Transportation System Plan 2018-2038

• Influenced the nature and extent of street system improvem ents including TSM strategies based on an evaluation of alternative level of servi ce standards and functional classification sy stem refinem ents. • Identified a range of transit service and facility improvem ent options including TDM strategies based on the different options available to the City for working with RVTD. • Determ ined priorities and im provem ents for the bicycle and pedestrian sy stem that reflect community goals for safe travel, m odes choices and neighborhood livability . • Addressed freight mobility needs – particularly in relation to street sy stem improvem ent needs and priorities. • Identified and assessed transportation/land use stra tegies that influence travel demand and, ultim ately , the urban form of the city . Additional analy sis was conducted to evaluate im provem ent needs and options for air transportation, rail, intercity bus, and other m odes largely based on inform ation contained in the Regional Transportation Plan or from other relevant and recent studies. Prioritiz ing Options The TSP identifies num erous street, intersection, bicy cle, pedestrian and transit projects to m eet existing and future m ulti-m odal travel needs. Recognizing th at the identified needs outstrip the available funding from existing revenue sources, it was im portant to de termine which projects or groups of projects should be funded and when the project(s) s hould be constructed. Several f actors were considered in m aking these determ inations: • How critical is the need for the project(s)? • How urgent is that need? • Is the City meeting its benchm ark com mitments to the RTP Alternative Measures (for increasing bicycle and pedestrian facilities on arterial and collector streets and for helping to increase the share of all trips that are m ade by transit)? • Are the projects supportive of the City ’s land use and other Com prehensive Plan goals? • Does the project(s) support the City ’s Vision Statem ent for Transportation, and if so, how well? • Does the range of projects identified for funding in various tim e periods include a reasonable m ix of representatives from all travel m odes? To address these larger policy issues, the City ’s Transportation Vision Statem ent and the goals and policies presented earlier in this chapter were used to develop project prioritization and/or evaluation criteria to determ ine first, which projects would be funded (given that the identified im provem ent needs outstripped the anticipated resources); and second, to rank and group projects for short-range, m edium - range and long-range im plem entation Project prioritization criteria included the following: • Cost-effectiveness potential (benefits in relation to project costs) • Potential for safety improvem ent (a high priority ) • Effectiveness in address existing and likely future congestion problem s • Enhances m ulti-m odal transportation options • Satisfies the RTP Alternative Measures designed to reduce reliance on the single occupant auto and to reduce area wide vehicle m iles of travel to im prove air quality and enhance com munity quality of life • Supports com munity econom ic developm ent needs (inc luding needs that relate to Medford’s role as a regional center) • Supports and/or facilitates better freight m ovem ent • Improves transportation sy stem connectivity (including autos, pedestrians and bicy clists) Medford Transportatio n System Plan 13-15 Plan Goals and Implementation