Junction City Transportation System Plan

Volume I: The Plan

PREPARED FOR

City of Junction City

PREPARED BY

Sandow Engineering

May 2016

Junction City

Transportation System Plan

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page i

Acknowledgements

This report was prepared through the collective effort of the following people:

City of Junction City

Jordan Cogburn

Lane Council of Governments (LCOG)

Stacy Clauson

Nicole Peterson

Denise Walters

Lane County

Sarah Wilkinson

Lydia McKinney

Oregon Department of Transportation

Dorothy Upton

Amanda Salyer

Peter Schuytema

Consultant Team

Current Version

Kelly Sandow, Sandow Engineering

Sarah McCrea, Sandow Engineering

Previous Version

John Bosket, DKS Associates

Mat Dolata, DKS Associates

Kristen Svicarovich, DKS Associates

Steve Faust, Cogan Owens Cogan

Kirstin Greene, Cogan Owens Cogan

Jesse Winterowd, Winterbrook Planning

Justin Healy, Real Urban Geographics

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

Jordan Cogburn, City of Junction City

Sarah Wilkinson, Lane County

Stacy Clauson, LCOG

Nicole Peterson, LCOG

Dean Chappell, Lane Rural Fire/Rescue

Sasha Luftig, Lane Transit District

Ed Moore, DLCD

Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC)

Karen Leach, CAC Chairperson and City Council

representative

Bob Biswell

Kurt Straube

Mike Kaiser

Jason Thiesfeld

Ellen Mooney, Lane County Roads Advisory

Committee

Jack Sumner, former City Council representative

Task Force

Chair-Councilor Karen Leach

Alicia Beymer

James Hukil

Gary Crumb

Jeff Hagg

Jason Thiesfeld

 
Junction City Transportation System Plan 
   
Page ii 
Table of Contents 
Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 
Chapter 2: Transportation Mission, Goals, and Policies ......................................................................................... 4 
Chapter 3: TSP Process ............................................................................................................................................ 9 
Chapter 4: Pedestrian Plan ................................................................................................................................... 11 
Chapter 5: Bicycle Plan .......................................................................................................................................... 18 
Chapter 6: Motor Vehicle Plan .............................................................................................................................. 26 
Chapter 7: Other Modal Plans .............................................................................................................................. 46 
Chapter 8: Funding and Implementation .............................................................................................................. 49 
 
List of Tables 
Table 1: Juncton City Growth Estimates ............................................................................................................... 10 
Table 2: Sidewalk Infill Projects ............................................................................................................................ 12 
Table 3: Street Crossing Improvements ................................................................................................................ 15 
Table 4: Shared-Use Paths .................................................................................................................................... 17 
Table 5: Bicycle Facility Improvements ................................................................................................................. 23 
Table 6: Typical Roadway Cross-Sections ............................................................................................................. 33 
Table 7: City Of Junction City Access Spacing Standards ...................................................................................... 34 
Table 8: Summary Of Neighborhood Traffic Management Strategies ................................................................. 36 
Table 9: Motor Vehicle Improvements ................................................................................................................. 39 
Table 10: Potential Transportation Demand Management Strategies ................................................................. 44 
Table 11: Estimate Of Funding Availability Through 2036 .................................................................................... 50 
Table 12:Preferred Financially Constrained Plan Cost (2016-2036) ..................................................................... 51 
Table 13: Financially Constrained Plan Sidewalk Infill/Construction Projects ...................................................... 51 
Table 14: Financially Constrained Plan Intersection Crossing Improvements ...................................................... 52 
Table 15: Financially Constrained Plan Shared-Use Path Alignments .................................................................. 53 
Table 16: Financially Constrained Plan Bicycle Facility Improvements ................................................................ 54 
Table 17: Financially Constrained Plan Motor Vehicle Facility Improvements..................................................... 56 

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page iii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Pedestrian System Plan .......................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 2: Shared-Use Path Typical Cross- Section ................................................................................................. 16

Figure 3: Bicycle System Plan ................................................................................................................................ 25

Figure 4: Future Roadways, Function Classification, And Local Street Connectivity ............................................ 27

Figure 5: Arterial Cross-Section Standard ............................................................................................................. 29

Figure 6: Major Collector Cross-Section Standard ................................................................................................ 30

Figure 7: Neighborhood Collector Cross-Section Standard .................................................................................. 31

Figure 8: Local Street Cross-Section Standard ...................................................................................................... 32

Figure 9: Proposed Motor Vehicle Network Improvements ................................................................................. 42

Volume II

Appendix A: Background Document Review Memorandum

Appendix B: Mission, Goals, and Policies Update Memorandum

Appendix C: Existing Conditions Memorandum

Appendix D: Travel Forecasting Tool Development Memorandum

Appendix E: Future Transportation Needs Memorandum

Appendix F: Transportation System Solutions Memorandum

Appendix G: Neighborhood Traffic Management Photo Log

Appendix H: Implementation-Action Strategy Memorandum

Appendix I: Committee Meeting and Open House Summaries

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page iv

Useful Abbreviations and Acronyms

AASHTO – American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act

CAC – Citizen Advisory Committee

CIP – Capital Improvement Program

City – City of Junction City

County – Lane County

DLCD – Department of Land Conservation and Development

ETC – Employee Transportation Coordinator

FHWA – Federal Highway Administration

LCOG – Lane Council of Governments

LID – Local Improvement District

LOS – Level of Service

MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization

NTM – Neighborhood Traffic Management

OAR – Oregon Administrative Rule

ODOT – Oregon Department of Transportation

OHP – Oregon Highway Plan

OTC – Oregon Transportation Commission

PNWR – Portland & Western Railroad

ROW – Right-of-Way

SDC – System Development Charge

STIP – Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

TAC – Technical Advisory Committee

TDM – Transportation Demand Management

TPR – Transportation Planning Rule

TSP – Transportation System Plan

UGB – Urban Growth Boundary

UGMA – Urban Growth Management Agreement

URD – Urban Renewal District

UPRR – Union Pacific Railroad

VMT – Vehicle Miles Traveled

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The 2036 Junction City Transportation System

Plan (TSP) provides a long range plan to guide

transportation infrastructure improvements

necessary to accommodate the City’s needs as

it grows and changes through the year 2036.

The City of Junction City recently completed a

periodic review process and subsequent

Comprehensive Plan update. The update

included:

 An expansion of the Urban Growth

Boundary (UGB) to meet 20-year

industrial, commercial, residential, and

park land needs

 Re-designation and rezoning of

properties located in the Professional

Technical classification to Residential

 Re-designation of properties from Low

to Medium Density Residential

development

 Adoption of a Wetland Protection

Program

Junction City’s Transportation System Plan (TSP)

serves as the transportation element of the

City’s Comprehensive Plan. This update of the

TSP was completed to maintain consistency

with the recently updated Comprehensive Plan

and to align the future transportation system

with planned growth.

The Junction City TSP update occurred in

coordination with Lane County, the Oregon

Department of Transportation (ODOT), and the

Department of Land Conservation and

Development (DLCD). It includes a thorough

review of the existing transportation system

and describes future multimodal

recommendations to address local

transportation needs through the year 2036, in

compliance with the Transportation Planning

Rule (TPR). The TSP serves as a valuable

planning tool for staff, policy makers, and the

public. Having an adopted TSP establishes

function, capacity, and location of future

transportation facilities, informs the community

of the level of investment needed for facilities

to support anticipated growth and

development, and better positions the City to

compete for transportation funding.

THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

PLAN

- Provides long-range direction for the

development of transportation facilities and

services for cars, bikes, pedestrians, and

transit

- Ensures the planned systems are adequate

to meet the needs of planned land uses

- Facilitates the cost-effective use of public

funds

- Demonstrates transportation project need

and readiness

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 2

PLAN OVERVIEW

The 2036 TSP provides an evaluation of the

existing transportation infrastructure and the

ability to accommodate the expected growth in

population and economic opportunities through

year 2036. The evaluation considers the

infrastructure capacity to facilitate the expected

increase and change in vehicle traffic and an

identification of improvement options.

Further, the plan includes an evaluation and

provides recommendations to improve

connections and pathways for pedestrian and

bicycle travel.

The plan includes:

 20-year planning horizon estimation of

the growth in employment and

households within the City UGB

 Estimation of impacts to the existing

street network from the vehicle traffic

added by the additional employment

and households

 Estimation of impacts to the existing

street network from through travel on

City streets

 Evaluation of needed improvements to

facilitate the expected increase in

vehicle traffic

 Evaluation of needed infrastructure to

improve pedestrian and bicycle access

throughout the City.

 List of projects to be completed over

the next 20 years with priority and

funding opportunities

TSP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

This plan was prepared with both public and

agency participation. A Citizen Advisory

Committee (CAC) was appointed by City Council

to advise City staff and the consultant team as

well as to provide recommendations to the

Planning Commission and City Council. The CAC

met a total of five times and included

representatives from City Council, Lane County

Roads Advisory Committee, City Planning

Commission, local businesses, and interested

citizens.

A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was

established to provide input from affected

agencies and service providers. The TAC met a

total of four times and included representatives

from Junction City, Lane County, ODOT, DLCD,

Lane Rural Fire/Rescue, and Lane Transit District.

An Alley Access Management Subcommittee was

formed from representatives of ODOT, the City,

and the CAC. This committee met one time to

discuss issues with use of the public alleys for

property access as required by the OR 99

Junction City Refinement Plan.

Public open houses were held at key milestones

in the TSP development process. Citizen input

was incorporated into the plan via public open

house forums and surveys that could be

accessed via the internet to make formal

comments on the proposed projects. Open

houses were advertised via mailings, online

postings, and postings made in public places.

The Junction City TSP development process

included a discussion of goals and objectives,

evaluation of existing and future needs,

consideration of potential solutions,

development of the TSP document and

implementing ordinances, and adoption by the

City and Lane County.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 3

ORGANIZATION

Chapter 1: Provides a brief overview of the

Transportation System Plan elements.

Chapter 2: Summarizes the goals and policies

that help to guide the determination and

planning for the future street network

improvements.

Chapter 3: Summarizes the process taken to

determine how and where future growth will

occur and the impacts to the system.

Chapter 4: Provides a plan for improvements to

the pedestrian network.

Chapter 5: Provides a plan for improvements to

the bicycle network.

Chapter 6: Provides a plan for improvements to

the vehicle network.

Chapter 7: Provides a plan for improvements to

the other modes, including rail, transit, pipeline,

and waterway.

Chapter 8: Identifies possible funding

opportunities and implementation of the

planned projects.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 4

CHAPTER 2: TRANSPORTATION MISSION, GOALS, AND POLICIES

This chapter presents the transportation-

related mission, goals, and policies for the City

of Junction City. These were used to guide

development of the Junction City TSP and are

intended to continue to provide direction for

decision-making into the future.

The mission statement is the overall vision

regarding transportation in Junction City. The

goals are broad statements of philosophy that

describe the hopes of people in the community

for the future. Each goal is developed around a

topic area. A goal may never be completely

attainable, but is used as a point toward which

to strive. Policies are statements that provide a

specific course of action moving the community

toward the attainment of its goals. Each new

capital improvement project, land use

application, or implementation measure must

be consistent with the policies. Once adopted,

the mission, goals, and policies, as well as the

project lists, will become part of Junction City’s

Comprehensive Plan.

MISSION STATEMENT

Enhance the quality of life in Junction City

by providing a balanced transportation

system that meets the travel needs of the

community.

GOALS AND POLICIES

GOAL 1: Provide a balanced transportation system that offers alternatives to single-occupant

automobiles.

Policy 1a: Where new walkways are built or where crossings are rebuilt, they shall be built to City

standards and incorporate handicapped accessibility features as required by state and

federal law.

Policy 1b: Pedestrian access to transit facilities from new commercial, residential, and high

employment uses and community activity centers shall be provided. Existing commercial,

residential, and high employment uses and community activity centers shall provide safe

and accessible pedestrian access to transit facilities when a site changes use or is

retrofitted.

Policy 1c: Streets, bikeways, and walkways shall be designed to meet the needs of pedestrians and

cyclists to promote safe and convenient non-motorized circulation within the

community. Unless there is a convenient alternative, all new principal arterial, minor

arterial, and collector streets shall provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Policy 1d: Maintenance and repair of existing bike and pedestrian facilities shall be given no less

than equal priority to the maintenance and repair of motor vehicle facilities.

Policy 1e: Encourage trip reduction strategies and programs that reduce automobile use during

peak travel periods.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 5

Policy 1f: Advocate for expanded local transit services to increase transit ridership and help reduce

traffic congestion.

GOAL 2: Provide a safe transportation system.

Policy 2a: City streets shall be designed to efficiently and safely accommodate emergency service

vehicles.

Policy 2b: Coordinate with the Oregon Department of Transportation, Junction City School District,

and Junction City Police Department to implement safety education programs including

pedestrian crossing education for school children.

Policy 2c: Designate safe routes to school for each school in the city. Update designated routes for

all new residential developments.

Policy 2d: Priority shall be given to the maintenance, repair, and handicapped accessible

improvement of walkways and bikeways along designated safe routes to school and

railroad crossings.

Policy 2e: Work with ODOT to improve the safety of OR 99 pedestrian crossings.

GOAL 3: Provide a transportation system that is designed, constructed, and maintained in a manner that

enhances Junction City’s quality of life.

Policy 3a: Transportation system improvements will be sensitive to the community’s aesthetics and

will strive to retain a sense of community, particularly in the downtown area of Junction

City, which is seen as critical to the town as a focal center.

Policy 3b: Transportation improvement designs shall be responsive to topography and shall

minimize impacts to natural, scenic, historic, and open space resources.

GOAL 4: Mange the transportation system by working cooperatively with federal, state, regional, and

local governments, as well as private sector businesses and residents.

Policy 4a: Coordinate transportation projects, policy issues, and development actions with all

affected governmental units and service providers in the area.

Policy 4b: Changes in the frequency of transit and rail services that are not inconsistent with the

Transportation System Plan shall be allowed without land use review.

Policy 4c: For State projects that require an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) or Environmental

Assessment (EA), the draft EIS or EA shall serve as the documentation for local land use

review if local review is required. Where the project is consistent with the Transportation

System Plan, formal review of the draft EIS or EA and concurrent or subsequent

compliance with applicable development standards or conditions. Where the project is

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 6

not consistent with the Transportation System Plan, formal review of the draft EIS or EA

and concurrent completion of necessary goal exceptions or plan amendments.

Policy 4d: The City shall coordinate with the Oregon Department of Transportation to implement

the highway improvements listed in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

(STIP) that are consistent with the City’s TSP and comprehensive plan.

Policy 4e: Procedures for the coordination between the City and Lane County on developments

that impact county transportation facilities are identified in the City/County Urban

Growth Management Agreement (UGMA). The City shall adhere to the UGMA

procedures in order to protect Lane County’s interests in said facilities.

GOAL 5: Establish stable and flexible transportation revenue streams to support ongoing maintenance,

operations, and system expansion.

Policy 5a: Develop a long-range financial strategy to implement needed transportation

improvements and support operational and maintenance requirements.

Policy 5b: Consider new transportation revenue sources and implement them when feasible and

appropriate.

Policy 5c: New transportation revenue sources shall maintain flexibility in allowed uses as much as

possible to allow for use towards facilities for any mode of travel, new facility

construction, and the maintenance and operation of existing facilities. Regulations

pertaining to existing revenue sources shall be amended where possible to allow for such

flexibility in use.

GOAL 6: Protect the function and efficiency of existing and future transportation facilities.

Policy 6a: When making a land use decision, the City shall consider the impact of the new

development on the existing and planned transportation facilities. Notice of all land use

changes located on state or county roads shall be sent to the respective jurisdiction, and

comments from same shall be included in the official record.

Policy 6b: Consider the potential to establish or maintain bikeways or walkways prior to the

vacation of any public right-of-way.

Policy 6c: At the time of land development or land division, the City shall require the dedication of

additional right-of-way when necessary to obtain adequate street widths, bikeways, and

walkways in accordance with the TSP.

Policy 6d: For improvements designated in the TSP, the following activities shall be allowed without

land use review:

 Dedication of right-of-way

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 7

 Authorization of construction and the construction of facilities and

improvements

 Classification of the roadway and approved road standards

Policy 6e: The City will require the extension of the city street system wherever possible, thereby

increasing connectivity. In all cases where it is reasonable, land divisions shall continue

existing streets, set aside right-of-way for future streets and intersections that will

promote connectivity, and continue the city’s grid system. Cul-de-sacs and other low-

connectivity street types shall be discouraged except where topography, land

development patterns, or natural, scenic, historic, and open space resources preclude

high-connectivity street patterns. Where cul-de-sacs and other low-connectivity street

types are used, shared-use paths may be required for bicycle and pedestrian users.

Policy 6f: Adopt street mobility standards for street intersections within the city. Signalized

intersections shall operate at a level of service (LOS) D or better during the weekday peak

hour, with stop and yield-controlled intersection approaches allowed to operate at a

level of service E or better. Level of service shall be based on the most recent edition of

the Highway Capacity Manual. Where a facility is under the jurisdiction of the County or

ODOT, their standards shall apply.

Policy 6g: Operation, maintenance, repair, and preservation of existing transportation facilities shall

be allowed without land use review, except where specifically regulated.

Policy 6h: Implement access management standards and policies to reduce conflicts on roadways

within the city.

Access points to state and local roadways, in the form of private driveways and public

street intersections, provide network connectivity and access to adjacent properties.

However, they also introduce conflict points that can have negative impacts on safe and

efficient travel. Therefore, the planning, design, and operation of access points to state

and local roadways in a manner that appropriately balances the need for access and

connectivity to support local development with safe and efficient operations is of interest

to the City of Junction City, Lane County, and the Oregon Department of Transportation.

The City, County, and ODOT have adopted individual policies and regulations related to

access management that apply to the roadways under their respective jurisdictions

within Junction City. Future decisions regarding the planning, design, and operation of

access to the roadways in Junction City shall be governed by the applicable regulations of

each agency at the time of the decision. The City and County access-related regulations

are included in each jurisdiction’s zoning codes and their policies are provided in their

respective comprehensive plans and TSPs. ODOT’s access-related regulations are

provided in OAR 734-051 and its policies are provided in the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP).

The City should coordinate the access management on ODOT and Lane County roadways

to provide a balanced transportation system.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 8

Oregon Highway 99

Oregon Highway 99 is the principle roadway and carries by far the most traffic in Junction

City. It also has the greatest number of access points and safety issues within the City.

Because of its key role within the transportation system, the City, County, and ODOT

have agreed that the following policy statements shall be considered as part of all future

decisions related to access points within the Oregon Highway 99 corridor.

 Each agency shall focus on safety when making decisions regarding access to

Oregon Highway 99, keeping in mind economic development needs and objectives

of property served by the access points.

 Recognize that the safety and mobility of the highway are generally improved by

minimizing conflict points through actions such as reducing the number of access

points and increasing the separation between them.

 The unique challenges of providing appropriate access to adjacent lands shall be

considered. Specific examples include:

Oregon Highway 99 from 18th Avenue to 1st Avenue

This segment of the corridor is characterized by lower posted speeds (30 mph),

a comprehensive grid system of local streets creating intersections on the

highway every 300 feet, the presence of parallel alleys, and fully developed

general commercial land uses on small lots. It also serves as a principal

commercial corridor through the city. There are many constraints that may

make the reduction of access points impractical in some areas. Nonetheless, as

land uses change and properties reconfigure, and within the framework of the

local code and OAR 734-051, ODOT and the City shall collaborate to identify

opportunities for consolidating or sharing access points and developing cross

easements that reduce the need for travel on Oregon Highway 99.

Oregon Highway 99 from 1st Avenue to Meadowview Road

This segment of the corridor is characterized by higher posted speeds (45 to 55

mph), a mix of adjacent commercial and industrial land, and as a transition area

between the urban and rural areas. The larger lots and higher potential for

redevelopment may provide new opportunities to minimize conflicts on the

highway through actions such as consolidating access, establishing shared

access points, developing cross easements, and constructing parallel streets

connecting to lower classified roadways. In consideration of the higher travel

speeds that could result in higher severity collisions, opportunities to minimize

access points shall be explored by the City, County, and ODOT when considering

access changes.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 9

CHAPTER 3: TSP PROCESS

The 2036 TSP provides a policy and planning

framework that aligns the transportation

infrastructure with the future needs and goals

of the City. This process included input from

City policy makers, advisory committees, and

community members to ensure that a balanced

transportation system is created that meets the

needs of all modes of transportation in the City.

The following summarizes the process used to

determine and evaluate existing and future

deficiencies and needs.

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS

The existing conditions analysis evaluated how

the City’s transportation infrastructure operates

while considering traffic volumes, safety/crash

patterns, travel route options, and

opportunities for safe pedestrian and bicycle

travel.

Vehicle Travel: Traffic volumes were collected

at key intersections and roadways through the

city. The vehicle travel evaluation considered

how the existing roadways and intersections

were operating based on a Level of Service

(LOS) and volume-to-capacity (V/C) standard.

Policy 6f of this plan identifies that the City has

set a target of performance at a LOS D or better

for signalized intersections and a LOS E or

better for stop control intersections. ODOT and

Lane County use a V/C based standard. The LOS

standard evaluates operation on the level of

comfort to a driver based on an average delay

per vehicle over an hour while the volume-to-

capacity evaluates the ability of the intersection

to serve the demand over an hour. In existing

conditions, all intersections operate better than

the target standards. There are no capacity

related deficiencies in the current system that

need to be addressed.

However, LOC and V/C are only part of the

consideration when evaluating the

transportation infrastructure. Other factors to

include are safety and circulation.

Overall the crash rates within Junction City are

lower when compared to other communities of

similar size. However, there were a significant

number of crashes occurring at the signalized

intersections along Highway 99 (Highway 99 at

Avenue had 25 crashes in the previous 5

years). Over 60% of the crashes at the signalized

intersections were a result of left turning

vehicles on Highway 99 colliding with through

traffic.

Overall, Junction City has a good grid system

which allows for many route choices through

the city and reduces the overburden of a few

roadways. There are multiple route options for

users to get to key locations throughout the

city. As a majority of the buildable housing

areas are to the west, the major east-west

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 10

connectors are expected to have an increase in

traffic.

Pedestrian Travel: Sidewalks are provided along

Highway 99, however, there are very few safe

crossing opportunities. Crosswalks are only

provided at signalized intersections and are

located 0.25 to 0.50 miles apart. The distance

needed to walk to a signalized crossing may be

seen as a significant barrier to pedestrians and

limit pedestrian activities between the east and

west sides of the City.

Overall, the City has an incomplete network of

available sidewalks and pedestrian paths. This

incomplete network of sidewalks creates a

barrier from safe pedestrian travel between

neighborhoods and destinations such as schools

and parks.

Bicycle Travel: Junction City has a very limited

bicycle network. Most bicycle travel has to be

done by sharing roadway facilities with vehicles

or on roadway shoulders.

2036 FORECAST ANALYSIS

The year 2036 traffic volumes create a baseline

for assessing the future transportation system

needs. The year 2036 traffic volumes reflect the

household and employment estimates the City

will experience within the next 20 years. The

estimates are based on expected growth within

Junction City, Lane County, and surrounding

communities. Table 1 illustrates the year 2015

and year 2036 population and employment

estimates for within Junction City’s UGB.

Table 1: Junction City Growth Estimates

Year

2015

Year

2036

Growth

Population

6,463

8,700

5,593

(35%)

Households

2,664

3,700

1,036

(40%)

Employees

3,545

5,680

2,135

(60%)

The employment and population growth was

allocated to parcels in the UGB with the

appropriate land use designations and to those

that are likely to be developed by the year

2036. A majority of the new housing will be

located on the west side of town, more

specifically, west of Oaklea Drive. The new

employment will be generated by new

commercial and industrial developments with a

majority of development occurring along

Highway 99.

The year 2036 traffic volumes were developed

by converting future household and

employment data into vehicle trips and routing

the traffic through the City from developable

properties to reasonable origins and

destinations within the City and outside the

City.

The analysis evaluated the capacity and level of

service of higher order intersections and

roadways with the added traffic. All

intersections were found to operate better than

the mobility standard. Therefore, there are no

capacity improvements that are needed by the

year 2036. The appendix details the analysis

methodology and results.

The needs assessment has identified safety and

connectivity improvements for all modes of

travel. The preceding chapters detail the

improvement plan for each mode.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 11

CHAPTER 4: PEDESTRIA N PLAN

Existing and future pedestrian facilities and needs

in Junction City were evaluated and described in

reports that have been included in the appendix.

This chapter includes the pedestrian component

of the TSP which consists of improvements

identified to meet future needs through the year

2036. Priority projects that could be constructed

with anticipated available funding have been

identified as part of a “Financially Constrained

Plan” described in Chapter 7.

PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM NEEDS

The existing pedestrian network was evaluated

and used along with future growth projections

and input from stakeholders to identify

pedestrian needs in Junction City. Visits to the

field by the project team, feedback from the TAC

and CAC, and comments provided by community

members at the open houses and through surveys

have all contributed to the list of pedestrian

facility improvements. Some of the general

deficiencies identified in the pedestrian system

include:

 Lack of sidewalks and/or sidewalk gaps on

arterial and collector streets in areas

outside of the downtown grid network

 Poor street connectivity in some

neighborhoods makes walking less

convenient

 Lack of safe and consistent walking

facilities along some routes to schools

 Lack of ADA accessible curb ramp and/or

sidewalk construction outside of the

downtown grid network that makes

access difficult for persons with

disabilities

 The condition of some railroad crossings

can be challenging for the elderly and

disabled

 Sidewalk maintenance, especially in older

neighborhoods, is needed to repair

severely damaged and flooded areas

 Lack of comfortable crossing

opportunities on high-volume, high-speed

streets such as OR 99

 Shared-use paths are present, but not

connected into a comprehensive network

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 12

PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS

Improvements to the pedestrian network include

sidewalk infill and new sidewalk construction

projects, shared-use path connections, and street

crossing improvements. Shared-use path

connections and street crossing improvements

also benefit bicycle transportation, but are only

listed under the Pedestrian Plan.

Design for pedestrian improvements on non-city

streets need to be coordinated with the

jurisdictional authority. The plan is intended to

provide flexibility to meet the standards and

needs at the time of project design.

Sidewalk infill and new sidewalk construction

projects are listed in Table 2, which includes

Project ID numbers to help locate improvements.

The project descriptions include key benefits for

use in future grant applications and strategic

planning. New roadway and roadway

modernization projects that would include the

construction of sidewalk or pedestrian facilities

appropriate to the street classification of the

roadway are listed under the Motor Vehicle Plan

and are not shown here.

Table 2: Sidewalk Infill/Construction Projects

Project

Project Description

Probable

Construction

Costs*

SW1

Bailey Ln: Pitney Ln to Quince St – Sidewalk construction on north side in UGB

Key Benefits: Pedestrian Connectivity

$235,000

SW2

W 10

Ave: Oaklea Dr to Maple St - Sidewalk construction/infill

Key Benefits: Pedestrian Connectivity, Safe Routes to School

$610,000

SW3

W 6

Ave: Timothy St to Pine Ct - Sidewalk construction/infill

Key Benefits: Pedestrian Connectivity, Safe Routes to School

$320,000

SW4

Rose St: W 18

Ave to W 13

Ave – Sidewalk infill

Key Benefits: Pedestrian Connectivity, Safe Routes to School

$315,000

SWG

General Infill: Infill of missing sidewalk throughout the City and the replacement of

sidewalk that no longer meets current design or ADA standards

N/A

Total Cost

$1,480,000

* Probable construction costs should be used for planning purposes only. Each project cost estimate should be revisited when determining

specific project funding needs.

SW4

SUP2

SW2

SW3

SUP1

C11

SW1

C11

C10

C11

fIGURE

Existing Pedestrian Facilities

MARKED CROSSWALK

SHARED USE PATH

TRAFFIC SIGNAL

SIDEWALK

SHARED USE PATH (SUP)

SIDEWALK INFILL/

CONSTRUCTION (SW)

POINT/CROSSING (C)

PEDESTRIAN PROJECT

NUMBER

Network Improvments

FIGURE 1

Proposed Pedestrian

Network Improvements

W 10TH AVE

W 6TH AVE

W 18TH AVE

W 1ST AVE

HIGH PASS RD

OAKLEA DR

ROSE ST

OAK ST

KALMIA ST

JUNIPER ST

HWY 99E

HWY 99W

HOLLY ST

IVY ST

FRONT ST

MAPLE ST

DEAL ST

BIRCH ST

PRAIRIE RD

PITTNEY LN

BAILEY LN

W 13TH AVE

VINE ST

DAVID LN

DANE LN

MEADOWVIEW RD

MILLIRON RD

SOVERN LN

PRARIE RD

PWNR

UPRR

continued on map to right

continued on map to left

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 14

The projects proposed in Tables 3 and 4, including

street crossing improvements and shared-use

paths, will provide benefits to both cyclists and

pedestrians traveling in Junction City. The

improvement locations and project descriptions

can be seen in Figure 1. Note that Project C11 in

Table 3 includes safety education programs to

provide a cost-effective supplement to the

construction projects in the plan.

Key street crossing improvements, such as those

identified in Table 3, can improve the livability of

neighborhoods and encourage community

members to use alternate modes of

transportation by removing barriers to biking and

walking. All crossing improvement locations

identified shall include the construction of ADA-

compliant curb ramps where not currently

available. At school crossings and mid-block

crossings, high-visibility continental crosswalks

(example shown above) shall be used.

Marked crosswalks not at controlled locations

(signal or approach that has a stop sign) will only

be considered when an engineering study

determines their need and the location meets the

following criteria:

 Good visibility of the crosswalk is

provided from all directions. Provision of

adequate stopping sight distance is a

minimum.

 There is no reasonable alternative

crossing location.

 There is established pedestrian usage or

anticipated use. Considerations include:

volume of pedestrians, opportunity for

safe crossing (i.e., sufficient gaps in

traffic), percentage of elderly or young

children, and the nature of the land uses

on both sides of the road. Lower

pedestrian volumes would be acceptable

for areas where there are greater

proportions of less experienced and less

agile pedestrians (e.g., near schools).

 Posted speeds are 35 mph or less.

 The volume of traffic should not exceed

10,000 average daily vehicles. If the

volume of traffic is greater than this or

the crossing is on a multi-lane highway,

pedestrian crossing enhancements (e.g.,

curb extensions, pedestrian refuge

islands) should be considered.

Example of high-visibility continental crosswalk

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 15

Table 3: Street Crossing Improvements

Project

Project Description

Probable

Construction Costs

Oaklea Dr/W 10

Ave: As part of the Oaklea Dr. road modernization project

(MV11), install intersection lighting, consider refuge island/curb extensions,

and reevaluate need for crosswalk pavement markings.

Key Benefits: Safety, Safe Routes to School, Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity

$45,000

Oaklea Dr/W 6

Ave: As part of the Oaklea Dr. road modernization project

(MV11), install intersection lighting, consider refuge island/curb extensions,

and reevaluate need for crosswalk pavement markings.

Key Benefits: Safety, Safe Routes to School, Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity

$45,000

E 10

Ave/Front St: Connect existing sidewalk on north side of E 10

Ave to

provide an accessible railroad crossing. Replace curb ramps on all corners to

meet ADA standards.

Key Benefits: Safety, ADA Accessibility, Safe Routes to School,

Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity

$30,000

W 10

Ave/Rose St: Project should be constructed before or as part of project

SUP2. Evaluate user needs at this location; consider improved intersection

lighting, striping the crosswalk on the south leg of the intersection, and

converting existing crosswalks to continental style.

Key Benefits: Safety, Safe Routes to School, Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity

$15,000

W 6

Ave/Shared-Use Path Connection: Project should be constructed

concurrently with project SUP2. Evaluate user needs at this location; consider

enhanced pavement markings and signage.

Key Benefits: Safety, Safe Routes to School, Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity

$5,000

W 1

Ave/Prairie Rd/Maple St: As an interim improvement, construct curb

extensions on the opposing west corner of Maple St and east corner of Prairie

Rd to enhance pedestrian visibility and shorten the crossing distance.

Key Benefits: Safety, Safe Routes to School, Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity

$30,000

W 10

Ave/OR 99: Enhance pedestrian crossing by upgrading pedestrian signal

heads to countdown pedestrian signals. Upgrade pedestrian signals by using

audible signals. Upgrade signal head backplates with retroreflective borders.

Key Benefits: Safety, ADA Accessibility, Safe Routes to School

$20,000

W 6

Ave/OR 99: Install intersection lighting (currently no lighting on mast

arms). Enhance pedestrian crossing by upgrading pedestrian signal heads to

countdown pedestrian signals. Upgrade pedestrian signals by using audible

signals. Upgrade signal head backplates with retroreflective borders.

Key Benefits: Safety, ADA Accessibility, Safe Routes to School

$35,000

W 1

Ave /OR 99: Enhance pedestrian crossing by upgrading pedestrian signal

heads to countdown pedestrian signals. Upgrade pedestrian signals by using

audible signals. Upgrade signal head backplates with retroreflective borders.

Key Benefits: Safety, ADA Accessibility, Safe Routes to School

$20,000

C10

Juniper St: Provide raised pedestrian crossings at key locations along Juniper

Street. Possible locations include W 14

Street and W 13

Street Key Benefits:

Safety, Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity

$40,000

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 16

Project

Project Description

Probable

Construction Costs

C11

OR 99 from W 18

Ave to W 1

Ave: Install pedestrian activated crossing

treatments on OR 99. Consider including Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons

(RRFBs), advanced stop bars, curb ramps, and striped crosswalks at mid-block

locations between:

 W 15

Ave and W 12

Ave

 W 9

Ave and W 7

Ave

 W 5

Ave and W 3

Ave

Key Benefits: Safety, Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity

$140,000

C12

Education: Many free educational materials are available. Coordinate with the

Oregon Department of Transportation, Junction City School District, and

Junction City Police Department to implement safety education programs

including pedestrian crossing education for school children.

Key Benefits: Safety, Safe Routes to School

Variable

Total Cost

$425,000

*The installation of RRFBs requires an investigation and approval from the State Traffic-Roadway Engineer. Any mid-block improvements on a

State Freight Route will require review concerning freight mobility. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report

572 outlines a process to identify the appropriate type of crossing treatment at unsignalized locations. It was envisioned that RRFBs would

be installed, but a pedestrian activated beacon or signal could also be the appropriate treatment.

Probable construction costs should be used for planning purposes only. Each project cost estimate should be revisited when determining

specific project funding needs.

Shared-use paths benefit both pedestrians and

cyclists, providing the most comfortable facilities

for encouraging active transportation and

recreation. Three shared-use path alignments

have been identified in this plan that help connect

existing paths to form a continuous network

between schools and provide travel options to the

employment area at the south end of the city. The

paths are described in Table 4 with general

alignments shown in Figure 1.

Figure 2 illustrates a recommended design for all

future shared-use paths constructed in the city.

 In constrained areas, vertical clearance

may be reduced to a minimum of 8 feet

with warning signage.

 Where path abuts existing or proposed

hard surface, shoulders shall be paved to

tie into the hard surface.

 In constrained areas, the paved surface

width may be reduced to a minimum of 8

feet. In areas where usage may be high or

where bicycle speeds may be high, a

minimum paved surface width of 12 feet

is recommended.

Figure 2: Shared-Use Path Typical Cross- Section

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 17

Table 4: Shared-Use Paths

Project ID

Project Description

Probable

Construction Costs*

SUP1

Southern Edge of Junction City High School, Connecting Existing

Shared-Use Path to Maple Street: Alignment may require right-of-way

or easement.

Key Benefits: Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity, Safe Routes to School,

Livability

$195,000

SUP2

Rose St Alignment from W 10

Ave to W 6

Ave: Provides needed

access between middle school and high school and provides a

continuation of the existing path around the high school. Alignment

will require right-of-way acquisition or easements and must cross a

ditch.

Key Benefits: Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity, Safe Routes to School,

Livability

$550,000

Total Cost

$745,000

* Probable construction costs should be used for planning purposes only. Each project cost estimate should be

revisited when determining specific project funding needs.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 18

CHAPTER 5: BICYCLE PLAN

Existing and future bicycle facilities and needs in

Junction City were evaluated and described in

reports that have been included in the

appendix. This chapter includes the bicycle

component of the “Preferred Plan,” which

consists of all transportation improvements

identified to meet future needs through the

year 2036. Priority projects that could be

constructed with anticipated available funding

have been identified as part of a “Financially

Constrained Plan” described in Chapter 7.

BICYCLE SYSTEM NEEDS

As was done for the pedestrian system, existing

and future bicycle system needs were identified

through field visits, analysis of future

development potential, discussions with

committee members, and public input provided

through open houses. Some of the general

needs identified include:

 No bicycle facilities are provided on

HWY 99 between the Flat Creek Bridge

and 3

Avenue. No bicycle facilities are

provided on any streets within the City

off of HWY 99.

 Separate biking facilities are needed on

higher volume streets such as HWY 99,

Prairie Road, High Pass Road, Oaklea

Drive, and 18

Avenue.

 Provisions for secure and convenient

bicycle parking are generally infrequent.

 Poor connectivity in some areas creates

longer trips for bicycle travel.

 Many of the existing shared-use paths

are eight feet wide, which can be

slightly narrow for mixed bicycle and

pedestrian travel.

 There are few convenient and safe

crossing opportunities along HWY 99.

 Creating safe biking routes to schools

should be a priority.

BICYCLE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS

While Junction City currently has few dedicated

bicycle facilities, many of the existing roadways

have space available to provide for bike

facilities, but would need to be restriped and

signed to accommodate them. The bicycle

facility design guide below was developed to

characterize the types of bicycle facilities being

recommended as part of the Junction City TSP.

The types of bicycle facilities increase from the

lowest comfort level to the highest comfort

level. The highest comfort level is a shared-use

path, which provides complete separation from

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 19

motor vehicle traffic and gives cyclist a

dedicated space in the transportation network.

Design elements for Shared Lane

Markings/Sharrows, Shoulder Bikeways,

Standard Bike Lanes, Bike Boulevard, Buffered

Bike Lane, and Shared-Use Path are shown in

the following design guide images.

Design for pedestrian improvements on non-

city streets need to be coordinated with the

jurisdictional authority. The plan is intended to

provide flexibility to meet the standards and

needs at the time of project design.

Bicycle Facility Design Guide

Reference Documents: MUTCD 2009, NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, AASHTO Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities,

ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guide 2011

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 20

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 21

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 22

Proposed bicycle improvements are described

in Table 5, which includes Project ID numbers to

help locate improvements on Figure 3. The

project descriptions include key benefits for use

on future grant applications and strategic

planning. Construction of new roadways or

roadway modernizations identified in the Motor

Vehicle Plan are not included in Table 5, but will

include the construction of bicycle facilities

appropriate to the functional classification of

the street. Also, shared-use path connections

and street crossing improvements that benefit

bicycle transportation are listed under the

Pedestrian Plan.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 23

Table 5: Bicycle Facility Improvements

Project

Project Description

Probable

Construction Costs*

BL1

Rose St: W 18

Ave to W 13

Ave: Bike Lanes - Roadway would need to be

restriped to remove on-street parking.

Key Benefits: Bicycle Connectivity, Safe Routes to School

$65,000

BL2

W 6

Ave: Timothy Pl to HWY 99: Bike Lanes - Need to restripe roadway to

include 8’ parking aisles, 6’ bike lanes, 11’ travel lanes.

Key Benefits: Bicycle Connectivity, Safe Routes to School

$125,000

BL3

W 10

Ave: Oaklea Dr to Nyssa St: Bike Lanes - Roadway would need to be

restriped to remove on-street parking. Need community feedback about

utilization of existing on-street parking.

Key Benefits: Bicycle Connectivity, Safe Routes to School

$125,000

BL4

E 6

Ave: Front St to Birch St: Bike Lanes - Would need to restripe roadway

to include 8’ parking aisles, 6’ bike lanes, 11’ travel lanes.

Key Benefits: Bicycle Connectivity, Safe Routes to School

$50,000

BL5

W 10

Ave: Nyssa St to HWY 99: Bike Lanes – Would require parking removal

on one side of the street to include one 8’ parking aisle, 6’ bike lanes, 11’

travel lanes. Need community feedback about utilization of existing on-street

parking.

Key Benefits: Bicycle Connectivity, Safe Routes to School

$60,000

BL6

Birch St: E 1

Ave to E 6

Ave: Bike Lanes - Need to restripe roadway to

include 7’ parking aisles, 5’ bike lanes, 11’ travel lanes.

Key Benefits: Bicycle Connectivity

$65,000

BL7

Bailey Ln: Pitney Ln to Prairie Rd: Bike lanes on north and south side.

Key Benefits: Bicycle Connectivity

$105,000

BL8

St: HWY 99 to Deal St-Restripe roadway to provide bike lanes. Would

require the removal of on-street parking.

Key Benefits: Bicycle Connectivity, Safe Routes to School

$20,000

BL9

St: Widen Rodway to provide bike lanes on both sides of the roadway.

Alternatively, a shared use path could be constructed on the north side.

Key Benefits: Bicycle Connectivity

$1,500,000

BL10

Hatton Ln: Prairies Rd to HWY 99. Provide striped bike lanes as part of the

roadway reconstruction and connection.

Key Benefits: Bicycle Connectivity

$5,000

BVD1

Kalmia St: Shared Lane Markings and traffic calming techniques on Kalmia St

from W 14

Ave to W 3rd Ave as appropriate to create a bicycle boulevard

with low volume and low speed motor vehicle use.

Key Benefits: Bicycle Connectivity

$45,000

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 24

Project

Project Description

Probable

Construction Costs*

BVD2

Nyssa St/Oak St: Laurel Elementary School to W 6

Ave: Install Shared Lane

Markings and traffic calming techniques as appropriate to create a bicycle

boulevard with low volume and low speed motor vehicle use. Alignment

would run north on Nyssa St from W 6

Ave, cross W 10

Ave, turn west on

W 12

Ave, and turn north on Oak St to connect to the shared-use path at

Laurel Elementary School. Consider installing an All-Way stop at the

intersection on W 10

Ave with Nyssa St and crossing enhancements at the

intersection on W 6

Ave with Nyssa St.

Key Benefits: Bicycle Connectivity, Safe Routes to School

$45,000

SLM1

Rose St: W 13

Ave to W 10

Ave: Shared-Lane Markings - Existing on-street

parking is actively used. Supplemental warning signs should be installed

leading into the curve.

Key Benefits: Bicycle Connectivity, Safe Routes to School

$5,000

SLM2

Maple St: W 6

Ave to W 1

Ave: Shared-Lane Markings

Key Benefits: Bicycle Connectivity, Safe Routes to School

$10,000

SLM3

E 6

Ave: HWY 99 to Front St: Shared-Lane Markings – Traffic volumes are

higher than preferred, but speeds are low. Recommend converting angled

on-street parking to parallel parking to enhance cyclist visibility.

Key Benefits: Bicycle Connectivity, Safe Routes to School

$5,000

SLM4

Deal St: E 6

Ave to Dane Ln: Shared-Lane Markings

Key Benefits: Bicycle Connectivity

$15,000

Total Cost

$2,245,000

* Probable construction costs should be used for planning purposes only. Each project cost estimate should be revisited when determining

specific project funding needs.

BL4

BL5

BL6

BL8

BL10

BVD1

SLM2

SLM3

SLM4

BL1

BL2

BL3

BL7

BL9

BVD2

SLM1

SUP1

SUP3

BL4

BL5

BL6

BL8

BL10

BVD1

SLM2

SLM3

SLM4

BL1

BL2

BL3

BL7

BL9

BVD2

SLM1

SUP1

SUP2

fIGURE

Existing Bicycle Facilities

SHARED USE PATH

TRAFFIC SIGNAL

SHOULDERED BIKE LANE

BIKE LANE (BL)

SHARED LANE

MARKINGS (SLM)

BICYCLE PROJECT

NUMBER

Network Improvments

SHARED USE PATH (SUP)

BIKE BOULEVARD (BVD)

FIGURE 3

Proposed Bicycle

Network Improvements

W 10TH AVE

W 6TH AVE

W 18TH AVE

W 1ST AVE

DR SSAP HGIH

OAKLEA DR

ROSE ST

OAK ST

KALMIA ST

JUNIPER ST

HWY 99E

HWY 99W

HOLLY ST

IVY ST

FRONT ST

MAPLE ST

DEAL ST

BIRCH ST

PRAIRIE RD

PITTNEY LN

BAILEY LN

W 13TH AVE

VINE ST

DAVID LN

DANE LN

MEADOWVI DR WE

MILLIRON RD

SOVER NL N

PRARIE RD

PWNR

UPRR

continued on map to right

continued on map to left

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 26

CHAPTER 6: MOTOR VEHICLE PLAN

The Motor Vehicle Plan provides direction for

the management and expansion of the roadway

network to meet the needs of Junction City

through the year 2036. The plan provides

strategies to achieve local transportation goals

by improving system capacity, efficiency, safety,

and connectivity.

The existing motor vehicle facilities in Junction

City were inventoried and described in a

technical memorandum that has been included

in the appendix. This chapter describes the

street functional classification system, roadway

cross-section standards, access management

standards, neighborhood traffic management

strategies, recommended motor vehicle

projects, and transportation demand

management strategies.

STREET SYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND DESIGN

Proper management and design of Junction

City’s existing and future streets are essential

practices for ensuring the street network will be

able to function as intended.

STREET FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION

Street functional classification is an important

tool for managing the roadway network. It is

based on a hierarchal system of roads with

designated management and design

requirements to achieve the type of service

desired.

A number of changes were made to the City’s

functional classification system as part of this

TSP update. This included aligning the

classifications with existing and future uses in

the City and to update the design standards for

each classification to meet the City’s needs.

The new functional classification system for

roadways in Junction City is described below,

including the management objectives for each

class. A functional classification map is provided

in Figure 4, showing the classification for all

roadways in the city, including new street

extensions proposed as part of the motor

vehicle system improvements.

POTENTIAL LOCAL

STREET CONNECTION

LOCAL

FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD

COLLECTOR

FUTURE MAJOR

COLLECTOR

NEIGHBORHOOD

COLLECTOR

MAJOR COLLECTOR

PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL

Proposed Future Roadways,

Functional Classication,

and Local Street Connectivity

fIGURE

TRAFFIC SIGNAL

FIGURE 4

W 10TH AVE

W 6TH AVE

W 18TH AVE

W 1ST AVE

HIGH PASS RD

OAKLEA DR

AKLEA DR

ROSE ST

OAK ST

KALMIA ST

JUNIPER ST

HWY 99E

HWY 9

HWY 99W

HOLLY ST

HOLL

Y ST

IVY ST (HWY 99)

FRONT ST

ONT ST

MAPLE ST

PLE ST

DEAL ST

BIRCH ST

IRCH ST

PRAIRIE RD

PRAIRIE

PITTNEY LN

BAILEY LN

BAI

LEY LN

W 13TH AVE

VINE ST

DAVID LN

VID

DANE LN

DANE

MEADOWVIEW RD

EADOW

EW RD

MILLI

RON RD

MILLI

RON RD

SOVER

N LN

SOVER

N LN

PRARIE RD

PWNR

UPRR

continued on map to right

continued on map to left

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 28

PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL

Principal arterials are primary routes

serving regional traffic passing through the

city and connecting the city to other urban

areas. They are intended to serve high

volumes of traffic over long distances,

typically maintain higher posted speeds,

and minimize direct access to adjacent land

to support the safe and efficient movement

of people and goods. Inside of the urban

growth boundary, speeds may be reduced

to reflect the roadside environment and

surrounding land uses.

MAJOR COLLECTOR STREET

A Major Collector street provides access

and circulation within and between

residential, commercial, industrial, and

mixed use lands. Collector streets provide

more citywide circulation while still

accessing neighborhoods. They collect

traffic from local streets and channel them

onto the arterial system.

NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR STREET

A neighborhood collector street provides

access and circulation to residential

neighborhoods. These types of streets are

found only in residential neighborhoods. In

general, the ROW and roadway widths are

narrower than Major Collector streets but

allow for uses that are necessary in

residential neighborhoods, such as on-

street parking, lower speeds, and shared

bicycle facilities.

LOCAL STREET

Local streets provide immediate access to

adjacent land. These streets are designed to

enhance the livability of neighborhoods and

should generally accommodate less than

2,000 vehicles per day. When traffic

volumes reach 1,000 to 1,200 vehicles per

day through residential areas, safety and

livability can be degraded. A well-connected

grid system of relatively short blocks can

minimize excessive volumes of motor

vehicles and encourage use by pedestrians

and cyclists. Speeds are not normally

posted, with a statutory 25 mph speed limit

in effect.

TYPICAL ROADWAY CROSS-SECTION STANDARDS

The design characteristics of city streets in

Junction City were developed to meet the

function and demand for each facility type.

Because the actual design of a roadway can vary

from segment to segment due to adjacent land

uses and demands, the objective was to define

a system that allows standardization of key

characteristics to provide consistency, but also

to provide criteria for application that provides

some flexibility, while meeting the design

standards.

Figures 5, 6, 7, and 8 illustrate the

recommended cross-section standards for City

arterials, major collectors, neighborhood

collectors, and local streets in Junction City.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 29

Figure 5: Principal Arterial Cross-Section Standard

 The preferred width of travel lanes on arterials is 11 feet. In industrial areas or areas where the

truck percentage of average daily traffic is 10% or more within a 12-hour period, travel lane

widths should be increased to 12 feet.

 Center turn lane is optional depending on surrounding land use and available right-of-way.

 The minimum width of center turn lanes on arterials is 12 feet. In industrial areas or areas where

the truck percentage of average daily traffic is 10% or more within a 12-hour period, center turn

lane widths should be increased to a minimum of 14 feet.

 Recommended sidewalk widths are 6 feet.

 Recommended planter strip widths are 5 feet.

 Minimum bike lane widths of 5 feet may be allowed in constrained areas.

 On-street parking is permitted on arterial streets when the roadway speeds are less than 35

mph.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 30

Figure 6: Major Collector Cross-Section Standard

*Optional

 The preferred width of travel lanes on major collectors is 11 feet. In industrial areas or areas

where the truck percentage of average daily traffic is 10% or more within a 12-hour period,

travel lane widths should be increased to 12 feet.

 Recommended center turn lane or left turn pockets at intersections depending on surrounding

land use and available right-of-way.

 The preferred width of center turn lanes on major collectors is 12 feet. In industrial areas or

areas where the truck percentage of average daily traffic is 10% or more within a 12-hour

period, center turn lane widths should be increased to 14 feet.

 Recommended sidewalk widths are 6 feet.

 Preferred setback sidewalk option, curbside sidewalks may be allowed in constrained areas.

 Recommended planter strip widths are 5 feet.

 Minimum bike lane widths of 5 feet may be allowed in constrained areas.

 Striping is necessary on all roads.

 Parking is optional if ROW is available and warranted by surrounding land uses.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 31

Figure 7: Neighborhood Collector Cross-Section Standard

 The preferred width of travel lanes on neighborhood collectors is 11-12 feet.

 Recommended sidewalk widths are 6 feet.

 Preferred setback sidewalk option, curbside sidewalks may be allowed in constrained areas.

 Recommended planter strip widths are 5 feet.

 On street parking (8-foot width) included on both sides of the street.

 Parking may be allowed on one side only in constrained areas.

 Striping not necessary unless needed to direct traffic.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 32

Figure 8: Local Street Cross-Section Standard

 The preferred width of travel lanes on local streets is 10 feet.

 Recommended sidewalk widths are 6 feet.

 Preferred setback sidewalk option, curbside sidewalks may be allowed in constrained areas.

 Recommended planter strip widths are 5 feet.

 On-street parking (7-foot width) included on one or both sides of the street.

 Parking may be allowed on one side only in constrained areas.

 Striping is not necessary unless needed to direct traffic.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 33

Planning level right-of-way needs can be

determined utilizing these figures. Specific

dimensions for roadways with various lane and

parking characteristics are detailed in Table 6

for each street classification. These roadway

standards are compliant with the Oregon

Transportation Planning Rule, which specifies

that local governments limit excessive roadway

widths.

Under some conditions a variance to the

adopted roadway cross-sections may be

requested from the Planning Commission.

Typical conditions that may warrant

consideration of a variation include (but are not

limited to) the following:

 Infill sites

 Innovative designs (roundabouts)

 Severe constraints presented by

topography, environmental, or other

resources present

 Existing developments and/or buildings

that make it extremely difficult or

impossible to meet the design

standards

Table 6: Typical Roadway Cross-Sections

Street Type

Right-

of-

Way

Width

Curb-

to-

Curb

Paved

Width

Within Curb-to-Curb Area

Planter

Strips

Sidewalks

Motor

Vehicle

Travel

Lanes

Median/

Center

Turn Lanes

Bike

Lanes

On-Street

Parking

Principal

Arterial

56’-72’

34’-50’

11’-12’

12’-14’

6’

5’

6’

Major

Collectors

46’-72’

34’-50’

11’-12’

12’-14’

6’

5’

6’

Neighborhood

Collector

50’-62’

38’-40’

11’-12’

8’

5’

6’

Neighborhood

Local Streets

39’-56’

27’-34’

10’

7’

5’

6’

A – Minimum bike lane widths of 5’ may be allowed in constrained areas.

B – Width includes 6” curb if planter strip is between curb and sidewalk.

C – Width includes 6” curb unless planter strip is between curb and sidewalk.

D – Variances may be allowed for gap infill to match existing sidewalk widths.

ACCESS MANAGEMENT

Access management is the control of access

points allowed to enter arterial and collector

facilities to preserve their functionality and

maximize their capacity. Controlling access can

reduce congestion and crash rates, providing

efficient, safe, and timely travel.

On arterial and collector facilities, excessive

driveways erode the capacity of roadways as

additional conflict points are introduced at each

driveway location. Reducing or consolidating

driveways on these main facilities can decrease

collisions and preserve capacity on high volume

roads thereby maintaining traffic flow and

mobility within the city. Balancing access and

good mobility can be achieved through various

access management strategies, the first of

which is establishing access management

spacing standards for driveways and

intersections.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 34

JUNCTION CITY ACCESS SPACING STANDARDS

Junction City has established access

management regulations through the Municipal

Code (Chapter 17.85). These regulations include

permitting and site plan review processes,

design and spacing standards, and

requirements for the provision of inter-parcel

circulation and joint access.

The City’s current requirements for access

spacing applied to the recommended functional

classification system are shown below in Table

7, with spacing measured from centerline to

centerline of the intersection. As part of this

TSP update, the minimum access spacing for

principal arterials and collectors has been

increased to better support the objectives of

providing for longer and higher speed trips and

to enhanced safety where posted speeds are

higher. These changes will require amendments

to the Municipal Code. New accesses shall meet

or exceed these minimum spacing

requirements. However, where no alternatives

exist or where strict application of the

standards is impractical, the City may allow

variances.

Table 7: City of Junction City Access Spacing Standards

Functional Classification

Minimum Access Spacing (ft.)

Principal Arterial

200

Major Collector

100

Neighborhood Collector

Local

LANE COUNTY AND STATE OF OREGON ACCESS MANAGEMENT STANDARDS

Both Lane County and ODOT maintain access

regulations for roadways under their

jurisdiction. Lane County’s access regulations

are documented in Lane Code Chapter 15.130

through 15.140. Access management

regulations for state highways are provided

through the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan and

OAR 734-051. The City of Junction City and Lane

County have adopted an Access Management

Plan as part of the OR 99 Junction City

Refinement Plan.

The Access Management

Plan applied to OR 99W, OR 99E, and OR 99

from approximately the northern UGB to OR 36

OR 99 Junction City Refinement Plan,

2008.

and superseded other access management

standards.

Following the adoption of the Access

Management Plan, ODOT’s access management

regulations changed and some elements of the

plan proved to be impractical to implement. In

response, the adoption of the Access

Management Plan has been repealed, with

Policy 6h from this TSP adopted in its place.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 35

TRAFFIC SIGNAL COORDINATION AND OPTIMIZATION

The coordination and optimization of traffic

signals along key corridors can substantially

reduce congestion and travel time, while

increasing travel speeds for those traveling

along the mainline corridor. Signals along OR 99

are currently coordinated, and any new or

improved signal along OR 99 within Junction

City shall be added to the coordinated system.

Traffic signal spacing plays a significant role in

the ability to successfully coordinate signal

timing to achieve efficient progression of traffic.

While no new traffic signals are currently

planned within the city, should a new signal be

proposed, the signal spacing and coordination

should be evaluated and considered.

For proposed signals on ODOT facilities,

approval will need to be acquired from ODOT

prior to installation. For proposed signals on

Lane County facilities, approval will also need to

be acquired from Lane County prior to

installation.

NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) is

used to describe strategies that neighborhoods

can deploy to slow down traffic and potentially

reduce volumes, creating a more inviting

environment for pedestrians and cyclists. NTM

strategies typically include traffic calming

techniques to improve neighborhood livability

on local streets.

Mitigation measures for neighborhood traffic

impacts must balance the need to manage

vehicle speeds and volumes with the need to

maintain mobility, circulation, and function for

service providers (e.g., emergency response).

Table 8 lists common NTM applications with a

corresponding photo log included in the

appendix. Any NTM project should include

coordination with emergency response staff to

ensure public safety is not compromised. NTM

strategies implemented on a state freight route

will require consideration and input from ODOT

concerning freight mobility.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 36

Table 8: Summary of Neighborhood Traffic Management Strategies

NTM Application

Use by Function Classification

Impact

Minor

Arterial

Collector

Local

Speed

Reduction

Traffic

Diversion

Chicanes



Chokers



Curb Extensions



Diverters (with emergency vehicle pass-

through)



Median Islands



Raised Crosswalks



Speed Cushions (with emergency vehicle pass-

through)



Speed Feedback Signs



Speed Hump



Traffic Circles



Junction City currently does not have a formal

neighborhood traffic management program. If

such a program were desired to help respond to

future issues, suggested elements include:

 Provide a formalized process for citizens

who are concerned about the traffic on

their neighborhood street. The process

could include filing a citizen request

with petition signatures and a

preliminary evaluation. If the evaluation

finds cause for concern, a neighborhood

meeting would be held and formal data

would be collected and evaluated. If a

problem is found to exist, solutions

would be identified and the process

continued with neighborhood meetings,

feedback from service and maintenance

providers, cost evaluation, and traffic

calming device implementation. Six

months after implementation the

device would be evaluated for

effectiveness.

 For land use proposals, in addition to

assessing impacts to the entire

transportation network, traffic studies

for new developments must also assess

impacts to residential streets. A

recommended threshold to determine

if this additional analysis is needed is if

the proposed project increases through

traffic on residential streets by 20 or

more vehicles during the evening peak

hour or 200 vehicles per day. Once the

analysis is performed, the threshold

used to determine if residential streets

are impacted would be if their daily

traffic volume exceeds 1,200 vehicles.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 37

POTENTIAL SPEED REDUCTIONS

The Junction City Police Department and

community members have expressed safety

concerns related to roadway speeds throughout

Junction City. It is recommended that speed

studies be undertaken as necessary to address

the concerns of the community. Corridors of

concern include:

 Prairie Road between 1

Avenue and

OR 99

 Bailey Lane

 Pitney Lane

 1

Avenue between Prairie Road and

Oaklea Drive

 18

Avenue between OR 99 and Oaklea

Drive

 OR 99E and OR 99W headed

southbound approaching Junction City

 OR 99 between 1

Avenue/River Road

and OR 36

LOCAL STREET CONNECTIVITY

Local street connectivity is required by the state

Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012)

and is important for the continued

development of Junction City. Improvement to

local street connectivity is easier to implement

in newly developing areas, however, retrofitting

existing areas to provide greater connectivity

should also be attempted. Providing good street

connectivity has many benefits, such as:

 Reducing citywide vehicle miles

traveled (VMT)

 Avoiding the need for road widening by

balancing traffic loading on streets

 Making travel by walking or cycling

easier and faster

 Reducing emergency vehicle response

times

The existing street connectivity in Junction City

varies as the network gets further away from

the downtown core. The downtown area is well

developed with a connected grid system, which

is only limited in some locations near the

Portland & Western and Union Pacific Railroads

on the east side of OR 99. Many of the newer

neighborhoods outside of the downtown core

have been designed to provide good street

connectivity, but some neighborhoods in the

area between Maple Street, 1

Avenue, Oaklea

Drive, and 18

Avenue have been designed with

many dead-end streets.

Figure 4 shows a Local Street Connectivity Plan

and specifies the general locations where new

local street connections should be made as

areas continue to develop. The connection

locations are approximate and were located to

reduce neighborhood impacts by balancing

traffic on neighborhood routes. Locations were

also selected considering the Goal 5 resources

and efforts were made to avoid impacting

environmental features, topography, and the

existing built environment.

As future development occurs, such as in the

undeveloped residential land in the northwest

corner of Junction City, and in the undeveloped

industrial land to the south along the east side

of OR 99, the local street network must be

designed to maintain good connectivity where

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 38

feasible. In planning for future development,

the following objectives shall be applied.

 In residential zones, a block pattern

that supports good pedestrian

connectivity shall be maintained; the

maximum block length and perimeter

shall not exceed 600 feet and 1,600

feet, respectively.

 In industrial zones, large blocks may be

necessary to support industrial

development; no maximum block

length or perimeter will be established,

except where new collector or arterial

roadways are planned.

 In all other zones, the maximum block

length and perimeter shall not exceed

800 feet length and 2,600 feet

perimeter, respectively.

 Pathways (for pedestrians and bicycles)

shall be provided at or near mid-block

where the block length exceeds 600

feet in length. Pathways shall also be

provided where cul-de-sacs or dead-

end streets are planned, to connect the

ends of the streets together, to other

streets, and/or to other developments,

as applicable. Dead-end streets or cul-

de-sacs shall be no more than 200 feet

long and shall only be used when

environmental or topographical

constraints, existing development

patterns, or compliance with other

standards in the City’s code preclude

street extension and through

circulation.

To protect existing neighborhoods from the

potential traffic impacts caused by extending

stub end streets, the design and construction of

connector roadways shall evaluate if

neighborhood traffic management strategies

are necessary. In addition, when a development

constructs stub streets, the city shall require the

installation of signs indicating the potential for

future connectivity to increase awareness of

residents.

MOTOR VEHICLE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS

The following section presents transportation

improvement projects to address motor vehicle

travel needs. Four categories of motor vehicle

projects were identified for Junction City:

 New Roadways or Roadway

Extensions: Key new roadway

connections are identified that provide

improved connectivity and access,

especially for developing areas.

 Safety Improvements: Improvements

are suggested for locations where

safety concerns have been identified.

 Roadway Modernizations: This includes

upgrading roadways to current

standards that may include wider lanes,

shoulders, curbs, sidewalks, bicycle

facilities, or turn lanes. The functional

right-of-way is typically widened to

accommodate enhancements, but

actual right-of-way changes and

potential property acquisitions vary by

location.

 Traffic Operations Improvements:

Improvement projects have been

identified for locations where motor

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 39

vehicle delays are expected to be most

significant by the year 2036.

Recommended projects are described in Table

9, which includes Project ID numbers to help

locate improvements on Figure 9. The project

descriptions include key benefits for use in

future grant applications and strategic planning.

Table 9: Motor Vehicle Improvements

Project ID

Project Description

Probable

Construction

Costs

New Roadways/Roadway Extensions

MV1

W 6

Avenue: Oaklea Drive to west: Extend W 6

Avenue as a new Major

Collector Street from Oaklea Drive to new north-south Collector Street (see

MV4)

Key Benefits: Connectivity

$4,190,000

MV2

W 10

Avenue: Oaklea Drive to west: Extend W 10

Avenue as a new Major

Collector Street from Oaklea Drive to west UGB

Key Benefits: Connectivity

$10,100,000

MV3

New Collector Street: North UGB to W 10

Avenue: Construct new Major

Collector Street extending from the North UGB to the W 10

Avenue extension

(see MV2)

Key Benefits: Connectivity

$5,560,000

MV4

New Collector Street: North UGB to High Pass Road: Construct new

Neighborhood Collector Street west of Oaklea Drive extending from the North

UGB to High Pass Road

Key Benefits: Connectivity

$11,730,000

MV5

New Collector Street: West UGB to MV4: Construct new Neighborhood Collector

Street from west UGB to other New Collector Street (see MV4)

Key Benefits: Connectivity

$6,380,000

MV6

New Frontage Road east of PNWR railroad: E 1

Avenue to Prairie Road:

Construct new Neighborhood Collector Street between Portland & Western and

Union Pacific railroads. Project should include railroad crossing closures where

feasible

Key Benefits: Connectivity, Mobility, Safety

$16,535,000

MV7

Prairie Meadows Avenue: Extend west to Pitney Lane: Construct to match

existing segment of Prairie Meadows Avenue (would not meet new

Neighborhood Collector Street standard, but provides consistency with

established construction)

Key Benefits: Connectivity

$1,200,000

MV8

Coral Street: Extend west to Pitney Lane: Construct to match existing segment of

Coral Street (at a minimum build to Neighborhood Collector Street standard)

Key Benefits: Connectivity

$1,950,000

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 40

Project ID

Project Description

Probable

Construction

Costs

MV9

Hatton Lane: Extend west to Prairie Road: Phase 1: Acquire right-of-way for

Hatton Lane extension to Prairie Road, and construct a pedestrian and bicycle

connection (see SLM6). Phase 2: Extend Hatton Lane as a new Collector Street

connecting Prairie Road to OR 99.

Key Benefits: Connectivity

Phase 1:

$210,000

Phase 2:

$655,000

Roadway Modernizations

MV10

Meadowview Road: OR 99 to East UGB: Construct to Major Collector standards

including bike lanes on both sides and sidewalk only on the north side.

Key Benefits: Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity, Livability

$2,480,000

MV11

Oaklea Drive

: W 18

Avenue to W 1

Avenue/High Pass Road: Construct to

Major Collector standards including left turn pockets, bike lanes, and sidewalks.

Key Benefits: Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity, Livability, Auto Mobility

$7,190,000

MV12

W 1

Avenue/High Pass Road*

: Oaklea Drive to OR 99: Construct to Major

Collector standards including left turn lane, bike lanes, and sidewalks.

Key Benefits: Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity, Safe Routes to School, Safety,

Livability, Auto Mobility

$6,070,000

MV13

E 1

Avenue/River Road

: OR 99 to East UGB: Construct to Major Collector

standards including center turn lane, bike lanes, and sidewalks.

Key Benefits: Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity, Livability, Auto Mobility

$4,270,000

MV14

W 6

Avenue

: Oaklea Drive to Timothy Street: Construct to Major Collector

standards including bike lanes and sidewalks.

Key Benefits: Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity, Safe Routes to School, Livability

$1,735,000

MV15

W 18

Avenue

: Oaklea Drive to Juniper Street: Construct to Major Collector

standards including bike lanes on both sides and sidewalk only on the south side

(no center turn lane).

Key Benefits: Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity, Livability, Auto Mobility

$2,585,000

MV16

E 18

Avenue

: OR 99 to East UGB: Construct to Major Collector standards

including bike lanes and sidewalks.

Key Benefits: Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity, Livability

$1,625,000

MV17

Prairie Road

: W 1

Avenue to Bailey Lane: Construct to Major Collector

standards including bike lanes and sidewalks.

Key Benefits: Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity, Safe Routes to School, Livability

$3,730,000

MV18

Prairie Road

: Bailey Lane to OR 99: Construct to Major Collector standards

including bike lanes and sidewalks. Do not construct sidewalks where adjacent to

UGB.

Key Benefits: Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity, Livability

$4,415,000

MV19

Prairie Road

: OR 99 to East UGB: Construct to Major Collector standards

including bike lanes and sidewalks.

Key Benefits: Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity, Livability

$1,730,000

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 41

Project ID

Project Description

Probable

Construction

Costs

MV20

Pitney Lane

: W 1

Avenue/High Pass Road to Bailey Lane: Construct to Major

Collector standards including bike lanes on both sides and sidewalk only on the

east side (no center turn lane).

Key Benefits: Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity, Livability

$2,665,000

MV21

Milliron Road

: West UGB to East UGB: Construct to Major Collector standards

including bike lanes and sidewalks.

Key Benefits: Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity, Livability

$2,105,000

MV22

Bailey Lane: West UGB to Prairie Road: Construct Major Collector standards

including left turn lanes, bike lanes on both sides, and sidewalk.

Key Benefits: Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity, Livability, Auto Mobility

$1,250,000

MV23

W 1

Avenue/High Pass Road

: West UGB to Oaklea Drive: Construct Major

Collector standards including left turn lanes, bike lanes on both sides, and

sidewalk only on the north side. This includes a segment that is entirely outside

of the UGB, but is needed for connectivity.

Key Benefits: Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity, Livability, Auto Mobility

$3,830,000

Safety Improvements

MV24

Restripe E 6

Avenue: OR 99 to Front Street: Convert from front-facing angle

parking to parallel parking to provide consistent center-line.

Key Benefits: Safety, Safe Routes to School

$10,500

MV25

OR 99 Traffic Signal Upgrades: OR 99E/OR 99W, OR 99/OR 36, and OR

99/Milliron Road: Upgrade signal head backplates with retroreflective borders.

The remaining signal head upgrades are captured under the crossing

improvement projects for the signals at OR 99/10

, OR 99/6

, and OR 99/1

st.

Key Benefits: Safety

$10,000

MV26

Oaklea Drive/ W 18

Avenue: Improve sight distance for northbound approach

to the intersection.

Key Benefits: Safety

$55,000

Traffic Operations Improvements

MV27

Maple Road/Prairie Road intersection with W 1

Avenue/High Pass Road:

Realign north and south approaches of intersection and add left turn lanes on all

approaches.

Key Benefits: Safety, Safe Routes to School, Auto Mobility

$1,175,000

MV28

OR 99 Traffic Signal Optimization: OR 99E/OR 99W junction to Milliron Rd:

Periodically review traffic signal timings along OR 99 to optimize operations as

needed to respond to changes in traffic volumes.

Key Benefits: Auto Mobility

$30,000

Total Cost

$105,470,500

*Impacts to historical cemetery must be considered in any widening plans along High Pass Road.

Identified in Lane County TSP.

Probable construction costs should be used for planning purposes only. Each project cost estimate should be revisited when determining

specific project funding needs.

W 10TH AVE

W 6TH AVE

W 18TH AVE

W 1ST AVE

HIGH PASS RD

OAKLEA DR

AKLEA DR

ROSE ST

OAK ST

KALMIA ST

JUNIPER ST

HWY 99E

HWY 9

HWY 99W

HOLLY ST

HOLL

Y ST

IVY ST (HWY 99)

FRONT ST

ONT ST

MAPLE ST

PLE ST

DEAL ST

BIRCH ST

IRCH ST

PRAIRIE RD

PRAIRIE

PITTNEY LN

BAILEY LN

BAI

LEY LN

W 13TH AVE

VINE ST

DAVID LN

VID

DANE LN

DANE

MEADOWVIEW RD

EADOW

EW RD

MILLI

RON RD

MILLI

RON RD

SOVER

N LN

SOVER

N LN

PRARIE RD

PWNR

UPRR

continued on map to right

continued on map to left

MV5

MV1

MV2

MV3

MV4

MV6

MV9

MV8

MV7

MV10

MV11

MV12

MV13

MV14

MV15

MV16

MV18

MV17

MV19

MV20

MV22

MV21

MV23

MV24

MV25

MV26

MV27

MV28

MV25

MV28MV28

MV28

fIGURE

FIGURE 9

Network Improvments

NEW ROADWAYS/

ROADWAY ENTENSIONS

MOTOR VEHICLE

PROJECT NUMBER

ROADWAY

MODERNIZATION

SAFETY IMPROVMENTS

TRAFFIC OPERATIONS

IMPROVMENTS

Proposed Motor Vehicle

Network Improvements

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 43

IMPROVEMENTS TO THE OR 99 CORRIDOR FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION

The OR 99 Junction City Refinement Plan, which

was adopted by the City in 2008, identified a

need for significant improvements through the

OR 99 corridor to relieve congestion. These

improvements were reconsidered during the

development of solutions for this TSP update.

The recent economic downturn had resulted in

a substantial decrease in traffic volumes along

the highway and the need for the

improvements identified in the OR 99 Junction

City Refinement Plan could no longer be

demonstrated through the 20-year planning

horizon.

As the economy recovers, and traffic volumes

continue to grow, it is likely that at some time

beyond the planning horizon of this TSP (2036),

the need for those OR 99 improvements will

return. They are not included in the Motor

Vehicle System Plan improvements for this TSP,

but are included in the appendix for future

reference.

TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT

Transportation Demand Management (TDM)

describes actions intended to remove single

occupancy vehicle trips from the roadway

network during peak travel demand periods.

The goal of TDM is to reduce vehicle miles

traveled (VMT) and promote alternative modes

of travel. Shifting peak travel demands on

roadways means that the existing roadway

capacity can be used more efficiently, which

could mean that Junction City may avoid or

delay building new or wider roads. A wide

variety of TDM strategies exist, and it’s

important to tailor those strategies to meet the

needs of a smaller urban community.

TDM strategies may be considered as an

alternative to constructing capacity

improvements to mitigate impacts from

proposed development where the

improvements would be cost prohibitive or

result in undesirable impacts to adjacent land.

Table 10 is a list of potential TDM strategies the

City will consider implementing as needed,

including descriptions of their potential for trip

reduction during peak travel periods.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 44

Table 10: Potential Transportation Demand Management Strategies

Strategy

Description

Potential Trip Reduction

Telecommuting

Employees perform regular work duties at home

rather than commuting from home to work. This

may be full time or on selected work days. This can

require computer equipment to be most effective.

82-91% (Full Time)

14-36% (1-2 Days/Week)

Compressed

Work Week

Schedule where employees work their regular

scheduled number of hours in fewer days per

week.

7-9% (9 day/80 hr)

16-18% (4 day/40 hr)

32-36% (3 day/36 hr)

Transit Pass

Subsidy

For employees who take transit to work on a

regular basis, the employer pays for all or part of

the cost on a monthly transit pass.

19-32% (Full subsidy of cost, high transit service)

4-6% (Full subsidy of cost, medium transit service)

0.5-1% (Full subsidy of cost, low transit service)

10-16% (Half subsidy of cost, high transit service)

2-3% (Half subsidy of cost, medium transit service)

0-0.5% (Half subsidy of cost, low transit service)

Reduced Cost

or Preferential

Parking for

HOVs

Parking costs charged to employees are reduced

for carpools and or vanpools. Employer provides

reserved prime location parking spots for HOV

commuters.

1-3%

Alternate Mode

Subsidy

For those employees that commute to work by a

mode other than driving alone, the employer

provides a monetary bonus to the employee.

21-34% (Full subsidy, high transit service)

5-7% (Full subsidy, medium transit service)

1-2% (Full subsidy, low transit service)

10-17% (Half subsidy, high transit service)

2-4% (Half subsidy, medium transit service)

0.5-1% (Half subsidy, low transit service)

On-Site

Services

Provide services at the work site that are

frequently used by the employees of that work

site. Examples include cafes/restaurants, dry

cleaners, day care centers, and bank machines.

1-2%

Bicycling

Program

Provides support services to those employees that

bicycle to work. Examples include: safe/secure

bicycle storage, shower facilities, and subsidy of

commute bicycle purchase.

0-10%

On-Site or

Public

Rideshare

Matching for

Carpools and

Vanpools

On-Site: Employees who are interested in

carpooling or vanpooling provide information to a

transportation coordinator on staff regarding their

work hours, availability of a vehicle and place of

residence. The coordinator then matches

employees who can reasonably rideshare

together.

Public: Public entity (city, transit agency, region,

state) provides an interactive website for carpool

matching.

1-2% (Without support strategies)

6-8% (With support strategies)

Provide

Vanpools

Employees that live near each other are organized

by their employer into a vanpool for their trip to

work. The employer may subsidize the cost of

operation and maintain the van.

15-25% (Company-provided vans with a fee)

30-40% (Company-subsidized vans)

Gifts/Awards

for Alternative

Mode Use

Employees are offered the opportunity to receive

a gift or an award for using modes other than

driving alone.

0-3%

Employer Bus

Employer provides a bus service specifically to

transport employees to work.

3-11%

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 45

Strategy

Description

Potential Trip Reduction

Walking

Program

Provide support services for those who walk to

work. This could include buying walking shoes or

providing lockers and showers.

0-3%

Time Off with

Pay for

Alternative

Mode Use

Employees are offered time off with pay as an

incentive to use alternative modes.

1-2%

Company Cars

for Business

Travel

Employees are allowed to use company cars for

business-related travel during the day.

0-1%

Guaranteed

Ride Home

Program

A company owned or lease vehicle or taxi fare is

provided in the case of an emergency for

employees that use alternative modes.

1-3%

Source: Employee Commute Options (ECO) Sample Trip Reduction Plan, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,

2006.

In addition to providing transit service to

Junction City, Lane Transit District provides both

carpooling and vanpooling as alternative

transportation options as part of their

Point2Point initiative.

Carpooling can also be

realized through a program called Drive less.

Connect.

, which helps to match those people

interested in carpooling. Valley VanPool is a

service provided by the combined efforts of

Cascades West Rideshare, Chariots Rideshare,

and Lane Transit District’s Commuter Solutions

Program. Currently Valley VanPool has 41

routes traversing all across the Willamette

Valley.

For larger employers, scheduling shift changes

to minimizing traffic impacts during peak travel

periods can also be a very effective TDM

strategy. An example would be maintaining

regular working hours from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m.

when the peak travel period of the city is closer

to 5 p.m.

Point2Point June 19, 2013. Web address:

http://www.point2pointsolutions.org/

Drive less. Connect. October 18, 2012. Web address:

http://drivelessconnect.com/.

Valley VanPool. October 18, 2012. Web address:

http://www.valleyvanpool.info/vanpool.htm.

Junction City will encourage employers with

more than 50 employees to designate an

Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC).

This coordinator would be a liaison between the

City and the employer, and would encourage

alternative transportation options (transit,

walking, cycling) to new employees.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 46

CHAPTER 7: OTHER MODAL PLANS

The existing condition of accommodations for

transit, rail, air, pipeline, and waterway

transportation in Junction City was described in

a technical memorandum that has been

included in the appendix. The City does not own

or operate facilities or programs related to

these modes of travel, but can support them

through adoption of policies and construction

of complimentary improvements. This chapter

summarizes services available for transit, rail,

air, pipeline, and waterway transportation and

offers recommendations for improvements for

some modes.

TRANSIT PLAN

Increasing the availability and use of transit

service in Junction City is one way to remove

single occupancy vehicles from the roadway. It

also provides mobility to those without access

to private vehicles.

Lane Transit District (LTD) provides fixed-route

public transit service to Junction City from the

Eugene area. Junction City is served by Route

95, which is a rural route, and has

approximately 10 stop locations within the

Junction City UGB. The route picks up Monday

through Friday with three times in the morning

and midday, and twice in the evening. The route

picks up twice in the morning, once midday, and

once in the evening on Saturday. The route

picks up once in the morning and evening on

Sundays.

LTD also provides a paratransit service, which is

operated through a program called RideSource.

The service boundary for RideSource is the

Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Planning

Organization (MPO). Junction City would need

to join the MPO to receive complementary

paratransit service from RideSource. However,

paratransit service is available for residents in

Junction City receiving Medicaid. The Federal

Transit Authority does provide grants to

support public transportation in rural areas with

populations of less than 50,000. The grants are

awarded annually and provide funding for both

operation and capital improvements.

To support increased availability and use of

transit in the future, the City will take the

following actions:

 As new areas develop within the city,

particularly to the west, the City will

actively engage LTD to discuss the

ability to meet new service demands.

These needs could include increased

frequency of service, changes in the

route alignment to increase accessibility

for users, or potentially identifying a

new park & ride location.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 47

 The City will prioritize improvements to

the pedestrian and bicycle systems that

would enhance the accessibility of

existing transit stops (e.g., C6, SW2,

SW3).

 The City will apply for grants to provide

broader access to paratransit service.

RAIL PLAN

Junction City has two freight rail service tracks

running north-south, east of OR 99. Both the

Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and the Portland

& Western Railroad (PNWR) operate within the

city with a total of 23 crossings (UPRR has 7

crossings and PNWR has 16 crossings). The

UPRR line is the main freight line and trains

typically travel at speeds up to 79 mph through

town roughly 15 times per day. The PNWR is a

smaller line and train speeds vary from 10 mph

to 40 mph through town with one to two trains

per day.

Railroad crossing controls vary between the

UPRR and PNWR lines. The UPRR line, which

runs parallel to the east side of Front Street and

operates at much higher speeds and frequency,

uses both gates and some type of flashing lights

at all of its seven crossing in town. Plans are

currently being formed to put fencing along the

tracks through Junction City to channelize

pedestrians to safe crossing locations.

The PNWR runs just east of OR 99 and down the

middle of Holly Street. Traffic controls used

include cross bucks, stop signs, or other signs or

signals. The highly used intersection of 6

Avenue at Holly Street has crossing gates.

Ultimately, the City would like to see the tracks

along Holly Street removed, with service

relocated to another corridor. This could

include consolidation of services along the

existing UPRR railroad.

Junction City has identified improvements that

they would like to see occur with both the UPRR

and PNWR rail lines, which are listed below.

These improvements will require coordination

with both rail lines.

 Along UPRR alignment, install fencing to

limit pedestrian crossings and channel

pedestrians to safe crossing locations.

 Improve pavement conditions along rail

crossing locations. Rail crossings often

create hazardous barriers for

pedestrians and cyclists due to

pavement disrepair and gaps between

rails and pavement where bicycle,

wheelchair, and walker wheels can

become stuck.

 Ultimately Junction City would like the

PNWR line that has tracks down Holly

Street removed and relocated to

another corridor.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 48

AIR PLAN

The City of Junction City does not have its own

airport or other air service facilities within the

UGB. The closest major airport to Junction City

is the Eugene Airport, which is located

approximately five miles south of the city and

provides service for both passengers and

freight. The Eugene airport is the second largest

airport in the state of Oregon and is the largest

non-hub airport in the nation. The airport

provides regular direct service to Portland,

Seattle, San Jose San Francisco, Oakland, Los

Angeles, Denver, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, and

Phoenix-Mesa.

PIPELINE PLAN

Northwest Pipeline Company operates a major

regional natural gas transmission line between

Portland and Eugene, which passes through

Junction City along railroad right-of-way.

Northwest Natural Gas distributes the gas in the

Junction City area. This six-inch high-pressure

main interconnects storage facilities in the

state, as well as interstate sources.

Kinder Morgan operates an eight-inch major

petroleum transmission pipeline, which also

runs along the railroad right-of-way. It extends

from Portland to Eugene and has been in

operation since 1962. This pipeline is a common

carrier, designed to handle alternately gasoline,

biodiesel, or diesel fuel. It currently transmits

approximately 45,000 barrels of fuel per day to

Eugene (roughly equivalent to 210 tanker trucks

of fuel). From Eugene, it is distributed by truck

to end destinations or for storage in tank

facilities nine miles south of Junction City.

No actions are proposed in this TSP directly

involving pipeline facility use. However, the City

must coordinate with pipeline operators prior

to making improvements that cross railroad

right-of-way (e.g., C3, MV6, MV10, MV13,

MV16, MV19, MV21).

WATERWAYS PLAN

No navigable waterways exist within the

Junction City urban growth boundary. The

Willamette River runs north-south

approximately three miles east of the study

area.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 49

CHAPTER 8: FUNDING AND

IMPLEMENTATION

This chapter discusses the financial and

regulatory needs associated with

implementation of this Transportation System

Plan.

PROJECTED FUNDING FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS

Projecting the revenue assumed to be available

for capital projects helps to provide an

understanding of the City’s capacity for

constructing the transportation improvements

identified to be needed to support future

growth. Future projections for Junction City’s

transportation funding through the year 2036

are described in a memorandum included in the

appendix. These projections include estimated

resources available based on the amount of

revenue collected in the past from current

funding sources and assumptions for growth in

land development through the planning

horizon. Expenditures have also been estimated

based on historical data describing costs

associated with maintaining the existing

transportation system.

Table 11 summarizes future transportation

funding projections for Junction City through

the year 2036. As shown, Junction City may

have approximately $4.9 million available for

capital improvements through 2036, but at the

same time may be more than $270,000 short of

being able to cover expenses for basic

maintenance and operations during the same

period (equating to about $13,500 per year).

The reason for this discrepancy is because

revenue generated by System Development

Charges and funds from the Statewide

Transportation Improvement Program can only

be spent on capacity building projects, not on

maintenance and operations.

This suggests that the City’s current revenue

streams are inadequate to support basic costs

for keeping the transportation system

functioning. Deferred maintenance of the

transportation system can exponentially

increase the costs of repairs in the future.

Therefore, rather than relying on grants or the

City’s general fund to make up the difference,

new local revenue streams should be

considered.

Junction City Municipal Code 13.40.060 and 13.40.070, as

well as ORS 223.307

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 50

Table 11: Estimate of Funding Availability Through 2036

Transportation Revenue

Annual Average

Total through 2036

OR Gas Tax - Bike Component

$2,300

$46,000

OR Gas Tax - Streets Component

$220,700

$4,414,000

OR Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

$2,500,000

Sidewalk Permits

$2,560

$51,200

System Development Charges

$120,800

$2,416,000

Fund Balance (Current Existing)

$1,178,000

$10,605,200

Expenditures for Basic Maintenance and Operations

Annual Average

Total through 2036

Personnel (Wages, Benefits, Etc.)

$164,700

$3,294,000

Equipment, Materials, & Services

$125,200

$2,504,000

Street Maintenance & Repairs

$8,200

$164,000

$5,962,000

Available Balance for Basic Maintenance and Operations

-$272,800

Available Balance for Capital Improvement Projects

$4,916,000

Can only be applied toward construction or maintenance of pedestrian and bicycle facilities (ORS 366.514).

Can be applied toward construction, maintenance, or operations of the transportation system.

Likely spent entirely on administrative costs of sidewalk construction inspection.

System Development Charges and funding from Statewide Transportation Improvement Program cannot be applied toward maintenance

and operations and are for capacity building projects only.

FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINED PLAN

The Preferred Plan consists of all transportation

improvements identified to meet future needs

through the year 2036. The Financially

Constrained Plan is a subset of this plan that

aligns with anticipated funding. The Financially

Constrained Plan is commonly used to populate

the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP).

However, any project from the Preferred Plan is

eligible for inclusion on the CIP.

Projects for the Financially Constrained Plan

were selected based on priorities expressed by

the Citizen Advisory Committee and input

obtained through a public open house. As a

result, the Financially Constrained Plan puts a

strong emphasis on walking and biking facilities

that support safe routes to schools and

improvements in the safety and efficiency of

travel along OR 99. Table 12 summarizes the

total costs to fund the Preferred and Financially

Constrained Plans. The Financially Constrained

Plan consists of less than 5% of the total

Preferred Plan, with most of the difference

being in Motor Vehicle mode projects. The

allocation of funding for the Financially

Constrained Plan has been well balanced

between modes of travel, as shown at right.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 51

Table 12: Preferred and Financially Constrained Plan Costs (2016 – 2036)

Transportation Mode

Planning-Level Costs (2016 Dollars)

Preferred Plan

Financially Constrained Plan

Pedestrian

$1,480,000

$930,000

Shared Pedestrian/Bicycle

Crossings

Shared-Use Paths

$425,000

$60,000

$745,000

$195,000

Bicycle

$2,245,000

$570,000

Motor Vehicle

$105,470,500

$1,241,750

Total Cost

$110,365,500

$2,996,750

Difference between Preferred and Financially Constrained Plans

$107,368,750

Individual projects included in the Financially

Constrained Plan for all transportation modes

are identified in Tables 13 through 17.

Estimated costs for each project are provided,

including a portion of the project costs assumed

to be the responsibility of the City, which is

included in the Financially Constrained Plan

budget. Because many roadways in Junction

City are under the jurisdiction of Lane County or

ODOT, there may be opportunities to have

those agencies contribute funds for some

projects. It has also been assumed that a

portion of some projects may be constructed as

frontage improvements by future development

where adjacent land is currently undeveloped.

These assumptions are noted in Tables 13

through 17, and are strictly an aid for

establishing a long-range transportation budget

for Junction City. They do not create an

obligation for any parties listed to contribute

funds.

Table 13: Financially Constrained Plan Sidewalk Infill/Construction Projects

Project

Project Description

Probable

Construction

Costs*

Financially Constrained

Plan Budget

SW2

W 10

Ave: Oaklea Dr to Maple St - Sidewalk

construction/infill

$610,000

Key Benefits: Pedestrian Connectivity, Safe Routes

to School

SW3

W 6

Ave: Timothy St to Pine Ct - Sidewalk

construction/infill

$320,000

Key Benefits: Pedestrian Connectivity, Safe Routes

to School

Financially Constrained Plan

$930,000

* Probable construction costs should be used for planning purposes only. Each project cost estimate should be revisited when determining

specific project funding needs.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 52

Table 14: Financially Constrained Plan Intersection Crossing Improvements

Project

Project Description

Probable

Construction

Costs*

Financially Constrained

Plan Budget

(Potential Funding

Partners)**

E 10

Ave/Front St: Connect existing sidewalk on

north side of E 10

Ave to provide an accessible

railroad crossing. Replace curb ramps on all corners to

meet ADA standards.

$30,000

Key Benefits: Safety, ADA Accessibility, Safe Routes to

School, Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity

W 1

Ave/Prairie Rd/Maple St: As an interim

improvement, construct curb extensions on the

opposing west corner of Maple Street and east corner

of Prairie Road to enhance pedestrian visibility and

shorten the crossing distance.

$30,000

Key Benefits: Safety, Safe Routes to School,

Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity

W 10

Ave/OR 99: Enhance pedestrian crossing by

upgrading pedestrian signal heads to countdown

pedestrian signals. Upgrade pedestrian signals by

using audible signals. Upgrade signal head backplates

with retroreflective borders.

$20,000

No City funds designated

from Financially

Constrained budget.

Assumed funded by grants

or other funding partners.

(Potential funding

partners: ODOT)

Key Benefits: Safety, ADA Accessibility, Safe Routes to

School

W 6

Ave/ OR 99: Install intersection lighting

(currently no lighting on mast arms). Enhance

pedestrian crossing by upgrading pedestrian signal

heads to countdown pedestrian signals. Upgrade

pedestrian signals by using audible signals. Upgrade

signal head backplates with retroreflective borders.

$35,000

No City funds designated

from Financially

Constrained budget.

Assumed funded by grants

or other funding partners.

(Potential funding

partners: ODOT)

Key Benefits: Safety, ADA Accessibility, Safe Routes to

School

W 1

Ave /OR 99: Enhance pedestrian crossing by

upgrading pedestrian signal heads to countdown

pedestrian signals. Upgrade pedestrian signals by

using audible signals. Upgrade signal head backplates

with retroreflective borders.

$20,000

No City funds designated

from Financially

Constrained budget.

Assumed funded by grants

or other funding partners.

(Potential funding

partners: ODOT)

Key Benefits: Safety, ADA Accessibility, Safe Routes to

School

C11

OR 99 from 18

Ave to 1

Ave: Install pedestrian

activated crossing treatments on OR 99. Consider

including Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs),

advanced stop bars, curb ramps, and striped

crosswalks at mid-block locations between:

 15

Ave and 12

Ave,

 9

Ave and 7

Ave, and

 5

Ave and 3

Ave.

$140,000

No City funds designated

from Financially

Constrained budget.

Assumed funded by grants

or other funding partners.

(Potential funding

partners: ODOT)

Key Benefits: Safety, Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 53

Project

Project Description

Probable

Construction

Costs*

Financially Constrained

Plan Budget

(Potential Funding

Partners)**

C12

Education: Many free educational materials are

available. Coordinate with the Oregon Department of

Transportation, Junction City School District, and

Junction City Police Department to implement safety

education programs including pedestrian crossing

education for school children.

Variable

City staff time, but

negligible expenses

(Potential funding

partners: ODOT)

Key Benefits: Safety, Safe Routes to School

Financially Constrained Plan

$60,000

* Probable construction costs should be used for planning purposes only. Each project cost estimate should be revisited when determining

specific project funding needs.

** Identification of potential funding contributors is for budgeting purposes only and does not create an obligation for funding from parties

listed.

*** The installation of RRFBs requires an investigation and approval from the State Traffic-Roadway Engineer. Any mid-block improvements

on a State Freight Route will require review concerning freight mobility. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)

Report 572 outlines a process to identify the appropriate type of crossing treatment at unsignalized locations. It was envisioned that RRFBs

would be installed, but a pedestrian activated beacon or signal could also be the appropriate treatment.

Table 15: Financially Constrained Plan Shared-Use Path Alignments

Project

Project Description

Probable

Construction

Costs*

Financially Constrained

Plan Budget

(Potential Funding

Partners)**

SUP1

Southern Edge of Junction City High School, Connecting

Existing Shared-Use Path to Maple Street: Alignment

may require right-of-way or easement.

$195,000

Key Benefits: Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity, Safe

Routes to School, Livability

Financially Constrained Plan

$195,000

* Probable construction costs should be used for planning purposes only. Each project cost estimate should be revisited when determining

specific project funding needs.

** Identification of potential funding contributors is for budgeting purposes only and does not create an obligation for funding from parties

listed.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 54

Table 16: Financially Constrained Plan Bicycle Facility Improvements

Project

Project Description

Probable

Construction

Costs*

Financially Constrained

Plan Budget

(Potential Funding

Partners)**

BL1

Rose St: W 18

Ave to W 13

Ave: Bike Lanes - Roadway

would need to be restriped to remove on-street parking.

$65,000

Key Benefits: Bicycle Connectivity, Safe Routes to School

BL2

W 6

Ave: Timothy Pl to OR 99: Bike Lanes - Need to

restripe roadway to include 8’ parking aisles, 6’ bike

lanes, 11’ travel lanes.

$125,000

Key Benefits: Bicycle Connectivity, Safe Routes to School

BL3

W 10

Ave: Oaklea Dr to Nyssa St: Bike Lanes - Roadway

would need to be restriped to remove on-street parking.

Need community feedback about utilization of existing

on-street parking.

$125,000

Key Benefits: Bicycle Connectivity, Safe Routes to School

BL4

E 6

Ave: Front St to Birch St: Bike Lanes - Would need

to restripe roadway to include 8’ parking aisles, 6’ bike

lanes, 11’ travel lanes.

$50,000

Key Benefits: Bicycle Connectivity, Safe Routes to School

BL5

W 10

Ave: Nyssa St to OR 99: Bike Lanes – Would

require parking removal on one side of the street to

include one 8’ parking aisle, 6’ bike lanes, 11’ travel

lanes. Need community feedback about utilization of

existing on-street parking.

$60,000

Key Benefits: Bicycle Connectivity, Safe Routes to School

BL6

Birch St: E 1

Ave to E 6

Ave: Bike Lanes - Need to

restripe roadway to include 7’ parking aisles, 5’ bike

lanes, 11’ travel lanes.

$65,000

Key Benefits: Bicycle Connectivity

BVD2

Nyssa St/Oak St: Laurel Elementary School to

W 6

Ave: Install Shared Lane Markings and traffic

calming techniques as appropriate to create a bicycle

boulevard with low volume and low speed motor vehicle

use. Alignment would run north on Nyssa St from W 6

Ave, cross W 10

Ave, turn west on W 12

Ave, and turn

north on Oak St to connect to the shared-use path at

Laurel Elementary School.

Consider installing an All-Way stop at the intersection on

W 10

Ave with Nyssa St and crossing enhancements at

the intersection on W 6

Ave with Nyssa St.

$45,000

Key Benefits: Bicycle Connectivity, Safe Routes to School

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 55

Project

Project Description

Probable

Construction

Costs*

Financially Constrained

Plan Budget

(Potential Funding

Partners)**

SLM1

Rose St: W 13

Ave to W 10

Ave: Shared-Lane

Markings - Existing on-street parking is actively used.

Supplemental warning signs should be installed leading

into the curve.

$5,000

Key Benefits: Bicycle Connectivity, Safe Routes to School

SLM2

Maple St: W 6

Ave to W 1

Ave: Shared-Lane Markings

$10,000

Key Benefits: Bicycle Connectivity, Safe Routes to School

SLM3

E 6

Ave: OR 99 to Front St: Shared-Lane Markings –

Traffic volumes are higher than preferred, but speeds

are low. Recommend converting angled on-street

parking to parallel parking to enhance cyclist visibility.

$5,000

Key Benefits: Bicycle Connectivity, Safe Routes to School

SLM4

Deal St: E 6

Ave to Dane Ln: Shared-Lane Markings

$15,000

Key Benefits: Bicycle Connectivity

Financially Constrained Plan

$570,000

* Probable construction costs should be used for planning purposes only. Each project cost estimate should be revisited when determining

specific project funding needs.

** Identification of potential funding contributors is for budgeting purposes only and does not create an obligation for funding from parties

listed.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 56

Table 17: Financially Constrained Plan Motor Vehicle Facility Improvements

Project

Project Description

Probable

Construction

Costs*

Financially Constrained

Plan Budget

(Potential Funding

Partners)**

New Roadways/Roadway Extensions

MV9

Hatton Lane: Extend west to Prairie Road: Phase 1:

Acquire right-of-way for Hatton Lane extension to

Prairie Road, and construct a pedestrian and bicycle

connection (see BL10). Phase 2: Extend Hatton Lane

as a new Collector Street connecting Prairie Road to

OR 99.

Phase 1:

$210,000

Phase 1: $210,000

Key Benefits: Connectivity

Phase 2:

$655,000

Roadway Modernizations

MV12

W 1

Avenue/High Pass Road***

: Oaklea Drive to

OR 99: Construct to Arterial standards including

center turn lane, bike lanes, and sidewalks.

$6,070,000

No City funds designated

from Financially

Constrained budget.

Assumed funded by grants

or other funding partners.

(Potential funding

partners: Lane County)

Key Benefits: Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity, Safe

Routes to School, Safety, Livability, Auto Mobility

MV14

W 6

Avenue

: Oaklea Drive to Timothy Street:

Construct to Major Collector standards including bike

lanes and sidewalks.

$1,735,000

$433,750 of City funds

designated from

Financially Constrained

budget. Remainder

assumed funded by grants

or other funding partners.

(Potential funding

partners: Lane County,

Developers)

Key Benefits: Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity, Safe

Routes to School, Livability

Safety Improvements

MV24

Restripe E 6

Avenue: OR 99 to Front Street: Convert

from front-facing angle parking to parallel parking to

provide consistent center-line.

$10,500

Key Benefits: Safety, Safe Routes to School

MV 25

OR 99 Traffic Signal Upgrades: OR 99E/OR 99W, OR

99/OR 36, and OR 99/Milliron Road: Upgrade signal

head backplates with retroreflective borders. The

remaining signal head upgrades are captured under

the crossing improvement projects for the signals at

OR 99/10

, OR 99/6

, and OR 99/1

st.

$10,000

No City funds designated

from Financially

Constrained budget.

Assumed funded by grants

or other funding partners.

(Potential funding

partners: ODOT)

Key Benefits: Safety

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 57

Project

Project Description

Probable

Construction

Costs*

Financially Constrained

Plan Budget

(Potential Funding

Partners)**

Traffic Operations Improvements

MV27

Maple Road/Prairie Road intersection with W 1

Avenue/High Pass Road ****: Realign north and

south approaches of intersection and add left turn

lanes on all approaches

$1,175,000

$587,500 of City funds

designated from

Financially Constrained

budget. Remainder

assumed funded by grants

or other funding partners.

(Potential funding

partners: Lane County)

Key Benefits: Safety, Safe Routes to School, Auto

Mobility

MV28

OR 99 Traffic Signal Optimization: OR 99E/OR 99W

junction to Milliron Road: Periodically review traffic

signal timings along OR 99 to optimize operations as

needed to respond to changes in traffic volumes

$30,000

No City funds designated

from Financially

Constrained budget.

Assumed funded by grants

or other funding partners.

(Potential funding

partners: ODOT)

Key Benefits: Auto Mobility

Financially Constrained Plan

$1,241,750

* Probable construction costs should be used for planning purposes only. Each project cost estimate should be revisited when determining

specific project funding needs.

** Identification of potential funding contributors is for budgeting purposes only and does not create an obligation for funding from parties

listed.

**** Impacts to historical cemetery must be considered in any widening plans along High Pass Road.

**** Southbound approach (Maple Street) traffic operations perform at LOS E as a 2-way stop, exceeding the Junction City mobility standard

of LOS D. Several mitigations were considered to address the forecasted mobility deficiency. An all-way stop, a southbound right-turn lane,

and adding left-turn pockets on 1

Avenue would not improve performance enough to reach LOS D. To reach LOS D for the southbound

turn (from Maple Street), 1

Avenue would need to be reconstructed to include a two-way center left-turn lane.

Identified in Lane County TSP.

POTENTIAL NEW FUNDING SOURCES

Consideration of new funding sources to

increase revenue for transportation

improvements is recommended to facilitate the

implementation of needed projects and cover

the cost of basic maintenance and operations.

Any potential funding source is constrained

based on a variety of factors, including the

willingness of local leadership and the

electorate to burden citizens and businesses,

the availability of local funds to be dedicated or

diverted to transportation issues from other

competing city programs, and the availability

and competitiveness of state and federal funds.

Nonetheless, it is important for the City to

consider all options to provide and enhance

funding for its transportation programs.

This section describes several potential

transportation funding sources, including state

and county contributions, city sources (i.e.,

residents, businesses, and/or developers),

grants, and debt financing. Many of these

sources have been used in the past by other

agencies in Oregon, and in most cases, when

used collectively, are sufficient to fund

transportation improvements for a local

community.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 58

FEDERAL, STATE, AND COUNTY CONTRIBUTIONS

There are multiple roadways in Junction City

that are the responsibility of either ODOT or

Lane County. The City should seek funding

partnerships (i.e., contributions) from ODOT

and Lane County for projects located on their

respective roadways. In addition, direct

appropriations are another potential funding

source.

ODOT Contributions

The Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC)

and the Oregon Department of Transportation

have changed how the State Transportation

Improvement Program (STIP) is developed.

Beginning with the 2015 to 2018 process, the

STIP has been divided into two broad

categories: Fix-It and Enhance. Fix-It includes

activities that fix or preserve the transportation

system, while Enhance includes activities that

enhance, expand, or improve the transportation

system. The new STIP development process

seeks to identify the most effective projects

based on community and state values, rather

than those that fit best into prescribed

programs. The change was made to enable

ODOT to take care of the existing transportation

assets while still providing a measure of funding

to enhance the state and local transportation

system in a truly multimodal way. As has been

the case for many years, the OTC continues to

put a strong emphasis on preserving the

existing transportation system first. This is

evidenced by the funding split between the Fix-

It portion of the proposed new STIP (76

percent) and the Enhance portion (24 percent).

Programmed projects are included in the four-

year STIP, which is updated every two years.

ODOT maintenance districts also have available

funds that may be used for small-scale projects

such as in-fill sidewalks or culvert repair on a

state highway.

When considering proposed land use actions,

such as subdivisions or site development, the

City should not assume that projects planned

on state highways will be in place to support

the proposed development unless the project is

programmed in the current STIP. Construction

of projects which have been previously required

through the City land use or ODOT approach

permit approval process may be assumed if

construction of the development is in process.

For proposed comprehensive plan

amendments, which must consider the long-

term adequacy of the transportation system for

TPR 660-012-0060 compliance, ODOT must be

consulted to determine whether a highway

project is “reasonably likely to be funded”

based on current funding projections.

Grants

Junction City should actively pursue State and

Federal grants, in particular to complete desired

pedestrian and bicycle projects. Grant

opportunities include funding for pedestrian,

bicycle, Intelligent Transportation System (ITS),

and Safe Routes to School improvements. Grant

sources change over time, but current sources

to explore include:

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 59

Federal Funding Sources

 Highway Safety Improvement Program

 Transportation Alternatives Program

 Transportation for Elderly Persons and

Persons with Disabilities

 Community Development Block Grants

 Land and Water Conservation Fund

 Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality

Improvement Program

 TIGER Grants

State Funding Sources

 Oregon Immediate Opportunity Fund

 ConnectOregon

 Oregon Parks and Recreation

Department Local Government Grants

 Oregon Transportation Infrastructure

Bank

 Oregon Special Transportation Fund

 Oregon Pedestrian Safety Enforcement

Mini-Grant Program

 Oregon Safe Routes to School

 Oregon Transportation and Growth

Management Program (for planning

studies only)

Other Funding Sources

 PeopleForBikes Community Grant

Program

Direct Appropriations

The City can also seek direct appropriations

from the State Legislature and/or the United

States Congress for transportation capital

improvements. The City may want to pursue

these special, one-time appropriations,

particularly for projects that support economic

development.

CITY SOURCES

The City can also look to local residents,

business owners, and developers to raise

additional funds designated for transportation-

related improvements. Optional sources include

developer exactions, Urban Renewal Districts

(URD), Local Fuel Taxes, SDC increases, Local

Improvement Districts (LID), General Fund

revenue transfers, special assessments, and

employment taxes.

Developer Exactions

Exactions are roadway and/or intersection

improvements that are partially or fully funded

by developers as conditions of development

approval. Typically, all developers are required

to improve the roadways along their frontage

upon site redevelopment. In addition, when a

site develops or redevelops, the developer may

be required by the City, County, or ODOT

(through a highway approach permit) to provide

off-site improvements depending upon the

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 60

expected level of traffic generation and the

resulting impacts to the transportation system.

Urban Renewal District (URD)

A URD is a tax-funded district within the City.

Improvement projects within the district are

typically paid for through bonds and

constructed up front, with the bond debt paid

by the incremental increases in property taxes

that result from the improvements made. While

this process can be used to pay for

transportation improvements, it also channels

future tax revenue away from other potential

uses until the debt is paid or until the term of

the district expires.

Local Fuel Tax

Twenty-two cities and two counties in Oregon

have adopted local fuel taxes by public vote,

ranging from one to five cents per gallon.

Nearby locations with a City fuel tax include

Cottage Grove (three cents per gallon), Veneta

(three cents per gallon), Springfield (three cents

per gallon), Coburg (three cents per gallon) and

Eugene (five cents per gallon).

Based on experiences in other communities, a

local fuel tax in Junction City could generate

approximately $10,000 annually for every cent

charged. A three to five-cent tax, similar to

neighboring communities, could generate

$30,000 to $50,000 annually (or approximately

$1,000,000 by the year 2036).

With the tax being applied to fuel sales, visitors

and people traveling through Junction City will

contribute revenue as well as local residents.

Assuming the average driving resident in

Junction City travels 12,000 miles per year with

a rate of fuel consumption of just over 20 miles

per gallon of fuel, they would pay about $6

annually for every cent of local fuel tax charged.

Local Improvement District (LID)

The City may set up Local Improvement Districts

(LIDs) to fund specific capital improvement

projects within defined geographic areas, or

zones of benefit. LIDs impose assessments on

properties within its boundaries and may only

be spent on capital projects within the

geographic area. Benefiting properties are

assessed their share to pay for improvements.

Since LIDs may not fund ongoing maintenance

costs, they require separate accounting.

Furthermore, because citizens representing 33

percent of the assessment can terminate a LID

and overturn the planned projects, LID projects

and costs must obtain broad approval of

property owners within the LID boundaries. LIDs

can be matched against other funds where a

project has system wide benefit beyond the

adjacent properties. LIDs are often used for

sidewalks and pedestrian amenities that

provide clear benefit to residents along the

subject street.

Street Utility Fee

A number of Oregon cities supplement their

street funds with street utility fees. Establishing

user fees to fund applicable transportation

activities and/or capital construction ensures

that those who create the demand for service

pay for it proportionate to their use. Street

utility fees are recurring monthly charges

included on existing local utility bills that are

paid by all residential, commercial, industrial,

and institutional users. The fees are charged

proportionate to the amount of traffic

generated, so a retail commercial user pays a

higher rate than a residential user. Typically,

there are provisions for reduced fees for those

that can demonstrate they use less than the

average rate, for example, a residence where

no cars or trucks are registered.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 61

While the fee structure per user varies, a street

utility fee that costs the average single-family

homeowner in Junction City $3 to $5 per month

could generate approximately $25,000 to

$35,000 annually. As the city grows through the

year 2036, the annual revenue could increase to

well over $100,000 with no increase in the

monthly fee.

From a system health perspective, forming a

street utility fee establishes a source of reliable,

dedicated funding for transportation. Fee

revenue use is flexible and can be used for

maintenance and operations expenses or can

be used to secure revenue bond debt used to

finance capital construction. A street utility fee

can be formed by Council action and does not

require a public vote.

General Fund Revenues

At the discretion of the City Council, the City

can allocate General Fund revenues to pay for

its transportation program. General Fund

revenues primarily include property taxes, user

taxes, and any other miscellaneous taxes and

fees imposed by the City. Allocation is

completed through the City’s annual budget

process, but the funding potential of this source

is constrained by competing community

priorities set by the City Council. General Fund

resources could fund any aspect of the

transportation program, from capital

improvements to operations, maintenance, and

administration. Additional revenues available

from this source are only available to the extent

that either General Fund revenues are

increased or City Council directs and diverts

funding from other City programs.

Special Assessments

A variety of special assessments are available in

Oregon to defray the costs of sidewalks, curbs,

gutters, street lighting, parking, and central

business district or commercial zone

transportation improvements. These

assessments would likely fall within the

Measure 50 limitations. One example is the

50/50 program. This is a match program for

sidewalk infill projects where property owners

pay half the cost of a sidewalk improvement

and the City matches the investment to

complete the project.

Employment Taxes

Employment taxes may be levied to raise

additional funds. For example, in the Portland

region, payroll and self-employment taxes are

used to generate approximately $145 million

annually. The City of Portland has chosen to

earmark these funds for transit agency

operations.

Debt Financing

While not a direct funding source, debt

financing is another funding method. Through

debt financing, available funds can be leveraged

and project costs can be spread over the

projects’ useful lives. Though interest costs are

incurred, the use of debt financing can serve

not only as a practical means of funding major

improvements, but it is also viewed as an

equitable funding source for larger projects

because it spreads the burden of repayment

over existing and future customers who will

benefit from the projects. One caution in relying

on debt service is that a funding source will still

need to be identified to fulfill annual repayment

obligations. Two methods of debt financing are

voter-approved general obligation bonds and

revenue bonds.

Junction City Transportation System Plan

Page 62

Voter-Approved General Obligation Bonds

Subject to voter approval, the City can issue

General Obligation (GO) bonds to debt finance

capital improvement projects. GO bonds are

backed by the increased taxing authority of the

City, and the annual principal and interest

repayment is funded through a new, voter-

approved assessment on property throughout

the City (i.e., a property tax increase).

Depending on the critical nature of projects

identified in the Transportation System Plan

and the willingness of the electorate to accept

increased taxation for transportation

improvements, voter-approved GO bonds may

be a feasible funding option for specific

projects. Proceeds may not be used for ongoing

maintenance.

Revenue Bonds

Revenue bonds are municipal bonds that are

secured by the revenue received by financing

income-producing projects. In contrast to GO

bonds, revenue bonds fund projects that

generally only serve those in the community

who pay for their services. Given the nature of

revenue bonds, they may not be as applicable

to transportation projects as are GO bonds and

are most commonly used for other municipal

projects such as sewer and water system

upgrades where users pay a monthly fee for

service. Interest costs for revenue bonds are

slightly higher than for GO bonds due to the

perceived stability offered by the “full faith and

credit” of a jurisdiction

IMPLEMENTATION

As part of the process to update Junction City’s

TSP, the City’s Municipal Code was audited and

regulatory language was recommended to

implement the TSP, as well as ensure

consistency with the state Transportation

Planning Rule (OAR 660-12).