US 97 Freight Plan Phase 2 - Oregon Documents... · Web viewUS 97 is one of Oregon’s four...

Technical Memorandum 3: Investment StrategyUS 97 Freight Plan Phase 2

December 1, 2018

DRAFT

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

In association with:

US 97 Freight Plan Phase 2 Technical Memorandum #3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................2

2 NATURE OF PROBLEMS....................................................................................................5

2.1 Crash Patterns..............................................................................................................................6

2.2 Mobility Problems........................................................................................................................8

2.3 Review of Physical Characteristics...............................................................................................8

2.4 Stakeholder Input........................................................................................................................8

3 SOLUTIONS.....................................................................................................................10

3.1 Existing Projects.........................................................................................................................10

3.2 Suggested Solutions...................................................................................................................12

4 PRIORITIZATION METHODOLOGY...................................................................................15

4.1 Benefits and Costs Estimation....................................................................................................15

4.2 Prioritization..............................................................................................................................16

5 Conclusion......................................................................................................................17

6 appendix – Additional Notes...........................................................................................19

Draft| December 1, 2018 Page i


1 INTRODUCTION US 97 is one of Oregon’s four strategic freight corridors. It provides north-south accessibility through the heart of the state, passing through Bend, and connecting to California and Washington State. US 97 also serves as a Tier 1 Lifeline Route considered vital for rescue and recovery operations in case of a natural catastrophe, such as a major earthquake. With the population and tourism growth along this corridor and increased freight traffic, concerns about safety and traffic delays are similarly increasing. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) set out to develop a specific freight plan for this corridor, starting with Phase 1 of the US 97 Freight Plan which was published in 2016. The US 97 Freight Plan Phase 2 builds from the existing conditions information provided in Phase 1 of the plan, prioritizing freight needs along this corridor and identifying solutions and investments.

The Technical Memorandum 2: Existing and Future Conditions Addendum, submitted previously as part of this project, scored the needs along this corridor in terms of safety, mobility, and economic competitiveness. The data was aggregated at the Traffic Message Channel (TMC) level, which are segments specified in the National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS). The following key metrics were used in developing the scores:

Safety:o Current fatality rate involving truckso Current injury rate involving trucks

Mobility:o Truck Delay (hr/mi-yr)o Truck Travel Time Reliability (travel time index)o Resiliency metrics such as additional VMT and VHT from segment closureo Average Roadway Closure Durationo Number of incidents per year

Economic Competitiveness:o Current Tonnage o Current Valueo Future Tonnage o Future Value

The matrix presented in Table 1 describes the points available for each of the metrics. Following discussions with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), it was decided that safety would be given the highest weight in the scoring, followed by mobility and economic competitiveness. The segment with the highest value for a certain metric received 100 percent of the points available, with all other segments receiving a proportional number of points depending on their metric value. The points received for all metrics were then added to provide the total need score for the segment. A higher score indicates a higher level of need.

Revised Draft| December 3, 2018 Page 2


Table 1: Scoring matrix for TMC prioritization

Measures Source/CalculationPoints

Available

Safety

Current rate of truck-involved fatal crashes

Number of fatalities per year, averaged for 4 years or more

200

Current rate of truck-involved injury crashes

Number of injuries per year, averaged for 4 years or more

200

Mobility and Accessibility

Current Truck Travel Time Reliability Measure

(Travel Time Index) x (Truck AADT) 100

Current Hours of Truck Delay

Average yearly truck delay in hr/mi-year 100

Resiliency MetricAdditional VMT for truck traffic affected by closure

50

Number of incidents per year

Combined indicator (#/mi-yr) 25

Average Roadway Closure Duration

Average incidence clearance duration (hr/mi-yr)

25

Economic Competitiveness

Current TonnageTotal base year annual tonnage of commodities flowing through segment (in Thousands of tons)

50

Current ValueTotal base year annual value of commodities flowing through segment (in Thousands of Dollars)

50

Future TonnageTotal future year annual tonnage of commodities flowing through segment (in Thousands of tons)

50

Future ValueTotal year annual value of commodities flowing through segment (in Thousands of Dollars)

50

Table 2 shows the 25 segments that scored the highest in this data driven analysis. These results were shared with ODOT and the TAC, who indicated that most of these are indeed known as problem locations along the corridor. The objective of this report, Technical Memorandum 3-Investment Strategy, is to describe solutions that address the identified needs and prioritize them to develop an investment strategy. The study initially described solutions for the top 20 scoring locations, but that was later expanded to the top 25 locations at the request of the TAC.

Based on the total need score accumulated, each segment was given a “need rank” that indicated how the segments level of need compared to the rest the top 25 segments. This rank number will be used



throughout this report as a convenient way of referring to specific segments. Table 2 describes the length, direction, county location, and approximate beginning and end mileposts of each segment. Several of the segments listed in Table 2 overlap on the same roadway, just in opposite directions. These types of segments were kept separate throughout this memo because generally conditions were different depending on the direction of travel, however the solutions identified combined both directions of travel because they generally would improve travel in both directions.

Table 2: Top 25 Segments by Total Need Score

Need RankSegment Index

(TMC)

Reverse Segment (If applicable)

Segment Length

Direction CountyApprox.

Beginning Milepost

Urban Area

Tota

l Saf

ety

Scor

e

Tota

l Mob

ility

Sco

re

Tota

l Eco

nom

ic

Com

petiti

vene

ss S

core

Tota

l Nee

d Sc

ore

1 114P06046Rank 2

(114N06045)

9.22 Northbound Deschutes 170 La Pine 275 71 181 527

2 114N06045Rank1

(114P06046)9.23 Southbound Deschutes 161 La Pine 275 69 181 525

3 114P06087Rank 8

(114N06086)

7.52 Northbound Sherman 7 263 115 123 500

4 114N05832Rank 5

(114P06571)10.11 Southbound Klamath 263 238 94 156 487

5 114P06571Rank 4

(114N05832)

9.86 Northbound Klamath 273 Klamath Falls 238 91 159 487

6 114P06570Rank 7

(114N06038)

8.78 Northbound Klamath 291 300 47 135 482

7 114N06038Rank 6


8 114N06086Rank 3

(114P06087)7.45 Southbound Sherman 1 263 85 119 466

9 114N06059 -- 2.37 Southbound Deschutes 112 200 96 163 459

10 114P14378 -- 2 Northbound Deschutes 123 Redmond 138 123 164 424

11 114P06053 -- 1.27 Northbound Deschutes 141 Bend 150 110 164 423

12 114P05834Rank 16

(114N06573)


13 114P06572Rank 14

(114N06042)


14 114N06042Rank 13


15 114P06055 -- 0.32 Northbound Deschutes 135 Bend 0 247 160 407

16 114N06573Rank 12


17 114P06048Rank 19

(114N06047)

2.7 Northbound Deschutes 156 138 72 181 390



18 114P14379 -- 0.21 Northbound Deschutes 121 Redmond 25 196 169 390

19 114N06047Rank 17

(114P06048)2.12 Southbound Deschutes 154 138 69 181 387

20 114N06049 -- 7.99 Southbound Deschutes 144 125 77 181 384

21 114P06047Rank 22

(114N06046)

5.01 Northbound Deschutes 160 138 62 181 381

22 114N06046Rank 21

(114P06047)5.08 Southbound Deschutes 156 138 60 181 379

23 114P06059 -- 5.16 Northbound Deschutes 129 150 52 165 368

24 114P06574Rank 25

(114N05834)


25 114N05834Rank 24


The need ranking is illustrated on the map in Figure 1. As shown, the top 25 needs are spread throughout the length of the corridor. A couple of high ranked needs are in the very northern portion of the corridor just south of Biggs Junction, a portion of the roadway that traverses steep grades and sharp curves. Others high ranked needs are clustered in and around the urban areas in central Oregon. And several needs are spread throughout the southern portion of the corridor, both north and south of Klamath Falls, which experiences significant safety issues due to high speeds and visibility issues. The nature of the problems and potential solutions are further explored in the next sections of this memo.



Figure 1: Top Need Locations by Rank

2 NATURE OF PROBLEMSProblems along US 97 were identified by considering multiple sources of information. Data from the needs identification were used to pinpoint safety and mobility issues that require attention. The safety data was analyzed further to identify crash patterns that could be potentially fixed by implementing counter-measures. No further analysis was required of the mobility data because either the mobility problems identified were already well known to ODOT or were significantly smaller relative to other needs. Because of the rural nature of the corridor, only a few locations were found to have significant congestion, and these were at major intersections in large urban centers.

While relying on data is important to conduct an objective evaluation of corridor needs, it is also necessary to observe conditions on the ground and receive input from users and stakeholders to make sure all important factors are considered. Data alone is likely to miss important parts of the story. Because of this, the team hosted a workshop with ODOT staff to receive feedback on their understanding of prevailing issues on the corridor. Follow-up discussions with ODOT staff provided valuable information about current and planned projects and known bottlenecks.



Users were also surveyed as to their impressions and experiences traveling throughout the corridor. This occurred at truck stops and other locations along the corridor. Finally, the physical characteristics of the roadway were also investigated and cataloged, to better understand what users encountered on a day-to-day basis, in terms of elevations, geometrics, signage, etc. All this information was combined to identify problems and develop solutions that are likely to improve these problems. The rest of this section describes the problems identified, and the next section focuses on the suggested solutions.

2.1 CRASH PATTERNSThe most important factor in the needs scoring was safety. Improving safety and reducing roadway injuries and fatalities is a primary objective of ODOT. This was reflected in the analysis. As can be seen in Table 2, most of the segments that ranked in the top 25 in terms of need did so because they accumulated substantial points from a high number of crash injuries and fatalities. Therefore, the development of potential solutions to meet these needs necessarily focused on safety concerns. Additional safety analysis was conducted, in part described in the Technical Memorandum 2, to identify crash patterns over the past 6 years. The overall findings of this analysis are summarized in Table 3.

Crash patterns were identified by whether any commonalities existed for accidents at specific locations in terms of crash type, crash cause, roadway condition at crash site, and roadway characteristics at crash site. For example, the segment with Need Rank 1 (where the opposite direction of travel is ranked 2), the analysis showed a prevalence of angle crashes between vehicles traveling in the same direction, and a pattern of crashes occurring at intersections. These findings help identify the types of solutions that are most likely to be effective and reduce these types of crashes.

Some of the segments were not observed to have specific crash patterns. In some cases, these segments had high crash rates; however, they appeared to be random in nature and did not cluster around certain features or conditions. For these locations, further study could be warranted to see if patterns emerge if more years of crash data are considered.

Table 3: Crash Patterns

Segments Crash Patterns

Need Rank

Segment Index (TMC)


Crash Type Crash CauseRoadway

Conditions at Crash Site

Roadway Characteristics at Crash Site

1 114P06046

Need Rank 2 (114N06045) Angle-Other Same Dir. Stopped - Intersection

2 114N06045

Need Rank1 (114P06046) Angle-Other Same Dir. Stopped - Intersection

3 114P06087

Need Rank 8 (114N06086)

Angle-Other, Fixed Object

Did Not Yield, Improper Turn - Curve, Grade,

Intersection

4 114N05832

Need Rank 5 (114P06571) - Speed Involved - -

5 114P06571

Need Rank 4 (114N05832) - Speed Involved - -

6 114P06570

Need Rank 7 (114N06038)

Overturn, Lane/Road Departure

Speed Involved Icy -

7 114N06038

Need Rank 6 (114P06570)

Overturn, Lane/Road Departure

Speed Involved Icy -

8 114N06086

Need Rank 3 (114P06087)

Angle-Other, Fixed Object

Did Not Yield, Improper Turn - Curve, Grade,

Intersection9 114N0605 - - - - Intersection



Segments Crash Patterns

Need Rank

Segment Index (TMC)


Crash Type Crash CauseRoadway

Conditions at Crash Site

Roadway Characteristics at Crash Site

9

10 114P14378 - - - - -

11 114P06053 -

Angle - Other, Same-direction

Stopped- - -

12 114P05834

Need Rank 16 (114N06573) Fixed Object Speed Involved,

Careless Driving - -

13 114P06572

Need Rank 14 (114N06042)

Fixed Object, Opposite Dir.

Straight, Overturn, Lane /Road Departure

Speed Involved, Other Improper

DrivingIcy, Snowing, Dark Curve

14 114N06042

Need Rank 13 (114P06572)

Fixed Object, Opposite Dir.

Straight, Overturn, Lane /Road Departure

Speed Involved, Other Improper

DrivingIcy, Snowing, Dark Curve

15 114P06055 - - - - -

16 114N06573

Need Rank 12 (114P05834) Fixed Object Speed Involved,

Careless Driving Icy Intersection

17 114P06048

Need Rank 19 (114N06047)

Opposite Dir. Straight - - -

18 114P14379 - - - - -

19 114N06047

Need Rank 17 (114P06048)

Opposite Dir. Straight - - -

20 114N06049 - Same Dir. Straight Speed Involved Snowing -

21 114P06047

Need Rank 22 (114N06046)

Opposite Dir. Straight Speed Involved - -

22 114N06046

Need Rank 21 (114P06047)

Opposite Dir. Straight Speed Involved - -

23 114P06059 - - - - -

24 114P06574

Need Rank 25 (114N05834) - - - -

25 114N05834

Need Rank 24 (114P06574) - - - -

2.2 MOBILITY PROBLEMSA more detailed analysis was not needed to single-out mobility problems. Of the top 25 need locations, only 4 had scores that were driven primarily by mobility needs, and these locations are well known to stakeholders as bottlenecks on US 97. Two of these segments are in Redmond (need rank 10 and 18) and the other two are in Bend (need rank 11 and 15).

2.3 REVIEW OF PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICSEach of the top 25 segments was reviewed to understand and catalog its physical characteristics. These characteristics could help explain the problems identified in the data, or even suggest new problems that had not been reflected in the data. This review included, but was not limited to, grades, curvatures, driveways, climbing lanes, signage, information systems, shoulders, etc. This review allowed us to



understand local conditions, and suggest solutions that are compatible with the current configuration of the corridor.

2.4 STAKEHOLDER INPUT

2.4.1 FREIGHT SURVEY SUMMARYFreight industry stakeholders were surveyed to collect feedback on their experiences, concerns, needs and priorities related to freight travel on US 97. The survey included a month-long online questionnaire and two days of in-person tabling at four truck stops along US 97. A total of seventy-nine (79) responses were recorded during this period. Drivers made up about half of respondents, balanced by a mix of industry, citizen, and government professionals.

Most drivers and freight companies indicated that they use US 97 as part of regional (62%) or national (26%) travel. Respondents reported using all segments of the corridor, with the highest concentration traveling through Bend (72%), and the lowest between US 197 and Madras (47%). Respondents mostly access US 97 from I-84 (67%) and OR 58.

Less than half of all respondents (39%) rated the corridor as a “good” or better freight route. Respondent concerns were primarily focused on traffic volume, the availability of pull-outs and climbing lanes, and overall safety. Winter weather was also identified as a significant issue, with many respondents reported rerouting to avoid US 97 during winter weather or high traffic times, particularly during the summer. The major routes used were I-5, I-84 and OR 58. On the other hand, the survey also found that around 20 percent of respondents indicated that they use US 97 as an alternative route to other roads in the state, which in most cases involved avoiding winter weather on I-5.

Various areas throughout the corridor presented problems for drivers. The most commonly cited delays were described near Bend, La Pine/Madras, and Klamath Falls. Delays and problematic sections often extended from these urban areas into nearby rural areas. Other common problems cited included overall safety, traffic congestion, a lack of passing lanes and pull-outs, and issues related to seasonal traffic patterns.

2.4.2 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)A stakeholder work session was held to obtain insights from planners and engineers that are familiar with US 97. The objective was to identify problems that might not be registering in the crash pattern analysis. The main takeaways from this workshop are summarized in Table 4. In most cases, the stakeholders confirmed the crash patterns identified previously. For example, for the segment that is ranked 1, stakeholders indicated that this location has an intersection with known issues, which was also the conclusion of the crash pattern analysis. Similar overlap occurred at other segments. In other cases, the information provided by the stakeholders was valuable to identify the problem, and narrow the set of solutions proposed.

Table 4: Stakeholder Anecdotal Information

Segment TAC Anecdotal InfoNeed Rank

1 A long segment, with known issues at intersection with State Recreation Road that leads to La Pine State Park.

2 A long segment, with known issues at intersection with State Recreation Road that leads to La Pine State Park.3 Elevation changes and traffic from the Columbia River bridge, with uncontrolled intersections possibly causing the



Segment TAC Anecdotal InfoNeed Rank

issues that bumped this up to rank 3. 4 Goes along lake, hard bend, not a lot of room for improvements, near crater lake parkway

5 Goes along lake, hard bend, not a lot of room for improvements, near crater lake parkway

6 At the California border, directional freight traffic possibly causing problems. A lot of farm properties with slower trucks accessing properties

7 At the California border, directional freight traffic possibly causing problems. A lot of farm properties with slower trucks accessing properties

8 Elevation changes and traffic from the Columbia River bridge, with uncontrolled intersections possibly causing the issues that bumped this up to rank 3.

9 Lots of urban traffic. Would have expected that some improvements completed recently would have alleviated the situation. More work is scheduled to be done here.

10 Lots of urban traffic. Would have expected that some improvements completed recently would have alleviated the situation. More work is scheduled to be done here.

11 Agree with inclusion of this segment.

12Long rural segment with elevation changes. Crater Lake highway brings tourist traffic. Maybe the rural subdivisions on the south end contribute to slowdowns at driveways or tractor traffic. Long straight segment without passing opportunities.

13Geometry of the segment contributes to issues. Not surprised by inclusion. The south end has lots of erratic driving. Have seen a lot of close calls in the downhill direction. Snow break happens on the downhill side, heavier snow on top.

14Geometry of the segment contributes to issues. Not surprised by inclusion. The south end has lots of erratic driving. Have seen a lot of close calls in the downhill direction. Snow break happens on the downhill side, heavier snow on top.

15 Short urban segment with lots of traffic and near intersection with highway 20. Segment is known to have issues, and work is going on currently. Includes two signals on north end of bend.

16Long rural segment with elevation changes. Crater Lake highway brings tourist traffic. Maybe the rural subdivisions on the south end contribute to slowdowns at driveways or tractor traffic. Long straight segment without passing opportunities.

17 A long segment, with possible safety issues due to visitors to the Sunriver resort in the vicinity, using S Century Drive. Part of Redmond reroute.

18 Urban/semi-urban intersection with SE Evergreen Ave with lots of freight traffic.

19 A long segment, with possible safety issues due to visitors to the Sunriver resort in the vicinity using S Century Drive.

20 No comment

21 No comment22 No comment23 No comment24 No comment25 No comment

3 SOLUTIONS

3.1 EXISTING PROJECTSThe first step in identifying solutions to these problems was to investigate whether there are already projects in the pipeline that would address them. Many of the problems identified have been well known to stakeholders, as was shown in the previous section. In some of these cases, there are already projects in different stages of planning and implementation that target the known issues. Some projects could be in the conceptualization phase, while at the other extreme some might be funded and programmed to start construction soon. Information on existing projects was obtained from several sources, but primarily from ODOT staff. Other sources included existing planning documents such as



ODOT’s STIP, TSPs and corridor plans. These were also reviewed in Phase 1 and updated in Technical Memorandum 1: Plan Review, Analysis Methodology and Data Needs.

Table 5 summarizes the planned projects found along US 97. This table combines segments in the same location but traveling in opposite directions, because planned projects would affect both directions of travel. Projects included in the STIP are labeled as funded. Some projects were judged to not resolve the safety or mobility problems identified, such as the US 97 Rockfall stabilization project, however they are left in the table for completeness.



Table 5: Planned Projects

Segment Planned Projects (Funded projects include STIP Reference)

Need Rank


1 Need Rank 2 (114N06045)

2011 La Pine Corridor Plan Improvements, including: - Cross section to include median with turn lanes and some raised medians- Roadway lighting improvements- Traffic signal at 1st Street- turn lanes on side streets- Realignment of Morson Street to provide alternate north-south route- Other related improvements (concept figures and some partial costs)Several have been completed, including the traffic signal at 1st, marked crossings with medians, pedestrian streetscape on the west, ADA improvements on the east and illumination. To the north, the 2016/2017 Wickiup Junction Project construction halted due to unstable soils. However, illumination and extension of a right turn lane at Rosland are being implemented.

2 Need Rank1 (114P06046)

3 Need Rank 8 (114N06086)

- In March 2016 ODOT Region 4 added advisory speed plaques and advanced curve warning signs to meet 2009 MUTCD requirements.- In Summer 2018 ODOT Region 4 added chevrons along curves to meet 2009 MUTCD requirements. - Project (K20860) will install a Variable Message Sign (VMS) on US97 Southbound at Biggs Junction (MP 0.06) to provide traffic/roadway conditions and route information. Construction anticipated for Spring 2020.- Project (K19075) will extend the southbound acceleration lane from US30/US97 intersection at Biggs Junction/current climbing lanes south approximately ½ mile (MP 0.03-0.62). Currently under construction (2019 completion).- Project (20095) US 97 Rockfall. Unstable slopes evaluation and rockfall remediation (not expected to address identified safety or operational needs).

8 Need Rank 3 (114P06087)

4 Need Rank 5 (114P06571)

Klamath Falls TSP: No identified US 97 improvements:5 Need Rank 4

(114N05832)

9 - - Project (20095) US 97 Rockfall. Unstable slopes evaluation and rockfall remediation (not expected to address identified safety or operational needs).

10 -

- ARTS R4 App S1 (2022-24 STIP 150% List). Signalized Intersection Upgrades @ OR 126 Evergreen Ave (MP 121.21), OR 126 Glacier / Highland Ave (MP 121.45), SW Veteran's Way (MP 121.98) & SW Odem Medo Ave (MP 122.85). I12C- Additional and/or Advance Heads (28%) at all 3 intersections & I9 - SB Evergreen & NB Odem Meadow Install Actuated/Coordinated Flashing Beacons as Advance Warning for Signalized Intersections (36%).

12 Need Rank 16 (114N06573) - Extension of passing lane from Milepost 210.93 to 212.13 is in project development.

15 -- Bend North Corridor Project (MP 130-136)- Bend North Area Transportation Study- Improvements to Cooley Road intersection identified and funded

18 -

- ARTS R4 App S1 (2022-24 STIP 150% List). Signalized Intersection Upgrades @ OR 126 Evergreen Ave (MP 121.21), OR 126 Glacier / Highland Ave (MP 121.45), SW Veteran's Way (MP 121.98) & SW Odem Medo Ave (MP 122.85). I12C- Additional and/or Advance Heads (28%) at all 3 intersections & I9 - SB Evergreen & NB Odem Meadow Install Actuated/Coordinated Flashing Beacons as Advance Warning for Signalized Intersections (36%).- Project (20095) US 97 Rockfall. Unstable slopes evaluation and rockfall remediation (not expected to address identified safety or operational needs).

17 Need Rank 19 (114N06047) - Project (19451) US97: S Century Drive to USFS boundary. Expand US 97 from two lanes to a four-lane median

divided highway. Pavement preservation and safety improvements at Vandevert Road.19 Need Rank 17

(114P06048)

21 Need Rank 22 (114N06046)

- Project (19451) US97: S Century Drive to USFS boundary. Expand US 97 from two lanes to a four-lane median divided highway. Pavement preservation and safety improvements at Vandevert Road.



Segment Planned Projects (Funded projects include STIP Reference)

Need Rank


22 Need Rank 21 (114P06047)

23 - On-Going Redmond US 97 Planning Efforts

24 Need Rank 25 (114N05834)

US97 Passing Lanes (K19784) project:- includes extending the existing passing lanes just north of OR138 Junction (MP210.93-212.13)- correct/repave cross slope issues through the Chemult area (MP202.97-203.75)- Construction anticipated 2019-202025 Need Rank 24

(114P06574)

3.2 SUGGESTED SOLUTIONSTo propose solutions, we compared the existing funded planned projects against the needs and problems identified through this analysis. Project funding was established by inclusion in the STIP. Planned projects that are currently unfunded were included in the proposed solutions and prioritized alongside our own suggestions. If a funded project was judged to address the need, no further solution was proposed. Some funded projects were found to only partially address needs; therefore, additional solutions were proposed. For a couple of the locations, namely segments with need rank of 24 and 25, it was determined that further study was needed to propose any solutions.

The proposed solutions are listed in Table 6. Most of these represent a set of toolbox approaches that typically resolve the types of problems identified previously. A few of these were engineered to solve specific problems. In these cases, the solution was unambiguous and enough information was available to apply engineering concepts to right-size the solution to the specific segments considered. Most of these engineered solutions represent climbing and/or passing lanes. For the toolbox approaches, further study is required to design and tailor these solutions to the conditions of US 97, considering traffic, geometrics, soils, roadside grades, and other important design factors. Our recommendations were only based on the understanding of the problems described in the previous section and the typical strategies that are considered, in general, to address these issues. Professional judgement was used to assess relevancy and adequacy. However, as noted, additional analysis would be required to further develop refine, and confirm these potential strategies and concepts at the individual project level.

Most the proposed solutions include cost information in parentheses. For planned projects that are not funded, the previously estimated costs are presented. For newly proposed solutions, costs were estimated considering the prevailing costs in similar applications, and approximate cost estimates developed as part of this project. These estimates are generally representative, but additional study is required to design each of the strategies to conditions on US 97. Nonetheless, the results in Table 6 provide ideas for how to resolve the problems on US 97, improving freight mobility and overall safety along the corridor. The cost estimates for the engineered solutions were developed through a costing estimation that was more detailed than for the toolbox approaches.



Table 6: Suggested Solutions Segment Potential Toolbox and other Suggested Solutions

Need Rank


1 Need Rank 2 (114N06045)- Minor safety improvements being implemented as part of repaving (2018).- E La Pine Corridor Refinement Plan to start in 2019 will address future improvements in Wickiup Junction area. ODOT PM indicates that due to residential growth in the area, additional local street connections are necessary to alleviate traffic and safety issues on this portion of US 97. Solutions likely to include at grade roadway extensions/connections and intersection improvements. While specific projects are unknown, ODOT PM indicated that the cost of improvements will fall into the "high" category for purposes of this freight plan.

2 Need Rank1 (114P06046)

3 Need Rank 8 (114N06086)

Potential strategies that address crash concentrations between mileposts 1-4 and -0.5 to 0.5, which include: - H9. Left Turn Lane on Single Major Road Approach: Rural, Unsignalized Intersection (3-leg). $897,000. Assume one location. Add $1,531,729 for rock cut and retaining wall at this location. Total: $2,428,729 - RD2. Increase Distance to Rural Roadside Obstacle from 16 ft. (5 m) to 30 ft. (9 m). $59,000 per 1000 ft. Assume 3 treatments ($177,000) - RD4. Increase Pavement Friction by Installing High Friction Surface Treatment. $156,000 (1000 ft) - assume two locations ($312,000) - RD11. Install Dynamic Speed Feedback Sign or Over-speed Curve Warning System for Curves that includes RWIS and potentially vehicle detection. $500,000 (rough estimate). Assume one location. - H2 Right Turn Lane on Single Major Road Approach: Unsignalized Intersection (3- or 4-leg) at the Truck Stop. ($192,000) - H25 Intersection Lighting ($74,000) - H26 Segment Lighting, 3,000 ft approaching Biggs Junction ($654,000) - Consider extending two climbing lanes (mile 2 and mile 4) that end at curve. 2,000 feel including taper. $280,000 x 2 = $560,000

8 Need Rank 3 (114P06087)

4 Need Rank 5 (114P06571) - RD11. Install Dynamic Speed Feedback Sign for Curves. $97,000. Assume 3 treatments ($29,100) - RD20. Install Widen Paved Shoulder by 3 ft. $230,000 per 1000 ft. Assume 2 miles of treatment ($2.5M)5 Need Rank 4 (114N05832)

6 Need Rank 7 (114N06038)

Treatments to address departure and speed, which may include: - RD4. Increase Pavement Friction by Installing High Friction Surface Treatment. $156,000 (1000 ft). Assume 3 treatments ($468,000) - RD11. Install Dynamic Speed Feedback Sign. $97,000. Assume 3 treatments ($291,000) - RD20. Install Widen Paved Shoulder by 3 ft. $230,000 (1000 ft). Assume 2 miles ($2.5M) - Along the north segment, consider treatments that would warn drivers of conflicts with vehicles at unsignalizd intersections: - I15. Provide Actuated Flashing Beacons Triggered by Approaching Vehicles at Unsignalized Intersections. $300,000. Assume 2 locations ($600,000)

7 Need Rank 6 (114P06570)

9 -

Treatments to address intersection crashes, near MP 114, which may include: - H2. Right Turn Lane on Both Major Road Approaches: Unsignalized Intersection (3- or 4-leg). $192,000 - H9. Left Turn Lane on Single Major Road Approach: Rural, Unsignalized Intersection (3-leg). $897,000 - I10. Increase Triangle Sight Distance. $345,000 - I15. Provide Actuated Flashing Beacons Triggered by Approaching Vehicles at Unsignalized Intersections. $300,000Assume one treatment for each of the above. May be all at one location, or a combination of some at one and some at another.

10 -

- H9. Left Turn Lane on Single Major Road Approach: Rural, Unsignalized Intersection (3-leg). $897,000 - I10. Increase Triangle Sight Distance. $345,000 - I15. Provide Actuated Flashing Beacons Triggered by Approaching Vehicles at Unsignalized Intersections. $300,000

11 -

Treatments to address intersection crashes, which may include: - H2. Right Turn Lane on Both Major Road Approaches: Unsignalized Intersection (3- or 4-leg). $192,000 - H9. Left Turn Lane on Single Major Road Approach: Rural, Unsignalized Intersection (3-leg). $897,000 - I10. Increase Triangle Sight Distance. $345,000 - I15. Provide Actuated Flashing Beacons Triggered by Approaching Vehicles at Unsignalized Intersections. $300,000Assume one treatment for each of the above. May be all at one location, or a combination of some at one and some at another.



Segment Potential Toolbox and other Suggested SolutionsNeed Rank


12 Need Rank 16 (114N06573)

Treatments to address travel speed approaching intersections and intersection improvements near Chiloquin Camp Road and Volcanic Scenic Byway, which may include: - RD2. Increase Distance to Rural Roadside Obstacle from 16 ft. (5 m) to 30 ft. (9 m). $59,000. Assume 5 locations ($295,000) - RD20. Install Widen Paved Shoulder by 3 ft. $230,000 (1000 ft). Assume 2 miles ($2.5M) - H9. Left Turn Lane on Single Major Road Approach: Rural, Unsignalized Intersection (3-leg). $897,000. Assume 2 locations ($1,794,000) - I10. Increase Triangle Sight Distance. $345,000. Assume 2 locations ($690,000) - I15. Provide Actuated Flashing Beacons Triggered by Approaching Vehicles at Unsignalized Intersections. $300,000. Assume 2 locations ($600,000) - Install Intersection Lighting ($74,000) at the curve/intersection at the north end. - Construct NB passing lane 1 mile in length centered between the OR138/US97 Junction and the current 4-lane passing section just south of CR677 (Military Crossing Rd). ($840,000)

16 Need Rank 12 (114P05834)

13 Need Rank 14 (114N06042)

Treatments near MP 244 to alert drivers of intersection conflicts, including: - I1. Install Lighting at Intersection. $74,000 - H9. Left Turn Lane on Single Major Road Approach: Rural, Unsignalized Intersection (3-leg). $897,000 - I10. Increase Triangle Sight Distance. $345,000 - I15. Provide Actuated Flashing Beacons Triggered by Approaching Vehicles at Unsignalized Intersections. $300,000Assume one treatment for each of the above. May be all at one location, or a combination of some at one and some at another.Construction of SB passing lane around MP 241 at NF-9734 where an existing “No Passing” stripe exists for SB traffic and will end 1 mile north of the curves ($840,000).

14 Need Rank 13 (114P06572)

15 - Improvements to Cooley Road intersection included in House Bill 2017

18 -

- H9. Left Turn Lane on Single Major Road Approach: Rural, Unsignalized Intersection (3-leg). $897,000 - I10. Increase Triangle Sight Distance. $345,000 - I15. Provide Actuated Flashing Beacons Triggered by Approaching Vehicles at Unsignalized Intersections. $300,000

17 Need Rank 19 (114N06047) STIP Project (funded) should address problems.

19 Need Rank 17 (114P06048) STIP Project (funded) should address problems.

20 - STIP Project (funded) should address problems.

21 Need Rank 22 (114N06046) STIP Project (funded) should address problems.

22 Need Rank 21 (114P06047) STIP Project (funded) should address problems.

23 - Need further study

24 Need Rank 25 (114N05834) Need further study

25 Need Rank 24 (114P06574) Need further study

Segments with need rank between 23 and 25 were not found to have discernible crash patterns, partly due to the lower incidence of crashes, and therefore it was not clear that any particular toolbox solution was warranted to address safety patterns. Additional study is required for these segments to identify if the need can be addressed with projects. As mentioned in the methodology section, the study initially looked to develop solutions for the top 20 scoring locations. This top 20 list was later expanded to include the top 25 locations at the request of the TAC, resources permitting. Given the focus on higher priority problem locations, additional study would be required to identify solutions for these segments.



4 PRIORITIZATION METHODOLOGY

4.1 BENEFITS AND COSTS ESTIMATIONEach of the suggested solution bundles were evaluated considering their expected safety and mobility benefits and their estimated costs. Table 7 shows the estimated costs for each bundle, which were derived by summing the costs of the solutions described in the previous section. These represent planning-level estimates that do not consider all the contextual local factors that might make individual projects more expensive to implement. Costs were categorized where “High” represents greater than $4million, “Medium” represents higher than $2million but lower than $4million, and “Low” represents lower than $2million. These categories were defined so that roughly one third of the projects fit in each of them. The costs of the solutions for segments 1 and 2 could not be quantified precisely as the solutions are to be developed in greater detail in upcoming studies. However, ODOT indicated that they would likely be categorized as “High”.

The categorization of benefits into “High” and “Medium” was qualitative, based on engineering judgement. This categorization considers only the proportion of the problem resolved (i.e. the Crash Modification Factor), and not the size of the original safety concern (reflected in the original need rank). These represent order of magnitude estimates based on the typical implementation of these solutions elsewhere.

Table 7: Benefit and Cost Categorization

Need Rank

Segment Index (TMC)


Approx. Beginning Milepost

Approx. End Milepost

Combined Cost of

Proposed Solution(s)

Combined Cost Category

Qualitative Benefit of Proposed

Solution(s)

1 114P06046 Need Rank 2 (114N06045) 170 160.78 High High High

2 114N06045 Need Rank1 (114P06046) 161 170.23 High High High

3 114P06087 Need Rank 8 (114N06086) 7 -0.52 $4,897,729 High High

4 114N05832 Need Rank 5 (114P06571) 263 273.11 $2,529,100 Medium High

5 114P06571 Need Rank 4 (114N05832) 273 263.14 $2,529,100 Medium High

6 114P06570 Need Rank 7 (114N06038) 291 282.22 $3,859,000 Medium Medium

7 114N06038 Need Rank 6 (114P06570) 286 294.86 $3,859,000 Medium Medium

8 114N06086 Need Rank 3 (114P06087) 1 8.45 $4,897,729 High High

9 114N06059 - 112 114.37 $1,734,000 Low Medium

10 114P14378 - 123 121 $1,542,000 Low Medium

11 114P06053 - 141 139.73 $1,734,000 Low Medium

12 114P05834 Need Rank 16 (114N06573) 218 211.46 $6,719,000 High High

13 114P06572 Need Rank 14 (114N06042) 247 235.48 $2,456,000 Medium Medium

14 114N06042 Need Rank 13 (114P06572) 236 247.9 $2,456,000 Medium Medium

16 114N06573 Need Rank 12 (114P05834) 214 220.49 $6,719,000 High High

18 114P14379 - 121 120.79 $1,542,000 Low Medium



4.2 PRIORITIZATIONTo prioritize the proposed solutions, an approach was developed that considered the following three factors: need rank, benefits, and costs. Different prioritization approaches were considered, but we settled on an approach that most accurately reflected ODOTs priorities. ODOT is primarily interested in prioritizing solutions based on benefits and need, and not on costs, given that the solutions had comparatively small costs (relative to the types of projects ODOT regularly implements) that did not vary substantially between different solutions. Between the estimated benefits and needs score, it was determined that the need rank would receive greater weight in the prioritization because it was based on quantitative measures, while the benefits estimation was qualitative.

The order of priorities used are described in Figure 2. First, projects were sorted based on the categorized need rank, then they were sorted by the estimated benefits, and finally they were sorted by the costs. In this scheme, estimated benefits were used as a tie-breaker for projects with the same need rank category, and costs were used as a tie-breaker for projects with the same needs score category and estimated benefits.

Figure 2: Prioritization Hierarchy

Table 8 shows the prioritized solution bundles. Solutions found to have a need sore of “high” and benefits of “high” were classified as having priority A. These represent solutions that are in segments with a clear need, as evidenced by the metrics quantified, and are expected to generate high benefits. This group includes projects with “Medium” costs and “High” costs, although classification into this group did not depend on this information. It is recommended that all solutions in this group be considered for further study and implementation, with those with “medium” costs potentially having the highest cost effectiveness.

Solution bundles with B priority had either “high” need and “medium” benefits, or “medium” need and “high” benefits. This group includes projects that are still expected to have robust benefits. Further study and investment on these solution bundles should be done after priority A solutions have been explored. Finally, solution bundles with C priority have “medium” need and benefits. These solutions still promise to generate moderate benefits, and address some of the needs identified, however they are likely to be less beneficial than those categorized as priority A or B. The solutions with low costs in this category could potentially have a high cost effectiveness, and therefore should be studied first.


Need Score

Benefits

Costs


Table 8: Prioritized Solutions

Project Priority Need Rank Benefit Cost Need

RankSegment Length Direction County

Approx. Beginning Milepost

Approx. End

MilepostUrban Area

A

High High Medium 4 10.11 Southbound Klamath 263 273.11 -

High High Medium 5 9.86 Northbound Klamath 273 263.14 Klamath Falls

High High High 1 9.22 Northbound Deschutes 170 160.78 La Pine

High High High 2 9.23 Southbound Deschutes 161 170.23 La Pine

High High High 3 7.52 Northbound Sherman 7 -0.52 -

High High High 8 7.45 Southbound Sherman 1 8.45 -

B

High Medium Medium 6 8.78 Northbound Klamath 291 282.22 -

High Medium Medium 7 8.86 Southbound Klamath 286 294.86 -

Medium High High 12 6.54 Northbound Klamath 218 211.46 -

Medium High High 16 6.49 Southbound Klamath 214 220.49 -

C

Medium Medium Low 9 2.37 Southbound Deschutes 112 114.37 -

Medium Medium Low 10 2 Northbound Deschutes 123 121 Redmond

Medium Medium Low 11 1.27 Northbound Deschutes 141 139.73 Bend

Medium Medium Low 18 0.21 Northbound Deschutes 121 120.79 Redmond

Medium Medium Medium 13 11.52 Northbound Klamath 247 235.48 -

Medium Medium Medium 14 11.9 Southbound Klamath 236 247.9 -

As mentioned before, eight problem locations were not prioritized because either the needs will be addressed by projects already included in the STIP, or because no discrete solution could be identified without further study. Given that the problems were either already addressed or were lower ranked and required further study to identify a solution, these eight segments were not prioritized for investment.

5 CONCLUSION This Tech Memo suggested potential solutions to the problems identified in Tech Memo 2, and prioritized these solutions based on need, benefits and costs. The solutions suggested represent initial planning concepts that should be studied in greater depth, considering local factors and data in more depth than could be considered broadly in this statewide corridor study. None of these solutions is expected to solve the problems entirely, however they are highly likely to generate benefits for freight mobility and safety along US 97.

As can been seen in Figure 3, the priorities are spread throughout the corridor. Each of the Area Commission on Transportation’s (ACT’s) in the corridor contains at least one solution bundle in the top priority category (A). The second priority solutions (B) are in the southern portion of the corridor. Central Oregon communities around Bend contain several freight needs that have either been funded, require further study or represent less urgent priorities.



Figure 3: Need Rank Locations by Solution Priority



6 APPENDIX – ADDITIONAL NOTESLocation Information Notes

Need Rank Segment Index (TMC) Reverse Segment (If applicable) Other Area Descriptions Other Notes

1 114P06046 Need Rank 2 (114N06045)

Flat forest/scrub land that includes a small town. There is a one-way stop controlled intersection with Co HWY 43 and several driveways along the corridor.

This segment has delay related to intersections and it is likely that the improvements would address both safety and mobility needs. Specific impacts or portion of impacts related to rail are unknown through this work.

2 114N06045 Need Rank1 (114P06046)

Flat forest/scrub land that includes a small town. There is a one-way stop controlled intersection with Co HWY 43 and several driveways along the corridor.

3 114P06087 Need Rank 8 (114N06086)A lot of bends in the road, some with limited sight distance.

No identified crash trends.

The highest concentration of crashes occur between mileposts 1-4 and -0.5 to 0.5. The roadway here is a narrow, steep, and winding canyon that terminates in a small community at the Columbia River. The route through the canyon has limited sight distance due to the steep canyon walls and is unlit. Additionally, there is no runaway truck ramp, and the section ends at a signalized intersection in Biggs Junction. At milepost 0, US 97 intersects I-84, and there is a bridge crossing the river. This might explain the high number of crashes here.

Via Les Jacobson: for NB, vehicles traveling down a long downgrade...speed detection and RWIS...

4 114N05832 Need Rank 5 (114P06571)

Small, relatively isolated city. Probably agricultural traffic mixing with RVs and other tourists. Distracting view of lake.

No identified crash trends

5 114P06571 Need Rank 4 (114N05832)

Small, relatively isolated city. Probably agricultural traffic mixing with RVs and other tourists. Distracting view of lake.

6 114P06570 Need Rank 7 (114N06038)

Long, straight, and flat. Speeding likely a problem. Small town in the north with stop controlled and uncontrolled access to highway. Agricultural.


These segments are located between Klamath Falls and the California border. There is a far higher concentration of crashes in Klamath falls, but there is a fairly high amount of crashes through



Location Information Notes


here as well. This is a long, fairly straight segment and speed is listed as a crash factor. It may be that drivers are speeding here due to this geometry. Traveling north, the road comes around a corner and meets several unsignalized intersections, the small town of Midland, and several agricultural/industrial facilities. Speed, combined with the sudden appearance of trucks entering the roadway could be a contributing factor.

Cause of delay unknown, but given what we know about the characteristics, it could be related to the grade and climbing lanes. Identified treatments do not appear to address mobility.

7 114N06038 Need Rank 6 (114P06570)

Long, straight, and flat. Speeding likely a problem. Small town in the north with stop controlled and uncontrolled access to highway. Agricultural.

See segment 6 note

8 114N06086 Need Rank 3 (114P06087)A lot of bends in the road, some with limited sight distance.

See segment 3 note

Via Les Jacobson: For southbound curves are not directly the problem…extend climbing lanes through the curve.

9 114N06059 -

This segment is located around Peter Skene Ogden State Scenic Viewpoint. The highest concentration of crashes is around milepost 114. There is a large, sweeping, blind, overpass here that crosses a railroad. Additionally, there is an uncontrolled intersection at SE Wimp Rd, at the south end of this overpass. The road is gated, but it seems to connect several farms to US 97.

10 114P14378 - No identified crash trends

11 114P06053 -

Forested and rocky on sides of road. Limited sight distances. Transition from forest to city.

Cause of delay for this segment is unknown and does not appear to directly link to the safety data.





12 114P05834 Need Rank 16 (114N06573) Heavily forested.

This segment lies to the north of Crater Lake. The two areas with the highest concentration of crashes are near intersections. In the southern part of the segment, US 97 intersects a poorly developed dirt road named Chiloquin Camp Road or 3018. This is an uncontrolled intersection that might be used by logging trucks. US 97 is straight here, and the minor road is poorly marked and forested. This intersection may not be the cause of the crashes though as most of them are slightly to the north. Careless driving and tourist traffic are mentioned as factors here. The road is long and straight, so passing-related crashed may be common. Around milepost 112, US 97 is met by the Volcanic Scenic Byway or 138. There are several crashes around this one way stop-controlled intersection. There is little development here, but crashes may be caused by speeding vehicles coming around the bend and hitting other vehicles slowing for the intersection. There is also a curve in the road here.

The curve at the same location as the intersection may make it more difficult for drivers to see oncoming traffic. Intersection illumination may help.

13 114P06572 Need Rank 14 (114N06042)Heavily forested. Uncontrolled driveway access to highway.

The crash factors listed for this segment generally involve bad driving, speeding, and snow and ice. The highest concentration of crashes seems to be where the road is flat and straight. There is a number of crashes around milepost 241 just before a steep blind bend in the road, though the bend itself has a relatively low amount of crashes. There is also a high concentration of crashes around milepost 244 where the road meets campgrounds, forest roads, a river, and a rest stop. This is at the bottom of a steep hill and likely sees many tourists turning on and off US 97.

Southbound crashes at the bottom





of the hill may be caused by the combination of speed through the last curve of the "S" curve and the attractions at the bottom of the hill.

14 114N06042 Need Rank 13 (114P06572)Heavily forested. Uncontrolled driveway access to highway.

See note segment 13

15 114P06055 -

Problem to be addressed by current funded project. Do not rank.

The outcome of the future planning efforts through this area are unknown. No improvements are identified at this point, but it is assumed that on-going planning would address the issues.

16 114N06573 Need Rank 12 (114P05834) Heavily forested. See note Segment 12

18 114P14379 -

Short urban segment. Low raised median. Stop and signal controlled access. Residential mixing with urban/industrial.


Unclear what portion of the mobility issues are related to crashes or other congestion. There would be some non-recurring mobility benefit related to the crash reductions. There may be congestion benefits due to on-going planning south of this segment, but that is unknown at this time.

17 114P06048 Need Rank 19 (114N06047)Steep grade and elevation changes. Heavily forested


19 114N06047 Need Rank 17 (114P06048)Steep grade and elevation changes. Heavily forested


20 114N06049 -

Winding forest road with limited sight distance. Several tourist sites along roadway. Median separated with barriers.

21 114P06047 Need Rank 22 (114N06046) 22 114N06046 Need Rank 21 (114P06047) 23 114P06059 N/A No identified crash trends24 114P06574 Need Rank 25 (114N05834) No identified crash trends25 114N05834 Rank 24 (114P06574) No identified crash trends


US 97 Freight Plan Phase 2 - Oregon Documents... · Web viewUS 97 is one of Oregon’s four...

Documents

Transcript of US 97 Freight Plan Phase 2 - Oregon Documents... · Web viewUS 97 is one of Oregon’s four...