A Performance-Based Highway Geometric Design Process (2016)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

A-1 This memorandum outlines the approach for screening Sellwood Bridge Project concepts and evaluating alternatives adopted by the Policy Advisory Group on January 29, 2007. The outcome of this evaluation process will be the selection of a few alternatives to be analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS). Screening and Evaluation Process The evaluation framework includes two parts: screening and evaluation (Figure A-1). The first part screens concepts against the minimum requirements of the project purpose and need. Threshold criteria represent this set of minimum requirements. In this screening process, if concepts do not meet the thresholds, they are considered infeasible and are dropped from con- sideration. Concepts that meet the threshold criteria are considered feasible and are developed into project alternatives. The second step of the framework compares the project alternatives against a set of evaluation criteria. Evaluation criteria are used to compare the alternatives with one another to determine how they perform against a broad range of stakeholder values. The performance of each of the project alternatives will be rated by technical staff for each evaluation criterion. The Community Task Force (CTF) will set a weighting factor for each cri- terion to establish its level of importance in relation to the other criteria. A total score (the sum of all the performance ratings times the weighting factors) will be calculated for each alternative, and an associated ranking of alternatives prepared. The higher the score, the more successfully the alternative matches the CTF values for the project. The ranking will be used by the CTF in developing its recommendation of alternatives to be evaluated further as part of the environ- mental documentation process. A p p e n d i x A Example Performance Criteria Memorandum Technical Memorandum Sellwood Bridge Project Evaluation Framework

A-2 A performance-Based Highway Geometric design process The framework serves three primary purposes. First, it ensures that all project alternatives address the project’s purpose and need. The threshold criteria determine the minimal requirements in relation to the Purpose and Need Statement. Second, it helps frame a discussion with a wide variety of stakeholders about what project features are most valuable. These values are reflected in the evaluation criteria. Third, it establishes the relative advantages and disadvantages of feasible alternatives to support selection of a few for further analysis in the Draft EIS. The evaluation process for the Sellwood Bridge project is composed of the following tasks: • Develop threshold criteria, • Develop evaluation criteria, • Identify a broad range of concepts, • Evaluate concepts for feasibility, • Develop alternatives from feasible concepts, • Collect performance data for each criterion for each alternative, Figure A-1. Screening and evaluation process.

example performance Criteria Memorandum A-3 • Evaluate alternatives, and • Select alternatives for more detailed analysis in the Draft EIS. Screening of Concepts Using Threshold Criteria The first step of alternative evaluation is to compare a wide variety of concepts against a set of threshold criteria. Threshold criteria serve as a set of minimum requirements for project concepts before they can be developed into full-fledged alternatives. Concepts either meet the threshold criteria or they do not, and those that meet these criteria are deemed feasible. Thresh- old criteria are based on existing or readily available data, and may reflect regulatory or policy imperatives. Threshold criteria are used throughout the evaluation process to eliminate concepts or alternatives as more information becomes available. Threshold criteria were initially prepared by the Project Management Team, reviewed and revised by participating agency staff, recommended by the CTF, and approved by the Policy Advisory Group. Threshold criteria are directly linked to project needs specified in the Purpose and Need state- ment, as shown in Table A-1. Concepts that meet each of the threshold criteria above are deemed feasible, and moved for- ward into the evaluation process. Evaluation of Feasible Alternatives Using Evaluation Criteria Evaluation criteria are used to differentiate and identify trade-offs among feasible alternatives. To be most effective, an evaluation criterion must be measurable and well-defined. This ensures a common understanding of each criterion’s meaning, and allows for a clear comparison among alternatives. Evaluation criteria were developed by the CTF with input from the participating agencies and the public, recommended to the Policy Advisory Group for adoption, and forwarded to the Collaborative Environmental Transportation Agreement for Streamlining (CETAS) group and other participating agencies for concurrence. Some criteria important to stakeholders cannot be used for initial screening of alternatives due to lack of applicable data, but are included because they will be used later in the process for selection of a preferred alternative, during final design, or during the procurement of construction contractors. Note: No criteria category is established for safety. Safety is considered in the design standards as well as throughout the evaluation criteria in relation to particular facility users—bicyclists, pedestrians, automobiles, freight, and transit. Note: No criteria category is established for sustainability. Sustainability considerations are reflected throughout the evaluation criteria. Sustainability means using, developing and pro- tecting resources in a manner that enables people to meet current needs and provides that future generations can meet future needs. Sustainability is a broad and long-term concept that addresses quality of life and efficiency concerns from the joint perspective of environmental, economic, and community objectives. It takes into account both local and global views, applying a timeframe that considers long-term costs and benefits.

A-4 A performance-Based Highway Geometric design process Alternative Number Identified Project Need, from Project Purpose and Need Statement Threshold Criteria 1 Provide structural capacity to accommodate safely various vehicle types, including transit vehicles, trucks, and emergency vehicles; and to withstand moderate seismic events. Concept must accommodate AASHTO1/Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) legal loads. Replacement concepts must accommodate streetcar loading. Concept must meet the AASHTO/ODOT Load-and-Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) standard of 75 years. Concept must be built to meet current seismic standards, as per AASHTO/ODOT LRFD standards. Bridge rehabilitation concepts must meet Phase I seismic retrofit standards, as documented in the ODOT's 2004 Bridge Design and Drafting Manual. Concept must meet horizontal and vertical clearance requirements for the Willamette River, as per the U.S. Coast Guard. 2 Provide a geometrically functional and safe roadway design. Concept must connect with Highway 43 on the west and with a district collector or higher classified street on the east within 500 feet north or south of the existing Tacoma Street alignment. Concept must be designed to meet the geometric requirements as outlined in the project’s geometric design criteria.2 Bridge rehabilitation concepts can be considered with exceptions to the minimum width criteria (travel lane, median, shoulder, multiuse path); bridge replacement concepts must meet the minimum width criteria. Concept must provide for clearance over the existing railroad tracks on the east side of the Willamette River, as per American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Right of Way Association (AREMA) standards. 3 Provide for existing and future travel demands between origins and destinations served by the Sellwood Bridge. Concept must maintain or improve traffic-carrying capability when compared to the 2035 No-Build alternative. Concept must continue to serve the travel markets it currently serves. 4 Provide for connectivity, reliability, and operations of existing and future public transit. Concept must meet the minimum turning radius of 40’ Tri Met buses. Concept must provide sufficient (23 foot) clearance over the existing railroad tracks on the west bank of the Willamette River, preserving that corridor for future streetcar extension or other public use. 5 Provide for improved freight mobility to and across the bridge. Concept must accommodate the turning radius of the WB67 design vehicle. 3 6 Provide for pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, mobility, and safety to and across the river in the corridor. Concept must provide minimum bicycle and pedestrian facilities as per the project’s geometric design criteria. Bridge rehabilitation concepts can be considered with exceptions to the minimum width criteria (travel lane, median, shoulder, multiuse path), but must improve upon width of existing shared path for bicycles and pedestrians. Concept must provide connections to designated city bikeways, city walkways, and city off-street paths in the vicinity of the bridge. Concept must not preclude access to the river for boats and boat trailers at Powers Marine Park and Sellwood Park. Table A-1. Sellwood Bridge threshold criteria. 1AASHTO stands for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2Project geometric design criteria are attached as Appendix 1. 3Wheelbase (WB) is the distance, in feet, measured between the front wheel axle of a vehicle and its most rear wheel axle. For a tractor-trailer semi, WB is measured from the front wheel axle of the tractor to the most rear wheel axle of its trailer. The WB67 design vehicle has 67′ between the front and the rear wheel axles.

example performance Criteria Memorandum A-5 Aesthetics Goal: Ensure an aesthetically pleasing solution that enhances visual quality to the bridge, on the bridge, and from the communities on both sides of the river. (Table A-2) erusaeM airetirC 1 Maximize flexibility in bridge design types Constructed scale (high, medium, low) to assess whether the alternative maintains flexibility to use different bridge design types 2 Enhance pedestrian/bicycle experience on the bridge Qualitative scale considering architectural detail, interpretive displays, viewing facilities/vantage points, and human scale 3 Provide a structure that instills a sense of community pride Qualitative scale considering of views of the bridge from the community and gateway treatments that provide a presence for the bridge 4 Preserve, enhance, or create views from the bridge Qualitative scale considering quality of views provided from the bridge for bicyclists, pedestrians, and vehicle occupants 5 Provide aesthetically pleasing intersection/interchange designs that instill a sense of community pride Qualitative scale considering views of the intersections/interchanges from the community Note: Criteria 2 and 3 (in grey) will be used to select bridge types for consideration in the Draft EIS (following selection of alignment alternatives to be considered in the Draft EIS). Table A-2. Aesthetics criteria. Criteria Measure 1 Maximize bicycle and pedestrian safety Qualitative scale considering: Width of sidewalk Width of bike facility Width of travel lanes Separation to minimize conflicts between bikes and pedestrians One-way vs. two-way facilities Separation to minimize conflicts between low- and high-speed bicyclists Separation to minimize conflicts between motor vehicles and non-motorized users (including separation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities from travel lanes) 2 Maximize convenient and direct connections for bicyclists and pedestrians Qualitative scale considering: Out of direction travel Grade Ease of crossing of OR 43 and SE Tacoma Connections to OR 43, SE Tacoma, cemetery access road, the regional trail network, and the north sidewalk on Macadam Table A-3. Bike and pedestrian criteria. Bike and Pedestrian Goal: Improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, mobility, and safety to and across the Sellwood Bridge. (Table A-3)

A-6 A performance-Based Highway Geometric design process Community Quality of Life Goal: Protect and preserve the existing quality of life of the neighborhoods in the Sellwood Bridge influence area on both sides of the Willamette River. (Table A-4) Criteria Measure 1 Minimize noise impacts caused by traffic on residents, businesses, bridge users and visitors Assessment of predicted noise levels compared to the future No-Build, based on traffic volumes and speeds, at the following locations: Riverfront condos Mid-point of bridge Powers Marine Park Sellwood pool (in Sellwood Park) 2 Minimize through traffic intrusion in Sellwood and south Portland neighborhoods Comparison of average daily traffic volumes on neighborhood streets against future No-Build alternative (using screenlines) 3 Minimize impacts to recreational facilities Qualitative scale considering impact on recreational use, constructive use, and long-term construction impacts on recreation properties. 4 Preserve historic and archaeological resources along project corridor Number of potentially significant historic properties and archaeological resources affected by alternative 5 Minimize residential relocations Number of residential units displaced by alternative 6 Minimize residential impacts Number of residences currently within 30 feet of the street that will have a reduced distance to the proposed alternative (loss of front yard space) 7 Minimize business relocations Number of businesses displaced by alternative 8 Preserve viability of local businesses Qualitative scale considering auto access, parking, visibility, and access for delivery trucks 9 Achieve consistency with adopted community plans Qualitative scale considering consistency with relevant regional and local plans on both sides of the bridge (including Tacoma Main Street Plan) in terms of: Number of lanes Classification Presence of bicycle facilities and sidewalks Bicycle and pedestrian connections Accommodation of freight Connection with the local street network 10 Minimize disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low income populations (Results of the Environmental Justice analysis from Draft EIS) Note: Criterion 10 (in grey) will be used in selection of the preferred alternative (following preparation of the Draft EIS). Table A-4. Community quality of life criteria.

example performance Criteria Memorandum A-7 Criteria Measure 1 Minimize congestion delay in bridge area Vehicle hours of delay along the following corridors: OR 43 between Lake Oswego and Taylors Ferry Tacoma Street between 6th and 17th 99E to Taylor’s Ferry Hwy 224 to 17th to Macadam and Taylor’s Ferry Taylor’s Ferry between Terwilliger and OR 43 2 Improve accessibility to residences and businesses Area within a 20-minute travel time contour from the center of the Sellwood Bridge 3 Minimize impact of incidents and allow the passing of emergency vehicles Combined width of travel lane and shoulders (curb to curb) 4 Accommodate trucks Combined width of travel lane and shoulders (curb to curb) 5 Retain flexibility to respond to future transportation needs along the corridor Qualitative scale assessing ability to add capacity on the bridge alternative’s alignment, or ability to add to the bridge alternative in the future 6 Remain open to traffic during periods of required maintenance Combined width of travel lane and shoulders (curb to curb) Table A-5. Automobile, freight, and emergency vehicles criteria. Criteria Measure 1 Minimize closure time Estimated months of bridge closure during construction 2 Minimize construction time Estimated months of construction time, defined as starting with construction mobilization and ending with the opening of the completed project 3 Minimize travel impacts during construction Length of detour route during construction for all modes 4 Minimize impacts of demolition (Results of construction impact analysis in Draft EIS) Note: Criterion 4 (in grey) will be used in selection of the preferred alternative (following preparation of the Draft EIS). Table A-6. Construction criteria. Automobile, Freight, and Emergency Vehicles Goal: Improve freight and commuter mobility and safety. Minimize bottlenecks for freight, automobiles, and emergency services. (Table A-5) Construction Goal: Minimize construction impacts and risks. (Table A-6)

A-8 A performance-Based Highway Geometric design process Natural Environment Goal: Preserve or improve the natural environment. (Table A-8) Criteria Measure 1 Minimize impacts to floodplain; meet Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA) III floodplain/fluvial standards to the greatest extent practical Cubic yards of fill encroachment in 100-year floodplain 2 Maximize benefits to threatened and endangered fish species and other fish habitat; minimize impacts Cubic yards of pier encroachment in the floodway (ordinary high water level) 3 Maximize benefits to threatened and endangered terrestrial species; minimize impacts Acres of impacted native planting habitat lost 4 Maximize benefits to wildlife habitat; minimize impacts Acres of lost wildlife habitat 5 Maximize benefits to riparian areas; minimize tree loss Square feet of tree canopy removed 6 Maximize benefits to air quality; minimize impacts Number of intersections along a major collector or arterial within study area where primary approach exceeds volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.9 during the PM peak hour 7 Preserve recreational fishing; maintain instream structure and cover Location and square feet of instream structure and cover loss 8 Meet or exceed the requirements for stormwater treatment, both for water quantity and water quality (Results of water quality analysis from Draft EIS) 9 Minimize impacts to fish passage (Results of biological analysis from Draft EIS) 10 Minimize wetland impacts and maximize benefits of avoidance, enhancement and replacement (Results of wetlands analysis from Draft EIS) Note: Criteria 8, 9, and 10 (in grey) will be used in selection of the preferred alternative (following preparation of the Draft EIS). Table A-8. Natural environment criteria. Criteria Measure 1 Minimize life-cycle cost Cost of design, construction, right-of-way acquisition, and maintenance in year of construction dollars 2 Stimulate the local economy (Results of economic impact analysis from Draft EIS) 3 Provide contracting opportunities to disadvantaged, minority, women-owned, and emerging small businesses (Will be considered during construction contracting procurement) Note: Criterion 2 (in grey) will be used in selection of the preferred alternative (following preparation of the Draft EIS). Criterion 3 (in grey) will be considered during construction contracting procurement. Table A-7. Cost and economic impacts criteria. Cost and Economic Impacts Goal: Design, build, and maintain a cost-effective project. (Table A-7)

example performance Criteria Memorandum A-9 Criteria Measure 1 Maximize use of materials from existing bridge Percentage of project materials obtained from existing bridge 2 During construction, maximize use of materials from existing bridge; reuse and recycle. (Will be considered during final design and construction contracting procurement) 3 Reduce material used and waste generated (Will be considered during final design and construction contracting procurement) 4 Consider material resource impacts during other phases of the structure’s life, such as maintenance/operation, and deconstruction/disposal (Will be considered during final design and construction contracting procurement) Note: Criteria 2, 3 and 4 (in grey) will be considered in final design and construction contracting procurement. Table A-9. Material use criteria. Criteria Measure 1 Increase mass transit reliability Qualitative scale considering mass transit travel times, based on ability to provide dedicated mass transit facilities or operational priority for mass transit and overall vehicle hours of delay 2 Accommodate future streetcar or express transit alternatives Qualitative scale considering number of lanes, geometrics, and load capacity 3 Ensure efficient cohabitation of mass transit and auto/truck traffic Qualitative scale considering presence of dedicated bus pullouts, mass transit stops, transfer points 4 Ensure effective transit connectivity Qualitative scale considering connectivity of all transit modes Table A-10. Mass transit criteria. Criteria Measure 1 Minimize loss of life, loss of property, and damages to bridge due to earthquake Qualitative scale considering ability of bridge to resist moderate earthquake. Table A-11. Seismic criteria. Material Use Goal: Use material resources as efficiently as possible. (Table A-9) Mass Transit Goal: Improve mass transit circulation, capacity, connectivity, and local access to and across the bridge. (Table A-10) Seismic Goal: Bridge should resist moderate earthquakes. (Table A-11)

A-10 A performance-Based Highway Geometric design process Design Feature Design Criteria Source Classification District Collector Community Corridor City Bikeway City Walkway Minor Truck Street Major Emergency Response Street Transit Access Street City of Portland’s Transportation System Plan (TSP) Design Vehicle WB-67 Roadway Working Group Design Speed 35 mph City of Portland Stopping Sight Distance 250 feet (design speed dependent) AASHTO4 Minimum K value for a sag vertical curve (KSAG) 49 AASHTO Minimum K value for a crest vertical curve (KCREST) 29 AASHTO Vertical Clearance Above Other Roadways 17 feet5 ODOT HDM6 Vertical Clearance Above Railroads 23 feet ODOT HDM Maximum Grade 5% Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Minimum Grade 0.5% for standard curbed sections, >0.3% for curb and gutter sections City of Portland’s Design Guide for Public Street Improvements Pavement Cross Slope 2.0% to 6.0% City of Portland’s Design Guide for Public Street Improvements Maximum Superelevation 6.0% AASHTO Design Standards Sellwood Bridge Roadway Design Standards 4American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials: A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2001. 5For a rehabilitation project, existing clearances between 16 and 17 feet may be maintained with notification to the Motor Carrier Transportation Division. 6Oregon Department of Transportation, Highway Design Manual.

example performance Criteria Memorandum A-11 Major Emergency Response Street Major Emergency Response Routes are not eligible for traffic slowing devices City of Portland’s Transportation System Plan (TSP) Travel Lane Width7 Minimum Desirable Min. – City of Portland Des. –Roadway Working Group 11 feet 12 feet Bike Lane On a designated City Bikeway, bicycle lanes recommended. Where not possible due to width constraints and parking needs, a parallel alternative should be developed. Min. – City of Portland Bicycle Master Plan Des. – Roadway Working Group Minimum Desirable 5 feet 6.5 feet Sidewalk On a designated City Walkway, sidewalks are required to provide safe, convenient, and attractive pedestrian access to activities along streets and to recreation and institutions within and between neighborhoods. All construction of new public streets will include sidewalk improvements on both sides. Min. – Portland Pedestrian Design Guide Des. – Roadway Working Group Minimum Desirable 8 feet clear of obstructions (6 feet Through Pedestrian Zone plus 2 feet Furnishings Zone/Curb Zone). 12 feet clear of obstructions (6 feet Through Pedestrian Zone plus 2.5 feet Furnishings Zone/Curb Zone plus 1.5 feet Frontage Zone adjacent to bridge rail). Shared-Use Path (if Bike and Ped facilities are combined)4 Minimum Desirable Min. – City of Portland Bicycle Master Plan Des. – Roadway Working Group 16 feet clear of obstructions for a two- way path (12 feet plus 2 feet of shy on both sides) 20 feet clear of obstructions for two-way path (16 feet plus 2 feet of shy on both sides). Minimum Shoulder Width4 (if no bike lane) 3 feet on bridges in excess of 100 feet AASHTO Minimum Horizontal Curvature R = 460 ft (Low speed, urban streets, normal crown) R = 320 ft (Low speed, urban streets, 6% superelevation) AASHTO Side slopes Cut Fill 2:1 Max 3:1 Max City of Portland’s Design Guide for Public Street Improvements 7The rehabilitation concepts, as currently developed, do not meet these minimum standards for width. A design exception would be required.

A-12 A performance-Based Highway Geometric design process Design Standards Highway 43 Design Standards 8Oregon Department of Transportation, Highway Design Manual. Design Feature Design Criteria Source Classification Non-Designated Urban Highway, Urban Fringe / Suburban ODOT HDM 8 Design Vehicle WB-67 ODOT HDM Design Speed 40 mph ODOT HDM Stopping Sight Distance 305 feet (design speed dependent) ODOT HDM Minimum KSAG 64 ODOT HDM Minimum KCREST 70 ODOT HDM Vertical Clearance 17 feet ODOT HDM Maximum Grade 7% ODOT HDM Minimum Grade 0.5% for standard curbed sections, >0.3% for curb and gutter sections ODOT HDM Minimum Cross Slope 2.0% ODOT HDM Maximum Superelevation 4.0% ODOT HDM Minimum Lane Widths Travel Lanes Medians Striped Continuous Left-Turn Lane Raised Curb Median Bike Lanes Sidewalk Shoulder (if no bike lane) Shared-Use Path 12 feet 2 feet 14 feet 16 feet Travel lane to travel lane 8 feet 6 feet 8 feet (10 feet with barriers) 8 feet ODOT HDM Maximum Degree of Curvature 10o 00’ (573 feet radius), with 4% superelevation 1o 15’ (4584 feet), with normal crown ODOT HDM Spirals 240 feet (2 Lanes) 360 feet (4 Lanes) ODOT HDM Side slopes Cut Fill 2:1 Max 3:1 Max (with Guardrail) / 4:1 Max (without Guardrail) ODOT HDM Access Spacing from Interchange 1320 feet ODOT HDM Table A-12. Highway 43 Design Standards.

example performance Criteria Memorandum A-13 Design Standards Highway 43 Interchange/Intersection Design Standards 9Oregon Department of Transportation, Highway Design Manual. 10“Accommodate” refers to the ability to make the maneuver by encroaching on other lanes, shoulders, or over mountable curbs. ‘Design for’ means the vehicle does not require encroachment. Design Feature Design Criteria Source Classification Non-Freeway Ramps ODOT HDM 9 Design Vehicle Design for WB-40 (accommodate WB-67)10 Roadway Working Group Design Speed 25 mph ODOT HDM Stopping Sight Distance 155 feet ODOT HDM Minimum KSAG 26 ODOT HDM Minimum KCREST 19 ODOT HDM Vertical Clearance 17 feet ODOT HDM Maximum Grade 7% ascending, 8% descending ODOT HDM Minimum Grade 0.5% for standard curbed sections, >0.3% for curb and gutter sections ODOT HDM Minimum Cross Slope 2.0% ODOT HDM Maximum Superelevation 12% ODOT HDM Minimum Lane Widths Travel Lane Shoulder Sidewalk 14 feet 6 feet Right Shoulder (8’ with barrier) 2 feet Left Shoulder (4’ with barrier) 6 feet ODOT HDM Radius 36o 00’ (159.15 feet) with maximum superelevation. ODOT HDM Spirals 200 feet ODOT HDM Side slopes Cut Fill 2:1 Max 3:1 Max (with Guardrail) / 4:1 Max (without Guardrail) ODOT HDM Note: For at-grade intersections and roundabouts, the standards of the ODOT HDM, Section 9 will apply. Table A-13. Highway 43 Interchange/Intersection Design Standards.