Transportation System Plan 2018-2038

The various alternative strategies were evaluated using criteria that were developed to weigh the benefits and im pacts of im plem enting each im provem ent strate gy, and to initiate discussion of Level of Service priorities. Evaluation criteria were developed based on existing adopted policies, state TPR requirem ents, and/or factors identified as particularly relevant for comparing and contrasting the alternative strategies. In addition to the num ber of congested intersections requiring m itigation, the LOS strategies were also analy zed to determ ine the degree that each: • Affected local and regional econom ic developm ent potential; • Impacted recent land developm ent patterns within the city and in other locations within Jackson County ; • Assisted in im plem enting com munity developm ent objectives such as the TODs; • Required land acquisition and has the potentia l for business or residential displacem ent; • Impacted neighborhoods, particularly with cut-through traffic; • Affected safety ; • Resulted in potential adverse air quality impacts; • Potentially reduced local traffic im pacts on I-5; and • Had a potential for reducing reliance on the au tomobile for trip-m aking within the UGB. Table 5-3 presents an evaluation of roadway level of service strategies based on these factors. A prelim inary com parison of im provem ent costs has also been provided. It should be noted that the implem entation of street im provem ent strategies will be contingent on the region’ s ability to secure the necessary funding. In sum mary, the following conclusions can be drawn fro m the evaluation of level of service alternatives. 1. The 1-hour LOS D standard would result in the lowest leve ls of congestion if all identified projects were im plem ented. LOS D would also m inimize the potential for traffic congestion-related neighborhood cut-through traffic in com parison with th e other alternatives, and could result in lower carbon m onoxide em issions at the busiest intersecti ons. Reduced levels of congestion m ay also reduce the potential for accidents. Costs are significant with the LOS D alternative, but only slightly higher than costs with the other two alternatives. A key issue with Medford’ s concurre ncy standard is that it can effectively limit the density of developm ent in Medfor d which is inconsistent with th e City ’s goals, including those for Transit Oriented Districts, and also reduce the Sy stem Developm ent Charges (SDCs) received by the City to build road im provem ents. As Medford will rem ain the regional job and shopping center for Jackson County , the loss of SDCs will reduce the city ’s ability to pay for street improvem ents but may not significantly reduce traffic volum es. LOS D could also result in higher vehicle m iles of travel per capita (contrary to state and regional objectives) and could create higher levels of PM10 (particulate pollution for which the region does not presently meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards). It should also be noted that adoption of this standard m ay require that the City modify other elem ents of the Comprehensive Plan to ensure consistency . For exam ple, city goals with respect to increased density may not be com patible with a LOS D standard. 2. The 1-hour LOS E standard is less restrictive threshold that would allow m ore developm ent to occur in Medford where the SDCs could be captured and used for roadway improvem ents. This differs from the LOS D standard where som e developm ent m ay be forced out of the city (along with the SDCs for street system improvem ent), but where much of the traffic from this developm ent could still use city streets and adversely affect congestion levels in Medford. The LOS E standard could prom ote higher land developm ent densities and m ore co mpact urban form that could m ake the use of Medford Transportation System Plan 5-9 Street Plan