HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Packet October 2020
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Transportation Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you
have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the public
testimony may be limited by the Chair.
AASSHHLLAANNDD TTRRAANNSSPPOORRTTAATTIIOONN CCOOMMMMIISSSSIIOONN
OOccttoobbeerr 1155,, 22002200
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes: September 17, 2020
IV. PUBLIC FORUM (6:05-6:20)
A. Public Forum-if you wish to speak during public forum please register with Shannon.burrus@ashland.or.us by 10am
October 14th.
B. Comments on agenda items to be submitted in writing by 10am October 14th to Shannon.burrus@ashland.or.us
C. If you are interested in watching the meeting via Zoom please utilize the following link: https://zoom.us/j/92659771983
V. ACCIDENT REPORT (6:20-6:30)
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Evacuation Planning Study (6:30-7:30, action required, discuss current and previous evacuation planning studies and
background information)
B. Street Capital Plan and budget process Budget Process (7:30-7:55, no action required, discussion on budget process and
street CIP development, Link-20 year CIP document)
VII. OLD BUSINESS
A. None
VIII. TASK LIST (If time allows)
A. Discuss current action item list
IX. FOLLOW UP ITEMS
A. Terrace Street Traffic Calming Program-Property Owner Letter
X. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS (If time allows)
A. None
XI. COMMISSION OPEN DISCUSSION (If time allows)
XII. FUTURE AGENDA TOPICS
A. Bike Map Subcommittee
B. Street Capital Improvement Plan (budget process)
C. Street User Fee/Gas Tax (budget process)
D. Demand Response Microtransit pilot project update
E. Bus Pass Program
F. Crosswalk Policy
XIII. ADJOURNMENT: 8:00 PM
Next Meeting Date: November 19, 2020 Meeting
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Public Works Office at 488-5587 (TTY phone number 1 800
735 2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
1
Transportation Commission
Contact List as of March 2020
Name Title Telephone Mailing Address Email Address Expiration
of Term
Mark Brouillard Commissioner 206-661-7085 159 Helman St mtbrouillard@msn.com 4/30/2023
Joe Graf Commissioner 541-488-8429 1160 Fern St. jlgtrans15@gmail.com 4/30/2021
Corinne Vièville Commissioner 541-488-9300 or
541-944-9600 805 Glendale Ave. corinne@mind.net 4/30/2022
Derrick Claypool-Barnes Commissioner 503-482-9271 1361 Quincy St #6F dorkforest@gmail.com 4/30/2021
Linda Peterson Adams Commissioner 541-554-1544 642 Oak St gardengriotashland@gmail.com 4/30/2022
Katharine Danner Commissioner 541-482-2302 PO Box 628 ksd@mtashland.net 4/30/2022
Bruce Borgerson Commissioner 541-488-5542 209 Sleepy Hollow Dr wave@mind.net 4/30/2023
Non-Voting Ex Officio Membership
Scott Fleury Interim Director, Public
Works 541-488-5587 20 E. Main Street scott.fleury@ashland.or.us
Julie Akins Council Liaison 20 E. Main Street julie@council.ashland.or.us
Brandon Goldman Planning Department 541- 488-5305 20 E. Main Street goldmanb@ashland.or.us
Steve MacLennan Police Department 541- 552-2433 20 E. Main Street maclenns@ashland.or.us
Vacant SOU Liaison 541-552-8328 1250 Siskiyou Blvd
Dan Dorrell, PE ODOT 541- 774-6354 100 Antelope Rd WC 97503 Dan.w.dorrell@odot.state.or.us
Edem Gómez RVTD 541-608-2411 3200 Crater Lake Av 97504 egomez@rvtd.org
Jenna Stanke ODOT 541- 774-5925 100 Antelope Rd WC 97503 Jenna.MARMON@odot.state.or.us
David Wolske Airport Commission david@davidwolske.com
Vacant Ashland Parks
Vacant Ashland Schools
Staff Support
Scott Fleury Interim Public Works
Director 541-488-5347 20 E. Main Street Scott.fleury@ashland.or.us
Karl Johnson Associate Engineer 541-552-2415 20 E. Main Street johnsonk@ashland.or.us
Shannon Burrus Permit Technician 541-552-2428 20 E. Main Street Shannon.burrus@ashland.or.us
2
From:City of Ashland, Oregon
To:Scott Fleury; Taina Glick
Subject:Transportation Commission Contact Form Submitted
Date:Tuesday, October 06, 2020 8:10:32 AM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
*** FORM FIELD DATA***
Full Name: Leigh HoodPhone: 5412159889
Email: leighoh@me.comSubject: Terrace Street Traffic Calming
Message: This email was sent to Scott Fleury and Steve MacLennan: Thank you for yourletter about the September 17th Transportation Commission meeting. We areencouraged the commission wants to do more analysis to analyze pedestrian and bicycletraffic, however, I don't see the reason you need to wait until the spring to begingathering data. The street is just as busy in October as it is in the spring. Your letterstates, your "expectation is that activity levels would begin to return to a morenormalized pattern by then." Many people are out getting exercise and taking advantageof this beautiful, clear air. Until it begins raining at least, there?s no reason to wait. Wewould like to know what gathering pedestrian and bicycle data entails from the PublicWorks Department. Does someone sit in a car and count the number of pedestrians andbicyclists over a period of time? Is that something we could be doing? People are walkingon the street from the crack of dawn to end of day or dusk. Could I organize neighborsto take an hour out of their day to count pedestrians and bicyclists? If so, can you adviseus on what we need to do to collect reliable data? What your letter does not address isthe urgency around deterring speeding cars which is why I am including SteveMacLennan in this letter. Can we get a police officer on a motorcycle up here when itwould make the best use of his or her time? Those times are (though not exclusively):Monday-Friday* 7:00-10:00 a.m. Monday-Friday* 3:00-6:00 p.m. Saturdays 7:00-10:30a.m. Sundays 7:00-10:30 a.m. *Fridays tend to be the worst. Please advise.Attachment 1 file:
Attachment 2 file: Attachment 3 file:
*** USER INFORMATION ***
SubscriberID: -1SubscriberUserName:
SubscriberEmail: SessionID: 592627334
RemoteAddress: 66.241.70.76RemoteHost: 66.241.70.76
RemoteUser:
3
ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES September 17th,2020
Transportation Commission September 17th,2020 Page 1 of 3
These minutes are pending approval by this Commission
CALL TO ORDER: Peterson Adams called the Virtual meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Commissioners Present: Mark Brouillard, Joe Graf, Corinne Vièville, Derrick Claypool-Barnes, Linda Peterson Adams, Katharine Danner, Bruce Borgerson. Council Liaison Not Present: Julie Akins Staff Present: Scott Fleury, Shannon Burruss Guests Present: Lorrie Kaplan ANNOUNCEMENTS Linda Peterson Adams informs of RVTD.or/alerts- where information on the changing bus routes can be located. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes August 20, 2020: Brouillard motions to approve, Vièville seconds. Commissioners approve minutes as amended. All ayes. Minutes approved. PUBLIC FORUM Resident Paul Bingham email (in meeting packet) regarding his desire to have a crosswalk put up near Garfield Park. Commission discusses specifics of the area and what has and has not currently been done in that area. Fleury states that staff went out to meet with Bingham to discuss the area specifically. There will be more discussion and investigation into the matter to make sure the area in which the crosswalk is located is safe for pedestrians. Commission discusses possible alternate locations. Commission reviews letter from the Climate Policy Committee addressed to the Downtown Revitalization Committee (in meeting packet). Climate Policy Committee requested a copy be included to Transportation Commission. ACCIDENT REPORT: None NEW BUSINESS A. SOCAN- (Moved up agenda by Commission in order to facilitate speaker’s time) Lorrie Kaplan presents Ashland Summer 2020 Survey results, findings and presentation available in Commission Meeting Packet. Kaplan facilitates questions from Commission. A City repair programs was mentioned, Claypool-Barnes requests more information about the grants mentioned in the Q&A. Peterson speaks to education and outreach in relation to SOCAN and the residents of Ashland. Fleury informs Commission of his knowledge of one of the afore mentioned grants, a DEQ Waste and Materials Management Grant, which was just applied for by Stu Green, focused on reducing landfill waste. Commission discusses recycling. B. Terrace Street Traffic Calming Program Request- Fleury discusses staff memo provided in meeting packet regarding this topic. A letter from Leigh Hood highlighting her opinion on the traffic study information and her response to the police opinion on the matter, letter is included in the meeting packet regarding this issue. Fleury opens the floor to discussion by Commission asking if there is anything further they would like to have done regarding this topic. Commission discusses what has been done in the past in Ashland in other areas of town, as well as other cities related to this topic and if it would be applicable to this particular request. Commission states Terrace street did not meet the criteria for phase 2 of the Traffic Calming program, Commission discusses potential options, and agrees to do a study on bicyclist and pedestrian
4
ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES September 17th,2020
Transportation Commission September 17th,2020 Page 2 of 3
These minutes are pending approval by this Commission
traffic on Terrace street. They also suggest to have a public meeting, as well as collect additional traffic data at a later date when traffic patterns return to normal. Fleury will pull GIS map layers together to bring to Commission in order to begin a more comprehensive look at street and traffic patterns in Ashland neighborhoods related to Traffic Calming and also to aid in the bicycle mapping in the future. OLD BUSINESS A. Tolman Creek Intersection Redesign- Fleury gives background on this project. He discusses the issues that occurred over the years since the redesign and what has been done to remedy the issues. He explains that what is being brought to the Commission now, is related to the stop sign at the current intersection, which has reportedly been hit over 11 times in the last month. ODOT is now asking City of Ashland to eliminate the right-hand turn lane leaving only one single lane, and construct a curb bump out where right hand turn lane previously was and turn it to curbside parking. The stop sign would then be relocated to the center island hopefully preventing further incidence. Commission discusses the proposal. Staff will present updated information as it progresses. TASK LIST A. Discuss current action item list- No Changes FOLLOW UP ITEMS A. None INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. Adopted 20-year Capital Improvement Program- Informational memo Included in meeting packet. B. North Main Road Diet Merge Concept- Informational memo Included in meeting packet. Commission discusses. Commission brings attention to the need to keep pedestrian and bicycle paths safe. C. Lithia and 3rd Pedestrian Improvements- Informational memo Included in meeting packet. Commission discusses. COMMISSION OPEN DISCUSSION Commission discusses an email from Council Member Julie Akins which invites the Transportation Commission to join in with herself and APD regarding evacuation plans and routes for the City of Ashland revolving around various emergency scenarios. Commission Discusses the existing emergency management plans. Fleury discusses the grant awarded to the Fire Department to hire a consulting firm who will develop an evacuation plan for the City. Currently the data collection process has begun. Commission discusses in what way they could participate in this process; an advisory role was discussed. More discussion to occur at a later time, Fleury will bring report to Commission. FUTURE AGENDA TOPICS A. Bike Map Subcommittee B. Street Capital Improvement Plan (Budget Process) C. Street User Fee/Gas Tax (Budget Process) D. Demand Response Microtransit pilot project update E. Buss Pass Program F. Crosswalk Policy
5
ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES September 17th,2020
Transportation Commission September 17th,2020 Page 3 of 3
These minutes are pending approval by this Commission
ADJOURNMENT: 6:07 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Shannon Burruss
Permit Technician-Engineering and Public Works
**Full Video Available by Request**
6
7
8
Aug 2020 Accidents
Motor Vehicle (13)
Bike/Ped Involved (4)
Previous 2020 Accidents
Motor Vehicle (77)
Bike/Ped Involved (8)
Traffic AccidentsAug 2020
(2)
9
NO. OF ACCIDENTS: 17
Rep DATE TIME DAY LOCATION NO.
VEH
PED
INV.
BIKE
INV.INJ. DUII Cited
Police
On Site
PROP
DAM.
HIT/
RUN
CITY
VEH.CAUSE - DRIVER ERROR
NR 1 12:34 Sat E Main St near Oak St 2 Y N N N N Y N N N
Dv1 was stopped waiting for
pedestrians crossing in the crosswalk
when dv2 rearended v1. Dv2 warned for
following too closely.
R 1 16:18 Sat A St near N First St 2 NNNNY Y N Y N
Dv2 hit parked v1, a motorcycle,
knocked the vehicle over and then left
the area. Dv2 cited for hit and run
R 3 17:15 Mon Lithia Way near N First St 2 N Y Y N Y Y N N N
Dv2 made a right turn across bike lane,
and B1 (cyclist) crashed into the right
rear quarter panel of v2. Cyclist was
cited for unsafe passing on the right.
R 9 14:30 Sun Oak St near B St 2 NNNNN Y Y NN
Dv1 scraped along the sides of parked
v2 and parked v3 due to inexperience.
Information exchanged.
R 10 8:44 Mon Ashland St near Washington St 2 NNNNN N Y NN
V2 was in the left lane and v1 was in
the right lane. Dv1 began to make a
uturn to go east on Ashland St and
pulled across the left lane directly in
front of v1 causing crash. Contact was
not made with Dv2. No further info.
R 10 12:54 Mon
Tolman Creek Rd near Siskiyou
Blvd 2NNNNY Y Y NN
Dv1 stopped at intersection and then
continued through NB with right of way.
Dv2 entered the intersection without
yielding and caused accident. Dv2 cited
for failure to yield.
MONTH: AUGUST, 2020
MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH SUMMARY
10
Rep DATE TIME DAY LOCATION NO.
VEH
PED
INV.
BIKE
INV.INJ. DUII Cited
Police
On Site
PROP
DAM.
HIT/
RUN
CITY
VEH.CAUSE - DRIVER ERROR
NR 10 16:00 Mon Sixth St near B St 2 NNNNN Y N NN
Dv1 had pulled into an alley and began
reversing in order to turn around. V2
was southbound on street and did not
see v1. Dv1 reversed into v2.
Information exchanged, no citation.
NR 11 UNK Tue
Tolman Creek Rd near Siskiyou
Blvd 1NNNUN N N Y N
Stop sign at intersection was found
knocked over. No leads.
R 13 7:38 Thur Water St near N Main St 2 NNNNN Y Y N Y
Dv1 in a city vehicle had just
descended the beaverslide onto SB
Water St when dv2 pulled out into traffic
from a parking spot, impacting the side
of v1. Information exchanged.
R 16 15:40 Sun Lithia Way near N First St 2 Y N N N N Y Y N N
Dv1 stopped for a ped that entered the
crosswalk suddenly. Dv2 could not stop
in time and crashed into the back of v1.
No citation.
R 20 9:35 Thur Siskiyou Blvd near Gresham St 2 N N P N N Y Y N N
Dv1 stopped for a pedestrian that was
approaching the crosswalk when v2
crashed into the back of v1. Information
exchanged.
R 24 19:00 Mon Ashland St near Washington St 2 NNNNN N Y NN
Dv1 and dv2 pulled out from a
controlled intersection. V2 merged in
front of v1, and then suddenly and for
no apparent reason, stopped suddenly
causing v1 to crash into the rear of v2.
Drivers did not stop to exchange info,
reported the next day.
NR 25 8:54 Tue N Main St near Lithia Way 1 N Y Y N N Y N N N
Bicylist was sideswiped and knocked to
the ground by the trailer pulled by v1
near the merge point on N Main St near
Helman St, causing suspected minor
injuries to cyclist.
11
Rep DATE TIME DAY LOCATION NO.
VEH
PED
INV.
BIKE
INV.INJ. DUII Cited
Police
On Site
PROP
DAM.
HIT/
RUN
CITY
VEH.CAUSE - DRIVER ERROR
R 25 16:00 Tue Siskiyou Blvd near Sherman St 2 NNNNY Y U Y N
Dv1 was traveling though intersection
on a green light when struck by v2 who
made a left turn. Dv2 fled, was later
found and cited for hit and run, and for
driving uninsured.
R 27 UNK Thur E Main St near Third St 2 NNNUN N N Y Y
V1, a City of Ashland vehicle, was
struck and damaged by an unknown
vehicle. No suspects.
NR 28 23:00 Fri
Takelma Way near Clay Creek
Way 2NNNNN Y N NN
Dv2 backed out of driveway and struck
parked v1 which was parked on the
street on a corner. Dv2 attempted to
contact owner of v1 but was unable to.
R 31 17:45 Mon Central Av near N Laurel St 2 NNNNY Y Y NN
Dv1 veered out of traffic lane and
sideswiped parked v2 causing damage.
Dv1 cited for careless driving.
12
Sept 2020 Accidents
Motor Vehicle (10)
Bike/Ped Involved (3)
Previous 2020 Accidents
Motor Vehicle (90)
Bike/Ped Involved (12)
Traffic AccidentsSept 2020
13
NO. OF ACCIDENTS: 13
Rep DATE TIME DAY LOCATION NO.
VEH
PED
INV.
BIKE
INV.INJ. DUII Cited
Police
On Site
PROP
DAM.
HIT/
RUN
CITY
VEH.CAUSE - DRIVER ERROR
Rep 1 15:14 Tue N Main St near Bush St 1 N Y Y N N Y N N N
Dv1 was stopped in traffic behind
other vehicles. Bicyclist did not see
that traffic was stopped and
rearended V1. Cyclist was injured
and taken to hospital. Minor
damage.
Rep 3 11:10 Thur Lithia Way at N First St 2 N N N N N Y Y N N
Dv1 was NB on N First St waiting to
cross Lithia Wy. Dv2 made a left
turn onto N First St but cut the
corner too tight and scraped the
front corner of v1. Information
exchanged
Rep 4 16:57 Fri
Ashland St near Tolman Creek
Rd 2NNNN N Y NNN
Dv1 and following V2 both were
moving into the left turn lane, but v2
overtook v1 and crashed into the
driver rear side, causing damage.
Information was exchanged.
Rep 8 14:15 Tue B St near Third St 2 N N N N N Y Y N N
Dv2 had stopped and then pulled
out into intersection to make a left
turn onto B St. Dv1 was wb on B St.
Dv1 collided with v2 in the
intersection. Information
exchanged.
Rep 8 14:15 Tue California St near E Main St 2 N N N N Y Y N N N
Dv2 was making a right turn onto
California St from E Main St when
v1 backed out from a parking spot
into the traffic lane and impacted
v2. Information exchanged.
Rep 9 9:05 Wed Ashland St near I5 NB Onramp 4 N N N N Y Y U N N
V2, 3, 4 were waiting in the left turn
for the traffic light to change. Dv1
rearended v2, pushing it into v3
which then crashed into v4. Dv1
cited for following too closely.
MONTH: SEPTEMBER 2020
MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH SUMMARY
14
Rep DATE TIME DAY LOCATION NO.
VEH
PED
INV.
BIKE
INV.INJ. DUII Cited
Police
On Site
PROP
DAM.
HIT/
RUN
CITY
VEH.CAUSE - DRIVER ERROR
Rep 10 15:00 Thur Fifth St at C St 2 N N P N N Y Y N N
Dv2 had pulled to the side of the
travel lane to allow a passenger to
disembark. Dv1 backed out of
driveway and impacted v2.
Information exchanged.
Rep 10 19:50 Thur
N Main St between Bush and
Laurel 1NNYN N Y NNN
Dv1 was distracted from watching
the traffic merge at the merge point
and drifted to the right, striking a
light pole.
Rep 11 20:45 Fri Park St at Siskiyou Blvd 1 N Y Y N N N N N N
Dv was crossing Siskiyou Blvd
from the north end of Park St to the
south side of Park St (street
segments are offset from each
other) and impacted Bicyclist
traveling the wrong direction in the
crosswalk. Cyclist declined help,
went to ACH 20 min later.
Rep 15 17:05 Tue Sixth near A St 2 N N N N N Y Y N N
Dv1 turned south onto Sixth St and
due to being distracted, crashed
into the rear of parked V2.
Information exchanged.
Rep 16 13:30 Wed Clay St near E Main St 2 N N N N Y Y N N N
Dv1, backing onto street from a
driveway, backed into v2 which was
in the travel lane. Dv1 cited for
failure to yield right of way.
Rep 20 10:54 Sun Hillview Dr at Siskiyou Blvd 1 N Y Y N N Y N N N
Dv1 turned right onto Hillview Drive
and struck cyclist that was crossing
in the wrong direction at a high rate
of speed in the crosswalk. Cyclist
was taken to RRMC with serious
injuries.
Rep 21 9:35 Mon S Laurel St near Almond St 1 N N N N N Y Y N N
Dv1 stepped on the gas pedal
instead of the brakes, and
accelerated through the bushes and
into a home. Information
exchanged.
15
G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION\2020 Staff Memos\October 15, 2020\Packet Materials\7. City of Ashland Evacuation Planning.doc
Memo
Date:
October 8, 2020
From: Scott A. Fleury
To: Transportation Commission
RE: City of Ashland Evacuation Planning
BACKGROUND:
At the September 17, 2020 Commission meeting, the group discussed the current evacuation
planning project being led by Ashland Fire and Rescue (AFR) and was interested in finding a
valuable was to participate in the process. Public Works staff informed the Commission they
were working with emergency services and had discussed potential interactions with the
Transportation Commission. After the informal discussion Staff informed the Commission they
would develop and capture previous background information regarding evacuation planning and
routing for the Commission. In addition, staff would update the Commission on the status of the
current planning study and determine the mechanism for participation by either the entire group
or individual representatives of the body.
Current Status:
The current evacuation planning effort was developed by AFR as they received a State
Homeland Security Grant for an evacuation planning study. Through a formal solicitation
process KLD was selected to perform the study and develop an Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE)
using substantial local information provided by staff. After the kickoff meeting that was held on
July 20, 2020 KLD submitted a formal request for information to the City in order to obtain data
necessary to develop the ETE. The kickoff presentation is also included as attachment A.
KLD Project Approach:
1. Kickoff Meeting (Compete)
a. Discuss assumptions, needs, study area etc.
2. Review existing data and plans
a. Emergency Management Plan
b. Adjacent Communities Plans
c. Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan
d. Others
3. Demographic survey (Complete)
a. Online survey
b. Advertisement-CERT/Nixle/Other
4. Road Survey and link-node analysis network
a. Field survey of road network by Traffic Engineers
b. GPS Data
c. Speeds/topography/signal locations/general characteristics
d. Develop detailed computer representation for detailed modeling of ETE
5. Access impaired neighborhoods
16
G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION\2020 Staff Memos\October 15, 2020\Packet Materials\7. City of Ashland Evacuation Planning.doc
a. Single ingress/egress routes
b. Bottlenecks
c. Recommendations-safe refuge, access and signage
6. Identify regions and scenarios
a. Existing area command zones (APD) for evacuation management zones (EMZ)
b. Evacuation of single EMZs and entire EMZ area to be considered
c. Six scenarios for planning purposes
7. Data gathering, analysis and processing
a. Facility data (schools, medical, day care, tourist attraction)
b. Transportation resources (buses, ambulances, wheelchair transport, mutual aid,
mobilization time)
c. Plans, studies, etc.
d. GIS information
8. Fuel and weather modeling
a. Scenario based fire spread modeling
9. Progress meetings
a. Project status check ins
10. Compute evacuation time estimates (ETE)
a. Specific modeling of scenarios and EMZs to compute ETE
b. Identify congestion patterns and locate bottlenecks
c. Visual representations
11. Estimate impacts on ETE
a. ETC from step 10 and “what if” scenario planning
12. Technical report
a. Develop final comprehensive draft technical report
b. Address comments
c. Final report
13. Final meeting
a. Final summary presentation of findings
The current data collection process has been slowed down to due to the Almeda Fire response. In
addition, Chief Sheppard has been the lead employee with respect to the evacuation planning and
will be retiring November 1, 2020 and Chief O’Meara will take over responsibilities moving
forward.
Previous planning and associated documentation:
City of Ashland Emergency Management Plan:
The plan provides a framework for coordinated response and recovery activities during a large-
scale emergency. The plan describes how various agencies and organizations in the City of
Ashland will coordinate resources and activities with other Federal, State, local, community- and
faith-based organizations, tribal, and private-sector partners.
https://www.ashland.or.us/Files/AshlandEMP_FullPlan_Final_07312018.pdf
November 18, 2018 Study Session:
Evacuation and Process Planning- Emergencies or disasters, such as earthquakes, floods,
wildfires, or hazardous materials spills, may require the need to evacuate people from hazardous
areas to lower risk zones. In such an event, emergency responders or Emergency Operations
17
G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION\2020 Staff Memos\October 15, 2020\Packet Materials\7. City of Ashland Evacuation Planning.doc
Center personnel may determine that the evacuation of a part or all the city is necessary to
minimize the risk of injury or death. This report is intended to identify the local resources and
capacity to effectively carry out an evacuation process.
Minutes
Staff Report
August 14, 2017 Study Session:
Essential Route and Structure discussion with the City Council.
Minutes
Staff Report
Wildfire Evacuation Route:
Current wildfire evacuation rout map posted on the City’s website
Wildfire Evacuation Route Map
Wildland Fire Action Guide:
Part of the ready set go program and details (planning document).
http://www.ashland.or.us/SIB/files/RSG%20National%20Action%20Guide%2C%20Print%20Re
ady%20w%20crop%20marks.pdf
Ashland Fire and Rescue provides information on developing your own personal evacuation
action plan including template forms that can be downloaded from the City’s website.
Read! Set! Go! Personal Evacuation Action Plan
Level 1
Ready – Be Ready, Be Firewise. Be ready for the potential to evacuate. Be aware of the dangers
in your area by monitoring emergency service websites and local media outlets for information.
Take personal responsibility, prepare your family and belongings so your home is ready to leave.
For wildfire, be Firewise by reducing your home's ignition potential. Assemble emergency
supplies and belongings in a safe place. Create an Evacuation Plan with escape routes and make
sure all those residing within the home know the plan of action. Taking the correct route during
an evacuation is critical for your safety. Tune into information about where to go during an
evacuation, see sources below. Make sure you're registered in Nixle if you want contact in any
way other than a landline telephone. Register for Nixle by clicking here
Level 2
Set – Situational Awareness. Be set to evacuate at a moment’s notice. This level indicates
significant danger in your area and voluntarily relocating to a shelter or family is advisable. This
may be the only notice that you receive; emergency services cannot guarantee that they will be
able to reach you again if the condition worsen. If you do decide to stay, pack your emergency
items and be ready to leave at a moment’s notice.
Level 3
Go! – Act Early! Leave immediately and follow your personal evacuation plan. Do not delay
leaving by gathering your belongings or make efforts to save your home. Danger in your areas is
imminent and you should evacuate immediately. If you chose not to evacuate, emergency
18
G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION\2020 Staff Memos\October 15, 2020\Packet Materials\7. City of Ashland Evacuation Planning.doc
services many not be able to assist you. DO NOT plan to return to check on your house or
animals until it's declared safe to do so.
Staying informed during an emergency is critical. These are some of the ways we will relay
information:
Nixle Citizen Alert System: ashland.or.us/nixle
Ashland Emergency Broadcast Station: 1700 AM
Wildfire Information Hotline: 541-552-2490
City of Ashland Website: www.ashland.or.us
Jackson County Emergency Management: www.rvem.orghe
City of Ashland Emergency Management Plan (Link)
CONCLUSION:
No formal action required at this time. It is the expectation of staff to bring back a draft version
of the Technical Report to the Commission for a formal discussion and recommendations on the
report moving forward. Staff also expects to provide regular updates to the Commission on the
status of the evacuation planning study and provide time for formal input.
City Administrator report (8/18/2020):
Stakeholders met with KLD Engineering on July 20. KLD completed an on-site road survey of
Ashland and the surrounding area. This included looking at access impaired neighborhoods and
development of evacuation zones. At this time the City is divided into 10 evacuations zones. The
demographic survey (those things not contained in U.S. Census Bureau data) has been finalized
and will be going out to the community this week. Staff continues to provide KLD with other
data as needed. The study will allow us to calculate evacuation times for either the entire city or
evacuation zones within the city, given such variables as time of day, day of week, which season
we are in, current weather conditions, etc.
Fire Review News Link: https://www.ashland.or.us/news.asp?newsID=4815
We Want Your Input: Almeda Fire Review
The Almeda Fire response and recovery represents a new chapter for the City of Ashland to
advance our prevention, preparedness, and response to future emergency events. With extreme
weather events and natural disasters on the rise, Ashland must anticipate and plan to respond to
different emergencies. Lessons learned from the Almeda Fire event will help shape the response
to emergencies in the future and better define areas of vulnerability. While many things went
right during this emergency, we can always improve and create a more resilient community that
can withstand and recover more quickly from a disaster.
To that end, the City of Ashland is conducting an internal and external review of our response to
the Almeda Fire. We’re gathering input from our employees who had fire response roles, and we
want to know your suggestions on how we can improve public communications and/or
19
G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION\2020 Staff Memos\October 15, 2020\Packet Materials\7. City of Ashland Evacuation Planning.doc
evacuations for the next fire. Please take the survey here to give your feedback. The survey will
end on Tuesday, October 20, 2020.
Attachment A
20
21
2
22
23
4
24
25
6
26
27
8
28
29
If you live here,
and…
You travel here to
evacuate the area,
then…
You are at risk until you
leave the area being
evacuated
10 30
An ETE is an estimate of the total
time required to evacuate an area
at risk.
An ETE is the elapsed time after the
advisory to evacuate when the last
vehicle leaves the area at risk.
An ETE is an aggregate measure
and does not reflect the experience
of an individual evacuee.
11
31
An Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) of seven hours does not
mean that individual evacuation trips will take seven hours. It
means that the last vehicle to leave the area will cross the
boundary of the area being evacuated seven hours after the
advisory to evacuate.
An ETE should be as accurate as possible. An overly
conservative ETE may result in making the wrong protective
action decision. Similarly, an underestimated ETE could also
result in making the wrong protective action decision.
12
32
33
Evacuation travel time depends on the
relationship between Traffic Demand and
Highway Capacity (Supply).
When Demand exceeds Capacity over
some time period, travel speeds decline
and congestion, exhibiting by queuing and
stop-and-go conditions, is present.
Traffic does move, but slowly.
14
34
ETE for Special
Facilities
DYNEV-II
DYNAMIC TRAFFIC SIMULATION MODEL
ETE for General
Population (Residents,
Tourists, Employees)
Evacuation Speeds
DEMAND
•Permanent Residents
•Tourists
•Employees
•Special Events
•External Traffic
•Special Facilities
SUPPLY
•Evacuation Routes
•Number of Lanes
•Roadway Capacity
•Traffic Control Devices
•Traffic Control Tactics
15
35
16
36
17
37
Permanent Residents -
year-round population
within the study area.
Tourists -those people visiting the
study area at parks, sporting
events, beaches, and other
recreational areas.
Employees -those people
who work within the study
area, but who live outside
the study area.
Those with Disabilities
and Access and/or
Functional Needs
Special Facilities -people
present at special facilities
(e.g., schools, correctional
facilities, medical facilities).
Shadow Population -those
people who live outside the
study area but who may elect
to voluntarily evacuate.
External Traffic –vehicles whose
origin and destination are outside
the study area but pass through
the study area as part of their trip.
Data for the following population groups will be obtained from the Census, local emergency
management plans and direct communication with facilities:
18
38
19
39
20
40
21
41
22
Tourists
42
All major roads within the study area will be
surveyed.
Posted speed, free speed, number of lanes,
shoulder characteristics and traffic control
devices are noted during the road survey.
Observations made during the road survey are
used to create a link-node analysis network
which replicates the actual roadway network.
23
43
2444
•Fall means that school is in session (also applies to spring and winter). Summer
means that school is not in session.
25
Scenario Season Day of Week Time of Day Weather
1 Summer Midweek Midday Good
2 Summer Weekend Midday Good
3 Summer Midweek, Weekend Evening Good
4 Fall Midweek Midday Good
5 Fall Weekend Midday Good
6 Fall Midweek, Weekend Evening Good
45
Scenario
Households
With Returning
Commuters
Households
Without
Returning
Commuters Employees Tourists Shadow
School
Buses
Transit
Buses
External Through
Traffic
Total
Scenario
Vehicles
1 30,118 71,359 36,380 4,299 41,597 174 267 31,736 215,930
2 30,118 71,359 36,380 4,299 41,597 174 267 31,736 215,930
3 3,012 98,465 3,790 5,374 31,763 -267 31,736 174,407
4 3,012 98,465 3,790 5,374 31,763 -267 31,736 174,407
5 3,012 98,465 3,790 2,687 31,763 -267 12,694 152,678
Total Evacuating Vehicles
varies by Scenario
26
46
Shadow Evacuation:
People outside the evacuation region who choose to leave the area and might impede
evacuees from within the evacuation region.
The evacuation response to Hurricane Rita in
Houston brought the concept of Shadow Evacuation to the forefront in the United States.
External Traffic
Vehicles traveling through the study area at the time of an emergency are also considered
along major routes.
27
47
48
29
Summer Summer Fall Fall
Midweek Weekend Midweek
Weekend Midweek Weekend Midweek
Weekend
Scenario:(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)
Region
Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening
Good
Weather
Good
Weather
Good
Weather
Good
Weather Rain Good
Weather
Good
Weather
R01 3:00 2:50 2:50 3:00 3:00 2:50 2:50
R02 3:00 2:55 2:55 3:05 3:05 2:55 2:55
R03 3:05 2:55 2:50 3:05 3:00 2:55 2:50
R04 3:00 2:50 2:50 3:00 3:00 2:50 2:50
R05 2:55 2:50 2:50 2:55 2:55 2:50 2:50
R06 3:05 2:55 2:55 3:05 3:05 2:55 2:55
R07 2:55 2:50 2:50 3:00 3:00 2:50 2:50
R08 3:00 2:55 2:55 3:00 3:05 2:55 2:55
R09 3:00 2:50 2:50 3:00 3:00 2:50 2:50
R10 3:00 2:50 2:50 3:00 3:00 2:50 2:50
R11 3:00 2:55 2:55 3:05 3:05 2:55 2:55
R12 3:20 3:15 3:10 3:10 3:10 3:05 3:05
49
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
E
v
a
c
u
a
t
i
n
g
(T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
)
Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)
Evacuation Time Estimates
Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 1)
2-Mile Region 5-Mile Region Entire EPZ 90%100%
Maximum travel time is about 2
hour 30 minutes.
Travel Time
30
50
School
Driver
Mobilization
Time (min)
Loading
Time
(min)
Dist. To
Bdry (mi)
Average
Speed
(mph)
Travel
Time to
Bdry
(min)
ETE
(hr:min)
Dist. Bdry
to R.C.
(mi.)
Travel
Time from
Bdry to
R.C. (min)
ETE to
R.C.
(hr:min)
Gateway Academy Child
Development Centers
90 15 7.0 7.2 59 2:45 6.6 10 2:55
Primrose School of Cornelius 90 15 7.0 5.3 79 3:05 12.1 19 3:25
Southlake Christian Academy 90 15 10.8 5.3 122 3:50 6.6 10 4:00
Sunshine House 90 15 6.5 11.2 35 2:20 7.0 11 2:35
31
51
Legend
^_Hazard
Study Area
2, 5, & 10 Mile Ring
32
52
53
Need to identify the region number
Need to identify the scenario number
What is the ETE for the following set of circumstances?
It is Monday, July 20th at 9:00 AM (Summer –school not in session, Midweek, Midday)Weather is good All zones should be evacuated The 90th percentile ETE is needed
34
54
Scenario Season Day of Week Time of Day Weather
1 Summer Midweek Midday Good
2 Summer Weekend Midday Good
3 Summer Midweek, Weekend Evening Good
4 Fall Midweek Midday Good
5 Fall Weekend Midday Good
6 Fall Midweek, Weekend Evening Good
35
55
Region Description Zone
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S
R01 2-Mile Ring X X X X
R02 5-Mile Ring X X X X X X X X X
R03 Full EPZ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
R04 Catawba County X
R05 Gaston County X X
R06 Iredell County X X X
R07 Lincoln County X X X X X X
R08 Mecklenburg County X X X X X X X X
36
56
Summer Summer Summer Fall Fall Fall
Midweek Weekend Midweek
Weekend Midweek Weekend Midweek
Weekend
Scenario:(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)
Region
Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening
Good
Weather
Good
Weather
Good
Weather
Good
Weather Rain Good
Weather
Good
Weather
Entire 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region, EPZ and each County
R01 (B, C, L, M)2:00 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:00 1:55 1:55
R02 (A, B, C, D, L, M, N,
O, R)3:25 2:45 2:35 3:30 3:50 2:45 2:35
R03 (All -Zones)4:55 3:55 3:35 5:10 5:50 3:50 3:25
R04 (K)2:15 1:55 1:55 2:15 2:15 1:55 1:55
R05 (R, S)2:25 2:05 2:10 2:30 2:40 2:10 2:10
R06 (A, I, J)3:50 3:05 2:25 3:50 4:15 3:00 2:25
R07 (L, M, N, O, P, Q)3:00 2:40 2:40 3:00 3:25 2:40 2:40
R08 (A, B, C, D, E, F, G,
H)4:40 3:45 3:25 5:00 5:35 3:45 3:15
Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population
ETE = 4:55
37
57
58
Mobilization time –What if people take less time or more time to prepare to
evacuate, what is the impact on ETE?
What is the impact on ETE of varying numbers of vehicles per household? What if more people carpooled or buses were used?
What if inbound lanes are used as additional outbound evacuation lanes (contraflow), what is the impact on ETE?
What if a shoulder or specialty lane was used as an additional evacuation
lane?
What impact does the Traffic Management Plan (TMP) have on ETE?
Shadow Evacuation –What is the impact on ETE if there is no (0%) shadow evacuation, or full (100%) shadow evacuation?
Other opportunities for improvement will be considered and evaluated.
What if roadways are closed due to fire spread?
39
59
60
The KLD team will
identify and map
access impaired
neighborhoods
throughout the city.
We will consider the
following:
•Neighborhoods with single
ingress/egress routes
•Traffic bottlenecks
•Neighborhoods with
extremely low traffic flow
We will also provide
recommendations for
safe refuge area
options in access
impaired
neighborhoods.
Recommendations on
evacuation signage
(locations, content,
size, and frequency)
will be made city-wide
and for access
impaired
neighborhoods.
41
61
62
43
63
64
Data needed for all special facilities (schools, daycares, medical
facilities, correctional facilities, etc.)
Data needed for all major employers
Data needed for all tourist attractions (campgrounds, parks, etc.)
Most recent copy of hazard mitigation plan and other emergency
plans
Transportation resources available
Most up-to-date traffic management plans
Refer to Data Needs Matrix handout for a complete list of the data
needed
45
65
One hundred percent
(100%) of the people
within the impacted ACZs
will evacuate.
A percentage of people
within the study area, not within the evacuated
area, will voluntarily
evacuate (dependent on demographic survey).
Transit vehicles will be
used to transport those
who do not have access
to a private vehicle.
Schoolchildren, if school
is in session, are given priority in assigning
transit vehicles.
No schoolchildren
(excluding small day care
centers) will be picked up by their parents prior
to the arrival of the
buses.
Evacuees will drive
safely, travel in directions identified, and obey all
control devices and
traffic guides.
All project assumptions will be documented in an assumptions memo. A draft of the memo will be
sent to all stakeholders for review and comment. KLD requests verbal or written confirmation of
the assumptions from all stakeholders prior to starting the ETE simulations.
Redoing simulations is time consuming and costly.
46
66
67
Description Completion Date
Road Survey 7/19/2020
Kick-off Meeting 7/20/2020
Review Existing Plans 7/20/2020
Finalize Study Area 7/30/2020
Create Link-Node Analysis Network 8/8/2020
Identify Regions and Scenarios 8/15/2020
Demographic Survey 8/20/2020
Data Gathering 9/10/2020
Access Impaired Neighborhoods 10/3/2020
Deliver Project Assumptions Memo 10/3/2020
Progress Meeting 10/14/2020
Compute ETE 10/21/2020
Impacts on ETE 11/6/2020
Technical Report –Draft 11/27/2020
Final Meeting 12/16/2020
Final Technical Report and Project Completion 12/30/2020
4868
Kevin Weinisch, P.E
(631) 524-5923
kweinisch@kldcompanies.com
Brian Halpin
49
69
70
G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION\2020 Staff Memos\October 15, 2020\Packet Materials\9. Capital Improvement Program.doc
Memo
Date:
October 8, 2020
From: Scott A. Fleury
To: Transportation Commission
RE: Capital Improvement Program-Roadway, Bicycle and Pedestrian Networks
BACKGROUND:
On April 2, 2019 the City Council adopted the comprehensive 20-year Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) document. This CIP document details all capital projects within the 20-year
planning window for public works, parks, electric, facilities, and emergency services. Projects
within the 2-year window were included in the 2019-2021 Biennium Budget and appropriations
were approved through that process. As we enter fall of 2020 and into early 2021 the new
biennial budget process will begin for 2021-2023.
Street Division:
The Street Fund has two components; operations and systems development charges (SDC) fund
accountability. Division personnel are shared with the storm drain division; with the street
division having a dedicated 6.85 FTE plus up to 8 temporary summer crew members (4 FTE).
Division members maintain street and bike lane surfaces (sweeping, pothole corrections, crack
seal, paving, ditch cleaning, signage and pavement markings), city sidewalks, railroad crossings
and conduct debris and snow removal as required. Further, street division staff perform locates
for both wastewater and storm drain infrastructure as well as ensure compliance with vegetation
code. The division also funds and completes capital improvements (through the PW Support
Division), funds the bus fare program, and signal maintenance (contracted to ODOT). Boulevard
maintenance and downtown park row maintenance are coordinated with the Parks Department
out of the ground’s maintenance division.
Street Fund:
The Street Fund within the complete Public Works budget supports personnel, maintenance,
internal charges, debt service and capital improvement costs. The Street Fund receives revenues
through multiple sources that assist in its mission. Revenue streams include, local street user fee,
cable tv franchise fee, Food & Beverage tax, State gas tax, Systems Development Charges
(SDC) and any grant funding expected/obtained.
Current Budget Issues:
With the economic downturn associated with COVID19 the street fund has seen a decline in
projected gas tax and F&B tax revenues for the first year of the budget biennium and this decline
is expected in the second year. This has caused public works to reduce planned activities, not
hire seasonal temporary employees and postpone the rehabilitation of Ashland Street and other
capital projects until the next biennium.
71
G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION\2020 Staff Memos\October 15, 2020\Packet Materials\9. Capital Improvement Program.doc
Current Biennium Budget Project Status:
Within the current budget the Street Fund has supported the rehabilitation of Hersey Street along
with the Laurel and Hersey Street Railroad crossing improvements. This project is complete and
the closeout report for City Council can be found here: Closeout Report-Hersey Street
Rehabilitation
The Independent Way roadway connection project: between Tolman Creek and Washington
Street is currently under construction and anticipated to be substantially complete by the end of
October 2020. This project is primarily grant funded with the remaining amount being covered
by SDCs and fees/rates. The grant funding was originally dedicated to the Nevada Street bridge
project but was re-allocated to the Independent Way project via a formal process through the
Metropolitan Planning Organization after recommendations by the Commission and Council.
The 2020 Slurry Seal maintenance project: was also bid in the spring of 2020 and work was
expected to occur in September, but due to the fire activity and associated recovery phases work
has been postponed until spring of 2021. Council Report: Staff Report-Slurry Seal
TGM Grant-Revitalize Downtown Ashland: This project has been stopped due to COVID19
pandemic related issues and will be restarted in 1-2 years.
Transportation System Plan Update: This project has been placed on hold due to COVID19
pandemic related issues and is expected to restart in the 2021-2023 biennium.
Chip Seal Project: This CMAQ grant funded project managed by ODOT is expected to begin in
spring/summer of 2021. This includes placing a chip seal surface on numerous dirt roads within
the City limits in order to dramatically reduce dust pollution.
North Main Street crosswalk installation: This project is on hold due to budget limitations.
Expectation is to re-budget in the 2021-2023 budget.
Grandview Drive Phase II Improvements: This project has been postponed due to budget
limitations. In addition, there is a waterline replacement that should occur prior to the rest of the
roadway work.
Lithia Way/E. Main Street Intersection Improvements: This project has been postponed due
to budget limitations.
2021-2023 Budget Biennium Preparation:
Specific to the transportation system CIP are roadway, bicycle and pedestrian network projects
developed within the Transportation System Plan (TSP) document and other as needed or
prioritized by public Works. A specific charge of the Commission per the Ashland Municipal
Code (AMC) is to make recommendations on transportation funding for the CIP.
AMC 2.13.030 (C)
Funding: will make recommendations to the Public Works Director on the transportation
section of the City’s Capital Improvements Program;
72
G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION\2020 Staff Memos\October 15, 2020\Packet Materials\9. Capital Improvement Program.doc
SDC Methodology Update:
A change to the SDC methodology approved by the City Council in 2018 now allows SDC
funding to be utilized more directly on bicycle projects and sidewalk infill projects (Staff
Report). The SDC share is expected to be jointed with grant funding through competitive
programs like the safe routes to school program or Statewide Transportation Improvements
Program grant program.
Previous Commission Priorities:
Previously the Commission has supported sidewalk infill projects that create continuous sections
of sidewalk on at least one side of a residential roadway block segment.
Since development of the Traffic Calming Program during the budget biennium the Commission
has been interested in developing a budget level authorization for the Traffic Calming Program.
To date we have not entered into the phase 2 of the process and do not have a feel for associated
costs, but a certain amount should be requested during the budget process to help facilitate the
program.
With the TSP being postponed until the 2021-2023 biennium, staff recommends a budget request
to develop the update.
Budget Process:
Generally Public Works begins budget development in the fall prior to the budget process.
Budget development includes refreshing the 20-year CIP document, estimating revenue streams
for the coming biennium, and establishing each funds comprehensive budget. Each fund is
comprised of personnel costs, materials & services, internal charges, training and capital
projects.
CONCLUSION:
No formal action is required of Commission at this time, this is general background on the CIP
and budget process for discussion. Once a draft CIP document is developed then staff will bring
forward document with recommendations for CIP adoption. If the Commission would like
additional information and assist in providing input at this stage on the process to staff that
would be welcomed.
73
G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION\2020 Staff Memos\October 15, 2020\Packet Materials\9. October 15, 2020 Action Item
List.doc
Transportation Commission
Action Item List
O c t o b e r 1 5 , 2 0 2 0
Action Items:
1. TSP Update (2020-21)
• Solicitation documents have been submitted and scored by project team
• Scope, schedule and fee documents under review (TC December 2019/January 2020/February
2020)
• Professional services contract requires Council approval
• Schedule Council approval (April 7, 2020)
• TSP Postponed until timing to start project is more appropriate
2. Main St. Crosswalk truck parking (no change)
• Analysis is included in the revitalize downtown Ashland plan and was recently discussed during
the kickoff meeting.
• The Revitalize Downtown Ashland Transportation Growth and Management grant project has
begun that will assess safety and parking in the downtown core. (February 2020) No change-
March 2020
• The Revitalize Downtown Ashland Project has been cancelled with the expectation to re-start
the project at a more appropriate time in the future (1-2 years).
3. Siskiyou Blvd. and Tolman Creek Intersection Improvements
• The Oregon Department of Transportation removed median island and restriped Tolman
Creek portion of intersection to allow for better right hand turning truck movements.
• The Oregon Department of Transportation is also looking at curb ramp design changes to the
intersection. (February 2020) No change-March 2020
• Reference ODOT Intersection Change Schematic Drawing (September 2020)
• Forwarded TC comments to ODOT regarding review of 60% Design (September 2020)
74
G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION\2020 Staff Memos\October 15, 2020\Packet Materials\9. October 15, 2020 Action Item
List.doc
4. Crosswalk Policy Development (no change-agenda item for future meeting-2020/21)
75
Page 1 of 4
Council Business Meeting
November 6, 2018
Agenda Item
Public Hearing and a Resolution Adopting Transportation Systems
Development Charge Methodology (2018), Pursuant to Ashland Municipal
Code Sections 4.20.040 and 4.20.050.
From Paula C. Brown, PE Public Works Director
Contact paula.brown@ashland.or.us 541-552-2411
SUMMARY
With Council’s approval at the November 7, 2017, business meeting, Resolution 2016-35 was repealed and
replaced with Resolution 2017-26, establishing temporary Transportation Systems Development Charges
(SDC). This reversion to the 1999 adopted methodology provided time for staff to complete a focused effort
for a more equitable distribution of transportation impacts.
Staff hired Galardi Consulting, LLC, and has completed a comprehensive review of the Transportation SDCs
(TSDC), methodology, and project list. The existing SDC Committee was utilized for input and feedback.
After three consultant facilitated meetings, the SDC Committee unanimously recommended the changes to
the TSDC as shown on the attached Draft Methodology Report Transportation Systems Development
Charges dated August 27, 2018.
Council is asked to hold a public hearing for any further comments on the proposed methodology. If there
are no changes to the proposed methodology, Council is further asked to read, by title only, the Resolution
Adopting Transportation Systems Development Charge Methodology (2018), Pursuant to Ashland Municipal
Code Sections 4.20.040 and 4.20.050.
Council will be asked to approve the methodology and to determine whether or not to phase the increases to
the transportation SDC charges.
POLICIES, PLANS & GOALS SUPPORTED
Council Goals:
2.2 Engage boards and commissions in supporting the strategic plan
4 Evaluate real property and facility assets to strategically support city mission and goals
5.2 Support and promote, through policy, programs that make the City affordable to live in
7.2 Support land-use plans and policies that encourage family-friendly neighborhoods
Department Goals:
Maintain existing infrastructure to meet regulatory requirements and minimize life-cycle costs
Deliver timely life cycle capital improvement projects
Maintain and improve infrastructure that enhances the economic vitality of the community
Evaluate all city infrastructure regarding planning management and financial resources
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
76
Page 2 of 4
Council’s initial action on this specific SDC methodology was at the November 7, 2017, Council business
meeting. Council approved staff’s recommendation to repeal Resolution 2016-35(a Resolution Adopting New
Transportation Systems Development Charges Pursuant to Section 4.20 of the Ashland Municipal Code) and
adopted Resolution 2017-26, the System Development Charges set forth in Resolution 1999-42, New
Transportation Systems Development Charge Methodology and Charges, pursuant to Ashland Municipal
Code Section 4.20.040 and 4.20.050. The reversion to the 1999 adopted methodology provided time for staff
to complete a focused effort on a more equitable distribution of transportation impacts.
At the August 7, 2018 study session, Council was presented with the proposed new 2018 Transportation
Systems Development Charge methodology and the rationale and justification of the proposed changes. At the
September 4, 2018 business meeting, staff informed Council that the draft methodology had been published
for public review in preparation of tonight’s public hearing.
BACKGROUND AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 223.297 through 223.314 authorize cities, to establish Transportation SDCs
as a one-time fee on new development to recover a fair share of costs of existing and planned facilities that
provide capacity to serve future growth. ORS 223.299 defines two types of SDCs; a reimbursement fee and
an improvement fee.
In preparation for the new methodology and updated TSDCs, staff reviewed the financially constrained
transportation project list developed as a result of the adopted 2013 Transportation System Plan (TSP). All
projects were updated to 2018 costs based upon the Oregon Department of Transportation’s (ODOT) unit
costs. Future improvement costs were also adjusted for expected external funding (for example, grants and
contributions). Costs were updated to include the new American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards for
crossings. The TSP placed a priority on sidewalks, especially school routes. As a result, the project list has
over $16M in sidewalk projects that will most likely be completed through Safe Routes to School or other
grant programs.
Based on Council’s prior direction, the Nevada Street Bridge extension (Council action June 20, 2017) was
removed from the eligible projects for funding and will be reviewed again during the next TSP update which
is anticipated to be included in the next biennium budget cycle. Staff added the Ashland Street, Oak Knoll,
and E. Main/Hwy 66 intersection potential roundabout project (R9) to the list in its place. In addition, staff
also added five developer-driven projects expected to be constructed within the next 5-7 years. In most cases
these new projects will provide benefits not only to the new development area, but also to the community at-
large. The majority of the costs of the developer driven projects are borne by the developer. The updated
Transportation SDC Project List is shown in the draft methodology report as Table A-1.
As discussed during the August 7, 2018, study session, the changes in Transportation SDC methodology
incorporate the following:
basing the rates on average daily trips
adding an adjustment for pass-by and diverted linked trips (and removing trip length) to better reflect
industry standards
using rates from the newest Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th
Edition (2017) and thereby adopting the newest trip generation data
using updated land use categories and trip generation rates (per ITE 10th Edition)
using information from a travel demand forecasting model that recognizes the relationship between
land use and transportation; this model relies upon updated population and employment growth
forecasts to more accurately reflect travel patterns and volumes on specific streets and corridors
77
Page 3 of 4
using both a reimbursement fee and an improvement fee
addition of an administrative compliance component to recover program administration and a portion
of future transportation studies/evaluations
policy incentives and discounts (credits) are also included in the draft methodology (page 4-3):
o 50% credit for new homes (including ADU) that are 500 square feet or smaller
o 25% credit for homes (including cottage housing) that are 501-800 square feet
o Maintain the existing affordable housing 100% credit; qualified as affordable housing by the City
of Ashland Housing Program and deed restricted to remain affordable for a minimum of 30 years
o Provide a 20% credit for developers planning to employ Transportation Demand Management
(measures aimed at reducing single occupancy vehicle use); as an example this credit recognizes
developing near transit (e.g., Transit Triangle); eligible projects must demonstrate achievable
transportation impact reductions and parking reductions
FISCAL IMPACTS
TSDCs were last adopted in 1999 and as such, are nearly 20 years behind in cost adjustments. According to
the adopted Transportation System Plan (TSP – March 2013, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.), the City began
falling behind in collecting adequate TSDCs in 2007.
As noted in the August 7, 2018 study session, uncollected revenues for just single family dwelling and multi-
family dwelling units (they are the easiest to determine the construction numbers) reveals $857,600 in
unrecovered TSDCs due to inflation alone. Adding the commercial component only compounds the
uncollected transportation revenues due to growth that was not collected these past 20 years. The SDC
Committee is sensitive to the significant increases in TSDC costs per trip and has recommended a three-year
phase in process. This phase-in is shown in the proposed methodology, but could be adjusted by the Council.
The proposed 2018 TSDC rates reflect an increase
for almost every land use category. The reason
for the increases are two-fold:
1) an increase in the overall cost per trip due to
the updated Project List, and
2) increases in trip rates based on more current
ITE data that reflects travel behaviors more
typical of today’s conditions versus relying
upon outdated data collected in the 1960s,
1970s and 1980s.
The increases in some cases are dramatic.
Although some land uses like banks have
significantly different travel characteristics than
20 years ago, the single family trip generation rate
is nearly the same.
It is important to note that when comparing the rejected 2016 TSDC rates (updated to reflect current project
costs) to the now proposed 2018 rates, some land uses go up slightly (residential, hotel/motel, community
college, library, hospital, automobile sales), while the majority of the commercial rates are significantly less
that the 2016 proposed rates. Reverting back to a daily average trip rate verses a PM peak, and adding back
some trip rate adjustments that had been eliminated in the 2016 methodology balances the fair share costs of
78
Page 4 of 4
future growth across all community users. A significant change comes from the increase to the overall cost
per trip, reflecting 20- year inflationary cost increase.
When both the updated methodology and project list
costs are considered, 7 land uses are over a 500%
increase with the top increase at 1139% (convenience
market). Those uses that increase over 500% were
provided a significant trip length adjustment in the 1999
methodology, which resulted in discounting the rates by
over 95%. As noted previously, the SDC Committee
recommendations include eliminating the trip length
adjustment, as it is outdated, and not support by current
industry data. Proposed TSDC rates by land uses are
shown on Table A-2 in the draft report.
The SDC Committee recommends a three-year phase in
process with 50% of the increase beginning on January
1, 2019, and the remaining 50% realized in two roughly
uniform increments on January 1, 2020, and January 1,
2021. In addition, the Committee recommends that the
City’s fees increase with the ENR construction cost index for inflationary rates effective July 1st each year.
The March ENR construction cost index is used by the City for all other fee increases and it is proposed for
the TSDCs.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff supports the SDC Committee recommendations and fully understands the desire for a three-year phase in
to lessen the burden to the community. As discussed by at least one council member at the August 7th meeting,
Council does have the option to request a full rate increase on January 1, 2019, which would increase the
revenue stream for transportation projects. Regardless of the phasing, the methodology itself stays the same.
ACTIONS, OPTIONS & POTENTIAL MOTIONS
1) I move to approve the Resolution Adopting Transportation Systems Development Charge Methodology
(2018), Pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Sections 4.20.040 and 4.20.050, with the three-year phase in
process; or,
2) I move to approve the Resolution Adopting Transportation Systems Development Charge Methodology
(2018), Pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Sections 4.20.040 and 4.20.050, without a phase in process.
3) I recommend staff make the following changes (list) and bring this back for future Council action.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Draft Methodology Report Transportation Systems Development Charges dated August 27,
2018
Attachment 2: Resolution Adopting Transportation Systems Development Charge Methodology
REFERENCES
Council Meeting September 4, 2018, agenda item (link)
Council Study Session August 7, 2018, agenda item (link)
Council Meeting November 7, 2017, agenda item (link)
Council Meeting December 20, 2016, agenda item (link) and minutes (link)
Council Study Session November 14, 2016, agenda item (link) and minutes (link)
79
Draft Methodology Report
Transportation System
Development Charges
August 27, 2018
In association with
80
CITY OF ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES DRAFT METHODOLOGY AUGUST 2018 I
Executive Summary
Background
The City of Ashland (the City) last updated its transportation system development charges
(TSDCs) in 2016 (effective July 1, 2017). However, concerns over the impact of the new
TSDCs on certain development types led to the fees being repealed in November 2017.
Since that time, the City has been charging TSDCs based on its prior methodology and fee
schedule adopted in 1999. In January 2018, the City embarked on an effort to update its
TSDC methodology and project list. The objectives of the study were to:
• Develop a new project list based on the 2013 Transportation System Plan and more
current (2018) project costs.
• Work with a SDC Advisory Committee (SAC) to develop a methodology that was
consistent with industry standards and Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 223.297
through 223.314 guidelines.
• Consider potential TSDC discounts and incentives related to broader City policy
objectives.
The SAC met three times over the course of the project and reached consensus on
methodological and policy recommendations.
The Ashland City Council intends on holding a public hearing to hear comments on the
proposed Transportation SDC methodology on November 6, 2018, at its regularly scheduled
business meeting. Subject to comments, first reading of the ordinance to impose these fees
will be the same night, with second reading on November 20, 2018. The fees are intended to
be enacted on January 1, 2019.
Overview of Proposed Methodology
Table ES-1 presents the key components of the recommended methodology, and provides
comparison to the current (1999) and prior (2016) methodologies.
Table ES-1 TSDC Methodology Comparison
Methodology Element Current (1999) Methodology Prior (2016) Methodology Recommended (2018) Methodology
Project List Improvement only Improvement only Improvement & Reimbursement
Growth share Population-based Population based Mode-specific planning criteria
Growth in trips
Estimated from
population and
employment data
system-wide
Estimated from population
and employment data
system-wide
Based on travel demand model
forecast that recognizes growth
in land use by area (e.g., by
TAZ)
Trip Rate Type Average Daily Trips PM Peak Trips Average Daily Trips
81
CITY OF ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES DRAFT METHODOLOGY AUGUST 2018 II
Trip Rate
Adjustments Pass-by and trip length None Pass-by and diverted trips
Trip Rate Data
by Land Use ITE 5th edition ITE 9th Edition ITE current edition (10th edition
most recent; 2017) TAZ = Transportation Analysis Zone
As shown in Table ES-1, the recommended methodology differs from the current
methodology in that it includes both an improvement and reimbursement element. The
addition of a reimbursement element provides a more flexible capital funding source, and
ensures that new development contributes an equitable share to existing roadway capacity.
The new methodology also includes a more rigorous approach to both the determination of
the growth share of project costs, and the projected growth in trips system-wide. The new
methodology is based on data from the regional travel demand model.
Like the existing methodology, the recommended methodology is assessed based on
average daily trips, and it maintains trip rate adjustments (a key difference from the 2016
methodology). However, the type of adjustments have changed somewhat from the current
methodology and the adjustment factors along with the trip rates have been updated to
reflect current data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation
Manual.
Major Findings
TSDC Costs
A summary of the SDC improvement project costs by project type is provided in Table ES-2,
and the detailed project list is provided in Appendix A-1. As shown in Table ES-2, the
TSDC improvement project list includes about $56.3 million in planned improvements and
related studies. The improvements include new facilities and upgrades to existing facilities
in order to increase capacity and improve the level of performance of the transportation
system. Approximately $23.9 million of project costs are assumed to be funded by other
(external) funds, including grants, developer contributions, and state funding. When the
project costs are reduced by projected external funding sources, the net project costs
allocated to growth are about $16.8 million (about 52 percent of total project costs.)
Table ES-2
City of Ashland
Summary of Improvement Project List
Project Type Total Cost Other
Funding
%
Growth1
TSDC Cost2
Studies $153,400 $0 11% $16,430
Transit $4,425,000 $0 11% $473,937
Pedestrian $16,359,225 $10,763,813 97% $5,486,026
Bike $5,943,660 $594,366 34% $1,969,374
Intersection Studies $330,400 $0 24% $80,406
Intersection & Roadway Improvements $27,884,972 $11,728,161 52% $8,323,813
Crossing $1,180,000 $767,000 100% $413,000
Total $56,276,657 $23,853,340 52% $16,762,985
1 Growth portion before other funds applied
82
CITY OF ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES DRAFT METHODOLOGY AUGUST 2018 III
2 Other funding applied first to non-growth share of cost; any remaining funds reduce TSDC cost
The reimbursement fee is calculated based on the actual cost of reserve capacity from
roadway improvements constructed over the past 20 years, exclusive of grants and
contributions. A total value of $7.5 million was identified for reimbursement projects, of
which about $3.4 million represents the estimated City-funded cost. Growth is allocated
approximately $1.2 million (35 percent) of the net existing system value, based on individual
project cost allocations.
TSDC Schedule
The growth-related improvement and reimbursement costs are divided by the projected
future growth in trips (as measured by average daily trip ends) to determine the system-
wide cost per trip. The regional travel demand model projects a growth in daily trips of
38,066, which results in a total cost per trip of about $472:
$440.36 (improvement fee) + $31.19 (reimbursement fee) = $471.55 combined fee
In addition, local governments are entitled to include in the SDCs, a charge to recover costs
associated with complying with the SDC law. Compliance costs include costs related to
developing and administering the TSDC methodology, project list, as well as annual
accounting costs. The compliance charge is estimated to be about $16 per trip, or about
three percent of the combined TSDC per trip ($488).
The TSDC for an individual development is based on the cost per trip, and the number of
trips attributable to a particular development, where the number of development trips is
computed as follows:
Number of Development Trips = Trip Generation Rate X Adjustment Factors X Development Units
The standard practice in the transportation industry is to use ITE trip generation rates to
determine the TSDCs for individual developments. Adjustment factors applied to base trip
rates reflect pass-by and diverted linked trip factors for some land uses. Pass-by trips refer
to trips that occur when a motorist is already on the roadway, as in the case of a traveler
stopping by a fast-food restaurant on the way home from work. In this case, the motorist
making a stop while “passing by” is counted as a trip generated by the restaurant, but it
does not represent a new (or primary) trip on the roadway. A diverted linked trip is a
similar type of non-primary trip but in this case the motorist will divert from a primary
route to access a nearby use (e.g., a vehicle may turn off a major roadway onto an
intersecting street to access a land use), and then return to the original route to complete the
trip.
Based on the TSDCs presented in this report, and the most current version of the ITE Trip
Generation Manual (10th edition), the TSDC for a single family dwelling unit (with an
average trip rate of 9.44) is $4,603. The full TSDC schedule is shown in Appendix Table A-2.
83
CITY OF ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES DRAFT METHODOLOGY AUGUST 2018 IV
TSDC Implementation
In addition to the updated methodology and project list, the SAC made a number of
recommendations related to the implementation of the TSDCs, aimed primarily at
addressing revenue adequacy and affordability objectives.
Inflationary Adjustments
In order to keep pace with inflation, and avoid significant future TSDC adjustments, the
SAC recommends that the City’s fees increase with the Engineering News Record (ENR)
construction cost index July 1st each year.
Phase-In
As a result of the updated cost per trip, as well as changes to ITE trip rates since the 1999
methodology, the TSDCs for many land use categories increase significantly compared with
current fees. The SAC has recommended a 3-year phase in of the updated cost per trip, with
the first year including 50 percent of the increase, and approximately 25 percent increases in
years 2 and 3. Table A-2 shows the projected TSDCs (before future inflation adjustments)
during the recommended 3-year phase-in period. The City Council has the final
determination on the phasing option.
Discounts and Incentives
The SAC discussed incentives and discounts for certain development types, and
recommends the following:
• 50 percent discount for new homes (including Accessory Dwelling Units) that are
500 square feet or smaller
• 25 percent discount for homes (including cottage housing) that are 501-800 square
feet
• Maintain the existing affordable housing 100 percent discount; qualified as
affordable housing by the City of Ashland Housing Program and deed restricted to
remain affordable for a minimum of 30 years.
• Provide a 20 percent discount for developers planning to employ Transportation
Demand Management (measures aimed at reducing single occupancy vehicle use);
as an example this credit recognizes developing near transit (e.g., Transit Triangle);
eligible projects must demonstrate achievable transportation impact reductions and
parking reductions.
Report Contents
This methodology report is organized as follows:
• Executive Summary – Provides background information on TSDCs in Ashland, and
a summary of the recommended TSDC methodology and major findings.
• Section 1 – Introduction – Provides a summary of SDC statutory requirements.
84
CITY OF ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES DRAFT METHODOLOGY AUGUST 2018 V
• Section 2 – Growth Requirements – Presents the approaches used to determine
future growth in trips and the growth share of project costs.
• Section 3 – TSDC Cost – Summarizes the reimbursement and improvement project
costs, based on the approaches and assumptions presented in Section 2 and the
updated Project List.
• Section 4 – TSDC Schedule – Provides information on system-wide unit costs, the
process for assessing TSDCs to individual developments, and method for updating
for future cost escalation.
Appendix A provides the detailed Improvement Project List, as well as the TSDC Schedule.
85
1-1
SECTION 1
Introduction
Oregon SDC Law
Oregon Revised Statutes 223.297-223.314 authorize local governments to assess System
Development Charges (SDCs) for the following types of capital improvements:
• Drainage and flood control (i.e., storm water)
• Water supply, treatment, and distribution
• Wastewater collection, transmission, treatment, and disposal
• Transportation
• Parks and recreation
In addition to specifying the infrastructure systems for which SDCs may be assessed, the
SDC legislation provides guidelines on the calculation and modification of SDCs,
accounting requirements to track SDC revenues, and the adoption of administrative review
procedures. A summary of key provisions is provided below.
SDC Structure
Oregon law allows that an SDC may include a reimbursement fee, an improvement fee, or a
combination of the two.
Reimbursement Fee
The reimbursement fee is based on the value of available reserve capacity associated with
capital improvements already constructed or under construction. The methodology used to
calculate the reimbursement fee must consider the cost of existing facilities, prior
contributions by existing users, the value of unused capacity, grants, and other relevant
factors. The objective of the reimbursement fee methodology is to require new users to
contribute an equitable share of the capital costs of existing facilities. When new users pay
for their share of the available reserve capacity through the SDC reimbursement fee, the
money received can be used to fund other capital needs (e.g., system replacements).
Improvement Fee
The improvement fee is designed to recover all or a portion of the costs of planned capital
improvements that add system capacity to serve future users. An increase in system capacity
may be established if a capital improvement increases the level of performance or service
provided by existing facilities or provides new facilities. The portion of the improvements funded by improvement fees must be related to the need for increased capacity to provide
service for future users.
86
1-2
Credits
The legislation requires that a credit be provided against the improvement fee for the
construction of “qualified public improvements.” Qualified public improvements are
improvements that are required as a condition of development approval, identified in the
system’s capital improvement program, and either (1) not located on or contiguous to the
property being developed, or (2) located in whole or in part, on or contiguous to, property
that is the subject of development approval and required to be built larger or with greater
capacity than is necessary for the particular development project to which the improvement
fee is related.
Review and Notification Requirements
The methodology for establishing or modifying improvement or reimbursement fees shall
be available for public inspection. The local government must maintain a list of persons who
have made a written request for notification prior to the adoption or amendment of such
fees. The notification requirements for changes to the fees that represent a modification to
the methodology are 90-day written notice prior to first public hearing, with the SDC
methodology available for review 60 days prior to public hearing.
Other Provisions
Other provisions of the legislation require:
• Preparation of a capital improvement program or comparable plan (prior to the
establishment of a SDC), that includes a list of the improvements that the jurisdiction
intends to fund with improvement fee revenues and the estimated timing, cost, and
eligible portion of each improvement.
• Deposit of SDC revenues into dedicated accounts and annual accounting of revenues
and expenditures, including a list of the amount spent on each project funded, in whole
or in part, by SDC revenues.
• Creation of an administrative appeals procedure, in accordance with the legislation,
whereby a citizen or other interested party may challenge an expenditure of SDC
revenues.
The provisions of the legislation are invalidated if they are construed to impair the local
government’s bond obligations or the ability of the local government to issue new bonds or
other financing.
87
3-1
SECTION 2
Growth Requirements
Introduction
This section presents the projected future growth needs, and the bases for determining the
costs that will be recovered from growth through the TSDCs (“growth share”). To comply
with Oregon SDC law and industry standard practices, new development cannot be
charged for costs associated with capacity needed to serve existing development– either in
the form of used capacity on existing facilities or future expansion needed to remedy
existing deficiencies. To be defensible, the methodology must:
• Specify how growth needs will be evaluated (e.g., volume, volume/capacity ratio,
level of service, etc.)
• Identify the list of existing facilities and future projects needed to address growth
needs.
• Allocate project costs between growth and existing development, based on the
portion of each project that relates to providing capacity for growth vs. addressing
an existing deficiency or increase the level of performance for existing development.
System-Wide Growth in Trips
To evaluate the roadway capacity needs and the amount of vehicle trips that are generated
by existing and future development, the regional travel demand model was utilized.
Specifically, the model was utilized to approximate the existing number of trips (base year)
using the City street network. The model then considers forecast population and
employment increases by transportation analysis zone (TAZ) to project future year (2037)
trips generated within the City’s currently acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
Table 2-1 lists the total number of trip ends for the base year and future year scenarios. As listed, the total number of trip ends is forecasted to grow from 134,944 to 173,010. The growth in average daily trip ends (38,066) represents about 22 percent of the future
projections.
Table 2-1
Model Vehicle Average Daily Trip Ends (Within the City’s currently acknowledged UGB)1
Base Year Trips Future Trips Growth Trips
Trip Ends 134,944 173,010 38,066
1 ODOT TPAU (May 16, 2018); excludes external-external trips
88
3-2
Growth Share
The system-wide growth in trips will be accommodated by existing roadway reserve
capacity, as well as planned future system expansion for all modes of travel (auto, transit,
bike and pedestrian). According to SDC statutory requirements: “An increase in system
capacity may be established if a capital improvement increases the level of performance or
service provided by existing facilities or provides new facilities.” A key component of the
SDC methodology is allocation of existing facility and planned future facility costs to
growth, in proportion to estimated capacity requirements.
For purposes of determining growth share, individual projects are analyzed to determine
the portion of capacity costs needed for future growth requirements versus existing
development. Two general methods are used for determining the growth share:
1. Standards-Based approach – where the allocation of project costs to existing
development is limited to correcting any existing deficiency. Existing deficiencies
are evaluated based on current performance relative to the appropriate
planning/design standard for the particular improvement. For intersections, the
standard is a “volume-capacity ratio (v/c ratio)”1. For multimodal improvements,
the standard is miles per capita of bikeways and pedestrian ways.
2. Capacity Utilization approach – Improvements to existing facilities to address
safety, modernization, and other performance considerations provide capacity for
growth and enhanced performance for existing development, so the costs are
allocated in proportion to the utilization of the facilities, as determined for each
improvement individually.
Table 2-2 provides a summary of the allocation basis for existing and future development by
major project type.
Table 2-2
Summary of Growth Share Methods
Project Type Existing Share Future Development Share
Roadway and Intersection Level of
Performance Improvements (e.g.,
safety and modernization)
Existing development trips as a
percent of total future 2037 trips
Future development trips as a
percent of total future 2037 trips
New roadways and extensions 0% 100%
Intersection capacity and Bike and
Pedestrian Improvements
Limited to existing deficiency (as
defined by v/c or level of service) 100% - Existing Deficiency
Studies Share of future population (89%) Share of future population
(11%)
1 Volume-to-capacity ratio is defined as motor vehicle trips divided by the hourly capacity of the facility to serve those trips.
89
3-3
The recommended methodology is based on a mode-specific analysis for determining
growth share of project costs, which takes into consideration the different travel
characteristics of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists, as described below.
Roadways and Intersections (Improved Level of Performance)
For upgrade of existing facilities (i.e., realignments, modernization, and other
improvements), the growth share analysis for each roadway and intersection project was
based on information from the travel demand model. These projects were evaluated using
existing and future traffic volumes at each location. These volumes reflect the relationship
between land use and transportation and rely upon estimates of household and
employment growth by area of city (i.e., TAZ). This means that each new roadway or
intersection project will have a different growth related proportion, as shown in Table A-1
(appendix).
New Roadway and Intersection Facilities; Existing Facility Expansion (Capacity Only)
New roadways and expansions driven by future development capacity requirements are
allocated 100% to growth, since the capacity is needed entirely for new development.
Similarly, intersection improvements that are not needed to meet existing mobility standards, but are needed once the growth trips are added to the intersection, are assumed to be 100%
funded by growth, since there is no existing deficiency. Data was compiled from the TSP to
determine if facilities were operating with a volume/capacity ratio less than the required
standard.
Bike and Pedestrian Improvements
Unlike roadway and intersection projects, trip data for bike and pedestrian improvements is
not available. Therefore, the growth share for bike and pedestrian facilities is based on the
planned level of service (LOS). The planned LOS is defined as the quantity of future
facilities per 1,000 population served.
The following equation shows the calculation of the planned LOS:
LOSPlannedServedPopulationFuture
QPlannedQExisting =+
Where:
Q = quantity (miles of bike or pedestrian facilities), and Future Population Served (within the UGB) = 23,183
The existing and future miles of bike and pedestrian facilities are shown in Table 2-3.
90
3-4
Table 2-3
Existing and Future Bike and Pedestrian Facilities
Current Additional (miles) Future
Facility Type (Miles) Stand-Alone
Projects
Road
Projects
(Miles)
Multi Use Path 3.93 1.9 0 5.8
Bike Lanes2 22.0 9.6 2.4 34.0
Sidewalks 3 80.0 9.8 2.5 92.3
1City-owned paved shared use paths
2Bike lanes only; does not include bike shoulders
3On improved and partially improved arterials and collectors
The City’s population forecast for existing and future (2038) conditions are presented in
Table 2-4. Growth during the planning period is estimated to be 2,483 people.
Table 2-4
Current and Future Population
Current
(2018)
Future
(2038)
Growth
Population 20,700 23,183 2,483
Table 2-5 presents the existing and future LOS for bike and pedestrian facilities, based on
the existing and planned future facilities presented in Table 2-3 divided by the existing and
projected future population presented in Table 2-4. In all cases, the planned LOS is higher
than the existing LOS, which means that there are existing deficiencies for bike and
pedestrian improvements, so a portion of future improvements are needed by existing
development.
Table 2-5
Existing and Future Bike and Pedestrian LOS
Miles/1,000 People
Facility Type Current Future
Multi Use Path 0.19 0.25
Bike Lanes 1.06 1.47
Sidewalks 3.86 3.98
The capacity requirements, or miles, needed for the existing population and for growth are
shown in Table 2-6 and estimated by multiplying the planned (future) LOS for each facility
type (from Table 2-5) by the population of each group (from Table 2-4).
91
3-5
Table 2-6
Existing and Growth Capacity Needs
Total Miles Needed
Facility Type Current Growth Total
Multi Use Path 5.2 0.6 5.8
Bike Lanes 30.4 3.6 34.0
Sidewalks 82.4 9.9 92.3
Existing development’s needs are assumed to be met first by the existing inventory of
facilities; any shortfall is assumed to be provided from planned improvements. Therefore,
the additional need for facilities by the existing population is equal to the total inventory
needed (from Table 2-6) less the existing inventory (from Table 2-3). For example, the
planned LOS results in a total need of 5.18 miles of multi-use paths for existing
development. The current inventory of 3.93 miles is deducted from the total need to yield
an additional need of 1.25 miles.
Table 2-7 shows the existing and growth allocation for the planned improvements by project
type. For the multi-use paths, the growth need is equal to 0.6 miles, so the additional 1.9
miles of path are allocated 67 percent and 33 percent, respectively to existing and growth.
For bike projects, the overall growth need is 30 percent (3.6 miles) of the planned additional
bike lanes; however, improvements are in conjunction with roadway projects, and as such
are allocated in proportion to future auto trip volumes. As shown in Table 2-7, the roadway
project allocations result in 0.38 miles of bike lane costs allocated to growth, so there is an
additional need of 3.3 miles (34 percent) from the stand-alone bike projects. Similarly, for
sidewalk improvements, the roadway allocations result in 0.41 miles of new sidewalks
allocated to growth. However, the total growth need is 9.9 miles, so 97 percent of the stand-
alone sidewalk costs on the project list are allocated to growth.
Table 2-7
Allocation of Additional Facilities
Miles Added % Allocation
Existing1 Growth Total Existing Growth Total
Multi Use Path 1.25 0.6 1.9 67% 33% 100%
Bike Lanes
Road Projects2 2.0 0.38 2.4 84% 16% 100%
Bike Projects 6.4 3.3 9.6 66% 34% 100%
Subtotal 8.4 3.6 12.0 70% 30% 100%
Sidewalks
Road Projects 2.1 0.41 2.5 84% 16% 100%
Pedestrian Projects 0.3 9.5 9.8 3% 97% 100%
Subtotal 2.42 9.9 12.3 20% 80% 100%
1 Existing need assumed to be met first by current facilities 2 Numbers in bold used for growth share of stand-alone bike & pedestrian projects in Table A-1
Studies
Growth share for corridor studies are based on the average of growth trips on facilities with
future planned improvements.
92
3-6
SECTION 3
TSDC Cost
Introduction
The development of the TSDC cost generally involves the following key steps:
1. The TSDC project list is updated to reflect projects and costs related to current and
future system needs.
2. Project costs are reduced by projected external funding amounts (assessments, grants, contributions by other agencies).
3. Net project costs are allocated between growth and existing development, as
described in Section 2.
As allowed by Oregon SDC law, the TSDC costs include both completed (reimbursement)
and planned future (improvement) projects costs. Both components of the TSDC cost are summarized below.
Project List and Costs
City staff reviewed the financially constrained transportation project list developed as a result
of the adopted 2013 TSP. All projects were updated to 2018 costs based upon the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT) unit costs of construction. Costs were updated to include the new Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards for crossings. Completed projects were moved to a list considered for the reimbursement fee based on actual
construction costs and City funding sources.
Improvement Costs
The improvement TSDC cost is summarized by major project component in Table 3-1. A detailed list of projects is provided in Table A-1 (appendix). The TSP was adopted in 2013 and placed a priority on sidewalks, especially school routes. As a result, the project list has
over $16M in sidewalk projects that will most likely be completed through Safe Routes to
School or other grant programs. Based on Council’s prior direction, the Nevada Street
Bridge extension (Council action June 20, 2017) was removed from the eligible projects for funding and will be reviewed again during the TSP update. City staff added the Ashland Street, Oak Knoll, and E. Main/Hwy 66 intersection potential roundabout project (R9) to the
list to reflect higher priority needs in the city.
Developer-driven projects expected to be constructed within the next 5-7 years are also included on the list shown in Table A-1. In most cases these new projects will provide benefits not only to the new development area, but also to the community at large. If the City
93
3-7
will be giving TSDC credits for work being done by the developer, funds must be accounted
for and collected through the TSDC. Many developer driven projects are constructed to
include more pavement and sidewalk width to be consistent with City standards for a certain
type of street in lieu of a reflecting the minimum width that would be required just to serve development. For those development driven projects, the City’s share to “upsize” the
roadway was estimated to be 35%. The costs will be adjusted as the project is built to ensure
equitable credits for the development completed above the general standard (similar to water
and sewer pipeline up-sizing).
As shown in Table 3-1, the total cost of improvements on the project list is about $56
million. Future improvement costs were adjusted for expected external funding totaling
almost $24 million, as follows:
• Sidewalk projects potentially eligible for Safe Routes to School or other grant programs are assumed to be grant funded at 75 percent
• New bikeways assume 10 percent grant funding
• Improvements on ODOT facilities include 90 percent external funding
• Roadway safety projects assume other funding of 25 percent
• Development driven projects assume 65 percent developer funded
The growth portion (i.e., TSDC cost) is about $16.7 million.
Table 3-1
City of Ashland TSDC Methodology
Summary of Improvement Project Costs
Project Type Total Cost Other
Funding
%
Growth1
TSDC Cost2
Studies $153,400 $0 11% $16,430
Transit $4,425,000 $0 11% $473,937
Pedestrian $16,359,225 $10,763,813 97% $5,486,026
Bike $5,943,660 $594,366 34% $1,969,374
Intersection Studies $330,400 $0 24% $80,406
Intersection & Roadway Improvements $27,884,972 $11,728,161 52% $8,323,813
Crossing $1,180,000 $767,000 100% $413,000
Total $56,276,657 $23,853,340 52% $16,762,985
1 Growth portion before other funds applied
2 Other funding applied first to non-growth share of cost; any remaining funds reduce TSDC cost
Reimbursement Costs
The reimbursement project lists and costs are shown in Table 3-2. Project costs reflect
actual construction costs, adjusted for other funding sources. The growth share represents
the portion of roadway capacity reserved for future development trips, as estimated from
the travel demand model. The total reimbursement growth cost is almost $1.2 million.
94
3-8
Table 3-2
City of Ashland Transportation SDC Methodology
Reimbursement Project Costs
Description
Actual
Project Cost
Other
Funding NET CITY $
GROWTH
% SDC $
Siskiyou Blvd, Gresham, 3rd, Lithia Way
Intersection
$5,128,571 $2,900,000 $2,228,571
36%
$802,657
N. Main/Hersey/Wimer Intersection
Realignment
$1,049,051 $682,696 $366,356
17%
$60,802
Walker Ave @ E Main - Install right turn
lane
$701,351 $418,920 $282,431
40%
$114,005
Railroad Crossing Imp; E Main (07) $443,002 $100,000 $343,002 30% $103,287
Railroad Crossing Improvements; Oak $115,960 $115,960 71% $82,481
Will Dodge Way reconstruction $27,909 $27,909 51% $14,192
N. Main Road Diet $108,657 $32,597 $76,060 13% $9,726
$7,574,501 $1,234,213 $3,440,288 35% $1,187,150
95
4-1
SECTION 4
TSDC Schedule
Introduction
The TSDC for an individual development is based on the system-wide unit cost per trip and
the number of trips attributable to a particular development.
System-Wide Unit Costs ($/Trip)
Based on the growth trips and TSDC costs summarized in Sections 2 and 3, the total cost per
average daily trip is equal to $471.55, as shown in Table 4-1, and is comprised of the
following components:
$440.36 (improvement fee) + $31.19 (reimbursement fee)
Table 4-1
City of Ashland Transportation SDC Methodology
Transportation System Unit Costs of Capacity ($/Trip)
Improvement SDC Reimbursement
SDC
Combined SDC
Cost Basis (1) $16,762,985 $1,187,150 $17,950135
Growth Trip Ends (2) 38,066 38,066 38,066
SDC per Trip End $440.36 $31.19 $471.55
(1) From Tables 3-1 and 3-2
(2) From Table 2-1
Compliance Charge
Local governments are entitled to include in the TSDCs, a charge to recover costs associated
with complying with the SDC statutes. Compliance costs include costs related to
developing and administering the SDC methodology, project list (including but not limited
to TSP and other studies), and credit system; as well as annual accounting and other City
administration costs.
Table 4-2 shows the calculation of the compliance charge per trip, which is $16.05, or about
3.3 percent of the total cost per trip ($488).
96
4-2
Table 4-2
Estimated Compliance Costs
Total $
Amortize
(Years) Annual $ Growth % Growth $
SDC Study $50,000 5 $10,000 100% $10,000
TSP $225,000 10 $22,500 52% $11,633
Accounting, Legal, Planning $1,000 1 $1,000 100% $1,000
Total Cost $22,633
Annual Trips 1,410
Compliance $/Trip $16.05
TSDC Schedule
The TSDC for an individual development is based on the cost per trip (including the
reimbursement, improvement, and compliance fees) and the number of trips (average daily)
attributable to a particular development, where the number of development trips is
computed as follows:
Number of Development Trips = Trip Generation Rate X Adjustment Factors X Development Units
Table A-2 (in Appendix A) includes the updated TSDC rates and traffic impact assumptions
for typical land use categories.
Trip Generation Rates
In recognition of Ashland’s character and its residents’ travel behaviors, the SAC reviewed
the differences between basing the TSDC on average daily versus PM peak hour (4-6 pm)
trip generation. After significant debate, the SAC recommended the use of average daily
trips as more proportional and equitable for TSDC assessment purposes. Average daily trips
recognize the overall capacity utilization of the system, not just capacity used by trips
generated during the PM peak.
The City will continue to use the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) average daily
trip generation rates to determine the TSDCs for individual developments. Use of ITE trip
generation data is standard in the transportation industry. ITE trip rates by land use are
based on studies from around the country, and in the absence of local data, represent the
best available source of trip data for specific land uses.
Trip Rate Adjustments
The updated methodology includes pass-by and diverted linked trip adjustments. The
current methodology adjustments for trip length are eliminated, as available data to
reasonably estimate average trip length for a given land use type in comparison to other
uses is extremely limited. Furthermore, trip length may be more directly attributable to
location within an area and the availability of other similar uses in the area than it is to
simply the type of use.
97
4-3
The updated methodology adjustments are discussed in more detail below.
Pass-by Trips
Pass-by trips refer to trips that occur when a motorist is already on the roadway, as in the
case of a traveler stopping by a fast-food restaurant on the way home from work. In this
case, the motorist making a stop while “passing by” is counted as a trip generated by the
restaurant, but it does not represent a new (or primary) trip on the roadway. Pass-by trip
adjustments in the updated methodology are based on published data by land use from the
ITE.
Diverted Link Trips
The updated methodology also adjusts traffic impact based on “diverted link” trips, which
is another type of non-primary trip. In this case, the motorist will divert from a primary
route to access a nearby use (e.g., a vehicle may turn off a major roadway onto an
intersecting street to access a land use), and then return to the original route to complete the
trip. As with the pass-by trip adjustments, the diverted link trip adjustments included in
the updated methodology are based on reported ITE data.
TSDC Implementation
The SAC made a number of recommendations related to the implementation of the TSDCs,
aimed primarily at addressing revenue adequacy and affordability objectives.
Inflationary Adjustments
In order to keep pace with inflation, and avoid significant future TSDC adjustments, the
SAC recommends that the City’s fees increase with the Engineering News Record (ENR)
construction cost index July 1st each year.
Phase-In
As a result of the updated cost per trip, as well as changes to ITE trip rates since the 1999
methodology, the TSDCs for many land use categories increase significantly compared with
current fees. The SAC has recommended a 3-year phase in of the updated cost per trip, with
the first year including 50 percent of the increase, and approximately 25 percent increases in
years 2 and 3. Table A-2 shows the projected TSDCs (before future inflation adjustments)
during the recommended 3-year phase-in period.
Discounts and Incentives
The SAC discussed incentives and discounts for certain development types, and
recommends the following:
• 50 percent discount for new homes (including Accessory Dwelling Units) that are
500 square feet or smaller
• 25 percent discount for homes (including cottage housing) that are 501-800 square
feet
98
4-4
• Maintain the existing affordable housing 100 percent discount; qualified as
affordable housing by the City of Ashland Housing Program and deed restricted to
remain affordable for a minimum of 30 years.
• Provide a 20 percent discount for developers planning to employ Transportation
Demand Management (measures aimed at reducing single occupancy vehicle use);
as an example this credit recognizes developing near transit (e.g., Transit Triangle);
eligible projects must demonstrate achievable transportation impact reductions and
parking reductions.
99
Table A-1
City of Ashland, Oregon
TRANSPORTATION SDC Project List
Type/
#
Street Description Classification Priority 2018 Cost Other
Funding
%
Growth
TSDC Cost 1
GENERAL POLICIES & STUDIES
S1 NA Funding Sources Feasibility Study NA 2 $35,400 11% $3,791
S2 NA Downtown Parking & Multi-Modal Circulation Study 1 $118,000 11% $12,638
ST Total Policies & Studies Projects $153,400 $16,430
PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS
O1 NA Travel Smart Education, Targeted Marketing Program $53,100 0% $0
P1 N. Main St/Hwy 99 N. Main St to Schofield St Boulevard 1 $73,750 97% $71,626
P4 Laurel St Nevada St to Orange Ave Avenue 2 $737,500 $553,125 97% $184,375
P5 Glenn St/Orange Ave N. Main St to 175' E of Willow St N'hood Street 1 $295,000 $221,250 97% $73,750
P6 Orange Ave 175' west of Drager St to Helman St Avenue 1 $368,750 $276,563 97% $92,188
P8 Wimer St Thornton Way to N. Main St N'hood Street 2 $1,180,000 $885,000 97% $295,000
P9 Maple St Chestnut St to 150' E of Rock St Avenue 1 $147,500 $110,625 97% $36,875
P10(1) Scenic Dr Maple St to Wimer St Avenue 1 $368,750 $276,563 97% $92,188
P17 Beaver Slide Water St to Lithia Way N'hood Street 1 $73,750 97% $71,626
P18 A St Oak St to 100' W of 6th St Avenue 1 $368,750 $276,563 97% $92,188
P22 N. Mountain Ave 100' S of Village Green Way to Iowa St Avenue 1 $663,750 97% $644,634
P23 Wightman St 200' N of E. Main St to 625' S of E. Main
St
N'hood Collector 1 $590,000 $442,500 97% $147,500
P27(1) Walker Ave Oregon St to Woodland Dr Avenue 1 $295,000 $221,250 97% $73,750
P28(1) Ashland St S. Mountain Ave to Morton St Avenue 1 $663,750 $497,813 97% $165,938
P38(1) Clay St Siskiyou Blvd to Mohawk St Avenue 1 $442,500 $331,875 97% $110,625
P57(1) Tolman Creek Rd Siskiyou Blvd to west side City Limits Avenue 1 $626,875 97% $608,821
P58(1) Helman St Hersey St to Van Ness Ave Avenue 1 $147,500 $110,625 97% $36,875
P59 Garfield St E. Main St to Siskiyou Blvd N'hood Street 1 $1,106,250 $829,688 97% $276,563
P60 Lincoln St E. Main St to Iowa St N'hood Street 1 $663,750 $497,813 97% $165,938
P61 California St E. Main St to Iowa St N'hood Street 1 $737,500 $553,125 97% $184,375
P62 Quincy St Garfield St to Wightman St N'hood Street 2 $221,250 $165,938 97% $55,313
P63 Liberty St Siskiyou Blvd to Ashland St N'hood Street 1 $958,750 $719,063 97% $239,688
P64 Water St Van Ness Ave to B St N'hood Street 2 $368,750 $276,563 97% $92,188
P65 Faith Ave Ashland St to Siskiyou Blvd N'hood Street 1 $516,250 $387,188 97% $129,063
P66 Diane St Jaquelyn St to Tolman Creek Rd N'hood Street 1 $29,500 $22,125 97% $7,375
P67 Frances Lane Siskiyou Blvd to Oregon St N'hood Street 1 $14,750 $11,063 97% $3,688
P68 Carol St Patterson St to Hersey St N'hood Street 1 $221,250 $165,938 97% $55,313
P70 Park St Ashland St to Siskiyou Blvd N'hood Street 1 $958,750 $719,063 97% $239,688
P72 C St Fourth St to Fifth St N'hood Street 2 $147,500 97% $143,252
100
A-2
Table A-1
City of Ashland, Oregon
TRANSPORTATION SDC Project List
Type/
#
Street Description Classification Priority 2018 Cost Other
Funding
%
Growth
TSDC Cost 1
P73 Barbara St Jaquelyn St to Tolman Creek Rd N'hood Street 2 $147,500 $110,625 97% $36,875
P74 Roca St Ashland St to Prospect St N'hood Street 2 $368,750 $276,563 97% $92,188
P75 Blaine St Morton St to Morse Ave N'hood Street 2 $147,500 $110,625 97% $36,875
P78 Patterson St Crispin St to Carol St N'hood Street 2 $147,500 $110,625 97% $36,875
P79 Harrison St Iowa St to Holly St N'hood Street 2 $147,500 $110,625 97% $36,875
P80 Spring Creek Dr Oak Knoll Dr to Road End N'hood Street 2 $516,250 $387,188 97% $129,063
P81 Bellview Ave Green Meadows Way to Siskiyou Blvd N'hood Street 2 $368,750 97% $358,130
P37 Clay St Faith Ave to Siskiyou Blvd Avenue 2 $1,475,000 $1,106,250 97% $368,750
ST Total Pedestrian Projects $16,359,225 $10,763,813 $5,486,026
BICYCLE PROJECTS
B2 Wimer St Scenic Dr to N. Main St Avenue 1 $27,140 $2,714 34% $9,201
B3 Nevada St Vansant St to N. Mountain Ave Avenue 2 $312,110 $31,211 34% $105,806
B5 Maple/Scenic/Nutley N. Main St to Winburn Way N'hood Collector 1 $149,270 $14,927 34% $50,603
B7 Iowa St Terrace St ; S. Mountain to Walker Ave Avenue 1 $325,680 $32,568 34% $110,406
B9 Ashland St Morton St to University Way Avenue 2 $40,710 $4,071 34% $13,801
B10 S. Mountain Ave Ashland St to E. Main St Avenue 1 $162,840 $16,284 34% $55,203
B11 Wightman St E. Main St to Siskiyou Blvd Avenue 1 $81,420 $8,142 34% $27,602
B13 B St Oak St to N. Mountain Ave Avenue 1 $108,560 $10,856 34% $36,802
B16 Lithia Way Oak St to Helman St Avenue 1 $149,270 $14,927 34% $50,603
B17 Main St Helman St to Siskiyou Blvd Boulevard 1 $67,850 $6,785 34% $23,001
B18 N. Main St Jackson Rd to Helman St Boulevard 2 $352,820 $35,282 34% $119,607
B19 Helman St Nevada St to N. Main St Avenue 1 $108,560 $10,856 34% $36,802
B20 Water St Hersey St to N. Main St N'hood Street 2 $40,710 $4,071 34% $13,801
B25 Tolman Creek Rd Siskiyou Blvd to Green Meadows Way Avenue 2 $135,700 $13,570 34% $46,003
B26 Normal Ave E. Main St to Siskiyou Blvd Avenue 1 $257,830 $25,783 34% $87,405
B29 Walker Ave Siskiyou Blvd to Peachey Rd Avenue 1 $54,280 $5,428 34% $18,401
B31 Indiana St Siskiyou Blvd to Oregon St N'hood Street 1 $27,140 $2,714 34% $9,201
B33 8th St A St to E. Main St N'hood Street 1 $27,140 $2,714 34% $9,201
B37 Clay St Siskiyou Blvd to Mohawk St Avenue 2 $27,140 $2,714 34% $9,201
B39 Glenn St/Orange Ave N. Main St to Proposed Trail N'hood Collector 2 $54,280 $5,428 34% $18,401
B40 Laurel St Orange St to Nevada St N'hood Collector 2 $54,280 $5,428 34% $18,401
TR2 New Trail Clay St to Tolman Creek Rd Multi-Use Path 2 $542,800 $54,280 33% $180,316
TR1 Northside Trail Orchid Ave to Tolman Creek Rd Multi-Use Path 1 $2,714,000 $271,400 33% $901,578
B38 Oregon/Clark St Indiana St to Harmony Lane NS 1 $54,280 $5,428 33% $18,032
ST Total Bicycle Projects $5,943,660 $594,366 $1,969,374
101
A-3
Table A-1
City of Ashland, Oregon
TRANSPORTATION SDC Project List
Type/
#
Street Description Classification Priority 2018 Cost Other
Funding
%
Growth
TSDC Cost 1
TRANSIT PROJECTS
O5 Transit Service
Program
Provides funds & allocation guidance to
improve transit svc
$3,245,000 11% $347,554
O5 Transit Service
Program
Provides funds & allocation guidance to
improve transit svc
$1,180,000 11% $126,383
ST Total Transit Projects $4,425,000 $0 $473,937
INTERSECTION & ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
S3 N. Main St (OR 99) Helman St to Sheridan St Boulevard 2 $88,500 21% $18,891
S5 Siskiyou Blvd Ashland St to Tolman Creek Rd Boulevard 2 $88,500 20% $17,467
S6 Ashland St (OR 66) Siskiyou Blvd to Tolman Creek Rd Boulevard 2 $88,500 28% $25,185
S9 Ashland St (OR 66) Clay St to Washington St Boulevard/Ave 2 $23,600 31% $7,210
S10 Siskiyou Blvd Highway 66 to Beach St Blvd/N'hood Coll 1 $41,300 28% $11,653
ST Studies Subtotal $330,400 $0 $80,406
Intersection & Roadway Projects
R5 Siskiyou Blvd (OR 66) Lithia Way (OR 99 NB) / E. Main St Boulevard/Ave 1 $73,750 $66,375 100% $7,375
R6 Siskiyou Blvd (OR 66) Tolman Creek Rd Boulevard/Ave 1 $118,273 $106,445 14% $11,827
R8 Ashland St (OR 66) Oak Knoll Dr / E. Main St (realignment) Boulevard/Ave 1 $602,851 $542,566 24% $60,285
R19 Normal Ave Ext Normal Ave to E. Main St Avenue 2 $3,630,499 31% $1,133,777
R25 Washington St Ext Washington St Tolman Creek Rd N'hood Collector 1 $1,584,169 $1,029,945 17% $267,855
R29 Washington St Ext Washington St to Benson Way N'hood Collector $1,535,180 $997,867 100% $537,313
R36 N. Main St N. Main St Permanent Diet Boulevard 2 $295,000 13% $37,722
R38 Ashland St Siskiyou Blvd to Walker Ave Streetscape Boulevard 2 $1,298,000 $843,700 40% $454,300
R39 Ashland St Walker Ave to Normal Ave Streetscape Boulevard $1,534,000 $997,100 39% $536,900
R40 Walker Ave Festival St Siskiyou Blvd to Ashland St Avenue 1 $1,150,500 36% $416,717
R9 Ashland St (OR 66) Oak Knoll Dr / E. Main St (roundabout) Boulevard/Ave 3 $4,646,250 $1,161,563 24% $1,123,342
R43 New Roadway (E) Mistletoe Rd to Siskiyou Blvd (OR 99) Boulevard $5,099,960 $3,314,974 100% $1,784,986
R44 Tolman Creek Mistletoe Rd Streetscape Boulevard $4,104,040 $2,667,626 28% $1,164,086
R41 Ashland St Tolman Creek Rd Streetscape Boulevard/Ave 4 $2,212,500 36% $787,328
ST Total Intersection & Roadway Improvements $27,884,972 $11,728,161 52% $8,323,813
RAILROAD CROSSING PROJECTS
X3 Normal Ave Crossing Upgrade Planned Avenue 4 $1,180,000 $767,000 100% $413,000
ST Total Railroad Crossing Projects $1,180,000 $767,000 $413,000
Total $56,276,657 $23,853,340 52% $16,762,985
1 Grants & contributions applied first to non-growth share of cost; any remaining funds reduce growth cost for TSDC calculation purposes
102
Table A-2
City of Ashland, Oregon New $/Trip
TSDC by Land Use (Updated and 3-Year Phase In)$488 $320 $397 $488
ITE Code Description Unit of Measure
Updated
TSDC per
Unit
Daily Trip
Rate Diverted Pass-by
Linked
Trip
Factor 2
Adjusted
Daily Trip
Rate
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
90 PARK & RIDE LOT WITH BUS SERVICE PER PARKING SPACE 1,370$ 2.81 0% 0%2.81 899$ 1,116$ 1,370$
110 GENERAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PER TGSF 2,419$ 4.96 0% 0% 1.00 4.96 1,587$ 1,969$ 2,419$
130 INDUSTRIAL PARK PER TGSF 1,643$ 3.37 0% 0% 1.00 3.37 1,078$ 1,338$ 1,643$
140 MANUFACTURING PER TGSF 1,916$ 3.93 0% 0% 1.00 3.93 1,258$ 1,560$ 1,916$
150 WAREHOUSING PER TGSF 848$ 1.74 0% 0% 1.00 1.74 557$ 691$ 848$
151 MINI WAREHOUSE PER TGSF 736$ 1.51 0% 0% 1.00 1.51 483$ 599$ 736$
154 HIGH-CUBE/SHORT-TERM STORAGE WAREHOUSE PER TGSF 683$ 1.40 0% 0% 1.00 1.40 448$ 556$ 683$
160 DATA CENTER PER TGSF 483$ 0.99 0% 0%1.00 0.99 317$ 393$ 483$
210 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING/TOWNHOME PER DU 4,603$ 9.44 0% 0% 1.00 9.44 3,021$ 3,748$ 4,603$
220 APARTMENTS/CONDOS PER DU 3,569$ 7.32 0% 0% 1.00 7.32 2,342$ 2,906$ 3,569$
225 OFF-CAMPUS STUDENT APARTMENT PER BEDROOM 1,536$ 3.15 0% 0% 1.00 3.15 1,008$ 1,251$ 1,536$
240 MANUFACTURED HOUSING 2,438$ 5.00 0% 0% 1.00 5.00 1,600$ 1,985$ 2,438$
251 SENIOR HOUSING DETACHED PER DU 2,082$ 4.27 0% 0% 1.00 4.27 1,366$ 1,695$ 2,082$
252 SENIOR HOUSING ATTACHED PER DU 1,804$ 3.70 0% 0% 1.00 3.70 1,184$ 1,469$ 1,804$
253 CONGREGATE CARE FACILITY PER DU 985$ 2.02 0% 0% 1.00 2.02 646$ 802$ 985$
-$
310 HOTEL/MOTEL PER ROOM 4,076$ 8.36 0% 0% 1.00 8.36 2,675$ 3,319$ 4,076$
411 CITY PARK PER ACRE 380$ 0.78 0% 0% 1.00 0.78 250$ 310$ 380$
430 GOLF COURSE HOLES 14,813$ 30.38 0% 0% 1.00 30.38 9,722$ 12,061$ 14,813$
444 THEATER SEATS 858$ 1.76 0% 0% 1.00 1.76 563$ 699$ 858$
492 HEALTH/FITNESS CLUB PER TGSF 12,205$ 25.03 0% 0% 1.00 25.03 8,010$ 9,937$ 12,205$
491 TENNIS PER COURT 13,511$ 27.71 0% 0% 1.00 27.71 8,867$ 11,001$ 13,511$
495 COMMUNITY CENTER PER TGSF 14,053$ 28.82 0% 0% 1.00 28.82 9,222$ 11,442$ 14,053$
520 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PER STUDENT 922$ 1.89 0% 0% 1.00 1.89 605$ 750$ 922$
536 PRIVATE SCHOOL (K-12)PER STUDENT 1,209$ 2.48 0% 0% 1.00 2.48 794$ 985$ 1,209$
522 MIDDLE SCHOOL/JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL PER STUDENT 1,039$ 2.13 0% 0% 1.00 2.13 682$ 846$ 1,039$
530 HIGH SCHOOL PER STUDENT 990$ 2.03 0% 0% 1.00 2.03 650$ 806$ 990$
540 JUNIOR/COMMUNITY COLLEGE PER STUDENT 561$ 1.15 0% 0% 1.00 1.15 368$ 457$ 561$
550 UNIVERSITY/COLLEGE PER STUDENT 761$ 1.56 0% 0% 1.00 1.56 499$ 619$ 761$
560 PLACE OF WORSHIP PER TGSF 3,389$ 6.95 0% 0% 1.00 6.95 2,224$ 2,759$ 3,389$
565 DAY CARE CENTER PER STUDENT 877$ 4.09 56% 0% 0.44 1.80 576$ 714$ 877$
590 LIBRARY PER TGSF 35,132$ 72.05 0% 0% 1.00 72.05 23,056$ 28,604$ 35,132$
610 HOSPITAL PER TGSF 5,227$ 10.72 0% 0% 1.00 10.72 3,430$ 4,256$ 5,227$
710 GENERAL OFFICE BUILDING PER TGSF 4,749$ 9.74 0% 0% 1.00 9.74 3,117$ 3,867$ 4,749$
720 MEDICAL-DENTAL OFFICE PER TGSF 16,969$ 34.8 0% 0% 1.00 34.80 11,136$ 13,816$ 16,969$
731 DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES PER TGSF 5,466$ 11.21 0% 0% 1.00 11.21 3,587$ 4,450$ 5,466$
732 US POST OFFICE 50,681$ 103.94 0% 0% 1.00 103.94 33,261$ 41,264$ 50,681$
813 FREE-STANDING DISCOUNT SUPERSTORE PER TGSF 17,552$ 50.7 0% 29% 0.71 36.00 11,519$ 14,291$ 17,552$
816 HARDWARE/PAINT STORE PER TGSF 3,298$ 9.14 0% 26% 0.74 6.76 2,164$ 2,685$ 3,298$
817 NURSERY (GARDEN CENTER)PER TGSF 33,206$ 68.1 0% 0% 1.00 68.10 21,792$ 27,036$ 33,206$
820 SHOPPING CENTER/RETAIL PER TSFGLA 7,363$ 37.75 26% 34% 0.40 15.10 4,832$ 5,995$ 7,363$
841 AUTOMOBILE SALES PER TGSF 13,575$ 27.84 0% 0% 1.00 27.84 8,909$ 11,052$ 13,575$
850 SUPERMARKET PER TGSF 13,537$ 106.78 38% 36% 0.26 27.76 8,884$ 11,022$ 13,537$
851/853 CONVENIENCE MARKET PER TGSF 54,785$ 624.2 16% 66% 0.18 112.36 35,954$ 44,605$ 54,785$
854 DISCOUNT SUPERMARKET PER TGSF 22,597$ 90.87 28% 21% 0.51 46.34 14,830$ 18,398$ 22,597$
857 DISCOUNT CLUB PER TGSF 12,841$ 41.8 0% 37% 0.63 26.33 8,427$ 10,455$ 12,841$
862 HOME IMPROVEMENT SUPERSTORE PER TGSF 8,694$ 30.74 0% 42% 0.58 17.83 5,705$ 7,078$ 8,694$
880 PHARMACY/DRUGSTORE W/OUT DRIVE THRU WI PER TGSF 14,495$ 90.08 14% 53% 0.33 29.73 14,495$ 14,495$ 14,495$
881 PHARMACY/DRUGSTORE WITH DRIVE THRU WIND PER TGSF 20,226$ 109.16 13% 49% 0.38 41.48 20,226$ 20,226$ 20,226$
911 WALK-IN BANK PER TGSF 12,440$ 59.33 22% 35% 0.43 25.51 8,164$ 10,129$ 12,440$
912 DRIVE-IN BANK PER TGSF 20,973$ 100.03 22% 35% 0.43 43.01 13,764$ 17,076$ 20,973$
931 QUALITY RESTAURANT PER TGSF 11,855$ 83.84 27% 44% 0.29 24.31 7,780$ 9,652$ 11,855$
932 HIGH TURNOVER RESTAURANT PER TGSF 16,957$ 112.18 26% 43% 0.31 34.78 11,128$ 13,806$ 16,957$
934 FAST FOOD RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THRU PER TGSF 62,002$ 470.95 23% 50% 0.27 127.16 40,690$ 50,481$ 62,002$
937 COFFEE/DONUT WITH DRIVE-THROUGH PER TGSF 44,002$ 820.38 0% 89% 0.11 90.24 28,877$ 35,826$ 44,002$
936 COFFEE/DONUT WITHOUT DRIVE-THROUGH PER TGSF 50,010$ 932.39 0% 89% 0.11 102.56 32,820$ 40,717$ 50,010$
944 GASOLINE/SERVICE STATION PER VEH.FUEL.POS.19,291$ 172.01 35% 42% 0.23 39.56 12,660$ 15,706$ 19,291$
945 GAS/SERVICE STATION W/CONVENIENCE MKT PER VEH.FUEL.POS.13,017$ 205.36 31% 56% 0.13 26.70 8,543$ 10,599$ 13,017$
1 Discounted by pass-by trips
2 Discounted by pass-by and diverted link trips
TGSF = Thousand Gross Square Feet
TSFGLA = Thousand Square Feet Gross Leasable Area
DU = Dwelling Unit
VEH. FUEL POS. = Vehicle Fueling Position
Updated ITE 10th Edition Phased $/Trip
103
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE
METHODOLOGY, PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4.20.040 AND 4.20.050.
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY (2018), PURSUANT TO
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 4.20.040 AND 4.20.050.
RECITALS:
A. The City adopted a new Transportation Systems Plan on March 19, 2013 through
ordinance 3080 that amended the comprehensive plan.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Resolution 2017-26 is repealed.
SECTION 2. The Draft Methodology Report Transportation Systems Development Charges
dated August 27, 2018, including Discounts and Incentives as presented on page 4-3,
Transportation SDC Project List (Table A-1), and Transportation SDC by Land Use charges per
trip (Table A-2) are hereby adopted in their entirety.
SECTION 3. The Draft Methodology Report Transportation Systems Development Charges
dated August 27, 2018, will be renamed FINAL Methodology Report Transportation Systems
Development Charges dated November 6, 2018.
SECTION 4. The Transportation Systems Development Charges and phased $/trip attached to
this resolution and marked “Exhibit A” will be effective January 1, 2019 (year 1) and will adjust
for year 2 and year 3.
SECTION 5. The Transportation Systems Development Charges will adjust for inflation with
the Engineering News Record (ENR) construction cost index on July 1st each year as described
on page 4-3 of the methodology report.
SECTION 6. The Transportation Systems Development Charges will adjust on January 1, 2020,
for year 2 increases, and on January 1, 2021, for year 3 increases.
SECTION 7. One copy of this Resolution along with the Transportation Systems Development
Charges Methodology Report, Transportation SDC Project List (Table A-1), and Transportation
SDC by Land Use (Table A-2) shall be maintained in the office of the City Recorder and shall be
available for public inspection during regular business hours.
104
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE
METHODOLOGY, PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4.20.040 AND 4.20.050.
Page 2 of 2
SECTION 8. The fees imposed by this Resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of
Section 11b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure No. 5).
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090
duly PASSED and ADOPTED this ____ day of _________, 2018.
Melissa Huhtala, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this ____ day of ____________, 2018.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David Lohman, City Attorney
105
CITY OF ASHLAND
20 East Main Street Tel: 541-488-6002
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541-488-5311
www.ashland.or.us TTY: 800-735-2900
September 22, 2020
Mrs. Leigh Hood
520 Terrace Street
Ashland OR, 97520
RE: Terrace Street Traffic Calming
Mrs. Hood,
At the September 17, 2020 Transportation Commission meeting, a specific agenda item
was dedicated to discuss data collected as part of the Terrace Street Traffic Calming
program process along with your letter regarding the program dated August 17, 2020
The Commission reviewed all speed and volume collected in 2020 along with historic data
collected in 2009. There was much discussion on possible next steps with respect to the
Traffic Calming program and your request. The Commission deemed appropriate next
steps would be to collect bicycle and pedestrian count information for the roadway
corridor, generate mapping of the area that shows trail connections and collect data on
other similar type roadways in the area for further review and discussion.
The Commission would like this data collected at an appropriate time, most likely in spring
of 2021. The expectation is that activity levels would begin to return to a more normalized
pattern by then and the data collected would better provide them information needed to
discuss viable next steps.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Scott Fleury PE
Interim Public Works Director
City of Ashland
Linda Peterson-Adams
Ashland Transportation Commission Chair
106