City Council Packet - 12/01/1986 6 , I
T I G A R D C I T Y C 0 U N C I L
{ REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 1, 1986, - 6:43 P.M.
ROLL CS LL: Present: Mayor John Cook; Councilors: Tom Brian,
Carolyn Eadon and Valerie Johnson; City Staff: Bob Jean, City
Administrator; David Lehr, Chief of Police; Bill Monahan, Community
Development Director; Jill Monley, Community Services Director (arrived
at 7:00 p.m.); Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; Loreen Wilson, City Recorder;
and Randy Wooley, City Engineer.
2. STUDY SESSION: 6:43 P.M.
a. City Administrator requested the Council add as their Agenda Item
No. 1.4 the Oath of Office for the newly hired Community Services
Director/Assistant City Administrator, Jill Monley.
b. Councilor Johnson suggested a review on pending claims by the
Attorney would be helpful under Executive Session in the near
future.
C. Councilor Eadon requested discussion regarding the Streets SDC
Rebate Policy Review which was scheduled for the regular meeting
agenda.
Council and staff discussed the ramifications of the SDC fund use
and policy issues. They were concerned especially with the
City's limited monies in the SDC funds. The fee structure and
the existing inadequate structure were also discussed. No action
was taken at this time by the City Council .
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 2:00 P.M.
3. CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS
a. City Administrator announced that there would be no Executive
Session held at the end of the meeting. He requested Council add
Agenda Item No. 1.4, Oath of Office, for the newly hired
Community Services Director/Assistant City Administrator, Jill
Monley. He also requested under Non--Agenda Items that .1 be the
Interim Building Use Policy Discussion.
b. Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Johnson to
approve the amendments to the agenda as outlined by the City
Administrator.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
4. OATH OF OFFICE
a. Mayor Cook administered the Oath of Office to Jill Monley whe
will serve as the Community Services Director/Assistant City
Administrator.
b. Council and Staff congratulated her.
Page 1 - COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 1, 1906
5. VISITOR`S AGENDA: No one appeared to speak.
6. SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR STUDY REPORT
a. City Engineer noted the report on the Southwest Corridor Study
was a review of regional transportation needs anticipated over
the next 20 years. The Study had been completed by METRO. City
Engineer noted the intent of this meeting was to allow Andy
Cotugno of METRO to provide an overview of the data outlined by
the Study. He would also discuss the transportation options
being considered in the Tigard area for City Council information.
b. Andy Cotugno from METRO discussed the cooperative effort for
development of the Southwest Corridor Study Grant. The objective
of METRO was to include this Study in the METRO Regional
Transportation Plan. He noted that there is an anticipated 67%
population growth and a 100% business growth in Tigard over the
next 20 years. He continued by highlighting various areas of the
report especially noting those areas which would need to be
improved whether a bypass was developed to the went of Tigard or
not. The western bypass impacts and benefits were identified as
it related specifically to the Tigard area; such as highway
construction, neighborhood infiltration and accessibility issues.
Mr. Cotugno noted the bypass options would allow improvements
over 20 years and would accommodate future growth in the area.
He suggested this option would be more flexible for a long—term
investment.
C. The Council and staff questioned various components of the
Study. Mr. Cotugno suggested improvements to Barbur Boulevard,
the Capitol Highway Interchange with Barbur and the Mass—Transit
Proposals with a modification to the I-5/Terwilliger curves were
going to be necessary in the near future. He felt this would
have major impact on the movement of traffic especially during
rush—hour through Tigard.
d. Mr. Cotugno further explained the approval process for the
Transportation Study and noted the City's Comprehensive Plans
would eventually need to be revised to identify issues set out in
the Study when Council expressed its support.
e. Mayor Cook requested input be obtained from not only the Council,
but the citizens through the public hearing process.
7. SDC CREDIT IMYD REBATE REQUESTS
7.1 MEADOW CREEK — $28,047.10
a. Community Development Director noted that the North Dakota Street
Extension was constructed by the Meadow Creek Apartment Developer
and that the portion of the street was classified as a
{ collector. Since the extra capacity cost was $28,047.10, S & J
Builders requested a rebate for the full amount against the
$91,200 of Streets Systems Development Charges already paid.
Page 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES — DECEMBER 1, 1986
b, Motion by
Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Brian, to
approve a rebate in the amount of $28,047.10 to S & J Builders.
Approved by a unanimous vote of Council present.
7.2 GETT'Y'S EMERALD ACRE ESTATES — $4,500
Community Development Director stated the Getty's Emerald Acre
a, , was required to construct half—street
Estates, a new development
improvements on Bonita Road to major collector standards which
was the Transportation Plan requirementstemsMr'Derequested
charges
$4,500 credit against the Streets Sy
collected at the time of issuance of the Building Permit.
b. Staff recommended approval.
by
C. Motion
Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to
approve Mr. Getty's credit request a $4,50o ed en
with each of the
lots in the subdivision having $450
,approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
e, STREETS SDC REBATE POLICY REVIEW
a, staff was
Community Development whichtor providesstat�a credit to developers
TMC Section 3.20.055, improvements, has not been uniformly
build extra capacity public
He Hated the monies collected are unable to keep UP
applied. t needs He requested
with the street towards developmentltOfn ah policy statement to
Council input
address these issues.
ested a repeal of the credit process would be the
ture the System Development
first step to restrucCharge
b, The staff sugg
procedures.
C. city Administrator discussed SDC ferebate and how it might be
viewed versus the growth of imps
city needs to establish
fair and
d• Councilor Joh to distribute buteted egrawth impacts to the existing City.
equitable way
e, City
Administrator discussed the concerns of not only the
existing city, but new development which will make future impacts.
f Lengthy discussion followed regarding
needed improvements, the
Council's authority to impose charges, a+si the need for a policy
statement for SGC charges on remodels, reconstruction, and new
construction.
Consensus of Council was to direct staff to bring back additional
9• a implications for further review•
information with policy change
Page 3 — MMICIL MINUTES — DECEMBER 1, 1986
9. PARKING ISSUES
9.1 ORDINANCE NO. 86-61 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE TIGARD
MUNICIPAL CODE AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
a. Chief of Police synopsized the proposed amendment to the TMC by
noting that it would enable him and the City Engineer to
authorize installation of "No Parking" signs to control traffic
and pedestrian safety hazards.
b. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Eadon, to adopt.
Approved by a unanimous vote of Council present.
9. ANCE TO
IBIT EXTENDING PARKING
2 ORDINANCE OF CERTAIN�VEHICLES UPON CITY NSTREETS, AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
a. Chief of Police noted the traffic hazards which are created by
boats, trailers, campers and other large vehicles being parked
for extended periods of time along City streets. He recommended
the Ordinance be adopted to prohibit recreational vehicles being
parked on the streets within the City.
b, Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Mayor Cook, to adopt.
After further concerns were addressed by Council regarding the
enforceability of the Ordinance and the suggestion that State
Statute currently exists to eliminate these hazards, the vote on
the motion to adopt was defeated by a 2-2 split of the City
Council. Councilor Eadon and Mayor Cook voting aye; Councilors
Brian and Johnson voting no.
10. CONSENT AGENDA
10.1 Receive and File:
A. Council Meeting Calendar
b. Electric Street Community Development Staff Report
C. Approve 135th Avenue LID Preparation of Preliminary
Engineering Report - Phase I - Resolution No. 86-131
d. Department Reports - October
Motive, wy ;;rcifor Brian, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to approve.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
11. NON-4000A I1EM6
11.1 Interim Building Use Policy
a. Councilor Eadon requested some clarification from City Council
regarding the Interim Building Use Policy for the Civic Center.
Specifically, questions relating to the cost of the meeting room
Page 4 - COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 1, 1986
t
i
set up and tear down, liability issues regarding property damage
and the potential liability of citizens in the building at times
�- other than open hours.
b. Councilor Brian suggested staff charge an hourly rate for set up
and tear down of the rooms for reservations of those
organizations outside City staff.
C. Council requested that any reservations currently made should not
be charged a retroactive fee.
d. City Administrator stated that the City Cohighlightedlcoulddiscuss
this further at their Saturday Workshop.
agenda
items for that workshop noting that it would begin at 9:00 a.m.
at the Tigard Civic Center.
12. ADIOURIIMIENT: 9-52 P.M.
City Recorder - City of Tigard
APPROVED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 20, 1987.
ATTEST:
Mayor - City of Tigard
LW/ca:4606A
paw g - COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 1. 1986
TIMES pUBUS HMG COMPANY Leg017-6877
P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)884"0380 Nouse
BEAVERTON.OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice
P.O. Box 23397
• Tigard, OR 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON,
COUNTY OF WASitINGTON. )as.
1
being first duh► sworn. depose and sayr"tlntt"'_•ung
Director, or his principal cleric.of the
a newspaper of general circul�tion as defined in OR$ 193.0
and 199020;pubNshsd at ga_
aforWiyat,% fW Meeting-December 1, 1986
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed,was publiahed M the
shire issue of said n wspapor for esslve and
consecutive in the following issues:
1Qevea�ber 7T_ 1 A��i_
to,bye ale thloF
No"Y Pub"for Or""
u
r..
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
{ In the Matter of the Proposed
COUNCIL ADOPTED ORDINANCES
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington) ss
City of Tigard )
being first duly sworn, on oath depose
and say:
That 'I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of
Ordinance Number(s)W—
which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated
copy(s) of said ordinance(s) bei hereto attached a by reference made a
part hereof, on the �4w'�day of �� ►v►_) rte_• 1981.
1. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
2. U.S. National Bank, Corner of Main and Scoffins, Tigard, Oregon
3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
{ SubscrIbsd and sworn to before me this Xi 44day of 1986.
�j�
fa..� E• Ii Ir f.,
Cfl T�R�;. A Notary Public for Oregon
s , „ •.r My Comission Expires:
!4
`a
0 +�''
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 86-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE, AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is empowered to install and maintain
traffic-control sig s, markingsC and signalsof t; direct and regulate
traffic and parkingithin
and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds the need to authorize installs-
tion of temporary "no parking" signs where conditions exist which
would otherwise impede and congest the flow of traffic. and
circulation inCofyof the citizenstofthe
Tigardriandt of the health,
safety, and welfare
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized to amend ith vehicle and
traffic code pursuant to Tigard City Charter Chapter 2.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1 : he vehicle 'and
d as codeforthain Exhibit Code
attached.
SECTION 2: In no situation shall this ordinance be effective until
the 31st day after its enactment by the City Council
and approved by the Mayor.
PASSED: By vote of all City Council
members present after being read by number and title
only, thisI S"�' say of n cam__L•j w , 1986.
puty City Recorder-City of Tigard
APPROVED: This__,_r,._day of �e`y��y- , 1986.
00
-City of Tigard
, A CE qV i
40 / -
ATTACHMEMT "A"
10.32.025 Authority of city engineer and city,,Police
chief to have 11no parking signs temporarily
installed. Subject to authority vested in the
State Highway Commission and subject to the
provisions of the laws of the Statf Oregon,
the city engineer and/or city Police
ief may
cause to have erected, installed and maintained
appropriate "no parking" signs as may be deemed
necessary to direct and regulate traffic for a
period not to exceed six months, and subject to
the limitations set forth herein.
The city engineer and/or police chief may erect or cause to
have erected "no parking" signs where they have made a finding that
a temporary obstruction revent would traffic
,nd pg
circulation tompedabsent theplacementofthetemorary
"no parking" signs.
The erection and maintenance of such signs within the City by
direction of the city engineer and/or police chief shall be deemed
an
stateilawaandeact to provisions ofrChapteru10.16the
through 10.32granted
L�
1i1TT CHT T .-A
;a
A u
F"& 1
3
AGENDA ITEM # — VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE l�
(Limited to 2 minutes or less, please)
Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council
wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you
first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City
Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you.
NAMES ADDRESS TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED
OATH OF OFFICE
State of Oregon )
} ss
City of Tigard )
I, Jill Monlev do solemnly swear that I will
uphold and support the Constitution of the United States of America and the
State of Oregon and the Charter and ordinances of the City of Tigard.
s I will faithfully, honestly, and impartially perform the duties of Community
Services Director/Acting City Administrator to the very best of my knowledge
and ability so help me God.
{
Signature
ATTEST:
Date
Robert W. Joan, City Administrator
Date
Noreen R. Wilson, City Recorder
1w:41b1A
Y�
<s
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: December 1, 1986 DATE SUBMITTED:
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Southwest PREVIOUS ACTION:
Corridor Study Report
PREPARED BY: Randall R. Woole
DEPT BEAD OK ���� REQUESTED BY:
POLICY ISSUE
A report on the Southwest Corridor Study.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Southwest Corridor Study is a review of regional transportation needs in
the next 20 years. It will eventuallsy lead to revisions of the Regional
Transportation Plan and will influence transportation planning in our area. A
copy of the draft report is attached.
At the December 1st meeting, Andy Cotugno of MSD will provide an overview of
the data provided by the study and the transportation options being considered
for our area.
We have invited the Planning Commission, NPO members, Transportation Advisory
Committee and Economic Development Committee to attend the meeting to hear
Andy's report. Attached is a copy of the notice which they received.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Our intention at this meeting is to provide information to the Council and the
community on a complex study. No formal action is required at this time.
However, it is appropriate to establish a schedule for defining the City's
position on the transportation options being considered.
FISCAL IMPACT
SUGGESTED ACTION
Staff suggests that, after receiving the information, the Council discuss a
schedule for arriving at the Council position on the Southwest Corridor
options. Are additional Council meetings required on the subject? Is there a
need for additional input from the committees or NPO's?
/br193
November 17, 1986
CITYOF TIIFA
MEETING NOTICE OREGON
25 Years of Service
SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR STUDY REPORT 1961_1986
A discussion of the Sothwest Corridor Study report has been scheduled for the
Regular Meeting of the Tigard City Council on December 1, 1986. All
interested people are invited to attend.
MEETING TIME: 7:00 P.M. , Monday, December 1, 1986
MEETING LOCATION: Tigard City Hall
13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard
The Southwest Corridor Study has been prepared by the Metropolitan Service
District (MSD) in cooperation with city, county, and state agencies. It
addresses transportation needs through the year 2005 in the urban area west of
the WillametteRiver, from the Sunset Corridor south to Wilsonville. The
on trans , at
report provides detailed data
those needs,giandl evaluatestation costa nofdsthelooks options
options for satisfying
considered.
Two major highway alternatives are considered by the report. One alternative
is to construct a new roadway between the Tualatin/Sherwood area and the Aloha
area (known as the Western Bypass Alternative). The other alternativeis to
provide for increased traffic through major improvements on existing regional
highways (known as the 217/Sunset Alternative).
The tentative schedule calls for public review of the study over the next 2 to
3 months, with a final plan to be adopted in the spring of 1987. Tigard r ugh
have opportunities to participate in the decision-making process
public hearings and through City representation on various MSD committees.
The December 1st discussion is an information session to prepare us to
participate in the decision-making process. A presentation by Andy Cotugno,
HBO Transportation Director, wi:l provide an overview of the data provided by
to
Southwestthe Corridor. options
is very available
address
all aspects of problems
study and
Bou
is well prepared to answer your questions.
Sincerely,
Randall R. Wooley, P.E.
City Engineer
/br193
13125 SW Hoii BK d RO.Boot 23M.11®ord,Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171
4
i x
i '
r
z wW,
x
Draft
Y
'tel _"
"" : ry• � '•�'-.• �. y.�� -,,�-`'� i.�� � '&`#y"'xs+•rC'xi h'..F� --7E j�'7 � 'xe�`� ��� '+�'� i_..
VVI
ad
al
� p4?
�' -�`�'•- .fir: �;.`°r"=,� y. � x v � '�:: .... t r, "ate. '�, ��}sJ rr. s
tT�# U,�
dA
vi
I Al
Gff,
r*! f ` •`
x�^ "x'n xx fir ..'
amino
wl
e
^s
54'-
. . . . . . . . .._.
\ � • . .
\
\ �
\ � �
\ .
\
SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR STUDY
}
\ Z
Evaluation of Alternatives
} �
} �
\ September 1986
} , _ •
-
������\����/�2�«\?�\ . . � � :
3
SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR POLICY COMMITTEE
f
Chairman Rick Gustafson
Metro Council Councilor Corky Kirkpatrick
Multnomah County Commissioner Earl Blumenauer
(replacement to be named)
Washington County Commissioner Roy Rogers
Clackamas County Commissioner Rot t ` Schumacher
Oregon Transportation Commission Sam Naito
Tri-Met Board Nellie Fox (replacement to be
named)
i
City of Beaverton Mayor Larry Cole
k
City of Durham Councilor Dr. Mary Taylor
t
City of Ring City Councilor Harold Kimzey
City of Lake Oswego Councilor Stan Ash �-
City of Portland Commissioner Margaret Strachan
City of Rivergrove Mayor Neil McFarlane
City of Sherwood Councilor J. Ben Reid
City of Tigard Councilor Tom Brian
City of Tualatin Councilor Charile Brown
City of Nest Linn Councilor Kathy Lairson
City of Wilsonville Councilor Bill Stark
JG/sm
6170C/466-7
r '
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 Ring 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
1954 as amendedi and by funds from the Federal Highway
Administration,- U.S. Department of Transportation.
a
SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR STUDY CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Citizen Member Appointed By
Robert Stein Clackamas County
Bill Church Multnomah County
Tom Sullivan Washington County
Rent Freeman City of Beaverton
Tom Heerhartz City of Durham
To Be Appointed City of Ming City
To Be Appointed City of Lake Oswego
Pam Ragsdale Oregon Transportation Commission
Alan Hart City of Portland
Mark Bowman City of Sherwood
Milt Pyre 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 ,
f
Sheila Holden Metro
Andy Jordan Metro
s
{
Prepared By
k TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT
Andrew Cotugno . Director of Transportation
x Research Team and Authors
James .A. Gieseking, Jr. Project Manager and Principal
Author
Bob Hart Transportation Analyst
Systems Support
Dick Walker Senior Analyst
Clyde Sett Transportation Analyst
Terry Bolstad Transportation Analyst
Report Production
Loin Kaplan Transportation Secretary
Gloria Logan Leat! Word Processing Operator
Shannon Mallory Word Processing Operator
Alan Hblsted Graphics
John Willworth Offset Printing
+
k',
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 1300 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
serviee '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 utilisation
of the regional system than addition of lune 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 realised 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. S12ecific
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,
minimise or mitigate an practical any adverse impacts.
Significant differences exist among the alternatives relative
to potential residential and commercial poquisition 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.
- !mother major difference in possible impacts among the
alternatives is the amount of land outside the UGS likely to be
Impacted in the western circumferential corridor, although all
.,
of the alternatives contain improvements outside the UGS.
In the Sunset Highway corridor, more impact could be expected
with the 217/Sunset Alternative due to the improvement to 185th
e rather than 158th.
In the Highway 217 corridor, the majority of improvements
associated with all three alternatives
sng n be accomplished
within existing right-of-way,
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
stinand
needed in light of atternsresources
be addressedifirst and
short-range p
travel pa
. ' logical additional increments defined.
to
The first stage should include construction of a new I-5 nt
Highway 99W connector as well aslsSmeSdegreeet a fimpravement i.n
aill the major travel corr id (
Highway 217) .
- The second stage shopld include either construction of a bypass
between Highway 99N 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.
ACsa
6216C/466-3
� z
Z
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 Alter:natives. 0 • 9
A. Adopted RTP and Common Proposed Projects 9
B. Transit System Improvements. . •
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. Sumary of Travel Evaluation . . . , 27
A. Operating Characteristics• . 0 0 0 0 • •
27
1. 217/Sunset Alternative . . . . . . . . . • . . 27
2. 185th Bypass Alternative • . 30
3. 216th sypaisp Alternative . . . • 30
4. Transit System a e o 30
B. Ability to Handle Future Growth in Travel Demand 30
1. 21?/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
R. Accessibility. . . , 47
I. Highway System • 47
k a. Workforce Accessibility. . . . . . . . . . . 47
b. Employment Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . 49
c. Retail Market Accessibility. . . . . . . . . 51
2. Transit System . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
FFE
FF{
ffE
I
Page t
3
F. Neighborhood Infiltration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
G. Ozone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
IV. Other Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3
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
A. Bypass Arterial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5. Nyberg/Tualatin-Sherwood/Edy . . . . . . . . . 73 s
6. Boones Ferry Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
VI. Staging Plan 75
A. Background . . . . . . . 75
B. Recommended Staging Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
1. Stage 1 (Next 10-15 ears) . . . 76
2. Stage 2 (10-25 years) , , 0 80
3. Stage 3 (post 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4
C. Other Alternatives (Next 10-15 years) . . . . . . . . 85
t
A 3'
t�
I, Introduction and Concept of Alternatives
A. Background
Four major travel movements that affect the Southwest
Corridor were identified in the earlier portions of the
study: 1) Southwestern radial movements comprising gen-
erally north/south trips between the Portland Central
Business District (CBD) and both the Close-in Southwest
and Far Southwest areas along I-5 South, Barbur Boulevard/
Highway 99W and Macadam; 2) Western radial movements
between Washington County, the Close-in Southwest and the
Portland CBD along the Sunset Highway and Beaverton-
Hillsdale Highway; 3) Circumferential movements between
the Far Southwest and Washington County West along Highway
217, Murray Boulevard and a combination of Tualatin-
Sherwood Road, Tualatin Road, Durham Road, and rural roads
in Western Washington County; and 4) Internal movements
within each of the zones, which are carried by the local
minor arterial and collector system within each of the
various jurisdictions.
Due to the significant population and employment growth
expected west of the Willamette River by the year 2005,
each of these movements is anticipated to grow sub-
stantially over the next 20 years:
• Southwestern Radial Movement +208 to 350,000 daily
trips
• Western Radial Movement +2513 to 270,000 daily trips
• Circumferential Movement +408 to 270,000 daily trips
• Internal Movement +1008 to 1,245,000 daily trips
As a result of these projected increases in trip-making
activity, numerous problem areas are forecast to remain on
the transportation system in the corridor, even with the
implementation of the highway and transit improvements
already called for in the currently adopted RTP.
The Southwest Corridor Study has identified two basic
alternative packages of additional transit and highway im-
provements in the corridor to solve the identified pro-
blems. The first, or 217/Sunset Alternative, is based on
the concept of improving the existing system without add-
ing a bypass facility. The second, or Bypass Alternative,
is based on s*aller-acme improvements to the existing
system and the addition of a new arterial-type bypass
facility connecting I-5 South with the Sunset Highway in
western Washington County. The two alternatives have been
defined to clearly delineate the ramifications of building
or not building a western bypass, including common fea-
tures and distinct differences. This evaluation provides
a factual basis to select either one of the two alter-
natives or an appropriate combination.
1
B. Description of Alternative Concepts
Both alternatives are based on particular concepts regard-
ing how the regional system is improved to accommodate
specific movements that make up the forecast travel de-
mand. For certain travel movements (Western Radial move-
ment, Southwestern Radial movement inside of Highway 217,
and Internal movements) , the concepts, and, therefore, the
project recommendations, are the same between the alter-
natives. In other cases, such as for the Circumferential
movement and the Southwestern Radial movement south of
Highway 217, there are fundamental differences in the sys-
tem concept as to how the travel demand is accommodated,
and, therefore, significa.,t. differences in the proposed
project solutions.
In both cases, the alternatives call for a slightly modi-
fied transit route structure, but with a major expansion
in the level of transit service as defined in the cur-
rently adopted RTP. These modifications consist of:
a) improved local feeder service to Southwest Transit
Centers to provide accessibility to currently unserved
areas where future growth is anticipated to occur; and
b) the addition of a transit trunk route connecting the
Tualatin Transit Center and Park-and-Ride with downtown
Portland via I-5.
It should be noted that the project improvements recom-
mended in the alternatives are subject to refinement in
detailed engineering phases of the project.
1. Southwestern Radial Corridor
North of Highway 217, both the 217/Sunset Alternative
(Figure 1) and the Bypass Alternative (Figure 2) em-
phasize the use of I-5 South, Barbur Boulevard and, to
a lesser extent, Nacadam Avenue to accommodate the
expected travel demand. As a result, a common set of
improvements to these facilities together with an ex-
pansion in transit capacity is recommended.
South of Highway 217, the 217/Sunset Alternative en-
visions the use of both Highway 99W and I-5 South to
accommodate the Radial movement, with Tualatin-
Sherwood/Edy Road serving as both a bypass around
downtown Tigard and a local access function from
Highway 99W and I-5 into the Tualatin-Sherwood area.
As a result, major improvements to Highway 99W through
Tigard, 1-5 (Carmen-Nyberg) and Tualatin-Sherwood/Edy
Road are required.
In the Bypass Alternative, the use of Highway 99W
through Tigard is de-emphasized for accommodating the
-5 South
Radial movement, which is encouraged to use I
2
to the new Bypass and then connecting to Highway 99W
north of Sherwood. As a result, no improvement to
Highway 99W south of Tigard and to Tualatin-Sherwood
Road would be required.
2. Western Radial Corridor
Both the 217/Sunset (Figure 1) and Bypass (Figure 2)
Alternatives emphasize the use of the Sunset Highway
and the Sunset LRT to accommodate the Western radial
travel demand. As a result, a common set of improve-
ments is called for in the corridor, including the
addition of a westbound Sunset on-ramp at the Zoo
interchange, addition of a westbound climbing lane
from the Zoo to Canyon Road and a widening of Sunset
Highway to six lanes from Canyon Road to Highway 217.
3. Circumferential Corridor
The concepts differ markedly between the two alter-
natives in how they accommodate the cirumferential
traffic movements. The 217/Sunset Alternative
} (Figure 3) envisions the existing system of the Sunset
Highway, Highway 217 and I-5 as the backbone of the
system, distributing fairly heavy movements onto the
major cross streets (185th, 216th/219th, Murray
Boulevard, Tualatin-Sherwood Road) . As a result,
major improvements, such as a widening to six lanes,
are called for on the Sunset Highway, Highway 217, and
Highway 99N through Tigard plus auxiliary lanes along
some sections of Highway 217. in addition, a new
two-lane arterial is proposed connecting Highway 99W
at Edy Road with Scholis Perry Road to serve movements
between the Sherwood and Aloha areas.
The Bypass Alternative envisions a splitting of the
circumferential movement between Highway 217 and a new
four-lane anterial Bypass connecting I-5 with the
Sunset Highway in Western Washington County
(Figure 4) . Traffic is then distributed more evenly
along the east/west arterials for local access. As a
result of tpis alternative concept, smaller-scale im-
provemente to the Sunset Highway, Highway 217, Highway
99K and Tu&latin-Sherwood/Edy ptoad are proposed.
4. Interna eats
Both alternatives require a series of common improve-
eents to the rest of the system in order to support
the basic concepts and ensure adequate arterial opera-
tions. These proposed improvements will be required
regardless of whether the Sunset/217
sw,+,Ma` yl
-
� � Yancou or
M
4 qp
NMI
I N�nb
>h�nt .•an..
SMI u 1 tinwa
fl_
LIk ,.. ._
i F
e
• gg i
c.w • 1• ,I Nl.�wwrN
I
T40
pp
WOW
f'
•. s
�, •� so i
4
�srl
.SOudwjW Comida Study FtgM i
217ISunset Alternative Radial Movement
System Concept
} -
�� ,1 , +,ice
Y SYww
T
l
.9
1 f
L. ..
a
Is
M
it
GMIM � M1�Mal/�f10
Mw
W M
got
Soathwat Ccreidot ft* 3
2T7/SunsetAlterriative Circumferential
Maveme System Co ept
fi
if
I
y
kdM
�. L.
F tia" a
a € i
r , r
MrWrWYM
E
r.
,
/ M }
TWytrn e
l.r 1 WON
_.._.T-.J
Bypass Alternative Circumferential
Movement System Concept
i
Alternative or Bypass Alternative is chosen as the i
preferred method of solving the transportation
problems in the corridor.
3
}
M
{
f
E
}
's
i
I
cE[{
6
e
f
{tl}j
�a
,A
J _ _
II. Description of Alternatives
Proposed Projects
Adopted RTP and Common
A. _
In addition to the improvements already called for in the
adopted RTP, both the 217/Sunset and Bypass Alternatives
require a series of common investments on the rest of the
system in order to support the basic concepts. These pro-
posed improvements, as well as the increased level of
transit service planned for in the RTP, will be required
regardless of which alternative is preferred.
As depicted in Figure 5, and listed in Tables 1 and 2,
this set of improvements provides additional capacity in
the radial corridors (Sunset Highway, Barbur Boulevard and
I-5 South) as well as improvements to the arterial system
in Washington County (Baseline Road, 185th, Murray,
Farmington Road, Hall Boulevard, Brookwood Avenue,
Tualatin Valley Highway and Cornell Road) . The estimated
cost for these highway improvements is X316 million and is
approximately one-third unfunded.
B. Transit System improvements
Improvements to the transit system (Figure 6) called for
in the RTP will increase transit service in the radial
corridors by constructing the Sunset LRT to 185th, provid-
ing trunk route service on Barbur Boulevard (to the
Burlingame, Bar bur and Tigard Transit Center) , I-5 (to the
Tualatin TC) , Macadam Avenue (to the Lake Oswego TC) ,
Beaverton-Hillsdale/Tualatin Valley Highway (to the
Beaverton and Hillsboro TC's) , and Cornell Road (to the
Tanasbourne and Hillsboro TC's) . In the circumferential
corridor, the trunk route service will connect the Lake
Oswego,
ansitaCenters�.inPark-and-Ridegton Squarel Alotsnd are Beaverton/Sunset
LRT Tr also called
for in several locations on the Westside.
This improvement in transit service represents a region-
wide increase of 64 percent in weekly platform hours
(29,300 to 48,000) over 1987 levels. This increased level
of transit service is compatible and consistent with the
proposed highway improvements and is necessary to allow
the overall transportation system to function adequately.
The cost for this service is expected to rise by 63 to
71 percent (Figure 7) to about 135 million per year.
Transit revenues, however, are only expected to rise by
41 percent to $106.6 million per year over the 20-year
period, leaving a shortfall of about $26 to 32 million per
year or about 20 percent less than the cost.
C. 217/Sunset Alternative
The 217/Sunset Alternative is designed to emphasize
1-5/Highway 217/Sunset for the major circumferential
9
ULTNOMA.' 0 17
k. ,
R _0 t
Aloha
•yp. T -
r ealverton '` 4
CUse,
Igaa—
?t� �r t 1 C,f Sr1 r.4.r✓
\ rs J lak
SW-
\_ t Kmgl ....
Clry
_L(Yw WPdWorgr011e
OCI Tualatin _
.u,. _-
Roth akematiws require a series of
Common improvements to the rest of theik
system in order to support the basic
conoopts. Thesser improvements
v required whether�the SunnsoMl7 `� ; • s r i $.
eXerns"or the bypass aaernstive is
chosen.
1000 Now highway cafth atiott
IMMOW Ramp metetftft
mm�fthwal wkW*V
e� ee
oOTSM
Alon
tkben growth boundary ,
SIM � � '+Wilj=ille
METIR® Southwest Corridor Study Figure S
Proposed Projects Common to Bypass,
217/Sunset Alternative & Adopted RTP
TABLE 1
CURRENTLY ADOPTED RTP IMP NTS
Total Cost Estimate: $157 Million
Total Cost Federal Match or
Estimate Dollars other
ADOPTED RTP PROJECTS
State Street (Terwilliger to Ladd) 2,426,103 1,728,103 700,000
I-5/Terwilliger Bridge Deck Rest. 100,000 92,000 81000
I-5/Terwilliger Oxing Ramps 5,360,000 4,949,600 430,400
I-5/Nyberg Road Ramps (L. Boons - Sagert) 1,990,000 1,830,800 159,200
Sunset Highway (Corn. Pass Rd. - Jefferson St.) Ramp Metering 905,882 770,000 135,882
• Sunset Highway Climbing Lane (VRT - Canyon Road) 7,300,000 6,424,000 876,000
Sunset Highway/Murray Boulevard Interchange (Phase I) 4,760,000 4,188,800 571,200
Sunset/Highway 217 Interchange 12,276,470 10,435,000 1,841,470
Sunset Highway Cornelius Pass Road Interchange 9,600,000 0 5,100,000
Sunset Highway N.N. 185th Interchange 5,000,000 0 0
Sunset Highway/158th/Cornell Interchange 10,800,000 0 10,800,000
Highway 99H at Centerbury Square/Bull Mountain Road 499,000 119,000 380,000
Highway 217 (Sunset Interchange to Scholls Ferry Rd)
Ramp Metering 320,000 0 0
T.V. Highway/21st to Oak 4,440,000 1,500,000 2,900,000
T.V. Highway at Murray 660,000 580,000 79,200
Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway/Scholls/Oleson Intersection 700,000 0 100,000
Scholls Ferry Road/Murray Boulevard to Fanno Creek 5,570,000 0 3,330,000
Scholls Ferry/Old Scholls/135th Intersection (Phase 1) 300,000 264,000 36,000
Scholls Ferry Road/Highway 217 to Hall Boulevard (includes
Hall Blvd./Scholls Ferry Road Intersection) 1,400,000 400,000 1,000,000
Farmington Road/Murray to 209th 6,900,000 0 3,450,000
I-5/Nilsonville Interchange 10,000,000 3,542,000 308,000
Terwilliger Boulevard/barbur Boulevard to
Taylors Ferry Road 1,728,750 1,469,434 259,316
S.N. Bertha Boulevard/Vermont to Barbur Boulevard 1,658,380 1,409,626 248,754
Dcach Road/Patton Road to Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway 2,040,000 0 0
Vermont Improvements 2,600,000 208,930 36,870
112th/Sunset to Cornell 1,057,000 0 0
Murray Boulevard/Jenkins to Sunset (MSTIP) 6,600,000 5,501,530 725,000
N.N. 185th/Rock Creek to T.V. Highway (MSTIP) 14,700,000 9,000,000 5,700,000
Cornell'Road/158th to 185th 1,900,000 0 0
Cornell Road/185th to Cornelius Pass Road 6,800,000 0 0
Cornell Road/Cornelius Pass Rd. to slam Young Parkway
(Hills BCL) 4,050,000 2,350,000 1,700,000
Murray Boutevard/Allen to Scholls Ferry Road 4,400,000 0 0
Hall Boulevard/Allen to Greenway 2,400,000 1,200,000 1,200,000
Brookwood/Cornell to T.V. Highway (Hillsboro) 3,400,000 0 0
Lower Boones Ferry Road/Tualatin River to I-5 1,265,000 0 0
Nyberg Road/S.N. 65th - I-5 to Borland Road 1,000,000 0 0
Barnes Road (Unit 11) 940,000 0 0
11
TABLE 1
CUR MMy ADOPTED RTP IMPRO MIff T8
Total Cost 8stinate: $157 million
Total Cost Federal Match or
Estimate Dollars Other
AnOrM Srp pRDJEC'TS - (continued)
Barnes Road (Highway 217 - Cornoll) 3,910,000 0 0
Boons Ferry Road (Jean - Madrona) (Lake OseegO) 3,167,936 1,055,756 1,818,079
scones Ferry Road (Country Club Road to 500,000 0 0
Multnomah County Line) 1,500,000 0 0
S.N. 65th/Sagert to Nyberg (Unit II) 2,117,650 11800,000 317,650 R
j
Skyline/Sylvan improvements
JS1w
602OC,/466-3
0910/"
s
s
12
TABLE 2
COMKON PROJDCTS PROPOSED FOR ADDITION TO RTP
Total Cost Estimate: $159 Millie
Total Cost Federal Match or
Estimate Dollars Other
CDOM PIOJECTS PROPOSED
Avery) 900,000 0 Q
Deaver ton/Tualat in Highway TSM (Nyber g"
Sunset Highway/Jackson Road Overpass (with design 1,690,000 0 0
capability for interchange)
1-5/Aighway 217/!Cruse Nay Interchange 11,700,000 0 0
(Inc. 72nd and Bangy Road) 10,500,000 3,404,000 296,000
' 1-5/Stafford Road Interchange (Widen)
5,300,000 4,876,000 424,000
I-5/I-205 to Scones Ferry (Auxiliary Lanes)
Beaverton-Tualatin Highway (Durham Rd.)/Scholls 5,500,000
Ferry to 72nd Avenue (widen to 2/3 lanes) 6,100,000 0 0
99w/Six Corners (Sherwood) 11,000,000 0 0
I-5/I-405 to Terwilliger (SB Climbing Lane) 2,500,000 0 0
I-5/Mul.tnanah to Terwilliger (NB weave Improvement) 1,900,000 0 0
Scholls Ferry (Beef Bend-Murray) 2,700,000 0 2,700,000
Sunset Highway/Zoo Interchange (qB on-ramp) 0 0
T.V. Highway TSM (Hwy. 217-21st) 5-15,000,000 0
4,500,000 0
I-5/Barbur/Capitol/49th/Taylors Ferry 5,000,000 0 0
Barbur/HamiltOn Intersection 1,000,000 0 0
Barbur (Tunnel-Hamilton) 2,000,000 0 0
Barbur (Hamilton - Beaverton-Hillsdale/Capitol) 1,000,000 0 0
a Barbur (S.W. 26th-49th) 50,000,000 0 O
Capitol Highway (Barbar-Terwilliger) 2,580,000 2,270,400 309,600
*T.V. Highway (Hocken - Maple) 500,000 0 0
*&cholla Ferry Road at Allen 850,000 0 0
*Scholl* Ferry Road at Tile Flat Road 300,000 0 0
*T.V. Highway Reconnaissance 400,000 0 0
S.N. 49th (P.C.C. to PCL) 1,000,000 0
. *S.N. Hibbs/Jackson Park (mod school access) 2,000,000 0 0
Kerr Road TSM (PCL - Boones Ferry Road)
Baseline/Jenkins Arterial (Murray to Cedar Hills 1,743,000 0 0
Blvd.) unit I (4-5 lanes) 2,000,000 0 0
Murray (T.V. - Farmington) TSM i intersections 1,750,000 0 1,000,000
Shute Road/Evergreen - Sunset (Hillsboro) 1,500,00 0 0
229th/231st (Baseline-Cornell) (Hillsboro) 3,400,000 400,000 0
Brookwood/Evergreen to Cornell (Hillsboro)
Baseline/Jenkins Arterial (219th-Brookwood) 2,000,000 0 0
Unit III (Hillsboro) 2,200,000 0 0
Cornelius Pass Road/Neat Union to Sunset 2,800,000 0 0
Durham Road/Hall to Hwy. 99N TSM 4,300,000 0 0
Murray Boulevard/Burlington northern Overpass 3,400,000 0 0
Cornell Road/Sunset Highway to Saltzman (5 lanes) 1,700,000 0 0
Cornell Road/Saltzman - Miller (3 lanes)
(L,*leoomended for RTP acknowledgement
13
}
TABLE 2
COMMON PFIO,JgCTS PROPOSED FOR ADDITION TO RTP
Total Cast Estimate: $159 Million
i
r
Total Cost Federal Match or
Estimate Dollars Other
t
Pfj)MTS PROPOSED - continued
158th/Walker to Jenkins 778,000 0 0
Talker Road/Cornell Road to 185th (Realignment) 1,850,000 0 0
170th/(Farmington Merlo) - Minor Arterial 557,000 0 0
Baseline/Jenkins Arterial (Murray Brookwood) Unit ii 8,230,000 0 0
Murray Extension (Old Scholls-135th) 1,150,000 0 0 ,
Murray Extension Phase II (135th-Highway 99K) 3,500,000 0 0
*Maple Street (Pacific Highway - T.V. Highway) 1,300,000 0 O
*Sorrento - Hall Extension 11100,000 0 0
*River Road (Hillsboro - Rosedale Road) 1,400,000 0 785,000
*Evergreen Road/Cornelius Pass to 25th (3 lanes) 61100,000 0 0
*Taylors Ferry Road Extension to Oleson 1, 0,000 0 0
50
*Greenburg (Hall-Highway 217) 500,000 0 0 {
1,500,000 0
*170th/173rd (Walker-Marlo) O
* Bart•Bany/185th to Murray 1,800.000 0
*Rosemont Road (Stafford - nest Lim) 2,500,000 0 0
*Borland at 50th (Curve Realignment) 500,000 O 0
*Country Club Road (Boons Ferry Rd. - Iron Mt. Rd.) TSM 700,000 0 0
*Bryant Road (South Shore - Scones Ferry Road) 11000,000 0 0
*65th Avenue (Wilsonville Road - Elligsen) 2,200,000 0 0
*Parkway (South of Boeckman) 500,000 0 0
*Boecksan (i-5 to Foot Road) 500,000 0 0
i
*reoonesided for RTP acknowledgement
JG/M
6020C/466-5
10/09/86
1,
2
Y
i i
c..� " -�• ,�:+ qtr~`== ':e;:. ?"' .� -- ~.� —�-�'-- -
- � -ti-:- {� �, � - ter;,• .^,
17
ZM A t -.f a .� Z. n..{�1. ��5 t 'y �... rwd�s'1 �'�, -y/ L . -:r..s.-' !4
141.`+�`
a. �=
Owl
0-6
.r• .. t; L.F. �' \ w11 +i.ri P wf _ �'` ' ,•t+�
1' /.• i..l�.�ftp� h '`� � a � �4 .�•` 1._./
SIS • ��w-v..f� •�° I ...-_.. , �� �il \�� � ��
Q..
Ole
4 fJN
�-
Its
06
IL
J I •
1 �
1 A
s � 4
r — i •
F
140-
25.7--$32.
120
40--
120 —
Federal
operating
100— assistance
of zero
Operations Payron, (dc�n from -
_ $123.6- other $6
$130.2
$71.4
•--- $5.4----------- ood*w apr m (48000
Down from weekly
s $6.4 in 1'883 platform
— 87 Payroll, hours)
Opel>�ons other
so_ $72.5 $54.0
(29,300
weekly
platform
hours)
40-
20-
0_20_ Fares
$35.2
_
Fares
$8.5
$18.3 Capital$8.7
0—
COSTS REVENUE COSTS REVENUE
$81.0 $75.6 $132.3-$138.8 $106.6
1987 2005
Westside service
r . Fig=7
w
1987-2005: Transit Cost/Revenue Projections
-
Mims of 1997 dollen
movements in the corridor and split the Southwestern
Radial Movement outside of Highway 217 on Highway 99W and
I-5/Tualatin-Sherwood Road. As a result (Figure 8) , major
widenings of Highway 217 (6-8 lanes) , Sunset (6 lanes to
185th) , Highway 99W (6 lanes from I-5 to Main Street) , and
Tualatin-Sherwood Road (4-5 lanes from Boones Ferry to
Highway 99W) are proposed. In addition, a two-lane arte-
rial is planned for this alternative from Highway 99W to
Scholls Ferry Road in the western circumferential cor-
ridor. The Highway 217/I-5/Kruse Way/72nd interchange is
important to this alternative, but is not pictured because
it is common to the Bypass Alternative as well. The total
additional cost for this package of highway projects is
estimated at $116.8 million.
The widening of Highway 217 can be largely done within
existing right-of-way (ROW) , although the scope of the
widening will cause structure modification or replacement
at Cabot Street (overpass) , Walker Road, Canyon Road,
Tualatin Valley Highway, Allen Boulevard, Denny Boulevard,
Hall Boulevard, Scholls Ferry Road, Greenburg Road, Hall
Boulevard (overpass) , and Highway 99W. The cost for the
Highway 217 improvements is estimated at $33.6 million.
D. Bypass Alternatives
Two bypass alternatives (Figure 9) were developed in the
study with one connecting I-5 to Sunset via the 185th cor-
ridor and the other via the 216th/219th corridor. Both
bypass alternatives consist of a limited access, four-lane
facility in the I-5 to Farmington Road section. The 185th
Bypass Alternative would provide interchanges at I-5,
Boones Ferry Road, Tualatin-Sherwood Road, and Scholls
Ferry Road with at-grade intersections at, and north of,
Farmington Road. The 216th Bypass Alternative would pro-
vide the same interchanges, but would also have them at
Farmington Road and T.V. Highway.
I-5 Connection
Several possible connections to I-5 were investigated.
The Wilsonville Road and Stafford Road interchanges were
rejected because they are too far south to attract the
circumferential and southwestern radial traffic markets
the bypass is intended to serve. A "Norwood" interchange
located near the existing Norwood Road structure over I-5
} was rejected due to its proximity to the I-5/I-205 inter-
change, a major freeway junction requiring considerable
clearance from other interchanges. As a result, the only
feasible I-5 connection for the bypass is considered to be
a "split" arrangement whereby the bypass would connect to
I-5 North and I-205 by a modified I-5/ I-205 interchange.
Connection to I-5 South would be accommodated via the
I-5/Stafford Road interchange through
17
NINE. -_.
LJnw
uMWA.
vj-
lot
N.
5lanes '
��...,. - 6lanes ,
a _
xo
c
- 3lanes
16lanes,, i
• A
e erton d,-
�� 6 lanes with • •» i
_ auxiliary lanes
j /+%� �' .� •T " 6 lanes — —
� Mrn a..'w •'a ' •+r'sr � `T Y•. _fir .
1!121-k A
/Kin
Cit
ui •`:l / �••'• .. +" Durham •r
Now 2 lane facility Gl, • ` 5-6 lanes a
(generalized alignment)
'rM 4-5 lanes Tu la
The concopR of the 217/Sunset alternative •••• °'
is to improve the existing system without
adding a bypass facility. This alternative ,
would involve major widening projects to 3 lanes .
most of the existing major routes(Sunset sh 'a - auxiliary lanes
Highway,Highway 217,interstate 5,and %" }
Highway 99w)to include the reconstruction
of the interchanges. ' - `�•
e!�New highway corttttruction
L
Rant
p��
ettttl■r Highway widening
�eeeN T5M improvements -
r irtterottengelintersection ., � � .t � / E
knprovenents \ �:� i{
Urban growth boundary •, -
son i ` � �wflsorvdle J I
ME 110 Southwest Corridor Study Figure 8
Proposed Projects for 217/Sunset Alternative
- - , , •� ,1
woo
.*
-r.
1. ^,
• Ha ro �` ` _ •` 6 lanes
216th/219th alignment = - 1- ITw
Tr. ���f \ M v�•
lanes It
185th alignment or,
/ !
r ',
(generalized)
45 lane arterial "`�. '
(generalized alignment)
„..,,... a
w ,
uxiliary lanes
-auxiliary lanes
,.. . .- -
mow, /figar
kµ•t•
.fi ..._ _ !
The concept of the bypass n-.alternative is a
splitting of the circumferential movement K'"$ •y - ow
between Highway 217 and a new 4 lane " � any ! �T'w�
arterial connecting 1-5 with Sunset Highway 0 .f Durham y
in western Washington County. '
y
�._ �� -�.
The bypass Is expeded to: 1 �` 1- n,Y«s.oY.
1. Qecrease the travel time Whom ' S-4 lanes rwlat - I
western Washington County and I Y
southern Washington County.and - 3 es -
2. Help re0eve Highway 217.Sunset - `F s ..
Highway.and Highway MY by taking ! -
traffic off those facilities.
As a result of this alternative concept. s" 00d •r
smaller scale improvements are proposed — ._ '"'4-- 6 }4W 4-5 lanes` \
to Sunset Highway.Highway 217,and
Highway 99W. -`
woo Netw highway oorstnXUM - - - -
\�.a= Ramp nwbiw g
e*Nar TSMWTOftftl l _ i` r
irtterchangetinteraeclbn
Urban growth bour4my
� - W,Isppwlle .
�o Southwest Corridor Study Figum 9
Proposed Projects for Western Bypass Alternative
_r
a Boones Ferry Road/Bypass interchange and a widening of
Boones Ferry Road to four or five lanes.
I-5 to Scholls Ferry Road
A common generalized alignment was developed from I-5 to
Scholls Ferry Road, with the major consideration being the
Tualatin River crossing. This crossing would need to be
made either at, or very near, the existing Schamberg
Bridge site. CZossing elsewhere in the area would have
severe floodplain impacts that could range from extremely
expensive to impossible to solve. This section, including
the I-5 connection, is estimated by ODOT to cost $75.1
million.
Scholls Ferry Road -- Sunset: 185th Alignment
4
The only feasible option to route the Bypass via 185th
Avenue would follow the Reusser Road/185th Avenue corridor
from Schamberg Bridge to the existing intersection of the
T. V. Highway and S.W. 185th Avenue. The actual alignment
would be routed to the easterly side of Cooper Mountain to
somewhat improve grades and minimize construction costs
and impacts. Even with this modification, standard grades
of 6 percent could not be achieved and extremely large
cuts with depths of 100 feet or more would be required.
Environmental impacts, residential acquisitions and
construction costs would be excessive, particularly for a
substandard facility.
To the north of Cooper Mountain, the alignment would
traverse a heavily-populated area resulting in extensive
residential displacements. From Farmington Road to T.V.
Highway, the facility would be at grade without access
control and would terminate at the already congested T.V.
Highway/S.W. 185th Avenue intersection. The at-grade
crossings of Farmington Road, the Southern Pacific
Railway, and the T.V. Highway, plus the proximity of the
railway to T.V. Highway and the lack of property access
control, result in a less than adequate facility to serve i
forecast traffic.
{
From T.V. Highway to the Sunset Highway, the route would
be over the soon-to-be-improved S.W. 185th Avenue. This
segment would have numerous at-grade intersections and
accesses and would not function well as a bypass due to [
these features. In addition, a widening of 216th/217th to F
three lanes south of Cornell and five lanes north of i
Cornell is required with this alternative to provide
adequate north/south access in this section. The total
cost for this section is estimated at $50 million.
Scholls Ferry Road -- Sunset: 216th Alignment
f
The 216th Bypass Alternative routes the facility in the
corridor to the west of Cooper Mountain. An alignment
20
following the western slopes of Cooper Mountain would have
the most grades, sharpest horizontal curvature and cost-
'` liest right-of-way, but is closest to the UGB. Alter-
native alignment possibilities further westward, would
result in better grades and curves and less costly right-
of-way. Any alignment location in this section would be
designed to minimize impacts on the rock quarry and his-
toric rroperty west of Cooper Mountain.
North of the T.V. Highway to the Sunset Highway/Cornelius
Pass Road interchange, the alignment would follow the
216th/219th corridor as an access-controlled five-lane
facility with at-grade signalized intersections, replacing
a currently proposed three-lane facility. While this sec-
tion was estimated as described, the Oregon State Highway
Division recommends maintaining full access control and
freeway-type standards as applied to the rest of the
route. Design consistency and safety considerations would
be violated by inclusion of this short non-access-con-
trolled segment in a route otherwise built as a freeway
and connecting to a freeway at either end. This section
has been estimated by ODOT to cost $64.1 million.
Other Protects
In addition to the bypass, other improvements required in
the Bypass Alternatives are widening to Highway 217 (six
lanes from Sunset to Hall/Scholls and auxiliary lanes from
*, Hall/Scholls to I-5) , six lanes on Highway 99W (I-5 to
Main Street) , six lanes on Sunset Highway (Highway 217 to
Cornell/185th) • and a three to four-lane improvement to
Tualatin-Sherwood Road. These improvements are estimated
to cost about $69 million, with the total cost of the by
.pass alternatives estimated at from $194 million (185th)
to $208 million (216th) .
E. Financial SgMary of Highway Alternatives
i
a 1. Differenoea Among alternatives
Table 3 illustrates the proposed project differences
among the three alternatives acrd provides a cost es-
timate for the improvements. Three areas of signifi-
cant difference emerge: for Highway 217, where the
217/Sunset Alternative is $12 Million more expensive
than the bypass alternatives ($33.6 million vs. $21.6
million) ;_ and the Nyberg/Tualatin-Sherwood/ Edy Road
corridor where the 217/Sunset Alternative costs $20.8
million vs. $7.3 million; and for the bypass alter-
natives sn4# of course, the western bypass arterial,
where the 217/Sunset Alternative costs $12.9 million
vs. 4125.0 - `139.2 million for the 'bypaoses. In
= total, the' costs .for the additional proposed
O
'low
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O O O O O S O S S 0 0 S S
0 0 oonooaoo 0 00 CO S S 00O o o s o0 00 S 0
ao 0 0000e000 0 00 0
0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 1 O O 0 0 O t ,
O O 0000000 O 00 O i ,� la �ei{a O O
Y N 1 N 00 wf NN A1O�-1 W Al N 1 N ( b� A
.•n O O N rd.i .i 01 1-1 111 A F F .i. Iff N N ._ W w1 N wf
N M ti N r1 a*
M q i► N p p p + p p M
N M
•
It w
to wia
f 'O10V • �� i Y Y Y L Y £
o 8 So a8 -
$�B �gSo 8 pppO S J f $ 8 o
« M » w1 N A 10 1.1 N 111 1'1 � if1
E N 1-i rl rl A N IR aA F F
.4 10 M M N N N N wAf S
. 1O�� Cl' p M i► p p p p p •
• p 6 C .Ci C M•
MM 4
• 1in
�.... �.... .
Y N »V 1O 10�Y ID 10 10•O M M60 66 0 44
qm M s � Sssssss Ss � II SsS
on 94
s ss =sss. s = s Ills
,q IiS� N O�OOOFO/00w M .Oi�f0�11�1 A fV0 !! • W M Q 1 10 � 1. r1A O
!ski rl rl r'1 N C4 1• 1•A ^I
M p p N rl p p p M p
«
" as sssssssa
B4 sa S SS $ � ss
IS Sao Iisiis ill Is I iI
s i�SsslrtacrR srs rt Vr ss
M
Y
0
+�p
�` 1 � M�E....i..1}} •Yp C r*1 � 1 ��it s1
.~..i1 I i_Q I M I IN•• RSV y y + ` YY
py r1 Y 1 1 wQ C 7►1 1 Q 1 � e � S N
y yV
-5f 88
N N N N N N N
s
Sol b% 1lt/ ;i
N
Ot'jl CI IFt W Itl tl A O 16 01 IC i
j
improvements beyond the adopted RTP and common pro-
jects range from $117 million (217/Sunset) to $208
million (216th Bypass) .
2. Total Proposed Improvement Costs and Revenues
Table 4 illustrates the cost/revenue summary for the
three alternatives. The total package costs for the
proposed highway improvement ranges from $433 million
(217/Sunset) to $510 million (185th Bypass) to $524
million (216th Bypass) . An estimate of the 20-year
revenues available to fund the improvements produces
an anticipated revenue shortfall of 48 percent ($209
• million) for the 217/Sunset Alternative, 51 percent
($261 million) for the 185th Bypass and 52 percent
($275 million) for the 216th Bypzss. It is apparent
from this comparison of costs and revenues that none
of the proposed alternatives can be constructed within
existing resources. Portions of any preferred alter-
native need to be staged over time to reflect the
reality of the anticipated revenue stream shortfall
and ensure that available funds are targeted toward
logical, functional segments of the improvement pro-
gram that address the most immediate travel demand.
:Y
rsS
a
'. W
TABLE 4
SOUTENEST CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES:
SIGEMAY MODERNIZATION COST AND REVENUE ESTIMATES
Principals Major & Minor
interstate & Freeways Arterials Collectorsd Total
e
Adopted RTP $91m
State $1812 $56m $17m --
Local -- -- 5912 7m 6612
Proposed RTP
Additions 8812
State 4612 23m 1912 --
local — 52m 1912 71m
SUBTOTAL $64m $79m $147m $26m $316m
Alternatives 11712
217/Sunset 2m 74m 41M --
216th Bypass 27m 168m 13m -- 208m
185th Bypass 27m 15212 13m 19212
TOTAL
217/Sunset $66m $153m $188m $2bm $43312
216th Bypass 9112 247m 160m 26m 510m
185th Bypass 91M 233m 16012 26m
Comitted Revenues $2012 $ 52m $ Slm $ 2m $125m
Possible Revenue
217/Sunset 46e 17mb 36mc -- 99M
Bypasses 7112a 17mb 36mc a 124m
Total Revenues
217/Sunset $66m $6912 $87m $ 212 $2{
Bypasses 9112 6912 87m 2mr
Shortfall
217/Sunset $ 0 $ 8412 $101m $24m $275m
216th Bypass 0 178m 73m 2412
185th Bypass O 164m 73m 24m 261m
0 of Need Funded 528
217/Sunset 1008 450 468 80 480
216th Bypass 1000 288 548 80
185th Bypass 1000 300 548 80 498
(footnotes listed on next page) E .
24
a -
a The regionwide estimate for FAI 4R revenue assumes a range of $48m. - $72m./yr.
328 Ptld. reg. 508 modernisation x 14 yrs = $186m. This fully funds the region's
Interstate cost estimate/need.
b Assumes FAP revenues to range f.:-,m $29m. - 50m./yr. 158 Ptld. req. 308 mod.
408 ISS x 14 yrs = $13.8m. plus one-third of Int. Trans. Regional Reserve and
McLoughlin Reserve 408 lis = $3m.
c Assumes FAO to range from $3.2m. - $4.3m./yr. 1008 mod. x 20 yrs. 408 WS =
$29.6m. plus two-thirds of Int. Trans. Regional Reserve and McLoughlin Reserve 408
"S = $6m.
d Cost of key collector facilities only -- does not bring full system up to urban
standards or include local roads.
e Coamitted revenues include remainder of Interstate Transfer Program and latest
Six-Year Highway Program. Does not include bridges or inflation.
JO/sm
602OC/466-4
10/09/86
F
Summary of Travel Evaluation
A. Operating Characteristics
Figures 10 A and B, 11 A and B and 12 A and B illustrate
the year 2005 p.m. peak-hour traffic volume comparison
between each of the alternatives and the adopted RTP (de-
tailed traffic volumes are available at the Metro of-
fices) . In each case, the improved capacity provided by
the proposed improvements attracts the travel movements
intended by the underlying .concept.
. 1. 217/Sunset Alternative
With the 217/Sunset Alternative (Figure 10 A and B) ,
•' significant increases in peak-hour travel demand
associated with the growth contained in adopted local
comprehensive plans are accommodated on the Sunset
Highway (+600 to 1,000 vph) ; Urbur/I-5 (+600 to
800 vph) t Highway 99W (+400 vph) ; and Highway 217
(+600 to 1,000 vph) . West of Highway 217, smaller in-
creases (+100 to 600 vph) in travel demand occur on
the major facilities "feeding" this system: Cornell
Road, Baseline Road, T.V. Highway, Farmington Road,
and Scholls Ferry Road. A significant increase in
volume on Tualatin-Sherwood/Bdy Road (+100 to 300 vph)
and the new two lane arterial from Highway 99W to
Scholls Ferry (+500 to 700 vph) is evident as a result
of the improvements to these facilities allowing them
to provide both a "Tigard bypass"-type function for
radial traffic exiting the region via Highway 99W and
a more direct route for western Washington County cir-
cumferential movements.
With the proposed improvements, the regional system
would be expected to function at an adequate level of
service in almost all areas. Rxceptions to this would
occur: a) in the radial corridors inside of Highway
217, where the highway system cannot be improved be-
yond proposed levels without major cost and environ-
mental impacts, and therefore, the travel demand
should be accommodated through improvements to the
transit system; and b) at two locations west of
Highway 217 (T.V. Highway frog 160th to 170th and
Murray Boulevard between Farmington and T.V.
Highway) . Neither section is proposed for a major
highway improvement due to the fact that these two
segments operate in tandem with each other (i.e., more
traffic on one produces more traffic on the other) and
' sufficient capacity improvements are called for on
Farmington and Baseline to allow alternate arterial
access. Analysis of widening to these segments indi-
M.
cates that they would simply attract additional
traffic and still not function adequately.
`b 4
a
0
l
c+c
Q
lea
v
�.s
yap- _
ga ,
Cl
C2 o 0
0
w
4
.'rte
j a
pg
a
�h
V N
2. 185th Bypass Alternative
With the 185th Bypass Alternative (Figure 11 A and B) ,
similar peak-hour volume increases are expected to
occur in the radial corridors inside of Highway 217
(Sunset; Barbur/I-5 Macadam) as with the 217/Sunset
Alternative. The major differences occur in the
Highway 217 corridor and the bypass corridor, where
the Highway 217 traffic growth is about 50 percent as
great as it is in the 217/Sunset Alternative and from
800 to 1,400 vph greater in the bypass corridor as the
new facility shifts the major traffic movement away
from Highway 217 and parallel arterials. As with 217/
Sunset, the regional system functions adequately in
all, areas but the radial corridors close to downtown
Portland and on T.V. Highway (160th 170th) and "
Murray Boulevard (T.V. - Farmington) .
3. 216th Bypass Alternative
The 216th Bypass Alternative (Figure 12 A and B) func-
tions similarly to the 185th Bypass Alternative except
that more traffic (upwards of 2,000 vph) is attracted
to the bypass itself. In addition, T.V. Highway would
be expected to operate at slightly under capacity from
160th to 170th with the 216th Bypass as the traffic is
moved further west. Murray (T.V. - Farmington) would
still operate slightly over capacity.
4. Transit System
With the service improvements called for in each of
the alternatives, the all-day transit ridership
doubles from today' s levels in the Western Radial
Corridor (to 23,000 riders per day) and the South-
western Radial Corridor (to 28,900 riders per day) and
increases over 2-1/2 times in the Circumferential
Corridor (to 5,000 riders per day) . As can be seen in
Figure 13, this ridership will be concentrate' on the
Sunset and Barbur trunk routes (including the Sunset
LRT) . The non-radial travel movements are smaller in
size and generally more difficult to serve by transit.
B. Ability to Handle Future Growth in Travel Demand
An analysis was performed to evaluate the ability of each
alternative to handle the increased traffic demand associ-
ated with the growth inherent in the adopted local compre-
hensive plans beyond 2005.
1. 217/Sunset Alternative
Figure 14 illustrates the reserve capacity available
for the 217/Sunset Alternative. As shown in the
30_
g..f
tL
figure, highway capacity in the Western Radial
Corridor (Sunset; reaverton-Hillsdale Highway) is com-
pletely used up by year 2005 traffic demand. In the
Southwestern Radial Corridor, peak direction (south-
bound) capacity in the Barbur/I-5 and Macadam sub-
corridor is also gone. However, because of the
ability of transit to serve this travel movement, fur-
ther expansion of transit capacity is possible.
Outside of Highway 217, T.V. Highway, Cornell Road and
the Sunset show significant reserve capacity limita-
tions for east/west movements beyond 2005.
In the circumferential corridor, there is virtually no
continuous north/south through capacity left beyond
• 2005, despite "building out" of Highway 217. Further-
more, options for further expanding Highway 217, sur-
rounding arterials or attracting a significant share
of transit growth to transit are not readily available.
2. 185th Bypass Alternative
As with the 217/Sunset Alternative, the 185th Bypass
Alternative does not show much ability to accommodate
growth beyond 2005 (Figure 15) . The radial corridors
inside of Highway 217 are full, Highway 217 is used
up, and the east/west routes north of Farmington have
fr no reserve capacity. In addition, the portions of the
185th bypass itself north of Farmington and south of
Cornell indicate little ability to handle any growth
in traffic beyond 2005.
3. 216th Bypass Alternative
The 216th Bypass Alternative performs similarly to the
others in the radial corridors inside of Highway 217
and the east/west facilities north of Farmington Road
h (Figure 16) . A major difference, however, is that
while through circumferential capacity on Highway 217
' is used up by 2005 traffic, significant reserve
capacity exists in the bypass corridor to accommodate
growth beyond 2005 circumferential travel movements.
Furthermore, sections of Tualatin Valley Highway would
continue to function in this alternative which is not
y
the case in the other two alternatives.
_>r
C. Comparison of System Characteristics
1. Vehicle Miles of Travel and Average Speed
Overall, all three year 2005 improvement alter-
natives (Sunset/217, 185th Bypass; 219th Bypass)
perform similarly (Table 5) and serve
3}V _
31 i
m.
r.
no
u,
w
A
V
ICZ0.�
M
o�d
O O pO O O �
N RV t0 CO
3
9t
.St
w
t
r .✓""' �W j
4 �
0010,4.
• a
y
TS � �
0
0 0 Cl 0 0
N *t 0 co V_
N
.r
CIO
w
f
s
!
f
a
t
O
y
tom'" �i �•�,
v �
i
two
4
---� .
0 0 o
t
!v . T'
0
N
I
fs:
At
L
ac
� 8
v .s
Y
y
1 1
�N
i
} C4
0
w
t3
• . AVliliM t3
3
CD
CD C2
i
i
. •• O r N N
O
F�
_o
is.
f
h
lrlii3ltlM 3N11'I S v� � a�>
c
�pp 12
N Q 4O0 COO
O
•�r
v .-
a�
V
p�p X4/3
of^rV 00
m o
N So CO V- o
�O
•�h
v �
U �
V
y �g
N
O p O
N sf BOO co �
Q
s ss •
g 1 + + +
q
C44 In
d
M i dp +
W Ori ♦ ♦
/S o
r! qv N h
z
► ► ► ►
rl r-1 r-1 rl
in 40
0 Cb 40
4 �
s
4
H M
a �
HZ
y 1 � ►
an to
fh
W
d r �
S
10 At w
meta 3
40 m an
w
43
>? "
Q � � g
an to P
m '4 a
p o .♦
^s
s .
R
slightly more p.m. peak-hour vehicle miles of
travel on the highway system (+32,000 vehicle
miles, +3 percent) at a slightly greater average
rate of speed (33 mph, +3 percent) compared to the
RTP.
The Sunset/217 Alternative produces the highest
total number of peak-hour vehicle miles of travel
(1,144,700) due to the circuitous use of the
Highway 217 corridor for western Washington County
north-south trips.
- All three alternatives produce an increase in the
number of p.m. peak-hour vehicle miles of travel
k on the regional parts of the highway system (+9 to
+11 percent) and a decrease in the number of
vehicle miles on the non-regional system (-4 to
-13 percent) than the RTP. This is due in large
measure to the increased capacity called for on
the regional system allowing more travel to appro-
priately use that system and removing it from
minor arterials and collectors.
- The two Bypass alternatives provide significantly
more relief to the non-regional system, with
25,000 (-7 percent)'Yess vehicle miles of travel
with the 185th Bypass and 33,660 less (-9 percent)
with the 219th Bypass when compared to the
Sunset/217 alternative with 16,360 less (-4 per-
cent) .
er-cent) .
2. System Utilization
Table 6 illustrates the relationship between per-
centage of lane miles on the regional system as. com-
p
pared to the percentage of p.m. peak-hour vehicle miles of travel among the year 2005 alternatives.
With the RTP, 65 percent of the p.m. peak-hour vehicle
} miles of travel takes place on the regional system,
which represents 34 percent of the number of highway
system lane miles (on the collector, arterial and
freeway system) . With all three improvement alter-
natives beyond the RTP, there is a noticeable shift in
this relationship. The Sunset/217 alternative pro-
duces an increase in travel on the regional system
from 65 to 68 percent, while the share of lane miles
increases from 34 to 35 percent. This shift is even
more pronounced in the Bypass alternatives, with the
185th Bypass producing an increase in travel from 65
to 70 percent, and the 219th 8ypAss producing the
largest shift with an increase from 65 to 71 percent,
.. while the share of lane miles only increases from 34
- to 3+6 percent of the .system.
41
,p
'✓�r.e �qn. i Wit.. _ .5. _ _ wc .l - a d . .C'4, n3^ _ i'6aA 7'r ig'3�t='s'+k
a
TABLE 6
2005 System Lane Miles
I
E
and PM Peak-Hour Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)
{a{+
Regional Systeml
8 of Lane
Miles VMT
2005 RTP 348 658
Sunset/217 358 688
185th Bypass 368 708
216th/219th Bypass 368 718
E
1 Principals (including Freeways) and major arterials
JG/BH/sm
6170C/466-4
09/10/86
rt i
In all cases, there is a greater increase in the share
of vehicle miles traveled on the regional system (+3
to +6 percent) than the corresponding increase in lane
miles on the regional system (+1 to +2 percent) .
D. Travel Time Comparisons (p.m. peak hour)
The major benefit of an adequate transportation system is
quicker access from one part of the region to the next.
This section of the evaluation examines the expected year
2005 p.m. peak period travel times between specific areas
in the region among the alternatives. A comparison of the
expected travel times indicates that:
- Travel times for most movements throughout the West-
side will degrade from 10 to 50 percent from 1983 to
2005 with the adopted RTP (Figure 17) .
- Most travel movements achieve approximately the same
degree of improvement over the RTP (Figure 18) , re-
gardless of which of the three alternatives is se-
lected. These improvements range from 2 percent to
20 percent.
Significant improvements in travel time can be ex-
pected with the 216th Bypass Alternative for movements
between Hillsboro and Tualatin when compared to the
other alternatives (Figure 18) . The travel times for
this movement are 18 percent (northbound) and 20 per-
cent (southbound) faster than the 217/Sunset Alter-
native and 23 percent (northbound) and 30 percent
(southbound) faster than the RTP.
Of particular note is a specific comparison of p.m. peak
period travel times from the Sunset Highway/216th inter-
change and the I-5/Stafford Road interchange between the
217/Sunset Alternative and the 216th Bypass Alternative
(Figure 19) . Southbound, it is expected to take 25
minutes to go from Sunset/216th to I-5/Stafford via the
216th/219th Bypass in the F.m. peak. The same trip, via
Sunset/217/I-5 without a bypass, is expected to take 29
minutes, a 16 percent lengthening in travel time. Inter-
estingly, the same trip via Sunset/217/I-5 in the 216th
Bypass Alternative would be expected to take 28 minutes,
or slightly less time than the same route in the
217/Sunset Alternative. The same trip via the 216th "cor-
ridor" without a bypass (217/Sunset Alt.) , is expected to
take 35 minutes compared to 25 minutes with the bypass.
This situation indicates that both the western and 217
circumferential movements are expedited with the Bypass
Alternative, providing increased capacity in two corridors
and achieving similar improvements in both, $s opposed to
realizing travel time savings in only one corridor (217) ,
as is the Case with the 217/Sunset Alternative.
43
m , ,
r .
a® , ivy p
N t ( >_ ¢
w
�y 1.
o,- C
a
oNra m
ba
o r�
30kv No,Nn
AS
,rwr 9�
ca
6/9
a
CO y X31��' r 6/8co
• oN tr ,, to ; �--
+
f o ch LL
_
OA 70 AVW&nM
ku
CD
Nlpti
g C2�L
as
a S 4�
all o .
co
i C ata A" �
_ •• `yt,
M
oY d� r 7
w3wmjw
1AMN r
• • ggg q _ 00
G� r �' •t-u'
vyS C a= N 3
it w
_t ¢
3y N t HILI! i! r
� W C
v a� C�>,
ON2R m cV .
O Y C �U
..
4 ' N
ID
CO
�3
3Ar NOMn CL°wo
d
40P��/fie`
yM
7P • � � � R^ w 'p v 1s 3 �:
• Co f 400Oar ��1� r.► 6/6/0G/6 a y
CO` 6/6/0
E=•, • • '_.'� � �X11,1 � .,..
i ! co �1 c,
j--- co co aA< X11\
i — 9 AruaMN
a
Vft
� 0
Naelt �y
Tft
r am
O
•E �N a
eu AAW •
air �N3na . � r ,�� •e r-.
ow
CV) CO si .
CO
4&AM++
a
00
w
rA1 MDYrI � �' ' ► ' � -
Y I
s 3 `•sy s
— .YMnr
lb
` aw
r
t
V
�+ z
I v_Morn •A F, � �y
J 4
J� = ,10.1 6'6
r•`••` I 11 8� bra v
ow
V9 C4
• O I
I
E. Accessibility
1. Highway System
The improvements in travel time associated with the
transportation system investments proposed in the
alternatives produce greater accessibility for the
region's residents to jobs, shopping opportunities,
and other activities. In addition, markets are ex-
panded and goods movement is enhanced as a result of
travel time savings. Three measures of accessibility
were developed as evaluation criteria for the South-
west -idor Study:
3
Workforce Accessibility -- defined as the number
• of residents accessible to selected major employ-
ment centers within 20 minutes during the p.m.
peak period;
Employment Accessibility -- defined as the number
of jobs accessible to residents of selected hous-
ing concentrations within 20 minutes during the
a.m. peak period; and
Retail .Market Accessibility -- defined as the
number of people within 15 minutes of selected
regional retail/commercial opportunities during
the off-peak period.
These measures are felt to provide a reflection of the
performance of the transportation system in terms of
quantifying relative mobility.
a. Workforce Accessibility (Table 7)
Without improvements to the transportation
system beyond the currently adopted RTP, a
reduction in workforce accessibility of from
5 percent to 22 percent will occur for the
following areas between 1983 and 2005:
Portland CBD, Peterkort, Tanasbourne, Johns
Landing, and Wilsonville. The remaining em-
ployment centers will experience a growth in
workforce accessibility despite a degradation
in travel conditions due to the large amount
of nearby residential growth anticipated by
2005.
All the alternatives provide a better level of
workforce accessibility than the. RTP (improve-
meats of from 2 percent to 8 percent) with the
Y exception of the Wilsonville Industrial Area
- in the 217/Sunset Alternative, which remains
constant.
47
s
1 V O • I 0
4 �w ++ + + f
�►1 d.
+ + i + i + i i + + i +
it An
g PV °� -4
+ + + + + i + +
+ + o +
o
p Q8 o o � in aa eov
♦/ N 8 R� 1A '? 1., ty fit) ri
N O ri Co. W-
ig m a Lf O
�O
W r r 1+1 A
w
a
�w • • • • • I I • •
lot
N 94 .-1 .1 • r .•1 � «I 10
w d t t + 0 1 + + + +
C N
z
+ + + + + + +
yt v Q1 O p S p p p O g p
.4
N N'1 r•1 N N 1tf h 01 O r ♦ .
.n N In 0% h f" ul In
�Tar
N M
r a
h iL�w I SIO • I • •• • • I if
•
.hi w OG + + + + + + * + + + p +
O OO O O O O O �O O O
�p N V% O
N 0 N v p N � Ifti N � N rl
N w -z h
iK � y� in N r r 1.1 r If► � N N
W
C I rM I • I • I • I • I M
64 wl 04 r in M h to O N in U1 %D
w m N 1 1 + + + + N + 1 +
h
g to�1 in O O $ O H to in
G C% tom,.' O tOV •�•1 N IH 46 h N
r r A N r r /n r in r N N
N
M5 Q o 8
s .t N H Ipff r01 f0•1 N 10 M Ut
ri O� N 4I I N at O if1 N Q► h
O► r 1>, O m r /N•1
( Itt r In N PI r N In • N N
�
••. w
M N .-/ w N
14
in
pp • y
P4 0
E !6 7t s d
RE
The largest increase in workforce accessi-
bility over the RTP occurs for the Tualatin
Industrial Area which realizes gains of from
5 percent (217/Sunset Alternative) to 35 per-
cent (216th Bypass Alternative) .
Overall, the 216th Bypass Alternative outper-
forms both the 217/Sunset and 185th Bypass
Alternatives in terms of workforce accessi-
bility by from 1 percent to 29 percent
(217/Sunset) and up to 7 percent (185th
Bypass) . The largest gains occur for the
Wilsonville and Tualatin Industrial Areas
relative to the 217/Sunset Alternative with
improvements of 10 percent and 29 percent
respectively.
For employment areas in the Highway 217
Corridor , the 216th Bypass Alternative pro-
vides small increases of from 1 percent
(Peterkort, Washington Sq. , Kruse Way) to
4 percent (Tigard/72nd) in workforce accessi-
bility compared to the 217/Sunset Alternative.
For employment centers in the Tanasbourne/
Hillsboro area, the 216th Bypass Alternative
performs as well or better than both the 185th
Bypass and the 217/Sunset Alternatives, with
increased workforce accessibility of from
11 percent to 13 percent over the RTP.
b. Employment Accessibility (Table 8)
The adopted RTP and the large increases in employ-
ment expected by the year 2005 produce gains in
access to jobs from 6 percent to 100 percent over
1983, with the exception of the Lake Oswego area,
where worsening travel times to parts of the CBD
and the Central Eastside remove about 30 percent
of the accessible jobs within 20 minutes compared
to 1983. With regard to the three alternatives
beyond the RTP:
The 217/Sunset Alternative produces the great-
est benefit to residents in the Lake Oswego
and Tualatin areas with gains in job access of
11 percent and 18 percent respectively com-
pared to the RTP.
S
In addition to producing larger (4 percent and
5 percent respectively) gains in job accessi-
bility from these two areas compared to the
217/Sunset -Alternative, the 185th Bypass
z )
3
i
49
0
11 + 1 Z Z Z + +
m
oc
it
d it dP •
14 m 1A 1p �! M rl C� r4
# N
yl raj + + 1 1 + t ♦ +
41 W N
C
d %D
-V.i N ifr M M C" Q ko %a
+ + + + + +
in + +
C C) w
Aj N O G .O-1 O N fn N N C�m &A Co r O O r-
0
V
N O 1-4 IA N M V'
N N N V N •'1 •4
W
O
10 Lp 8 \ f"1 M # v N 5A N
+ + 1 1 + + +
W N 1
O
N jpp�,,
C m en .4 S•1 N 0 V' Q N
� P' Aw + .4 14+ + + + +C14 + +
41
6n O p O O O O O 0
V' r O In+ O D � r
p r-4 LA %D N 0T N m
• Ip N N N � N � •"1
1D
'"1 H 6! � r � �i Pi N co %A
t1! 1-4
i W I + + + + + + + +
P2 N OD O m IV &n OV N O
w Ln IA O ID .+
O O O
la N h O �D to ..4 r N V
r� tV N qw N .� •'/
• M aA � w ♦ er M
W + ♦ + + ♦ +
O
FAO e
H rl N M c" \D %D _
+4 O
Ln
rel rte/ N d' .-1 � rO1 r/
a V N rO/ In N 0-4 N cc P4
r1 M N r/ V 1� 1� M
+~i h rt O► N O� ri M 1'� O►
0% ey N M N O% %D
.4A;
C
.p 01
m a
a �
V-4
.' o $ .4 o
C 64
++ Q
rl w o a 7 0 .moi r °'
Alternative provides a significant degree of
improvement for residents in the Tigard
(+11 percent) , Aloha (+13 percent) , and
Wilsonville (+24 percent) areas compared to
the RTP.
The 216th Bypass Alternative is comparable to
the 185th Bypass Alternative in terms of job
accessibility, with a slight gain for the
Hillsboro area (+4 percent) .
c. Retail Market AccessibilitX_ (Table 9)
All the alternatives provide a 4 percent
larger market area within 15 minutes to the
Washington Square area compared to the RTP.
-- All of the alternatives provide a 3 percent
larger market area within 15 minutes to the
Tanasbourne area. While the bypass alter-
natives provide improved access to the
Tualatin/Sherwood area, this is beyond the 15
minute time contour.
The bypass alternatives provide a 5 percent
larger market area within 15 minutes of
Tualatin.
2. Transit System
Without the increases in the level of transit service
called for in the adopted RTP and the Southwest Alter-
natives, the congestion on the highway system will
significantly worsen by 2005. As previously dis-
cussed, in order to maintain the operating quality of
the highway system at desired levels, significant in-
vestment beyond that which is proposed in the alter-
natives would have to be made to the highway system.
f Without the investment in the transit system to reach
RTP service levels, or without the additional invest-
_ went then required in the highway system, travel times
would be significantly slower, and, as a result,
accessibility would be greatly reduced.
As an indicator of this loss of accessibility, an
analysis was performed for the p.m. peak hour in terms
of workforce accessibility (the number of residents
accessible to selected major employment centers within
20 minutes) . This accessibility was measured for two
levels of highway investment (RTP and 217/Sunset) and
twolevels of transit investment (adopted RTP and
today) . In all cases, the investment in increased
(
levels of transit
se vice improved accessibility over
51
-�P
O
U U C1 V V U U
i0
1a
N
M+ w w w U w
a g ++ a a o o 0 0 0
CO CO
0% %D �0
i to U U U w w
owDDgri `i' +
G1 N
W � •
O
e .�•� + + + Z + 4
8 g C4 04
w r R1 O u1 'Ili
•
O m m o
C 1p IV in u► %D a N1
� m
• w
� W + + + ton z z + +
N
H N gn O %0 10 Od+ Off+ w
W
1+ 10 10 rn 1A 10 a e�
s
to w w w w w w
Op
d1 ~
g �'
in n ado 1* v
N d r u/
N 1A at r m 9.4 r
RRR
to 1�A v m 91 10 V N
In in
O1 O i to N Y1 •i
in mr4
S4
i m s� e w CD
= � _ � � �
what would be achieved without the transit investment,
regardless of the level of highway construction (Table
10) .
For four of the employment centers (Portland CBD,
Peterkort, Johns Landing, and Kruse Way) , transit
service expansion provides more accessibility benefits
than the proposed highway improvements beyond the
RTP. The expanded level of highway investment
(217/Sunset) without transit service improvements pro-
duces less accessibility than the lesser level of
highway investment (RTP) coupled with increased
Ate'
3 transit service.
3a
For the two of these employment areas in the major
radial corridors inside of Highway 217, transit in-
vestment provides huge increases in accessibility. At
an RTP level of highway investment, improved transit
service provides 66 percent (CBD) to 71 percent (JL)
more accessibility. If the additional highway invest-
ments called for in the 217/Sunset Alternative are
made without improving the transit system, only a
3 percent - 5 percent improvement over the RTP would
be realized. If however, both the additional system
investment were made, a 70 percent - 74 percent
accessibility gain could be expected over an RTP
"highway only" investment.
In four of the areas (Tigard/72nd, Washington Square,
Tualatin and Beaverton-Tek) , transit expansion is
equally as important as the proposed highway improve-
ments. The proposed level of highway investment
(217/Sunset) without increased transit service pro-
duces about the same degree of accessibility as the
lower RTP level of highway construction coupled with
improved transit service, as improvements in both
transit and highway service are important to these
_ areas.
For the suburban employment centers west of Highway
217 (Tanasbourne, Hillsboro, Aloha and Wilsonville) ,
the proposed highway expansion is most important. The
r= increased highway investment beyond the adopted RTP
provides the same degree of accessibility improvement
whether the transit investment is made or not. This
is because the arterial highway improvements are more
important to accessibility to these areas as they can
not be as efficiently served by transit as well as the
centers in the radial corridors.
The alternative of substituting additional highway
expansion beyond that already recommended in lieu of
the planned transit -expansion is not practical due to
the high coat and impacts. Additional lanes on I-5,
Terwilliger, Macadam, Sunset Highway, Barbur and
Barnes are among the additional highway improvements
that would be required to replace transit service
expansion. Regionwide, the additional highway cost
would run to an estimated $1 billion in additional
highway projects beyond the proposed package of im-
provements.
Table 10
Workforce Accessibility Improvements
(Number of residents within 20 minutes of
Selected Employment Centers - 2005 p.m. peak)
RTP w/o Add Both
Improved Add Transit Add Hwy. Transit/
Transit Only Only Highway.
Portland CBD 285,000 +668 +6A +708
Sunset/Hwy 217 404,000 +158 +98 +228
Tanasbourne 324,000 + 28 +108 +108
Hillsboro 263,000 + 18 +108 +108
Tigard/72nd 359,000 +138 +138 +188
Washington Sq. 422,000 + 48 + 48 + 88
Aloha 338,000 +108 +188 +188
Beaverton/Tek 392,000 + 78 + 98 +128
Johns Landing 293,000 +718 + 38 +748
Kruse Way 403,000 +168 +.108 +238
Wilsonville 179,000 +168 +128 +168
Tualatin 259,000 + 48 ; + 48 + 98
F. Neighborhood Infiltration
One detrimental impact of congestion on the regional
transportation system is the infiltration of "through"
trips onto the minor arterial and local street systems as
a result of drivers seeking alternate routes to avoid the
congestion. As shown previously (System Utilization) , the
three alternatives all reduce vehicle miles of -tray.%l on
the "non-regional". system, with the 216th Bypass Alter-
native providing the greatest- reduction, ,from 35 percent
of the peak .VMT on the non-regional system in the RTP to
29 percent of the VMT with the 216th Bypass.
This portion of the evaluation looked at p.m. peak traffic
volumes in six residential areas where infiltration was
identified as a problem (Figure 20) . -The analysis indi-
cates=
Overall, the three alternatives produce a significant
(ll percent to 14 percent) reduction from the RTP in
the amount of peak-hour traffic through the neighbor-
54
1 -� 31ty I'Sl L•• W I":
J N
3AY H169
UGH IN v. BLVD 01JLL a o¢ `to v! C fir,
In to v O OO
RIV RD
lY will ..•t w
3 31W YAi u� 3AY U IVER i \
Sgt Hl CI „i I .>06
�YIY �~ ,�• 6 6 OWN3i0
U10,161g 3iu i �,� 1S 31Y1S
sow A eL o � W
AGE Y 3 4 ¢
►q�. VOY Ob 4 WE 2 PN�� i RSoU)
"" 3P 3Av VINMO�n "ar
W NU Yd V
Y000 t¢tt
H Sd Np j
t _ x OB 06 d3�1 w¢ c¢ uO O Oy
fit +:::::it ` Zo
b ::....
r ::.•'titsi; i p x W Q
�J �� �P G7 to 4 '� }'�.ii?i'.. .}i, m O 2 '¢,•
tP 8i P tS 4
ti f . Q '
[Oy-
�y 771H
� a dY r, :t iiit1y••�1;.:t W it ? d a W y �
O
i::::::' KWAY ql O OfJ
Y 1 > >r` tt"f'•'r'iit?ar ::::ice::aaasa Q
.. �ai': afff'
HOS O :.:.......
1 t at Cl
rv
g +d• 1 N< 3 it
it IliffliE.F. 3AV Vf3A
H1 0, iiil;cwc
us
i .. . t... :E:a L tDad
Pm'
yo A 1 ! l Y ¢ 0 I/
3AY OAOUit
r►
3GEilr!:?iif:.
O ip till:"•t. w W ►� A •M
b 1 VA, 2 dd3! S'3NOp0
: cj
:::::::
x ....... �h J to j
¢ I(y +� r 7
T YH
`
O
}' Hl Y O H1L iiil
�:�., :i�itiii;,i}}:::': :t3}::: '1•1'1»t:i:•:•t•.+ii... :.":?}?:::i"
., i. :..:}�=^'tit}: ^ ?S,�}j� i}:::fi::a?i.•x3:r.
Oiii= .•tfitiii}:ifi'.:-
} t°P
s))O
p '� i} •,:. iii}?i°.:i: ifitN
i:
''✓. SQ Ci ta' _ 7 1 S}j
s \6 iii} -• F:•::::::Eti:ii :
f, '�?•t i�•'t:ice?:. 't :::l�:iii??:.`i?}1:iii:
.{.....F}Ef iii j?i:h:• �?ifi'...i2?tt i' •i" . i'iiiifi'i i..:.
In g �i
::iii
.::a!?iiai i:.3. }}fia5 ii!iuL:••••iiaf} 't}ia%iiiriiy'i .•: Fi?iw,
r:::;}} .............. :ice is 3?t•l�iaii `"V
x }i•ti rsj" 2:;?;?}fti ••i:i;,} •}. t•
- d •tia.:_ !}i'�i:a:ia:f°: � !�:i::�::�;. :t�;; •::f: iifi•.;i i t., ii.. < as
x ,4 , 3i......t_:::: :i.:::i:::::::.:�; �».�'r lilt'• }.
CA
� W 3}ig}!i?ti'iit;i i i:iiaf^fir.::e. `• }{}{: }=;„?i}ti;iy };? � � 1! Al
AY hi ° :::.::::t •� '- , .� ti.i:..iii}..
.::ai}}i:}}.cu i... •i.::^r:..:::::: ::: ...j :°..i:� .l
1 7 7iiiii;::: i 'ti iiiif � 'e}r::::: i' r tf i..F y `:ii j[; _ W
• QT YH mj}}}tiififii;tffiie iti}iiiatit i`i•t-iiisi:::i :.t } i:iiii.:�,. /1
fii l V
i:::. • ... ::::a. •:.... ; liai:}.
.. ......•.r.::u:a. ... � . . ...r•::...:;:•affiai ��iiiF(ll i�ii> t
t:iai??fiiiiiii �•:•. ii?:'Si}}i:::::.t iii 2A
•,r y .........i
;a::... � !?:ittt+aiii:sa?iit: 3AY
O.a7 w ..... r•::::::::..
_.. }iiiiHIM
iiia iaaf}::-;�? fi::.•”i
�D ?i ti i} r: 'i:la?; ftiiftit?t5? 3AY iiiafff?i!''raar'f!'r' pt
3AY 10?"ttafitti:}!fill}if? fiiiiia!fe�Efiaiifi ••• Q ��
A 1$111 71 .•ttttfifif oaf?alis?ifi: ft:iifi?;?i:ia?a??+'• Co
.a?i?iF�r:ffii:im,-ii tffff?Eti'° b'dr ..t
uun"
�Y ° C
ilfj x
uj
10
3AY I
Hl !
c p cc c O LL ad
! O
¢ = w &3N
J W 3 m 73 ti
yQ3 Y H101 t ¢ ¢ d ON30 .4330
¢ L ~OZ Od 13SSn3d
hoods in question (Table 11) . The degree of relief
provided among the alternatives is generally the same.
Major exceptions to this occur in the South Tigard and
South Beaverton areas where the bypass alternatives
provide relief (18 percent to 22 percent less traffic)
than the 217/Sunset Alternative (4 percent to 8 per-
cent less traffic) .
The 217/Sunset Alternative provides marginally better
relief to the West Tigard and Metzger areas.
Through traffic is reduced by the greatest percentage
(22 percent) in South Beaverton with the 216th Bypass
Alternative as a result of traffic using Scholls Perry
Road to access the bypass and not traveling through '
the neighborhood.
A consistently high degree of relief (19 percent to
28 percent) occurs in the Stephenson St. and Corbett/
Terwilliger areas regardless of the alternative.
- The Vermont Road area demonstrates the least overall
degree of relief from infiltration (4 percent to
5 percent) regardless of the alternative.
F
The change in neighborhood traffic in the Lesser Road
area is insignificant although the bypass alternatives
provide marginally better relief than the RTP.
TABLE 11
i
Change from RTP Traffic Volumes
Neighborhood Area 217 Sunset 185th Bypass 216th Bypass
Went Tigard -19 -17 -16 '
South Tigard - 8 -19 -18
Metzger -10 - 8 - 6
Vermont - 5 - 4 - 4
South Beaverton - 4 -20 -22
Stephenson -19 -21 -21
Lesser NIC - 2 - 3
Corbett/Terwilliger -28 -28 -27
AVERAGE -11 -14 -14
G. Ozone
All the year 2005 alternatives (including the RTP) produce
similar levels of vehicle miles of travel, hydrocarbon and
nitrous oxide emissions (the pollutants that contribute to
the formation of ozone) . As a. result, no impact on the
regional air quality condition can be attributed to the
selection of one alternative over another.
z56
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 1933
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 beet.
H. 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 th#a 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
CH6I 4 ♦ t
N1) 40
m P en
co t9► 01 w
rt
A t- O t-
t4 A fel 4%
® t+! ;
N N
N
O
aI i' i r-I -
• s. w
CD m
40
a
�a v t` in 0% qr
.+ to r-4 ® C+ M
C. ON . • •
a aD N .r
1� N N N
A
C
w � r4 a
N �
ri
O P O
� at J N f+ Q►
Ln tV %D
A AG • � ••
E s ra C
A
to o at
Lt
fa
LI
on ! -0
10 N O %
N C is en to
O� 10 10
trf) •! O O
O O tb CD
a% e • �
r1 to rt rt
rf rl
to
O
4
w �
O r1 A
� � f
apG � w0
w+�1 CNo OD
• Qui yy � Lt ��
• i� O V O
mv.04 no
�
N S V
In 0
y j Via. r tm
1 i
let
t .r
AV
44
IL
ov-
- -4��{�' t- 1� � d���• �� � ..'arc"-^ ��/%�a'��^ _ .i' �"
r �i � ..,r a� ` t` �, � �! 4�.eS.1� �� r •� �� iii �� y
'.j. q ►F i.sr-
� O
• �� - '`
r
} � i
1
1
� i 1 •
4
A:- 1
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
TABLE 13
Revenue Trips (Daily Traffic with $0.50 toll rate)
Access Point Toll Charge Number of Dai1X Trips
T.V. Highway and $.50 14,000
Highway 99N
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% $30.5m 288
101 $26.4m 198
Baseon a'W140 million cost estimate
JG/BH/sm
6170C/466-4
09/10/86
t. :
61
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 -188
Highway 99W SB 1800 1480 320 -188
Highway 99W/Scholls NB 1780 1160 620 -358
Perry Road SB 2180 1440 740 -348
Scholls Ferry Road/ NB 1870 880 990 -538
Farmington Road SB 2080 1140 940 -458
Farmington Road/ NB 1270 60 1210 -958
T.V. Highway SS 1660 300 1360 -828
T.V. Highway-North NB 980 450 530 -548
SS 1390 1070 320 -238
8H/JQ/sm
6170C/466-1
i
62
b
`L
s
A ♦ y
on the bypass- As a result, the operating quality of
this facility would worsen, as the volume to capacity
ratio (V/C) climbs from below .75 to .85.
On the rural roads north of Highway 99W, traffic
volumes would increase by 130 percent as a result of
toll diversion compared to a no-toll situation.
While this increase would not represent a capacity
problem per se, it would represent the continued
inappropriate regionale of uthroughrd, inadequate rural
traffic movements, one
facilities by regional
of the problems the bypass was designed to solve.
Scholls Ferr Road - Farmin ton Road Section
� . The diversion of about half the expected traffic off
the bypass as a result of the toll would have two
areas of negative impact in this section. Southbound
Murray Blvd. south of Farmington
traffic volumes a
Rd. would increase by 6 percent and cause this seg-
ment of Murray to operate over capacity (V/C of
1.03) . Without the toll, Murray is expected to
operate under capacity at a V/C of .97.
In addition,
the length of Murray/;nitraffic volumes as sect
airesulton ld
experience increases
of toll diversions.
The traffic volumes on the parallel rural facilities
almost doubles as a result of traffic diverted off
the bypass by the toll. As previously described,
this would negate some of
bothe benefit associated with
the construction o bypass.
Fami-n ton Road - T.V. Hi hwa Section
The almost total diversion of traffic off the bypass
• as a result of the toll in this section spreads the
impact throughout the area, with traffic patterns
similar �� in°an expected thealternatives.improvements
called f Y
The nearest parallel streets, 209th and 229th, absorb
about one-half the total traffic diversion (over 500
vehicle trips) , with another 25 percent spread across
other north/south residential streets. Most of the
remaining 25 percent of the diverted traffic is
pushed onto Murray Blvd. and Highway 217 and is
expected to impact an already difficult situation on
Murray southbound in this section, as Murray is
anticipated to operate slightly over capacity (V/C Of
1.04) without the diverted traffic.
The addition the diverted traffic (+6 percent) would cause Murray
to operate at a V/C of 1.1.
63
-" i r i
In addition, the traffic that is expected to be
diverted to facilities east of the bypass by the toll
would need to use T.V. Highway to travel westbound to
access their destinations. As a result, T.V. Highway
westbound is pushed over capacity in the area east of
160th (V/C of 1.03) , whereas without a toll, it would
operate at a V/C of .94 or less.
i
6
f
z
_4
V. Impact Evaluation
A. Overview
An environmental impact reconnaissance was performed by
the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) with input
from Metro and affected local
jurisdictions for the re—
commended improvements contained in the alternatives.
This reconnaissance level impact evaluation was peformed
to identify those areas of potential impact associated
with the project improvements to ensure major unavoidable
impacts are considered in the overall evaluation and to
identify impacts to be evaluated in more detail.
Specific impacts cannot be accurately determined or
quantified without the detailed preliminary engineering
. and project development work that would proceed the
actual construction. In any case, project design would
seek to avoid, minimize or mitigate as practical any
adverse impacts.
The detailed impact reconnaissance is contained in a
separate document (Technical Appendix A: Southwest
Corridor Study Recommended Improvements: Impact
Reconnaissance) available from the Metro offices. A sum-
mary of the potential significant impacts for the major
regional projects that differ among the alternatives is
presented later in this report.
Federal, State (LCDC) , regional and local governments
have identified specific areas of impact to be examined
in any impact evaluation of a proposed improvement.
Generally, the following impact areas are considered to
assure that an adequate assessment of the project impacts
is performed:
Acquisition and Relocation Impacts
Land Use, Zoning and Urban Growth Voundary Impacts
Air Quality
# Noise
Water Quality
Wetlands
Flood Plains
Energy Impacts
Historic and Cultural Resources
Park Lands
Schools
Construction Impacts
Community Disruption
Safety and Security
Secondary Development
Consistency with Local Plans
B. Sumisary of Impact Evaluation z
Table 16 presents a summary of the possible 'significant
impacts associated with the proposed projec=t which differ
�, among the 'three alternatives.
+d
a
w
C C C C
14
••'1 q
N N rf N
N C4 N
ua
W b Nw a A
(6
N
4
tl
40
Y
" ' u u m
y 4 a
e s �
N > N
n C4
ou
N
H 4
cAj
S g
4
V Y w Y ••d w 0 0 ■ OMA w.. G L
a+
... w•y� � w6� n
vow° �w ya � �3
r1 ,�O fa*,i I �- t.D 8 ,"i y. t N f�3 *M N
N �+� P A a f► W t!T`�.•+ 4
1 O
Y 4
{
F
.a �,�.k ..a 1 :.,.,+. spy .- •,y: -Y - -;;:-.`
4
Y
r
•�i O CC
- • C. fL � � O A O
i eN.l it ■ b � Y a � 2 N
Y: w S7 9 GLLL�
ch
r' a
WK. • .p O �
V
M � N
i1 7 C Y M q
r Y N ..• n 4 O 41
M C
O w JR..S / �YW iii '.r."'gypp �J[ •ui7
p(� � $ o y•� � � �s�61 pay pM� ,.
' r ..+ Y..i .moi i�.i.1 �...� • FC tic �.i�� M • app,
+ � fe fe L7�•r w.r!.r�� �� O u � P"w i 1�e •�� D
d +a
w
S •
N
11
• Y R r
u
N yy CC7
u a
lw
~. C
<m -
M �
mmO m
N .00.
Cc
a w g w w m PI a
y y ; ; 5
~ ..Ca Cp p M N C C tq W tR tp
'-� "'� N L' N N
i A N N 5 >
p q C N 9 6 6 a @ y
104
A m mz. . .
u
1.
v
V A
Y a. in a
N Ny�1 y Vy V Y O O Y Y N V
G A r+ Q/ R w W R. d A � � C •
p �Gt C
Y C S fA Q to
n a
v
..t
N
� � ►Vi
> JQ
1�1 V y O
C w w
43 h L Y
� y
di y M
y w
t+ N PS, Y ¢ ./ O M X1.1 'N '•'� C
.•1 r4 IC • C .+ C �t.A C rA e Y
b
i7 P i y �Ci No • 1) pN V '
w�li ND S s 4
i N
r
fq
24
in
r
1 � N
t
g
• .-w'1 0 N v N s•1
a �Nt
N
Ms. elG ami 44, .40
�
1��Y S �yyf 7 �jf tt,gg
1. Sunset Highway
The major difference in impacts among the
alternatives is that two additional creeks and two
parks could be impacted in the 217/Sunset Alternative
due to the longer length of the project (to 185th
rather than Cornell/158th with the Bypass
Alternatives) .
Within the common improvement (Canyon-Cornell) , two
options exist for the widening to six lanes: keep
the existing median as it is; or use the median for
widening right-of-way. obviously, maintaining the
• current median will entail much greater impacts -- up
to 66 more residential and up to one more business
acquisitions or relocations than if the median is
' used for widening right-of-way. Impacts listed
include those associated with Sunset LRT right-of-way.
2. Highway 217
The majority of the proposed improvements associated
with all three alternatives can be accomplished
within existing rights-of-way. As a result, any
difference in significant impacts associated with the
larger improvement in the 217/Sunset Alternative
should be negligible. The major acquisition and
relocation impacts are generally confined to the
interchange areas where ramp improvements, basically
common to all the alternatives, are needed. impacts
north of Tualatin Valley Highway include those
associated with Sunset LRT right-of-way.
In any case, traffic disruption impacts would be
severe, likely more so with Highway 217/Sunset
Alternative improvements, and Careful staging would
be required.
3. Highway 99111
The potential significant impacts (up to seven
commercial buildings) of the recommended improvements
would likely occur in the I-5 to Greenburg section,
which is a common project among the alternatives. No
significant impacts are likely with the TSM improve-
went only associated with the 217/Sunset Alternative.
S. Bvcass Arterial
t In total, thepossiblesignificant impacts among the
alternatives can be summarixod as follows:
SUMMRY TABLE
217/Sunset 216th BVPass 185th Bypass
Residential Bldgs. up to 20 up to 105 Up to 193
commercial Bldgs. up to 13 up to 26 up to 14
2 2
Flood Plains 1 10 6
Creeks 3 1
Wildlife Habitats 0 1
Aggregate/Mineral 4 2
Resources 1 2
Parks/Golf Courses 2 3
1 1 2
Wetlands 1 0
Historic Sites 0 3
Schools 3 3
Cm aunity Disrup- Local Farm Major
tion Minor
Circulation (Farmington-TV)
outside VGB/LCDC I_5 to T.V. I-5 to Farmington
Goals 99W-SF Rd.
Consistency with Serves Growth Serves GrowMarginal Ability
Growth
Local Plans to 2005 Beyond 2005 to Serve Growth
Beyond 2005
s
As can be seen in the table above, significant
differences exist in the alternatives relative to
potential residential and commercial acquisition and
relocation impacts. The largest number of potential
impacts are associated with the 185th Bypass
Alternative. The section of 185th from Farmington to
T.V. Highway is a residential neighborhood located on
a facility that is currently two lanes and a 4-5 lane
improvement in this section would likely impact 64
residences and 13 businesses as compared to 15
residences for the 216th Bypass Alternative located
further west. The I-5 to 99W improvement (common to
both bypass alternatives) would likely impact up to
52 residences. Depending on the alignment, the 99W
to Farmington section could potentially impact 14
residences for the 216th Bypass, 76 for the 185th
Bypass, and 8 for the two- lane arterial (99W-Scholls
Ferry) in the 217/Sunset Alternative.
i
t
Another major difference in impacts among the
alternatives is the amount of land outside the UGB
likely to be impacted by the bypass arterial,
although all of the alternatives would have some
portion of the facility on land currently designated
Exclusive Forest and Conservation (EFC) or Exclusive
Farm Use (EFU) land. The 216th Bypass Alternative is
generally entirely outside the UGB from 99W to T.V. '
Highway. The 185th Bypass is generally outside the
UGB from 99N to Farmington Road. The 217/Sunset two-
lane bypass arterial is outside the UGB from 99W to
Y.`
70
��- Scholls Ferry Road. Although minor amounts of land
outside the UGB would be impacted by the three
alternatives in the I-5 to Highway 99W section,
surrounding urban areas already exist and the
accessibility provided in this section is similar
;= among the alternatives.
z
For land outside the adopted UGB (generally EFC and
EFU uses) , impacts can occur as a result of the
construction of a major facility such as a bypass
through: 1) direct conversion to another use (such
as a roadway) ; or 2) an increased pressure to convert
•' to urban uses as a result of the: a) improved
accessibility; b) increased visibility' or c)
, . parcelization of the property 'so that the EFC or EFU
use is no longer viable.
If converted to urban uses, however, public services
and facilities such as roads, sewer, water, schools,
police and fire protection would eventually need to
be provided in these areas, and these would have
varying degrees of public cost associated with them.
In addition, a variety of factors need to be
considered if, when and where an application for
conversion to an urban use designation is made:
1) appropriateness of land use designation;
2) regional demand and availability (need for this
type of land use) ; 3) desirability of expanding the
UGB in this location as opposed to another; and 4)
the cost of providing the necessary public services
and facilities. Such a decision must also be in
conformance with state, regional, and local policies.
Table 17 illustrates the estimated development
potential beyond 2005 already included in the local
comprehensive plans for the Westside jurisdictions.
As can be seen in the table, additional residential
r development can be expected beyond 2005 in all areas
of the Westside, with a slightly higher potential
growth (as a precentage) available in the Tualatin
(35 percent) , Aloha (27 percent) , and Hillsboro
(32 percent) areas. On the employment side, however,
it. is readily apparent that the employment growth
contained in the adopted local comprehensive plans is
fully allocated to the areas along and inside of
Highway 217 by 2005, while the Wilsonville
(20 percent) , Tualatin (31 percent) , Aloha
(28 percent) and Hillsboro (20 percent) areas are
expected to have potential employment capacity
remaining in the local comprehensive plans beyond
2005.
d
71
TABLE 17
iMS7SIDB COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
ESTIMAM DB ZLOPMUT BKYCKD 2005
Housing Employment
L.C.P. 9 L.C.P. 9
District 1983 2005 Potential Remain. 1983 2005 Potential Remain.
Nest Portland 40,489 47,550 59,981 218 61,808 72,661 72,661 09
Lake Oswego 17,420 26,440 32,651 198 8,699 17,413 17,413 09
Tigard 13,952 21,710 29,287 260 16,751 31,357 31,357 09 '
Beaverton 33,094 39,025 46,591 160 44,013 76,622 76,622 00
SiATOTAL 104,955 134,725 168,510 200 131,271 198,053 198,053 00
Wilsonville 7,778 15,360 17,379 120 8,710 18,587 23,269 200
Tualatin 61011 11,900 18,237 350 61815 17,360 25,183 310
808TOML 13,789 27,260 35,616 230 15,525 35,947 48,452 269
Aloha 23,920 48,820 67,532 270 11,072 44,313 61,624 289
Hillsboro 12,285 23,825 35,099 320 13,708 31,784 39,730 209
BW'1'+M 36,205 72,645 102,631 290 24,780 76,097 101,354 250
JO/spa
6170C/466-1
10/07/86
14
TM-
4
77
As noted earlier (Section III.B of this document) ,
the ability of each alternative to accommodate the
increased traffic demand associated with these
anticipated growth areas differs markedly among the
alternatives. Whereas the 217/Sunset and 185th
Bypass alternatives would have virtually no
continuous north/south through capacity left beyond
2005, the 216th Bypass would provide significant
reserve capacity in the bypass corridor to
accommodate growth in circumferential travel
movements associated with the full development of the
existing local comprehensive plans beyond 2005.
5. Nyberg/Tualatin-Sherwood/Edy
The difference in impacts among the alternatives for
this improvement are 1 a ically twofold: a) the 217/
Sunset Alternative would likely impact the commerical
area between I-5 and Martinazzi, whereas no improve-
ment is required in this section with the bypass
alternatives; and b) the larger right-of-way required
from Boones Ferry to 99W with the 4-5 lane improve-
ment in the 217/Sunset Alternative would likely have
more impact than the three-lane project associated
with the bypasses.
6. Boones Ferry Road
The major difference among the alternatives would
likely be the five residences possibly affected by
the larger right-of-way required for the 4-5 lane
improvement south of the bypass in the bypass
alternatives, as compared to the three-lane improve-
ment associated with the 217/Sunset Alternative.
r JG/BB/sm
6170C/466-4
.x.0/17/86
} ■3
n.
vI. Staging Plan
A. Background
It is apparent from the evaluation of Westside trans-
portation improvements that a strategy for staging needed
improvements is essential. Presented here is a descrip-
tion of short and long-range improvements required to meet
short and long-range travel patterns for both the Highway
217/Sunset and Bypass alternatives. The actual schedule
for staging of improvements will be subject to when the
various improvements can be financed, the complexity of
• completing engineering and environmental studies and the
duration of construction. Generall , this staging plan
presents three time periods: the first dealing with the
49 next 10-15 year period, the second dealing with the period
10 to 25 years from now and the third dealing with the
period beyond the next 20 to 25 years.
Factors that contribute to the need for a staging plan
include the following:
Financing - Transportation resources are clearly
nsu ficient to fund the needed improvements.
Throughout the Westside, required highway improve-
ments are 47-52 percent unfunded and the required
level of long-range transit expansion is 25 percent
unfunded. While efforts are underway at the locale
regional and state level to address this situation,
it is clear that the overall package of proposed
improvements should be stretched out over time to
ensure that funds are targeted toward the most
essential components first.
Secondly, the proposed improvements to Highway 217,
the Sunset Highway, 1-5 and the Bypass are very large
` projects and should be divided into smaller com-
ponents that are easier to fund. In so doing, it is
important to ensure that early stages provide
logical, functional improvements to the transporta-
tion system and don't rely on later, unfunded stages
to operate properly.
Finally, if the Bypass is selected to meet the travel
needs over the next 20 years, an alternate, lower
cost improvement program should be available to meet
Westside travel needs in the event sufficient funding
Is not obtained.
Growth Patterns Parts of the overall improvement
program ate essential to correct current and
short-term deficiencies based upon known development
Ci
patterns while other parts are intended to serve
75
anticipated long-range growth patterns. Long-range
growth patterns, while established in local compre-
hensive plans, are more speculative in nature. As
such, it is essential that short-range improvements
be targeted at immediate needs while improvements to
serve growth be deferred to a later date.
Urban Growth Boundary -- The Bypass connection from
99W to T.V. Highway is largely outside the UGB and
further land use planning is necessary to ensure
compatibility between land use designations and
future construction of a Bypass. Prior to making a
commitment to building the Bypass, it will be
necessary to fully satisfy LCDC requirements.
Interrelationship Between Improvements -- Many of the
required improvements must be coordinated with other
improvements in order to function adequately. In
certain cases, coordination of the design of several
improvements is necessary. In other cases, an im-
provement causes a change in traffic flow that will
cause an effect elsewhere in the system.
Post-2005 Development Pattern -- The required
mprovements identified n this study are based upon
expected 2005 development patterns and the resulting
travel volumes. All of the alternatives under
consideration are adequ^te to serve the expected 2005
travel demand. However, the adopted city and county
comprehensive plans provide for an additional
20-29 percent development capacity in certain areas
(particularly those served by the Bypass; see
Table 17 in Section V) beyond the level defined for
2005.
In addition, all or parts of Washington County,
Southwest Portland and downtown Portland could grow
faster than expected resulting in a higher level of
development by 2005. As such, the adopted improve-
ment program should allow for further expansion to
meet further growth in travel volumes.
Note: This staging plan focuses on the regional
system and those improvements that are inter-
dependent. Not described here are a large number of
independent projects that are common to both
alternatives.
B. Recommended Staging Plan
1. Stage 1 -- Next 10-15 Years (Figure 22)
The level of improvement needed to serve short-term ,
growth patterns represents a substantial investment
76
•� oar W All \
/LWM w aor
o
IA AN �s
,u
•taro^,�••
5 lance irOtlStnJCt EB I I
T, continent with
�—" Canyon to 217 ,.
.os TP P section `�
L Design co+xxIt r =,
9 dorm = �. P with Sunset LRT
r t = P M..
� p.
1 Aloha P.� , .T µ' VCons,U�YM
, `,p�aOf a
LTW
a erton
e - T
DA
X ,s� ' r
rI Add auttuiary lance• B.�rOfr wort i ,p f[ OUYN
to Hwy.217 gas �
ate,
l aearA�� O,i -� CooOn • P
i .,
P UPO
a—
' —
�' T r1 —O
--L erx f igen
i (. . ... Phase U atter Beet ., I
Bend Rd and Hwy.
�.� 2lanss 217
7P P
3 iotas ,
Tuelet' 'r
She
r%p.w+erte 4 tare RtnRed es
a0oa toad
�.ra.Ce _ w1kh kttefChenge at Boones '
Forty Rd And at-grade VA
InkAvectbns a!99W, _ —
TtttbWW3t erwood Rd. —
T TWOR statbn
P Paris&rkis - ——-r—--—
?...��. tkban gnownt boundwy
MEMO�® Southwest Corridor Study Mere 22
Staging of Improvements
Stage 1 —Next 10-15 Years
involving a portion of the improvements ultimately
needed in each major corridor. Both transit
expansion and highway improvement are needed to
address stort-term needs. Rey features of the
initial stage are as follows:
I-5/Barbur Boulevard Corridor -- A number of
improvements are in various stages of develop-
went and should be completed during this time
period (I-5/Terwilliger, I-5/Highway 217/Kruse
Way, I-5/Nyberg, I-5/Stafford, T-5/Wilsonville
and I-5 auxiliary lanes between I-205 and ,
Highway 217) . In addition to these, further -
improvement should be initiated in the vicinity
of the I-5/Terwilliger curves to improve the
alignment and reduce merge/weave problems at the
ramps. operational improvements to facilitate
traffic and transit flow should be implemented
on Barbur Boulevard between Bertha Boulevard and
the I-5/Capitol Highway interchange, including
modification to the interchange itself
Following these improvements, an additional
southbound lane on Barbur Boulevard should be
constructed from Hamilton to the exit at
Hillsdale. Transit expansion should occur
incrementally as growth in travel occurs and
should tie into planned transfer stations and
park-and-ride lots throughout the corridor which
should be completed as soon as possible. If
Y transit ridershipp warrants, consideration should
be given to LRT in the Barbur corridor.
- Sunset Corridor -- Improvements that are
currently under development include extension of
the climbing lane from the Zoo to Canyon Road
and interchange improvements at the Zoo, Sylvan, * 4
Murray Boulevard, 158th Avenue, 185th Avenue,
and Cornelius Pass Road. In addition to these,
the highway should be upgraded to six lanes from
Canyon Road (at the end of the climbing lane) to
Murray Boulevard to tie into planned expansion
of that facility. In this section, it is
essential that these improvements be designed
concurrent with the proposed Sunset LRT to
ensure design compatibility. The Sunset LRT
should be built if financing can be secured.
Alternatively, bus transit expansion should
occur incrementally as travel growth occurs and
should tie into planned transfer stations and
park-and-ride lots which should be completed as
;LL soon as possible.
78
Tu
In addition, eastbound capacity should not be
added between Cedar Hills Boulevard and Murray
Boulevard until downstream capacity is available
between Highway 217 and Canyon Road.
Highway 217 Corridor -- Improvement to the
Highway 217 Corridor should be limited to that
which can be accomplished with a minimum of
interchange modifications. Significant
improvement at the 217/99W interchange will be
necessary because of the existing traffic
problem. This would thereby allow widening of
Highway 217 to six lanes from the Greenburg Road
ramps to I-5. Upgrading of Highway 217 to six
, - lanes from Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway to Hall
Boulevard and construction of auxiliary lanes to
Green burg Road can be accomplished without
displacing additional interchanges and should
proceed.
- '"igard/Tualatin/Sherwood Area -- A new highway
connection should be established connecting from
99W north of Sherwood to I-5 south of I-205.
This would provide a critical missing link
between these two facilities that avoids
existing urban congestion problems through
Tigard and Tualatin and would consist of a
four-lane facility with an interchange at Boones
Ferry Road and at-grade intersections at
Tualatin-Sherwood Road and 99W. Associated with
r this substantial improvement, construction of a
ur parallel three-lane improvement to Tualatin-
Sherwood Road will be adequate. Old Scholls
Ferry Road and Beef Bend Road should be upgraded
to provide a 2-3 lane facility between Murray
t. Boulevard and 99W at Sherwood and provide a
direct connection to the new I-5/99W connector
via an at-grade intersection at 99W. Design
coordination will be necessary to ensure
compatibility between this new intersection, the
future construction of an interchange and
required operational improvements to the 99W/Six
Corners intersection. Following improvements to
Beef Bend Road and Highway 217, the Murray
Boulevard extension should be constructed from
Walnut at 135th to Gaarde at 99N to improve
local circulation. If this link precedes
improvement to Beef Bend Road and Highway 217,
excessive through traffic will result.
Boones Ferry Road -- A three-lane improvement to
sR Boones Ferry Road should be implemented from I-5
at Stafford Road to 1-5 at Lower Boones Ferry
Road (Durham) providing improved local
t
circulation between the current improvement to
72nd Avenue, downtown Tualatin, Tualatin-
Sherwood Road and Wilsonville. �
Cornelius Pass Road -- North of Cornell Road, a
five-lane improvement is needed to serve this
major growth area. South of Cornell Road, a r
three-lane improvement is sufficient to serve
short-term traffic demand.
2. Stage 2 -- 10-25 Fears (Figures 23 and 24)
During the second 10 to 15 year period, additional
improvement can be accomplished through either =
construction of the Bypass (Figure 23) or significant
further expansion of Highway 217 and Sunset Highway
(Figure 24) to serve growth in circumferential }
travel. To serve growth in radial travel, improve-
ments will entail continued bus and LRT service 4
expansion, targeted improvements to I-5 and 99W and
further improvement to the I-5/99W connector.
Depending upon which is preferred and which can be
financed, either could be implemented in the 10-25
year period and satisfactorily serve expected growth
and travel demands. If the Bypass is pursued but
cannot be financed, the Highway 217/Sunset
alternative can be substituted for the 10-25 year
time period. Rey features of the second stage of
improvement are as follows:
I-5/Barbur Boulevard Corridor -- There are
limited opportunities to construct additional
improvements to the highway system in this
corridor and, therefore, additional expansion of
the transit system is essential to serve travel
growth. Transit expansion should occur on an
incremental basis as growth occurs and should
precede additional highway expansion to the
greatest extent possible. When justified, a
southbound climbing lane should be constructed g
on I-5 from the vicinity of the Ross Island
Bridge to Terwilliger. If necessary, late in
the time period, an additional southbound lane
should be built on Barbur Boulevard at the Front
Avenue overpass. }
4 _
Tigard/Tualatin/Sherwood Area -- Additional
improvement to the I-5/99W Connector will be
needed involving construction of interchanges at
a. 99W and Tualatin-Sherwood Road to handle traffic
-
growth. In addition, Boones Ferry Road will ,.
require expansion from three lanes to five lanes
J.
from the Bypams south to I-5. After construc-
tion of the I-5 to 99W connector (previously
77d
so
F
MOWN
�* A
.mow_
FM
'moi... ■ �� r �. ti
.�
o.
! •� _ rgr,r ww rx•i
Uaton I MICA
\Extend 6 lanes to � \
185tH
— =1
Tr
J b-=Later in tkne period,}
�,• a 2 lane SS Barbur at
Front
T._wY..
U`\ - Gorr:pletsupprade
® Y
IIN•fC41 • �__ $ f � , � A��Y;/i IM �d�U .r�rY .: � V� �.
• j �
Add SB ClknbkV
i •„ v .;, ' i 1t lone on i-S� � _
Urads 81iW 6 '�'-`".•_a�
p� '
Was and turn hww"s
�c.. w•ru s•�Y -_ -lw.j {{{ ��� rely.lq�j
��J r
Twtatert -
Add keteeohwo
1
8 Y
rur
upsrads to b k+nea t
t �
#ANNA 41
amw. W thtm Srawlh botstdry .
ries ' p
sout>iwm C=Tidw study
Staging of Improvements, Stage 2- 10-25 Years
217/Sunset Alternative
identified in Stage 1) , if sufficient traffic is
li not shifted off of 99W through Tigard, this
facility will require upgrading to 5-7 lanes
from I-5 to Tigard Street. The actual timing of
this improvement should be based upon traffic
demands and the extent to which traffic is
shifted to the new I-5/99W Connector versus the
extent to which local traffic from surrounding
development grows. If surrounding development
occurs at a very rapid pace, it may be necessary
to shift this improvement into Stage 1.
• - Sunset Highway Corridor Similar to the I-5
Corridor, there are no opportunities to expand
the Sunset Highway beyond that already planned
between Highway 217 and 4gwntown Portland. As
such, transit expansion is vital to meeting the
growth needs of this corridor. In addition,
during this time period# transit ridership
levels will grow to such a point that serving
the demand with buses would be increasingly
difficult and inefficient. Conversely, service
expansion on the Sunset LRT can be readily
accosplished once the facility is built.
Circumferential Corridor -- Two options are
available to serve growth in circumferential
travel -- construction of the Bypass or further
expansion of Highway 217. In the case of the
Highway 217 option, additional lanes would be
required each direction from the Sunset Highway
to the ball Boulevard interchange and the
auxiliary lanes from Ball Boulevard to I-5
constructed in Stage 1 would have to be upgraded
to a full six-lane section. The scope of this
Improvement would entail significant modifica-
tion or replacement of eaph interchange from
Walker Road to Green burg goad. With this
ooncentration of circumferential traffic on
Highway 217 and Sunset Highway, additional
Improvement to the Sunset Highway will be
required to extend the six-lane section from
Murray Boulevard to 185to Avenue. This
Improvement would satisfactorily serve travel
demands in the 10-25 year time period but not
beyond.
In the case of the Bypass option, this new
four-lane, limited access facility should be
built from 99N to T.V. Highway. At the outset,
it should be built with interchanges at 9911 and
T.V. Highway. Interchanges at Fasigington Road
and Scholls Ferry Road should be a4ded when
83
warranted by traffic growth. In addition, when
warranted, the three-lane section of 216th/219th
constructed in Stage 1 should be upgraded to
full five lanes required with a Bypass from T.V.
Highway to Cornell Road. In addition to this
new facility, there will continue to be a small
amount of traffic growth in the Highway 217
corridor requiring upgrading of this facility to
six lanes from Sunset Highway to Allen Boulevard
and extension of the six-lane section of Sunset
Highway from Murray Boulevard to 158th Avenue.
3. Stage 3 -- Post-2005
The alternative improvement programs have been
developed to serve 20-year travel demands. This
section is intended to identify possible additional
improvements beyond 20 years. Clearly, this involves
speculation about where development will occur and
what travel patterns will result. However, in order
to fully serve levels of development expected in
local comprehensive plans, additional transportation
improvement beyond that recommended here will be
necessary. It is important to recognize this and
provide for the possibility of additional expansion
when designing short-term improvements and when
preserving right-of-way through the development
process.
- Sunset Corridor -- Expansion of LAT capacity is
the only option available between Highway 217
and downtown Portland and can be readily
accomplished on the Sunset LRT.
- I-5/Bar bur Corridor -- Again, transit expansion
is the only option available in this corridor.
In addition, right-of-way should be protected to
the extent possible to allow consideration of
Barbur Boulevard LRT from the Tigard transit
station to downtown Portland.
Circumferential Corridor -- In the case of the
Highway 217/Sunset alternative, reserve capacity
on Highway 217 and on the new Beef Bend Road
extension is not available and additional
expansion of Highway 217 is not practical. The
only option is to allow for ultimate construe-
tion of the Bypass from 99W to T.V. Highway.
In the case of the 216th Bypass alternative,
reserve capacity will be available beyond 2005
thereby delaying the need for further expansion '
for 5-10 years. This, however, could be negated
64
by additional development around the Bypass if
the UGB is expanded in this area. Beyond this,
further upgrading to Highway 217 (similar in
scope to the Highway 217 alternative) or
additional lanes on the Bypass may be
necessary. This is, however, very distant and
extremely difficult to define.
In either case, additional intersection
improvement will be needed to improve operations
on 99W between Tigard Street and Tualatin Road
so as to balance traffic between 99W and I-5.
��► In addition, further improvement should be
considered on T.V. Highw4y between Murray and
219th as traffic growth a4turates improvements
. • to Farmington Road and $s,eeline Road.
C. other Alternatives_-- Next 20-15 Years
Most of the improvement required during the next 10-15
years is clear with very few options to implement some
other staging strategy. However, additional improvement
to Tualatin/Sherwood Road, Highway 217, 99N and at I-5/
1-205 (Figure 25) could substitute for the new I-5/99W
connector and meet the needs for the next 10 years. . This
alternative is not recommended for the first 10-15 year
staging plan for the o ow=ng reasonsx
ictitwen rimaryistate highways des a lower awith node eappreciableecosto
savings.
it requires immediate commitment to very disruptive
improvements to Highway 217 and 99N that could
othewise be deferred for 10 years or avoided
altogether.
s - it requires immediately securing funds to build a
five-lane improvement- to Tualatin/Sherwood Road which
•a could be deferred indefinitely (funding for a partial
improvement is already provided through a Washington
County serial levy) .
it is not as flexible as the reconuonded plan in
allowing construction of either a Bypass or a Highway
217/Sunset option as Stage 2 of the improvement
program.
Ar/90
6228C/478-5
10/09/86
5
xro uu
woo E _
P
r8 t
51UND - — 7r1*
-
x _
"- Designs concurrent `°'� ,,
with Sunset LRT
3 tuns - � Azk
= - .
concunvit with
Canyon to 217 i' a•�
• sectionConstrud aft
„'""• _� _ - „Y_- Badxrr BlvTSJW o
at�vsrton !.�'7 ""
Wlrt 217 to 6 '
- _
Int t r�lyrads
Phase N after Beet
�
/- ceoOW Bend ted.and Hwy
217
! _la
SW
rgar ,�
Nom.. j v�
-. .-_- •n s�T.. h"
C
. AU
fi Twt
Uuftt Ce
i - -
foam
...� t eaw Qpowt! bour,a.y
lam
METRO Staging
Corridor saiay
Staging of Improvements, Stage 1 Alternative
Not Recommended F4pm25
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
62160466-3
. . 1
IL
boro
L t
kO
� � ! • 'psi I �
r9af
• , C,IY ..• VI
�� •`_�• f��--- �`—�ti- --`i� /� ter+
Both aIternatiws requ'ae a series of
common improvements to the rest of the !'F �• Me �' ��' •s
system in order to support the basic
concepts. 'hese proposed improvements
will be required whether the Sunsst217 Shot*'
alternative or the bypass afternative is la y • - •� \
chosen.
10.0 New highway Donau dkm
WWWW Ramp f aUft
fthway widening ,!
s�eesi�TSM improventettta
IM tr wnpe/iM MdIon
ItnptovettleMs I � \e\ � I �' / �
-Ud=growth boutdwy
OM a�
METRO Southwest Comdor Study Figure S
Proposed Projects Common to Bypass,
217/Sunset Alternative & Adopted RTP
�o
1 .t
,►-w�+wwsT'�+ .. ��.- � ., 1'✓�s�n.+�.: � i�,i'1� .rri��.���� �,r------ -+•�� �A
�e �s�� s♦4 1
..... ,..r..� •Ism !♦
41
IL
j� � •�y�•
t!71
l .�
` ..y�, ♦- /t�� /� r��_.� H �.^w/-'•' .� t. ` ♦ `r� iii--,� -,.- -.-- •'
l� - I_'v.-. •,/i ...•^' •=—moi'" ,-Is-et.�e r .r_\ � r,„ ��,. pv� A.�-++�.^ +!
♦ 1 `.ti� • -!. 1 . .tin � i ► � _ y •r-:-irr.•.'-' . ,tvr
} Y
1 .
0
t •
h
� �� ,w ti• r 1
5lanes -1
6 lanes
)►o L
'— 3lanes —
It ~
�
:6 lanes� J�
a *non
6 lanes with1
,auxiliary lanes
it
r 6 lanes,rk
t Y
"J ! M '6 lanes
sw A
ca
au•n.m
New 2 lane facility 5-6 lanes
(generalized alignment)44
45 lanes Tus�a�r i4+aqc.�
The concept oI the 217/Sunset ahernative
is to improve the existing system without F
adding a bypass facility. This alternative r
would involve major widening projects to 3 lanes
most of the existing major routes(Sunset •r, auxiliary lanes
Highway.Highway 217,Interstate 5,and ?". "•°'
Highway 99W)to include the reconstruction _
of the interchanges. I ) I = r- s•
tete®Near highway consbuction
W411�Ramp rrteterirtg �
®
Highway WkWft
eseees TISM improvsanents ——
Interchangefteruction %
Urban growth boundary
ASm6�+� I "-wlisoDnue S
Mi O Southwest Corridor Study Figure 8
Proposed Projects for 217/Sunset Alternative
-- -- rp ::
Flit boro
6 lanes
216th/219th alignment ! ~• ...., I ��, �'�
(5 lane arterial with
,access control) • 6 lanes
185th alignment .enon
(generalized) �'•
�t 6 lanes i
4 lane limited access 's r auxiliar)I lanes r
facility(generalized
alignment) ` _
auxiliary lanes
'; i � � Yen / i •� •�'Y _�+� f' /�
The concept of the bypass alternative is a ; w'• - �. ,.
splitting of the circumferential movement _ ,f ���•,,.�
between Highway 217 and a new 4 lane r i Kin9l
arterial connecting 1.5 with Sunset Highway city,
in western Washington County.
The bypass Is expected to: ^� Y r � ~'�•,
1. Decrease the travel time to/from , do r �`
western Washington County and • 9 3.4 lanes Tua:an `�`•• rO`�
southern Washington County,and a.
2. Help retieve Highway 217,Sunset . 3 lanes
Highway,and Highway 99W by taking " r
]s
traffic off those facilities. i
As a result of this alternative concept, f`�—�_—_
smatter scale Improvements are proposed Sheooe : a
to Sunset Highway.Highway 217,and +P"
Highway 99W+ Y. p 4-5 lanes;
Moo Nevt►hightaay oonstnxtbn j
Rmp metering `-
11[i� Highway widening '
•tetee TSM improvenwnts
Mto hange
-- ter,growth boundary
MOSouthwest Corridor Study Figure 9
Proposed Projects for
Western Bypass Alternative
-F
O gg S O O S O S 4 0 O 23 S O S s S S O O O O O S O O S
o , S o= coo 0cc 0 oo , 0 1 a 0 00 0 C So 00 o
O 1 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O p O 1 O p O 00 p Q O O O S O O M
o { 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O S O 1 O O O O M JR O s O w W p O O
/ • Y• N 1 i 0 wl p N w V A Iw n N I N A wl r/n w N
w p O O XPi r1 A .40 PI n A f N N N f f ei W p -
Y fJ fns on N N N N.4
C46 w 4+
Y •
a
t •
A A A A A A A A M A A A A\ O
.g w r aevvoeae+woQ..Y oo r11 of f f
A S «g .g .g .4 S s it • sC` s
23 Y �Y} Y u Y Y
1 •O1'lpNwMA V AN 1 111 A V n w �
INR N r/fi �11l Pp'1 O
,.
M w • • Ila • + M N
Y V
y C C c C
a �
• a a a a
~ O A A A A AAAA Y \A A A A!l N
r r rli lirV MIIM ref P1 P1f M it YY Mf
,.
R s sssssss �. ssl
Y : s ss
Y
ax
a g aZ0 .0r%a ash $ g is s
w+ Nen N •! O nOA >• fly/ N w/ w IS Aw O
M C M x NA NNAANM W A 1'1 A p O A A 1'1 N W y %00% A
Y N M • M A /MY • • • gdig
» _
A Y
a s • w • • w w w w w • • • • •
4n
A A AAA Aon
A AAA AA A A 1f1 A A N
Nr ulw v+.ouwuslo nu /wv ` �^ " ( $ s
S $ SS :3$SSSS S $ SS S SSis ;
AA .i1imm Is is I is is
w
IPA s m A
A O d 4c, I A I lF �7
Y $ Y a C • y . S
2 S7
AA C.A11 Mme+ : Mf 1
de
dc
bt
hln1a.nd .�.� =i �.�`. p30 � � w�I s p�� • i w
NWNNN NNN N w `yw _ N ats llt �WAM
rrA
0n.».. ......... 3.33 all M • • O
tm m m m m
rt.
a
00
ii.
a i � I i rc• �;.�
r
tj
AM
u a,
-0'10.1 J` 6`6 �
/. I w
J 00. i ,1.9 kk
Ae
i 99 ——
L�9� '"► � i N
..Y
r `O
O
Tigard Area Impacts/Benefits
Several types of impacts/benefits associated with the construction of
the Western Bypass were identified that relate specifically to the
Tigard area:
Highway Construction
Although the eventual need for widening Highway 99W to six lanes
from I-5 to the viaduct remains the same with or without the West-
ern Bypass, the construction of the Bypass will allow this widening
to be deferred until required by local development rather than to
handle through travel movements.
There is no difference in the requirement for the Murray Boulevard
Extension from Scholls Ferry Road to 99W at Gaarde to serve as a
two-lane major collector in the west Tigard area. However, Phase II
of this improvement (135th - 99W via Gaarde) should be built after
the planned improvements to Highway 217 and the construction of-the
Beef Bend Road Extension from Highway 99W to Scholls Ferry Road.
This will ensure that adequate facilities are available for through
circumferential movements to bypass the west Tigard neighborhoods.
Construction of the bypass connection from I-5 to 99W would mini-
mize the need for Durham Road to serve through traffic movements,
and limits the need for future construction on this facility to
safety and geometric improvements.
Construction of the bypass would decrease the need for major inter-
section improvements on Highway 99W south of the viaduct to handle
increased through traffic.
Neighborhood Infiltration
Construction of the bypass would decrease expected levels of 2005
traffic through the west and south Tigard areas by 15 percent and `{
17 percent, respectively, compared to the Regional Transportation
Plan. Compared to the 217/Sunset Alternative, this improvement is
slightly less effective for west Tigard, but a 16 percent greater
reduction in traffic for south Tigard.
RTP 217/Sunset Bypass
WB EB WB EB WB EB
West Tigard
Dakota 300 170 290 160 280 170
Walnut 290 140 180 80 280 110
Gaarde 730 800 650 680 660 660
Bull Mountain 380 190 280 110 270 120
3,000 2,430 2,550
(-19% RTP) (-15$ RTP)
�.. (+4% 217/SS)
5
-2-
RTP 217/Sunset Bypass
WB EB WB EB WB EB
South Tigard
McDonald 380 130 360 90 320 90
Sattler 290 70 270 70 230 50
Durham 750 280 730 340 590 290
1,900 1,860 1,570
(-2% RTP) (-17% RTP)
(-16% 217/SS)
Accessibility
. Construction of the bypass increases number of jobs accessible
within 20 minutes from the Tigard area by 11 percent (+22,400) over
RTP to 218,500 jobs.
. Construction of the bypass increases labor force accessible within
20 minutes of Tigard area industries by 10 percent (+39,000) over
RTP to 443,240 residents.
JAG:lmk
12-1-86
* + l
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: December 1, 1986 DATE SUBMITTED:
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Systems Devel-_ PREVIOUS ACTION: Acceptance of Street
opment charge rebate-Meadowcreek Dedication Compliance A reement
Apts. S.W. North Dakota Street PREPARED BY: Rand S. Clarno '
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: S & J Builders _
POLICY ISSUE
Tigard Municipal Code 3.20.055 "Credit for cost incurred in making certain
improvements at time of development".
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The North Dakota street extension (see attached vicinity map) was constructed
by the Meadow Creek Apartment development. This portion of North Dakota
street is classified as a collector and two-thirds of the street width was
actually constructed with this development to provide for proper traffic and
circulation function. The total extra capacity cost was $28,047.10. (See
attached engineer's estimate.) S & J Builders is requesting a rebate for this
full amount against the $91,200 of street systems development charges already
paid.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve S & J Builders request for a street systems developmment charge
rebate of $28,047.10 based on the provisions of the TMC 3.20.055.
FISCAL IMPACT
SUGGESTED _ACTION
The Engineering Division recommends that Council approve S & J Builders
request for a streets system development charge rebate and direct the Finance
Division to make payment to S & J Builders of $28,047.10.
mj47/mj2
INCREMENTAL COST FOR CONSTRUCTING AN EXTRA CAPACITY STREET
Developer*
Construction Local Majow Difference unit Extra
Iter Street Collectcm& Price Capacity
Qty Qty Cost
Excavation 544 cy 3893 cy 1349 cy 3.40 4,586.60
Hutting Material
Rock: 3/4"-0 212 cy 389 cy 177 cy 13.25 21345.25
848 cy 1557 cy 709 cy 12.23 8,685.25
Other
Paving: 1*t Lift 458 ton, 560 ton 102 ton 29.50 3,009.00
2nd Liftl" 229 tan 31.00 -7,099.00
2nd 2zA L1ft2P 560 ton 29.50 16,520.00
Curbing
Sidewalk
Storey Sewer
Catch Basins
Sanitary Sewer
Water Lines (Main)
Underground Wiring
Street Lighting
L . Total $ 28,047.'10.
tik
<dna-:<..♦ A3 ' . -
� •� ter........
J �N.
-N-
u.as aL In —
\ i 4 W. "LLOyIAY
CT
ago
` N•
�CLA^Q
~`tel
400'
TtARpAN
p E R Rpv
GREENWAY sc:�oLw(0)oa
OWNCENT ER ct.
" 1
S. _
G�,00 O �+
Jq 0 wC
5
C L,j N 3F39
m t�
O O vi
�R
S SfkRO GS S.w__' ANTON _ DR. _ / =S-W -
S
D • Tye o,
OR. I I QCT.
` O N N N e 1 e N Q
CLAC/ER Lt�1 C/R. rna vla a r 1
S.W.
T
HE'-' •• S.W. BURLO S .
-\SUMMERI.AKE PARK
SUMMER ST %
- : SUMMERCREST vi
S,W. ME/tE T
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON yr
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: December 1 1986 DATE SUBMITTED: November 19, 1986
�c ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Street Systems PREVIOUS ACTION: Approval of
Development Charge Credit — Gettys Subdivision Compliance Agreem
Emerald Acre Estates PREPARED BY: Randy Clarno
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK_M REQUESTED BY: Roy Getty
LICY ISSUE
Tigard Municipal Code 3.20.055 "Credit for cost incurred in making certain
improvements at time of development".
_._ INFORMATION SUMMARY
Gettys Emerald Acre Estates is a new 10 lot subdivision located on S.W. Bonita
Road just east of S.W. Hall Blvd. (see attached map). This development was
required to construct half—street improvements on S.W. Bonita Road to Major
Collector standards (- ^ansportation Plan requirement). Mr. Roy Getty is now
requesting a $4498.35 credit against street system development charges
collected at time of building permit issuance (see attached engineers
estimate). Staff would suggest that this amount be rounded up to $4500 to
provide for easier administration of the credit.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve Mr. Gettys request ($4500) and credit each lot within the
subdivision $450 against street system development charges at time of building
permit issuance.
2. Modify the credit amount and/or distribution formula.
FISCAL IMPACT
SUGGESTED ACTION
The Engineering Division recommends that Council approve a $4500 systems
development charge credit for Gettys Emerald Acre Estates to be applied evenly
over all lots within the subdivision ($450 ea.).
mj/46
fi:
' ............. .
74
211 \
11112 Y
W J
Ir
U0. a..� ►_ '•.
SM OLONY CR, EE CT. �
z
L c �
U W n Z
W. FANNO _j a
W S.W. # CRFF c0000li
' v FREEK
PL 'cyyly J 'A
GREENSWAR LK +QZ %P NS.W. WEAVER
a
3'v �� U. WAY
S.W
H � K ROE SE
>
a L P c
vi gONITA r m RD.
&W I INE2 1 r
4E�ROOK I 3 _.
a �,. �+ M j
UA
SW MpRP G
ST.
--
o �
W
>
vi a
a
in w -
yp
OR &w. IIUROOCK p
SIr.
cs
n LA MANCMA C
� a
R
ICING
• Q m
CT. S. W. ROSS SIRE T
Ali. — t
ST. M -N-
T7
UI
J
i•• = 400•
S �irJ�r.►/d QC YDS �S 7'�r+►7�at S
�OgSfYMCT/OH �o,Y7� C7.f,GX7�"1"�
c4p4 c.'fy off Aro vi to Rood
/70YtJ.70t r 71 / 98lo
rl 2 GYPnt� : cl//Ac�itu' X?vp�CrOf�Oarj'oetso� 4w�H9 4446..2
crir e vw/c/ ;c Yr-s �s�a7<<s. . 1`�/ori 57�rre7�S�c7�o•,s,..
l
L5,04 7c,4-fO/4h �vr+u�i. 7O h< T.s Ae Y-t t�-.c Oi 7%G yY ,sv.d-c Co/�G�ir
5�rre f S.�G r�ior► is sh04JH� /�ro..r �Q 3�36.33 C' b,/.s f��3 0�
�t�y �vt�o�mP�r�� fo S7<� .Sf'S7 •2ss�s��.:v/�y O//oJ�� y y�
YL�t;01lc /77i•t Alamo �dy s
OT O.Y/ rr� �AVtHy/a f J/7-PN 1--eG1lC�S Tt,osst Tc/Allrt /v16✓?41,-PG7S4
�Javrfq sE 7�'r�an�v wv s.ec7cion qP y
7%i e rt. slut, /-WO '0421,5 o7' �°�f�Ysa Co•7s7�Yuo7�io» CosIs Ac
!sy/d!//< R, �`l0/t ,S.FGJ�/OH LOrr.S�YVGQHO 8,) uc�OiL/ic�i�
hyA Sec/.,v C.GNSArCt'C�✓Oi►: _
-vv- SSS 7- 9. ,36..S3 = .F.20. 47 /.R. 77.7/ lir
8d td 31. 00
/a C/94. 67) -�` y�/o�77.7/
4G. 70s !9't,�8835 - z�3s s , f� Asa
ORIGON
O> ✓��Y 14.�es1 Q
Q.
aCYes
�iwS�i�vaTjort lsleo��7�ra ��r��
dv
se..er
i
.__.__.-.__ _�._._.__ _ .1_Cr_+a•x__.�t1.2_....3�`o_.G_�`3_y 7�_�____.�a2.?. 7/ ._.._._m.___-----_�_. _..,_._________._ .
27.
lAr�if 4/ f-a���lTiorl
Cis :W �, _ _...
oc.!K. _....:
_. _... .__ d4e _. .SZ._f�►s 3.5 / 837'
c _._
717
zla
0.7
ORSOON
0 a
14.
ovc (Sl lfd D
M•e e��n �a�e : �2-o� -gam
Afr&
. ....... ....
2
(Dl�i(1►�DNtolr +!hili iiepalr HIDtrID t[D rII o1D r�DT i --
.- ; �jmiml'1't+I'�D����l'��Ir�'IDt�I1�al9►7t�lll�Ilf�iiitDlD�ilDt'l'�'�T8'ID�'I'I'1'f���l�I'fQ'
NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED -- - t. 2 3 4 _ _ 5 - 6- 7 $ 9 II - 12 y
DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN if ---
THIS NOTICE. IT IS DUE TO
THE QUALITY OF T1£ORIGINAL �.
DRAWING.
oe:sz ez" Lz az�sz o�z sz zz la huDll�,Dllat�lllllixnll si _li._ei sr ..bi e1- ai ii--=o s e -1 a 5 b e Zu)uuluuiuD
�mrnulnu�uuhwl IHxi Hmlp�►�nnlDnl
r
_ a
ii
--
__ E 9r
S ,
° :_ (72�ys Em-trA/c:/�/cr�s Es-><o><is •
° f Losf Fa7rirrv.ofi L=S/.21
pYoo:osed rafure Gradedoad X-settans
a _
83r
p p p O 0 N 8,
CD
PROFILE BONITA ROAD
SCALE: HORIZ: 1"= 50'
VERT: 1"= 5' '
L=,22.8 7
R=33-o.
GE37.92
50 R/ol 3DB Exstmg-✓arils
25 2S' 8' 22'
A
3' S' /7' /7' S' 3' f I
S_0" 24'
0-6" NeW 90,i>za Qliyr,r7le
/{'frown ¢/mafchrr
7.C.1 2�
S.o.OR4Yi rj/end g/c to/l7a f�i
N _..... .__.__
yarieS
y✓alk to I77¢ander� 1 y r6r'Expos✓ra ���111"' j
Exs7t Paverne.+f ,
ground may!box '[/asS "C"Qs lra�4t Contrt�'t Corer/a
c/osftr_secsfxndard. /3 P Y� /
'class "B/r-'Qsph-If,c Concrcfc Standard Garb "
2" %"=0 Crushed Rock/Grnve! S�dewelK rz�m,.ed -y C%ass �" A/C Pvmf.'
3' J/g"=0' Crushed Rva
8 ?"-0" Crushed RocK/Grant/ l2" 2-0' Crashed Rock
- S
<-, 969ssf KJj
Gam' a Fr �
83 rd. COURT STREET SECTION BONITA RD. 1/2 STREET SECTION
N.T.S. N.T.N.Y.S.
�Cy✓ rta.�e19Q,P'.
p L MVP
1b1 1�6I111 1�1l111 1�11lII Ind I�a PSI 106 Iia 101 to T i 1 r I 1 I - - �~,---•�-- -
I 1 1 f 0 � i ! 1 ! . J .- ! >�)m►m0 a L� � Rh�t�11'�'�I�II'i'IP�i��IIPIP111��I11PE1�111(+0+l+1T 1111!+1a�+l+I+IIS+I+1+11(+�+IIIIII,1lIJI(Ilrlrg1�P11 r. y
NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED __—.... .{. - 'Z 3 4 F - 6 7 8 i0 1 _. 12 ;
DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN ' 41111111
THIS NOTICE. IT IS DUE TO - '
THE QUALITY OF T1£ ORIGINAL
DRAWING. 'TQ$.__6z Paz Lz sz sz- vz cz az r'z--oz l 81—3@�Iil1>J�S P1. .EP. ZP__..-il -_.ol--s._ a (_._9_.._.. s.... t, _- c .._Z I
iN1111111111IIII111111IOIII�Ii11INlilllil!111,�9�1NNNIyt}Cl1�PI8!'�PLlP�1PPPIPiA4�PN 1j{ f �Jj��l1P �
MAA RCH 7, ; 21990
NINA
M
y
_ I
I
30NITA ROADEl
— o/d /T,9lrtofy/^'
Lex F f°"�`Nd P v do'�nt t
Q+° old R,4lofY/./ew
0//S" £Jg�Py agd0
o�
E„d s
_ BON ITA RD_.
. .� \ •h _ _ ... ... .' .. \ (Awb�/yew �r(�� S do/✓�/'r / L. R/�J
�e9'^S Ct A• _ - i - hp/.L �--O0�'�flCfc�TiG _.
✓8s/ 3432
FRPFFss�
R/�1 fON �o st i`f` 5.04 =60*.27/5
pCfa;f/eno/WhiffCtiow (m�S — ! y8.65It
F' /6b•0+, 0+-Y3.1,3
969,4p •P
A=9,1132 z4Parn� Yi$ Stop lint
p
S. OREGON
A.
ye �ir4d,.iy' l81 49
�haef 3 4 ,
t �o
he asamor»+n t'ee/ M I n If Ovt�/8/•8`l '9 D L.ti J
Tigard re�uoreme»�s. -
�7e�y S+E✓l�eru�cP�/c'vIs�sfv�es
PLAN - Extra Gpacay.CostE��mm�r
po}t ..7/ii/8�G1
• � SCALE 1^=20• P�4n of Ba`iifa �ood-
r2y 8 18553 t
' ��tJli7(►1(9 ftl 1(1 t l l l l i l i 1 1 1 9 1 1 f 9 Y 11� f ! ! I I1 ="'-"-"•' -' _"'`'-'-'—'"- "- '`�`------�---- -
I i D i ► I (_j 1 � Li I � I i I ' 3 j j� ���Tm' i (� r ffltrill+I+t°i+Iti+IlirlrlN°il►1 r•
NOTE:
EINGIF THIS MICROFILMED � ----.-.._.... ' 2 3 �} -. _ 5 - . 7 8 9 fl
LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO
THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL '
DRAWING. -..--- i
I 06 6Z 82 LZ SZ SZ V2 EZ ZZ IZ OZ 6t 8! LI 91 S! $t £! Zl 11 01 6 a L 8 S -.b E Z IMAnu"
e
I �nlluuinltlunhtu�nNilnilnl�lmo6ttnilgl� ..'....1. --..° � L �»'_����8�� � 1111�1ilt�ln ;'
I
•
T
I ,
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: December 1, 1986 DATE SUBMITTED: November 24, 1986
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: SDC Policy PREVIOUS ACTION:
Review and Rebate Repeal Discussion
PREPARED BY: William A. Monahan {
DEPT HEAD OK Y ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY:
v^ POLICY ISSUE
Should the City continue to provide for a credit to developer for costs
incurred in making extra capacity public improvements at the time of
development?
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Presently the City implements TMC 3.20.055 which provides a. credit to
developers who build extra capacity public improvements as condition of
development. The policy has not been uniformly applied as it has only been
used at developer request. The repeal of the credit process would be the
first step of staff efforts to restructure the system development charge
procedures to better serve the public and assess the charges equitably.
d ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
a.-
1. Accept the staff report and direct the staff to review the adequacy of
present streets system development charge fees and their purpose.
2. Modify the SDC credit procedures.
3. Take no action, continue to apply the system development charge credit
program.
FISCAL IMPACT
SUGGESTED ACTION
The staff recommends that the City Council direct the staff to review TMC
3.20.055 and return with alternative recommendations for an improved system.
x /br•2702P
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
t
TO: Members of the City Council November 24, 1986
FROM: William A. Monahan, Director, L-PI-1--
Community Development
SUBJECT: SDC Policy Review and Rebate Repeal Discussion
The City presently has a policy which allows a credit to those developers who,
during the course of construction, are required to make public improvements in
excess of standard local streets. Thus, TMC 3.20.055 would allow a developer
who is required to make half street improvements to a collector standard to
receive a credit for the cost above that which a local street of the same
length would cost. The staff feels that this code provision should be
repealed. It has not been uniformly applied and causes inequities.
The present code provision reads as follows:
3.20.055 Credit for costs incurred in m_a_kin3 .rer-tain improvements
at time of development. In cases whore th- Planning Commission,
site development plan and architectural review board or Planning
Director determine that certain public improvements are necessary
to protect the public health, safety and welfare before development
of a parcel of land may ensue, the cost of any of these required
mprovements which are deemed extra-capacity facilities, as defined
in Section 3.20.020, shall be a credit against the total system
development charge that the developer would otherwise be required
to pay. In determining those costs which qualify as contributing
to extra-capacity street facilities, it is understood that each
property in the City is considered responsible for provision for a
standard local street (Tigard Municipal Code, Section 17.28.040),
sidewalk, street lighting (Portland General Electric's
specification), and storm drainag• . An average cost per lineal
foot of a standard local street will be kept on file by the Public
Works Director and updated annually. This cost per lineal foot
shall be used as the standard for judging when the cost of required
public improvements qualifies as a credit against the system
development charge. (Ord. 78-53 $5(part), 1978: Ord. 77-26 6,
1977).
In theory, this code section would give a developer a credit for extra
capacity work against what his public improvement costs would be if he
developed at local street standards. This would occur in many situations.
The procedure has become more of a rebate following completion of the project
than a credit. Since costs are not known until completion, we require
f' developers to submit a list of costs from which we determine the cost of extra
capacity improvements. We thin pay back, or credit, this amount if it is not
in excess of systems development charges paid. All credits are submitted for
Council approval.
The present policy is not uniformly applied. First of all, not all developers
are aware of the existence of the credit. Those that are aware may not follow
the letter of the code and apply for a "credit". The term credit implies that
the extra capacity work that the developer does will be applied to reduce the
amount due from the developer in streets SDC's. The staff has interpreted
this to mean that the developer must request the credit or at least indicate
interest in the credit prior to paying streets systems development charges.
If a request is made, the staff will later review the final cost figures and
calculate the credit. If no request is made, no credit is applied.
S
Besides the fact that the credit is not uniformly applied, a larger issue is
present. That is, who should pay for street improvements - developers only?
the City only? or a combination of the two? Our present procedure relies on
a SDC which originally was adopted in 1977 within Ordinance No. 77-26. The
ordinance was based on a determination that the cost of extra capacity street
facilities upon properties which create additional need for those facilities
should be borne by the developer. In 1977, a rate of $300 was required for
any single family home having a purchase price between $40,000 and $60,000. R
rate of $400 was applied to homes over $60,000. In 1978, the rates were
adjusted following a lawsuit, and all single family homes were assessed a
charge of $400.
Following is a table illustrating the evaluation of the rate:
1978 1984 1986
Ord. 78-53 Ord. 84-13 Ord. 86-25
Single Family Home $500.00 $600.00
Mobile home court space $15.00 $187.50 $225.00
Multi-family residency $240.00 $300.00 $360.00
Commercial, Industrial
and Institutional $50/per $67.50/per $80/per
Parking Space Parking Space Parking Space
City Engineer Randy Wooley has utilized the construction cost index contained
in Engineering News - Record to determine that the current SDC rate should be
approximately $690 to provide the same improvement contribution that $400 did
in 1977. He suggests that should the Council desire to consider a rate
increase, further research is needed before a new rate is set.
Presently, when a developer presents his plans, the staff requires half street
improvements, whenever appropriate, and the payment of SDC's. Therefore, in a
subdivision, for instance, a developer may pay for half street improvements on
a minor collector plus pay an SDC charge for streets of $600.00 for each house
lot. Of course, the cost of improvements will be made by the developer as
public facilitiers are constructed. The SDC, however, is not due until
building permits are pulled for each home.
The staff has identified the following questions:
1. Should the developer pay for the cost of half street improvements related
yt= to his/her project plus pay systems development charges? or
2. Should a credit system be maintained such as the system in existence, or
3. Should the present system be modified by either
a. Flaking it uniform, applied to all developers of extra capacity
streets
b. Creating a maximum credit
C. Allow the credit only when sufficient funds are contained in the
pool of dedicated streets SDC's, or
Q. Should the City create a traffic impact fee, following the lead of
Washington County, and set a rate which is adequate to provide for City
construction of street improvements to collector and arterials as well as
construction of traffic signals.
Contained within each question is the need to evaluate the present fee
structure. As noted above, the rate of $600 was adopted in 1986, put into
effect on January 1. The staff has surveyed a number of other Oregon cities
and found that our overall development charges are high in comparison. A
June, 1986 study conducted for West Linn shows that our fees exceed all
comparables except Hillsboro, unincorporated Washington County, and Portland.
Lake Oswego, West Linn, Tualatin and Beaverton are all within $250 of our
total fee, within 7%.
An evaluation of rates must also include an analysis of purpose, What is the
system development charge expected to accomplish? Is it to cover all costs of
constructing and replacing public facilities, or is it only to cover the
impact created by a development? The stated purpose of our street SDC is the
latter -- to impose the cost of extra capacity street facilities upon
properties which create additional needs for those facilities.
The staff is seeking Council direction on how to proceed. We would like to
conduct a study and suggest a solution. One possible solution is that the
City pay 100% of all extra capacity construction. The method to generate the
funds needed may be in the form of a traffic impact fee, similar to that used
by Washington County. Or, we may require that a developer make all
improvements needed as a result of his development, including off site
improvements are needed to accomodate a development.
It has been suggested that the credit section of the streets SDC be repealed.
To do this places full responsibility on a developer to make all half street
improvements necessitated by his development, regardless of street
classification. In addition, he would pay all SDC's. Obviously, the
developer who chooses to develop a commercial site on an arterial has made is
selection based upon the traffic. Both his development costs and some
potential for success are linked to the traffic. Perhaps this is taken into
account when he buys the land. But, not all properties on arterials or
collectors have comparable potential to cost. This is the inequity which
would exist if no credit were available.
I suggest that the Council discuss the issue with staff and direct the staff
to either explore:
C ;
I. The need to increase the streets SDG to cover our capital budget needs,
continuing the use of the credit,
{� 2. Repeal of the credit and determine a fee, perhaps based on traffic
impact, which leads to an equitable distribution of responsibility for
street construction, or
3. Repeal the credit and require developers to bear the full cost of
development based on the impact created by the development.
2702P
3
a
a
a - .
s
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: December 1, 1986 DATE SUBMITTED: November 19, 1986
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Ordinance PREVIOUS ACTION:
Amendment to T4tle 10 of T.M.C.
PREPARED BY: Captain Jennings
DEPT HEAD OK ITY ADMIN OStj REQUESTED BY: Chief Lehr
OLICY ISSUE
Should the Chief of Police and the City Engineer have the authority to erect
"No Parking" signs in areas where conditions exist which create traffic and
safety hazards temporarily.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Ordinance amendment to Chapter 10 of the T.M.C. enables the Chief of
Police and the City Engineer to authorize the installation of "No Parking"
signs where they have made a finding that, without installation, traffic and
pedestrian safety hazards cannot be minimized (i .e. , along parade routes,
festivals, athletic events, demonstrations and areas of construction).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Amend Ordinance to authorize the Chief of Police and the City Engineer to
post certain areas with temporary "No Parking" signs when traffic and
pedestrian safety is compromised.
2. No change.
FISCAL IMPACT
$85.00 annually for temporary "No Parking" signs.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Alternative #1 — Adopt Ordinance amending Chapter 10 of the Tigard Municipal
Code.
SeY';
jr �..
.4
,.L
��a
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: December 1, 1986 DATE SUBMITTED: November 19, 1986
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Parking PREVIOUS ACTION:
Ordinance Prohibiting Extended
Parkingof Rec ion Vehicles PREPARED BY: Captain Jennirws
DEPT HEAD OK ITY ADMIN O REQUESTED BY: Officer Featherston T
OLICY ISSUE
Should extended parking of recreation vehicles be prohibited on streets within
the City of Tigard?
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Numerous complaints have been received concerning the extended parking of
off—road vehicles, motor homes, recreational vehicles, trailers, and campers
on streets within the City.
The allowance of parking these types of vehicles for extended periods of time
creates traffic hazards such as forcing passing vehicles into oncoming traffic
lanes and sight obstruction while drivers are entering street from driveways
or other streets. Current Ordinance allows enforcement after five days.
Amendments enable immediate enforcement and authorizes immediate towing of
vehicles in violation of Ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Adopt Ordinance amendments as proposed.
2. Leave existing Ordinance as is.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Alternative #1 — Adopt suggested Ordinance amendments.
3 '
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 86- �z
AN ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT EXTENDED PARKING OF CERTAIN VEHICLES
UPON CITY STREETS, AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
`7HEREAS, pursuant to Tigard Municipal Code chapter 10.28, the
City of Tigard is empowered to regulate the parking of vehicles
upon city streets; and
WHEREAS, numerous complaints have been lodged concerning the
extended parking of off-road vehicles, motor homes, recreational
vehicles, trailers, and campers on streets within the City of
Tigard; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds a need to regulate the extended
parking of these vehicles;
k THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Section 10.28.030 of the Tigard Municipal. Code be
amended as appears in Exhibit "A" which is attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Those words appearing
with an underline shall be added, and those words appearing within
brackets shall be deleted.
Section 2: In no situation shall this ordinance be effective until
the 31st day after its enactment by the City Council
"# and approval by the Mayor.
PASSED: By vote of all Council members present,
after being read by number and title only, this
_z day of , 1986.
City Recorder - City of Tigard
APPROVED: This day of , 1986.
Mayor - City of Tigard
ORDINANCE NO. 86-
•
aS.+ ArX. � 3�e +�•� GsZ„{2.'.^..l'{ i:YN"$xik._ �.�i+'v'l-'z:
EXHIBIT "A"
10.28.030 Truck, trailer, boat, campers, off-road vehicle,
and bus restrictions. No persons a - at any time par or eave
standing a trailer, house trailer, motor home motor bus, motor
truck, truck tractor] [or) truck trailer, boat and/or boat trailer
or camper as defined in Section 10.28.010 (c) whether attended or
unattended, on any improved public highway, public street or other
public way within the city limits, for a period greater than thirty
minutes, unless additional time is required for actual loading and
unloading operations [between the hours of one minute past twelve
a.m. and six a.m. , except within the boundaries of the herein
delineated zones during the designated hours:
(1) Motor Bus Layover Zone--Twenty-four hours, seven days
per"week.
(a) Within the northeast portion of S.W. Commercial
Street, extending southeasterly fifty feet along the curb therein,
from a point three hundred ninety-three feet southeasterly of the
intersection of the southeast ri4Yt-of-way line of SW Main Street.
(2) Motor Bus Loading Zone--Twenty-four hours, seven days
per week.
(a) Within the southeast portion of S.W. Main Street,
extending seventy-five feet northeasterly along the curb therein,
from a point fifty feet northeasterly of the intersection of the
northeast right-of-way line of S.W. Commercial Street;
(b) Within the northwesterly half- of S.W. Main Street,
extending southwesterly thirty-six feet along the curb therein,
from a point which lies three hundred sixty-one feet southwesterly
of the intersection of said curb with a northwesterly extension of
the southwesterly right-of-way line of S.W. Scoffins Street;
(c) Within the southwesterly half of S.W. Commercial
Street, extending southeasterly forty-three feet along the curb
therein, from a point one hundred sixty-four feet southeasterly
of the intersection of the southeast right-of-way line of S.W.
Main Street
Tractor Trailer and Truck Trailer. No person shall at any time
park a tractor trailer or truck trailer as described in Section
10.28.010(c) unattended on any improved public highway, public
street or other public way within the city limits.
Any listed vehicle found in violation of this section may be
towed. (Ord. 86- 5 1986; Ord. 81-86 51, 1981; Ord. 81-84
S1, 1981[: _ Ord. 79-109 51, 1979; Ord. 76-57 51, 1976; Ord. 76-30
S1, 19761:1_ Ord. 70-41 Ch. 7 53, 1970) .
i
p y-dl.-►-.Q.►�-a-e 8'�-�O st -
4
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council November 21, 1986
FROM: Loreen Wilson, Recorder %-j
SUBJECT: Council Meetings Calendar
Monday 12/1 Study Session at 6:30, Council at 7:00
Saturday or
Sunday 12/6 or 12/7 Council Workshop
Monday 12/8 Study Session at 6:30, Council at 7:00
Monday 12/15 Study Session at 6:30, Council at 7:00
Monday 12/22 NO COUNCIL
Monday 12/29 NO COUNCIL
Monday 1/5 Annual Town Hall 7:00 PM
Monday 1/12 Study Session at 6:30, Council at 7:00
Monday 1/29 Study Session at 6:30, Council at 7:00
Wednesday 1/21 Budget Committee Meeting, 7:00
Saturday 1/24 Council Goals Workshop
Monday 1/26 Study Session at 6:30, Council at 7:00
Monday 2/9 Study Session at 6:30, Council at 7:00
Monday 2/16 Study Session at 6:30, Council at 7:00
Monday 2/23 Study Session at 6:30, Council at 7:00
cw/4312&
.r
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: December 1 1986 - DATE SUBMITTED: November 24, 1986
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: S.W. Electric PREVIOUS ACTION: Public Hearin on
Street Vacation Follow-up October 13, 1986
PREPARED BY: William A. Monahan
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Council
OLICY ISSUE
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Council had requested additional information following the October 13, 1986
public hearing. Attached is a follow-up report from the Engineering Division,
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Receive and file.
WAM.cw/4366A
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: William A. Monahan November 24, 1986
FROM: Randy Clarno, Engineering Services Managefo-1---
SUBJECT: Follow-up report on proposed Electric Street Vacation
Staff's recommendation to vacate S.W. Electric Street was based on several
items including access, improvement, liability, maintenance and adjoining
property owner interest.
Access
S.W. Electric Street currently provides the only means of access to Tax Lots
3100 and 3300 (medical offices) and additional access to Tax Lot 2800 (Tigard
Arco) . The proposed Ordinance required mutual access agreements preserving
existing access requirements around the City (i.e. , Albertson's, McDonald's,
Pioneer Pies, Round Table Pizza, U.S. Bank and nearby offices, Park 217,
Greenway Towncenter, Summerfield Plaza, Canterbury Square, etc. . . ) • It
should be noted that if the property owners do not execute these agreements,
in addition to satisfying other conditions of approval, then the vacation will
not become effective. The Council may want to specify a time period for
compliance with the conditions. Beyond that time period, the vacation could
not occur unless the complete process is repeated.
Improvements
Existing improvements are substandard and in need of repair. The approach to
S.W. Electric Street from S.W. Main Street is a standard driveway apron and
sidewalk which is typically used for driveways into private properties. This
existing driveway approach requires about $500 - 700 of repair work. Without
this work, the City could face damage claims to vehicles from the public.
However, the complete approach should be reconstructed if S.W. Electric Street
is to remain a public street. This approach would look similar to ones
currently at Scoffins and Commercial streets and cost about $3,000. Other
existing improvements such as storm drainage and curbs are in fair condition;
however, the width between curbs is substantial.
Liability and Maintenance
The City would assume the same liability here as it would on most public
streets; however, that liability may he increased given the fact that certain
improvements are substandard.
Maintenance activities would also be similar to those currently on other
public streets and would cost between $300 - 500 per year.
Adjoining property Owner Interest
Staff had made contacts with the owners of Tax Lots 2800 (Tigard Arco) and
3100 (dentist office). Contacts with the owner of Tax Lot 3300 were made
indirectly through one of the other owners. All owners expressed no objection
to the vacation as long as the current access remained unchanged and public
utilities were available. The proposed Ordinance addressed both of these
concerns.
In conclusion, the vacation will not occur unless all conditions of approval
are met. This approval process will involve all affected property owners,
The vacation will also return certain public controlled lands to private
ownership and may provide an opportunity for adjoining land owners to improve
on existing parking, access and circulation arrangements.
RC/cw
4366A
�s
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: December 1, 1986 DATE SUBMITTED: November 21, 1986
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: 135th/Murray_ PREVIOUS ACTION: Council _review of
L.I.D. — Phase I Preliminary Evaluation Report
PREPARED BY: Randall R. Wooley
DEPT HEAD OK CITY RDMIN OK REQUESTED BY:
POLICY ISSUE
Directire3 staff to have a Preliminary Engineer' s Report prepared for the
proposed LID.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
At the November 17th meeting, the Council reviewed the Preliminary Evaluation
Report for the proposed 135th/Murray LID and provided direction to staff in
proceeding with the LID formation process. A resolution is needed to ratify
that Council direction.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Adopt the attached resolution ratifying previous Council direction.
2. Amend the resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT
Estimated cost of a preliminary engineer's report is $7,000 to $10,000. The
cost will be charged to the LID if the LID is formed.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Adoption of the attached resolution.
(2685P)
MEMORANDUM '
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Mayor and Council November 19, 1986
FROM: Doris Hartig, Assistant Community Services Director
It A/1
SUBJECT: Community Services October 1986 Monthly Report
Support Services Division continued backlog workload clearance. With the
assistance of temporary help the total page count increased by 8,277 pages and
turn around time decreased by 1.1 hours.
In Municipal Court, the process is becoming unmanagable, clerks are working
more overtime. With limited time for case-follow up staff is unable to keep
collections at a reasonable level. Misdemeanors are running 78% uncollected.
Staff is addressing this concern.
Temporary help was hired to assist the Recorder's Office with Council packet
preparation, follow up. The election financial report tracking took
considerable time but ran smoothly.
Th: assessment center for the Finance Director and reopening of the position
of Community Services Director took considerable Personnel Staff time.
Utility billing and collections were kept current. Staff got their first look
at the IPM utility system and recommended some changes. The IPM Accounts
Payable system was tested in October to be ready for "on line" use first A/P
run in November. General progress is being made on the implementation of the
new software for accounting however staff has been unable to spend the time
necessary to keep the transition on schedule. Staff interviewed for payroll
and utility billing clerk positions and should have new employees hired early
in November 1986.
ia54
WORK LOAD INDICATORS
Oct. '85 Oct. '86
Expenditure Reimbursement Requests Processed * it 155
Purchase Orders Processed 40 118
Recruitments 2 5
Hires 6 3
Terminations 0 0
Unemployment Claims 2 1
Claims Filed: Workers Compensation — 1 1
Liability (see attached report) 1 3
Checks Written: Accounts Payable 280 463
Payroll 242 322
1,882 5,805
Sewer Payment Received
Sewer Sills Sent 1,705 5,286
Name, Address, Changes 285 633
Cash Receipts 788 712
Word Processing Work Orders Received 128 41
Emergency Requests 24 2 24
Pages Processed 15, .0 19,0422
4
Average Turn Around 4.0 3.3
Telephone Calls/day 375 477
Volunteer Hours 0 0
* Information not available
ia42/ial
3,
ON
Y
_-
w
u
}
11/17/86
CITY OF TIGARD
� CLAIM STATUS REPORT
DATE OF LOSS CLAIMANT DESCRIPTION STATUS
10/01/84 Mary Strickland Alleges age discrimination open
02/13/85 Mervin Boon False arrest pending
08/21/84 George Kusiowski Ins. impounded clt`s car no activity
(Officers Johnson, Ober,
& Newman)
02/04/85 Fredric Nickel Criminal counter cplt. open
(Officer Hal Merrill)
03/20/83 Fred Ozan False arrest Appeal Filed
(Officer Killion)
01/11/85 Harry Field Alleges False Arrest pending
(Office Merrill)
07/20/85 Steven Bacon False Arrest (Officer Marburg) claim reopened
03/16/85 Julie B. Winkelman Wrongful Death pending
12/15/85 Ron & Peggy Cole Loss of jewelry - stolen Reopened
after insured had possession
s 04/05/86 John Hutchinson Trees cut on private Pending
property
07/25/86 R.A. Cutshall Bike hit cable in park path New claim
01/31/86 David Fair Police negligence Open
04/06/86 Scott Fairbanks Code Enforcement negligence Open
09/19/86 Renata Collins Water damage--drain overflow Open
problem
09/30/86 Scott Gilfillan Sewer backup $67.50
09/30/86 Cleta Kirkland Sewer backup $35.00
j 07/10/86 Thomas Arnholtz Hit manhole cover open
08/22/86 Jerri Widner Alleges grievance re O.T.hrs. open
10/01/86 Phan Hue Thi Collision with police car open
(0886F/0019F)
� j _