Traffic Manual: March 2008

Traffic
Manual
March 2008
Oregon Department of Transportation

Highway Division—Technical Services
Traffic—Roadway Section
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/
The material contained in this electronic document is for reference purposes only to aid
new employees and those unfamiliar with ODOT traffic engineering practices in
accessing applicable standards, statutes, rules and policies. The material contained in
this electronic document is for information purposes only.
March 2008 ii
This is an electronic copy in Adobe Acrobat format of the Oregon Department of
Transportation’s Traffic Manual.
Its primary purpose is to provide our customers and new employees with information
regarding practices, procedures, and organization. The manual will also clarify roles
and responsibilities, as well as provide information that may be required when
considering traffic control changes. This manual includes information on where to find
policies, procedures, warrants, and design considerations for traffic related items. The
manual should not be regarded as policy, rather it should be used for information and
training.
Every effort was taken to carefully edit and assemble this manual; however omissions
and errors can occur. If you have any questions or comments on the contents, format or
wording of this document please submit them in writing to the State Traffic Engineer.
State Traffic Engineer

Traffic—Roadway Section
355 Capitol Street NE, 5th Floor
Salem, OR 97301-3871
March 2008 iii

Summary of Major Changes for March 2008 Edition of Traffic
Manual
Chapter 1—Organization
¾ Minor editing of entire chapter to further distinguish the differences between

roadway engineering publications such as the Highway Design Manual and
traffic engineering publications such as the Traffic Manual both of which are
produced by the Traffic—Roadway Section. Also recognize that the Traffic
Standards and Asset Management Unit (TSAMU) now provides limited design
support to the Regions upon request.
Chapter 3—Publications
¾ Removed some outdated publications from the list and updated latest publication
dates to match Traffic—Roadway Section internet site
Chapter 5—Delegated Authorities
¾ Revised Section 5.2.2.2 Delegated Authority for Existing Traffic Signals based on
discussion at December 6, 2007 TOLT meeting
Chapter 6—Traffic Engineering Practices
¾ Revised Section 6.6 Crosswalks and added text from Technical Bulletins TR06
02(B) Marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations and TR06-04(B) Textured &
Colored Crosswalks
¾ Revised Section 6.8 Freeway Median Crossovers by deleting standard drawing

and simplified language referring people to OAR 734-020-0100 through 734-020
0115
¾ Added new Section 6.9 Highway Advisory Radio based on materials Jan Gipson
brought to TOLT at previous meetings
¾ Added new Section 6.10 Highway Safety Engineering based on newly published
Highway Safety Program Guide
¾ Revised Section 6.32 Speed Zones based on input and editing by Debby Corey,
Jan Gipson, and Scott McCanna
¾ Removed Section 6.33 SPIS Investigation since the information is duplicated in

new Section 6.10 Highway Safety Engineering
¾ Added new Section 6.37.4 Right-Turn Acceleration Lanes based on text from
Technical Bulletin TR07-11(B)
Chapter 7—Appendices
March 2008 iv
¾ Removed Section 7.5.1 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and
incorporated updated information into new Section 6.10 also referring people to
Highway Safety Program Guide
¾ Removed Section 7.5.2 Project Safety Management System and incorporated

updated information into new Section 6.10 also referring people to Highway
Safety Program Guide
¾ Moved Section 7.5.3 Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) to new Section 6.10
Highway Safety Engineering
¾ Removed Section 7.5.4 Safety Investment Program (SIP) as this information is

covered in the Highway Safety Program Guide
March 2008 v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 ORGANIZATION ..........................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Traffic—Roadway Section .........................................................................................1-1
1.1.1 Overview..........................................................................................................1-1
1.1.2 Traffic Manual ................................................................................................1-1
1.1.3 Highway Design Manual ................................................................................1-1
1.1.4 Organizational Structure ...............................................................................1-2
1.2 Region Traffic Unit....................................................................................................1-4
1.2.1 Overview..........................................................................................................1-4
1.2.2 Region Traffic Design and Operations...........................................................1-4
1.2.3 Region Traffic Investigations .........................................................................1-4
1.2.4 Region Transportation Safety Coordinator ...................................................1-5
1.2.5 Region Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Activities..........................1-5
1.2.6 Region Access Management ...........................................................................1-5
1.3 Other Traffic Related Units within ODOT .............................................................. 1-6
1.3.1 Intelligent Transportation Systems Unit ......................................................1-6
1.3.2 Traffic Systems Services Unit ........................................................................1-6
1.3.3 Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit...............................................................1-7
1.3.4 Transportation Systems Monitoring Unit .....................................................1-7
1.3.5 Transportation Planning Analysis Unit ........................................................1-7
1.4 ODOT Region Map ....................................................................................................1-8
2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ..........................................................................................2-1
3 PUBLICATIONS ..........................................................................................................3-1
March 2008 vi
4 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS TEAMS ................................................4-1
4.1 AASHTO Committees................................................................................................4-1
4.1.1 Standing Highway Committee, Subcommittee on Traffic Engineering.......4-1
4.1.2 Subcommittee on System Operations and Management..............................4-1
4.2 Forest Highway Tri-Agency Committee ...................................................................4-1
4.3 Highway Safety Engineering Committee.................................................................4-1
4.4 IKS Software Users Group........................................................................................4-2
4.5 Oregon Historical Marker Committee......................................................................4-2
4.6 Oregon Traffic Control Devices Committee (OTCDC).............................................4-2
4.7 Oregon Travel Information Council..........................................................................4-3
4.8 Pavement Marking Committee.................................................................................4-3
4.9 Pavement Marking Design Working Group.............................................................4-3
4.10 Safety Investigations Group .................................................................................4-3
4.11 Signal Timers Group .............................................................................................4-4
4.12 Speed Zone Review Panel .....................................................................................4-4
4.13 Statewide Grant Review Committee ....................................................................4-4
4.14 Traffic Control Plans Discipline Group ................................................................4-5
4.15 Traffic Control Plans Technology Committee ......................................................4-5
4.16 Traffic Control Oversight Committee...................................................................4-5
4.17 Traffic –Roadway Section/Transportation Safety Division .................................4-5
4.18 Traffic Operations Leadership Team (TOLT) ......................................................4-6
4.19 Traffic Sign Design Working Group .....................................................................4-6
4.20 Traffic Signal Design Working Group ..................................................................4-6
4.21 TransPort Committee............................................................................................4-7
4.22 Traffic Structures Design Working Group ...........................................................4-7
March 2008 vii

5 DELEGATED AUTHORITY ..........................................................................................5-1
5.1 Letter of Authority ....................................................................................................5-1
5.2 Delegated Authorities of the State Traffic Engineer...............................................5-2
5.2.1 Traffic Control Devices ...................................................................................5-2
5.2.2 Traffic Signals .................................................................................................5-5
6 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PRACTICES .......................................................................6-1
6.1 Access Management ..................................................................................................6-1
6.1.1 Overview..........................................................................................................6-1
6.1.2 Grants of Access..............................................................................................6-2
6.2 Active Bike and Pedestrian Warning Signs At Bridges .......................................... 6-3
6.2.1 Background .....................................................................................................6-3
6.2.2 Criteria ............................................................................................................6-3
6.2.3 Considerations ................................................................................................6-4
6.2.4 Engineering Study ..........................................................................................6-5
6.3 Bicycle Facilities........................................................................................................6-5
6.4 Capacity Analysis ......................................................................................................6-5
6.5 Crash Analysis...........................................................................................................6-6
6.5.1 Overview..........................................................................................................6-6
6.5.2 Crash Analysis Data Sources .........................................................................6-7
6.6 Crosswalks .................................................................................................................6-9
6.6.1 Marked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations on State Highways ............6-9
6.6.2 Criteria for Establishing Marked Crosswalks on State Highways ............6-10
6.6.3 Crosswalk Approval......................................................................................6-19
6.6.4 Crosswalks at Signalized Intersections.......................................................6-20
6.6.5 Crosswalk Safety ..........................................................................................6-20
March 2008 viii

6.6.6 Crossing Strategies .......................................................................................6-21
6.6.7 In-Roadway Warning Lights at Crosswalks................................................6-24
6.6.8 Textured/Colored Crosswalks ......................................................................6-27
6.7 Flashing Beacons.....................................................................................................6-29
6.7.1 Intersection Control Beacons .......................................................................6-30
6.7.2 Flashing Beacons as Supplements to a Warning or Regulatory Sign........6-30
6.8 Freeway Median Crossovers ...................................................................................6-31
6.9 Highway Advisory Radio .........................................................................................6-31
6.9.1 Guidelines for the Operation of Highway Advisory Radio and Traveler's
Advisory Radio on State Highways...........................................................................6-32
6.10 Highway Safety Engineering ..............................................................................6-32
6.10.1 Highway Safety Program Guide ...............................................................6-32
6.10.2 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) ......................................6-32
6.10.3 State Strategic Highway Safety Plan .......................................................6-33
6.10.4 Program Management...............................................................................6-33
6.10.5 Highway Safety Engineering Committee.................................................6-33
6.10.6 Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) ........................................................6-34
6.11 Historical Markers ..............................................................................................6-36
6.12 Illumination .........................................................................................................6-37
6.12.1 Overview ....................................................................................................6-37
6.12.2 Temporary Illumination............................................................................6-37
6.12.3 Permanent Illumination............................................................................6-37
6.13 Land Use and Transportation ............................................................................6-38
6.14 Lanes ....................................................................................................................6-38
6.14.1 Climbing and Passing Lanes.....................................................................6-38
6.14.2 Lane Drops .................................................................................................6-39
March 2008 ix
6.14.3 Right-Turn Acceleration Lanes.................................................................6-39
6.14.4 Turn Lanes.................................................................................................6-39
6.15 Legislative Concepts ...........................................................................................6-39
6.16 Litigation .............................................................................................................6-40
6.17 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices......................................................6-40
6.17.1 Overview ....................................................................................................6-40
6.17.2 Oregon Supplement to the MUTCD .........................................................6-41
6.17.3 Exceptions to the MUTCD ........................................................................6-41
6.17.4 Deviations to the MUTCD.........................................................................6-41
6.17.5 Requests to Experiment ............................................................................6-41
6.17.6 Revisions to the MUTCD (Changes).........................................................6-42
6.18 Naming Highway Facilities ................................................................................ 6-42
6.19 New Products.......................................................................................................6-42
6.20 One-way Operation for Trucks and Buses ......................................................... 6-43
6.21 Parking.................................................................................................................6-43
6.21.1 On-Street Parking .....................................................................................6-43
6.21.2 Prohibitions and Restrictions ...................................................................6-43
6.22 Pavement Markings ............................................................................................6-45
6.22.1 Overview ....................................................................................................6-45
6.22.2 Advance Stop Bars.....................................................................................6-46
6.22.3 No Passing Zones.......................................................................................6-47
6.22.4 Two-Way Left Turn Lane ..........................................................................6-47
6.22.5 Yield Control Markings .............................................................................6-47
6.22.6 Colored Pavements ....................................................................................6-48
6.23 Railroad Crossings ..............................................................................................6-48
6.23.1 Overview ....................................................................................................6-48
March 2008 x
6.23.2 Added Stop Lanes ......................................................................................6-48
6.24 Road Closures ......................................................................................................6-49
6.25 Roundabouts ........................................................................................................6-50
6.25.1 Overview ....................................................................................................6-50
6.25.2 Roundabout Selection Criteria and Approval Process.............................6-50
6.26 Rumble Strips ......................................................................................................6-52
6.26.1 Shoulder Rumble Strips (SRS)..................................................................6-53
6.26.2 Centerline Rumble Strips (CLRS) ............................................................6-54
6.26.3 Transverse Rumble Strips.........................................................................6-56
6.27 Safe Speed on Curves ..........................................................................................6-57
6.28 Safety Corridors...................................................................................................6-57
6.29 Sight Distance......................................................................................................6-58
6.30 Signs.....................................................................................................................6-59
6.30.1 Sign Policy and Guidelines for the State Highway System ....................6-59
6.30.2 Right-Turn Permitted Without Stopping (RTPWS).................................6-60
6.30.3 STOP Sign Applications ............................................................................6-61
6.30.4 Variable Message Signs.............................................................................6-62
6.30.5 Wrong Way Treatments ............................................................................6-63
6.30.6 YIELD Sign Applications ..........................................................................6-63
6.31 Special Events .....................................................................................................6-64
6.32 Speed Zones .........................................................................................................6-64
6.32.1 Overview ....................................................................................................6-64
6.32.2 Construction Speed Zones .........................................................................6-65
6.32.3 School Speed Zones....................................................................................6-67
6.32.4 Speed Displays in conjunction with Speed Limit or School Speed Limit
signs 6-68
March 2008 xi
6.33 Traffic Calming....................................................................................................6-69
6.34 Traffic Signals .....................................................................................................6-70
6.34.1 Approval Process .......................................................................................6-70
6.34.2 Traffic Signal Operations ..........................................................................6-75
6.35 Traffic Impact Studies.........................................................................................6-79
6.36 Truck Routes........................................................................................................6-80
6.36.1 Background ................................................................................................6-80
6.36.2 Procedure ...................................................................................................6-80
6.37 Turn Lanes ..........................................................................................................6-83
6.37.1 Left-Turn Lanes.........................................................................................6-83
6.37.2 Multiple Turn Lanes .................................................................................6-83
6.37.3 Right-Turn Lanes ......................................................................................6-84
6.37.4 Right-Turn Acceleration Lanes.................................................................6-85
6.37.5 Shared (or combined) Bike and Right-Turn Lane ...................................6-88
6.37.6 Two-Way Left Turn Lanes and Painted Medians....................................6-88
6.38 Turn Prohibitions ................................................................................................6-89
6.39 U-turns at Signalized Intersections ...................................................................6-90
6.40 Visibility...............................................................................................................6-91
6.41 Work Zones ..........................................................................................................6-91
6.41.1 Analysis......................................................................................................6-91
6.41.2 Portable Traffic Signals.............................................................................6-93
6.41.3 Oregon Temporary Traffic Control Handbook .........................................6-94
7 APPENDICES ..............................................................................................................7-1
7.1 Definitions..................................................................................................................7-1
7.2 Forms .........................................................................................................................7-8
March 2008 xii

7.2.1 Signs ................................................................................................................7-8
7.2.2 Preliminary Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis ...............................................7-8
7.2.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis ....................................................................7-8
7.2.4 Traffic Signal Approval Request Form ..........................................................7-8
7.2.5 Worksheet for Determining the Need for a Reduced Speed Zone for Work
Zones 7-8
7.2.6 Parking Prohibition Request Form ................................................................7-8
7.3 Files ............................................................................................................................7-9
7.4 Crash Analysis.........................................................................................................7-12
7.4.1 Overview........................................................................................................7-12
7.4.2 Crash Summaries .........................................................................................7-12
7.4.3 Collision Diagrams........................................................................................7-13
7.4.4 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Analysis .......................................7-13
7.4.5 Statistical Techniques ..................................................................................7-14
7.4.6 Crash Rates ...................................................................................................7-14
7.4.7 Comparing Crash Rates ...............................................................................7-14
7.4.8 Estimating the Effectiveness of a Treatment..............................................7-15
7.5 Traffic Engineering Programs ................................................................................7-16
7.5.1 Blue Star Memorial Program .......................................................................7-16
7.5.2 Impaired Driving Victim Memorial Signing................................................7-17
7.6 Legal Authority........................................................................................................7-20
7.6.1 Crosswalks ....................................................................................................7-20
7.6.2 Delegation of Authority ................................................................................7-20
7.6.3 Emergency Vehicle Preemption ...................................................................7-20
7.6.4 Freeway Median Crossovers ........................................................................7-20
7.6.5 Incident Management...................................................................................7-20
March 2008 xiii

7.6.6 Jurisdiction ...................................................................................................7-20
7.6.7 Multiple Turns at Highway Intersections ...................................................7-21
7.6.8 One-way Operation, Transit Exceptions .....................................................7-21
7.6.9 Parking Prohibitions.....................................................................................7-21
7.6.10 Restrictions by Vehicle Type or Weight ...................................................7-21
7.6.11 School Zones...............................................................................................7-21
7.6.12 Speed Zones ...............................................................................................7-21
7.6.13 Traffic Control Device, Appropriate Driver Responses ...........................7-21
7.6.14 Traffic Signal Approval Process................................................................7-22
7.6.15 Transit and HOV Lanes ............................................................................7-22
7.6.16 Turn Prohibitions ......................................................................................7-22
7.6.17 Uniform Standards and Placement ..........................................................7-22
7.6.18 U-turn Designations ..................................................................................7-22
8 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................8-1
9 GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................................9-1
March 2008 xiv

1 ORGANIZATION
1.1 Traffic—Roadway Section
1.1.1 Overview
The Traffic—Roadway Section is within Technical Services, which is part of the

Highway Division. Technical Services consists of five sections: Bridge Engineering,
Geo-Environmental, Construction, Right of Way, and Traffic—Roadway. In addition,
there are two units which report directly to the Technical Services Manager: Branch
Operations and Access Management. There are approximately 340 employees in
Technical Services, with an operating budget of approximately $77 million per
biennium. Technical Services maintains liaison with the Regions during the Four-Year
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) plan development and field
location design; provides support to the Regions in delivering Oregon Transportation
Investment Act (OTIA) projects; identifies and purchases needed right-of-way; develops
standards and specifications for all transportation facilities; and provides related
design, materials, operations, and construction support services.
The Traffic—Roadway Section has approximately 80 employees and was formed in

September 2006 by merging the former Traffic Engineering and Operations Section
with the Roadway Engineering Section. Traffic—Roadway Section traffic engineering
programs affect all ODOT divisions, the State Police, the Public Utilities Commission,
cities and counties, the Oregon Travel Information Council, motorist services providers,
the Speed Zone Review Panel, the Oregon Transportation Safety Committee, and all
road users on all public roads in Oregon. The traffic engineering programs at ODOT
provide statewide policies and guidelines for all traffic control devices; develops and
maintains standards for traffic signals, illumination, and signing; provides technical
analysis for traffic operation improvements on all state highways; administers the
federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP); manages programs; manages
speed zoning for all public roads; monitors traffic speeds; and optimizes operation of
statewide traffic signal systems.
1.1.2 Traffic Manual
The Traffic Manual focuses on ODOT traffic engineering policies and practices. The
manual also clarifies roles and responsibilities, as well as providing information that
may be required when considering traffic control changes.
1.1.3 Highway Design Manual
Highway design practices and policies are not found in the Traffic Manual. For issues
related to geometric design and roadway engineering, users should consult the Highway
Design Manual maintained by the Roadway Engineering Services Unit of the Traffic—
Roadway Section.
March 2008 1-1

1.1.4 Organizational Structure
The Traffic—Roadway Section includes five central units: Roadway Engineering

Services Unit, Specifications and Pre-Letting Unit, Geometronics Unit, Traffic
Standards and Asset Management Unit, and Traffic Engineering Services Unit. The
latter two units which focus exclusively on traffic engineering issues are described in
more detail below.
1.1.4.1 Traffic Standards and Asset Management Unit
The Traffic Standards and Asset Management Unit has expertise in a wide variety of
installations related to roadway signing, striping, traffic structures, traffic control
plans, and traffic signals. The unit’s primary purpose is to develop and maintain
standards for design and construction, review contract plans, provide training in design
and construction inspection, and asset management of signs, signals, and traffic
structures. The unit also provides standard drawings, special provisions, and
specialized work as needed. This unit consists of four teams providing expertise in the
following areas:
Signing and Striping

Provides engineering expertise and maintains standards for all highway signs and
pavement markings (see Sign Policy and Guidelines for the State Highway System, and
Striping Design Guidelines). The team also develops specifications, maintains standard
drawings, reviews new products, and develops manuals to provide training for
designers. The team may provide some designs for ODOT regions.
Traffic Signals
Provides engineering expertise for temporary traffic signals, permanent traffic signals,
flashing beacons, ramp meters and some portions of weigh stations. The team also
develops specifications, maintains standard drawings, and maintains qualified products
lists. The team also reviews local agency and developer agreements and plans for traffic
control devices, reviews new products, maintains asset management databases, and
provides annual training and certification for inspectors of traffic signal construction.
The team also produces some designs for Regions on an as requested basis.
Traffic Structures
Provides engineering expertise and designs for sign bridges, cantilever sign supports,
traffic signal poles, illumination poles, VMS supports and other miscellaneous traffic
structures.
Traffic Control Plans

Develops the standards for traffic control plans for construction projects. When
construction projects suspend the normal function of the roadway, a traffic control plan
is developed to assure the safety of all road users, and the protection of workers. At the
same time, the traffic control plan provides for continuity of the movement of motor
vehicles, bicycle and pedestrian traffic while allowing for the efficient completion of the
construction project.
March 2008 1-2

Illumination
Provide engineering expertise, designs and standards for roadway illumination.
1.1.4.2 Traffic Engineering Services Unit
The Traffic Engineering Services Unit consists of two work teams. The teams provide
engineering services in the following areas:
Safety and Investigations

Provides highway safety analyses; maintain the Safety Priority Index System (SPIS);
administers the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and Project Safety
Management System as well as safety tools used within ODOT; and provides
coordination and liaison for safety efforts with other parts of ODOT and outside
agencies, including the Highway Safety Engineering Committee and the Oregon
Transportation Safety Committee.
The group also provides traffic engineering expertise for research studies, legislative
issues, crash analyses, safety reviews, access management issues, review and approval
of traffic engineering delegated authorities, speed monitoring, speed zoning, new
products, highway litigation and tort liability as well as supporting the Speed Zone
Review Panel.
The Safety and Investigations group provides expertise for the development and update
of traffic engineering policies, procedures and ODOT manuals. The group also gathers
and provides input and recommendations for any proposed changes to the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices, maintains and updates the Oregon Supplement to the
MUTCD and works with the Oregon Traffic Control Devices Committee (OTCDC) to
establish statewide traffic control standards.
Signal Operations
The Signal Operations group prepares traffic signal and signal system timing, and
provides engineering expertise in traffic signal operation, installation of traffic signals,
traffic signal approvals, vehicle detection systems, traffic signal software and
communication development, ramp meter system operations and railroad preemption
systems. The Signal Operations team also provides engineering support for
transportation operations research and analysis, HOV lane applications, and signal
mounted preemption system design (for emergency and transit vehicles). The group
also provides expertise for the development of traffic engineering policies, procedures
and proposed legislation.
March 2008 1-3

1.2 Region Traffic Unit
1.2.1 Overview
A Region Traffic Unit is located in each of the five ODOT Regions throughout the state.
The Region Traffic Unit is part of each Region’s Technical Center and reports directly to
the Technical Center manager. (See ODOT Region Map)
Region Traffic Unit staff provide expertise to the region and district staff on current
traffic policies and procedures. Staff are responsible for overseeing most traffic
engineering design including most signal and sign design for Region projects. Staff
actively participates as members of project development teams to help insure that
traffic related issues are considered early in the process and to provide traffic
information to the team. They also act as the traffic liaison to local agencies on behalf of
ODOT.
Members of the unit conduct field investigations at the request of the public, local
government, or ODOT personnel. When requested, they conduct engineering
investigations, determine appropriate solutions, make written recommendations, and
when necessary, request approval of the State Traffic Engineer for installation of traffic
control devices or modifications to traffic control.
Engineering investigations for changes to traffic control devices often result from safety
concerns and can include requests for signs, signals, striping, parking restrictions and
speed reductions. They also conduct field safety investigations of the sites and make
recommendations for corrective action. Staff also conduct speed zone investigations
and/or oversee consultants performing the work and make recommendations for
changes to the State Traffic Engineer based on the results.
1.2.2 Region Traffic Design and Operations
Region Traffic Unit staff oversee design for all Region projects containing traffic
engineering elements including signing, striping, and signals. The units provide
expertise in signal timing, operations, and vehicle detection systems. They may also
provide expertise for the operation of ramp metering systems. Signal system
coordination is done in Regions 1 and 2 by the Region Traffic Unit staff. Regions 3, 4,
and 5 signal coordination is handled by Traffic—Roadway Section staff. Some units
oversee signing, striping and electrical crews for their region.
1.2.3 Region Traffic Investigations
Staff reviews traffic studies for developments and land use actions for their impacts to
the state highway system and make recommendations regarding access, traffic
mitigation requirements, safety and operation of the State Highway system. They also
review corridor plans and Transportation System Plans (TSPs) for traffic-related issues.
March 2008 1-4

1.2.4 Region Transportation Safety Coordinator
Each Region Traffic Unit has a traffic safety advocate (Region Transportation Safety
Coordinator) who is a technical resource for local safety education and law enforcement
efforts, and provides access to safety grant funds, materials and training. They handle
programs regarding education on child occupant protection, DUII, pedestrian, teen
driving, bicycle, and work zone enforcement. They also work with local safety
committees on traffic issues.
1.2.5 Region Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Activities
Region Traffic Units often oversee Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) related
activities in their areas. The Traffic Management and Operations Centers monitor and
control traffic operations through the latest Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
technologies to provide real-time transportation system control, communications,
monitoring and information.
The ITS unit is part of the Office of Maintenance and not part of Traffic-Roadway
Section (see ITS unit below).
1.2.6 Region Access Management
Region Traffic Unit staff are often involved in the access management programs for
each Region (some regions incorporate Access Management into Traffic other
incorporate it into Planning). Each Region has a Region Access Management Engineer
(RAME) who provides key technical support for access management practices in the
region. The RAMEs also provide a valuable communication link between central staff
and region staff and act as an ODOT advisory group on access management issues,
policies and practices.
March 2008 1-5

1.3 Other Traffic Related Units within ODOT
1.3.1 Intelligent Transportation Systems Unit
Within the Office of Maintenance and Operations, the Intelligent Transportation

Systems Unit provides identification, planning, design, specification and deployment of
ITS systems including incident management systems, some communication systems and
travelers’ information systems. Some of the device types include cameras, weather
stations, variable message signs, highway advisory radio, automatic vehicle location,
weather hazard monitoring and warning systems.
The unit also provides standardization for ITS devices, performs strategic planning for
ITS deployment within the state, and helps the ODOT regions in the identification of
local partnerships and the use of ITS technologies. Other activities include researching
of emerging technology, promoting technology partnerships with other public and
private sectors, and supporting ITS deployment by other modes.
1.3.2 Traffic Systems Services Unit
Also within the Office of Maintenance and Operations, the Traffic Systems Services
Unit provides expertise in traffic signal testing, turn-on, inspection, and maintenance.
The unit also supports the ODOT Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) program
with expert technical support for Road Weather Information Systems (RWIS), Closed-
Circuit Television (CCTV) surveillance systems, Fixed and Portable Variable Message
Signs (VMS), and Fiber-optics data communication networks.
The Traffic Systems Services Unit operates the only approved materials testing
laboratory for traffic control products in Oregon. The laboratory operates to ensure
compliance with OAR 734-020-0005 which establishes the manual and specifications for
traffic control devices within the state and Section 00990.70 of Oregon’s Standard
Specifications which describes the testing and turn-on procedures for all new traffic
systems installations.
1.3.2.1 Field Applications
Employees of the unit have the responsibility for setting minimum maintenance
standards for traffic signal equipment on the state highway system. Employees working
with region/district electricians repair and modify all traffic signals maintained by the
department. TSSU or Region 1 Signal Maintenance Crews are responsible for periodic
inspection and maintenance of signal control equipment at signalized intersections
while Region/District electricians are responsible for performing maintenance on other
elements of the traffic signal system. Inspections will assist the project manager in
assuring compliance with the project plans and specifications.
1.3.2.2 Shop Applications
Employees of the unit have the responsibility for maintaining the following records:
• Inventory of all traffic signal control devices;
March 2008 1-6

• Records of inspections of existing traffic signal control devices;
• Maintenance records of all trouble calls;
• Environmental testing chamber and turn-on records of control equipment;
• Shop repair records of control equipment; and
• Documentation of systematic upgrading of equipment.
Shop applications also include environmental testing of all traffic signal equipment used
within Oregon. TSSU also provides repair and testing of state maintained control
equipment modules.
1.3.3 Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit
Within the Transportation Data Section of the Transportation Development Division,

the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit provides motor vehicle crash data through
database creation, maintenance and quality assurance, information and reports, and
limited database access. Ten years of crash data is maintained at all times. Fatality
Analysis Reporting System is a comprehensive file on fatal crashes in Oregon. The
motor carrier file contains detailed information on truck related crashes.
1.3.4 Transportation Systems Monitoring Unit
Also within the Transportation Data Section, the Transportation Systems Monitoring
Unit is responsible for the Traffic Monitoring Program, which provides vehicle class,
occupancy, and traffic volumes for federal, state, local and private decision makers; they
support the Integrated Transportation Information System (ITIS) with traffic, speed
limit, parking and terrain information.
1.3.5 Transportation Planning Analysis Unit
Within the Planning Section of the Transportation Development Division, the

Transportation Planning Analysis Unit of ODOT is working to determine the present
and future needs of the statewide transportation system, and evaluate alternative
solutions to growing transportation demands. TPAU provides an essential link between
long range planning and project development. TPAU also reviews system and corridor
plans and provides traffic analysis of existing and future traffic demands for projects.
TPAU participates in technical advisory committees, citizen advisory committees, and
project development teams.
March 2008 1-7

1.4 ODOT Region Map
March 2008 1-8

2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The goals and objectives of the policies and procedures contained in the ODOT Traffic
Manual are to enhance the safety and efficiency of Oregon’s transportation system by
providing guidance for traffic operations, maintenance and project delivery.
December 2006 2-1

3 PUBLICATIONS
The following table provides a listing of traffic related publications published by the
Traffic—Roadway Section by subject category. Most publications are available on the
internet at the Traffic—Roadway Section web site
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/. Some internal publications
are only made available on the ODOT intranet site. The intranet site can only be
accessed by ODOT employees at http://intranet.odot.state.or.us/tstrafmgt/.
For a listing of other publications utilized by the Traffic—Roadway Section, see the
References section in Chapter 8.
Title Subject Date Published
2002 Policy Statement for Cooperative Traffic

General June 2002
Control Projects
A Guide to School Area Safety General August 2006
Descriptions of US and Oregon Routes General July 2007
Highway Safety Program Guide General September 2007
Guidelines for the Operation of Highway

Advisory Radio and Traveler's Advisory Radio General February 2007
on State Highways
Oregon Supplement to the MUTCD General July 2005
Traffic Manual General March 2008
Lighting Policy and Guidelines Illumination January 2003
Traffic Lighting Design Manual Illumination January 2003
Pavement
Standards for Disabled Parking Spaces January 2001
Markings
Pavement
Traffic Line Manual January 2007
Markings
Sign Policy and Guidelines for the State Signs

September 2007
Highway System
Traffic Sign Design Manual Signs September 2003
Speed Zone Manual Speed Zones August 2007
March 2008 3-1

Title Subject Date Published
Railroad Preemption Design and Operation Traffic Signals October 2005
Red Light Running (RLR) Camera Guidelines Traffic Signals May 2004
Signal Design Manual Traffic Signals February 2007
Standard Specification for Microcomputer Traffic Signals

September 2001
Signal Controller
Chapter 12 (Supplemental): Specifications For Traffic Signals

February 2007
Battery Backup System Equipment
Traffic Signal Policy and Guidelines Traffic Signals September 2006
Guidelines for the Operation of Variable Variable

July 2006
Message Signs on State Highways Message Signs
Guidelines For The Use Of Portable Variable Variable

Message Signs On State Highway—Field Message Signs June 2004
Version
Oregon Temporary Traffic Control Handbook Work Zones May 2006
March 2008 3-2

4 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS TEAMS
The Traffic—Roadway Section provides expert staff and administrative support to

several teams in specific traffic engineering disciplines on the local, regional, state, and
national levels.
4.1 AASHTO Committees
Leader: AASHTO
Membership: varies
Focus: The Traffic—Roadway Section staff participates in two American Association of

State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) committees.
4.1.1 Standing Highway Committee, Subcommittee on Traffic Engineering
Member: State Traffic Engineer
Schedule: varies
4.1.2 Subcommittee on System Operations and Management
Member: ITS Unit Manager
Schedule: varies
4.2 Forest Highway Tri-Agency Committee
Leader: Federal Highway Administration, Federal Lands Division
Membership: State Traffic Engineer representing ODOT and the Oregon Association of
Counties; representatives from the US Forest Service and the Federal Lands Division of
FHWA. Also attending the meetings are the Forest Highway (& Enhancement)
Program Coordinator as well as representatives from AOC, and staff from FHWA and
USFS.
Focus: This group is the authority that decides how the approximately $18 million in
Federal Forest Highway money is spent in Oregon.
Schedule: Annual meetings plus supplemental meetings as needed.
4.3 Highway Safety Engineering Committee
Leader: State Traffic Engineer
March 2008 4-1

Membership: Traffic—Roadway Section staff, Roadway Manager, Region Traffic
Manager(s), FHWA, Safety Division staff
Focus: This group meets to discuss and establish policies and guidance for the safety
programs in ODOT.
Schedule: every three months
4.4 IKS Software Users Group
Leader: varies
Membership: City, County and ODOT representatives
The IKS Software Users Group is a cooperative, interagency team including the City of
Portland, City of Gresham, City of Vancouver, Clackamas County, Multnomah County,
Washington County, Clark County, the Oregon Department of Transportation, the
Washington State Department of Transportation and other users of the Wapiti
Microsystems W4IKS software.
Schedule: Biannually
4.5 Oregon Historical Marker Committee
Leader: As voted by membership
Membership: TIC, ODOT, Tourism, Oregon Parks, OCTA, DOGAMI, others.
Focus: In July 1991, the Travel Information Council (TIC) adopted the Historical
Marker Program from ODOT through an interagency agreement, along with other sign
programs of a motorist service nature.
Schedule: Quarterly
4.6 Oregon Traffic Control Devices Committee (OTCDC)
Leader: Chair as voted in by membership
Membership: State Traffic Engineer, three city and three county representatives, ODOT
Region Traffic Manager, Oregon ITE representative, OSP representative.
Focus: The Oregon Traffic Control Devices Committee is an advisory group to the state,
cities, and counties in Oregon regarding traffic management issues. The committee
meets to discuss programs, policy and procedures, and various transportation activities
related as they affect local and state governments. The OTCDC meets every other
month to exchange thoughts, ideas, and practices that will guide the direction for the
future regarding transportation related activities as they affect the motoring public.
March 2008 4-2

Schedule: every two months
4.7 Oregon Travel Information Council
Leader: TIC Manager and Council Chair selected by Council
Membership: Representatives of the restaurant, lodging, gasoline, outdoor advertising

and citizens at large appointed by the Governor, State Traffic Engineer
Focus: The Oregon Travel Information Council (TIC) was founded by the Oregon State
Legislature in 1972 to administer Oregon’s Tourist Oriented Directional Signing
(TODS) program, the Specific Motorist Services Signing (LOGO) Program, and the Off-
interstate Historical and Cultural Sign Program.
Schedule: Quarterly meetings
4.8 Pavement Marking Committee
Leadership: District Manager
Membership: Maintenance Staff, Striping Crew Staff. Region Traffic Managers Staff,
Traffic Devices Engineer
Focus: This workgroup meets to share best practices with the goal of developing and
sharing new practices, materials and policies including maintenance and equipment
practices for pavement markings. Group decisions impact ODOT's QPL for pavement
marking materials and products, Standard Specifications and Traffic Line Manual.
Schedule: Monthly
4.9 Pavement Marking Design Working Group
Leader: Traffic Devices Engineer
Membership: Traffic—Roadway Section Staff, Region Traffic Staff, Region Roadway

Designers
Focus: This workgroup meets to share best practices with the goal of sharing new
practices, policies improving, design practices for striping and pavement markings.
Group decisions impact ODOT's QPL for pavement markings, Standard Specifications
and Standard drawings for Highway Construction and Striping Design Manual.
Schedule: Quarterly
4.10 Safety Investigations Group
Leader: Traffic Investigations Engineer
March 2008 4-3

Membership: Traffic—Roadway Section staff, Region Traffic Investigators, Region
Transportation Safety Coordinator from all regions
Focus: This is a working group of traffic investigators to advise staff on setting criteria
and guidance for performing highway safety investigations statewide.
Schedule: Twice Yearly
4.11 Signal Timers Group
Leader: Senior Traffic Engineer
Membership: Traffic—Roadway Section staff, signal timing staff from all regions
Focus: This group meets to discuss traffic signal timing and operations.
Schedule: Quarterly
4.12 Speed Zone Review Panel
Leader: As voted in by panel members
Membership: County, City, ODOT, State Police, Safety representative and State Traffic
Engineer as Secretary.
Focus: The Speed Zone Review Panel (SZRP) reviews contested speed zone cases. The
panel receives testimony from the local road authority and makes the final
recommendation. The panel is comprised of representatives from the Transportation
Safety Committee, the Oregon State Police, the Association of Oregon Counties, the
League of Oregon Cities, and the Department of Transportation.
Schedule: as needed
4.13 Statewide Grant Review Committee
Membership: State Traffic Engineer, District Manager or Permit Specialist, ROW

representative, Access Management Engineer, Roadway Representative, Traffic
Investigation Engineer, others as needed.
Focus: The Statewide Grant Review Committee (SGRC) reviews applications for grants
of access to State Highways.
Schedule: as needed
March 2008 4-4

4.14 Traffic Control Plans Discipline Group
Leader: TCP Engineer
Membership: TCP Designers in each of the five Tech Centers and the two TCP
Engineers in Salem
Focus: The function of this Team would be to solidify the design practices being used by
the TCP Designers in the Regions. The team would be able to focus on Design
Standards, Specifications, Special Provisions, Standard Drawings, Cost Estimating
details, Traffic Control Devices on the ODOT Qualified Products List (QPL) and other
Temporary Traffic Control issues germane to the development of ODOT Traffic Control
Plans.
Schedule: Quarterly
4.15 Traffic Control Plans Technology Committee
Membership: TCPU staff, one TCP Designer from each Region Tech Center, one
representative for Oregon Bridge Delivery Partners, and one or two representatives
from consulting industry.
Focus: Utilized primarily to share technical information across ODOT boundaries. The
make-up of this group will provide valuable perspectives and insights regarding traffic
control design, policy-making, safety and construction techniques, all for the purpose of
helping strengthen our Statewide Traffic Control Plans standards and practices.
Schedule: Quarterly
4.16 Traffic Control Oversight Committee
Membership: Region Safety staff, Transportation Safety Division personnel, and others.
Focus: With a semi-authoritative position, this committee will focus its efforts on
reviewing technologies and policies from other State agencies and businesses to draft,
refine and implement policies, practices and design standards for the Temporary Traffic
Control discipline within ODOT.
Schedule: Quarterly
4.17 Traffic –Roadway Section/Transportation Safety Division
Leadership: State Traffic Engineer and Transportation Safety Manager
March 2008 4-5

Membership: Traffic—Roadway Section Safety & Investigations staff, TSD Roadway
Safety Coordinator, and FHWA Safety Engineer.
Focus: Meet to coordinate safety programs and projects of mutual interest.
Schedule: Monthly
4.18 Traffic Operations Leadership Team (TOLT)
Membership: Region Traffic Managers and staff, Traffic—Roadway Section managers

and staff
Focus: Region Traffic Managers/Engineers from each ODOT Region meet with Traffic—
Roadway Section staff and the State Traffic Engineer to discuss traffic issues, concerns
and operations.
Schedule: Bimonthly
4.19 Traffic Sign Design Working Group
Leader: Sign Engineer
Membership: Traffic—Roadway Section Staff, Region Traffic Sign Design Staff
practices, policies improving, design practices for traffic signs. Group decisions impact
ODOT's QPL for Sign Materials, Standard Specifications and Standard drawings for
Highway Construction and Traffic Sign Design Manual.
Schedule: Quarterly
4.20 Traffic Signal Design Working Group
Leader: Traffic Signal Engineer
Membership: Traffic—Roadway Section Staff, Region Traffic Signals Design Staff,

Region Traffic Signal Operations Staff (Optional)
practices, policies improving, design practices for traffic signal systems. Group
decisions impact ODOT's QPL for traffic signal equipment (also known as “Blue
Sheets”), Standard Specifications and Standard Drawings for Highway Construction
and Traffic Signal Design Manual.
Schedule: Quarterly
March 2008 4-6

4.21 TransPort Committee
Leader: Region 1 Traffic Engineer
Membership: ODOT Region 1 staff, ODOT Traffic—Roadway Section Staff, WS DOT,

Metro, Clackamas Co., Multnomah Co., Washington Co, City of Portland, City of
Gresham, City of Beaverton, Port of Portland, City of Vancouver, Portland State
University, TriMet, FHWA, Vancouver Area Regional Transportation Council.
Focus: Traffic—Roadway Section employees serve as members on the Region 1,

TransPort Committee. This committee coordinates ITS deployment and operations
activities across the agencies in the Portland metropolitan area.
Schedule: Monthly
4.22 Traffic Structures Design Working Group
Leader: Traffic Structures Engineer
Membership: Traffic—Roadway Section Staff, Region Traffic Staff, Region Bridge

Designers
practices, policies improving, design practices for Traffic Structures. Group decisions
impact ODOT's Standard Specifications and Standard drawings for Highway
Construction and Traffic Structures Design Manual.
Schedule: Quarterly
March 2008 4-7

5 DELEGATED AUTHORITY
Traffic—Roadway Section staff review field investigations and make recommendations

to the State Traffic Engineer concerning items of delegated authority. The Delegated
Authorities of the State Traffic Engineer are derived from the Letter of Authority dated
January 28, 1999 which authorizes the State Traffic Engineer to act on the behalf of the
Technical Services Manager and OAR 734-020-0410 which delegates the authority to
approve the installation of traffic control devices to the State Traffic Engineer. 1 These
responsibilities may require consultation with various individuals or groups to provide
expert or professional advice on the matter prior to a final decision by the State Traffic
Engineer.
5.1 Letter of Authority
The Technical Services Manager authorizes the State Traffic Engineer to act on his/her
behalf regarding the following responsibilities:
1. Establish speed zones on all highways pursuant to ORS 810.180 and in compliance
with rules the Oregon Transportation Commission has adopted.
2. Approve procuring, installing, changing or removing traffic signals subject to the
current warrant requirements and current funding the Oregon Transportation
Commission has approved. 2
3. Designate restricted parking or no-parking zones on any state highway under the
provisions of ORS 810.160 and in accordance with rules the Oregon Transportation
Commission has adopted.
4. In consultation with the Region Manager:
a) Establish construction and temporary speed zones on any segment of the state
highway system when unexpected or unusual conditions require a speed less
than currently permitted.
b) Determine and designate which highways will be designated as through
highways at the intersection of two or more state highways under the provisions
of ORS 810.110. Determine which intersections of any other highway, road or
street with state highways require “STOP” or “YIELD” signs and approve
installing or removing all “STOP” and “YIELD” signs and other traffic markers
in accordance with standards adopted under the provisions of ORS 810.200.
c) Approve installing or removing any sign prohibiting pedestrian traffic on any
portion of the state highway system.
d) Approve installing or removing any sign prohibiting non-motorized traffic on any
portion of a state highway.
e) Approve installing or removing any sign prohibiting non-transportation activities
from any bridge on the state highway system.
f) Approve installing or removing any sign allowing U-turns at signalized
intersections on the state highway system according to rules the Oregon
Transportation Commission has adopted.
g) Designate intersections where turns are prohibited in any direction onto or from
any state highway and exceptions for public transportation vehicles under the
March 2008 5-1

provisions of ORS 810.130 and according to rules the Oregon Transportation
Commission has adopted.
h) Designate intersections where dual left and right turns can be made onto or from
state highways.
i) Designate pedestrian crossing and no-crossing sites at locations on the state
highway system.
5. In consultation with the Region Manager and the Motor Carrier Services Manager:
a) Designate highways, sections of highways, specific lanes or structures that allow
one-way operation by class or type of vehicle.
b) Under the provisions of ORS 810.030, approve installing or removing any sign
prohibiting through truck traffic on any portion of a state highway.
6. In consultation with the Oregon Traffic Control Devices Committee, approve
changes to traffic control device standards, manuals and guidelines for the state
highway system and approve experimental projects related to traffic matters per
ORS 810.200. 3
7. In consultation with the Region Manager as necessary, approve the installation,
modification or removal of traffic control devices, e.g. signs, striping, pavement
markers, on the state highway system.
8. In consultation with the Oregon Disabilities Commission, approve changes to
standards for disabled parking places under the provisions of ORS 447.233.
9. In consultation with the Region Manager, approve the installation, modification or
removal of roundabouts on state highways.
5.2 Delegated Authorities of the State Traffic Engineer
The State Traffic Engineer has been delegated the authority to approve the installation
of traffic control devices on state highways by the Oregon Transportation Commission. 4
This includes the installation of all new signals, selected modifications to existing
signals, and installation of any other traffic control device on state highways.
The following subsections detail the specific Delegated Authorities of the State Traffic
Engineer. Since traffic signals are a more complex type of traffic control device, they are
dealt with in a separate subsection at the end of this chapter. The list of delegated
authorities is regularly reviewed by Traffic—Roadway Section staff and the Traffic
Operations Leadership Team for consistency with Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS),
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Letters of Authority, and Delegation Orders from
the Oregon Transportation Commission. The list is revised and updated on an as-
needed basis following consultation with the Traffic Operations Leadership Team.
5.2.1 Traffic Control Devices
All delegated authority requests for State Traffic Engineer approval should follow
roughly the same process for approval:
1. Consultation with Region Traffic Unit; and
2. A request sent through the Region Traffic Manager/Engineer with supporting

documentation.
March 2008 5-2

5.2.1.1 State Traffic Engineer Authority
The following is a list of items that require approval by the State Traffic Engineer for
use on state highways:
• Colored Pavements
• Crosswalk Closure 5
• Dual Right or Left Turn Lanes 6
• Freeway Median Crossovers 7
• Highway Advisory Radio 8
• Marked Crosswalks 9
• Multiway Stop Applications 10
• One-way Operation for Trucks and Buses 11
• Parking Prohibitions or Restrictions 12
• PREPARE TO STOP WHEN LIGHTS FLASH Sign Applications
• Right-Turn Permitted Without Stopping (RTPWS)
• Roundabouts
• Rumble Strips—Transverse, Centerline
• School Crossings 13
• Speed Zones—Permanent, Emergency, Construction, Temporary, and School Areas

on State Highways 14
• STOP Sign Applications on State Highway 15
• Through Highways at Intersections of the State Highway 16
• Traffic Signals—Approval Process, Portable, Modifications (see 5.2.2.2 for a list of

modifications that must be approved by the State Traffic Engineer), Temporary, or
Removal 17
• Truck Routes and Truck Prohibitions
• Turn Prohibitions 18
• UNMUFFLED ENGINE BRAKING PROHIBITED signs on State Highways in

concurrence with local jurisdiction 19
March 2008 5-3

• Variable Message Signs 20
• YIELD Sign Applications on State Highway 21
5.2.1.2 Region Traffic Manager/Engineer Authority
The Region Traffic Manager/Engineer may authorize standard applications of traffic

control devices and some modifications to existing traffic control devices, provided the
applications are in compliance with the principles outlined in the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices and applicable ODOT policies and guidelines. The following is a
list of items that may be authorized by the Region Traffic Manager/Engineer:
• Advance Stop Lines (at marked crosswalks)
• Bicycle Lanes
• Continental Style Crosswalks 22
• Flashing Beacons as Supplements to a Warning or Regulatory Sign
• Flashing Beacons on School Speed Assemblies
• Highway Warning Signs & Systems (i.e., active bike/pedestrian warning, flood
warning, debris warning, etc)
• Intersection Control Beacons 23
• Left and Right Turn Lanes at unsignalized intersections
• Messages other than PSA’s on VMS 24
• No Passing Zones 25
• Roadway Illumination 26
• Rumble Strips—Shoulder
• Safe Speed on Curves
• Speed Displays in conjunction with Speed Limit or School Speed Limit signs
• STOP Sign Applications on cross streets that are not State Highways
• Traffic Signals—Modifications (see 5.2.2.2 for a select list of modifications to existing

signals that may be approved by the Region Traffic Manager/Engineer)
• Wrong Way Treatments
• YIELD Sign Applications on cross streets that are not State Highways
March 2008 5-4

5.2.2 Traffic Signals
Traffic signals including those in STIP and OTIA projects require State Traffic Engineer
approval. Approval of new signal locations is not covered by the Oregon Transportation
Commission’s approval of the project. 27
It is the position of the Traffic—Roadway Section that it is beneficial to ODOT to

reaffirm a policy that all traffic signal requests and design plans must be reviewed by
Traffic—Roadway Section staff and approved by the State Traffic Engineer. This
provides statewide consistency and assures that the installation of the traffic signal will
improve overall safety and operation of the intersection and the highway. It also
ensures that everyone with a stake in the operation of traffic signal systems has had an
opportunity for input into the project.
5.2.2.1 New Installations
On major projects, when a project team considers signalization, the Transportation

Planning Analysis Unit is contacted to do a preliminary analysis of the projected
warrants for a traffic signal. The Transportation Planning Analysis Unit should forward
a copy of the warrants and any analysis to the Traffic—Roadway Section as well as the
project team. This will provide notice to the Traffic—Roadway Section and provide an
early opportunity to identify relevant issues. When the project team decides to
recommend a signal on a project, a request should be sent through the Region Traffic
Manager, requesting the approval of the State Traffic Engineer.
The request should contain the information on the projected warrants, a plan showing
the location of proposed traffic signals, safety concerns, planning issues, etc. Any
Region Traffic Manager’s concerns should be resolved within the project team
environment. Traffic signals approved by the State Traffic Engineer are subject to
conditions noted on the approval. The Traffic—Roadway Section will maintain the
Traffic Signal Approval List.
Applications for new traffic signal installations should follow the procedure outlined in
the Oregon Administrative Rules 28.
5.2.2.2 Existing Traffic Signals
Modifications to existing traffic signals on state highways must be approved by either

the State Traffic Engineer or the Region Traffic Manager/Engineer depending on the
type of modification. A “modification” has been interpreted to mean a change in the
operational function of a traffic signal and includes the addition or deletion of signal
phases, modifications which provide or remove split phase operation, addition of
equipment not normally a part of a traffic signal design, and the addition or removal of
through vehicle lanes or pedestrian crossings at the intersection. Signal revisions and
normal maintenance activities such as the replacement of detectors, poles, or controllers
and timing adjustments that don’t affect operation do not constitute a “modification.”
The Traffic Operations Leadership Team maintains a list of items associated with
traffic signals that may be approved by either the State Traffic Engineer or the Region
March 2008 5-5

Traffic Manager/Engineer. The following items remain under the approval authority of
the State Traffic Engineer:
• Emergency Service Providers authorized to use Preemption Systems
• New approaches to existing signalized intersections
• Phasing—Addition or removal of pedestrian phases, Concurrent to split phasing
• Preemption Systems—Addition or removal of transit priority 29
• U-turns at Signalized Intersections 30
Some items may be approved by the Region Traffic Engineer/Manager provided they are
consistent with ODOT standards and practices set forth in the Traffic Signal Policy and
Guidelines and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The following items
may be approved by the Region Traffic Engineer/Manager provided the appropriate
documentation is sent to the Traffic—Roadway Section justifying and explaining the
type of modification that was made:
• Accessible Pedestrian Signals 31
• Detection—Loop, Video, etc.
• Lane use signing at signalized intersections
• Left and right turn lanes at signalized intersections without phase changes
• Left turn phase modifications
o Increased protection—Permissive to Protected-Permissive, Protected-

Permissive to Protected, or Permissive to Protected
o Less protection—Protected to Protected-Permissive, or Protected-

Permissive to Permissive
• NO TURN ON RED signs 32
• Pedestrian pedestals
• Pedestrian push buttons—Move or relocate
• Phasing—Addition or removal of overlap phasing
• Preemption Systems—Addition or removal of emergency preemption
• Ramp Meters 33
• Signal heads—Change out protected left green arrow only to all arrow, Move or
realign, Programmed, Supplemental
March 2008 5-6

• Signal poles—Replacement
• Work zone modifications—Phasing, Signal head locations, etc.
File Code: COM 04
1 Refer to Section 7.6 in Traffic Manual
2 Refer to OAR 734-020-0410
3 FHWA approves alterations or deviations to the MUTCD, makes rulings on

interpretations of the MUTCD, and approves experimental features requests
4 Refer to OAR 734-020-0410
5 Refer to Traffic Line Manual, Section B-15
6 Refer to OAR 734-020-0135 through 0140
7 Refer to OAR 734-020-0100 through 0115
8 Refer to ODOT Guidelines for the Operation of Highway Advisory Radio
9 Refer to Section 6.6.1 in Traffic Manual; Traffic Line Manual
10 Refer to MUTCD, Section 2B.07
11 Refer to OAR 734-020-0125 and 0130
12 Refer to OAR 734-020-0020 and 0080 through 0090
13 Refer to A Guide to School Area Safety
14 Refer to Speed Zone Manual; OAR 734-020-0015; A Guide to School Area Safety
15 Refer to MUTCD, Sections 2B.04 through 2B.07
16 Refer to ORS 810.110
17 Refer to ODOT Traffic Signal Policy and Guidelines; OAR 734-020-0400 through 0500
18 Refer to OAR 734-020-0020
19 Refer to ODOT Sign Policy and Guidelines
20 Refer to ODOT Guidelines for the Operation of Variable Message Signs
21 Refer to MUTCD, Sections 2B.08 through 2B.10
March 2008 5-7

22 Refer to Section 6.6.1 in Traffic Manual
23 Refer to MUTCD, Section 4K.02
Refer to ODOT Guidelines for the Operation of Variable Message Signs on State
24
Highways
25 Refer to MUTCD, Section 3B.02; Section 6.22.3 in Traffic Manual
26 Refer to ODOT Lighting Policy and Guidelines
27 Refer to OAR 734-020-400 through 734-020-500
28 Refer to OAR 734-020-400 through 734-020-500
29 Refer to ODOT Traffic Signal Policy and Guidelines
30 Refer to OAR 734-020-0025
31 Refer to ODOT Traffic Signal Policy and Guidelines; OAR 734-020-0400 through 0500
32 Refer to ODOT Sign Policy & Guidelines
33 Refer to Section 6.34.2.8 in Traffic Manual
March 2008 5-8

6 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PRACTICES
6.1 Access Management
6.1.1 Overview
Access Management is a comprehensive approach for improving safety and efficiency of

traffic operations on transportation facilities, while providing statewide accessibility
and mobility. Access management necessitates that a logical, functional hierarchy of all
roads in the state be established; that hierarchy should then be reinforced by applying
various levels of access control. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA) of 1991 established strong national policy support for the consideration of
access management in congestion management and corridor preservation. Standards
are established for the different classes of roads in design characteristics such as:
• freeway/highway access control
• interchange spacing
• spacing and control of median openings
• signal spacing
• intersection spacing
• driveway spacing and consolidation
• provision of turn lanes, and acceleration and deceleration lanes
These standards usually reflect land-zoning regulations. Implementation of access

management has the effect of separating and reducing conflicts, and thereby reducing
the likelihood of traffic crashes. The provision of turn lanes removes decelerating
vehicles from the traffic stream thus reducing rear-end crashes, and enabling the rest of
the traffic stream to flow with less interruption. Consistent interchange spacing
(together with full access control) helps ensure driver expectancy and reduces the
turbulence caused by merging and diverging freeway traffic. Nationwide, access
management has proven to:
• reduce crashes,
• reduce delays,
• reduce travel times and fuel consumption,
March 2008 6-1

• help improve traffic signal progression by helping to maintain travel speeds,
• reduce congestion and environmental pollution, and help meet Congestion

Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) goals,
• increase capacities of various types of facilities,
• improve local economies by improving accessibility to businesses and
• expanding their market areas, and
• reduce the urgency and pressure on local governments to build more roads to
balance the effects of mismanagement of the existing facilities.
6.1.1.1 Criteria
Criteria for the Access Management policies and guidelines are covered in the Oregon
Highway Plan and Chapter 734, Division 51 of the Oregon Administrative Rules.
Region Access Management Engineers (RAMEs) play a lead role in individual projects
and the development review process. Providing key technical support for access
management standards, the RAMEs provide a communication link between central staff
and region staff.
They also act as an ODOT advisory group along with central staff on access
management issues, reviewing standards, policies and practices and making
recommendations.
The Traffic—Roadway Section plays a significant role in the determination of access

management standards, with representation on various technical committees as well as
oversight of the grants of access process. The Traffic—Roadway Section also ensures
that access management standards are met by its involvement in the approval and
design of traffic signals and other traffic control devices, lane configurations, U-turns,
freeways, interchanges, etc. Review of traffic impact analyses provides the Traffic—
Roadway Section an opportunity to determine the effects of new signals on traffic signal
progression, check for adequate traffic storage and sight distances, and ensures designs
that comply with the access management standards for the class of road facility. Such
reviews also ensure the needs of transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists are included in the
site and vicinity design.
6.1.2 Grants of Access
A Grant of Access is required to create a new approach where no right of access (access
control) exists between the highway and a portion or all of a property abutting the
highway.
March 2008 6-2

The issues surrounding the applications for grants of access can be complex. The State
Traffic Engineer chairs a centralized review committee, the Statewide Grant Review
Committee (SGRC), with representatives from various disciplines within ODOT. The
role of the committee is to provide consistent and fair decisions across the state,
decisions that protect the Oregon’s Highway system and are also in the best interests of
the traveling public. A description of the process and criteria for determining if an
approach can be granted are detailed in the ODOT Access Management Manual (under
Grant of Access Procedure and Guidelines). (See also OAR 734-051-295)
When an application for an approach to a State Highway is received, ODOT must

determine if an approach (either public or private) is legally permissible and if it meets
established policies. If it is determined that the approach is in an area where an
approach would not violate established policies but has no legal right of access to the
highway, an application for a grant of access may be filed. To approve a grant of access
ODOT must either determine that access control is no longer necessary or that the
approach would benefit the State Highway System. For safety and operational reasons,
breaking access control for grants of access is generally difficult to justify.
6.2 Active Bike and Pedestrian Warning Signs at Bridges
6.2.1 Background
The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has installed active warning signs
at the entrance to tunnels on state highways that read "Bicycles in Tunnel When Lights
Flash" The signs have flashing amber beacons that are activated when bicyclists push a
button as they enter the tunnel. The device is timed for the average cyclist to travel the
required distance before the flashers stop. The signs are popular with both drivers and
bicyclists. There are only a few tunnels in Oregon, so their application has been fairly
limited.
ODOT also receives requests for the use of these or other similar devices for application
on narrow bridges, for both cyclists and pedestrians. There has been concern over the
widespread application of these devices to bridges, since Oregon has many bridges and
this could represent significant installation and maintenance costs (from $5,000 to more
than $20,000 for each).
6.2.2 Criteria
The following criteria have been developed to help guide decision-makers when a
request for application to a bridge must be considered. A flashing warning system for
bicyclists and/or pedestrians on a bridge should be considered when an engineering
study demonstrates their need and the location meets the following criteria:
1. There are inadequate shoulders or separation from traffic:
a. For pedestrians: the shoulders are less than 3 feet wide and no sidewalk
exists
b. For Bicyclists: the shoulders less than 4 feet
March 2008 6-3

c. Other situations where motor vehicles may encroach on pedestrian or
bicycle space
2. There is demonstrated bicycle or pedestrian usage (at least 10 pedestrians and/or

bicycles per hour for any four hours of the day is the minimum threshold
suggested).
3. The public support has been demonstrated by a request from a local government
body.
4. There is no other available/practical/safe route, or one cannot be provided at a

reasonable cost.
5. Operational techniques (e.g. signing, restriping) cannot improve the situation, or

construction measures are not practical or too expensive (e.g. removing fellow
guard, adding sidewalks or providing a separate bridge).
6. A combination of the following criteria create traffic conditions unacceptable to

pedestrians and/or cyclists on the bridge:
a. Speed;
b. ADT (include percentage of trucks, and peak hour, when pedestrians

and/or bicyclists may be using the bridge);
c. Sight distance; and
d. Length of bridge.
7. Funding and maintenance have been agreed upon between the District and/or
locals as to who will pay for maintenance and power.
6.2.3 Considerations
If all the above conditions are met, consider the following factors when providing a
flashing warning system:
1. Historic character of bridge – many older narrow bridges are classified as historic,
and the placement of a large warning sign may have a negative aesthetic impact;
contact Environmental Section as needed.
2. Placement of sign – can it be placed in such a way that it is visible to motorists for
them to adequately see, understand, react and adjust their speed?
3. Placement of push button – can they be placed in such a way that pedestrians
and/or cyclists can access them easily and see that the warning lights have been
activated?
March 2008 6-4

4. For pedestrians – will they be crossing the bridge on either side, coming from both
directions? If so, push buttons should be placed in all four quadrants at the bridge
ends.
5. Beyond the bridge, do pedestrians and/or cyclists have safe and convenient access
to the approach roads? This is especially applicable to freeway interchanges and
bridges that terminate at intersections.
6. Local education of the pedestrian and/or bicyclists on the meaning and use of the
devices may be needed.
6.2.4 Engineering Study
Region Traffic should conduct an investigation and analysis of the criteria and
considerations as well as any other pertinent information. Written documentation of
the investigation as well as a recommendation should be provided. A schematic plan
detailing proposed locations and pictures of the area should be included. Support of
Region Traffic and approval of the State Traffic Engineer is required before installation
of the signs.
6.3 Bicycle Facilities
The Department of Transportation has adopted the AASHTO publication, Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities, to establish bikeway design and construction
standards, to establish traffic control devices guidelines for bikeways, and recommend
illumination standards. Bicycle facilities are covered by OAR 734-020-0055 and OAR
734-020-0060. (Refer also to Sign Policy and Guidelines for the State Highway System,
Traffic Line Manual, Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, and OAR 734 Division 56.)
File Code: LOC 03
6.3.1.1 Shared (or combined) Bike and Right-Turn Lane
See 6.37.5
6.4 Capacity Analysis
A capacity analysis is required to determine the existing or future quality of operations

(level of service) on a part of a transportation system – freeways, rural highways,
intersections, etc. It is recommended that the following steps be followed in carrying out
a capacity analysis:
A. Study Area Inventory – Observe the road network, lane configurations, lane
widths, lane continuity, availability of auxiliary lanes, roadway grades, general
terrain, intersection and stopping sight distances, adjacent driveways and their
spacing, vehicle platooning, traffic composition, intersection controls, pedestrian
activity, bicycle facilities, transit and railroad facilities, vehicle queuing , etc.
March 2008 6-5

B. Traffic volume count data – Identify morning and evening peak volumes and
heavy midday volumes. If a new traffic generator is involved, determine
anticipated traffic volumes and their distribution to and from the proposed site
based on observations of similar generators within the study area or other
appropriate methodology.
C. Analysis detail – Follow established Highway Capacity Manual procedures

whether the calculation is manual or uses computer software. ODOT policy is to
determine intersection operation based on volume-to–capacity ratio. (Note
saturation levels, levels of service (LOS), queue lengths, etc.)
Capacity analysis results usually require a decision to be made involving access

management issues, construction of a traffic signal, provision of extra lanes, etc. Some
of these can only be approved by the State Traffic Engineer under a letter of authority
from the Technical Services Manager or through Administrative Rule. Requests for
approval should include all necessary documentation of a thorough investigation, and a
recommendation from the investigator. Requests from the regions to the Traffic—
Roadway Section to carry out a capacity analysis should also be addressed to the State
Traffic Engineer, with all necessary information. Analysis results that influence
decisions made at a local level will be returned to the requester. The Traffic—Roadway
Section will support the regions on the analysis, but will normally not take the lead in
public meetings that involve these investigations.
File Code: TRA 16-07-21
6.5 Crash Analysis
6.5.1 Overview
Crash data is used by transportation engineers to identify and analyze high crash
locations, evaluate engineering measures and identify trends in crash occurrences to
develop solutions that improve safety. The data can be used to develop a better
understanding of the performance of traffic control measures or to study specific sites
where a safety problem may exist.
When locations are identified for crash analyses the first step is to gather all crash data
relevant to the location. Several reports or tools exist to assist in this step (See Crash
Analysis Data Sources). These reports allow data to be summarized by different
characteristics, such as date and time, roadside culture, weather conditions, type of
crash, types of vehicles, and other information. Preparing collision diagrams to identify
patterns can assist the analyst in analyzing the situation. Collecting other data such as
volumes and operating speeds can also be helpful.
Site visits and video logs can assist with familiarizing the analyst with physical
features, roadway geometry and other site characteristics. Crash and fatality rates for
the section should be compared to the statewide average for similar types of highways.
March 2008 6-6

When the analyst has identified and completed analysis of the specific site, they can
evaluate which corrective actions might be beneficial and cost effective. Several sources
exist which are helpful including: Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Traffic Control
and Roadway Elements, December 1982 and Safety Effectiveness of Highway Design
Features, November 1992, both published by the Federal Highway Administration. The
Traffic—Roadway Section routinely performs crash analysis for environmental
documents and corridor studies and can help in the evaluation of specific sites or trends.
Contact the Highway Safety Engineering Coordinator for assistance.
6.5.2 Crash Analysis Data Sources
The following discussion identifies data sources for crash analysis. The statistical
treatment of the data and other reference material is contained in Section 7.4. Crash
Analysis is an important traffic engineering tool used to answer questions about road
design, maintenance, and operations. Crash analysis can also be used to learn what
questions to ask. The choice and arrangement of the data depend heavily upon the
nature of the question, availability of pertinent data, and time available.
Crash data sources readily available to ODOT employees include:
6.5.2.1 Oregon Motor Vehicle Traffic Crash Database
This is the main database compiled and maintained by the Crash Analysis and
Reporting Unit. It covers all state, county, and city roadways. All crashes reported to
DMV and forwarded to the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit are entered into the
database if there is property damage exceeding a minimum dollar amount, or if there
are any injuries. This data can be queried directly by the Crash Analysis and Reporting
Unit to provide lists that meet very selective criteria.
The most recent ten years of crash data can be accessed on the ODOT Intranet as part
of the Oregon Transportation Management System (OTMS).
6.5.2.2 Oregon Traffic Crash Summary
This extract from the main database listed above, has been published annually by the
Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit of the Transportation Data Section since 1994.
Previously, these reports were published by Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Division.
These tables provide selected crash tallies for statewide, countywide, and, in some
cases, citywide coverage. Subsets for truck, pedestrian, bicycle, and motorcycle crashes
were published until 1987. From 1987 to 1996, the subsets were not published, but
printouts were provided directly to the Traffic—Roadway Section. Beginning in 1989,
additional subsets were generated for crashes on state highways and for fatal crashes
only. The Oregon Traffic Crash Summary book has included all the subsets since 1996.
A separate publication of crash rates on state highways is also available.
6.5.2.3 Accident Summary Database
This has been produced annually since 1990. This is a database/software combination
for use on a desktop computer to generate reports at the request of the user. The
March 2008 6-7

summaries generated by this program are frequently helpful because the answers are
often sufficient, or time may be too short to permit more detailed analysis. Each set
contains three years of simplified crash data for the entire state highway system, plus
estimates of traffic volume for each mainline crash site, plus information on SPIS sites.
The crash data are extracted from the main database listed above. Traffic volume
estimates come from the mileage control tape for the middle year of the three years
covered. SPIS numbers are imported and assigned to each rated milepost.
These three-year databases are coupled with a summary program to produce a

summary tally that includes an estimate of the crash rate and traffic volume for the
selected section. Each summary must be for one continuous portion of one highway for
all three years. The estimate of traffic volume is a simple average of all the volume
estimates for each crash site. When a short part of the section specified has high
volumes and many crashes but the remainder has low volumes and few crashes, the
estimated crash rate will be too low. When appropriate, the crash rate should be
corrected manually on the face of the printout using a better estimate of overall volume.
Alternatively, separate summaries could be generated for each dissimilar segment.
6.5.2.4 TransGIS Mapping Tool
The TransGIS mapping tool was developed in order to provide a graphical method to
display Category 1-5 segment information, SPIS locations, crash data, street and road
information, and Average Daily Traffic (ADT) information. TransGIS displays this
information on a state map. The user can choose the information that is displayed and
can zoom into the map to increase detail, as well as display city and county maps behind
this data.
6.5.2.5 Crash Graphing Tool
The Crash Graph Tool was created to automatically create graphs and summary tables
of ODOT crash data in Microsoft Excel directly from the "Direction (Vehicle)" report
from the State Highway Crash Reports on the ODOT Intranet. The tool is a Microsoft
Excel Add-in and can be downloaded from the ODOT Intranet. External customers
interested in obtaining the Crash Graph Tool should contact the Traffic—Roadway
Section Highway Safety Engineering Coordinator for additional information.
6.5.2.6 Hardcopies
These have been generated by the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit over the years for
the State Highway System. These books are extracts of data from the main database
listed above. Working libraries of these reports are maintained by the Traffic—Roadway
Section and other offices. These books contain lists of crash data for one or five years,
and lists of various crash rates for one or five years. These books are the normal source
of data for those years no longer available directly from the mainframe computer.
6.5.2.7 Crash Rate Tables
These have been published annually by the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit since at
least 1948. Tables in the front of the book list statewide crash rates for several
March 2008 6-8

categories of the State Highway System. More tables list the crash rates for selected
sections of each state highway, as well as a rural/urban break out. Additional tables list
intersection crash data and fatal crash data.
6.5.2.8 Traffic Volume Tables
These have been published annually by the Transportation Data Section since at least
1939. There are no crash data in this book. It contains volume estimates for the entire
state highway system. These volumes can be used for calculating crash rates.
Information provided for automatic traffic recorders can be used in some instances to
learn about seasonal or about weekend vs. weekday crash rates.
6.6 Crosswalks
6.6.1 Marked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations on State Highways
6.6.1.1 Policy overview
The Traffic—Roadway Section issued a technical bulletin in April 2006 to provide

direction to project delivery teams and District Managers relating to the establishment
of marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations on state highways as part of Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and Oregon Transportation Investment
Act (OTIA) projects and each District’s pavement marking maintenance program.
6.6.1.2 Definitions of key terms
Uncontrolled location on state highway: A location on the state highway which lacks a
STOP sign, YIELD sign, or Traffic Signal for controlling and stopping traffic on the
state highway.
6.6.1.3 Background
The Oregon Transportation Commission, through ODOT’s Chief Engineer has delegated
the State Traffic Engineer with the authority to designate pedestrian crossings on state
highways. The Traffic Operations Leadership Team (TOLT) has become concerned that
many local agencies have chosen to mark crosswalks across state highways at
uncontrolled locations without a proper engineering investigation or review by the
Region Traffic Engineer and State Traffic Engineer.
Additionally, the increased use of consultants to provide roadway and traffic

engineering services has resulted in varying levels of quality in striping plans. Some
consultants have produced striping plans placing marked crosswalks across the state
highway at all intersections within the project limits regardless of whether an
engineering investigation has been conducted or not. Such over-use of crosswalks is a
violation of our standard practice, creates a potential liability exposure to the
department and creates a definite increase in maintenance costs. The ODOT Traffic
Manual provides clear guidance for the conditions in which marked crosswalks at
March 2008 6-9

uncontrolled locations should be considered. Locations that do not meet the criteria
listed in the manual should be recommended for removal.
6.6.1.4 Responsibilities of Parties Involved
Highway Division personnel such as Project Leaders and Consultant Project Managers,
whose duties include project delivery, are expected to coordinate engineering
investigations of marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations with the Region Traffic
Engineer to insure timely delivery of project designs. District Managers are expected to
verify that the marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations being maintained by the
Region striping crew in their particular District have received proper approval by the
State Traffic Engineer.
6.6.1.5 Action Required
Project delivery teams shall identify all marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations
during the preliminary scoping process for projects. The project delivery team shall
coordinate an engineering investigation with the Region Traffic Engineer. The
investigation shall document which marked crosswalks were previously approved by the
State Traffic Engineer and which new or previously unapproved crosswalks are
consistent with the guidelines set forth in the ODOT Traffic Manual. Any previously
unapproved marked crosswalks to be included in the project shall be submitted by the
Region Traffic Engineer to the State Traffic Engineer for consideration of approval.
District Managers or Striping Supervisors should whenever possible identify existing

crosswalks in advance of re-striping activities and coordinate with either the Region
Traffic Office or the Traffic—Roadway Section to assess whether the crosswalks have
been approved and who has the responsibility for maintenance. This will become easier
as we continue to build our database of pavement marking information.
6.6.1.6 Implementation
The implementation of this policy will be closely monitored by Traffic—Roadway Section

staff and the Traffic Operations Leadership Team comprised of the State Traffic
Engineer and the Region Traffic Managers from all 5 ODOT Region Technical Centers.
Any revisions will be based on feedback from the Region Technical Centers, the
Maintenance Leadership Team, and the Traffic Operations Leadership Team.
6.6.2 Criteria for Establishing Marked Crosswalks on State Highways
6.6.2.1 Overview
Crosswalks should be marked at urban roundabouts and across all signalized

approaches at intersections, unless the crossing is closed by official action. Marked
crosswalks may be established at rural roundabouts, across stop controlled approaches
at intersections, or across channelized right turn lanes. Crosswalks shall be marked at
established school crossings.
In an effort to ensure that marked crosswalks are placed where they are needed, specific
engineering studies must be conducted. An engineering study and State Traffic
March 2008 6-10

Engineer approval is required before establishing marked crosswalks at locations other
than signalized approaches at intersections, stop signs, roundabouts, or channelized
right turn lanes. The following criteria and considerations are guidelines for assisting in
the determination of when a pedestrian crossing should be marked with a crosswalk.
6.6.2.2 Criteria for Marking Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Approaches of Intersections
Generally marked crosswalks are discouraged at uncontrolled approaches due to a

concern that they may not improve safety and may, if inappropriate, put a pedestrian
more at risk. The criteria are primarily restrictions on marking crosswalks in locations
that would be potentially hazardous. In situations where the pedestrian volumes justify
marking crosswalks (well above minimum threshold levels) additional safety measures
(i.e., pedestrian refuges) should be considered above and beyond marking. Installation
of a marked crosswalk will not, in and of itself, increase the level of safety for
pedestrians. Marked crosswalks should only be considered at uncontrolled approaches
when an engineering study demonstrates their need and the location meets the
following criteria:
Required
• There is good visibility of the crosswalk from all directions, or it can be
obtained. Stopping sight distance is a minimum.
• There is no reasonable alternative crossing location.
• There is established pedestrian usage. Considerations include: volume of

pedestrians, opportunity for safe crossing (i.e., sufficient gaps in traffic),
percentage of elderly or young children, and the nature of the attraction (See
ITE suggested pedestrian volume thresholds in Section 6.6.2.11). Lower
pedestrian volumes would be acceptable for areas where there is greater
proportion of less experienced and less agile pedestrians (e.g., near schools
and/or elderly housing areas)
• Posted speeds should be 35 mph or less.
• Traffic Volumes should be less than 10,000 ADT or if above 10,000 ADT raised
median islands should be included.
• On multi-lane highways, pedestrian crossing enhancements (curb extensions

and/or pedestrian refuges) should be considered.
6.6.2.3 Criteria for Marking Crosswalks at Mid-Block Locations
Installations of mid-block crosswalks are discouraged for the same reasons uncontrolled
approaches are discouraged.
Mid-block crosswalks often do not get good compliance from motorists. Only consider
mid block crosswalks when an engineering study demonstrates their need and the
location meets the following criteria:
March 2008 6-11

Required
• There is good visibility of the crosswalk from all directions or it can be
obtained. Stopping sight distance is a minimum.
• Posted vehicular speeds should be 35 mph or less.
• There is not a reasonable alternative at a stop-controlled intersection.
• There is established pedestrian usage. Considerations include: volume of

pedestrians, opportunity for safe crossing (i.e., sufficient gaps in traffic),
percentage of elderly or young children, and the nature of the attraction (see
ITE suggested pedestrian volume thresholds in Section 6.6.2.11). Lower
pedestrian volumes would be acceptable for areas where there is greater
proportion of less experienced and less agile pedestrians (e.g. near schools
and/or elderly housing areas).
• Locations should be more than 300 feet to nearest crossing or marked

crosswalk.
• Traffic Volumes should be less than 10,000 ADT or if above 10,000 ADT raised
median islands should be included.
• Pedestrian crossing enhancements (curb extensions and/or pedestrian refuges)

should be considered.
Optional
• Where a marked crosswalk can concentrate or channelize multiple pedestrian
crossings to a single location.
• Free turning movements or other operational considerations inhibit

pedestrian crossing opportunities at the nearest intersection.
• Established bus stops where riders need access to the opposite side of road
from the bus stop where the stop can’t be relocated.
6.6.2.4 Criteria for Marking School Crossings at Uncontrolled Locations
When establishing marked school crossings across uncontrolled locations the applicable
criteria for marking crosswalks should be followed. Generally school crossings are
established based on School Route Plans and are sited to take advantage of existing
traffic controls such as traffic signals. Where existing traffic controls are not available
and it is not feasible to require children to walk out of direction a marked crosswalk
may be established. The number and age of the students using the crossing should be
taken into consideration. Adult crossing guards should be considered for established
school crossings at uncontrolled locations where gaps are not sufficient to permit a
reasonably safe crossing.
March 2008 6-12

6.6.2.5 Criteria for Marking Continental Crosswalk Markings (Longitudinal Marking)
Continental crosswalk markings provide special emphasis markings, so their use should
be limited to preserve their effectiveness to call attention to special areas. Continental
markings are the standard crosswalk marking for roundabouts and may be used at any
uncontrolled approach or unsignalized approaches of channelized right turn lanes. At
other locations continental crosswalk markings should only be considered when an
engineering study demonstrates their need and the location meets the following criteria:
Required
• Areas where special emphasis is required, i.e., school crossings and mid-block
crossings
• Areas where higher visibility is needed
Optional
• Their use should be limited to unsignalized locations
• Posted vehicular speed of greater than 35 mph
• Substantial public comments (see local support for marked crosswalk)
• High pedestrian crash rate with existing transverse markings
• Consistency with other crosswalk markings in city
6.6.2.6 Criteria for In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs
Guidance on the use of In-Street Pedestrian Crossing signs is given in Sections 2B.12
and 7B.09 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The Oregon Supplement
to the MUTCD allows only the “STOP FOR” legend to be used in Oregon.
Agencies wishing to install In-Street Pedestrian Crossing signs on state highways are
required to submit a request to ODOT. Region traffic managers/engineers may approve
these signs for installation (with concurrence from ODOT District Maintenance).
Ordinarily the agency agrees to assume responsibility for the costs associated with
installing and maintaining the sign. The agency may enter into an intergovernmental
agreement with ODOT or obtain a special permit to install and maintain the sign.
Before installing signs, each location should be reviewed separately in terms of site
conditions and pedestrian safety. Observe traffic flow to determine the most strategic
location for each sign. Signs should be installed on the centerline and as close as
practical to the marked crossing without placing it in the crosswalk, typically with one
to five feet in advance of the crosswalk.
Suitable locations for deployment of in-street pedestrian crossing signs

• At a mid-block marked crossing.
March 2008 6-13

• At a marked school crossing.
• On a pedestrian refuge island.
• Where the posted roadway speed limit is equal to or less than 35 MPH.
• Where the roadway configuration is 2 travel lanes, one in each direction.
• The crossing experiences regular pedestrian traffic.
Sites to be avoided
• At stop or signal controlled intersections.
• Where there is a two-way left turn lane or left turn refuge.
Considerations
• Where there is a left turn lane an on-site investigation may consider placing
the signs in the median if there is sufficient width to provide shy distance of 1
to 2 feet.
• Where there is a high volume of turning movements, on-site traffic

observations should be made before placing signs near driveways and turn
lanes. A sign will not be successful and will become a maintenance problem if
it is an obstacle to drivers.
• If large vehicles frequent the area, it is desirable to conduct on-site

observations of traffic flow before placing an in-street sign. Vehicles like
delivery trucks, buses, and construction trucks with larger turning radii will
likely have difficulty maneuvering around the in-street sign.
• Placing signs outside the fog lines may be considered but consideration should
be given to placing the appropriate pedestrian signing (W11-2) with downward
arrows instead, these signs are much larger and can be legible for a greater
distance.
• Narrow streets or streets with parking may pose a problem. There is a certain
amount of “shy distance” needed for signs placed in the street.
• Placing the signs in the crosswalk shall be avoided, it may pose a problem for
pedestrians and a potential hazard for the vision impaired.
• Permanent in-pavement anchors should be considered for easy maintenance

and replacement and to reduce theft of the signs.
• Sign supports shall be as required by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control

Devices.
March 2008 6-14

• Signs in school area may be placed and removed daily as an indication to
motorists to expect children arriving or departing school. Used in conjunction
with traffic patrols these signs can be very effective.
• If the roadway is 4 travel lanes (two in each direction) there should be

adequate space in the median to place the sign. A better option for 4 lane plus
roadways is to place advance stop bars and use “STOP HERE FOR Ped” sign
at the advance location.
6.6.2.7 Criteria for In-Roadway Warning Lights at Crosswalks
See Section 6.6.7
6.6.2.8 Criteria for Textured/Colored Crosswalks
See Section 6.6.8
6.6.2.9 Criteria for Marking Crosswalks across Channelized Right Turn Lanes
An island separates channelized right turn lanes from other intersection approach
lanes. They are often found at signalized intersections and are typically curbed but may
be paint. The turn lane may be controlled by a traffic signal, stop sign, yield sign or
may be uncontrolled (i.e., “slip lane”).
Crosswalks on unsignalized approaches should be located one car length back (approx.
25 feet) from Yield line, Stop line or gore point of island. Staggered continental
crosswalks may be used across unsignalized turn lanes.
Crosswalks should be marked at turn lanes controlled by a traffic signal or stop sign
where there are crosswalks marked across the other controlled approaches. At other
locations where the turn lane is controlled by a yield sign or uncontrolled, marking of
pedestrian crosswalks may be considered if the location meets all the following criteria:
Required
• There is good visibility of the crosswalk, or it can be obtained. Safe Stopping
distance is required.
• Provides consistent walking path of pedestrians (i.e., marked crosswalks

across the controlled approach(es)).
• Properly designed island (usually curbed) encourages lower speed turns,

provides good sight angles for vehicles and properly orients visually impaired
pedestrians.
• The approach allows for the marked crosswalk to be placed 25 to 40 feet from
the yield line, stop bar, or island gore point at non-signal controlled
channelized right turn lanes to allow for one car length of storage.
March 2008 6-15

• The curbed island has pedestrian curb cuts, or ramps if the island is wide
enough, for the disabled.
Marking of pedestrian crosswalks on uncontrolled or yield controlled turn lanes are

discouraged when the following is true:
• Operating speeds at the crosswalk are greater than 35 MPH.
• Poor geometrics of the intersection or island encourage higher speed turning

or may require drivers to look over their shoulders, turning their attention
away from pedestrians crossing their path.
• Lack of pedestrian facilities (i.e., sidewalks or shoulders) makes it hazardous

or unlikely for pedestrians to use.
Note: Channelized left turn lanes from one-way streets may be handled in the same
manner as above.
6.6.2.10 Considerations for Marking Crosswalks
Engineering Study
The following considerations should be addressed in an Engineering Study:
1. Marked crosswalks at other than signalized intersections or stop-controlled

approaches should be used selectively. Allowing a proliferation of marked
crosswalks may reduce the overall effectiveness of marking crosswalks.
2. Consideration must be given to concerned citizens, civic groups, and

neighborhood organizations; balancing engineering judgment with perceived
public need.
3. The roadway design features that influence the pedestrians’ ability to cross the
street, e.g., street width, presence of a median, one-way versus two-way
operation, and geometrics of the highway or intersection being crossed, all need
to be included in the planning of the crosswalk. Other pedestrian design
improvements such as curb extensions and pedestrian refuges should be
encouraged to increase the safety of the crossing.
4. A three to five-year pedestrian crash history should be obtained.
5. The walking path of the pedestrian. Will marking crosswalks encourage

pedestrians to use a single point of crossing rather than choosing random
crossing points?
6. There should be opportunities for crossing (sufficient gaps in traffic)
7. Uncontrolled marked crosswalks may be continental crosswalk marking and

should be accompanied by other enhancements such as pedestrian refuge
islands, bulb-outs, pedestrian signs etc.
March 2008 6-16

8. There should be adequate sight distance for the motorist and the pedestrian, or it
can be obtained. This includes examination of on-street parking, street furniture
(e.g., mailboxes, utility poles, newspaper stands), and landscaping. Corrective
measures should be taken wherever possible.
9. All crosswalk locations should be investigated for adequate illumination where

there is prevalent nighttime pedestrian activity.
10. Mid-block and school crossings must be supplemented with crosswalk signs
11. Mid-block crosswalks should not be located immediately down-stream from bus
stops.
12. For mid-block crosswalks: are there more reasonable locations pedestrians could
cross, i.e., no more than a block (300 feet) from a location being considered?
Local Jurisdictions
1. Local Jurisdiction Installs - When a local jurisdiction installs marked crosswalks
on State Highways they should be in substantial compliance with these
guidelines and obtain prior approval of ODOT. Ordinarily a local jurisdiction
may install marked crosswalks if the local jurisdiction agrees to enter into an
Inter-Governmental Agreement with ODOT and assumes responsibility for all
costs associated with the marked crosswalks including maintenance.
2. ODOT Installs - When a local jurisdiction requests ODOT to install marked

crosswalks on State Highways other than at signals and school crossings, they
shall be in substantial compliance with these guidelines and must be approved
by ODOT. Ordinarily ODOT will agree to install the crosswalk if the local
jurisdiction agrees to enter into an Inter-Governmental Agreement with ODOT
and assumes responsibility for all costs associated with the crosswalks including
installation and maintenance.
3. Continental Crosswalks - Ordinarily ODOT installs standard transverse

crosswalk markings. A local jurisdiction may request to ODOT to install
continental crosswalk markings if the jurisdiction has standardized on the
marking for all other crossings in the community. Ordinarily ODOT will agree to
install the staggered continental style crosswalk if the local jurisdiction agrees to
enter into an Inter-Governmental Agreement with ODOT and assumes
responsibility for all costs associated with the crosswalk including installation
and maintenance.
4. Textured/Colored Crosswalks - Ordinarily ODOT does not install textured or

colored crosswalks. A local jurisdiction may request to install textured or colored
crosswalks on State Highways. ODOT may agree to the installation of a
textured or colored crosswalk if the local jurisdiction agrees to enter into an
Inter-Governmental Agreement with ODOT and assumes responsibility for all
costs associated with the crosswalk including installation and maintenance.
March 2008 6-17

5. ODOT Maintains - ODOT may choose to install and maintain crosswalks within
a local jurisdiction at selected locations other than signalized intersections and
school crossings. Generally this will be at locations that meet all criteria and
there has been a demonstrated problem at the location, such as a crash history.
6. Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) – When an IGA specifies that the crosswalk

is the responsibility of the jurisdiction to maintain it will describe how this is
done either by local jurisdiction resources or by reimbursement of ODOT striping
crews. The IGA will require the local jurisdiction to properly maintain the
crosswalk to an acceptable standard. If the agency fails to maintain the marked
crosswalk or the crosswalk becomes a safety problem, ODOT may remove it or
bring the crosswalk up to standard at the expense of the local jurisdiction.
7. ODOT Responsibility - When ODOT has signed an agreement with a local

jurisdiction, and an ODOT construction project or maintenance activity
obliterates previously approved crosswalk markings, ODOT will replace them at
no cost to the local jurisdiction.
Definitions
Continental (or Longitudinal) crosswalk marking is a series of uniform parallel solid
white longitudinal lines that mark the pedestrian’s path (without transverse lines).
Engineering study is a careful examination or analysis of an event, condition,

development or question with documented results.
Ladder Crosswalk markings combine both the continental and standard crosswalk into
one path with the continental lines providing the rungs of the ladder (typically not used
by ODOT).
Slip Lane is an uncontrolled channelized turn lane separated by an island (no signal or
stop sign).
Staggered Continental crosswalk is a continental crosswalk marking designed so that

the lines do not fall in the vehicles wheel path. (See ODOT Standard Drawing TM 535).
Standard crosswalk marking is a set of parallel solid white transverse lines that mark
both edges of the pedestrian crosswalk. (See ODOT Standard Drawing TM 535).
Stop Controlled Approach is an approach at an intersection that is controlled either by a

stop sign or a traffic signal.
Uncontrolled Approach is an approach at an intersection that is not controlled by a

traffic control device (such as a traffic signal, stop sign or yield sign).
6.6.2.11 Figures and Illustrations
Various types of crosswalks

Examples of typical crosswalk markings can be found in Figure 3B-16 of the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2003 Edition). Standards and guidance for how
March 2008 6-18

crosswalk markings are to be used are found in Section 3B.17 of the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (2003 Edition). The ODOT Traffic Line Manual should be
consulted for all types of crosswalk markings applied to state highways.
ITE Guidelines for Crosswalk Installation
6.6.3 Crosswalk Approval
Crosswalks shall be marked across all signalized approaches at intersections unless the
crossing is closed by official action. Marked crosswalks may be established across stop
controlled approaches at intersections (at stop signs) or across channelized right turn
lanes. Crosswalks shall be marked at established school crossings. Crosswalks should
be marked at all urban roundabouts. In rural locations where pedestrian activity is
minimal, marked crosswalks at roundabouts are optional and their use may be based on
engineering judgment.
An engineering study and State Traffic Engineer approval are required before
establishing marked crosswalks at locations other than signalized approaches at
intersections, stop signs, channelized right turn lanes or at roundabouts. Marked
crosswalks should only be considered at uncontrolled approaches (other than
channelized right turn lanes) when an engineering study demonstrates their need (See
Criteria for Establishing Marked Crosswalks on State Highways). These include criteria
and considerations for the determination of when a pedestrian crossing should be
March 2008 6-19

marked with a crosswalk and when it is appropriate to consider using continental style
crosswalks.
Agencies wishing to mark and maintain crosswalks on state highways within their
jurisdiction are required to submit engineering study justifying the marking of each
crosswalk to the Region Traffic Manager.
6.6.4 Crosswalks at Signalized Intersections
Marked crosswalks are required at all signalized approaches of an intersection, unless a

traffic engineering investigation shows that a crosswalk should not be allowed.
Pedestrian signals heads shall be installed unless the crosswalk is closed by official
action. Barrier and signs shall be posted for all officially closed crosswalks. All
crosswalk closures at signalized intersections on state highways require the approval of
the State Traffic Engineer based on a traffic engineering investigation. The primary
reason for closing a crosswalk is safety, however geometric and operational factors may
also be considered.
Installation or removal of any sign prohibiting pedestrian traffic or closing a crosswalk

requires the approval of the State Traffic Engineer. (See Traffic Signal Policy and
Guidelines for pedestrian crossings at signalized intersections) Pedestrian push buttons
shall be accessible, preferably from an all-weather level landing. Crosswalks should be
marked at channelized turn lanes controlled by a traffic signal or stop sign where there
are crosswalks marked across the other controlled approaches. If the turn lane is
controlled by a yield sign or uncontrolled, marking of pedestrian crosswalks may still be
considered (See Criteria for Establishing Marked Crosswalks on State Highways).
When used, a crosswalk across a non-signal controlled channelized right turn lane
should be located one car length back (approx. 25 feet) from Yield line, Stop line or gore
point of island. This will allow the driver to deal with one conflict at a time. Staggered
continental crosswalks may be used across unsignalized turn lanes.
Stop lines should not be used with crosswalks at signalized approaches unless it is
desirable to stop vehicles in advance of the crosswalk. The crosswalk marking, either
standard transverse lines or longitudinal lines (continental style) serve as the indication
of where vehicles are required to stop.
6.6.5 Crosswalk Safety
There is conflicting evidence as to the effectiveness of marked crosswalks on motorist

behavior and pedestrian safety. ODOT has followed a practice of reluctance to mark
crosswalks at locations other than controlled locations (i.e., signals and stop signs) and
school crossings. Numerous studies (San Diego, 1972, Long Beach, 1986, Brigham
Young, 1996, Santa Anna, 1999) have shown that marking crosswalks at uncontrolled
locations can increase crash risk for pedestrians. In contrast some studies show higher
rates of motor vehicle yielding to pedestrians at marked crosswalks.
Recent studies (Zegeer, 2000) suggest that wider (multi-lane) or higher volumes (above
10,000 ADT) contribute to higher crash risk for marked crosswalk vs. unmarked
March 2008 6-20

crosswalks. The study also found that the presence of a raised median was associated
with a lower crash risk. Another study (Knoblauch, 1999) documented that pedestrians
and motorists did not exhibit observable unsafe behaviors in marked crosswalks, in fact
observable pedestrian behavior actually improved. The previous study commented that
one possible explanation to higher crash rates in marked crosswalks is that a marked
crosswalk may attract a higher percentage at-risk pedestrians, children and older
adults (Zegeer, 2000).
From the pedestrian's point of view, a crosswalk is large and clearly marked.
Crosswalks are far less visible to the drivers than to the pedestrians. At speeds greater
than 45 mph, crosswalks are indiscernible at the distance a driver needs to begin
braking to safely stop for pedestrians. It is important to ensure that the crosswalk
markings and pedestrians are highly visible to motorists.
Marked crosswalks are routinely requested to increase the safety of crossing the
highway. The function of the marked crosswalk is to provide guidance to the proper
crossing location and to serve to alert motorists of a pedestrian crossing point. But
unjustified or poorly located crosswalks may not increase safety. Marking crosswalks
unnecessarily or in locations where there are few pedestrians may lead motorists to
disrespect the marking.
A driver who passes over crosswalks marked at every intersection or a location that
rarely has pedestrians may be conditioned to not expect pedestrians and thus loses
respect for crosswalk marking. These crosswalks may increase the crash risk to
pedestrians and motorists alike.
Most experts agree that on a busy highway, marking a crosswalk alone is rarely an
effective safety measure and in some cases may actually increase the pedestrian’s crash
risk. Other measures such as median refuge islands, curb extensions and illumination
should be considered before a crosswalk is marked. Other improvements include
improving sight distance, better access management to reduce conflicts with driveways,
pedestrian signs, etc. Consideration should also be given to the overall environment in
which the pedestrian crossing occurs, beyond the immediate vicinity of the proposed
crosswalk, i.e. sign clutter and visual distractions. (See also Crossing Strategies)
File Code: TRA 07-11
6.6.6 Crossing Strategies
The need for convenient, practical and safe pedestrian crossings of highways is a high
priority for virtually all cities. Dispersed land use and long distances between
intersections make it impractical in most cases to provide grade separation
(over/underpasses) or positive traffic controls (signals). Another common request is for
marked crosswalks.
There are many reasons pedestrians have difficulty crossing a highway:
• High traffic volumes
March 2008 6-21

• Lack of adequate gaps
• High traffic speeds
• Long crossing distances
• Multiple travel lanes
• Poor visibility
The first two obstacles (high traffic volumes and lack of adequate gaps) are difficult to
resolve with a simple crossing strategy, but there are several ways to mitigate the other
factors. The following measures should be instituted before a crosswalk is marked at a
location other than a traffic signal:
6.6.6.1 Traffic Speeds
Most conventional “traffic-calming” methods are not appropriate on state highways, but
there are measures a jurisdiction can undertake to alert drivers they are entering an
area with expected pedestrian activity. These include, but are not limited to, sidewalks,
street trees, median islands, bike lanes, visually narrowing the cross-section with better
lane definition, bringing buildings closer to the back of sidewalks, maintaining on-street
parking, etc.
6.6.6.2 Long Crossing Distances
Using good design practices, the roadway cross-section can be reduced by selectively
narrowing or even eliminating unnecessary roadway elements (i.e. travel lanes, turning
lanes, bike lanes or parking). Where on-street parking is present, curb extensions
should be considered.
6.6.6.3 Multiple Travel Lanes
Assessing a safe and adequate gap in traffic becomes more difficult as the number of
travel lanes increases. Islands can break up the crossing into discrete steps, so the
pedestrian has to deal with fewer conflicts at a time. If the crossing point is at an
intersection with a right-turn lane, an island between the right-turn lane and the
through lanes enables the pedestrian to cross just the turning lane first. This breaks the
crossing into more manageable parts.
The most important island to provide is in the median. This enables a pedestrian to
cross traffic in one direction only, in two easy steps. It can be up to 5-7 times easier to
cross a 4-lane road in two steps than all at once.
6.6.6.4 Poor Visibility
Pedestrians rarely knowingly step in front of moving traffic, and drivers don’t purposely
hit a pedestrian they could see and react to in time. Measures to address visibility
include removal or relocation of obstructions (signs, signal boxes, etc), curb extensions
(where on-street parking is present) and illumination. Curb extensions allow
March 2008 6-22

pedestrians to better see on-coming traffic, and drivers to better see pedestrians about
to cross. Approximately 60% of pedestrian crashes occur at night, which is out of
proportion to exposure. Illumination should be provided at all designated crossing
points.
Note: providing visibility should not be carried to extremes; for example, removing all
on-street parking, trees and other vertical elements may have the negative effect of
increasing travel speeds, which is potentially a greater hazard to safe crossing.
6.6.6.5 Total Crossing Strategy
Before a crosswalk is considered at a location other than a controlled location (i.e.,

signalized intersection), all the following issues should be addressed:
• Speed- ODOT and the local jurisdiction should work at slowing traffic speeds
in a realistic manner;
• Crossing distance - Review roadway width and reduce cross-section where

possible;
• Multiple travel lanes - Provide median and/or channelization islands
• Visibility - Remove sight obstruction, provide curb extensions (where possible)

and provide illumination if warranted. Pedestrian crossing signs, or improved
signs - larger size and/or better reflectivity – should be considered
Only after all of the above issues have been adequately addressed should a marked
crosswalk be considered on a busy, multi-lane highway.
Other issues that might deserve special attention include:
• Reducing conflicts by use of appropriate access management techniques;
• Considering the special needs of vulnerable or at-risk pedestrians; and
• Proper signing of pedestrian crossings.
In slower-speed, two-lane environments, it may be more acceptable to mark crosswalks

without all of these elements in place, though visibility is always important. The needs
of the aging pedestrian should be addressed as well including the increased time needed
to cross similar roadway widths.
A recent research report jointly sponsored by TCRP and NCHRP (TCRP 112 and
NCHRP 562 – Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings) summarizes
engineering treatments to improve safety for pedestrian crossings at unsignalized
intersections, in particular high speed high volume roadways served by public
transportation. The research developed recommended guidelines for selecting
pedestrian crossing treatments, summaries of pedestrian treatments (including many
noted within this manual), and possible revisions to the MUTCD for pedestrian
warrants.
March 2008 6-23

6.6.7 In-Roadway Warning Lights at Crosswalks
6.6.7.1 Background
In-roadway or in-pavement flashing lights for crosswalks are being touted as a method
to alert drivers to the presence of pedestrians entering or within the crosswalk. The
flashing lights can be activated by pushbutton or with passive detection. Once activated
the lights flash at various rates or remain lit depending on the product characteristics.
Most manufacturers offer various colors of flashing lights. Several cities in Washington
and California, as well as some in Oregon, have installed the devices at marked
crosswalks.
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices has a section dedicated to In-Roadway
Lights, Chapter 4L. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices specifies flashing
rates, color of the warning lights and placement criteria.
There is some evidence (Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc., An Evaluation of

a Crosswalk Warning System utilizing in-pavement Flashing Lights, April, 1998) that
the in-roadway lights increase the percentage of drivers yielding to pedestrians; at least
on a short term basis. However, research clearly documenting the safety benefits (i.e.,
percent reduction of pedestrian crashes) of in-roadway flashing lights, particularly on a
long-term basis, is not available. ITE has prepared an informational report that
contains information and data on the in-roadway flashing light systems. The report
gives a history of the system and a description of lighting devices and installation, as
well as activation methods.
6.6.7.2 Investigation
Of particular interest is the effectiveness of the devices as safety improvements. There

is a concern that the crossings, particularly where the pedestrian activates the warning
lights by push button, could increase pedestrian assertiveness and potentially be
dangerous. Also of concern are the potential maintenance costs (some systems have had
reports of poor reliability and problems with the equipment), potential liability,
effectiveness of driver compliance, and their effectiveness over longer periods of time.
Observations of these devices by ODOT employees indicate that the devices tend to be
hard to see during the daytime. The low angle and bright conditions tend to wash out
the visibility of the in-roadway lights. The flashing lights did not appear to reduce the
likelihood of a multiple threat crash as some motorists failed to see the lights in daytime
conditions. Pedestrians do not appear to use the devices as an excuse to practice unsafe
behavior, (i.e., walking in front of on-coming vehicles). Nor did the pedestrian push
button activation appear to influence the pedestrian aggressiveness. ODOT would like
to see further research into the safety of these devices (i.e., estimated crash reduction)
as well as suggested guidelines and criteria for their use and their direct comparison to
pedestrian actuated flashing lights mounted above the roadway.
Some jurisdictions, struggling with where to initially install these devices, have
proposed that locations with little or no safety improvements receive the in-roadway
lights first. This assumes that the in-roadway lights provide a safety benefit
March 2008 6-24

comparable to other treatments. This is not supported at this time. It must be
emphasized that in-roadway lights are not a substitute for proven pedestrian safety
measures such as pedestrian refuge islands or curb bulb-outs.
While these devices appear to improve pedestrian mobility, they do come at a cost.
Estimates vary depending on the width of the roadway, from $18,000 to more than
$30,000 per crosswalk. Passive detection systems cost even more. Logically their use
should be limited given their initial cost and unknown safety and maintenance record.
CalTrans has adopted a policy that a city may install these devices on state highways if
they agree to assume all costs associated with their installation and operation.
CalTrans is preparing guidelines for the installation of these devices.
6.6.7.3 Guidelines for Approval
ODOT has received several requests to install these devices on State Highways. Until
such time as more experience is developed with these devices and because of limited
funding ODOT should continue to support the installation of proven techniques for
pedestrian safety prior to the installation of these devices. The use of these devices
should be limited to areas where proven pedestrian safety measures have been installed
and additional pedestrian warning is desired. Below are proposed criteria for
installation of these devices on State Highways.
6.6.7.4 Introduction to Criteria
In-roadway warning lights at crosswalks provide additional warning to motorists of

their approach to a marked crosswalk. Chapter 4L of the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices describes the purpose, operation and use of In-Roadway Warning
Lights at Crosswalks.
The usefulness of these lights is limited during daylight hours; they are difficult to see
under normal daylight conditions. These devices tend to have a more significant effect
during hours of darkness, rain or fog. Currently there is no confirmation that these
devices reduce crash risk to pedestrians, but there is some supporting evidence that
they increase driver’s awareness of pedestrians. Because of their relatively high
installation costs, potentially high maintenance costs and their unproven safety record
during key periods of pedestrian use, their installation should be limited to locations
where they are justified.
Other proven pedestrian safety measures (i.e., overhead illumination or median

pedestrian refuges) should be employed and monitored for effectiveness before in-
roadway lights are considered. Although these other methods can be as much or more
expensive than the in-roadway lights their benefits are proven any time of the day, they
require little or no maintenance and they have benefits to the motor vehicles as well as
pedestrians.
6.6.7.5 Criteria
The in-roadway lights should only be considered when a crosswalk location meets the
following criteria. Limiting the in-roadway lights to the locations listed in the criteria
March 2008 6-25

will direct them to areas where they will be most beneficial and maintain their
effectiveness by limiting their use.
Engineering Criteria
• A location where special emphasis is required such as mid-block crossings,
crossings with a high percentage of vulnerable pedestrians (predominately
young, elderly or disabled), or a history of pedestrian crashes.
• Proven pedestrian safety measures such as median refuge islands and/or curb
bulb-outs are (or will be) in place.
• In-roadway lights might be most appropriate in locations where there is

nighttime pedestrian activity or a nighttime crash history.
• The crosswalk crosses a multi-lane roadway (more than one lane in each
direction) with more than 8,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume, 6,000
ADT if high percentage of vulnerable pedestrians.
• The crosswalk is not controlled by traffic signal, stop sign or yield sign. There
should be no other crosswalks, traffic signals or stop signs within 250 feet of
the crosswalk.
• Posted speeds should be 35 mph or less, but may not exceed 45 mph.
• The in-roadway lights will meet all standards outlined in Chapter 4L of the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
• The crosswalk has an average of 25 pedestrians per hour (10 pedestrians per
hour with high percentages of vulnerable pedestrians) for any four hours of
the day. The crosswalk has nighttime pedestrian activity (at least half the
volumes above for any two hours during the nighttime).
Local Support
• The installation of in-roadway lights has public support.
• Local jurisdictions agree to pay for installation, power and maintenance.
• There is local commitment to education of the driver and pedestrian on the

meaning and use of the devices.
Considerations
• Consideration should be given to installing a pedestrian traffic signal if the
location meets an applicable traffic signal warrant.
• Overhead illumination for pedestrians is a proven safety measure for

nighttime pedestrian activity. Good overhead lighting will allow the
pedestrian to be more visible and may help wash out the glow of the in-
roadway lights so they do not distract the pedestrian.
March 2008 6-26

• Applicable crossing signs need to be installed adjacent to the crossing location
and will be supplemented with flashing beacons that are activated along with
the in-roadway lights. Advance crossing signs may be used and may be
supplemented with flashing beacons particularly when sight distance to the
crosswalk is limited.
• School crossings may not be the best location for in-roadway lights. Most
activity in school crossings should be during daylight hours. Overhead
illumination and/or crossing guards may be better options.
• Downtown areas may not be the best location for in-roadway lights. The
addition of flashing lights in an already cluttered and distracting environment
may do little to enhance pedestrian safety.
• It is recommended that drivers have sufficient decision sight distance to the

in-roadway lights to be able to respond and stop for pedestrians if required.
• On roadways with bike lanes the outer lights should be placed to avoid the
path of bicyclists.
• Either automatic (passive detection) or push-button activation is allowed. If

push-button activated the proper signing should be attached next to the push-
button, such as “PUSH BUTTON FOR CROSSWALK WARNING LIGHTS /
WATCH FOR TRAFFIC”.
6.6.8 Textured/Colored Crosswalks
6.6.8.1 Overview
The Traffic—Roadway Section issued a technical bulletin in December 2006 to provide

direction to project delivery teams and District Managers relating to textured and
colored crosswalks on state highways as part of Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) and Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA) projects and each
District’s pavement marking maintenance program.
Textured Crosswalk: A surface material at a crosswalk such as brick, concrete pavers,

or stamped asphalt, which is installed to produce small, constant changes in vertical
alignment and to aesthetically enhance the crosswalk.
Colored Crosswalk: A pavement marking or proprietary product at a crosswalk, which is

installed to contrast with adjoining paved areas and to aesthetically enhance the
crosswalk.
6.6.8.3 Policy
ODOT practice is to not install textured or colored crosswalks. It is sometimes,

however, a wish of a local road authority to install them. The perception is often times
that the textured or colored crosswalk alone will be more visible than standard
March 2008 6-27

crosswalk marking. But often times that is not the case, textured or colored crosswalks
can actually be LESS visible than conventional marked crosswalks (red brick tends to
fade to black, especially at times of low visibility).
Textured crosswalks can be rough, impeding the movement of pedestrians with

wheelchairs and walkers. They can become uneven, presenting a tripping hazard to
pedestrians, especially the sight impaired. Textured or colored crosswalks are typically
higher maintenance and some materials can become slick creating a slipping hazard.
Installation costs are also high in comparison to conventional marked crosswalks.
6.6.8.4 Background
the State Traffic Engineer with the authority to designate pedestrian crossings on state
highways. The Traffic Operations Leadership Team (TOLT) has become concerned that
project teams have been specifying textured and colored crosswalks in STIP and OTIA
projects without a proper engineering review by the Region Traffic Engineer and
approval from the State Traffic Engineer. Additionally, some project teams have used
safety funds to pay for these aesthetic enhancements. Textured or colored crosswalk
enhancements have not been documented to improve safety at crossings. Such use of
safety funds to pay for textured and colored crosswalks is inappropriate and reduces the
availability of these funds to pay for other proven pedestrian safety countermeasures
such as curb extensions, raised median islands, illumination, and proper signing. The
ODOT Traffic Manual provides clear guidance on textured and colored crosswalks on
state highways. An Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the local jurisdiction is
necessary to ensure these enhancements are installed and maintained correctly. The
IGA should be established with the local jurisdiction prior to letting any contracts for
work involving the installation or maintenance of textured/colored crosswalks. Where
textured/colored crosswalks have been installed without such an IGA, ODOT should
negotiate either (1) entering into an IGA with the local jurisdiction to cover ongoing
maintenance and replacement costs OR (2) removal.
6.6.8.5 Action Required
Project delivery teams shall coordinate an engineering review with the Region Traffic
Engineer for all proposed textured and colored crosswalks. The review shall document
the proposed coloring, materials, pattern, funding source, installation, and maintenance
requirements including consistency with the guidelines set forth in the ODOT Traffic
Manual. Safety funds should not be used for coloring or pavement texturing of
crosswalks. Any previously unapproved textured or colored crosswalks to be included in
the project shall be submitted by the Region Traffic Engineer to the State Traffic
Engineer for consideration of approval.
District Managers or Striping Supervisors should, whenever possible, identify existing

textured and colored crosswalks in advance of re-striping activities and coordinate with
either the Region Traffic Office or the Traffic-Roadway Section to assess whether the
crosswalks have been approved and who has the responsibility for maintenance. This
will become easier as we continue to build our database of pavement marking
information.
March 2008 6-28

6.6.8.6 Implementation
The implementation of this policy will be monitored by Traffic-Roadway staff, the

TOLT, and the Maintenance Leadership Team (MLT). Any revisions will be based on
feedback from the Region Technical Centers, the TOLT, the MLT, and District
Managers.
6.6.8.7 Procedure
Agencies wishing to textured/color crosswalks on state highways within their

jurisdiction are required to submit justification for crosswalk texturing or coloring to the
Region Traffic Manager/Engineer for review. On the state highway system, approval of
the State Traffic Engineer is required. Ordinarily, a local jurisdiction agrees to enter
into an Inter-Governmental Agreement with ODOT to assume responsibility for all
costs associated with the crosswalks including maintenance. If textured or colored
crosswalks are used, they should be made of durable materials, such as stamped
concrete, with minimal beveling. The textured surface should be built to adequate
strength, with a good base resulting in low maintenance.
Colored crosswalks should consist of white or gray coloring. Alternate colors such as
blue, red (brick), or green may be used provided the coloring is muted. Yellow or
fluorescent yellow green coloring shall not be used since these colors are reserved for
transverse lines separating traffic.
All textured or colored crosswalks shall be supplemented with lateral white lines to
increase their visibility to motorists. Texturing or coloring should not be used at
locations where crossings are not established because they might indicate a crossing to
pedestrians (i.e., mid-block between alleys).
Textured or colored crosswalk designs shall conform to the following:
• Made of durable materials
• Adequate strength with good base
• Non-slip surface (even after wear)
• Minimal beveling
6.7 Flashing Beacons
Flashing beacons are described in Chapter 4K of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices. These standards should be consulted by anyone considering a request or need
for a flashing beacon. Note that flashing beacons, which include pedestrian crossing
beacons, must be supplemental to the appropriate warning or regulatory signing.
March 2008 6-29

6.7.1 Intersection Control Beacons
ODOT has historically taken a conservative approach to installing flashing beacons at

intersections, especially for intersection control.
This follows the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices guidelines to limit use so as
to maintain whatever effectiveness these devices may have. Intersection control
beacons are generally installed where there has been a history of crashes, particularly
crashes involving disregard for the existing stop and/or yield signs. A flasher
supplemental to an intersection ahead sign may do more to warn traffic of an upcoming
intersection than an intersection beacon. Several studies have been made to try to
establish the effective uses for intersection beacons. All such studies have been
inconclusive. It does not appear the installation of an intersection beacon alone is an
effective safety measure.
It has been established for ODOT that the most successful intersection beacon
installations have been a part of several steps taken to improve that particular
intersection. It is recommended, therefore, that installation of intersection control
beacons generally be considered only when other improvements can be made. These
improvements should include any of the following that may be relevant:
• Installation of left or right turn lanes
• Sight distance improvements
• Improved advance warning signing such as additional signs, the use of larger
signs and/or more-reflective sheeting
Although each of these improvements can be considered to reduce crashes alone, where
there is a high rate of crashes, combining improvements appears to do more than any
single improvement. The intersection beacon installation should be considered only if
these improvements still leave some doubt as to the visibility of the intersection or
intersection control.
The installation of Intersection Control Beacons requires the approval of the Region
Traffic Manager/Engineer.
6.7.2 Flashing Beacons as Supplements to a Warning or Regulatory Sign
The installation or removal of Flashing Beacons as supplements to existing warning

signs (except for the Emergency Signal signs) does not require the approval of the State
Traffic Engineer. The installation or removal of Flashing Beacons as supplements to
the Emergency Signal signs does require the approval of the State Traffic Engineer.
6.7.2.1 School Speed Limit Sign Beacons
Section 7B.11 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices discusses School Speed
Limit sign beacons. Further guidance on the use of these beacons is contained in the
ODOT publication A Guide to School Area Safety. Flashing beacons to indicate children
arriving at or leaving school do not require the approval of the State Traffic Engineer.
March 2008 6-30

The use of flashing beacons may be required as a condition of the school speed zone by
the State Traffic Engineer.
6.8 Freeway Median Crossovers
Criteria for approval of freeway median crossovers, conditions under which crossovers
may be utilized, and persons authorized to use crossovers are covered in OAR 734-020
0100 through 734-020-0115. The State Traffic Engineer can approve freeway crossovers
if the location meets all criteria and conditions listed in OAR 734-020-0105. All requests
meeting the criteria should be forwarded to State Traffic Engineer for review. However,
if one or more of those criteria are not met, the ODOT Chief Engineer (also called the
Technical Services Manager) with FHWA consultation, considering need and safety,
may approve and order the construction and installation of a freeway median crossover
following and based upon an engineering investigation. The Traffic—Roadway Section
must review the Region’s recommendation and submit them to the Chief Engineer
(Technical Services Manager) with FHWA consultation for approval. Sign Number OR
22-13, “Authorized and Emergency Vehicles Only” should be used at median crossovers
to direct motorists not to use the crossovers.
6.9 Highway Advisory Radio
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licenses state and local agencies and
government-affiliated agencies, such as airport authorities, to use low-power roadside
transmitters to provide motorists with up-to-the-minute travel information via their
AM/FM radios. These systems, which the FCC calls Travelers Information Stations
(TIS), can provide warnings, advisories, directions, or other non-commercial material of
importance to motorists. These licenses are issued under and must be operated in
compliance with federal rule 47 CFR Chapter I, Part 90.242.
TIS operated by ODOT are known as Highway Advisory Radio (HAR). ODOT utilizes
HAR to supplement messages provided on standard highway signs or variable message
signs. HAR are permanently installed at locations where communication with travelers
may be critical and may be temporarily installed in some work zones to provide
travelers with timely information about a construction or maintenance project. Advance
signs are posted to inform motorists about the availability of a HAR.
Messages, which are usually less than a minute in length, are recorded for continuous
repetition. The message length is adjusted to permit the driver to receive the message at
least twice while passing through the station’s coverage zone.
For ODOT HAR, the ISB Wireless Group is responsible for obtaining and maintaining
the FCC licenses. A license is specific to a transmitter location and broadcast area for
permanent HAR installations. For temporary HAR, an area license which allows use on
any state highway or for a specific corridor is required. ODOT does not maintain any
March 2008 6-31

license for temporary HAR and any temporary installations must be planned well
enough in advance to obtain the required FCC license.
For TIS operated by other state agencies and local agencies with an established FCC
license, advance signs may be posted on a state highway with State Traffic Engineer
approval. Examples of TIS uses other than for state highway information include severe
weather alerts, Port traffic instructions, event management and local road construction
or other detours. These signs must be installed in accordance with the guidelines given
in ODOT’s Sign Policy and Guidelines for the State Highway System for the State
Highway System (Chapter 5-12).
6.9.1 Guidelines for the Operation of Highway Advisory Radio and Traveler's
Advisory Radio on State Highways
The Guidelines for the Operation of Highway Advisory Radio and Traveler's Advisory
Radio on State Highways provides all of the guidelines and requirements for installing
and operating HAR stations on state highways. The latest version is available for
download from the ODOT Traffic—Roadway Section internet site under the
Publications link.
6.10 Highway Safety Engineering
6.10.1 Highway Safety Program Guide
The mission of the Highway Safety Program at the Oregon Department of

Transportation (ODOT) is to carry out highway safety improvement projects to achieve
a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries. The Highway Safety
Program Guide documents program philosophy and the application process for all
Highway Safety funding. For purposes of programming Highway Safety funds in the
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), all highway safety
infrastructure improvement projects shall follow the Highway Safety Program Guide
regardless of funding type (federal or state). This document is available online from the
Traffic—Roadway Section Publications web page.
6.10.2 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
The federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds that comprise a
majority of the funding for the ODOT Highway Safety Program come from the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU) signed into law on August 10, 2005. HSIP funds are primarily intended
for infrastructure safety improvements on the state highway system while High Risk
Rural Roads (HR3) funds are primarily intended for infrastructure improvements on
rural county roads. Non-infrastructure highway safety improvements such as education
and enforcement programs are administered by the ODOT Transportation Safety
Division and are typically funded with separate funding from the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
or state funds.
March 2008 6-32

The Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) has allocated approximately $28 to 29
million dollars a year to the ODOT Highway Safety Program for 2006 through 2009 for
infrastructure improvements. Of the total amount, approximately $14 million per year
is from the federal HSIP. Another $1.1 million (approximately) is set aside for the
federal HR3 program administered by the ODOT Local Government Section in
cooperation with the Association of Oregon Counties (AOC). The remaining funds in the
Highway Safety Program are made up of eligible federal or state funds.
This Highway Safety Program Guide replaces the former Hazard Elimination Program
(HEP) manual published in October 2002. Federal legislation (SAFETEA-LU) signed
into law on August 10, 2005 established a new Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP, under 23USC148) eliminating the former HSIP (23USC152) which included the
Hazard Elimination Program. Projects eligible for funding include the familiar hazard
elimination type projects plus SAFETEA-LU expanded the eligibility to more types of
infrastructure improvements. Projects Eligible for HSIP Funding
6.10.3 State Strategic Highway Safety Plan
The State Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SSHSP) is a SAFETEA-LU requirement and
was developed by ODOT to address engineering, management, operation, education,
enforcement and emergency services elements of highway safety. The SSHSP identifies
highway safety improvement opportunities by addressing engineering, management,
operations, education, enforcement and emergency management in order to focus
resources on areas of greatest need and coordinate with other highway safety programs.
The SSHSP may identify programs of projects, strategies or other key factors to reduce
or eliminate safety hazards. The priorities identified in the SSHSP should be used to
address all Safety and HSIP projects.
In response to the SSHSP requirement, Oregon has adopted the Oregon Transportation
Safety Action Plan (TSAP). The TSAP in conjunction with the safety projects included in
the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) comprise Oregon’s SSHSP.
Because ODOT has officially adopted the TSAP, SAFETEA-LU allows ODOT some
flexibility to use up to 10% of HSIP funds for other highway safety projects typically
administered under Section 402 when all infrastructure safety needs, including those
for highway-rail grade crossings, have been met for a particular year.
6.10.4 Program Management
ODOT has placed the responsibilities of Highway Safety Program management with the
Traffic-Roadway Section (TRS). ODOT Regions are responsible for fund management
within their own Regions and gathering information in support of the annual reporting
process required by SAFETEA-LU.
6.10.5 Highway Safety Engineering Committee
The Highway Safety Engineering Committee (HSEC) is set up by the Highway Division
of ODOT to guide and give direction for highway safety engineering needs within the
Department. The HSEC is responsible for reviewing and making recommendations for
strategies and/or projects to be included in the State Strategic Highway Safety Plan and
March 2008 6-33

the ODOT Highway Safety Program. The committee also makes recommendations on
emphasis areas to fund, approves regional safety funding allocation strategies, provides
oversight on discretionary highway safety funding, and approves enhancements to
Safety Management System (SMS) tools such as SPIS, SIP, CRF, and B/C analysis
tools.
6.10.6 Safety Priority Index System (SPIS)
6.10.6.1 Overview
The Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) is a method developed in 1986 by the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT) for identifying potential safety problems on state
highways. The development of SPIS complied with the federal Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
accepted SPIS as fulfilling the requirements of the HSIP. When Oregon began
developing its Safety Management System in response to the 1991 ISTEA, it identified
SPIS as one of several essential building blocks. SPIS has been recognized as an
effective problem identification tool for evaluating state highways for segments with
higher crash histories.
Several modifications to SPIS were implemented following the study, “An Evaluation of
the Safety Priority Index System (SPIS),” completed by Dr. Robert Layton of the
Transportation Research Institute at Oregon State University. These modifications
were implemented in the 1998 SPIS reports, and were “fine-tuned” in the 1999 SPIS
reports. These adjustments to the calculations created a large difference in the number
of sites located in 1998 in comparison to years past, making it appear that more sites
exist. However, the new calculations and listings are more applicable to both urban and
rural sites, and should allow a better understanding of the reported values. The
Traffic—Roadway Section is planning to implement several further enhancements to
SPIS, including the following:
• An additional analysis tool for assigning a safety rating to road segments of

variable length greater than 0.10 mile.
• Additional analysis tools to identify intersections that should be evaluated.
• Additional information on circumstances contributing to crashes that are

statistically significant for the site, segment, or intersection.
• Improved access to information on alternative solutions to help users evaluate

options and select alternatives.
• A computerized SPIS Feedback System.
6.10.6.2 SPIS Method
The SPIS is a method of identifying locations where safety money may be spent to the
highest benefit. The SPIS score is based on three years of crash data and considers
crash frequency, crash rate, and crash severity. A roadway segment becomes a SPIS
March 2008 6-34

site if a location has three or more crashes or one or more fatal crashes over the three-
year period. The priority index has three parameters and associated Indicator Values
(IV):
crash frequency indicator value (IVFreq) 25% of SPIS score
crash rate indicator value (IVRate) 25% of SPIS score
crash severity indicator value (IVSeverity) 50% of SPIS score
Crash frequency indicator value (IVFreq)
The crash frequency indicator value, IVFreq, is a value between 0 and 25 determined
using a logarithmic distribution based on total crashes in a three-year period.
IVFreq = (LOG(Total Crashes+1)/LOG(150+1))*25
The maximum indicator value of 25% is attained when the total number of crashes
reaches 150 crashes on the same 0.10-mile segment over a 3-year period.
Crash rate indicator value (IVRate)
The crash rate indicator, IVRate, is a value between 0 and 25, also determined by using
a logarithmic distribution based on the following crash rate calculations:
Crash Rate = (Total Crashes * 1,000,000)/(3 years * 365 * ADT)
IVRate = (LOG(Crash Rate+1)/LOG(7+1))*25
Again, the maximum indicator value of 25% is attained when the crash rate reaches
seven crashes per million entering vehicles.
Crash severity indicator value (IVSeverity)
The crash severity indicator, IVSeverity, is a value between 0 and 50, which is
determined by using a linear distribution from the calculation below:
IVSeverity = [((100 * (FATAL+INJA)) + (10 * (INJB + INJC)) + (1 * PDO)) * 50]/300
Where:
FATAL = the number of fatalities,
INJA = the number of severe injuries (Class A),
INJB = the number of moderate injuries (Class B),
INJC = the number of minor injuries (Class C),
PDO = the number of “property damage only” crashes.
March 2008 6-35

The formula considers severity values between 0 and 300 only; therefore severity
products above 300 are assigned the maximum value, to match the maximum indicator
value of 50%.
The SPIS value is the sum of the above indicator values (IVFreq+IVRate+IVSeverity) for
0.10 mile (0.16 km) sections of urban and rural roads, shifted by 0.01 mile for each new
section.
6.10.6.3 Reports
Each year, the Traffic—Roadway Section generates regional reports of the top 5%
ranked SPIS sites for review by the five Region Traffic Units. The Region staff
evaluates the sites on this “Top 5%” list and considers the safety problems that may be
contributing to the crash history at these locations. If a correctable problem is
identified, benefit/cost analysis is performed on viable options and appropriate projects
are initiated. Regions report the results of these site evaluations, including potential
causes, possible corrections, and estimated costs to the State Traffic Engineer. While
the SPIS reports are computer-generated by the Traffic—Roadway Section, the rest of
the process is manual and is primarily performed by Regional personnel.
Traffic-Roadway Section produces two reports for FHWA each year. The first is a
summary of the Top 5% list and potential remedies to the locations, estimated costs and
impediments to implementation. A second report is produced evaluating the highway
safety engineering program and the effectiveness of Safety Projects at reducing
fatalities and injuries.
An Crash Summary Database is also created annually by the SPIS process for use by
staff in evaluating sections of highway. The interface allows the user to enter a section
of state highway, from milepost ‘x’ to milepost ‘y’. The database then yields information
for that section of highway regarding number and type of crashes, highest and lowest
SPIS values, and traffic volume information. Contact the Highway Safety Engineering
Coordinator for further information.
6.11 Historical Markers
The Historical Marker Program has been transferred to the Travel Information Council
through an interagency agreement, along with other sign programs of motorist service
nature. The Oregon Historical Marker Committee oversees the program and meets on a
quarterly basis. A staff member of the Traffic—Roadway Section serves on the
committee.
File Code: PAR 07-03
March 2008 6-36

6.12 Illumination
6.12.1 Overview
All illumination on State Highways (both temporary and permanent) shall follow policy
set forth in the ODOT Lighting Policy and Guidelines. Additional guidance on
illumination design is provided in the ODOT Traffic Lighting Design Manual. Both
publications are available electronically from the ODOT Traffic—Roadway Section web
site.
6.12.2 Temporary Illumination
Determining the need for temporary illumination on construction projects is part of the
illumination design process. The engineer-of-record submits requests to the Region
Traffic Manager/Engineer on highway construction projects where illumination for
temporary protection and direction of traffic is recommended. Staff from the Region
Traffic Unit investigate and approve the amount of illumination needed based on ODOT
Lighting Policy and Guidelines. Any deviation from statewide policies or standards
must be reviewed by the Traffic—Roadway Section and submitted to the State Traffic
Engineer for approval.
A consistent and systematic approach is used which considers, at a minimum, the cost,
safety (traffic, pedestrian and construction worker), traffic volume and speed, geometric
conditions, crash history, weather, length of contract, and the amount and complexity of
stage construction. Attention is given to installing proposed permanent lighting as soon
in the construction project as practical so as to serve for temporary protection and
direction of traffic purposes.
6.12.3 Permanent Illumination
Roadway lighting warrants are covered in the ODOT Lighting Policy and Guidelines.
ODOT does not use specific illumination warrants to determine whether lighting is to be
provided on a project.
An investigation is conducted and the agency utilizes engineering judgment of local

conditions, considering such factors as availability of funds, traffic and crash data,
roadway characteristics, etc., in determining when and where lighting is to be provided.
Lighting maintenance, energy and construction costs are evaluated when

recommending illumination. Policy for illumination cost sharing with cities and counties
on state highways is published in the 2002 Policy Statement for Cooperative Traffic
Control Projects. Region Traffic Unit staff identify locations for illumination in the
project development process for incorporation into the State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP).
The Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) and the crash database are used as tools to
identify potential locations. The percentage of nighttime crashes and total crash history
is considered in the benefits of installing illumination. Sometimes, improvements in
March 2008 6-37

traffic control devices, and/or geometric designs, will also serve to cut down on
nighttime crashes and lighting may not be needed.
Illumination is reviewed by the Region Traffic Unit for policy agreement and statewide
consistency before going to the engineer-of-record for incorporation into project plans.
Any deviation from statewide policies or standards must be reviewed by the Traffic—
Roadway Section and submitted to the State Traffic Engineer for approval.
6.13 Land Use and Transportation
The Oregon Highway Plan encourages compact development in urban areas while
supporting mobility on designated highways segments. Expressway classification
supports mobility on designated highways and highway segments by providing for high
speed and high volume traffic with minimal interruption. Special Transportation Areas
(STA’s) promote community vitality and livability in downtown areas by encouraging
compact development and reducing local trips on the state highway and encouraging
more opportunity for walking, bicycling or transit use. Urban Business Areas (UBA’s)
and Commercial Centers improve the connection between the use of the highway and
commercial activity and are used in conjunction with STA’s and expressways to balance
mobility and livability.
See the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) on the ODOT Planning Section web site for copies
of the OHP and the Implementation Handbook.
6.14 Lanes
6.14.1 Climbing and Passing Lanes
Passing lanes are distinguished from climbing lanes. Climbing lanes are generally used
where grades cause unreasonable reductions in operating speeds of some vehicles.
Passing lanes are typically used where there may be inadequate passing opportunities
either because of sight distance limitation or as traffic volumes begin to approach
capacity.
Passing lanes tend to reduce unsafe passing maneuvers and may aid in
reduction of head-on and sideswipe crashes. The addition of a climbing or passing lane
can break up the formation of queues for a limited distance. Typically, queues begin to
re-form downstream from a climbing/passing lane within a distance of ½ to 1 mile (800
to 1600m). Note that passing and climbing lanes do not actually add capacity to a
facility.
Slow vehicle turnouts are not considered adequate opportunities for passing, since they
are ineffective without the cooperation of slower vehicles and are generally too short to
completely break up an established queue. Current ODOT policy does not allow
construction of new slow vehicle turnouts unless allowed by a Roadway Design
March 2008 6-38

Exception. These should only be considered when a passing lane is not feasible and not
as an alternative to a passing lane.
The need for a passing or climbing lane may be identified at the District or Region level.
Transportation Planning Analysis Unit should be contacted to help analyze when and
where climbing or passing lanes may be needed. Region Traffic can assist by requesting
or conducting spot speed checks, requesting crash data summaries, and documenting
on-site observations.
See the ODOT Highway Design Manual for more information on climbing or passing
lanes. Climbing and passing lanes are not a delegated authority of the State Traffic
Engineer and do not require the State Traffic Engineer’s approval.
6.14.2 Lane Drops
When reducing the number of lanes of traffic, the right lane is normally dropped. This
practice should be followed whenever possible. Uniform signing and striping reduces
driver confusion. In situations where terrain, roadway geometry, or other factors
suggest otherwise, the left lane may be dropped. All lane drops should be signed,
following guidance provided in the Sign Policy and Guidelines for the State Highway
System and Section 2C.33 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Supplemental pavement markings, “lane reduction arrows” (see standard drawing no.
TM556), may be used to warn drivers to merge left or right. In cases where there is a
demonstrated problem or there is some confusion over which lane ends, lane reduction
arrows should be used to reinforce the warning to drivers that it is necessary to merge.
6.14.3 Right-Turn Acceleration Lanes
See 6.37.4
6.14.4 Turn Lanes
See 6.37
6.15 Legislative Concepts
The Traffic—Roadway Section serves as advisor on legislative bills relating to traffic

issues and participates in setting the direction and completing the analysis of such bills.
This includes reviewing and tracking traffic engineering related bills, identifying
potential ODOT impact, preparing for the hearings and providing the fiscal impact and
written testimony for each bill and/or amendments. Testimony at the hearing is
sometimes provided. Participants work through the Highway Division Coordinators and
the ODOT Legislative Coordinators in presenting the agency’s position on numerous
bills. For more information on the ODOT Legislative Process and Exceptions refer to the
ODOT - DMV Bill Analysis Handbook.
The Traffic—Roadway Section sometimes initiates legislation through ODOT to help

introduce or clarify traffic issues covered in the Oregon Revised Statues.
March 2008 6-39

File Code: LEG 05
6.16 Litigation
The State of Oregon is self-insured through the Risk Management Division of the
Department of Administrative Services. If a claim for damages involving ODOT is filed
against the State, Risk Management conducts an investigation to determine whether
the claim should be approved or denied. In some instances, the Risk Management
Specialist in charge of processing the claim will contact one of the Traffic—Roadway
Section’s investigators to request a recommendation and/or documentation, or to clarify
a policy. If documentation is required, the Risk Management Specialist coordinates with
ODOT sections or other public agencies to produce copies of the necessary documents.
Similarly, the Traffic—Roadway Section sometimes acts as a liaison for the Oregon
Department of Justice when a request is made for information and documents by an
Assistant Attorney General who is defending ODOT in a lawsuit. In addition to
collecting documents and other evidence, the Traffic—Roadway Section may coordinate
the acquisition of expert witnesses for testimony at trial. On occasion, a Traffic—
Roadway Section employee may be required to testify, if he or she possesses specialized
knowledge in a relevant area. At the request of the Department of Justice attorney, the
Traffic—Roadway Section may also produce courtroom displays using mounted photo
enlargements, graphics or video presentations.
Claims and lawsuits may result from a crash or construction and maintenance
activities. When there is damage to ODOT facilities, such as a bridge damaged in a
crash, ODOT may pursue damages from the party determined to be at fault.
The Traffic—Roadway Section also assists in gathering the information to support

ODOT in these claims. The most effective way to reduce ODOT liability in litigation is
to conform as closely as possible to standards, policies, and good engineering in the
course of design, construction, inspection and maintenance, and then to thoroughly
document such conformance.
File Code: LEG 04
6.17 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
6.17.1 Overview
Traffic control devices installed on highways within the State of Oregon are required to
conform to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), published by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The list of highways that are required to
conform to the MUTCD includes all state highways and public roadways under the
jurisdiction of cities and counties within the State of Oregon. This requirement is
established by Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) (see ORS 810.200) and Oregon
Administrative Rule (OAR) (see OAR 734-020-0005). To promote uniformity and
understandability of traffic control devices, private property owners are also encouraged
to conform to the MUTCD when installing devices on private property.
March 2008 6-40

Devices installed or replaced after the publication date of this document shall conform
to the MUTCD upon installation. Unless noted otherwise, existing devices that do not
conform to the current MUTCD shall be replaced at the end of their useful life.
The intent of the MUTCD is to enhance road safety and operation by requiring uniform,
understandable, and effective traffic control devices on Oregon highways.
6.17.2 Oregon Supplement to the MUTCD
Deviations to the MUTCD are published in the Oregon Supplement to the MUTCD and
made for justifiable reasons such as instances where Oregon law deviates from the
MUTCD. These deviations are adopted through the OAR process and by permission of
the FHWA.
The document supplements the 2003 Edition of the MUTCD with Revision No. 1
Incorporated, dated November 2004. Both the Oregon Supplement and the MUTCD
need to be consulted when researching traffic control issues.
The Oregon Supplement conforms to the organization and section numbering of the
MUTCD. The two documents interact as follows:
• Unless otherwise noted, language in the Oregon Supplement is added to the

end of the referenced MUTCD section.
• In other cases, the MUTCD language is deleted and/or the Oregon
Supplement language inserted as directed by the instructions in italics.
The MUTCD is available on the internet in electronic format. Printed copies of the
MUTCD 2003 Edition and cost information are available from the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE), and the American Traffic Safety Services Association
(ATSSA).
Design details for signs and traffic signals are not included in the MUTCD. They are in
the Sign Policy and Guidelines for the State Highway System, the Traffic Signal Policy
and Guidelines, and the FHWA Standard Highway Signs manual.
6.17.3 Exceptions to the MUTCD
There are no exceptions to the MUTCD. A change may be requested and requires a
request for a change (See 6.17.6).
6.17.4 Deviations to the MUTCD
See Oregon Supplement to the MUTCD
6.17.5 Requests to Experiment
Requests to experiment include consideration of testing or evaluating new traffic control

devices (See Section 1A.10 in the MUTCD).
March 2008 6-41

6.17.6 Revisions to the MUTCD (Changes)
Changes to the MUTCD are adopted as part of the national standard and are published
by FHWA (See Section 1A.10 in the MUTCD for the process to request a change).
File Code: TRA 16-09-02 Supplements / TRA 16-09-05 MUTCD Revisions
6.18 Naming Highway Facilities
The following guidelines are taken directly from Transportation Commission – 05 policy
for naming highway facilities and are to be case-by-case basis (adopted October 15, 1991
by the Oregon Transportation Commission):
1. The Oregon Transportation Commission generally will not name highway

facilities after individuals.
2. The Oregon Transportation Commission may elect to suspend guideline 1 if a

requester can show compliance with the following criteria:
a. Demonstrated statewide support for naming a facility.
b. The honored individual shall have made a lasting contribution, with a

significant and historic impact on Oregon.
c. The honored individual shall have been deceased for at least one year.
d. The facility is long enough to merit a title, such as a bridge or tunnel

more than one-half mile long, or a highway section with defined
end-points which was completed as a whole.
3. The comments of the Oregon Geographic Names Board will be solicited prior to
naming any highway facility. (Any federal recognition will be contingent upon
their approval.)
File Code: PUB 17-01
6.19 New Products
Testing of many new products is performed in conjunction with the ODOT Construction
Section, Federal Highway Administration, and/or manufacturers. Product testing and
evaluation of traffic control devices and equipment is conducted by the Traffic Systems
Services Unit, Traffic Standards and Asset Management Unit, and the Traffic
Engineering Services Unit. Manufacturers and suppliers can contact the Traffic—
Roadway Section for information related to the proper process to obtain product
approvals.
All products which are approved for traffic signal construction are contained in the
“Blue” and “Green” sheets. The “Blue” sheets contain field-qualified equipment and
materials while the “Green” sheets list conditional qualified controller equipment.
March 2008 6-42

New products are reviewed by the Traffic Standards and Asset Management Unit in
cooperation with other units, added to the “Blue” or “Green” sheets with related special
provisions are amended as necessary. The “Blue” and “Green” sheets for signal
equipment are available from the Traffic Signal Engineer of the Traffic Standards and
Asset Management Unit.
File Code: MAT 00-02 (Blue & Green Sheet Files) – Traffic Standards and Asset
Management Unit
6.20 One-way Operation for Trucks and Buses
The State Traffic Engineer, in consultation with the Region Manager and Motor Carrier
Services Manager, has been delegated the authority to designate sections of highways
that allow one-way operation by class or type of vehicle. A field investigation shall be
made and a written report prepared for each section of highway on which one-way truck
and/or bus operation may be required. See OAR 734-020-0125 and 734-020-0130 for
further information and the required field data for the report.
6.21 Parking
6.21.1 On-Street Parking
See the ODOT Highway Design Manual (HDM) for information regarding the
appropriateness of on-street parking. Diagonal parking may be allowed in designated
Special Transportation Areas (STA’s) when jointly approved by the Roadway
Engineering Manager and the State Traffic Engineer, see HDM for further criteria.
File Code: TRA 07-01 and TRA 07-01-05
6.21.2 Prohibitions and Restrictions
Parking control on highways is covered in ORS 810.160, ORS 810.200, OAR 734-020
0020, OAR 734-020-0080, OAR 734-020-0085, OAR 734-020-0090, and the Letter of
Authority to the State Traffic Engineer. The Traffic—Roadway Section maintains a
database of Parking Prohibitions and Restrictions that have been ordered by the State
Traffic Engineer. The Traffic Engineering Services Unit provides a form for
summarizing engineering investigation data. (See Parking Prohibition Request Form)
A request for a parking prohibition or restriction on a section of state highway may be

made by a city or county through which the highway runs. That jurisdiction should
request the appropriate ODOT Region office to conduct an investigation. As a minimum,
the investigation should involve the following:
• On-site observation of safety and traffic flow conditions, preferably at a time of

day when vehicles are parked in the proposed prohibition or restriction zone.
March 2008 6-43

• Photographs of the area from different approaches to show conditions at the
site, preferably at a time of day when vehicles are parked in the proposed
prohibition or restriction zone.
• Contact, when appropriate, with affected businesses, citizens, police agencies,

and local government jurisdictions, to explain the proposed parking
prohibition or restriction, and to solicit their input. This can usually be
accomplished by a person-to-person conversation, but in some instances may
require attending a meeting of the local government authorities or a public
hearing.
Once the investigation is completed, it is forwarded to the Traffic—Roadway Section for

review and approval by the State Traffic Engineer. In order for a proper review to take
place, the following three items need to be included:
• Completed Parking Prohibition Request Form
• Map or Sketch of the vicinity with the proposed locations clearly marked
• Photographs taken for the investigation
Normally, any one, or a combination of the following four justifications, is necessary for
the State Traffic Engineer to consider approving a request to eliminate parking:
• Safety — this usually, but not always, has to do with sight distance for
vehicles entering from a side street or driveway.
• Congestion — Vehicles parked in the area impede the flow of traffic.
• Damage to the facility — an example might be if parked vehicles are causing

the shoulder to slough off.
• Frequent use of the facility for a purpose not intended — this could be any
number of things (unauthorized vending, dumping of trash or sewage, etc.).
In addition to these four justifications, limited parking restrictions are sometimes

granted as a courtesy to municipalities who request them (time limit, height restriction
not related to sight distance, loading zone, etc.). These requests are evaluated on a
case-by-case basis, and with the understanding that the city will be responsible for
installation and maintenance of the signs, and for enforcing the restriction.
When a Parking Prohibition or Restriction has been approved, the Region Manager will
receive a memo with instructions to have the appropriate signs installed, and to notify
the State Traffic Engineer of the installation date. The State Traffic Engineer will also
send a letter to the Oregon State Police, notifying them of the prohibition or restriction.
See the ODOT Highway Design manual (HDM) for information regarding the
appropriateness of on-street parking. Diagonal Parking may be allowed in designated
March 2008 6-44

STA’s when jointly approved by the Roadway Engineering Manager and the State
Traffic Engineer, see HDM for further criteria.
File Code: TRA 16 Procedures (Hwy. No. & Milepoint Letters of Approval)
6.22 Pavement Markings
6.22.1 Overview
The State Traffic Engineer has the responsibility to establish a uniform system of
pavement markings. The State Traffic Engineer approves the installation, modification,
and removal of traffic control devices including striping, other markings and pavement
markers on the state highway system.
The traveling public relies heavily on pavement markings for guidance, positioning and
information. Uniform pavement markings make a safer road system. Road users can
respond appropriately and quickly when what they see has a standard, known meaning.
Good application and maintenance of pavement markings is therefore an essential
component of safe and efficient highways.
6.22.1.1 Pavement Markings Standard Drawings
The standard layouts for striping and marking of new construction or overlay sections
are contained in the ODOT Oregon Standard Drawings, Traffic Section. These
drawings should be consulted for striping and marking of new pavement when striping
plans are not available. The standard drawings are also the basis for the design of
striping plans on construction projects. See the Striping Design Guidelines available
from the Traffic Standards and Asset Management Unit for assistance in developing
striping plans.
6.22.1.2 Traffic Line Manual
The Traffic Line Manual contains the ODOT policy and guidelines for installation of
pavement markings. If markings not conforming to this manual are necessary, they
should be reviewed and approved by the Region Traffic Manager/Engineer or, when
required, by the State Traffic Engineer. It is intended to be used by maintenance crews
and striping contractors to assist them in their daily work. The manual contains typical
drawings based on the standard drawings to assist in the maintenance of pavement
lines, markings and markers.
6.22.1.3 Striping Design Guidelines
These guidelines contain the Traffic Line Manual and the Standard Drawings as well as
typical sections and examples to assist designers in the preparation of striping plans.
The guidelines are based on the principles outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices and the Oregon Supplement to the MUTCD.
March 2008 6-45

6.22.1.4 Standards for Disabled Parking Spaces
In accordance with ORS 447.233, the Oregon Transportation Commission adopted

standards for disabled person parking places, which took effect on January 22, 1992.
All new construction is required to meet new minimum standards. The standards are in
compliance with 28 CFR Part 36 published by the Department of Justice in the Federal
Register.
Different standards for signing and pavement markings have been adopted for
public/private facilities and the state highway system. These standards are available on
the internet at the Traffic—Roadway Section web site.
6.22.2 Advance Stop Bars
6.22.2.1 Background
“Multiple threat” crashes are a leading cause of pedestrian fatalities. A multiple threat
crash occurs on multi-lane roads when one driver stops to let a pedestrian cross, but so
close to the crosswalk as to obscure visibility in the adjacent lane. The pedestrian starts
to cross, unaware that traffic behind the stopped vehicle or in the adjacent lane may not
see him or her. Drivers behind the stopped vehicle or in the adjacent lane may not see
the pedestrian and can’t understand why the first vehicle stopped. If they change lanes
or continue traveling in the adjacent lane at a high rate of speed, and the pedestrian
doesn’t see the car, the result is often a fatal or severe injury crash.
Recent research indicates a dramatic drop in multiple threat crashes when drivers are
asked to stop approximately 30 feet back from the crosswalk. At higher distances (40
and 50 feet) stopping compliance rates begin to drop off. At shorter distances (20 feet)
compliance marginally improves, but 20 feet does not provide as much visibility as 30
feet. Vehicles traveling at a high rate of speed may not be able to stop in time, but 30
feet frees up the sight distance triangle enough so the crossing pedestrian can see if a
vehicle is proceeding towards him or her without stopping or slowing down, giving the
pedestrian time to take evasive action.
6.22.2.2 Guidance
Advance stop bars, combined with the STOP HERE FOR PEDS sign (OR 22-25), should
be installed at marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations on multi-lane highway
locations, unless unique circumstances prevent their installation.
Advance stop bars, (24-inch width), should be placed approximately 30 feet in advance
of the marked crosswalk. They may be placed between 20 to 50 feet in advance if
unique circumstances dictate a different location.
March 2008 6-46

6.22.3 No Passing Zones
No-passing zones are established at vertical and horizontal curves and at other
locations where passing is prohibited because of inadequate passing sight distance. No
pass striping is warranted where the sight distance is less than the minimum necessary
for safe passing at the 85 percentile speed or posted speed, whichever is higher.
The authority to establish no passing zones on Oregon highways is provided in Oregon

law (ORS 810.120). Section 3B.02 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
describes the criteria for determining the passing sight distance and application of no-
pass zones.
Often a request is made to extend no-pass striping to include intersections near the end
of no-pass zones or to provide no-pass striping at intersections. Generally these
requests are denied because existing evidence tends to point to the fact that no-pass
zones at intersections do not increase safety. Also Oregon law (ORS 811.305) states
that it is unlawful to pass at any intersection. As statutory no-pass zones, these
highway segments do not require no-pass markings.
Other options for addressing passing at intersections should be explored first.

Intersection signing, both an Intersection Ahead warning sign and a road name sign,
should be clearly posted. Other actions include making the intersection more visible
from the highway by trimming back shrubbery or trees, making sure stop bars are
clearly marked and placed so that vehicles can be seen before entering the highway, and
making sure parking is not interfering with visibility of traffic or the cross-street.
Considerations should include amounts of pedestrians in the vicinity, business activity
or residences nearby. An important indicator is the crash history of the area.
Consideration should also be given to the availability of passing opportunities near the
area.
Rural intersections on the other hand typically have sufficient sight distance and the
no-pass zones are ineffective at changing driver behavior. The installation of no-pass in
these areas may contribute to unrealistic expectations on the part of motorists entering
the highway or turning from the highway. If, after all other options have been
exhausted, the intersection continues to have crash experience, a no-pass zone may be
considered.
See the ODOT Traffic Line Manual for details and layout of no pass zones.
6.22.4 Two-Way Left Turn Lane
A two-way left turn lane shall be marked by a single direction, no passing marking on
each edge of the lane. Pavement markings may be used. (Refer to the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Traffic Line Manual)
6.22.5 Yield Control Markings
Pavement markings for yield control can be used to distinguish the point in which
vehicles are required to yield at or behind. These markings should be placed in
March 2008 6-47

accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. In accordance with the
Oregon Vehicle Code, yield control markings shall not be used in advance of a marked
pedestrian crosswalk.
6.22.5.1 Sign Guidelines
See YIELD Sign Applications
6.22.6 Colored Pavements
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices provides standards for the use of
colored pavements in Chapter 3E. All proposed colored pavement applications shall be
reviewed by the Region Traffic Engineer/Manager and State Traffic Engineer for
consistency with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
6.22.6.1 Textured/Colored Crosswalks
See 6.6.8
6.23 Railroad Crossings
6.23.1 Overview
Railroad crossings and traffic control devices used within the crossing area are under
the jurisdiction of the ODOT Rail Division. A Railroad Crossing Order for each public
road grade crossing, summarizes the obligations, including, but not necessarily limited
to, design, cost, maintenance, signals, signs, and operational requirements for all
involved parties. Additional information can be found in the Approval Process and
Preemption sections of this manual. Design and operation details are also found in the
following publications:
• Traffic Signal Design Manual
• Traffic Signal Policy and Guidelines
6.23.2 Added Stop Lanes
The following is the procedure for the investigation of added stop lanes for at grade
railroad crossings. The purpose is to determine the need for additional stopping lanes
at railroad at-grade crossings of a state highway when such crossings become involved
in a major reconstruction project.
An additional lane constitutes an alteration (OAR Ch.741) to the grade crossing, which
requires ODOT Rail Division approval as included in a Crossing Order.
Step 1- The Project Leader determines that an at-grade railroad crossing will exist
within the project limits and requests an investigation from Region Traffic Engineer.
March 2008 6-48

Step 2 - The Region Traffic Engineer determines the need for adding stopping lanes or
justifying the omission of such lanes from the location project. If the existing facility has
paved shoulders of adequate width to accommodate vehicles that must come to a stop at
a rail crossing, added stopping lanes may not be needed. The Region Traffic Manager
may perform a traffic engineering study considering at a minimum the following data:
average daily traffic volumes, number of train movements, an estimate of the number of
vehicles required to stop, a gap study, posted speed or 85 percent speed, physical
characteristics, alignment, terrain, and sight distance. Prepares report and makes
recommendation to Rail Division Manager for inclusion in Crossing Order if a stopping
lane is required. If not required, all parties should be so informed.
Step 3 - The Rail Division Manager considers information submitted by the Region
Traffic Engineer for the required crossing order. Rail Division must have ample
opportunity to provide input and assure proper coordination with the affected railroad
company, and forward copies of Crossing Order to all interested parties.
Step 4 - The Project Leader complies with the terms of the Crossing Order, contacts
Region Traffic Engineer (if any questions arise), and proceeds to develop appropriate
plans.
6.24 Road Closures
The temporary or conditional closure of highways is covered by OAR 734-020-0150. The

Traffic—Roadway Section does not initiate closures, but may offer technical assistance.
Highlights of the Administrative Rule include:
1. When weather conditions or road conditions constitute a danger of

highway damage or a danger to the safety of the driving public, the Chief
Engineer (Technical Services Manager), Region Manager, District
Manager, or Assistant District Manager may prohibit the operation upon
such highway or section of a highway of any or all vehicles, or any class or
kind of vehicles.
2. The prohibition of vehicles may result in total closure or conditional
closure of highways or highway sections. Conditional closures may, at the
discretion of the Chief Engineer (Technical Services Manager), Region
Manager, or District Manager, or Assistant District Manager, include but
not be limited to prohibition of several identified classes or kinds of
vehicles.
3. Closures or conditional closures should be accomplished by physically
barricading or blocking the highway, with placement of appropriate
warning signs or devices, and, where possible, signing indicating
conditional closure with types of vehicles allowed or prohibited.
4. Road closures and conditional closures are to exist only on a temporary
basis and should be removed as soon as road conditions or weather
conditions permit, the hazard has been removed, and the danger to the
highway or driving public no longer exists.
March 2008 6-49

6.25 Roundabouts
6.25.1 Overview
Roundabouts are beginning to be recognized as an alternative form of intersection

control in the United States. Generally, roundabouts are designed around a central
island that prevents vehicles from passing through on a linear path. It is important to
point out the distinction between the more general term “traffic circles” and a subset of
traffic circles called “roundabouts” or sometimes “modern roundabouts.” There are
important characteristics distinguishing roundabouts from traffic circles. Probably the
most important is vehicles entering a roundabout are required to yield to vehicles
within the circulating roadway. Another important characteristic is the deflection of the
vehicle path from a straight path and usually the approaches have raised splitter
islands that aid in deflection.
Roundabouts show promise of reducing crashes and delay. They can be particularly
efficient where traffic volumes are roughly equal on all approaches. But they also have
limitations:
• Higher capacities can be achieved with traffic signals;
• More expensive than stop control at low volume locations;
• Determining which driver has the right-of-way is not as clear as a traffic

signal; and
• Cannot provide a smooth progression for arterial flows.
Since this form of intersection control is still new to the United States, care must be
taken in the placement and use of roundabouts. ODOT has prepared a report “Modern
Roundabouts for Oregon,” Oregon Research Report No. OR-RD-98-17. It includes
documentation of current research and practice on modern roundabouts, comparisons of
advantages and disadvantages, summaries of safety implications, and discussions of
pedestrian and bicycle considerations. Guidelines from other states, software analysis
tools, and recommendations for Oregon are discussed. An additional source of
information is an FHWA publication entitled Roundabouts: An Informational Guide.
See Roundabout Selection Criteria and Approval Process for more details about using
roundabouts in Oregon.
File Code: TRA 16-10 (Highway No. and Milepoint)
6.25.2 Roundabout Selection Criteria and Approval Process
The State Traffic Engineer has been delegated the authority to approve the installation
of roundabouts on State Highways. Formal requests for evaluation of proposed
roundabouts shall be sent to the State Traffic Engineer. Planning level evaluation
requests including TSP and Comprehensive plan proposals shall be sent to the State
Traffic Engineer to insure consistency. Requests for roundabout evaluation shall be
March 2008 6-50

made through the Region Traffic Engineer in collaboration with the Technical Services
Roadway Manager.
6.25.2.1 Engineering Investigation
A comprehensive investigation of traffic conditions and physical characteristics of the

location shall be made by the Region Traffic Engineer or applicant. Details of crash
history, traffic volumes, analysis of roundabout operation, and other safety concerns
should be included. The investigation should include comparisons of alternative
intersection control, i.e., stop controlled, signal control, both operational aspects and
other considerations. A discussion of nearby land use issues, access management issues,
operational issues and local support for the roundabout are desirable. For normal STIP
projects use a 20-year design life from the date of construction, for development review a
minimum 10-year design life will be used. The State Traffic Engineer must approve
exceptions to the minimum design life.
A scale drawing of the proposed roundabout should be included to assure appropriate

geometry and layout elements can be obtained. Horizontal and vertical geometry must
be clearly identified. Surrounding topography and approximate R/W should also be
included.
6.25.2.2 Evaluation of Proposals
The following recommendations will be used in evaluating proposed roundabout

locations:
• Should meet acceptable v/c ratios for the appropriate design life.
• Should have posted speeds 60 km/h (35 mph) or less.
• Should have normal circular geometry
• Should have similar or balanced volumes on all approach legs
• Should be at an intersection of two highways with roughly the same functional

classification or no more than one level of difference (i.e., arterial to arterial,
arterial to collector)
• Should be mostly commuter and local traffic.
• Should not have more than 4 approach legs.
• Should not have high pedestrian volumes.
• Should not have high volumes of large trucks.
• Should not be located within an interconnected signal system.
March 2008 6-51

• Should not be in locations where exiting vehicles would be interrupted by
queues from signals, railroads, drawbridges, ramp meters, or by operational
problems created by left turns, accesses, etc.
• Should not be located where grades or topography limit visibility or greatly

complicate construction.
Refer to ODOT Highway Design Manual for further information regarding geometric
design requirements and considerations. Also refer to FHWA publication Roundabouts:
An Informational Guide.
6.25.2.3 Process and Approval
Once the State Traffic Engineer receives a request, Traffic—Roadway Section staff will
coordinate review with other Technical Services staff and will make a recommendation
to the State Traffic Engineer. If the information provided is insufficient or not
appropriate methodology (as determined by ODOT) the State Traffic Engineer may
request further analysis. The State Traffic Engineer will make the final decision
whether the roundabout will be approved.
6.26 Rumble Strips
Rumble strips are an engineering treatment designed to alert drivers of a lane

departure through vibration and noise created when a vehicle’s tires contact the rumble
strip. Rumble strips may be placed on the shoulders, between opposing travel lanes
(centerline), or in the travel lanes (transverse). Rumble strips are considered a traffic
control device and require the approval of either the State Traffic Engineer or Region
Traffic Engineer depending on the type of application (See Delegated Authorities of the
State Traffic Engineer). ODOT policy for each installation is described in the sections
below. Standard details and specifications for each installation are maintained by the
Traffic Standards and Asset Management Unit.
Rumble strips may be constructed in three ways: rolled, milled, or formed. ODOT has
experimented with several designs of milled-in and rolled-in rumble strips. Formed
strips in new concrete pavement have not been used by ODOT. Rolled-in strips that
were installed on new bituminous pavement with the use of a static and vibratory roller
had limited success. In ODOT tests, penetration by the roller was minimal in the open
graded “F” mix asphalt surface, which is the primary surface course now being used on
our highways. Milled-in rumble strips have been successfully installed by ODOT on
many miles of highway. Studies have shown that this design is very effective and uses
less shoulder width for installation than previous designs. This design in terms of
depth, width, length, and spacing is used in all of the various ODOT designs (except for
transverse rumble strips). As an alternative, profiled durable pavement markings can
be used to provide a "rumble" effect. However, they are much more expensive and their
effectiveness compared to milled-in rumble strips is not known.
March 2008 6-52

6.26.1 Shoulder Rumble Strips (SRS)
Run-off-road (ROR) crashes account for over a third of all fatal and serious injuries each
year on Oregon highways. The purpose of shoulder rumble strips (SRS) is to reduce the
occurrence of ROR vehicles by alerting inattentive drivers to lane departures. They are
a possible countermeasure when driver fatigue or inattention is the suspected cause of
ROR crashes, particularly on tangent roadway sections. Driver inattention comes in
many forms, including fatigue or drowsiness, daydreaming, competing thoughts or
actions, visual distractions, and alcohol or drug impairment.
Many studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of shoulder rumble strips in reducing
ROR crashes. Rumble strips will not eliminate all ROR crashes especially those caused
by excessive speed, sudden turns to avoid on-road collisions, or high-angle
encroachments. Because they are intended to alert drivers "drifting" off the road,
shoulder rumble strips are most effective when installed near the edge line adjacent to
relatively wide shoulders. This placement provides motorists leaving the traveled way
at a shallow angle with both time and space to steer back onto the roadway safely. Long
sections of relatively straight roadways that make few demands on motorists are the
most likely candidates for the installation of shoulder rumble strips.
6.26.1.1 Guidelines for SRS installation
All installations on new or existing bituminous shoulders shall be continuous milled-in

SRS. To retrofit SRS on existing bituminous pavement, it must be in sufficiently good
condition to effectively accept the milling process without raveling or deteriorating.
Otherwise, the pavement should be upgraded prior to milling. Currently, ODOT does
not have a design for formed rumble strips on new concrete shoulders.
Installations of SRS should leave approximately 4 feet (1.2 m) of useable paved shoulder
for bicycle use as measured from the outside edge of the rumble strip to the shoulder
edge. Regardless, input from the ODOT Bicycle-Pedestrian Program Manager will be
requested on all proposed installations, especially in high bicycle use areas. For
narrower shoulders, ODOT has experimented with a milled edge-line rumble strips
where the paved shoulder was less than 6 feet. This design is approximately ½ the
width of standard SRS and the edge (fog) line is painted over the rumble strip. Contact
the Traffic—Roadway Section for more information. Another alternative is profiled
durable markings.
Do not install SRS:
• On bridge decks;
• Where the distance between the fog line and obstructions such as barrier or
guardrail is 4 feet (1.2 meters) or less;
• In sections with horizontal curvature except where the data indicate a

significant single vehicle ROR problem;
March 2008 6-53

• In the area between 300 feet (90 m) before the exit ramp and 300 feet (90 m)
after the last entrance as measured from the point where the fog stripe
departs and rejoins the mainline;
• Within 200 feet in advance of an intersection with a public road or 50 feet

after the intersection or as directed by the Region or State Traffic Engineer;
• On urban highways, including Interstates, unless approved by the State

Traffic Engineer based on an engineering investigation addressing the safety
benefits and noise impacts to surrounding residential areas.
For maintenance reasons, consider the use of durable striping in conjunction with
milled-in rumble strips. Some of the equipment that ODOT owns for painting has
difficulty in areas where the milled-in rumble strips exist because the wheel track of the
sprayer hits the rumble strips. Please contact the Region Traffic Engineer or Striping
Supervisor to verify the striping equipment available.
No deletion shall be considered unless there is a clear and documented problem. Inform
the Region Traffic Engineer and State Traffic Engineer of decisions to delete existing
rumble strip installations.
6.26.2 Centerline Rumble Strips (CLRS)
Head-on crashes that didn't occur at intersections account for almost 20% of fatal
crashes each year on Oregon highways. The purpose of centerline rumble strips (CLRS)
is to keep vehicles in their lane and prevent head-on and sideswipe meeting crashes
where a median barrier was not feasible. ODOT has installed CLRS on rural highways
in both a 4-16 foot (1.2-4.9 m) striped median. ODOT has also experimented with
placing rumble strips on centerline pavement markings in both passing and no-passing
zones when a median can not be added. While a median is desirable because of the
separation of opposing traffic it is not always feasible.
The effectiveness of SRS in reducing road departure crashes led many states to apply
the same principle between opposing travel lanes. Experience by other states indicates
that CLRS are effective at reducing head-on and sideswipe meeting crashes. The
primary concern with the installation is the effect on a driver making a legal passing
maneuver or attempting to pass in the area where the rumble strips are installed.
Initial experimental application was only in no-passing zones. In the summer of 2003,
CLRS were placed in a passing zone with a modified standard SRS spacing in attempt
to limit the impact to driver’s legally crossing the centerline in passing areas. In
altering the traditional continuous SRS design, it is important to monitor that there will
still be enough noise and vibration to alert the driver.
CLRS will not eliminate all cross-over crashes especially those caused by excessive
speed, loss of control, and most weather related crashes. Because they are intended to
alert drivers "drifting" over the center, rumble strips should be used where crash data
indicate that type of driver error is prevalent. In addition to CLRS, some head-on
crashes may be mitigated by improvements to the shoulder since many head-on crashes
March 2008 6-54

are a result of a driver overcorrecting after their vehicle has departed the roadway to
the right.
The use of CLRS is still considered experimental. ODOT will monitor our existing
installations with a before-and-after crash study as well as national studies on the topic
to better understand their effectiveness. To be approved for installation, Region Traffic
must submit an investigation to the State Traffic Engineer that documents a safety
problem correctable with the use of milled-in centerline rumble strips. All guidelines
below must be met, or a justification for deviation included.
6.26.2.1 Guidelines for CLRS installation
Milled-in centerline rumble strips (CLRS) can be used on new or existing bituminous
pavement where crash history indicates a large number of head-on or sideswipe-
meeting crashes would be treatable with CLRS. To retrofit CLRS on existing pavement,
the pavement should be in sufficiently good condition to effectively accept the milling
process without raveling or deteriorating. Otherwise the pavement should be upgraded
prior to milling any desired CLRS.
For highways with painted medians, a minimum median width of 4 feet (1.2 m) is
needed for installation. For medians 4 feet (1.2 m) in width, place the rumble strips in
the center of the median. For medians greater than 4 feet (1.2 m) in width, place the
rumble strips 12 inches (300 mm) inside of each median stripe.
For highways without painted medians and where passing is allowed, contact the
Traffic Standards and Asset Management Unit for the allowable CLRS pattern and
spacing standards.
Do not install CLRS:
• On bridge decks;
• In the area of intersections with public roads. Stop CLRS 25 feet (7.6 m) in
advance of intersections;
• On urban highways unless approved by the State Traffic Engineer based on

an engineering investigation addressing the safety benefits and noise impacts
to surrounding residential areas.
CLRS should not be placed in areas with short distances between access points. If
installed in a passing section, consider the noise impacts to rural residential areas
nearby.
For maintenance reasons, consider the use of durable striping in conjunction with
milled-in rumble strips. Some of the equipment that ODOT owns for painting has
difficulty in areas where the milled-in rumble strips exist because the wheel track of the
sprayer hits the rumble strips. Please contact the Region Traffic Engineer or Striping
Supervisor to verify the striping equipment available.
March 2008 6-55

No deletion shall be considered unless there is a clear and documented problem. Inform
the Region Traffic Engineer and State Traffic Engineer of decisions to delete existing
rumble strip installations.
6.26.3 Transverse Rumble Strips
Transverse rumble strips are placed perpendicular to the travel direction in the travel
lane. Their primary purpose is to enhance other traffic control devices to warn drivers of
an unusual situation. Transverse rumble strips should not be overused. Potential
adverse effects of rumble strips in the roadway include the noise generated by vehicles
continuously passing over them, the possibility that drivers may be tempted to go
around them by driving into the opposing lane, maintenance concerns with their
durability and concerns by motorcyclists who do not like the rumble strips.
Experience has shown that transverse rumble strips have been effective when used to
warn drivers on the approaches to intersections with poor compliance with STOP signs.
They should be limited to those areas that have a documented history of crashes and
where more conventional treatments have proved ineffective. Other countermeasures
such as oversize signs, higher intensity sign sheeting, STOP-AHEAD legend on the
pavement, and increasing the stop bar width should be tried. Studies have shown that
rumble strips are generally not effective as speed control devices. Rumble strips in
conjunction with speed limit signing were found to be ineffective at increasing speed
zone compliance.
ODOT has, on limited occasions, used the built-up type of rumble strip across the
traveled way for warning drivers of a work zone. Portable rumble strips have been
approved for use in ODOT highway work zones. Their application should be used when
special circumstances justify the need for them. More recently, grooved rumble strips
have been used to warn drivers of changes in the roadway, such as detours or alignment
changes. Typically they have been used to alert drivers to the possible need to take
some action and signing is usually used in conjunction with the rumble strips. Their
placement is strictly for temporary applications.
To be approved for installation, Region Traffic must submit an investigation to the State
Traffic Engineer that documents a safety problem correctable with the use of transverse
rumble strips. All guidelines below must be met, or a justification for deviation included.
6.26.3.1 Guidelines for transverse rumble strip installation
Permanent milled-in transverse rumble strips can be used on new or existing

bituminous pavement where crash history indicates a large number of intersection
crashes that would be treatable with transverse rumble strips. To retrofit transverse
rumble strips on existing pavement, the pavement should be in sufficiently good
condition to effectively accept the milling process without raveling or deteriorating.
Otherwise the pavement should be upgraded prior to milling. If installed near
residential areas, consider the noise impacts.
March 2008 6-56

For temporary work zone applications, contact the Traffic Standards and Asset
Management Unit for design standards and specifications of raised transverse rumble
strips or approved proprietary products that could be used in a work zone.
The State Traffic Engineer must approve all transverse rumble strip applications (both
permanent and temporary) on State Highways.
File Code: RES 08-02
6.27 Safe Speed on Curves
Safe speed on curves is determined by Region Traffic using the ball-bank indicator
method as described in the Sign Policy and Guidelines for the State Highway System.
The safe speed is determined in each direction.
ODOT standard practice is to post horizontal alignment signs for a curve when a
recommended safe speed is less than the posted speeds. An advisory speed plaque on
the sign assembly is required if the recommended safe speed is 10 MPH or more below
the posted speed.
Warning signs for curves with a recommended safe speed equal to the posted speed may
be posted depending on an engineering investigation including road geometry, crash
history, and other factors, and is not required to include the speed rider (See also
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Sections 2C.06, 2C.07, and 2C.46).
Curve signs are used for recommended safe speeds above 30 MPH. Turn signs are used
for recommended safe speeds of 30 MPH or less.
For a full discussion of horizontal alignment signs and their use, see the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices Sections 2C.06 through 2C.11. The standard signs
including freeway signing can be found in the warning sign and construction sign
sections of the Sign Policy and Guidelines for the State Highway System.
File Code: PLA 10-01-04-02
6.28 Safety Corridors
Safety Corridors are stretches of state and local highway with a history of higher traffic
crash rates than the statewide average for similar roadways. These may be signed as
“Safety Corridors” or “Truck Safety Corridors”. In the case of “Truck Safety Corridors”,
the incidence of commercial vehicle involvement is high, due to either truck or
passenger vehicle error.
Typical actions taken in safety corridors to increase safety include more frequent
enforcement, low cost engineering improvements and education efforts such as media
events, brochures and poster distribution. Drivers are asked to pay extra attention and
carefully obey all traffic laws when driving in these areas. The intent is to apply a
March 2008 6-57

broad spectrum of immediate and low-cost effort and improvements until the crash rate
is reduced below the statewide average.
Typically a Safety Corridor is designated based on a consensus decision by the

Transportation Safety Division, Traffic—Roadway Section and the local ODOT Region
and District. The Transportation Safety Division is responsible for program and policy
development, law enforcement coordination and oversight as well as media coordination
and driver education. The Traffic—Roadway Section participates in the data analysis
and tracking. The Region Traffic Unit conducts engineering investigations for any
engineering measures that may be appropriate and coordinates with the local ODOT
District on the selection and implementation of the engineering measures. Safety
Corridor coordination is also the responsibility of the Region Transportation Safety
Coordinator. They play a key role in bringing stakeholders together for decisions
involving the safety corridor effort as well as coordination of overall implementation.
Analysis of the safety corridor occurs every year. The corridor is evaluated to determine
its average crash rate. A safety corridor designation is meant to be an interim solution
until such time that the crash rate can be reduced and sustained, or until major
improvements are funded. If enforcement becomes unavailable or a substantial
commitment from local agencies is not maintained the safety corridor may be removed.
For further information regarding the ODOT Safety Corridor Program contact the
Transportation Safety Division.
6.29 Sight Distance
Sight distance is necessary to ensure safe vehicle operations required for stopping,
intersection movements and passing situations. Simply defined, it is the length of
roadway visible to the driver, either ahead or on intersecting roads. The AASHTO
publication, A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, details the
processes for determining sight distances for stopping sight distance, decision sight
distance, passing sight distance, and intersection sight distance.
Stopping sight distance is the distance required for a driver to recognize an object which
requires a stop, plus the distance required to stop the vehicle. Decision sight distance is
the distance required for a driver to detect and recognize a situation, make a navigation
decision and complete the maneuver. Passing sight distance is the distance necessary to
safely complete normal passing maneuvers. Intersection sight distance is the
unobstructed line of sight sufficient to allow approaching drivers to anticipate and avoid
potential conflict situation at intersections. Improving intersection sight distance can be
one of the most effective safety improvements for intersections with poor sight distance.
File Code: DES 03
March 2008 6-58

6.30 Signs
6.30.1 Sign Policy and Guidelines for the State Highway System
The Oregon Department of Transportation is responsible for furnishing and

maintaining directional, regulatory, warning, and informational signs on the state
highway system. The Department’s sign policy is a combination of Oregon Revised
Statutes (ORS), Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) rules and guidelines, and engineering judgment. The Oregon Transportation
Commission (OTC) has adopted the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Oregon
Supplement to the MUTCD, and Oregon Temporary Traffic Control Handbook as the
sign manuals for the State of Oregon. The Sign Policy and Guidelines for the State
Highway System deal exclusively with items not included in the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices or items that need further clarification with respect to their use
on the state highway system. The ODOT Sign Engineer prepares policy changes and
presents them to the Oregon Traffic Control Devices Committee (OTCDC) for their
concurrence. Revisions are distributed to holders of the Sign Policy and Guidelines for
the State Highway System via updates posted to the Traffic—Roadway Section internet
site. If a policy exists and a sign meets necessary criteria, the sign will be erected only
when there is adequate space along the highway or freeway, and only if the designated
locations generate a large enough traffic volume to justify placement of the sign.
Existing signs that are not in conformance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices and the Sign Policy and Guidelines for the State Highway System should be
brought into compliance on a replacement basis or as part of construction projects. Sign
requests should be sent to the Region Traffic Unit with the exception of the following:
• Tourist Oriented Directional Signs (TODS), Specific Service signs (logo signs),
and Off-Interstate Historical and Cultural signs to the Director, Travel
Information Council, 229 Madrona Avenue SE, Salem, Oregon 97302.
• Historical and Cultural signs on Interstate Highways to Outdoor Advertising

Sign Permits, ODOT Right of Way Project Administration, Transportation
Building, RM 409, Salem, OR 97301-3871.
• Signs located off of state right of way that are visible from state highways to
Outdoor Advertising Sign Permits, ODOT Right of Way Project
Administration, Transportation Building RM 409, Salem, OR 97301-3871.
6.30.1.1 Sign Orders
The Region Traffic Unit reviews and designs special signs requested by their District
sign crew supervisors. The Region Traffic Unit approves orders and sends them to the
sign shop for fabrication.
6.30.1.2 Signing for City Ordinances
ODOT practice is to not install signs for local city ordinances on state highways.
Examples include but are not limited to the following:
March 2008 6-59

• Signs prohibiting certain commercial vehicle operations such as engine
braking
• Signs displaying noise restriction ordinances
• Signs displaying loitering ordinances such as those aimed at prohibiting

“cruising” in a downtown district
It is sometimes, however, the desire of a local road authority to install these signs.
Agencies wishing to install signs for city ordinances on state highways within their
jurisdiction are required to submit a copy of the specific city ordinance and proposed
wording for the sign to the Region Traffic Manager/Engineer for review. After review,
the Region Traffic Manager/Engineer will forward the request to the State Traffic
Engineer for consideration of approval. The State Traffic Engineer will use the following
criteria to determine if the sign will be approved:
• The proposed wording on the sign shall not conflict with existing Oregon laws
or rules established in the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) or Oregon
Administrative Rules (OAR).
• The State Traffic Engineer, in consultation with the ODOT Sign Engineer,
shall have final authority over the design and wording of the sign in
accordance with standards set forth in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices and the Sign Policy and Guidelines for the State Highway System.
• The location of the sign shall not conflict with the visibility of another traffic
control device or violate the sign spacing standards found in the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices or Sign Policy and Guidelines for the State
Highway System.
Upon approval, the local jurisdiction will be required to enter into an Inter-
Governmental Agreement with ODOT to assume responsibility for all costs associated
with the sign including sign design, installation, and maintenance. ODOT reserves the
right to remove the sign at any time if the sign is not properly maintained or conflicts
with the visibility of another traffic control device.
6.30.2 Right-Turn Permitted Without Stopping (RTPWS)
“Right-Turn Permitted Without Stopping” (RTPWS) signs have been used in Oregon
since the 1950’s. Research has shown that the RTPWS signs do not contribute to an
increase in crashes and are a viable and safe method of reducing delay at stop sign
controlled intersections with a predominant right-turn movement. The demonstrated
safe operation justifies its use to reduce delay at appropriate stop controlled
intersections. Motorists increasingly disregard traffic controls more restrictive than
necessary for the situation. Allowing free movement for the predominant move will
improve the credibility of stop signs where they are needed for safe operation.
March 2008 6-60

In some cases the consideration of a YIELD sign may be appropriate (see Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices Section 2B.09), where there is a separate or
channelized right-turn lane or the conflicting movements are uncontrolled.
Engineering judgment, based on an engineering study, is an important part in the

determination of the location for establishing RTPWS. Consideration may be given to
RTPWS at intersections where the higher volume approaches are at right angles to each
other and the conflicting movements are generally stop controlled. The intersection
volumes should generally be less than 18,000 ADT and conflicting movements to the
RTPWS should be predominantly local traffic. Generally, a RTPWS sign should be used
only when the approach has a separate right-turn lane.
All the following criteria should be met when considering the RTPWS (volume criteria
generally refers to daily volumes):
1. If the intersection approach with the right-turn is a single lane approach (right,
through and left from a single lane) the right-turn volume should be at least 50%
of the total volume for that approach. No minimum volume is necessary if the
approach has a separate right-turn only lane.
2. The right-turn volume should be at least twice the volume of all conflicting
movements.
3. The existing right-turn volume should be 25% or more of the total intersection
entering volume within any eight hours of a day.
4. An engineering study must support the installation of an RTPWS.
A RTPWS sign requires the approval of the State Traffic Engineer for installation at an
intersection on a State Highway. If the intersections volumes or movements change
significantly the use of the RTPWS sign should be reconsidered. Refer to the Sign
Policy and Guidelines for the State Highway System for further information.
6.30.3 STOP Sign Applications
The State Traffic Engineer has been delegated the authority, in consultation with the
Region Manager, to approve installation or removal of STOP signs at intersections of
state highways with any other highway, road, or street. STOP signs should only be used
where justified. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices contains guidelines and
criteria for the use of STOP signs in Sections 2B.04 through 2B.07. STOP signs are
normally posted on the minor street to stop the lesser flow of traffic. The multi-way stop
installation is useful as a safety measure at some locations. It should be used where
volumes are approximately equal.
Requests for installation of STOP signs on state highways should originate from the
Region Traffic Manager. Requests should include an investigation stating warrants for
the STOP control crash history, safety concerns, alternatives or any other
considerations concerning the proposed installation.
March 2008 6-61

The Region Traffic Manager/Engineer may approve the installation or removal of STOP
signs on roads intersecting a state highway (i.e., city streets, county roads, or private
roads). STOP signs on a state highway, multi-way stop applications, or modifications to
stop configurations should be approved by the State Traffic Engineer.
6.30.4 Variable Message Signs
A variable message sign (VMS) is a traffic control device (permanent or portable) whose
message can be changed to provide motorists with information about traffic congestion,
traffic crashes, maintenance operations, adverse weather conditions, roadway
conditions, organized events, or other highway features. Installation and location of
VMS on state highways requires the approval of the State Traffic Engineer. With the
approval of the State Traffic Engineer, permanent signs may be used to display public
service messages.
There are several items that should be considered when choosing the location for a
permanent or portable VMS. Signs should be placed far enough in advance of a decision
point (e.g. interchange, major intersection, merge section at the end of a passing lane,
etc.) to allow drivers enough time to read and understand the message before having to
refocus their attention on the driving task. The availability of power and
communications is another concern for permanent VMS installations. As a general rule,
signs should be located at least 1 mile in advance of decision points on non-freeway
installations and 1 ½ to 3 miles for freeway installations.
The Intelligent Transportation Systems Unit prepares project plans, cost estimates,
standard drawings and specifications for variable message signs and other special fiber
optic and LED signs.
According to OAR 734-020-0410 and the letter of authority, the State Traffic Engineer is
responsible for exercising authority with respect to the use of traffic control devices.
Since variable message signs are traffic control devices, their operation is under the
authority of the State Traffic Engineer.
The Traffic—Roadway Section publication, Guidelines for the Operation of Variable

Message Signs on State Highways, establishes responsibilities for message selection;
provides guidance for displaying, altering, and removing messages; and clarifies
conditions of use. Sample messages are included as well.
Each Region Traffic Engineer or Traffic Manager has the responsibility to approve
messages to be displayed on variable message signs in his or her region, however the
State Traffic Engineer has retained the authority to approve public services messages
which may be displayed on permanent variable message signs only.
File Code: TSO 04 and 05
March 2008 6-62

6.30.5 Wrong Way Treatments
Wrong way movements are fairly rare and sporadic. The Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices Section 2E.50 provides guidance in the placement of signs to discourage
wrong way driving. A combination of ONE-WAY, DO NOT ENTER, and WRONG-WAY
signs is recommended. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices also allows for
lane use arrows and markings.
If a freeway on-ramp or other road is suspected of frequent wrong way movements the
following steps should be taken:
• Verify the extent of the problem by reviewing the crash history, looking
primarily for head on or side swipe collisions.
• Check signing to ensure that Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

guidelines are met.
• Determine if additional signing either at the ramp or on the approach to the

ramp or intersection could provide additional guidance.
• Evaluate the geometric design of the intersection: (i.e. Entrance radii, offset
ramp terminals) and determine if modifications should be considered. (See
Highway Design Manual for further discussion).
• Consider the need for additional illumination in the area.
• Consider installing large directional pavement arrows or other approved

traffic control devices.
• Exit and entrance ramp terminals on the crossroad should be offset to

encourage drivers to use the entrance ramps and discourage wrong way
moves. (See Highway Design Manual for further discussion).
• Consider installation of red reflectors on the backside of guideposts in

situations where sign and illumination improvements have not been effective.
• Due to limited success and maintenance costs of bi-directional raised

pavement markers, consider use of these markers only in exceptional
circumstances. These markers require the approval of the State Traffic
Engineer, in consultation with the Region Manager.
File Code: TRA 03-01-26 General Information / TRA 16-02-04-04 Striping & Markings /
TRA 16-04-76 Signs
6.30.6 YIELD Sign Applications
The State Traffic Engineer has delegated authority, in consultation with the Region
Traffic Engineer, to approve installation or removal of YIELD signs on state highways.
The Region Traffic Engineer may authorize the installation or removal of YIELD signs
on cross street that are not state highways. Yield signs can be used to assign right-of-
March 2008 6-63

way at low volume intersection where a stop sign is not necessary at all times. Yield
signs should be placed in accordance with Sections 2B.09 and 2B.10 of the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The Traffic—Roadway Section encourages the use of
yield signs instead of stop signs where appropriate.
Engineering judgment, based on an engineering study, is an important part in the

determination of when to use a yield sign. There should be sufficient sight distance on
the minor street approach to allow a vehicle to take appropriate action at the
intersection. Sight triangles for turning left or right from the minor street and for
crossing the major street need to be investigated. Chapter 9 of the AASHTO A policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2001 contains methods for calculating sight
triangles at intersections. In addition to looking at the sight distance for an
intersection, traffic engineers should also consider the volumes on the major and minor
streets, the approach speeds of the intersection, and the crash history of the
intersection.
6.30.6.1 Yield Line Pavement Markings
See 6.22.4
6.31 Special Events
Special events held on state highway right-of-way require a permit, issued by the ODOT
District office with jurisdiction and in accordance with criteria established by OAR 734
056-0030. The applicant shall, at their expense, provide a traffic control plan that
complies with current standards of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and
with the Oregon Supplement to the MUTCD. Signs used in conjunction with special
events must also comply with the Sign Policy and Guidelines for the State Highway
System. The Traffic—Roadway Section may be asked to review or provide assistance.
6.32 Speed Zones
6.32.1 Overview
Speed limits are covered in ORS 810.180 (Designation of speed limits), and ORS 811.100
through ORS 811.111. The establishment of speed zones under normal conditions is
described in OARs 734-020-0014, -0015, -0016, and -0017. The rules for establishing
Interstate Speeds are covered under OAR 734-020-0010. Those speeds are defined in
OAR 734-020-0011. (See Construction Speed Zones, School Speed Zones, and Safe
Speed on Curves.)
Establishing speed zones in Oregon requires an engineering investigation. These

investigations are in accordance with nationally accepted traffic engineering standards
and procedures, which have been established through years of research and experience.
March 2008 6-64

A major factor in speed zoning is the 85th percentile, the speed at or below which 85
percent of the vehicles are traveling. This is an indication of what most drivers feel is
reasonable and safe. The procedure provides Oregon with a consistent and uniform
application of techniques to establish safe and proper speed zoning. Other factors taken
into consideration are crash history, roadside culture, traffic volumes, and roadway
alignment, width and surface.
In Oregon, the decisions regarding speed zones are made jointly by the Department of
Transportation and the road authority, for example, a city or county.
The Department of Transportation has the responsibility to investigate roads for

establishing new speed zones or changing existing speed zones. These investigations are
performed at the request of a city, a county, an agency with a road authority or a
private citizen if the request is for a rural state highway. For rural state highways,
requests for an investigation should be made in writing to the Region Traffic Engineer.
If the recommended speed is of mutual agreement between the Department and the
local road authority, the speed zone is established. If mutual agreement cannot be
reached, the speed zone decision is referred to the Speed Zone Review Panel.
When the Traffic-Roadway Section approves and distributes a permanent or a short-

term speed zone order on a state highway, those who have responsibility for sign
installation and removal (including private consultants) must notify the Traffic-
Roadway Section when the signs are installed and removed.
6.32.2 Construction Speed Zones
6.32.2.1 Overview
Extensive national research has shown that retaining the posted speed (i.e., no speed
reduction) through work zones results in the fewest crashes. This holds true except in
some limited conditions. Speeds may be reduced in areas where more than one of the
following conditions exists:
• Substandard lane widths
• No shoulder
• Work activity adjacent to travel lanes without a positive barrier
• One-lane, two-way operation
• Short detour with a reduced safe speed on the end curves of 10 mph or more,
or
• Unique situations unfamiliar to drivers that severely restrict normal travel

speeds
March 2008 6-65

Speed zone orders for construction and other temporary travel restrictions are written
specifically for the conditions of restriction. These may include a ‘rolling’ order following
the active work zone or time of day restrictions.
The State Traffic Engineer has the approval authority for a reduced speed in a work
zone or other temporary situation with the above restrictions. Requests may be sent to
the Traffic—Roadway Section, and should include the Region Traffic review, the
Worksheet for Determining the Need for a Reduced Speed Zone for Work Zones and a
copy of the project plans with traffic control plans.
6.32.2.2 Process for obtaining a Speed Reduction for construction
The request to lower the speed zone for a construction project may be made during
project design or after construction begins. In all cases, the Region Traffic Engineer
should be consulted for their recommendation. Submit the written request, Worksheet,
traffic control plans and Region Traffic Engineer comments to the State Traffic
Engineer.
6.32.2.3 Requesting a speed reduction during project design

If the request is made during project design, the resulting recommendation will be
issued as a letter of support for the design. This letter is not a speed zone order and
cannot be used to place signs on the project. The intent of the letter is to notify the
Designer that they may proceed with their TCP design and anticipate the incorporation
of a speed zone reduction.
Since any reduced speed is based upon the traffic control plans, the project should be at
least at the Preliminary plans before submitting a request. The letter of support issued
will be specifically tied to the plans as submitted, and provides the basis for including
signs for a reduced speed in the quantities. Include the Unique Special Provision
“00225 – Temporary Speed Zone Reduction” in the project Special Provisions. The signs
are not shown on the plans, although a note directing the contractor to request a written
speed zone order prior to posting signs can be on the appropriate plan sheet(s).
Once the contract is awarded and the contractor and project manager have agreed on
the staging and traffic control to start the project, a written speed zone order can be
requested. If there has been any change in the temporary traffic control or staging since
the plans date in the letter of support, a new set of traffic control plans showing the
changes must be submitted with the request for a speed zone order. Speed zone signs
may be posted as soon as the written order is received by the contractor and project
manager.
6.32.2.4 Requesting a speed reduction during construction

When a reduced speed is desired for a project already under construction, the Region
Traffic Engineer should be consulted for their recommendation. The resulting decision
will be a written speed zone order based on the traffic control in place and the staging
plans for the life of the project. The written request, temporary traffic control plans
including any revisions as-posted, and Region Traffic Engineer comments are submitted
March 2008 6-66

to the State Traffic Engineer. Signs may be posted as soon as the written Speed Zone
Order is received by the contractor and project manager.
6.32.2.5 Construction Speed Zone Order

A copy of the Construction Speed Zone Order will be sent to the Region Traffic
Engineer, project manager and the contractor. A copy of any construction Speed Zone
Order is also sent to the nearest State Police office. If any other enforcement agencies
will be patrolling the project, a copy should be given to them as well.
When normal shoulder and lane use or width are restored for a period of time longer
than four consecutive calendar days, the Construction Speed Zone Order shall be
suspended. Temporary speed zone signing shall be turned, covered, or removed.
6.32.3 School Speed Zones
Each road authority (state, county, or city) determines within their own jurisdiction, by
performing an engineering study, whether a school speed zone is appropriate and the
limits of that zone. The school speed zone should be established as per the provisions of
ORS 811.111 subsection 1(e) and ORS 810.200.
The road authority with jurisdiction establishes all school speed zone exceptions in
statutory and basic speed zones. On local jurisdiction roadways the road authority may
establish school speed zones, including those roadways covered by a speed zone order.
School speed zone exceptions on local jurisdiction roadways are no longer included in
the speed zone orders.
On State Highways inside city limits the local jurisdiction or school district must
request the school speed zoning in writing. For state highways outside city limits, the
request usually comes through the District Manager. The request should include a copy
of the school district’s Pedestrian Route Plan, as described in the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices. The complete report submitted to the State Traffic Engineer
shall include:
• The original correspondence requesting the school zone exception.
• An engineering study, including an evaluation of the pertinent information.

(see A Guide to School Area Safety)
• The entire rewording necessary for the new speed zone order.
• A map showing the existing speed zone and the new school zone (if applicable).
• Photographs showing the area from beginning to end. Including sight

distance or other roadway conditions that would impact the decision to
approve the exception.
The engineering study does not necessarily have to include speed checks but should
establish the school ground or school crossing boundaries according to the standards
March 2008 6-67

adopted by the state. (See the Sign Policy and Guidelines for the State Highway System
and A Guide to School Area Safety)
On state highway segments covered by speed zone order, the school speed zone must be
approved by the State Traffic Engineer and included on the speed zone order. On state
highway segments not covered by speed zone order (i.e., statutory speed or basic rule
sections), school speed zones may be approved by the Region Traffic Manager.
6.32.3.1 A Guide to School Area Safety
ODOT has prepared a publication entitled “A Guide to School Area Safety” to assist in
the placement of traffic controls in school areas. This guide is available on the internet
from the Traffic—Roadway Section web site.
6.32.4 Speed Displays in conjunction with Speed Limit or School Speed Limit
signs
The 2003 Edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices added the option of
using changeable message signs in conjunction with a Speed Limit Sign (See Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices Section 2B.13) or a School Speed Limit Assembly (See
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Section 7B.11) to display the speed at which
approaching drivers are traveling. The installation of Speed Displays on State
Highways may be approved by the Region Traffic Engineer.
6.32.4.1 Considerations for installing Speed Displays in conjunction with Speed Limit or
School Speed Limit signs
Speed Displays used to alert drivers of their speeds may be considered where a greater
emphasis of prevailing speeds is desired. The following considerations should be taken
into account for possible installation of Speed Displays on state highways:
1. Crash experience within the past three years
2. 85th percentile speed within the area (Note: For proposed Speed Displays in
conjunction with School Speed Limit signs, the 85th percentile speed should be
measured during the hours children are arriving or leaving school grounds.)
3. Other pertinent factors such as pedestrian activity, roadside character, and land
use within the area.
6.32.4.2 Installation
1. When a Speed Display (“YOUR SPEED XX” sign) is used in conjunction with a
posted speed or School Speed Limit on State Highways, the sign and installation
shall be in compliance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and
prior approval of the Region Traffic Engineer shall be obtained.
2. When a Speed Display sign displaying speeds of approaching drivers is installed,

the sign shall be mounted in conjunction with the Speed Limit sign and the of
March 2008 6-68

the Speed Display sign shall be yellow legend on black background or the reverse
of these colors.
3. Speed Display signs that display messages other than speed or are controlled
through an operations center should be evaluated by the Intelligent
Transportation Section of the Maintenance and Operations Division.
4. When Speed Display signs are used in conjunction with School Speed Limit signs
they will generally be more effective if speeds are displayed only when children
are scheduled to arrive and leave school, but may operate in conjunction with
specific periods that the School Speed Limit is in effect.
5. A Speed Display may be installed by a local jurisdiction on a state highway if the

local jurisdiction agrees to enter into an Inter-Governmental Agreement with
ODOT and assumes responsibility for all costs associated with the Speed Display
including installation and maintenance.
6.33 Traffic Calming
Traffic calming techniques can be used effectively to encourage drivers to operate their
vehicles at appropriate speeds. The selection of traffic calming strategies must consider
the nature of the street or roadway, adjacent land use, driver population, emergency
vehicle concerns, ease of implementation and other site specific factors. If used
appropriately, the techniques can encourage drivers to drive at desired speeds, improve
the appearance of the roadway, and improve the comfort of pedestrians crossing the
roadway and facilitate other modes use of the facility.
Traffic calming for neighborhood streets may include speed bumps, speed humps and
traffic circles. While these may be effective in reducing speeds, they create additional
neighborhood noise, driver discomfort and hardships for emergency response. Street
closures may also be used, but this forces traffic onto other streets. Traffic calming
should be designed to encourage driving at the legally established speeds. They should
not be designed to physically restrict motorists to slower speeds, in effect establishing
an illegal speed limit and posing a hazard to the motoring public.
Traffic calming on state highways, primarily arterial streets, involves different types of
changes to the roadway environment to cue drivers to the mixed-use environment, of
pedestrians, bicycles and transit. These changes include such items as pedestrian
islands, curb bulb-outs, wide sidewalks, and streetscaping. Roundabouts, used in the
right places, are another strategy for improving driver behavior on arterial streets (see
Roundabouts). Traffic calming techniques will be different for downtown areas versus
transition areas (see Main Street Handbook).
Using traffic control devices such as signals or stop signs for traffic calming is
discouraged, as these are generally ineffective. Inappropriate use of traffic control
devices may cause safety problems and may increase conflicts and speeds due to driver
frustration or indifference. Non-uniform application of devices causes confusion among
March 2008 6-69

pedestrians and vehicle operators, prompt wrong decisions, and can contribute to
crashes. Vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle safety depends in large measure upon public
understanding and acceptance of uniform methods for efficient traffic control.
Strategies such as narrowing lanes and adding on-street parking may result in lower
speeds, but they often increase safety concerns. On-street parking increases conflicts
between the parking vehicles and bicyclists, as well as other vehicles. It also limits the
sight distance and visibility of vehicles entering the roadway from side streets and other
accesses. While on-street parking can present safety concerns, it can also act as a buffer
between the travel lanes and the sidewalk. Bulb-outs can be used to make pedestrians
more visible to the motorists at crossing points. On-street parking is appropriate for
most downtown business areas, but may not be appropriate in other areas such as
transition areas.
Posting a lower speed may be requested by some communities seeking to increase

safety. These are viewed as unrealistic by drivers and can lead to enforcement problems
and disrespect for speed limits. Simply posting a lower speed does not guarantee the
desired change or increase in safety. By applying some of the softening affects of
pedestrian amenities and landscaping, the motorists’ natural speeds are often slowed
due to the perception of a changing road culture. Striving to lower vehicular speeds
naturally using the methods described above is desirable. When a lower speed appears
reasonable to the motorist it is more readily accepted. This results in lower speeds,
reduces enforcement problems, and increases safety.
6.34 Traffic Signals
6.34.1 Approval Process
The State Traffic Engineer has been delegated the authority through Administrative
Rule to approve the installation of traffic control devices on state highways. The traffic
signal approval process is established in OAR 734-020-0400 through 734-020-0500. All
traffic signals to be installed on state highways including those in the STIP or in an
OTIA project require the approval of the State Traffic Engineer.
All submittals for approval of a traffic signal on a state highway should come through
the Region Traffic Manager. The Region Traffic Manager should submit a Traffic Signal
Approval Request Form with an Engineering Investigation to the State Traffic
Engineer.
Traffic—Roadway Section staff will review the request. One or more of the eight
Warrants identified in Section 4C of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
must be met unless the traffic signal meets the criteria for special applications. The
satisfaction of a warrant or warrants, however, is not in itself justification for a traffic
signal. The Engineering Investigation must indicate that the installation of a traffic
signal will improve the overall safety and operation of the intersection. See Warrants
for more information about warrants and the criteria for special applications.
If approved, the named intersection will be added to the Traffic Signal Approval List
and the Region Traffic Manager will receive a letter of approval signed by the State
March 2008 6-70

Traffic Engineer. The letter will include guidance regarding the proposed lane
configuration and phasing. The Traffic—Roadway Section must still approve the signal
plans and specifications for all work on State Highways. If a traffic signal is not
constructed at an approved location within five years after being put on the Traffic
Signal Approval List, the intersection will be removed from the list.
6.34.1.1 Engineering Investigation
To determine the need for a traffic signal, a comprehensive Engineering Investigation

should be undertaken. Region Traffic staff or the applicant requesting the traffic signal
may complete the investigation and Traffic Signal Approval Request Form. All
submittals of the Engineering Investigation to the State Traffic Engineer should come
from the Region Traffic Manager.
The following does not represent an exhaustive list of considerations but contains the
essential elements that should be included in the Engineering Investigation.
Justification
According to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the traffic signal warrants
are minimum conditions under which installing traffic signals might be justified. A
traffic control signal should not be installed unless the Traffic Signal Engineering
Investigation indicates that installing a traffic signal will improve the overall safety
and/or operation of the intersection. Examples of a justification statement are:
• The signal will reduce lengthy and unacceptable queues;

• The signal will reduce intersection delay;
• The signal will reduce the crash rate or severity.
In the above examples, the justification for the signal installation should be supported
by appropriate queuing analysis, capacity analysis, or crash analysis, respectively.
Since vehicular delay and the frequency of some types of crashes are sometimes greater
under traffic signal control than under STOP or YIELD control, consideration should be
given to providing alternatives to traffic signals even if one or more of the warrants and
other minimum conditions are satisfied. See Chapter 4B of the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for a list of possible alternatives. The range of alternatives
should address the primary justification for consideration of a traffic signal.
Traffic Volumes
Using a diagram of the intersection as it currently exists, provide vehicular and
pedestrian volumes for the intersection for which the traffic signal is being requested
and intersections in the surrounding area. Peak AM and PM traffic volumes, based on
14-hour count data should be provided. Describe the traffic that is actually present or
certain to be present when the traffic signal is operational. Estimate future traffic for
at least a 15-year period
March 2008 6-71

Warrants Analysis
Include the results of a traffic signal warrants analysis (for warrants see Section 4C in
the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). Satisfaction of each Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices warrant should be evaluated. Warrants 1-8 should be
evaluated for existing conditions and traffic that is actually present or certain to be
present when the traffic signal is operational. Satisfaction of Warrant 7, Crash
Experience, should be based on the three most recent calendar years for which crash
data is available. Only those crash types susceptible to correction by traffic signal
control should be considered. The Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis form should be
utilized.
When a traffic signal is part of a roadway improvement project, the request should be
based on projected volumes provided or approved by the ODOT Transportation
Planning Analysis Unit or the region’s transportation analysis unit. The Preliminary
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis form should be utilized. The analysis should
demonstrate that Warrant 1 would be met within three years after construction.
See Warrants for a description of Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices warrants
and additional considerations that may support installation of a traffic signal for special
applications.
Conceptual Design
Include a diagram or plan of the proposed intersection layout with identifying
landmarks, unique physical constraints and appropriate lane widths, curb radii, etc.
Include the following:
• Proposed lane usage and signal phasing based on analysis of current and
projected volumes, traffic patterns, and safety and operational considerations.
Refer to the ODOT Traffic Signal Policy and Guidelines.
• Current and expected posted speed after construction.
• Sight distances.
• Bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
• Conflicting accesses to be moved or closed.
• Current and proposed land uses of the area adjacent to the proposed traffic
signal.
• Railroad or light rail within 500 feet.
Safety Analysis
Identify any safety concerns and explain how they will be resolved, e.g., sight distances,
alignment, prevailing speeds (design speed for new construction or posted speed if on
system), crash histories, railroad crossings, nearby access movements, etc.
March 2008 6-72

Operational Analysis
Consider the effect of the proposed signal on existing and future traffic signals and
signal systems and existing levels of service. Consider the need to accommodate transit
and light rails and the need for a railroad interconnect.
If the proposed traffic signal is within 500 feet of a highway-rail grade crossing, provide
information on the impacts of the signal to the crossing. This should include a traffic
impact analysis of present and future traffic queues affecting the crossing. Current
requirements for crossing safety improvements can be obtained from the Rail Division,
Crossing Safety Section. The Rail Division should be contacted early in project
development.
If the proposed location is within ½ mile of an existing or possible future traffic signal
include a traffic signal progression analysis as described in OAR 734-020-0480.
Elements of a proper traffic signal progression analysis include the following for each
requested time period:
• A diagram showing the volumes used at each intersection with the year of the
projection and the hour covered
• A time space diagram labeled with the cycle length, the distance between
traffic signals, the year of projected volumes, and the hour covered. The
diagram should show the green bands for the highway and the progression
speeds.
• Supporting documentation showing the green splits and v/c ratio for each of
the movements at each of the traffic signals in the system. The inputs such as
saturation rate, heavy vehicles, etc. should also be available. This information
should be labeled to correspond with the correct time space diagram.
• A statement of the results of the study.
Transportation Plan Consistency
Provide information from pertinent transportation plans (local, regional, and state) to
demonstrate consistency between the plan and the proposed traffic signal installation.
Explain discrepancies between the plans and the proposed traffic signal installation.
Other Agency Support
Provide evidence of support of other agencies for the proposed traffic signal installation.
Provide a description of the proposed funding and maintenance agreements. Include a
description of the public input process and any key correspondence with local
jurisdiction representatives.
Application for State Highway Approach
March 2008 6-73

If the request is for a traffic signal to be constructed at a location subject to Division 51
administrative rules relating to state highway access, include a copy of the Application
for State Highway Approach, a statement regarding the status of the application, and a
copy of the Traffic Impact Study, if one is required.
6.34.1.2 Modifications
Traffic Signal modifications requiring the approval of the State Traffic Engineer should
be requested using the Traffic Signal Approval Request Form. An Engineering
Investigation that includes the applicable elements required to support the request
should be submitted. Traffic Signal Modifications approved by the Region Traffic
Manager (see Region Traffic Manager/Engineer Authority) should be documented and a
copy of the documentation forwarded to the State Traffic Engineer.
6.34.1.3 Removal
A request to remove an existing traffic signal should be submitted using the Traffic
Signal Approval Request Form. Removal of a signal requires a review of warrants,
public notification and interim control of the intersection. Other conditions may be
applicable. Details are discussed in the ODOT Traffic Signal Policy and Guidelines.
6.34.1.4 Warrants
The Section 4C of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices establishes traffic
signal warrants as follows:
• Warrant 1: Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
• Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
• Warrant 3: Peak Hour
• Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volume
• Warrant 5: School Crossing
• Warrant 6: Coordinated Signal System
• Warrant 7: Crash Experience
• Warrant 8: Roadway Network
Details are provided in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices on the analysis
required to demonstrate compliance with these warrants. One or more of the eight
warrants must be met unless the traffic signal meets the special applications criteria.
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and ODOT Traffic Signal Policy and
Guidelines provide for the installation of traffic signals that meet criteria for special
applications. These applications include providing access to fire and other emergency
vehicles, regulating the flow of traffic at a freeway ramp, controlling traffic at a
March 2008 6-74

drawbridge or at a one-lane facility, and temporary installations for construction
projects.
6.34.1.5 Temporary Traffic Signals
Temporary traffic signals are intended to be short-term installations, yet in their

appearance, design, and operation must be held to the same standards as permanent
signals. The State Traffic Engineer must approve temporary signals. The installation
of temporary signals must meet all applicable Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices and ODOT standards. Refer to the Traffic Signal Design for guidance.
6.34.2 Traffic Signal Operations
6.34.2.1 Accessible Pedestrian Signals
The Region Traffic Engineer may approve accessible pedestrian signals. Policies set
forth in the ODOT Traffic Signal Policy and Guidelines should be strictly followed. The
State Traffic Engineer must approve exceptions to the policy.
Accessible pedestrian signals may be installed at existing or approved signalized

intersections upon receipt of a request by a user needing such devices and an
engineering study that considers unique intersection characteristics, safety, noise level,
and neighborhood acceptance. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) do not
require accessible pedestrian signals; they should be considered with respect to other
funding priorities.
Accessible pedestrian signals, when provided, should be activated by a pedestrian signal

pushbutton. A one-second minimum delay to activate the accessible signal should be
provided. The accessible signal should be a “cuckoo” for north-south crossings and a
“peep” for east-west crossings. A pushbutton instruction sign with a raised arrow should
be included with the pushbutton for the signal.
6.34.2.2 Traffic Signal Design Manual
Whether ODOT staff or a consultant under contract to ODOT or another public or

private entity designs a signal, all signals to be constructed on a state highway must
meet all applicable Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and ODOT standards.
The signal design must be consistent with specific elements outlined in the signal
approval or signal modification letter. A preliminary design must be submitted to the
Traffic Standards and Asset Management Unit for review. That unit must approve the
final design.
The ODOT Traffic Signal Policy and Guidelines provide guidance on standard and
optional practices relating to signal design and operations. The Traffic Signal Design
Manual provides specific guidance on plan layout including standard drawings, and
checklists. An electronic copy of the manual can be found on the internet at the ODOT
Traffic—Roadway Section web site.
March 2008 6-75

6.34.2.3 Maintenance
The ODOT Traffic Systems Services Unit generally maintains traffic signals on state
highways. Services include annual preventive maintenance inspections of all ODOT
maintained traffic signals. Inspection checklist items guide technicians through a
systematic evaluation of the traffic signal control cabinet and its operational
components that include; field sensors, poles, signals, pushbuttons, signs and striping.
Checks inside the cabinet include; power management components, controller timing
and operation including communication, sensor operation, signal output relays, and
safeguards to prevent equipment malfunctions. Equipment inventories are updated and
entered into the Traffic Systems Information Systems (TSIS) database, which is used to
determine fleet age and locations of features such as those slated for obsolescence.
Signals on state highways within city limits or county boundaries are maintained in
accordance with agreements between the ODOT and the city or county. The agreements
define which agency is responsible for maintenance costs. Signals installed by a private
organization are maintained in accordance with an agreement or permit.
Some cities do not have the capability to maintain traffic signals. At the request of the
signal owner, ODOT may provide regular maintenance for these signals.
See also 2002 Policy Statement for Cooperative Traffic Control Projects
6.34.2.4 Timing
Initial timing of traffic signals and any subsequent change in permanent timing is the
responsibility of the Region Traffic Manager and his/her staff. Staff of the Traffic—
Roadway Section may assist if requested. Signal timing should be reevaluated on a
regular basis. Reviews should be conducted approximately every three years or more
frequently if significant development has occurred, if new signals in the immediate area
have been added, or if complaints are received from the public or ODOT staff.
Temporary timing changes can be made by certified ODOT personnel to compensate for
sudden changes in traffic conditions or malfunctioning traffic signal equipment that
cannot be repaired or replaced immediately. All temporary timing changes are to be
recorded on the timing sheet in the cabinet. The Region Traffic Manager is to be notified
of any temporary timing changes as soon as possible.
The official timing record is programmed in the controller in the cabinet at the
intersection. The cabinet should have a timing sheet that reflects the current timing in
the controller. A copy of the timing sheet should be at the Region and the Traffic—
Roadway Section.
6.34.2.5 Portable
See Section 6.41.2
March 2008 6-76

6.34.2.6 Traffic Signal Policy and Guidelines
The ODOT Traffic Signal Policy and Guidelines are for the use of individuals involved
in the design, operation or maintenance of traffic signals on the state highway system.
They are compiled and prepared by the Traffic—Roadway Section in cooperation with
the Oregon Traffic Control Devices Committee (OTCDC). An electronic copy of the policy
and guidelines can be found on the internet at the ODOT Traffic—Roadway Section web
site.
6.34.2.7 Preemption Systems
Traffic signal preemption systems are traffic control devices that interrupt the normal
operation of traffic signals to give priority or preference to special vehicles (trains,
emergency vehicles, buses, etc.). Two types of preemption systems are employed in
Oregon: failsafe systems and signal preemption device systems.
Failsafe systems are hard wired to the signal controller and operate independently of
any other signal function. The default state of a failsafe system is preemption. These
systems are used by heavy rail and drawbridge operations, and have priority over signal
preemption device systems.
Signal preemption device systems require the installation of a signal preemption device
at the intersection that reacts to a traffic control signal operating device fixed to, or
carried within, a vehicle. The default state of a signal preemption device system is
normal traffic signal operation. Emergency, transit, and traffic signal maintenance
vehicles use signal preemption device systems.
Details can be found in the ODOT Traffic Signal Policy and Guidelines and OAR 734
020-0300 through OAR 734-020-0330.
6.34.2.8 Ramp Meters
Ramp meters may be provided at any freeway entrance ramp regardless of traffic
volumes. The purposes of freeway entrance ramp control (ramp metering) include (1)
reducing merge area turbulence by regulating vehicle flow entering the facility, and (2)
regulating total freeway traffic flow through downstream bottlenecks.
There are currently no warrants for freeway entrance ramp traffic control signals,
however the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices identifies general guidelines
for successful application of ramp control. It is recommended the engineering study for
ramp meter installation include discussion of pertinent geometric elements; ramp and
mainline traffic volumes; crash history; and operating speeds, travel time and delay on
the freeway and alternate surface routes.
The Traffic Standards and Asset Management Unit must approve designs for ramp
meters. The ODOT Traffic Signal Policy and Guidelines provide guidance on standard
and optional practices relating to ramp meter design and operations. The Traffic Signal
Design provides specific guidance on plan layout including standard drawings.
March 2008 6-77

6.34.2.9 Certified Traffic Signal Inspectors (CTSI)
Effective April 1, 2005, all traffic signal and electrical construction on state highways
will require construction inspection by personnel certified by ODOT as Certified Traffic
Signal Inspectors (CTSI). The CTSI are in addition to and do not eliminate the need for
certified electrical inspection in compliance with electrical permits issued by local
agencies.
Background
ODOT Traffic—Roadway Section provides Traffic Signal Inspector Certification training
to ODOT staff, local agency staff, and consultants. Those who successfully complete the
class are certified for three years.
• Training is offered during February through April each year.
• Class locations vary according to demand, but typically classes are held in
Salem, Portland, Roseburg, and LaGrande each year
• Typically 100 to 150 people are certified each year
• Each CTSI is given a laminated pocket card listing name, certifications, and
expiration dates
A current listing of Certified Traffic Signal Inspectors (CTSI) can be found on the
internet at the ODOT Technician Certification Program web site.
The Future
The CTSI certified project inspections combined with supplemental inspections from
ODOT electricians has greatly increased the quality of electrical installations. The
requirement for a CTSI inspection includes, but is not limited to, traffic signals,
illumination, variable message signs, road and weather information systems, video
camera systems, and other intelligent transportation systems.
Consultant inspected projects (Non-permit projects)

Consultant inspectors must be CTSI certified for electrical installations. The contract
between ODOT and the Consultant should contain language requiring CTSI certified
inspectors. Amendments to current contracts should be made to include this
requirement.
Installations by Permit for Local Agencies and Developers

Local Agency or Consultant inspectors must be CTSI certified for electrical
installations. This requirement should be included in the permit given by ODOT. The
District Permitting Office shall verify this requirement prior to construction. The permit
fee should be reviewed to cover the electrician’s supplemental inspection.
March 2008 6-78

6.34.2.10 Turn On
The turn on of new or modified traffic signals will be coordinated through the Traffic
Systems Services Unit and the Region Traffic Manager. Following construction and
prior to scheduling the turn-on, ODOT electricians and a Certified Traffic Signal
Inspectors (CTSI) must complete an inspection of all signal and field wiring. Before
turn on, the contractor will be responsible for all necessary corrections prior to the
signal being placed in service.
The traffic signal turn on consists of a series of tests and checks to insure that the signal
is ready to be activated. Once the tests are satisfactorily completed, timing data is
installed and the signal is put into operation. Operation is observed during different
traffic conditions and adjustments are made as necessary.
Each ODOT Region may have specific procedures with regard to signal turn on. Often,
the Traffic—Roadway Section will provide preliminary and/or final timing. This may be
provided on timing sheets or electronically installed on the “prom board” of the
controller. Traffic—Roadway Section staff may also provide traffic signal system timing
data. Regions are expected to provide sufficient advance notice to allow for the
preparation of all timing.
Occasionally the Region Traffic Manager or Traffic Signal Manager will request the
Traffic—Roadway Section to provide for the traffic engineering functions when a new
traffic signal is placed in service. Such personnel should work closely with the Traffic
Systems Services Unit technicians and project inspectors to assure all elements of the
plans have been executed. This, in addition to proper signal timing, includes proper sign
legends, correct sign placement, proper crosswalk locations, adequate pavement
markings, etc. The correct operation of the signal should be observed for the appropriate
period(s) of the day.
6.35 Traffic Impact Studies
The Traffic—Roadway Section may be asked to review Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) as
part of the developmental review process. A TIS typically describes, in detail, how a
specific development will affect local, or perhaps, regional, transportation systems.
Many communities as well as ODOT require a TIS before highway approach permits are
granted. A TIS may also precede zoning changes, approvals of site plans or subdivision
maps, or the preparation of environmental documents. The Institute of Transportation
Engineers recommends that a TIS be prepared for any project that generates more than
100 peak hour trips, or when a development is likely to cause other significant traffic
flow impacts. ODOT has established rules covering access management issues. Specific
detail on when a TIS is required and the necessary documentation can be found in OAR
734, Division 51, and in the Development Review Guidelines available on the internet
from the ODOT Transportation Planning Section.
March 2008 6-79

6.36 Truck Routes
The authority to designate truck routes or prohibit truck operation is given to the road
authority under the provisions of ORS 810.040. On state highways the Oregon
Transportation Commission (OTC) designates truck routes. The State Traffic Engineer
has been given the authority to prohibit truck (large or heavy vehicles) operation under
the provisions of ORS 810.030. Based on the outcome of a recent Supreme Court case,
ODOT has established a procedure to guide staff and local jurisdictions in establishing
truck routes.
6.36.1 Background
Prior to 2002, designation of local truck routes was allowed per ORS 810.040
Designation of Truck Routes. In general, the statute says that a road authority can
designate any of its highways as a truck route and prohibit the operation of trucks upon
any other of its highways that serves the same route or area served by the truck route
designated.
As the result of a 2002 Supreme Court decision, ORS 810.040 has been preempted to the
extent that in an addition to receiving a delegation of state authority to proceed, the
local jurisdiction now has to also establish a bona fide safety reason to create the truck
route and that burden was not created by ORS 810.040. For decision-making purposes,
it is necessary to characterize “bona fide safety reasons” and determine how local
jurisdictions can show that designation of a local truck route is warranted.
6.36.2 Procedure
To establish a truck prohibition, a request from the Region Manager must be forwarded
to the State Traffic Engineer. The request must have the concurrence of the Motor
Carrier Services Manager and have followed the procedure outlined by the Motor
Carrier Transportation Division (MCTD). A summary of that procedure is outlined
below.
6.36.2.1 City inquires about a local truck route designation and submits letter of request
City staff meets with Region staff to discuss the request. Region staff provides city staff
with a Local Truck Route Request Packet from the MCTD which includes a flow
diagram for OTC approval, templates used to collect data, Impacts to Consider Prior to
Designating a Local Truck Route and Oregon Revised Statutes Pertaining to Truck
Routes.
Any city requesting approval from ODOT for a local truck route that diverts trucks from
a state highway shall submit a letter of request along with the completed templates.
As stated in the Background section above, before the Department approves of a local
truck route, the city must provide objective safety reasons for the designation of a local
truck route. For the purpose of this procedure, the term “safety” shall pertain to safety
associated with pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers but not structures. In the letter of
request, the city must make a plausible argument that there is a prospective safety
concern. In outlining its case, the city can refer to events and changes that occurred in
March 2008 6-80

the past (i.e. a trend in longer trucks, increase in percent of trucks) and events or
changes that will occur in the future (i.e. installation of pedestrian medians to the
highway or changes in land use). Legitimate safety issues may include factors such as
crashes involving trucks and other reasons. A map or maps should also be included in
the submittal that clearly shows the highway segment being diverted and the local
street truck route.
6.36.2.2 ODOT Region reviews application
The roles and responsibilities at the Region pertaining to the review of the local truck
route will be identified by the Region Manager. The Region needs to involve MCTD
staff in their review process. The Freight Mobility Section of ODOT should have the
opportunity to provide comments as well.
ODOT Region conducts initial screening of application. If the highway is on a State

freight route, ODOT Region staff need be aware that an amendment to the OHP will be
needed.
If application appears reasonable, the Region sends a memo to the city asking them to
prepare an LTRIP (Local Truck Route Implementation Plan) which describes what
improvements, if any, are needed to the local truck route. This effort needs to be
coordinated with ODOT Region and MCTD staff. The LTRIP is a detailed description of
all of the improvements needed to the local streets that need to occur prior to the
opening of the local truck route. The LTRIP should include a schedule as to when the
necessary street, intersection, signal improvements and truck route signage installation
will occur. During development of the LTRIP, it may be appropriate for the city to do a
limited outreach with stakeholders.
If the recommended improvements and schedule in the LTRIP are appropriate, the
ODOT Region sends a memo to the city stating so.
6.36.2.3 City meets with stakeholders to determine support for truck route
It is very important to check in with stakeholders to determine if they support the

proposal.
• Residents, local businesses
• Oregon Trucking Association
• County, MPO or other agency impacted
• Other appropriate stakeholders
6.36.2.4 City holds public hearing
City notifies public and holds a hearing on the proposed local truck route. The staff
report should include a discussion on the need for the local truck route, the impacts of
the truck route and a draft ordinance to implement the local truck route. Depending on
March 2008 6-81

the situation, a city may include in the staff report an amendment to the TSP
contingent upon the OTC’s approval of the truck route.
In the staff report, the city should indicate the reason for the local truck route and the
impacts of the truck route. It would also be helpful to identify any cost associated with
improvements needed for the truck route and estimated street maintenance costs due to
the truck route.
A draft IGA between the city and ODOT needs to be prepared. The IGA should outline
the issues to be addressed including LTRIP improvements, maintenance and
enforcement issues.
If the city council does not approve of the truck route, the Region will notify the
appropriate individuals and either file the truck route request or work with the city on
resolving the outstanding issues that ODOT has responsibility for.
6.36.2.5 Department conducts an informal check-in with stakeholders
A summary of the city’s action along with the information on the proposed local truck
route is provided to ODOT stakeholders including the Oregon Trucking Association,
county, MPO and others as appropriate.
6.36.2.6 ODOT Region prepares packet for upcoming OTC hearing
If there appears to be consensus on the request for a local truck route, the packet will be
prepared as a consent calendar item. The packet should include a summary of the
application, summary of the city’s action, summary of discussion with the stakeholders
and a map. If the highway involves a state highway freight route, an amendment to the
OHP needs to be included in the packet.
6.36.2.7 OTC approves or denies request
The request for a local truck route designation is presented. As mentioned above, the
OTC also needs to take action on the OHP amendment if the highway is part of the
State Highway Freight System.
6.36.2.8 City makes improvements to per LTRIP
After the OTC approval, the city will (if needed) complete all street, intersection and
signal improvements as described in LTRIP. Once these improvements are in place,
Region staff will review and determine if they are consistent with the LTRIP.
6.36.2.9 Truck route opens
Truck route opens after public outreach including coordination with MCTD and OTA
and truck route signage is installed. In some cases, the city may need to complete an
update of its Transportation System Plan (TSP) so that the local truck route is
consistent with the plan. Any requests for truck prohibition signing on the state
highway would be forwarded from the Region Manager to the State Traffic Engineer for
consideration.
March 2008 6-82

File Code: TRA 18
6.37 Turn Lanes
6.37.1 Left-Turn Lanes
Left turning vehicles can cause delay, have a major impact on intersection operations,
and be a source of conflict with other maneuvers. Left-turn treatments range from
prohibiting such movements, to shared lanes, to exclusive left-turn bays and two way
left-turn lanes. Left-turn treatments should be considered where turning volumes, crash
experience or general safety is of concern. For safety reasons, exclusive left-turn bays
should be considered at all high-speed rural intersections. Traffic studies have shown
exclusive left-turn bays increase safety at most intersections. On rural facilities
exclusive left-turn bays can greatly reduce rear end collisions and reduce delay to
through traffic.
See ODOT Highway Design Manual and Standard Drawings for guidance on the design
of turn treatments. The current ODOT Left Turn Lane Criteria is available on the
internet from the Transportation Planning web site that presents criteria and
considerations for when left-turn lanes may be appropriate.
The ODOT Traffic Signal Policy and Guidelines provide guidance for left-turn
signalization and warrants for phasing at intersections (see Left-Turn Signal
Warrants). Separate signal phases for left-turn movements reduce the amount of green
time available for other movements and so requires careful analyses. Also refer to
sections on Multiple Turn Lanes, Right-Turn Lanes, and Two-Way Left Turn Lanes.
Single left-turn lanes at unsignalized intersections, that meet the following, have
standing approval of the State Traffic Engineer:
• conform to current criteria
• justification is provided by an engineering investigation performed by Region

Traffic
• the Region Traffic Engineer has approved the installation
6.37.2 Multiple Turn Lanes
General policy and criteria for multiple right or left turns at highway intersections are
provided in OAR 734-020-0135 and OAR 734-020-0140 respectively. Such turns will
only be authorized on the basis of an engineering study to review any accident or safety
problems that might result. The study may include the following:
1. A capacity analysis that clearly demonstrates an improved level of service with

multiple turning movements and/or with other considerations not to lower the
level of service.
March 2008 6-83

2. An assessment of the vehicle delay or queuing on the approach under
consideration without implementation of multiple turn lanes. The approach may
be that of the local agency street or roadway system at the intersection of the
state highway.
3. Consideration of truck or other wide turning path vehicles and adequate

multiple turning lane widths.
4. Consideration of special striping or raised pavement markers (RPM) to delineate

the multiple turning movement and placement of advance signing as required.
Other considerations include the following:
• Roadway Design requires the receiving roadway to have a minimum receiving

width of 30 feet (9.1m), a width of 36 feet (11m) is preferred.
• In most cases multiple left turn lanes require protected-only left-turn phasing.
• The design of multiple turn lanes and their interaction with pedestrian
crosswalks should be carefully considered. Such consideration may include
special traffic signal displays, non-conflicting phase assignments or crosswalk
closure.
• The local jurisdiction should be notified of any multiple turn lane proposals
involving roadways under their jurisdiction.
The installation of multiple turn lanes requires the approval of the State Traffic
Engineer. The Traffic—Roadway Section maintains files on all new approved locations.
Proposed locations involving traffic on the side streets at the approach to state
highways will have as a part of the file a written notification of intent to the local
agency.
ORS 810.130(4) allows the Oregon Transportation Commission (as the road authority)
to require and direct that a different course than that specified for usual turning
movements, be traveled by vehicles at or proceeding through intersections. To make this
effective, appropriate traffic control devices (such as signs and/or pavement markings)
must be placed within or adjacent to the intersection. The usual course for turning
movements is specified in ORS 811.340, 811.345, and 811.355. Also refer to sections on
Left-Turn Lanes, Right-Turn Lanes, and Two-Way Left Turn Lanes.
File Code: TRA 07-08-02-03
6.37.3 Right-Turn Lanes
Right-turn lanes are often considered in the geometric design of intersections. Such
lanes provide storage as well as a deceleration area for vehicles to safely negotiate the
turn. The storage function is particularly useful at railroad grade crossings during
preemption of the traffic signal by rail operations. Right-turn improvements are
commonly categorized by three designs:
March 2008 6-84

1. Conventional right-turn lane without a channelizing island or a separate right-
turn roadway,
2. Channelizing island for traffic turning right without a separate right turn lane,
and
3. Separate right-turn lane and a channelizing island or provision of a channelized

free right-turn roadway.
A direct taper (a taper without any full width turn lane) may be sufficient where
through traffic volume is moderate and turning volumes are low. This treatment is not
generally used at signalized intersections. Standard design of taper offsets and lengths
are based on traffic speeds. Research has shown that a direct taper will not measurably
decrease the speed differential. It will however, reduce the exposure time for which
following vehicles will be exposed to the high-speed differential.
Adding right-turn lanes reduces crashes and the time motorists are delayed in traffic.
Regions are encouraged to add right-turn lanes at signalized intersections where
excessive pedestrian clearance times will not result. An engineering investigation
should be conducted for each site where a right-turn lane is being considered. The
investigation should include a crash history and identification of the type of crash that
might be occurring, as well as an examination of prevailing speeds, pedestrian volumes
and crossing times, and the percent of turning traffic in the total approach volume.
Sight distance, alignment and cross-section of the roadway may also be factors to
consider. Turning volumes, functional class of vehicle, and expected queue length in the
through travel lane(s) are the main consideration for the queue storage length of the
turn lane.
The use of right-turn acceleration lanes, especially in urban areas, is normally

discouraged due to the fact that drivers using these lanes must look back over their
shoulders to complete the merging move in a relatively short distance. This may be less
than half a city block, if an upstream right-turn deceleration lane exists.
See the Highway Design Manual and Standard Drawings for guidance on the design of
turn treatments. The ODOT Right-Turn Lane Criteria that presents criteria and
considerations for when right-turn lanes may be appropriate is available on the internet
from the ODOT Transportation Planning web site. The Traffic Signal Policy and
Guidelines provides guidance for right turn signalization and warrants for phasing at
intersection (see Right Turn Signal Warrants). Also refer to sections on Left-Turn
Lanes, Multiple Turn Lanes, and Two-Way Left Turn Lanes.
6.37.4 Right-Turn Acceleration Lanes
6.37.4.1 Policy overview
The Traffic—Roadway Section issued a technical bulletin in November 2007 to provide

guidance to project delivery teams and Region Access Management Engineers (RAME)
concerning criteria for consideration of right-turn acceleration lanes on state highways
as part of Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and Oregon
March 2008 6-85

Transportation Investment Act (OTIA) projects and access management issues
associated with the development review process.
Right-Turn Acceleration Lane: An added lane for right-turning vehicles joining the
traveled way of the highway from a side street for the purpose of enabling drivers to
make the necessary change between the speed of operation on the highway and the
lower speed of the turning movement.
Rural Expressway: A subset of state highway classifications that are defined in the
Oregon Highway Plan and located outside of city limits. Their purpose is to provide for
high speed, high volume travel between cities and connections to ports and major
recreation areas with minimal interruptions.
Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio: The ratio of traffic flow rate to capacity of the road to
handle that traffic flow, calculated using the ODOT Analysis Procedures Manual
methodology
6.37.4.3 Explanation of policy
the State Traffic Engineer and State Roadway Engineer with the authority to install
traffic control devices (State Traffic Engineer) and determine roadway design standards
(State Roadway Engineer) on state highways. The Traffic Operations Leadership Team
(TOLT) and Roadway Leadership Team (RLT) have become concerned that project
teams have been requesting design exceptions for non-standard acceleration lanes as
part of STIP and OTIA projects. Additionally, developers have been requesting right-
turn acceleration lanes as mitigation to traffic impacts associated with residential and
commercial development along state highways.
6.37.4.4 Action required
In response to these concerns, both the TOLT and RLT, in consultation with the
Transportation Planning Analysis Unit, have developed the following criteria for when
right-turn acceleration lanes can be considered (all of the criteria must be satisfied):
1. The posted speed on the main highway shall be 45 MPH or greater.
2. The V/C ratio of the right-turn movement without the acceleration lane shall
exceed the maximum value listed in Tables 6 and 7 of the OHP for the corresponding
highway category and location.
a. Exception 2a: If trucks represent at least 10% of all right-turning vehicles

entering the highway, then the V/C criteria may be waived.
March 2008 6-86

b. Exception 2b: If substandard sight distance exists at an intersection or right-
turning vehicles must enter the highway on an ascending grade of greater than 3%,
then the V/C criteria may be waived.
c. Exception 2c: If crash data in the vicinity of the intersection shows a history of
crashes at or beyond the intersection attributed to right-turning vehicles entering the
highway, then the V/C criteria may be waived.
3. The peak hour volume of right-turning vehicles from the side street onto the
state highway shall be at least 10 vehicles/hour for Rural Expressways and 50
vehicles/hour for all other highways.
4. No other access points or reservations of access shall exist on either side of the
highway within the design length, taper, and downstream from the end of the taper
within the decision sight distance, based on the design speed of the highway.
a. Exception 4a: If positive separation between opposing directions of traffic exist

such as raised medians or concrete barriers, then access control is only needed in the
direction of the proposed acceleration lane.
The State Traffic Engineer shall determine if a right-turn acceleration lane proposal
meets the above criteria. Proposals should be submitted to the State Traffic Engineer
and include an engineering investigation with data supporting the above criteria and a
drawing encompassing the intersection and design length of the acceleration lane
showing all access points and reservations of access to the highway. Only proposals for
right-turn acceleration lanes from public streets will be considered. If the State Traffic
Engineer determines that a right-turn acceleration lane proposal meets the above
criteria, the proposal will be forwarded to the State Roadway Engineer for consideration
of design standards. All right-turn acceleration lane proposals shall require the joint
approval of the State Traffic Engineer and State Roadway Engineer.
Special consideration should be given to cyclists and pedestrians. Acceleration lanes

create an unexpected condition for both pedestrians and cyclists. Every reasonable effort
should be made to create conditions that make the crossing safer and easier for
pedestrians and cyclists. The acceleration lane shall be designed in accordance with the
drawing “Right Turn Acceleration Lane From At Grade Intersection” found in the
Highway Design Manual.
The signing and pavement markings for the acceleration lane shall be according to
standards found in the Traffic Line Manual.
Free-flow acceleration lanes may be considered in rural or suburban areas provided the
turning radius is tightened and the angle of approach is kept as close to a right angle as
possible. These combined elements will force right-turning drivers to slow down and
look ahead, where pedestrians and bicyclists may be present, before turning and
accelerating onto the roadway.
March 2008 6-87

6.37.4.5 Implementation of policy
The implementation of this policy will be closely monitored by Traffic—Roadway Section

staff, the TOLT, and RLT. Any revisions will be based on feedback from the Region
Technical Centers, the TOLT, and RLT.
6.37.5 Shared (or combined) Bike and Right-Turn Lane
Several cities in Oregon have been using shared bike and right-turn lanes with good
results, and ODOT has been experimenting with them. Shared bike and right turn
lanes are used where widening an intersection is not possible due to physical, right-of
way or financial constraints. The use of the shared lanes is generally limited to
locations where right-turn speeds and volumes are fairly low. In locations with higher
volumes and speeds of turning vehicles, widening the intersection to include bike lane to
the left of the right-turn lane may be necessary.
On preservation projects with bike lanes, where it may be outside the scope of the
project to widen the intersection, shared lanes may be considered to carry the bicycle
lane through the intersection. A shared lane is not the preferred design, but it provides
some direction to both motorists and bicyclists. Decisions regarding the use of shared
bike lanes should be made only after a careful examination of the facts. The following
factors need to be considered:
• The shared lanes may not be suitable for use at signalized intersections and
should not be used where there is separate right-turn signalization.
• The use of the shared lanes should be limited to locations where turning
vehicle speeds are close to the speed of the bicycles.
Shared lanes at state highway intersections require Region investigation and approval
by the State Traffic Engineer.
6.37.6 Two-Way Left Turn Lanes and Painted Medians
6.37.6.1 Definitions
A two-way left turn lane (also known as a TWLTL, special left turn lane or continuous
two-way left-turn lane, CTWLTL) is a type of median reserved for the exclusive use of
vehicles turning left. The TWLTL shall not be used for passing and overtaking or travel
by a driver except to make a left turn (ORS 811.345 and 811.346).
A painted median or continuous median island is similar in appearance to a two-way

left turn lane except the median or island is formed by two sets of double solid yellow
lines separating travel in opposite directions. The two sets of double solid yellow lines
designating a painted median or continuous median island provide guidance to drivers
that vehicles are not to use the median or island for turning movements or as a travel
lane. (See Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Section 3B.03)
March 2008 6-88

6.37.6.2 Practices
TWLTL’s are used in areas where crashes, primarily caused by left turning vehicles, are
correctable or where turning movements from the through lane are decreasing capacity
of the facility. These areas are usually characterized by frequent accesses. If TWLTL’s
are considered in higher speed areas, caution should be taken to assure that vehicles
using the TWLTL are unlikely to meet head-on at high speeds (spacing and location of
accesses are critical). TWLTL’s emphasize access and can encourage direct connections
to the highway. A non-traversable median with openings at select local streets can
encourage private access to the local street system. See the Highway Design Manual for
further discussion of medians.
In most cases a non-traversable (curbed or depressed medians) are superior to a TWLTL

in terms of safety and operation. On arterials with higher volumes (above 20,000 ADT)
and frequent access, it may be advantageous to consider a non-traversable median,
rather than a TWLTL. On higher volume or higher speed roadways the TWLTL loses much
of its safety advantage, which the non-traversable medians retain.
On facilities with existing TWLTL’s, the median should not be converted to a painted median
until all private accesses have been removed. This is generally only true on limited access
highways.
Also refer to sections on Left-Turn Lanes, Multiple Turn Lanes, and Right-Turn Lanes.
File Code: TRA 07-08 / LEG 10
6.37.6.3 Pavement Markings
See 6.22.4
6.37.6.4 Signs
See Sign Policy and Guidelines for the State Highway System
6.38 Turn Prohibitions
The State Traffic Engineer, in consultation with the Region Manager, has been
delegated the authority to approve turn prohibitions involving the use of traffic control
devices. This includes designating intersections where turns are prohibited in any
direction, signalized or unsignalized, but does not include intersections where raised
medians are used as a positive means of enforcing the allowable movements. An
engineering investigation is required. OAR 734-020-0020 describes the warranting
conditions for turn prohibitions and section 2B.19 in the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices describes the use of turn prohibition signs.
Posting of advance public notice of an impending traffic control change is suggested

when making changes to existing intersections. Installing a sign in advance of the
prohibited turn is critical.
March 2008 6-89

Candlesticks (28” Tubular Markers) may be installed along a centerline at a five-foot
spacing to further discourage a turn movement or direct crossing of the centerline.
Expect higher maintenance if the candlesticks are not placed on a mountable curb or
there is not a raised median in place.
6.39 U-turns at Signalized Intersections
In Oregon U-turns are prohibited at signalized intersection unless otherwise posted.

The State Traffic Engineer has been delegated the authority to designate specific
signalized intersections at which U-turns may be permitted. Refer to ORS 810.130(3),
ORS 811.365, Sign Policy and Guidelines for the State Highway System, OAR 734-020
0025, and Delegated Authority in this manual for guidelines and criteria. Investigations
into permitting U-turns at signalized intersections should be provided by ODOT Region
offices. The investigation should be based on the above criteria and forwarded to the
Traffic—Roadway Section for consultation and approval.
Criteria required to be met by OAR 734-020-0025 include the following:
• The turning radii are adequate.
• The signal operation consists of three or more phases, with protected only left
turn phasing.
• The turning movement is possible with a reasonable degree of safety.
• A traffic engineering investigation shows the need for the U-turn movement.
In December, 1996, the following policy was adopted in accordance with ORS
810.130(3), ORS 810.200, and ORS 811.365:
• U-turns may be permitted for all vehicles at a signalized intersection if a 62

foot (18.9 meter) width (measured from the right edge of the left turn lane to
curb) for turning exists. This requires approval of the State Traffic Engineer.
Each location shall be posted with sign number OR3-12, “U TURN
PERMITTED.”
• U-turns may be permitted for all vehicles except trucks at a signalized

intersection if a 52 to 61.5 foot (15.8 to 18.7 meter) width (measured from the
right edge of the left turn lane to curb) for turning exists. This requires
approval of the State Traffic Engineer. Each location shall be posted with sign
number OR 3-12, “U TURN PERMITTED” and sign number R5-2, the No
Trucks symbol sign.
• U-turns may be permitted at other locations upon approval by the State

Traffic Engineer. Signing for these signalized intersections will be determined
by the State Traffic Engineer.
(Source: Sign Policy and Guidelines for the State Highway System)
March 2008 6-90

U-turns are often considered in areas where access management goals require closure of
highway medians. Provision for U-turns can minimize out-of-direction travel.
6.40 Visibility
Visibility distance for traffic control devices is closely related to sight distance and the
primary consideration for placement of traffic control devices. The Manual of Traffic
Control Devices (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) contains visibility
requirements for many traffic control devices. Although there are some set criteria for
visibility of traffic control devices, it is still more of an art than a science.
There are many considerations when placing traffic control devices. Critical elements
are vertical and lateral placement, as determined by typical driver eye position. The
geometry of the roadway, including vertical and horizontal alignments, design speed for
the facility and obstructions should all be considered. Where requirements of the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices cannot be met, suitable supplemental
devices may be used to warn the approaching traffic. Traffic control devices should be
placed so that they do not obscure each other or are hidden by obstructions. Traffic
control devices requiring decisions by the driver should be visible from a sufficient
distance or placed sufficiently prior to the decision point so the required decision may be
made and safely acted upon.
6.41 Work Zones
6.41.1 Analysis
6.41.1.1 Overview
The Traffic—Roadway Section serves as an internal consultant for ODOT construction

projects by providing recommendations on lane usage, detours, signal timing, staging,
and feasibility of project plans.
The following topics are typical of work zone questions:
• How many lanes will be required to accommodate existing traffic?
• What is the maximum closure length permitted?
• When will lane closures be permitted?
• Will night work be necessary?
• Can a roadway be closed?
• If a roadway can be closed, during what times and for how long?
• What detours are available and acceptable?
March 2008 6-91

• What time of the year can a project be undertaken?
• What impact will a construction project have on the local infrastructure?
As one may assume from the topics listed above, Project Teams (PT) will generally
require some traffic analysis, no matter how small the project. Traffic—Roadway
Section duties as an internal consultant become a major concern on all projects where
staging and/or detours become necessary.
For such projects, delays can be reduced by the PT requesting an analysis at early
stages of the design process. For example, construction projects between Salem and
Portland on Interstate 5 must contend with high Average Daily Traffic (ADT), resulting
in complicated staging, which will in turn require extensive analysis to determine if the
staging will work without lengthy and costly delays to the traveling public.
6.41.1.2 Procedures
There are a number of questions that arise where standard traffic analysis methods do
not give either meaningful or practical answers. Any questions that can be answered by
standard analysis techniques are detailed under the Capacity Analysis section of this
manual and will not be dealt with here.
The Highway Capacity Manual is used where applicable, but little concrete research
has been done on traffic flow patterns and capacities under construction conditions.
Those studies that have been undertaken apply only to freeway conditions. Further,
since the individual geometric characteristics of each project and the traffic conditions of
the surrounding area are all unique to each project, it is doubtful that any fixed
standard will ever be available.
Theoretic calculations for some common conditions have been made and may be used as
a starting point for analysis and are listed below:
Lane Capacity
1. Freeways, 1400 PCE (Passenger Car Equivalents)
2. Multi-lane, 1400 PCE
3. Rural (By Closure Length)
a. 2 miles, (3.2 km), 550 PCE
b. 1 mile, (1.6 km), 750 PCE
c. ½ mile, (0.8 km), 900 PCE
Temporary Closures
Maximum of 75 cars in queue or 20 minutes duration. (Refer to Standard Specifications
for Highway Construction)
March 2008 6-92

Self-Regulating One Way Operations:
Maximum ADT of 500 vehicles.
Standard Holiday Restrictions:

Standard Holiday Restrictions are required on all highways that typically show an
increase in traffic due to holiday associated activities. Such restrictions are typically
required for roadways that show high seasonal fluctuations. The standard holidays are
as follows:
• New Years Day
• Memorial Day
• Independence Day
• Labor Day
• Thanksgiving Day
• Christmas
Holidays that fall on a Monday have restrictions from the preceding Friday at noon
through midnight of the following Monday/Tuesday evening. Holidays that fall during
the workweek have restrictions that run from the noon of the day before to midnight of
the holiday. For those holidays that fall on a Friday, restrictions extend from noon the
Thursday before, to midnight of the following Sunday/Monday evening.
Standard Weekend Restrictions

Standard weekend restrictions are required on those highways that show a strong
weekend, recreational character. Such restrictions are generally required by those
roadways that serve recreational attractions. Work restrictions run from Friday at noon
to midnight of the following Sunday/Monday evening.
Standard Commuter Restrictions

Standard commuter restrictions are required on highways that are used as commuter
routes. Work restrictions run from 7:00 - 9:00 AM and 4:00 - 6:00 PM.
6.41.2 Portable Traffic Signals
A portable traffic signal is a temporary signal that can be set up without a permanent
foundation. There are several types of installations, including temporary poles, trailer-
mounted units and self-supporting units. They may be powered by electrical hook-up,
battery, solar or some combination of power sources. For portable signals approved for
use, by type of use, see the ODOT Qualified Products List (QPL) published by the ODOT
Construction Section.
March 2008 6-93

6.41.2.1 Construction/Overnight Use
A device that complies with the adopted guidelines for portable traffic signals found in
OAR 734-020-0034 may be used at intersections or for construction projects or other
situations where a temporary signal is needed for 24 hours or longer. Use of a portable
signal requires the approval of the State Traffic Engineer. All such devices are subject
to testing by the Traffic Systems Services Unit and shall be certified as having passed
ODOT laboratory tests. Timing of all signal intervals must be approved by the Region
Traffic Engineer, State Traffic Engineer or designated representative.
6.41.2.2 Temporary Work Zone Use
A device that meets the specifications for temporary portable signals for work zones in
TM Drawings No. 113, 114, and 115 and the policy and guidelines contained in the
Oregon Temporary Traffic Control Handbook may be used for controlling a lane closure
on two-lane, two-way highways in work zones or other areas where use is limited to less
than 24 hours at a time. This is a pilot program at this time. Only approved devices on
the QPL may be used. A special permit is required for contractor or utility use on state
highways. The timing and inspection of the signal installation is subject to the
specifications and the terms of the permit. For state forces work, the Region Traffic
Engineer or designated representative will approve the timing and installation. The
specifications and drawings are available from the Traffic—Roadway Section.
6.41.3 Oregon Temporary Traffic Control Handbook
This Oregon Temporary Traffic Control Handbook provides a reference for the
principles and standards for temporary traffic control zones in place continuously for
three days or less on public roads in Oregon. It is based on the principles set forth in
Part 6 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and is an Oregon Supplement
to the MUTCD.
For work requiring devices in place longer than three days, a site specific traffic control
plan based on the principles in Part 6 of the MUTCD is required. In addition, OR-OSHA
has the authority to set and enforce worker safety standards.
This handbook is applicable to all public roads in Oregon. Each road jurisdiction (City,
County, or State) may have additional or more restrictive requirements, and will
generally require permits to work in their public right of-way. The appropriate road
jurisdiction should be contacted prior to planning or beginning any work within their
jurisdiction.
The primary function of temporary traffic control is to provide safe and efficient
movement of road users through or around work zones while protecting workers and
emergency response personnel. There are safety concerns for workers while setting up
and taking down traffic control zones. As a result, this document is based on the
premise that simplified traffic control procedures are warranted for shorter term
activities.
March 2008 6-94

7 APPENDICES
7.1 Definitions
Ball-bank Indicator - A curved level, which is used to determine the safe speed
around a curve, as indicated by trial speed runs. The indicator measures the centrifugal
force on the vehicle. The ball-bank indicator is designed to show the combined effect of
the vehicle body roll angle, the centrifugal force, and the superelevation angle of the
roadway.
Bench Repair - Repairs made to signal control equipment in a shop that specializes in
the repair and testing of traffic signal control equipment.
Bicycle lane - [ORS 801.155] That part of the highway, adjacent to the roadway,
designated by official signs or markings for use by persons riding bicycles except as
specifically provided by law.
Bicycle path - [ORS 801.160] A public way, not part of a highway, that is designated
by official signs or markings for use by persons riding bicycles except as specifically
provided by law.
Bottleneck - A link (or section) in a transportation system having a maximum carrying

capacity significantly less than the adjoining links. A link represents a continuous
section between major nodes. Major nodes may include interchanges (or specific
entrance or exit ramps) on controlled access highways and transitways, public road
intersections on non-controlled access highways, and guideway junctions on fixed
guideway systems. Major nodes on any system may also be defined as a point of
geometric change, such as in vertical or horizontal alignment, lane width, etc., which
results in significantly reduced operating characteristics. The capacity of the link
downstream from the bottleneck must be equal to, or greater than that of the upstream
link.
Capacity - The maximum number of vehicles (vehicle capacity) or passengers (person

capacity) that can pass over a given section of roadway or transit line in one or both
directions during a given period of time under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions.
Category - Used to prioritize emergency traffic signal maintenance response consistent

with intersection Level of Service (LOS) on file when traffic signal is in flash condition.
The LOS is calculated using the Department’s unsignalized intersection capacity
analysis program UNSIG10 or determined by the region traffic manager based on prior
experience with operations under flash conditions at the intersection. Categories are as
follows:
Category 1: (Highest level of response) Intersections operating at LOS F when in flash

condition during the 8th highest hour of the day. This condition requires a high priority
response to a trouble call.
March 2008 7-1

Category 2: (Intermediate level of response) Intersections operating at LOS F when in
flash condition during the peak traffic hour but not during the 8th highest hour of the
day. This condition requires a response to a trouble call after all Category 1 emergency
responses and before any Category 3 emergency responses.
Category 3: (Lowest level of response) Typically remote location intersections operating

at LOS E or better in flash condition during the peak traffic hour of the day. Response
to a trouble call will be made after all higher priority (Category 1 or 2) emergency
responses.
Commercial vehicle - [ORS 801.210] A vehicle that: (1) is used for the
transportation of persons for compensation or profit; or (2) is designated or used
primarily for the transportation of property.
Crossover - A roadway crossing the median and located generally at right angles to,
between and connecting the inside or median shoulders of the separate through
roadways of a freeway.
Crosswalk - [ORS 801.220] Any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere

that is distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the
surface of the roadway that conform in design to the standards established for
crosswalks under ORS 810.200. Whenever marked crosswalks have been indicated, such
crosswalks and no other shall be deemed lawful across the roadway at that intersection.
Where no marked crosswalk exists, a crosswalk is that portion of the roadway described
in the following:
(1) Where sidewalks, shoulders or a combination thereof exists, a crosswalk is the

portion of a roadway at an intersection, not more than 20 feet (ED. approximately 6
meters) in width as measured from the prolongation of the lateral line of the roadway
toward the prolongation of the adjacent property line, that is included within:
(a) The connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks, shoulders or a combination
thereof on opposite sides of the street or highway measured from the curbs, or in the
absence of curbs, from the edges of the traveled roadway; or
(b) The prolongation of the lateral lines of a sidewalk, shoulder or both, to the sidewalk
or shoulder on the opposite side of the street, if the prolongation would meet such
sidewalk or shoulder.
(2) If there is neither sidewalk nor shoulder, a crosswalk is that portion of the roadway
at an intersection, measuring not less than six feet (ED. 1.8 meters) in width, that would
be included within the prolongation of the lateral lines of the sidewalk, shoulder or both
on the opposite side of the street or highway if there were a sidewalk.
DUII - Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants. (See Impaired Driving Victim
Memorial Signing.)
March 2008 7-2

Emergency - For traffic signal maintenance, a situation that seriously impedes the
flow of traffic or is a serious hazard to the public. Listed below are some examples that
should be classified as emergency situations. These are high priority responses.
• Traffic signal knock down (poles, cabinet, etc.)
• All signal indications out
• Confusing indications
• Category 1 intersections in flash operation
Emergency Call Out - For traffic signal maintenance, a high priority response.
Emergency vehicle - [ORS 801.260] A vehicle that is equipped with lights and sirens
as required under ORS 820.350 and 820.370 and that is any of the following:
1. Operated by public police, fire or airport security agencies.
2. Designated as an emergency vehicle by a federal agency.
3. Designated as an emergency vehicle by the Director of Transportation.
Failsafe preemption system - preemption systems that are hard wired to the signal
controller and operate independently of any other signal function. The default state of a
failsafe system is preemption.
Freeway - A fully access controlled throughway.
Freeway Median - The space between inside shoulders of the separated one-way
roadways of a divided highway (typically separating opposing directions of travel).
Highway - [ORS 801.305] Every public way, road, street, thoroughfare and place,
including bridges, viaducts and other structures within the boundaries of this state,
open, used or intended for use of the general public for vehicles or vehicular traffic as a
matter of right.
Intersection - [ORS 801.320] The area of the roadway created when two or more
roadways join together at any angle, as described in one of the following:
(1) If the roadways have curbs, the intersection is the area embraced within the
prolongation or connection of the lateral curb lines.
(2) If the roadways do not have curbs, the intersection is the area embraced within the
prolongation or connection of the lateral boundary lines of the roadways.
(3) The junction of an alley with a roadway does not constitute an intersection.
(4) Where a highway includes two roadways 30 feet (ED. 9.1 meters) or more apart, then
every crossing of each roadway of the divided highway by an intersection highway is a
March 2008 7-3

separate intersection. In the event the intersection highway also includes two roadways
30 feet (ED. 9.1 meters) or more apart, then every crossing of two roadways of such
highways is a separate intersection.
Median – A continuous divisional island which separates opposing traffic and may be
used to separate left turn traffic from through traffic in the same direction as well.
Medians may be designated by pavement markings, curbs, guideposts, pavement edge
or other devices. (See also Non-Traversable Medians and Traversable Medians)
Non-Emergency - For traffic signal maintenance, a situation, which does not seriously
impede the flow of traffic and does not appear to pose a serious problem to the public as
determined by the Region Traffic Manager. These are regular work priority responses
and are responded to as resources are available. Listed below are some examples that
should be classified as non-emergency situations.
• A single indicator of a dual indication movement burned out
• Damaged signal hardware (intersection still functioning)
• Stuck pedestrian push button
• Malfunctioning vehicle detector
Non-Traversable Medians – Medians that are designed to impede traffic from

crossing the median. Examples include curbed medians or concrete barrier medians,
also included are depressed grass or landscaped medians.
Occupancy - (1) The amount of time motor vehicles are present in a detection zone
expressed as a percent of total time. This parameter is used to describe vehicle density,
a measure of highway congestion.
(2) The number of passengers in a vehicle, which when used in conjunction with
vehicular volume, provides information on the total number of persons accommodated
on a transportation link or within a transportation corridor.
On Call - Personnel designated by the TSSU manager, Region Traffic manager, District
manager, or Region manager to be on call and prepared to respond to traffic signal
trouble calls 24 hours a day 7 days a week.
OR Route - A Route system established and regulated by the Oregon Transportation

Commission to facilitate travel on main highways throughout the state. Not all OR
Routes are on state highways and not all state highways have an OR route number.
Principal Arterial (Urban, Controlled Access) - A street or highway in an urban

area which has been identified as unusually significant to the area in which it lies in
terms of the nature and composition of travel it serves. The principal arterial system is
divided into three groups: Interstate freeways; other freeways and expressways; and
other principal arterials (with no control of access).
March 2008 7-4

Principal arterials should form a system serving major centers of activity, the highest
traffic volume corridors, and the longest trip desires; and should carry a high proportion
of the total urban area travel on a minimum of mileage.
Qualified Personnel - ODOT personnel are certified for the types of signal work being
performed in the control cabinets. There are four levels of certification administered by
TSSU that are required in order to perform work on traffic signal control equipment in
the field. A higher level certification qualifies a person to perform the maintenance and
operations functions of a lower level certification.
Region Traffic Engineer / Manager - Registered Professional Engineer, or person

working under direct supervision of a Registered Professional Engineer, responsible for
traffic operations in the Region. Actual position titles may vary from region to region.
Region Electrical Supervisor - Person responsible for electrical maintenance in the

Region or District.
Road authority - [ORS 801.445] The body authorized to exercise authority over a
road, highway, street or alley under ORS 810.010.
Roadway - [ORS 801.450] The portion of a highway that is improved, designed or

ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the shoulder. In the event a highway
includes two or more separate roadways the term “roadway” shall refer to any such
roadway separately, but not to all such roadways collectively.
Signal mounted preemption systems - Preemption systems that require the

installation of a traffic signal-structure-mounted preemption detector, which reacts to a
remote triggering device. The default state of a signal-mounted system is normal signal
operation.
Shoulder - [ORS 801.480] The portion of a highway, whether paved or unpaved,

contiguous to the roadway that is primarily used by pedestrians, for the accommodation
of stopped vehicles, for emergency use and for lateral support of base and surface
courses.
Special Event - Any planned activity that brings together a community or group of
people for an expressed purpose, including, but not limited to, parades, bicycle races,
road runs and filming activity that may result in total or partial closure of state
highways or state highway sections.
State Highway - The State Highway System as designated by the Oregon

Transportation Commission, including the Interstate system.
State Highway Index Number – An Oregon Transportation Commission approved

identifier assigned to a highway. Every state highway has a state highway index
number, commonly referred to as a State Highway Number.
State Highway Name – An Oregon Transportation Commission approved name used

in conjunction with a State Highway Index Number to identify a state highway.
March 2008 7-5

Throughway - [ORS 801.524] Every highway, street or roadway in respect to which
owners or occupants of abutting lands and other persons have no legal right of access to
or from the same except at such points only and in such manner as may be determined
by the road authority having jurisdiction over the highway, street or roadway.
Traffic control device - [ORS 801.540]
1. Any sign, signal, marking or device placed, operated or erected by authority

under ORS 810.210 for the purpose of guiding, directing, warning or regulating
traffic.
2. Any device that remotely controls by electrical, electronic, sound or light signal
the operation of any device identified in subsection (1) of this section and
installed or operated under authority of ORS 810.210.
3. Any stop sign that complies with specifications adopted under ORS 810.200 that
is held or erected by a member of a highway maintenance or construction crew
working in the highway.
Traffic Management Program - A systematic process that collects and analyzes

traffic operation information on a real time basis and provides for implementation of
one or more of the following, reasonably available operational management strategies:
• Traffic surveillance and control systems
• Motorists information systems
• Transit information systems
• Freeway ramp metering
• Traffic control centers
• Computerized traffic signal systems
• High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) ramp meter bypass lanes
• Bus bypass (queue jump) lanes
• Park and ride facilities
• Access management techniques
• Incident management systems and equipment
Traversable Medians – Medians that are typically built to provide a separation

between opposing traffic but do not impede traffic from crossing the median. Examples
include painted islands such as two-way left-turn lanes.
March 2008 7-6

Trouble Call - A call from an emergency response center, the police, a citizen, etc.,
reporting a malfunctioning traffic signal.
US Route - A Route system established by the US Congress to facilitate travel on main

highways throughout the nation. This route system is regulated by an AASHTO
committee.
March 2008 7-7

7.2 Forms
Previous editions of the ODOT Traffic Manual included various forms in the Appendix
of the manual. The ODOT Traffic—Roadway Section is in the process of automating
many of its forms and posting them on the internet to the ODOT Traffic—Roadway
Section web site. For specific information about a particular form, check the
information listed below. If the form is not listed, contact the ODOT Traffic—Roadway
Section for more information.
7.2.1 Signs
The ODOT Roadside Inventory Form for “Signs” (F) is available on the internet in the
Highway Design Manual, Appendix D published by ODOT Technical Services.
7.2.2 Preliminary Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Contact the Traffic Operations Engineer in the ODOT Traffic—Roadway Section for a
copy of this form.
7.2.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Contact the Traffic Operations Engineer in the ODOT Traffic—Roadway Section for a
copy of this form.
7.2.4 Traffic Signal Approval Request Form
This form is available on the internet from the ODOT Traffic—Roadway Section web
site.
7.2.5 Worksheet for Determining the Need for a Reduced Speed Zone for
Work Zones
site.
7.2.6 Parking Prohibition Request Form
site.
March 2008 7-8

7.3 Files
The Administrative Management Section maintains files for use by the Traffic—
Roadway Section. These files include Subject Files with appropriate coding to
differentiate between files. The two main codes used for Traffic—Roadway Section
documents in the Subject Files are TRA (Traffic Engineering and Safety) and TSO
(Transportation Systems Operations). The major codes in these files are listed below.
Individual files often contain extensive additional levels of code beyond those listed.
Code Topic
TRA 01 Traffic Engineering Policies and Procedures
TRA 02 Highway Information Tracking Systems
TRA 03 Accident Analysis
TRA 04 Traffic Accidents – Monthly Accident Data-State Police
TRA 05 Traffic Congestion Management System (CMS)
TRA 06 Load Limitations
TRA 07 TRA 07-01 Parking
TRA 07-02 State Speed Control Board (SSCB)
TRA 07-08 Channelization
TRA 07-11 Crosswalk and Safety Islands
TRA 07-12 Railroad Crossings
TRA 07-13 School Crossings
TRA 07-14 Walkways/Sidewalks/Footpaths
TRA 08 (Not Active)
TRA 09 Photo-log System/Road Log
TRA 10 Traffic Safety
TRA 11 National Trails
TRA 12 Special Equipment
TRA 13 Traffic Operations Program
March 2008 7-9

Code Topic
TRA 14 Vehicle Miles and Ton Miles
TRA 15 Traffic Studies
TRA 16 TRA 16-01 Illumination
TRA 16-02 Pavement Markings
TRA 16-03 Curb Markers
TRA 16-04 Traffic Control Signs
TRA 16-05 Speed Zoning
TRA 16-06 Signals
TRA 16-07 Testing and Research of Traffic Control Devices
TRA 16-08 Median/Shoulder Barriers
TRA 16-09 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
TRA 16-10
TRA 16-11 Barricades
TRA 17 Highway Map Revisions
TRA 18 Road Inventory
TRA 19 Road Life Studies
TRA 20 Vehicle Safety and Equipment
TRA 21 Vehicle Inspections
TRA 22 Vehicle and Traffic Safety
TRA 23 Directional and Informational Signing
TRA 24 Logo Signing
TRA 25 TODS
TRA 26 Interstate Cultural and Historical Signs
TRA 27 Brown Sign Program
March 2008 7-10

Code Topic
TRA 28 Southern Oregon Regional Signing Study
TRA 29 Travel Publications
TRA 30 Grants of Access
TSO 01 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) – General
TSO 02 ITS Reference Material – General
TSO 03 ITS Organizations
TSO 04 ITS Standards and Specifications
TSO 05 ITS Vendor Information
TSO 06 ITS Planning
TSO 08 ITS
TSO 09 ITS
TSO 10 ITS Projects
March 2008 7-11

7.4 Crash Analysis
Note: the Traffic—Roadway Section is currently working on a "Safety Investigations

Manual" that will replace this Appendix with more updated and useful material.
7.4.1 Overview
Crash analysis is an important traffic engineering tool used to answer questions and to
determine what questions to ask. The choice and arrangement of the data depend
heavily upon the nature of the question, availability of pertinent data, and time
available.
The principle of crash analysis is to identify the patterns of crash types which will lead
to identification of solutions. Dominant crash types provide the most reliable guide to
the remedial action since they are likely to be indicative of some problem. Crashes are
generally a rare event and the patterns exhibited by crash tend to vary greatly so
statistical techniques are required to help differentiate between true differences in
crash data and the routine variation that should be expected in normal operations.
References that are useful for crash analysis include:
1. Traffic Engineering Handbook, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1992.

This book includes a discussion of crash analysis and its applications. There are
examples for some of the applications.
2. Manual of Transportation Engineering Studies, Institute of Transportation

Engineers, 1994. This book goes into much more detail that is useful for gathering and
organizing data for analysis. Several useful examples are given for applying principles
of statistics to traffic engineering. This may be a good reference for someone being
introduced to the application of statistics.
Crash analysis data sources are discussed in Section 6.5.2. (Metric equivalents for
information provided in the following discussion were not available.)
7.4.2 Crash Summaries
An easy way to diagnosis crash problems is to create tables that sort crashes into
general types to help visualize driver’s performance on part of a roadway. Crashes can
be summarized according to a range of environmental or other characteristics such as:
• By type and or severity of crash
• By vehicle movements
• By contributing circumstances
• By environmental conditions
• Light, weather, surface condition
March 2008 7-12

• By time of day
Various proportions, e.g., percentage of daytime crashes, can be compared to tallies such
as in Summary of Oregon Traffic Crashes, and summaries generated by the SPIS Crash
Summary Database for similar or extended sections of highway. The Traffic—Roadway
Section has created a simple tool to create summaries of crash data on the ODOT
intranet for any state highway.
7.4.3 Collision Diagrams
A collision diagram is a schematic representation of all crashes occurring on a simple

plan view at a given location. Each collision at the site is represented by a set of arrows
one for each vehicle or pedestrian involved and may display a variety of data about each
crash such as:
• Date and time
• Environmental conditions
• Severity
• Vehicle directions and original position
The collision diagram is very helpful for identifying patterns or movements that are key
problems at a location. The Transportation Data Section has developed a beta test
version of a desktop collision diagramming software which should be available in the
fall of 2003. Collision diagram can also be requested from the Crash Analysis and
Reporting Unit.
7.4.4 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Analysis
GIS has the ability to display spatial data in map format. Since the ODOT GIS Unit
produces a map file of all crashes on the state highway system, it is possible to overlap a
variety of other variables that are mapped and studied to recognize patterns correlating
to the following attributes:
• Curves
• Speed limits
• Other road inventory or features
• Alcohol-related (bars)
Contact the Highway Safety Engineering Coordinator for more information on this
topic.
March 2008 7-13

7.4.5 Statistical Techniques
A variety of statistical techniques are available to estimate depending on the question

that is to be answered. Please contact the Highway Safety Engineer for assistance.
7.4.6 Crash Rates
Section Crash Rates (CR) compares assorted highway locations with each other and
typically requires some effort to standardize the data. Relatively simple ratios can be
used, such as “crashes per mile per year.” The most widely used ratio is the crash rate.
This standardizes section length, time, and traffic volume. The most common crash rate
for highway sections is derived as follows:
(Crashes)(1,000,000)
CR = = = Crashes per million vehicle miles
(ADT)(365)(Length (mi))(Years)
As section lengths approach zero, the crash rate can give unreasonable numbers.
Evaluate crash rates for short sections by trying small changes in the number of
crashes. If the changes in crash rate are dramatic, then either this type of crash rate
should not be used, or its use should be accompanied with a warning.
Intersection Crash Rates (ICR) uses nearly the same equation as section crash rates.
(Crashes)(1,000,000) (Crashes)(1,000,000)
ICR= = = Crashes per million entering vehicles
(ADT)(Years)(365) Total entering vehicles
Length has been omitted, and the volume of the intersecting road has been included.
The entering volume equals half the sum of the ADT’s of all the legs. Some reports have
been published stating that ODOT considers all intersection crash rates above 1.00
crashes/mev to be significantly high. There is no such department policy. A September
1994 memorandum from Eric Bonn to the Region Traffic Managers includes the results
from a sample of 413 intersections on the state highway system. This sample may not
fully represent highways in Oregon because it included only the intersections for which
sufficient data were readily available. Several sub-groups of data were evaluated. Cutoff
points for the top ten percent of crash rates were predicted at values ranging from 0.65
to 1.25 crashes / mev, depending upon the sub-group selected.
7.4.7 Comparing Crash Rates
Crash rates on the state highway system can be compared to statewide rates for similar
sections. Simply exceeding the statewide rate should not be interpreted as proof that a
section is “hazardous”. The Rate Quality Control method was developed to identify
sections that have a significantly high crash rate:
Ra 1
Rc = Ra + K + , where Rc = Critical rate (or the rate above which the local crash
m 2m
rate should be considered significant), Ra = Average rate which can be obtained from the
State Highway Crash Rate publication by the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit (e.g.
March 2008 7-14

0.72 crashes/mvm on urban, primary, freeways in 2001), K = multiplier based upon
desired significance level. (K = 1.645 for 5% level of significance.), and m = millions of
vehicle miles = [(ADT)(Miles)(Years)(365)]/1,000,000. Other values of K can be obtained
from probability tables for the normal distribution in most statistics references. Caution
should be used when selecting the average crash rate, since it is critical to calculation.
For example, the statewide crash rates for urban highways may not be applicable to
urban highways in eastern Oregon since the performance of these facilities is much
different than urban highways in the Willamette Valley which make a majority of the
highways used to calculate the average.
7.4.8 Estimating the Effectiveness of a Treatment
It is often of interest to estimate the effectiveness of engineering treatments on safety

However, separating the true safety affects of an improvement for other factors such as
changes in volume, weather, time trend variations (regression-to-the-mean), driver
behavior, and a variety of other factors is a complicated task. If the evaluation is to be
done correctly, unique expertise in appropriate estimation procedures and knowledge of
the data sources are needed. Contact the Highway Safety Engineering Coordinator for
guidance or assistance on this topic.
March 2008 7-15

7.5 Traffic Engineering Programs
The Traffic—Roadway Section administers several traffic engineering related programs

that are described below.
7.5.1 Blue Star Memorial Program
7.5.1.1 Background
At the request of the Oregon State Federation of Garden Clubs, the 1947 Oregon
Legislature adopted a resolution designating certain state highways as Blue Star
Memorial Drives. The legislature further resolved that ODOT shall erect along said
highways suitable tablets and ornamentations to perpetuate the resolution.
This is a program put in place to honor and memorialize men and women of Oregon who
served in the armed forces of the United States. This program began in the 1940’s and
was inspired by the blue stars that mothers put in their windows to signify that they
had a son or daughter serving in WW II. The program is part of a national program
that is sponsored by the National Council of State Garden Clubs, Inc. The original
designation consisted of one transcontinental east and west route and seven north and
south routes and was normally assigned one to a state. They were designated
throughout their length, or for a considerable distance, generally involving more than
one state. These were through routes rather than short sections in one state only.
7.5.1.2 List of Blue Star Memorial Highways
The following is a list of highways that have been adopted by the Oregon Transportation
Commission and are referred to as Blue Star Memorial Highways. Included are the
highway routes and their adoption dates by the commission.
Adoption
Highway Name Route
Date
Pacific Highway OR 99 1948
Pacific Highway East OR 99E 1948
Pacific Highway West OR 99W 1948
The Dalles-California Highway US 97 1959
Pacific Highway I-5 1967
Columbia River/Old Oregon Trail Highway I-84 1977
Oregon Coast Highway US 101 1980
East Portland Freeway I-205 2000
March 2008 7-16

7.5.1.3 Establishment of Blue Star Memorial Highways
The Blue Star Memorial Highways are commemorated with a bronze marker mounted
on a support post. The local garden club that sponsors the marker usually enhances the
landscape with a small garden at the foot of the marker. The program currently has
about 30 markers in place.
ODOT has historically been responsible for installing the marker and the Oregon State
Federation of Garden Clubs has been responsible for the furnishing and maintaining
the marker/ landscaping.
The site for new markers along these routes is to be worked out with the maintenance
district. Common practice has been to place markers in areas of high visibility, such as
a highway rest area, which promotes higher visibility and reduced vandalism. The
landscaped areas provide rest and relaxation for the weary traveler.
7.5.2 Impaired Driving Victim Memorial Signing
7.5.2.1 Overview
Upon the request of the family of a victim of an impaired driving crash and when
certain requirements are met, a sign can be installed on the State Highway System at
the site of a fatality caused by an impaired driver.
7.5.2.2 Background
ODOT established its own Impaired Driving Victim Memorial Signing Program in 1995.
The first sign was installed in October 1995 in Tillamook County. As of September 2004,
33 signs have been installed.
7.5.2.3 Guidelines
The following guidelines were approved by a program review committee on December

19, 2000:
1. A sign can be installed at the site of a fatal crash that was caused by a driver
who has been convicted of Negligent Homicide or Manslaughter in the first or
second degree and was driving under the influence of intoxicants (blood alcohol
content of 0.08 or greater). A sign can also be installed at the site of a fatal crash
that was caused by a deceased driver who had a blood alcohol content of .08
percent or greater.
2. Signs installed will be black on white, 36” X 48” with a legend which reads
“DON’T DRINK AND DRIVE”, below which will be a 36” X 12” plaque with the
message “IN MEMORY OF (Victim’s Name).” Normally up to three names can
be listed, but more than one name will require a larger plaque.
3. Each successful applicant will be entitled to one sign assembly as described

above, mounted on one side of the post only (no back-to-back signs), facing
oncoming traffic, and only on the side of the road nearest the lane of that
March 2008 7-17

oncoming traffic. In special situations where a sufficiently large turnout or
wayside is available (as determined by Region Traffic Operations staff), and if
acceptable to the applicant, a sign may be mounted parallel to the roadway
rather than facing oncoming traffic.
4. Signs will normally be installed only in rural areas on state highways.
5. Signs will not be installed on the interstate system, freeways, or their ramps.
6. ODOT has no jurisdiction on county roads or city streets and thus cannot provide
signs along these roadways.
7. The sign must be requested by the family of the victim or other sponsor and be
paid for by the victim’s family or the sponsor. The sponsor need not be a family
member, but any proposed installation must include agreement with an
appropriate member of the victim’s family. If a given crash resulted in more
than one fatality, and those fatalities were from different families, the applicant
must contact the families of those other victims before application is made, in
order to gain written concurrence on whether the sign should even be applied for,
which names should appear on the sign, and how much each family will
contribute toward the cost of the sign. Only one sign will be installed for any
given crash.
8. Signs will cost $600. This amount is intended to cover expenses incurred, such
as time spent on review of the application by the program coordinator,
investigation of the proposed site by Region personnel, manufacture of the sign
by the ODOT Sign Shop, and installation by the Maintenance District sign crew.
Only one $600 check or money order will be accepted as payment for any
successful application.
9. Region Traffic Operations staff will investigate all proposed installation sites and
make a recommendation to the State Traffic Engineer regarding sign placement.
If the investigation determines that a location other than the one requested in
the application is more appropriate, a distance of as much as one half mile away
will be acceptable, with variations as approved by the State Traffic Engineer. In
no case, however, will the alternate location be on a highway other than the one
on which the crash occurred.
10. The State Traffic Engineer will approve or deny requests received and sign an
agreement with sponsors and family members on those that are approved.
11. Signs will remain in place until they are weathered (usually seven to ten years).
At that time, they will be removed. If a sign in serviceable condition is stolen,
vandalized, or otherwise badly damaged, it will be replaced one time at ODOT
expense. After a sign has been removed due to weathering, the original applicant
may renew installation of the original sign by paying another $600.
March 2008 7-18

7.5.2.4 Application Procedure
Persons wishing to sponsor a memorial sign should submit a written request to:
State Traffic Engineer

355 Capitol Street NE, 5th Floor
Salem, OR 97301-3871
The request should include the following information:
1. Name, address, and telephone number of applicant and relationship to victim
2. A brief description of the crash
3. Date and location of the crash — This should include the highway name or route
number, as well as direction and distance in feet from the nearest green milepost
paddle, and distance and direction from any other nearby landmarks (such as an
intersecting road, or a bridge over a named stream).
4. Names of all parties involved in the crash
5. Proof of conviction (unless driver is deceased) and blood alcohol or drug level of
driver (from court, police, or Medical Examiner’s records)
6. Name or names, as they should appear on the sign
7. Commitment to provide $600 for installation of sign — Payment will be

requested once a sign is approved.
For more information, contact the program coordinator at 503-986-6644.
March 2008 7-19

7.6 Legal Authority
References are made throughout this manual to Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) and
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR). Several items of particular, general interest are
highlighted below:
7.6.1 Crosswalks
ORS 801.220 defines crosswalks, ORS 811.010 and ORS 814.040 also apply to
crosswalks and pedestrians. ODOT contains guidelines for determining when it is
appropriate to mark crosswalks.
7.6.2 Delegation of Authority
The Oregon Transportation Commission, pursuant to ORS 184.635 and in order to

provide for a more efficient and expeditious administration of the Department,
delegates operations matters to the Chief Engineer (also called the Technical Services
Manager). Matters dealing with traffic control devices are assigned to the State Traffic
Engineer by letter of authority and by OAR 734-020-0410. Guidelines and policies for
traffic signal design, traffic signal operation, highway sign type and placement, and
variable message sign operation, among others, are items approved by the State Traffic
Engineer in consultation with the Oregon Traffic Control Devices Committee (OTCDC).
7.6.3 Emergency Vehicle Preemption
The proper use of emergency vehicle preemption (traffic control signal operating)
devices is described in ORS 815.440. The standards for installation, operation and use
are defined in OAR 734-020-0300 through 734-020-0330.
7.6.4 Freeway Median Crossovers
The process and criteria for establishing freeway median crossovers is provided in OAR
734-020-0100 through 734-020-0115.
7.6.5 Incident Management
OAR 734-020-0145, OAR 734-020-0147, and OAR 734-020-0150 provide direction for
the management of incidents or related activities. These OAR’s establish procedures for
removal of spilled vehicle loads and wrecked vehicles from the travel portion of state
highways; procedures for the removal of disabled, abandoned, or otherwise unattended
vehicles on state highways; and procedures for the closure of highways when weather or
road conditions constitute a danger of highway damage or a danger to the driving
public, respectively.
7.6.6 Jurisdiction
ORS 810.010 designates the bodies responsible for exercising jurisdiction over
highways when the vehicle code requires the exercise of jurisdiction by the road
authority. This section does not define maintenance responsibility.
March 2008 7-20

7.6.7 Multiple Turns at Highway Intersections
The criteria for establishing multiple right and left turns at highway intersections are
provided in OAR 734-020-0135 through 734-020-0140.
7.6.8 One-way Operation, Transit Exceptions
ORS 810.130 allows road authorities to designate specific lanes or highways where
vehicle traffic must proceed in one direction at all times or at times indicated by traffic
control devices. This section also allows the designation of locations where public transit
vehicles may proceed in a direction prohibited to other traffic.
7.6.9 Parking Prohibitions
Each road authority has the authority to regulate, control and prohibit parking
according to ORS 810.160. The process for establishing parking prohibitions or
restrictions is defined in OAR 734-020-0020 and OAR 734-020-0080 through 734
020-0090.
7.6.10 Restrictions by Vehicle Type or Weight
ORS 810.030 allows the road authority to impose restrictions on highway use, by any or
all vehicle types or weight classes, in order to protect the highway from damage or to
protect the interest and safety of the general public. Restrictions or limitations imposed
under this section must be imposed by proper order. This section does not grant
authority to impose speed restrictions. Related administrative rules include OAR 734
020-0045, OAR 734-020-0080, and OAR 734-020-0100 through 0115 which prohibit
non-motorized vehicles on certain highways; establish restrictions on overnight parking
(non-emergency) on state highways; and provide for the use of freeway median
crossovers, respectively.
7.6.11 School Zones
ORS 810.180 and ORS 811.111 cover the establishment of school speed zones. ORS
811.124, ORS 811.106, and ORS 811.235 also apply to school speed zones. ODOT’s A
Guide to School Area Safety provides further information regarding school area safety.
7.6.12 Speed Zones
ORS 810.180, ORS 811.100 through ORS 811.111 and OARs 734-020-0014, -0015,
0016, and -0017 cover the establishment of speed zones in the State of Oregon (See also
ODOT’s Speed Zone Manual). Low volume roads and non-hard surfaced roads may be
delegated to local jurisdictions.
7.6.13 Traffic Control Device, Appropriate Driver Responses
The appropriate driver response to traffic signal indications, including circular and
arrow indications whether steady or flashing, lane direction control signals, stop signs
and yield signs is provided by ORS 811.260. Turns made against a red indication are
March 2008 7-21

permitted under ORS 811.360. Appropriate responses to railroad crossing signals are
provided by ORS 811.455.
7.6.14 Traffic Signal Approval Process
The Process that establishes consideration and approval for installation or removal of
traffic signals on state highways is defined in OAR 734-020-0400 through 734-020
0500.
7.6.15 Transit and HOV Lanes
ORS 810.140 allows a road authority to designate bus or HOV lanes. Any restriction
imposed must be imposed by proper order. OAR 734-020-0035 through 734-020-0043
contain the orders establishing such lanes. The only order currently in effect is OAR
734-020-0043 for the I-5 HOV Lanes in North Portland. Two such orders have been
repealed - OAR 734-020-0035 for the Barber Boulevard (US 99 W Portland) Transit
Lanes in 1977 and OAR 734-020-0040 for the Banfield (I-84 nee I-80N Portland) HOV
Lanes in 1975. Both were repealed in September 1983. A third order – OAR 734-020
0042 - establishing temporary HOV Lanes on I-5 and I-205 during emergency repairs to
the Interstate Bridge in the summer of 1997 expired in October 1997.
7.6.16 Turn Prohibitions
A description of the warrants and criteria for establishing U-turns at signalized

intersections and turn prohibitions are described in OAR 734-020-0020, this authority
is derived from ORS 810.210.
7.6.17 Uniform Standards and Placement
ORS 810.200 and ORS 810.210 provide for the establishment of uniform standards and
placement of traffic control devices. The Oregon Transportation Commission adopts the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the Oregon Supplement to the MUTCD,
and the Oregon Temporary Traffic Control Handbook by OAR 734-020-0005.
7.6.18 U-turn Designations
A description of the warrants and criteria for establishing U-turns at signalized

intersections are described in OAR 734-020-0025, this authority is derived from ORS
810.130.
March 2008 7-22

8 REFERENCES
(See Chapter 3 for Publications prepared or distributed by the ODOT Traffic—Roadway

Section)
Title Author/Publisher Date Published
A Policy on Geometric Design of

Highways and Streets and other AASHTO 2001
AASHTO Publications
Dr. Robert Layton

An Evaluation of the Safety Priority
(Retired) , Oregon State
Index System (SPIS)
University
ODOT Bridge Engineering

Bridge Log
Section.
California Department of
CalTrans Traffic Manual
Transportation
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Highways - Title 23
Contract Plans and Development ODOT Construction

Guide Contracts Section
ODOT Crash Analysis and

Crash Listing Various years
Reporting Unit
Crash Rate Tables, State Highway ODOT Crash Analysis and

Various years
System Reporting Unit
Delegation Orders and ODOT Support Services

Subdelegations Division
Guide for the Development of

AASHTO
Bicycle Facilities
Highway Capacity Manual TRB, Special Report 209 October 1994
Highway Capacity Manual and

TRB
other TRB Publications
Informational Guide for Roadway

AASHTO
Lighting
Intersection Channelization Design

TRB, NCHRP Report 279
Guide
December 2006 8-1

Issues Surrounding Highway and TRB, Transportation

October 1993
Roadside Safety Management Research Circular, No. 416
Lighting Handbook, 8th Edition IESNA
ODOT Statewide Office of

Maintenance Guide
Maintenance
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control

USDOT—FHWA November 2004
Devices
National Fire Protection

National Electrical Code Handbook
Association.
National Electrical Safety Code IEEE
Federal Register; U.S.

Navigational Lighting
Coast Guard.
Obstruction Marking and Lighting USDOT—FAA
Oregon Administrative Rules Oregon State Archives
ODOT Traffic—Roadway
Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Section
Oregon Highway Plan ODOT Planning Section
ODOT Driver and Motor

Oregon Vehicle Code
Vehicle Services
R.L. Knoblauch, Center for

Pedestrian Crosswalk Case Studies
Applied Research, FHWA
Addendum to Chapter 6,
Roadway Lighting Handbook “Designing the Lighting
System”; USDOT—FHWA
Safety Effectiveness of Highway

USDOT—FHWA November 1992
Design Features
Charles V. Zegeer,
Safety Effects of Marked vs. University of North
Unmarked Crosswalks at Carolina Highway Safety November 2000
Uncontrolled Locations Research Center, Chapel
Hill N.C
December 2006 8-2

Standard Alphabets for Highway

USDOT—FHWA
Signs
ODOT Roadway
Standard Drawings
Engineering Section
Standard Highway Signs USDOT—FHWA
Standards for Forest Service Signs

National Park Service.
and Posters
State Highway System Crash Rate ODOT Crash Analysis and

Tables Reporting Unit
Synthesis of Safety Research

Related to Traffic Control and USDOT—FHWA December 1982
Roadway Elements
Traffic Engineering Handbook ITE
Traffic Practices Handbook for Local

Mojie Takallou, Ph.D., PE,
Roads and Streets in Oregon—
University of Portland
Volumes 1 and 2
Integrated Software
Translink May 1999
Solutions, Inc.
ODOT Transportation
Transportation Volume Tables
Data Section
Trip Generation, 5th Edition ITE
Wapiti Micro Systems

W7OSM User’s Manual
Corporation
Walk Alert: The New National

ITE Journal August 1989
Pedestrian Safety Program
Washington State
WSDOT Pedestrian Facilities
Department of
Guidebook
Transportation
Washington State
WSDOT Traffic Manual Department of
Transportation
December 2006 8-3

9 GLOSSARY
Acronym Meaning
AAA American Automobile Association
AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
AATMS Advanced Areawide Traffic Management System (see ATMS)
ACVOS Advanced Commercial Vehicle Operations Systems (see CVO)
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ADT Average Daily Traffic
AGT Automatic Guideway Transit
AHC Automatic Headway Control
AHS Automated Highway System
AIDS Automated Information Directory System
AMTICS Advanced Mobile Traffic Information and Communication System
AOC Association of Oregon Counties
API Automatic Personal Identification (see PIN)
API Applications Programmer Interface
APTS Advanced Public Transit Systems
APTS Advanced Passenger Transport Systems
AQMP Air Quality Maintenance Plan
ASAP As soon as possible
ASC Automatic Steering Control
ASC Actuated Signal Controller
ASCII American Standard Code for Information Interchange
ASK Amplitude Shift Keying (digital AM)
December 2006 9-1

Acronym Meaning
ASN Abstract Syntax Notation
ATIS Advanced Traveler Information Systems (formerly ADIS, for Driver)
ATMS Advanced Traffic (Transportation) Management Systems
ATCS Automated Traffic Control System (NEMA)
ATR Automatic Traffic Recorder
ATS Advanced Transportation Systems (Subcommittee of AASHTO)
AVC Automatic Vehicle Classification
AVCS Automatic Vehicle Control Systems
AVI Automatic Vehicle Identification
AVL Automatic Vehicle Location
AVLC Automatic Vehicle Location and Control
AVM Automatic Vehicle Monitoring
AWD Average Weekday (Traffic) - also AWDT
BER Bit Error Rate
BER Byte Encoding Rate
BER Basic Encoding Rules
BESI Bus Electronic Scanning Indicator
BIU Bus Interface Unit (NEMA)
Bit Binary digit
BMS Bridge Management System (ISTEA)
BPR Bureau of Public Roads (see FHWA)
BPS Bits Per Second
BRT Bus Rapid Transit
CA Controller Assembly (NEMA)
December 2006 9-2

Acronym Meaning
CAA(A) Clean Air Act (Amendment)
CAD Call / Active Display (Model 170 Microprocessor Traffic Controllers)
CAD Computer Aided Design (Drafting)
CAD Computer Aided Dispatching
CADD Computer Aided Drafting and Design
CalTrans California Department of Transportation
CAO Chief Administrative Officer
CAR Crash Analysis and Reporting
CAT Countermeasure Analysis Tool
CBD Central Business District
CCTV Closed Circuit Television Camera(s)
CDL Commercial Driver’s License
CD-ROM Compact Disk - Read Only Memory
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CHEMTREC Chemical Transportation Emergency Center
CMAQ Congestion Management Air Quality
CMS Changeable Message Sign(s) (see VMS - preferred)
CMS Congestion Management System (ISTEA)
COATS California Oregon Advanced Transportation Systems
COP City of Portland (Prineville)
COTS Commercial Off-the-Shelf computer software and/or hardware
CPFF Cost Plus Fixed Fee
CPU Central Processing Unit
CRC Cyclic Redundancy Check
December 2006 9-3

Acronym Meaning
CTWLTL Continuous Two Way Left Turn Lane
CU Controller Unit (NEMA)
CVISN Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks
CVO Commercial Vehicle Operations
DBMS Data Base Management System
DBS Direct Broadcast Satellite
DCE Data Circuit Terminating Equipment (typically a modem)
DLSAP Data Link Service Access Point
DLSDU Data Link Service Data Unit
DMS Dynamic Message Sign (See VMS)
DMV Driver and Motor Vehicle Services
DR Dead Reckoning
DRIVE Dedicated Road Infrastructure for Vehicle Safety in Europe
DSRC Dedicated Short Range Communication
DTE Data Terminal Equipment
DTR Data Terminal Ready signal
DUII Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants
DW “DONT WALK” pedestrian signal indication
EIA Electronic Industries Association
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EMS Emergency Medical Services
EPROM Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory
ETTM Electronic Toll and Traffic Management
December 2006 9-4

Acronym Meaning
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAQ Frequently Asked Questions
FARS Fatal Accident Reporting System
Fax Facsimile
FCC Federal Communications Commission
FCS Frame Check Sequence
FDW Flashing “DONT WALK” pedestrian signal indication
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCS Fleet Management and Control Systems
FMOC Freeway Management Operations Center (see TMOC)
FO Fiber Optic
FONSI Finding of Non Significant Impacts
FSK Frequency Shift Keying
FTA Federal Transit Administration (formerly UMTA)
FTMS Freeway Traffic Management System
FTP File Transfer Protocol
GIS Geographic Information System
GIS-T Geographic Information Systems for Transportation
GPO Government Printing Office
GPS Global Positioning System
GVW Gross Vehicle Weight
HAR Highway Advisory Radio
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
December 2006 9-5

Acronym Meaning
HDLC High-level Data Link Control
HDV Heavy Duty Vehicles
HELP Heavy vehicle Electronic License Plate
HOV High Occupancy Vehicle
HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program
HUD Head-Up Display
IIHS Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
IM Incident Management
IMS Intermodal Management System (ISTEA)
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
IESNA Illumination Engineering Society of North America
IP Internet Protocol
ISDN Integrated Services Digital Network
ISMS Information Safety Management System
ISO International Standards Organization
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act
Institute of Transportation Engineers (pre-1971 formerly Institute of

ITE
Traffic Engineers)
ITIS Integrated Transportation Information System
ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems (see IVHS)
ITS – America Intelligent Transportation Society of America (see IVHS - America)
ITS - Oregon Intelligent Transportation Systems for Oregon
ITWG ITS Technical Working Group
IVHS Intelligent Vehicle Highway System (see ITS)
IVHS-America Intelligent Vehicle Highway Society of America (see ITS-America)
December 2006 9-6

Acronym Meaning
JPACT Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation
KSA Knowledge, Skills and Abilities
LAN Local Area Network
LCD Liquid Crystal Display
LDT Light Duty Trucks
LED Light Emitting Diode
LLC Logical Link Control
LOC League of Oregon Cities
LOI Level Of Importance
LOS Level of Service
LRM Local Ramp Meter (Controller software)
LRT Light Rail Transit
LRV Light Rail Vehicle
LVA Linked Vehicle Actuated
MACS Metropolitan Area Corridor Study
MDI Model Deployment Initiative
MIB Management Information Base
MIS Management Information System
MMU Malfunction Management Unit (NEMA)
MODEM Modulate - Demodulate
MOVA Modernized Optimized Vehicle Actuation
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
NCAP New Car Assessment Program
December 2006 9-7

Acronym Meaning
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NCTRP National Cooperative Transit Research Program
ND Negative Declaration
NEC National Electric Code
NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers Association
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology (Formerly the

NIST
National Bureau of Standards of the U.S. Department of Commerce.)
NMS Network Management System
NTCIP National Transportation Communications for ITS Protocol
NTP National Transportation Policy
NTSPS National Transportation Strategic Planning Study
NVT Network Virtual Terminal (also NVT-ASCII)
OAR Oregon Administrative Rules
OBC Onboard Computer
ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation
OEDD Oregon Economic Development Department
OERS Oregon Emergency Response System
OHP Oregon Highway Plan
OID Object Identifier
ORS Oregon Revised Statutes
OSI Open System Interconnect
OSI-RM Open System Interconnect – Reference Model (also RM-OS)
OSM On Street Master (Controller software)
OSP Oregon State Police
December 2006 9-8

Acronym Meaning
OSRM On Street Ramp Master (Controller software)
OTC Oregon Transportation Commission
OTCDC Oregon Traffic Control Devices Committee
OTIA Oregon Transportation Investment Act
OTIC Oregon Travel Information Council (also TIC)
OTMS Oregon Transportation Management System
OTP Oregon Transportation Plan
PAM Police Allocation Manual
Progression Analysis and Signal System Evaluation Routine

PASSER
(Computer Software)
PCM Pulse Code Modulation
PCOI Pedestrian Clear-out Interval
PCU Passenger Car Unit
PDT Project Development (or Design) Team (also PT – Project Team)
PDU Protocol Data Unit
Packed Encoding Rules (a variation of BER for use with low

PER
bandwidth.)
PIN Personal Identification Number
Program for European Traffic with Highest Efficiency and

PROMETHEUS
Unprecedented Safety
PMPP Point to Multi-Point Protocol
PMS Pavement Management System (ISTEA)
PPP Public/Private Partnership
PSMS Project Safety Management System
PS&E Plans, Specifications and Estimates
PT Project Team (also PDT - Project Development Team)
December 2006 9-9

Acronym Meaning
PTMS Public Transportation Management System (ISTEA)
PTR Part Time Restriction
RACS Road - Automobile Communications System
RADAR Radio Detecting and Ranging
RAM Random Access Memory
RAME Region Access Management Engineer
RDC Rural Development Center
RDSS Radio Determination Satellite Services
RF Radio Frequency
RFP Request for Proposal
RFQ Request for Qualifications
RFRS Road Features Rating System
RLR Red Light Running
RM-OS See OSI-RM
ROM Read Only Memory
ROR Run-off-road
RSPA Research and Special Projects Administration (USDOT)
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RTPWS Right Turn Permitted Without Stopping
RWIS Road Weather Information System
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A

SAFETEA-LU
Legacy for Users
SAP Service Access Point
SCC Surveillance Communication and Control
December 2006 9-10

Acronym Meaning
SCOOT Split Cycle and Offset Optimization Technique
SDLC Synchronous Data Link Control
SDO Standards Development Organization
SDU Service Data Unit
SGRC Statewide Grant Review Committee
SHRP Strategic Highway Research Program
Safety Improvement Program or State Implementation Plan (Air

SIP
Quality)
SLG Synchronous Longitudinal Guidance
SMS Safety Management System (ISTEA)
SOV Single Occupant Vehicle
SPIS Safety Priority Index System
STA Special Transportation Area
STE State Traffic Engineer
STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
STMF Simple Transportation Management Framework
SNMP Simple Network Management Protocol (Version 2 – SNMPv2)
SP Standards Publication
SPIS Safety Priority Index System
SSVS Super Smart Vehicle System
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
STMP Simple Transportation Management Protocol
SZRP Speed Zone Review Panel
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
TBC Time Based Coordination
December 2006 9-11

Acronym Meaning
TBC Time Base Control (NEMA)
TCM Transportation Control Measure (Air Quality)
TCP Traffic Control Plans
TCP Transmission Control Protocol
TDM Time Division Multiplexing
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TESU Traffic Engineering Services Unit
TF Terminals and Facilities (NEMA)
TFP Technology For People
TIA Telecommunications Industries Association
TIC Travel Information Council (also OTIC)
TIP Transportation Improvement Program
TIR Traffic Impact Report
TIS Transit Information System
TIS Traffic Impact Study
TLV Type, Length, Value encoding
TMA Transportation Management Area
TMC Traffic Management Center (see also TMOC and FMOC)
TMDD Traffic Management Data Dictionary
TM-H Traffic Monitoring for Highways
TMOC Transportation Management Operations Center (see FMOC)
TOC Traffic Operations Center
TOD Transit Oriented Development
TODS Tourist Oriented Direction Signs
December 2006 9-12

Acronym Meaning
TPAC Transportation Policy Advisory Committee
TPAU Transportation Planning and Analysis Unit
TPR Transportation Planning Rule
TPST Traffic Project Services Team
TRANSYT Traffic Network Study Tool (Computer Software)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TRL Time Reference Line
TRRL Transportation and Road Research Laboratory
TRS Traffic—Roadway Section
TSAMU Traffic Standards and Asset Management Unit
TSM Technical Services Manager
TSM Transitway Simulation Model
TSM Transportation System Management
TSO Telephone Service Order
TSO Transportation System Operations
TSP Transportation System Plan
TSSU Traffic Systems Services Unit
TTI Texas Transportation Institute
Two Way Left Turn Lane (or CTWLTL for Continuous Two Way Left
TWLTL
Turn Lane)
UBA Urban Business Area
UDP User Datagram Protocol
UHF Ultra High Frequency (300MHz to 3GHz)
UMTA Urban Mass Transit Administration (see FTA)
USDOT United States Department of Transportation (also DOT)
December 2006 9-13

Acronym Meaning
UTC Urban Traffic Control
VCOI Vehicle Clearout Interval
VHF Very High Frequency (30 to 300MHz)
VICS Vehicle Information Communication System
VIPS Vehicle Identification and Priority System
VMS Variable Message Sign (preferred – see also CMS, DMS)
VMT Vehicle Miles of Travel (Vehicle Miles Traveled)
WAN Wide Area Network
WIM Weigh In Motion
December 2006 9-14

Traffic Manual: March 2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Traffic Manual: March 2008

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Traffic Manual: March 2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Traffic

Oregon Department of Transportation

State Traffic Engineer

March 2008 iii

¾ Minor editing of entire chapter to further distinguish the differences between

Chapter 5—Delegated Authorities

Chapter 6—Traffic Engineering Practices

¾ Revised Section 6.8 Freeway Median Crossovers by deleting standard drawing

¾ Removed Section 6.33 SPIS Investigation since the information is duplicated in

¾ Removed Section 7.5.2 Project Safety Management System and incorporated

¾ Removed Section 7.5.4 Safety Investment Program (SIP) as this information is

1.1 Traffic—Roadway Section .........................................................................................1-1

1.1.2 Traffic Manual ................................................................................................1-1

1.1.3 Highway Design Manual ................................................................................1-1

1.1.4 Organizational Structure ...............................................................................1-2

1.2 Region Traffic Unit....................................................................................................1-4

1.2.2 Region Traffic Design and Operations...........................................................1-4

1.2.3 Region Traffic Investigations .........................................................................1-4

1.2.4 Region Transportation Safety Coordinator ...................................................1-5

1.2.5 Region Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Activities..........................1-5

1.2.6 Region Access Management ...........................................................................1-5

1.3 Other Traffic Related Units within ODOT .............................................................. 1-6

1.3.1 Intelligent Transportation Systems Unit ......................................................1-6

1.3.2 Traffic Systems Services Unit ........................................................................1-6

1.3.3 Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit...............................................................1-7

1.3.4 Transportation Systems Monitoring Unit .....................................................1-7

1.3.5 Transportation Planning Analysis Unit ........................................................1-7

1.4 ODOT Region Map ....................................................................................................1-8

2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ..........................................................................................2-1

4.1 AASHTO Committees................................................................................................4-1

4.1.1 Standing Highway Committee, Subcommittee on Traffic Engineering.......4-1

4.1.2 Subcommittee on System Operations and Management..............................4-1

4.2 Forest Highway Tri-Agency Committee ...................................................................4-1

4.3 Highway Safety Engineering Committee.................................................................4-1

4.4 IKS Software Users Group........................................................................................4-2

4.5 Oregon Historical Marker Committee......................................................................4-2

4.6 Oregon Traffic Control Devices Committee (OTCDC).............................................4-2

4.7 Oregon Travel Information Council..........................................................................4-3

4.8 Pavement Marking Committee.................................................................................4-3

4.9 Pavement Marking Design Working Group.............................................................4-3

4.10 Safety Investigations Group .................................................................................4-3

4.11 Signal Timers Group .............................................................................................4-4

4.12 Speed Zone Review Panel .....................................................................................4-4

4.13 Statewide Grant Review Committee ....................................................................4-4

4.14 Traffic Control Plans Discipline Group ................................................................4-5

4.15 Traffic Control Plans Technology Committee ......................................................4-5

4.16 Traffic Control Oversight Committee...................................................................4-5

4.17 Traffic –Roadway Section/Transportation Safety Division .................................4-5

4.18 Traffic Operations Leadership Team (TOLT) ......................................................4-6

4.19 Traffic Sign Design Working Group .....................................................................4-6

4.20 Traffic Signal Design Working Group ..................................................................4-6

4.21 TransPort Committee............................................................................................4-7

4.22 Traffic Structures Design Working Group ...........................................................4-7

March 2008 vii

5.1 Letter of Authority ....................................................................................................5-1

5.2 Delegated Authorities of the State Traffic Engineer...............................................5-2

5.2.1 Traffic Control Devices ...................................................................................5-2

5.2.2 Traffic Signals .................................................................................................5-5

6 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PRACTICES .......................................................................6-1