HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation System Plan UpdateCommunity Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner
DATE: March 16,2012
MEETING: March 26, 2012
SUBJECT: Work session on draft Transportation System Plan Update (PA-11-SITA-11-4)
The Planning Commission (PC) held public hearings on the Transportation System Plan (TSP)
Update beginning on Oct. 27, 2011, and concluded its deliberations on Feb. 23, 2012. The PC
recommended approval of the draft TSP Update with some modifications. The attached matrix
provides a quick summary of the major issues raised during the PC public hearings and how
they were resolved.
• Deschutes Junction
• Future bike/ped bridge across the Deschutes River beyond the SW edge of Bend
• County bikeway designations to include roads not maintained by the County
• Long-term solution for US 20 in Tumalo
• Prioritization of future County Road and State Highway projects (Table S.3.T1)
• Add Illustrative Projects List (Table S.3.T2)
• Adding lanes to US 20 between Black Butte Ranch and Sisters
• Rural roundabouts on US 20 east of Bend as well as on County system
The Board will hold its public hearing on the TSP Update at 10 a.m. Monday, April 16, 2012, at
the Barnes and Sawyer Room. Staff will also discuss whether the Board would like to hold an
additional evening hearing in Bend on the TSP Update.
Attachment: Planning Commission's Proposed Modification to Deschutes County TSP Update
Quality Services Performed with Pride
Planning Commission's Proposed Modifications to Deschutes County TSP Update
0.. TOPIC ' i .,AGENUMBERS' . ' ..,i,puSUC;fDMMENf ..0 .0STAFFItESPONSE . . :,0. '. ~'~'''':.. ' .."ST_fMTJONAIE,':"",,:; , , ,'PCUCOMMENDAl1ON; " ,BOCCOECISION:
Deschutes Junction Refinement Plan
4-12
(page will be
renumbered to 144)
Pro: Minimum is define Des Jct Retain existing language to defer Des
study area in TSP; maximum is Jct refinement plan until Board of
include a Des Jct refinement plan in County Commissioners adds task to
TSP (see Doug White submittals Planning Division work program
received 10/27/11; 11/10/11;
12/15/11; 1/24/12)
Con: Support draft language as land
use shows no transportation
improvements are needed (see Paul
Dewey letter received 1/26/12)
Interchange and County roads meet
performance standards out to 2030.
No identified deficiencies means no
reason to plan unneeded mitigations
Go with staff language, 4
0(2/9/12)
Deschutes Junction Frontage Road
4-12
(page will be
renumbered to 144)
ODOT: Seeks to add "would prefer Retain existing language that frontage
that" to policy language on road be in place prior to or
extending raised median on 97. (See simultaneous with the extension of the
their submittal received 12/15/11.) raised median
Public would prefer frontage road be
required prior to or simultaneous
with raised median's extension
Without a frontage road, vehicles
wanting to access homes and
businesses on west side of 97 north of
Des Jct will have to make a U-turn in a
high-speed, high-volume segment of
rural highway
Go with staff language, 4
0(2/9/12)
:
Bike/Ped Bridge Across Deschutes River
Figure S.S.FS (Bend
Area Existing and
Proposed Trails)
Public concerns that County does Add 1) Figure S.S.FlO (Regional Trails)
not take a more proactive stance but still do not show bridge; 2) add
about bike/ped bridge appearing on policy language suggested by Doug
the Bend TSP in what are County-White and Steve Jorgensen on 2a)
administered lands. The proposed future trails, 2b) coordinating with
bridge, which is just outside the SW property owners, and 2c) support
comer ofthe Bend UGB, is not modifying OAR 736-040
allowed under the State's scenic
waterway rules (OAR 736-()4())
Language proposed by Doug White (see
10/27/11 SUbmittal) and Steve
Jorgensen (see 1/5/12 submittal) will
provide guidance to amend pedestrian
policies to satisfactorily address issue
Go with staffs suggestion
to add Jorgensen's and
White's policy and goal
language; delete any
reference to 1) supporting
modifying OAR 736-040
and 2) delete any
reference to future
bike/ped bridge, 6-1
(2/23/12)
I
Designating County Bikeways
Figures S.S.F2-FS
(Bend, Redmond,
Sisters, South County
area bikeways)
Sisters Trail Alliance proposed listed Options A-G (see 1/12/12 memo)
additional public roads (see and supports either Option E (Sisters
10/25/11 submittal) regardless of Trail Alliance proposal modified to
whether roads were In County-include only County-maintained roads)
maintained system or not or Option G (original Sisters Trail
Alliance proposal plus all arterials or
collectors within 3 miles of UGB or
Sunriver, Terrebonne, or Tumalo)
Option E recognizes Road Dept. cannot
legally spend funds on roads not in the
County-maintained system, but staff is
willing to try option G which results in a
designating as bikeways the public
roads cyclists prefer to ride
Go with Option G, 4-0
(2/9/12)
'--------.... -
Page 1
tl4L#i UhJi" U M,$ 4QJ $AkA ;&0 447.,0 4, ,$. >t:4$\;;MW;P aqua tt -----~-
Planning Commission's Proposed Modifications to Deschutes County 15P Update
' ,.TOPIC , PAGElfUMIiERS . SfAFfRESPONSE,'/ . .;. ,.:'STAFflAi'IONALE ' .> '''=' .PUIUCCQMMENT
Raised median provides refuge for
OOOT's proposed US 20/Cook-DB
Issue is raised median on US 20 and Support a raised median on US 20 in
Tumalo; support grade-separation at cyclists, peds crossing US 20. Bulk of
Riley grade-separations of C-4 US 20/Cook-DB Riley. County staff crashes are related to either a) turns
(County roads over US 20) or 1-3 onto US 20; b) turns off of US 20; or c)supports either concept, but slightly 4-17 (County roads under US 20). PubliC crossing US 20; a raised medianprefers C-4US 20 in Tumalo Long-Term Solution (renumbered to Page
is concerned about adverse effects prevents those type of crashes. Grade-ISO) to Tumalo businesses (see Carolyn separation provides conflict-tree route
Perry letters received 10/27/11; for motorized vehicles, bikes, peds to
12/15/11) crossU520
Reordering of project priorities, cost Agree with all changes except While the short-term solution of adding
estimates, and adding new project a raised median to US 20/7th-Bailey has
5-6 to 5-9
reclassifying US 20 long-term solution
to add lanes to US 20 between from High to Medium priority Improved conditions, the intersection
Table 5.3.T1 (Co. Road & Hwy Projects) (renumbered to Cooley and OB Riley (see ODOT of US 20/Cook-DB Riley handles large
Pages 158-162) submittal received 12/15/11) volumes of traffic and has been a safety
issue in the past
Project would list projects either not Quarry/97 interchange already appears
needed or unlikely to be funded by
Agree with all projects proposed for
on '98 CountyTSP; both City and
2030. (see ODOT submittal received
list, except for Quarry Road/97
County have collected transportation
12/15/11; City of Redmond letters
interchange. Illustrative Ust should be
SOC's for project; interchange is crucial
n/a
a completely separate table in TSP
to Redmond's future "ring road" andreceived 10/27/11 and 1/26/12;Illustrative Projects Ust
(Page 162) Department of State Lands submittal DSL lands; difficulty to get Goal 3
received 1/26/12; Central Oregon exception from state to put Quarry /97
LandWatch submittal received interchange back on the TSP map
1/26/12)
.80CC D£CISION
Go with 1-3 (County roads
under highway) 4-0; add
language requiring OOOT
to hold a public meeting in
Tumalo prior to design of
the project, 6-0
'"PC1lECOMMENDAnON
Go with staff's
recommendation, 4-0
(2/9/12)
Go with Go with staff's
recommendation, 4-0
(2/9/12)
I
I
US 20 between Black Butte & Sisters
Retain passing lanes from '98 TSP as ODOT and County staff proposed Staff relies on research done at the
Tech Memos #3 and #4 show they "trigger" language for passing lanes national level and on OOOT's
are still needed. Opponents believe (see 10/27/11 PowerPoint approximately 99 years of experience
lanes are unneeded and have presentation). OOOT and County staff of managing state highways regarding
concerns about aesthetics. reviewed language proposed by passing the need, timing, and location of
Proposed language to identify lane opponents and found the passing lanes. Additionally, passing
4-15 to 4-16 paSSing lane "triggers" continues to suggestions to be either immeasurable, lanes are part of ODOT and the
(renumbered to be an item of discussion (see impractical, or unneeded (see staff County's "four-phased" approached to
Pages 147-148) separate submittals from Eva Eagle memos submitted 11/1/11; 12/9/11; iteratively improving rural highways.
and Bruce Bowen received 12/30/11;1/17/12) The "four-phased" approach was
10/27/11; Chuck Humphreys adopted In the '98 TSP and continues In
11/10/11; City of Sisters 12/9/11; the draft TSP Update (see pages 5-11 to
Brenda Pace 12/20/11) 5-12)
-~......-~......-
Go with staff's language
on triggers, 4-0 (2/9/12)
but add last bullet to
require public meeting In
Sisters prior to design of
passing lanes, 6-0
(2/23/12)
Page 2
I
Plannln. Commission's Proposed Modifications to Deschutes County TSP Update
TOPIC PAGE NUMBERS '-',ftUIUC(lOMMENT_ ' .. :\;,',STNF:::RESP!ONSE', i.", , '~l1ONAI£" ',ftC4lECOMMfNDAnON ''-BOCC DECISION ,
Rural Roundabouts
5-13 to 5-14
(renumbered to Page
166)
--
COunty proposes two rural
roundabouts on the State highway
system. If ooor chooses a different
solution, County will base its
proportionate share on cost of a
rural roundabout. Public did call for
County to be more proactive
regarding roundabouts on the State
system (see Chuck Humphreys
submittal received 1/23/12)
Retain existing language as the COunty
is not the road authority for State
highways. County does prefer
roundabouts on COunty rural roadways
instead oftraffic signa Is
Roundabouts are a proven design and
cost far less than grade-separated
interchanges and have lower
operational costs than traffic; signals
while providing safer operations
Go with staffs
recommendation, 4'()
(2/9/12)
Page 3