Socioeconmics Report Screening Draft 052213R

Table of ContentsList of Figures Figure 5-1: Project Area...3 Figure 5-2: Location of Census Tracts in the Project Area...6 Figure 5-3: City of Albany Neighborhoods in the Project Area..

Preliminary Pre-PDT Screening Workshop Draf

I-5: SOUTH JEFFERSON TO US 20

Socioeconomic Technical Report

Mark Ford Associates LLC

Preliminary Pre-PDT Screening Workshop Draf

Salem, OR 97302

S.R Kale Consulting LLC

2750 Jory Hill Road South

Salem, OR 97306

Table of Contents

List of Figures

Figure 5-1: Project Area 3

Figure 5-2: Location of Census Tracts in the Project Area 6

Figure 5-3: City of Albany Neighborhoods in the Project Area 11

Figure 6-4: Proposed New Millersburg Interchange and Connections to Old Salem Road and Century Drive 4

Figure 6-5: Proposed New Connections with Local Streets West of the Knox Butte Interchange 5

Figure 6-6: Proposed New Streets with Closure of the Airport Road Access to US 20 6

Figure 6-7: Proposed New Street with Closure of Century Drive at Knox Butte Road 8

Figure 6-8: Proposed New Streets in the Southeast Quadrant of the Santiam Interchange 10

Figure 6-9: 2010 Census Blocks with a Concentration of Hispanic Population in the Santiam Neighborhood 15

List of Tables Table 2-1: TPAU Future No-Build Table 3

Table 4-2: Data and Information Sources for the Proposed I-5 Widening Project 2

Table 5-3: Average Daily Traffic Volumes on State Highways in the Project Area, 2011 1

Table 5-4: Population in Oregon, Linn County, Albany, Millersburg, and Selected Census Tracts and Blocks, July 1, 2012 and April 1, 2010 4

Table 5-5: Population by Hispanic or Latino and Race, April 1, 2010, Oregon, Linn County, Albany, Millersburg, and Selected Census Tracts and Blocks 7

Table 5-6: Forecasted Population for Albany, Oregon, 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2025 8

Table 5-7: Number of Housing Units and Vacancy Rates in Oregon, Linn County, Albany, Millersburg, and Selected Census Tracts and Blocks, April 1, 2010 9

Table 5-8: Income and Poverty Rates in Oregon, Linn County, Albany, Millersburg, Census Tract 201, and Census Tract 205, Five Year Estimates, 2007-2011 10Table 5-9: Community Facilities in or Near the Immediate Project Area* 13Table 5-10: Labor Force and Work Force in Oregon and Linn County, 2001 and 2012 15Table 5-11: Employment by Industry, Oregon, Linn County, Albany, Millersburg,Census Tract 201, and Census Tract 205, Five Year Estimates, 2007-2011 17Table 5-12: Taxes Imposed by Major Taxing District Typesin Linn County, Oregon, 2000 and 2012 19Table 5-13: Housing Values for Owner-Occupied Units in Oregon, Linn County, Albany, Millersburg, Census Tract 201, and Census Tract 205, Five Year Estimates, 2007-2011 19Table 6-14: Estimated Number of Residential Displacements for the Proposed I-5 Widening Project 2Table 6-15: 2013 Poverty Guidelines for the 48 Contiguous States,U.S Department of Health and Human Services* 14Table 6-16: Estimated Number of Businesses That would be Displaced for the Proposed I-5 Widening Project 20Table 6-17: Estimated Reduction in Property Taxes That would Occur with the Proposed I-5 Widening Project 25

List of Appendices

Appendix A: FHWA Guidance on the Analysis

Appendix B: Zoning Maps

Appendix C: Community Facilities

Appendix D: Leading Employers in the Albany-Millersburg Area

Appendix E: Selected Definitions Relating to Environmental Justice Populations, Adverse Effects, and Disproportionate Effects

Appendix F: Selected Concerns and Questions from

Acronyms and Abbreviations

To be included in draf report.

1.0 Introduction

The purpose of this Technical Report is to summarize the review of relevant Federal, State and local regulations, coordination with applicable agencies, field investigations, and public input regarding the I-5 South Jefferson to US 20 project and its potential socioeconomic and environmental justice effects Project Description, Location, and Background Information

The Interstate 5 (I-5) South Jefferson to US 20 Environmental Assessment (EA) will evaluate the

environmental and socioeconomic effects of the proposed improvements associated with the project, which is designed to reduce congestion and improve the operational efficiency and safety of I-5 and the interchanges serving the Albany-Millersburg area of northwestern Linn County, Oregon The project area

is located along an approximately 5-mile stretch of I-5 that begins north of Millersburg at the South Jefferson Interchange (mile post [MP] 238.2) and ends at the US 20 (Santiam Highway) Interchange (MP 233.2) There are five existing interchanges in the project area (listed from north to south): South

Jefferson; Viewcrest (MP 237.7); Murder Creek (MP 235.7); Knox Butte (MP 234.2); and US 20 Error: Reference source not found illustrates the project area, locations of the existing interchanges, and connections with the local road network

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Oregon Department of

Transportation (ODOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are preparing an EA to assess the effects of the proposed action on the human and natural environment ODOT and FHWA are working

in coordination with Linn County and the cities of Albany and Millersburg in this effort The EA will assist ODOT and FHWA to decide: (1) whether to prepare a finding of no significant impact or an

Environmental Impact Statement; and (2) the selection of specific corridor improvements

I-5 is an important part of the region’s transportation system It moves goods and people through the region The section of I-5 in the project area has been experiencing increasing delays and congestion as levels of development and traffic volumes in the region increase over time, leading to inefficient access

to, and mobility on, the transportation system in the urban Albany/Millersburg area of northern Linn County The ODOT Traffic Planning and Analysis Unit (TPAU) completed analysis of existing (2008) and future (2035) traffic conditions using current land use and development planning assumptions The TPAUanalysis completed for existing (2008) traffic conditions shows that traffic operations on the I-5 mainline are beginning to approach Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) mobility standards (which are used to measure levels of congestion), as are traffic operations on the majority of the interchange ramps in this section of I-5 Key signalized intersections on the local road network where the state and the local road network interface– such as at the intersections of Oregon Highway 99 East (OR 99E) and Airport Road, US

Highway 20 (US 20) and Airport Road at the I-5 southbound (SB) ramps, and US 20 and Spicer Drive at the I-5 northbound (NB) ramps – are already exceeding OHP mobility standards

Conditions are expected to decline in the future due to a projected increase in the region’s residential, industrial, and commercial development Further, traffic operations are hampered by the fact that the

existing interchanges in the project area were built in the 1950s to serve the conditions of the time and are spaced too close together, which affects how traffic moves between these interchanges These conditions affect access to businesses and homes in the Albany and Millersburg area and create travel delays on I-5 Future (2035) traffic projections show that OHP mobility standards would be exceeded on the vast majority of I-5 mainline segments within the project’s limits, and that traffic operations on all existing freeway on- and off-ramps would exceed OHP mobility standards

To address the operational and safety-related deficiencies identified on I-5 and the five existing

interchanges within the project area, ODOT is proposing to make modifications to the I-5 mainline, to four of the five interchanges, and to some local streets within the project area Specifically, ODOT is proposing to:

Widen I-5 to 6 lanes (with structures designed to accommodate up to 8 lanes in the future – but striping

to include only 6 lanes as part of this project);

Close the Murder Creek and Viewcrest interchanges;

Construct a new Millersburg interchange;

Modify Knox Butte and US 20 interchanges

Modify and improve local roads as required by proposed interchange modifications

2.0 Purpose and Need

Summary

The purpose and need statement describes the transportation problem to be solved by the proposed action It also establishes the key issues that need to be addressed and lays out key requirements that any alternative needs to satisfy in order to be considered in the EA Alternatives that cannot resolve the issues articulated in the purpose and need statement are typically not advanced for detailed analysis in

an EA The primary screen used to consider alternatives in the EA is their ability to meet the purpose andneed

The EA’s purpose and need statement evolved from using data and inventories of the facility’s condition (which documented the deficiencies and needs of the highway) The statement was further developed and refined by the project team in consultation with Project Development Team, the Stakeholders

Advisory Committee, and the Project Steering Committee.1 For the I-5 South Jefferson to US 20 EA

project, the purpose and need deals with operational, safety, and access issues on I-5 and the associated interchanges in northern Linn County

Purpose of the Project

The purpose of the proposed project is to reduce current and anticipated future congestion, improve theoperational conditions, and improve safety of Interstate 5 and of the associated interchanges in the Albany-Millersburg area of northern Linn County, Oregon

Need for the Project

I-5 is an important part of the state’s and region’s transportation system It moves goods and people through the region The section of I-5 in the Albany-Millersburg area has been experiencing increasing delays and congestion as levels of development and traffic volumes have increased Traffic analysis conducted by ODOT identifies operational problems around interchange areas and indicates congestion will worsen in the future Congestion and delays, in turn, affect safety on the highway and interchanges,

as well as access and mobility on the local transportation system adjacent to the facility

The South Jefferson, Viewcrest, Murder Creek, Knox Butte, and Santiam Highway interchanges that serve Millersburg and Albany currently experience congestion and operational issues that are expected to increase due to the region’s anticipated residential, industrial, and commercial growth and

development The Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) identifies the mobility (or operational) standards used to

1 The Stakeholders Advisory Team has representatives of neighborhoods, business and civic groups, localpark and emergency services agencies, and provides community level review and input on the project The Project Development Team has representatives of ODOT, Linn County, and the cities of Albany and Millersburg, as well as an SAT member, and provides input and guidance on project issues The Steering Committee is composed of the mayors of Millersburg and Albany, a Linn County Commissioner, the ODOT Area Manager, and a representative of the FHWA and provides policy input and interim decision making for the project

measure congestion By 2035, and without improvement, all interchanges are projected to operate below the OHP mobility standards during the highest use times of day known as the “peak hour” (Table

2 -1), indicating severely inefficient performance and congested conditions

Similarly, by 2035 and without improvements, all segments of I-5 between the interchanges would not meet the OHP’s mobility standards (Table 2 -1)

Congested conditions on I-5 and the interchanges would, in turn, affect access between I-5 and

businesses and homes in the Albany/Millersburg area ODOT’s analysis of future traffic conditions

project key intersections within the project area will experience severe congestion that would exceed mobility standards (Table 2 -1)

As traffic volumes and congestion increase, the potential for crashes is expected to increase Traffic delayed (queuing) on interchange ramps can back up, increasing the chances of rear end collisions When crashes do occur on I-5 motorists experience severe congestion and delays because local roads arenot properly designed to carry the diverted interstate traffic

Table 2-1: TPAU Future No-Build Table

I-5 Mainline Segments

No-Build Standard

Build Standard (HDM/Local)

Cells shaded black where mobility standard is exceeded

US 20 Off-Ramp 0.7 0.54 0.53 0.89 0.80 0.65

Knox Butte Rd and Timber St D 0.41 A 0.74 A D

Cells shaded black where mobility standard is exceeded

*Delay (as measured by LOS) improved due to future signal timing optimization

Old Salem Rd and I-5 Ramps 0.70 0.21 C 0.31 D 0.65

Cells shaded black where mobility standard is exceeded

Knox Butte and Goldfish Farm Rd exceeds mobility standard based on LOS (due to delay)

Goals and Objectives

In addition to the purpose and need, ODOT has coordinated with the project’s Stakeholders Advisory Team and Project Development Team to develop project goals and objectives that seek to capture the issues to be addressed by the project that go beyond the key transportation issues identified in the purpose and need statement

The goals and objectives seek to balance environmental, community, and transportation values, and mayconsider broad community goals (such as minimizing neighborhood impacts, improving economic development, improving pedestrian and bicycle mobility, etc.), and regulatory compliance “Goals” are general statements of issues to be addressed by the project; “objectives” are more specific, measurable outcomes that can be used in developing criteria to help evaluate different project alternatives The project goals and objectives are listed below

Goal 1: Maintain and enhance connectivity and mobility for the regional transportation system Objectives:

1. Enhance regional connectivity to and from I-5

2. Improve access to southbound I-5

3. Reduce the congestion associated with incidents (like crashes)

4. Maintain and, where possible, enhance existing local connectivity (e.g., east-west connections

across I-5)

5. Improve connectivity to southbound I-5 from the Knox Butte interchange

6. Support freight mobility in the region

7. Maintain and, where possible, enhance bike and pedestrian facilities on roads affected by the

project

8. Avoid or minimize impacts to the railroad

9. Consider opportunities for future mass transit and/or park-and-ride facilities

Goal 2: Enhance safety on I-5, at interchanges, and on roads changed by the project.

Objectives:

1. Reduce conflict points (such as closely spaced weaves) that increase the chance of crashes

2. Enhance safety (i.e., reduce unsafe conditions associated with congestion and incidents)

3. Improve the access for emergency vehicles to respond to incidents

Goal 3: Develop a project that is consistent with and builds upon adopted plans and policies.

Objectives:

1. Provide alternatives that are consistent with adopted local Transportation System Plans (TSP)

2. Provide alternatives that are consistent with adopted state transportation plans

3. Provide alternatives that are consistent with adopted land use plans.

4. Accommodate planned future growth and development – adequately size facilities for future

demands

5. Provide alternatives that comply with applicable federal design guidelines and standards

Goal 4: Minimize impacts to neighborhoods and support community economic vitality.

Objectives:

6. Provide safe and reasonable access to area development

7. Avoid or minimize impacts to local streets

8. Avoid or minimize airport impacts

9. Support the continued vitality of parks and event venues

10. Avoid or minimize impacts to farmland (Exclusive Farm Use [EFU] resources) outside of those

already approved under the existing goal exception

11. Avoid or minimize the impact of cut-through traffic on neighborhoods

Goal 5: Protect and enhance environmental resources.

Objectives:

1. Avoid and minimize impacts to parks

2. Enhance project area aesthetics, including views from I-5 to the surrounding areas, where

possible

3. Avoid and minimize impacts to historic sites (i.e., properties listed in or eligible for listing in the

National Register of Historic Places)

4. Minimize noise impacts to neighborhoods and other noise-sensitive receptors

5. Use native vegetation in landscaping where possible

6. Minimize impacts to wetlands and waterbodies

Goal 6: Provide a sustainable, cost-effective project.

Objectives:

1. Maintain mobility and connectivity and minimize congestion during construction

2. Provide facilities that minimize maintenance requirements, such as low maintenance

landscaping and natural stormwater treatments wherever practicable

3. Maximize likelihood of project implementation

4. Optimize the project’s cost effectiveness

While meeting the purpose and need is essential for an alternative to be considered in the EA, the goals and objectives help ODOT and its project partners determine how effectively an alternative and its design options may address key transportation and community issues The goals and objectives are also

useful in helping ODOT develop criteria that can be used to evaluate and select the build alternative and design options to be evaluated in detail in the EA.

3.0 Project Alternatives

No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative is a scenario where I-5 and the current interchanges would remain in place, in their current configurations, into the reasonably foreseeable future, with only routine maintenance to prevent deterioration The No Build Alternative provides the basis for evaluating the environmental effects of the proposed project For the I-5 South Jefferson to US 20 EA, the No Build Alternative would:Maintain the existing number of through lanes on I-5

Keep the Murder Creek and Viewcrest interchanges open

Maintain the current configuration of the Knox Butte and US 20 interchanges

Maintain the existing local street network connections The following local system improvements are planned and were included in the modeling of the future no build traffic conditions:

1 TPAU needs to provide the list of local system improvements that were assumed for the

traffic model

Build Alternative

The proposed Build Alternative would:

Add one twelve-foot travel lane in each direction to the I-5 mainline within the study area (on the outside of the existing lanes)

Add a new, fully directional interchange at Millersburg and close the existing Viewcrest and Murder Creek interchanges

Improve the existing Knox Butte and US 20 interchanges These closely spaced interchanges function as

a connected system Two separate connection concepts are being considered: an auxiliary lane and a collector-distributor option

Make local roadway system improvements associated with the above action and design options Proposed local system improvements would be required to accommodate proposed interchange improvements and meet current design standards Most proposed improvements are included in the local jurisdictions’ adopted transportation system plans

Figure 1-1 presents the location of the proposed improvements Details on each component of the proposed Build Alternative are presented in the following sections ODOT has identified design options (geometric variations) for the interchange improvements

I-5 Mainline

The Build Alternative includes the addition of one twelve-foot travel lane in each direction to I-5 (on the outside of existing travel lanes) from approximately MP 238 (South Jefferson interchange) to MP 233, just south of the US 20 interchange With the addition of the travel lanes, I-5 would have 3 lanes in each direction through the project area In general, these travel lanes would be added to the outside of the existing lanes (except where constraints, such as railroad tracks, make it preferable to widen to the center) Figure 2-1 provides a typical cross section that illustrates the proposed addition of lanes to the I-5 mainline.

Adding lanes to I-5 would require widening or replacement of bridges and structures in the project area Several I-5 bridges crossing roads or drainages/waterways and others crossing over the highway would need to be widened or replaced to accommodate the additional travel lanes

Millersburg Interchange

A new interchange accommodating access and movements in all directions would be constructed at approximately MP _ The new interchange would serve Millersburg and replace two existing partial interchanges (Viewcrest and Murder Creek), as described in the following sections ODOT considered and developed multiple design options for the proposed Millersburg interchange These design options were screened and evaluated by the PDT using criteria based on the purpose and need and goals and objectives; two options were recommended for detailed evaluation through the EA process In addition, for the proposed Millersburg interchange, the PDT recommended considering two connection options onthe west to Old Salem Road The options are described below in sections 3.2.2.2 (1a or 1b) and 3.2.2.3 (2a or 2b)

Close Viewcrest and Murder Creek Interchanges

The existing Viewcrest (MP 237.7) and Murder Creek (MP235.7) interchanges (see Figure 3-1) would be closed and removed upon completion and opening of the new Millersburg interchange Closure of the Viewcrest interchange would involve demolition of the existing ramps and bridge over I-5 The Murder Creek interchange ramps would be removed The connection between Old Salem Road and Century Drive that passes below I-5 would be retained, and the connection modifications to the roads would be improved to meet current design standards Century Drive would be constructed to current standards (ODOT major collector) between the Viewcrest and Murder Creek interchange areas

Option 1 – Folded Diamond Interchange

Millersburg interchange Design Option 1 (see Figure 3-1) would provide a fully-directional interchange that connects I-5 to Century Drive on the east and Old Salem Road on the west, providing access to the city of Millersburg and surrounding Linn County For this design option, Century Drive would be shifed approximately 1,400 feet to the east to provide 1,325 feet of separation between the end of the ramps

to and from I-5 and the closest intersection, in accordance with ODOT’s interchange design

requirements I-5 would be realigned slightly to the east through the interchange area

A new over-crossing roadway would be a feature of all interchange options connecting Century Drive andOld Salem Road; all ramps would connect to this road The road would also cross over the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), which is located immediately west of and parallel to I-5 (see Figure 5) The

overcrossing of I-5 and UPRR would be via an approximately -foot long bridge, which would provide clearances over I-5 and the railroad in accordance with required design standards

Century Drive and Old Salem Road would be improved in the interchange area to meet current design standards Reconstruction to current standards would include a 12-foot travel lane in each direction, with 6-foot shoulders Old Salem Road would be reconstructed to current Linn County standards north and south of the proposed interchange connection (specific connection options are described below).1a – Old Salem Road North Connection

This option would connect the Millersburg interchange to Old Salem Road at the Conser Drive intersection The current Conser Drive connection, east to Old Salem Road, would be replaced by a cul-de-sac, (see Figure 3-1) In addition, a new local road connection between Conser Drive and Palm Harbor Drive would be constructed east of I-5 and the UPRR

1b – Old Salem Road South Connection

This option would connect the Millersburg interchange with Old Salem Road approximately 1,000 feet south of the current Conser Drive intersection Except for a new local road connection between Conser Drive and Palm Harbor Drive other elements of the connection would be the same as

described above for 1a

Option 2 – Folded Diamond with Looped Cross Road

Option 2 of the proposed Millersburg interchange would be located in the same area as Option 1 (see Figure 3-2) Option 2 uses a looped cross road to achieve the required access separation distance between the end of the ramp and the closest intersection with Century Drive This approach creates a smaller overall footprint for the interchange, but also requires a bridge over Century Drive as well as overI-5 (Option 1 does not include a bridge over Century Drive) Other elements of the interchange design, including the Old Salem Road connection options (2a and 2b), are the same as Option 1a and 1b

(respectively)

2a – Old Salem Road North Connection (see description above)

2b – Old Salem Road South Connection (see description above)

Knox Butte Interchange

Option 1 – Partial Cloverleaf

This option is a modified interchange that would be constructed in the same vicinity as the existing interchange (see Figure 3-3) The layout of this option is substantially different from the existing

interchange The new interchange would accommodate movements in all directions, adding a

southbound on ramp (which is currently lacking from this interchange), and the removal of one of the two existing southbound off ramps (exit 234A south of Knox Butte Road would be removed) For this design option, the interstate would be realigned slightly to the east approximately _ feet for additionaltravel lanes and the southbound on-ramp Pacific Boulevard SE/Highway 99E would be realigned slightly

to the north on the west side of the interstate

A new northbound loop on ramp, for eastbound Knox Butte Road traffic, would be a feature of this interchange The eastbound and westbound lanes of Knox Butte Road would be consolidated under I-5.This option has a slightly smaller footprint than Option 2/Split Diamond layout In addition, this option requires two new (non-local system) signalized intersections to function properly

Option 2 – Split Diamond

Knox Butte interchange Design Option 2 (see Figure 3-4) would provide a fully-directional interchange; this option is substantially similar to the current configuration with the exception of adding a new southbound on ramp (by eliminating/closing the second southbound off-ramp) and adding four new (non-local system) signalized intersections to function properly For this design option, the highway would be realigned slightly to the east approximately _ feet to provide the needed room for additionaltravel lanes and the southbound on-ramp

As previously stated, this option features the addition of a southbound on-ramp (like Option 1), and removal of the same southbound off ramp as Option 1

In addition, similar to the existing configuration, this option splits eastbound and westbound lanes of Knox Butte Road as it passes through the interchange area

Local System Changes Common to both options

East of the interstate at Knox Butte, either interchange Option would cul-de-sac Century Drive at its present intersection with Knox Butte Road Traffic would be rerouted via a new local road extension connecting Dunlap Avenue and Expo Parkway (see Figures 3-3 and 3-4); Dunlap Avenue would be extended to the east and Expo Parkway to the north to accommodate the new route Dunlap Avenue would be constructed as a minor arterial and Expo Parkway would be improved to minor collector standards (current City of Albany standards) Both options would turn access to Aviation Way (City of Albany Airport access) into a right-in/right-out only movement (designers to confirm)

West of I-5 both options would include a new southbound on ramp (eliminating the current second southbound highway off-ramp, exit 234A , which connects directly to Airport Road SE) and the ability to accommodate either connecting option (Auxiliary Lanes or Collector-Distributor System) to the Santiam

Interchange Both options would also widen Albany Avenue SE between SE Salem Avenue and Pacific Boulevard SE/Highway 99E (i.e., where Albany Avenue SE crosses Waverly Park – see Figures 3-3 and 3-4).

US 20 Interchange

Option 1 – Single Point Urban Diamond (SPUD)

US 20 interchange Option 1 would construct a SPUD interchange (see Figure 3-5) A SPUD would

consolidate all movements between the interstate and US 20 through one control point (a signalized intersection over the interstate travel lanes) This option would realign US 20 slightly to the south through the interchange area The interchange design allows for free right turn movements at the ramp terminals and all lef turn movements (for example, northbound I-5 to westbound US 20) would be controlled through the signal at the center of the interchange Existing ramps in all quadrants of the interchange would be removed

East of I-5, access to Fescue Road SE would be removed and replaced by a new connection and access point approximately 1,500 feet further east, which would connect US 20 with Circle Drive SE and Spicer Drive SE to a new roundabout at the current intersection of Spicer and Circle SE (see Figure 3-5) Also, new connections are proposed from Circle Drive to Timber Street; and Timber Street to Spicer Drive at the 3 Lakes Road intersection

West of I-5, Airport Road SE would be realigned to the west and would connect to Bain Street SE; AirportRoad no longer would connect directly to US 20 (see Figure 3-5) The realigned Airport Road SE would

be between the Heatherdale Mobile Village and the businesses on the north side of US 20; in addition, the realignment segment would be connected to US 20 via Dale Street (opposite an offset alignment with Center Street SE) South of US 20, Center Street SE would be realigned slightly to the west near its current intersection with US 20 As described above, Center Street would be realigned to the north on

US 20 to connect to Dale Street SE In addition, existing access between the interchange and Center Street would be made into right-in/right-out only movements

Option 2 – Partial Cloverleaf

US 20 interchange Option 2 is a modified configuration and partial rebuild of the existing partial

cloverleaf interchange The ramps on the east side of the interchange would be modified slightly The existing westbound US 20 ramp to northbound I-5 would be consolidated with the existing eastbound US

20 ramp to northbound I-5 The southbound off-ramp would be changed from a loop ramp to a folded diamond ramp; the loop ramp, located in the southwest quadrant, would be removed (see Figure 3-6) East of I-5, the Fescue Drive SE intersection with US 20 would be modified (see Figure 3-6) and made intoright-in/right-out only movements Timber Street would be improved and new connections to Circle Drive from Timber Street; and Timber Street to Spicer Drive at the 3 Lakes Road intersection would be created

West of I-5, Airport Road SE would be realigned to the west (similar to what is proposed in Option 1), and connect with Bain Street SE to the west South of US 20 Shortridge Street SE would be realigned slightly to the south near its intersection with US 20 Shortridge Street would be improved south of US

20 for approximately 1,000 feet to 16th Avenue SE Also, Shortridge Street SE would be extended north of

US 20 to connect with the realigned Airport Road SE

Local System Changes Common to both options

East of I-5, both US 20 interchange options would include a new connection from Timber Street SE to theSpicer Drive SE and 3 Lakes intersection, and from Timber Street to Circle Drive SE A new roundabout would be created at new connection intersection of Timber Street, Spicer and 3 Lakes SE The existing Timber Drive SE south of the new connection and Spicer Drive SE would serve local access only (see Figures 3-5 and 3-6)

As noted above, Airport Road SE would be realigned to the west and connect with Bain Street SE, and would no longer connect directly with US 20

Knox Butte – US 20 Connection

The Knox Butte and US 20 interchanges function as an interconnected system due to their proximity to each other and their connections to the local road network ODOT has proposed two options for

connecting the two interchanges to I-5 and each other Those options are described below

Option 1 - Auxiliary Lanes

An auxiliary lane system would provide an additional lane immediately adjacent to the I-5 mainline travellanes that would run between the Knox Butte and US 20 interchanges (see Figures 3-7 and 3-8) Auxiliarylanes provide longer areas and greater opportunity for traffic to merge on and off the interstate, thereby reducing conflicts between merging and diverging vehicles

Option 2 - Collector-Distributor System

A collector-distributor, or C-D, system provides an additional two lanes adjacent to the mainline I-5 travellanes, physically separated by barriers, that would run between the Knox Butte and US 20 interchanges (see Figures 3-9 and 3-10) A C-D system moves the merging and diverging traffic to the separate lanes, further reducing the conflicts between merging and diverging traffic

4.0 Relevant Laws and Regulations, Data Sources, and Methods

Relevant Laws and Regulations

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended (NEPA) established

“ that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local governments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements

of present and future generations of Americans” (U.S Code 1970).

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in its implementation of NEPA, requires considering possible adverse economic, social, and environmental effects relating to a proposed project, and that final decisions regarding projects are to be made in the best overall public interest (U.S Code 2012) Thisincludes taking into account the need for fast, safe and efficient transportation, public services, and the costs of eliminating or minimizing adverse effects on human-made resources; community cohesion; employment, tax and property values; desirable community and regional growth; and displacement of people, businesses, and farms

To assist in the analyzing social and economic effects, the FHWA in 1987 issued Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(F) Documents According to FHWA guidance, analyses of

social effects address changes in neighborhoods or community cohesion, changes in travel patterns and accessibility, impacts on community facilities and services, impacts on highway, traffic, and public safety, and impacts on social groups, including whether any social group is disproportionately impacted Analyses of economic effects address impacts on the regional and/or local economy, impacts on existing highway-related businesses, and impacts on established business districts Appendix A provides further detail on FHWA guidance on analyzing social and economic effects

Projects involving a federal action must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and Executive Order

(EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Title VI (U.S Code 1964) prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national

origin EO 12898 directs federal agencies “to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, and consistent with the principles set forth in the report on the National Performance Review, each agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,

policies, and activities on minority populations and low income populations” (Federal Register 1994).

If properties are acquired or displaced by a proposed project, the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Properties Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, applies (U.S Code 2012) The act provides protections and assistance for federally funded projects, and ensures that people whose real property is acquired, or who move as a result of projects receiving federal funds, will be treated fairly

and equitably and will receive assistance in moving from the property they occupy (Federal Highway Administration 2013) In 2012, Congress passed surface transportation funding legislation—the “MovingAhead for Progress in the 21st Century Act” (MAP-21)—which provides for increases in monetary limits for relocation payments and for changes in FHWA requirements for early right-of-way acquisition For more information about laws and regulations on acquisitions and relocation, see the Right-of-Way Technical Report for the proposed I-5 widening project.

Various land use and transportation planning laws and regulations would apply to socioeconomic effects

of the proposed project For example, Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals, as established by Senate Bill

100 in 1973, include goals for citizen involvement, economic development, housing, and transportation

(Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 2010) The Oregon Transportation Plan

(OTP) includes a number of goals, policies, and actions that apply to socioeconomic effects (Oregon Department of Transportation 2007) Construction of the proposed project, for example, would support OTP Policy 3.2 “to develop an integrated system of transportation facilities, services and information so that intrastate, interstate and international travelers can travel easily for business and recreation.” Among other relevant OTP provisions are those pertaining to environmental justice and public

involvement Local comprehensive plans and transportation system plans comply with, and help

implement, statewide laws and regulations, and are also applicable an analysis of socioeconomic effects For a more detailed discussion about statewide, regional, and local land use, transportation, and

associated laws and regulations, see the Land Use Technical Report for the proposed I-5 widening project

Data Sources and Data Collection Methods

Table 4 -2 summarizes data and information sources used for this report A number of these sources, for example the Office of Economic Analysis, Oregon Employment Department, Portland State University,and the U.S Bureau of the Census, provided published data available on line Information from public agencies, such as the City of Albany and Linn County, was obtained through interviews or published documents obtained on line Project specialists provided information obtained through public

involvement activities, field work, and analysis of existing materials Data and information from these sources was supplemented by information obtained by interpreting on-line mapping imagery and from windshield surveys

Table 4-2: Data and Information Sources for the Proposed I-5 Widening Project

Data or Information Source Type of Data or Information

City of Albany Information on neighborhoods, population

estimates, and zoning informationOn-line Mapping Sites and

and zoning informationOregon Employment Department Employment and labor force data

Population estimates and 2010 Census data

Project Public Involvement Meetings

and Coordination

Information on concerns and questions of the general public and stakeholders

Project Land Use Specialists Information of land use issues and trends

Project Right-of-Way Specialists Information on acquisitions and displacements

Project Traffic Specialists Traffic volumes and forecasts

U.S Bureau of the Census, American

Community Survey

Housing, income, population, and poverty data

U.S Bureau of the Census, 2010

regulations, as discussed above in Section 4.1 It also included review of various guidance documents prepared by federal and state agencies, and the assessment and collection of data and information to use in crafing language for this technical report A primary guidance document was ODOT’s (2010)

Environmental Impact Statement Annotated Template On-line mapping sites were used to estimate

differences in travel distances with the proposed project and without the proposed project Geographic Information System sofware was used to analyze data for different layers of information

5.0 Affected Environment

This section of the Socioeconomics Technical Report summarizes existing conditions in the project area The summary includes a brief description of the project area; data on project area demographics, housing, and income, a description of neighborhood and community facilities and cohesion; information

on the area’s property taxes and tax rates; and an overview of the area economy, business districts, and highway-related businesses

Project Area

The proposed project would beis located along I-5 in Albany, Millersburg, and Linn County, Oregon (Figure 5 -1) More specifically, the project would begins at the I-5 South Jefferson interchange and extend southward just over five miles to the Santiam (US 20) interchange Between the South Jefferson interchange and the Knox Butte (North Albany) interchange, properties west of I-5 in the Millersburg area are mostly industrial and commercial between I-5 and Old Salem Road NE; east of I-5 along Century Drive NE, properties are mostly farmland and residential, with several businesses and community facilities such as churches Between the Knox Butte interchange and the Santiam (US 20 interchange, properties west of I-5 are primarily commercial near the interchanges and residential between the interchanges; east of I-5, properties are primarily commercial near the interchanges, with an airport, park, and other government-operated facilities located between the interchanges Appendix B shows the generalized zoning of the areas where these land uses occur

In 2011, average daily traffic daily traffic volumes on I-5 ranged from nearly 60,000 in the northern part

of the project area to just over 47,000 south of the Santiam (US 20) interchange (Table 5 -3) On US 20 just west of the Santiam interchange, the average volume in 2011 was 18,000 daily; just east of the Santiam interchange, the average volume was 13,000 daily On OR 99E near the Knox Butte (North Albany) interchange, the average daily volume in 2011 was just over 22,000 On OR 64 just east of the South Jefferson interchange, the average daily volume was 6,300 in 2011

Table 5-3: Average Daily Traffic Volumes on State Highways in the Project Area, 2011

Average Daily Traffic Volume Jefferson Highway (OR 64) near the

I-5 South Jefferson Interchange

Pacific Highway (I-5) 0.10 miles south of the Jefferson Highway (south

junction) overcrossing

59,200

Pacific Highway (I-5) 0.30 miles south of the Viewcrest interchange 59,200

Pacific Highway (I-5) 0.50 miles south of the Albany-Junction City

Highway (OR 99E) interchange

46,500

Pacific Highway (I-5) 0.30 miles south of the Santiam Highway (US 20)

interchange

47,100

Albany-Junction City Highway (OR

99E)

0.04 miles northeast of Airport Road 22,100

Albany-Junction City Highway (OR

99E)

Santiam Highway (US 20) 0.8 miles west of the southbound Pacific Highway

Source: Oregon Department of Transportation (2013)

Figure 5-1: Project Area

In 2012, Linn County had an estimated population of just over 118,000, and was the eighth most

populated of Oregon’s 36 counties (Table 5 -4) Albany had an estimated population of 50,710 in 2012 and was the 10th most populated city in Oregon Millersburg, adjacent to Albany to the north, had an estimated population of 1,375 in 2012 Data from the U.S Census indicate that between 2000 and 2010,Linn County grew slightly faster that the state average; Albany grew about 11 percentage points higher than the state average; and Millersburg more than doubled its population

Table 5-4: Population in Oregon, Linn County, Albany, Millersburg, and Selected Census Tracts and Blocks,July 1, 2012 and April 1, 2010

Oregon

Linn County Albany Millersburg

Census Tract 201

Census Tract

205 Project Area* Portland State

University, July 1, 2012

U.S Census, July 1, 2012 3,899,353 118,360 n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a

U.S Census, April 1,

n.a not available

Source: Portland State University (2012); U.S Bureau of the Census (2013a)

Besides state-, county-, and city-level data, the U.S Bureau of the Census (2010) provides information forsmaller geographic areas, including Census Tracts The proposed project would be located mostly within two Census Tracts designated for Linn County: 201 and 205 (Figure 5 -2) Census Tract 201 includes Millersburg and areas in Albany and rural Linn County to the east, northeast, and southeast of the proposed project The we stern boundary of Tract 201 is I-5 Census Tract 205 includes areas west of I-

5 and north and south of US 20 up to Geary Street SE on the west and Pacific Boulevard on the north A very small part of Census Tract 204 includes area near the proposed project at the Knox Butte (North Albany) interchange

Census Tract 201 had a population of more than 9,000 in 2010, while Tract 205 had a population of about 3,.800 Between 2000 and 2010, Tract 201 grew by 49 percent, considerably faster than

population growth for Oregon, Linn County, and Albany Population in Tract 205 increased more

modestly at about 15 percent from 2000 to 2010, slightly more than for Oregon or Linn County, and about eight percentage points less than for Albany

Census Blocks are smaller geographic areas than Census Tracts, and allow analysis for selected Census data at a more detailed level geographically As Figure 5 -2 shows, some parts of Tracts 201 and 205 lie

at considerable distance beyond the immediate project area Thus for purposes of this report, additionaldata have been summarized for selected Census Blocks nearer the proposed project Approximately 400 Census Blocks lie within Tract 201; of these, 91 Blocks in the Millersburg area and east of I-5 have been selected for further analysis Tract 205 contains just over 70 Census Blocks; of these, 39 have been selected for further analysis Three Blocks in the northeastern part of Tract 204 also have been selected for further analysis The 2010 Census shows an estimated population of 3,560 persons in Census Blocks within the immediate project area A majority of these persons lived in Census Blocks west of I-5

Figure 5-2: Location of Census Tracts in the Project Area

Table 5 -4 also shows population by age group for 2010 For Census Tract 201, the percentage of persons 65 years and over was the same as for Albany and lower than for Oregon, Linn County, and Millersburg In Census Tract 205, the percentage 65 years and over was six percentage points higher than the state average as well as higher than percentages for Linn County, Albany, Millersburg, and Census Tract 201 Comparable data are not available for the immediate project area

Table 5 -5 shows 2010 Hispanic/Latino and non-Hispanic percentages of the population in Oregon, Linn County, Albany, Millersburg, and Census Tracts and Blocks in the project area The proportion of the population that was Hispanic or Latino ranged from a low of 6.6 percent in Millersburg to a high of 14.2 percent in Census Tract 205 In the immediate project area, the Hispanic/ Latino population was

estimated at 10.3 percent, about half way between the lowest and highest percentages in Table 5 -5 and1.4 percentage points less than the Oregon average of 11.7 percent Non-Hispanic, non-white minority groups accounted for less than three percent of the population in Census Tracts 201 and 205 and the immediate project area; the percentage of the total was less than one percent for several non-Hispanic, non-white minority groups Non-Hispanic, non-white minority populations in the immediate project area ranged from a low of 0.1 percent for several minority groups to a high of 2.0 percent for the two-or-more-races group.

Table 5-5: Population by Hispanic or Latino and Race, April 1, 2010, Oregon, Linn County, Albany,

Millersburg, and Selected Census Tracts and Blocks

Percentage of Total Population Oregon Linn

County

Albany Millersburg Census

Tract 201

Census Tract 205

American Indian and

Native Hawaiian and

Other Pacific Islander

Alone

Some Other Race

*Population estinmate is based on Census Blocks in the project area as shown in Figure 5.1 Includes selected Census Blocks in Tracts 201, 204, and 205.

Source: Portland State University (2013)

The Linn County (1999) Coordinated Population Forecast shows the county’s population at 133, 508 in

2020 Oregon’s Office of Economic Analysis (OEA) forecasts Linn County’s population at 146,260 in the year 2040, a 33 percent increase from their 2010 forecast for Linn County (ODAS 2004) For the same time period, the OEA forecasts a 41 percent increase in population statewide The City of Albany has prepared several alternative forecasts of growth, as shown in Table 5 -6 According to the alternative forecasts, by the year 2025, Albany’s population would range from about 57,000 to just over 70,000 As shown above in Table 5 -4, Albany’s population in 2010 was 50,158 according to the U S Bureau of the Census and 50,710 according to Portland State University estimates, which suggests that Scenario 3

below may be the most applicable for future population growth in Albany The Linn County (1999) Coordinated Population Forecast shows the population of Millersburg at 1,200 in 2020.

Table 5-6: Forecasted Population for Albany, Oregon, 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2025

Source: City of Albany (2007b)

In summary, in 2010 about 13,000 persons lived in the two Census Tracts within which the proposed project is mostly located An estimated 3,560 persons lived in the immediate project area in 2010 Census Tract 205 had a relatively higher percentage of persons 65 and over than did Oregon, Linn County, Albany, Millersburg, or Census Tract 201 Estimated percentages for Hispanics/Latinos and for racial groups in the immediate project area generally ranged between, or were the same as, percentages

in Census Tracts 201 and 205 Hispanics or Latinos were estimated at about 10 percent of the total population in the immediate project area, slightly less than the percentage for Oregon or Albany but greater than the percentage for Linn County and Millersburg For the non-Hispanic, non-white

population in the immediate project area, percentages by minority group were consistent with, or lower than, percentages for minority groups in other geographical areas shown in Table 5 -5

Housing

Growth in Albany, Millersburg, and the project area has been accompanied by growth in the number of housing units According to data from the U.S Bureau of the Census, growth in the number of housing units increased between 2000 and 2010 by 21 percent in Albany, 87 percent in Millersburg, 50 percent in

Census Tract 201, and 9 percent in Census Tract 201 According to the 2006 Albany Housing Needs Analysis, housing affordability has been a significant issue in Albany, especially for lower-income

populations (City of Albany 2007a)

Low vacancy rates contribute to concerns about housing affordability As of April 1, 2010, the Census reported a vacancy rate of 6.1 percent in Albany, as compared to rates of 7.3 percent in 2000, 4.3

percent in 1990, and 7.4 percent in 1980 (City of Albany 2007a) Vacancy rates for 2010, as shown inTable 5 -7, suggest a relatively tighter housing supply in Linn County, Albany, and the project area than inthe state as a whole Vacancy rates in Census Tract 201 and 205, respectively, were 5.3 percent and 6.1

percent in 2010, more than three percentage points lower than the statewide average, and equal to or lower than vacancy rates for Linn County (7.4%), Albany (6.1%), and Millersburg (6.3%) For the

immediate project area, the vacancy rate was estimated at 5.8 percent

Average household size tended to be slightly larger in Linn County, Albany, Millersburg, and Census Tract

210 than for the state as a whole in 2010 (Table 5 -7) Average family size is about the same as the statewide average in Linn County and Albany, and slightly lower than the statewide average in

Millersburg and Census Tracts 201 and 205 Census Tract 205 had the lowest average household size andlowest average family size of the geographical areas shown in Table 5 -7

Table 5-7: Number of Housing Units and Vacancy Rates in Oregon, Linn County, Albany, Millersburg, and Selected Census Tracts and Blocks, April 1, 2010

Oregon

Linn County

Albany Millersburg

Census Tract 201

Census Tract

205 Project Area* Number of Housing Units 1,675,562 48,821 20,979 538 3,710 1,762 1,486

*Population estinmate is based on Census Blocks in the project area as shown in Figure 5.1 Includes selected Census Blocks in Tracts 201, 204, and 205.

n.a not available

Source: Portland State University (2012)

Incomes and Poverty Rates

Income and poverty data for the project area from 2007 to 2011 generally indicate lower incomes and higher poverty rates west of I-5 and south of Millersburg, and higher incomes and lower poverty rates in Millersburg and possibly east of I-5 (Table 5 -8) Incomes for Linn County, Albany, and Census Tract 205 were lower than the Oregon average, while poverty rates in these areas were higher than the Oregon average Conversely, for Millersburg and Census Tract 201, incomes generally were higher and poverty rates lower than the statewide average Census Tract 205 generally had lower incomes and higher poverty rates than other geographical areas shown in Table 5 -8 No comparable data are available for Census Blocks in the immediate project area

Table 5-8: Income and Poverty Rates in Oregon, Linn County, Albany, Millersburg, Census Tract 201, and Census Tract 205, Five Year Estimates, 2007-2011

Oregon

Linn County Albany Millersburg

Census Tract 201

Census Tract 205 Per Capita Income (in $) 26,561 22,255 22,249 26,392 26,042 21,246

Median Household Income

(in $)

49,850 46,872 45,980 64,219 59,823 33,953

Median Family Income (in $) 61,302 55,726 55,648 77,788 71,056 50,543

Families Whose Incomes

Were below the Poverty Level

in the Preceding 12 Months

(in %)

People Whose Incomes Were

below the Poverty Level in

the Preceding 12 Months (in

%)

Source: U.S Bureau of the Census (2012)

Neighborhoods, Community Facilities, and Community Cohesion

The City of Albany’s (1980) Comprehensive Plan identifies several neighborhoods in the project area, primarily East Albany and Santiam (Figure 5 -3) A small portion of the project area lies in the

Willamette neighborhood Additionally, Millersburg lies immediately to the north of the Willamette neighborhood and west of the northern portion of the East Albany neighborhood Within the

neighborhoods shown in Figure 5 -3 are more localized neighborhoods centered upon cultural and physical facilities such as historic districts, mobile home parks, multi-unit housing developments,

neighborhood commercial centers, parks, schools, streets, subdivisions, and the like

Figure 5-3: City of Albany Neighborhoods in the Project Area

For example, as part of the public involvement process conducted for the proposed I-5 widening project, community outreach meetings were held in the following five neighborhoods centered on parks,

schools, or streets: Lehigh, west of I-5 and south of US 20 in the Santiam neighborhood; South Shore, west of I-5, north of US 20, and southeast of OR 99E in the Santiam neighborhood; Spicer, east of I-5 and south of US 20 in the East Albany neighborhood; and Timber, east of I-5 between Knox Butte Road and

US 20 in the East Albany neighborhood Additionally, public involvement meetings were held for

residents in the Heatherdale Mobile Village in the Santiam neighborhood, and for residents and businessrepresentatives in Millersburg

As noted above, community facilities sometimes help define the location of neighborhoods Types of community facilities include cemeteries, churches, government buildings, parks, schools, and service organizations A review of on-line mapping sites and a windshield survey show three cemeteries, three churches, seven government facilities, two parks, one school, and one service organization in or near the immediate project area (Table 5 -9 and Appendix C)

Community cohesion, according to a National Cooperative Highway Research Program Guidebook for Assessing the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects, is a term used to describe patterns

of social networking within a community (Forkenbrock and Weisbrod 2001) It is a somewhat nebulous term that is difficult to measure quantitatively Analysis of community cohesion is ofen based on field work and various types of outreach activities Within the immediate project area for the proposed I-5 widening project, the highest level of community cohesion likely is in the Santiam neighborhood north of

US 20 as shown in Figure 5 -3 above The Southshore Elementary School is a community facility that has

a variety of activities in which nearby residents participate The adjacent First Assembly of God church also likely contributes to community cohesion for some of the neighborhood’s residents Elsewhere in

the immediate project area, lower levels of community cohesion may be present where there are relative fewer residences which are more geographically dispersed than in the Santiam neighborhood.