The URL can be used to link to this page

METRO - Southwest Corridor Study - May 1987 L � V� 1 fesVVt kill, ' Southwest Corridor Study Final report Conclusions, recommendations and evaluation of alternatives Adopted by the Metropolitan Service District Council May 28, 1987 METRO The Metropolitan Service District was Councilors by district are: created by voters in 1978 to handle regional District 1 Mike Ragsdale concerns in the urban areas of Clackamas, District 2 Richard Waker Multnomah and Washington counties.Metro District 3 Jim Gardner is responsible for solid waste disposal, District 4 Corky Kirkpatrick operation of the Washington Park Zoo, District 5 Tom DeJardin transportation planning and technical District 6 George Van Bergen services to local governments, and District 7 Sharron Kelley construction and operation of the Oregon District 8 Mike Bonner Convention Center.. District 9 Tanya Collier Executive officer District 10 Larry Cooper Rena Cusma District 11 David Knowles District 12 Gary Hansen i 12 11 Niglootl Pa'k Fairview Wood Troutdale Village F Grov Cornell s Hillsboro 1 10 , Portland 9 Gresham Beaverton 3 8 2 Milwaukle Happy Valley 6 Tigard Lake 4 Oswego king Johnzon City Durham City Rivr•ryrnv .ilatlslone Tualatin W..51 Linn Sherwoo 5 Orrgon City Wilson,Ile First printing 86104 SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR STUDY FINAL REPORT Conclusions, Recommendations and Evaluation of Alternatives Adopted by the Metropolitan Service District Council May 28 , 1987 SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR POLICY COMMITTEE Chairman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rena Cusma Metro Council. . . . . . . . . . . Councilor Corky Kirkpatrick Multnomah County . . . . . . . . . Commissioner Pauline Anderson Washington County. . . . . . . . . . Commissioner Roy Rogers Clackamas- County . . . . . . . . . . Commissioner Robert Schumacher Oregon Transportation Commission . . . Sam Naito Tri-Met Board. . . . . . . . . Bob Post City of Beaverton. . . . . . . . . . . Mayor Larry Cole City of Durham . . . . . . . . . . . . Councilor Dr. Mary Taylor City of King City. . . . . . . . . . . Councilor Harold Kimzey City of Lake Oswego. . . . . . . . . . Councilor Stan Ash City of Portland . . . . . . . . . . . Commissioner Earl Blumenauer City of Rivergrove . . . . . . . . . . Councilor Neil McFarlane City of Sherwood . . . . . . . . . . . Councilor J. Ben Reid City of Tigard . . . . . . . . . . Councilor Tom Brian City of Tualatin . . . . . . . . . Councilor Charlie Brown Councilor Richard Devlin City of West Linn. . . . . . . . . Councilor Kathy Lairson City of Wilsonville. . . . . . . . . . Councilor Bill Stark SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR STUDY CITIZENS ' ADVISORY COMMITTEE Citizen Member Appointed By Robert Stein Clackamas County Bill Church Multnomah County Tom Sullivan Washington County Kent Freeman City of Beaverton Tom Heerhartz City of Durham To Be Appointed City of King City To Be Appointed City of Lake Oswego Pam Ragsdale Oregon Transportation Commission Alan Hart City of Portland Mark Bowman City of Sherwood Milt Fyre City of Tigard Lee Frease Tri-Met Board Larry Mylnechuk City of Tualatin Jon Buckley City of West Linn Doug Seely . City of Wilsonville Ron Roberts Metro Gary Cook Metro Sheila Holden Metro Andy Jordan Metro The Southwest Corridor Study Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) provided valuable guidance and assistance in the development of this document. TAC members included : Rod Sandoz , Washington County Ron Weinman, Washington County Greg Jones, City of Portland Vic Berning, ODOT (Salem) Tom Edwards, ODOT (Salem) Leo Huff, ODOT (Metro Branch) Jay McCoy, ODOT (Metro Branch) Tom Schwab, ODOT (Metro Branch) Ted Spence, ODOT (Metro Branch) Mike McKillip, City of Tualatin Bill Barber , Clackamas County Randy Wooley, City of Tigard Rick Root, City of Beaverton Larry Blanchard , City of Wilsonville Jim Rapp, City of Sherwood David Lee , city of Durham Denis Borman, City of King City Paul Haines , City of Lake Oswego Kathy Lairson, City of West Linn Susie Lahsene , Multnomah County Alonzo Wertz, Tri-Met The preparation of this report has been financed in part by funds from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration , under the Mass Transportation Act of 1964 as amended; and by funds from the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Prepared By TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT Andrew Cotugno Director of Transportation Research Team and Authors James A. Gieseking, Jr. Project Manager and Principal Author Bob Hart Transportation Analyst Systems Support Dick Walker Senior Analyst . Clyde Scott Transportation Analyst Terry Bolstad Transportation Analyst Report Production Lois Kaplan Transportation Secretary Gloria Logan Lead Word Processing Operator Shannon Mallory- Word Processing Operator Alan Holsted Graphics John Willworth Offset Printing Oertllled A TZ;?PY Of •h,- J Thereof Clerk of the �ourrJi BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING THE ) RESOLUTION NO. 87-763 SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR STUDY ) CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ) Introduced by the Joint Policy Alternatives Committee on Transportation WHEREAS, Metropolitan Service District Ordinance No. 82-135 adopted and Ordinance No. 83-161 amended the Regional Transportation Plan which identified the transportation deficiencies in the Southwest Corridor as an outstanding issue; and WHEREAS, The Regional Transportation Plan called for an examination of highway and transit improvement strategies to resolve this issue; and WHEREAS, The Metropolitan Service District , Oregon Depart- ment of Transportation, and the affected local jurisdictions have cooperatively conducted a major study of alternative transportation strategies in the corridor; and WHEREAS, The study produced the conclusions and recommen- dations as set forth in Attachment "A"; and WHEREAS, These conclusions and recommendations have been approved by the Southwest Corridor Study Technical , Citizen and Policy Advisory Committees; and WHEREAS, These conclusions and recommendations have been reviewed by several community organizations and affected citizen groups in the corridor as well as supported by testimony taken at a Public hearing on the study; now, therefore , BE IT RESOLVED, 1 . That the Council of the Metropolitan Service District adopts the Southwest Corridor Study Conclusions and Recommendations contained in Attachment "A" and directs staff to incorporate appro- priate portions into the ordinance to update the Regional Transpor- tation Plan . 2. That the Council of the Metropolitan Service District directs staff to prepare an intergovernmental agreement with Washington County specifying the process and time frame to resolve the land uses issues as specified in Attachment "A" to be adopted by both parties and appropriate portions to be incorporated into the ordinance update to the Regional Transportation Plan. ADOPTED by the Council of the Metropolitan Service District this 28th day of May 1987 . Richard Waker , Presiding Officer AC/gl 7024C/496 05/14/87 ATTACHMENT A SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR STUDY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The western portion of the Portland metropolitan area is a major growth area. Together with steady growth in downtown Portland, severe traffic pressures will be placed on virtually all of the transportation system, particularly in the regional travel corridors . Transportation improvement is an essential prerequisite to supporting this growth . Without adequate improvement to the transportation system, unacceptable levels of traffic congestion will develop, access to job and labor force markets will deterio- rate , neighborhood traffic problems will grow and ultimately economic growth will shift , to some degree , to other more attractive locations both within the Portland area and elsewhere . The most cost-effective method of serving this growth is through a combination of transit. service expansion and improvement to both the regional freeway and arterial systems and local road network . This report presents a comprehensive transit and highway improvement program for the Southwest Corridor area . Parts of the needed improvement program are recommended as additions to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) ; other parts are already reflected in the Plan . Transit expansion is most critical in the I-5 and Sunset corridors to improve accessibility to job centers in downtown Portland and along the Highway 217 corridor . Transit expansion is important for the dual purpose of providing access to certain job locations plus ensuring that the highway system functions adequately so that accessibility to other locations via the automobile can be improved . To meet these transit objectives , service expansion throughout the Westside is necessary , together with the associated capital improvements to support the service expansion, including new transit centers , park-and-ride lots , fleet expansion and considera- tion of construction of the Sunset LRT. Improvement to the regional highway system is needed in two major radial corridors , Sunset and I-5, and in two major circumferential corridors, Highway 217 and the Western Bypass . These improvements entail a package of capacity increases , interchange improvements , operational improvements and construction of new facilities to serve existing and projected traffic demands . In addition, improvement to the local road network is needed throughout the area to serve local circulation requirements and subregional travel movements and to provide access to the regional highway network . The most significant issue associated with improvement to the highway system that was addressed by this study is the question of whether or not a Western Bypass is needed to serve the future development of the adopted local comprehensive plans as well as the effect this decision has on the scope of regional improvement needed - i - to the Sunset Highway, Highway 217 and other routes in the system . However , the vast majority of the proposed highway improvements are not affected by the Bypass decision and should be implemented regardless of the final conclusion on the Bypass . This includes a large number of improvements to the major state highways and city and county roads for which the scope of improvement is the same under any circumstance . Two areas addressed by this study will be addressed further at a later date: Tualatin Valley Highway from Beaverton to Hillsboro will be addressed by an ODOT reconnaissance engineering study and the Macadam corridor and Willamette River crossing south of downtown Portland will be addressed by Metro' s Southeast Corridor Study . The following conclusions about the Western Bypass itself can be reached: 1 . The Western Bypass would produce several areas of improved service that would not occur through improvement to other facilities in lieu of the Bypass . In particular : Travel times between the Tualatin-Sherwood area and the Hillsboro-Aloha area would be significantly better , thereby improving access to job and labor force markets for these areas; Access from the developing Sunset corridor to I-5 (near Tualatin) -- the major highway serving the full length of Oregon -- will foster further economic expansion in this area . Better traffic relief through the South Beaverton and South Tigard neighborhoods would be realized with the Western Bypass as compared to upgrading Highway 217 and the Sunset Highway . T.V. Highway (between Murray Boulevard and 219th Avenue ) would operate at a better level of service with the Bypass than without by allowing traffic to be dispersed west of the most congested segment at 185th Avenue . Further analysis will be conducted by ODOT ' s reconnaissance engineering study . 2. If a Western Bypass is built within the next 20 years, some improvement to Highway 217, the Sunset Highway and Highway 99W can be delayed and , with it , the $17. 7 million required for these improvements can be deferred . 3. The cost of the Western Bypass ($150 million total cost from I-5 to the Sunset Highway) is not an inherent impediment since it can be divided into as many as seven different operable stages which can be implemented over an extended period of time as financing becomes available . With this approach , the project can be divided into increments costing between $6. 6 million and $53. 5 million , - ii - thereby making it possible to program the project over time . The two primary phases for the Bypass are 1 ) from I-5 to Highway 99W, and 2) from Highway 99W to the T.V. Highway . The remaining phases involve addition of interchanges to the facility and improvements to Boones Ferry Road and 219th/216th/Cornelius Pass Road. The first phase (from I-5 to Highway 99W) would provide an operable facility providing a new connection between two state highways and, therefore , could be developed as an independent project or jointly with the remainder of the Bypass . 4. If sufficient financing is not available, a portion of the Bypass can be delayed (with a deferred cost of $70 million) and , instead , further improvement to Highway 217 and Sunset Highway ($17. 7 million) could be implemented . The alternative of further improving Highway 217 and Sunset Highway would provide an acceptable highway system for the next 15 to 20 years in the event the Bypass cannot be fully implemented within that time . However , beyond 2005 , the Bypass is needed to serve the full development of Washington County' s Comprehensive Plan . 5. Land use issues regarding consistency of the Bypass with rural land uses need to be resolved before the Bypass can be constructed . These issues are most significant in the Highway 99W to T.V. Highway segment where significantly improved accessibility is provided . However , this segment is not immediately required to correct existing and short-term transportation problems . Furthermore , the Bypass is intended to serve currently planned regional travel needs rather than open up new areas for urban development . The Bypass is proposed as a limited access facility to minimize development pressures and does not rely on expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to efficiently utilize the facility. 6. The. most appropriate location for the Bypass is from I-5 north of Norwood Road to the Sunset Highway at Cornelius Pass Road . Alternative locations for the southern terminus at Stafford or Boeckman are not preferred because they are too far out of direction for the majority of users . Alternative locations for the northern terminus at Murray Road , 185th Avenue or west of 219th are not preferred due to cost , impact and inadequate traffic service . Recommended Actions 1. Amend the RTP to include the highway improvements identified on Maps R1 and R2. Map Rl depicts the general Western Bypass Corridor (alignment to be determined) and highway improvements directly affected by the Bypass . Map R2 depicts the remainder of the required highway improve- ments (a portion of which is already included in the RTP -- the remainder must be added; see pages 11-14 for details) . As a prerequisite for construction of any highway improvement in the RTP, a final build/no-build decision must be made based upon environmental and other impact assessments , preliminary engineering (PE) , design and locational determinations and citizen involvement . An alternative to consider construction of the Bypass from T.V. Highway to Sunset Highway as a limited-access facility rather than a five-lane arterial will, be considered during PE. These components are the responsi- bility of the implementing jurisdiction and are not RTP decisions. 2. The overall program should be staged over time as financing becomes available with priority placed on those improvements that correct the most immediate problems . Presented in Section VI of this report is a Staging Plan to provide guidance on which improvements are most critical to correct existing and short-term problems and which can be deferred . The plan is simply a guideline and- actual funding decisions that are made over time will need to consider up-to-date information on funding availability and the rate at which development creates the need for the improvement . The Staging Plan concentrates on the regional highway system and does not fully present when improvements are needed on the local , collector and minor arterial parts of the highway system. These improvements are more directly required to serve surrounding develop- ment and should be implemented by the local jurisdictions as those developments occur . In addition , a Staging Plan is presented for both the "Bypass" and "Highway 217/Sunset Highway" alternatives -- both of which have a common Stage 1. If funding does not become available for the full Bypass , there is the opportunity to shift to the Highway 217/Sunset improvement for an interim period . As such , ODOT should identify areas where right-of-way would be needed for the Highway 217/Sunset Highway alternative and, together with the local jurisdiction , take action to protect the right-of-way from encroachment from development . 3. Elements of this improvement program are eligible for available funding from federal , state and regional sources . However , decisions to fund these improvements will be made in accordance with regional priorities established through JPACT and by the responsible funding agency taking into consideration needs throughout the region . 4. Washington County should begin PE on the Western Bypass . The PE and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepara- tion to be conducted in the bypass corridor shall include - iv - an examination of alternative alignments (including utility rights-of-way) ; potential impacts to designated natural and other resources ; water quality in the impact area; and the land use issues specified in Recommended Action V . Map R1 indicates the general corridor in which alignment alternatives will be examined. In addition, ample opportunity should be provided for citizen participation and input into the location, design and build/no-build decision-making process . 5. Amend the RTP to add a transit trunk route on I-5 to the Tualatin Transit Station as reflected in Map R3 . Consider reserving right-of-way as part of the proposed Western Bypass to allow for future transitway construction. (The balance of the transit improvements identified on the map are already included in the RTP. ) 6 . Tri-Met and the affected local jurisdictions should implement the already funded bus transfer stations and park-and-ride lots as expeditiously as possible . Service expansion is subject to funding availability and regional priorities. Construction of the Sunset LRT is subject to further analysis and adoption of a financial plan. However , in accordance with previously adopted policy, PE on the Sunset LRT can proceed with available funds from UMTA to prepare for a construction decision at a later date . 7 . Metro and Washington County should execute an interagency agreement defining the process for ensuring consistency of the Bypass with local comprehensive plans and state land use policies . Such a process would entail the following steps : a) Consistent with local, regional and state Policies, Washington County should determine : 1. If and where expansion of the UGB is recommended; 2. If and where exceptions to Goals 3 (Agriculture) , 4 (Forest) and 14 (Urbanization) are necessary; and 3. Where none are necessary. b) Washington County and Metro will compile documentation required by local, regional and state policies to support necessary amendments and/or Goal 14 exceptions to the UGB . v - c) Metro will consider adoption of necessary UGB amendments and/or Goal 14 exceptions . Any UGB amendments proposed as a result of this process will be distributed to JPACT for review. d) Washington County will compile documentation required by state , regional and local policies to support necessary exceptions to Goals 3 and 4 . e) Washington County will consider adoption of necessary exceptions and changes to land use designations and other actions as needed for goal compliance . This process will be undertaken immediately upon adoption of the RTP amendment to ensure that compliance with land use requirements will be made in a timely manner . If at the conclusion of this process , it is found that the Bypass cannot comply, an RTP amendment will not be necessary to remove the Bypass . A process will begin to address the problem in some other manner . Conclusion of this process to satisfactorily establish consistency of the proposed Bypass with comprehensive plans is necessary before the EIS required for the project can be published . Documentation and actions produced through this process will provide input to the EIS. The land use decision to build the Bypass will not be made until this land use process is completed . Comprehensive Plan consistency for the Highway 99W to T.V. Highway segment is more significant than for the I-5 to Highway 99W segment . As such , the two segments could be separated and implemented as two separate projects with the I-5 to Highway 99W segment coming first . Although the two segments should be designed to be compatible with one another , the I-5 to Highway 99W segment would provide a logical, operable facility by itself in the event the remainder is not built. Upon amendment of the RTP, preliminary engineering and preparation of a Draft EIS for the I-5 to Highway 99W segment could proceed immediately. However , preliminary engineering will not proceed on the Highway 99W to T.V. Highway segment until compliance with land use requirements can be demonstrated. There will, however , be additional engineering and environmental reconnaissance i,n support of the land use process . AC/gl 6465C/478-13 vi - _ I f Unnu ML't INOMA.CO ;` l W HilJa�boro6 lanes ^ • 216th/219th alignment (5 lane arterial with -Alp, access control or limited access facility ',. to be determined 6 lanes during P.E.) ! 4 Aloha - __ I C..t• . / s..l,w Bypass In I yp terchan es RD T.V. Hwy. \ ,,:,:�; - ` 1= 5 _ verton -tt R �tlry vCRNOwr Farmington Rd. `6 lanes r _ ° ~ =�o Scholls Ferry Hwy. 99W ,, .�� - •pfa `�, fi•SSR R IRrGfNr I L - R v ji wp \ ' t Tualatin-Sherwood/ -i i _a � � i :' �f ;�, Edy Rd. Cooper t Boones Ferry Rd. M"' ""R-�°---a �� auxiliary lanes 1-5/1-205 =- 5 _— 6 lanes P •:j igar�•\ YC��i ` w I ~!..! Com.'/Y,I /Y •b ..W � EA _ Poor' "L—,�at vo i Union MUL __TNOMAH CO 9•� _ _. CO RO \ IHOMPS N \f+ - 41 3 q0 \ \\ • ;2 N! PU \ Yn GORNCtI -'- + GOPAE`` - t15A 5r t LEAN, NSIOt Rp iiI boyo �r RO L SO Q q O _ NFq P i AZ tl' Ury� ♦ M 94 IVA4 rr A[lfv JbrN50H SI �` +, w0 rrON P'ApR� G�BBSSS RO HW I¢ Q 4 \' 0 _.N� i ONS 9♦ _ i Aloha �lM♦E m61N ~ rH XwY 10 O i R.nIERON E � • S O o a \S, e verton i + OAvrS RD ACLFN BC v° I r♦�� R m m P ROSfDAFF BANfv RO ;< OENNEv R ¢ MUL(NOMAN Bt VO RO GAAOEN NOME I qO GA4UE rLPP1 wE 'AGER, t+ S I r i r3 \ - R 2 O SSN P RO .� i "AEE a t y`pp5 �fRRY m 4 m eRVCp MAN.,. O +S F9 P4U J o O < ` W NVBE ° + 2 a Cooper I 51 p0 T jHWY Min WEIA AO $ - - pMON^+ ARN.,G Sl �Nlll Farmington a �. AI" Sr $r W _'� S'F ewf NSOn SI !I/+ - + - OAnOIA $r ^ AFFtE `D - EOONLG rIEE., tVPQ SI I?`j v I j tr -: Lak o / •NOS i..S.fA ArORrEN a¢V SWC! SONOIL t SVE I " `Nr XG Rir RO BEEII P r'trrP +vF R scvotls N�� Min v.OnNAIu � _ `✓sr W �40t XOLINIIA Ro LN 9E vn � .IN PON L BHr. -$AIIIEX I C:tP� ;Scholl \\ 1 1 /King!N ity pito t OPEf IREE tlf[f C Fr SGNFR - QgFham ; OVL qEO o i40t ^ ,o 'vergrove 3 i , tEBEAV RTualatin a p oo ALANO imp 3¢ 2 PO 'SAGER RO O P 3 u AVf- E01 04 R N u O N 3 2 PO Oft RER r Sheer ood m rt tom N c W W MtaouN po t p 1 RO Y n Cil r(lir O $UNSFi L — WASNINGTON CO—— ♦ —o (n p OOv Rn YAMHILL CO u New construction i m Ramp metering uuuom9stum Widening °°" Rp R t ••**" TSM Improvements - Interchange/intersection Improvements I i . Urban growth boundary , ) 1_ -- ✓ - 86286 110 '` METRO Southwest Corridor Study Figure R2 M Recommended Projects (Part 2) & Adopted RTP ;� �� r_ 'Y''• _� ;" � T/ ¢� � fes_ i '�"-I! ' '_ •sir L t '� Ir ' .s: � '�.I-� �.i.�:•'I� .9.t j �_�•- lj• I '+. �_-• �`['�.-_ u' ;fi-:,i�"'" „ -,---moi �f �,_-�� -,y �/� �, ,�..;'� ,; I �•�� Tz Ali � � hr�r�. 2 � ._�...1; !•��• •.� �T �. �„y;�j �,.ev '' w^ ice, ,' 6 r �y ,�/.�, � L � � R '� r-1•r ,?d \/fir i � r� .14 1-'- � 1� �' / ._ .} I• I � ,`� S.-;:z'i: 7 TIS -_rh - --- - 'ry !-.- r � �.�..`•T'�l ^.h_/ :�/••� : /r i.,cs r�-� ,�, ` w.u./' t /J r •1\#�`�:1� �� I ,'r-_�:.'T..f_ '� ley Al r MKS ai A, �— ----� n «A� Lu -pry � �� r, � ,.,,�, •�,-.� 3 O I� 'i .r / •� � 4 I c •� �1 e• v r�l 2� �•• T"A\ �})--- t�1 fi SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR EVALUATION SUMMARY Major transit and highway investments are needed to implement local comprehensive plans , the majority of which are common to all alternatives. The total cost to meet 20-year highway expansion needs on the Westside is $433-$524 million of which more than $300 million is common to all alternatives. The higher cost alternative reflects the $139 million cost of ' building a western bypass . This package is $91 million higher in cost than the Highway 217/ Sunset Alternative . Transit expansion needed to accompany the highway improvement requires an annual increase in local costs from $81 million per year to $132 million per year . Any of the improvement packages are severely underfunded : Transit: 20 percent Highway: 48-52 percent Significant expansion of resources will be needed over time to implement preferred alternative . Tolls: revenue-generating potential marginal due to diversion to other facilities. Diversion also lessens traffic benefits attributable to Bypass construction. System Performance Each of the alternatives provide a comparable level of traffic service on the highway system by 2005 -- 216th Bypass Alternative being somewhat better overall. Reserve circumferential capacity for growth in local comprehensive plans beyond 2005 will not be available with 217/Sunset Alternative -- further highway construction in Bypass corridor will be necessary. - Reserve capacity for radial travel in any alternative can be best provided through further transit expansion. - All alternatives carry more traffic at better overall travel speeds. - All alternatives produce a good return on investment in the regional system -- there is a greater increase in utilization of the regional system than addition of lane miles . - All alternatives shift traffic off the local system -- the Bypass shifts the most (4 percent versus 11-13 percent) . Travel time improvements for most destinations are similar between alternatives; improvement in the Bypass corridor is significant (30 percent) . - There is an improvement of 10-35 percent of work force accessible to employment centers in Tualatin, Wilsonville, Tanasbourne , Aloha and Hillsboro due to Bypass . There is an improvement of 11-26 percent of jobs accessible to residential areas of Aloha , Wilsonville and Tualatin due to Bypass. Transit expansion is as important or more important to accessibility as highway improvement for locations clustered around Highway 217 , Barbur Boulevard , Macadam Avenue and downtown Portland. - As traffic shifts from the local system to the regional system, neighborhood infiltration decreases. Largest benefit -- regardless of alternative -- is to west Tigard Stephenson Road and Corbett-Terwilliger areas. Additional significant benefit with the Bypass is realized in the south Tigard and south Beaverton neighborhood areas. Impacts - A reconnaissance level impact evaluation was performed to identify those areas of potential impact associated with the project improvements called for in the alternatives . Specific impacts cannot be accurately defined without the detailed preliminary engineering work that would proceed actual construction. In any case, project design would seek to avoid , minimize or mitigate as practical any adverse impacts . - Significant differences exist among the alternatives relative to potential residential and commercial acquisition impacts in the "western bypass" corridor . The largest number of potential impacts in this area is associated with the 185th Bypass Alternative (up to 193 residences and 14 businesses) , followed by the 216th Bypass Alternative (up to 105 residences and 26 businesses) . The 217/Sunset Alternative would likely impact up to 20 residences and 13 businesses in the corridor as a result of the limited scope of improvements associated with that alternative . - Another major difference in possible impacts among the alternatives is the amount of land outside the UGB likely to be impacted in the western circumferential corridor , although all of the alternatives contain improvements outside the UGB. - In the Sunset Highway corridor , more impact could be expected with the 217/Sunset Alternative due to the improvement to 185th rather than 158th . In the Highway 217 corridor , the majority of improvements associated with all three alternatives can be accomplished within existing right-of-way, minimizing differences in impacts. In any case, traffic disruption impacts are likely to be severe (more so with the 217/Sunset Alternative) , and careful staging would be required. Staging Staging of improvements , regardless of alternative , will be needed in light of limited resources . Major existing and short-range travel patterns should be addressed first and logical additional increments defined. The first stage should include construction of a new I-5 to Highway 99W connector as well as some degree of improvement in all the major travel corridors (I-5, Sunset Highway, Highway 217) . The second stage should include either construction of a bypass between Highway 99W and T.V. Highway or further upgrading of Highway 217 and Sunset Highway west of 158th. In the short term, transit centers and park-and-ride facilities designed to accommodate future service expansion should be implemented. Transit service should be expanded incrementally as development occurs , and ultimately the Sunset LRT should be constructed. AC/sm 6216C/466-3 Table of Contents Page I . Introduction and Concept of Alternatives . . . . . . 1 A. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 B. Description of Alternative Concepts. . . . . . . 2 1. Southwestern Radial Corridor . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Western Radial Corridor. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Circumferential Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Internal Movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 II . Description of Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 A. Adopted RTP and Common Proposed Projects . . . . . . 9 B. Transit System Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 C. 217/Sunset Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 D. Bypass Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 E. Financial Summary of Highway Alternatives. . . . . . 21 1. Difference Among Alternatives . . . . . . . . . 21 2. Total Proposed Improvement Costs and Revenues. . 23 III . Summary of Travel Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 A. Operating Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 1. 217/Sunset Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2. 185th Bypass Alternative . . . . . . . . . . 30 3. 216th Bypass Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4. Transit System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 B. Ability to Handle Future Growth. in Travel Demand 30 1. 217/Sunset Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 2. 185th Bypass Alternative . . . . . . . . 31 3. 216th Bypass Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 C. Comparison of System Characteristics . . . . . . . . 31 1. Vehicle Miles of Travel and Average Speed. . . . 2. System Utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 D. Travel Time Comparisons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 E. Accessibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 1. Highway System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 a. Workforce Accessibility. . . . . . . . . . . 47 b. Employment Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . 49 C. Retail Market Accessibility. . . . . . . . . 51 2. Transit System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Page F. Neighborhood Infiltration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 G. Ozone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 IV. Other Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 A. Implications for LRT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 B. Toll Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 V. Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 A. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 B. Summary of Impact Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 1 . Sunset Highway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 2. Highway 217. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 3. Highway 99W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 4. Bypass Arterial. . . . . . . . . . . . 69 5 . Nyberg/Tualatin-Sherwood/Edy . . . . . . . . . . 73 6. Boones Ferry Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 VI. Staging Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 A. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 B. Recommended Staging Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 1 . Stage 1 (Next 10-15 years) . . . . . . . . . 77 2. Stage 2 (10-25 years) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 3. Stage 3 (post 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 C. Other Alternatives (Next 10-15 years) . . . . . . . . 89 IV. Other Analysis A. Implications for LRT - With the RTP level of increased transit service en- bodied in the alternatives, all day year 2005 transit ridership doubles from 1983 levels (Table 12) in the western radial corridor (to 23,300 riders per day) and the southwestern radial corridor (to 28, 900 riders per day) , and increases over 2 1/2 times 1983 levels in the circumferential corridor (to 5,000 riders per day) . Adding a full Hillsboro-Tualatin LRT system in the circumferential corridor to the RTP level of transit service (Figure 21) produces small increases in all day ridership in the western and southwestern radial corridors (+1 percent) and a 19 percent increase (to 6, 700 riders per day) over the RTP in the circum- ferential corridor . In absolute terms, however , the increased circum- ferential transit ridership associated with the full LRT system provides negligible relief (160 p.m. ,peak-hour vehicle trips throughout the entire cor- ridor) to the highway system and does not lessen the need for the recommended highway improvements con- tained in the alternatives. Conversely, the increased highway capacity associated with the improvement alternatives produces a minimal reduction in circumferential transit ridership (110 p.m. peak-hour transit riders) , and therefore has no practical effect on the degree to which LRT is a justified investment in the Corridor -- which is a marginal case at 6, 700 total all day transit riders (LRT and buses combined) , at best. B. Toll Evaluation One possible method available to help generate revenue for the construction of a major facility such as the bypass would be to impose a user fee in the form of a toll on those trips that use the facility. This analysis is designed to evaluate the potential feasibility of a toll on the western bypass. For the analysis, tolls were only considered on the seg- ment of the bypass between T.V. Highway and Highway 99W since areas north and south of this section serve as access into adjacent urban areas and also have a number of parallel routes available for traffic to divert to in order to avoid the toll. Within the T.V. Highway to Highway 99W segment , the analysis considered a toll 57 dP dP dP a a' N E-41 i + •i dP dP dP M M r• M co rn rn %D N r- o r- N O� P�1 01 10 CO m d' N N W dP {1� dP N E-4 111 41 • I dP dP dP M I N 111 r4 m ON 01 %D •,� r.l N u \ yl 1D r, U1 ro W r- u1 m •a' •� N r♦ Co m 01 a CN :3 O N ar J t1� N N -r1 N C f0 dP dP dP u W r•4 r-1 O\ r♦ E a + + + as ro r+ o r- o A N W E-+ 1n N �D M N a! a 01 E-4 to a u dP dP dP a1 r-1 111 co > M O m at CO r- u 0 O N qr M CC M q' V W N O �D N p'. O f•1 111 M N 01 mr %D ml -w O o% CD O co CO aN .-1 111 1-4 —4 ri •••1 14 0 b +1 u Li ri O ri IC r roul C ri -•� a 14 O u O �C �o 'o al R7 %D tD 16 C •-+ w a CID a uuE \\ • 0 UO V jo ) O 3 NU uU \r-\ cs 3 U *'D 111 0 �-:-ice'--:= -•�'{::�--j--��--+ x� �� :' _, ' ;i � �' . `\r ---• 3 _ , ��_ .-ter-.�� •�� L '�,✓�,�,,. -1.-sig '��-r '•ti n°?��s'u \� � •,. ..,.,+-, . �,.'? _ �� ' � -� `� - ,"'sir—- � - '• �-_;#,�Y} `�� .. , �.,�,tom* •� � IF i i' "--T-- p� ' -_ i Int\ �• -�}'s�t; � � "r r rte/ � ''', -i'..w � �' 1 �••�•.-_ a r �� --__ - - - c' •. %/.�'_" ,.- I .yJ � � ,f1 'til Cc le ks .,, _• �` �.� tis 0,) I� • _ E • e ,.��\ h�� ala p^' ` Irl ':�''' _ �•-- �e fid• ___� ,l o R L �J •p N L N Cc j err 16 a •,. .. r I CC ca CL I � I • O �' LLQ' s!' W facility both with and without access to the bypass at Scholls Ferry Road and Farmington Road. The analysis also evaluated a range of toll pricing from $ . 50 to $2. 00. As a result of the analysis , only the $ . 50 toll with access at both Scholls Ferry and Farmington Roads was carried into the sketch revenue estimation. Only the $ . 50 toll pricing attracted enough vehicle trips (although 34 percent to 96 percent of the vehicles using the bypass without a toll diverted to other routes) to evaluate generated revenues (a $2.00 toll produced no trips on the bypass) and the elimination of access to the bypass at Scholls Ferry and Farmington diverted another 35 percent of the traffic. 1. Sketch Estimate of Revenue The $. 50 toll on the bypass would generate $2. 8 million annually (Table 13) . This revenue could be used to retire from $26 . 4 million (at 10 percent for 30 years) to $38. 5 million (at 6 percent for 30 years) in bonds (Table 14) . This revenue would pay for about 19 percent to 28 percent of the $140 million total estimated cost of the bypass . 2. Traffic Impacts The application of a $ . 50 toll on the Highway 99W T.V. Highway portion of the bypass reduces the traffic volumes on this section by 34 percent to 96 percent and reduces traffic north and south of the tolled section by 18 percent to 54 percent (Table 15) . As a result, the highest volume expected on the bypass in this section (Scholls Ferry Rd. - Highway 99W southbound) would represent only about a 50 per- cent utilization of capacity with a toll . In addi tion , this diversion of traffic off the bypass to avoid the toll causes negative impacts in several areas that would lessen the benefits associated with building the bypass. Highway 99W - Scholls Ferry Road Section The 35 percent diversion in bypass traffic adversely affects three areas in this segment. P.M. peak hour traffic through the West Tigard neighborhood on Gaarde and the Murray extension would be expected to increase by 15 percent in both directions . This would negate much of the benefit described in the Neighborhood Infiltration section of the analysis brought about by the construction of the bypass. Southbound traffic on Highway 99W south of Durham Rd . would also increase by about 15 percent with a toll 60 TABLE 13 Revenue Trips (Daily Traffic with $0 . 50 toll rate) Access Point Toll Charge Number of Daily Trips T.V. Highway and $ .50 14 ,000 Highway 99W Scholls Ferry & $.25 14 ,600 Farmington TOTAL 28 ,600 TABLE 14 Estimated Bonding Capacity at $ .50 Toll Annual Compound Toll Revenue of $2. 8 m/yr Interest Rate 30 yr % Bypass Cost* 6% $38 .5m 28% 10% $26 .4m 19% * Based on a $140 million cost estimate JG/BH/sm 6170C/466-5 01/20/87 TABLE 15 Toll Analysis -- PM Peak Hour Link Volumes 216 Bypass 216 Bypass Dirverted Section No Toll . 50 Toll Volume Diversion Tualatin-Sherwood Rd/ NB 1660 1360 300 -18% Highway 99W SB 1800 1480 320 -18% Highway 99W/Scholls NB 1780 1160 620 -35% Ferry Road SB 2180 1440 740 -34% Scholls Ferry Road/ NB 1870 880 990 -53% Farmington Road SB 2080 1140 940 -45% Farmington Road/ NB 1270 60 1210 -95% T.V. Highway SB 1660 300 1360 -82% T.V. Highway-North NB 980 450 530 -54% SB 1390 1070 320 -23% BH/JG/sm 6170C/466-1 62