2017 Monitoring Report - rtc.wa.gov · Monitor, measure and diagnose the causes of congestion on the regional transportation system; Evaluate and recommend strategies to manage regional

Congestion Management Process, 2017 Monitoring Report

Congestion Management Process 2017 Monitoring Report

Clark County, Washington

Published: August 2018

Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council

Street Address Mailing Address1300 Franklin Street

Vancouver, WA 98660 P.O. Box 1366

Vancouver, WA 98666‐1366

Phone: 360‐397‐6067 Fax: 360‐397‐6132

http://www.rtc.wa.gov

Clark County

Skamania County

Klickitat County

City of Vancouver

City of Camas

City of Washougal

City of Battle Ground

City of Ridgefield

City of La Center

Town of Yacolt

City of Stevenson

City of North Bonneville

City of White Salmon

City of Bingen

City of Goldendale

C‐TRAN

Washington DOT

Port of Vancouver

Port of Camas‐Washougal

Port of Ridgefield

Port of Skamania County

Port of Klickitat

Metro

Oregon DOT

14th Legislative District





Introduction ii


Preparation of this Report was funded by Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) funds and local funds from RTC member jurisdictions.

Title VI Compliance The Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council (RTC) assures that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (P.L. 100.259), be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity. RTC further assures that every effort will be made to ensure nondiscrimination in all of its programs and activities, whether or not those programs and activities are federally funded.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information

Materials can be provided in alternative formats by contacting the

Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council (RTC)

at 360‐397‐6067 or [email protected].

Introduction iii


Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1

Background ............................................................................................................................................................. 1Overall Process ....................................................................................................................................................... 3Purpose, Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 4Congestion Management Boundary and Network ................................................................................................. 6

Congestion Management Network .................................................................................................................. 6Corridor Concept .............................................................................................................................................. 6Land Use ........................................................................................................................................................... 7Multimodal ....................................................................................................................................................... 7Transit Service .................................................................................................................................................. 7Relationship to Regional Plans ......................................................................................................................... 8Preservation and Maintenance ........................................................................................................................ 8Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ................................................................................................. 9Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO) ...................................................................... 9

Performance Measures .......................................................................................................................................... 9Data Elements ................................................................................................................................................ 10Data Collection ............................................................................................................................................... 11Data Analysis and System Performance ......................................................................................................... 11

Chapter 2: System Monitoring ............................................................................................... 15System Performance Measures ............................................................................................................................ 15

Volumes: Vehicle Volumes ............................................................................................................................. 15Volumes: Highest Volume Intersections ........................................................................................................ 16Volumes: Columbia River Bridge Volumes ..................................................................................................... 17Capacity: Corridor Capacity Ratio .................................................................................................................. 17Speed: Auto Travel Speed .............................................................................................................................. 19Speed: Speed as Percent of Speed Limit ........................................................................................................ 20Speed: Intersection Delay .............................................................................................................................. 21Occupancy: Vehicle Occupancy ..................................................................................................................... 22Occupancy: Carpool and Vanpool .................................................................................................................. 22Safety: Collisions ............................................................................................................................................ 22Trucks: Truck Percentage ............................................................................................................................... 23Transit: Transit System Ridership ................................................................................................................... 24Transit: Transit Seat Capacity Used ................................................................................................................ 25Transit: Park and Ride Capacity...................................................................................................................... 25Transit: Transit On‐Time Performance ........................................................................................................... 25

Areas of Concern .................................................................................................................................................. 38Volume‐to‐capacity Ratio .............................................................................................................................. 38Speed ............................................................................................................................................................. 38

Introduction iv


Chapter 3: Strategies ............................................................................................................. 43Transportation Planning Efforts ............................................................................................................................ 43Identify and Evaluate Transportation Strategies .................................................................................................. 44

Objectives of Strategies ................................................................................................................................. 44CMP Toolbox .................................................................................................................................................. 44

Strategy Implementation ...................................................................................................................................... 48Monitor Strategy Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................ 49

Strategy Corridor Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 492007 to 2017 Arterial Comparison ................................................................................................................. 70Corridor Deficiencies ...................................................................................................................................... 71

Key Strategies ....................................................................................................................................................... 72

Chapter 4: Bi‐State ................................................................................................................ 73Bi‐State Corridors .................................................................................................................................................. 73

Bi‐State Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................................. 74Bi‐State Travel Speed ..................................................................................................................................... 74Bi‐State Travel Delay ...................................................................................................................................... 76

I‐205 & SR‐14 Corridors ‐ Washington .................................................................................................................. 76

List of Maps Map 1: Congestion Management Network .......................................................................................................... 13

Map 2: Land Use ................................................................................................................................................... 14Map 3: C‐TRAN System Map ................................................................................................................................... 8Map 4: PM Vehicle Volumes ................................................................................................................................. 27Map 5: AM Capacity Ratio .................................................................................................................................... 28Map 6: PM Capacity Ratio..................................................................................................................................... 29Map 7: 2035 PM Capacity Ratio ............................................................................................................................ 30Map 8: AM Corridor Travel Speed ........................................................................................................................ 31Map 9: PM Corridor Travel Speed ........................................................................................................................ 32Map 10: AM Speed as a Percent of Speed Limit ................................................................................................... 33Map 11: PM Speed as a Percent of Speed Limit ................................................................................................... 34Map 12: PM Intersection Delay ............................................................................................................................ 35Map 13: PM Truck Percentage ............................................................................................................................. 36Map 14: PM Transit Seat Capacity Used ............................................................................................................... 37Map 15: AM Areas of Concern: Volume‐to‐capacity Ratio ................................................................................... 39Map 16: PM Areas of Concern: Volume‐to‐capacity Ratio ................................................................................... 40Map 17: AM Areas of Concern: Speed .................................................................................................................. 41Map 18: PM Areas of Concern: Speed .................................................................................................................. 42

Introduction v


List of Figures Figure 1: Congestion Management Process and Products ..................................................................................... 3Figure 2: Transportation Data Flow ...................................................................................................................... 11Figure 3: Highest Volume to Capacity Ratio Corridors ......................................................................................... 18Figure 4: Lowest Speed Corridors ......................................................................................................................... 19Figure 5: Lowest Speed Percentage Corridors ...................................................................................................... 20Figure 6: Clark County Fatalities and Serious Injury Totals .................................................................................. 23Figure 7: I‐5 North Speed and Capacity ................................................................................................................ 50Figure 8: I‐5 Central Speed and Capacity .............................................................................................................. 50Figure 9: Highway 99 Speed and Capacity ............................................................................................................ 51Figure 10: Hazel Dell Avenue Speed and Capacity ................................................................................................ 51Figure 11: I‐5 South Speed and Capacity .............................................................................................................. 52Figure 12: Main Street Speed and Capacity .......................................................................................................... 52Figure 13: I‐205 Central Speed and Capacity ........................................................................................................ 53Figure 14: I‐205 South Speed and Capacity .......................................................................................................... 53Figure 15: 112th Avenue Speed and Capacity ....................................................................................................... 54Figure 16: St. Johns/Ft. Vancouver Speed and Capacity ....................................................................................... 54Figure 17: Andresen North Speed and Capacity ................................................................................................... 55Figure 18: Andresen South Speed and Capacity ................................................................................................... 55Figure 19: SR‐503 North Speed and Capacity ....................................................................................................... 56Figure 20: SR‐503 South Speed and Capacity ....................................................................................................... 56Figure 21: 137th Avenue Speed and Capacity ....................................................................................................... 57Figure 22: 162nd Avenue North Speed and Capacity ........................................................................................... 57Figure 23: 164th Avenue South Speed and Capacity ............................................................................................ 58Figure 24: 192nd Avenue Speed and Capacity ....................................................................................................... 58Figure 25: SR‐14 West Speed and Capacity .......................................................................................................... 59Figure 26: SR‐14 Central Speed and Capacity ....................................................................................................... 59Figure 27: SR‐14 East Speed and Capacity ............................................................................................................ 60Figure 28: Fourth Plain west of I‐5 Speed and Capacity ....................................................................................... 60Figure 29: SR‐501/Mill Plain Speed and Capacity ................................................................................................. 61Figure 30: Mill Plain West Speed and Capacity ..................................................................................................... 61Figure 31: Mill Plain East Speed and Capacity ...................................................................................................... 62Figure 32: Fourth Plain West Speed and Capacity ................................................................................................ 62Figure 33: SR‐500 West Speed and Capacity ........................................................................................................ 63Figure 34: SR‐500 Central Speed and Capacity ..................................................................................................... 63Figure 35: Fourth Plain Central Speed and Capacity ............................................................................................. 64Figure 36: Fourth Plain East Speed and Capacity .................................................................................................. 64Figure 37: 78th Street Speed and Capacity ............................................................................................................ 65Figure 38: Padden Parkway Speed and Capacity .................................................................................................. 65Figure 39: 99th Street Speed and Capacity ............................................................................................................ 66Figure 40: Burton Road Speed and Capacity ........................................................................................................ 66

Introduction vi


Figure 41: 18th Street Speed and Capacity ............................................................................................................ 67Figure 42: 134th Street Speed and Capacity .......................................................................................................... 67Figure 43: 139th Street Speed and Capacity .......................................................................................................... 68Figure 44: SR‐502 Speed and Capacity .................................................................................................................. 68Figure 45: Pioneer Street Speed and Capacity ...................................................................................................... 69Figure 46: La Center Road Speed and Capacity .................................................................................................... 69Figure 47 Bi‐State Northbound PM Columbia River Crossings ............................................................................. 74Figure 48: Morning Bi‐State Travel Speeds (2011 to 2015) .................................................................................. 75Figure 49: Bi‐State Morning Delay Growth (2011 to 2016) .................................................................................. 76Figure 50: Morning Delay on I‐205, SR‐500 to Airport Way (6.43 miles).............................................................. 77Figure 51: Morning Delay on SR‐14, 192nd AV to I‐205 (4.16 miles) ..................................................................... 78Figure 52: Morning Transit Delay‐Fisher’s Landing to Portland ........................................................................... 78

List of Tables Table 1: Population and Employment .................................................................................................................... 7Table 2: Corridors in the Congestion Management Network ............................................................................... 12Table 3: Highest Volume Intersections ................................................................................................................. 16Table 4: Average Weekday Traffic across the Columbia River ............................................................................. 17Table 5: Average Automobile Occupancy by Time of Day .................................................................................... 22Table 6: Clark County Priority Collision Factors ................................................................................................... 23Table 7: 2017 C‐TRAN Ridership by Type of Service ............................................................................................. 24Table 8: Clark County Park and Ride Capacity and Usage in 2013 ........................................................................ 25Table 9: Corridors with Capacity and/or Speed Deficiencies ................................................................................ 71Table 10: Key Congestion Needs........................................................................................................................... 72Table 11: 2013‐2017 Columbia River Crossings .................................................................................................... 74Table 13: 2017 I‐5 Corridor Speeds ...................................................................................................................... 75Table 14: 2017 I‐205 Corridor Speeds .................................................................................................................. 76

Chapter 1: Introduction 1


Chapter 1: Introduction

Trafficcongestioncanbedefinedasaconditionwherethevolumeofusersonatransportationfacilityexceedsorapproachesthecapacityofthatfacility.Congestioncanbecharacterizedbyheavyvolumes,increasedtraveltime,delay,traveltimeuncertainty,reducedtravelspeed,increaseoftrafficcrashes,orothercharacteristics.Itisimportanttonotethathightrafficvolumesthatmayresultincongestioncanalsobeasignofgrowthandeconomicvitality.Whileitmaybeimpossibletototallyremoveallcongestion,congestionneedstobemanagedinordertoprovideareliabletransportationsystemforusers.

Theabilitytoincreasehighwaycapacityasameanstorelievecongestionislimitedbyconstrainedfinancialresourcesaswellasbyphysicalandnaturalenvironmentalfactors.Therefore,theprimeconsiderationshouldbeimprovementtotheoperationandmanagementoftheexistingandfuturetransportationsystem.

TheCongestionManagementProcess:MonitoringReportoffersinformationtoSouthwestWashingtonRegionalTransportationCouncil1(RTC)forimplementingaCongestionManagementProcess(CMP).TheCMPisawayto:

Monitor,measureanddiagnosethecausesofcongestionontheregionaltransportationsystem;

Evaluateandrecommendstrategiestomanageregionalcongestion;and

Evaluatetheperformanceofstrategiesputinpracticetomanageorimprovecongestion.

Background TheCMPisrequiredtobedevelopedandimplementedasanintegralpartoftheregionalplanningprocessinTransportationManagementAreas,regionswithmorethan200,000people.

Federalregulation23CFR450.320(c)2identifiestherequiredcomponentsforaCMP:

1http://www.rtc.wa.gov/2http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi‐bin/text‐idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=23:1.0.1.5.11&idno=23



High traffic volumes

that may result in

congestion can also

be a sign of growth

and economic

vitality.

1. Methodstomonitorandevaluatetheperformanceofthemultimodaltransportationsystem,identifythecausesofrecurringandnon‐recurringcongestion,identifyandevaluatealternativestrategies,provideinformationsupportingtheimplementationofactions,andevaluatetheeffectivenessofimplementedactions.

2. Definitionofcongestionmanagementobjectivesandappropriateperformancemeasurestoassesstheextentofcongestionandsupporttheevaluationoftheeffectivenessofcongestionreductionandmobilityenhancementstrategiesforthemovementofpeopleandgoods.Sincelevelsofacceptablesystemperformancemayvaryamonglocalcommunities,performancemeasuresshouldbetailoredtothespecificneedsoftheareaandestablishedcooperativelybytheState(s),affectMPO(s),andlocalofficialsinconsultationwiththeoperatorsofmajormodesoftransportationinthecoveragearea.

3. Establishmentofacoordinatedprogramfordatacollectionandsystemperformancemonitoringtodefinetheextentanddurationofcongestion,tocontributeindeterminingthecausesofcongestion,andevaluatetheefficiencyandeffectivenessofimplementedactions.Totheextentpossible,thisdatacollectionprogramshouldbecoordinatedwithexistingdatasources(includingarchivedoperational/ITSdata)andcoordinatedwithoperationsmanagersinthemetropolitanarea.

4. Identificationandevaluationoftheanticipatedperformanceandexpectedbenefitsofappropriatecongestionmanagementstrategiesthatwillcontributetothemoreeffectiveuseandimprovedsafetyofexistingandfuturetransportationsystemsbasedontheestablishedperformancemeasures.Thefollowingcategoriesofstrategies,orcombinationofstrategies,aresomeexamplesofwhatshouldbeappropriatelyconsideredforeacharea:

a. Demandmanagementmeasures,includinggrowthmanagementandcongestionpricing

b. Trafficoperationalimprovements

c. Publictransportationimprovements

d. ITStechnologiesasrelatedtotheregionalITSarchitecture,and

e. Wherenecessary,additionalsystemcapacity

5. Identificationofanimplementationschedule,implementationresponsibilities,andpossiblefundingsourcesforeachstrategy(orcombinationofstrategies)proposedforimplementation.

6. Implementationofaprocessforperiodicassessmentoftheeffectivenessofimplementedstrategies,intermsofthearea’sestablishedperformancemeasures.Theresultsofthisevaluationshallbeprovidedtodecisionmakersandthepublictoprovideguidanceonselectionofeffectivestrategiesforfutureimplementation.



Overall Process TheoverallCongestionManagementProcessusedbySouthwestWashingtonRegionalTransportationCouncilincorporatesthefollowingsteps:

Developpurpose,goalsandobjectives

Identifyboundaryandnetwork

Developperformancemeasures

Monitorsystemperformance

Identifyandevaluatestrategies

Implementstrategies

Monitorstrategyeffectiveness

TheintegrationoftheCongestionManagementProcessintotheoverallMPOplanningprocessisdisplayedinthefollowingfigure.

Figure 1: Congestion Management Process and Products

Develop Purpose and Goals

Identify Boundary and Network

Develop Performance Measures

System Monitoring

Identify and Evaluate Strategies

Implement Strategies

Monitor Strategy Effectiveness

Transportation Improvement Program

Studies, Plans, TSMO,VAST, TDP, CFP, etc.

Regional Transportation Plan

Process Products



Theprocessbeginswiththedevelopmentofpurpose,goals,andobjectivesthatwillbeusedtoguidetheoverallCongestionManagementProcess.Thesepurpose,goals,andobjectivessupportthosecontainedintheRegionalTransportationPlan3.Theboundaryandnetworkareidentifiedtofocuseffortsontheregionallysignificantcorridors.Performancemeasuresaredevelopedtohelpensurethattheprogramisachievingthedesiredgoals.SystemMonitoringisperformedtomeasuresystemperformance.Systemmonitoringisthenusedtoidentifysystemdeficiencies.Identifiedsystemdeficienciesareutilizedtoidentifypotentialstrategies.

Strategiesarefurtheranalyzedthroughregionalandlocalstudies,plans,andprograms.StrategiesarethenincorporatedintotheRegionalTransportationPlan.ProjectandstrategiesidentifiedthroughtheCongestionManagementProcessand

containedintheRegionalTransportationPlanarethenprogrammedandimplementedthroughtheTransportationImprovementProgram4basedonselectioncriteriaandfundingallowances.TheoverallTransportationImprovementProgramselectioncriteriaprioritizeprojectsandprogramsidentifiedthroughtheCongestionManagementProcess.AspartoftheannualCongestionManagementProcess,thecongestiontrendsandeffectivenessofimplementedprojectsareanalyzedbasedonperformancemeasures.

Purpose, Goals and Objectives ThepurposeoftheCMPistoestablishaprocessthatprovidesforeffectivemanagementandoperationofthetransportationsystemincongestionmanagementcorridorstoprovidetravelreliability.

TransportationprojectsandstrategiesidentifiedintheCMPshouldmeetthegoalsfortheregion’slong‐rangetransportationplanningprocessaslistedintheRegionalTransportationPlan(RTP)forClarkCounty.TheseRTPgoalsinclude: 3http://www.rtc.wa.gov/programs/rtp/clark4http://www.rtc.wa.gov/programs/tip/



Economy Supporteconomicdevelopmentandcommunityvitality.

Safety and Security EnsuresafetyandsecurityoftheTransportationSystem.

Accessibility and Mobility Providereliablemobilityforpersonaltravelandfreightmovementaswellasaccesstolocationsthroughouttheregionandintegrityofneighborhoodsaccomplishedthroughdevelopmentofanefficientbalanced,multi‐modalregionaltransportationsystem.

Management and Operations Maximizeefficientmanagementandoperationofthetransportationsystemthroughtransportationdemandmanagementandtransportationsystemmanagementstrategies.

Environmental Protectenvironmentalqualityandnaturalresourcesandpromoteenergyefficiency.

Vision and Values EnsuretheRTPreflectscommunityvaluestohelpbuildandsustainahealthy,livable,andprosperouscommunity.

Finance Provideafinancially‐viableandsustainabletransportationsystem.

Preservation Maintainandpreservetheregionaltransportationsystemtoensuresysteminvestmentsareprotected.

ThefollowingobjectiveswereusedtoguidethedevelopmentofRTC’sCongestionManagementProcess:

Focusuponcongestion,

Emphasizeregionaltravelperspective,

Supportthelocalandregionaltransportationdecision‐makingprocess,

Increasepublicawarenessofcongestionissuesandtradeoffs.



Development type,

density, and location

influence regional

travel patterns and

transportation

access influences

land use and

development.

Individual corridors,

where appropriate,

are made up of more

than one facility.

Congestion Management Boundary and Network

Congestion Management Network

TheboundaryoftheVancouver/ClarkCountyCongestionManagementSystemincludesthemajorinter‐regionalcorridorsandmajorarterialcorridorsconnectingcitiestothebasecongestionmanagementnetwork,(I‐5,SR‐14,SR‐501,SR‐502,SR‐503,andLaCenterRoad).CongestionmanagementcorridorsconnectBattleGround,Ridgefield,andLaCentertoVancouverandtheCMP’sbasenetwork.

Thefirststepindefiningthecongestionmanagementnetworkwastoidentifyasetofcandidatefacilitiesandcorridors.Onlyregionally‐significantcorridorswereconsideredascandidatesforthenetwork.RegionallysignificantcorridorsweredefinedasfacilitiesthatarepartoftheRegionalTransportationSystemasidentifiedintheRegionalTransportationPlan(RTP).

Theinitialcongestionmanagementnetworkwasrefinedfromthelistofcandidatecorridors.Usingfederalguidelinestoincludefacilitieswith“existingorpotentialrecurringcongestion,”professionaljudgmentwasusedtoidentifycorridorswithexistingcongestionandthoselikelytobecomecongested.

Thescopeofthecongestionmanagementnetworkincludes31regionally‐significanttransportationcorridorswithintheClarkCounty,WashingtonregionaslistedinTable2(Page12)andillustratedonMap1(Page13).

Corridor Concept

Animportantstepindefiningthecongestionmanagementnetworkistodefinethebasicunitfordescribingthenetworkandperforminganalyses.FortheVancouver/ClarkCountycongestionmanagementnetwork,transportationcorridorswereselectedasthecongestionmanagementunit.

Thecongestionmanagementcorridorscanbemadeupofmorethanonetransportationfacility.Asinglecorridorcanincludemultipleroadwayswherethereareparallelfacilitiesthatservethesametravelshed.Dataisreportedforindividualroadwayseveniftheyaregroupedintoonecongestionmanagementcorridor.Theendpointsforeachcorridorrepresentlocationswherethecharacteristicsofthecorridorchangesignificantly.

Eachroadwaywithinacorridorisfurtherdividedintoaseriesofsegments.Asegmentistheportionofroadwaybetweenmajorintersectionsorinterchanges.Toallowforconsistentoperationalanalysis,corridorsegmentsweredevelopedsuchthatthecapacityandnumberoflanesremainthesamewithineachsegment.



Land Use

Landuseandtransportationareinterrelated,inthatlanduseandtravelinteractwitheachother.Thetypeofdevelopment,thedensity,anditslocationintheurbanlandscapeinfluencetravelpatterns.Ontheotherhandthelevelofaccesstoandfromthetransportationfacilitytotheadjacentlandusecanaffectthedevelopmentpatterns.

InordertobetterunderstandRTC’sregionalCongestionManagementNetwork,itisimportanttohavesomeunderstandingofthelandusesurroundingthecongestionmanagementcorridors.Map2(Page14)illustratestheCongestionManagementCorridorsandageneralizedmapofthecomprehensivelandusewithintheregion.

Forthepurposeoftraveldemandmodeling,futureforecastsofpopulationandemploymentresultingfromthecomprehensivelanduseplanhavebeendeveloped.Table1illustratesthe2010populationandemploymentforClarkCountyalongwiththe2035forecastthathasbeenadoptedforuseinthelong‐rangeRegionalTransportationPlan.

Table 1: Population and Employment

2010 2035

Population 425,363 562,207

Employment 133,000 232,500

Multimodal

Inadditiontotheroadnetworkitisimportantnottooverlookmodessuchaswalking,bicycling,andtransitandtothedegreethattheycanbeimprovedtohelpmitigatecongestion.

TheClarkCountyBicycleandPedestrianMasterPlan5providesa20‐yearvisionandimplementationstrategyforactivemodes.TheC‐TRANwebsite6providesinformationontheexistingand20‐yearfutureplan7fortheregionaltransitsystem.

TheCMPsupportsbicycle,pedestrian,andtransitsystemsalongandadjacenttotheCMPnetwork.

Transit Service

Theregion’sPublicTransportationBenefitAuthority(C‐TRAN)providestransitserviceswithinClarkCountyandtoPortland,Oregon.C‐TRANalsoprovidesconnectionswithneighboringtransitserviceprovidersinPortland,Oregon,SkamaniaCounty,andCowlitzCounty.Map3illustratesfixedbusrouteswithin

5http://www.clark.wa.gov/planning/bikeandped/docs.html6http://www.c‐tran.com/7http://www.c‐tran.com/about‐c‐tran/reports/c‐tran‐2030



The regional travel

model estimates

approximately 47%

of households and

68% of employment

are within ¼ mile of

PM peak period fixed

route transit service.

ClarkCounty.Inadditiontofixedrouteservice,C‐TRANprovidesconnectorservicetotheirfixedroutesystemfromthecitiesofCamas,LaCenter,andRidgefield.Theregionaltravelmodelestimatesapproximately48%ofthehouseholdsand72%ofemploymentarecurrentlywithinwalkingdistanceoftransit.By2035,thosewithinwalkingdistancetotransitwilldeclineto41%ofthehouseholdsand56%ofemployment.

C‐TRANalsoprovidesparatransitserviceforthoseunabletorideC‐TRAN'sfixedbusservice,throughtheirC‐VANservice.

Map 3: C‐TRAN System Map

Relationship to Regional Plans

TheCMPisoneofthefederallyrequiredcomponentsoftheregionaltransportationplanningprocess.ItisintegratedwiththeRegionalTransportationPlan(RTP)andtheTransportationImprovementProgram(TIP),andotherregionalplansandprocesses.Forexample,aTIPselectioncriterionrewardsprojectsforconsistencywiththeCMP.

Preservation and Maintenance

Oneoftheregion’sgoalsistoensurethatsufficientmoneyisavailabletopreserveandmaintainthetransportationsystemthattheregionhasalreadybuilt.Agencies



andjurisdictionshavesetstandardsforpreservingandmaintainingtheirexistingtransportationsystem.Asthetransportationsystemages,preservationandmaintenancecostsarelikelytotakeupagreaterpercentageofavailabletransportationrevenues.

Transportation Demand Management (TDM)

TransportationDemandManagement(TDM)programsfocusonreducingtraveldemand,particularlyatpeakcommutehours.TDMstrategiescanmakemoreefficientuseofthecurrentroadwaysystemandcanreducevehicletrips.ItisimportantfortheregiontosupportTransportationDemandManagementstrategiesthathelptheregionmakethebestuseoftheexistingroadsystem.

Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO)

ThefocusofRTC’sTransportationSystemsManagementandOperationsprogramisonlow‐cost,quicklyimplementedtransportationimprovementsthataimtooptimizetheexistingtransportationnetwork.Examplesincludelow‐costtechnology‐basedstrategiesandphysicalimprovementsthatimproveoperationofthetransportationsystem.ItisimportantfortheregiontosupportTransportationSystemsManagementandOperationsthatenhancetheexistingtransportationsystem.RTChasanadoptedRegionalTransportationSystemsManagementandOperationsPlan.

Performance Measures Performancemeasuresareusedtodeterminethedegreeofsuccessthataprojectorprogramhashadinachievingitsstatedgoals.Inotherwords,performancemeasuresareawaytotrackprogress.Performancemeasuresareusedtotracktheregion’sprogressinreducingandmanagingcongestion.Forthepurposeofthisreport,bothsystemwideandpeakperiodperformancemeasuresareutilized.

Thereareanumberofperformancemeasuresthattheregionwouldliketouseorexpandbuttherearelimitationsduetocurrentavailabilityofdata.Thefollowingsectionidentifiesthedataelementsthatarecollectedandanalyzed.ChapterIIincludesthemeasurementoftheseperformancemeasures.



We use performance

measures to track

the region’s progress

in reducing and

managing

congestion.

Data Elements

Dataiscollectedonthefollowingelements:trafficcounts,traveltime,automobileoccupancy,andtransit.Inaddition,RTCcompilesandcollectsothermeasuresofsystemperformancesuchashighestvolumeintersections,ColumbiaRiverbridgevolumes,andparkandrideusage.

Thecollecteddataservesasthebasisfordevelopingperformancemeasures.PerformancemeasuresintheCongestionManagementProcessarecategorizedaccordingtotheregion’soveralltransportationgoals.ItisalsoimportanttonotethatperformancemeasuresarecollectedandanalyzedundertheRegionalTransportationPlan,TransportationImprovementProgram,andotherregionalprograms.

Performance Measures

Economy TruckPercentage VehicleVolumes ColumbiaRiverTrafficVolumes

Safety and Security CollisionFactors

Accessibility and Mobility PopulationComparedtoTransit EmploymentandPopulationwithin1/3mileofTransit TransitSeatCapacityUsed

Management and Operations VolumetoCapacityRatio AverageSpeed Speedvs.PostedSpeed IntersectionDelay ParkandRideCapacity VehicleOccupancyRates On‐timeTransitPerformance BusiestIntersections

Environmental VanpoolUsage TransitRidership Park&RideUsage

Vision and Values ComprehensiveLandUse CountyBicycleandPedestrianPlan



Finance None.CoveredinRTPandTIP

Preservation None.CMPSupportsPreservationasaPrimaryStrategy

Data Collection

RTCistheleadagencyforthecollectionoftrafficcongestiondata.SomeofthedataisregularlycollectedbyothertransportationagencieswithintheClarkCountyregion.RTCorganizesaprocessforcollectingallofthedata.TheflowforthecollectionoftransportationdataisillustratedinFigure2.

Figure 2: Transportation Data Flow

IntelligentTransportationSystems(ITS)technologyisautomatingthecollectionofdata.Inaddition,theregionhasinitiatedatransportationdataarchivesystemcalledPORTALtoenhancedataavailability,easeitsretrieval,andassistwiththeanalysisoftransportationdatatosupportperformancemonitoring.RTCanticipatesthatmanyoftheperformancemeasureswillbegintousetheautomatedPORTALdatacollectionprocess.

Data Analysis and System Performance

TransportationdataisanalyzedandvalidatedforuseintheCongestionManagementProcess.Thecollecteddataisthenappliedtodevelopsystemperformancemeasuresforthetransportationcorridors.Systemperformancedataisthenillustratedthroughtext,tables,andmaps.Thesystemperformancedataandmapsarethenusedtoidentifysystemdeficienciesandneeds.



Table 2: Corridors in the Congestion Management Network

Corridor Name Facilities Endpoints

I‐5 North I‐5 County Line I‐205 Junction

I‐5 Central I‐5, Highway 99, Hazel Dell Avenue

I‐205 Junction Main Street

I‐5 South I‐5, Main Street Main Street Interchange Jantzen Beach

I‐205 Central I‐205 I‐5 Junction SR‐500

I‐205 South I‐205, 112th Avenue SR‐500 Airport Way

Saint Johns Saint Johns Road, Saint James Road, Fort Vancouver Way

NE 72nd Avenue Mill Plain Boulevard

Andresen North Andresen Road / NE 72nd Avenue.

119th Street SR‐500

Andresen South Andresen Road SR‐500 Mill Plain Boulevard

SR‐503 North SR 503 SR‐502 119th Street

SR 503 South SR 503 119th Street Fourth Plain, SR‐500

137th Avenue 136th, 137th, 138th Aves. Padden Parkway Mill Plain Boulevard

162nd Avenue North 162nd, 164th Avenues Ward Road Mill Plain Boulevard

164th Avenue South 164th Avenue Mill Plain Boulevard SR‐14

192nd Avenue 192nd Avenue SE 1st Street SR‐14

SR‐14 West SR‐14 I‐5 I‐205

SR‐14 Central SR‐14 I‐205 164th Avenue

SR‐14 East SR‐14 164th Avenue Evergreen Highway

SR‐501, Fourth Plain SR‐501, Mill Plain, Fourth Plain

I‐5 NW 26th Street

Mill Plain West Mill Plain Boulevard I‐5 I‐205

Mill Plain East Mill Plain Boulevard I‐205 192nd Avenue

Fourth Plain West Fourth Plain I‐5 Andresen Road

SR‐500 West SR‐500 I‐5 Andresen Road

Fourth Plain, SR‐500 Central

SR‐500, Fourth Plain Andresen Road SR 503

Fourth Plain East Fourth Plain SR‐503 162nd Avenue

78th Street, Padden Parkway

78th Street, 76th Street, Padden Parkway

Lakeshore Avenue Ward Road

99th Street 99th Street Lakeshore Avenue Saint Johns Boulevard

28th Street, 18th Street 28th Street, Burton Road, 18th Street

Andresen Road 164th Avenue

134thStreet, 139th Street 134th Street, 139th Street, Salmon Creek Avenue

NW 36th Avenue WSU Entrance

SR‐502 SR‐502 I‐5 SR‐503

SR‐501 SR‐501 I‐5 9th Street (Ridgefield)

La Center Road La Center Road I‐5 East Fork Lewis River



Map 1: Congestion Management Network



Map 2: Land Use

Chapter 2: System Monitoring 15


Chapter 2: System Monitoring

Chapter2containsanarrativeandvisualdisplayofthesystemperformancemeasurescontainedintheCongestionManagementProcess.

Systemmonitoringisdescribedintwosections.Thefirst,SystemPerformanceMeasures,consistsofdatacompiledformeasuringsystemperformanceatthecorridorlevel.ItiscomprisedofdatathatsupportstheanalysisoftheCongestionManagementSystem.Thesecond,AreasofConcern,usesshortersegmenttransportationdata,withsupportingdata8providedonline,toidentifyspecificsegmentswithcongestionconcernsrelatedtovolume‐to‐capacityratioandspeed.

Therearemanycausesoftrafficcongestionincludingbottlenecks,trafficincidents,badweather,construction,poorsignaltiming,andotherevents.Thesourceofcongestioncanvaryfromonecorridortoanother,suchthatthestrategiestoimprovecapacitymustbetailoredtoeachcorridor.

Thisreportmeasuresandquantifiesaverageweekdaymorningandeveningpeakperiod“congestion”consistentlyacrossthecongestionmanagementcorridors,throughtheuseofperformancemeasures.

System Performance Measures

Volumes: Vehicle Volumes

AMandPMpeakhourvehiclevolumeswerecompiledfromtheregionaltrafficcountdatabase9.Volumesrepresenttrafficcountswithineachcorridorandprovideagoodcomparisonoftherelativedifferenceintraveldemandamongthecongestionmanagementcorridors.

Peakhourtrafficvolumesforthecongestionmanagementcorridorsaredelineatedbyfourvolumerangecategories.ThesecategoriesareintendedtoprovidearegionalpictureoftravelflowsfortheClarkCountyregion.

PMpeakhourtrendsaresimilartoAMpeakhour;although,mostcongestionmanagementcorridorscarryhighervolumesduringthePMPeak.

8http://www.rtc.wa.gov/programss/cmp/9http://www.rtc.wa.gov/data/traffic/



AM and PM peak

hour vehicle volumes

were compiled from

the regional traffic

count database.

Map4(Page27):DuringthePMpeak,I‐5andI‐205andofSR‐14eastofI‐205displayvolumesgreaterthan3,000vehiclesperhour.Withintheregion,facilitiescarryingmorethan1,500vehiclesinthePMpeakhourincludesegmentsofSR‐14,SR‐500,SR‐503,MillPlain,FourthPlain,PaddenParkway,134thStreet,AndresenRoad,112thAvenue,164thAvenue,and192ndAvenue.

Volumes: Highest Volume Intersections

Table3displaysthehighestvolumeintersectionsin2017basedonthetotalnumberofvehiclesenteringanintersectiononanaverageweekday.At‐gradeintersectionsalongSR‐500,MillPlain,SR‐503,andPaddenParkwaydominatethelist.

Table 3: Highest Volume Intersections

Rank East/West North/South Volume

1 Fourth Plain SR‐500/SR‐503 72,000

2 Mill Plain Chkalov Dr. 71,000

3 SR‐500 54th Avenue 63,000

4 Mill Plain 136th Avenue 61,000

5 Padden Parkway State Route 503 60,000

6 State Route 500 NE 42nd Avenue 58,000

7 Fourth Plain Andresen Road 58,000

8 Mill Plain SE 164th Avenue 57,000

9 NE 78th Street Highway 99 54,000

10 Padden Parkway Andresen Road 53,000

11 Mill Plain NE 120th Avenue 52,000

12 Mill Plain NE 117th Avenue 51,000

13 SR‐502 SR‐503 50,000



The Interstate Bridge

reached capacity

during peak hours in

the early 1990s.

Volumes: Columbia River Bridge Volumes

TheInterstateBridge(I‐5)carriedapproximately33,500vehiclesadayin1961.Volumeshadincreasedtoover108,000vehiclesadayby1980.WiththeopeningoftheGlennJacksonBridge(I‐205)inlate‐1982,totalColumbiaRivercrossingshadincreasedto144,000vehiclesadayby1985.GlennJacksonBridgetrafficvolumesbegantoexceedInterstateBridgetrafficvolumesonadailybasisin1999.Totalbridgecrossingshavedeclinedtwicesince1961,in1974(oilembargo)and2006‐2008(recession).TheGlennJacksonBridgehaditsfirstvehiclevolumedeclineeverin2008.CurrentlytotalColumbiaRivercrossingarenearing300,000vehiclesaday.Table4showsthehistoricalgrowthinColumbiaRiverbridgecrossingssince1980.

BothColumbiaRiverbridgesaresufferingdailycongestionduringmorningandeveningpeakperiods.TheInterstateBridgehadreachedcapacityduringpeakhoursintheearly‐1990s,andtheGlennJacksonBridgeinthemid‐2000s.WithbothColumbiaRiverbridgesatcapacityinthepeakperiods,peakspreadinghasoccurred.Peakspreadingleadstoaflatteningandlongerpeakperiodastripsshifttotimesimmediatelybeforeandafterthepeakdemand.Theimpactofthistypeofcongestionmeansthatthepeakperiodcanlastthreeormorehours.

Table 4: Average Weekday Traffic across the Columbia River

Year I‐5 I‐205 Total

1980 108,600 N/A 108,600

1990 95,400 87,100 182,500

2000 126,900 132,100 259,000

2010 126,700 145,500 272,200

2017 135,000 162,900 297,900

Capacity: Corridor Capacity Ratio

Thecorridorcapacityratioisanaggregationofthevolume/capacityratiosfortheindividualgeneral‐purposesegmentsthatmakeupafacilitywithinacorridor.ThecorridorcapacityratioiscalculatedforboththeAMandPMpeakhoursandforthepeakdirectionsoftravelwithinacorridor.Foreachsegmentinacorridor,thevolume/capacityratio,vehiclemilestraveled,andvehiclemilestraveledweightedbyvolume/capacityratio(theproductofthevolume/capacityratioandvehiclemilestraveled)forthepeakhourarecalculated.Thecorridorcapacityratioisthesumoftheweightedlinkratios.

Thecorridorcapacityratioisanindicatorofcongestion.Thehighertheratio,themoretrafficcongestionadriverislikelytoexperience.Afacilitywithacorridorcapacityratioabove0.90willhavecongestion.Facilitieswithacorridorcapacityrationbetween0.80and0.89willbegintofeelcongested.



Thehighestvolumetocapacityratiocorridorsincludesthefollowing:

1. I‐5:MainStreettoJantzenBeach(AM)–>1.002. 18thStreet:112thAv.to162ndAv.(PM)–0.993. SR‐14:I‐205to164thAvenue(PM)–>0.934. MainStreet:RossSt.toMillPlain(AM)‐>0.925. I‐205:AirportWaytoSR‐500(PM)–>0.91

Figure 3: Highest Volume to Capacity Ratio Corridors

Map5(Page28):MuchoftheAMperiodcongestioncanbeattributedtothedemandforcrossingthetwoInterstatebridgesintoOregon.TheAMperiodsshowcongestionalongmajorfacilitiessuchasI‐5South,MainStreet,I‐205South,SR‐14Central,and18thStreet.

Map6(Page29):InthePMperiod,theworstcongestionisshownalongsomeofthebusiestcorridorsincludingI‐5South,I‐205,SR‐14Central,SR‐500,SR‐503,18thStreet,andFourthPlainEast.InthePMperiodtheI‐5andI‐205ColumbiaRiverbridgeslimitvehicleflowfromOregon,whichbenefitsthecongestionlevelsontheWashingtonsideoftheColumbiaRiver.

Map7(Page30):Inadditiontoexistingcorridorcapacityratio,the2035PMcorridorcapacityratiowascalculatedusingtheregionaltravelforecastingmodel(2014RTPforecastmodelversion).The2035modelshowsthatthefullfundingofplannedtransportationimprovementspositivelyimpactfuturecorridorcapacity.



Slow corridor travel

speed can be an

indicator of delay

and congestion.

Speed: Auto Travel Speed

Traveltimedataiscollectedannually.Thedataiscollectedusingglobalpositioningsystem(GPS)unitsandbydrivingcorridorsasmanytimesaspossibleduringpeakperiods(6:30‐8:30AMand4:00‐6:00PM).Travelspeediscomputedfromthetraveltimedata.Itconsistsofutilizingthetraveltimeanddistancetocalculatetheaveragetravelspeedinthepeakperiodforthroughmovements.

Slowcorridortravelspeedcanbeanindicatorofdelayandcongestion.Betterprogressionandcoordinationbetweensignalswillimproveoveralltraveltime,reliability,andsafety.Thelowestspeedcorridorsinclude:

1. I‐5:MainStreettoJantzenBeach(AM)–9mph2. MainStreet,I‐5toMillPlain(AM)–16mph3. BurtonRoad,Andresento164thAv.(PM)–17mph4. 164thAvenue,SR‐14toMillPlain(PM)–18mph5. AndresenRoad,MillPlaintoSR‐500(PM)–19mph

Figure 4: Lowest Speed Corridors

Map8&9(Pages31‐32):Corridortravelspeedscontinuestodecline.Oneconcernisregionalfacilitiesthathaveatravelspeedbelow20mph,whichmayencouragetripstodiverttoalternateroutesandthroughneighborhoods.DuringtheAMperiod,I‐5Southdisplaysanaveragespeedbelow10mph,andisresultingintrafficdivertingtoothercorridorsandneighborhoodstreets.ConstructiononNE18thStreetisresultinginadiversiontootherstreets,whichisimpactingtravelspeedsonBurtonRoad,NE112thAvenue,and138thAvenue.

InthePMperiod,corridorswithtravelspeedbelow20mphincludeAndresen,112thAvenue,BurtonRoad,FourthPlain,and164thAvenue.However,thereareninecorridorsthatoperatebetween20and22mph.



Speed: Speed as Percent of Speed Limit

Travelspeedwasconvertedtoapercentofpostedspeedlimitforeachofthecongestionmanagementcorridors.Thiswasintendedtoprovideanothermeasureofthedelayalongthecorridor.

Asdevelopmentoccursalongthecorridors,travelspeedoftendecreasesbecauseofcongestion,multipledriveways,andadditionaltrafficsignals.Oneofthedifficultiesisinbalancingaccesstolandusesandmaintainingthethroughputtravelspeed.

Thespeedpercentagesforthefreewayfacilitiesaregenerallycloseto100%ofthepostedspeedlimit.Whilefacilitieswithmultiplesignalizedintersectionsanddrivewaysaregenerallybetween60%and80%ofthepostedspeedlimit.Thelowestspeedpercentageorworstperformingcorridorscomparedtopostedspeedlimitinclude:

1. I‐5,MainSt.toJantzenBeach(AM)–16%2. SR‐500,I‐5toAndresenRd.(PM)–42%3. NE28thSt,Andresento164th(PM)–48%4. MainSt.,RossSt.toMillPlain(AM)–51%5. AndresenRd.,MillPlaintoSR‐500(PM)–53%

Figure 5: Lowest Speed Percentage Corridors

DataalongbothI‐205SouthandSR‐14Centralshowsignificantvariationinaveragetravelspeeds.Historically,bothI‐205SouthandSR‐14Centralexperiencelowspeedcomparedtothepostedspeedlimitsduringthemorningcommute.However,in2017thesecorridorsoperatedaboveaverageonthedaysthatdatawascollected.

Asmentionedpreviously,thereconstructionofNE18thStreetisimpactingthetravelspeedontheBurtonRoadcorridorandotherfacilitiesintheOrchardsarea.



Map10(Page33):IntheAMperiod,I‐5South(16%)andMainStreet(51%)bothoperatedsignificantlybelowthepostedspeed.BothI‐205SouthandSR‐14Centralalsooperatearound50%ofthepostedspeedlimitonanaverageAMperiod.

Map11(Page34):InthePMperiod,SR‐500West(42%),164thAvenue(45%),andBurtonRoad(48%)operatedsignificantlybelowthepostedspeedlimit.WhileSR‐503(52%),Andresen(53%),MillPlainEast(54%),FourthPlainEast(54%),Highway99(55%),112thAvenue(56%),SR‐14Central(57%),

andHazelDellAvenue(59%)alloperatebelow60%ofthepostedspeedlimit.

Speed: Intersection Delay

Thedelayatanintersection,forthethroughmovement,wasrecordedaspartofthePMtraveltime.Delaytimerepresentstheperiodoftimetravelspeedwasbelow5mphduetotheintersectioncontrol.Thedelaytimeatanintersectionwasaveragedforthemultipletraveltimeruns.Intersectionswithanaveragedelaytimeofgreaterthan45,60,and90secondswereidentifiedasalocationofdelayalongacorridor.Thisdelayisonlycalculatedforthroughmovementonthecongestionmanagementcorridoranddoesnotincludedelayassociatedwithleftturnsorcrossstreettraffic.

Thegoalofsignalcoordinationistogetthegreatestnumberofvehiclesthroughacorridorwiththefeweststopsinthesafestandmostefficientmanner.Thehighervolumemovementisgenerallyfavoredoverlowervolumemovements.Inthissituation,thebenefitgainedbytrafficonthehighervolumeapproachexceedsthedegradationinoperationsexperiencedbythelowervolumeapproachandtheoverallintersectionoperationsareimproved.

Map12(Page35):Generally,intersectionsthatdisplayeda45secondorgreaterdelay,fortheaveragethroughmovementonaCMPcorridor,werelocatedwheretwomajorarterialsintersect.Map12displaysthelocationofthe53intersectionsthatdemonstratedthischaracteristic.Oftheseintersections,30hadatleastonedirectionwithanaveragedelaybetween60‐89secondsand8hadatleastonedirectionwithanaveragedelaygreaterthan90seconds.Delayattheseintersectionsaddstotheoveralltraveltimeandincreasescongestionattheselocations.

Thelongestpeakdirectiondelaysareatthefollowingintersections:

1. SR‐500/42ndAv./FalkRd.(Eastbound)–213seconds2. NE28thSt./NE138thAv.(Southbound)–139sec./(Westbound)–149Sec.3. FourthPlain/AndresenRd.(Northbound)–120seconds4. FourthPlain/SR‐503/SR‐500(Northbound)–110seconds5. NE78thSt./Highway99(Westbound)–100seconds

Inadditiontointersectiondelay,delaycanalsooccuratfreewayoff‐ramps,wherehighvolumesoftrafficareloadedontothearterialsystem.Thiscancreateasignificantproblemwhentrafficbacksontothefreeway.LocationsknowntoexperiencethischaracteristicinthePMpeakincludenorthboundI‐205off‐ramptoSR‐14,MillPlain,andSR‐500.IntheAMpeak,backupscanoccuronSR‐500,Fourth



Plain,MillPlain,andSR‐14rampstoI‐5South,andPaddenParkway,SR‐500,18thStreet,MillPlain,andSR‐14rampstoI‐205South.

Occupancy: Vehicle Occupancy

Averageautomobileoccupancyiscalculatedbyobservingpassengercarsatagivenlocationandthenumberofpeopleineachvehicle.Thenumberofpeopledividedbythenumberofpassengercarsistheaverageautomobileoccupancyforthatlocation.Trucks,buses,andothercommercialvehiclesareexcludedfromaverageautomobileoccupancy.DataiscollectedfortheAMandPMtimeperiods.

Table 5: Average Automobile Occupancy by Time of Day

Facility Type AM PM

Freeway * 1.11 1.17

Arterial 1.12 1.25

*FreewayincludesI‐5,I‐205,SR‐14,andSR‐500

TheAMtimeperioddisplaysaloweraverageautomobileoccupancy,withtheAMaverageautomobileoccupancyat1.11personspervehicle.ThePMaverageautomobileoccupancyrateisapproximately1.21personspervehicle.

ItmaybethattheAMpeakperiodismoreofatraditionalcommutetime,whilethePMpeakperiodlikelyhasagreaterpercentageofdiscretionarytripssuchasshoppingwheredrive‐alonetripsarelessprominent.

Occupancy: Carpool and Vanpool

Carpoolsandvanpoolsaremodesthatmitigatecongestionandincreasevehicleoccupancyinthepeakperiods.Carpoolsandvanpoolsformwhenagroupofpeoplecommutetogether.Carpoolsaregenerallyinformal,including2ormorepeople,whilevanpoolarrangementsaregenerallymoreformalandinclude5ormorepeople.C‐TRANowns,maintains,manages,insures,andlicensesafleetofvanswhichareavailabletocommutergroups.In2017,C‐TRANhadtwenty‐fivevanpoolsinservice.

Safety: Collisions

Safetyforallmodesoftravelisanimportantcomponentoftheregionaltransportationplanningprocess.Congestionoftenoccursasaresultofcollisionsorotherincidentsthattemporarilyreducearoad'scapacity.Assuch,theregionhasadoptedMAP‐21SafetyTargets.RTChasagreedtoplanandprogramprojectssothatourregioncontributestowardstheaccomplishmentofWashingtonState’sStrategicHighwaySafetyPlan,TargetZero.



Inthelastfewyearsthelocal,state,andnationaltrendappearstohavereversed,withbothfatalitiesandseriousinjuriesincreasing.Year2014wasaparticularbadyearforfatalitiesinClarkCounty.Figure6showsClarkCountytrendforbothfatalitiesandseriousinjuries,betweenyears2012‐2016(mostrecentavailableyears).

Figure 6: Clark County Fatalities and Serious Injury Totals

ClarkCountytrafficsafetyprioritiesaresetbaseduponthemostfrequentlycitedcontributingfactorsforfatalitiesbetweenyears2014‐2016.Table6liststhepriorityfactorsforClarkCounty:

Table 6: Clark County Priority Collision Factors

Collission Factors

Total

Fatalities Percent

Total Serious

Injuries Percent

Impaired Driver 40 50.6% 78 19.5%

Young Driver 16‐25 26 32.9% 157 39.3%

Distracted Driver 25 31.6% 119 29.8%

Intersection Related 21 26.6% 144 36.1%

Speeding 21 26.6% 114 28.6%

Trucks: Truck Percentage

Trafficcountsarecollectedatseverallocationswherevehiclesareclassifiedaccordingtothenumberofaxles.Thisprovidesameasureoftrucksasapercentageofallvehiclestravelingontheroadway.Trucksaredefinedasvehicleswithmorethantwoaxles,suchastypicaltractor/trailerrigs,travelingontheroadwayduringthepeakperiod.Itisimportanttonote

thattrucksoftentraveloutsideofpeakperiodstoavoidcongestion.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatalities

SeriousInjuries



Map13(Page36):Overall,I‐5North,I‐205North,PioneerStreet(Ridgefield)andMillPlainwestofI‐5displaythehighestpercentageoftruckvolumesduringthePMpeakperiodwithtruckpercentagesgreaterthan7percent.Inaddition,PaddenParkwaywestofI‐205displaysatruckpercentageabove7%inthePMpeakperiod.

IntheAMperiod,thepercentageoftrucksisgenerallyhigher,withbothMillPlainandFourthPlainwestofI‐5averagingover15%trucksduringthemorningcommute.

TheStateFreightandGoodsTransportationSystemclassifyroadwaysaccordingtotheannualgrossfreighttonnagetheycarry.ThissystemdesignatesI‐5,I‐205,andportionsofSR‐14asthehighesttonnagefacilitiesT1‐(Morethan10milliontons).ManyoftheprincipalarterialsandotherstatehighwaysaredesignatedasT2facilities,whichcarry4to10milliontons

Transit: Transit System Ridership

Table7provides2017annualC‐TRANpatronagebytypeofservice.Forpurposeofthisreport2013topresentpassengercountswillonlybeconsidered,sinceC‐TRANchangedtoanautomatedpassengercountsystemin2013.Between2013and2017severaltransitservicerevisionsweremadeandregularfareincreaseswereimplemented.Between2013and2017totalridershipdecreasedby7.1%.

InJanuary2017,C‐TRANimplementedtheirfirstBusRapidTransitlinealongtheFourthPlaincorridorbetweenVancouverMallanddowntownVancouver.C‐TRANiscurrentlyanalyzingaBusRapidTransitlinealongtheMillPlaincorridor.

Approximately82%ofC‐TRANsystemridershipwasmadeupofurbanfixedroutepatrons,followedbycommuterservicethatcarried12%ofthetotalridersandC‐VANcarried4%ofthetotalriders.Vanpoolusageisapproximately1%ofthetotalridership.

Table 7: 2017 C‐TRAN Ridership by Type of Service

Service Type Annual Riders Percent

Urban/Local 4,959,347 82.3%

Commuter 732,850 12.2%

C‐VAN 245,919 4.1%

Events/Other 23,234 0.4%

Connector 11,439 0.2%

Vanpool 54,894 0.9%

Total 6,027,683 100.0%



Transit: Transit Seat Capacity Used

Transitseatcapacityusedincludestransitridersdividedbythetransitcapacityatadefinedlocation.Transitseatcapacityrepresentsthepercentageofseatsthatareoccupiedduringthetwo‐hourpeakperiod.C‐TRANusesanautomatedridershipcollectionsystemontheirvehicles.RTCcompiledthisdataataspecificlocationineachcorridortocalculatebuscapacitybasedonthevehiclesizeandfrequencyofservice.Thisprocesshasallowedfortheestimationoftransitpatronageandcapacityforcongestionmanagementcorridors.

Map14(Page37):Generally,inthePMPeakperiod,thenumberofavailableseatsishighertoaccommodatethegreatertransitdemand.Themajorityofthecorridorswithtransitserviceutilizemorethan50%oftheavailableseatcapacityduringthePMPeakperiod.

Transit: Park and Ride Capacity

ParkandRidecapacityanddailyaverageusageincludelotsownedorleasedbyC‐TRAN.InadditiontothecapacityshowninTable8,thereareWSDOTmaintainedorinformalparkandrideandparkandpoolfacilitieslocatedthroughouttheCounty.ClarkCountyParkandRidecapacityandusageforC‐TRANservedfacilitiesareshowninTable8.

Table 8: Clark County Park and Ride Capacity and Usage in 2013

Facility Lot Capacity Lot Usage Occupancy

99th Street 609 366 60%

Evergreen 267 42 16%

Salmon Creek 472 251 53%

Andresen/Living Hope 100 99 99%

Fisher’s Landing 761 503 66%

Columbia House 34 30 87%

Total 2,243 1,291 58%

Transit: Transit On‐Time Performance

Trafficcongestion,stationdwelltime,wheelchairboardings,congestion,andotherfactorscanimpacttransitvehicles’abilitytomaintainaschedule.

C‐TRAN’s2017On‐TimePerformanceReportshowsthatroutesthatcrosstheColumbiaRiverintoOregonhadtheloweston‐timeperformanceduetodelaysassociatedwithcongestion(40%to55%.ForrouteswithinClarkCountyaverageon‐timeperformanceisgenerallymuchhigherat70%to85%.



InSeptember2016,C‐TRANmodifiedlocalbi‐statetransitserviceintheI‐5corridor.AlllocalroutesnowturnaroundinDowntownVancouverwithriderstransferingtoRoute60(DeltaParkLimited)forlocaltransitserviceintoOregon(JantzenBeachandDeltaPark).CommuterroutescontinuetoservedestinationinOregon.

InJanuary2017C‐TRANreplacedRoute4withC‐TRAN’sfirstBusRapidTransit(BRT)servicealongtheFourthPlaincorridor,betweenVancouverMallandDowntownVancouver.ThisnewBRTrouteiscalledTheVine.

C‐TRANismovingforwardtoimplementTransitSignalPriorityonMillPlainandHighway99,afterapilotprojectshowedimprovementstocorridortraveltimeandon‐timeperformancewithoutnegativelyimpactingroadwaytraffic.TransitSignalPriorityallowsbussestocommunicatewithtrafficsignalsandallowadditionalgreentimeforbuseswhereneeded.



Map 4: PM Vehicle Volumes



Map 5: AM Capacity Ratio



Map 6: PM Capacity Ratio



Map 7: 2035 PM Capacity Ratio



Map 8: AM Corridor Travel Speed



Map 9: PM Corridor Travel Speed



Map 10: AM Speed as a Percent of Speed Limit



Map 11: PM Speed as a Percent of Speed Limit



Map 12: PM Intersection Delay



Map 13: PM Truck Percentage



Map 14: PM Transit Seat Capacity Used



Areas of Concern UsingtheindividualCMScorridorsegmentdata,areasofconcernswereidentified.Areasofconcernaredefinedassegmentswithinanindividualcorridorwithavolume‐to‐capacity(V/C)ratiogreaterthat0.9oratravelspeed60%orlessofthepostedspeedlimit.

Volume‐to‐capacity Ratio

Thevolume‐to‐capacityratioidentifiesroadsegmentswherecurrentvolumesareapproachingroadcapacity.Thislimitationonroadcapacityleadstocongestion.

Map15(Page39):Prominentvolume‐to‐capacityratioareasofconcernintheAMpeakperiodareassociatedwiththebottlenecksatthetwointerstatebridges.TheAMperiodshowsahighvolume‐to‐capacityratiowithrelatedpoorsystemperformanceonportionsofI‐5,MainStreet,St.Johns,I‐205,SR‐14,NE18thStreet,andSR‐500.

Map16(Page40):InthePMperiod,additionalvolume‐to‐capacityratioareasofconcernshowedup.ThePMperiodshowscongestiononportionsofI‐5,I‐205,SR‐14,SR‐500,SR‐503,MillPlain,FourthPlain,134thStreet,112thAvenue,and18thStreet.

Speed

Atravelspeedlowerthan60%ofthepostedspeedlimitisanindicatorofdelay,whichcanresultincongestion.Oftenthesespeedareasofconcernoccuratmajorbottlenecksorlocationswithmultipletrafficsignalsincloseproximityoratahighvolumeintersection.

Map17(Page41):IntheAMperiod,speedareasofconcernoccuralongportionsofI‐5,I‐205,SR‐14,SR‐500,SR‐503,MainStreet,Highway99,Ft.VancouverWay,St.Johns,Andresen,112thAvenue,137thAvenue,162ndAvenue,192ndAvenue,MillPlain,FourthPlain,78thStreet,PaddenParkway,134thStreet,and139thStreet.

Map18(Page42):InthePMperiod,speedareasofconcernoccuralongportionsofmostofthecongestionmanagementsystemintheVancouverUrbanArea.



Map 15: AM Areas of Concern: Volume‐to‐capacity Ratio



Map 16: PM Areas of Concern: Volume‐to‐capacity Ratio



Map 17: AM Areas of Concern: Speed



Map 18: PM Areas of Concern: Speed

Chapter 3: Strategies 43


Chapter 3: Strategies

Becauseeachroadwaycorridorhasitsowncharacteristics,congestionmanagementeffortsmustbetailoredtomeettheneedsofaroadway.Transportationprofessionalsmustemployavarietyofstrategiestoeffectivelymanagecongestion.

Transportation Planning Efforts RTCisinvolvedinanumberoftransportationplanningeffortsintendedtoaddresstheimpactsoftrafficcongestion.Thefollowingisalistofcurrenttransportationplanningefforts:

TheRegionalTransportationPlan10forClarkCounty(RTP)isthemostprominentplanningdocument.Theplanisdesignedtobeaguidefortheeffectiveinvestmentofpublicfundsforregionaltransportationneedsoveratwenty‐yearperiod.Theregionusesawiderangeofdatatodeveloparegionaltraveldemandforecastingmodel.Usingthemodel,theregioncanidentifywherefuturecongestionismostlikelytooccur.TheRegionalTransportationPlanwillbeupdatedin2018.

TheTransportationSystemManagementandOperationsPlan11(TSMO),wasupdatedandadoptedbytheRTCBoardinSeptember2016.TSMOfocusesonlow‐cost,quicklyimplementedtransportationimprovementsthataimtoutilizeexistingtransportationfacilitiesmoreefficiently.TSMOcombinesadvancedtechnologies,operationalpoliciesandprocedures,andexistingresourcestoimprovecoordinationandoperationofthemultimodaltransportationnetwork.

TheC‐TRAN20‐yearTransitDevelopmentPlan12wasadoptedin2010andupdatedin2016.Thisplanningprocessisdesignedtobuilduponexistingserviceanddevelopfutureoperatingscenariosforpublictransit.TheplanincorporatestherecommendationsoftheHighCapacityTransitSystemPlan.

TheCTRprogramisintendedtoimprovetransportationsystemefficiency,conserveenergy,andimproveairqualitybydecreasingthenumberofcommutetripsmadebypeopledrivingalone.TheCityofVancouverisimplementingtheirCTRplanthroughDestinationDowntown13.

10http://rtc.wa.gov/programs/rtp/clark/11http://rtc.wa.gov/programs/vast/docs/tsmoReport2016.pdf12http://www.c‐tran.com/about‐c‐tran/reports/c‐tran‐203013http://www.cityofvancouver.us/ced/page/destination‐downtown



The2014HumanServicesTransportationPlanforClark,Skamania,andKlickitatCounties14summarizesthetransportationneedsforpeoplewho,becauseofdisability,lowincome,orage,facetransportationchallenges.Italsoidentifiesthetransportationactivitiestorespondtothesechallenges.AnupdatetothisPlanwillbecompletedin2018.

AnUrbanFreewayCorridorsOperationsStudywillbeginin2018.ThisStudywillanalyzenear‐termoperationalandsystemmanagementimprovementsonfreewaysintheVancouverregionthatcouldservetomakethetransportationsystemoperatemoreefficientlyandpredictably.

Identify and Evaluate Transportation Strategies TheinformationanddatacontainedintheSystemMonitoringchapterisusedtoidentifyappropriatecongestionmanagementstrategiesfortheregion.Theidentificationandselectionofstrategiesforaparticularsegmentorcorridorshouldbetiedtothespecificcongestionissue.RTCwillworkcollaborativelywithmemberagenciestoidentifyandadvanceappropriatestrategiesformanagingcongestion.

StrategiesaredetailedintheCMPToolbox.TheintentoftheCMPToolboxistoprovideareferenceforthedevelopmentofalternativestrategiesforconsiderationincorridordevelopmentinrelationshiptotheRegionalTransportationPlan.

Objectives of Strategies

Reducingcongestionintheregionwillrequireaccomplishingthefollowingobjectives:

Preservationandmaintenanceoftheexistingsystem

Improvingsystemperformancethroughoperationandmanagementstrategies

Wherepossible,shiftingtripstoothermodes

Additionofautocapacityatkeybottlenecks

CMP Toolbox

OneofthecomponentsofRTC’sCongestionManagementProcessisatoolboxofcongestionreductionandmobilitystrategies.Theintentofthistoolboxistoencouragewaystodealwithcongestionandmobilityissuespriortotraditionalroadwaywideningprojects.Priortoaddingsingleoccupantvehicle(SOV)capacity,agenciesandjurisdictionsshouldgiveconsiderationtothevariousstrategies 14http://rtc.wa.gov/programs/hstp/



Preservation and

maintenance of

existing systems is

essential to mobility.

identifiedinthissection.Usually,multiplestrategiesareapplicablewithinacorridor,whileotherstrategiesareintendedtobeappliedregion‐wide.

TheCMPtoolboxstrategieswereassembledtoprovideawiderangeofstrategiesthatcouldbeusedtomanagecongestion.Theyarearrangedsothatthestrategiesareconsideredinorderfromfirsttolast.Evenwiththeadditionofcapacity,manyofthestrategiescanbeimplementedwiththeprojecttoensurethelong‐termmanagementofacapacityproject.

System Preservation and Maintenance

Essentialforcontinuedtransportationmobilityisthepreservationandmaintenanceoftheexistingroadway,bridge,ports,rail,transit,bicycle,pedestrian,andothersystems.

Safety Improvements

Itisvitalthattheregionbuildsandmaintainsatransportationsystemthatprovidesasafeandsecuremeansoftravelbyallmodes.Thetypeofsafetyimprovementisdependentontheneedateachlocation.

Transportation Demand Management

TransportationDemandManagement:Optionssuchasalternativeworkhours,telecommuting,ridesharing,andotheroptionscanremove,shift,orcombinetripstoreduceoveralldemandduringpeakperiods.ManyofthesestrategiescanbesuccessfullyimplementedthroughaCommuteTripReduction(CTR)program.

Transit Improvements

Bus Route Coverage Providesbettertransitaccessibilitytoagreatershareofthepopulation.

Bus Frequencies and Transit Amenities Makestransitmoreattractivetouse.

Park‐and‐Ride Lot Inconjunctionwithexpressbusservice,canencouragetheuseoftransitforlongerdistancecommutetrips.

High Capacity Transit Providesahighertransitservicetomaximizetransitusagewithinurbancorridors.



Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements

New Sidewalks and Bicycle Lanes, Separated Pathways, and Trails Providesbetterpedestrianandbicycleaccessibilitytoagreatershareofthepopulation.Alsoincreasestheperceptionofpedestrianandbicyclesafety.

Bicycle Amenities Bicycleracks,lockers,andotherbicycleamenitiesattransitstationsandothertripdestinationsincreasessecurityandprovidesincentivesforusingbicycles.

Pedestrian‐Oriented Development Buildingsetbackrestrictions,streetscape,andotherpedestrianorienteddevelopmentcanbecodifiedinzoningordinancestoencouragepedestrianactivity.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Maintaininglighting,signage,striping,trafficcontrol,andothersafetyimprovementscanincreasebicycleandpedestrianusage.

Transportation System Management and Operations

Traffic Signal Coordination Thisimprovestrafficflowandminimizesstopsonarterialstreets.

Incident Management System Isaneffectivewaytoalleviatenon‐recurringcongestion.Primarilyapplicableonfreeways.

Ramp Metering Thisallowsfreewaytomaintainflowrates,resultinginimprovedoperationsandreducingcongestiononfreeways.

Highway Information Systems Thesesystemsprovidetravelerswithreal‐timeinformationthatcanbeusedtomaketripandroutedecisions.

Advanced Traveler Information Systems Thisprovidesdatatotravelersinadvancedbycomputerortootherdevices.



Access Management

Left Turn Restrictions Turningvehiclescanimpedetrafficflowandaremorelikelytobeinvolvedincollisions.

Consolidation or Relocation of Driveways Insomesituations,increasingorimprovingaccesstopropertycanimprovetrafficflowandreducecollisions.

Interchange Modification Modificationofinterchangescanreduceweavingandimprovetrafficflow.

Minimum Intersection/Interchange Spacing Appropriatespacingofintersection/interchangescanreducenumberofconflictpointsandmergeareas,resultinginfewerincidentsandbettertrafficflow.

Collector‐Distributor Roads Collector‐distributorroadsareusedtoseparateinterchangetrafficfromthroughtrafficatcloselyspacedinterchanges,resultinginfewerincidentsandbettertrafficflow.

Land Use

Mixed‐Use Development Thiscanallowmanytripstobemadeinanareabywalkingratherthanuseofavehicle.

Infill and Densification Thistakesadvantageofexistinginfrastructure,ratherthanrequiringnewinfrastructuretobebuilt.

Transit Oriented Development Allowsimprovedpedestrianaccessfromtransittohousingandbusinesses.



The CMP provides

information to help

guide the investment

of transportation

funding toward

improving

congestion.

Parking Enforcement Enforcementofexistingregulationscanimprovetrafficflowinurbanareas.

Location Specific Parking Ordinances Parkingrequirementscanbeadjustedforfactorssuchasavailabilityoftransit,mixoflanduse,andpedestrianorienteddevelopmentthatreducestheneedforon‐siteparking.

Carpool/Vanpool Parking Preferential,reduced,orfreeparkingforcarpool/vanpoolcanprovideanincentiveandreduceparkingdemand.

Roadway Improvements

Geometric Design Improvements Additionofturnlanesatintersections,roundabouts,improvedsightdistance,auxiliarylanes,andothergeometricimprovementscanreducecongestionbyremovingbottlenecks.

Upgrade Roads to Urban Standards Upgradingfromruralroadstourbanstandardswithimprovedgeometry,bicyclelanes,sidewalks,andtransitamenitiescanimprovetrafficflowforallmodes.

Grade Separation Upgradehighvolumeintersectiontoaninterchangeorgradeseparatedfacilitycansignificantlyreducetrafficdelayandreducecongestion.

Road Widening to Add Travel Lanes Canincreasecapacityandremovecongestion.

Strategy Implementation RTC’sCongestionManagementProcessprovidesatoolformonitoringtheregion’strafficcongestion.TheCMPprovidesinformationtohelpguidetheinvestmentoftransportationfundingtowardimprovingcongestion.InformationdevelopedthroughtheCongestionManagementProcesswillbeappliedthroughtheRTCregionaltransportationplanningprocess.

IncoordinationwithWSDOT,C‐TRAN,andlocalagencies,RTCutilizestheCongestionManagementProcesstoidentifytransportationsystemneeds.Thiseffortissupportedbyregionalstudies,localcapitalfacilityplans,regionaltransportationmodel,andotherplanningeffortswhichallfeedintothedevelopmentoftheRegionalTransportationPlan15(RTP).Needsaredeveloped

15http://www.rtc.wa.gov/programs/mtp/



basedonaplanninglevelanalysisthatconsidershowvariousstrategiescanaddresscongestionpriortoaddingcapacity.IdentifiedcongestionneedsarethenincorporatedintoRegionalTransportationPlanrecommendations.ProjectsponsorsthenmustgiveconsiderationtothevariousstrategiesfromtheCMPToolboxasprojectsmoveforwardtoimplementation.

LocalprojectprioritiesarethensubmittedtoRTCandprioritizedthroughtheregionalTransportationImprovementProgram16(TIP)whichselectspriorityprojectsforimplementation.ForpurposeofselectingprojectstofundthroughtheTIPprocess,additionalpointsareawardedtoaprojectthat:

AreLocatedontheCMPNetwork

AddressesCongestion

IncorporatesAlternativeModes

IncorporatesTransportationSystemManagementAlternatives

Monitor Strategy Effectiveness Thisreportcontainsdatathatallowsforthecontinuingdevelopmentandupdatingofinformationtotracktheperformanceoftheregionaltransportationsystemandimplementedstrategies.

InassessingthedegreetowhichtheCMPstrategiesaddresscongestionissues,projectsaretrackedthroughtheprojectimplementationprocessandresultsarereportedbacktoregionaltechnicalcommittees.Aspartoftheprojectimplementationprocess,allregionallyselectedprojectsarerequiredtocompleteabeforeandafteranalysisthatidentifiesprojectgoalsandoutcomes.

Strategy Corridor Analysis

Thissectiondisplaysthelinkagesbetweentransportationinfrastructureimprovementsandcorridorperformance.Systeminfrastructureimprovementsoftenimpacttheoperationwithinacorridor.Sometimesaprojectremovesalocalizedbottleneck,whileotherprojectshavecorridor‐wideimpacts.

Thefollowinggraphsshowoverallcorridortravelspeedcomparedtopostedspeedlimitandvolumetocapacityratioincomparisontoimplementedandfutureinfrastructureimprovements.Thisanalysisisforeachfacilityasawhole,andisnotnecessarilyanindicatorofindividualbottlenecks.Roadwaysarelikelytoexperiencecorridor‐widecongestionwhenaveragetravelspeedfallsunder60percentofpostedspeedlimitorwhenaveragevolumetocapacityratioisgreaterthan90percent.

16http://www.rtc.wa.gov/programs/tip/



I‐5 North, County Line to I‐205 Junction

Neitherspeednorcapacityindicatespotentialcorridor‐widecongestion.CorridorimprovementsarereflectiveoftheneedforimprovedaccesstotheCorridor.Futurecorridorimprovementsincludethereconstructionofthe179thStreetinterchange.

Figure 7: I‐5 North Speed and Capacity

I‐5 Central, I‐205 Junction to Main Street

Neitherexistingspeednorcapacityindicatespotentialcorridor‐widecongestion.ThesouthernportionofthiscorridorcanbeimpactedbymorningcongestionfromtheI‐5Southcorridor.FuturecorridorimprovementsincludeTransportationSystemManagementandOperational(TSMO)projects.

Figure 8: I‐5 Central Speed and Capacity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Improvements AMSpeed% PMSpeed%

AMV/CRatio PMV/CRatio

Fiber

Optic Communications

Salm

onCreek Interchange

TSMO

Salm

onCreek P&R

Bi‐State Travel Tim

e

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Projects AMSpeed% PMSpeed%

AMV/C PMV/C

SR‐502 Interchange

PioneerSt. Interchange

179th Interchanges

La Cen

ter Interchange


e



Highway 99, 139th Street to I‐5

Themorningandeveningspeedsindicatespotentialcorridor‐widecongestion.Futurecorridorenhancementsincludeselectroadimprovements,TSMO,andtransitprojects.

Figure 9: Highway 99 Speed and Capacity

Hazel Dell Avenue, Highway 99 to 63rd Street

Theeveningspeedindicatespotentialcorridorwidecongestion.FuturecorridorimprovementsincludeTSMOprojects.

Figure 10: Hazel Dell Avenue Speed and Capacity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



Salm

onCreek Interchange

99th St. Intersection/TSM

O

Traffic Signal Coordination

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%




TSMO



I‐5 South, Main Street to Jantzen Beach

Morningspeedandcapacityindicateapatternofcorridor‐widecongestion.FuturecorridorimprovementsincludeanewI‐5Bridge,interchanges,andaddedtransitcapacity.Intheshort‐termtheregionneedstofocusonTransportationDemandManagementandTransportationSystemManagementsolutions.

Figure 11: I‐5 South Speed and Capacity

Main Street, I‐5 to Mill Plain

Morningspeedandcapacityindicatesapatternofcorridor‐widecongestion,astripsdivertfromthecongestedI‐5corridor.FuturecorridorimprovementsincludeI‐5BridgereplacementandTSMOprojects.

Figure 12: Main Street Speed and Capacity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%


AMV/CRatio PMV/CRatioFiber Optic Communications

Replace Bridge

/Transit


e

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



I‐5 Bridge/TSM

O



I‐205 Central, I‐5 to SR‐500

Corridordataindicatesabusycorridorthatisnearcapacity.TheEveningspeedsignificantlydeclinein2017indicatingcongestion.Futurecorridorimprovementsincludeadditionaltravellanes,transit,operational,andinterchangeprojects.

Figure 13: I‐205 Central Speed and Capacity

I‐205 South, SR‐500 to Airport Way

BothMorningandeveningspeedsandcapacityindicatecongestion.Themorningperiodshowssignificantvariationintravelspeeds.Futurecorridorimprovementsincludeinterchangemodifications,transit,andoperationalprojects.

Figure 14: I‐205 South Speed and Capacity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%




es

Add lanes/Transit/Operations

Fiber Optic Communications

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



Fiber Optic Communications

Interchange/O

peration/Transit

112th

Av. Connector

Bi‐StateTravel Tim

es

18th Street Interchange



112th Avenue, SR‐500 to Mill Plain

Eveningspeedindicatespotentialcorridor‐widecongestion.FuturecorridorimprovementsincludeurbanroadupgradesandTSMOprojects.

Figure 15: 112th Avenue Speed and Capacity

St. Johns/Ft. Vancouver, 72nd Avenue to Mill Plain

Neitherexistingspeednorcapacityindicatespotentialcorridor‐widecongestion.FuturecorridorimprovementsincludeintersectionandTSMOprojects.

Figure 16: St. Johns/Ft. Vancouver Speed and Capacity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



Urban

Upgrade/TSMO

Traffic Signals Upgrade

18th

St Intersection

112th Av. Connector

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



Intersections/TSMO

SR‐500Interchange

Widen 50th to 72nd Av.



Andresen North, 119th Street to SR‐500

Neitherspeednorcapacityindicatescorridorwidecongestion.FuturecorridorimprovementsincludeintersectionandTSMOprojects.

Figure 17: Andresen North Speed and Capacity

Andresen South, SR‐500 to Mill Plain

Eveningspeedindicatescongestioninthecorridor.FuturecorridorimprovementsincludeTSMOprojects.

Figure 18: Andresen South Speed and Capacity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



Intersections/TSMO

Traffic Signal Upgrade

Widen 88th St. to 110th St.

119th St. Intersection/TSM

O

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



TSMO

Traffic SignalUpgrade



SR‐503 North, SR‐502 to 119th Street

Corridordataindicatesaverybusycorridorthatisnearcapacity.FuturecorridorprojectsincludeSR‐502/SR‐503IntersectionimprovementandTSMOprojects.

Figure 19: SR‐503 North Speed and Capacity

SR‐503 South, 119th Street to Fourth Plain

Thisisabusycorridorthatindicatescorridor‐widecongestionassociatedwithcapacityandspeed.FuturecorridorimprovementsincludeFourthPlainintersectionimprovements,drainage,accessmanagement,andTSMOprojects.

Figure 20: SR‐503 South Speed and Capacity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



Intersection/TSM

O

119th Street Intersection

Traveler Inform

ation

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



Intersections/TSMO


Traveler Inform

ation




137th Avenue, Padden Parkway to Mill Plain

Neitherspeednorcapacityindicatescorridorwidecongestion.Futurecorridorprojectsincluderoadimprovementsbetween49thStreetandFourthPlainandTSMOimprovements.

Figure 21: 137th Avenue Speed and Capacity

162nd Avenue North, Ward Road to Mill Plain

Thisisanincreasinglybusycorridorthatisapproachingcapacity.Speeddoesnotindicatecorridorwidecongestion.FuturecorridorimprovementsincludeTSMOprojects.

Figure 22: 162nd Avenue North Speed and Capacity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



49th to 4th Plain/TSM

O

49th Street Roundabout

28th to 49th ST. Roundabouts

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



TSMO



164th Avenue South, Mill Plain to SR‐14

Since2015,morningandeveningspeedhaveshownasharpdeclineindicatingsubstantialcongestion.FuturecorridorimprovementsincludeTSMOprojects.

Figure 23: 164th Avenue South Speed and Capacity

192nd Avenue, SE 1st Street to SR‐14

Neitherspeednorcapacityindicatespotentialcorridor‐widecongestion.FuturecorridorimprovementsincludeTSMOprojects.

Figure 24: 192nd Avenue Speed and Capacity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



TSMO

Intersection Im

provemen

ts

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



TSMO

Traffic Signal Communication

Traffic Signals



SR‐14 West, I‐5 to I‐205


Figure 25: SR‐14 West Speed and Capacity

SR‐14 Central, I‐205 to 164th Avenue

Bothspeedandcapacityindicatebothmorningandeveningcorridor‐widecongestion.Futurecorridorimprovementsincludeadditionallanes,interchangereconfiguration,andTSMOprojects.

Figure 26: SR‐14 Central Speed and Capacity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



TSMO

Traveler Inform

ation

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



Additional Lanesy/TSMO

Traveler Inform

ation

Bus on Shoulder



SR‐14 East, 164th Avenue to County Line

Neitherspeednorcapacityindicatespotentialcorridor‐widecongestion.Although,164thto192ndAvenuecanbeimpactedbymorningcongestion.Futurecorridorimprovementsincludeaddedaccessandcapacity,replacementofWestCamasSloughBridge,andTSMOprojects.

Figure 27: SR‐14 East Speed and Capacity

Fourth Plain, I‐5 to Port of Vancouver


Figure 28: Fourth Plain west of I‐5 Speed and Capacity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



Capacity/Bridge/TSM

O

Traveler Inform

ation

NW 6th Av. to 6th St. W

iden

ing

Traveler Inform

ation

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



TSMO



SR‐501/Mill Plain, I‐5 to Fourth Plain

Neitherspeednorcapacityindicatescorridorwidecongestion.Thedecreaseinspeedin2015wasduetotheconstructionofanapartmentcomplexinthecorridor.Futurecorridorimprovementsincludebothroadandinterchangemodificationstoimprovefreightmovement.

Figure 29: SR‐501/Mill Plain Speed and Capacity

Mill Plain West, I‐5 to I‐205

Neitherspeednorcapacityindicatespotentialcorridor‐widecongestion.Futurecorridorimprovementsinclude104/105thIntersectionrealignment,BRT,andTSMOprojects.

Figure 30: Mill Plain West Speed and Capacity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



Interchange/G

eometric/TSMO

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



Intersection/BRT/TSMO

104th Avenue Intersection

Traffic Signals

Sidew

alk and Transit



Mill Plain East, I‐205 to 192nd Avenue

Eveningspeedindicatespotentialcorridor‐widecongestion.FuturecorridorimprovementsincludeBRTandTSMOprojects.

Figure 31: Mill Plain East Speed and Capacity

Fourth Plain West, I‐5 to Andresen Road

Neitherspeednorcapacityindicatespotentialcorridor‐widecongestion.FuturecorridorimprovementsincludetransitandTSMOprojects.

Figure 32: Fourth Plain West Speed and Capacity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



BRT/TSMO

Street Lights

Traffic Signals

136th Av. Intersection

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



Transit/SM

O

65th/66thAv. Alignment



SR‐500 West, I‐5 to Andresen Road

Eveningspeedsindicatecorridor‐widecongestion.WSDOTisconductingacorridorstudytoidentifyashort‐termsolution.Futurecorridorimprovementsincludegradeseparationat42ndand54thAvenues,andTSMOprojects.

Figure 33: SR‐500 West Speed and Capacity

SR‐500 Central, Andresen Road to SR‐503/Fourth Plain

Eveningspeedsindicatesthepotentialofcorridor‐widecongestion.FuturecorridorimprovementsincludegradeseparationatFourthPlain,auxiliarylanes,andTSMOprojects.

Figure 34: SR‐500 Central Speed and Capacity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



Grade Seperation/TSM

O

St. Johns Interchange

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



Grade Seperation/TSM

O

I‐205ExtendAuxiliaryLane

Add Turn Lanes at Fourth Plain



Fourth Plain Central, Andresen Road to SR‐503

Neitherspeednorcapacityindicatespotentialcorridor‐widecongestion.TheVineBRTconstructionimpactedspeedinyear2016.FuturecorridorimprovementsincludegradeseparationatSR‐500/FourthPlain,transit,andTSMOprojects.

Figure 35: Fourth Plain Central Speed and Capacity

Fourth Plain East, SR‐503 to 162nd Avenue

Botheveningspeedandcapacityindicatescorridor‐widecongestion.In2016,speedpercentageimprovedasspeedwasloweredinthecorridor.FuturecorridorimprovementsincludegradeseparationatSR‐503/FourthPlain,Urbanroadupgrades,transit,andTSMOprojects.

Figure 36: Fourth Plain East Speed and Capacity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



Grade Separation/Transit

TrafficsignalCoordination

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



Urban

Upgrade/TSMO

TrafficSignalCoordination



78th Street, Lake Shore Avenue to SR‐503


Figure 37: 78th Street Speed and Capacity

Padden Parkway, 78th Street to Ward Road

Neitherspeednorcapacityindicatespotentialcorridorwidecongestion.FuturecorridorimprovementsincludeTSMOprojects.

Figure 38: Padden Parkway Speed and Capacity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



TSMO


78th St./N

E 47th Av. Int.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



TSMO


Padden

/94th

Av. Intersection



99th Street, Lake Shore Avenue to St. Johns Boulevard



Burton Road, Andresen Road to 162nd Avenue

Eveningspeedindicatescorridorwidecongestion.ThereconstructionofNE18thStreetmaybeimpactingthetravelspeed.Futurecorridorimprovementsincludeurbanupgradefrom138thAv.to164thAv.andTSMOprojects.

Figure 40: Burton Road Speed and Capacity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



TSMO

TrafficSignalCoordination


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



138th‐164th Im

p./TSMO



18th Street, I‐205 to 162nd Avenue

Priortoreconstruction,capacityindicatespotentialcorridor‐widecongestion.WideningfromFourSeasonsto136thAv.willbecompletedin2018.Futurecorridorimprovementsincludeimproving138thAvenueto162ndAvenue,transit,andTSMOprojects.


134th Street, 139th Street to 50th Avenue

Neitherspeednorcapacityindicatespotentialcorridor‐widecongestion.FuturecorridorimprovementsincludeSalmonCreekInterchangePhase2,SalmonCreekAvenueimprovementsfromWSUEntrancetoNE50thAvenue,andTSMOprojects.


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



Four Seasons‐164th/TSM

O

112thtoFourSeasonsImp.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



SC Interchange 2/TSM

O

SC Interchange/139th Street

LocalSCImprovem

ents



139th Street, NW 36th Avenue to NE 29th Avenue

Neitherspeednorcapacityindicatespotentialcorridor‐widecongestion.FuturecorridorimprovementsincludeSalmonCreekInterchangePhase2andTSMOprojects.


SR‐502, I‐5 to SR‐503

Neitherspeednorcapacityindicatespotentialcorridor‐widecongestion.FuturecorridorimprovementsincludeSR‐502/SR‐503Intersectionimprovements.

Figure 44: SR‐502 Speed and Capacity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



SC Interchange 2/TSM

O

SC Interchange/139th Street

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



SR‐503 & SR‐502

I‐5/219thSt.Interchange

SR‐502Widen

ing



Pioneer Street (SR‐501), I‐5 to 9th Street

Neitherspeednorcapacityindicatespotentialcorridor‐widecongestion.FuturecorridorimprovementsincludeextensionofPioneerStreetovertherailroadtrackswestofdowntownRidgefield.

Figure 45: Pioneer Street Speed and Capacity

La Center Road, I‐5 to East Fork of Lewis River

Neitherspeednorcapacityindicatespotentialcorridor‐widecongestion.NoFuturecorridorimprovementsareplanned.

Figure 46: La Center Road Speed and Capacity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



Rail O

verpass

I‐5/PioneerInterchange 2

I‐5/PioneerInterchange

45thAvenue Roundabout

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



I‐5/LaCen

ter Interchane



2007 to 2017 Arterial Comparison

A10yearcomparisonofarterialcorridorswasperformedtoidentifythosecorridorsthathadasignificantchangeintraveltime.Inaddition,anattemptwasmadetoidentifythereasonforthechangeintraveltime.ArterialsarefacilitieswithtrafficsignalsandexcludefacilitiesthatarefullygradeseparatedsuchasI‐5,I‐205,andmostofSR‐14.

Travel Time Reduction

Thefollowingcorridorshadareductionintraveltimeofmorethanoneminute:

1) MillPlainBlvd,I‐5to162ndAv.(7.9miles):Hadatraveltimereductionofapproximately2½minutes.Thetraveltimeimprovementappearstobeassociatedwithcorridorwidetrafficsignalsynchronization.

2) Ft.Vancouver/St.JohnsBlvd,MillPlainBlvd.to72ndAv.(6.7miles):Hadatraveltimereductionofapproximately2½minutes.ThetraveltimeimprovementappearstobeassociatedwiththeSR‐500/St.Johnsinterchangeandcorridorwidetrafficsignalsynchronization.

3) SR‐502,NE10thAv.toSR‐503(7.4miles):Hadatraveltimereductionofapproximately1½minutes.ThetraveltimeimprovementappearstobeassociatedwiththeSR‐502wideningproject.

4) 134St./139St.,NW36thAv.toNE50thAv.(4.9miles):Hadatraveltimereductionofjustoveroneminute.ThetimeimprovementappearstobeassociatedwiththeSalmonCreekInterchangeand139thStreetoverpass.

Travel Time Increase Thefollowingcorridorshadanincreaseintraveltimeofmorethanoneminute:

1) BurtonRd/NE28thSt,Andresento162ndAv.(4.6miles):Hadatraveltimeincreaseofjustover5½minutes.SomeofthisincreaseintraveltimemaybeassociatedwithtrafficdiversionassociatedwiththeconstructionofNE18thStreet,butmuchofthetraveltimeincreaseisassociatedwithadditionoftrafficsignalsandlackofsignalsynchronization.

2) 136/137/138thAv.,MillPlaintoPaddenParkway(4.5miles):Hadatraveltimeincreaseofover2½minutes.Despiteshowingimprovedtrafficflowthroughtheroundaboutsection,thecorridorshowedalackofsignalsynchronizationinothersegmentsofthecorridor.

3) Highway99,I‐5toNE134thSt.(4.0miles):Hadatraveltimeincreaseofjustlessthan2minutes.Muchofthetraveltimeincreaseisassociatedwithdelayatbusyintersectionbetween78thSt.and117thAv.



4) SR‐500,AndresentoFourthPlain(2.6miles):Hadatraveltimeincreaseof1½minutes.MostofthetraveltimeincreaseisassociatedwithdelayattheSR‐500/SR‐503/FourthPlainintersection.

5) HazelDellAv,63rdSt.toHighway99(3.4miles):Hadatraveltimeincreaseofalmost1½minutes.Mostofthetraveltimeincreaseoccurredbetween78thand99thstreetswiththeadditionoftrafficsignals.

6) FourthPlainBlvd.,117thAv.to162ndAv.(2.3miles):Hadatraveltimeincreaseof1minute.Mostofthetraveltimeincreaseoccurredbetween117thAv.and137thAv.andisassociatedwithtrafficbackupsatsignalizeintersections.

Corridor Deficiencies

Thecorridoranalysisshowsthattheregionneedstocontinuetofocusonoperationalimprovements,andselectcapacityimprovements,andaddressstrongdemandforbi‐statetravel.Table9identifiesthecorridorsthatshouldbethefocusofcapacityandspeedreliabilityimprovements:

Table 9: Corridors with Capacity and/or Speed Deficiencies

Corridor Capacity Speed Need

Highway 99 X Intersection Improvements, Transit, and TSMO

Hazel Dell Av. X Intersection Improvements and TSMO

I‐5 South X X I‐5 Bridge Replacement, Interchanges, Transit, TSMO

Main Street X X I‐5 Bridge Replacement, Transit, and TSMO

I‐205 South X X Interchanges, Lanes, Transit, and TSMO

112th Avenue X Urban Upgrade, intersections, and TSMO

Andresen South X Intersection Improvement and TSMO

SR‐503 South X X Intersections, Access Management, and TSMO

164th Av. South X TSMO

SR‐14 Central X X Lanes, Transit, Interchange Upgrade, and TSMO

Mill Plain East X Transit and TSMO

SR‐500 West X Grade Separation at 42nd and 54th Avenues and TSMO

SR‐500 Central X Grade Separation, auxiliary lanes, and TSMO

Fourth Plain East X X Fourth Plain/SR‐500 Intersection, Urban Upgrade, TSMO

Burton Road X Urban Upgrade and TSMO

18th Street X Urban Upgrades, Transit, and TSMO



Key Strategies TheCongestionManagementProcessshowsthatimplementationofthe20‐yearRegionalTransportationPlan(RTP)canhelpaddressmanyofthekeycapacitybottlenecks.ThelackoftransportationrevenuesandregionalconsensusfortheI‐5Bridgereplacementalongwithotherkeycorridors,iscontributingtoworseningtrafficconditions.LackofprogressonimplementingselectprojectswillresultindelayinachievingtheRTPbenefitsandaddtofutureprojectcosts.

ThefollowingarekeyprojectstoaddresscongestionneedswithinClarkCounty:

Table 10: Key Congestion Needs

Identified Needs In RTP Funded

I‐5 Interstate Bridge and Interchanges ‐ I‐5/Mill Plain Interchange (2026 Construction)

Freeway Operational Improvements (I‐5, I‐205, SR‐14, SR‐500) ‐ Freeway Operational Study

I‐205/SR‐14 Interchange

I‐205, SR‐500 to Padden Widening

I‐205/Padden Parkway Interchange Reconstruction

I‐205/Salmon Creek Interchange Phase II

SR‐14, I‐205 to 164th Av. Widening (2020 Construction)

SR‐500/42nd & 54th Av. Grade Separation

SR‐500/SR‐503/Fourth Plain Grade Separation

Andresen Rd./Padden Parkway Intersection Upgrade

Arterial Operational Improvements ‐ Highway 99, 78th St. to 139th St. ‐ Hazel Dell Avenue, 78th St. to 99th St. ‐ 112th Avenue, 28th St. to SR‐500 ‐ Andresen, Mill Plain to SR‐500 ‐ 164th Avenue, SR‐14 to Mill Plain ‐ Mill Plain, 136th Av. to 192nd Av. ‐ Burton/28th Street, Andresen Rd. to 164th Av. ‐ SR‐503, Fourth Plain to 99th ‐ Fourth Plain, 117th Av. To 137th Av.

Fourth Plain/Andresen Intersection Upgrade

NE 18th Street Widening, 112th to 164th Av (P) 18th St, Four Season to 136th Av (2018 Completion)

(P)

NE 137th Avenue, 49th St. to Fourth Plain

County‐Wide Transit Expansion

Bi‐State Transit Expansion

Chapter 4: Bi‐State 73


Chapter 4: Bi‐State

ClarkCountyissituatedinSouthwestWashingtonState,acrosstheColumbiaRiverfromPortland,Oregon.AsasuburbofthePortlandmetropolitanarea,significantpopulationgrowthhasoccurredwithinClarkCounty,whilesubstantialgrowthinemploymenthasoccurredthroughoutthePortlandmetropolitanarea.ThisresultsinalargenumberofcommuterstravelingbetweenClarkCountyandPortland.Approximately31%ofClarkCounty’sworkforcetravelstothePortlandmetropolitanareaforemployment.

Bi‐State Corridors ThedemandbetweenClarkCountyandPortlandhasplacedsignificantpressureontheonlytwoColumbiaRiverBridges(I‐5andI‐205)betweenClarkCounty,WashingtonandPortland,Oregon.

TheI‐5InterstateBridgeisasteeltrussliftbridgethatspanstheColumbiaRiverbetweendowntownVancouverandPortland.Thenorthboundspanwasopenedin1917,andthesouthboundspanwasaddedin1958,eachspancarriesthreelanes.Thisbridgeandassociatedinterchangesareabottlenecktobothautoandrivertraffic.Bridgeliftsoccurapproximately15timespermonthinoffpeakperiods,witheachliftlastingapproximately10minutesandoftenresultsinoveranhouroftrafficcongestion.Duetopeakperiodcongestion,bridgelifts,andotherincidentstheInterstateBridgeexperiencesautocongestionforapproximatelysevenhoursaday.

TheGlennL.JacksonMemorialBridge,orI‐205Bridge,isasegmentalconcretebridgethatspanstheColumbiaRiverbetweeneasternVancouverandeasternPortland.Itisatwinstructurewithfourlanesineachdirectionanda9‐ftwidebicycleandpedestrianpathinbetween.TheI‐205BridgeopenedfortrafficinDecember1982.DuetopeakperiodcongestionandincidentstheGlennJacksonBridgeexperiencesautocongestionforapproximatelythreehoursaday.

Thecongestionassociatedwiththetwobi‐stateColumbiaRiverBridges,hasresultedinsignificantcongestioninthreecorridorsduringthemorningcommute:

I‐5South:MainStreettoJantzenBeach

I‐205South:SR‐500toAirportWay

SR‐14Central:192ndAvenuetoI‐205



Bi‐State Traffic Volumes

Thedemandforbi‐statetravelhasincreasedeachyearoverthelastfiveyears.In2017,almost298,000vehiclescrossedthetwobi‐statebridgesonanaverageday,upfrom274,000vehiclesinyear2012.Thisisan8.8%increaseintrafficoverthelastfiveyears.

Table 11: 2013‐2017 Columbia River Crossings

Year I‐5 I‐205 Total Growth

2013 130,511 148,152 278,663 1.7%

2014 132,592 151,735 284,327 2.2%

2015 135,696 158,409 294,105 3.3%

2016 135,496 162,031 297,527 1.2%

2017 135,000 162,932 297,932 0.1%

Withoutadditionaloperationalimprovements,bothColumbiaRiverbridgesareatcapacityinthepeakperiodsandpeakspreadingisoccurring.Peakspreadingleadstoaflatteningandlongerpeakperiodastripsshifttotimesimmediatelybeforeandafterthepeakdemand.Thiscausesthepeakhourtobecomeapeakperiod.Thefollowinggraphicdisplayspeakspreadingacrossthetwointerstatebridgeshasoccurredfromyear2007toyear2017.

Figure 47 Bi‐State Northbound PM Columbia River Crossings

Bi‐State Travel Speed

Usingglobalpositioningsystem(GPS)travelspeedsarecollectedannuallyduringpeakperiodsalongthecongestionmanagementcorridors.Bi‐Statecorridordatashowsthatoverthepastfiveyears,themorningspeedshavedecreasedonthemajorbi‐statecorridors,resultinginadditionaldelay.TheI‐5corridorisreliablyslow,whiletheI‐205andSR‐14corridorshowssignificantdailyvariation.I‐205

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00

Speedmph

2007

2017



Southfreewaydatastationindicatesthatspeedsvarybetween16mphto36mph,withanaveragespeednear25mph.SR‐14Centraldatastationindicatesthatspeedsvarybetween17mphto40mph,withanaveragespeednear29mph.

Figure 48: Morning Bi‐State Travel Speeds (2012 to 2016)

AreviewofODOTandWSDOTdatastationsalongboththeI‐5andI‐205bi‐statecorridorsbetweenVancouverandPortlandshowstrafficspeedsthroughouteachcorridor.Thisdataisagoodindicatorofaverageannualspeedswithineachcorridorsegments,butdoesnotreflectlocalizedhotspots.

ThedataindicatesthatboththeI‐5andI‐205bridgesandassociatedinterchangesarechokepoints,astrafficslowsupstreamfromeachbridgeduringmorningandeveningpeakperiods.Overallthedatashowssloweraveragecorridorspeedsduringthemorningcommutethanintheeveningcommute.WiththedifferencebeingthatspeedsarenearthepostedspeedlimitnorthoftheColumbiaRiverduringtheeveningpeakperiod.

I‐5Corridor:Inthemorningpeak,theI‐5corridorexperiencesslowspeedsfromMainStreettodowntownPortland,withtheslowestspeedsjustnorthoftheI‐5InterstateBridge.Duringtheeveningpeak,theslowestspeedsoccursouthoftheI‐5InterstateBridge.Table13indicatestheaveragespeedalongtheI‐5corridor.

Table 13: 2017 I‐5 Corridor Speeds

I‐5CorridorSouthboundAM

PeakNorthboundPM

Peak

MainSt.toColumbiaRiver 15mph 47mph

ColumbiaRivertoI‐84 19mph 16mph

I‐205Corridor:Inthemorningpeak,theslowestspeedsarejustnorthoftheI‐205GlennJacksonBridge.Duringtheeveningpeak,theslowestspeedsoccursouthofAirportWay.Table14indicatestheaveragespeedalongtheI‐205corridor.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Speedmph

I‐5South

I‐205South

SR‐14Central



Table 14: 2017 I‐205 Corridor Speeds

I‐205CorridorSouthboundAM

PeakNorthboundPM

Peak

SR‐500toColumbiaRiver 28mph 43mph

ColumbiaRivertoI‐84 38mph 22mph

Bi‐State Travel Delay

Withthisdecreaseinmorningspeeds,theaveragedelayhasincreasedineachofthesebi‐statecorridors.Betweenyears2012and2017themorningdelayhasincreasedby17minutesintheI‐5SouthCorridor,andalmost4minutesinI‐205Southcorridor,andalmost1minuteintheSR‐14Centralcorridor.

Figure 49: Bi‐State Morning Delay Growth (2011 to 2016)

SignificantdelayalsooccursinboththeI‐5andI‐205corridorsheadingfromOregonintoWashingtonduringtheeveningcommute,withthemajorityofthedelayoccurringinOregon.

I‐205 & SR‐14 Corridors ‐ Washington Interstate205isa26.6mile‐longnorth‐southloophighwaywhichtravelsontheeastsideofthePortlandandVancouverregion.ThenorthernterminusislocatedinSalmonCreekandthesouthernterminusisinTualatin.I‐205corridorprovidesoneoftwobi‐stateroutesbetweenPortlandandVancouver,withabridgeovertheColumbiaRiverknownastheGlennJacksonBridge.TheGlennJacksonBridgewasthelastcompletedsegmentofthehighwayandopenedinDecember1982.

6m25s 7m3s 6m14s

23m37s

10m43s

6m59s

I‐5South I‐205South SR‐14Central

2012

2017



Currently,theI‐205GlennJacksonBridgecarriesover162,000vehiclesadayandhasthehighestvolumesofanyfacilityinClarkCounty.

StateRoute14isa180.66‐mile‐longeast‐weststatehighwaythatrunsalongthenorthsideoftheColumbiaRiver,oppositeInterstate84tothesouthinOregon.InClarkCountySR‐14providesaconnectorbetweenthecitiesofCamas/WashougalandVancouver.TheSR‐14segmentfrom192ndtoI‐205iscongestedduringpeakhoursandcarriesover84,000vehiclesaday.

Traveltimedataiscollectedannually,byusingglobalpositioningsystem(GPS)unitsandbydrivingthecorridormultipletimesduringthemorningcommute(6:30‐8:30AM)overseveraldays.

IntheI‐205corridor,between2012and2017theprobevehicledatashowedanincreaseinmorningtraveltimebetweenSR‐500andAirportwayexits.Thisbusycorridorappearstohavereachedsaturationlevelsin2016,butimprovedsomein2017.

Figure 50: Morning Delay on I‐205, SR‐500 to Airport Way (6.43 miles)

IntheSR‐14corridor,between2012and2017theprobevehicledatashowedanincreaseinmorningtraveltimebetween192ndAvenueandI‐205exits,until2017.Thisbusycorridorappearedtoreachsaturationlevelsbetween2014and2016,butthenreturntoacceptablelevelsin2017.MostofthedelayisassociatedwithSR‐14trafficaccessingI‐205southboundintoOregon.

NoData

6m24s8m4s 8m4s

15m13s

10m43s

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017



Figure 51: Morning Delay on SR‐14, 192nd AV to I‐205 (4.16 miles)

C‐TRANhascommuterservicefromtheFisher’sLandingTransitCenter(SR‐14at164thAvenue)todowntownPortland(Route164).MuchofthedelayonthisrouteoccursonSR‐14duetodelayassociatedwiththeI‐205/SR‐14interchange.Thisrouteexperienceda6½minuteincreaseindelaybetween2011and2016.

C‐TRANbeganan18monthSR‐14busshoulderdemonstrationprojectinOctober2017.ItletscommuterbusesbypasscongestiononSR‐14betweenI‐205and164thbyusingthefreewayshoulderanytimemainlinetrafficisbelow35mph.Busescantravel15mphfasterthanadjacenttrafficwithamaximumspeedof35mph.BOScanprovidebothsafeoperationsandimprovedreliabilityandspeedsfortransitwithoutaffectingfreewayoperations.2017Datawascollectedpriortoimplementationofbusonshoulder.

Figure 52: Morning Transit Delay‐Fisher’s Landing to Portland

NoData

7m0s

12m28s10m52s

14m32s

6m59s

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

34m47s 34m8s37m0s

44m9s 43m2s 41m33s

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Documents

2017 Monitoring Report - rtc.wa.gov · Monitor, measure and diagnose the causes of congestion on the regional transportation system; Evaluate and recommend strategies to manage regional