chapter 3: bottlenecks and solutions - oregon.gov · chapter 3: bottlenecks and solutions ......
TRANSCRIPT
Final Working Draft Project Atlas Chapter 3: Bottlenecks and Solutions
Corridor Bottleneck Operations Study for I‐5, I‐205, I‐84, I‐405, and US 26 Page | 3‐1
CHAPTER 3: BOTTLENECKS AND SOLUTIONS
Final Working Draft Project Atlas Chapter 3: Bottlenecks and Solutions
Corridor Bottleneck Operations Study for I‐5, I‐205, I‐84, I‐405, and US 26 Page | 3‐2
This page intentionally left blank.
Final Working Draft Project Atlas Chapter 3: Bottlenecks and Solutions
Corridor Bottleneck Operations Study for I‐5, I‐205, I‐84, I‐405, and US 26 Page | 3‐3
Chapter 3: Bottlenecks and Solutions The main purpose of the CBOS project is to identify bottlenecks and develop potential project solutions to address the safety and operational problems. Chapter 3 provides a general overview of that process. The first step is to locate the bottlenecks and the second step is to develop solutions to address safety and operational issues.
3.1 CBOS Purpose The purpose of the Corridor Bottleneck Operational Study (CBOS) is to identify bottlenecks and develop potential project solutions to address the safety and operational problems. CBOS is a new approach to identify and analyze safety‐spot improvements. This approach is the trend for state and federal to seek
to address safety issues. operational and low‐cost “fixes” at spot‐specific locations
FHWA Localized Bottleneck Reduction (LBR) Program
ODOT’s CBOS is in response to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and SAFETEA‐LU work with the Localized Bottleneck Reduction (LBR) Program. The LBR Program is targeted at point‐specific locations (e.g., ramps, lane squeezes, weave areas, abrupt changes in highway alignments, etc) or small corridors of delay, as opposed to larger "mega‐projects" or systemic congestion. Systemic congestion is often analogous to entire corridors or regional congestion; a situation that is far and above the focus of this program area. The LBR Program focuses on recurring bottlenecks; i.e., those that are operationally
function, and impacted upon by excessive traffic demand. influenced by design or
Recurring Bottlenecks
CBOS is not a corridor‐level analysis to develop a project to add capacity to the freeway system. Its purpose is to address site‐specific recurring bottlenecks to reduce the conflicts (weaving, merging or drop lanes) and allow for a more stable flow of traffic at problematic interchanges. Every one of the bottlenecks identified in CBOS occurs at a freeway interchange as vehicles enter or leave the mainline. Therefore, improvements are designed to reduce the amount of conflicts with the mainline traffic. The addition of an auxiliary lane will allow for the weaving and merging occurring in a separate lane and not on the mainline. The result is a smoother flow of through traffic on the mainline. Recent ODOT safety analysis has indicated that by adding auxiliary lanes in weave/merge sections of freeways the crash rates will be reduced by nearly 30%.
Safety and Operational Improvements
The focus of the CBOS is on relieving recurring congestion chokepoints (as opposed to nonrecurring congestion cause) and the operational influences that cause them. Widening, lengthening or restriping these problem areas to unclog them can often be done with a lower cost, less intensive “footprint.” These safety improvements will not provide long‐term capacity relief to congestion problems, but they will improve safety at the time of their construction and, over time, the bottleneck location will continue to operate more safely.
Why ODOT Builds Auxiliary Lanes
Another expected benefit of freeway mainline improvements is that the frequency of crashes will be reduced. This is considered a key element of any proposed concept since the existing weaving distances are short and crash rates are high, and freeway collisions create significant costs to society in terms of safety, delay, and reliability.
To help quantify and compare the potential benefits of auxiliary lanes, ODOT prepared a before‐and‐after study of similar improvements in the Portland metropolitan area. ODOT investigated two urban sites in Region 1 where an auxiliary lane was built within the last 20 years. The data show the safety benefits of reducing the intensity of weaving activity on the freeway mainline. An auxiliary lane improvement by itself may reduce crashes about 30% to 70%, depending on how long the lane is and how many interchanges it connects.
Comparison of Annual Average Mainline Crashes Before and After Improvements
Improvement Type Comparable Improvement Before After Reduction
Short Auxiliary Section I‐205 Southbound at Sunnyside Road Interchange
12 8 32%
Long Auxiliary Section
(Across multiple interchanges)
US 26 Eastbound, Cornell Road to OR 217 37 10 73%
Auxiliary lanes at interchanges help improve of the ramp area safety by separating slower traffic by allowing merging traffic to adjust to the proper speed before merging into traffic. The reduced interference ay. decrease the possibly of conflicts that may congest the freew
3.2 Common Causes and General Locations of Bottlenecks Previous traditional transportation solutions for freeway congestion bottlenecks were large‐scale extensive, corridor‐wide mega‐projects. The recent economic downturn has resulted in a re‐evaluation of developing congestion relief. Transportation agencies are now looking to understand and identify specific causes of freeway bottlenecks and develop the “best fit” solution to address congestion and safety concerns.
Recurring, localized bottlenecks occur any time the rate of approaching traffic is greater than the rate of departing traffic. The causal effect can usually be attributed to the existence of at least one of two factors:
• Decision Points, such as entrance and exit‐ramps, merge areas, weave areas, and lane drops; or • Physical Constraints, such as curves, underpasses, narrow structures, or absence of shoulders.
Figure 3‐1 provides a summary of common locations for bottlenecks. The common causes for bottlenecks are illustrated in Figure 3‐12. This figure indicates that the major causes are related to decision point characteristic.
Final Working Draft Project Atlas Chapter 3: Bottlenecks and Solutions
Figure 31: Common Locations for Localized Bottlenecks
Corridor Bottleneck Operations Study for I‐5, I‐205, I‐84, I‐405, and US 26 Page | 3‐4
Source: Richard A. Margiotta, Federal Highway Administration; Recurring Traffic Bottlenecks: A Primer ‐ Focus on Low Cost Operational Improvements (April 2012).
3.3 What and Where Are the Bottlenecks? Based on the review of Bottleneck Operations Detail Figures including PORTAL data, ODOT cameras, and field travel time data, thirty‐six (36) bottlenecks are identified along the I‐5, I‐205, I‐84, I‐405, and US 26 corridors. The study corridor bottlenecks are classified by direction, time of day (AM Peak or PM Peak), and location. A description of the contributing factors is also included.
This information, as well as the frequency of crashes (identified by milepost) and PORTAL loop locations, is summarized graphically in the Bottleneck Operations Detail Figures, while more detailed analyses and findings are presented in Technical Memorandum 3, which is included in Appendix A.
I5 Corridor Bottleneck Operational Detail Findings
A total of seven (7) bottlenecks locations are identified within the I‐5 study corridor; three bottlenecks are in the northbound direction and four in the southbound direction. These bottlenecks are illustrated in Figure 3‐2 and Figure 3‐3. Bottleneck numbers B‐3 and B‐7 have been removed. B‐3, a southbound auxiliary lane was built in 2011 and for B‐7 a northbound auxiliary lane was built in 2010.
I205 Corridor Bottleneck Operational Detail Findings
A total of twelve (12) bottleneck locations are identified within the I‐205 study corridor; six bottlenecks are in the northbound direction and six in the southbound direction. These bottlenecks are illustrated in Figure 3‐4 and Figure 3‐5.
I84 Corridor Bottleneck Operational Detail Findings
A total of seven (7) bottleneck locations are identified within the I‐84 study corridor; three bottlenecks are in the eastbound direction and four in the westbound direction. These bottlenecks are illustrated in Figure 3‐6 and Figure 3‐7.
I405 Corridor Bottleneck Operational Detail Findings
A total of four (4) bottleneck locations are identified within the I‐405 study corridor; one bottleneck is in the northbound direction and three in the southbound direction. These bottlenecks are illustrated in Figure 3‐8 and Figure 3‐9.
US 26 Corridor Bottleneck Operational Detail Findings
A total of six (6) bottleneck locations are identified within the US 26 study corridor; five in the eastbound direction and one in the westbound direction. These bottlenecks are illustrated in Figures 3‐10 and
re Figu 3‐11.
3.4 Region Bottleneck Summary Figure 3‐12 illustrates the Regional Bottleneck Summary based on the analysis of the corridor bottleneck operational detail findings and the fatal flaw screening process.
DRAFT Project Atlas
Chapter 3: Bottlenecks and Solutions
Corridor Bottleneck Operations Study for I-5, I-205, I-84, I-405, and US 26 Page | 3-5
Co
rrid
or
Bo
ttle
ne
ck
Op
era
tio
ns
I-5 N
ort
hb
ou
nd
Bo
ttle
neck D
eta
ils
I-5
No
rth
bo
un
d
LE
GE
ND
Fig
ure
3-2
* N
OTE
: Qu
euin
g ex
ten
ds
fro
m d
ow
nst
ream
/ad
jace
nt
corr
ido
rs a
nd
imp
acts
mai
nlin
e o
per
atio
ns.
PM
Da
ta c
olle
cte
dfr
om
PO
RT
AL
we
bsite
Data
co
llecte
d fro
m tra
ve
l tim
e r
un
s
Info
rma
tio
n fro
m O
DO
T
Info
rma
tio
n fro
m o
bse
rva
tio
ns
Data
co
llecte
d fro
m tra
ffic
ca
me
ras
an
d/o
r tr
ave
l tim
e v
ide
os
0 -
19
Cra
sh
es
20
-3
9 C
rash
es
40
-5
9 C
rash
es
60
-7
9 C
rash
es
> 8
0 C
rash
es
To
tal cra
sh
es fro
m 2
00
4 th
rou
gh
20
08
*
PM
I-5
: B
33
AM
1
2I-
5:
B2
I-5
: B
1
I-5
: B1
. Te
rwill
ige
r B
ou
leva
rd O
N R
amp
(A
M &
PM
)In
flu
ence
Are
a:
Terw
illig
er B
ou
leva
rd O
N R
amp
to
no
rth
of
Bar
bu
r B
ou
leva
rd O
N r
amp
(A
M)/
no
rth
of
Hai
nes
Str
eet
ON
ram
p (
PM
)C
on
ges
tio
n D
ura
tio
n:
4 h
ou
rs d
aily
(7
:15
-8:4
5 A
M a
nd
3:0
0-5
:30
PM
)C
on
trib
uti
ng
Fa
cto
rs:
Sho
rt a
ccel
erat
ion
lan
e, h
ori
zon
tal c
urv
atu
re, g
rad
e, h
igh
m
ain
line
and
ram
p v
olu
mes
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
Cra
shes
:R
ate:
0.5
0 p
er M
VM
T; F
req
uen
cy:
22
3 c
rash
esO
per
ati
on
s Su
mm
ary
:A
ctiv
ati
on
Are
a:
Terw
illig
er B
ou
leva
rd O
N R
amp
are
aSp
eed
:Du
rin
g th
e A
M b
ott
len
eck
acti
vati
on
sp
eed
s d
rop
as
low
as
25
mp
h
(AM
) an
d 2
0 m
ph
(P
M).
Vo
lum
e (2
00
7 A
vera
ge
Da
ily T
raff
ic (
AD
T)):
Mai
nlin
e: 6
5,8
00
; Ter
will
iger
ON
Ram
p:
8,2
90
Vo
lum
e (2
00
8 A
M P
eak
Ho
ur)
:Mai
nlin
e: 5
,80
0; T
erw
illig
er O
N R
amp
: 65
0V
olu
me
(20
08
PM
Pea
k H
ou
r):
Mai
nlin
e: 4
,75
0; T
erw
illig
er O
N R
amp
: 45
0D
ata
So
urc
es:
I-5
: B2
. Lo
we
r B
oo
ne
s Fe
rry
Ro
ad O
FF R
amp
(A
M)
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
:Lo
wer
Bo
on
es F
erry
Ro
ad O
FF R
amp
to
Nyb
erg
Stre
et O
FF R
amp
Co
ng
esti
on
Du
rati
on
:7
:15
-8:3
0 A
MC
on
trib
uti
ng
Fa
cto
rs:
Two
clo
sely
sp
aced
ON
Ram
ps
mer
gin
g in
to h
igh
th
rou
gh
mai
nlin
e vo
lum
eIn
flu
ence
Are
a C
rash
es:
Rat
e: 0
.94
per
MV
MT;
Fre
qu
ency
: 1
19
cra
shes
Op
era
tio
ns
Sum
ma
ry:
Act
iva
tio
n A
rea
:Bet
wee
n t
he
Low
er B
oo
nes
Fer
ry R
oad
OFF
Ram
p a
nd
th
eW
estb
ou
nd
Nyb
erg
St. O
N R
amp
Spee
d:B
ott
len
eck
acti
vati
on
sp
eed
s d
rop
as
low
as
30
mp
hV
olu
me
(20
07
AD
T):
Mai
nlin
e: 5
8,9
70
; Nyb
erg
St. O
N (
EB t
o N
B)
Ram
p: 1
1,4
40
;N
yber
g St
. ON
(W
B t
o N
B)
Ram
p: 7
,28
0; L
ow
er B
oo
nes
Fer
ry O
FF R
amp
: 12
,45
0V
olu
me
(20
08
AM
Pea
k H
ou
r):
Mai
nlin
e: 5
,00
0; N
yber
g St
. ON
(EB
to
NB
) R
amp
:1
,15
0; N
yber
g St
. ON
(W
B t
o N
B)
Ram
p: 1
,05
0; L
ow
er B
oo
nes
Fer
ry O
FF R
amp
: 1,0
00
Ob
serv
ati
on
s:Q
ueu
e st
arts
bet
wee
n t
he
Low
er B
oo
nes
Fer
ry R
oad
OFF
Ram
pan
d t
he
Wes
tbo
un
d N
yber
g St
. ON
ram
p;
ho
wev
er, t
he
end
of
the
qu
eue
isin
con
clu
sive
. Ob
serv
atio
ns
sugg
est
that
th
e q
ueu
e en
ds
bef
ore
th
e I-
20
5 O
NR
amp
.D
ata
Sou
rce
s:
I-5
: B3
. We
stb
ou
nd
Elli
gse
n R
oad
ON
Ram
p (
PM
) (S
olut
ion
for
B3 c
onst
ruct
ed in
201
1)In
flu
ence
Are
a:
Wes
tbo
un
d E
lligs
en R
oad
ON
Ram
p t
o s
ou
th o
f El
ligse
n R
oad
OFF
R
amp
Co
ng
esti
on
Du
rati
on
: P
MC
on
trib
uti
ng
Fa
cto
rs:T
wo
clo
sely
sp
aced
ON
Ram
ps
mer
gin
g in
to h
igh
th
rou
gh
mai
nlin
e vo
lum
eIn
flu
ence
Are
a C
rash
es:R
ate:
0.2
2 p
er M
VM
T; F
req
uen
cy:
59
cra
shes
Op
era
tio
ns
Sum
ma
ry:
Act
iva
tio
n A
rea
:Bet
wee
n t
he
wes
tbo
un
d E
lligs
en R
oad
ON
Ram
p a
nd
th
e El
ligse
n R
oad
OFF
Ram
pSp
eed
:Bo
ttle
nec
k ac
tiva
tio
n s
pee
ds
dro
p a
s lo
w a
s 3
0 m
ph
.V
olu
me
(20
07
AD
T):M
ain
line:
58
,03
0; E
lligs
on
ON
(EB
to
NB
) R
amp
: 4,6
40
;El
ligso
n O
N (
WB
to
NB
) R
amp
: 6,8
90
Vo
lum
e (2
00
8 P
M P
eak
Ho
ur)
:Mai
nlin
e: 4
,30
0; E
lligs
on
ON
(EB
to
NB
) R
amp
: 4
30
; Elli
gso
n O
N (
WB
to
NB
) R
amp
: 35
0O
bse
rva
tio
ns:
The
len
gth
of
qu
eue
is in
con
clu
sive
. P
OR
TAL
do
es n
ot
hav
e d
ata
for
this
ram
p lo
cati
on
an
d t
he
sin
gle
day
of
trav
el t
ime
dat
a d
oes
no
t re
flec
t a
red
uct
ion
in s
pee
d t
o o
r b
elo
w 3
5 m
ph
. Ho
wev
er, t
he
sin
gle
day
of
trav
el t
ime
dat
a w
as c
olle
cted
du
rin
g th
e m
on
th o
f M
arch
, no
t d
uri
ng
the
pea
k tr
affi
c m
on
th. A
lth
ou
gh t
he
PO
RTA
L d
ata
is li
mit
ed a
nd
a s
ingl
e d
ay o
f tr
avel
tim
e d
ata
do
es n
ot
sup
po
rt t
his
loca
tio
n a
s a
bo
ttle
nec
k, b
ased
on
nu
mer
ou
s in
dep
end
ent
ob
serv
atio
ns
and
gen
eral
dri
ver
per
cep
tio
n,
the
Staf
ford
Rd
. ON
Ram
p
loca
tio
n is
a q
ues
tio
nab
le s
ecti
on
of
no
rth
bo
un
d I-
5 w
hen
est
imat
ing
trav
el
tim
e t
hro
ugh
th
e ar
ea.
Dat
a So
urc
es:
Ta
ylo
rs F
err
y R
d.
OF
F
Capitol H
wy.
ON
(295.2
)
Spring G
ard
en S
t. O
N (
296.3
)
Multnom
ah B
lvd. O
N (
296.6
)
Terw
illig
er
Blv
d. O
FF
Te
rwill
iger
Blv
d. / B
rie
r P
l. O
N (
297.3
)
Corb
ett
Ave. O
FF
Macadam
Ave. O
FF
(299.7
)
Naito P
kw
y /
I-4
05 O
FF
Hain
es S
t. O
FF
Hw
y.
217 O
FF
Carm
an D
r. O
N (
291.4
)
Barb
ur
Blv
d. O
FF
Tru
ck R
oute
OF
F
Kru
se W
ay O
FF
Kru
se W
ay O
N (
292.2
)
Hain
es S
t. O
N (
293.2
)
Barb
ur
Blv
d. /
Tru
ck R
ou
te O
N (
293
.7)
Low
er
Boones F
err
y R
d. O
N (
290.5
)
EB
Nyberg
St.
ON
(289.4
)
Carm
an
Dr.
OF
F
WB
Nyb
erg
St.
ON
(2
89
.6)
I-205 O
N
Nyberg
St.
OF
F
Low
er
Boones F
err
y R
d. O
FF
WB
Elli
gsen R
d. O
N (
286.3
)
I-205 O
FF
Elli
gsen R
d. O
FF
Wils
onvill
e R
d.
ON
(283.9
)
EB
Elli
gse
n R
d.
/ S
taff
ord
Rd. O
N (
28
6.1
)
Wils
onvill
e R
d.
OF
F
AM
XX
X
(##
#.#
)
#
PO
RT
AL
Dete
cto
r L
oca
tio
n (
20
07
Data
Use
d)
PO
RT
AL
De
tecto
r L
oca
tio
n (
Mis
sin
g D
ata
)
M.P
. o
f O
N/O
FF
Ram
p G
ore
Po
int
Activa
tio
nR
an
ge
: T
his
is th
e s
eg
me
nt th
at co
nta
ins
the
sta
rt o
f a
ne
w/c
on
fou
nd
ing
bo
ttle
ne
ck (
this
do
es
no
t e
nco
mp
ass a
ll co
ng
estio
n)
Bo
ttle
ne
ck
Influ
en
ce
Are
a -
Cro
ss r
efe
ren
ce
# w
ith
d
ata
bo
xe
s a
bo
ve
Inco
nclu
siv
e B
ott
len
eck A
ctiva
tio
nR
an
ge
Influ
en
ce
d b
y a
bo
ttle
ne
ck o
uts
ide
of th
is s
tud
y a
rea
DRAFT Project Atlas
Chapter 3: Bottlenecks and Solutions
Corridor Bottleneck Operations Study for I-5, I-205, I-84, I-405, and US 26 Page | 3-6
Co
rrid
or
Bo
ttle
ne
ck
Op
era
tio
ns
I-5 S
ou
thb
ou
nd
Bo
ttle
neck D
eta
ils
I-5
So
uth
bo
un
d
LE
GE
ND
Fig
ure
3-3
* N
OTE
: Q
ueu
ing
exte
nd
s fr
om
do
wn
stre
am/a
dja
cen
t co
rrid
ors
an
d im
pac
ts m
ain
line
op
erat
ion
s.
I-5
: B4
. Ho
od
Ave
nu
e O
N R
amp
(P
M)
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
:Ho
od
Ave
nu
e O
N R
amp
to
No
rth
of
Stu
dy
Are
aC
on
ges
tio
n D
ura
tio
n:
2.7
5 h
ou
rs d
aily
(3
:30
-6:1
5 P
M)
Co
ntr
ibu
tin
g F
act
ors
:Sh
ort
acc
eler
atio
n la
ne,
hig
h m
ain
line
and
ram
p v
olu
mes
(I-
5/I
-40
5 t
raff
ic
mer
ge)
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
Cra
shes
:R
ate:
1.4
2 p
er M
VM
T; F
req
uen
cy:
50
cra
shes
; 1 F
atal
ity
Op
era
tio
ns
Sum
ma
ry:
Act
iva
tio
n R
an
ge:
The
Ho
od
Ave
nu
e O
N R
amp
are
aSp
eed
:B
ott
len
eck
acti
vati
on
sp
eed
s d
rop
as
low
as
10
mp
hV
olu
me
(20
07
AD
T):M
ain
line:
62
,04
0; H
oo
d O
N R
amp
: 8,9
20
Vo
lum
e (2
00
8 P
M P
eak
Ho
ur)
:M
ain
line:
5,0
50
; Ho
od
ON
Ram
p: 8
50
Da
ta S
ou
rces
:
I-5
: B5
. Car
man
Dri
ve L
ane
Dro
p (
PM
)In
flu
ence
Are
a:C
arm
an D
rive
Lan
e D
rop
to
so
uth
of
Hai
nes
Str
eet
ON
Ram
pC
on
ges
tio
n D
ura
tio
n:
2.2
5 h
ou
rs d
aily
(3
:30
-5:4
5 P
M)
Co
ntr
ibu
tin
g F
act
ors
:W
eave
sec
tio
n b
etw
een
Hw
y 2
17
/Kru
se W
ay O
N R
amp
an
d t
he
Car
man
D
rive
OFF
Ram
p, l
ane
dro
p b
etw
een
Car
man
Dri
ve O
FF R
amp
an
d C
arm
an D
rive
ON
Ram
p, d
rive
r b
ehav
ior
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
Cra
shes
:R
ate:
1.5
0 p
er M
VM
T; F
req
uen
cy:
30
8 c
rash
esO
per
ati
on
s Su
mm
ary
:A
ctiv
ati
on
Ra
ng
e:B
etw
een
th
e C
arm
an D
rive
lan
e d
rop
an
d t
he
Hw
y 2
17
/Kru
se W
ay O
N R
amp
Sp
eed
:B
ott
len
eck
acti
vati
on
sp
eed
s d
rop
as
low
as
10
mp
hV
olu
me
(20
07
AD
T):M
ain
line:
43
,89
0; H
wy
21
7/K
ruse
ON
Ram
p: 3
4,0
30
; Car
man
OFF
Ram
p:
8,1
20
Vo
lum
e (2
00
8 P
M P
eak
Ho
ur)
:M
ain
line:
3,7
70
; Hw
y 2
17
/Kru
se O
N R
amp
: 2,5
00
; Car
man
OFF
R
amp
: 64
0D
ata
So
urc
es:
I-5
: B6
. Nyb
erg
Str
ee
t O
FF R
amp
(P
M)
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
:Nyb
erg
Stre
et O
FF R
amp
to
Lo
wer
Bo
on
es F
erry
OFF
Ram
pC
on
ges
tio
n D
ura
tio
n:
2.5
ho
urs
dai
ly (
3:3
0-6
:00
PM
)C
on
trib
uti
ng
Fa
cto
rs:
Hig
h M
ain
line
and
wea
vin
g vo
lum
es b
etw
een
Nyb
erg
Stre
et O
FF R
amp
an
d
the
Low
er B
oo
nes
Fer
ry R
oad
ON
Ram
pIn
flu
ence
Are
a C
rash
es:
Rat
e: 2
.45
per
MV
MT;
Fre
qu
ency
: 3
07
cra
shes
; 1 F
atal
ity
Op
era
tio
ns
Sum
ma
ry:
Act
iva
tio
n R
an
ge:
Bet
wee
n N
yber
g St
reet
OFF
Ram
p a
nd
Lo
wer
Bo
on
es F
erry
Ro
ad O
N R
amp
. Sp
eed
:B
ott
len
eck
acti
vati
on
sp
eed
s d
rop
as
low
as
25
mp
h.
Vo
lum
e (2
00
7 A
DT)
:Mai
nlin
e: 6
4,4
30
; Lo
wer
Bo
on
es F
erry
ON
Ram
p: 1
0,9
80
; Nyb
erg
OFF
R
amp
: 17
,63
0V
olu
me
(20
08
PM
Pea
k H
ou
r):
Mai
nlin
e: 5
,40
0; L
ow
er B
oo
nes
Fer
ry O
N R
amp
: 1,2
00
; Nyb
erg
OFF
Ram
p: 1
,75
0D
ata
So
urc
es:
5
PM
4
PM
PM
PM
6 7
I-5:
I-5:
B5
I-5:
B6
I-5:
B7
I-5
: B7
. I-
20
5 O
N R
amp
(P
M)
(Sol
utio
n fo
r B7
con
stru
cted
in 2
010)
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
:I-2
05
ON
Ram
p t
o N
ort
h o
f I-
20
5 O
FF R
amp
Co
ng
esti
on
Du
rati
on
: P
MC
on
trib
uti
ng
Fa
cto
rs:M
erge
sec
tio
n f
or
I-2
05
ON
Ram
p, h
igh
mai
nlin
e an
d r
amp
vo
lum
esIn
flu
ence
Are
a C
rash
es:R
ate:
0.3
1 p
er M
VM
T; F
req
uen
cy:
29
cra
shes
Op
era
tio
ns
Sum
ma
ry:
Act
iva
tio
n R
an
ge:
The
I-2
05
ON
Ram
p a
rea.
Spee
d:
Inco
ncl
usi
veV
olu
me
(20
07
AD
T):M
ain
line:
46
,27
0; I
-20
5 O
N R
amp
: 20
,85
0V
olu
me
(20
08
PM
Pea
k H
ou
r):M
ain
line:
4,1
00
; I-2
05
ON
Ram
p: 1
,10
0D
ata
So
urc
es:
Naito P
kw
y. /
I-405 O
N
Capitol H
wy.
ON
(295.2
)
Te
rwill
iger
Blv
d. O
FF
Mu
ltn
om
ah
Blv
d. O
FF
Barb
ur
Ave. O
FF
(296.3
)
Hoo
d A
ve
. O
N (
29
9.3
)
Capitol H
wy.
OF
F
Tig
ard
/ N
ew
berg
/ 9
9W
OF
F
Tig
ard
/ N
ew
berg
/ 9
9W
ON
(293.4
)
Low
er
Boones F
err
y R
d. O
FF
Hain
es S
t. O
FF
Hain
es S
t. O
N (
293.1
)
Hw
y.
217 / K
ruse W
ay O
FF
Carm
an D
r. O
FF
Carm
an D
r. O
N (
291.3
)
Hw
y.
217 / K
ruse W
ay O
N
Nyb
erg
St.
OF
F
Low
er
Boones F
err
y
Rd. O
N (
290.4
)
Nyb
erg
St.
ON
(2
89
.4)
Sta
fford
Rd. / E
llig
sen R
d.
OF
F
I-2
05
ON
EB
Boones F
err
y R
d. O
N
Wils
onvill
e R
d.
OF
F
I-205 O
FF
WB
Elli
gsen R
d. O
N
Wils
onvill
e R
d.
ON
Data
co
llecte
dfr
om
PO
RT
AL
we
bsite
Data
co
llecte
d fro
m tra
ve
l tim
e r
un
s
Info
rma
tio
n fro
m O
DO
T
Info
rma
tio
n fro
m o
bse
rva
tio
ns
Da
ta c
olle
cte
d fro
m tra
ffic
ca
me
ras
an
d/o
r tr
ave
l tim
e v
ide
os
0 -
19
Cra
sh
es
20
-3
9 C
rash
es
40
-5
9 C
rash
es
60
-7
9 C
rash
es
> 8
0 C
rash
es
To
tal cra
sh
es fro
m 2
00
4 th
rou
gh
20
08
XX
X
(##
#.#
)
#
PO
RT
AL
Dete
cto
r L
oca
tio
n (
20
07
Data
Use
d)
PO
RT
AL
Dete
cto
r L
oca
tio
n (
Mis
sin
g D
ata
)
M.P
. o
f O
N/O
FF
Ram
p G
ore
Po
int
Activa
tio
nR
an
ge
: T
his
is th
e s
eg
me
nt th
at co
nta
ins
the
sta
rt o
f a
ne
w/c
on
fou
nd
ing
bo
ttle
ne
ck (
this
do
es
no
t e
nco
mp
ass a
ll co
ng
estio
n)
Bo
ttle
ne
ck
Influ
en
ce
Are
a -
Cro
ss r
efe
ren
ce
# w
ith
d
ata
bo
xe
s a
bo
ve
Inco
nclu
siv
e B
ott
len
eck A
ctiva
tio
nR
an
ge
Influ
en
ce
d b
y a
bo
ttle
ne
ck o
uts
ide
of th
is s
tud
y a
rea
Page | 3-7Corridor Bottleneck Operations Study for I-5, I-205, I-84, I-405, and US 26
Co
rrid
or
Bo
ttle
ne
ck
Op
era
tio
ns
I-205 N
ort
hb
ou
nd
Bo
ttle
neck D
eta
ils
I-2
05
No
rth
bo
un
d
LE
GE
ND
Fig
ure
3-4
DRAFT Project Atlas
Chapter 3: Bottlenecks and Solutions
I-20
5: B
4. D
ivis
ion
Str
eet
On
-ram
p a
nd
Hw
y 26
/Po
wel
l B
ou
leva
rd O
N R
amp
(A
M &
PM
)In
flu
ence
Are
a:
Hw
y 26
/Po
wel
l O
N (
AM
)/D
ivis
ion
ON
Ram
p (
PM
) to
no
rth
of
Hw
y 2
6/P
ow
ell/
Div
isio
n O
FF R
amp
Co
ng
esti
on
Du
rati
on
:2.
75 h
ou
rs d
aily
(7:
15-8
:15
AM
an
d 4
:30
-6:1
5 P
M)
Co
ntr
ibu
tin
g F
act
ors
:A
M b
ott
len
eck
is c
on
fin
ed t
o t
he
Hw
y 26
/Po
wel
l Bo
ule
vard
ON
Ram
p m
erge
. PM
bo
ttle
nec
k sp
ans
bo
th t
he
Div
isio
n
Ave
nu
e O
N R
amp
an
d H
wy
26/P
ow
ell
Bo
ule
vard
ON
Ram
p.
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
Cra
shes
:R
ate:
0.4
2 p
er M
VM
T; F
req
uen
cy:
83 c
rash
es; 1
Fat
alit
yO
per
ati
on
s Su
mm
ary
:A
ctiv
ati
on
Ra
ng
e:B
etw
een
Div
isio
n S
tree
t O
N R
amp
an
d H
igh
way
26/
Po
wel
l Bo
ule
vard
ON
Ram
pSp
eed
:B
ott
len
eck
acti
vati
on
sp
eed
s d
rop
as
low
as
15 m
ph
(A
M)
and
10
mp
h (
PM
)V
olu
me
(200
7 A
DT)
:Mai
nlin
e: 6
6,53
0; P
ow
ell O
N R
amp
: 9,
750;
Div
isio
n O
N R
amp
: 7,
89
0V
olu
me
(200
8 A
M P
eak
Ho
ur)
:M
ain
line:
5,0
50;
Po
wel
l ON
Ram
p:
820;
Div
isio
n O
N R
amp
: 52
0V
olu
me
(200
8 P
M P
eak
Ho
ur)
:M
ain
line:
4,5
50;
Po
wel
l ON
Ram
p:
730;
Div
isio
n O
N R
amp
: 5
70
Ob
serv
ati
on
s:A
M q
ueu
es a
re c
on
fin
ed t
o t
he
Hw
y 26
/Po
wel
l ON
Ram
p m
erge
po
int.
In
th
e A
M ,q
ueu
es r
eco
ver
no
rth
of
the
Hw
y26
/Po
wel
l /D
ivis
ion
OFF
Ram
p. P
M q
ueu
es o
ccu
r at
bo
th O
N R
amp
s (D
ivis
ion
an
d H
wy
26/P
ow
ell )
. Th
e co
mb
ined
qu
eue
end
s n
ort
ho
fH
wy
26/P
ow
ell B
ou
leva
rd/D
ivis
ion
Str
eet
OFF
Ram
p. C
amer
a o
bse
rvat
ion
s su
gges
t th
at t
he
bo
ttle
nec
k at
th
e H
wy
26
/Po
wel
l ON
R
amp
lin
gers
aft
er t
he
Div
isio
n S
t O
N R
amp
imp
rove
s.D
ata
So
urc
es:
X
* N
OTE
: Qu
euin
g ex
ten
ds
fro
m
do
wn
stre
am/a
dja
cen
t co
rrid
ors
an
d im
pac
ts m
ain
line
op
erat
ion
s.
I-20
5: B
2. C
olu
mb
ia B
ou
leva
rd/H
wy
30 O
FF R
amp
(P
M)
(IN
CO
NC
LUSI
VE)
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
:C
olu
mb
ia B
ou
leva
rd/H
wy
30 O
FF R
amp
Co
ng
esti
on
Du
rati
on
:In
con
clu
sive
dat
aC
on
trib
uti
ng
Fa
cto
rs:
Hig
h m
ain
line
and
ram
p v
olu
mes
co
mb
ined
wit
h lo
w-s
pee
d lo
op
OFF
Ram
p (
imm
edia
tely
aft
er
reco
very
fro
m I
-84
on
-ram
p m
erge
/slo
win
g) c
ause
s su
dd
en s
low
ing
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
Cra
shes
:R
ate:
0.2
8 p
er M
VM
T; F
req
uen
cy:
15 c
rash
esO
per
ati
on
s Su
mm
ary
:A
ctiv
ati
on
Ra
ng
e:Th
e C
olu
mb
ia B
ou
leva
rd/H
igh
way
30
OFF
Ram
p a
rea
Spee
d:
Bo
ttle
nec
k ac
tiva
tio
n s
pee
ds
dro
p a
s lo
w a
s 35
mp
hV
olu
me
(200
7 A
DT)
:M
ain
line:
71,
520;
Co
lum
bia
OFF
Ram
p:
14
,40
0V
olu
me
(200
8 P
M P
eak
Ho
ur)
:M
ain
line:
5,0
00;
Co
lum
bia
OFF
Ram
p:
80
0D
ata
So
urc
es:
I-20
5: B
3. W
estb
ou
nd
I-8
4 O
N R
amp
(P
M)
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
:W
estb
ou
nd
I-8
4 O
N R
amp
to
Glis
an O
N R
amp
Co
ng
esti
on
Du
rati
on
:5.
25 h
ou
rs d
aily
(6:
45-8
:30
AM
an
d 3
:00
-6:3
0 P
M)
Co
ntr
ibu
tin
g F
act
ors
:H
igh
mai
nlin
e an
d r
amp
vo
lum
es, c
lose
ly s
pac
ed O
N R
amp
s (m
erge
po
ints
) In
flu
ence
Are
a C
rash
es:
Rat
e: 0
.42
per
MV
MT;
Fre
qu
ency
: 5
7 c
rash
esO
per
ati
on
s Su
mm
ary
:A
ctiv
ati
on
Ra
ng
e:B
etw
een
wes
tbo
un
d I
-84
ON
Ram
p a
nd
eas
tbo
un
d I
-84
ON
Ram
pSp
eed
:B
ott
len
eck
acti
vati
on
sp
eed
s d
rop
as
low
as
30 m
ph
(A
M)
and
5 m
ph
(P
M)
Vo
lum
e (2
007
AD
T):
Mai
nlin
e: 6
0,22
0; S
B I-
84 O
N R
amp
: 1
5,4
80
Vo
lum
e (2
008
PM
Pea
k H
ou
r):
Mai
nlin
e: 4
,250
; SB
I-8
4 O
N R
amp
: 1
,05
0O
bse
rva
tio
ns:
Co
nge
stio
n in
th
e ri
ght
lan
e b
uild
s af
ter
the
EB I
-84
ON
Ram
p a
nd
sp
read
s a
cro
ss a
ll la
nes
at
the
WB
I-84
ON
Ram
p. W
hen
do
wn
stre
am c
on
gest
ion
is n
ot
pre
sen
t, f
ree
-flo
w s
pee
ds
resu
me
imm
edia
tely
aft
er
exit
ing
the
do
wn
stre
am h
ori
zon
tal c
urv
e.D
ata
So
urc
es:
I-205:
B1
2 3 4 5 61
I-205:
B4
I-205:
B5
I-205:
B6
I-2
05
: B
2
PM
PM
I-2
05
: B
3
PM
PM
PM
AM
AM
XXX
X
I-20
5: B
1. S
and
y B
ou
leva
rd/C
olu
mb
ia B
ou
leva
rd O
N R
amp
(P
M)
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
:Sa
nd
y B
ou
leva
rd/C
olu
mb
ia B
ou
leva
rd O
N R
amp
to
San
dy
Bo
ule
vard
OFF
Ram
p
Co
ng
esti
on
Du
rati
on
:3
ho
urs
dai
ly (
3:00
-6:3
0 P
M)
Co
ntr
ibu
tin
g F
act
ors
:H
igh
mai
nlin
e an
d r
amp
vo
lum
es, t
urb
ule
nce
fro
m s
low
loo
p-o
ff r
amp
at
Co
lum
bia
Bo
ule
vard
/Hw
y 30
OFF
Ram
p, a
nd
wea
vin
g b
etw
een
Co
lum
bia
San
dy
Bo
ule
vard
/Co
lum
bia
Bo
ule
vard
ON
Ram
p t
o W
B A
irp
ort
Way
OFF
R
amp
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
Cra
shes
:R
ate:
0.4
3 p
er M
VM
T; F
req
uen
cy:
39
cra
shes
; 1
Fata
lity
Op
era
tio
ns
Sum
ma
ry:
Act
iva
tio
n R
an
ge:
Bet
wee
n S
and
y B
ou
leva
rd/C
olu
mb
ia B
ou
leva
rd O
N R
amp
an
d t
he
WB
Air
po
rt W
ay O
FF R
amp
Spee
d:
Bo
ttle
nec
k ac
tiva
tio
n s
pee
ds
dro
p a
s lo
w a
s 20
mp
hV
olu
me
(200
7 A
DT)
:M
ain
line:
57,
120;
San
dy/
Co
lum
bia
ON
Ram
p:
11,2
30
Vo
lum
e (2
008
PM
Pea
k H
ou
r):
Mai
nlin
e: 4
,200
; Sa
nd
y/C
olu
mb
ia O
N R
amp
: 1
,40
0O
bse
rva
tio
ns:
Qu
euin
g/co
nge
stio
n e
xten
ds
fro
m n
ort
h o
f th
e st
ud
y ar
ea a
nd
is e
xace
rbat
ed a
t th
e Sa
nd
y B
ou
leva
rd/
Co
lum
bia
Bo
ule
vard
ON
Ram
p a
nd
acc
om
pan
yin
g w
eave
sec
tio
n (
San
dy/
Co
lum
bia
ON
to
Air
po
rt W
ay O
FF)
Da
ta S
ou
rces
:
I-20
5: B
5. F
ost
er R
oad
ON
Ram
p (
AM
& P
M)
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
:Fo
ster
Ro
ad O
N R
amp
to
so
uth
of
Joh
nso
n C
reek
ON
Ram
pC
on
ges
tio
n D
ura
tio
n:
4 h
ou
rs d
aily
(7:
00-8
:30
AM
an
d 3
:30
-6:0
0 P
M)
Co
ntr
ibu
tin
g F
act
ors
:B
oth
th
e A
M a
nd
PM
bo
ttle
nec
ks p
rop
agat
e fr
om
th
e Fo
ster
Ro
ad O
N R
amp
mer
ge,
hig
h m
ain
line
and
ram
p v
olu
mes
.In
flu
ence
Are
a C
rash
es:
Rat
e: 0
.26
per
MV
MT;
Fre
qu
ency
: 61
cra
shes
Op
era
tio
ns
Sum
ma
ry:
Act
iva
tio
n R
an
ge:
The
Fost
er R
oad
ON
Ram
p a
rea
Spee
d:
Bo
ttle
nec
k ac
tiva
tio
n s
pee
ds
dro
p a
s lo
w a
s 20
mp
h (
AM
an
d P
M)
Vo
lum
e (2
007
AD
T):M
ain
line:
61,
800;
Fo
ster
ON
Ram
p:
15,7
30V
olu
me
(200
8 A
M P
eak
Ho
ur)
:M
ain
line:
4,5
00;
Fost
er O
N R
amp
: 1,
200
Vo
lum
e (2
008
PM
Pea
k H
ou
r):
Mai
nlin
e: 4
,600
; Fo
ster
ON
Ram
p:
900
Da
ta S
ou
rces
:
I-20
5: B
6. S
un
nyb
roo
k R
oad
ON
Ram
p (
PM
)In
flu
ence
Are
a:
Sun
nys
ide
Ro
ad O
N R
amp
to
Milw
auki
e Ex
pre
ssw
ay/8
2nd
Dri
ve O
N R
amp
Co
ng
esti
on
Du
rati
on
:2.
25 h
ou
rs d
aily
(3:
45-6
:00
PM
)C
on
trib
uti
ng
Fa
cto
rs:
Hig
h m
ain
line
and
ram
p v
olu
mes
, beg
inn
ing
of
a w
eave
sec
tio
n c
ou
ple
d w
ith
an
oth
er c
lose
ly s
pac
ed O
N R
amp
.In
flu
ence
Are
a C
rash
es:
Rat
e: 0
.44
per
MV
MT;
Fre
qu
ency
: 51
cra
shes
Op
era
tio
ns
Sum
ma
ry:
Act
iva
tio
n R
an
ge:
Bet
wee
n S
un
nyb
roo
k B
ou
leva
rd O
N R
amp
an
d S
un
nyb
roo
k B
ou
leva
rd/S
un
nys
ide
Ro
ad O
FF R
amp
Spee
d:
Bo
ttle
nec
k ac
tiva
tio
n s
pee
ds
dro
p a
s lo
w a
s 30
mp
hV
olu
me
(200
7 A
DT)
:Mai
nlin
e: 4
9,85
0; S
un
nyb
roo
k O
N R
amp
: 1,
340;
Su
nn
ysid
e O
N R
amp
: 1
3,1
30
Vo
lum
e (2
008
PM
Pea
k H
ou
r):M
ain
line:
4,1
40;
Sun
nyb
roo
k O
N R
amp
: 11
0; S
un
nys
ide
ON
Ram
p:
10,0
90D
ata
So
urc
es:
I-5 N
B O
N
I-5 S
B O
N
Vie
w P
oin
t O
N
Vie
w P
oin
t O
FF
10th
St.
ON
(6.9
)
10th
St.
OF
F
Sta
fford
Rd. O
N (
3.6
)
Sta
fford
Rd. O
FF
Hw
y.
43 O
FF
S.B
. H
wy.
43 O
N (
8.8
)
Hw
y.
213 O
N (
10.3
)
Hw
y.
213 O
FF
99E
/ M
cLoughlin
Blv
d. O
N (
9.5
)
99E
/ M
cLoughlin
Blv
d. O
FF
N.B
. H
wy.
43 O
N (
9.0
)
Milw
aukie
Expre
ssw
ay /
82nd D
r. O
N (
13.6
)
Woodsto
ck B
lvd. O
FF
Milw
aukie
Expre
ssw
ay /
H
wy.
213 O
FF
Johnson C
reek B
lvd. O
N (
16.2
)
Johnson C
reek B
lvd. O
FF
Sunnysid
e R
d. O
N (
14.3
)
Sunnybro
ok / S
unnysid
e R
d.
OF
F
212 / 2
24 O
N (
12.9
)
212 / 2
24 O
FF
Gla
dsto
ne / 8
2nd D
r. O
FF
Gla
dsto
ne / 8
2nd D
r. O
N (
11.1
)
Sunnybro
ok R
d.
ON
(14.3
)
EB
I-8
4 O
FF
Glis
an S
t. O
FF
Wa
sh
ing
ton
St.
OF
F
Glis
an S
t. O
N (
21.1
)
WB
I-8
4 O
FF
Div
isio
n S
t. O
N (
19.8
)
Hw
y.
26 / P
ow
ell
Blv
d. / D
ivis
ion S
t. O
FF
Fo
ste
r R
d.
ON
(18.1
)
Hw
y.
26 / P
ow
ell
Blv
d. O
N (
19.4
)
EB
I-8
4 O
N
Colu
mbia
Blv
d. / H
wy.
30 O
FF
EB
Airport
Way O
FF
WB
Airport
Way O
FF
Sandy B
lvd. / C
olu
mbia
Blv
d. O
N (
23.4
)
Sandy B
lvd. / H
wy.
30 O
FF
WB
I-8
4 O
N
Airport
Way O
N
Data
co
llecte
dfr
om
PO
RT
AL
we
bsite
Data
co
llecte
d fro
m tra
ve
l tim
e r
un
s
Info
rma
tio
n fro
m O
DO
T
Info
rma
tio
n fro
m o
bse
rva
tio
ns
Data
co
llecte
d fro
m tra
ffic
ca
me
ras
an
d/o
r tr
ave
l tim
e v
ide
os
0 -
19
Cra
sh
es
20
-3
9 C
rash
es
40
-5
9 C
rash
es
60
-7
9 C
rash
es
> 8
0 C
rash
es
To
tal cra
sh
es fro
m 2
00
4 th
rou
gh
20
08
XX
X
(##
#.#
)
#
PO
RT
AL
De
tecto
r L
oca
tio
n (
20
07
Da
ta U
se
d)
PO
RT
AL
De
tecto
r L
oca
tio
n (
Mis
sin
g D
ata
)
M.P
. o
f O
N/O
FF
Ram
p G
ore
Po
int
Activa
tio
nR
an
ge
: T
his
is th
e s
eg
me
nt th
at co
nta
ins
the
sta
rt o
f a
ne
w/c
on
fou
nd
ing
bo
ttle
ne
ck (
this
do
es
no
t e
nco
mp
ass a
ll co
ng
estio
n)
Bo
ttle
ne
ck
Influ
en
ce
Are
a -
Cro
ss r
efe
ren
ce
# w
ith
d
ata
bo
xe
s a
bo
ve
Inco
nclu
siv
e B
ott
len
eck A
ctiva
tio
nR
an
ge
Influ
en
ce
d b
y a
bo
ttle
ne
ck o
uts
ide
of th
is s
tud
y a
rea
Page | 3-8Corridor Bottleneck Operations Study for I-5, I-205, I-84, I-405, and US 26
I-2
05
So
uth
bo
un
d
LE
GE
ND
Fig
ure
3-5
I-2
05
So
uth
bo
un
d B
ott
len
ec
k D
eta
ils
Co
rrid
or
Bo
ttle
ne
ck
Op
era
tio
ns
DRAFT Project Atlas
Chapter 3: Bottlenecks and Solutions
I-20
5: B
7. W
estb
ou
nd
I-8
4 O
FF R
amp
(A
M &
PM
)In
flu
ence
Are
a:
WB
I-84
OFF
Ram
p t
o H
wy
30/C
olu
mb
ia O
N R
amp
(A
M)/
East
bo
un
d A
irp
ort
Way
ON
Ram
p (
PM
)C
on
ges
tio
n D
ura
tio
n:
4.25
ho
urs
dai
ly (
8:00
-9:0
0 A
M a
nd
3:0
0-6
.15
PM
)C
on
trib
uti
ng
Fa
cto
rs:
The
wea
ve s
ecti
on
bet
wee
n t
he
WB
I-8
4 O
N R
amp
, WB
I-8
4 O
FF R
amp
an
d O
N R
amp
, as
wel
l as
hig
h m
ain
line
and
ram
p v
olu
mes
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
Cra
shes
:R
ate:
0.7
5 p
er M
VM
T; F
req
uen
cy:
24
7 c
rash
esO
per
ati
on
s Su
mm
ary
:A
ctiv
ati
on
Ra
ng
e:B
etw
een
Glis
an S
tree
t O
FF R
amp
an
d W
B I
-84
ON
Ram
pSp
eed
:B
ott
len
eck
acti
vati
on
sp
eed
s d
rop
as
low
as
5 m
ph
(A
M a
nd
PM
)V
olu
me
(200
7 A
DT)
:Mai
nlin
e: 7
4,47
0; W
B I
-84
ON
Ram
p:
15,1
40;
WB
I-8
4 O
FF R
amp
: 17
,200
; G
lisan
OFF
Ram
p:
10,6
40V
olu
me
(200
7 A
M P
eak
Ho
ur)
:M
ain
line:
4,4
30;
WB
I-8
4 O
N R
amp
: 1
,02
0;
WB
I-8
4 O
FF R
amp
: 1
,10
0;
Glis
an O
FF
Ram
p:
1,13
0V
olu
me
(200
8 P
M P
eak
Ho
ur)
:M
ain
line:
4,5
40;
WB
I-8
4 O
N R
amp
: 75
0;
WB
I-8
4 O
FF R
amp
: 98
0; G
lisan
OFF
Ram
p:
920
Da
ta S
ou
rces
:
7 8 9 11
12
10
I-20
5: B
8. S
tark
/Was
hin
gto
n S
tree
t O
N R
amp
(P
M)
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
:St
ark/
Was
hin
gto
n S
tree
t O
N R
amp
to
Glis
an S
tree
t O
FF R
amp
Co
ng
esti
on
Du
rati
on
:3.
25 h
ou
rs d
aily
(3:
00-6
:15
PM
)C
on
trib
uti
ng
Fa
cto
rs:
Clo
sely
sp
aced
ON
Ram
ps,
hig
h m
ain
line
and
ram
p v
olu
mes
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
Cra
shes
:R
ate:
1.1
2 p
er M
VM
T; F
req
uen
cy:
15
7 c
rash
es;
1 Fa
talit
yO
per
ati
on
s Su
mm
ary
:A
ctiv
ati
on
Ra
ng
e:B
etw
een
Sta
rk/W
ash
ingt
on
Str
eet
ON
Ram
p a
nd
EB
I-8
4 O
N R
amp
Spee
d:
Bo
ttle
nec
k ac
tiva
tio
n s
pee
ds
dro
p a
s lo
w a
s 10
mp
hV
olu
me
(200
7 A
DT)
:Mai
nlin
e: 4
6,63
0; E
B I
-84
ON
Ram
p: 1
8,16
0; G
lisan
ON
Ram
p:
9,72
0; S
tark
/Was
hin
gto
n O
NR
amp
: 11
,040
Vo
lum
e (2
008
PM
Pea
k H
ou
r):
Mai
nlin
e: 3
,390
; EB
I-8
4 O
N R
amp
: 1
,20
0;
Glis
an O
N R
amp
: 7
80
; St
ark/
Was
hin
gto
n
ON
Ram
p:
950
Da
ta S
ou
rces
:
I-20
5: B
9. H
wy
26/D
ivis
ion
Str
eet/
Po
wel
l B
ou
leva
rd O
FF R
amp
(P
M)
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
:H
wy
26/D
ivis
ion
Str
eet/
Po
wel
l Bo
ule
vard
OFF
Ram
p t
o S
tark
/Was
hin
gto
n S
tree
t O
N R
amp
Co
ng
esti
on
Du
rati
on
:3.
25 h
ou
rs d
aily
(3:
00-6
:15
PM
)C
on
trib
uti
ng
Fa
cto
rs:
Wea
ve s
egm
ent,
hig
h m
ain
line
and
ram
p v
olu
mes
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
Cra
shes
:R
ate:
0.9
7 p
er M
VM
T; F
req
uen
cy:
44
cra
shes
Op
era
tio
ns
Sum
ma
ry:
Act
iva
tio
n R
an
ge:
Bet
wee
n H
wy
26/D
ivis
ion
Str
eet/
Po
wel
l B
ou
leva
rd O
FF R
amp
an
d S
tark
/Was
hin
gto
n S
tree
t O
NR
amp
Spee
d:
Bo
ttle
nec
k ac
tiva
tio
n s
pee
ds
dro
p a
s lo
w a
s 25
mp
hV
olu
me
(200
7 A
DT)
:M
ain
line:
85,
540;
Div
isio
n/P
ow
ell/
US2
6 O
FF R
amp
: 22
,23
0V
olu
me
(200
8 P
M P
eak
Ho
ur)
:M
ain
line:
6,3
20;
Div
isio
n/P
ow
ell/
US2
6 O
FF R
amp
: 1
,35
0D
ata
So
urc
es:
I-20
5: B
10.
212/
224
ON
Ram
p (
PM
)In
flu
ence
Are
a:
212/
224
ON
Ram
p t
o M
ilwau
kie
Exp
ress
way
/82
nd
Dri
ve O
N R
amp
Co
ng
esti
on
Du
rati
on
:1
ho
ur
dai
ly (
4:45
-5:4
5 P
M)
Co
ntr
ibu
tin
g F
act
ors
:H
igh
mai
nlin
e an
d r
amp
vo
lum
es, a
nd
tu
rbu
len
ce f
rom
up
stre
am la
ne
-dro
pIn
flu
ence
Are
a C
rash
es:
Rat
e: 0
.47
per
MV
MT;
Fre
qu
ency
: 11
4 cr
ash
esO
per
ati
on
s Su
mm
ary
:A
ctiv
ati
on
Ra
ng
e:Th
e 21
2/22
4 O
N R
amp
are
aSp
eed
:B
ott
len
eck
acti
vati
on
sp
eed
s d
rop
as
low
as
35 m
ph
Vo
lum
e (2
007
AD
T):
Mai
nlin
e: 5
8,12
0; 2
12/2
24 O
N R
amp
: 8
,68
0V
olu
me
(200
8 P
M P
eak
Ho
ur)
:M
ain
line:
4,5
80;
212/
224
ON
Ram
p:
650
Da
ta S
ou
rces
:
I-20
5: B
11.
99E/
McL
ou
ghlin
Bo
ule
vard
OFF
Ram
p (
AM
)In
flu
ence
Are
a:
99E/
McL
ou
ghlin
Bo
ule
vard
OFF
Ram
p t
o H
wy.
213
/Par
k P
lace
ON
Ram
pC
on
ges
tio
n D
ura
tio
n:
1.25
ho
urs
dai
ly (
7:15
-8:3
0 A
M)
Co
ntr
ibu
tin
g F
act
ors
:W
eave
seg
men
t, la
ne
dro
p a
nd
hig
h m
ain
line
and
ram
p v
olu
mes
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
Cra
shes
:R
ate:
0.4
7 p
er M
VM
T; F
req
uen
cy:
20
cra
shes
Op
era
tio
ns
Sum
ma
ry:
Act
iva
tio
n R
an
ge:
Bet
wee
n 9
9E/M
cLo
ugh
lin O
FF R
amp
an
d H
wy.
213/
Par
k P
lace
ON
Ram
pSp
eed
:B
ott
len
eck
acti
vati
on
sp
eed
s d
rop
as
low
as
20 m
ph
Vo
lum
e (2
007
AD
T):
Mai
nlin
e: 4
4,15
0; H
wy.
213
ON
Ram
p:
10,9
30
; 9
9E
OFF
Ram
p 1
3,2
30
Vo
lum
e (2
008
AM
Pea
k H
ou
r):
Mai
nlin
e: 3
,380
; H
wy.
213
ON
Ram
p: 7
30;
99E
OFF
Ram
p 7
20D
ata
So
urc
es:
XX
XX
XX
Glis
an S
t. O
FF
WB
Hw
y.
30 / N
E C
olu
mbia
OF
F
EB
I-8
4 O
FF
WB
I-8
4 O
N
Airport
Way O
FF
WB
Airport
Way O
N (
24.8
)
EB
Airport
Way O
N (
24.7
)
EB
Hw
y.
30 /
NE
Colu
mbia
OF
F
Hw
y.
30 / N
E C
olu
mbia
ON
(23.4
)
WB
I-8
4 O
FF
Milw
aukie
Expre
ssw
ay /
82nd D
r. O
N (
13.4
)
Hw
y.
26 / D
ivis
ion S
t. / P
ow
ell
Blv
d. O
FF
Fo
ste
r R
d.
OF
F
Woodsto
ck B
lvd. O
N (
17.5
)
Sunnysid
e R
d. O
FF
Milw
aukie
Expre
ssw
ay /
82nd D
r. O
FF
EB
I-8
4 O
N
Sta
rk/W
ashin
gto
n S
t. O
N
Div
isio
n S
t. O
N (
19.3
)
Hw
y.
26 / P
ow
ell
Blv
d. O
N (
18.9
)
Johnson C
reek B
lvd. O
FF
Su
nn
ysid
e R
d.
ON
(1
4.6
)
Su
nn
yb
roo
k R
d.
ON
(1
4.3
)
Glis
an S
t. O
N (
21.1
)
Johnson C
reek B
lvd. O
N (
16.2
)
Hw
y.
213 / P
ark
Pl. O
FF
WB
212 /
224 O
FF
EB
212 /
224 O
FF
212 / 2
24 O
N (
12.7
)
Gla
dsto
ne / 8
2nd D
r. O
N (
11.1
)
Gla
dsto
ne / 8
2nd D
r. O
FF
Hw
y.
213 / P
ark
Pl. O
N (
10.2
)
99E
/ M
cLoughlin
Blv
d. O
FF
99E
/ M
cLoughlin
Blv
d. O
N (
9.3
)
I-5 N
B O
FF
I-5 S
B O
FF
Hw
y.
43 O
FF
Hw
y.
43 O
N (
8.5
)
10th
St.
/ W
est Lin
n O
FF
10th
St.
/ W
est Lin
n O
N (
6.1
)
Sta
fford
Rd. O
FF
Sta
fford
Rd. O
N (
2.9
)
I-205:
B9
PM
AM
PM
PM
I-2
05
: B
7
I-205:
B8 P
M
I-205:
B1
0
AM
I-205:
B11 A
M
I-2
05
: B
12
Da
ta c
olle
cte
dfr
om
PO
RT
AL
we
bsite
Da
ta c
olle
cte
d fro
m tra
ve
l tim
e r
un
s
Info
rma
tio
n fro
m O
DO
T
Info
rma
tio
n fro
m o
bse
rva
tio
ns
Data
co
llecte
d fro
m tra
ffic
ca
me
ras
an
d/o
r tr
ave
l tim
e v
ide
os
0 -
19
Cra
sh
es
20
-3
9 C
rash
es
40
-5
9 C
rash
es
60
-7
9 C
rash
es
> 8
0 C
rash
es
To
tal cra
sh
es fro
m 2
00
4 th
rou
gh
20
08
XX
X
(##
#.#
)
#
PO
RT
AL
Dete
cto
r L
oca
tio
n (
20
07
Data
Use
d)
PO
RT
AL
Dete
cto
r L
oca
tio
n (
Mis
sin
g D
ata
)
M.P
. o
f O
N/O
FF
Ra
mp
Go
re P
oin
t
Activa
tio
nR
an
ge
: T
his
is th
e s
eg
me
nt th
at co
nta
ins th
e
sta
rt o
f a
ne
w/c
on
fou
nd
ing
bo
ttle
ne
ck (
this
do
es n
ot
en
co
mp
ass a
ll co
ng
estio
n)
Bo
ttle
ne
ck
Influ
en
ce
Are
a -
Cro
ss r
efe
ren
ce
# w
ith
da
ta
bo
xe
s a
bo
ve
Inco
nclu
siv
e B
ott
len
eck A
ctiva
tio
nR
an
ge
Influ
en
ce
d b
y a
bo
ttle
ne
ck o
uts
ide
of th
is s
tud
y a
rea
I-20
5: B
12.
Hw
y. 4
3 O
FF R
amp
(A
M)
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
:H
wy.
43
OFF
Ram
p t
o 9
9E/M
cLo
ugh
lin B
ou
leva
rd O
FF R
amp
Co
ng
esti
on
Du
rati
on
:2
ho
urs
dai
ly (
6:30
-8:3
0 A
M)
Co
ntr
ibu
tin
g F
act
ors
:W
eave
seg
men
t o
n b
rid
ge,
and
hig
h m
ain
line
and
ram
p v
olu
mes
.In
flu
ence
Are
a C
rash
es:
Rat
e: 1
.03
per
MV
MT;
Fre
qu
ency
: 4
7 c
rash
esO
per
ati
on
s Su
mm
ary
:A
ctiv
ati
on
Ra
ng
e:B
etw
een
th
e H
wy
43 O
FF R
amp
an
d 9
9E/M
cLo
ugh
lin O
N R
amp
Spee
d:
Bo
ttle
nec
k ac
tiva
tio
n s
pee
ds
dro
p a
s lo
w a
s 30
mp
hV
olu
me
(200
7 A
DT)
:M
ain
line:
41,
850;
Hig
hw
ay 9
9E O
N R
amp
: 7
,16
0;
Hig
hw
ay 4
3 O
FF R
amp
: 9,
18
0V
olu
me
(200
8 A
M P
eak
Ho
ur)
:M
ain
line:
3,3
90;
Hw
y. 9
9E O
N R
amp
: 680
; H
wy.
43
OFF
Ram
p:
650
Ob
serv
ati
on
s:O
bse
rvat
ion
s sh
ow
Bo
ttle
nec
k #1
1 fo
rmin
g p
rio
r to
Bo
ttle
nec
k #1
2, i
nd
icat
ive
of
two
ind
epen
de
nt
bo
ttle
nec
ks.
Da
ta S
ou
rces
:
Corridor Bottleneck Operations Study for I-5, I-205, I-84, I-405, and US 26
DRAFT Project Atlas
Chapter 3: Bottlenecks and Solutions
Page | 3-9
I-8
4 E
astb
ou
nd
Fig
ure
3-6
Co
rrid
or
Bo
ttle
ne
ck
Op
era
tio
ns
I-8
4 E
as
tbo
un
d B
ott
len
ec
k D
eta
ils
LE
GE
ND
* N
OTE
: Q
ueu
ing
exte
nd
s fr
om
do
wn
stre
am/a
dja
cen
t co
rrid
ors
an
d im
pac
ts
mai
nlin
e o
per
atio
ns.
3
I-2
05
NB
/SB
ON
(M
P 7
.1)
Hals
ey S
t. O
FF
(M
P 5
.7)
102nd A
ve. O
FF
(M
P 6
.4)
82nd A
ve. O
FF
(M
P 5
.0)
I-5 S
B O
N (
MP
0.5
)
I-5 N
B O
N (
MP
0.1
)
16th
St.
/Irv
ing S
t. O
N (
MP
1.3
)
Gra
nd A
ve. O
N (
MP
0.7
)
33rd
Ave. O
FF
(M
P 2
.0)
39th
Ave. O
N (
MP
2.7
)
39th
Ave. O
FF
(M
P 2
.4)
Glis
an S
t. O
FF
(M
P 3
.5)
Will
ow
St.
ON
(M
P 3
.9)
68th
Ave. O
FF
(M
P 4
.1)
I-205 S
B O
FF
(M
P 5
.4)
I-205 N
B O
FF
(M
P 6
.3)
122nd A
ve. O
FF
(M
P 1
0.0
)
122nd A
ve. O
N (
MP
10.3
)
18
1st A
ve
. O
FF
(M
P 1
2.7
)
18
1st A
ve
ON
(M
P 1
3.3
)
Fa
irvie
w P
kw
y. O
FF
(M
P 1
4.2
)
Fa
irvie
w P
kw
y. O
N (
MP
14.8
)
238th
Dr.
OF
F (
MP
15.7
)
238th
Dr.
ON
(M
P 1
6.2
)
Tro
utd
ale
/Marin
e D
r. O
FF
(M
P 1
6.7
)
Tro
utd
ale
/257th
Ave. O
N (
MP
17.6
)
I-84 E
astb
ound
PM
I-8
4:
B2
PM
I-8
4:
B3
2
I-8
4:
B1
1
X $
*
*
I-8
4: B
2.I
-5 S
B/N
BM
erg
e (
PM
)In
flu
ence
Are
a:
Gra
nd
Ave
. ON
Ram
p t
o I-
5 N
B/S
B m
ain
lines
Co
ng
esti
on
Du
rati
on
: Ap
pro
xim
atel
y 4
ho
urs
dai
ly (
2:1
5-6
:30
PM
)C
on
trib
uti
ng
Fa
cto
rs:
Hig
h f
acili
ty-t
o-f
acili
ty r
amp
vo
lum
es. A
lth
ou
gh t
her
e is
an
ad
d la
ne
for
the
ON
ram
p f
rom
I-5
SB
, th
e ac
tiva
tio
n a
rea
acts
as
a m
erge
as
veh
icle
s re
po
siti
on
to
avo
id c
on
flic
t w
ith
th
e n
ext
clo
sely
sp
aced
ON
ram
ps.
In
flu
ence
Are
a C
rash
es:R
ate:
1.2
1 p
er M
VM
T; F
req
uen
cy:
88
cra
shes
Op
era
tio
ns
Sum
ma
ry:
Act
iva
tio
n R
an
ge:
Bet
wee
n G
ran
d A
ven
ue
ON
Ram
p a
nd
I-5
SB
/NB
mer
geSp
eed
:Bo
ttle
nec
k sp
eed
s d
rop
as
low
as
5 m
ph
Vo
lum
e (2
00
7 A
DT)
:Mai
nlin
e: 6
7,5
80
; I-5
SB
ON
Ram
p: 2
1,5
50
Vo
lum
e (2
00
8 P
M P
eak
Ho
ur)
:M
ain
line:
2,7
00
; I-5
SB
ON
Ram
p: 1
,30
0O
bse
rva
tio
ns:
Veh
icle
s co
min
g fr
om
th
e I-
5 s
ou
thb
ou
nd
ram
p m
erge
left
ver
y q
uic
kly
on
ce o
n I-
84
mai
nlin
e to
avo
id c
on
flic
tin
g w
ith
th
e d
ow
nst
ream
Gra
nd
A
ven
ue
and
Irvi
ng
Stre
et O
N r
amp
veh
icle
s.D
ata
So
urc
es:
I-8
4: B
1.I
-5 S
B O
NR
amp
(A
M &
PM
)In
flu
ence
Are
a:
I-8
4 E
B m
ain
line
to I-
5 S
B m
ain
line
Co
ng
esti
on
Du
rati
on
: 12
ho
urs
or
mo
red
aily
(7
:00
AM
to
7:0
0 P
M)
Co
ntr
ibu
tin
g F
act
ors
:H
igh
ram
p d
eman
d.
Op
era
tio
ns
Sum
ma
ry:
Act
iva
tio
n R
an
ge:
Alo
ng
the
enti
re r
amp
Spee
d:R
amp
sp
eed
s d
rop
as
low
as
10
mp
h a
nd
are
on
ly a
s h
igh
as
35
mp
h
bet
wee
n 7
:00
AM
an
d 7
:00
PM
Vo
lum
e (2
00
7 A
DT)
:I-5
SB
to
I-8
4 E
B R
amp
: 21
,55
0V
olu
me
(20
08
AM
Pea
k H
ou
r):
I-5
SB
to
I-8
4 E
B R
amp
: 1,2
50
Vo
lum
e (2
00
8 P
M P
eak
Ho
ur)
:I-
5 S
B t
o I-
84
EB
Ram
p: 1
,30
0O
bse
rva
tio
ns:
Ram
p a
dvi
sory
sp
eed
po
sted
at
45
mp
hD
ata
So
urc
es:
$ N
OTE
: O
bse
rvat
ion
ssh
ow
ed c
on
gest
ion
em
anat
ing
fro
m t
he
16
th/I
rvin
g O
N
Ram
p a
rea
un
til t
he
ram
p m
eter
tu
rned
on
. O
nce
th
e ra
mp
met
er w
as o
n, n
o
furt
her
co
nge
stio
n w
as o
bse
rved
.
I-8
4: B
3. 3
9th
Ave
nu
e O
N R
amp
(P
M)
(IN
CO
NC
LUSI
VE)
In
flu
ence
Are
a:
39
th A
ve. O
N R
amp
to
I-5
NB
/SB
ON
Ram
p
Co
ng
esti
on
Du
rati
on
:In
con
clu
sive
dat
aC
on
trib
uti
ng
Fa
cto
rs:
Hig
h m
ain
line
and
mo
der
ate
ram
p v
olu
mes
. Sp
illb
ack
fro
m
do
wn
stre
am I-
20
5 c
on
gest
ion
(se
e I-
20
5 g
rap
hic
s, B
ott
len
ecks
3 a
nd
8).
In
flu
ence
Are
a C
rash
es:R
ate:
0.8
7 p
er M
VM
T; F
req
uen
cy:
34
7 c
rash
esO
per
ati
on
s Su
mm
ary
:A
ctiv
ati
on
Ra
ng
e:3
9th
Ave
ON
Ram
p m
erge
are
aSp
eed
:In
con
clu
sive
dat
aV
olu
me
(20
07
AD
T):M
ain
line:
70
,17
0; 3
9th
ON
Ram
p: 1
0,7
80
Vo
lum
e (2
00
8 P
M P
eak
Ho
ur)
:M
ain
line:
4,7
30
; 39
th O
N R
amp
: 57
0D
ata
So
urc
es:
AM
PM
XX
Da
ta c
olle
cte
dfr
om
PO
RT
AL
we
bsite
Da
ta c
olle
cte
d fro
m tra
ve
l tim
e r
un
s
Info
rma
tio
n fro
m O
DO
T
Info
rma
tio
n fro
m o
bse
rva
tio
ns
Da
ta c
olle
cte
d fro
m tra
ffic
ca
me
ras
an
d/o
r tr
ave
l tim
e v
ide
os
0 -
19
Cra
sh
es
20
-3
9 C
rash
es
40
-5
9 C
rash
es
60
-7
9 C
rash
es
> 8
0 C
rash
es
To
tal cra
sh
es fro
m 2
00
4 th
rou
gh
20
08
XX
X
(##
#.#
)
#
PO
RT
AL
Dete
cto
r L
oca
tio
n (
20
07
Data
Use
d)
PO
RT
AL
Dete
cto
r L
oca
tio
n (
Mis
sin
g D
ata
)
M.P
. o
f O
N/O
FF
Ram
p G
ore
Po
int
Activa
tio
nR
an
ge
: T
his
is th
e s
eg
me
nt th
at co
nta
ins
the
sta
rt o
f a
ne
w/c
on
fou
nd
ing
bo
ttle
ne
ck (
this
do
es
no
t e
nco
mp
ass a
ll co
ng
estio
n)
Bo
ttle
ne
ck
Influ
en
ce
Are
a -
Cro
ss r
efe
ren
ce
# w
ith
d
ata
bo
xe
s a
bo
ve
Inco
nclu
siv
e B
ott
len
eck A
ctiva
tio
nR
an
ge
Influ
en
ce
d b
y a
bo
ttle
ne
ck o
uts
ide
of th
is s
tud
y a
rea
Corridor Bottleneck Operations Study for I-5, I-205, I-84, I-405, and US 26
DRAFT Project Atlas
Chapter 3: Bottlenecks and Solutions
Page | 3-10
I-8
4 W
est
bo
un
d
Fig
ure
3-7
Co
rrid
or
Bo
ttle
ne
ck
Op
era
tio
ns
I-84 W
estb
ou
nd
Bo
ttle
neck D
eta
ils
LE
GE
ND
I-8
4: B
4.I
-5 D
ive
rge
(A
M &
PM
)In
flu
ence
Are
a: I
-5 M
ain
line
to
33
rd A
ven
ue
ON
Ram
p (
AM
)/G
lisan
Str
eet
ON
Ram
p (
PM
) C
on
ges
tio
n D
ura
tio
n:
8+
ho
urs
dai
ly (
6:0
0-1
0:3
0 A
M; 3
:00
-7:0
0+
PM
)C
on
trib
uti
ng
Fa
cto
rs:
Hig
h m
ain
line
and
ram
p v
olu
mes
, ho
rizo
nta
l an
d v
erti
cal c
urv
atu
re,
un
clea
r ad
van
ced
sig
nag
e.In
flu
ence
Are
a C
rash
es:
AM
infl
uen
ce a
rea
rate
: 0.7
1 p
er M
VM
T, F
req
uen
cy:
99
cra
shes
; P
M
infl
uen
ce a
rea
rate
: 0
.85
per
MV
MT,
Fre
qu
ency
: 3
91
cra
shes
O
per
ati
on
s Su
mm
ary
:A
ctiv
ati
on
Ra
ng
e:Th
e I-
84
div
erge
are
aSp
eed
:Bo
ttle
nec
k sp
eed
s d
rop
as
low
as
20
mp
hV
olu
me
(20
07
AD
T):M
ain
line:
75
,66
0; t
o I
-5 N
B O
FF R
amp
: 21
,96
0; t
o R
ose
Qu
arte
r O
FF
Ram
p: 2
,86
0; t
o I
-5 S
B O
FF R
amp
: 50
,87
0V
olu
me
(20
08
AM
Pea
k H
ou
r):
Mai
nlin
e: 5
,60
0; t
o I
-5 N
B O
FF R
amp
: 2,0
70
; to
Ro
se Q
uar
ter
OFF
Ram
p: 2
30
; to
I-5
SB
OFF
Ram
p: 3
,30
0V
olu
me
(20
08
PM
Pea
k H
ou
r):
Mai
nlin
e: 4
,60
0; t
o I
-5 N
B O
FF R
amp
: 1,4
00
; to
Ro
se Q
uar
ter
OFF
Ram
p: 1
50
; to
I-5
SB
OFF
Ram
p: 3
,05
0D
ata
So
urc
es:
I-8
4: B
7.I
-20
5 S
B t
o I
-84
WB
Ram
p(I
NC
ON
CLU
SIV
E)In
flu
ence
Are
a: I
-20
5 S
B m
ain
line
toI-
84
WB
mai
nlin
eC
on
ges
tio
n D
ura
tio
n:
Inco
ncl
usi
ve d
ata
Co
ntr
ibu
tin
g F
act
ors
:H
igh
ram
p v
olu
me,
ho
rizo
nta
l cu
rvat
ure
see
I-2
05
gra
ph
ic, b
ott
len
eck
7).
Op
era
tio
ns
Sum
ma
ry:
Act
iva
tio
n R
an
ge:
Alo
ng
the
enti
re r
amp
Spee
d:I
nco
ncl
usi
ve d
ata
Vo
lum
e (2
00
7 A
DT)
:I-2
05
SB
to
I-8
4 W
B R
amp
: 17
,21
0V
olu
me
(20
08
AM
Pea
k H
ou
r):
I-2
05
SB
to
I-8
4 W
B R
amp
: 1,1
00
Da
ta S
ou
rces
:
I-8
4:B
6.G
lisan
ON
Ram
p (
AM
) (I
NC
ON
CLU
SIV
E)In
flu
ence
Are
a: G
lisan
ON
Ram
p t
o I-
20
5 S
B O
N R
amp
Co
ng
esti
on
Du
rati
on
: In
con
clu
sive
dat
aC
on
trib
uti
ng
Fa
cto
rs:
Hig
h m
ain
line
volu
mes
, lim
ited
sig
ht
dis
tan
ce f
or
mer
ge a
nd
do
wn
stre
am
ho
rizo
nta
l cu
rve,
ver
tica
l clim
b o
n r
amp
, an
d s
ho
rt O
N R
amp
acc
eler
atio
n la
ne.
In
flu
ence
Are
a C
rash
es:
Rat
e: 0
.49
per
MV
MT;
Fre
qu
ency
: 1
19
cra
shes
Op
era
tio
ns
Sum
ma
ry:
Act
iva
tio
n r
an
ge:
The
Glis
an O
N R
amp
are
aSp
eed
:In
con
clu
sive
dat
aV
olu
me
(20
07
AD
T):M
ain
line:
76
,51
0; G
lisan
ON
Ram
p: 7
,05
0V
olu
me
(20
08
AM
Pea
k H
ou
r):
Mai
nlin
e: 5
,45
0; G
lisan
ON
Ram
p: 4
50
Ob
serv
ati
on
s:D
uri
ng
the
revi
ew o
f th
e vi
deo
dat
a, it
was
no
tice
d t
hat
an
y sl
igh
t fr
icti
on
b
etw
een
mer
gin
g tr
affi
c an
d m
ain
line
traf
fic
(in
th
is a
rea)
co
uld
cau
se a
ll la
nes
to
su
dd
enly
sl
ow
in t
he
mer
ge a
rea.
It
is e
xpec
ted
th
at w
ith
slig
htl
y m
ore
mai
nlin
e vo
lum
e th
is a
rea
cou
ld
be
an in
dep
end
entl
y ac
tiva
ted
bo
ttle
nec
k.D
ata
So
urc
es:
I-8
4: B
5. 3
3rd
Ave
nu
e O
N R
amp
(A
M)
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
:33
rdA
ven
ue
ON
Ram
pto
58
th A
ven
ue/
Glis
an O
NR
amp
Co
ng
esti
on
Du
rati
on
: 4
ho
urs
dai
ly (
6:1
5-1
0:1
5 A
M)
Co
ntr
ibu
tin
g F
act
ors
:H
eavy
mai
nlin
e, a
uxi
liary
lan
e, a
nd
mo
der
ate
ram
p v
olu
mes
. Clo
sely
sp
aced
ON
Ram
ps,
do
wn
stre
am la
ne
dro
p/d
iver
ge, a
nd
ad
van
ced
sig
nag
e fo
r ab
ove
-men
tio
ned
b
ott
len
eck.
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
Cra
shes
:R
ate:
0.9
1 p
er M
VM
T; F
req
uen
cy:
29
2 c
rash
esO
per
ati
on
s Su
mm
ary
:A
ctiv
ati
on
Ra
ng
e:Th
e 3
3rd
Ave
nu
e O
N r
amp
are
aSp
eed
:Bo
ttle
nec
k sp
eed
s d
rop
as
low
as
15
mp
hV
olu
me
(20
07
AD
T):M
ain
line:
73
,91
0; S
and
y O
N R
amp
: 9,7
90
; 33
rd O
N R
amp
: 4,2
60
; Llo
yd
Cen
ter
OFF
Ram
p: 1
2,3
00
Vo
lum
e (2
00
8 A
M P
eak
Ho
ur)
:M
ain
line:
5,3
00
; San
dy
ON
Ram
p: 9
70
; 33
rd O
N R
amp
: 53
0;
Llo
yd C
ente
r O
FF R
amp
: 1,2
00
Ob
serv
ati
on
s:A
dva
nce
d s
ign
age
for
mai
nlin
e d
iver
ge is
po
ten
tial
ly m
isle
adin
g. A
dva
nce
d
sign
age
for
Llo
yd C
ente
r ex
it o
nly
lan
e ca
use
s ve
hic
les
com
ing
fro
m S
and
y O
N R
amp
an
d 3
3rd
O
N R
amp
to
mer
ge le
ft e
arly
an
d w
eave
wit
h m
ain
line
veh
icle
s d
esti
ned
to
Llo
yd C
ente
r O
FF
Ram
p.
Da
ta S
ou
rces
:
* N
OTE
: Q
ueu
ing
exte
nd
s fr
om
do
wn
stre
am/a
dja
cen
t co
rrid
ors
an
d im
pac
ts m
ain
line
op
erat
ion
s.
XX
X
I-2
05
NB
/SB
OF
F (
MP
7.2
)
10
2nd
Ave
. O
N (
MP
6.4
)
Hals
ey S
t. O
N (
MP
4.8
)
I-5 N
B O
FF
(M
P 0
.2)
I-5
SB
OF
F (
MP
0.1
)
Llo
yd C
ente
r O
FF
(M
P 1
.2)
Hals
ey S
t. O
FF
(M
P 3
.0)
Glis
an S
t. O
N (
MP
3.4
)
I-205 N
B O
N (
MP
5.2
)/G
lisan S
t. O
N
I-205 S
B O
N (
MP
5.5
)
181st A
ve. O
FF
(M
P 1
3.4
)
181st A
ve. O
N (
MP
12.7
)
207th
Ave./
Fa
irvie
w P
kw
y. O
FF
(M
P 1
4.7
)
20
7th
Ave
./F
airvie
w P
kw
y. O
N (
MP
14
.4)
238th
Dr.
OF
F (
MP
16.2
)
238th
Dr.
ON
(M
P 1
5.7
)
Marin
e D
r. O
N (
MP
16.7
)
Marine D
r. O
FF
(17.6
)
Sandy B
lvd. O
N (
MP
2.1
)
33rd
Ave. O
N (
MP
2.0
)
I-8
4 W
estb
ou
nd
PM
AM
I-8
4:
B4
I-8
4:
B7
I-8
4:
B5
AM
I-8
4:
B6A
M
4
5
6
PM
7
AM
**
*
Data
co
llecte
dfr
om
PO
RT
AL
we
bsite
Data
co
llecte
d fro
m tra
ve
l tim
e r
un
s
Info
rma
tio
n fro
m O
DO
T
Info
rma
tio
n fro
m o
bse
rva
tio
ns
Da
ta c
olle
cte
d fro
m tra
ffic
ca
me
ras
an
d/o
r tr
ave
l tim
e v
ide
os
0 -
19
Cra
sh
es
20
-3
9 C
rash
es
40
-5
9 C
rash
es
60
-7
9 C
rash
es
> 8
0 C
rash
es
To
tal cra
sh
es fro
m 2
00
4 th
rou
gh
20
08
XX
X
(##
#.#
)
#
PO
RT
AL
De
tecto
r L
oca
tio
n (
20
07
Da
ta U
se
d)
PO
RT
AL
De
tecto
r L
oca
tio
n (
Mis
sin
g D
ata
)
M.P
. o
f O
N/O
FF
Ra
mp
Go
re P
oin
t
Activa
tio
nR
an
ge
: T
his
is th
e s
eg
me
nt th
at co
nta
ins
the
sta
rt o
f a
ne
w/c
on
fou
nd
ing
bo
ttle
ne
ck (
this
do
es
no
t e
nco
mp
ass a
ll co
ng
estio
n)
Bo
ttle
ne
ck
Influ
en
ce
Are
a -
Cro
ss r
efe
ren
ce
# w
ith
da
ta
bo
xe
s a
bo
ve
Inco
nclu
siv
e B
ott
len
eck A
ctiva
tio
nR
an
ge
Influ
en
ce
d b
y a
bo
ttle
ne
ck o
uts
ide
of th
is s
tud
y a
rea
DRAFT Project Atlas
Chapter 3: Bottlenecks and Solutions
Page | 3-11Corridor Bottleneck Operations Study for I-5, I-205, I-84, I-405, and US 26
I-4
05
No
rth
bo
un
d
Fig
ure
3-8
Co
rrid
or
Bo
ttle
ne
ck
Op
era
tio
ns
I-405 N
ort
hb
ou
nd
Bo
ttle
neck D
eta
ils
LE
GE
ND
* N
OTE
: Q
ueu
ing
exte
nd
s fr
om
do
wn
stre
am/a
dja
cen
t co
rrid
ors
an
d im
pac
ts m
ain
line
op
erat
ion
s.
I-4
05
: B
1. U
S 2
6/1
2th
Ave
. (P
M)
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
: B
etw
een
US
26
/12
th A
ve. O
FF a
nd
I-5
SB
ON
Ram
p, i
n t
he
auxi
liary
lan
esC
on
ges
tio
n D
ura
tio
n:
Ap
pro
xim
atel
y3
ho
urs
dai
ly(3
:45
-6:3
0 P
M)
Co
ntr
ibu
tin
g F
act
ors
:H
igh
OFF
Ram
p v
olu
mes
, w
eavi
ng
volu
mes
, an
d c
lose
ly
spac
ed r
amp
s. O
FF R
amp
mer
ge t
o U
S 2
6 c
on
gest
ion
(se
e U
S 2
6 g
rap
hic
, B
ott
len
eck
4).
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
Cra
shes
:R
ate:
2.8
4 p
er M
VM
T; F
req
uen
cy:
19
5 c
rash
esO
per
ati
on
s Su
mm
ary
:A
ctiv
ati
on
Ra
ng
e: W
eave
are
a b
etw
een
6th
Ave
nu
e O
N r
amp
an
d U
S 2
6/1
2th
Ave
nu
e O
FF R
amp
Spee
d:B
ott
len
eck
acti
vati
on
sp
eed
s d
rop
as
low
as
5 m
ph
Vo
lum
e (2
00
7 A
DT)
:M
ain
line:
37
,72
0;
6th
ON
Ram
p: 2
1,8
30
; 1
2th
/US
26
O
FF R
amp
: 34
,98
0V
olu
me
(20
07
PM
Pea
k H
ou
r):
Mai
nlin
e: 3
,94
0;
6th
ON
Ram
p: 3
80
; 1
2th
/
U
S 2
6 O
FF R
amp
: 2
,38
0D
ata
So
urc
es:
Kir
by A
ve
. O
FF
(M
P 3
.7)
Salm
on S
t. O
FF
(M
P 1
.6)
4th
Ave. O
FF
(M
P 0
.8)
I-5 N
B O
N (
MP
0.0
)
6th
Ave. O
FF
(M
P 1
.0)
6th
Ave. O
N (
MP
1.2
)
US
26/1
2th
Ave. O
FF
(M
P 1
.3)
I-5
NB
OF
F (
MP
3.7
)
I-5 S
B/U
S 3
0 O
FF
(M
P 3
.6)
US
30 O
FF
(M
P 2
.8)
Glis
an S
t. O
N (
MP
2.6
)
Burn
sid
e S
t. O
N (
MP
2.5
)
14th
Ave. O
FF
(M
P 2
.1)
US
26 O
N (
MP
1.9
)
US
30 O
N (
MP
3.1
)
I-5
SB
ON
(M
P 0
.5)
Naito P
kw
y. O
ff (
MP
0.1
)
PM
I-4
05
: B
1
*
1
*
Da
ta c
olle
cte
dfr
om
PO
RT
AL
we
bsite
Da
ta c
olle
cte
d fro
m tra
ve
l tim
e r
un
s
Info
rma
tio
n fro
m O
DO
T
Info
rma
tio
n fro
m o
bse
rva
tio
ns
Data
co
llecte
d fro
m tra
ffic
ca
me
ras
an
d/o
r tr
ave
l tim
e v
ide
os
0 -
19
Cra
sh
es
20
-3
9 C
rash
es
40
-5
9 C
rash
es
60
-7
9 C
rash
es
> 8
0 C
rash
es
To
tal cra
sh
es fro
m 2
00
4 th
rou
gh
20
08
XX
X
(##
#.#
)
#
PO
RT
AL
De
tecto
r L
oca
tio
n (
20
07
Da
ta U
se
d)
PO
RT
AL
De
tecto
r L
oca
tio
n (
Mis
sin
g D
ata
)
M.P
. o
f O
N/O
FF
Ra
mp
Go
re P
oin
t
Activa
tio
nR
an
ge
: T
his
is th
e s
eg
me
nt th
at co
nta
ins th
e
sta
rt o
f a
ne
w/c
on
fou
nd
ing
bo
ttle
ne
ck (
this
do
es n
ot
en
co
mp
ass a
ll co
ng
estio
n)
Bo
ttle
ne
ck
Influ
en
ce
Are
a -
Cro
ss r
efe
ren
ce
# w
ith
d
ata
bo
xe
s a
bo
ve
Inco
nclu
siv
e B
ott
len
eck A
ctiva
tio
nR
an
ge
Influ
en
ce
d b
y a
bo
ttle
ne
ck o
uts
ide
of th
is s
tud
y a
rea
DRAFT Project Atlas
Chapter 3: Bottlenecks and Solutions
Page | 3-12Corridor Bottleneck Operations Study for I-5, I-205, I-84, I-405, and US 26
I-4
05
So
uth
bo
un
d
Fig
ure
3-9
Co
rrid
or
Bo
ttle
ne
ck
Op
era
tio
ns
I-405 S
ou
thb
ou
nd
Bo
ttle
neck D
eta
ils
LE
GE
ND
I-4
05
: B4
. US
26
ON
Ram
p t
o B
road
way
OFF
Ram
p W
eav
e (
PM
)In
flu
ence
Are
a:
Bet
wee
n B
road
way
Str
eet
OFF
Ram
p a
nd
US
26
OFF
Ram
pC
on
ges
tio
n D
ura
tio
n: 3
ho
urs
dai
ly(3
:30
-6:3
0 P
M)
Co
ntr
ibu
tin
g F
act
ors
:P
oo
r la
ne
uti
lizat
ion
wh
ile p
osi
tio
nin
g fo
r th
e B
road
way
OFF
R
amp
. B
road
way
OFF
Ram
p q
ueu
e (f
rom
loca
l str
eets
) b
acks
on
to I
-40
5 m
ain
line,
an
d h
igh
vo
lum
e w
eave
are
a (U
S 2
6 t
o I-
5 a
nd
I-4
05
to
Bro
adw
ay).
In
flu
ence
Are
a C
rash
es:R
ate:
0.7
3 p
er M
VM
T; F
req
uen
cy:
53
cra
shes
Op
era
tio
ns
Sum
ma
ry:
Act
iva
tio
n R
an
ge:
Bro
adw
ay O
FF R
amp
to
US
26
ON
Ram
pSp
eed
:Bo
ttle
nec
k sp
eed
s d
rop
as
low
as
5 m
ph
Vo
lum
e (2
00
7 A
DT)
:Mai
nlin
e: 2
7,7
40
; US
26
ON
Ram
p: 3
0,4
70
; Mo
ntg
om
ery
ON
R
amp
: 7,5
00
; Bro
adw
ay O
FF R
amp
: 20
,63
0V
olu
me
(20
07
PM
Pea
k H
ou
r):M
ain
line:
2,0
70
; US
26
ON
Ram
p: 1
,70
0;
Mo
ntg
om
ery
ON
Ram
p: 8
00
; Bro
adw
ay O
FF R
amp
: 1,6
20
Ob
serv
ati
on
s:Th
e q
ueu
e as
soci
ated
wit
h t
his
bo
x im
pac
ts o
per
atio
ns
on
eas
tbo
un
d
US
26
.D
ata
So
urc
es:
I-5 S
B O
N (
MP
3.7
)
I-5 N
B O
N (
MP
3.5
)
US
30 O
N (
MP
2.7
)
Evere
tt S
t. O
FF
(M
P 2
.6)
Cou
ch
St.
OF
F (
MP
2.5
)
Ta
ylo
r S
t. O
N (
MP
1.6
)
5th
Ave. O
N (
MP
0.8
)
I-5 N
B O
ff (
MP
0.5
)
Bro
adw
ay O
FF
(M
P 1
.3)
US
26 O
FF
(M
P 1
.9)
Evere
tt S
t. O
N (
MP
2.1
)
US
30 O
FF
(M
P 3
.0)
US
26 O
N (
MP
1.5
)
Bro
adw
ay O
N (
MP
1.0
)
Kir
by A
ve
. O
N (
MP
3.7
)
Montg
om
ery
St.
ON
(M
P 1
.4)
Naito P
kw
y. O
N (
MP
0.1
)
I-5 S
B O
ff (
MP
0.0
)
PM
PM
I-4
05
: B
3
I-4
05
: B
4
I-4
05
: B
2
PM
I-4
05
: B2
. US
30
ON
Ram
p (
PM
)In
flu
ence
Are
a:
Bet
wee
nU
S 3
0 O
N R
amp
an
d n
ort
ho
f U
S 3
0 O
FF R
amp
(o
n t
he
Frem
on
tB
rid
ge)
Co
ng
esti
on
Du
rati
on
: Ap
pro
xim
atel
y 3
ho
urs
dai
ly(3
:15
-6:0
0 P
M)
Co
ntr
ibu
tin
g F
act
ors
:P
oo
r la
ne
uti
lizat
ion
, hig
h U
S 3
0 O
N R
amp
vo
lum
e, a
nd
clo
sely
sp
aced
ram
ps.
In
flu
ence
Are
a C
rash
es:R
ate:
0.3
3 p
er M
VM
T; F
req
uen
cy:
16
cra
shes
Op
era
tio
ns
Sum
ma
ry:
Act
iva
tio
n R
an
ge:
US
30
ON
Ram
p a
rea
Spee
d:B
ott
len
eck
spee
ds
dro
p a
s lo
w a
s 5
mp
hV
olu
me
(20
07
AD
T):M
ain
line:
37
,17
0; U
S 3
0 O
N R
amp
: 18
,07
0V
olu
me
(20
07
PM
Pea
k H
ou
r):M
ain
line:
2,7
00
; US
30
ON
Ram
p: 1
,40
0D
ata
So
urc
es:
I-4
05
: B3
. Eve
rett
Stre
et
ON
Ram
p t
o U
S 2
6 O
FF R
amp
We
ave
(P
M)
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
: B
etw
een
US
26
OFF
Ram
p a
nd
US
30
ON
Ram
pC
on
ges
tio
n D
ura
tio
n: 3
ho
urs
dai
ly(3
:15
-6:1
5 P
M)
Co
ntr
ibu
tin
g F
act
ors
:P
oo
r la
ne
uti
lizat
ion
wh
ile p
osi
tio
nin
g fo
r U
S 2
6 O
FF R
amp
. H
igh
ram
p v
olu
mes
(Ev
eret
t St
reet
ON
Ram
p a
nd
US
26
OFF
Ram
p),
sh
ort
wea
vin
g d
ista
nce
, an
d c
lose
ly s
pac
ed r
amp
s. S
pill
bac
k fr
om
do
wn
stre
am U
S 2
6 c
on
gest
ion
(s
ee U
S 2
6 g
rap
hic
s, B
ott
len
eck
4).
In
flu
ence
Are
a C
rash
es:R
ate:
0.6
8 p
er M
VM
T; F
req
uen
cy:
48
cra
shes
Op
era
tio
ns
Sum
ma
ry:
Act
iva
tio
n R
an
ge:
US
26
OFF
Ram
p t
o C
ou
ch S
tree
t O
N R
amp
Sp
eed
:Bo
ttle
nec
k sp
eed
s d
rop
as
low
as
5 m
ph
Vo
lum
e (2
00
7 A
DT)
:Mai
nlin
e: 3
8,4
00
; Co
uch
OFF
Ram
p: 1
0,0
30
;Eve
rett
ON
Ram
p:
13
,97
0; U
S 2
6 O
FF R
amp
: 27
,03
0V
olu
me
(20
07
PM
Pea
k H
ou
r):M
ain
line:
3,7
30
; C
ou
ch O
FF R
amp
: 61
0; E
vere
tt O
N
Ram
p: 1
,15
0; U
S 2
6 O
FF R
amp
: 2,6
00
Ob
serv
ati
on
s:D
rive
rs f
rom
US
30
ON
Ram
p t
hat
des
ire
to c
on
tin
ue
sou
thb
ou
nd
on
I-
40
5 n
avig
ate
two
lan
e ch
ange
s: 1
. lan
e d
rop
at
Co
uch
Str
eet
OFF
Ram
p, w
hic
h
req
uir
es a
mer
ge in
to a
hig
hly
uti
lized
lan
e o
ccu
pie
d b
y ve
hic
les
des
tin
ed t
o U
S 2
6
OFF
Ram
p, a
nd
2. m
erge
into
an
un
con
gest
ed la
ne
(lef
t-m
ost
lan
e).
D
ata
So
urc
es:
2
3
* N
OTE
: Q
ueu
ing
exte
nd
s fr
om
do
wn
stre
am/a
dja
cen
t co
rrid
ors
an
d im
pac
ts m
ain
line
op
erat
ion
s.
*
4
*
*
Da
ta c
olle
cte
dfr
om
PO
RT
AL
we
bsite
Da
ta c
olle
cte
d fro
m tra
ve
l tim
e r
un
s
Info
rma
tio
n fro
m O
DO
T
Info
rma
tio
n fro
m o
bse
rva
tio
ns
Data
co
llecte
d fro
m tra
ffic
ca
me
ras
an
d/o
r tr
ave
l tim
e v
ide
os
0 -
19
Cra
sh
es
20
-3
9 C
rash
es
40
-5
9 C
rash
es
60
-7
9 C
rash
es
> 8
0 C
rash
es
To
tal cra
sh
es fro
m 2
00
4 th
rou
gh
20
08
XX
X
(##
#.#
)
#
PO
RT
AL
Dete
cto
r L
oca
tio
n (
20
07
Data
Use
d)
PO
RT
AL
De
tecto
r L
oca
tio
n (
Mis
sin
g D
ata
)
M.P
. o
f O
N/O
FF
Ram
p G
ore
Po
int
Activa
tio
nR
an
ge
: T
his
is th
e s
eg
me
nt th
at co
nta
ins th
e
sta
rt o
f a
ne
w/c
on
fou
nd
ing
bo
ttle
ne
ck (
this
do
es n
ot
en
co
mp
ass a
ll co
ng
estio
n)
Bo
ttle
ne
ck
Influ
en
ce
Are
a -
Cro
ss r
efe
ren
ce
# w
ith
d
ata
bo
xe
s a
bo
ve
Inco
nclu
siv
e B
ott
len
eck A
ctiva
tio
nR
an
ge
Influ
en
ce
d b
y a
bo
ttle
ne
ck o
uts
ide
of th
is s
tud
y a
rea
DRAFT Project Atlas
Chapter 3: Bottlenecks and Solutions
Page | 3-13Corridor Bottleneck Operations Study for I-5, I-205, I-84, I-405, and US 26
Co
rrid
or
Bo
ttle
ne
ck
Op
era
tio
ns
US
26
Ea
stb
ou
nd
Bo
ttle
ne
ck
De
tail
s
US
26
Eas
tbo
un
d
LE
GE
ND
Fig
ure
3-1
0
32
Weig
h S
tation O
FF
(M
P 5
3.9
)
185th
Ave. O
FF
(M
P 6
4.0
)
Gle
ncoe R
d. O
FF
(M
P 5
7.0
)
Mounta
indale
Rd. O
FF
/ON
(M
P 5
3.6
)
OR
6 O
N (
MP
53
.5)
Weig
h S
tatio
n O
N (
MP
54.3
)
Ders
ham
Rd. O
FF
(M
P 5
5.1
)
Ders
ham
Rd. O
N (
MP
55.4
)
Gle
ncoe R
d. O
N (
MP
57.4
)
Jackson S
chool R
d.
OF
F (
MP
58.4
)
Jackson S
chool R
d.
ON
(M
P 5
9.1
)
Helv
etia
Rd.
OF
F (
MP
60.9
)
Helv
etia
Rd.
ON
(M
P 6
1.4
)
Corn
eliu
s P
ass O
FF
(M
P 6
2.1
)
Corn
eliu
s P
ass S
B O
N (
MP
62
.3)
Corn
eliu
s P
ass N
B O
N (
MP
62.8
)
185th
Ave. S
B O
N (
MP
64.4
)
18
5th
Ave
. N
B O
N (
MP
64
.8)
Beth
any/C
orn
ell
OF
F (
MP
65.4
)
Beth
any/C
orn
ell
ON
(M
P 6
6.3
)
Murr
ay B
lvd. O
FF
(M
P 6
6.9
)
M
urr
ay B
lvd
. O
N (
MP
67
.5)
C
edar
Hill
s B
lvd. O
FF
(M
P 6
8.1
)
Cedar
Hill
s B
lvd. O
N (
MP
68.7
)
OR
217 O
FF
(M
P 6
9.0
)
OR
217/P
ark
way O
N (
MP
69.5
)
Ba
ltic
Ave
. O
FF
(M
P 6
9.2
)
Skylin
e/S
cholls
Fe
rry R
d. O
FF
(M
P 7
0.7
)
Skylin
e/S
ch
olls
Fe
rry R
d. O
N (
MP
71
.5)
Can
yo
n R
d.
ON
(M
P 7
1.2
)
Ore
gon Z
oo O
FF
(M
P 7
2.0
)
Ore
gon Z
oo O
N (
MP
72.4
)
Jeff
ers
on S
t. O
FF
(M
P 7
3.0
)
I-405 S
B O
FF
(M
P 7
3.9
)
I-405 N
B O
FF
(M
P 7
3.8
)M
ark
et S
t. / C
ity C
ente
r O
FF
(M
P 7
4.0
)
AM
US
26:
B2
US
26:
B3
PM
AM
AM
1U
S 2
6:
B1
PM
X4
5
*
US
26
: B4
. Ram
pto
I-4
05
So
uth
bo
un
d (A
M &
PM
)In
flu
ence
Are
a: I
-40
5m
ain
line
to U
S 2
6 m
ain
line
Co
ng
esti
on
Du
rati
on
: 8h
ou
rsd
aily
(6
:45
-10
:15
AM
; 3:0
0-7
:30
PM
) C
on
trib
uti
ng
Fa
cto
rs:H
igh
ram
p v
olu
me
(fac
ility
to
fac
ility
co
nn
ecti
on
). H
ori
zon
tal a
nd
ve
rtic
al c
urv
atu
re.
Sigh
t d
ista
nce
issu
es.
Op
era
tio
ns
Sum
ma
ry:
Act
iva
tio
n R
an
ge:
Alo
ng
the
enti
re r
amp
Spee
d:B
ott
len
eck
spee
ds
dro
p a
s lo
w a
s 5
mp
hV
olu
me
(20
07
AD
T):I
-40
5 S
B O
FF R
amp
: 30
,47
0
Vo
lum
e (2
00
8 A
M P
eak
Ho
ur)
:I-4
05
SB
OFF
Ram
p: 2
,00
0
Vo
lum
e (2
00
8 P
M P
eak
Ho
ur)
:I-4
05
SB
OFF
Ram
p: 1
,70
0
Da
ta S
ou
rces
:
US
26
: B3
. I-4
05
Po
siti
on
ing/
Cu
rve
s/Tu
nn
el (
AM
& P
M)
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
: I-4
05
Div
erge
to
Sky
line/
Sch
olls
Fer
ry O
N
Co
ng
esti
on
Du
rati
on
: 8h
ou
rsd
aily
(6
:45
-10
:15
AM
; 3:0
0-7
:30
PM
) C
on
trib
uti
ng
Fa
cto
rs:H
igh
mai
nlin
e vo
lum
es.
Hig
h r
amp
vo
lum
e (f
acili
ty-t
o-f
acili
ty
con
nec
tio
ns)
. Mai
nlin
e h
ori
zon
tal a
nd
ver
tica
l cu
rvat
ure
ap
pro
ach
ing
Vis
ta R
idge
tu
nn
el. 4
5
mp
h a
pp
roac
h s
ign
age.
No
lan
e ch
ange
s fr
om
bef
ore
tu
nn
el t
o d
iver
ges.
Sig
ht
dis
tan
ce
issu
es.
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
Cra
shes
:Rat
e: 2
.34
per
MV
MT;
Fre
qu
ency
: 84
9 c
rash
esO
per
ati
on
s Su
mm
ary
:A
ctiv
ati
on
Ra
ng
e:B
etw
een
I-4
05
div
erge
ram
ps
and
Jef
fers
on
Str
eet
OFF
Ram
pSp
eed
:Bo
ttle
nec
k sp
eed
s d
rop
as
low
as
15
mp
hV
olu
me
(20
07
AD
T):M
ain
line:
71
,26
0; I
-40
5 N
B O
FF R
amp
: 27
,62
0; M
arke
t O
FF R
amp
: 1
3,1
70
; I-4
05
SB
OFF
Ram
p: 3
0,4
70
V
olu
me
(20
08
AM
Pea
k H
ou
r):M
ain
line:
5,5
00
; I-4
05
NB
OFF
Ram
p: 2
,10
0; M
arke
t O
FF
Ram
p: 1
,40
0; I
-40
5 S
B O
FF R
amp
: 2,0
00
V
olu
me
(20
08
PM
Pea
k H
ou
r):M
ain
line:
4,8
00
; I-4
05
NB
OFF
Ram
p: 1
,80
0; M
arke
t O
FF
Ram
p: 1
,30
0; I
-40
5 S
B O
FF R
amp
: 1,7
00
O
bse
rva
tio
n: C
ente
r la
ne
slo
ws
du
e to
sp
eed
dif
fere
nti
als
wit
h r
igh
t an
d le
ft la
nes
.D
ata
So
urc
es:
US
26
: B2
. Sky
line
/Sch
olls
Fe
rry
ON
Ram
p (
AM
&P
M)
(IN
CO
NC
LUSI
VE)
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
: Bet
wee
n S
kylin
e O
N R
amp
an
d e
ith
er O
R 2
17
ON
lan
e d
rop
(A
M)
or
Ced
ar
Hill
s B
lvd
. ON
Ram
p (
PM
)C
on
ges
tio
n D
ura
tio
n: I
nco
ncl
usi
ved
ata
Co
ntr
ibu
tin
g F
act
ors
:Hig
h m
ain
line
and
ram
p v
olu
mes
, clo
sely
sp
aced
on
-ram
ps
(mer
ge
po
ints
) In
flu
ence
Are
a C
rash
es:A
M in
flu
ence
are
a ra
te: 1
.49
per
MV
MT,
Fre
qu
ency
: 22
2 c
rash
es; P
M
infl
uen
ce a
rea
rate
: 1.3
4 p
er M
VM
T, F
req
uen
cy: 4
11
cra
shes
O
per
ati
on
s Su
mm
ary
:A
ctiv
ati
on
Ra
ng
e:Sc
ho
lls F
erry
ON
Ram
p m
erge
are
aSp
eed
:Bo
ttle
nec
k sp
eed
s d
rop
as
low
as
15
mp
h (
AM
an
d P
M)
Vo
lum
e (2
00
7 A
DT)
:Mai
nlin
e: 6
7,3
60
; Sch
olls
Fer
ry O
N R
amp
: 7,1
00
V
olu
me
(20
08
AM
Pea
k H
ou
r):M
ain
line:
4,8
10
; Sch
olls
Fer
ry O
N R
amp
: 82
0
Vo
lum
e (2
00
8 P
M P
eak
Ho
ur)
:Mai
nlin
e: 4
,64
0; S
cho
lls F
erry
ON
Ram
p: 4
80
D
ata
So
urc
es:
US
26
:B1
. OR
21
7 O
n R
amp
(A
M)
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
: Bet
wee
n O
R 2
17
ON
lan
ed
rop
and
Ced
ar H
ills
Blv
d. O
N R
amp
Co
ng
esti
on
Du
rati
on
: 3 h
ou
rsd
aily
(7
:00
-10
:00
AM
)C
on
trib
uti
ng
Fa
cto
rs:H
igh
mai
nlin
e an
d r
amp
vo
lum
es.
Infl
uen
ce A
rea
Cra
shes
:Rat
e: 1
.23
per
MV
MT;
Fre
qu
ency
: 18
9 c
rash
esO
per
ati
on
s Su
mm
ary
:A
ctiv
ati
on
Ra
ng
e:B
etw
een
OR
21
7 la
ne
dro
p a
nd
OR
21
7 O
N R
amp
go
re p
oin
tSp
eed
:Bo
ttle
nec
k ac
tiva
tio
n s
pee
ds
dro
p a
s lo
w a
s 1
0 m
ph
(A
M)
Vo
lum
e (2
00
7 A
DT)
:Mai
nlin
e: 4
0,8
30
; OR
21
7 O
N R
amp
: 21
,40
0V
olu
me
(20
08
AM
Pea
k H
ou
r):M
ain
line:
3,1
90
; OR
21
7 O
N R
amp
: 1,3
00
Ob
serv
ati
on
s:So
me
mai
nlin
e d
rive
rs u
se t
he
lon
g O
R 2
17
ON
Ram
p a
ccel
erat
ion
lan
es t
o
byp
ass
the
mai
nlin
e q
ueu
e.D
ata
So
urc
es:
US
26
: B5
. Ram
pto
I-4
05
No
rth
bo
un
d (A
M &
PM
)In
flu
ence
Are
a: I
-40
5m
ain
line
to U
S 2
6 m
ain
line
Co
ng
esti
on
Du
rati
on
: 7h
ou
rsd
aily
(7
:00
-10
:00
AM
; 3:0
0-7
:00
PM
) C
on
trib
uti
ng
Fa
cto
rs:H
igh
ram
p v
olu
me
(fac
ility
-to
-fac
ility
co
nn
ecti
on
). H
ori
zon
tal a
nd
ve
rtic
al c
urv
atu
re.
Sigh
t d
ista
nce
issu
es.
Op
era
tio
ns
Sum
ma
ry:
Act
iva
tio
n R
an
ge:
Alo
ng
the
enti
re r
amp
Spee
d:B
ott
len
eck
spee
ds
dro
p a
s lo
w a
s 5
mp
hV
olu
me
(20
07
AD
T):I
-40
5 N
B O
FF R
amp
: 27
,62
0
Vo
lum
e (2
00
8 A
M P
eak
Ho
ur)
:I-4
05
NB
OFF
Ram
p: 2
,10
0
Vo
lum
e (2
00
8 P
M P
eak
Ho
ur)
:I-4
05
NB
OFF
Ram
p: 1
,80
0
Da
ta S
ou
rces
:
* N
OTE
: Q
ueu
ing
exte
nd
s fr
om
do
wn
stre
am/a
dja
cen
t co
rrid
ors
an
d im
pac
ts
mai
nlin
e o
per
atio
ns.
Da
ta c
olle
cte
dfr
om
PO
RT
AL
we
bsite
Da
ta c
olle
cte
d fro
m tra
ve
l tim
e r
un
s
Info
rma
tio
n fro
m O
DO
T
Info
rma
tio
n fro
m o
bse
rva
tio
ns
Da
ta c
olle
cte
d fro
m tra
ffic
ca
me
ras
an
d/o
r tr
ave
l tim
e v
ide
os
0 -
19
Cra
sh
es
20
-3
9 C
rash
es
40
-5
9 C
rash
es
60
-7
9 C
rash
es
> 8
0 C
rash
es
To
tal cra
sh
es fro
m 2
00
4 th
rou
gh
20
08
XX
X
(##
#.#
)
#
PO
RT
AL
De
tecto
r L
oca
tio
n (
20
07
Da
ta U
se
d)
PO
RT
AL
De
tecto
r L
oca
tio
n (
Mis
sin
g D
ata
)
M.P
. o
f O
N/O
FF
Ra
mp
Go
re P
oin
t
Activa
tio
nR
an
ge
: T
his
is th
e s
eg
me
nt th
at co
nta
ins th
e
sta
rt o
f a
ne
w/c
on
fou
nd
ing
bo
ttle
ne
ck (
this
do
es n
ot
en
co
mp
ass a
ll co
ng
estio
n)
Bo
ttle
ne
ck
Influ
en
ce
Are
a -
Cro
ss r
efe
ren
ce
# w
ith
d
ata
bo
xe
s a
bo
ve
Inco
nclu
siv
e B
ott
len
eck A
ctiva
tio
nR
an
ge
Influ
en
ce
d b
y a
bo
ttle
ne
ck o
uts
ide
of th
is s
tud
y a
rea
Corridor Bottleneck Operations Study for I-5, I-205, I-84, I-405, and US 26 Page | 3-14
DRAFT Project Atlas
Chapter 3: Bottlenecks and Solutions
US
26
We
stb
ou
nd
Fig
ure
3-1
1
Co
rrid
or
Bo
ttle
ne
ck
Op
era
tio
ns
US
26
Wes
tbo
un
d B
ott
len
ec
k D
eta
ils
LE
GE
ND
185th
Ave. O
N (
MP
64.0
)
Gle
ncoe R
d. O
FF
(M
P 5
7.3
)
OR
6 O
N (
MP
53.5
)
Mounta
indale
Rd. O
FF
/ON
(M
P 5
3.6
)
Ders
ham
Rd. O
FF
(M
P 5
5.4
)
Ders
ham
Rd. O
N (
MP
54.9
)
Gle
ncoe R
d. O
N (
MP
57.0
)
Ja
ckso
n S
ch
oo
l R
d.
ON
(M
P 5
8.4
)
Jackson S
chool R
d.
OF
F (
MP
59.0
)
Helv
etia
Rd.
ON
(M
P 6
0.8
)
Helv
etia
Rd.
OF
F (
MP
61
.3)
Corn
eliu
s P
ass O
N (
MP
62.1
)
Corn
eliu
s P
ass S
B O
FF
(M
P 6
2.5
)
Corn
eliu
s P
ass N
B O
FF
(M
P 6
2.7
)
185th
Ave. O
FF
(M
P 6
4.5
)
Beth
any/C
orn
ell
ON
(M
P 6
5.3
)
Beth
any/C
orn
ell
OF
F (
MP
66.2
)
Murr
ay B
lvd. O
N (
MP
66.8
)
Murr
ay B
lvd. O
FF
(M
P 6
7.4
)
Barn
es/O
R 2
17 O
N (
MP
67.9
)
Cedar
Hill
s B
lvd. O
FF
(M
P 6
8.8
)
OR
217 O
FF
(M
P 6
9.3
)
Barn
es R
d. O
FF
(M
P 6
9.5
)
Sylv
an R
d. O
N (
MP
70.6
)
Sylv
an R
d. O
FF
(M
P 7
1.5
)
Canyon R
d.
OF
F (
MP
71.3
)
Ore
gon Z
oo O
N (
MP
72.0
)
Ore
gon Z
oo O
FF
(M
P 7
2.4
)
Jeff
ers
on S
t. O
N (
MP
73.3
)
I-405 S
B O
N (
MP
73.8
)
I-4
05
NB
ON
(M
P 7
3.7
)
Cla
y/C
ity C
ente
r O
N (
MP
70.4
)
Cedar
Hill
s B
lvd. O
N (
MP
67.9
)
US
26:
B6 PM
US
26
: B
6. I
-40
5 R
amp
s/U
S 2
6 M
erg
e (
PM
) In
flu
ence
Are
a:
Bet
wee
n U
S 2
6 m
erge
an
d I-
40
5 m
ain
line
alo
ng
I-4
05
ram
ps
Co
ng
esti
on
Du
rati
on
: A
pp
roxi
mat
ely
3 h
ou
rsd
aily
(3
:30
-6:4
5 P
M)
Co
ntr
ibu
tin
g F
act
ors
:H
igh
ram
p v
olu
me
(in
clu
din
g fa
cilit
y to
fac
ility
co
nn
ecti
on
s). I
-40
5 O
FF r
amp
ho
rizo
nta
l an
d v
erti
cal c
urv
atu
re. L
ane
dro
ps
on
I-
40
5 r
amp
s. P
osi
tio
nin
g fo
r cl
imb
ing
grad
e o
n U
S 2
6.
Op
era
tio
ns
Sum
ma
ry:
Act
iva
tio
n R
an
ge:
I-4
05
ram
p m
erge
are
asSp
eed
:Bo
ttle
nec
k sp
eed
s d
rop
as
low
as
10
mp
hV
olu
me
(20
07
AD
T):
Mar
ket
ON
Ram
p:
12
,37
0;
ON
fro
m I-
40
5 N
B R
amp
: 3
0,7
50
; ON
fro
m I-
40
5 S
B R
amp
: 2
7,0
30
V
olu
me
(20
07
PM
Pea
k H
ou
r):
Mar
ket
ON
Ram
p: 1
,30
0;
ON
fro
m I
-40
5 N
B
Ram
p: 2
,00
0;
ON
fro
m I-
40
5 S
B R
amp
: 2,6
00
O
bse
rva
tio
n:
Veh
icle
s b
egin
po
siti
on
ing
for
the
do
wn
stre
am c
limb
ing
grad
e as
so
on
as
the
mer
ge o
nto
th
e U
S 2
6 m
ain
line.
Da
ta S
ou
rces
:
Da
ta c
olle
cte
dfr
om
PO
RT
AL
we
bsite
Da
ta c
olle
cte
d fro
m tra
ve
l tim
e r
un
s
Info
rma
tio
n fro
m O
DO
T
Info
rma
tio
n fro
m o
bse
rva
tio
ns
Data
co
llecte
d fro
m tra
ffic
ca
me
ras
an
d/o
r tr
ave
l tim
e v
ide
os
0 -
19
Cra
sh
es
20
-3
9 C
rash
es
40
-5
9 C
rash
es
60
-7
9 C
rash
es
> 8
0 C
rash
es
To
tal cra
sh
es fro
m 2
00
4 th
rou
gh
20
08
XX
X
(##
#.#
)
#
PO
RT
AL
Dete
cto
r L
oca
tio
n (
20
07
Data
Use
d)
PO
RT
AL
Dete
cto
r L
oca
tio
n (
Mis
sin
g D
ata
)
M.P
. o
f O
N/O
FF
Ram
p G
ore
Po
int
Activa
tio
nR
an
ge
: T
his
is th
e s
eg
me
nt th
at co
nta
ins
the
sta
rt o
f a
ne
w/c
on
fou
nd
ing
bo
ttle
ne
ck (
this
do
es
no
t e
nco
mp
ass a
ll co
ng
estio
n)
Bo
ttle
ne
ck
Influ
en
ce
Are
a -
Cro
ss r
efe
ren
ce
# w
ith
da
ta
bo
xe
s a
bo
ve
Inco
nclu
siv
e B
ott
len
eck A
ctiva
tio
nR
an
ge
Influ
en
ce
d b
y a
bo
ttle
ne
ck o
uts
ide
of th
is s
tud
y a
rea
Decision Point
Physical Constraint
I‐5 BottlenecksB1 I‐5 NB: Terwilliger Boulevard Entrance Ramp (AM & PM) X X 20 4 Page | 3‐5B2 I‐5 NB: Lower Boones Ferry Road Exit Ramp (AM) X 30 1.25 Page | 3‐5B3 * I‐5 NB: Westbound Elligsen Road Entrance Ramp (PM) X * * Page | 3‐5B4 I‐5 SB: Hood Avenue Exit Ramp (PM) X 10 2.75 Page | 3‐6B5 I‐5 SB: Carman Drive Lane Drop (PM) X 10 2.25 Page | 3‐6B6 I‐5 SB: Nyberg Street Exit Ramp (PM) X 25 2.5 Page | 3‐6
B7 ** I‐5 SB: I‐205 Entrance Ramp (PM) X ** ** Page | 3‐6I‐205 Bottlenecks
B1 I‐205 NB: Sandy Boulevard/Columbia Boulevard Entrance Ramp (PM) X 20 3 Page | 3‐7B2 I‐205 NB: Columbia Boulevard/Hwy 30 Exit Ramp (PM) X 35 Inconclusive Page | 3‐7B3 I‐205 NB: Westbound I‐84 Entrance Ramp (PM) X 5 5.25 Page | 3‐7B4 I‐205 NB: Division Street Entrance Ramp and Hwy 26/Powell Blvd. Entrance Ramp (AM & PM) X 10 2.75 Page | 3‐7B5 I‐205 NB: Foster Road Exit Ramp (AM & PM) X 20 4 Page | 3‐7B6 I‐205 NB: Sunnybrook Road Entrance Ramp (PM) X 30 2.25 Page | 3‐7B7 I‐205 SB: Westbound I‐84 Exit Ramp (AM & PM) X 5 4.25 Page | 3‐8B8 I‐205 SB: Stark/Washington Street Entrance Ramp (PM) X 10 3.25 Page | 3‐8B9 I‐205 SB: Hwy 26/Division Street/Powell Boulevard Exit Ramp (PM) X 25 3.25 Page | 3‐8B10 I‐205 SB: 212/224 Entrance Ramp (PM) X 35 1 Page | 3‐8B11 I‐205 SB: 99E/McLoughlin Boulevard Exit Ramp (AM) X 20 1.25 Page | 3‐8B12 I‐205 SB: Hwy 43 Entrance Ramp (AM) X 30 2 Page | 3‐8
I‐84 BottlenecksB1 I‐84 EB: I‐5 SB Entrance Ramp (AM & PM) X 10 12 Page | 3‐9B2 I‐84 EB: I‐5 SB/NB Merge (PM) X 5 4 Page | 3‐9B3 I‐84 EB: 39th Avenue Entrance Ramp (PM) X Inconclusive Inconclusive Page | 3‐9B4 I‐84 WB: I‐5 Diverge (AM & PM) X 20 8+ Page | 3‐10B5 I‐84 WB: 33rd Avenue Entrance Ramp (AM) X 15 4 Page | 3‐10B6 I‐84 WB: Glisan Entrance Ramp (AM) X Inconclusive Inconclusive Page | 3‐10B7 I‐84 WB: I‐205 SB to I‐84 WB Ramp X Inconclusive Inconclusive Page | 3‐10
I‐405 BottlenecksB1 I‐405 NB: US 26/12th Ave (PM) X 5 3 Page | 3‐11B2 I‐405 SB: US 30 Entrance Ramp (PM) X 5 3 Page | 3‐12B3 I‐405 SB: Everett Street Entrance Ramp to US 26 Exit Ramp Weave (PM) X 5 3 Page | 3‐12B4 I‐405 SB: US 26 Entrance Ramp to Broadway Exit Ramp Weave (PM) X 5 3 Page | 3‐12
US 26 BottlenecksB1 US 26 EB: Oregon 217 Entrance Ramp (AM) X 10 3 Page | 3‐13B2 US 26 EB: Skyline/Scholls Ferry Entrance Ramp (AM & PM) X Inconclusive Inconclusive Page | 3‐13B3 US 26 EB: I‐405 Positioning/Curves/Tunnel (AM & PM) X X 15 8 Page | 3‐13B4 US 26 EB: Ramp to I‐405 SB (AM & PM) X X 5 8 Page | 3‐13B5 US 26 EB: Ramp to I‐405 NB (AM & PM) X X 5 7 Page | 3‐13B6 US 26 WB: I‐405 Ramps/US 26 merge (PM) X X 10 3 Page | 3‐14
* Construction of NB Auxilary Lane in 2011
** Construction of SB Auxilary Lane in 2010
Corridor Bottleneck Operations Study for I‐5, I‐205, I‐84, I‐405, and US 26 Page | 3‐15
Figure 312: Regional Recurring Bottleneck Locations
Final Working Draft Project AtlasChapter 3: Bottlenecks and Solutions
Recurring Bottleneck
IDRecurring Bottleneck Locations
CauseCongestion
Speed(MPH)
Congestion Duration(Hours)
See Bottleneck Detail
Sheet on page #
Recurring Bottleneck Location
Final Working Draft Project Atlas Chapter 3: Bottlenecks and Solutions
Corridor Bottleneck Operations Study for I‐5, I‐205, I‐84, I‐405, and US 26 Page | 3‐16
3.5 Steps in Developing Solutions In an effort to develop a comprehensive list of bottleneck solutions, a review of existing literature was conducted to identify previously proposed improvements. Several documents were critical in this effort:
• I‐205 Reconnaissance Study
• I‐5 Corridor Plan
• 2035 Regional Transportation Plan
• ODOT Concepts and Studies
The analysis team worked with the design team to review these documents and other documents, and to develop a preliminary list of planned improvements that had the potential to address identified bottleneck area deficiencies. There were a total of 89 possible improvements identified from this work.
More detailed analyses and findings are presented in Technical Memoranda 4 and 5, included in Appendix A.
3.6 What Are Other Appropriate Solutions? The goal was to identify projects that could provide measurable benefit with keeping the current financial constraints in mind. To facilitate that goal, the following guidelines were used to guide the project development process:
• Design exceptions would be considered as long as there is a measurable safety or operational benefit
• Focus on relatively low‐cost projects or projects that can be phased at a $1.0 million to $20 million range
• Minimal to no additional right‐of‐way (ROW) required
• Focus on projects with political readiness
Design Panel Alternatives
An expert multidisciplinary design panel, composed of select Consultant and Agency specialists, was convened to review and identify new possible design and operations solutions to mitigate known bottlenecks along the I‐5, I‐205, I‐84, I‐405, and US 26 study corridors. This panel provided high‐level prioritization of projects, which were then advanced into the next phase of evaluation.
The complete list of identified projects is provided in Technical Memorandum 7, included in Appendix A.
Geometric Evaluation
The design team screened the preliminary list of possible improvements to identify those that were geometrically constructible. Though design standards and policy limitations were involved in this screening process, it was assumed that design exceptions may be required for some of the proposed improvements.
More detailed analyses and findings are presented in Technical Memoranda 4 and 5, included in Appendix A.
3.7 Fatal Flaw Screening Fatal flaw screening involved assessing the feasibility of implementing potential design and operations solutions surfaced under initial development of options and culminating from the design panel as well as promising ideas (see Technical Memoranda 4 and 5 in Appendix A). This feasibility review focused on obvious high‐level fatal flaws such as, but not limited to: cost, right‐of‐way impacts, system integration, and political readiness, as outlined in Technical Memorandum 6, included in Appendix A.
The high‐level fatal flaw feasibility review generally included the following:
1. High‐level quantity estimation 2. High‐level construction cost estimation 3. Examination of alternatives using screening criteria, accounting for the following
characteristics:
o Goals/objectives o Design principles/system needs o Geometric feasibility o Operational criteria o Impact/risk of impacts (right‐of‐way, environmental, traffic, etc.) o Constructability/staging o Cost
As a result of this process, not all bottlenecks (however severe they may be) have a recommended project.
What Projects Were Worth Further Evaluation?
The evaluation included analysis of traffic operations, safety, costs, constructability, and other user benefits to assess various performance measures, allowing for selection of potential solutions along the study corridors. This process identified a list of 18 potential solutions, and an evaluation matrix, to move forward n. into further traffic analysis and evaluatio
3.8 Refinement of Potential Solutions The majority of the projects were identified for the I‐5 and I‐205 corridors. No projects were selected for advancement along the US 26 corridor. Table 3‐1 indicates the refinement of the bottleneck locations the development of a potential solution to address the bottleneck. The table provides a list of potential projects, including a project description, estimated cost, traffic analysis tool used for evaluation, and comments regarding relevant findings of the feasibility review by corridor. Overall, there are four recommended actions:
• Bottleneck solution is recommended to move forward to develop a project. The project solution is recommended to move forward if analysis indicates that solution provided an operational or safety benefit and the estimated cost fit the $1.0 million to $20.0 million range.
• Recommendation for the solution is for additional analysis to determine the project. The additional analysis is required to develop a potential solution that will provide operational or safety benefit and an estimated cost that fits in the $1.0 million to $20.0 million range.
Final Working Draft Project Atlas Chapter 3: Bottlenecks and Solutions
• Recommendation is that the bottleneck solution should be dropped.
• The final recommendation is that the solution has been constructed or is planned/programmed for construction.
This list of recommended projects is in Table 3-1, while a more detailed summary of methodology is presented in Technical Memorandum 8, included in Appendix A.
I-5 Potential Solutions
A total of five (5) bottleneck locations are identified for analysis. From these locations a total of eight (8) potential solutions are identified. Five (5) potential solutions are recommended to move forward to be developed as projects. One (1) potential solution is recommended for further analysis to develop a potential project. One (1) bottleneck location has been constructed, and one (1) is recommended to be phased.
More detailed findings are presented in Technical Memorandum 8, included in Appendix A.
I-205 Potential Solutions
A total of twelve (12) bottleneck locations are identified. From these locations a total of nine (9) potential solutions are identified. All nine (9) have potential solutions recommended to move forward to be developed as projects.
More detailed findings are presented in Technical Memorandum 8, included in Appendix A.
I-84 Potential Solutions
A total of seven (7) bottleneck locations are identified for analysis. From these locations a total of three (3) potential solutions are identified. One (1) potential solution is recommended for further study. Two (2) bottleneck locations are scheduled to be constructed in 2013.
More detailed findings are presented in Technical Memorandum 8, included in Appendix A.
I-405 Potential Solutions
A total of four (4) bottleneck locations are identified for analysis. From these locations a total of one (1) potential solution is identified.
More detailed findings are presented in Technical Memorandum 8, included in Appendix A.
US 26 Potential Solutions
There are no recommended solutions identified for bottlenecks within the US 26 study corridor.
More detailed findings are presented in Technical Memorandum 8, included in Appendix A
3.9 Potential Regional Projects Potential Regional Projects (Figure 3-12) of this Atlas provides a list of potential projects by corridor. This figure summarizes the recommended projects from Table 3-1 and highlights the future action.
Corridor Bottleneck Operations Study for I-5, I-205, I-84, I-405, and US 26 Page | 3-17
Table 31: Potential Regional Projects Summary
Map ID Bottleneck ID Tracking ID Project Description Est. Cost Traffic Analysis Findings/CommentsPotential Solutions Identified
I‐5 Recommended Projects
Northbound
A I‐5: B1 1aI‐5 NB: Terwilliger Blvd. Entrance Ramp Extension.
Extend Terwilliger Blvd. entrance ramp/acceleration lane around curve to address poor sight distance, reduce speed differential and improve merging.
$30M ‐ $40M
The initial proposed project will extend the current acceleration lane at the Terwilliger entrance‐ramp around the horizontal curve to allow drivers to navigate the curve and then merge into mainline traffic ina tangent section of the freeway. This would provide drivers additional time and proper sight line to pickup gaps for the merging maneuver. The proposed project has the potential to reduce the number of crashes in the area because drivers would not be attempting to merge while navigating a long horizontal curve in a steep grade. The proposed project may not result in significant congestion relief in the peak hours due to downstream bottlenecks, but there would be operational and safety benefits associated with the enhanced design for the Terwilliger Blvd entrance‐ramp merge junction. Further analysis needed could include HSM and before/after crash analysis for similar acceleration lane extension projects.
Further Analysis
B I‐5: B2 2aI‐5 NB: Phase 1 ‐ Lower Boones Ferry Road Exit Ramp Reconfiguration
Convert the existing I‐5 NB exit ramp to Lower Boones Ferry Road from a one‐lane exit to a two‐lane exit ramp
$1M ‐ $2M
This is Phase 1 of the potential solution project for this bottleneck. The mainline traffic south of Nyberg St. Interchange would have the ability to exit to Lower Boones Ferry Road without having to make a lane change, thereby reducing the turbulence near the exit gore area in the two outside lanes. The duration of queuing is expected to be reduced by 30 minutes.
Yes
C I‐5: B2 2b‐1I‐5 NB: Phase 2 ‐ Nyberg Rd. Interchange to Lower Boones Ferry Rd. Interchange ‐ Auxiliary Lane Extension
Connect 2‐lane entrance from Nyberg to existing NB auxiliary lane to Lower Bonnes Ferry. Extend auxiliary lane through Lower Bonnes Ferry interchange and connect to existing NB auxiliary lane. Construct merge lane for NB Lower Boones Ferry interchange entrance ramp.
$11.5M ‐ $13.5M
Assuming Phase 1 (Map ID B) is built, this second phase of improvement is expected to provide further improvement of traffic operations and safety benefits in the project section. The length of queue is reduced and analysis of the peak periods does show some congestion relief. However, substantial operational benefits are expected in the adjacent hours to the peak periods.
Yes
D I‐5: B2 2b‐2I‐5 NB: Phase 3 ‐ Lower Boones Ferry Rd. Interchange to Carman Dr. Interchange ‐ Auxiliary Lane Extension
Construct auxiliary lane from NB Lower Boones Ferry Road entrance ramp to connect with existing auxiliary lane between Carman Drive and OR 217. Construct merge lane for NB Carman Dr. entrance ramp.
$17M ‐ $21M
This is Phase 3 of the potential solution project for this bottleneck. There is a very high demand for volumes exiting to OR217 N and this improvement will provide those motorists a longer distance to find adequate gaps for lane changes and to position themselves in the appropriate lane earlier. This project is expected to result in overall operations and safety improvement.
Yes
E I‐5: B2 2b‐1 & 2b‐2This Project is Phased into I‐5 NB Projects B, C and D.
Refer to I‐5NB: Projects B,C and D $18M ‐ $22MThis project is broken into Phase 1, 2 and 3. Project cost exceeds CBOS criteria of $1 to $20 million range.
Project Phased
Southbound
F I‐5: B5 3I‐5 SB: Phase 1 ‐ Carman Dr Entrance Ramp to Lower Boones Ferry Exit Ramp ‐ Auxiliary Lane
This project would extend the current lane drop just south of the Carman Dr. Exit Ramp to the Lower Boones Ferry Rd. OFF Ramp, where it would become a drop lane.
$1.25MThis is Phase 1 of the potential solution project for this bottleneck. This is expected to minimize queuing on I‐5 from the OR217 merge by 1 mile, and reduce the queuing on OR217 approaching I‐5. This is expected to result in a decrease of 1 hour of congestion along I‐5.
Constructed August 2012
G I‐5: B6 3a‐1I‐5 SB: Phase 2 ‐ Lower Boones Ferry Rd. Exit to Lower Boones Ferry Rd. Entrance Auxiliary Lane
The proposed project would extend the existing auxiliary lane from the Lower Boones Ferry Rd. exit‐ramp to the Nyberg St. entrance‐ramp.
$7.2M ‐ $8.5M
This is Phase 2 of the potential solution project for this bottleneck. The proposed improvement will provide motorists additional time and distance to find gaps and safely weave over lanes. This is expected to reduce congestion, improve lane balance and travel time reliability, and sustain stable trafficflow. Extension of the auxiliary lane is expected to result in a 30% reduction in mainline crashes.
Yes
Final Working Draft Project AtlasChapter 3: Bottlenecks and Solutions
Corridor Bottleneck Operations Study for I‐5, I‐205, I‐84, I‐405, and US 26 Page | 3-18
Table 31: Potential Regional Projects Summary
Map ID Bottleneck ID Tracking ID Project Description Est. Cost Traffic Analysis Findings/CommentsPotential Solutions Identified
Final Working Draft Project AtlasChapter 3: Bottlenecks and Solutions
H I‐5: B6 3a‐3I‐5 SB: Phase 3 ‐ Lower Boones Ferry Rd. to I‐205 Auxiliary Lane Extension
Extend I‐5 SB auxiliary lane from Nyberg Rd exit ramp to I‐205 exit ramp and maintain the SB auxiliary lane configuration from Nyberg Rd entrance ramp to I‐205 exit ramp.
$10M ‐$18M
The additional auxiliary lanes are expected to reduce weaving behaviors and improve traffic operations. Of the volumes exiting to I‐205, 36% are from OR217, 24% are from Carman and Lower Boones Ferry, and 30% are from Nyberg. With 90% of the traffic exiting at I‐205 coming from the four entrance‐ramps immediately north, this auxiliary lane would provide more direct connection without having to mix or interact with the rest of mainline traffic. This auxiliary lane is anticipated to result in a 30% reduction in mainline crashes, based on comparable auxiliary lane improvements.
Yes
I‐205 Recommended ProjectsNorthbound
I I‐205: B3 2I‐205 NB: Phase 1 ‐ I‐84 WB Entrance Ramp to Sandy Blvd. Exit Ramp ‐ Auxiliary Lane
Construct a short auxiliary lane by extending the acceleration lane from I‐84 westbound merging traffic on I‐205NB to the Sandy Boulevard off‐ramp.
$6.7M
The proposed project will construct an auxiliary lane by extending the acceleration lane from the I‐84 WB entrance‐ramp to the Sandy Blvd. exit‐ramp. The spacing between the I‐84 WB entrance‐ramp and Sandy Blvd. exit‐ramp is approximately 2000’. With the addition of an auxiliary lane between these two ramps, the I‐84 WB entrance‐ramp traffic would not be required to merge into the I‐205 mainline immediately as they currently do. This would allow vehicles on the I‐84 WB entrance‐ramp additional time to find gaps to access the I‐205 mainline. As a result, this would help reduce the queuing and relieve congestion that the I‐84 WB entrance‐ramp currently propagates south to the I‐84 EB entrance‐ramp merge junction and would improve overall traffic safety in the project section.
Yes
J I‐205: B3 2aI‐205 NB: Phase 2 ‐ Sandy Blvd. Exit Ramp to Columbia Blvd. Exit Ramp ‐ Auxiliary Lane Extension
Extend auxiliary lane from Sandy Blvd. exit ramp to Columbia Blvd. ramp in junction with the assumed auxiliary lane from I‐84 WB entrance ramp to I‐205 NB exit ramp to Sandy Blvd.
$6.5M
The proposed project will build upon Project Map ID I by creating an auxiliary lane from the I‐84 WB entrance‐ramp to the Columbia Blvd../Killingsworth St. (US30 Bypass) exit‐ramp. This project would eliminate Bottleneck 3. In addition, it will improve traffic safety and operations for Freight movements as the Columbia Blvd and US30 Bypass are major Freight Routes serving the north Portland industrial areas.
Yes
K I‐205: B4 1 I‐205 NB: Powell Blvd. Entrance Ramp to Division St. Entrance Ramp ‐ Auxiliary Lane Extension and 2‐Lane Exit at Washington St.
This project would eliminate Bottleneck 3, reducing queuing during off‐peak period. Vehicles would arrive at the downstream bottleneck earlier in the peak period, increasing congestion at Bottleneck 1.
6.5M ‐ $7.5M
The proposed improvement will provide motorists additional time and distance to find gaps and safely weave over lanes. Congestion/queuing would be reduced in most lanes and completely reduced in the two leftmost lanes. It is anticipated that this would result in a 30% reduction in mainline crashes, based on comparable auxiliary lane improvements.
Yes
L I‐205: B4 1a I‐205 NB: Phase 1 ‐ Powell Blvd Entrance Lane to Washington St. Exit Ramp ‐ Auxiliary Lane Extension
Add an auxiliary lane from Powell Blvd. entrance ramp to Division St. entrance ramp and tie to the existing auxiliary lane between Division St. entrance ramp and Washington St. exit ramp.
$6.0M ‐ $6.9M
This project is the first phase of a phased approach to developing an auxiliary lane on I‐205 NB. The proposed improvement will provide motorists additional time and distance to find gaps and safely weave over lanes. Congestion/queuing would be reduced in most lanes. It is anticipated that this would result in a 30% reduction in mainline crashes, based on comparable auxiliary lane improvements.
Yes
M I‐205: B4 1b I‐205 NB: Phase 2 ‐ Washington St. Exit Ramp to Glisan St. Exit Ramp ‐ Auxiliary Lane Extension
Extend auxiliary lane fromWashington St. Exit Ramp to Glisan St. Exit Ramp. $2.4M ‐ $2.8M
The proposed improvement will further enhance the operational benefits of the auxiliary lane by providing motorists additional time and distance to find gaps and safely weave over lanes. Congestion/queuing would be reduced in most lanes. It is anticipated that this would result in a 30% reduction in mainline crashes, based on comparable auxiliary lane improvements. The proposed improvement will enhance the operational benefits of the auxiliary lane by providing motorists additional time and distance to find gaps and safely weave over lanes. Congestion/queuing would be reduced in most lanes. It is anticipated that this would result in a 30% reduction in mainline crashes, based on comparable auxiliary lane improvements.
YES
Corridor Bottleneck Operations Study for I‐5, I‐205, I‐84, I‐405, and US 26 Page | 3-19
Table 31: Potential Regional Projects Summary
Map ID Bottleneck ID Tracking ID Project Description Est. Cost Traffic Analysis Findings/CommentsPotential Solutions Identified
Final Working Draft Project AtlasChapter 3: Bottlenecks and Solutions
N I‐205: B4 1cI‐205 NB: Phase 3 ‐ Glisan St. Exit to I‐84 WB Exit Ramp ‐ Auxiliary Lane Extension
Extend auxiliary lane from Glisan St. Exit Ramp ramp to I‐84 WB exit ramp $2.2M ‐$2.5M
Assuming that Projects Map ID L and M are built, this would be the next low‐cost incremental improvement for congestion relief in the area. The proposed project would extend the auxiliary lane from Glisan St. exit‐ramp to I‐84 WB exit‐ramp.T he proposed improvement will further enhance the operational benefits of the auxiliary lane by providing motorists additional time/distance to find gaps and safely weave over lanes. Of the volumes exiting at I‐84 WB, 37% are from Powell and Division. This extended auxiliary lane would provide more direct connection without having to mix with mainline traffic. It is anticipated that this would result in a 30% reduction in mainline crashes, based on comparable auxiliary lane improvements.
Yes
O I‐205: B4 1d
I‐205 NB: Phase 4 ‐ Division Street Entrance Ramp to Stark St./Washington St. Exit Ramp ‐ Auxiliary Lane Extension w/ 2‐lane Exit at Washington Street
Extend the existing NB auxiliary lane from Stark St./Washington St. exit ramp to Glisan St. exit ramp.
$1.7M ‐ $2.0M
Assuming Projects Map ID L, M, and N are built, this project would be the next and final low‐cost phase. The proposed improvement will further enhance the operational benefits of the auxiliary lane by providing motorists additional time and distance to find gaps and safely weave over lanes. Of the volumes exiting to I‐84 WB, 37% are from Powell and Division. This extended auxiliary lane would provide more direct connection without having to mix with mainline traffic. It is anticipated that this would result in a 30% reduction in mainline crashes, based on comparable auxiliary lane improvements.
Yes
P I‐205: B4 1eI‐205 NB: Division St. entrance ramp to I‐84 WB Exit Ramp ‐ Auxiliary Lane Extension w/2‐lane Exit at Washington St.
Extend auxiliary lane from Division St. exit ramp to I‐84 WB exit ramp. Add an auxiliary lane from Division St. Entrance ramp ramp toWashington St. Exit Ramp. Convert the existing I‐205 NB exit ramp to Washington St. from a one‐lane exit to a two‐lane exit ramp
$7.6M ‐ $8.M
A follow‐up phase to Project Map ID L, this project represents the ultimate improvement to address congestion relief for the area. Considering that funding may be a constraint, this project can be broken into three smaller projects: Project Map ID M, N and O. This project would extend the auxiliary lane from Washington St. exit‐ramp to I‐84 WB exit‐ramp and build an additional auxiliary lane from Division entrance‐ramp to Washington St. exit‐ramp with two‐lane exit. The proposed improvement will provide drivers additional time and distance to safely make the necessary weaving maneuvers. Congestion would be completely reduced in all lanes. It is anticipated that this would result in a 30% reduction in mainline crashes, based on comparable auxiliary lane improvements.
Yes
Southbound
Q I‐205: B8/B9 1I‐205 SB: I‐84 EB Entrance ramp to Stark St./Washington St. exit Ramp ‐ Auxiliary Lane
Add an auxiliary lane from I‐84 EB entrance ramp to Washington St. entrance ramp and tie to the existing auxiliary lane between Washington St. and Division St.
$7.0M ‐ $8.5M
Approximately 25% of traffic from I‐84 EB Entrance‐ramp is destined for Division/Powell and this project would provide direct connection to this exit. Congestion/queuing would be reduced in all lanes and completely reduced in the two leftmost lanes. This auxiliary lane is anticipated to result in a 30% reduction in mainline crashes, based on comparable auxiliary lane improvements.
Yes
Corridor Bottleneck Operations Study for I‐5, I‐205, I‐84, I‐405, and US 26 Page | 3-20
Table 31: Potential Regional Projects Summary
Map ID Bottleneck ID Tracking ID Project Description Est. Cost Traffic Analysis Findings/CommentsPotential Solutions Identified
Final Working Draft Project AtlasChapter 3: Bottlenecks and Solutions
I‐84 Recommended ProjectsEastbound
R I‐84: B2 2a I‐84 EB: Grand Ave. Entrance Ramp Extension Lengthen the EB entrance ramp to 12th Ave. U'xing structure $4.4M ‐ $5.2MInitial analysis is inconclusive. Project needs further analysis to evaluate improvement to address safety/operational issues. Further analysis needed could include HSM and before/after crash analysis forsimilar acceleration lane extension projects.
Further Analysis
S I‐84: B3 1I‐84 EB: Halsey St.Exit Ramp to I‐205 NB Entrance Ramp ‐ Auxiliary Lane
The project will construct a new exit‐only lane by extending the current Halsey St. exit‐only lane on I‐84 eastbound to the I‐205 northbound exit‐ramp.
$5.9M
The new exit‐only lane to I‐205 northbound will improve safety by reducing traffic queuing and congestion on I‐84 WB. It will also improve traffic flow for I‐84 WB through traffic including freight movements destined to Troutdale or locations further east not only in the p.m. peak hours, but also throughout most of the day. This is because of the high hourly traffic volume exiting to I‐205 northbound during the day.
Construction 2013
T I‐84: B4 4a I‐84 WB: I‐5 NB and I‐5 SB Diverge Re‐stripingRe‐stripe lane markings to provide two dedicated exit lanes to I‐5 SB and one dedicated exit lane to I‐5 NB. Add additional signage.
$0.5M
Over the past five years (2007‐2011), there have been 237 collisions on I‐84 westbound between the Convention Center/Rose Quarter exit ramp and 33rd Avenue. Of these, 31 occurred between the Grand Avenue overpass and the ramp for Convention Center/Rose Quarter.Of the 237 collisions that have occurred between the Convention Center/Rose Quarter ramp and 33rd Avenue, 95% have been rear endor sideswipe collisions resulting from traffic merging and weaving to get into the correct lanes and from the speed reductions and congestion that result from these actions. The restriping and signage upgrades will improve traffic flow and help reduce motorist confusion in this area and the collisions that result by providing clearly marked dedicated exit‐only lanes.
Construction 2013
I‐405 Recommended Projects
Southbound
U I‐405: B2 2a I‐405 SB/US30 EB: Entrance Ramp Lane Re‐arrangement
Convert the EB‐SB entrance ramp from a two‐lane entrance to a one‐lane entrance ramp
$0.5M ‐ $1.0M
This project is expected to provide improved traffic operations and safety benefits by eliminating the inside lane merge. This will result in smoother traffic flow as vehicles entering from the entrance‐ramp will stay in the auxiliary lane longer and wait for adequate gaps before making the lane change onto the mainline. A couple of similar type of projects that have been constructed in the Region over the past 6‐8 years are: (1) Milwaukie Expressway (OR224, Hwy#171)/SE 82nd Ave. entrance‐ramp merge junction on I‐205 southbound, and (2) OR99W(SW Barbur Blvd) and the truck climbing lane entrance‐ramp merge junction on I‐5 northbound located approximately 1/2 mile north of the Haines Rd. interchange.)
Yes
Corridor Bottleneck Operations Study for I‐5, I‐205, I‐84, I‐405, and US 26 Page | 3-21
Figure 313: Potential Regional Projects Map ID
BottleneckID
Potential Solution Identified
Potential Regional Projects Est. Cost
See Project Sheet on page #
I‐5 Bottlenecks
A I‐5: B1Further Analysis
I‐5 NB: Terwilliger Blvd. Entrance Ramp Extension.$30M ‐ $40M
Page | 4‐7
B I‐5: B2 Yes I‐5 NB: Phase 1 ‐ Lower Boones Ferry Road Exit Ramp Reconfiguration $1M ‐ $2M Page | 4‐8
C I‐5: B2 Yes I‐5 NB: Phase 2 ‐ Nyberg Rd. Interchange to Lower Boones Ferry Rd. Interchange ‐ Auxiliary Lane Extension
$11.5M ‐ $13.5M
Page | 4‐9
D I‐5: B2 Yes I‐5 NB: Phase 3 ‐ Lower Boones Ferry Rd. Interchange to Carman Dr. Interchange ‐ Auxiliary Lane Extension
$17M ‐ $21M
Page | 4‐10
E I‐5: B2Project Phased
This Project is Phased into I‐5 NB Projects B, C and D. $18M ‐ $22M
Page | 4‐12
F I‐5: B5Constructed August 2012
I‐5 SB: Phase 1 ‐ Carman Dr Entrance Ramp to Lower Boones Ferry Exit Ramp ‐ Auxiliary Lane
$1.25M Page | 4‐11
G I‐5: B6 YesI‐5 SB: Phase 2 ‐ Lower Boones Ferry Rd. Exit to Lower Boones Ferry Rd. Entrance Auxiliary Lane
$7.2M ‐ $8.5M
Page | 4‐13
H I‐5: B6 Yes I‐5 SB: Phase 3 ‐ Lower Boones Ferry Rd. to I‐205 Auxiliary Lane Extension$10M ‐$18M
Page | 4‐14
I‐205 Bottlenecks
I I‐205: B3 YesI‐205 NB: Phase 1 ‐ I‐84 WB Entrance Ramp to Sandy Blvd. Exit Ramp ‐ Auxiliary Lane
$6.7M Page | 4‐19
J I‐205: B3 YesI‐205 NB: Phase 2 ‐ Sandy Blvd. Exit Ramp to Columbia Blvd. Exit Ramp ‐ Auxiliary Lane Extension
$6.5M Page | 4‐20
K I‐205: B4 Yes I‐205 NB: Powell Blvd. Entrance Ramp to Division St. Entrance Ramp ‐ Auxiliary Lane Extension and 2‐Lane Exit at Washington St.
6.5M ‐ $7.5M
Page | 4‐21
L I‐205: B4 Yes I‐205 NB: Phase 1 ‐ Powell Blvd Entrance Lane to Washington St. Exit Ramp ‐ Auxiliary Lane Extension
$6.0M ‐ $6.9M
Page | 4‐22
M I‐205: B4 YESI‐205 NB: Phase 2 ‐ Washington St. Exit Ramp to Glisan St. Exit Ramp ‐ Auxiliary Lane Extension
$2.4M ‐ $2.8M
Page | 4‐23
N I‐205: B4 YesI‐205 NB: Phase 3 ‐ Glisan St. Exit to I‐84 WB Exit Ramp ‐ Auxiliary Lane Extension
$2.2M ‐$2.5M
Page | 4‐24
O I‐205: B4 Yes I‐205 NB: Phase 4 ‐ Division Street Entrance Ramp to Stark St./Washington St. Exit Ramp ‐ Auxiliary Lane Extension w/ 2‐lane Exit at Washington Street
$1.7M ‐ $2.0M
Page | 4‐25
P I‐205: B4 YesI‐205 NB: Division St. entrance ramp to I‐84 WB Exit Ramp ‐ Auxiliary Lane Extension w/2‐lane Exit at Washington St.
$7.6M ‐ $8.M
Page | 4‐26
Q I‐205: B8/B9 Yes I‐205 SB: I‐84 EB Entrance ramp to Stark St./Washington St. exit Ramp ‐ Auxiliary Lane
$7.0M ‐ $8.5M
Page | 4‐27
I‐84 Bottlenecks
R I‐84: B2Further Analysis
I‐84 EB: Grand Ave. Entrance Ramp Extension$4.4M ‐ $5.2M
Page | 4‐33
S I‐84: B3Construction
2013I‐84 EB: Halsey St.Exit Ramp to I‐205 NB Entrance Ramp ‐ Auxiliary Lane $5.9M Page | 4‐34
T I‐84: B4Construction
2013I‐84 WB: I‐5 NB and I‐5 SB Diverge Re‐striping $0.5M Page | 4‐35
I‐405 Bottlenecks
U I‐405: B2 Yes I‐405 SB/US30 EB: Entrance Ramp Lane Re‐arrangement$0.5M ‐ $1.0M
Page | 4‐41
Corridor Bottleneck Operations Study for I‐5, I‐205, I‐84, I‐405, and US 26 Page | 3‐22
Final Working Draft Project AtlasChapter 3: Bottlenecks and Solutions
U
R
J
IOP
M
LN
Q
U
A K
E
G
HD
B
C
Recommended Project Location (indicates Potential Solution Recommentation)
Final Working Draft Project Atlas Chapter 3: Bottlenecks and Solutions
3.10 Regional Project Modeling CBOS is a comprehensive effort to identify and evaluate recurring bottlenecks on the five major freeway corridors in the Portland Metro area. An important issue to examine and understand is the potential of these bottleneck improvements to create induced traffic. ODOT’s primary goal of CBOS is to improve the safety and operations of the existing freeway by reducing the congestion at recurring bottlenecks without increasing the overall capacity of the freeway corridor.
FHWA states that “induced travel is often misused to imply that increases in highway capacity are directly responsible for increases in traffic. In fact, the relationship between increases in highway capacity and traffic is very complex, which encompasses various traffic behavior responses, residential and business location decisions, and changes in regional population and economic growth”.1
Oregon land use planning laws requires local jurisdictions to establish and identify the amount and location of specific land uses based on population and employment projections of the region. In the Portland Metro area, METRO develops the population and employment targets based on its Metroscope model. These targets are incorporated into the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and transportation decisions are made based on those projections. These decisions are then reflected in the local Comprehensive Plans and Transportation System Plans.
The regional travel demand model is a four-step trip based travel behavior model that is consistent with the RTP and is utilized to project traffic volumes and travel times on the transportation network. The model offers an understanding of travel behavior and improvement project impacts. Travelers generally divert to alternative routes to avoid congestion and bottlenecks that will delay their trips. The travel demand model is sensitive to the capacity constraints and will reallocate trips based on capacity and travel time to reach the travelers destination. When the freeway is congested, the model will reroute trips to the local system. Vice versa, if a bottleneck is removed on the freeway, trips that would have taken the freeway will be rerouted back to the freeway.
The CBOS improvement projects were coded into the 2010 and 2035 AM and PM travel demand models and compared to No-Build conditions to determine the travel impacts and to answer the question of induced demand. The majority of the projects are auxiliary lane extensions with the purpose of improving safety through breaking up recurring bottlenecks and better facilitating freeway entering/exiting traffic.
The following projects were modeled:
I-5 Projects Location Type of Improvement
Project B I-5 NB: Phase 1 - Lower Boones Ferry Road Exit Ramp Reconfiguration
2-Lane Exit at Lower Boones Ferry Road
Project C I-5 NB: Phase 2 - Nyberg Rd. Interchange to Lower Boones Ferry Rd. Interchange
Auxiliary Lane Extension
1 Induced Travel: Frequently Asked Questions, FHWA’s Planning web page: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/itfaq.cfm
Project D I-5 NB: Phase 3 - Lower Boones Ferry Rd. Interchange to Carman Dr. Interchange
Auxiliary Lane Extension
Project F I-5 SB: Phase 1 - Carman Dr Entrance Ramp to Lower Boones Ferry Exit Ramp Auxiliary Lane
Auxiliary Lane
Project G I-5 SB: Phase 2 - Lower Boones Ferry Rd. Exit to Lower Boones Ferry Rd. Entrance
Auxiliary Lane
Project H I-5 SB: Phase 3 - Lower Boones Ferry Rd. to I-205 Auxiliary Lane Extension
I-205 Projects
Project I I-205 NB: Phase 1 - I-84 WB Entrance Ramp to Sandy Blvd. Exit Ramp
Auxiliary Lane
Project J I-205 NB: Phase 2 - Sandy Blvd. Exit Ramp to Columbia Blvd. Exit Ramp
Auxiliary Lane Extension
Project L I-205 NB: Phase 1 - Powell Blvd Entrance Lane to Washington St. Exit Ramp
Auxiliary Lane Extension
Project P I-205 NB: Division St. entrance ramp to I-84 WB Exit Ramp Auxiliary Lane Extension w/2-Lane Exit at Washington St.
Project Q I-205 SB: I-84 EB Entrance Ramp to Stark St./Washington St. exit ramp
Auxiliary Lane
I-84 Projects
Project S I-84 EB: Halsey St. Exit Ramp to I-205 NB Entrance Ramp Auxiliary Lane
Project T I-84 WB: I-5 NB and I-5 SB Diverge Re-striping
For varying reasons, the following projects were not modeled:
I-5 Projects Location Type of Improvement
Project A I-5 NB: Terwilliger Blvd. Entrance Ramp Recommended for further analysis
Project E I-5 NB: Nyberg Rd. Interchange to Carman Dr. Interchange Project phased into I-5ND projects B,C and D
Corridor Bottleneck Operations Study for I-5, I-205, I-84, I-405, and US 26 Page | 3-23
Final Working Draft Project Atlas Chapter 3: Bottlenecks and Solutions
Corridor Bottleneck Operations Study for I‐5, I‐205, I‐84, I‐405, and US 26 Page | 3‐24
I205 Projects
Projects M thru O
I‐205 NB Projects are included in Project P
I-84 Project
Project R I‐84 EB: Grand Ave. Entrance Ramp Extension Recommended for further analysis
I-405 Project
Project U I‐405 SB/US30 EB: Entrance ramp lane re‐arrangement. Re‐striping
The trip demand modeling results verified the assumption that the CBOS auxiliary lane improvements help the recurring bottlenecks. The Key Points are summarized below:
• For freeway sections where there are series of auxiliary lane improvements, the trip difference is more apparent, as consistent with the goal of relieving localized bottlenecks. There is generally 1‐6% trip increases on the freeway section within the project area and extended to one interchange downstream.
• Auxiliary lanes used between consecutive entrance and exit ramps allow traffic to speed up and slow down in designated lanes while reducing interference to the throughway.
Auxiliary lanes improve the safety and freeway operations at interchanges, better facilitating vehicles existing and entering the freeway mainline.
• The auxiliary lane improvements generally benefit local roadways surrounding the area. Longer‐distance trips are staying on the freeway a little longer by 1‐2 interchanges, providing relief to the local facilities. This is seen in the trip differences on local roads, exit ramps and entrance ramps.
• For I‐5 S, more trips are now able to get to Tualatin‐Sherwood Road and not using the local roadways as a cut‐through route.
• For I‐5 N, more trips are now able to get to Upper Boones‐Ferry Road/Carman and not getting off at Nyberg and using the local roadways as a cut‐through route.
• For I‐205 N impacts, trips on I‐84 W and I‐84 E destined to the airport area are no longer exiting early to avoid the congestion at the connections to I‐205.
Generally, local roads parallel or adjacent to the freeway project area are seen to have a positive impact from trip changes.
• The modeling results indicated that that for the areas of the auxiliary lane improvements there was no significant increase in trips outside of the improvement area on I‐5 or I‐205.
• The 2035 model indicated that on I‐5 to the north and south of the auxiliary lanes area the net change in trips would be no greater than roughly 50 trips during the AM and PM peak hour. This is less than 0.1% of the total trips on I‐5.
• The 2035 model indicated that on I‐205 to the north and south of the auxiliary lanes area the net change in trips would be no greater than 50 trips during the AM and PM peak hour. This is less than 0.01% of the total trips on I‐205.
For each freeway facility, latent travel demand is not seen on a corridor‐wide basis. Nor is there any inclination for mode shift since this typically occurs where travel is improved for longer distance (corridor‐wide travel time improvement).
The modeling results are consistent with the purpose of the CBOS improvement projects, which is to enhance traffic safety and operations at freeway entrance and exit ramp junctions which are experiencing safety and operational issues. By breaking up the recurring freeway bottlenecks, freeway traffic will experience improved operations and will also be using the exit and entrance ramps that are more direct to reach their destination and reducing the cut‐through traffic on the local roadway network.
The ultimate goal is to improve safety and CBOS was developed in accordance with the guidelines established in the FHWA Localized Bottleneck Reduction (LBR) program. CBOS and the FHWA LBR program share the same common theme, that is, reducing potential crashes within weaving and merging areas has a positive safety impact and is highly cost effective.2
3.11 What Do You Need to Know About the Recommended Projects? The project sheets in Chapter 4 include a project description and schematic, along with summaries of traffic operations, safety, costs, constructability, and other user benefits. Also included on the project sheets is an assessment of impacts associated with each solution. Project sheets include aerial imagery, which provides a concept‐level sketch of the identified solution. Also listed are the potential follow‐up phases, where applicable.
2 FHWA – “Recurring Traffic Bottlenecks: A Primer”, Report No FHWA‐HOP‐12‐012, pg. 16.