `b I d.. I 9 I S Y tl , o , <:r d III Yrv$:a;,«;,3.a I '��y�iyo-, � "/ Y' �✓�= �`� e,l`' ,AYn', ,,,. �� tl.6,1 , V I 1 4 I�I v Wh, t / <t n v, yyam�'' r. u 1 � � r. Yr, 9re Ic' Y� gS 7 f lY� OPTION PAW vl I10.1fr'I d. L, "''I I'n II IIII(I V y n� ,� s, Ii� Ir vlfJlll I '141i1'l� S.W. TIEDEMAN AVE. §.•. ��' � .�-,,�:, :f .� .,�� ;y� � �/ ,F, �� nr �r� � c �I�:�11 I!��I II(�l I�j Ijl�ll�iul�9�ll, h��.l • � � s.. I 11. I II I,V I , k ' R n II, III��;, I11�11f y r n, n � d/E a x' 1 v r rr 3 J k , vfh f „ LEGEND / STOP r y / • �z< ✓ .: L f� s'// by ny ,� �' y: aHr W ;a / � �., $ O ■ RIGHT TURN ONLY fill N O ♦ CURVE WARNING r r 0 NO PARKING II' ..� � F' :/. MA' ,,.. �,s c,• !ids' ,�-. r � YELLOW CAUTION FLASHER 1 - E, d F , r, FIGURE 8.9 � . °-wr x 3 y cc ED g y. Lu cc CD s°� � sr IIY�� I III V ar R rR e,gib � y31I�A{»� � lit✓ f � R E MOV E T R E E � . S W J NORTH DAKOTA ST. �' �� J�4 s NO RT H p LEGEND �C SIGNAL RIGHT TURN ONLY ♦CURVE WARNING C] NO PARKING a FIGURE 8.10 a, gym, '!ai AwA>xAj ° h r a z .a Al 9x "1 C♦7711 r" s < a G♦ 4a�# E #,/ RAISED MEDIAN QPM' °,. x4 j lea qua z MERGING LANE ,. (REMOVE EXISTING RAISED MEDIAN) ' OF �t r x, Q / yy Ao ro r a � *q F , go 71 c a � ato r L 9 d ' brao 'v, z ? x4> a� 4 w s ,- NN O� �,sr t 'Ny � LEGEND asri " r"1 � A YIELD STOP u � r RIGHT TURN ONLY CURVE WARNING ' r �" Y� �€ 3 � ,°� ❑ NO PARKING FIGURE 8 11 ro, \\\\: 'II\ �$� <� °``moi" a �i• � �' a. �_ w �,� YID \•�\ �aZ� � � � � .� � � �& al kK't �wk� a All � Z a m 5 'a E d - ��M' � • �`\ a w : MC \ate \ RIGHTTURN ONLY 77 Al 101 IM \\�• - mai\� ,�� a•, �� ,� \a�� 9� s a \ 3a N O R T H LEGEND N� aEXISTING MAIN STREET 4 • STOP °a a a V RIGHT TURN ONLY �Ea -NO- €ga�AF baa CURVE WARNING y Lj NO PARKING t MW � '�a � a.: �� .�., � •�'' ,,ash ..,. �,. <� e10 - .• r �� FIGURE 8.12 4e Iw, 7xx- I've co iv,"A A IQ; . ......... ry" -nqI, RIGHT TURN ONLY OPTION 1 A PACIFIC HWY.WEST (99W) -'a? k".00, ON LY C VILLA 7 MRIGHTTURN RIGHT ONLY�, S vv wk" % 41 v�, -2 p" & `�k v OPTION 2 7 Ar N t;kw 41, Ae �v cv* 0.%M� ,OW, 11 "All. 4M SIGNAL M", ME/ A RIGHT TURN ONLY A41 *CURVE WARNING g 14 Lj NO PARKING Al 13 FIGURE 8. v 7p ,' ' 19 CHAPTER 9 FINANCING There are essentially three sources of revenue for funding transportation improvements in the Tigard area which are renewed on an annual basis. These three funding sources are: 1. State Transportation Taxes 2. County Gasoline Taxes 3. Systems Development Charges STATE TRANSPORTATION TAX The State of Oregon collects its taxes in fees for licenses, fuel , and com- mercial transportation. Approximately 12 percent of these revenues are passed on to the cities. The amount of revenue that the City of Tigard has received from this fund since 1974 is shown in Table 9.1 in terms of 1979 dollars. The city is projected to receive approximately $187,000 for FY 1980. In the past two years, this revenue has been used for police ser- vices (personnel services) , public works (personnel and materials related to roads and maintenance) , and parks (personnel and materials) . COUNTY GASOLINE TAX b" Washington County recently adopted a gasoline tax which took effect in January of 1978. The revenue derived from this tax is apportioned to the Aw cities within the county on the basis of their population. The City of Tigard expects to receive $75,000 from this revenue source in FY 1980. The revenue derived from this source during the past few years is shown in terms of 1979 dollars in Table 9.1. This money is presently budgeted for maintenance of roadways. SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE A systems development charge ordinance was adopted in 1977 to finance im- provements to the City of Tigard° s collector and arterial street system. ' Revenues received from this source are shown in terms of 1979 dollars in Table 9.1. Revenues are expected to amount to $225,000 for FY 1980. Since this revenue is dependent on continued growth in Tigard, it is extremely dependent on the economic conditions of the area. 103 40 Mw TABLE 9.1. TRANSPORTATION FUNDING SOURCES--1975 THROUGH 1980 (1979 DOLLARS) 10 Budget Budget Revenue FY 75 FY 76 FY 77 FY 78 FY 79 FY 80 Washington County Aw Road Tax $ 255 $ - $ - $ 17,819 $ 62,141 $ 75,109 Oregon State Gas Tax 188,883 168,840 179,292 143,161 154,876 186,886 ow Tigard Systems Development Charges for Streets - - 74,076 154,497 255,907 225,000 MA TOTAL $189,148 $168,840 $243,368 $315,477 $472,924 $487,995 No In order to spend this money, the systems development charge ordinance requires that a program for improving the city street system be developed and adopted. Such a program is presented in Chapter 10. At the present low time, there is half a million dollars in this fund. Of this amount, $160,000 is estimated to be needed for the city' s local match for the traffic signal improvements on 99W which are scheduled at this time to get underway in the fall of 1979. OTHER FUNDING SOURCES Other existing sources of funding include improvements made by developers, local improvement districts (LID) , and various federal and state transpor- tation programs. These sources are funded on a project-by-project basis. The Federal Aid to Urban Street Systems (FAUS) program has approximately +■ $20,000,000 available for the Metropolitan Portland area through 1986, but these monies may be programmed by 1980. Virtually all streets on the Tigard network which are either designated as arterials or collectors would qualify a, for this funding source. This program is administered by ODOT and Metro. There are also funding programs available for supporting safety improvements. Highway Safety Funds (Section 402) , can be used for "Regulatory and Warning ' Devices" such as speed and regulatory signs. This program is administered by the Oregon Traffic Safety Commission. r. The city receives revenue from Portland General Electric (PGE) for the use of the city' s rights-of-way for PGE equipment. In the last two years, this revenue has amounted to approximately $100,000 per year. This source of aw revenue would be a good candidate for funding street light improvements in those areas which are presently not sufficiently lighted. 109 low The Federal Railway Administration provides railway safety funds which can be used to improve street/rail crossings and protection devices. This program is administered by the Oregon Public Utilities Commission. FUNDING IMPROVEMENTS ' Between FY 1978 and FY 1980, there was approximately $300,000 to $500,000 available each year for improvements and maintenance of Tigard' s street system. The state transportation tax revenues are presently being used to VW pay for police, parks, and maintenance of roadway. These funds cannot be depended on for funding additional traffic safety improvements without a cutback in these other services. Since the county road tax is a relatively wo new tax, and consequently has not been established as a regular funding source, it should be used as a source for funding a traffic safety improvement program. `w The five-year transportation improvement program which is detailed in Chapter 10, is based on local funding coming from two sources: (1 ) Washington County has Tax Revenue and (2) Street Systems Development Revenue. A maximum of as $100,000 to $150,000 a year in Systems Development Charge Revenue and $50,000 to $75,000 in Washington County Tax Revenues were allocated to the program. It is recommended that the Systems Development Charge Revenue be used as the major funding source for the street improvement program supplemented by funding from other sources including LID, FAUS, County Road Tax, PGE revenue, Traffic Safety Funds and Rail Safety Funds on a case-by-case basis. a 5 1 1 0 t Chapter Tnrlon Iniprovernents am r�. CHAPTER 10 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS The recommendations in this chapter of the report are divided into four areas. The first section contains a recommended five-year transportation improvement program, the second contains changes to the current street design standards, the third contains a recommended functional classification system, and the fourth contains the procedure for incorporating these changes to update Tigard' s Municipal Code. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The improvement program outlined below contains an annual program for improv- ing Tigard' s street system over the next five years. The improvements were derived from the analysis contained in the first nine chapters of this report. The five-year program constitutes over 2.65 million dollars in transportation improvements, of which 900,000 would come from local sources of funding, 150,000 from LID' s and 1 .6 million from state and federal funds. irr wr 111 fir,. ►�..•. t�..� �•.� a..• a..•+ ati++.�w 1w.rr �.. .....+ ....y ...� ,...,wt ......r r....r �.. RECOMMENDED TIGARD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM--1980-1984 1980 IMPROVEMENTS Preliminary Funding Sources** Improvement Jurisdiction Cost Estimates WRT SDC LID PGE- FAUS TSF PUC Greenburg/99W ODOT, Tigard $ 7,000 $ 7,000 99W/Villa Ridge Way ODOT, Washington 25,000 25,000 County, Tigard +R/W Bull Mtn./Frontage Washington 60,000 8,400 $51 ,600 Road (Option 2) County, ODOT Upper Boones Ferry/ Tigard 12,000 12,000 72nd (Option 2) +R/W Hall/Bonita (Option 3) Tigard, ODOT 8,000 8,000 Gaarde/99W Tigard, ODOT 5,000 5,000 Burnham/Main Tigard 1 ,000 $ 1,000 Hall/Hunziker/ Scoffins (Option 3) Tigard, ODOT 1 ,000 1 ,000 Grant from McKenzie Tigard 1,000 1 ,000 to Tigard Burnham/Hall Tigard, ODOT 1 ,000 1 ,000 Replace 24-inch Tigard 10,000 2,500 7,500 stop signs with 36-inch stop signs on all arterials and collector (200) Institute pavement Tigard 40,000 40,000 marking program and replace all painted center lines with reflectorized buttons on all Tigard streets Correct traffic Tigard 25,000 25,000 hazards (1-32) Install street Tigard/Washington lights on the following major streets: Durham 5,046/yr. $ 5,046/yr. Walnut 3,219/yr. 3,219/yr. (135th to Tiedeman) 72nd 2,871/yr. 2,871/yr. (Bonita to Upper Boones Ferry) 72nd (From 217 to 99W) 1,740/yr. 1 ,740/yr. McDonald 2,436/yr. 2,436/yr. Bonita 2,175/yr. 2,175/yr. Hampton 696/yr. 696/yr. Construct sidewalk Tigard, along the following Washington streets: County 72nd from 17,760 $17,760 Hermoso Way to Villa Ridge Way 72nd from Varns 8,880 8,880 to Sandburg Durham from 8,800 8,800 Alderbrook to Durham School Provide designated ODOT - - - crosswalks at the following bus stops: 99W/Gaarde 99W/Walnut 99W/Villa Ridge Way (North) Subtotal M PTTO T'35. TM7, 37Y-r WFT(ff TT 0 Funding Sources Code: WRT - Washington County Road Tax TSF - Federal Traffic Safety Funds (Section 402) administered SDC - Tigard Systems Development Charge for streets by the Oregon Traffic Safety Commission (75% Federal and LID - Local Improvement District 25% local match) PGE - Revenue from Portland General Electric for PUC - Federal Rail Crossing Safety Funds administered by the rights-of-way access in Tigard Oregon Public Utilities Commission (90% Federal and FAUS - Federal Aid to Urban Systems Funds which are 10% local match) administered through ODOT and Metro (86% Federal and 14% local match) 112 Mrrrr IY�wrr arm lrrr� iwr a maw a"" 0~ ammo *MONO a WN0 no" Now* ON" awl awro arwwi RECOMMENDED TIGARD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM--1980-1984 1981 IMPROVEMENTS Preliminary Funding Sources" Improvement Jurisdiction Cost Estimates WRT SDC LIU PGE FAUS TSF PUC Commercial from Tigard $ 23,000 $ 23,000 Main to Hall Burnham from Ash Tigard 25,000 25,000 to Hall +R/W Burnham/Hall Tigard, ODOT 1 ,000 $ 1 ,000 Tiedeman from Walnut Tigard 28,000 28,000 to Katherine +R/W Tigard from Main Tigard 1 ,000 1 ,000 to Tiedeman Bonita from Hall to ODOT 350,000 50,000 $300,000 72nd (Option 1) +R/W Correct Traffic Tigard, 10,000 10,000 Hazards (32-36) Washington County Continue pavement Tigard, 20,000 20,000 marking program, Washington County replace painted crosswalks and channelization with reflectorized sheeting and buttons Install street Tigard, lights on the Washington County following streets: 135th 920/yr. $ 920/yr. Gaarde 680/yr. 680/yr. 121st 1 ,840/yr. 1 ,840/yr. (Scholls Ferry to Katherine) (Walnut to Gaarde) Pfaffle 480/yr. 480/yr. Construct sidewalks Tigard, along the following Washington County streets: Tiedeman from 19,800 $19,980 Walnut to Greenburg 121st from 24,420 24,420 . Springwood to Walnut Rail crossing Tigard, improvements and Washington County gates at the following locations: Tiedeman, south of 130,000 $13,000 $117,000 North Dakota (two crossings) Subtotal $ 6 $45,00 $T76-,60U $44,W 3T,52UTy—r. $3DO,000 ----07-- $TTT-,W Funding Sources Code WRT - Washington County Road Tax TSF - Federal Traffic Safety Funds (Section 402) administered SDC - Tigard Systems Development Charge for streets by the Oregon Traffic Safety Commission (75% Federal and LID - Local Improvement District 25% local match) PGE - Revenue from Portland General Electric for PUC - Federal Rail Crossing Safety Funds administered by the rights-of-way access in Tigard Oregon Public Utilities Commission (90%Federal and FAUS - Federal Aid to Urban Systems Funds which are 10% local match) administered through ODOT and Metro (86% Federal and 14% local match) 113 6ftewo 00M kw� iom� "000 ilr r WAF.y moos r"Wr s o `now crow W~ MM-0 W.0W mww� OW4 "moo 0000 RECOMMENDED TIGARD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM--1980-1984 1982 IMPROVEMENTS Preliminary Funding Sources" Improvement Jurisdiction Cost Estimates WRT SDC LID FAUS TSF PUC Hall/Hunziker/ Tigard, ODOT $112,000 $112,000 Scoffins (Option 2) +R/W Durham/Upper Boones Ferry ODOT, Tigard 10,000 10,000 +R/W Hall/Commercial Tigard, ODOT 1 ,000 1 ,000 Continue pavement Tigard 20,000 20,000 marking program, replace painted crosswalks and channelization with reflectorized sheeting and buttons Install street Tigard, lights on the Washington County following streets: 97th & 98th 680/yr $ 680/yr (Lakeside to McDonald) Murdock 320/yr 320/yr Dakota 960/yr 960/yr (121st to Greenburg) Tigard 880/yr 880/yr (Katherine to 115th) Tiedeman 200/yr 200/yr (Tigard to Greenburg) Construct sidewalks Tigard, along the following Washington County streets: Murdock from 13,320 $13,320 97th to 106th 97th from 14,430 14,430 McDonald to Templeton Elementary School 99th from Durham 17,760 17,760 to Murdock Rail crossing Tigard, improvements and Washington County gates at the following locations: Hall , north of 130,000 $13,000 $117,000 Burnham (two crossings) Subtotal $ $44,000 $1T 60� $�5 5Tb � �� ,00 Funding Sources Code: WRT - Washington County Road Tax TSF - Federal Traffic Safety Funds (Section 402) administered SDC - Tigard Systems Development Charge for streets by the Oregon Traffic Safety Commission (75% Federal and LID - Local Improvement District 25% local match) PGE - Revenue from Portland General Electric for PUC - Federal Rail Crossing Safety Funds administered by the rights-of-way access in Tigard Oregon Public Utilities Commission (90% Federal and FAUS - Federal Aid to Urban Systems Funds which are 10% local match) administered through ODOT and Metro (86% Federal and 14% local match) 114 frwrr 6NOW ii mow Nw onow anew ■owo irrWr womw ow-W ar.rr awsw "MW "MW 0~ RECOMMENDED TIGARD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM--1980-1984 1983 IMPROVEMENTS Preliminary Funding Sources** Improvement Jurisdiction Cost Estimates WRT SDC LID— _ FAUS TSF PUC Nall/Durham ODOT, Tigard $ 88,000 $25,000 $ 63,000 +R/W Tiedeman/Greenburg Washington County 81 ,000 81 ,000 Widen Greenburg to Tigard, 44' from 99W to Washington County 115,000 16,100 $98,900 Cascade Tiedeman/Walnut Washington County 22,000 22,000 (Option 2) Construct sidewalks Tigard along the following steets: Johnson from Grant 3,330 $ 3,330 to 99W McKenzie from 3,330 3,330 Grant to 99W Walnut from 13,320 13,320 128th to 121st Rail crossing Tigard, improvements and Washington County gates at the following locations: Durham, north of 65,000 6,500 $ 58,500 Upper Boones Ferry North Dakota at 65,000 6,500 58,500 Tiedeman Subtotal $455,980 $60,0 $160,100 $19,980 $98,900 — 0 -$T' TIM Funding Sources Code: WRT - Washington County Road Tax TSF - Federal Traffic Safety Funds (Section 402) administered SDC - Tigard Systems Development Charge for streets by the Oregon Traffic Safety Commission (75% Federal and LID - Local Improvement District 25% local match) PGE - Revenue from Portland General Electric for PUC - Federal Rail Crossing Safety Funds administered by the rights-of-way access in Tigard Oregon Public Utilities Commission (90% Federal and FAUS - Federal Aid to Urban Systems Funds which are 10% local match) administered through ODOT and Metro (86% Federal and 14% local match) 115 RECOMMENDED TIGARD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM--1980-1984 1984 IMPROVEMENTS Preliminary Funding Sources** Improvement Jurisdiction Cost Estimates WRT SDC LID PGE FAUS TSF PUC Hall from O'Mara ODOT, Tigard $967,000 $135,380 $831 ,620 to Bonita (Option 1) (widen Hall from 99W to Durham) Widen 72nd to 36' Tigard $ 50,600 $50,600 from 217 to Bonita Subtotal $1 ,017,600 $50,600 $135,380 0 0 $831 ,620 0 0 TOTAL 5-YEAR PROGRAM . $2,681 ,073 $246,100 $623,880 $145,330 $25,143 $1 ,282,120 $7,500 $351 ,000 Funding Sources Code: WRT - Washington County Road Tax TSF - Federal Traffic Safety Funds (Section 402) administered SDC - Tigard Systems Development Charge for streets by the Oregon Traffic Safety Commission (75% Federal and LID - Local Improvement District 25% local match) PGE —Revenue from Portland General Electric for PUC - Federal Rail Crossing Safety Funds administered by the rights-of-way access in Tigard Oregon Public Utilities Commission (90% Federal and FAUS - Federal Aid to Urban Systems Funds which are 10% local match) administered through ODOT and Metro (86% Federal and 14% local match) 116 Other improvements that were considered, but were not ranked high enough to be programmed included: . Widenings 1 . Scholls Ferry to 44' 2. 72nd to 36' from 217 to 99W 3. Durham to 44' from 99W to Upper Boones Ferry Road 4. Walnut to 40' from 135th to 99W 5. McDonald to 40' from Hall to 99W 6. 135th to 40' from Scholls Ferry Road to Walnut 7. Gaarde to 36' from 99W to 121st irr 8. 121st to 36' from Gaarde to Scholls 9. Tiedeman to 36' from North Dakota to Walnut 10. Tigard to 36' from Main to 115th 11 . North Dakota to 36' from Tiedeman to 115th 12. Sattler to 36' from 99th to Hall r 13. Beef Bend to 36' 14. Bull Mountain to 36' rr 15. Pfaffle to 36' Signalization 1 . Upper Boones Ferry & 72nd 2. Upper Boones Ferry & Durham 3. Scholls Ferry & 135th 4. Hunziker & 72nd DESIGN STANDARDS As a part of this traffic safety study, the City of Tigard' s street design standards were reviewed and recommendations were made as to revisions. Presently there are design standards for three types of street classifica- tions; arterial , collector, and local streets. These classification categories were expanded from the present three categories to seven to include; freeway, major arterial , minor arterial , major collector, neigh- borhood collector, local , and streets ending in a cul-de-sac. „ 117 �r iYr Design standards for each of these seven classifications were then developed on the basis of six criteria which included right-of-way width, pavement width, number of lanes, parking, traffic volume, and speed. These design criteria recommendations are based on proper travel lane width, parking width, safe stopping distances, roadway capacity, and abutting land uses. The recommended street design standards for the City of Tigard are shown in Table 10.1. Of major concern to the City of Tigard are those streets which are classified below minor arterials. The freeway and major arterial classifications are roadways which are the responsibility of the Oregon Department of Transportation. Local streets are recommended to be retained in street width at 34 feet. This would allow two travel lanes with parking on one side. Neighborhood collectors are recommended to be 36 feet wide which would allow two lanes with parking on both sides. Major collectors would be 40 feet wide with two or three lanes, with or without parking. Minor arterials would be 44 feet with three lanes and parking allowed on one side, or four lanes and no parking. A 66-foot-wide minor arterial would " have five lanes with no parking, the fifth lane being a turning lane, or four lanes with parking on both sides. It is recommended that on the higher volume streets, particularly the major collector and above, that parking be discouraged. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Each of the roadways in the Tigard network were evaluated according to the design standards in Table 10.1 to determine their proper designation. The projected volumes for 1990 and the year 2000 were used to evaluate the traffic volume criterion in order to anticipate the future use and function of each of the streets. The results of this classification evaluation recommenda- tions are listed below: • Freeways: 1-5 and 217 . Major Arterial : 99W . Minor Arterial : Greenburg, Hall , Durham, Scholls Ferry, and Upper Boones Ferry . Major Collector: 135th, Walnut, Main, Hunziker, McDonald, Bonita, 72nd, and Hampton . Neighborhood Collector: Sattler from 98th to Hall , 98th, 97th, Murdock from 97th to 98th, Burnham, Commercial , Scoffins, Pfaffle, Oak, 69th, from 99W to Oak, Tigard from Main to Tiedeman, Grant from Tigard to Walnut, Johnson from 99W to Grant, Tiedeman, North Dakota from 121st to Tiedeman, Cascade, 121st, Gaarde, Beef Bend Road, and Bull Mountain . Local and Cul-de-sac: All other streets which are not designated as arterials or collectors are local streets. 118 �r WWWW� UNOMW Noon" rMON soon rrrrrY TABLE 10.1. RECOMMENDED STREET DESIGN STANDARDS Functional Pavement Parking/ Traffic Speed Classification Right-of-Way Width Ft. No. of Lanes Volume (ADT) (mph) Freeway 120 + 12' Lanes 4+ 24,000 + 50-55 Major Arterial 80-120 66-76 4+ 16,000 + 40-45 Minor Arterial 60-80 44-66 2-4 10,000-16,000 30-45 44'-3 lanes parking one side 44'-4 lanes no parking 66'-5 lanes no parking 66'-4 lanes no parking both sides Major Collector 60 40-44 2-3 4,000-10,000 25-35 44'-3 lanes no parking one side 40'-3 lanes no parking 40'-2 lanes parking both sides Neighborhood Collector 60 36 2 2,000-4,000 20-30 Two-lane parking both sides Local 50 34 2 Less than 15-25 2,000 Two lanes parking one side Cul-de-sac 50 32' 2 Less than 15-25 1,500 or a max. Not more Two lanes parking of 18 housing than 600' one side units long 41' minimum cul-de-sac radius 119 rrr TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE REVISIONS aw Under the present Tigard Municipal Code, various transportation related ordinances are cataloged under any one of four different sections. Sec- tion 10 of the Municipal Code covers traffic and parking regulations, to bicycle, and sidewalks. Section 15 of the code covers street, sidewalk , and alley excavation requirements. Section 17 of the code covers subdivi- sion ordinances. Under the subdivision ordinance section, street design Wo criteria and functional classification designations are found. Section 18, the zoning ordinances, covers right-of-way widths by functional classifi- cation (set-back requirements) . WIn order to eliminate the redundancy now present in the code with regards to transportation ordinances and to simplify the process of trying to find transportation-related codes, it is recommended that Section 10 and 15 r be combined into one section and that this section be titled Transportation and Parking. All ordinances related to transportation would then be found under this section including the street design standards and functional classification designations which are now found in the subdivision and zoning ordinances. These ordinances could be cross-referenced in the subdivision and zoning ordinances, but would actually be located in the transportation and parking section of the code. rvr irr w. r 120 ww �.,. . .,.� �n... xv � �. . .,M ,�,_. :,_.. a x�; r-_ CHAPTER 11 PLAN UPDATE PROCEDURE A part of the transportation safety improvement effort is the development of a program to monitor and update the recommendations made in this study. As primary elements, this program will require: 1. Safety Program Update: An update of the safety program annually. As each annual element of the program is implemented, new improve- ments should be identified and added annually to the program so that it always remains as a five-year program. A multi-year program will considerably aid the budgeting and planning for Tigard' s street system. 2. Major Study Review: A major revision of the transportation safety study should be made every five years. This review will require an effort similar to the one contained in this report and the 1971 traffic safety study. low 3. Traffic Counts: The city should continue its traffic count program. As a part of this study, four new traffic counters were purchased and new traffic count stations were added to bring the total number of traffic count stations in the area to 231. Counts on all arterial and collector streets should be made annually. These counts will aid in the identification of intersections which meet traffic warrant standards as well as provide the necessary information to compute traffic accident rates. 4. Traffic Accident Analysis: Annually, traffic accidents for street sections and intersections should be computed and plotted on the critical accident rate charts (Figure 7.2 and 7.3, in Chapter 7) . Those locations which are critical should be further investigated (i .e. , accident diagrams) and improvements to these locations should be added to the annual element of the street improvement program. am 5. Pavement Marking Reconnaissance: Pavement marking should be inven- toried annually on all major streets and pedestrian crosswalks to verify that they are still visible. As a part of the recommenda- m tions, an annual pavemer,i: eiarking program was initiated which would replace existing painted striping with buttons and reflectorized tape which are considerably less expensive to maintain than „,W painted pavement markings. 6. Street Inventory: As new streets are added to the system, they should be added to the existing street inventory data. Likewise, improvements to the existing street system should also be added to the inventory data so that it is constantly up-to-date. Wo V. 121 WW 7. Traffic Control : The pin-maps which the city now has indicating the location of all traffic signs should be updated annually. During the course of the inventory, traffic signs which are in dis- repair should be identified and replaced. 8. Program Evaluation: Improvement recommendations which are imple- AW mented as a part of this program should be monitored and reevaluated within one year after their completion. This evaluation will pro- vide the data necessary to determine the effectiveness of the improvement. For example, upon the installation of a traffic signal at Bull Mountain and Frontage Road, traffic accident reports should be monitored for this intersection. After a period of six months, these traffic accident reports should be analyzed to determine whether or not accidents have been reduced at this intersection. A similar evaluation program should be set up for each improvement. 122 pe'k dh es REFERENCES 1. Traffic Safety Program for the City of Tigard. Cornell , Howland, Hayes and Merryfield, 1971. 2. Tigard Area Comprehensive Pedestrian/Bicycle Path Plan. City of Tigard, 1974. 3. Tigard Community Services and Transportation Plan. City of Tigard, 1978. 4. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1971. 5. Traffic Safety and Roadway Management Plan for Washington County. Transportation Planning and Management, Inc. , 1978. 6. The Development of a Critical Accident Rate Control Chart Method for the Identification of Critical Accident Locations. Sung-tsing Yu, University of Washington, 1971. 7. Engineering News-Record. June 21 , 1979. 8. Highway Functional Classification Concepts, Criteria, and Procedures. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, July 1974. 9. Quick-Response Urban Travel Estimation Techniques and Transferrable Parameters, Users Guide. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 187, Transportation Research Board, 1978. 10. Highway Capacity Manual . Highway Research Board Special Report 87, 1965. 11. Manual of Traffic Engineering Studies. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1976. Ow 12. Evaluation of Criteria for Safety Improvements on the Highway. Roy Jorgensen and Associates, 1966. 13. City of Tigard Budget 1979-80. City of Tigard, 1979. 123 on APPENDIX ON 1978-79 COST ESTIMATES (DOES NOT INCLUDE R/W COSTS) r Standard Local Street (34 feet) a. Grading - 34' x 100' x 1.5 divided by 27 x $3.25/cy = $ 614 b. 6-inch base rock - 34' x 100' divided by 9 x $2.15/sy = 812 c. 2-inch leveling course - 34' x 100' divided by 9 x $.80/sy = 302 " d. 2-inch base asphalt - 34' x 100' divided by 9 x $2.55/sy = 963 e. 1-inch finish asphalt - 34' x 100' divided by 9 x $1.65/sy = 623 f. 16-inch curbs - 2 x 100' x $4.50/lf = 900 g. 5-foot sidewalks - 2 x 100' x $5.55/lf = 1 ,110 Cost per 100 feet = $5,324 rr Cost per foot = $53.24 Recommended Collector Street (40 feet) a. Grading - 40' x 100' x 1.5 divided by 27 x $3.25/cy = $ 722 +w� b. 8-inch base rock - 40' x 100' divided by 9 x $2.40/sy = 1,067 c. 2-inch leveling course - 40' x 100' divided by 9 x $.80/sy = 356 d. 3-inch base asphalt - 40' x 100' divided by 9 x $3.35/sy = 1,489 e. 16-inch curbs - 2 x 100' x $4.50/lf = 900 f. 8-inch sidewalks - 2 x 100' x $5.55/lf = $1,110 Cost per 100 feet = $5,644 Cost per foot = $56.44 Recommended Arterial Street (44 feet) a. Grading - 44' x 100' x 1.5 divided by 27 x $3.25/cy = $ 794 b. 12-inch base rock - 44' x 100' divided by 9 x $4.40/sy = 2,151 c. 1-1/2 inch leveling course - 44' x 100' divided by 9 x $.65/sy = 318 d. 3-inch base asphalt - 44' x 100' divided by 9 x $3.35/sy = 1,638 e. 16-inch curbs - 2 x 100' x $4.50/lf = 900 f. 5-foot sidewalks - 2 x 100' x $5.55/lf = 1,110 +rr Cost per 100 feet = $6,911 Cost per foot = $69.11 wr 124 APPENDIX (Continued) Unit Construction and Material Costs Grading Work: $ 3.25/cy • Curbs (16-inch) : $ 4.50/lf Sidewalks (5-foot) : $ 5.55/if Asphalt: 1-inch $ 1.65/sy 1-1/2 inch $ 2.20/sy 2-inch $ 2.55/sy 3-inch $ 3.35/sy Leveling Course: 1-1/2 inch $ .65/sy 2-inch $ .80/sy Aggregate Base: 1 8-inch $ 2.40/sy 12-inch $ 4.40/sy Contingency: 10% of construction cost rAdministration: 10% of construction cost Engineering: (only on projects over 50,000) 12% of constuction costs Other Improvements Stop sign (36-inch reflectorized) $ 45.00 each Regulatory sign (approximately 24" x 30") $ 26.00 each rMetal posts (10-1/2 feet) $ 10.50 each Polyester buttons (4-inch) $ .50 each Flashing signal warning unit $ 5,000.00 Traffic signal with controller $60,000.00 and heads (two-phase) Traffic signal with controller and heads (four-phase or more) $80,000.00 125 wr go APPENDIX (Continued) Other Improvements (Continued) AW Street Lights: m Major Streets 25watt�,U00 lumen high pressure Sodium installed and rented from PGE $ 87.00/year per unit WO (assume 200 feet between units) Minor Streets 7,,000 lumen iinstalled and rented +� from PGE $ 40.00/year per unit Rail Crossing Rail crossing gates (pair) $50,000.00 Rubber grade crossing mat 15,000.00 $65,000.00/crossing Guard Rail $ 25.00/foot, installed war i�. r. r 126