Public Workshop #4

Public Workshop Meeting #4
March 30th, 2011

2
Meeting Agenda
Project Recap
Project Update
Summary of Workshop #3 Concepts
Overview of Tech Memo 7.1
Work Session to Select and Refine Concepts for Further Review
Public Comment Period
Next Steps
Key Goal: Identify 3 Most Promising Roadway Alignment Alternatives

3
Project Background Video

4
Project Website/Virtual Workshop (http://172nd.com)

5
Project Purpose Statement
The purpose of this project is to effectively address the 172nd-190th corridor congestion and safety problems, serve future north-south traffic, serve expected population growth in Damascus, Happy Valley, the Pleasant Valley Plan Area and Gresham, and to serve the growing demand for regional travel.

Project Process
WE ARE HERE

7
Alternatives Development Process
WE ARE HERE

8
Pubic Involvement Recap
Workshop #1 – August 18th, 2010
Introduce Background and Project Purpose
Workshop #2 - October 6th, 2010
Develop Corridor Alignment and Streetscape Concepts
Workshop #3 - December 8th, 2010
Screen Corridor Alignment and Streetscape Concepts to 3 Alternatives
Workshop #4 – March 30th, 2011
Review and Comment on Preferred Corridor Alternatives,

9
Schedule (cont.)
Open House
July 13th, 2011
Review and Comment on Preferred Corridor Plan
Public Hearings
Fall 2011 – County Planning Commission
December 2011 – Damascus Planning Commission
January 2012 – Happy Valley Planning Commission
January 2012 – Damascus City Council
February 2012 – Happy Valley City Council
Winter 2012 – Board of County Commissioners

Key Project Elements

Initial Corridor Alignment Recommendations Prior to Public Workshop #3
Recommended for Further Review
5 Concepts (AT2, AT4, AT6, AS4, AS9)
Under Consideration for NO Further Review
9 Concepts (AT1, AT5, AT7, AT8, AS2, AS5, AS7, AS8, AS10)
Recommended for NO Further Review
4 Concepts (AT3, AS1, AS3, AS6)

Corridor Alignment Modifications Per Public Input

Initial Corridor Alignment Recommendations Prior to Public Workshop #3
5 Concepts (AT2, AT4, AT6, AS4, AS9)
Under Consideration for NO Further Review
9 Concepts (AT1, AT5, AT7, AT8, AS2, AS5, AS7, AS8, AS10a)
4 Concepts (AT3, AS1, AS3, AS6)

Future Transportation Conditions (2035) Analysis Findings
* Subject to change - further analysis needed.

Project Evaluation Criteria
Vehicular Mobility
Multi-Modal Mobility
Local Access
Multi-Modal Safety
Impacts to Natural Environment
Impacts to Built Environment
Land Use Compatability
Cost (Construction Only)
Aesthetic Character

Alignment Concepts – AT2

Alignment Concepts – AS10a

Evaluation Scores

Preliminary Corridor Alignment Recommendations
3Concepts (AT2, AT6, AS10a)
2Concepts (AT4, AT5)

Let’s Get Your Input
Posters for Alignment Concepts
Future Land Use/Environmental Constraints
Pros/Cons
Scores
Use “Notes” Section of Your Handout to Provide Feedback
Today’s Goals are to:
1) Narrow the Alignment Concepts to 3 Most Promising Alternatives
2) Provide Suggested Refinements to the 3 Most Promising Alternatives

Next Steps
Process Feedback from PAC, Virtual Workshop #4, and Public Workshop #4
PMT to narrow the 5 Corridor Alignment Concepts Down to the 3 Most Promising Alternatives for Further Review
Report back to PAC and the public regarding the PMT’s recommendations for concepts to be further reviewed in the next round
Open House on July 13th, 2011 to review and comment on preferred corridor

Thanks!

Public Workshop #4

by Kittelson Slides on Apr 04, 2011

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

2 Embeds 114

Statistics

Public Workshop #4 Presentation Transcript

http://172nd.com	79
http://www.172nd.com	35