ADA Program – Scoping Notes

Projected Total Cost Before Scoping

$ 16,026,047

Scoping Team Recommended Solution (Completed by Project Leader):

The purpose of this project is to mitigate deficient or missing Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) settlement curb ramps. The remaining ramps in the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) system are being split into projects to be put out to bid. This is a ‘quick release’ project in WOC10, which is defined as “well-defined, low-complexity project” that may be quickly developed to fill a forecasted dip in the construction pipeline in 2028.

This project has 21920 ramps total, all within Washington County, with Segment A having 1589 ramps and Segment B having 61 ramps. Of these ramps, 1056 are at signalized intersections; 5 are identified as potential partial repairs; and 13 have potential railroad conflicts.

Figure 1 – Map showing ramp locations included in this project

Construction / Constructability (Completed by Project Leader) (Issues, concerns, staging concerns, other):

Curb ramp construction for this project is along two different corridors (please refer to “Project Limits” section for details). Segments A and B of the project will require especially detailed Traffic Safety Plan (TSP) and Temporary Pedestrian Accessible Routes due to high Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) ratings.

Due to it’s complexity, the intersection of Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy, Oleson Rd., Dogwood Ln., and Scholls Ferry Rd. was selected for concept design. This intersection has existing junction boxes, signal poles, utility boxes, manholes, and poles conflicting with the layout of the ramps. The relocation of the signal junction boxes may be restricted by the length of available wire, and could cause the rewiring of the signal to accommmodate the relocation. These restrictions are coupled with a building at corner 3 at the back of the sidewalk. Additionally there is deteriorating road pavement at this intersection at corner 2 that will require increased sawcutting.

Problem Identification (Derived from Business Case Before Scoping):

Existing curb ramps are deficient for ADA criteria and are part of the ADA Settlement (please refer to the Evaluation Matrix for this project).

Proposed Alternatives Scope and Other Goals and Objectives (Derived from Business Case Before Scoping):

N/A.

Planning (Completed Before Scoping): (Discuss documents that may exist: Agreements, TSP, STAs, IAMP, or planning activities that will need to take place for this project):

Guiding documents include: ODOT ADA Transition Plan, ADA Settlement ramps inventory. The inventory was vetted for needed and eligible settlement ramps, those that were not eligible for closure, and not already mitigated by previous or current projects.

Traffic Data Analysis (Completed Before Scoping) (Analysis of traffic crash data, identify problem areas, SPIS sites, sight distance access issues and average daily traffic [ADT]):

Segment A and Segment B are in high crash areas, with the entire Segment A corridor ranging from top 15% to top 5% of SPIS sites. SPIS rating up to 79.78 and ADT up to 36,201.

Preliminary Engineering (PE) Budget Justification (Completed by Project Leader) (Discuss justification or method used to arrive at PE budget):

Preliminary Engineering was estimated at $2,835,409. This includes a cost of $2,243,084 for Preliminary Engineering of the curb ramps, $362,000 for Survey, and an additional $230,325 for the project engineering for signals/pushbuttons at the signalized intersections.

The PE budget was estimated according to the ADA Program Cost Model methodology, which is based on a Direct Cost Relative Complexity Rating and applies a Parametric Factor (43% for Very Complex projects) to the Direct & Indirect Construction Cost. Direct Cost Relative Complexity Rating is determined by Number of Complex Ramp Styles, Number of Additional Ramps required and Number of Partial Replacements, and also the number of Features (e.g. Signage, Driveways, Hydrants, Utility Poles, Catch Basins) relative to all projects in the program (i.e., 20% are Simple, 20% Limited Complexity, 20% Moderate Complexity, 20% Complex, 20% Very Complex). (Please refer to Cost Model spreadsheet for this project.)

Scoping Notes Form 27.1.CN.03 Page 1 of 10

Scoping Team:

Roadway Elements: (End comments with your full name and date)

· Define Project Limits: (Describe or confirm limits, why limits chosen, potential staging areas and disposal sites.)

These individual Segments were broken down from the project based on their linear reference measurements (LRMs).

Segment A – Highway #029 – Route OR8 – Beaverton – LRM 02900I00, SW Canyon Rd and SW Tualatin Valley Highway, MP 1.43, 1.46, 1.55, 1.6, 1.65, 1.78, 1.96, 2.13, 2.24, 2.32, 2.65, 2.94, 2.99, 3.09, 3.35, 3.45, 3.55, 3.63, 3.82, 3.89, 4.16, 4.25, 4.39, 4.51, 4.9, 5.36, 6.26, 6.45, 6.73, 6.99, 8.05, 8.57, 9.33, 9.86, 10.01, 10.11, 10.26, 10.78, 11.1, and 11.46.

Segment B – Highway #040 – Route OR10 – Beaverton – LRM 04000I00, SW Beaverton Hillsdale Highway, MP 1.5, 1.84, 1.9, 2.07, 2.56, 2.75, 3.13, and 3.18.

(Please refer to Inventory Evaluation Matrix and Constraint Maps for more detail.)

· Current Design Standards: (Completed Before Scoping): (Describe current design standards for this section that include design speed, lane widths, shoulder widths, bike lanes, and highway classification.)

ODOT Highway Design Manual, ODOT Traffic Design Manual, ODOT Standard Drawings, ODOT ADA Transition Plan. (Steve Burris 12/23/25)

· Design Exceptions: (Describe existing conditions that would cause a design exception. Vertical/Horizontal clearances, alignments, bridge widths, and rail, Shoulder/lane widths.)

Potential design exceptions for clear width, gutter flow slope, ramp running slope, clear area free from vehicle path of travel, single ramps, and DWS color deviation.

Clear width issues are possible at Segment A on MP-Cr 1.78-4, 3.45-2, 3.82-1, 3.82-4, 8.57-1, 8.57-2 and 9.86-1; and Segment B on MP-Cr 1.84-2, and 1.9-4, and 3.13-7.

Gutter flow slope issues are possible on Segment A at MP-Cr 1.55-1, 1.55-4, 1.65-1, 1.65-2, 2.13-3, 2.13-4, 2.24-1, and 2.24-2.

Ramp running slope exceptions are possible on Segment A at MP-Cr 1.55-1, 1.55-4, 2.24-1 and 2.24-2.

Areas with potential issue with the clear area free from vehicle path of travel are on Segment A at MP-Cr 3.82-1 and 3.82-4.

A single ramp exception is possible at Segment B on MP-Cr 3.13-1.

DWS color deviations are possible on Segment A at MP-Cr 3.35-1, 3.35-2, 3.35-3, and 3.35-4; and on Segment B at MP-Cr 2.07-1, 2.07-4, 2.56-1, and 2.56-3.

Potential crosswalk closure locations have been identified for discussion with ODOT subject matter experts (SMEs) on Segment A at MP-Cr 1.43-1, 1.43-2, 1.43-3, 1.46-1, 1.46-2, 2.65-1, 3.45-3, 3.55-2, 3.55-3, 3.63-1, 3.89-1, 3.89-2, 4.39-1, 4.39-2, 6.45-1 and 6.45-2; and on Segment B at MP-Cr 1.84-2, 3.13-3 3.13-3A, 3.13-4, 3.13-4A, 3.13-5, 3.13-5A, 3.13-6 and 3.13-7. We are in the process of scheduling further discussion to review these. (Steve Burris 52/1527/26)

· Special Design Features: (Aesthetics, architect, landscaping, gateway, etc.)

There will be some removal of landscaping adjacent to corners on Segment A at MP 3.45 and 3.82 that will impact some small planter areas with small trees and a bush.

Specialty pavers and landscaping will be needed at some sites along Segments A and B.

Segment A landscape areas include MP-Cr 1.6-2, 1.6-3, 1.6-4, 1.65-1, 1.78-3, 1.78-4, 1.96-1, 1.96-2, 2.13-4, 2.24-1, 2.24-4, 2.32-1, 2.65-1, 2.65-2, 3.09-1, 3.09-2, 3.09-4, 3.35-3, 3.45-1, 3.45-2, 3.45-3, 3.45-4, 3.55-3, 3.55-4, 3.82-1, 3.82-4, 3.89-1, 3.89-2, 4.16-1, 4.16-2, 4.25-1, 4.39-1, 4.39-2, 4.51-1, 4.51-2, 4.9-1, 5.36-1, 5.36-2, 6.26-1, 6.99-2, 8.05-1, 9.33-1, 10.11-2, 11.1-1, 11.1-2, and 11.46-1.

Segment B landscape areas include at MP-Cr 1.5-3, 1.84-1, 1.84-2, 1.9-1, 1.9-2, 1.9-3, 1.9-4, 2.07-1, 2.07-2, 2.07-3, 2.07-4, 2.56-1, 2.56-2, 2.56-4, 2.75-1, 2.75-2, 2.75-4, 3.13-1, 3.13-2, 3.13-3, 3.13-4, 3.13-6, 3.13-7, 3.18-1, 3.18-2, and 3.18-3.

Specialty pavers are on Segment B at MP-Cr 2.07-4. There are ramps adjacent to shared used paths on Segment A at MP-Cr 4.9-2 and 5.36-1, requiring the ramps to match the width of the path. (Steve Burris 2/27/26)

· Preliminary Pavement Design: (Completed Before Scoping) (Widen/leveling/subgrade, repair/pavement design, special pavement needs/issues, inlet needs, under road culverts) Install concrete gutter pan at ramp throat, preserve existing curbs where possible through the transition panel, replacement pavement as necessary to meet design standards, including fixing cross slope issues as necessary. (Steve Burris 1/9/26)

· Drainage Needs: (Scoping team/roadway recommendations assumed in roadway estimate. Damaged or plugged culverts, extensions, offsite drainage, flooding problems) No specific drainage needs identified. Catch basins will be protected or adjusted where possible with relocations identified in the design phase. (Steve Burris 12/23/25)

· Guardrail Needs: (Repair, replace, extend, add, delete) N/A. (Steve Burris 12/23/25)

· Road Approaches / Accesses: (Issues, sight distance problems, approach grade, radii) There will be some sites in this project that will potentially impact adjacent accesses on Segments A and B.

Segment A access impact areas include MP-Cr 1.43-1, 1.43-2, 1.43-3, 1.43-4, 1.46-1, 1.46-3, 1.55-2, 1.55-4, 1.6-3, 1.65-2, 2.13-3, 2.24-3, 2.24-4, 2.32-1, 2.32-2, 3.09-1, 3.45-4, 3.55-1, 3.55-2, 3.63-1 3.63-2, 3.63-3, 3.82-1, 3.82-4, 6.45-1, 10.26-1 and 10.26-2.

Segment B access impact areas include MP 1.84-2, 1.9-1, 1.9-3, and 2.07-1, 2.07-2, 2.07-3, 2.56-2, 2.75-3, 2.75-4, and 3.18-3. (Steve Burris 2/27/26)

· ADA Needs: (As current policy states corrective action required to meet ADA. Ramps, driveways, curbs, and sidewalks) ADA ramp remediation and construction are the key elements of this scope. Sidewalk and driveway work is included only as necessary to mitigate ADA ramps. Remediation will include new ramps, reconstruction, design exception (with or without ramp construction), and crosswalk closure. (Steve Burris 1/29/26) New Ramp: This is for ramps that did not exist previously and will require new construction to place the ramp. There are 44 new ramps being installed where there previously was not a ramp. These are on Segment A at MP 1.43, 1.46, 1.55, 1.6, 1.78, 1.96, 2.24, 2.65, 3.45, 3.55, 3.82, 4.9, 6.26, 6.73, 8.57, 10.01, 10.11, 10.78, and 11.1; and on Segment B at MP 2.07, 2.56, 2.75, 3.13, and 3.18.

Reconstruction: This is for ramps that are non-compliant and will require removal and reinstallation. Most of the ramps fall into this category.

Design Exception (with or without ramp construction): This is for ramps that either require a design exception for the existing ramp to make it compliant, or for ramps that will require a design exception even when reconstructed due to site constraints that are outside the scope of the project. There are potential design exceptions needed at 39 ramps. These ramps are on Segment A at MP-Cr 1.55-1, 1.55-2, 1.65-1, 1.65-2, 1.78-4, 2.13-3, 2.13-4, 2.24-1, 2.24-2 3.35-1, 3.35-2, 3.35-3, 3.35-4, 3.45-2, 3.82-1, 3.82-4, 8.57-1, 8.57-2, and 9.86-1; and on Segment B at MP-Cr 1.84-2, 1.9-4, 2.07-1, 2.07-4, 2.56-1, and 2.56-3, 3.13-1, and 3.13-7.

Crosswalk Closure: This is for ramps that do not have a receiving ramp and that are determined to have the ramps closed on each side, largely due to site constraints limiting the placement of the ramps or the placement of the crossing. There are 30 ramps with anticipated Crosswalk Closures. These are anticipated on Segment A at MP-Cr 1.43-1, 1.43-2, 1.43-3, 1.46-1, 1.46-2, 2.65-1, 3.45-3, 3.55-2, 3.55-3, 3.63-1, 3.89-1, 3.89-2, 4.39-1, 4.39-2, 6.45-1 and 6.45-2; and on Segment B at MP-Cr 1.84-2, 3.13-3 3.13-3A, 3.13-4, 3.13-4A, 3.13-5, 3.13-5A, and 3.13-6 and 3.13-7. (Steve Burris, 52/1527/26)

· Mailbox Needs: (Replace, move, or combine mailboxes) Various locations along the project; protect in place, no relocations identified. (Steve Burris 1/9/26)

· Shoulders / Ditches and Locations: (Adequate widths/slopes/shoulder rock/ditch work, aggregate needed, subgrade needed, ditch work needed. Describe specific areas of need.)

N/A. (Steve Burris 12/24/25)

· Survey Needs-Confidence Point Level: (Describe broad limits. Construction level DTM, limits, quality level, special features) General limits:

Topographic survey needed at all ADA ramps identified in the project. Refer to the ”Project Limits” section on page 5 of this form for the specific mile points and routes. (Steve Burris 2/6/26)

Traffic Elements: (End comments with your full name and date)

· Signing Needs: (Replace some or all? Move? Will project impact Travel Information Counsel (TIC) signing? Signing plans needed? Sign bridge. refer to foundation needs) There are minor impacts to signage with the project, with some adjusting and relocating of signs.

Signs have a potential of being relocated on Segment A at MP-Cr 1.46-2, 1.55-2, 1.55-4, 1.6-2, 1.65-1, 2.24-3, 3.45-1, 3.45-2, 3.45-4, 3.89-2, 4.16-1, 4.39-3, 4.51-2, 8.05-1, 9.33-2, and 10.26-2, and 11.1-1; and on Segment B at MP-Cr 1.84-4.

Sign adjustments are potentially needed on Segment A at MP-Cr 1.43-1, 1.43-4, 1.55-4, 1.6-1, 1.96-2, 2.99-2, 3.35-3, and 4.16-2; and on Segment B at MP 2.75-1.

There is no TIC signage being impacted with this project. (Steve Burris 2/27/26)

· Striping/Delineation Needs: (Replace some or all? Paint or durable? Add/remove/reinstall? Is a Striping Plan required with project? Approved crosswalks?)

Restriping existing crosswalk markings is included if impacted or if altering crossing locations. Replace existing striping and pavement markings, if impacted. (Steve Burris 12/24/25)

· Signal/Illumination Needs: (Pedestrian crossing needs?)

Work adjacent to traffic signal pole locations will require special consideration to avoid impacting or undermining the signal pole foundation. It is intended that there will be no signal pole or traffic structure relocating as part of this project. Lowering grades around existing traffic structure foundations must comply with GEEGH24-01(b).

No new rectangular rapid flashing beacons or illumination are anticipated.

Traffic loops are likely to be impacted and will need to be replaced as necessary.

There are 1345 push buttons that will be installed or relocated for this project. These are located on Segment A at MP-Cr 1.55-1, 1.55-2, 1.55-4, 1.78-1, 1.78-3, 1.78-4, 2.24-1, 2.24-2, 2.24-3, 2.24-4, 2.94-3A, 3.09-1, 3.09-2, 3.09-3, 3.09-4, 3.35-1, 3.35-2, 3.35-3, 3.35-4, 3.82-1, 3.82-4, 4.9-1, 4.9-2, 5.36-1, 5.36-2, 5.36-3, 5.36-4, 6.26-1, 6.26-2, 6.26-3, 6.26-4, 11.1-1, 11.1-2 and 11.1-3; and on Segment B at MP-Cr 1.5-3, 1.9-1, 1.9-2, 1.9-3, 1.9-4, 2.07-1, 2.07-2, 2.07-3, 2.07-4, 2.56-1, 2.56-2, 2.56-3, 2.56-4, 2.75-1, 2.75-2, 2.75-3, 2.75-4, 3.13-2, 3.13-5A, 3.13-6, 3.13-7, 3.18-1, 3.18-2, 3.18-3, and 3.18-4. (Steve Burris 2/27/26)

· Traffic Control: (Diversion/stage construction/traffic, road closure, temporary bridge, Motor Carrier requirements) Traffic Safety Plans (TSP) and Temporary Pedestrian Accessible Routes are required throughout the project. This will be especially important on Segment A at MP 1.43 and 1.60, and on Segment B at MP 3.13 and 3.18. (Steve Burris 2/9/26)

· Mobility: (Freight route, emergency route for other major highway, lane use restrictions, detour routes) Both Reduction Review and National Network – State Freight routes are along Segment A of the project. The project is also adjacent to the Faith Bible Christian High School on Segment A at MP 10.01 and Valley Catholic High School on Segment A at MP 4.51 and 4.9. Segment B of the project is adjacent to the Jesuit High School at MP 2.07. (Steve Burris 2/9/26)

· Access Recommendations: (Permits, accesses, waivers, IAMP, strategy, AMP plan) No access modifications anticipated as part of this work. (Steve Burris 12/24/25)

Bridge Elements: (End comments with your full name and date)

· Bridge Needs (Completed Before Scoping): (Refer to bridge inspection reports, sufficiency rating, other structural items, end treatments, joints, deck, erosion, scour protection, remove replace, overlay, replace seals)

· Bridge Rail Needs: (Leave, adjust, replace, change type, aesthetic treatment, add end terminals) There are no bridge rails adjacent to any of the project sites of this project. (Steve Burris 1/9/26)

· Water Quality/Detention Needs:

No sites will need water quality swales or water detention. (Steve Burris 12/24/25)

· Foundation / Geology Needs: (Drilling needed? Surcharge? Other?)

Environmental Elements: (End comments with your full name and date)

· Hazmat Sites (Completed Before Scoping): (Known and possible sites) Several hazmat sites (from Oregon Department of Environmental Quality data) were identified in proximity to corners. General hazmat risks were classified broadly by zone. The areas in the TV Highway corridor are High Density urban/commercial/industrial areas, and the rest of the sites are largely in Low/Medium density residential/rural areas.

Areas of note that may have hazardous materials are on Segment A at MP-Cr 1.43-2, 1.43-3, 1.46-1, 1.55-2, 1.55-4, 1.6-2, 1.6-3, 1.6-4, 1.78-3, 1.96-1, 1.96-2, 2.13-4, 2.32-2, 2.65-1, 3.09-2, 3.09-3, 3.35-1, 3.45-1, 3.45-2, 3.45-4, 3.55-1, 3.55-2, 3.55-3, 3.55-4, 3.63-3, 3.82-1, 3.82-4, 4.16-1, 4.25-1, 4.39-1, 4.39-2, 6.45-1, 6.45-2, 6.73-1, 6.73-2, 9.86-1, 10.11-2, and 10.26-1; and on Segment B at MP-Cr 2.07-2, 2.07-4, 2.75-1, 2.75-2, and 3.13-5. (Steve Burris 2/27/26)

· Historical Sites (Completed Before Scoping): (Known and possible sites. Historical barns/buildings.)

There are a few possible historical sites impacted as part of this project on Segment A at MP-Cr 1.43-1, 1.43-2, 1.43-3, 1.46-1, 1.55-1, 1.6-1, and 4.39-3. At MP-Cr 1.43-1, 1.43-2, 1.43-3 and 1.46-1, there is an old garage that is likely of no concern. At MP-Cr 1.55-1 and 1.6-1 there are old buildings noted as well. On Segment A at MP 4.39-3 there is a historic railroad that is likely of no concern. (Steve Burris 2/27/26)

· Archaeological Sites (Completed Before Scoping): (Known and possible sites. Level of survey needed and estimated cost ) No archaeological concerns identified in this project. (Steve Burris 12/24/25 per Christian Nauer matrix notes)

· Wetlands (Completed Before Scoping): (Known or possible wetlands, mitigation sites, ponds, standing water) No corners/ramps are within mapped wetlands.(James Gregory 12/22/25)

· Fish Passage Needs:

None anticipated. (James Gregory 12/23/25)

· Other Environmental Considerations (Completed Before Scoping): (Threatened and endangered species, known habitat, fish passage, birds, plants, land use, water quality, 4F-public recreation, parks lands, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, noise, in-water work period, potential disposal sites, landscaping needs, erosion control, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, timing constraints):

Several corners/ramps on Segment A at MP 1.6, 1.65, 3.35, 4.16, 4.25, 4.9, and 5.36 are potential areas of environmental concern. Ramps on Segment A at MP 1.6 and 1.65 are adjacent to Eden Gardens, a potential 4f area. Ramps on Segment A at MP 3.35, 4.16, and 4.25 are located within mapped flood hazard zones and may require coordination with and approval from the local agency for floodplain development. Street level photos indicate these ramps are within developed areas. On Segment A at MP 4.9 and 5.36 there are ramps located adjacent to a trail proving access to a public park, and work on that ramp should avoid the path. (Steve Burris 2/10/26)

· Environmental Permits: (DSL, CORPs, floodplain, federal, state, and county) Floodplain development permits may be required by the jurisdictions where ramps are in mapped flood hazard areas at MP 3.35, 4.16, and 4.25. Detailed consideration of location with respect to regulated flood hazard areas and local jurisdiction requirements and coordination with local jurisdictions should be part of further project development. (James Gregory 12/23/25)

ROW/Utility Elements: (End comments with your full name and date)

· R/W: (R/W easements, slope, drainage, temporary construction easements, mitigation sites) Many sites throughout the project will need possible or anticipated R/W easements and temporary construction easements. It is anticipated that R/W will be needed along the project on Segment A at MP-Cr 1.43-1, 1.43-2, 1.43-3, 1.43-4, 1.46-1, 1.46-3, 1.46-4, 1.55-1, 1.55-2, 1.55-4, 1.6-3, 1.6-4, 1.65-2, 1.65-3, 1.65-4, 1.78-1, 1.78-4, 1.96-1, 1.96-2, 1.96-4, 2.13-4, 2.24-1, 2.24-3, 2.24-4, 2.32-1, 2.32-2, 2.65-1, 2.65-2, 2.99-2, 3.09-1, 3.09-2, 3.35-3, 3.35-4 3.45-1, 3.45-2, 3.45-3, 3.45-4, 3.55-1, 3.55-2, 3.55-3, 3.55-4, 3.63-1, 3.63-2, 3.63-3, 3.82-1, 3.82-4, 3.89-1, 4.16-1, 4.16-2, 4.25-1, 4.36-1, 4.51-1, 4.51-2, 4.9-1, 4.9-2, 6.26-1, 6.99-2, 8.57-1, 8.57-2, 9.33-1, 9.33-2, 10.11-1, 11.1, and 11.46-1; and on Segment B at MP-Cr 1.5-3, 1.84-1, 1.84-2, 1.84-3, 1.84-4, 1.9-1, 1.9-4, 2.07-1, 2.07-2, 2.07-3, 2.07-4, 2.56-1, 2.56-2, 2.56-3, 2.56-4, 2.75-1, 2.75-2, 3.13-3, 3.13-4, and 3.18-1. This is based on the preliminary easement mapping we have and determining where the ramp seems to lie, and on assumptions of area needed behind the sidewalk for remediated ramps. (Steve Burris 2/27/26)

· Utility Conflicts/Easements (Completed Before Scoping): (Underground, conduit and overhead conflicts. Apparent utility work effort, minimal, moderate, intermediate, complex (explain). Apparent non-reimbursable facilities, gas, phone toll-cable, TV electrical, water, sand sewer, steam, other. List owner/operators, of known at this time (enter into PDWP). Describe apparent reimbursable facilities location, why reimbursable? Other concerns, costs, potential delay to construction.)

Moderate utility work will be needed with this project on Segments A and B.

There are a few potential adjustments to meter boxes on Segment A at MP 1.55-4, 1.6-3, 1.78-3, 1.96-3, 2.13-4, 2.24-1, 2.24-3, 2.24-4, 2.32-1, 3.35-1, 3.63-3, 3.82-1, 3.82-4, 4.39-1, 4.39-2, and 10.78-1; and on Segment B at MP-Cr 1.9-3, 2.07-1, and 2.07-3.

There are potential valve box adjustments on Segment A at MP-Cr 1.65-1, 1.78-3, 1.78-4, 1.96-2, 2.24-2, 2.24-3, 3.82, 4.51-2, 6.45-1, 8.05-1, 9.33-2, 10.11-1; and on Segment B at MP-Cr 2.07-2, 2.07-3, and 3.13-7.

A luminaire will potentially need adjusting on Segment A at MP-Cr 4.16-1.

There will be potential relocates needed for a utility pole on Segment A at MP-Cr 1.46-2, 1.6-1, 4.16-1, and 4.16-2.

Fire hydrant relocations are potentially needed on Segment A at MP-Cr 3.63-2, 3.82-1, and 4.51-1.

A valve box relocation is potentially needed on Segment A at MP-Cr 3.45-4.

A meter relocation is potentially needed on Segment A at MP-Cr 1.55-1 and 1.55-2.

Guy wires will potentially need relocated on Segment A at MP-Cr 3.63-2 and 11.46-1. (Steve Burris 2/10/26)

· Railroad: (Issues, Orders, Permits, R/W required, etc.)

There is a railroad line owned by Portland and Western Railroad (PNWR) adjacent to ramps on Segment A at MP 3.35, 4.39, 6.26, 11.1, and 11.46.

The ramps on Segment A at MP-Cr 3.35-1, 3.35-2, 3.35-3, 3.35-4, 4.39-3, 6.26-3, 6.26-4, 11.1-3, 11.46-3, and 11.46-4 have possible railroad coordination needed.

At MP 3.35, it needs to be confirmed if a crossing agreement exists, and the extent/limits of associated maintenance requirements. At MP-Cr 4.39-3, 6.26-3, 6.26-4, 11.1-3, 11.46-3, and 11.46-4 the R/W limits need to be confirmed.

At MP-Cr 4.39-3 there is likely an associated crossing agreement.

At MP-Cr 6.26-3, 6.26-4, 11.1-3, 11.46-3, and 11.46-4, if work is within the railroad R/W, then a temporary occupancy permit will likely be needed. ODOT railroad SME input needed. (Steve Burris 2/27/26)

· Fixtures/Improvements:

N/A. (Steve Burris 1/9/26)

Maintenance Elements (Note/list problems or recommended solutions) (End comments with your full name and date)

· Surface Drainage Needs (Completed Before Scoping): (Inlets, flooding issues, etc.)

Possible adjustments and some relocations of catch basins were identified, but most catch basins will be protected in place. Catch basin adjustments will be potentially needed on Segment A at MP-Cr 3.89-2, 4.16-2, 6.26-1, 6.45-1, 6.99-2, and 10.78-2; and on Segment B at MP-Cr 2.56-3 and 2.75-3.

Catch basin relocations will be potentially needed on Segment A at MP-Cr 1.6-1, 1.78-4, 1.96-1, 1.96-2, 2.13-3, 2.24-1, 2.24-2, 2.32-1, 3.45-4, 3.55-1, 3.82-4, 4.16-1, 6.26-2, 8.05-1, 8.57-1, 9.33-1, and 10.26-1; and on Segment B at MP-Cr 1.84-2 and 1.9-2. (Steve Burris 2/27/26)

· Striping and Delineation Needs: (Striping needs or changes that should occur. Other delineation elements that need to be addressed)

· Pavement Issues/Needs: (Potholes, cracking, pumping, other needs?)

There is heavy roadway deterioration that will likely require extended saw cuts to ensure proper remediation at ramps on Segment B at MP-Cr 1.9-1, 1.9-2, 1.9-3, 1.9-4, 3.13-2, 3.13-4, and 3.13-5A. (Steve Burris 2/10/26)

· Culverts Needs: (Repair, replace, upgrade size, condition or failing capacity) Ramps for this project are not near any culverts. (Steve Burris 1/9/26)

· Accident Sites:

There are possible accident sites all along the Segments A and B as they are all within high crash areas, with these corridors ranging from top 15% to top 5% of SPIS sites.

Along Segment A there are top 5% SPIS sites at MP 2.94-2.99, 3.55-3.63, 5.36, and 6.73-6.99; and on Segment B at MP 3.13-3.18. The SPIS rating for these areas varies from 54.42-79.78, with an ADT up to 36,201.

Refer to the ”Traffic Data Analysis“ section above for a more detailed breakdown. (Steve Burrs 2/10/26)

· Weather Related Issues/Concerns: (Snow and ice issues)

· Roadway Cross Slope Issues: (Sheeting, too flat, too steep) Cross slope issues are possible for ramps on Segment A at MP-Cr 1.55-1, 1.55-2, 1.55-4, 1.96-1, 3.35-2, 3.55-1, 3.55-3, 3.82-1, 3.82-4, 3.89-1, 3.89-2, 4.16-2, 4.51-1, 4.51-2, 4.9-1, 6.73-1, 8.05-1, 9.33-1, 9.33-2, 10.01-1, and 10.01-2; and on Segment B at MP-Cr 1.84-1, 1.84-2, 1.9-3, and 1.9-4. (Steve Burris 2/10/26)

· District Permits: (Local permits needed) ODOT SMEs review is still needed/anticipated. (Steve Burris 1/9/26) image1.png