Overview of Traffic Congestion Monitoring Program

For STIP Stakeholders Committee

5/4/01
Brian Gregor, ODOT Transportation Planning Analysis Unit

Introduction

The state traffic congestion monitoring program provides information on state highway
system performance related to traffic congestion. The objectives of the program are to
estimate and forecast the location and severity of congestion on the state highway system,
estimate the effect of congestion on highway mobility, and identify significant attributes
of the highway system and highway travel affecting traffic congestion.

This activity was initiated after the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). ISTEA required each state to develop congestion
management system which monitors congestion, identifies and evaluates alternative
actions, implements cost-effective actions, and evaluates results. Subsequently, congress
dropped the requirement for a CMS outside of transportation management areas (TMA),
metropolitan centers with populations of 200,000 or more. This now includes the
Portland metropolitan area and is likely to include the Eugene/Springfield and
Salem/Keizer metropolitan areas.

Although congress eliminated a CMS requirement for states in 1996, ODOT has been
carrying on the congestion monitoring component of a CMS to provide information
support for several ODOT programs including the Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP), the
Highway Plan, Corridor Plans, and other policy and planning purposes (such as state
benchmarks). This activity is being coordinated with related traffic monitoring and
analysis activities in ODOT.

Within the Portland metropolitan area, Metro is responsible for maintaining a congestion
management system. This includes procedures for monitoring traffic congestion and for
reviewing and approving projects in accordance with federal rules.

The purpose of this report is to provide background information for the STIP
stakeholders committee. Two sections follow this introduction. The first section
includes general information about changes in the state highway system related to traffic
congestion. The second section describes ODOT Highway Plan Policies related to
congestion management. Additional information on traffic congestion will be published
in the coming months: an update to the Statewide Congestion Overview report and a
Statewide Congestion Inventory report.
Background Information

Oregon in the 1990s experienced increases in both population and vehicle travel. These
are shown in the following graph. Population grew at a fairly consistent rate throughout
the period, while the growth of vehicle travel lagged behind for the first two to three
years and accelerated thereafter. As a result, per capita vehicle miles traveled did not
increase over the 1990 level for the first four years of the decade, but eventually grew by
about six percent by the end of the decade.

Changes in Statewide Population and Vehicle Travel

In Oregon Since 1990

125%

120%
Percent of 1990 Amount

115%

110%

105%

100%

95%

90%
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Year

VMT Population Per Capita VMT

The growth of population was not evenly spread throughout the state. The highest rates
of population growth were experienced in the Region 1, Mid-Willamette Valley, Rogue
Valley and Central Oregon areas. This is shown in the graphs on page 4. The areas
referred to in the graphs are shown in the following map.

The rates of travel growth on state highways were more evenly spread around areas of
the state. This is shown in the graphs on page 5. Several areas which did not experience
high rates of population growth, nevertheless saw considerable rates of growth in state
highway travel (for example the Lower John Day, Northeast and Southeast areas).

Travel growth on state highways tend to be more uniformly spread than population
growth because the economic growth of more populated and faster growing areas is
fueled by increased trade which requires more intercity and interstate travel. As a result
travel increases even in the less populated and slower growing areas.
 People
Percent Change from 1990

Re

10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%

0%
5%
gio Re
n

0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000

1 gio
n
No
rth No 1
M we
st M
rth
id- we
W id-
W st
illa
m illa
Ca ett Ca m
sc e sc ett
ad
es ad e
W es
es W
t es
t
La La
ne
So So ne
ut ut
hw hw
es Ro es
Ro t gu t
gu e
e
Lo V Lo Va
1990 & 1999

all we lle
ey y

1990 - 1999
we rJ
rJ oh
Population by Area

oh n
n Da
Da
y y
Ce
Ce

Changes in Population by Area

So nt
nt ra
So ra
l
ut
h l
ut
h Ce
Ce nt
nt ra
ra
l No l
No rth
rth ea
ea st
st So
So ut
he
ut as
1999
1990

he t
as
t
 Percent Change from 1990 Millions of Vehicle Miles Traveled Annually
Re

10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%

0%
5%
Re

0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000

gio
n gio
1 n
No 1
rth No
M we rth
id- st M we
W id- st
illa W
m illa
Ca ett Ca m
sc e ett
ad sc
ad e
es es
W W
es
t es
t

La La
ne ne
So So
ut ut
hw hw
es es
Ro t Ro t
gu gu
e e
Lo Va
Lo V
lle all
y

1990 - 1999
ey
1990 & 1999

we we
rJ rJ
oh oh
n n
Da Da
y y
Ce Ce
nt nt
So ra So ra
ut l ut l
h h
Ce Ce
Vehicle Travel on State Highways by Area

Changes in State Highway Travel by Area

nt nt
ra ra
l l
No No
rth rth
ea ea
st st
So So
ut ut
he he
as
1999
1990

as t
t
Most of the growth in traffic congestion has occurred on freeways and other arterials
within urban areas where traffic volumes are greatest. Travel on urban arterials grew by
33% between 1990 and 1999. During that same period of time, the number of lane-miles
of urban arterials only grew by 11%. The result has been an increasing density of traffic
on urban arterials. The following graph shows the average daily traffic per lane by type
of arterial in the state’s urban areas. Traffic congestion has grown fastest on interstate
highways and other freeways and expressways.

Changes in Average Daily Traffic per Lane on Urban Arterials

1990 - 1999

16000

14000
Average Daily Traffic per Lane

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Year

Interstate Freeways Other Freeways and Expressways

Other Principal Arterials Minor Arterial
Mobility Management Policies

The Oregon Transportation Commission has established several policies related to

mobility management in the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan. These are summarized below.

• Policy 1A (State Highway Classification System) describes the functions and

objectives for several categories of state highways. Greater mobility is expected on
Interstate and Statewide Highways than on Regional and District Highways.

• Policy 1B (Land Use and Transportation) has an objective of coordinating land use
and transportation decisions to maintain the mobility of the highway system. The
policy identifies several land use types and describes in general the levels of mobility
appropriate for each.

• Policy 1C (State Highway Freight System) has an objective of maintaining efficient

through movement on major truck freight routes. The policy identifies the highways
that are freight routes.

• Policy 1F (Highway Mobility Standards) establishes standards for mobility that carry
out the objectives of policies 1A, 1B and 1C. Higher mobility standards are
established for Interstate Highways, Statewide Highways, and highways on the State
Highway Freight System. Lower mobility standards are established for Regional and
District Highways and for highways within special transportation areas, where the
department’s policy is to promote pedestrian-oriented developments.

• Policy 1G (Major Improvements) has the purpose of maintaining highway

performance and improving highway safety by improving system efficiency and
management before adding capacity. In most instances, proposals to alleviate traffic
congestion though highway expansions will have to be evaluated though a planning
process which considers several alternatives for managing congestion.

Policies 1F and 1G are the most relevant congestion management policies and are
attached to the end of this memo.
n Highway Mobility Standards

Background
Several policies in the Highway Plan establish general mobility objectives and approaches for
maintaining mobility.
• Policy 1A (State Highway Classification System) describes in general the functions and
objectives for several categories of state highways. Greater mobility is expected on
Interstate and Statewide Highways than on Regional and District Highways.
• Policy 1B (Land Use and Transportation) has an objective of coordinating land use and
transportation decisions to maintain the mobility of the highway system. The policy
identifies several land use types and describes in general the levels of mobility
appropriate for each.
• Policy 1C (State Highway Freight System) has an objective of maintaining efficient
through movement on major truck freight routes. The policy identifies the highways that
are freight routes.
• Policy 1G (Major Improvements) has the purpose of maintaining highway performance
and improving highway safety by improving system efficiency and management before
adding capacity.
Although each of these policies addresses mobility, none specifically identifies what levels of
mobility are acceptable.
The Highway Mobility Standards Policy establishes standards for mobility that are
reasonable and consistent with the directions of other Highway Plan policies. This policy
carries out the directions of Policies 1A and 1C by establishing higher mobility standards for
Interstate Highways, freight routes and other Statewide Highways than for Regional or
District Highways. It carries out Policy 1B by establishing lower mobility standards for
Special Transportation Areas (STAs) and more highly developed urban areas than in less
developed areas and rural areas. The lowest standards for mobility are for Regional and
District Highways in STAs where traffic congestion will be allowed to reach levels where
peak hour traffic flow is highly unstable and traffic queues will form on a regular basis. The
levels of mobility established for Statewide Highways in STAs will avoid high levels of traffic
instability (except where accidents or other incidents disrupt traffic). A larger cushion of
reserve capacity is established for freight routes than for other Statewide Highways to
provide steady flow conditions, although traffic will be slowed in STAs to accommodate
pedestrians. (Interstate Highways and Expressways will not be incorporated into an STA.)
The mobility standards are contained in Tables 6 and 7 and in Actions 1F.1 and 1F.5. While
state highways are often important routes for pedestrians and bicyclists, Tables 6 and 7 refer
only to vehicle mobility.
The policy identifies three uses for the highway mobility standards:
• Planning: identifying state highway mobility performance expectations for planning
and plan implementation;
• Review of amendments to comprehensive plans and land use regulations: maintaining
consistency between desired highway performance and the type of land use
development; and
• Making traffic operations decisions such as managing access and traffic control
systems to maintain acceptable highway performance.
The Highway Mobility Standards Policy applies primarily to transportation and land use
planning decisions. By defining acceptable levels of highway system mobility, the policy
provides direction for identifying highway system deficiencies. The policy does not,
however, determine what actions should be taken to address the deficiencies. The highway
mobility standards in the policy (volume to capacity ratio or v/c) are neutral regarding
whether solutions to mobility deficiencies should be addressed by actions that reduce
highway volumes or increase highway capacities. The Major Improvements Policy
establishes priorities for actions to address deficiencies.

The Highway Mobility Standards Policy will primarily affect land use decisions through the
requirements of the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The TPR requires that regional
and local transportation system plans be consistent with plans adopted by the
Transportation Commission. The TPR also requires that comprehensive plan amendments
and zone changes which significantly affect a transportation facility be consistent with the
adopted function, capacity and performance measures for the affected facility. The Highway
Mobility Standards Policy establishes ODOT’s mobility performance measures for state
highways.
Policy 1F does not apply to highway design. Separate design standards are contained in ODOT’s
Highway Design Manual. Mobility performance standards for highway design are generally equal
to or higher than the standards contained in this policy to provide an adequate operating life for
highway improvements. In some circumstances, highway improvements may be designed to
meet the highway mobility standards in this policy where necessary to avoid adverse
environmental, land use or other effects.
ODOT’s intention is that the highway mobility standards not be exceeded over the course of a
reasonable planning horizon. The planning horizon shall be:
• 20 years for the development of state, regional and local transportation plans, including
ODOT’s corridor plans; and
• The greater of 15 years or the planning horizon of the applicable local and regional
transportation system plans for amendments to transportation plans, comprehensive plans
or land use regulations.
In the 1991 Highway Plan, levels of service were defined by a letter grade from A-F, with each
grade representing a range of volume to capacity ratios. A level of service of A represented
virtually free flow traffic with few or no interruptions while level of service F indicated bumper-to-
bumper, stop-and-go traffic. However, each letter grade actually represented a range of traffic
conditions, which made the policy difficult to implement. This Highway Plan maintains a similar
concept for measuring highway performance, but represents levels of service by specific volume
to capacity ratios to improve clarity and ease of implementation.
A volume to capacity ratio (v/c) is the peak hour traffic volume (vehicles/hour) on a highway
section divided by the maximum volume that the highway section can handle. For example, when
v/c equals 0.85, peak hour traffic uses 85 percent of a highway’s capacity; 15 percent of the
capacity is not used. If the traffic volume entering a highway section exceeds the section’s
capacity, traffic queues will form and lengthen for as long as there is excessive demand. When
v/c is less than but close to 1.0 (e.g., 0.95), traffic flow becomes very unstable. Small disruptions
can cause traffic flow to break down and long traffic queues to form. This is a particular concern
for freeways because the capacity of a freeway under stop-and-go traffic conditions is lower than
the capacity when traffic is flowing smoothly.
The Department and Transportation Commission are concerned that mobility standards may
have the unintended effect of discouraging development in downtowns and encouraging
development in urban fringe areas. This may occur where highways in downtowns and central
business districts are near capacity. Plan amendments to allow more development in such areas
are generally discouraged because there is inadequate highway capacity to support more intense
use. By contrast, highway facilities in urbanizable areas may have excess capacity which allow
land use plan amendments that increase development. The plan attempts to offset this
unintended effect by varying the mobility standards by type of area, as shown by Table 6.
Furthermore, the policy in Action 1F.3 allows alternate standards to be adopted in metropolitan
areas, Special Transportation Areas (STAs) and constrained areas.
Alternate standards for the Portland metropolitan area have been included in the policy (Table 7).
These standards have been adopted with an understanding of the unique context and policy
choices that have been made by local governments in that area including:
• A legally enforceable regional plan prescribing minimum densities, mixed use development
and multi-modal transportation options;
• Primary reliance on high capacity transit to provide additional capacity in the radial freeway
corridors serving the central city;
• Implementation of an Advanced Traffic Management System including freeway ramp meters,
real time traffic monitoring and incident response to maintain adequate traffic flow; and
• An air quality attainment/maintenance plan that relies heavily on reducing auto trips through
land use changes and increases in transit service.
The alternative standards are granted to the Portland metropolitan area with a mutual
understanding that reduced mobility standards will result in congestion that will not be reduced by
state highway improvements. Alternative standards may also be approved for other metropolitan
areas or portions thereof to support integrated land use and transportation plans for promoting
compact development.
Although non-metropolitan areas do not face the same magnitude of traffic and land use
pressures as do metropolitan areas, they may include Special Transportation Areas or may face
environmental or land use constraints that make it infeasible to provide an adequate road network
to serve planned development. For example, in a number of coastal cities, highway and other
road improvements are severely limited by the presence of unstable terrain and the coast,
sensitive wetlands and endangered plants and animals. In these places it may not be feasible to
improve the transportation system to the degree necessary to accommodate the reasonable use
of properties in accordance with acknowledged comprehensive plans. In such circumstances,
the standards in Table 6 might also preclude comprehensive plan changes that carry out the
Land Use and Transportation Policy (1B) such as compact development in a Special
Transportation Area. Therefore, the Transportation Commission may adopt alternate standards
to accommodate development where practical difficulties make conformance with the highway
mobility standards infeasible.
Local governments may adopt higher operating standards if desired, but the standards in Tables
6 and 7 must be used for deficiency analyses of state highways.
The policy also anticipates that there will be instances where the standards are exceeded and the
deficiencies are correctable but the necessary transportation improvements are not planned. This
may be due to environmental or land use constraints or to a lack of adequate funding. In these
circumstances, the Department of Transportation’s objective is to improve highway performance
as much as possible and to avoid further degradation of performance where improvements are
not possible. Action 1F.5 gives examples of actions that may be undertaken to improve
performance.
Policy 1F: Highway Mobility Standards
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to use highway mobility standards to maintain
acceptable and reliable levels of mobility on the state highway system. These
standards shall be used for:
• Identifying state highway mobility performance expectations for planning and
plan implementation;
• Evaluating the impacts on state highways of amendments to transportation
plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations pursuant to
the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-12-060); and
• Guiding operations decisions such as managing access and traffic control
systems to maintain acceptable highway performance.

Action 1F.1
Apply the highway mobility standards below and in Table 6 to all state
highway sections located outside of the Portland metropolitan area urban
growth boundary and the standards below and in Table 7 to all state highway
sections located within the Portland metropolitan area urban growth
boundary.
• On portions of highways where there are no intersections, the volume to
capacity ratios in Tables 6 and 7 shall not be exceeded for either direction
of travel on the highway.
• At unsignalized intersections and road approaches, the volume to
capacity ratios in Tables 6 and 7 shall not be exceeded for either of the
state highway approaches that are not stopped. Approaches at which
traffic must stop, or otherwise yield the right of way, shall be operated to
maintain safe operation of the intersection and all of its approaches and
shall not exceed the volume to capacity ratios for District/Local Interest
Roads in Table 7 within urban growth boundaries or 0.80 outside of
urban growth boundaries.
• At signalized intersections other than crossroads of freeway ramps (see
below), the total volume to capacity ratio for the intersection considering
all critical movements shall not exceed the volume to capacity ratios in
Tables 6 and 7. Where two state highways of different classifications
intersect, the lower of the volume to capacity ratios in the tables shall
apply. Where a state highway intersects with a local road or street, the
volume to capacity ratio for the state highway shall apply.
• Although a freeway interchange serves both the freeway and the
crossroad to which it connects, it is important that the interchange be
managed to maintain safe and efficient operation of the freeway through
the interchange area. The main problem to avoid is the formation of
traffic queues on freeway off-ramps which back up into the portions of
the ramps needed for safe deceleration from freeway speeds. This is a
 significant traffic safety concern. The primary cause of traffic queuing at
freeway off-ramps is inadequate capacity at the intersections of the
freeway ramps with the crossroad. These intersections are referred to as
ramp terminals. In many instances where ramp terminals connect with
another state highway, the volume to capacity standard for the
connecting highway will generally be adequate to avoid traffic backups
onto the freeway. However, in some instances where the crossroad is
another state highway or a local road, the standards will not be sufficient
to avoid this problem. Therefore, the maximum volume to capacity ratio
for the ramp terminals of interchange ramps shall be the smaller of the
values of the volume to capacity ratio for the crossroad, or 0.85.
At an interchange within a metropolitan area where a majority of the
interchange access management area (Policy 3C) of the interchange is
developed, the maximum volume to capacity ratio may be increased to as
much as 0.90, but no higher than the standard for the crossroad, if:
1. It can be determined, with a probability equal to or greater than 95
percent, that vehicle queues would not extend into the portion of the
ramp needed to accommodate deceleration from freeway speed; and
2. The interchange access management area is retrofitted to comply, as
much as possible, with the standards contained in Policy 3C of this
plan.
For the purposes of this policy, the portion of the freeway ramp needed to
accommodate deceleration shall be the distance, along the centerline of
the ramp, needed to bring a vehicle to a full stop from the posted freeway
speed at a deceleration rate of 6.5 feet/second2 (two meters/second2).
• Because the freeway ramps serve as an area where vehicles accelerate or
decelerate to or from freeway speeds, the maximum volume to capacity
ratio for the interchange ramps exclusive of the crossroad terminals shall
be the standard for the freeway with the following exception. For freeway
on-ramps where entering traffic is metered to maintain efficient operation
of the freeway through the interchange area, the maximum volume to
capacity ratio may be higher.
• The Director of the Department of Transportation or his/her delegate
shall have the authority to adopt methods for calculating and applying the
volume to capacity ratio standards in this policy or any alternative
standards adopted pursuant to this policy.

Action 1F.2
Apply the highway mobility standards over a 20-year planning horizon when
developing state, regional or local transportation system plans, including ODOT’s
corridor plans. When evaluating highway mobility for amendments to
transportation system plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use
regulations, use the planning horizons in adopted local and regional
transportation system plans or a planning horizon of 15 years from the proposed
 date of amendment adoption, whichever is greater. To determine the effect an
amendment to a transportation system plan, acknowledged comprehensive plan
or land use regulation has on a state facility, the capacity analysis shall include the
forecasted growth of traffic on the state highway due to regional and intercity
travel and to full development1 according to the applicable acknowledged
comprehensive plan over the planning period.

Action 1F.3
Where it would be infeasible to meet the standards in this policy, consider
adopting alternate highway mobility standards for:
• Metropolitan areas or portions2 thereof to support an integrated land use
and transportation plan for promoting compact development, reducing the
use of automobiles and increasing the use of other modes of
transportation, promoting efficient use of transportation infrastructure, and
improving air quality;
• Special Transportation Areas (STAs); and
• Areas where severe environmental or land use constraints3 make infeasible
the transportation improvements necessary to accommodate reasonable
use of properties in accordance with acknowledged comprehensive plans
or to accommodate comprehensive plan changes that carry out the Land
Use and Transportation Policy (1B).
The alternative standards shall be clear and objective and shall be related to
v/c (e.g., corridor-average v/c, network-average v/c, and the ratio of average
daily traffic and hourly capacity (adt/c)). The standards shall be adopted as
part of a regional and/or local transportation system plan. The plan shall
demonstrate that it would be infeasible to meet the highway mobility
standards in this policy. In addition, the plan shall include all feasible actions
for:
• Providing a network of local streets, collectors and arterials to relieve
traffic demand on state highways and to provide convenient pedestrian
and bicycle ways;

1 Full development, for the purposes of this policy, means the amount of population and employment growth and
associated travel anticipated by the community’s acknowledged comprehensive plan over the planning period. The
Transportation Commission encourages communities to consider and adopt land use plan amendments that would
reallocate expected population and employment growth to designated community centers to reduce reliance on state
highways.
2 This policy does not prescribe minimum or maximum sizes for portions of metropolitan areas that would qualify for
alternative standards. Nevertheless, the area must be of the size necessary to support compact development, reduce the use
of automobiles and increase the use of other modes of transportation, promote efficient use of transportation
infrastructure, and improve air quality.
3 Examples of severe environmental and land use constraints include endangered species, sensitive wetlands, and historic
districts.
• Managing access and traffic operations to minimize traffic accidents, avoid
traffic backups on freeway ramps, and make the most efficient use of
highway capacity;
• Managing traffic demand, where feasible, to manage peak hour traffic
loads on state highways;
• Providing alternative modes of transportation; and
• Managing land use to limit vehicular demand on state highways consistent
with the Land Use and Transportation Policy (1B).
The plan shall include a financially feasible implementation program and shall
demonstrate strong public and private commitment to carry out the identified
improvements and other actions.
In metropolitan areas, the alternate highway mobility standards will become
effective only after the standards have been approved by the metropolitan
planning organization and adopted by the Transportation Commission.
Outside of metropolitan areas, the alternate highway mobility standards will
become effective only after the Transportation Commission has adopted them in
a corridor plan or in a portion of a corridor plan.

Action 1F.4
Develop corridor plans for Interstate Highways, other freeways and
designated highway freight routes in the Portland metropolitan area that are
important for through travel. Develop standards for those routes to provide
adequate levels of highway mobility.

Action 1F.5
For purposes of preparing planning documents such as corridor plans and
transportation system plans, in situations where the volume to capacity ratio
for a highway segment is [substandard] above the standards in Table 6 or
Table 7, or those otherwise approved by the Commission, and transportation
improvements are not planned within the planning horizon to bring
performance to standard because of severe environmental, land use or
financial constraints, the performance standard for the highway segment shall
be to improve performance as much as feasible and to avoid further
degradation of performance where no performance improvements are
feasible. Examples of actions that might improve performance include the
following:
• Reconfigure highway and side-street accesses to minimize traffic conflicts
at intersections;
• Limit parking near signalized intersections to increase intersection
capacity;
• Coordinate and operate traffic signals to improve traffic progression;
• Relocate driveways and improve local road connections to direct traffic
away from overburdened intersections and intersections where side-street
capacity is limited in order to optimize traffic progression on the state
highway;
• Improve turning-radii at intersections that are heavily used by trucks to
avoid lane blockages;
• Install raised medians to reduce traffic conflicts;
• Improve accesses so that traffic can enter or exit the highway with
minimal disruptions of flow; and
• Manage land uses to favor types of uses that generate less traffic or traffic
peaks which do not coincide with traffic peaks on the highway. This
could be done by making appropriate plan amendments or changes to
zoning ordinances.
Local governments may also request that the Transportation Commission
adopt alternate standards in accordance with Action 1F.3.

Action 1F.6
For purposes of evaluating amendments to transportation system plans,
acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations subject to OAR
660-12-060, in situations where the volume to capacity ratio for a highway
segment, intersection or interchange is [substandard] above the standards in
Table 6 or Table 7, or those otherwise approved by the Commission, and
transportation improvements are not planned within the planning horizon to
bring performance to standard, the performance standard is to avoid further
degradation. If an amendment to a transportation system plan, acknowledged
comprehensive plan or land use regulation increases the volume to capacity
ratio further, it will significantly affect the facility.
 Table 6: Maximum Volume to Capacity Ratios for Peak Hour Operating Conditions
Through a Planning Horizon for State Highway Sections Located Outside the
Portland Metropolitan Area Urban Growth Boundary

Highway Category Land Use Type/Speed Limits

Inside Urban Growth Boundary Outside Urban Growth
Boundary
Non-MPO outside of
Non-MPO where
STAs where non- Unincorporated
STAs MPO non-freeway speed Rural Lands
freeway speed limit Communities
<45 mph limit >= 45 mph

Interstate Highways
and Statewide (NHS) N/A 0.80 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70
Expressways

Statewide (NHS)
Freight Routes 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.70 0.70
Statewide (NHS) Non-
Freight Routes and
Regional or District
0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.75 0.70
Expressways
Regional Highways 0.95 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.75 0.70
District/Local Interest
Roads
0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.80 0.75

Table 6 Notes:
• Interstates and Expressways shall not be identified as Special Transportation Areas (STAs).
• For the purposes of this policy, the peak hour shall be the 30th highest annual hour. This
approximates weekday peak hour traffic in larger urban areas.
• For the purposes of Policy 1F and Table 6, the MPO category includes areas within the
planning boundaries of the Eugene/Springfield, Medford and Salem/Keizer Metropolitan
Planning Organizations, and any other MPO areas that are designated after the adoption of
this plan.
 Table 7: Maximum Volume to Capacity Ratios for Two Hour Peak Operating
Conditions Through a 20-Year Horizon for State Highway Sections within the
Portland Metropolitan Area

Highway Category
Land Use Type
2040 Concept Area Non-Concept Area
Interstate Highways and
Statewide (NHS) Expressways
0.90 0.90
Statewide (NHS) Freight
0.95 0.90
Routes
Statewide (NHS) Non-Freight
Routes and Regional or District 1.0 0.95
Expressways
Regional Highways 1.0 0.95
District/Local Interest Roads 1.0 0.95

Table 7 Notes:
• The volume to capacity ratios in the table are for the highest two consecutive hours of
weekday traffic volumes. This is calculated by dividing the traffic volume for the average
weekly two-hour PM peak by twice the hourly capacity.
• 2040 Concept Areas include the Central City, Regional Centers, Town Centers, Station
Communities, and Main Streets identified in Metro’s adopted Region 2040 Growth Concept.
• Alternate standards may be developed in corridor plans for Interstate Highways, other freeways
and NHS freight routes to provide adequate levels of highway mobility for through travel.

17
 Amendment to 1999 Oregon Highway Plan
Alternate Highway Mobility Standards
South Medford Interchange
And Technical Correction

After public testimony at their meeting on December 13, 2000, the Oregon
Transportation Commission amended the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan Highway
Mobility Standards with the following motion:

The Commission moves to amend the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan by adding a
bullet to the Notes for Table 6, page 80:

• The maximum volume to capacity ratio at the Northbound and Southbound

off-ramps of the South Medford Interchange is >1.0 for four hours daily until
the new South Medford Interchange is constructed. The maximum v/c ratio at
Highway 99 at Stewart Avenue is >1.0 for two hours daily. When the new
interchange is completed, the mobility standards for the ramps will be those in
Table 6.

The Commission further moves that the Commissionexpects that

• In the event that the 2002-2005 STIP does not include funding for the new
South Medford Interchange, the MPO will begin implementing short-term
measures identified through ODOT’s technical analysis and enumerated in
the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization’s “Proposal to the
Oregon Transportation Commission for Alternative Highway Mobility
Standards” (December 13, 2000); and

• The RVMPO will make every effort possible to carry out the Recommended
Action Plan identified in this proposal.

This amendment is effective immediately.

Technical Correction to Oregon Highway Plan

When the Highway Plan was adopted in March 1999, a reference to Table 6 was
implied in the text, but accidentally left out. Addition of the words “Table 6 and” to
the second bullet on Page 75 of the Highway Plan would correct this error. With
the proposed addition underlined, the paragraph would read:

• “At unsignalized intersections and road approaches, the volume to capacity

ratios in Table 6 and 7 shall not be exceeded for either of the state highway
 approaches that are not stopped. Approaches at which traffic must stop, or
otherwise yield the right of way, shall be operated to maintain safe operation
of the intersection and all of its approaches and shall not exceed the volume
to capacity ratios for District/Local Interest Roads inTable 6 and Table 7
within urban growth boundaries or 0.80 outside of urban growth boundaries.”

Staff recommendation is to add the words, “Table 6 and” to the last sentence of
the second bulleted paragraph on Page 75 of the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan as
described above.
 Amendment to 1999 Oregon Highway Plan
Alternate Highway Mobility Standards
Metro Area

After public testimony at their meeting on December 13, 2000, the Oregon
Transportation Commission amended the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan Highway
Mobility Standards with the following motion:

Effective immediately, the Commission moves to amend the 1999 Oregon

Highway Plan by substituting the following table for Table 7 on page 81 and
adding the following notes:
 Table 7
Maximum Volume to Capacity Ratios
Within Portland Metropolitan Region*

Location Standard
st nd
1 hour 2 hour
Central City 1.1 .99
Regional Centers
Town Centers
Main Streets
Station Communities
Corridors ** .99 .99
Industrial Areas
Intermodal Facilities
Employment Areas
Inner Neighborhoods
Outer Neighborhoods
Banfield Freeway*** 1.1 .99
(from I-5 to I-205)

I-5 North*** 1.1 .99

(from Marquam Bridge to
Interstate Bridge)

Highway 99E*** 1.1 .99

(from Lincoln Street to Highway
224 interchange)

Sunset Highway*** 1.1 .99

(from I-405 to Sylvan interchange)

Stadium Freeway*** 1.1 .99

(I-5 South to I-5 North)

Table 7: Maximum volume to capacity ratios for two hour peak hour operating conditions
through a 20-year horizon for state highway sections within the Portland metropolitan area
urban growth boundary.

Notes for Table 7:

* The volume to capacity ratios in the table are for the highest two consecutive house of weekday traffic
volumes. This is calculated by dividing the traffic volume for the average weekly two-hour PM peak by twice
the hourly capacity.
nd
** Corridors that are also state highways are 99W, Sandy Boulevard, Powell Boulevard, 82 Avenue, North
Portland Road, North Denver Street, Lombard Street, Hall Boulevard, Farmington Road, Canyon Road,
Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway, Tualatin Valley Highway (from Hall Boulevard to Cedar Hills Boulevard and
from Brookwood Street to E Street in Forest Grove), Scholls Ferry Road, 99E (from Milwaukie to Oregon
City) and Highway 43.

*** Thresholds shown are for interim purposes only; refinement plans for these corridors are required in
Metro Regional Transportation Plan and will include a recommended motor vehicle performance policy for
each corridor.
 Table 7 (continued)
Maximum Volume to Capacity Ratios
Within Portland Metropolitan Region*

Location Standard
st nd
1 hour 2 hour
Other Principal Arterial .99 .99
Routes

I-205***
I-84 (east of I-205)
I-5 (Marquam Bridge to
Wilsonville)***
Highway 217***
US 26 (west of Sylvan)
Highway 30

Tualatin Valley Hwy***

(Cedar Hills Blvd. To Brookwood
Avenue)
Highway 224***
Highway 47
Highway 213
nd
242 /US 26 in Gresham

Areas with this designation are planned for mixed used

Areas of Special development, but are also characterized by physical,
Concern environmental or other constraints that limit the range of
acceptable transportation solutions for addressing a level-of-
service need, but where alternative routes for regional through-
traffic are provided. In these areas, substitute performance
Beaverton regional 1.0 measures are allowed by OAR.660.012.0060(1)(d). Provisions
center for determining the alternative performance measures are
included in Section 6.7.7 of the 2000 RTP. The OHP mobility
standard for state highways in these areas applies until the
alternative performance measures are adopted in local plans
Highway 99W (I-5 .95 and approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission.
to Tualatin Road.

Table 7: Maximum volume to capacity ratios for two hour peak hour operating conditions
through a 20-year horizon for state highway sections within the Portland metropolitan area
urban growth boundary.

Notes for Table 7:

* The volume to capacity ratios in the table are for the highest two consecutive house of weekday traffic
volumes. This is calculated by dividing the traffic volume for the average weekly two-hour PM peak by twice
the hourly capacity.
nd
** Corridors that are also state highways are 99W, Sandy Boulevard, Powell Boulevard, 82 Avenue, North
Portland Road, North Denver Street, Lombard Street, Hall Boulevard, Farmington Road, Canyon Road,
Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway, Tualatin Valley Highway (from Hall Boulevard to Cedar Hills Boulevard and
from Brookwood Street to E Street in Forest Grove), Scholls Ferry Road, 99E (from Milwaukie to Oregon
City) and Highway 43.

*** Thresholds shown are for interim purposes only; refinement plans for these corridors are required in
Metro Regional Transportation Plan and will include a recommended motor vehicle performance policy for
each corridor.
n Major Improvements

Background
Since road construction is very expensive and funding is very limited, it is unlikely that many new
highways will be built in the future. Instead, the emphasis will be on maintaining the current
system and improving the efficiency of the highways the State already has. The Major
Improvements Policy reflects this reality by directing ODOT and local jurisdictions to do
everything possible to protect and improve the efficiency of the highway system before adding
new highway facilities. This policy carries out the direction of the Oregon Benchmarks . This
direction includes improving traffic operations and maintaining the roadway for legal size vehicle
travel. These priorities— laid out in Action 1G.1— take precedence over the other actions in this
policy.

Policy 1G: Major Improvements

It is the policy of the State of Oregon to maintain highway performance and improve
safety by improving system efficiency and management before adding capacity.
ODOT will work in partnership with regional and local governments to address
highway performance and safety needs.

Action 1G.1
Use the following priorities for developing corridor plans, transportation
system plans, the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, and
project plans to respond to highway needs. Implement higher priority
measures first unless a lower priority measure is clearly more cost-effective or
unless it clearly better supports safety, growth management, or other livability
and economic viability considerations. Plans must document the findings
which support using lower priority measures before higher priority measures.
1. Protect the existing system. The highest priority is to preserve the functionality of the
existing highway system by means such as access management, local comprehensive
plans, transportation demand management, improved traffic operations, and alternative
modes of transportation.
2. Improve efficiency and capacity of existing highway facilities. The second priority
is to make minor improvements to existing highway facilities such as widening highway
shoulders or adding auxiliary lanes, providing better access for alternative modes (e.g.,
bike lanes, sidewalks, bus shelters), extending or connecting local streets, and making
other off-system improvements.
3. Add capacity to the existing system. The third priority is to make major roadway
improvements to existing highway facilities such as adding general purpose lanes and
making alignment corrections to accommodate legal size vehicles.
4. Add new facilities to the system. The lowest priority is to add new transportation
facilities such as a new highway or bypass.
 Action 1G.2
Support any major improvements to state highway facilities in local
comprehensive plans and transportation system plans only if the
improvements meet all of the following conditions:
• The improvement is needed to satisfy a state transportation objective or
objectives;
• The scope of the project is reasonably identified, considering the long-
range projection of need;
• The improvement was identified through a planning process that
included:
– Thorough public involvement;
– Evaluation of reasonable transportation and land use alternatives
including measures for managing the existing transportation system and
for reducing demands for highway capacity; and
– Sufficient environmental analysis at the fatal flaw planning level.
• The plan includes measures to manage the transportation system, but
these measures will not satisfy identified highway needs during the planning
period or there is a need to preserve a future transportation corridor for future
needs beyond the planning period;
• The improvement would be a cost-effective means to achieve the
objective(s);
• The proposed timing of the improvement is consistent with priorities
established in corridor plans and regional transportation plans and the financing
program identifies construction as being dependent on the future availability of
funds;
• Funding for the project can reasonably be expected at the time the project
is ready for development and construction;
• The local government schedules funding for local street improvements in
its local transportation financing program if these are needed to attain the
objectives of the major improvement; and
• The plan includes policies and implementing measures that protect the
corridor and its intended function.
ODOT recognizes that transportation system plans may identify needs and
regional and local governments may defer decisions regarding function, mode,
and general location of a long-range project to a refinement plan as described
in the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-12-025). Before ODOT will
agree to any improvements on the state highway system, the improvements
must conform to the requirements in this Action.
Action 1G.3
Through an intergovernmental agreement, implement a cost-sharing
agreement when a project has major benefits to the local system, especially
when local sponsors of the project envision purposes beyond those needed to
meet state transportation objectives.

Action 1G.4
Design major improvements for limited access to protect through traffic
movements. Develop and implement an access management
intergovernmental agreement and require the local jurisdiction to adopt
supporting actions in the local comprehensive plan.

Action 1G.5
As part of project development, negotiate an intergovernmental agreement
with the local jurisdiction affected by a major improvement such as a bypass
and transfer the ownership of the state routes that are bypassed to the local
jurisdiction at the completion of the project.

Action 1G.6
Consider purchasing or otherwise protecting right-of-way, consistent with
state, regional or local plans, in locations where projects will be necessary in
the future.