HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 03 Progress Report for Main Street Pedestrian Crossings AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 1/9/2012
Meeting Type:Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Michael Liebler/PW
Staff Phone No: 541-736-1034
Estimated Time: 30 Minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D
C I T Y C O U N C I L
Council Goals: Enhance Public Safety
ITEM TITLE:
PROGRESS REPORT FOR MAIN STREET PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Review ODOT/City process and provide further direction to staff.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
As a result of the Main Street Safety Study several pedestrian crossing projects
were proposed along Main Street. Staff will provide the Council with an update on
the progress of these projects.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Memo to City Manager, Progress Report for Main Street Safety Improvements
2. PowerPoint Presentation, Progress Report for Main Street Safety Improvements
3. Letter from property owner
4. Letter from property owner
5. Draft report for Springfield Main Street (OR 126) Safety Study
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
Pedestrian crossing project progress has been made with advanced plans currently
being produced for the 43rd Street/44th Street crossing. This crossing is scheduled
to be advertised for bids on March 8th 2012 with construction in the summer of
2012. In addition, construction of a second crossing is expected in the summer of
2013. Additional projects are being planned, vetted, and designed into the future as
ODOT schedules project development. Funds for implementation are available in
ODOT’s Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP).
Challenges with business access concerns, project scheduling requirements, and
other design considerations have slowed the implementation of recommended
improvement projects. City staff continues to work with ODOT, LTD, business and
property owners, and concerned citizens to implement and develop safe crossing
alternatives along Main Street.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 1 of 2
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
To: Gino Grimaldi
From: Michael Liebler, P.E., Transportation Planning Engineer
Jeff Towery, Interim Public Works Director
Date: December 29, 2011
Subject: Progress Report for Main Street Safety Improvements
Beginning April 2010, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), the City of Springfield, and
Lane Transit District (LTD) cooperated to complete a safety study for the segment of OR 126 Business
(Main Street) from 20th Street to 73rd Street in Springfield. The Council conducted a final review of the
draft report during a January 11th work session and approved a resolution of support.
The recommended improvements in the Study were to be implemented over time as funding became
available. The Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) recently granted ODOT $1,000,000 in State
Bicycle/Pedestrian funds for the pedestrian crossing improvements identified in the study. The purpose of
the recent $1,000,000 allocation is to construct the midblock pedestrian activated beacon crossings listed
below should funding be sufficient to do so.
1. 51st Street
2. 41st Street
3. 43rd Street/44th Street
4. 57th Street
5. 34th Street/35th Street
6. 40th Street
7. Chapman Lane
8. 48th Street/49th Street
Pedestrian crossing project progress has been made with advanced plans currently being produced for the
43rd Street/44th Street crossing. This crossing is scheduled to be advertised for bids on March 8th 2012
with construction in the summer of 2012. In addition, construction of a second crossing is expected in the
summer of 2013. Additional projects are being planned, vetted, and designed into the future as ODOT
schedules project development. Funds for implementation are available in ODOT’s State Transportation
Improvement Plan (STIP).
Difficulties with business access concerns, project scheduling requirements, and other design
considerations have slowed the implementation of recommended improvement projects. City staff
continues to work with ODOT, LTD, business and property owners, and concerned citizens to implement
and develop safe crossing alternatives along Main Street.
Several locations for pedestrian crossings were considered within the area of 44th Street. Evaluation of
the initial location shown in the safety study revealed unavoidable conflicts with truck turning movements
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 2 of 2
for both north and south business access locations. Additional locations to the east and west were
evaluated to determine the best possible location which minimized conflicts with business access, new
bus stop location criteria, and design considerations. After analysis, a final preferred location was
identified in between the access locations for the RV Store and Gray’s Garden Center. Additional
concerns from the RV Store owner and other property owners along the south frontage of Main Street at
this location prompted the scheduling of group meetings to discuss access impacts and possible mitigation
alternatives at this location. Group meetings with business and property owners were held on-site and at
city hall. Mitigation through widening of the RV store access to the west along with city initiation and
processing of a cross access agreement between the properties to guarantee future left hand turning
movements for the Gray’s and RV Store were proposed in consultation with the south property owners.
In addition, analysis showed that additional access would be available thru the 44th street access to the
parking area for RV movements. These mitigation measures were not accepted by the property owners to
the south due to concerns with coffee stand operations and a desire to not have a formal cross access
agreement for the already shared parking area along the south frontage. The final preferred location for
this crossing remains in between the Gray’s and RV Store access.
In addition to the pedestrian crossing projects, the City and ODOT have been working on funding for
other projects identified in the study including additional lighting, audible pedestrian crossings, speed
feedbacks signs, and pedestrian countdowns signals along Main Street through ODOT’s Flexible Funds
program. Any funds not expended on the crossing improvements may be used for other actions
recommended in the Study.
Main
Street
Pedestrian
Crossing
Projects
Progress
Report
By
Michael
Liebler,
P.E.
mliebler@springfield
‐
or.gov
City
of
Springfield,
Oregon
January 2012
ATTACHMENT
2,
Page
1
of
10
•
Identified
8
Locations
for
advanced
pedestrian
crossings
(RRFB)
•51st
Street
Project
completed
2010
•
Identified
transit
stop
re
‐
locations
along
Main
Street
corridor
•LTD
is
flexible
and
partnering
well
with
ODOT and
City
Staff
•
Identified
locations
for
upgraded
Main
Street
roadway
lighting
(unfunded)•
Identified
Locations
for
speed
feedback
and
pedestrian
countdown
timers (unfunded)
•
City
Council
reviewed
and
endorsed
the
draft
Pedestrian
Safety
Study
and
proposed
improvement
projects
during
their
January 11,
2011
work
session
ATTACHMENT
2,
Page
2
of
10
Project
Funding,
Prioritization,
and
Timing
•
Oregon
Transportation
Commission
granted
ODOT $1,000,000
in
State
Bicycle/Pedestrian
funds
for
the
pedestrian
crossing
improvements
•ODOT identified
3
of
the
7
remaining
projects
for
evaluation
and
construction
with
targeted
construction
in
summer
of
2012
•
34
th
Street
•
41
st
Street
•
43rd
/44th
Streets
•
34
th
Street
and
41
st
Street
crossings
were
postponed
to
next
construction
cycle
due
to
issues
with
business
access
ATTACHMENT
2,
Page
3
of
10
43rd
/44
th
Street Crossing
Evaluation
Crossing
as
located
in
2010
study
ATTACHMENT
2,
Page
4
of
10
43rd
/44
th
Auto‐Turn
From
Existing
Driveways
•
Proposed
study
location
conflicted
with
un
‐
avoidable
truck
turning
movements
•
Required
closure
of
driveway
to
the
south
•
Minor
adjustments
within
area
created
compounding
conflicts
with
bus
stop
locations
and
public
street
turning
movements
•
Additional
evaluations
moved
preferred
crossing
to
the
east
of
44
th
Street
43rdPL
S 44thST
ATTACHMENT
2,
Page
5
of
10
43rd
/44
th
Auto‐Turn
From
Existing
Driveways
•
Eliminates
left
turn
storage
to
the
currently
vacant
property
to
the
south.
•
Pulls further
away
from
the
crash
locations.
•
Would
move
the
bus
stop
another
250'
east.LTD
is
combining
the
stops
west
and
east
of
44th
and
this
location
would
not
place
the
new
stops
in
an
acceptable
location
between
the
two
existing
stops.
•
Eliminate
storage
to
the
easterly
access
for
the
vacant
property
to
the
north.
ATTACHMENT
2,
Page
6
of
10
43rd
/44
th
Auto‐Turn
From
Existing
Driveways
•
New
location
created
conflicts
with
RV
turning
movements
into
south
access.
•
Concerns
at
new
location
prompted
meetings
with
area
property
and
business
owners
•
Acceptable
alternatives
were
discussed
and
further
analyzed.
•
Final
location
determined
with
consultation
and
input
from
surrounding
stakeholders
ATTACHMENT
2,
Page
7
of
10
Future
Process
PROCESS
GOALS:
•Obtain
early
buy
in
from
surrounding
land
owners
and
businesses.
•Provide safe
crossings
at
study
location
which
minimize
impacts
to
surrounding
properties
and
businesses.
PROCESS
METHODS:
•
Group
meetings
with
all
the
business/property
owners
to
evaluate
impacts and
alternatives.
•
Meetings
held
earlier
in
the
process.
•
Close
coordination
with
area
Councilors,
Mayor,
and
City
Manager.
ATTACHMENT
2,
Page
8
of
10
Future
Process
WORKING
FRAMEWORK:
•
Understanding
and
acceptance
that
status
quo
is
un
‐
acceptable.
•
Understanding
and
acceptance
that
ODOT and
City
staff
are
committed
to
addressing
stakeholder
concerns
to
best
of
their
abilities.
•Access and
other
impacts
may
be
unavoidable
and
will
be
reduced
as
much
as
possible
while
accomplishing
the
goal
of
improving
pedestrian
safety.
ATTACHMENT
2,
Page
9
of
10
Questions/ConcernsTHANK YOU
Michael
Liebler,
P.E.
541‐
736‐
1034 mliebler@springfield
‐
or.gov
ATTACHMENT
2,
Page
10
of
10
ATTACHMENT 3
Page
1
of 1
ATTACHMENT 4, Page 1 of 1
Prepared by
November 2010
ODOT
Springfield Main Street
(OR 126) Safety Study
Prepared for
Draft Report
for
In association with
(Draft Report)
Attachment 5
Page 1 of 67
Table of Contents Page i
November 24, 2010 (DRAFT)
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Executive Summary ...................................................... 1-1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1-1
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................ 1-1
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 1-2
RECOMMENDED PROJECTS ................................................................................... 1-2
Conceptual Crossing Improvements ..................................................................... 1-2
Corridor-Wide Projects.......................................................................................... 1-3
Cost Estimates ...................................................................................................... 1-3
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions ...................................................... 2-1
ROADWAY NETWORK .............................................................................................. 2-1
TRAFFIC VOLUME, SPEED, AND CLASSIFICATION .............................................. 2-3
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS .............................................................. 2-5
Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................................... 2-6
Mobility Standards ................................................................................................ 2-6
Existing Intersection Performance ........................................................................ 2-8
ACCESS POINTS ....................................................................................................... 2-9
COLLISION ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 2-9
Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) ..................................................................... 2-9
ODOT Collision Data (Five Years) ...................................................................... 2-11
ODOT Pedestrian Collision Data (Ten Years) .................................................... 2-14
LIGHTING ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 2-16
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES AND ACTIVITY ............................................................. 2-18
Pedestrian Facilities ............................................................................................ 2-18
Pedestrian Activity .............................................................................................. 2-18
BICYCLE FACILITIES AND ACTIVITY .................................................................... 2-21
Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................. 2-21
Bicycle Activity .................................................................................................... 2-21
TRANSIT SERVICE .................................................................................................. 2-21
LAND USE (ZONING AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY) ........................................... 2-22
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING CONFLICT ANALYSIS ................................................. 2-26
Main Street (OR 126)/35th Street ........................................................................ 2-28
Main Street (OR 126)/41st Street ........................................................................ 2-28
Attachment 5
Page 2 of 67
Table of Contents Page ii
November 24, 2010 (DRAFT)
Main Street (OR 126)/48th Street ........................................................................ 2-28
Main Street (OR 126)/Chapman Lane ................................................................ 2-28
Main Street (OR 126)/58th Street ........................................................................ 2-29
Main Street (OR 126)/66th Street ........................................................................ 2-29
Chapter 3. Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Toolbox .................... 3-1
PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC SIGNAL .............................................................................. 3-2
PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON-HIGH INTENSITY ACTIVATED CROSSWALK
(HAWK) ....................................................................................................................... 3-3
FLASHING BEACONS ............................................................................................... 3-4
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) ....................................................... 3-4
Overhead Flashing Beacon .................................................................................. 3-5
MEDIAN REFUGE ISLAND ........................................................................................ 3-6
STREET LIGHTING .................................................................................................... 3-7
IMPROVEMENTS NOT INCLUDED ........................................................................... 3-7
Chapter 4. Pedestrian Crossing Improvement Concepts ............ 4-1
IMPROVEMENT LOCATION PRIORITIZATION ........................................................ 4-1
CROSSING IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS ................................................................ 4-3
41st Street (Priority Location #1) ........................................................................... 4-5
51st Street (Priority Location #2) ........................................................................... 4-7
43rd Street/44th Street (Priority Location #3) .......................................................... 4-7
57th Street (Priority Location #4) ........................................................................... 4-8
34th Street/35th Street (Priority Location #5) .......................................................... 4-9
40th Street (Priority Location #6) ......................................................................... 4-10
Chapman Lane (Priority Location #7) ................................................................. 4-11
48th Street/49th Street (Priority Location #8) ........................................................ 4-11
38th Street (Priority Location #9) ......................................................................... 4-12
Chapter 5. Overall Corridor Treatment Options ........................... 5-1
TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................ 5-1
Pedestrian Countdown Timers .............................................................................. 5-1
Left-Turn Signal Head Modification....................................................................... 5-2
TRANSIT STOP RELOCATIONS ............................................................................... 5-2
STREET LIGHTING .................................................................................................... 5-4
SPEED FEEDBACK SIGNS ....................................................................................... 5-5
ACCESS MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................... 5-6
Attachment 5
Page 3 of 67
Table of Contents Page iii
November 24, 2010 (DRAFT)
Chapter 6. Project Implementation ................................................ 6-1
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION ..................................................................................... 6-1
COST ESTIMATES .................................................................................................... 6-1
Appendix
Attachment 5
Page 4 of 67
Table of Contents Page iv
November 24, 2010 (DRAFT)
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Existing Study Area Roadway Characteristics .................................................... 2-2
Table 2-2: Main Street (OR 126) Bi-Directional Volumes, Speeds, and Heavy Vehicles ..... 2-3
Table 2-3: Study Intersection Performance .......................................................................... 2-8
Table 2-4: Main Street (OR 126) Accesses .......................................................................... 2-9
Table 2-5: Main Street (OR 126) Collision Data (2004 through 2008) ................................ 2-11
Table 2-6: Collision Breakdown by Collision Type (2004 through 2008) ............................ 2-13
Table 2-7: Collision Breakdown by Lighting Level (2004 through 2008) ............................ 2-14
Table 2-8: Main Street (OR 126) Pedestrian Collision Data (1999 through 2008) ............. 2-15
Table 2-9: Pedestrian Collision Breakdown by Lighting Level (1999 through 2003) .......... 2-15
Table 2-10: Existing Lighting Analysis (by Roadway Segment) ......................................... 2-16
Table 2-11: Existing Lighting Analysis (by Intersection) ..................................................... 2-17
Table 2-12: Main Street (OR 126) Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Volumes ......................... 2-20
Table 2-13: Main Street (OR 126) Avenue Bicycle Crossing Volumes ............................... 2-21
Table 2-14: Transit Routes Operating on Main Street (OR 126) ........................................ 2-22
Table 2-15: Conflict Analysis Summary for Selected Main Street (OR 126) Locations ...... 2-27
Table 4-1: Prioritized Crossing Improvement Locations ....................................................... 4-2
Table 6-1: Prioritized Safety Improvements on Main Street (OR 126) Corridor ................... 6-2
Table 6-2: Cost Estimates of Recommended Safety Projects .............................................. 6-3
Attachment 5
Page 5 of 67
Table of Contents Page v
November 24, 2010 (DRAFT)
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Recommended Safety Improvements ................................................................ 1-4
Figure 2-1: Main Street (OR 126) Study Area ...................................................................... 2-1
Figure 2-2: 24-Hour Direction Volumes West of 30th Street ................................................. 2-4
Figure 2-3: 24-Hour Directional Volumes East of 51st Street ................................................ 2-4
Figure 2-4: 24-Hour Directional Volumes East of Moutaingate Drive ................................... 2-5
Figure 2-5: Existing Motor Vehicle Volumes ......................................................................... 2-7
Figure 2-6: Access Information ........................................................................................... 2-10
Figure 2-7: Collision Information ......................................................................................... 2-12
Figure 2-8: Pedestrian Facilities ......................................................................................... 2-19
Figure 2-9: Recent Pedestrian Crossing Improvements at 51st Street ............................... 2-20
Figure 2-10: Transit Ridership ............................................................................................ 2-23
Figure 2-11: Land Use ........................................................................................................ 2-24
Figure 2-12: 2008 Aerial Photography ................................................................................ 2-25
Figure 3-1: Example Midblock Pedestrian Traffic Signal ...................................................... 3-2
Figure 3-2: HAWK Signal and Phases ................................................................................. 3-3
Figure 3-3: Example RRFB Sign Assembly with Close-Up of Flashing Beacons ................. 3-5
Figure 3-4: Example Overhead Flashing Beacon ................................................................. 3-5
Figure 3-5: Example Center Medians with Pedestrian Refuge Islands ................................ 3-6
Figure 3-6: Example Street Lights ........................................................................................ 3-7
Figure 4-1: Recently Installed Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) at 51st Street .. 4-4
Figure 4-2: Conceptual 41st Street Crossing Improvements (Subject to Revision) ............... 4-6
Figure 4-3: Conceptual 51st Street Crossing Improvements (Subject to Revision) ............... 4-7
Figure 4-4: Conceptual 43rd/44th Street Crossing Improvements (Subject to Revision) ....... 4-8
Figure 4-5: Conceptual 57th Street Crossing Improvements (Subject to Revision) .............. 4-9
Figure 4-6: Conceptual 34th/35th Street Crossing Improvements (Subject to Revision) ...... 4-10
Figure 4-7: Conceptual 40th Street Crossing Improvements (Subject to Revision) ............ 4-10
Figure 4-8: Conceptual Chapman Lane Crossing Improvements (Subject to Revision) .... 4-11
Figure 4-9: Conceptual 48th/49th Street Crossing Improvements (Subject to Revision) ...... 4-12
Figure 4-10: Conceptual 38th Street Crossing Improvement (Subject to Revision) ............ 4-12
Figure 5-1: Recommended Pedestrian Signal Head Replacement (All Traffic Signals) ....... 5-1
Figure 5-2: Recommended Left-Turn Signal Head Replacement (69th Street) ..................... 5-2
Figure 5-3: Conceptual Transit Stop Relocation Plan ........................................................... 5-3
Figure 5-4: Example Supplemental Lighting on Utility Pole .................................................. 5-4
Figure 5-5: Example Cobrahead Street Light ....................................................................... 5-5
Figure 5-6: Example Speed Feedback Sign ......................................................................... 5-5
Attachment 5
Page 6 of 67
Executive Summary Page 1-1
November 24, 2010 (DRAFT)
Chapter 1. Executive Summary
INTRODUCTION
The Springfield Main Street (OR 126)
corridor has been a focal point of safety
concerns for many years. Because of the
continued occurrence of pedestrian
collisions between 20th Street and 73rd
Street (including nine pedestrian fatalities
within the last ten years), there is
particular public concern for pedestrian
safety. Therefore, this safety study was
performed with the primary emphasis on
providing safe pedestrian crossings at
unsignalized locations.
This study consisted of public involvement
and technical analysis. The result was a list
of recommended safety projects along the
study corridor.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT) managed the Springfield Main
Street (OR 126) Safety Study in
partnership with the City of Springfield
and Lane Transit District (LTD). Project
stakeholders (including agencies, citizen
volunteers, the public at large, and elected
officials) provided feedback on all
components of the study. The primary
direction and input were provided by two
committees:
Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC): The TAC directed the study,
reviewed methods and findings,
and assisted in reaching consensus
on project recommendations.
Members of the TAC included
agency staff from ODOT, the City
of Springfield, and Lane Transit
District (LTD)
Study Advisory Group (SAG): The
SAG provided feedback at key
points in the study including
reviewing draft documents and
providing comments at advisory
group meetings. Members of the
SAG included residents, business
owners, transit users, emergency
responders, and other concerned
citizens
Additional public involvement included
one‐on‐one stakeholder interviews, a
public open house, City Council work
sessions, and a project website that was
updated on a regular basis during the
study. These involvement opportunities
allowed citizens to comment on the plan,
make suggestions, voice concerns, and
provide feedback.
Attachment 5
Page 7 of 67
Executive Summary Page 1-2
November 24, 2010 (DRAFT)
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical analysis included data collection,
pedestrian crossing observations, and
crossing improvement location
prioritization. In addition, a toolbox of
potential pedestrian crossing treatments
was prepared and used as a basis for
identifying conceptual crossing
treatments. Corridor‐wide analysis was
also performed.
The analysis emphasized high pedestrian
activity locations including businesses,
apartments, schools, and care facilities.
The primary factors that contribute to
pedestrian safety concerns and were
considered include:
High vehicular speeds and volumes
Wide five‐lane cross‐section
Inconsistent roadway lighting
(which particularly affects
nighttime safety)
Heavy transit use
High access density (i.e., closely
spaced driveways)
Absence of pedestrian crossing
treatments
RECOMMENDED PROJECTS
Recommended projects include
conceptual crossing improvements and
corridor‐wide projects. Cost estimates
were also prepared for the projects.
Conceptual Crossing Improvements
Crossing improvement concepts were
developed for nine unsignalized priority
locations (listed in order of priority):
Short‐Term Priority
41st Street
51st Street
43rd Street/44th Street
57th Street
34th Street/35th Street
40th Street
Mid‐Term Priority
Chapman Lane
48th Street/49th Street
38th Street
At the first eight locations, recommended
improvement treatments include
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons
(RRFB), pedestrian refuge medians,
supplemental street lighting, transit stop
relocations, and driveway modifications.
At the second priority location (i.e., 51st
Street) ODOT already has installed RRFBs
and associated treatments, but
supplementary improvements are
recommended. At the ninth location (i.e.,
38th Street), supplementary street lighting
is the only treatment recommended.
Figure 1‐1 shows the nine conceptual
crossing improvement locations, and
Chapter 4 discusses the crossing
improvements in greater detail. In
addition, the appendix includes
preliminary drawing schematics that are
intended to be a helpful resource as the
concepts are further developed. All
concepts are subject to project
development and access studies, and the
concepts may change based on additional
analysis and stakeholder feedback.
Attachment 5
Page 8 of 67
Executive Summary Page 1-3
November 24, 2010 (DRAFT)
Corridor-Wide Projects
Corridor‐wide safety treatments were also
considered along the entire length of the
study area corridor and include:
Pedestrian Countdown Timers
Left‐Turn Signal Head Modification
Transit Stop Relocations
Street Lighting
Speed Feedback Signs
Access Management
Figure 1‐1 shows the locations of specific
recommendations, with the exception of
the conceptual transit stop relocations
(which are shown in Figure 5‐3). With the
exception of near the unsignalized
crossing improvements, no specific
locations were identified for access
management or lighting improvements.
Chapter 5 discusses the corridor‐wide
projects in greater detail.
Cost Estimates
Cost estimates were prepared for the
recommended projects and are provided
in Table 6‐2, which is partially reproduced
at the right. As shown, the total estimated
cost is $1,010,000 for all short‐term
priority projects, $886,000 for all mid‐
term priority projects, and $2,400,000 for
all long‐term priority projects. All projects
combined are estimated to cost
$4,296,000.
Chapter 6 provides additional cost
estimate and prioritization information for
each project. These project
implementation resources are intended to
assist ODOT, the City of Springfield, and
LTD in using this study as a tool for
acquiring the needed project funding.
Cost Estimates of Recommended Safety
Projects (See Table 6-2)
Safety Improvement Total Cost
Short-Term Priority
41st Street Crossing $95,000
51st Street Crossing $10,000
43rd/44th Street Crossing $100,000
57th Street Crossing $205,000
34th/35th Street Crossing $105,000
40th Street Crossing $115,000
Pedestrian Countdown
Timers (All Traffic Signals)
$48,000
Left-Turn Signal Head
Modification (69th Street)
$10,000
Speed Feedback Sign $72,000
Prepare Corridor Access
Management Plan
$250,000
Total Short-Term Priority
Projects
$1,010,000
Mid-Term Priority
Chapman Lane Crossing $100,000
48th/49th Street Crossing $140,000
38th Street Crossing $10,000
Remaining Transit Stop
Relocations
$36,000
Supplemental Lights on Utility
Poles
$600,000
Access Management Plan
Implementation
With land
redevelopment
Total Mid-Term Priority
Projects
$886,000
Long-Term Priority
New Cobraheads along
Corridor
$1,500,000
Access Management Plan
Implementation
With land
redevelopment
41st Street Realignment $900,000
Total Long-Term Priority
Projects
$2,400,000
TOTAL $4,296,000
Attachment 5
Page 9 of 67
- EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL
RECOMMENDED SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS
OR 126 MAIN STREET SAFETY STUDY
SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
FIGURE 1-1
- LEFT-TURN SIGNAL HEAD
MODIFICATION
- SPEED FEEDBACK SIGN
TO BE INSTALLED
(Exact Locations are
Not Yet Determined)
LEGEND
- RECTANGULAR RAPID
FLASHING BEACONS (RRFBs)
TO BE INSTALLED
- PRIORITIZED CROSSING
IMPROVEMENT LOCATIONS
4
SPEED
YOUR
SPEED
40
5 9 61 3 8
2 7 4
SPEED
YOUR
SPEED
40
SPEED
YOUR
SPEED
40
1
SPEED
YOUR
SPEED
40 SPEED
YOUR
SPEED
45 SPEED
YOUR
SPEED
45
SPEED
YOUR
SPEED
40
Supplemental
Street Lights
Only
- PED COUNTDOWN TIMERS
TO BE INSTALLED
Attachment 5
Page 10 of 67
Existing Conditions | Roadway Network Page 2-1
November 24, 2010 (DRAFT)
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Existing transportation conditions were evaluated for the Main Street (OR 126) study
corridor in the City of Springfield, Oregon. The study corridor spans approximately five miles
on OR 126 (also known as the McKenzie Highway or Main Street) in Springfield and is shown
in Figure 2‐1. The corridor extends from mile point (MP) 2.95 to MP 7.97, which is roughly
from 20th Street to 73rd Street.
Figure 2-1: Main Street (OR 126) Study Area
The existing conditions analysis considered current roadway network characteristics; traffic
volume, speed, and classification; intersection operations analysis; access points; collision
analysis; lighting analysis; pedestrian facilities and activity; bicycle facilities and activity;
transit service; zoning (land use and aerial photography); and pedestrian crossing conflict
analysis. The following sections of this chapter address each of these issues.
ROADWAY NETWORK
The transportation characteristics of the key study area roadway and cross streets are shown
in Table 2‐1 and include functional classification, number and direction of travel lanes,
posted speeds, and the presence of sidewalks and/or bike lanes. The functional classification
is a key characteristic because it specifies the purpose of the roadway1 and is a determining
factor of applicable cross‐section, access spacing, and intersection performance standards.
1 The primary purpose of an arterial is to provide mobility, whereas at the opposite end of the spectrum, a local road is
Attachment 5
Page 11 of 67
Existing Conditions | Roadway Network Page 2-2
November 24, 2010 (DRAFT)
Main Street (OR 126) is the main east‐west roadway in the study area and carries 17,000 to
26,000 vehicles per day.2 It is designated a State Highway and part of the National Highway
System for the entire corridor length. From MP 6.23 to MP 7.97 (Bob Straub Parkway to the
eastern project limits) the roadway classified as a Truck Route.3 In addition, the Eugene‐
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP), also known as TransPlan,4 designates Main
Street (OR 126) in the study area as a principle arterial.
Key north‐south roadways that intersect Main Street (OR 126) include 21st Street, 32nd
Street, 42nd Street, 48th Street, 51st Street, 54th Street, 58th Street, and 69th Street. The
functional classifications of the north‐south roadways are shown in Table 2‐1.
Table 2-1: Existing Study Area Roadway Characteristics
Roadway Functional Classification Travel
Lanes
Posted
Speed Sidewalk Bike
Lanes ODOTa TransPlanb
Main Street
(OR 126)
Principal Arterial Principle Arterial c 5 30-45d Yes Yes
21st Street Urban Collector Major Collector 2 25 Yes No
32nd Street Minor Arterial Minor Arterial 3 35 Yes Yes
42nd Street Minor Arterial Minor Arterial 2-3 30 Yes Yes
48th Street Urban Collector Major Collector 2-3 25-40e No (North)/
Yes (South)
No (North)/
Yes (South)
51st Street Local Road Local Road 2 25 Yes No
54th Street Local Road Local Road 2 25 Yes No
58th Street Urban Collector Major Collector 3 35 Yes Yes
69th Street Urban Collector Major Collector 2 25 Yes No
a Obtained from ODOT GIS Unit Map Products, ODOT City Maps, Springfield, OR.
b Obtained from 2001 Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan, Roadway Functional Classification figure.
c The Oregon Highway Plan classifies OR 126 from MP 6.23-7.97 as a Truck Route.
d Posted speed limit of 30 mph west of 20th St, 40 mph between 20th St and 60th St, and 45 mph east of 60th Pl.
e Posted speed limit is 40 mph north of Main Street (OR 126) and 25 mph south of Main Street (OR 126).
primarily concerned with site access. Collector roadways provide a transition between arterials and local roads.
2 All Traffic Data 24-hour classification and volume counts were taken on Thursday April 22, 2010.
3 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (as amended January 2006).
4 2001 Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP)
Attachment 5
Page 12 of 67
Existing Conditions | Traffic Volume, Speed, and Classification Page 2-3
November 24, 2010 (DRAFT)
TRAFFIC VOLUME, SPEED, AND CLASSIFICATION
Table 2‐2 presents data collected from 24‐hour tube counts5 at three locations along the
Main Street (OR 126) corridor. This data includes vehicular bi‐directional volumes, 85th
percentile speed6, and heavy vehicle traffic percentages. As shown in the table, the
eastbound and westbound total daily volumes are almost identical.
Figure 2‐2 shows the vehicle movements throughout the day at the location just west of 30th
Street. This graph shows the highest traffic volume for both eastbound and westbound
vehicles is during the p.m. peak hour. The westbound vehicle volumes are higher during the
a.m. hours and the eastbound volumes are slightly higher during the p.m. hours. The
directionality split is a typical scenario with the a.m. flow towards the downtown Springfield
central business district and the p.m. traffic moving away from the downtown core.
Table 2-2: Main Street (OR 126) Bi-Directional Volumes, Speeds, and Heavy Vehicles
Surveyed Dataa
Location along Main Street (OR 126)b
West of 30th Street East of 51st Street East of Mountaingate Dr
Average Daily Traffic
Eastbound 12,610 (50%) 8,910 (52%) 10,590 (50%)
Westbound 12,860 (50%) 8,380 (48%) 10,640 (50%)
Total 25,47017,29021,230
85th Percentile Speed
Eastbound 39 mph 43 mph 49 mph
Westbound 38 mph 44 mph 49 mph
Posted Speed
Both Directions 40 mph 40 mph 45 mph
Truck Traffic Percentagec
Eastbound 3% 2% 4%
Westbound 2% 3% 3%
a All Traffic Data 24-hour classification and speed counts were taken on Thursday, April 22, 2010.
b Count Locations are shown in Figure 2-5.
c Specified as vehicles with three or more axles.
5 All Traffic Data 24-hour classification and speed counts were taken on Thursday April 22, 2010.
6 The 85th percentile speed is defined as the speed below which 85 percent of the vehicles are traveling.
Attachment 5
Page 13 of 67
Existing Conditions | Traffic Volume, Speed, and Classification Page 2-4
November 24, 2010 (DRAFT)
Figure 2-2: 24-Hour Direction Volumes West of 30th Street
Figure 2‐3 shows the daily vehicle volumes east of 51st Street. A comparison with Figure 2‐2
indicates that the 24‐hour volumes near 51st Street are lower than at 30th Street. This is likely
due to vehicles using Bob Straub Parkway if they are going to and from areas in the eastern
section of the study area.
Figure 2-3: 24-Hour Directional Volumes East of 51st Street
Attachment 5
Page 14 of 67
Existing Conditions | Intersection Operations Analysis Page 2-5
November 24, 2010 (DRAFT)
Figure 2‐4 shows the 24 hour vehicular volumes just west of Mountaingate Drive. The 24
hour volumes near Mountaingate Dr are similar to the volumes detected at 30th Street and
the directional flow is spilt evenly between eastbound and westbound traffic.
Figure 2-4: 24-Hour Directional Volumes East of Moutaingate Drive
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Intersection operations analysis was performed at eight intersections along the Main Street
(OR 126) corridor:
Main Street (OR 126)/21st Street
Main Street (OR 126)/32nd Street
Main Street (OR 126)/42nd Street
Main Street (OR 126)/48th Street
Main Street (OR 126)/51st Street
Main Street (OR 126)/54th Street
Main Street (OR 126)/58th Street
Main Street (OR 126)/69th Street
The operations analysis was based on existing traffic volumes and was compared with
agency mobility standards. The traffic volumes and mobility standards are first presented
followed by the resulting existing intersection performance.
Attachment 5
Page 15 of 67
Existing Conditions | Intersection Operations Analysis Page 2-6
November 24, 2010 (DRAFT)
Traffic Volumes
The traffic volumes at the study intersections were counted during the a.m. (7:00 a.m. to
9:00 a.m.), afternoon (2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.) and p.m. (4:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) peak
periods.7 The a.m., afternoon and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes, lane configurations, and
intersection traffic control for the eight study intersections are shown in Figure 2‐5. The
detailed two‐hour traffic counts are included in the appendix.
Mobility Standards
Agency mobility standards define operating requirements for intersections. Two common
mobility measures are level of service (LOS) and volume‐to‐capacity (v/c).
The intersection LOS is similar to a “report card” rating based upon average vehicle
delay. Level of service A, B, and C indicate conditions where traffic moves without
significant delays over periods of peak hour travel demand. Level of service D and E
are progressively worse operating conditions. Level of service F represents conditions
where average vehicle delay has become excessive and demand has exceeded
capacity. This condition is typically evident in long queues and delays.
The volume‐to‐capacity (v/c) ratio represents the level of saturation of the
intersection or individual movement. It is determined by dividing the peak hour
traffic volume by the maximum hourly capacity of an intersection or turn movement.
When the v/c ratio approaches 0.95, operations become unstable and small
disruptions can cause the traffic flow to break down, as seen by the formation of
excessive queues.
The entire Main Street (OR 126) study corridor is located within the Eugene‐Springfield
Metropolitan Area and is an Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) facility classified
as a Statewide Highway. The corridor is not a freight route; (though it is a truck route to the
east of Bob Straub Parkway). According to the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (OHP), ODOT
mobility standards are given as v/c ratios and are based on the highway category.8 The City
of Springfield also has intersection operation standards. The mobility standards for Main
Street (OR 126) are show in Table 2‐3 along with the existing intersection performance
results.
7 All Traffic Data turn movement counts taken on Thursday April 22, 2010.
8 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, Oregon Department of Transportation, 1999; Table 6 in Policy 1F displays the maximum
allowable v/c ratios for areas outside of the Portland Metropolitan Area.
Attachment 5
Page 16 of 67
BOOTH
19 (55) [52]
880 (821) [723]
4 (12) [6]
41
(59)
[57]
1
(3)
[2]
23
(52)
[62]
[3]
(16)
5
[18]
(25)
4
[17]
(41)
8
[44] (55) 19
[1007] (892) 492
[4] (14) 8
11 (15) [9]
711 (741) [705]
86 (54) [66]
4
(18)
[33]
0
(4)
[4]
3
(15)
[23]
[1]
(5)
3
[66]
(67)
61
[238]
(244)
388
[12] (22) 15
[956] (831) 357
[471] (294) 227
44 (25) [31]
536 (604) [577]
54
(49)
[33]
16
(29)
[30]
[53] (31) 52
[867] (733) 361
160 (184) [154]
502 (561) [520]
50 (74) [91]
109
(178)
[181]
124
(282)
[337]
132
(269)
[249]
[215]
(214)
293
[81]
(61)
48
[106]
(145)
156
[169] (132) 107
[729] (640) 311
[123] (102) 57
4 (6) [5]
586 (663) [628]
3 (13) [16]
39
(61)
[46]
4
(8)
[3]
9
(10)
[4]
[11]
(2)
11
[8]
(5)
11
[22]
(32)
49
[36] (37) 16
[900] (781) 395
[70] (45) 13
46 (49) [74]
535 (573) [514]
2 (21) [30]
30
(30)
[40]
5
(17)
[21]
67
(47)
[60]
[22]
(27)
0
[23]
(32)
9
[69]
(66)
21
[42] (52) 11
[803] (693) 360
[68] (56) 8
89 (50) [43]
74 (597) [697]
85 (130) [135]
136
(138)
[103]
92
(135)
[138]
53
(98)
[100]
[106]
(113)
145
[171]
(135)
89
[122]
(150)
68
[199] (177) 171
[1130] (754) 397
[46] (53) 25
114
(100)
[70]
11
(28)
[17]
29
(44)
[50]
[15]
(9)
29
[3]
(2)
3
[47]
(39)
100
66 (20) [36]
628 (436) [462]
3 (4) [3]
[119] (101) 74
[705] (507) 274
[70] (56) 24
AM (Afternoon 2-4pm) [PM]
49 mph
49 mph
38 mph
EXISTING MOTOR
VEHICLE VOLUMES
- Study Intersection
LEGEND
2-5Figure
OR 126 @ 21st St.
LT
TH
RT
RT
TH
LT
LTTHRT
RTTHLT
1
LT
TH
RT
RT
TH
LT
LTTHRT
RTTHLT
23OR 126 @ S. 32nd St.OR 126 @ 42nd St.
OR 126 @ 58th St.7
OR 126 @ N. 48th St.4 OR 126 @ 51st St.
TH
RT
TH
LT
RTLT
5 OR 126 @ N. 54th St.6
OR 126 @ 69th St.8
0
LT
TH
RT
RT
TH
LT
LTTHRT
RTTHLT
LT
TH
RT
RT
TH
LT
LTTHRT
RTTHLT
LT
TH
RT
RT
TH
LT
LTTHRT
RTTHLT
LT
TH
RT
RT
TH
LT
LTTHRT
RT THLT
LTTHRT
RT THLT
LT
TH
RT
RT
TH
LT
- Traffic Signal
- Stop Sign
- Lane Configuration
- Volume Turn Movements
RightThruLeft
LTTHRT
- Peak Hour Periods
12
3 4
5 6 7
8
126
126
12,610
12,860
8,910
8,380
10,590
10,640
00,000- Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
(East/West Directional Volumes)
39 mph
44 mph
43 mph
00 mph- 85th Percentile Speeds
Attachment 5
Page 17 of 67
Existing Conditions | Page 2-8
November 24, 2010 (DRAFT)
Existing Intersection Performance
The existing intersection performance was evaluated using Synchro™ software, which
employs methodology from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.9 The traffic volumes and
transportation system configurations described previously were used to determine
intersection levels of service (LOS) and volume‐to‐capacity (v/c) ratios. Because the focus of
this study is on pedestrian safety and not motor vehicle operations, no effort was made to
seasonally adjust traffic volumes or to determine 30th highest hour levels. Intersection signal
timing was obtained from the City of Springfield and also used in the analysis.
The results of the intersection operations analysis are presented in Table 2‐3. As shown, all
of the intersections currently meet both ODOT and City of Springfield mobility standards. A
comparison between peak hours indicates that the greatest amount of congestion occurs
during the p.m. peak hour (i.e., as shown by the higher delay and larger v/c ratios).
Table 2-3: Study Intersection Performance
Intersectiona
Operating
Standard A.M. Peak Hour Afternoon Peak
Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ODOT City DelayLOS V/C DelayLOS V/C Delay LOS V/C
Signalized
(1) Main St/21st St 0.85 v/c LOS D 10.4 B 0.41 13.3 B 0.45 13.2 B 0.53
(2) Main St /32nd St 0.85 v/c LOS D 25.8 C 0.49 20.9 C 0.52 20.8 C 0.60
(3) Main St /42nd St 0.85 v/c LOS D 31.0 C 0.71 41.6 D 0.78 50.7 D 0.81
(6) Main St /54th St 0.85 v/c LOS D 10.7 B 0.35 13.7 B 0.41 13.1 B 0.43
(7) Main St /58th St 0.85 v/c LOS D 33.7 C 0.77 35.5 D 0.72 43.1 D 0.77
(8) Main St /69th St 0.85 v/c LOS D 12.0 B 0.39 9.6 A 0.24 9.1 A 0.32
Unsignalized
(4) Main St /48th St 0.85 v/c LOS D 14.0 A/B 0.25 13.9 A/C 0.32 22.5 B/C 0.39
(5) Main St /51st St 0.85 v/c LOS D 12.2 A/B 0.24 12.6 A/B 0.24 13.3 A/B 0.26
Signalized intersection:
Delay = Average Intersection Delay (sec.)
LOS = Level of Service
v/c = Volume-to-Capacity Ratio
Unsignalized intersection:
Delay = Critical Movement Approach Delay (sec.)
LOS = Major Street LOS/Minor Street LOS
v/c = Critical Movement Volume-to-Capacity
Ratio
a Numbers correspond to Figure 2-5.
9 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2000.
Attachment 5
Page 18 of 67
Existing Conditions | Access Points Page 2-9
November 24, 2010 (DRAFT)
ACCESS POINTS
The Main Street (OR 126) corridor has a significant number of access points, as shown in
Figure 2‐6. Many of the accesses have not been issued an access permit. Those accesses that
have been issued a permit can be found in either of the following two databases:
Utility Permit Database (UPermit) for permits predating February 2000
Central Highway Approach/Maintenance Permit System (CHAMPS) for recent permits
Table 2‐4 shows the number and distribution of accesses along the corridor. The segments
correspond with those used for the collisions analysis, which is discussed later in the
chapter. The number of accesses per mile is consistent along the entire corridor.
Table 2-4: Main Street (OR 126) Accesses
Segment Distance
Accessesa Total
Accesses
Accesses
Per Mile Driveways Public Streets
20th St thru 31st St 0.74 mi. 94 10 104 141
32nd St thru 41st St 0.88 mi. 121 16 137 156
42nd St thru Bob Straub Pkwy 1.62 mi. 203 25 228 141
Bob Straub Pkwy thru 74th St 1.74 mi. 211 18 229 132
Entire Study Corridor 4.98 mi.62969698 140
a Accesses (both public and private) counted separately for north and south sides of Main Street (OR 126).
COLLISION ANALYSIS
The collision analysis for the Main Street (OR 126) corridor was based on collision data
provided by ODOT and considered three different data sets. First, ODOT’s Safety Priority
Index System (SPIS) was reviewed. Then, data from all motor vehicle collisions over the past
five years were reviewed to analyze overall collision trends along the corridor. Finally,
because pedestrian‐related collisions make up a smaller subset of overall data, the past ten
years of pedestrian‐related collisions were analyzed to better identify pedestrian‐related
collision trends. The intent of the analysis was to identify potentially hazardous locations in
need of mitigation.
Safety Priority Index System (SPIS)
The Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) is a ranking system developed by ODOT to identify
potential safety problems on state highways. SPIS scores are developed based upon crash
frequency, severity, and rate for a 0.10 mile or variable length segment along the state
highway over a rolling three‐year window (i.e., every year it is updated with the most recent
three years). A prioritized list of the top 10 percent of statewide SPIS sites is created for each
region, and the top five percent are investigated by the five Region Traffic managers’ offices.
Attachment 5
Page 19 of 67
MAIN ST
N 28TH STN 21ST ST
E ST
N 30TH ST
S 32ND STVIRGINIA AVE
S 42ND ST
N 36TH STN 48TH ST
BOOTH KELLY RD
N 23RD ST
N 33RD STN 35TH ST N 37TH STN 38TH STN 38TH PLN 39TH STN 40TH STN 41ST ST
N 42ND ST
43RDN 44TH STN 49TH ST
S 47TH STS 46TH STS 44TH ST
S 43RD ST
PL
S 41ST STS 40TH STS 38TH STS 37TH STS 35TH STS 34TH STS 28TH ST
western extent of project roadwaymatch line
DAISY ST
69TH STN 66TH ST
S 67TH ST
BOB STRAUB PKWYS 58TH STS 69TH PL
N 54TH STN 51ST STN 49TH STCHAPMAN LN
S 50TH PLS 50TH STS 51ST PLS 52ND STS 52ND PLS 53RD STCLUB DRS 54TH
S 59TH ST63RD ST
60TH PLN 62ND PLN 65TH PL
N 58TH ST
MOU
N
T A I N G A
T
E
DR
N 68TH STN 72NDN 73RD
S 72ND STS 71ST STS 70TH ST68TH PL
S
ST
eastern extent of project roadwaymatch line
Springfield
OR 126 MAIN STREET SAFETY STUDYSPRINGFIELD, OREGON
FIGURE 2-6ACCESS INFORMATION
WESTERN EXTENT
EASTERN EXTENT
LEGEND
N
western extent eastern extent
Index Map
RAILROAD
UTILITY PERMIT DATABASE (UPERMIT), PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 2000
Map: Real Urban Geographics 2010 www.realurban.com
CENTRAL HIGHWAY APPROACH/MAINTENANCE PERMIT SYSTEM (CHAMPS), SINCE FEBRUARY 2000.
DRIVEWAY WITHOUT PERMIT 01,0002,000500 Feet
Attachment 5
Page 20 of 67
Existing Conditions | Page 2-11
November 24, 2010 (DRAFT)
For the most current three years analyzed (2006‐2008), there are five SPIS locations in
Springfield along Main Street (OR 126) that are in the top 5 percent of statewide SPIS sites.
These locations are shown in Figure 2‐7 and listed below:
Main Street (OR 126)/28th Street
Main Street (OR 126)/42nd Street
Main Street (OR 126)/51st Street
Main Street (OR 126)/Bob Straub Parkway
Main Street (OR 126)/58th Street
ODOT Collision Data (Five Years)
The raw collision data for the most recent five years (2004‐2008) was obtained from the
ODOT Crash and Analysis Reporting Unit and included pedestrian‐related collisions. The
locations of the collisions are shown in Figure 2‐7, and Table 2‐5 summarizes the collisions
along the corridor, including collision severity, collisions per year, and the average collision
rate for the five year period.
Overall, the yearly collision rate for the entire Main Street (OR 126) study corridor is 3.21
collisions per million vehicle‐miles traveled. The average ODOT State Highway Crash Rate for
similar function classification roadways (Urban Highway System – Urban Cities, Other
Principal Arterials) is 2.33 collisions per million vehicle‐miles traveled.10 Therefore, the study
area corridor crash rate is 40 percent greater than the state average for similar facilities. As
shown in Table 2‐5, the segment from 41st Street to the Bob Straub Parkway has the highest
collision rate. This segment also contains three of the corridor’s five ODOT SPIS locations.
Table 2-5: Main Street (OR 126) Collision Data (2004 through 2008)
Segment (Distance) Collisions (by Severity) Collisions
per Year
Collision
Rateb Fatal Injury PDOa Total
20th St thru 31st St (0.74 mi.) 0 38 43 81 16.2 2.77
32nd St thru 41st St (0.88 mi.) 1 31 64 96 19.2 2.97
42nd St thru Bob Straub Pkwy (1.62 mi) 2 86 141 229 45.8 4.23
Bob Straub Pkwy thru 74th St (1.74 mi.) 1 56 102 159 31.8 2.63
Entire Study Corridor (4.98 mi.) 4211350565113.0 3.21
a PDO = Property Damage Only.
b Rate Calculation = Collisions per year / (Average Daily Traffic x 365 days / 1 million vehicle-miles traveled)
10 2008 State Highway Crash Rate Tables, ODOT Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit, August 2009; Table II, pg. 7.
Attachment 5
Page 21 of 67