WASHINGTON COUNTY COORDINATING COMMITTEE · Jerry Willey, City of Hillsboro ... Develops the guiding principles and criteria including equity, health, safety, economic ... design

Department of Land Use & Transportation � Office of the Director 155 N First Avenue, Ste. 350 MS 16 � Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072

phone: (503) 846-4530 � fax: (503) 846-4412 � TTY: (503) 846-4598 � www.co.washington.or.us

WASHINGTON COUNTY COORDINATING COMMITTEE

POLICY GROUP MINUTES June 10, 2013

Voting Members: Bill Middleton, City of Sherwood John Cook, City of Tigard Denny Doyle, City of Beaverton Martha DeBry, City of North Plains Gery Schirado, City of Durham Peter Truax, City of Forest Grove Jef Dalin, City of Cornelius Tim Knapp, City of Wilsonville Jerry Willey, City of Hillsboro Roy Rogers, Washington County Non-Voting Members: Lise Glancy, Port of Portland Attendees: Andrew Singelakis, Washington County Lake McTighe, Metro Andy Duyck, Washington County Lou Ogden, Tualatin Ben Bryant, City of Tualatin Margaret Middleton, City of Beaverton Deanna Palm, Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce Mark Ottenad, City of Wilsonville Dick Schouten, Washington County Olivia Clark, TriMet Dyami Valentine, Washington County Pam Treece, Westside Economic Alliance Hal Bergsma, THPRD Rian Windsheimer, ODOT James Reitz, City of Forest Grove Rob Dixon, City of Hillsboro John Leeper, Citizen Roland Signett, City of Durham John Valley, Senator Merkley Stephen Roberts, Washington County Judith Gray, City of Tigard Steve Szigethy, Washington County Julia Hajduk, City of Sherwood Terry Keyes, City of Cornelius Ken Gibson, King City Todd Watkins, Washington County Kenny Asher, City of Tigard Tom Mills, TriMet Chairman Roy Rogers called the Washington County Coordinating Committee meeting to order at 12:07 pm. Chair Rogers noted he would take some items on the agenda out of order as he was waiting for a meeting participant to arrive. Visitor Comment: Pavel Goberman announced he would be running for the US Senate. He said he would like to drastically improve traffic on all highways in Oregon and Washington and in all of the United States. Consideration of WCCC Minutes for May 6, 2013: John Cook moved to approve the minutes as written; Peter Truax seconded. Vote: Unanimous. Transportation Development Tax and Traffic Impact Fee Expenditure Request: Chair Rogers said the City of Cornelius is seeking WCCC approval of the expenditure request for the Baseline Capital Improvement Project.

WCCC Meeting Minutes June 10, 2013

Page 2 of 8

Jerry Willey moved to approve the expenditure request; Denny Doyle seconded the motion and the request was unanimously approved. MPAC Agenda: Peter Truax said the June 12, 2013 MPAC agenda will cover how TriMet is planning to deliver the region’s vision for transit service now and in the future and an overview of transit equity. JPACT Agenda: Andrew Singelakis said the June 13, 2013 JPACT agenda will include a discussion on transit funding and the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Plan. Regional Active Transportation Plan: Lake McTighe, a Transportation Planner at Metro, gave a project update on Metro’s Regional Active Transportation Plan. Ms. McTighe provided a project fact sheet and a set of draft policies to the group. The work has been ongoing over the last year and a half and a draft of this plan will be available for review at the end of this month. A Regional Stakeholder Advisory Committee (including representatives from various Washington County jurisdictions) was formed to work on the plan. The Stakeholder Advisory Committee developed a set of criteria that was used to evaluate the alternative active transportation networks and investments in the network. The criteria will also be used for prioritizing projects within the Regional Transportation Plan. “Active transportation” is defined as travel powered by human energy, including, but not limited to, walking, biking, skateboarding, using mobility devices, and interaction with public transit. There is a key connection between active transportation and improved health. She noted active transportation serves all ages and abilities (transportation equity). The plan:

� Identifies strategies, priorities and projects that will complete a regional seamless, green network of on- and off-street pathways connecting the region and integrating walking, biking and public transit.

� Develops the guiding principles and criteria including equity, health, safety, economic development and access, to guide priorities and investments.

� Updates and refines active transportation policies in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Functional Plan (RTFP).

� Prioritizes projects and develops a phased implementation plan and funding strategy to complete the network.

Ms. McTighe explained the following five major policies being recommended for the Active Transportation Plan:

� Make walking and biking the most convenient and enjoyable transportation choices for short trips.

� Build well-connected regional networks of complete streets and off-street paths. Prioritize safe, convenient and comfortable bicycle access for all ages and abilities.

� Ensure that the regional active transportation network equitably serves all people. � Complete pedestrian and bicycle networks to match roadway network level of

completeness. � Utilize data and analysis to guide transportation investments for active transportation.


Page 3 of 8

Ms. McTighe said Metro is seeking endorsement of the plan in late July/August. The public will have a month to review and comment, but it may be as late as September/October. Denny Doyle said he would like his city staff/council to have additional time to review the plan. Lou Ogden said active transportation is an important aspect of livability and he supports the promotion of a healthier lifestyle. He said active transportation concepts are very popular - people love trails, walking, riding bikes, etc. However, his view is that this is not transportation, but recreation, and this is an important factor that should not be ignored. Although Tualatin has good bike and ped connections, he has not seen any alleviation of Tualatin’s “horrendous” traffic congestion and he would need to understand how the mode shift will impact congestion. He said the approach for obtaining funding for bike/ped access vs. transportation should be an entirely different process. There is tremendous competition for scarce transportation funding resources. He said each jurisdiction is paying through their various transportation funding mechanisms to provide bike and pedestrian connections for very few people whose only means of transportation is biking. He said this doesn’t seem equitable to him. Jef Dalin said that the City of Cornelius recently replaced the trenches along Tualatin Valley Highway near Walmart with beautiful sidewalks and he has noticed more people out walking. However, there have been several close calls of pedestrians nearly being struck by vehicles because the person on foot was not using the marked pedestrian crossings. The trenches there previously discouraged mid-block crossings. He suggested that grade separated crossings would vastly improve safety. Dick Schouten said there isn’t enough time to go through all the points Mr. Ogden raised. Commissioner Schouten said he uses his bicycle daily for transportation. He said he hopes a future in depth conversation could take place when there is adequate time. Ms. McTighe was asked to discuss the public outreach efforts made over the last year and a half. She noted that comments/input have been received at the following venues: an open house, a virtual online open house, stakeholder advisory committee meetings, and at TPAC, MTAC, MPAC, and JPACT meetings. Ms. McTighe said she can confer with staff to schedule another time to meet with the WCCC. Pam Treece with Westside Economic Alliance (WEA) said Ms. McTighe and Hal Bergsma will be attending WEA transportation committee meeting on Wednesday, June 12 and offered an open invitation to anyone wishing to attend. Tim Knapp said more discussion needs to take place on this issue and is concerned this won’t happen early enough to influence the draft. He said he is also concerned that the plans (as well as transit plans) tend toward being Portland-centric and the needs, dynamics and solutions in Portland are different than those required in the suburbs. He said he is concerned about the design guidelines as well. He said the suggested solutions ought to be commensurate with local needs and didn’t hear this in the presentation.


Page 4 of 8

Road Maintenance Funding Options Overview: Chair Rogers said that this overview had been presented at the Washington County Board of Commissioners (Board) meeting and the Board requested that the WCCC have a thoughtful, robust discussion on the topic. The Board would like comments from the WCCC in July. Andrew Singelakis presented PowerPoint slides to the group. Mr. Singelakis referred to the “Three Legged Stool” graphic that illustrates Washington County’s Transportation Funding Strategy:

� Existing Safety/Capacity Deficiencies (Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program [MSTIP] - property tax)

� System Maintenance (Gas Tax & User Fees, Urban Road Maintenance District [URMD] - property tax)

� Keeping Up with Growth (primarily Transportation Development Tax [TDT]) The presentation that Mr. Singelakis made to the Board included a pavement management practices assessment. Knowing that there is a significant shortfall in funding for deferred maintenance, an assessment was completed to determine if the county is doing everything possible to maximize the effectiveness of current funding. Mr. Singelakis stated there is a $10 million gap in funds for maintenance of the existing county transportation system facilities, which are:

� 1300 miles of roads (paved/unpaved), arterials and collectors (including 430 lane miles within cities)

� 189 bridges, 3000+ culverts, 700 miles of ditches, over 280 signalized intersections � lighting, landscaping and signs

He said the issue of maintenance is becoming more and more pressing because incoming revenue is not keeping up with cost of maintaining the above-mentioned facilities. Deferring maintenance too long results in even more costly repairs to maintain level-of-service expectations. It’s estimated that the $10 million figure will double by 2021 if no new revenue source is identified. Mr. Singelakis cited the following maintenance funding challenges:

� State road funds are not keeping up with cost increases � Material and labor costs outpace the growth of revenue � Our current system is “mature” � Expectations of the community are high:

o The county has a successful history of building and maintaining the system o A recent survey of county residents completed as part of the ongoing Transportation

System Plan update process indicated maintenance of the existing transportation system is a high priority

� Deferred maintenance has been increasing � Reducing expenditures won’t be enough to close the gap

Mr. Singelakis outlined possible funding strategies and likely difficulties in their application:

� Increase state gas tax/registration fees - The county has no control (state function) � Increase countywide gas tax - Would not generate enough revenue; concerns about

long-term sustainability; would have to go before voters after Jan 1 2014


Page 5 of 8

� Road maintenance fee or property tax levy - Difficult for the county to impose a maintenance fee because there no mechanism to bill residents; already a lot of pressure on property taxes

Finally, vehicle registration fees were discussed, which was the only scenario that satisfied the following criteria:

� Users of the roadways will generate maintenance funds � Stable source of revenue � Ability to be phased in over time � Flexibility in the use of funds � Equitable distribution � Simple and expedient - Follow current state law, easy to administer and ability to

implement soon The current vehicle registration fee revenue distribution to county and cities is consistent with state highway fund apportionments:

� State keeps approximately 60% of the collected total � The remainder of approximately 40% is divided up

o 60% to counties (based on % of state vehicle registrations) o 40% to cities (based on % of state population)

Mr. Singelakis said a county vehicle registration fee may be implemented after July 1, 2013 through House Bill 2001 (HB 2001 - Jobs and Transportation Act). A provision of the bill states that the county fee cannot exceed the current state fee which is $43/yr for a passenger vehicle. Certain vehicle classes will be exempt from the county fee (including farm vehicles, trucks over 26K lbs., travel trailers, school and government vehicles, and disabled vet registered vehicles). Mr. Singelakis said the permitted uses of vehicle registration fee revenues are:

� Construction, reconstruction, improvements, repair, maintenance, operation and use (including multi-modal), and safety improvements on public highways, roads and streets.

Other permitted uses: � Directly related administrative costs � To retire bonds for which such revenues have been pledged

At the maximum permissible rate, the county fee could generate up to $18 million annually. Mr. Singelakis broke down general estimates of annual revenue for the county and its six largest cities. He said although the county is looking to use the vehicle registration fee revenue for maintenance, cities could use it for capital projects provided that the project is within the right-of-way. He distributed a handout showing preliminary estimates of revenue that could be collected on passenger vehicles at the 10%, 50% and 100% phase in levels (based on the current state fee of $43 for passenger vehicles) over a 10-year period. The fee would increase 10% each year. The first year fee would be $4 per vehicle, at 5 years the fee would be $22 per vehicle and at the 10th year of implementation, the fee would cap out at $43/yr. Denny Doyle asked if a 10-year phase in would bring adequate revenue in a timely enough manner to cover costs of projected maintenance. Deferring maintenance even longer due to lack of available funds could create more costly repairs. Lise Glancy wondered why ten years was considered as a potential phase in timeline.


Page 6 of 8

Mr. Singelakis responded that based on comments staff has received, it was decided that ten years would be a good phase in period. However, conversations are preliminary and there may need to be several phase in periods. Ten years was a place to begin the analysis. Martha DeBry said $4/year per vehicle for residents in a very small city like North Plains only comes up to $4000 annual revenue. She said she echoed Mayor Doyle’s comments and perhaps starting at a higher threshold would provide a more successful result. Mr. Singelakis said this issue has been brought up by others, too, so it requires additional discussion. Peter Truax asked it if was really worth it to phase it in, or just bite the bullet and do it all at once. He agreed that a shorter phase in period would be better. Tim Knapp asked if the intent is to have voters weigh in on the fee. Chair Rogers said that piece has not been included in Board discussions yet. Mr. Singelakis said that it would be a Board decision if it were to go before voters or to be implemented without being referred to the voters. Chair Rogers asked if there was a narrow window of time for implementation. Mr. Singelakis said it will depend on what happens with the Columbia River Crossing Funding Package in 2015. He said it would be optimal to get the vehicle registration fee implemented by the end of September 2013, as it could take about a year to go into effect after the adoption of an ordinance. Chair Rogers said the Board needs to consider all aspects of this proposal - fee amounts, if it should be phased in, and if it should be taken to the public for a vote or just implemented - or come up with a different solution to the funding issues. Chair Rogers emphasized that the Board is very interested in getting input from the WCCC and vetting the ideas here before taking the recommendations back to the Board. Mr. Singelakis noted that the next WCCC meeting in July will take place before the proposal goes back to the Board, therefore, there will be further time for discussion at the WCCC. Lou Ogden said he’s in favor of the fee. However, he said he is concerned that Washington County is getting to be a really expensive place to live and do business and that he gets a lot of push back from developers having to pay fees for various requirements in Washington County. Mr. Ogden said the real question is, is the public engaged and are they willing to support this. He said he thinks it would be best to engage the public at the same level as MSTIP, for instance, and have it voted on, as MSTIP has been very successful. He said Tualatin has had several successful bonds passed by voters who were engaged and supported recreation and park maintenance fees. Mr. Ogden said it may be more logical to approach this through a gas tax. Comparing it to a $.03 gas tax is unrealistic and perhaps a $.12 or $.15 fee would be a better starting place. Tualatin has a road maintenance fee that has been successful. Mr. Ogden said he didn’t know if he would publicly support essentially doubling vehicle registration fees. He said he didn’t think implementation of a vehicle registration fee was better than the gas tax, even if it was a simpler process. Mr. Ogden asked about using Urban Road Maintenance District (URMD) funds. Mr. Singelakis replied that URMD funds are restricted and can’t be used outside the district.


Page 7 of 8

Chair Rogers said the issue also remains that there are 450 lane miles within cities that need to be maintained. Chair Rogers said the Board really needs input to help come up with the correct answer to close the maintenance funding gap. Mr. Ogden said he thinks the right answer is the one with the support of the public and would feel a lot more comfortable about this process with public support. Bill Middleton said he agreed that it needs to go before the public for a vote. Mr. Singelakis said after the WCCC’s recommendation, Washington County will send a mailer to every household in the county explaining the vehicle registration fee program to elicit feedback from the public. Jef Dalin asked how much of the roads are urbanized, unincorporated vs. rural. Chair Rogers said the 1300 miles are split 50/50 urban and rural. Mr. Dalin said Cornelius successfully uses their $.02 gas tax for road maintenance and paving and also remarked about the success of the MSTIP program. He said the 10-year phase in seems far too long and suggested a two step phase in over a four-year timeline. Mr. Dalin agreed with previous comments that it needs to go up for public vote. Tim Knapp said he agreed about taking it to the public and explaining the need for the funding. Mr. Knapp said there are issues of inequity as well. He said he is aware of other states where people are charged according to the value of the vehicle that’s being registered. It doesn’t seem fair to charge people the same fee across the board without considering the value of a vehicle. The flat fee also doesn’t account for travel distance, which may vary greatly between drivers. Mr. Singelakis noted there are limits imposed by state law on how the county could structure and implement this program. Lise Glancy said Mr. Ogden had mentioned his concern about Washington County becoming business prohibitive and she thought it would be helpful to include information from other jurisdictions for comparison, i.e., Multnomah County. She also suggested that a map of county roads is made available to highlight which roads are within cities. Ms. Glancy closed with saying it appears that further public outreach is needed and the 10-year phase in is too long. Denny Doyle said he agrees with Mr. Dalin’s comments. He said he’s glad that the county is taking this on because something needs to be done. He thinks this program would be a fair and honest way to pay for the maintenance as the fee is not tacked on to something unrelated. Mr. Doyle agreed that it should go out to the public for vote in November. John Cook said he is concerned about the equity of charging a flat fee to a single driver who may own several vehicles (driving only one car at a time with limited travel) vs. a household with several vehicles and all members of the household drive their own vehicle. Martha DeBry noted that electric vehicles don’t consume gas. Electric vehicles and high fuel efficient vehicles are the future trend. She said a gas tax probably wouldn’t be the best choice as an alternative to a vehicle registration fee. Lou Ogden asked if there’s anything that would preclude this money from being bondable. Mr. Singelakis said it could be bonded.

WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON

Department of Land Use & Transportation · Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning

155 N First Avenue, Ste. 350 MS 14 � Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 phone: (503) 846-3519 � fax: (503) 846-4412 � TTY: (503) 846-4598 � www.co.washington.or.us

Memorandum To: Washington County Coordination Committee

From: Steve L Kelley, Senior Transportation Planner

Date: July 1, 2013

Re: Transportation Development Tax (TDT) – Project List Amendments

At the June 27, WCCC TAC meeting the TAC recommended that the WCCC consider and forward an amended TDT project list for consideration and adoption by the Board of County Commissioners. The TDT project list identifies the improvements eligible for TDT funding, the total need for future developments, and effects development credits. From time to time it becomes necessary to amend the list of projects to respond to changing conditions. Changes may be in response to changing transportation plans, or specific opportunities associated with development. Such amendments are allowed via resolution and order by the Board of County Commissioners. Requests for project list amendments have been submitted by four jurisdictions (Beaverton, Hillsboro, Tualatin and Washington County). County staff has assembled the attached list and evaluated and confirmed the proportion of the project related to capacity and future growth. This evaluation followed the same methodology as adopted by the TDT. The proposed project list additions are bold and underlined while the deletions are in strikeout. Each jurisdiction continues to maintain an individual TDT account of revenues received from development. Each jurisdiction decides how to apply TDT revenues towards eligible projects on the list. The amount of each improvement covered by the TDT and other revenue sources is recorded in the annual report. Please come to the WCCC meeting prepared to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the attached proposed TDT project list amendments. Attachment:

• Proposed Amended: Transportation Development Tax Road Project List

Proposed AmendedTransportation Development Tax Road Project List

Proposed Appendix CAs recommended by WCCC TAC

June 27, 2013

Jurisdiction Road From To ProjectProject Cost

(2008$)

Proportion of Project

Related to Capacity (%)

Other Primary Funding Source

Other Primary Funding Revenue

Eligible Capacity Amount

Growth Share

Eligible SDC Amount

Estimated Project Completion Timeframe

Beaverton

Allen: Murray-Scholls, Cedar Hills: Farmington to north of Walker, Hall: Southbound Hwy. 217 ramp-Cedar Hills, Farmington: Southbound Hwy. 217 ramp-west of Murray Adaptive signal systems $11,040,000 100% $11,040,000 100.0% $11,040,000 2018-2025

BeavertonFarmington Road Murray Hocken

widen to 5 lanes with multimodal improvements $9,604,800 100% $9,604,800 96.8% $9,299,886 2008-2017

Beaverton Hocken Ave. TV Hwy Farmington widen to 5 lanes w/ multimodal $1,766,400 100% $1,766,400 100.0% $1,766,400 2018-2025Beaverton Rose Biggi Crescent Hall via Westgate extend 2-lane multimoal $3,864,000 100% $3,864,000 100.0% $3,864,000 2008-2017Beaverton Crescent Rose Biggi Cedar Hills extend 2-lane multimodal $3,864,000 100% $3,864,000 100.0% $3,864,000 2008-2017

BeavertonDawson / Westgate Rose Biggi Hocken extend 2-lane multimodal $9,825,600 100% $9,825,600 100.0% $9,825,600 2008-2017

Beaverton Davies Road Scholls Ferry Barrows extend 2-lane multimodal $5,409,600 100% $5,409,600 100.0% $5,409,600 2008-2017Beaverton 125th Brockman Hall extend 2-lane multimodal $15,345,600 100% $15,345,600 100.0% $15,345,600 2008-2017Beaverton Rose Biggi TV Hwy Broadway extend 2-lane multimodal $3,312,000 100% $3,312,000 100.0% $3,312,000 2008-2017Beaverton Millikan Watson 114th extend 2-lane multimodal $15,235,200 100% $15,235,200 100.0% $15,235,200 2018-2025Beaverton New street Broadway 115th construct 2-lane multimodal $4,968,000 100% $4,968,000 100.0% $4,968,000 2018-2025Beaverton 114th/115th LRT BH/Griffith construct 2-lane multimodal $11,040,000 100% $11,040,000 100.0% $11,040,000 2008-2017

Beaverton120th new street Center Canyon construct 2-lane multimodal $9,825,600 100% $9,825,600 100.0% $9,825,600 2018-2025

Beaverton141st / 142nd / 144th 141st 144th Extend and connect streets $7,065,600 100% $7,065,600 100.0% $7,065,600 2008-2017

Beaverton Sexton Mtn 155th Sexton Mtn extend 2-lane multimodal $2,760,000 100% $2,760,000 100.0% $2,760,000 2018-2025Beaverton Nimbus Hall Denney extend 2-lane multimodal $17,001,600 100% $17,001,600 100.0% $17,001,600 2008-2017Beaverton Hall Hall Jenkins construct 2 or 4 lane $15,897,600 100% $15,897,600 100.0% $15,897,600 2026+Beaverton Hall Cedar Hills Hocken extend 2-lane multimodal $6,072,000 100% $6,072,000 100.0% $6,072,000 2008-2017

Beaverton Scholls Ferry Daviesadd NB rt turn lane, close east end of Scholls Ferry @Barrows $331,200 100% $331,200 100.0% $331,200 2026+

Beaverton Cedar Hills Walkeradd double left turn lanes on all approaches, add EB rt turn lane $3,643,200 100% $3,643,200 60.8% $2,215,459 2026+

Beaverton Murray Allen turn lanes, signal imprvmts $1,578,720 100% $1,578,720 66.7% $1,052,480 2026+Beaverton Hall Center turn lanes, signal imprvmts $121,440 100% $121,440 100.0% $121,440 2026+

Beaverton Scholls FerryBarrows (west end) add SB rt turn lane $331,200 100% $331,200 88.1% $291,771 2026+

Beaverton Millikan Murray rt turn lane for WB Millikan $607,200 100% $607,200 100.0% $607,200 2026+Beaverton Walker 173rd turn lanes, signal imprvmts $2,760,000 100% $2,760,000 84.2% $2,324,211 2026+Beaverton Walker 167th signalize; add SB left turn lane $187,680 100% $187,680 92.7% $173,995 2026+Beaverton Cedar Hills Jenkins turn lanes, signal imprvmts $2,550,240 100% $2,550,240 100.0% $2,550,240 2026+

Page 1 of 12



June 27, 2013


(2008$)






Growth Share

Eligible SDC Amount


Beaverton Cedar Hills Hall add NB rt turn lane $728,640 100% $728,640 100.0% $728,640 2026+Beaverton Canyon Cedar Hills turn lanes, signal imprvmts $6,922,080 100% $6,922,080 100.0% $6,922,080 2026+Beaverton Farmington Cedar Hills turn lanes, signal imprvmts $3,036,000 100% $3,036,000 95.2% $2,891,429 2026+

Beaverton Hall Allenadd EB&WB rt turn lanes, NB&SB double lefts $2,373,600 100% $2,373,600 100.0% $2,373,600 2026+

Beaverton Scholls Ferry 125th add SB rt turn lane $1,280,640 100% $1,280,640 100.0% $1,280,640 2026+Beaverton Scholls Ferry Nimbus turn lanes, signal imprvmts $1,733,280 100% $1,733,280 88.5% $1,533,286 2026+Beaverton Farmington Lombard add NB rt turn lane $1,689,120 100% $1,689,120 100.0% $1,689,120 2026+Beaverton BH Hwy Western turn lanes, signal imprvmts $2,064,480 100% $2,064,480 100.0% $2,064,480 2026+Beaverton Hall Denney turn lanes, signal imprvmts $850,080 100% $850,080 100.0% $850,080 2026+Beaverton Scholls Ferry Allen turn lanes, signal imprvmts $4,128,960 100% $4,128,960 28.6% $1,179,703 2026+Beaverton Murray Brockman Add WB & SB rt turn lanes $1,280,640 100% $1,280,640 100.0% $1,280,640 2026+

Beaverton Millikan 141st Hocken Add signal, turn lanes, bike & ped $2,870,400 100% $2,870,400 100.0% $2,870,400 2018-2025

Beaverton Denney Hall Scholls Ferry Add turn lanes, bike lanes & signalize $6,734,400 100% $6,734,400 100.0% $6,734,400 2018-2025

Beaverton Allen Hwy 217 Western Add turn lanes, signals, bike/ped $6,955,200 100% $6,955,200 100.0% $6,955,200 2018-2025Beaverton Cedar Hills Farmington Walker Add turn lanes, bike lanes $20,976,000 100% $20,976,000 92.3% $19,362,462 2018-2025

Beaverton Millikan TV Hwy 141st Add turn lanes, signals, bike and ped $18,878,400 100% $18,878,400 100.0% $18,878,400 2018-2025

Beaverton Hall500' south of Allen 12th Add turn lanes, bike lanes $6,734,400 100% $6,734,400 100.0% $6,734,400 2018-2025

Beaverton Hall Farmington Cedar Hills Add turn lanes, bike lanes $5,740,800 100% $5,740,800 100.0% $5,740,800 2018-2025Beaverton Weir 155th 175th Turn lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks $4,526,400 100% $4,526,400 100.0% $4,526,400 2018-2025

Beaverton Allen Hwy 217 MurrayAdd turn lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks & signalize $45,926,400 100% $45,926,400 63.0% $28,916,622 2008-2017

Beaverton Canyon Rd 170th OR 217 Access Management $1,000,000 100% $1,000,000 100.0% $1,000,000 2014-2017

CorneliusSusbauer / 19th TVHighway Zion Church

Add new traffic signals at Holladay and Davis and widen existing travel lanes. $17,240,000 75% $12,930,000 100.0% $12,930,000 2008-2017

CorneliusCornelius-Schefflin S. CL Verboot Circle

Add new traffic signals at Heather, Dogwood, Davis and Holladay and widen existing travel lanes. $7,400,000 75% $5,550,000 100.0% $5,550,000 2008-2017

Cornelius 10th Adair/Main BaselineAdd left & right turn lanes at couplet intersection approaches. $2,200,000 100%

Developer / ODOT Rail $880,000 $1,320,000 35.7% $471,429 2018-2025

Cornelius 14th Holladay DogwoodAdd signals at TV Hwy. and widen existing travel lanes. $2,800,000 75% $2,100,000 100.0% $2,100,000 2026+

CorneliusForest Grove Connectivity

East Forest Grove City Limit

West Cornelius City Limit

Construct new 2 lane collector between Cornelius & Forest Grove $1,500,000 100% $1,500,000 100.0% $1,500,000 2026+

Cornelius//Forest Grove

Holladay St Extension 4th Ave Yew St new 2 lane collector $10,764,871 100% $10,764,871 100.0% $10,764,871 2018-2025

CorneliusHolladay St Extension 10th Ave Gray St new 2 lane collector $1,300,000 100% $1,300,000 100.0% $1,300,000 2008-2017

CorneliusHolladay St Extension Gray St 19th Ave new 2 lane collector $1,300,000 100% $1,300,000 100.0% $1,300,000 2018-2025

CorneliusDavis St Extension 4th Ave 10th Ave new 2 lane collector $2,500,000 100% $2,500,000 100.0% $2,500,000 2018-2025

Page 2 of 12



June 27, 2013


(2008$)






Growth Share

Eligible SDC Amount


CorneliusTV Highway Corridor 4th Ave 29th Ave traffic signal system coordination $450,000 100% $450,000 100.0% $450,000 2008-2017

Cornelius Baseline 10th Ave 20th AveInteconnect signals and consolidate access points. $3,600,000 100% federal grant $3,060,000 $540,000 100.0% $540,000 2008-2017

DurhamUpper Boones Ferry Afton Durham

Widen to accommodate extended left turn lane at Durham $276,000 100% $276,000 100.0% $276,000 2008-2017

DurhamUpper Boones Ferry

At Tualatin River Add 2 through lanes $600,000 100% $600,000 100.0% $600,000 2018-2025

Forest Grove 19th Poplar HWY 47 Extend 2 LN $1,517,156 100% $1,517,156 100.0% $1,517,156 2008-2017Forest Grove 23-24 Hawthorn Quince Construct 3 LN $16,574,964 100% $16,574,964 100.0% $16,574,964 2008-2017Forest Grove 26th Juniper Oak Construct 3 LN $5,310,045 100% $5,310,045 100.0% $5,310,045 2008-2017Forest Grove B St Hartford David Hill Extend 2 LN $6,068,623 100% $6,068,623 100.0% $6,068,623 2008-2017

Forest Grove David HillEast Terminus HWY 47 Complete 3 LN $6,428,075 100% $6,428,075 100.0% $6,428,075 2008-2017

Forest Grove Hartford Extend to Thatcher 3,707,150 100% $3,707,150 100.0% $3,707,150 2026+Forest Grove Hawthorn 26th HWY 47 Complete 2 LN $7,885,582 100% $7,885,582 100.0% $7,885,582 2008-2017Forest Grove Laurel 22nd 26th Complete 2 LN $8,598,914 100% $8,598,914 100.0% $8,598,914 2008-2017Forest Grove Main Hartford David Hill Complete 2 LN $6,068,623 100% $6,068,623 100.0% $6,068,623 2008-2017Forest Grove Thatcher Gales Creek Thatcher Signalize Intersection $3,996,480 75% $2,997,360 100.0% $2,997,360 2008-2017Forest Grove HWY 47 Elm HWY 47 Signalize Intersection $299,804 75% $224,853 100.0% $224,853 2008-2017Forest Grove Sunset Willamina Sunset Add turn lanes / signal $1,525,244 100% $1,525,244 78.6% $1,198,406 2026+Forest Grove HWY 47 Maple HWY 47 Signalize Intersection $299,804 75% $224,853 100.0% $224,853 2008-2017Forest Grove TV HWY Quince Add turn lanes / signal $4,294,293 100% $4,294,293 100.0% $4,294,293 2008-2017

Forest Grove Oak Pacific HWY 47Upgrade to 2 LN Collector add Signal $6,200,788 75% $4,650,591 100.0% $4,650,591 2008-2017

Forest Grove HeatherMountain View HWY 47 Construct 2 LN Collector $6,375,830 100% $6,375,830 100.0% $6,375,830 2008-2017

Forest Grove E/Pacific/19th 19th E Extend 2 Lane couplet $5,264,808 100% $5,264,808 100.0% $5,264,808 2008-2017Hillsboro Main Main Add westbound right turn $977,417 100% $977,417 100.0% $977,417 2026+Hillsboro Imlay at TV HWY Signalize $488,709 75% $366,531 100.0% $366,531 2026+

Hillsboro Cornelius Pass at TV HWY Add 2nd eastbound left turn lane $2,443,542 100% $2,443,542 86.0% $2,101,446 2026+

Hillsboro Bentleyat Brookwood Add eastbound left turn lane $772,466 100% $772,466 100.0% $772,466 2026+

Hillsboro Harewoodat Jackson School Add EB right turn lane $772,466 100% $772,466 100.0% $772,466 2026+

Hillsboro TV HWY 185th Cornelius Pass Widen to 7 lanes $77,246,647 100% $77,246,647 84.0% $64,887,183 2026+Hillsboro Witch Hazel at River signalize $386,233 75% $289,675 100.0% $289,675 2026+

Hillsboro Minter Bridge TV HWY

convert NB through-left lane to separate left turn lane and change N/S signal phasing to protected $635,321 100% $635,321 100.0% $635,321 2026+

Hillsboro Evergreen at 229th

Add northbound/southbound right turn lanes, protected-permitted N/S signal $1,221,770 100% $1,221,770 100.0% $1,221,770 2026+

Hillsboro Grant 25th/28th Add eastbound left turn lane $1,466,124 100% $1,466,124 100.0% $1,466,124 2026+

Hillsboro Grant at CornellAdd eastbound/westbound left turn lanes $977,417 100% $977,417 100.0% $977,417 2026+

Page 3 of 12



June 27, 2013


(2008$)






Growth Share

Eligible SDC Amount


Hillsboro Cornell/Main at 10th Add northbound and southbound lanes $3,811,924 100% $3,811,924 100.0% $3,811,924 2026+

Hillsboro Cornell at 185th

Add northbound and southbound double left turn lanes, Add northbound right turn lane $2,443,542 100% $2,443,542 100.0% $2,443,542 2026+

Hillsboro Aloclek Amberwood Cornelius Pass Extend 3 lane $3,909,666 100% $3,909,666 100.0% $3,909,666 2018-2025Hillsboro Amberwood 206th Cornelius Pass Widen to 3 lane $2,932,250 100% $2,932,250 100.0% $2,932,250 2018-2025

Hillsboro Airport (Butler) Shute Brookwood Widen to 3 lane $2,345,723 100% $2,345,723 100.0% $2,345,723 2026+Hillsboro Cornell Arrington Main widen 5 lane $11,728,998 100% $11,728,998 100.0% $11,728,998 2018-2025Hillsboro Amberglen Walker 206th New 3 lane $4,105,149 100% $4,105,149 100.0% $4,105,149 2008-2017

Hillsboro Evergreenat Cornelius Pass

Add 2nd left turn lane on northbound/southbound/eastbound approaches, eastbound and westbound right turn lanes $5,864,499 100% $5,864,499 100.0% $5,864,499 2026+

HillsboroJackson School Grant Evergreen Widen to 3 lanes $7,976,257 100% $7,976,257 100.0% $7,976,257 2018-2025

HillsboroEdgeway (Salix Ext) LRT Walker New 3 lane extension $8,405,782 100% $8,405,782 100.0% $8,405,782 2018-2025

Hillsboro 10th Walnut Washington Widen and turn lanes $8,806,118 100% $8,806,118 100.0% $8,806,118 2026+

Hillsboro WilkensCornelius Pass Edgeway new 3 lane $6,797,705 100% $6,797,705 100.0% $6,797,705 2026+

Hillsboro Century Baseline LoisNew 3 lane $ bridge over Rock Creek $29,817,206 100% $29,817,206 100.0% $29,817,206 2018-2025

Hillsboro 231st LRT Baseline widen 3 lanes $10,814,531 100% $10,814,531 100.0% $10,814,531 2008-2017

Hillsboro 1st/Glencoe at Grant

Install traffic signal/ widen Glencoe for southbound left turn lane, add left turn lane on Grant $4,887,086 100% $4,887,086 100.0% $4,887,086 2026+

HillsboroCentury Blvd/229th Evergreen West Union

extend 3 lane, including Hwy 26 overcrossing $14,676,863 100% $14,676,863 100.0% $14,676,863 2018-2025

Hillsboro Cornelius Pass TV HWY 209thExtend as new 3 lane/including grade seperation at TV HWY $27,367,662 100% $27,367,662 100.0% $27,367,662 2018-2025

Hillsboro69th (Quatama) 227th Baseline New 3 lane extension $4,943,785 100% $4,943,785 100.0% $4,943,785 2026+

Hillsboro Grant Brookwood 28th new 3 lane $13,904,396 100% $13,904,396 100.0% $13,904,396 2026+Hillsboro 28th Baseline Cornell widen 3 lanes $4,943,785 100% $4,943,785 100.0% $4,943,785 2018-2025Hillsboro Brookwood TV HWY River Ext 3 lane $15,449,329 100% $15,449,329 100.0% $15,449,329 2008-2017

Hillsboro Cornell at 229thadd EB and SB right turn lans, add WB 2nd left turn lane $1,954,833 100% $1,954,833 100.0% $1,954,833 2026+

Hillsboro 185th at WalkerAdd 2nd SB and EB left turn lanes, WB right turn lane $4,398,375 100% $4,398,375 67.1% $2,950,129 2026+

Hillsboro 10th Baseline add turn lanes $3,176,603 100% $3,176,603 100.0% $3,176,603 2026+

Hillsboro 13th TV HWY RiverAdd EB right turn lane and NB left turn lane $977,417 100% $977,417 100.0% $977,417 2026+

Hillsboro Riverat Rood Bridge Add eastbound right turn lane $742,756 100% $742,756 100.0% $742,756 2026+

Hillsboro 229th at TV HWY Add NB right turn lane $450,000 100% $450,000 100.0% $450,000 2026+Hillsboro 253rd Evergreen signalize $1,025,004 75% $768,753 100.0% $768,753 2026+Hillsboro 234th Johnson signal $450,000 75% $337,500 100.0% $337,500 2026+

Page 4 of 12



June 27, 2013


(2008$)






Growth Share

Eligible SDC Amount


Hillsboro Brookwood Cornell Add Dedicated 2nd SB Thru Lane $2,443,542 100% $2,443,542 100.0% $2,443,542 2026+Hillsboro Quatama LRT 227th Widen to 3 lanes $8,210,299 100% $8,210,299 100.0% $8,210,299 2026+Hillsboro Huffman Shute 253rd New 3 lane $1,853,920 100% $1,853,920 100.0% $1,853,920 2008-2017Hillsboro New Collector 229th Cornelius Pass New 3 lane $3,200,000 100% $3,200,000 100.0% $3,200,000 2008-2017

Hillsboro EvergreenCornelius Pass 215th

Add bicycle lanes, including rail crossing removal/grade adjustments. Add WB right turn lane at Cornelius Pass, including Ped island $1,200,000 100% Developer $120,000 $1,080,000 100.0% $1,080,000 2017

Hillsboro 231stCampus Way Cornell

widen to 5 lanes with multimodal improvements $500,000 100% Developer $330,000 $170,000 100.0% $170,000 2017

Hillsboro 231st Cherry Campus Way

Construct Southbound Cycletrack and west pedestrian improvements $160,000 100% Developer $100,000 $60,000 100.0% $60,000 2017

Hillsboro 231stLRT Crossing

signal & pedestrian crossing improvements $250,000 100% Developer $25,000 $225,000 100.0% $225,000 2017

HillsboroCampus Ct extension existing Ray Circle Construct new 2/3 lane collector $1,800,000 100% Developer $100,000 $1,700,000 100.0% $1,700,000 2017

HillsboroCornelius Pass Cornell HWY 26

NB right turn lane to US26 East, and multimodal enhancements $1,950,000 100%

Developer, ODOT, TIF,

& MSTIP $1,285,000 $665,000 100.0% $665,000 2017North Plains 208th Pacific Kaybern Extension Construct new two-lane collector $500,000 100% $500,000 100.0% $500,000 2026+North Plains 289th Pacific West Union Construct new two-lane collector $750,000 100% $750,000 100.0% $750,000 2026+North Plains Pacific 289th Jackson School Construct new two-lane collector $1,750,000 100% $1,750,000 100.0% $1,750,000 2026+North Plains 309th North Future school site Construct new two-lane collector $1,000,000 100% $1,000,000 100.0% $1,000,000 2026+North Plains 313th North Future school site Construct new two-lane collector $750,000 100% $750,000 100.0% $750,000 2026+North Plains Cottage 318th Gordon Construct new two-lane collector $4,762,500 100% $4,762,500 100.0% $4,762,500 2026+

North PlainsJackson School Pacific West Union Construct new two-lane collector $750,000 100% $750,000 100.0% $750,000 2026+

North PlainsKaybern Extension 280th West city limits Construct new two-lane collector $2,750,000 100% $2,750,000 100.0% $2,750,000 2026+

North Plains Main North Tirmeric Construct new two-lane collector $1,250,000 100% $1,250,000 100.0% $1,250,000 2026+North Plains Mountaindale 309th Tirmeric Construct new two-lane collector $3,500,000 100% $3,500,000 100.0% $3,500,000 2026+North Plains Pacific 307th East city limits Construct new two-lane collector $750,000 100% $750,000 100.0% $750,000 2026+North Plains Tirmeric North Future school site Construct new two-lane collector $1,000,000 100% $1,000,000 100.0% $1,000,000 2026+

North Plains West Union Glencoe Jackson SchoolWiden existing travel lanes to standard $2,365,000 50% $1,182,500 100.0% $1,182,500 2026+

North Plains Yorkshire 309th Tirmeric Construct new two-lane collector $2,250,000 100% $2,250,000 100.0% $2,250,000 2026+North Plains Pacific Glencoe Add new signal $297,102 75% $222,827 100.0% $222,827 2026+

North Plains Commercial GlencoeAdd westbound left turn, eastbound right turn & signalize $371,378 100% $371,378 80.8% $299,959 2026+

Sherwood Oregon Street Oregon St at Tonquin RdConstruct roundabout north of Oregon St/Murdock Roundabout $772,466 100% $772,466 100.0% $772,466 2026+

Sherwood Adams Street Adams Aveat T-S Rd Intersection Install Traffic Signal $386,233 75% $289,675 80.6% $233,609 2008-2017

Sherwood Edy Road Edy Rd at Borchers DriveImprove 3 leg intersection; possible roundabout $458,845 100% $458,845 100.0% $458,845 2026+

Page 5 of 12



June 27, 2013


(2008$)






Growth Share

Eligible SDC Amount


SherwoodBaler Way Signal

Tualatin-Sherwood at Baler Way

Remove traffic signal, install raised median and allow right in right out only. $154,493 25% $38,623 87.2% $33,693 2026+

SherwoodSherwood Boulevard

Sherwood Blvd at Langer Drive

Remove Traffic Signal. Allow lefts in only (no lefts from Langer to Sherwood); capacity issues related to queing at 99W $231,740 25% $57,935 100.0% $57,935 2026+

SherwoodSherwood Boulevard

Sherwood Blvd at Century Drive

Improve intersection; possible roundabout in conjuncture with 1050-30 (roundabout at Edy and Borchers); capacity issues related to queing at 99W $386,233 100% $386,233 100.0% $386,233 2026+

SherwoodAdams Ave South 1st & Oregon

Tualatin-Sherwood Rd Construction of 3 lane road $9,115,104 100% $9,115,104 100.0% $9,115,104 2008-2017

SherwoodAdams Ave North

Tualatin-Sherwood Home Depot/99W Construction of 3 lane road $3,244,359 100% $3,244,359 100.0% $3,244,359 2018-2025

Sherwood Century Drive Adams AveTualatin-Sherwood Rd Construction of 3 lane road $4,171,319 100% $4,171,319 100.0% $4,171,319 2008-2017

Sherwood Oregon StreetRailroad Crossing

Murdock / Oregon Roundabout

Adds turn lanes and center median for capacity $4,171,319 100% $4,171,319 100.0% $4,171,319 2026+

Sherwood Pine Street Willamette Sunset

New road extension across rail road tracks from RR Street to Willamette; Existing county road will be widened. $3,808,260 100% $3,808,260 100.0% $3,808,260 2008-2017

Sherwood Elwert Road ORE 99W KrugerAdd lanes, turn lanes, and modify signal and phasing, $3,089,866 100% $3,089,866 100.0% $3,089,866 2018-2025

SherwoodBrookman Road ORE 99W Ladd Hill Road Add turn lanes and center median $13,440,917 100% $13,440,917 100.0% $13,440,917 2018-2025

SherwoodGalbreath Drive

T-S Rd/Gerda Ln Cipole Road

Construction of 2 lane collector road $2,317,399 100% $2,317,399 100.0% $2,317,399 2018-2025

SherwoodCedar Brook Way ORE 99W ORE 99W Construction of 2 lane road $5,561,759 100% $5,561,759 100.0% $5,561,759 2008-2017

Sherwood Smith AvenueMeinecke Road Woodhaven Drive Construction of 2 lane road $849,713 100% $849,713 100.0% $849,713 2018-2025

SherwoodSouth Loop Road ORE 99W ORE 99W Construction of 2 lane road $2,780,879 100% $2,780,879 100.0% $2,780,879 2018-2025

Sherwood Villa Road Park StCurrent terminus of Villa Rd Construction of 2 lane road $1,467,686 100% $1,467,686 100.0% $1,467,686 2026+

Sherwood

Cannery Arterials (Phase 2 of the Downtown Sherwood Master Plan)

Washington St. Oregon St.

New road to improve access to old town $3,862,332 100% $3,862,332 100.0% $3,862,332 2008-2017

Page 6 of 12



June 27, 2013


(2008$)






Growth Share

Eligible SDC Amount


Sherwood

Cannery Arterials (Phase 2 of the Downtown Sherwood Master Plan)

South of Railroad St. Willamette St.

New road to improve access to old town $1,699,426 100% $1,699,426 100.0% $1,699,426 2008-2017

Sherwood

Sunset Boulevard Road & Intersection Improvements Aldergrove Eucalyptus

Add turn lanes and center median for capacity at intersection of Main/Sunset; possibility of future signal $7,427,562 100% $7,427,562 100.0% $7,427,562 2026+

Sherwood Arrow Street Adams Ave Gerda Laneconstruct new road to 2 lane collector standards $7,427,562 100% $7,427,562 100.0% $7,427,562 2026+

Sherwood Ladd Hill Road Sunset Blvd UGB south Widen to 3 lanes plus turn lanes $8,913,075 100% $8,913,075 100.0% $8,913,075 2026+

Sherwood

Edy Rd/Sherwood Blvd Borchers Dr 3rd St Add turn lanes and center median $7,427,562 100% $7,427,562 100.0% $7,427,562 2018-2025

Sherwood Edy Rd Borchers Dr City Limits west Add turn lanes and center median $7,427,562 100% $7,427,562 100.0% $7,427,562 2008-2017

Sherwood Elwert Road 99W Edy Rd Add turn lanes and center median $14,855,124 100% $14,855,124 100.0% $14,855,124 2018-2025Tigard 72nd Ave Durham Bonita widen to 5 lanes $9,269,598 100% $9,269,598 72.4% $6,712,467 2008-2017Tigard 72nd Ave Bonita Hunziker widen to 5 lanes $7,261,185 100% $7,261,185 100.0% $7,261,185 2008-2017Tigard 72nd Ave ORE 99W Hunziker widen to 5 lanes $9,269,598 100% $9,269,598 100.0% $9,269,598 2008-2017

Tigard 121stQuail Creek Ln Walnut widen to 3 lanes $4,325,812 100% $4,325,812 100.0% $4,325,812 2026+

Tigard 121st North Dakota Walnut widen to 3 lanes $4,325,812 100% $4,325,812 100.0% $4,325,812 2026+Tigard Bonita Hall I5 widen to 4 lanes $6,179,732 100% $6,179,732 31.9% $1,972,255 2008-2017Tigard Burnham Main Hall widen to 3 lanes $7,286,400 100% $7,286,400 100.0% $7,286,400 2026+Tigard Commercial 95th Main 2 lane improvement $1,544,933 100% $1,544,933 100.0% $1,544,933 2026+Tigard Dartmouth 72nd 68th widen to 4 lanes $1,853,920 100% $1,853,920 100.0% $1,853,920 2008-2017

Tigard Dartmouth Ext Dartmouth Hunziker extend/realign road $23,173,994 100% $23,173,994 100.0% $23,173,994 2018-2025

Tigard Fonner Walnut 115thWiden to provide 2 full-width travel lanes, bikelanes & sidewalks $5,098,279 50% $2,549,139 100.0% $2,549,139 2026+

Tigard Greenburg Teideman ORE 99W widen to 5 lanes $9,269,598 100% $9,269,598 100.0% $9,269,598 2018-2025Tigard Greenburg Teideman Shady Lane widen to 5 lanes $3,089,866 100% $3,089,866 29.4% $908,784 2008-2017

TigardWashington Sq Nimbus Ave.

South mall area (Locust St.)

2-lane overcrossing of Hwy. 217 with sidewalks & bikelanes $39,781,536 100% $39,781,536 100.0% $39,781,536 2018-2025

TigardWashington Sq Nimbus Ave. North mall area

2-lane overcrossing of Hwy. 217 with sidewalks & bikelanes $39,781,536 100% $39,781,536 100.0% $39,781,536 2026+

Tigard Hunziker Hall 72nd widen to 3 lanes $4,634,799 100% $4,634,799 100.0% $4,634,799 2026+Tigard Locust Greenburg Hall Widen to 3 lanes $2,471,893 100% $2,471,893 100.0% $2,471,893 2026+

TigardNimbus Drive Ext Scholls Ferry Greenburg 3 lane extension $23,173,994 100% $23,173,994 100.0% $23,173,994 2018-2025

Page 7 of 12



June 27, 2013


(2008$)






Growth Share

Eligible SDC Amount


Tigard North Dakota 121st TiedemanWiden to provide 2 full-width travel lanes, bikelanes & sidewalks $5,407,265 50% $2,703,633 100.0% $2,703,633 2026+

Tigard Wall Ext Hunziker HallExtend Wall St. across creek and RR to connect to Hunziker $10,814,531 100% $10,814,531 100.0% $10,814,531 2026+

Tigard Walnut 121st Tiedeman widen to 3 lanes $4,325,812 100% $4,325,812 100.0% $4,325,812 2026+Tigard Walnut Tiedeman ORE 99W Widen to 3 lanes $3,862,332 100% $3,862,332 100.0% $3,862,332 2026+Tigard Walnut Ext ORE 99W Scoffins New 3-lane collector $29,353,726 100% $29,353,726 100.0% $29,353,726 2008-2017

TigardUpper Boones Ferry Durham I-5 widen to 5 lanes $4,634,799 100% $4,634,799 100.0% $4,634,799 2008-2017

Tigard Darmouth 72ndIntersection expansion to 5 lanes & new signalization $2,549,139 100% $2,491,204 100.0% $2,491,204 2026+

Tigard McDonald Hall

Right turn lane from Hall to McDonald & signal system upgrade $772,466 100% $772,466 89.7% $692,948 2026+

Tigard Scoffins Hunziker Hall

Reconfigure Scoffins to intersect Hall at Hunziker & modify to 4-way signal $3,862,332 100% $3,862,332 100.0% $3,862,332 2026+

Tigard North Dakota 125th right turn lane $695,220 100% $695,220 100.0% $695,220 2026+

Tigard Nimbus Scholls Ferry right turn lane $1,776,673 100% $1,776,673 100.0% $1,776,673 2026+

Tigard 121st Walnut North DakotaWiden to 3 lanes with sidewalks & bikelanes $3,321,606 100% $3,321,606 100.0% $3,321,606 2026+

Tigard 121st North Dakota New signal system $231,740 100% $231,740 100.0% $231,740 2026+Tigard Greenburg Olsen Hall 2nd NB lane $849,713 100% $849,713 100.0% $849,713 2008-2017

Tigard Main Greenburg ORE 99WAdd protected left turn & eastbound lane on 99W $4,968,000 100% $4,968,000 34.3% $1,705,433 2026+

Tigard Greenburg TeidemanExpand intersection to 5 lanes & signal upgrade $3,167,113 100% $3,167,113 13.0% $413,102 2026+

Tigard Dartmouth ORE 99W right turn lane $308,987 100% $308,987 81.3% $251,052 2026+Tigard 72nd Ave ORE 99W turn lanes $772,466 100% $772,466 100.0% $772,466 2026+Tigard 68th ORE 99W turn lanes $2,394,646 100% $2,394,646 100.0% $2,394,646 2026+Tigard 68th Atlanta Haines New signal system $231,740 75% $173,805 100.0% $173,805 2026+

Tigard 72nd Ave ORE 217Expand the 217 overpass at 72nd Ave. to accommodate 5 lanes $29,710,249 100% $29,710,249 100.0% $29,710,249 2008-2017

Tigard 72nd Ave Bonita

Intersection widening to accommodate a 5-lane 72nd Avenue $1,114,134 100% $1,114,134 34.7% $386,536 2026+

Tigard 72nd Ave Carman NB right turn lane $308,987 100% $308,987 100.0% $308,987 2026+

Tigard 72nd AveUpper Boones Fy

Upgrade signal & expand to accommodate 5 lanes all directions $1,544,933 100% $1,544,933 100.0% $1,544,933 2026+

Tigard ORE 99W McDonald Gaarde WB Right turn lane $1,081,453 100% $1,081,453 51.9% $560,753 2026+

Tigard Walnut ORE 99WWB Right turn lane, protected left turn $1,776,673 100% $1,776,673 36.2% $939,275 2026+

Tigard 72nd Ave Hampton HunzikerAdd southbound right turn & protected left turn phasing $386,233 100% $386,233 100.0% $386,233 2026+

Page 8 of 12



June 27, 2013


(2008$)






Growth Share

Eligible SDC Amount


Tigard DurhamUpper Boones Fy

Reconfigure intersection to make through route between Durham & I-5/Carman interchange $1,544,933 100% $1,544,933 70.0% $1,081,453 2026+

Tigard 68th Dartmouth New signal system $231,740 75% $173,805 100.0% $173,805 2026+Tigard Carman I-5 turn lanes $308,987 100% $308,987 95.4% $294,726 2026+Tigard Carman I-5 NB turn lanes $772,466 100% $772,466 95.4% $736,814 2026+Tigard Atlanta Street Haines Dartmouth Extension of Atlanta Street $5,520,000 100% $5,520,000 100.0% $5,520,000 2026+

Tigard Backage Road 68th Parkway Atlanta Street

Creation of a backage road to provide access to properties fronting 99W $2,428,800 25% $607,200 100.0% $607,200 2026+

TigardBeveland Street 69th Avenue 72nd Avenue

Widening to provide full two-lanes with sidewalks and planters $540,960 50% $270,480 100.0% $270,480 2026+

TigardHighway 217 Overcrossing

Hunziker Street 72nd Avenue

Extend Hunziker over Hwy. 217 to connect to 72nd Avenue at Hampton. $10,637,040 100% $10,637,040 100.0% $10,637,040 2018-2025

Tualatin Sagert 65th signal - new $679,770 75% $509,828 69.4% $354,047 2008-2017Tualatin Avery Teton signal - new $339,885 75% $254,914 100.0% $254,914 2026+Tualatin Cummins Cipole signal - new $339,885 75% $254,914 100.0% $254,914 2026+Tualatin Cipole Herman signal & realign railroad $3,058,967 75% $2,294,225 100.0% $2,294,225 2018-2025Tualatin Avery 105th signal - new $254,914 75% $191,185 100.0% $191,185 2026+Tualatin Teton Tualatin Rd signal - new $254,914 75% $191,185 82.6% $157,936 2018-2025Tualatin Leveton 108th signal - new $254,914 75% $191,185 100.0% $191,185 2026+

Tualatin Grahams Ferry Helenius signal - new $254,914 75% $191,185 100.0% $191,185 2026+Tualatin ORE 99W 130th signal - new $254,914 75% $191,185 100.0% $191,185 2026+Tualatin Blake 108th 105th Widen to 3 lanes $1,461,507 100% $1,461,507 100.0% $1,461,507 2026+Tualatin Hall Tualatin Rd. Durham Rd. extension - 3 lanes & bridge $0 100% $0 100.0% $0 2026+Tualatin Herman Teton Tualatin Add left turn lane $0 100% $0 100.0% $0 2008-2017Tualatin 112th Myslony Tualatin-Sherwood Add left turn lane & bike lanes $0 100% $0 100.0% $0 2026+Tualatin Cipole ORE 99W Tualatin-Sherwood Add left turn lane & bike lanes $10,196,557 100% $10,196,557 45.0% $4,588,451 2018-2025Tualatin Herman Cipole 124th Ave Add left turn lane $1,563,472 100% $1,563,472 100.0% $1,563,472 2008-2017Tualatin Leveton 108th 118th widen to 5 lanes $0 100% $0 100.0% $0 2018-2025Tualatin 108th Leveton Herman widen to 5 lanes $0 100% $0 100.0% $0 2026+

Tualatin Boones FerryTualatin-Sherwood Ibach widen to 5 3 lanes $5,098,279 100% $5,098,279 92.0% $4,690,416 2008-2017

Tualatin McEwan 65th Lake Oswego widen to 3 lanes $3,908,680 100% $3,908,680 100.0% $3,908,680 2026+Tualatin 65th Nyberg Childs Rd extension - 3 lanes & bridge $0 100% $0 100.0% $0 2026+Tualatin ORE 99W Cipole River widen to 6 lanes $6,797,705 100% $6,797,705 100.0% $6,797,705 2026+Tualatin Tualatin Herman Boones Ferry widen to 5 lanes $0 100% $0 52.9% $0 2026+Tualatin 65th Sagert Nyberg widen to 5 lanes $0 100% $0 91.7% $0 2026+Tualatin Sagert Martinazzi 65th widen to 5 lanes $0 100% $0 69.4% $0 2026+Tualatin 90th Tualatin Tualatin-Sherwood widen to 5 lanes $0 100% $0 100.0% $0 2026+Tualatin 128th Cummins Leveton extension - 2 lanes $0 100% $0 100.0% $0 2026+Tualatin Loop Rd Nyberg Boones Ferry new street - 2 lanes $4,248,566 100% $4,248,566 100.0% $4,248,566 2026+

TualatinE-W connection 108th 112th new street - 2 lanes $0 100% $0 100.0% $0 2008-2017

TualatinLower Boones Ferry Tualatin Boones Ferry new street -3 lanes $0 100% $0 100.0% $0 2018-2025

Page 9 of 12



June 27, 2013


(2008$)






Growth Share

Eligible SDC Amount


Tualatin Boones Ferry Martinazzi Lower Boones Ferry Widen to 5 lanes and bridge $13,579,200 100% $13,579,200 90.3% $12,265,084 2018-2025

TualatinHazelbrook Rd 99W Jurgens Ave Widen to 3 lanes $3,543,000 100% $3,543,000 100.0% $3,543,000 2026+

Tualatin Teton Herman Tualatin-Sherwood Widen to 3 lanes $2,464,000 100% $2,464,000 100.0% $2,464,000 2026+Tualatin Myslony 124th Ave 112th Ave Widen to 3 lanes, add bridge $1,403,000 100% $1,403,000 100.0% $1,403,000 2013-2020

Tualatin Avery Teton Tualatin-Sherwood Widen to 3 lanes $3,600,000 100% $3,600,000 100.0% $3,600,000 2026+

Tualatin Boones Ferry Ibach Norwood Widen to 3 lanes $660,000 100% $660,000 100.0% $660,000 2026+

Tualatin Helenius109th Terrace Grahams Ferry Widen to 3 lanes $1,403,000 100% $1,403,000 100.0% $1,403,000 2026+

Tualatin NorwoodBoones Ferry Rd East city limits Widen to 3 lanes $2,824,000 100% $2,824,000 100.0% $2,824,000 2026+

Tualatin 115th Ave Blake St 124th Ave New street $2,144,600 100% $2,144,600 100.0% $2,144,600 2026+

TualatinE-W connection 115th 124th Ave New street $10,000,000 100% $10,000,000 100.0% $10,000,000 2026+

TualatinGrahams Ferry Ibach Helenius Widen to 3 lanes $3,300,000 100% $3,300,000 100.0% $3,300,000 2026+

Tualatin Tualatin Rd 115th signal - new $609,000 75% $456,750 100.0% $456,750 2026+

Wash CO Barnes Cedar Hills Add 2 lefts, 2 thru & modify signal $2,780,879 100% $2,780,879 92.1% $2,560,175 2026+

Wash CO BaselineCornelius Pass Add 2 thru & modify Signal $1,776,673 100% $1,776,673 100.0% $1,776,673 2026+

Wash CO Baseline 185th Grade Seperation $27,036,326 100% $27,036,326 100.0% $27,036,326 2018-2025

Wash COBeaverton-Hillsboro Olsen Rd Scholls Ferry

Realign Oleson Rd. and reconfigure intersections with B-H Hwy. and Scholls Ferry Rd. $31,000,000 100%

MSTIP, MTIP, and

federal earmarks $6,000,000 $25,000,000 72.9% $18,229,167 2018-2025

Wash CO 170th Merlo Alexandria Widen to five lanes $19,002,675 100% $19,002,675 87.5% $16,627,341 2018-2025Wash CO Bethany Kaiser Add turn lanes. $1,390,440 100% $1,390,440 100.0% $1,390,440 2026+

Wash CO 173rd Bronson CornellExtend 173rd Ave. under US26 connecting to 174th Ave. $16,994,262 100% $16,994,262 100.0% $16,994,262 2018-2025

Wash CO 174th Bronson Meadowgrass Widen to three lanes $21,474,568 100% $21,474,568 100.0% $21,474,568 2018-2025Wash CO Cornell 143rd Reconfigure intersection $6,179,732 100% $6,179,732 100.0% $6,179,732 2008-2017

Wash CO 185th

North of Westview High School Springville Rd Widen to five lanes $14,213,383 100% $14,213,383 100.0% $14,213,383 2018-2025

Wash CO CornellCornelius Pass Grade Seperation $23,173,994 100% $23,173,994 100.0% $23,173,994 2026+

Wash CO 209th TV Highway Farmington Realign and widen to three lanes $32,443,592 100% $32,443,592 100.0% $32,443,592 2008-2017Wash CO Kinnanman 198th Add left turn $1,004,206 100% $1,004,206 73.8% $741,200 2026+Wash CO Kinnanman 209th Add signal $231,740 100% $231,740 100.0% $231,740 2026+Wash CO Laidlaw Bethany Add signal $231,740 100% $231,740 100.0% $231,740 2026+

Wash CO197th/198th Ave. T.V. Hwy. Baseline Widen to 3 lanes & eliminate offset $21,474,568 100% $21,474,568 100.0% $21,474,568 2026+

Wash CO Scholls Ferry Hall Add 2 right, 2 left & mod. Signal $2,549,139 100% $2,549,139 100.0% $2,549,139 2026+Wash CO Scholls Ferry Murray Add 1 right, 1 left & mod. Signal $1,390,440 100% $1,390,440 100.0% $1,390,440 2026+

Page 10 of 12



June 27, 2013


(2008$)






Growth Share

Eligible SDC Amount


Wash CO Baseline West of Lisa BrookwoodWiden non-five lane sections to five lanes $35,328,000 100% $35,328,000 32.8% $11,582,951 2026+

Wash COTualatin-Sherwood Rd Boones Ferry Grade Seperation $24,178,201 100% $24,178,201 97.7% $23,628,696 2026+

Wash COTualatin-Sherwood Rd ORE 99W Add right and left turn and signal $1,390,440 100% $1,390,440 87.2% $1,212,937 2026+

Wash COTV HWY-Farmington Murray Grade separation $30,898,659 100% $30,898,659 84.3% $26,043,155 2026+

Wash CO Walker 158thAdd 2 right, 2 left, 1 thru & mod. Signal $2,549,139 100% $2,549,139 82.4% $2,100,939 2026+

Wash CO Cornell 113th Leahy Widen to three lanes $7,724,665 100% $7,724,665 100.0% $7,724,665 2018-2025Wash CO Cornell Murray HWY26 Widen to five lanes $40,322,750 100% $40,322,750 100.0% $40,322,750 2018-2025Wash CO Durham Rd ORE 99W Boones Ferry widen to 5 lanes $33,181,824 100% $33,181,824 46.2% $15,314,688 2018-2025Wash CO Farmington 170th 185th Widen to five lanes $13,904,396 100% $13,904,396 31.5% $4,373,157 2008-2017Wash CO Jenkins Murray 158th Widen to five lanes $11,278,010 100% $11,278,010 26.3% $2,960,478 2018-2025Wash CO Johnson 185th 170h New two lane extension $11,741,490 100% $11,741,490 100.0% $11,741,490 2026+Wash CO Kaiser Bethany Cornell Widen to 3 lanes $28,735,753 100% $28,735,753 100.0% $28,735,753 2018-2025Wash CO Kaiser Springville Bethany Widen to five lanes $7,106,692 100% $7,106,692 100.0% $7,106,692 2018-2025Wash CO Springville 185th PCC Access widen to 5 lanes $5,870,745 100% $5,870,745 100.0% $5,870,745 2018-2025

Wash CO Springville PCC Access Kaiser Road widen to 3 lanes $14,831,356 100% $14,831,356 100.0% $14,831,356 2018-2025

Wash COTaylors Ferry Rd Oleson Washington Dr New 2 lane extension $3,089,866 100% $3,089,866 100.0% $3,089,866 2026+

Wash COTualatin-Sherwood ORE 99W Teton widen to 5 lanes $49,437,854 100% $49,437,854 51.1% $25,244,862 2018-2025

Wash CO Walker 185th Stucki Widen to five lanes $13,286,423 100% $13,286,423 59.1% $7,851,068 2018-2025Wash CO Walker 185th ORE 217 Widen to five lanes $80,954,486 100% $80,954,486 68.8% $55,710,614 2018-2025Wash CO West Union 185th 143rd widen to 3 lanes $32,907,072 100% $32,907,072 100.0% $32,907,072 2026+

Wash CO BarnesHospital enterance Leahy Widen to five lanes $6,179,732 100% $6,179,732 76.6% $4,731,357 2018-2025

Wash CO Barnes Leahy County Line Widen to three lanes $11,586,997 100% $11,586,997 88.7% $10,275,262 2026+Wash CO Bethany Kaiser Rd West Union Widen to 5 lanes $24,338,784 100% $24,338,784 100.0% $24,338,784 2018-2025Wash CO Farmington 185th 209th Widen to three lanes $17,303,249 100% $17,303,249 84.8% $14,674,907 2026+

Wash CO West UnionCornelius Pass 185th widen to 5 lanes $19,157,168 100% $19,157,168 100.0% $19,157,168 2026+

Wash CO Scholls Ferry Allen Beaverton-Hillsdale Widen to three lanes $20,547,608 100% $20,547,608 67.7% $13,919,347 2026+Wash CO Merlo/158th 170th Walker Rd Widen to five lanes $19,620,648 100% $19,620,648 78.1% $15,328,632 2018-2025Wash CO Millikan Hocken Murray Widen to 3 lanes $7,415,678 100% $7,415,678 100.0% $7,415,678 2026+Wash CO Barnes Cedar Hills 119th Widen to five lanes $5,000,000 100% $5,000,000 92.1% $4,603,175 2008-2017Wash CO Butner Murray Cedar Hills Widen to 3 lanes $15,912,809 100% $15,912,809 100.0% $15,912,809 2026+Wash CO 185th TV Highway Farmington Widen to five lanes $19,002,675 100% $19,002,675 100.0% $19,002,675 2026+Wash CO 185th Farmington Bany Widen to three lanes $14,522,370 100% $14,522,370 100.0% $14,522,370 2026+Wash CO Alexander 170th 209th Widen to three lanes $23,637,474 100% $23,637,474 100.0% $23,637,474 2026+Wash CO Johnson 185th Cornelius Pass Widen to three lanes $20,856,595 100% $20,856,595 100.0% $20,856,595 2026+Wash CO 198th TV Highway Baseline Widen to three lanes $21,474,568 100% $21,474,568 100.0% $21,474,568 2026+Wash CO 175th Outlook Ln Horse Tale Dr. Realign roadway $6,179,732 25% $1,544,933 100.0% $1,544,933 2026+

Wash CO Cornelius Pass Amberwood TV Highway Widen to five lanes $45,421,028 100% $45,421,028 95.0% $43,149,977 2008-2017

Page 11 of 12



June 27, 2013


(2008$)






Growth Share

Eligible SDC Amount


Wash CO Grahams Ferry Tonquin Cutter Widen to three lanes $12,977,437 100% $12,977,437 100.0% $12,977,437 2008-2017Wash CO/Wilsonville Day

Grahams Ferry Boones Ferry Widen from 3 to 5 lanes $6,952,198 80% $5,561,759 100.0% $5,561,759 2026+

Wash CO/Wilsonville Clutter/Ridder

Grahams Ferry Garden Acres Widen to three lanes $2,100,000 40% $840,000 100.0% $840,000 2026+

Wash CO/Wilsonville Grahams Ferry Clutter Construct turn pockets & signal $1,430,000 100% $1,430,000 100.0% $1,430,000 2008-2017Wash CO/Wilsonville Kinsman Day Ridder

Construct 3 lane & improve to standard $6,000,000 100% $6,000,000 47.0% $2,820,000 2008-2017

Wash CO/Wilsonville Day Kinsman Construct left turn pocket & signal $880,000 100% $880,000 100.0% $880,000 2008-2017Wilsonville Boones Ferry 95th Add turn lanes $1,410,000 100% $1,410,000 100.0% $1,410,000 2008-2017Wash CO/Wilsonville Ridder Kinsman Construct left turn pocket & signal $850,000 100% $850,000 100.0% $850,000 2008-2017

Wash CO/Wilsonville Boones Ferry Day I-5

Widen Boones Ferry/Day intersection & Boones Ferry to 5 lanes $2,490,000 100% $2,490,000 100.0% $2,490,000 2008-2017

Wash CO/Wilsonville Grahams Ferry

Railroad Crossing Day

Widen & add double southbound left turn lane at Day $4,500,000 60% $2,700,000 100.0% $2,700,000 2008-2017

Wash CO/Wilsonville Grahams Ferry

Railroad Crossing

Widen to 3 lanes & upgrade crossing $4,000,000 100% $4,000,000 100.0% $4,000,000 2008-2017

Wilsonville ElligsenParkway Center Dr. Canyon Creek North Widen to 3 lanes $2,500,000 60% $1,500,000 100.0% $1,500,000 2008-2017

Wash Co/Wilsonville Elligsen

Canyon Creek 65th

Widen to 3 lanes. Add turn pockets & signal at 65th $5,000,000 60% $3,000,000 100.0% $3,000,000 2026+

Wash CO 95th Extension Barnes Leahy 2 lane road $8,651,624 100% $8,651,624 100.0% $8,651,624 2018-2025

Wash CO TonquinGrahams Ferry Oregon St

Realign and widen lanes to standard $30,898,659 25% $7,724,665 100.0% $7,724,665 2018-2025

Wash CO Glencoe Evergreen Jackson Widen to three lanes $22,865,008 100% $22,865,008 100.0% $22,865,008 2018-2025Wash CO 205/206 Baseline Quatama Widen to 5 lanes $10,196,557 100% $10,196,557 100.0% $10,196,557 2008-2017Wash CO Kinnanman Farmington 209th Widen to three lanes $23,791,967 100% $23,791,967 100.0% $23,791,967 2026+Wash CO Greenburg Hall Locust Widen to five lanes $23,019,501 100% $23,019,501 29.4% $6,770,441 2026+

Wash CO Hall Scholls Ferry Durham Widen to five lanes $50,982,787 100% $50,982,787 74.4% $37,953,853 2018-2025Wash CO Scholls Ferry HWY217 121st widen to seven lanes $20,547,608 100% $20,547,608 43.6% $8,966,229 2018-2025Wash CO 113th Rainmont McDaniel new 2 lane $5,098,279 100% $5,098,279 100.0% $5,098,279 2026+Wash CO Evergreen East of 25th West of 253rd widen to 5 lanes $12,408,960 100% $12,408,960 100.0% $12,408,960 2008-2017

Wash COTualatin-Sherwood Teton Borchers Drive interconnect signals $3,272,584 100% MTIP $2,936,490 $336,094 100.0% $332,212 2008-2017

WashCoBaltic Extension Barnes Spring Crest

Construct new 2 lane road and bridge $10,483,200 100% $10,483,200 100.0% $10,483,200 2008-2017

Wash CO RoshakBull Mountain Reconfigure intersection $3,500,000 100% $3,500,000 100.0% $3,500,000 2008-2017

Wash COTualatin-Sherwood Rd

Reconfigure Intersection at Baler Way and construct north leg of intersection $1,000,000 100% $1,000,000 100.0% $1,000,000 2013+

TOTAL $2,589,621,033 $2,518,641,420 $2,260,287,300

Page 12 of 12

WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON

Department of Land Use & Transportation · Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning

155 N First Avenue, Ste. 350 MS 14 � Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 phone: (503) 846-3519 � fax: (503) 846-4412 � TTY: (503) 846-4598 � www.co.washington.or.us

Memorandum

To: Washington County Coordinating Committee

From: Steve Szigethy, Senior Transportation Planner

Date: July 1, 2013

Re: Washington County Transportation System Plan

At the July 8 WCCC meeting, members of the project team will present a progress report of Washington County’s two-phase Transportation System Plan (TSP) update. The presentation will include a brief summary of work completed during phase one, results from a public survey and the process outline of phase two. In brief,

• Ordinance 768, which represents the culmination of phase one, updates and restructures the existing transportation policies into goals, objectives, and strategies. The revisions and reorganization do three things: 1) incorporate community aspirations, 2) seek consistency with regional transportation planning requirements, and 3) reflect current and accepted practices. The ordinance is scheduled for an initial hearing before the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) August 6. Ordinance 768 can be viewed at www.tsp2035.com.

• Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation contracted with polling

firm DHM Research to administer a statistically valid survey on transportation issues. Generally speaking, survey respondents tended to prefer a mixed approach to managing transportation issues, one that blends road expansion and signal technology with more sidewalks, bike lanes and transit options. Respondents also tended to emphasize the importance of adequately maintaining existing roads. The survey findings reinforce the notion that a TSP can’t focus on any one approach to solving transportation problems.

• Phase two of the project entails the development of modal plans including roadway,

bicycle, pedestrian, freight, and transit systems. Phase two will evaluate current and future performance of the countywide system as well as focusing in on a set of key travel corridors in the urban area. The project team will continue to work closely with staff from cities and agencies to develop workable solutions and ensure consistency with local plans. This work will occur over the summer and fall 2013. The modal plans, including map revisions, are scheduled for action by the BCC in fall 2014.

Attachment: Washington County Transportation Survey Process Overview

PREPARED FOR:

DKS & WASHINGTON COUNTY

Washington County Transportation Survey

April 2013

PREPARED BY:

DHM RESEARCH (503) 220-0575 • 239 NW 13th Ave., #205, Portland, OR 97209 • www.dhmresearch.com

2

DHM Research | Washington County Transportation, April 2013

1 | INTRODUCTION & METHODOLOGY

Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall, Inc. (DHM Research) conducted a telephone survey of residents in Washington County to assess transportation priorities and preferences in the county. The

research project was in collaboration with county staff, DHM, DKS, and CH2MHill. Research Design: Between April 4 and 7, 2013, DHM Research conducted a telephone

survey of 400 residents living in Washington County, Oregon. The survey took an average of 13 minutes to administer. The sample size is sufficient to assess opinions generally, and allows a review by multiple subgroups including age, gender, and other demographics.

Residents were contacted randomly using multiple lists, including cell phone numbers. For a representative sample, quotas were set by age and gender to reflect the general population.

In gathering responses, a variety of quality control measures were employed, including questionnaire pre-testing and validations. In the annotated questionnaire, results may add to 99% or 101% due to rounding.

Statement of Limitations: Any sampling of opinions or attitudes is subject to a margin of error. The margin of error is a standard statistical calculation that represents differences between the sample and total population at a confidence interval, or probability, calculated to be 95%. This means that there is a 95% probability that the sample taken for this study

would fall within the stated margins of error if compared with the results achieved from surveying the entire population.

For a sample size of 400, the margin of error for each question falls between +/-2.9% and +/-4.9%, at the 95% confidence level. The reason for the difference lies in the fact that, when responses are relatively even in size, each is numerically smaller and thus slightly less able – on a statistical basis – to approximate the larger population.

DHM Research: DHM Research has been providing opinion research and consultation throughout the Pacific Northwest and other regions of the United States for over three decades.

The firm is non-partisan and independent and specializes in research projects to support public policy-making. www.dhmresearch.com

3


2 | SUMMARY & OBSERVATIONS

Nearly all residents show very high satisfaction with Washington County as a place

to live.

• Washington County receives very high marks with 37% rating Washington County as

an excellent place to live, and 62% rating it is a good place to live. (Q1)

• High satisfaction is consistent across all demographic subgroups.

Education and transportation are the top-of-mind issues most residents would like

county government leaders to address.

• Open-ended and without prompting, one in six (15%) mention education as an issue

they would like county leaders to address. (Q2)

• Transportation issues are mentioned by 29% of residents. Specific issues include:

o Road infrastructure (12%)

o Traffic congestion (11%)

o Improvement of public transportation (6%)

Road congestion and maintenance are the specific transportation issues residents

want addressed in the county.

• One in three (32%) mention road congestion and widening lanes as an issue they would like county leaders to address. (Q3-Q6)

• This is followed in importance by road maintenance (18%). • The next closest issues are noted by less than 10% of respondents and include lower

gas prices, improving transit, traffic signals, and other issues. Residents in the county are most satisfied with the availability of public

transportation, sidewalks, bike-lanes, and/or trails.

• A strong majority are satisfied (very or somewhat) with all presented issues (74%-

79%). (Q8-Q11)

• The top issues residents are very satisfied with are availability of public

transportation (35%) and availability of sidewalks, bike-lanes, and/or trails (33%).

• These are followed by:

o Ease of getting from one place to another (29%)

o Safety and maintenance of roads and highways in the county (19%)

4


The most important transportation improvements for residents are maintaining

existing roads and highways and using technology to improve traffic flow.

• Almost two-thirds rate maintaining existing roads and highways in the county as

important (65% rating 8-10 on 10 point scale). (Q12-Q16)

• And using technology to improve traffic flow (55% rating 8-10).

• Less important improvements:

o Adding sidewalks and bicycle lanes to fill gaps (46%)

o Improving and expanding public transportation (35%)

o Building new and expanding existing roads and highways (35%)

Residents want to see a mixed transportation approach, with some leaning toward

road improvements.

• 40% of residents prefer a mixed approach with improving roads and highways,

improving public transportation, and encouraging telecommuting and flexible work

schedules. (Q17)

• 36% prefer a more focused approach on expanding roads and highways, and the use

of technology such as coordinated traffic signals.

• 22% favor a more focused approach on public transportation, carpooling, sidewalks

and bicycle lanes, telecommuting, and flexible work schedules.

• 73% would like to see the county widen roads and build new roads to reduce

congestion. (Q18-Q22)

• 47% would be more likely to use public transportation if there were better

connections to their workplace.

• Residents were more likely to disagree than agree with the following statements:

o I would be okay with the county narrowing roads to add sidewalks and bike

lanes (72% disagree)

o I often drive because of gaps in sidewalks and bike lanes (61% disagree)

o I often stay close to home because the roadways in my area are too

congested (65% disagree).

Messages that resonate strongest with residents about transportation

improvements are the costs of waiting, and to improve public safety.

• The top rated reasons for making transportation improvements are the belief that

the longer we wait to make transportation improvements, the more it will cost (80%

strongly or somewhat agree) and that improvements to major roadways are needed

to improve emergency response time for police and fire, reduce congestion, and

improve freight movement for local businesses (79%).

• Besides the economy, the other large barrier to improvements will be other priorities

in the county, including education and other public services.

5


Excellent

37%

Good

62%Very

Poor

1%

Chart 1

Washington County as a Place to Live

Source: DHM Research, April 2013

3 | KEY FINDINGS

3.1 | General Climate

Residents were asked if they feel Washington County is an excellent, good, poor, or very

poor place to live (Q1).

Nearly all residents feel

Washington County is an

excellent (37%) or good (62%)

place to live. Results are

consistent across all subgroups

with 97%-100% showing similar

agreement.

Residents were given an open-ended opportunity to state which issue should be the top

priority for county government leaders to address (Q2).

Table 1

Most Important Issue For County Government Leaders

Response Category N=400

Education—general 15%

Road infrastructure 12%

Traffic congestion 11%

Education funding 10%

Public safety/crime 7%

Improve public transportation 6%

Lack of jobs 5%

Education quality 5%

Taxes—general 5%

All other responses 3% or less

None/nothing 9%

Don’t know 9%

Transportation issues (Net) 29% Source: DHM Research, April 2013

Overall, education (15%) is the issue considered most important to residents. Multiple

transportation issues are also mentioned as important including road infrastructure (12%),

traffic congestion (11%), and improvement of public transportation (6%).

Residents were read a list of issues the county is currently facing and were asked to rate

their level of concern on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means that they are not at all

concerned and 10 means they are very concerned (Q3-Q6).

6


Consistent with issues considered most important, residents are most concerned with K-12

public education in the county, with six in ten (60%) giving this a high rating of 8-10. This

is followed closely by concern over the economy and jobs (55%). Nearly half (46%) of all

residents are concerned with transportation issues.

K-12 public education, including quality and funding (60%)

Women (68%) and residents with a college degree or more (68%) are more likely than men

(52%) and those with less education (51%) to be concerned with K-12 education. Not

surprisingly, residents with children under the age of 18 in their household (77%) are more

likely to be concerned with K-12 education than those who do not (50%). Subgroups most

concerned with K-12 education include:

• Ages 35-54 (65%)

• Women (68%)

• College graduate or greater (68%)

• Children in household (77%)

The economy and jobs (55%)

Women (60%) and residents without a college degree (62%) are more likely than men

(50%) and those with more education (49%) to be concerned with the economy and jobs.

Residents without children in their household (59%) are also more likely than those with

children (49%) to be concerned. Subgroups most concerned with the economy and jobs

include:

• Ages 55 and older (61%)

• Women (60%)

• Without college degree (62%)

Mean

7.7

7.5

6.9

5.8


7


Transportation, including congestion, public transit, and cost of gas (46%)

Residents age 55 and older (55%) and those who consider the area in which they live to be

urban (60%) are more likely to be concerned with transportation issues than those under

the age of 35 (39%) and those who live in suburban (45%) and rural (39%) areas.

Residents without children in their household (50%) are also more likely to be concerned

than those with children (39%). Subgroups most concerned with transportation issues

include:


• Urban (60%)

• No children in household (50%)

The environment, including climate change, natural resources, and wildlife habitat

(34%)

Residents age 55 and older (45%) and women (40%) are more likely than those younger

(29%) and men (27%) to be concerned with the environment. Subgroups most concerned

with the environment include:


• Women (40%)

• Urban (44%)

Residents were provided the open-ended opportunity to state which transportation issue

should be the top priority for local government leaders to address (Q7).

Table 2

Most Important Transportation Issue For County Government Leaders


Road congestion/widen lanes 32%

Road maintenance 18%

Lower gas prices 9%

Increasing access to public transportation 8%

Improve street lights/traffic signals 4%

No issues/concerns 4%



None/nothing 6%

(DON’T ASK) Don’t know 5% Source: DHM Research, April 2013

When thinking specifically about transportation issues, road congestion (32%) and road

maintenance (18%) are the issues residents consider most important for local government

leaders to do something about. Nearly one in ten also mentioned lowering gas prices (9%)

and increasing access to public transportation (8%).

Residents were presented with four transportation issues in Washington County and were

asked to rate their satisfaction with each (Q8-Q11).

8


A strong majority are satisfied (very or somewhat) with all issues (74%-79%). The top

issues residents are very satisfied with are availability of public transportation (35%) and

availability of sidewalks, bike-lanes, and/or trails (33%). These are followed closely by ease

of getting from one place to another (29%). Two in ten (19%) Washington County residents

are very satisfied with the safety and maintenance of roads and highways in the county.

Demographic Differences: Residents who live in suburban areas (77%) of Washington

County are more likely than those from rural areas (63%) to be satisfied with the safety and

maintenance of roads and highways. Other differences in satisfaction are seen mainly by

age group. Residents under the age of 55 are more likely than those older to be satisfied

with availability of sidewalks, bike-lanes, and/or trails (under 35, 84%; 35-54, 77%; 55+,

63%) and availability of public transportation (under 35, 87%; 35-54, 74%; 55+, 61%).

Those under the age of 35 (83%) are also more likely than residents age 55 and older

(66%) to be satisfied with the safety and maintenance of roads and highways.

9


Residents were read a list of possible improvements the county could make and were asked

to rate their importance on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all important and 10 means

very important (Q12-Q16).

The most important improvements for Washington County residents are maintaining

existing roads and highways (65%) and using technology to improve traffic flow (55%).

These issues are followed in importance by adding sidewalks and bicycle lanes to fill gaps

(46%). One in three residents feel it is important that the county improve and expand

public transportation (35%) and build new and expand existing roads and highways (35%).

Maintain existing roads and highways (65%)

Residents age 35 and older (69%) are more likely than those under the age of 35 (53%) to

find maintaining existing roads and highways important. Subgroups most likely to find

maintaining existing roads and highways important include:

• Ages 35-54 (71%)

• Rural (71%)

Use technology to improve traffic flow (55%)

No significant differences by subgroup exist. No particular subgroup is most likely to find

this issue important.

Add sidewalks and bicycle lanes to fill gaps (46%)

Women (55%) are more likely than men (36%) to find adding sidewalks and bicycle lanes

to fill gaps important. Subgroups most likely to find adding sidewalks and bicycle lanes to fill

gaps important include:

• Women (55%)


Mean

7.9

7.4

6.4

5.9

6.2


10


Improve and expand public transportation (35%)

Residents from urban areas (52%) of Washington County are more likely than those from

suburban (34%) and rural areas (29%) to find it important to improve and expand public

transportation. Those with children in their household (41%) are also more likely than those

without (26%) to find this important. Subgroups most likely to find improving and

expanding public transportation important include:

• Urban (52%)


Build new and expand existing roads and highways (35%)

No significant differences by subgroup exist. No particular subgroup is most likely to find

this issue important.

Residents were presented with three options to manage transportation issues in Washington

County and were asked to choose the one which comes closest to the way they feel (Q17).

Overall, residents are split between a mixed approach with improving roads and highways,

improving public transportation, and encouraging telecommuting and flexible work

schedules (40%) and a more focused approach on expanding roads and highways, and the

use of technology such as coordinated traffic signals (36%). One in five (22%) favor a more

focused approach on public transportation, carpooling, sidewalks and bicycle lanes,

telecommuting, and flexible work schedules. Opinions are split across all subgroups.

Statement A: A mixed approach with improving roads and highways, improving public transportation, and encouraging telecommuting and flexible work schedules is needed

Statement B: A more focused approach on public transportation, carpooling, sidewalks and bicycle lanes, telecommuting, and flexible work schedules is needed

Statement C: A more focused approach on expanding roads and highways, and the use of technology such as coordinated traffic signals, is needed

11


Residents were asked to rate their agreement with the transportation statements below

(Q18-Q22).

The majority of Washington County residents (73%) agree (strongly and somewhat) that

they would like to see the county widen roads and build new roads to reduce congestion.

Nearly half (47%) would be more likely to use public transportation if there were better

connections to their workplace. Residents are more likely to disagree than agree that they

would be okay with the county narrowing roads to add sidewalks and bike lanes (72%

disagree), that they often drive because of gaps in sidewalks and bike lanes (61%), and

that they often stay close to home because of congestion in their area (65%).

Demographic Differences: Agreement is fairly consistent across subgroups for each

statement with a few exceptions. Residents under the age of 35 (62%) are more likely than

those older (35-54, 43%; 55+, 35%) to agree they would be more likely to use public

transportation if there were better connections to their workplace. Residents living in urban

(52%) and suburban (49%) areas of Washington County and those without children in their

household (53%) are more likely than those living in rural areas (29%) and those with

children in the household (37%) to agree with this statement.

Respondents were asked to consider how they might spend $100 dollars on five

transportation improvement areas (Q23).

12


On average, when allocating funds for transportation improvement, widening roads to

reduce traffic congestion ($23.50) and use of technology to improve signal timing and traffic

flow ($22.00) are top priorities.

Demographic Differences: Widening roads to reduce traffic congestion is the top priority for

all subgroups with the exception of residents under the age of 35 and those living in rural

areas who place highest priority on using of technology to improve signal timing and traffic

flow and urban residents whose top priority is improving public transportation and transit

service.

Residents were asked to rate their agreement with reasons to not make improvements to

transportation in Washington County (Q24-Q26).

The top rated reasons for not making transportation improvements are the belief that there

are more important priorities right now (66% strongly or somewhat agree) and that tax

13


payers can’t afford to pay more for transportation in this economy (65%). The least

compelling reason to not make transportation improvements is the belief that these

improvements often have negative impacts on natural areas and homes (51%).

Demographic Differences: Younger residents, under the age of 35 (73%), are more likely

than those age 55 and older (58%) to agree that there are more important priorites right

now than transportation. Those age 55 and older (75%) are more likely than younger

residents (under 35, 58%; 35-54, 62%) to agree that tax payers can’t afford to pay more

for transportation in this economy.

Residents were asked to rate reasons to make improvements to transportation in

Washington County (Q27-Q29).

The top rated reasons for making transportation improvements are the belief that the longer

we wait to make transportation improvements, the more it will cost (80% strongly or

somewhat agree) and that improvements to major roadways are needed to improve

emergency response time for police and fire, reduce congestion, and improve freight

movement for local businesses (79%). The least compelling reason to make transportation

improvements, though still strong, is the belief that improvements to sidewalks, bicycle

lanes, and trails are needed to encourage residents to use modes of transportation other

than cars (60%).

Demographic Differences:Residents under the age of 35 are more likely than those age 55

and older to agree that improvements to major roadways are needed to improve emergency

response time for police and fire, reduce congestion, and improve freight movement for

local businesses (under 35, 89%; 55+, 78%) and improvements to sidewalks, bicycle

lanes, and trails are needed to encourage residents to use modes of transportation other

than cars (under 35, 68%; 55+, 51%).

14


4 | QUESTIONNAIRE

Washington County Transportation Survey

April 2013; N=400; registered voters

13 minutes; Margin of error +/-4.9%

DHM Research

1. You are in Washington County. Would you say it is an excellent place to live, good, poor, or very poor place to live?


Excellent place to live 37%

Good place to live 62%

Poor place to live 0%

Very poor place to live 1%

Don’t know 0%

2. What is the most important issue in your county that you would like your local

government leaders to do something about?


Education—general 15%

Road infrastructure 12%

Traffic congestion 11%

Education funding 10%

Public safety/crime 7%


Lack of jobs 5%

Education quality 5%

Taxes—general 5%


None/nothing 9%

Don’t know 9%

I would like to read you a list of issues facing your county. Using a scale of 0 to 10,

where 0 means that you are not at all concerned, and 10 means you are very concerned, please rate the following issues. You can use any number between 0 and 10.

Response Category, N=400 Top 3

(8+9+10) DK Mean

3. The economy and jobs 55% 1% 7.5

4. K-12 public education, including quality and funding 60% 3% 7.7

5. Transportation, including congestion, public transit, and cost of gas 46% 1% 6.9

6. The environment, including climate change, natural resources, and wildlife habitat 34% 1% 5.8

15


Now I would like to ask you about transportation issues in your county. What is the most important issue in your county that you would like your local government leaders to do something about?


Road congestion/widen lanes 32%

Road maintenance 18%

Lower gas prices 9%

Increasing access to public transportation 8%

Improve street lights/traffic signals 4%

No issues/concerns 4%



None/nothing 6%

Don’t know 5%

Please tell me if you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not too satisfied, or not at all satisfied with each of the following transportation issues in your county.

Response Category, N=400 Very

Satisfied Smwt

Satisfied Not Too Satisfied

Not At All

Satisfied

Don’t know

7. Ease in which you can get from one place to another 29% 50% 16% 5% 1%

8. Safety and maintenance of roads and highways 19% 56% 18% 7% 1%

9. Availability of sidewalks, bike-lanes, and/or trails 33% 42% 16% 7% 3%

10. Availability of public transportation 35% 39% 12% 6% 8%

I’d like to read a list of possible transportation improvements in your county. For each, please tell me how important each of the following are to you. A rating of 0 is not at all important and 10 means it’s very important. You can choose any number between 0 and 10.

Response Category, N=400 Top 3

(8+9+10) DK Mean

11. Maintain existing roads and highways 65% 0% 7.9

12. Build new and expand existing roads and highways 35% 1% 6.2

13. Improve and expand public transportation 35% 2% 5.9

14. Use technology to improve traffic flow 55% 2% 7.4

15. Add sidewalks and bicycle lanes to fill gaps 46% 0% 6.4

16


16. Which ONE of the following statements comes closest to the way you feel about managing transportation issues in your county? [RANDOMIZE]


A mixed approach with improving roads and highways, improving public transportation, and encouraging telecommuting and flexible work schedules is needed

40%

A more focused approach on public transportation, carpooling, sidewalks and bicycle lanes, telecommuting, and flexible work schedules is needed

22%

A more focused approach on expanding roads and highways, and the use of technology such as coordinated traffic signals, is needed

36%

Don’t know 3%

Please tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with each of these statements.

Response Category, N=400 Strongly Agree

Smwt Agree

Smwt Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Don’t know

17. I would be more likely to use public transportation if there were better

connections to my workplace 29% 18% 14% 23% 17%

18. I would be OK if the county narrowed roadways, which may increase traffic

congestion during peak times, to add

sidewalks and bike lanes

11% 17% 22% 50% 1%

19. I often stay close to home because the roadways in my area are too congested 13% 20% 30% 35% 2%

20. I often drive because the sidewalks and/or bicycle lanes in my area have

gaps 17% 15% 19% 42% 7%

21. I’d like to see the county widen roads and build new roads to reduce traffic

congestion 38% 35% 18% 8% 2%

22. Over the next 10 years, the county will face many needed transportation improvements. Knowing that funding is limited, please consider how you might

spend $100 dollars on these 5 areas. You can give any amount to any one area but

the total needs to add to $100.

Response Category

Mean

N=400

Widen roads to reduce traffic congestion 23.50

Add sidewalk connections, bicycle lanes, and trails 18.20

Improve and reduce traffic backups at intersections 19.70

Improve public transportation and transit service 16.60

Use technology to improve signal timing and traffic flow 22.00

TOTAL 100.00

17


Here are statements that some people feel are reasons to not make improvements to transportation in Washington County. For each, please tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree.


Smwt Agree

Smwt Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Don’t know

23. There are more important priorities now than transportation 29% 37% 22% 10% 2%

24. Taxpayers can’t afford to pay more for transportation in this economy 32% 33% 21% 13% 2%

25. Transportation improvements often have negative impacts on our natural

areas and homes 17% 34% 30% 17% 2%

Here are statements that some people feel are reasons to make improvements to transportation in Washington County. For each, please tell me if you strongly agree,

somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree.


Smwt Agree

Smwt Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Don’t know

26. Improvements to sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and trails are needed to

encourage residents to use modes of

transportation other than cars

28% 32% 25% 14% 2%

27. Improvements to major roadways are needed to improve emergency response

time for police and fire, reduce

congestion, and improve freight

movement for local businesses

34% 45% 14% 5% 2%

28. The longer we wait to make transportation improvements, the more

it will cost 50% 30% 12% 5% 3%

DEMOGRAPHICS

The following questions make sure we have a valid sample of the community. It’s

important that I collect answers to each question. Please keep in mind your responses are confidential.

29. In what year were you born?


18-24 12%

25-34 18%

35-54 40%

55-64 6%

65+ 24%

Refused 0%

18


30. What is the highest level of education you have completed?


Less than high school 1%

High school diploma 15%

Some college 29%

College degree 36%

Graduate/professional school 18%

Refused 1%

31. Do you consider where you live to be rural, suburban, or urban?


Rural 13%

Suburban 74%

Urban 12%

Refused 1%

32. For most days of the week, is your main mode of transportation by:


Driving in a vehicle alone 64%

Driving in a vehicle with others 25%

Bus or public transportation 5%

Bicycle 2%

Walking 3%

Motorcycle 1%

Stay home 1%

Other mode 0%

Refused 0%

33. Are you employed, a student, retired, or not currently working?


Student 10%

Employed 55%

Retired/not working 35%

Refused 0%

34. Do you work in Washington County, Multnomah County, Clackamas County, or

somewhere else?


Washington County 68%

Multnomah County 18%

Clackamas County 5%

Somewhere else 8%

Refused 0%

35. How many minutes did it usually take you to get home from work/school last week?

Still analyzing data

19


36. Do you have children under age 18 in your home?


Yes 39%

No 61%

Refused 0%

37. Which of the following best describes your ethnicity?


White/Caucasian 82%

African American/Black 2%

Hispanic/Latino 6%

Asian/Pacific Islander 5%

Native American/American Indian 1%

Mixed 3%

Other 1%

Refused 2%

38. Gender


Male 48%

Female 52%

Introduction

Existing Conditions and Needs

Goals/Objectives/ Strategies

Introduction

Goals/Objectives/ Strategies

Modal Plans

• Existing Conditions and Needs Summaries

• Revised Goals/ Objectives/Strategies

• System Maps• Near & Far-term Projects

Ordinance 768 (2013) 2014 Ordinance

Funding Plan

Ordinance 768 Hearing Schedule

• Planning Commission – June 19 at 7PM– July 17 at 7PM

• Board of County Commissioners – August 6 at 10AM

• Ordinance 768 will become effective December 2014.

Washington County Transportation System Plan Update

Washington County is updating its Transportation System Plan (TSP) in two phases and will adopt the plan through two corresponding ordinances, as shown below.

Ordinance 768 consists of the TSP policy document. It makes significant changes to the existing TSP:

• It modifies and reorganizes existing policies and strategies into goals, objectives and strategies.

• It reflects current and accepted transportation practices, including policy changes at the regional and state levels.

The goals, objectives and strategies are organized into three sections:

1. Guiding principles: safety, economic vitality, livability, and natural environment.

2. System design: mobility, accessibility, connectivity and active transportation.

3. Implementation: coordination, funding and maintenance.

Modal Plan Development Process

Ta

sks

May June July August September

Define

corridors to be

evaluated

(6+)

Establish

baseline

performance

criteria

Perform

baseline

evaluations

using selected

performance

criteria

Develop

alternative

packages of

solutions

Develop

planning level

cost estimates

CAC

CAC

Co

ord

ina

tio

n

CPO meetings, farmers markets, etc.Public Open

Houses

Public Open

Houses

I CC

I CC

October

CAC

CAC

I CC

I CC

Ou

tre

ach

Evaluate how alternatives perform

Recommend

preferred

solutions

Develop modal

plan maps

Refine

solutions based

on CAC/ICC/

public comment

Public Involvement

Adjust goals,

objectives and

strategies

Prepare draft TSP

Phase I

Identify community

values

Inventory existing

conditions

Forecast future needs

Develop and adopt

goals, objectives

and strategies

Step 1

Identify Needs and

Opportunities

Step 2 Step 3

Develop Goals,

Objectives and Strategies

Develop Modal and

Funding Plans

Step 4

Plan Adoption

Develop

performance

standards

Develop modal

scenarios

Evaluate scenarios

Develop composite

scenario

Develop funding

plan

Goals, Objectives and Strategies Modal and Funding Plans

Phase II

*We’re here

Step 3: mid-2013

Documents

WASHINGTON COUNTY COORDINATING COMMITTEE · Jerry Willey, City of Hillsboro ... Develops the guiding principles and criteria including equity, health, safety, economic ... design