Transportation System Plan Public Advisory Committee Meeting #4

Clackamas County's Transportation System Plan (TSP) reflects all relevant national, state and regional transportation and planning requirements, and provides policies, guidelines and projects to meet transportation needs for residents, businesses and visitors in the unincorporated county for 20 years. 

The 2045 TSP Update revisits this plan and helps us to consider the transportation changes that might be possible by 2045. This process involves a broad range of public involvement efforts including this event. 

Learn more about the 2045 TSP Update.

Clackamas County Development Services Building 150 S. Beavercreek Road, Oregon City 97045 Room DSB115
 

Agenda

Meeting objectives

• Review the project schedule update and PAC role
• Share and discuss community engagement since last meeting
• Provide an overview of the process for prioritizing projects
• Discuss and collect committee member feedback on prioritized lists/tiers

Time / Agenda Topic

6:00 pm Welcome and Introductions

6:15 pm Progress Update

• Schedule / overview of what has happened since last meeting
• PAC role in the process

6:20 pm Community Engagement

• June/July outreach highlights
• Please share if you participated and what you heard from others

6:35 pm Draft Prioritized Project List

• Overview of the prioritization process and list (Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3)
• Comments or questions about the overall prioritization process

6:55 pm Break and move into groups

7:05 pm Small Group Discussions (25 minutes)

• Break into the GSA you are most familiar with
• Are there projects you see in Tier 2 or Tier 3 that you think should be considered in Tier 1?
• Are there projects you see in Tier 1 that you think should be considered for a lower tier?
• How does your thinking align with the goals?

Groups Report Back (20 minutes)

7:50 pm Next steps

• Project team will review all public and committee feedback and refine prioritization
• Potential fall meeting

Meeting Adjourn

Advanced Materials

• Prioritization Memo (10.1)
• Draft prioritized project list tables

• You can view the projects on the Potential Projects interactive map page of the ClackamasCountyTSP VOH 2 (large printed maps will be at the meeting)

  The survey questions will be closed after July 13

Technical Memorandum

May 26, 2026
Project # 28313

To: Jeff Owen, Anthony De Simone, and Karen Buehrig; Clackamas County

From: Marc Butorac, PE, PTOE, PMP; Susan Wright, PE, PMP; Krista Purser, PE; and Russ Doubleday, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

RE: Clackamas County Transportation System Plan Update: Tech Memo #10.1: Prioritization

Introduction

This memorandum provides the background information used to develop the initial project prioritization list and recommended Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and Tier 4 project priority lists for the PMT, TAC, PAC, and public to review and comment on during the June virtual open house and in-person workshops. This memorandum builds upon Technical Memorandums 6.3 (Evaluation Criteria) and 9.3 (Alternative Development and Analysis) and utilizes an online GIS tool to provide an initial score for projects based on Local Factors and Local Policy and Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) Prioritization Factors.

Prioritization Framework

The following summarizes the Clackamas County Transportation System Plan (CCTSP) prioritization approach based on the county’s goals and objectives (Technical Memorandum 6.1) and evaluation criteria (Technical Memorandum 6.3). These are considered part of the “local factors” within the TPR. This framework is supplemented with several additional prioritization factors related to other county policies and Transportation Plan Rule (TPR) requirements for prioritizing projects within urban areas (as described in OAR 660-012-0155).

Local Factors Prioritization Criteria

Local project prioritization criteria should be based on a jurisdiction’s TSP goals and objectives. The County’s

TSP goals include:

• Goal 1 – Safety and Health: Promote a transportation system that supports and improves our safety, health, and security.
• Goal 2 – Fiscal Responsibility: Promote a fiscally responsible approach to protect and improve the existing transportation system.
• Goal 3 – Local Business and Jobs: Plan the transportation system to promote a prosperous and adaptable economy and further the economic well-being of businesses, visitors, and residents of the county.
• Goal 4 – Reduce Disparities: Reduce disparities in safe and reliable transportation between communities and key destinations.
• Goal 5 – Sustainable: Provide a transportation system that supports efficient use of resources and optimizes benefits to the environment, the economy, and the community.
• Goal 6 – Livable and Local: Tailor transportation solutions, including policies, programs, and infrastructure projects, to suit the unique needs of local communities.

Evaluation criteria can address single goals and objectives and also multiple goals and objectives and also need to align with data and performance measure results available to the Project Team. The proposed prioritization evaluation criteria are included below a grouped by goals with the corresponding objective identified for each criteria. Appendix A includes a table showing the relationship of these criteria to the goals and objectives.

Criteria are sorted by the main goal they fulfill, but often have benefits to the other goals. On a related note, some goals have more criteria listed than others, but the benefits to all goal areas is generally balanced when considering these relationships. Criteria were developed to meet the overall goals, as well as many objectives as possible.

• Safety and Health (1)
  • S1 - Will the project reduce severity and/or frequency of crashes? (1.1)
  • S2 - Will the project improve emergency response times? (1.2)
  • S3 - Was the project prioritized in the Walk Bike Plan? (1.3, 1.6)
  • S4 - Does the project benefit a TSAP priority segment or intersection? (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6)
• Fiscal Responsibility (2)
  • F1 - Is the preferred alternative the most cost-effective solution considering full scope of benefits and costs? (2.2, 2.3)
  • F2 - Is the project enhancing an existing facility or adding a new transportation facility? (2.1, 2.4)
• Local Business and Jobs (3)
  • L1 - Will the project improve travel reliability? (2.1, 3.1)
  • L2 - Will the project improve mobility and reliability of a freight route and/or access to/from agricultural and natural resource areas? (3.2, 3.4)
  • L3 - Does the project support TDM strategies? (3.3)
  • L4 - Will the project enhance transportation access to jobs? (3.1, 3.2)
• Reduce Disparities (4)
  • R1 - Will the project address community disparity in access to safe/reliable transportation options? (1.6, 4.2)
  • R2 - Will the project address community disparity in transportation safety? (4.2, 4.3)
• Sustainable (5)
  • SU1 - Will the project result in improvement of a substandard creek crossing (such as with a poor quality culvert) that will enhance the natural environment? (5.2)
  • SU2 - Does the project minimize negative impacts to creeks/waterways and natural areas, including stormwater runoff? (1.3, 5.2)
  • SU3 - Does the project support access, ease of use, and therefore adoption of low emission or zero emission vehicles? (5.1, 5.4)
  • SU4 - Will the project reduce exposure to or mitigate exposure to transportation-related air emissions? (5.1)
  • SU5 - Does the project reduce travel by single occupancy vehicle (SOV) or reduce vehicle miles travelled per capita? (5.1)
• Livable and Local (6)
  • LL1 - Does the project improve multimodal network connectivity (including system completeness) and enhance modal choice and options, especially to key destinations? (1.3, 1.6, 6.4)
  • LL2 - Does the project improve multimodal network connectivity to transit stops/stations? (6.2)
  • LL3 - Will the project improve the condition or connectivity to parks/trails, recreation and public land? (6.4)

Local Policy and TPR Prioritization Factors

Additional prioritization factors will be applied based on County policies and requirements of the TPR. The additional County policy prioritization factors include:

• Functional Classification – Given that many of the identified projects have been vetted through numerous planning efforts over the past two decades and meet multiple goals, functional classification helps the Project Team assess the project’s overall return on investment based on the number of users served.
• Capital Improvement List (CIP) – Projects currently on the CIP (5-year Transportation CapitalImprovement Program (CIP) | Clackamas County) will be prioritized to properly leverage resources that have been allocated to prepare them for design and construction and recognize other decisions that have been made based on the assumption of these projects being committed. Projects under design and slated for construction in 2026 and 2027 will be scored for reference purposes; however, they will be automatically included in the Tier 1 project list. The 5-Year Capital Improvement Program includes projects from the transportation system plan scheduled for construction. These projects are either fully funded or have funds for preliminary planning and design. The capital improvement program includes schedules and funding sources for each project in the five-year plan.

• Sunrise Gateway Corridor – Projects associated with the Sunrise Gateway Corridor Refinement Plan will be prioritized to properly leverage the current $12.5 million in Metro RFFA funding and priorities of the Board of County Commissioners. Per policy direction, Project 5000 will be placed in Tier 1 and allocated

  $150,000,000 in local funding for the Local Connections portion of the Sunrise Gateway Corridor. Typically, local governments and other agencies (e.g., ODOT) will share in the costs of specific projects or studies that provide transportation benefits to both the County and the other agency. These revenue sources vary over time because they are based on specific projects and geographic areas, though the Sunrise Gateway Corridor presents an opportunity to utilize bonding capacity to provide this local funding.

Additional prioritization factors related to TPR requirements (OAR 660-012-0155) include:

• Access to Key Destinations
• School Proximity
• Location within a 2040 Center (the climate-friendly area rules of the TPR within Metro apply to the 2040 Growth Concept Centers)
• Relations to Underserved Populations.

Application of Prioritization Criteria

The above Local Factors and TPR prioritization criteria will be used to prioritize the TSP projects identified in Technical Memorandum 9.3 (Alternative Development and Analysis). The ratings will be used to inform discussions about the benefits and tradeoffs of each project and to develop the draft financially-constrained project list which will be refined based on community input.

The following rating method will be used to evaluate each of the Local Factors criterion:

• Most Desirable (+2): Project directly addresses the criteria and easily meets the TSP objectives.
• Desirable (+1): Project addresses the criteria at a moderate level, meeting some but not all the TSP objectives.
• No Effect (0): No impact/neutral impact, or N/A.
• Less Desirable (-1): Project does not address the criteria or may have a slight adverse impact on the TSP objectives.
• Least Desirable (-2): Project has a substantial negative relation with the TSP objectives.

The following rating method will be used to evaluate each of the Local Policy and TPR Factors criterion:

• Scale from 0 to 5 with 5 having the highest value in the prioritization framework.
• The local policy and TPR prioritization factors are scored on a zero to five scale to emphasize the importance of these differentiating factors and to reflect that the majority of identified projects are anticipated to have similar local factor scores based on being previously vetted through numerous planning efforts over the past two decades.
• Some factors have potential ratings from 1 to 5 while others may have ratings of either 1-2 or 4-5 depending on the value of the criterion to the overall prioritization.

Table 1 and Table 2 provide details on how the rating method is applied to the Local Factors prioritization criteria and the Local Policy and TPR prioritization criteria, respectively. Appendix B provides an overview of how the full prioritization framework complies with the TPR prioritization approach described in OAR 660-012-0155 for urban areas.

Table 1. County Prioritization Criteria Scoring

Safety and Health (1)

• S1 - Will the project reduce severity and/or frequency of crashes? (1.1)
  • -2: Substantially degrades safety and comfort.
  • -1: Degrades safety and comfort.
  • 0: No impact.
  • +1: Improves safety at an intersection or roadway.
  • +2: Improves safety at an intersection or roadway identified as a safety concern.
  • Additional Resources beyond TM#9.2 Proposed Solutions
    • ODOT SPIS and Metro HIC Networks
• S2 - Will the project improve emergency response times? (1.2)
  • -2: Substantially degrades emergency response time and resiliency.
    Example: Project reduces capacity of evacuation and emergency access routes.
  • -1: Degrades emergency response time and resiliency.
    Example: Project increases delay at an intersection.
  • 0: No impact.
  • +1: Moderately improves emergency response time and resiliency.
    Example: Project provides increased capacity or reduces delay at an intersection.
  • +2: Significantly improves emergency response time and resiliency.
    Example: Project provides additional parallel routes or increases capacity on a designated evacuation and emergency access routes.
  • Additional Resources beyond TM#9.2 Proposed Solutions
    • Emergency Transportation Routes Map
• S3 - Was the project prioritized in the Walk Bike Plan? (1.3, 1.6)
  • -2: NA
  • -1: NA
  • 0: Project was prioritized in Walk Bike Plan as Tier 3 or not included in the plan.
  • +1: Project was prioritized in Walk Bike Plan as Tier 2
  • +2: Project was prioritized in Walk Bike Plan as Tier 1
  • Additional Resources beyond TM#9.2 Proposed Solutions
    • Bike Walk Plan
• S4 - Does the project benefit a TSAP priority segment or intersection?
  • -2: NA
  • -1: NA
  • 0: Project was not prioritized in the TSAP or not included in the plan.
  • +1: Project improves safety on a proactive or reactive priority segment in the TSAP, but not both.
  • +2: Project improves safety on both a proactive and reactive priority segment or a top 50 intersection in the TSAP.
  • Additional Resources beyond TM#9.2 Proposed Solutions
    • TSAP Analysis Results (“high risk” corridors)

Fiscal Responsibility (2)

• F1 - Is the preferred alternative the most cost-effective solution considering full scope of benefits and costs? (2.2, 2.3)
  • -2: Cost effectiveness factor (Cost effectiveness factor defined: Other scoring results divided by the cost of the project.) is in the lower 30th percentile.
  • -1: Cost effectiveness factor is in the 30th – 50th percentile.
  • 0: Cost effectiveness factor is in the 50th – 70th percentile.
  • +1: Cost effectiveness factor is in the 70th – 90th percentile.
  • +2: Cost effectiveness factor is in the 90th or above percentile.
  • Additional Resources beyond TM#9.2 Proposed Solutions
    • Project cost estimate
    • Goal scoring
    • Note: cost effectiveness factor and percentile to be assessed once project list compiled
• F2 - Is the project enhancing an existing facility or adding a new transportation facility? (2.1, 2.4)
  • -2: Degrades an existing transportation facility or builds a new facility.
  • -1: Builds a new facility that may improve an existing facility.
    Example: Provides a parallel route to a roadway over capacity or with identified safety issues.
  • 0: No impact.
  • +1: Improves an existing transportation facility.
    Example: Makes minor improvement to existing roadway without issues.
  • +2: Substantially improves an existing transportation facility.
    Example: Addresses multimodal capacity and/or safety issues on an existing roadway.
  • Additional Resources beyond TM#9.2 Proposed Solutions
    • Project description

Local Business and Jobs (3)

• L1 - Will the project improve travel reliability? (2.1, 3.1)
  • -2: Substantially degrades operations at a deficient location.
  • -1: Degrades operations at a deficient location.
  • 0: No impact or degrades operations at a non-deficient location.
  • +1: Indirectly improves operations at a deficient location.
    Example: Project improves capacity on a roadway parallel to an over-capacity roadway.
  • +2: Directly improves operations at a deficient location.
    Example: Project installs a roundabout at a two-way stop-controlled intersection that does not meet standards.
  • Additional Resources beyond TM#9.2 Proposed Solutions
    • Existing (TM#8.1) and future (TM#9.1) operations
• L2 - Will the project improve mobility and reliability of a freight route and/or access to/from agricultural and natural resource areas? (3.2, 3.4)
  • -2: Substantially degrades goods and freight mobility.
    Example: Project increases congestion on a freight corridor.
  • -1: Degrades goods and freight mobility.
    Example: Project removes industrial property access on a freight corridor.
  • 0: No impact. Example: Project located on a residential corridor.
  • +1: Indirectly improves goods and freight mobility.
    Example: Project increases capacity on a corridor parallel to a freight corridor.
  • +2: Directly improves goods and freight mobility.
    Example: Project increases capacity on a freight corridor.
  • Additional Resources beyond TM#9.2 Proposed Solutions
    • Freight Corridors Map
    • Functional Class Map for non-freight route arterials.
• L3 - Does the project support TDM strategies? (3.3)
  • -2: NA
  • -1: NA
  • 0: No Impact
  • +1: Supports TDM strategies. Example: multi-modal roadway enhancement or transit project.
  • +2: Substantially Supports TDM strategies.
    Example: off-road or bike/ped only roadway or transit enhancement project.
  • Additional Resources beyond TM#9.2 Proposed Solutions
    • Project description
• L4 - Will the project enhance transportation access to jobs? (3.1, 3.2)
  • -2: Substantially degrades access and/or mobility to existing or future employment areas
  • -1: Degrades access and/or mobility to existing or future employment areas.
    Example: Capacity enhancement without providing pedestrian or bicycle facilities.
  • 0: No impact. Example: Capacity enhancement not related to an employment area.
  • +1: Improves access and mobility within ½ mile of existing or future employment areas.
    Example: Capacity or active transportation enhancement project providing access to an employment area.
  • +2: Improves access and mobility within ¼ mile of existing or future employment areas.
    Example: Capacity or active transportation enhancement project to or within an employment area.
  • Additional Resources beyond TM#9.2 Proposed Solutions
    • Land Use Zoning maps
    • Key Destination maps

Reduce Disparities (4)

• R1 - Will the project address community disparity in access to safe/reliable transportation options? (1.6, 4.2)
  • -2: Substantially degrades access to transportation options in an area with high (top 40% and in/near areas with safety issues) populations in Clackamas County’s Transportation Demographic Indicator groups.
  • -1: Degrades access to transportation options in an area with moderately high (top 40% but not in/near areas with safety issues) populations in
    Clackamas County’s Transportation Demographic Indicator groups.
    Example: Expands vehicle lanes that make pedestrian crossings longer and vehicle speeds higher.
  • 0: No impact.
  • +1: Improves access to transportation options in an area with moderately high (top 40% but not in/near areas with safety issues) populations in
    Clackamas County’s Transportation Demographic Indicator groups.
  • +2: Improves access to transportation options in an area with high (top 40% and in/near areas with safety issues) populations in Clackamas
    County’s Transportation
    Demographic Indicator groups. Example: Introduces traffic calming throughout high TDI neighborhoods.
  • Additional Resources beyond TM#9.2 Proposed Solutions
    • Clackamas County Transportation Demographic Indicator Maps
• R2 - Will the project address community disparity in transportation safety? (4.2, 4.3)
  • -2: Substantially degrades safety and comfort in an area with high (top 20%) populations in Clackamas County’s Transportation Demographic Indicator groups.
  • -1: Degrades safety and comfort in an area with moderately high (top 40%) populations in Clackamas County’s Transportation Demographic Indicator groups.
  • 0: No impact.
  • +1: Improves safety and comfort in an area with moderately high (top 40%) populations in
    Clackamas County’s Transportation Demographic Indicator groups.
  • +2: Improves safety and comfort in an area with high (top 20%) populations in Clackamas
    County’s Transportation
    Demographic Indicator groups.
  • Additional Resources beyond TM#9.2 Proposed Solutions
    • Clackamas County Transportation Demographic Indicator Maps ODOT SPIS and Metro HIC Networks
    • TSAP Analysis Results (“high risk” corridors)

Sustainable (5)

• SU1 - Will the project result in improvement of a substandard creek crossing (such as with a poor-quality culvert) that will enhance the natural environment? (5.2)
  • -2: Substantially degrades an environmental resource.
    Example: Project directly impacts 4(f) or 6(f) resources [parks].
  • -1: Degrades an environmental resource.
    Examples: Project directly impacts non-4(f) or 6(f) resources [parks].
  • 0: No impact.
  • +1: Improves or protects an environmental resource
    Example: Rebuilds a bridge or culvert to a higher environmental standard.
  • +2: Enhances an environmental resource.
    Example: Expands an existing park or wetland.
  • Additional Resources beyond TM#9.2 Proposed Solutions
    • Park maps
    • Wetland maps
• SU2 - Does the project minimize negative impacts to creeks/waterways and natural areas, including stormwater runoff? (1.3, 5.2)
  • -2: NA
  • -1: Crosses an existing creek/waterway and/or natural area.
  • 0: No impact.
  • +1: Does Not Cross an existing creek/waterway and/or natural area.
  • +2: NA
  • Additional Resources beyond TM#9.2 Proposed Solutions
    • Park maps
    • Wetland maps
• SU3 - Does the project support access, ease of use, and therefore adoption of low emission or zero emission vehicles? (5.1, 5.4)
  • -2: NA
  • -1: NA
  • 0: No Impact.
  • +1: NA
  • +2: Improves the adoption of low emission vehicles or zero emission vehicles.
    Example: Includes facilities that support charging.
  • Additional Resources beyond TM#9.2 Proposed Solutions
    • Project description
• SU4 - Will the project reduce exposure to or mitigate exposure to transportation-related air emissions? (5.1)
  • -2: NA
  • -1: NA
  • 0: No Impact.
  • +1: Reduces exposure to transportation-related air emissions.
    Example: Addition of pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities along a roadway with a landscape buffer of 6 or more feet.
  • +2: Substantially Reduces exposure to transportation-related air emissions.
    Example: Development of a new off-road pedestrian and/or bicycle facility.
  • Additional Resources beyond TM#9.2 Proposed Solutions
    • Project description
• SU5 - Does the project reduce travel by single occupancy vehicle (SOV) or reduce vehicle miles travelled per capita? (5.1)
  • -2: NA
  • -1: NA
  • 0: No Impact.
  • +1: Increases opportunity for non-SOV travel.
    Example: multi-modal roadway enhancement or transit project.
  • +2: Substantially Increases opportunity for non-SOV travel
    Example: off-road or bike/ped only roadway or transit enhancement project.
  • Additional Resources beyond TM#9.2 Proposed Solutions
    • Project description

Livable and Local (6)

• LL1 - Does the project improve multimodal network connectivity and enhance modal choice and options, especially to key destinations? (1.3, 1.6, 6.4)
  • -2: Degrades connectivity or modal choice options.
  • -1: NA
  • 0: No impact.
  • +1: Fills a gap in the existing network and increases connectivity for one or more mode within ½ mile of a key destination.
  • +2: Fills a gap in the existing network and increases connectivity for one or more mode within ¼ mile of a key destination
  • Additional Resources beyond TM#9.2 Proposed Solutions
    • Project description
    • Pedestrian maps
    • Bicycle maps
    • Auto maps
• LL2 - Does the project improve multimodal network connectivity to transit stops/stations? (6.2)
  • -2: Substantially degrades
    conditions to transit. Example: Disconnects walking or biking connections to transit.
  • -1: Degrades conditions to transit. Example: Enhances motorized vehicle capacity without providing pedestrian or bicycle facilities.
  • 0: No impact.
  • +1: Improves connectivity within ½ mile of a transit stop.
    Example: Providing sidewalk along a roadway with a bus line.
  • +2: Improves connectivity within 1/4 mile of a transit stop.
    Example: Providing sidewalk along a roadway with a bus line.
  • Additional Resources beyond TM#9.2 Proposed Solutions
    • Project description
    • Transit maps
• LL3 - Will the project improve the condition or connectivity to parks/trails, recreation and public land? (6.4)
  • -2: Substantially degrades connectivity to these areas.
  • -1: Degrades connectivity to these areas.
  • 0: No impact.
  • +1: Fills a gap in connectivity within ¼ mile of these areas.
  • +2: Fills a gap in connectivity within or adjacent to/from these areas.
  • Additional Resources beyond TM#9.2 Proposed Solutions
    • Parks and public land maps

Table 2. Additional Prioritization Factor Scoring

Functional Classification Criteria

• Segments
  1. Local
  2. Collector
  3. Arterial
  4. Highway
  5. Expressway
• Intersections
  1. Local/Local
  2. Local/Collector 
     Local/Arterial
  3. Collector/Collector 
     Collector/Arterial 
     Local/Highway 
     Local/Expressway
  4. Arterial/Arterial 
     Arterial/Highway 
     Expressway/Collector 
     Expressway/Arterial 
     Collector/Highway
  5. Highway/Highway 
     Highway/Expressway 
     Expressway/Expressway
• Additional Resources beyond TM#9.2 Proposed Solutions
  • Functional Classification

Key Destinations Criteria

1. Proposed segment improvement within 1/4 mile of Key Destination
   Proposed Intersection improvement withing 1/4 mile of Key Designation
2. Proposed segment improvement within 0.1 mile of Key Destination
   Proposed Intersection improvement immediately adjacent to Key Destination
3. NA
4. NA
5. NA

• Additional Resources beyond TM#9.2 Proposed Solutions
  • Key Destinations map

School Proximity Criteria

1. NA
2. NA
3. NA
4. Proposed segment improvement within 1/4 mile of School
   Proposed Intersection improvement within 1/4 mile of School
5. Proposed segment improvement immediately adjacent to school (0.1 miles)
   Proposed Intersection improvement immediately adjacent to school (0.1 miles)

• Additional Resources beyond TM#9.2 Proposed Solutions
  • School location map

2040 Center Area Criteria

1. NA
2. NA
3. NA
4. Proposed Segment intersecting the 2040 Center
   Proposed Intersection improvement within 1/4 mile of 2040 Center
5. Proposed Segment inside the 2040 Center
   Proposed Intersection improvement inside the 2040 Center

• Additional Resources beyond TM#9.2 Proposed Solutions
  • Analysis (CFAs) Centers on the Region 2040 Concept Map published by Metro.

Underserved Population Criteria

1. NA
2. Project is within 1/4 mile of 40% TDI Block Group
3. Project is inside top 40% TDI Block Group
4. Project is within 1/4 mile of 20% TDI Block Group
5. Project is inside top 20% TDI Block Group

• Additional Resources beyond TM#9.2 Proposed Solutions
  • Clackamas County Transportation Demographic Indicator Maps

On Current 25-30 Capital Improvement Project List

1. NA
2. NA
3. NA
4. NA
5. On CIP List

• Additional Resources beyond TM#9.2 Proposed Solutions
  • CIP List

Appendix A – Goals, Objectives, and Prioritization Criteria

Goal 1 – Safety and Health
Promote a transportation system that supports and improves our safety, health, and security.

• Objective 1.1: Reduce the number and severity of crashes for all transportation system users through implementation of the Safe System Approach focusing on safe roads, safe speeds, safe road users, safe vehicles and post-crash care.
• Objective 1.2: Provide a system that supports the operations of firefighters, ambulances, law enforcement, and other emergency response services.
• Objective 1.3: Identify, maintain, and improve pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities, multi-use trails, and roadway connections.
• Objective 1.4: Develop and implement comprehensive Safe Routes to School planning that prioritizes safety and accessibility for students of all ages and abilities.
• Objective 1.5: Prioritize projects, programs, and policies that balance safety, reduce traffic congestion, and provide travel options.
• Objective 1.6: Complete gaps in the pedestrian and bikeway networks to improve safety for vulnerable users and to improve community health by increasing safe opportunities for daily physical activity.

Prioritization Factors:

• S1 - Will the project reduce severity and/or frequency of crashes? (1.1)
• S2 - Will the project improve emergency response times? (1.2)
• S3 - Was the project prioritized in the Walk Bike Plan? (1.3, 1.6)
• S4 - Does the project benefit a TSAP priority segment or intersection? (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6)
• See R1 below.
• See SU2 below.
• See LL1 below.

Goal 2 – Fiscal Responsibility 
Promote a fiscally responsible approach to protect and improve the existing transportation system.

• Objective 2.1: Maintain the current transportation system and carefully evaluate the addition of new infrastructure.
• Objective 2.2: Support transportation projects that use public resources cost-effectively, considering the full scope of benefits and costs.
• Objective 2.3: Strengthen existing sources of transportation revenue and identify additional stable, diverse, long-term sources of funding.
• Objective 2.4: Identify and protect right-of-way for future transportation facilities and services.

Prioritization Factors:

• F1 - Is the preferred alternative the most cost-effective solution considering full scope of benefits and costs? (2.2, 2.3)
• F2 - Is the project enhancing an existing facility or adding a new transportation facility? (2.1, 2.4)
• See L1 below.

Goal 3 – Local Business and Jobs
Plan the transportation system to promote a prosperous and adaptable economy and further the economic well-being of businesses, visitors, and residents of the county.

• Objective 3.1: Support transportation improvement projects that help workers access their place of employment.
• Objective 3.2: Promote efficient, affordable, and reliable movement of people, materials and goods to help people and businesses thrive.
• Objective 3.3: Encourage, support, and communicate the availability of rideshare programs, car-sharing programs, transit pass programs, telecommuting, autonomous vehicles, and other travel options programs.
• Objective 3.4: Improve freight mobility and reliability.

Prioritization Factors:

• L1 - Will the project improve travel reliability? (2.1, 3.1)
• L2 - Will the project improve mobility and reliability of a freight route and/or access to/from agricultural and natural resource areas? (3.2, 3.4)
• L3 - Does the project support TDM strategies? (3.3)
• L4 - Will the project enhance transportation access to jobs? (3.1, 3.2)

Goal 4 – Reduce Disparities
Reduce disparities in safe and reliable transportation between communities and key destinations.

• Objective 4.1: Create engagement and decision-making processes that provide meaningful opportunities for all residents to influence decision-making.
• Objective 4.2: Improve access, safety, reliability, and affordability for communities that experience greater barriers using the transportation system.
• Objective 4.3: Prioritize transportation improvements and investment in areas with high concentrations of priority populations who often experience the greatest barriers or burdens.

Prioritization Factors:

• R1 - Will the project address community disparity in access to safe/reliable transportation options? (1.6, 4.2)
• R2 - Will the project address community disparity in transportation safety? (4.2, 4.3)

Goal 5 – Sustainable
Provide a transportation system that supports efficient use of resources and optimizes benefits to the environment, the economy, and the community.

• Objective 5.1: Reduce energy consumption and emissions associated with the transportation system through strategies that decrease vehicle miles traveled, increase system efficiency, and support the transition to lower-energy and cleaner travel modes.
• Objective 5.2: Minimize impacts created by the transportation system on air quality, water quality, and urban heat through mitigation strategies such as vegetative barriers, raingardens, noise barriers, planted roundabouts, reflective surfaces, pervious pavements, and other green infrastructure strategies.
• Objective 5.3: Improve the resilience of the transportation system so it can withstand, adapt to, and recover from disruptive events while maintaining essential mobility and access.
• Objective 5.4: Encourage the use of alternative fuel vehicles and more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Prioritization Factors:

• SU1 - Will the project result in improvement of a substandard creek crossing (such as with a poor quality culvert) that will enhance the natural environment? (5.2)
• SU2 - Does the project minimize negative impacts to creeks/waterways and natural areas, including stormwater runoff? (1.3, 5.2)
• SU3 - Does the project support access, ease of use, and therefore adoption of low emission or zero emission vehicles? (5.1, 5.4)
• SU4 - Will the project reduce exposure to or mitigate exposure to transportation-related air emissions? (5.1)
• SU5 - Does the project reduce travel by single occupancy vehicle (SOV) or reduce vehicle miles travelled per capita? (5.1)

Goal 6 – Livable and Local 
Tailor transportation solutions, including policies, programs, and infrastructure projects, to suit the

unique needs of local communities.

• Objective 6.1: Facilitate access to daily needs and services for all communities regardless of age, ability, income level, and geographic location.
• Objective 6.2: Invest in and encourage public transit, including connections to transit stops and stations.
• Objective 6.3: Plan and design roadways where people can drive, walk, bike or take transit safely and comfortably including design elements most appropriate for the location, community and geography.
• Objective 6.4: Maintain and enhance connections to parks, recreational areas, and public lands across the County so that all residents can access these areas regardless of income or automobile access.
• Objective 6.5: Develop and maintain relationships with public and private partners to support collaboration and coordination needed to create a safe, complete, and equitable transportation system.

Prioritization Factors:

• LL1 - Does the project improve multimodal network connectivity (including system completeness) and enhance modal choice and options, especially to key destinations? (1.3, 1.6, 6.4)

• LL2 - Does the project improve multimodal network connectivity to transit stops/stations? (6.2)
• LL3 - Will the project improve the condition or connectivity to parks/trails, recreation and public land? (6.4)

Appendix B - TPR Prioritization Approach for Metropolitan Areas

660-012-0155:

1. Cities, counties, Metro, and state agencies shall use the framework in this rule for decision making regarding prioritization of transportation facilities and services. Cities, counties, Metro, and state agencies shall consider the following:
   1. Prioritization factors as provided in section (3);
      • CCTSP Prioritization Approach: See Section 3 below
   2. Classification of facilities or segments as provided in section (4);
      • CCTSP Prioritization Approach: See Section 4 below
   3. The planned land use context as provided in section (5); and
      • CCTSP Prioritization Approach: See Section 5 below
   4. Expected primary users as provided in section (6).
      • CCTSP Prioritization Approach: See Section 6 below
2. Cities, counties, Metro, and state agencies may use local values determined through engagement as provided in OAR 660-012-0120 to weight various prioritized factors when making prioritization decisions as provided in this division.
   • CCTSP Prioritization Approach: The County updated the vision, goals, objectives, and evaluation criteria from the 2013 TSP through engagement with the PMT, TAC, PAC, GSA, and public via the January/February 2026 TSP Virtual Open House and targeted engagement with culturally specific and historically under-represented groups. Technical Memorandum 6.3 summarizes the goals, objectives, and evaluation criteria.
     In addition, the currently identified 2025-30 Capital Improvement Project (CIP) projects are automatically assigned to the Tier 1 (fiscally constrained list) as they are considered programmed per County policy.
3. Cities, counties, Metro, and state agencies shall prioritize transportation facilities and services based on the following factors:
   1. Meeting greenhouse gas reduction targets, including:
      1. Reducing per-capita vehicle miles traveled to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets provided in OAR 660-044-0020 or OAR 660-044-0025;
      2. Supporting compact, pedestrian-friendly patterns of development in urban areas, particularly in climate-friendly areas;
      3. Reducing single-occupant vehicle travel as a share of overall travel; and
      4. Meeting performance targets set as provided in OAR 660-012-0910.
         • CCTSP Prioritization Approach: Verifying the county’s TSP supports achieving regional greenhouse gas reduction targets will be conducted and documented in Technical Memorandum #9.5 once the Tier 1 – 20-Year Capital Projects (Fiscally Constrained) have been identified and confirmed through the public engagement process (Virtual Open House #2, GSA Workshops, and TAC Meeting #5, and PAC Meeting #4). This analysis will confirm that the
           County’s TSP does not increase VMT/capita from the baseline set in the last RTP and that climate-friendly areas have been prioritized for multimodal improvements that support compact land use and reducing SOV travel.
   2. Improving equitable outcomes for underserved populations identified in OAR 660-012-0125;
      • CCTSP Prioritization Approach: Underserved Population Criteria
   3. Improving safety, particularly reducing or eliminating fatalities and serious injuries;
      • CCTSP Prioritization Approach: Prioritization Criteria S1, S2, S3, S4
   4. Improving access for people with disabilities;
      • CCTSP Prioritization Approach: All Projects will be designed to latest ADA requirements
   5. Improving access to destinations, particularly key destinations identified as provided in OAR 660-012-0360;
      • CCTSP Prioritization Approach: Key Destinations Criteria
   6. Completing the multimodal transportation network, including filling gaps and making connections;
      • CCTSP Prioritization Approach: Prioritization Criteria LL1, LL2, LL3
   7. Supporting the economies of the community, region, and state; and
      • CCTSP Prioritization Approach: Key Destinations Criteria
   8. Other factors determined in the community.
      • CCTSP Prioritization Approach: All Prioritization Criteria
4. Cities, counties, Metro, and state agencies shall consider the functional classification of planned or existing transportation facilities or segments when making decisions about appropriate transportation facilities and services. Cities, counties, Metro, and state agencies may establish mode-specific functional classifications for each mode on any facility or segment that they own and operate.
   • Functional Classification Criteria
5. Cities, counties, Metro, and state agencies shall consider the planned land use context around an existing or planned transportation facility or segment when making decisions about appropriate transportation facilities and services.
   1. Within climate-friendly areas, cities, counties, Metro, and state agencies shall prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation facilities and services. Cities, counties, Metro, and state agencies shall ensure facilities are planned for these modes to experience safe, low stress, and comfortable travel for people of all ages and abilities within climate-friendly areas with minimal interference from motor vehicle traffic.
      • CCTSP Prioritization Approach: 2040 Center Area Criteria
   2. In areas with concentrations of underserved populations, cities, counties, Metro, and state agencies shall prioritize transportation projects addressing historic and current marginalization. Proposed transportation projects in these areas must work to rectify previous harms and prevent future harms from occurring. These areas may have suffered from disinvestment or harmful investments, including transportation system investments. Such harms include but are not limited to displacement, increased exposure to pollutants, destruction and division of neighborhoods, heat islands, and unsafe conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and others.
      • CCTSP Prioritization Approach: Underserved Population Criteria
6. Cities, counties, Metro, and state agencies shall consider the expected primary users of an existing or planned transportation facility or segment when making decisions about appropriate transportation facilities and services. In particular:
   1. In areas near schools or other locations with expected concentrations of children, or areas with expected concentrations of older people or people with disabilities, cities, counties, Metro, and state agencies must prioritize safe, protected, and continuous pedestrian and bicycle networks connecting to key destinations, including transit stops.
      • CCTSP Prioritization Approach: School Proximity Criteria
   2. In industrial areas, along routes accessing key freight terminals, and other areas where accommodations for freight are needed, cities, counties, Metro, and state agencies must consider the needs of freight users. Pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation system connections must be provided in industrial areas at a level that provides safe access for workers.
      • CCTSP Prioritization Approach: Prioritization Criteria L2