Interstate 5 Transportation Conditions Report

1
Interstate 5 Transportation Conditions Report
A Comprehensive CD-Based Tool for Corridor
Planning
2
Definition and Purpose

• This is not a Corridor Plan
• It is a Tool to Focus and Support Planning
  Efforts Along the Corridor
• It does not Provide Solution Recommendations for
  all Corridor Issues (real or perceived)
• It does Quantitatively Describe Current and
  Forecast Corridor Conditions

3
ConditionsAssessed
4
More Than Highway Data

• History of Travel in the I-5 Corridor
• Rail
• Highway
• Overview of Transportation Trends
• Summary of Existing and Planned or Forecasted
  Modal Activity
• SOVs/HOVs
• Intercity Passenger Bus and Rail Service
• Local and Regional Bus and Rail Transit
• Truck and Rail Freight
• Telecommuting
• Bicycles and Pedestrians

5
Intelligent Transportation Systems Overview

• Existing and Planned ITS Equipment and Facilities
• Comprehensive ITS Deficiencies Analysis
• User Services Plan (based on FHWA National ITS
  Program Plan)
• Suggested Market Packages to Match Deficiencies
  with possible User Services

6
Intermodal Facility Inventory

• Weigh Stations
• Truck-to-Rail Transfer Stations
• Truck Terminals
• Rest Areas
• Park and Ride Facilities
• Passenger Rail Stations

7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
(No Transcript)
28
(No Transcript)
29
(No Transcript)
30
(No Transcript)
31
(No Transcript)
32
(No Transcript)
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
36
(No Transcript)
37
(No Transcript)
38
(No Transcript)
39
(No Transcript)
40
(No Transcript)
41
(No Transcript)
42
(No Transcript)
43
(No Transcript)
44
(No Transcript)
45
(No Transcript)
46
(No Transcript)
47
(No Transcript)
48
Potential Users

• Access management engineers
• Project managers
• Project development
• Planning
• Research
• DOT field managers
• Committees / local governments
• Elected officials and media

49
Significant FindingsRegion 3

• Region 3 Mainline Operations
• Not currently experiencing significant congestion
• Not projected to experience significant
  urban/growth-related congestion in 2020
• Winston to Roseburg, mp 119 to 121, will have
  moderate congestion
• Will experience rural terrain and truck-related
  congestion in 2020 if no improvements are made
• Moderate congestion on Canyon Creek Pass, Stage
  Hill Pass, Smith Hill, and Sexton Summit
• Solid congestion on the grades north of Central
  Point, Grants Pass, and Sutherlin, Rice Hill
• Extreme Congestion on Roberts Mountain

50
Significant FindingsRegion 3

• Region 3 Interchange Operations
• Currently congested in Medford and Roseburg
• 2020 congestion projected for signalized ramps
• South and North Medford, Phoenix, and Central
  Point in the Rogue Valley
• North Grants Pass
• Harvard Boulevard and Garden Valley in Roseburg
• 2020 congestion projected for unsignalized ramps
• North Ashland
• Rogue River
• Louse Creek (Merlin/Galice)
• North Roseburg
• Sutherlin

51
Significant FindingsRegion 3

• Region 3 Geometrics and Safety
• Originally built to early 70s standards and
  demand expectations
• Mainline still characterized by steep grades,
  substandard curves (notably near Myrtle Creek and
  in the Siskiyous), narrow shoulders, objects in
  the clear zone, and low overcrossings
• Many interchanges still have one or more
  sub-standard features
• Short accel and decel lanes
• Tight loop ramps
• Skewed intersections with cross streets
• Lack of shoulders and sidewalks
• Too many driveways close to ramp terminals
• Inadequate truck turning radii
• These features, along with driving too fast and
  adverse weather conditions account for most of
  the I-5 crashes in Region 3

52
Significant FindingsRegion 2

• Region 2 Mainline Operations
• Currently moderately congested in South Salem
  Hills
• Will experience very to extremely congested
  conditions in 2020 if no improvements are made
• Eugene/Springfield (Glenwood Segment, mp 188 to
  192)
• Albany to Salem (Knox Butte to Mission St., mp
  234 to 252)
• Will experience moderate to solid congestion in
  2020 if no improvements are made
• Eugene/Springfield to Coburg (Franklin Blvd. to
  Coburg Road, mp 192 to 199)
• Salem to Wilsonville (Mission Street to
  Wilsonville Road, mp 252 to 283)

53
Significant FindingsRegion 2

• Region 2 Interchange Operations
• Currently congested at Woodburn, Kuebler,
  Beltline, McVay/30th Ave.
• 2020 congestion projected for signalized ramps
• Cottage Grove
• Mission (N. Santiam/Salem)
• 2020 congestion projected for unsignalized ramps
• Glenwood (Eugene)
• Coberg Road
• South Jefferson
• Brooks
• Aurora-Donald

54
Significant FindingsRegion 2

• Region Geometrics and Safety
• Due to flatter terrain and more upgrades, Region
  2 has fewer sub-standard features on I-5 than
  Region 3
• Most common sub-standard features are narrow
  shoulders and objects in the clear zone
• Many interchanges still have one or more
  sub-standard features
• Short accel and decel lanes
• Short weaving sections
• Lack of shoulders and sidewalks
• Too many driveways close to ramp terminals
• Inadequate channelization on intersection
  approaches
• Driving too fast and collisions with fixed
  objects account for most of the I-5 crashes in
  Region 2
• Weaving collisions are also common in Salem and
  Eugene

55
Reports Advantages
Cost Objectivity Easier updates Public
involvement Utility beyond planning Easy to
access information Provides way to focus planning
56
Other Projects/Future Issues

• Report Development on At-Grade Corridors using
  Florence to Eugene Highway as Prototype
• CD Format Being Adapted to other Facility Plans
• Automation
• Intranet/Internet
• GIS/Full integration

57
Facility Planning Along I-5

• Interchange and Segment Plans