Prepared for:
Rogue Valley Transportation District
3200 Crater Lake Avenue
Medford, OR 97504
(541) 779-5821
By:
Rogue Valley Council of Governments
PO Box 3275
Central Point, OR 97502
(541) 664-6674
Principal Author:
Craig Anderson, RVCOG
Assistance Provided By:
Gary Hathaway, RVCOG
Scott Chancey, RVTD
Matthew Barnes, RVTD
Jackson and Josephine County Technical Advisory Committee
January 2001
Table of Contents
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 2
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Classification of Park-and-Ride Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Planning a Park-and-Ride Facility
Auto Circulation and Design Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Bus Circulation and Design Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Bicycle, Pedestrian and Disabled Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Art and Architectural Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Landscaping Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Security Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Environmental Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Park-and-Ride Development in the Rogue Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Illustrative Projects - Rogue Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Summary Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
List of Tables
Table 1 - Scoring of Illustrative Park-and-Ride Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Park-and-Ride Facility Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 2 - Illustrative Project Locations - White City to Jacksonville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 3 - Illustrative Project Locations - Phoenix to Ashland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A - Park-and-Ride Policies in the Rogue Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix B - Park-and-Ride Site Selection Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 3
Introduction
Park-and-ride facilities offer the potential to increase the effectiveness of transit service by
expanding the area from which transit draws. Transit patrons living beyond walking distance to an
established transit stop can drive (or bike) to the park-and-ride and use transit instead of driving the
full distance to their destination. In this sense, park-and-ride facilities offer the possibility of
decreasing reliance on the single occupant vehicle, thus reducing vehicle miles traveled, air
pollution, traffic congestion, etc.
This study was undertaken with the purpose of: 1) determining whether park-and-ride facilities are
feasible within RVTD s service area;  and 2) identifying suitable locations for the development of
park-and-ride facilities, either today or at some later date. Six technical memoranda were prepared
during the course of this study and serve as the foundation for much of the information presented
in this document. Review of these technical memoranda was provided by both RVTD staff and the
Jackson and Josephine Counties Technical Advisory Committee (JJTC). The technical memoranda
included:
A review of existing plans and policies relating the development of park-and-ride facilities
in  RVTD s service area;
A summary of park-and-ride facility planning and design issues;
An inventory of existing (informal), planned and proposed park-and-ride facilities within
RVTD s service area;
Development of park-and-ride site selection criteria to aid in the objective evaluation of
potential locations;
Development of a list of potential park-and-ride facility locations within RVTDs service
area; and
An evaluation of the list of potential park-and-ride facility locations.
This study begins by providing a brief description of how park-and-ride facilities are classified
according to function. A detailed summary of planning and design issues is then provided that will
serve to aid RVTD in any attempts to develop park-and-ride facilities in the future. Next, the results
of an inventory of park-and-ride facilities - either planned, proposed, or already in use on an
informal basis by RVTD patrons - is provided to allow readers an understanding of what currently
exists with respect to use and development of park-and-ride facilities in the Rogue Valley. The study
then presents a list of sites (or  illustrative projects ) that have been evaluated for their potential
to be developed as park-and-ride facilities. Finally, the study provides several recommendations that
can serve to guide RVTD in its efforts to develop park-and-ride facilities in the future.
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 4
Classification of Park-and-Ride Facilities
Park-and-ride facilities served by buses can generally be categorized into three types: 1) Remote
Express Service, 2) Remote Local Service and 3) Peripheral Shuttle Service. Within these three
broad categories there exists the opportunity for owner-operated facilities or joint-use (leased)
facilities which are discussed later in this section.
Figure 1
Park-and-Ride Facility Types
Remote Park-and-Ride Facilities
The main function of remote park-and-ride facilities is to collect potential transit riders as close to
their homes as possible (ideally, immediately upstream of recurring congestion) and to provide a
transfer point to transit service. The passenger is then transported to a central business district (CBD)
or other activity center, typically located between approximately 10 and 30 miles away. Remote
park-and-ride facilities are typically found on the outer edges of an urban region and are often at the
end of the line in terms of transit service. They are primarily accessed via private auto or by users
being dropped off by a family member (e.g. kiss-and-ride). Transit services from remote park-and-
rides focus on the morning and evening commute.
Remote Express Service provides express (or direct) transit service from the park-and-ride facility
to the destination. This service is typically established in heavily congested metropolitan areas and
often makes use of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes that allow for significant time savings
over driving alone.
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 5
Remote Local Service provides transit service via local transit operations. Demand for this type of
service is generally not high as compared to Remote Express Service because time savings are not
as significant. Demand for this service can often be accommodated through joint-use operations
(refer to discussion at end of this section).
Peripheral Park-and-Ride Facilities
Peripheral park-and-ride facilities are characterized by their placement at the edge of the CBD or
activity center. The purpose of these lots is to intercept automobiles before they enter congested city
centers or areas restricted to automobiles in the CBD. Shuttle service is typically used to transport
passengers. This type of facility, used extensively in Europe, is only practicable when parking in the
CBD or activity center is limited or very expensive.
Owner-Operated vs. Joint-Use Park-and-Ride Facilities
Owner-operated park-and-ride facilities represent a potentially enormous expense for transit
agencies, particularly if land needs to be purchased. Joint-use (or leased) facilities offer cost saving
benefits by making use of existing surface parking which is owned by someone other than the transit
operator and is not needed during the normal workday hours.  Other advantages include easy
implementation, better possibility of operating several small lots as opposed to one large one,
improved  security (in many cases), and testing new markets for park-and-ride demand. Problems
with joint-use arrangements include increased liability concerns, certain restrictions on use,
maintenance agreements, complaint reconciliation, and cancellation of agreements. Examples of
likely joint-use partners include: sport centers and arenas; theaters and recreational centers; shopping
centers and retail businesses; churches and community centers; and other governmental partners,
including police and fire stations, airport parking lots and excess highway rights-of-way.
Innovative Approaches to Park-and-Ride Facility Development
Shop&Ride This is a new program being implemented in King County, Washington which
partners local retail establishments with Metro commuters needing parking during
commuter hours. Each month commuters agree to spend a small (approximately
$30), predetermined amount at a participating retail establishment and in return, are
provided parking near their bus stop.
Lymmo Orlando, Florida operates a downtown
park-and-ride shuttle transit system
called the Lymmo intended to
encourage commuters to park outside
the CBD and to reduce daily parking
demand The annual $1 million
operating budget is financed through
the downtown parking system and
Orlando Community Redevelopment
Agency.
Downtown Orlando s Lymmo Shuttle System
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 6
Planning a Park-and-Ride Facility - Auto Circulation Issues
The circulation of vehicles - both cars and buses - is perhaps the most critical element to consider
when planning a park-and-ride facility. The following guidelines address the many design issues
relating to automobile circulation in and around park-and-ride facilities.
Auto Circulation and Design Considerations:
Ensure that the parking lot is large enough
to accommodate projected demand.
An efficient access point to a park-and-
ride  will typically be from a collector or
local street intersecting an arterial at a
signalized intersection.
Suburban arterials and two-lane rural
highways with wide shoulders are also
good candidates for access roads.
On a two-way arterial, locate the facility
to allow for a right turn-in for approaching
commuters.
Direct access to an arterial from the park-
and-ride is not desirable if it adds a major
conflict point.
Facilities along one-way arterials should
ideally be located between the two streets
comprising a one-way couplet.
Acceleration and deceleration lanes can
improve traffic safety and operations at
entrances and exits, particularly for lots
located on highways.
Queue storage for entering and exiting
vehicles should be considered.
Entrances and exits should be located so
that signal control of the exit could be
reasonably installed if necessary.
Entrances should be located on the
downstream side of an intersection.
If possible, provide separate one-way
entrance and exits to minimize crossing
conflicts.
Entrances should ideally be located such
that a vehicle approaching the site from
any direction could miss one entrance and
find a second one available without cir-
cuitous routing. The entrances should be
spaced at least 350 feet apart.
To intercept potential users, guide signs
should be placed on all approaches to the
facility.
Provide a distinct transition from the street
to the park-and-ride lot.
Provide focal points to direct users in and
around the facility.
Signage, including guide, regulatory and
information signs should be simple and
distinct. Drivers should not be confronted
with multiple decisions at the same time.
Parking should preferably be right angled
to provide the highest parking density.
If possible, include the kiss-and-ride
 
or
other drop-off activity in the design.
Gateway Park-and-Ride Entrance Sign (TRI-MET)
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 7
Planning a Park-and-Ride Facility - Bus Circulation Issues
Several issues, relating to the specific circulation needs of buses, are addressed below.
Bus Circulation and Design Considerations:
Fast and easy ingress and egress for buses
should be first priority in planning the
internal layout. 
The loading area and roadways that will
be used by buses should be constructed
with reinforced concrete or provide a
loading zone for buses directly off the
street.
To the maximum extent possible, buses
should not mix with cars.
Bus turnouts should ideally incorporate
deceleration and merging lanes along with
adequate standing area for all anticipated
buses.
Driveway exits should be designed and/or
located so that exiting buses do not
bottom-out
 
when entering the roadway.
For joint-use facilities, alterations to the
lot may be needed to accommodate the
wider turning radii required at the
entrances and exits of the lot.
Gate
way Park-and-Ride Loading Area (TRI-MET)
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 8
Planning a Park-and-Ride Facility - Bicycle, Pedestrian and Disabled Issues
The following guidelines pertain to the specific design needs of bicyclists, pedestrians and disabled
users of park-and-ride facilities.
Bicycle, Pedestrian and Diabled Circulation and Design Considerations: 
The design should provide for access by
the elderly and disabled.
Any street wider than 48 feet should have
a pedestrian refuge area (or median)
between opposing lanes or in the center of
the street. 
Pedestrian crosswalks should be located at
all intersections and raised crosswalks (or
speed tables) should be considered where
large numbers of pedestrians will be
crossing vehicle lanes.
Walkways should allow users the
opportunity to stay out of vehicle aisles
and to minimize the number of crossing
points.
Curbs at all marked crossings between the
disabled parking facility and loading zone
should be ramped.
Locate the passenger waiting area to
minimize walking distances from parking
spaces. The maximum walking distance
from the car to a loading zone should be 
    approximately 1000 feet.
The minimum width of sidewalk adjacent
to a bus loading zone should be 12 feet.
Consider the need for public telephones,
trash cans, newsstands, food vending
machines, restrooms and drinking
fountains in design of the facility.
The facility design should minimize
passenger exposure to exhaust from idling
cars or buses.
For joint-use lots, the waiting area should
be located so as not to interfere with
existing business activity.
The facility should ideally be located on
streets with bicycle lanes or where access
is not problematic for cyclists.
Locate bike racks and lockers as close as
possible to bus terminals. Cyclists tend to
lock their bikes to posts and fencing
instead of moving to more distant racks.
Selection and placement of drainage
grates should consider the needs of
bicyclists.
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 9
Gresham City Hall 
MAX Light Rail Park-and-Ride 
(TRI-MET)
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 10
Planning a Park-and-Ride Facility - Art and Architectural Issues
Art and architectural elements are often overlooked in the development of park-and-ride facilities.
And though they may initially result in higher costs, these elements have been shown to reduce long-
term costs by instilling a sense of community pride and ownership and thus deterring vandals. Well-
designed art and architectural elements:
increase the public watchfulness, discouraging vandalism;
bring a new level of awareness and appreciation for the transit system;
make a statement of commitment to the community and to system patrons.
The most effective and influential design approach will incorporate artistic elements at the earliest
possible opportunity in the planning process.
Tigard Transfer Station (TRI-MET)
Gresham City Hall / MAX
Light Rail Park-and-Ride
(TRI-MET) 
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 11
Planning a Park-and-Ride Facility - Landscaping Issues
A well-landscaped park-and-ride facility will increase its attractiveness, improve public and
neighborhood acceptance, add to the feeling of security, and help to define walking patterns within
and around the site. There are many considerations to a properly landscaped facility as provided
below.
Landscaping Considerations:
Use landscaping that is decorative, long-
lasting, requires little maintenance, and is
readily available from regional nurseries
at a reasonable cost.
Landscaping should fit in with the
surrounding neighborhood.
Landscaping should be designed to allow
for visibility into the facility from adjacent
streets.
Landscaping should provide shade and
visual interest.
Efforts should be made to preserve
existing vegetation if possible.
Landscaping should not interfere with
sight distance, vehicle operations, parking
or access.
Use native versus non-native plants.
Use plants that can tolerate shade, wind,
drought, salt, exhaust fumes and poor
soils.
Use thorny shrubs to control access and
deter vandals.
Use trees and shrubs that do not drop fruit.
Use ground covers as a  substitute for turf
grasses.
Use earth forms such as berms, mounds
and swales to provide low-cost screening,
delineation, visual interest and drainage.
Landscaping should not create shadows
and dark areas.
Consider the possibility of future parking
expansion before landscaping.
Flowering
Plums at TRI-MET s s Gateway Park-and-Ride
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 12
Planning a Park-and-Ride Facility - Security Issues
Security is a primary concern for potential users of park-and-ride facilities and the perception of
safety is often more important than the reality. It is therefore imperative that security issues are
addressed early in the planning process. Crime prevention, user safety, and security at park-and-ride
facilities are also important because of the implied liability of owning and/or operating the facility.
The  security measures listed below should be considered when planning a park-and-ride facility.
Security Considerations:
Provide adequate lighting.
Ensure high visibility into the site from
access roads and adjacent areas.
Remove graffiti, broken glass, damaged
signs, and trash as frequently as possible.
Parked cars in the site should be facing the
street or areas of highest visibility.
Request police to routinely drive-through
the facility.
Clearly delineate facility boundaries.
Security fencing, if necessary, should  be
decorative and of a design that
compliments the overall site design.
Consider installation of emergency
telephones.
If necessary, use surveillance technologies
or on-site security officers.
On-site security at Gresham City
Hall Park-and-Ride / MAX 
Light Rail (TRI-MET)
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 13
Planning a Park-and-Ride Facility - Environmental Issues
The last planning issue to be addressed concerns the environmental impacts associated with
constructing and operating a park-and-ride facility. Such considerations primarily relate to owner-
operated facilities but may also be applicable to joint-use facilities.
Environmental Considerations:
Prior to site acquisition, conduct an
environmental site risk assessment to
identify potential hazardous waste
concerns.
If possible, set aside non-paved,
wetland
 
space to handle all the storm
generated run-off produced by the park-
and-ride lot.
In general, air quality impacts can be
minimized by constructing a greater
number of smaller park-and-rides in
preference to fewer, larger facilities.
To reduce the effect of noise on the
surrounding areas, a noise buffer may be
necessary. Such a buffer may be created
by using vegetation or by constructing
noise barriers with landscaped berms.
Noise walls should be used only as a last
resort.
The soil structure should be assessed to
insure that investments in paving and
other hardscape elements are not lost as a
result of  soil settling after construction.
An historical and cultural resource
analysis should be conducted prior to site
acquisition to determine if the site or
adjacent areas have any historical
significance.
TRI-MET s Tigard 220
space Park & Ride.
Approximately one
acre of landscaped
area is set aside to
handle storm water
runoff.
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 14
Park-and-Ride Development in the Rogue Valley 
There currently are no formally-established park-and-ride facilities within RVTDs service
boundaries. However, there are a few such facilities that have been either planned or proposed.
Additionally, there are sites which today serve as informal park-and-rides. Planned, proposed and
informal park-and-ride sites have been inventoried as part of this study and are summarized below.
Existing Informal Park-and-Ride Locations
Inquiries to local jurisdictions, RVTD staff and others yielded little information concerning existing
informal park-and-ride activity within RVTD s service boundaries. In general, current park-and-ride
activity by RVTD patrons appears to be very limited and not concentrated in easily identifiable
locations. Five locations were identified by RVTD staff where some level of park-and-ride activity
is known to have existed in the past and may exist today. These include Crater Lake Shopping
Center in White City, Rogue Valley Mall and Fred Meyer (north) in Medford, Wal Mart in Talent
and Shop N Kart in Ashland. A more comprehensive study of these locations would be necessary
to determine current usage levels of these sites as park-and-rides.
Planned and Proposed Park-and-Ride Facilities
There are two planned park-and-ride facilities within RVTD s service boundaries. The first site is
known as Jacksonville s Intermodal Center at the Britt Festival parking lot off of C and North
Oregon Street in downtown Jacksonville. The second site is known as the Talent Depot and is
located near City Hall on Main Street in Talent. Talent Depot is scheduled to be completed and
functional by the Spring of 2001. These sites are identified as numbers 5 and 10 respectively on the
maps shown on pages 15 and 16 (Figures 2 and 3).
Funding has been programmed in the 2000-2003 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP) for the Talent Depot Park-and-Ride and three other, as yet, unplanned park-and-ride sites.
There is one proposed site in Medford near the South Medford Interchange. This project is proposed
to occur in two phases. The first phase of this project is programmed for $225,000 in the STIP. The
second phase is programmed for $77,000. A specific location for this project has not been finalized.
There are two other sites programmed in the STIP for the cities of Ashland ($160,000) and Central
Point ($166,000). Specific locations for these facilities have not been proposed.
With the available STIP funding in mind, this study sought to identify appropriate locations for
developing park-and-ride facilities within RVTD s service boundaries. Fourteen illustrative park-
and-ride sites were identified and evaluated as part this study. The results of this analysis are
summarized in the following section Illustrative Projects - Rogue Valley. The illustrative site
numbers 5 and 10 in Jacksonville and Talent are currently under development. The other  illustrative
sites serve primarily as examples of locations that may work well as a park-and-ride at some point
in the future. These sites are not proposed for development as park-and-ride facilities at this time,
as further explained in the Recommendations section beginning on page 21.
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 15
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
Pr
o
xi
m
ity
 to
 T
ra
n
si
t
Pr
o
xi
m
ity
 to
 C
o
m
m
u
te
rs
 
Ea
se
 o
f D
e
ve
lo
pm
e
n
t
Vi
si
bi
lity
Tr
a
n
si
t A
cc
e
ss
R
o
u
te
 L
og
ist
ic
s
D
a
y 
Ca
re
 A
va
ila
bi
lity
N
e
ig
hb
or
ho
od
 Im
pa
ct
Au
to
 A
cc
e
ss
Bi
cy
cl
e
 A
cc
e
ss
Pe
de
st
ria
n
 A
cc
e
ss
Si
te
 A
ttr
a
ct
iv
e
n
e
ss
Lo
ca
l P
la
n
 C
o
n
fo
rm
ity
En
vi
ro
n
m
e
n
ta
l C
o
n
ce
rn
s
Pa
rk
in
g 
Ar
e
a
Li
gh
tin
g
Av
a
ila
bi
lity
 o
f U
tili
tie
s 
N
e
a
rb
y 
Se
rv
ic
e
s
La
nd
sc
a
pi
n
g
1 Hwy 62 and Antelope, Cascade Shopping Center, White City 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 78
2 Pine and Freeman, Albertson s Parking Lot, Central Point 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 81
3 Highway 62 & I-5 / Rogue Valley Mall Parking Lot 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 82
4 Hwy 238/5th Street, Calvary Assembly of God, Jacksonville 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 77
5 C and Oregon Streets, Intermodal Center, Jacksonville 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 78
6 Center Dr. and Stewart Ave., Taco Bell Parking Lot, Medford 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 73
7 Center Dr., Miles Field Parking Lot, Medford 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 78
8 Fern Valley and Main, Former RCC Parking Lot, Phoenix 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 79
9 Bear Creek Dr. and 4th, Hair Salon Parking Lot, Phoenix 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 73
10 Main Street, Proposed Depot Site Near RR, Talent 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 75
11 West Valley View, Wal-Mart Parking Lot, Talent 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 80
12 Valley View/Eagle Mill, Bike Path Parking Lot, Ashland 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 66
13 Tolman Ck @ YMCA, City Park Parking Lot, Ashland 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 78
14 Ashland Ave./Tolman Ck, Bi-Mart Parking Lot, Ashland 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 78
Pr
oje
ct
 N
u
m
be
r
Potential Park-and-Ride Location
Site Selection Criteria (Weighted)
To
ta
l
Illustrative Projects - Rogue Valley
Fourteen illustrative park-and-ride sites located within RVTD s service boundaries have been
evaluated as part of this study. The fourteen sites chosen for evaluation are not necessarily the best
park-and-ride sites within RVTD s boundaries. Rather, they are a sampling of the most obvious
locations that meet most, if not all, of the site selection criteria developed during the course of this
study. Two of the evaluated sites - in Jacksonville and Talent - are already planned and partially
constructed. The site selection criteria along with the scoring for each of the fourteen sites in
presented in Table 1 below (see Appendix B for more information about the site selection criteria
developed for this study).
Figures 2 and 3 on the following pages show the locations of the illustrative project locations. In
general, locations have been selected with the assumption that potential users have a destination in
central Medford. Sites were also selected to maximize the transit portion of the trip. Finally, sites
were selected that would require no land purchases by RVTD, as this would be cost prohibitive
given the limited funding available. If developed, the sites would therefore be operated on a joint-use
or leased basis, as described earlier in this document.
The pages following the maps present a summary evaluation of the fourteen sites and briefly
describe  how these sites compare on the scoring criteria developed as part of the study. Sites are
numbered 1-14 from north to south. Scores, using weighted site selection criteria, ranged from a
high of 82 to a low of 66.
Table 1
Scoring of Illustrative Park-and-Ride Locations
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 16
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 17
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 18
Illustrative Projects - Rogue Valley - Summary Evaluation
1. Hwy 62 and Antelope, Cascade Shopping Center, White City
Located on Route 60 (Medford to White
City), this site is well-located for use as
a park-and-ride facility. This site is
believed to have informally operated as
a park-and-ride site for students who
commute from White City to Southern
Oregon University in Ashland. The site
is particularly well-suited for commuters
coming from the northeast portion of
Jackson County, including Shady Cove,
Eagle Point and White City. The site is
ideally located for visibility, transit
efficiency and overall commute
purposes. The only limitations of this
site relate to its general appearance, lack
of landscaping and the number of spaces
available for patrons.
2. Pine and Freeman, Albertson s Parking Lot, Central Point
Located on Route 40 (Medford to Central Point), this site could be accessed by southbound I-5
commuters or those coming from within Central Point. This site would be most logical if it could
be served by an express transit line running on the I-5 corridor. Current routing would require buses
to slightly deviate on their in-bound journey. In most other respects, this lot would work well as a
park-and-ride facility.
3. Highway 62 & I-5 / Rogue
Valley Mall
Located on Route 1 (Medford loop),
this site is similar to site number 2 in
terms of its suitability as a park-and-
ride facility. It would be best served
by an express transit line along I-5.
Current routing is not ideal for this site
due to the fact that passengers would
likely start the bus trip going out of
their desired direction. Both bicycle
and pedestrian access to this site
require negotiating intimidating
arterial streets.
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 19
4. Hwy 238/5th Street, Calvary
Assembly of God, Jacksonville
Located on Route 30 (Medford to
Jacksonville) and directly across the
street from site # 4, this site offers
several advantages. The principle
advantage is that this site is located
on the right side of the road for easy
passenger boarding. The site is also
already developed and relatively
attractive. Due to the proximity of
residential areas, it is possible that the
site may be opposed.
5. C and Oregon Streets/Intermodal Center, Jacksonville
Located on Route 30 (Medford to Jacksonville), this site is at the western edge of RVTDs service
boundary and offers a large parking area easily accessed from Highway 238 in downtown
Jacksonville. One minor disadvantage to this site over the previous site is that the bus to Medford
is not as direct. The site is largely developed, attractive and in the heart of downtown Jacksonville.
6. Center Drive/Stewart, Taco Bell Parking Lot, Medford
Located on Route 10 (Medford to
Ashland), this site has been identified
as one that has been used  as an
informal park-and-ride. Potential
destinations from this site include
Rogue Community College/downtown
Medford, Bear Creek Corporation and
Southern Oregon University in
Ashland. This site is not ideally suited
as a park-and-ride due to its proximity
to the terminus of the in-bound Route
10. However, it may serve commuters
to downtown or other areas who find it
difficult to find parking at their
destination. Disadvantages include a
generally unattractive and congested
environment, challenging bicycle
access, a potentially small parking area and a lack of landscaping.
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 20
7. Center Drive, Miles Field Parking Lot, Medford
Located on Route 10 (Medford to Ashland) and nearly across Center Avenue from site number 6.
The route logistics for this site would be best suited for outbound travelers on Route 10 and site
visibility is somewhat poor. However, most of the other site characteristics are ideal.
8. Fern Valley and Main, Former RCC Parking Lot, Phoenix
Located on Route 10 (Medford to Ashland) this site is well-suited for use by commuters with its
easy access to both I-5 and Highway 99. Transit access is also ideal. The only major drawback to
this site is the limited parking opportunities available. Site attractiveness, the lack of landscaping
and less than ideal bicycle access are minor drawbacks.
9. Bear Creek Dr. and 4th, Hair Salon Parking Lot, Phoenix
Located on Route 10 (Medford to Ashland) this site is not ideally suited for passenger loading as
it would either require the bus to turn on 4th Street from Bear Creek Dr. or require passengers to
make a dangerous crossing of Highway 99/Bear Creek Dr. This fact alone renders this site unworthy
of further consideration given current traffic conditions on Bear Creek Dr. However, plans for this
section of Highway 99 may make this site worth considering in the future.
10. Main Street, Proposed Depot Site Near RR, Talent
Located near Route 10 (Medford to Ashland) this site is partially constructed and is scheduled to
be completed in 2001. This site is well-situated to serve as a park-and-ride for future passenger train
service, if this becomes a reality. Due to changes in bus routing, this location may also work well
as a bus-served park-and-ride facility, although it is not easily accessed by commuters and it is not
highly visible. Its proximity to a skate park could make it unattractive to potential users due to
security concerns, either real or perceived.
11. West Valley View, Wal-
Mart Parking Lot, Talent
Located near Route 10 (Medford
to Ashland) this site would be
ideal for express-bus service along
the I-5 corridor. It is not well-
suited to the current routing as it
would require a significant
diversion for the bus. In all other
respects - access, visibility,
proximity to commuters ,
attractiveness, parking area, etc. -
this is an ideal park-and-ride site.
12. Valley View/Eagle Mill,
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 21
Bike Path Parking Lot, Ashland
Located on Route 10 (Medford to Ashland) this site is very similar to site # 11 in terms of its
suitability for I-5 express bus service. Access to the site will soon be improved by virtue of the
installation of a left turn lane from Valley View onto Eagle Mill and paving of this lot. Due to the
presence of a pedestrian underpass, patrons could easily access buses traveling north on Highway
99 from this site. With the addition of a bus pull-out on the south side of Valley View at Eagle Mill
and adjacent to the site, patrons could also access new I-5 express bus service if it became available.
The site has excellent proximity to commuters, visibility, bicycle and pedestrian access (its on the
Bear Creek Greenway)  and other qualities. One possible drawback to this site is the difficulty of
making left turns (both on Eagle Mill and Valley View) when leaving the site.
13. Tolman Ck @ YMCA, City Park Parking Lot, Ashland
Located on Route 10 (Medford to Ashland) this site would work particularly well if the current
routing was altered so that passengers would immediately head toward Medford (westbound on
Highway 66/Ashland Street) after being picked up. With the routing as it is currently, passengers
who are picked up at this location need to travel out-of-direction for several miles before heading
toward their destination (assuming they re traveling north of Ashland). If this routing change was
found to be feasible, the only significant drawbacks to this site would include minor visibility issues
and available parking area.
14. Ashland Ave./Tolman Ck, Bi-Mart Parking Lot, Ashland
Located on Route 10 (Medford to Ashland) this site would substitute for site #13 in the event that
the current routing remains as it is today. The site has better visibility but is not as aesthetically
inviting as site #13. The number of available parking spaces is questionable at this location.
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 22
Recommendations
In general, park-and-ride facilities have proven to be successful in areas where: 1) Use of transit for
a portion of the trip offers time and/or cost savings to the commuter; and 2) Employment centers or
other major destinations are concentrated in an area that is unfriendly to car drivers in terms of
parking availability and/or cost. Typically, these situations arise in large metropolitan areas where
commute distances are long, bumper-to-bumper congestion is the norm, transit service frequency
is high (headways of 15 minutes or less) and parking at the destination is limited and/or expensive.
Where such conditions do not exist, demand for park-and-ride facilities will likely be low.
In effect, every RVTD bus stop with nearby parking could be considered a park-and-ride facility.
A developed and formalized park-and-ride facility may offer user amenities such as increased
security, easier access, lighting, etc. But, what people are essentially looking for is an easy and
convenient place to park and hop on transit. There is no evidence that more than a very limited
number of RVTD patrons use the transit system in this way today. And more importantly, there is
nothing to suggest that new transit users would be gained by operating formal park-and-ride
facilities.
Patrons of RVTD tend not to be those who choose transit over their personal automobile for reasons
of time and/or cost savings. This fact alone renders the successful implementation of park-and-ride
facilities in the Rogue Valley particularly challenging. Coupled with the fact that centers of
employment and other regional destinations in the Rogue Valley are neither highly concentrated nor
particularly unfriendly
 
to motorists, the construction of park-and-ride facilities does not appear
to be justified at this time. Changing conditions - such as higher levels of regional congestion,
greater parking costs and/or decreased availability, transit service frequency increases - could
change this situation in the future.
Based on the findings of this study, it is recommended that:
1) The construction of any park-and-ride facilities in the Rogue Valley should be part of an
integrated transport package with clear objectives. The combined effect of these measures
should be to reduce dependency on the single occupant vehicle.
2) Until park-and-ride facilities can offer time and/or cost savings to commuters, RVTD should
pursue leased (or joint-use) as opposed to owner-operated arrangements when considering
the development of park-and-ride facilities.
3) Parking fees and/or reductions at the destination of transit patrons should be implemented
as part of the development of park-and-ride facilities serving that destination.
4) RVTD should investigate the feasibility of direct ( or shuttle ) service to employment
centers or other major destinations as part of any effort to establish park-and-ride facilities.
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 23
References
AASHTO, Guide for the Design of Park-and-Ride Facilities, AASHTO, 1992.
Comsis Corporation and ITE, Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measures:
Inventory of Measures and Synthesis of Experience, FHWA and FTA, 1993.
Council for the Protection of Rural England, Park and Ride - Its Role in Local Transport Policy,
CPRE, 1998.
Replogle, Michael and Parcells, Harriet, Linking Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities with Transit, FHWA,
1992.
HDR Engineering, Evaluating the Cost Effectiveness of Permanent Bus Park-and-Ride Facilities,
TRI-MET, 1997.
ODOT, Draft Public Transportation Design Guidelines, ODOT, 2000.
Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc., Park-and-Ride Evaluation Report - Planning, Operations, Maintenance
and Security Issues, TRI-MET, 1998.
RVTD, Rogue Community College Parking, Bus Pass & Transportation Survey, RVTD, 1999.
RVTD, Transit Service to Activity Centers: Including Transit Trunk Routes and Standards for Major
Transit Stops, RVTD, 1996.
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, Express Bus Stop Study, SLOCOG, 1998.
Spillar, Robert J., Park-and-Ride Planning and Design Guidelines, Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc., 1997.
Spillar, Robert J., Smart Parks:
 
The Next Generation in Park-and-Ride Facilities, Parsons
Brinckerhoff Inc., 1997. 
Turnbull, Katherine F., Effective Use of Park-and-Ride Facilities, Synthesis of Highway Practice
213, National Academy Press, 1995.
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 24
Appendix A - Park-and-Ride Policies in the Rogue Valley
This appendix provides the results of a review of local, regional and state plans and policies relating
to the siting of park-and-ride facilities within RVTD s service boundaries. A summary of  the
information presented in this appendix is shown on page 36 .
Summary of findings:
All the jurisdictions within RVTD s service boundary have comprehensive plan policies that
support transit improvements.
Many jurisdictions have policies which specifically encourage the development of park-and-
ride facilities.
The majority of jurisdictions have not specifically considered park-and-ride facilities within
zoning ordinances and would generally consider such a use to be a governmental structure
or use.
With respect to plans and policies, there appear to be no substantive barriers to the
development of park-and-ride facilities within any jurisdictions served by RVTD.
The primary documents reviewed for this technical memorandum include comprehensive plans and
municipal codes/zoning ordinances from cities within RVTD s boundaries. For informational
purposes, the following summarizes the purpose of these documents.
Comprehensive Plans:
The comprehensive plan represents the official statement of the goals, policies and plans for
communities. The comprehensive plan acts as a guide for decision-making and is the basis for
specific implementation measures which are developed to ensure that the community grows in
accordance with the plan. Most communities within the Rogue Valley have completed draft or final
Transportation System Plans (TSP s) which are a component of the comprehensive plan and form
the basis for transportation-related decisions.
Municipal Codes/Zoning Ordinances:
Municipal (and land development) codes and zoning ordinances provide an implementing tool for
the comprehensive plan. Their purpose is to classify and regulate land uses, locations and use of
structures to encourage the most appropriate use of land within communities. General goals of
municipal codes and zoning ordinances include providing for adequate public safety and welfare of
residents, maintaining property values, providing open space and recreational opportunities, and
controlling development to efficiently manage existing infrastructure and other local resources.
For each jurisdiction, park-and-ride facility-related policies, regulations and recommendations from
comprehensive plans, municipal codes (or zoning regulations/ordinances) and major reports or
studies have been identified and reviewed. An overview and analysis of the relevant policies and
provisions is first provided for each jurisdiction followed by a listing of the provisions from the
referenced document. Excerpts from other documents are indented and italicized. A summary table
of the relevant plans and policies for each jurisdiction is included at the end of this memorandum.
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 25
City of Central Point
Overview and Analysis:
Central Point is served by RVTD s route #40 with one-hour headways to the Front Street Station
in downtown Medford. The city s comprehensive plan was last updated in 1983, prior to the
extension of transit service to the community. Consequently, the plan s circulation/transportation
policies are somewhat out of date. The city has a Draft Transportation System Plan (TSP) which
includes several policies that support transit development but do not specifically mention park-and-
ride facilities. Provisions for park-and-ride facilities within the city s municipal code (updated
January 1999) would fall under the category of  public and public utility buildings, structures and
uses.
Central Point s land use regulations and policies generally support and provide abundant
opportunities for the development of park-and-ride facilities in the city. Several land use zones,
which may be appropriate for park-and-rides, would require conditional approval.
Park-and-Ride-Related Provisions:
Comprehensive Plan
Draft TSP (General Transportation Goal #1):
Policy 4. - Transportation facilities shall be designed and constructed to minimize noise,
energy consumption, neighborhood disruption, economic losses to the private or public
economy and social, environmental and institutional disruptions, and to encourage the use
of public transit, bikeways and walkways.
Policy 8. - The City shall work to improve the relative attractiveness of alternative modes
of transportation including transit, pedestrian, bicycle, telecommuting and carpooling.
Municipal Code
For public and public utility buildings, structures and uses land use designation:
Permitted Conditional Not Permitted
R-2 R-L (Residential Low-Density) C-2 M (Medical)
C-1 (Neighborhood Convenience) R-1 C-4 (Tourist and  Office Prof.) 
M-1 (Industrial) R-3
M-2 (Industrial General) C-2 (Commercial - Professional)
C-3 (Downtown Business Dist.)
C-5 (Thoroughfare Commercial Dist.)
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 26
City of Medford
Overview and Analysis:
Medford is the hub of transit service in the Rogue Valley. All seven transit routes converge in
downtown Medford at the Front Street Station and radiate out to communities in the Rogue Valley
area. Routes # s 1, 2, and 4 operate within the Medford city limits, while route #10 goes southeast
to Ashland, route #40 goes northwest to Central Point, route #60 goes north to White City and route
#30 goes southwest to Jacksonville.
Medford s comprehensive plan has recently been updated and contains generally strong language
supporting the development of transit facilities. The comprehensive plan is backed up by codes that
require transit facilities for several types of development. Park-and-ride facilities would fall within
the land use designation of transit stop in the city s Land Development Code. Medford s June
1998 Draft Transportation System Plan (TSP), includes several policies which encourage transit
developments and one policy specific to park-and-rides.
With the possible exception of the neighborhood commercial zone, Medford s planning policies and
land development codes offer support and great flexibility towards the development of park-and-ride
facilities.
Park-and-Ride-Related Provisions:
Comprehensive Plan
Goals and Policies (Goal 4):
To facilitate the availability of a viable public transportation system in the Medford planning
area to serve the needs of those unable to secure private transportation, and those who wish
to choose an alternative to private transportation.
Policy 1.  The City of Medford shall encourage and support, in every way possible, the
continuation and expansion of Rogue Valley Transportation District services and facilities,
both as an important transportation mode, and as an air quality strategy.
Implementation: When reviewing major development applications, consideration shall be
given to requiring, where appropriate, public transportation facilities as part of the
developer s public improvement requirements. The City of Medford shall participate, as
appropriate, in the development and implementation of public transportation plans.
Draft TSP (Transit System Objective No. 1, Policy 1.6):
The City of Medford shall encourage connectivity between different travel modes. Transit
transfer and park-and-ride facilities should be accessible by pedestrian, bicycle, bus, and
automobile travel modes. Intercity bus and aviation terminals should be accessible by transit
services.
Land Development Code
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 27
Provisions pertaining to park-and-ride facilities:
10.806 Transit facilities for new subdivisions: Required for subdivisions of 25 lots or more,
when appropriate as determined by transit provider.
10.807 Transit facilities for major industrial, institutional, commercial and office
development: Required for commercial development of at least 60,000 square feet, industrial
of 120,000 square feet.
10.010 Defines transit facilities: Improvements and facilities at selected points along transit
routes for passenger pickup, drop off and waiting.  Facilities and improvements may include
pullouts, shelters, benches, directional signs, lighting and other improvements to provide
security, protection from the weather and access to nearby services.
For transit stop land use designation:
Permitted Conditional Not Permitted
SFR none C-S/P (Service and Prof. Office)
MFR C-N (Neighborhood)
C-C (Community)
C-R (Regional)
C-H (Heavy)
I-L (Light)
I-G (General)
I-H (Heavy)
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 28
City of Jacksonville
Overview and Analysis:
Jacksonville is served by route #30 which runs on 45 minute headways in the morning, noon and
evening hours and variable headways at other times of the day. The city s comprehensive plan
includes a transportation plan (Chapter Five) supporting alternative modes of transportation. Park-
and-rides are mentioned as a way of alleviating traffic problems associated with the Britt Festival
and Applegate Christian Fellowship and as being part of a proposed intermodal (TOD) center. The
closest land use definition for park-and-ride facilities in the municipal code is governmental
structure or use,
 
for which there are no permitted uses. Park-and-ride facilities would therefore
require conditional approval in Jacksonville.
The siting of a park-and-ride in Jacksonville may be aided by the plan for a Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD) on the edge of downtown. The TOD could recommend a park-and-ride facility.
The Jacksonville TOD Study is currently underway and is expected to be completed by June, 2001.
Park-and-Ride-Related Provisions:
Comprehensive Plan
Chapter Five - Transportation System Plan (Public Transportation Element):
RVTD has developed a cooperative agreement with Cascade Christian High transporting
students twice a day, along with rideshare program (sic). There is a potential for
cooperative agreements for park-and-ride arrangements with Britt and Applegate Christian
Fellowship.
Increasing densities near to transit stops should be evaluated. An intermodal center in
Jacksonville for buses, bikes, pedestrian routes, and park-and-ride facilities has also been
recommended as part of the ISTEA project.
Municipal Code
For governmental structure or use land use designation:
Permitted Conditional Not Permitted
none BR (Border Residential) HC (Historical Core)
HR (Hillside Residential) UR (Urban Reserve)
SF (Single-Family Residential)
MF (Multi-Family Residential)
CI (Cottage Industrial)
CG (General Commercial)
SP (Special Protection)
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 29
City of Phoenix
Overview and Analysis:
Phoenix is served by RVTD s route #10 which runs on 30 minute headways from downtown
Medford to Ashland through Phoenix. The city s comprehensive plan is dated but the adopted
(though not acknowledged by DLCD) Transportation System Plan (TSP) includes several goals and
policies supportive of transit improvements. The TSP does not mention park-and-rides. Phoenix has
a City Center Plan that encourages development that supports pedestrian, bicycle and transit travel
modes.
Park-and-ride facilities would fall within the public facilities
 
land use designation in the zoning
ordinance. The zoning ordinance conditionally allows park-and-rides in most zones where facilities
would be practicable in Phoenix.
Park-and-Ride-Related Provisions:
Comprehensive Plan
TSP/Transportation Element (Transit Section):
Goal 8. Support the District s initiatives to establish more effective public
transportation services.
Policy 8.2 - Provide through zoning and subdivision codes for developer construction of
transit related facilities (including transit stops on site, or direct connection thereto, along
transit trunk routes) when requested by RVTD and when the development is considered
major.
Zoning Ordinance
For public facilities land use designation:
Permitted Conditional Not permitted
C-H (Highway Commercial) R-1 C-T (Tourist Commercial)
R-2
R-3
M-X (Mixed Use)
C-1 (General Commercial)
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 30
City of Talent
Overview and Analysis:
Talent is served by RVTD s route #10, running on 30 minute headways from downtown Medford
to Ashland. Talent is in a unique position with respect to park-and-ride facility development - they
are the only jurisdiction within RVTD s boundaries that currently has plans underway for such
facilities.
Talent s comprehensive plan is dated. Talent s adopted (though not acknowledged by DLCD) TSP
contains several policies that are supportive of transit improvements in general and park-and-ride
facilities in particular. One such policy specifically requires the city to identify locations for park-
and-ride facilities. Like Phoenix, park-and-ride facilities fall within the public facilities
 
land use
designation in the zoning ordinance. Talent s zoning ordinance specifically permits public and
commercial off-street parking lots or structures in the central business district (CBD). Most other
zones allow for park-and-ride facility development.
Park-and-Ride-Related Provisions:
Comprehensive Plan
TSP (Transit Section, Objective 1)
Policy 6. - The City of Talent shall encourage connectivity between different travel modes.
The Talent Transportation Depot and park-and-ride facilities should be accessible by
pedestrian, bicycle, bus and automobile travel modes.
Policy 7. - The City shall cooperate with the local transit provider to identify and include
features beneficial to transit riders and transit district operations when developing plans for
roadway projects.
Policy 10. - The City shall identify park-and-ride, bike and ride, and walk and ride lots in
Talent to support ridesharing.
Zoning ordinance
For public facilities and services land use designation:
Permitted* Conditional Not Permitted
R-1-8 C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) LI (Light Industrial)
R-1-6
(MH) Mobile Home
R-2
C-2 (CBD Commercial)
C-4 (Interchange Commercial)
* Permitted uses in Talent require a public hearing for site review.
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 31
City of Ashland
Overview and Analysis:
Ashland is served by RVTD s route #10 which runs on 30 minute headways from downtown
Medford. In addition to Ashland s numerous policies supporting transit, the city contributes up to
$100,000 per year towards reducing fares for passengers. This financial contribution demonstrates
that the city s commitment to transit goes beyond policy statements.
Although the comprehensive plan is somewhat dated, the Transportation Element (Chapter X of the
comprehensive plan) approved in 1996 offers several polices supportive of park-and-ride facilities
including one which calls for the identification of such facilities. Ashland has recently completed
a Transportation System Plan (TSP) which does not mention park-and-ride facilities. The municipal
code generally discourages the development of park-and-ride facilities in residential zones and
allows them in more intensively zoned areas. Ashland s municipal code has an SO zone for the
university, allowing any use shown in the City-adopted Southern Oregon University Master Plan.
Park-and-Ride-Related Provisions:
Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Element - Chapter X (public transit section):
Policy 2.
 
- Zoning shall allow for residential densities and a mix of commercial businesses
within walking distance (one-quarter to one-half mile) of existing and planned public transit
services which support use of public transportation.
Policy 4. - Promote and support express commuter service between cities in the Rogue
Valley.
Policy 7. - Require residential and commercial development within one-quarter of a mile of
existing or future public transit services to provide transit shelters, bus access, and bus
turnaround areas.
Policy 9. - Identify park-and-ride, bike and ride and walk and ride lots in Ashland to support
ridesharing.
Policy 10. - Develop a transportation center in Ashland.
Municipal Code
For public buildings, structures and uses land use designation:
Permitted Conditional Use Not Permitted
C-1 (Retail Commercial) Woodland Residential R-2 (Low Density Multiple Family)
E-1 (Employment)  Residential R-3 (High Density Multiple Family)
M-1 (Industrial) Single-Family Residential HC (Health Care)
Suburban Residential
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 32
Jackson County
Overview and Analysis:
With the exception of White City (described below), RVTD s service to the unincorporated portions
of Jackson County is limited to the areas found between the cities previously described. The County
will begin work on a TSP in the Summer of 2000. The transportation element of the comprehensive
plan was recently updated and contains polices specific to park-and-ride facility development.
The County s land development ordinance contains a zone (general commercial) that specifically
permits park-and-ride facilities. Most other land use designations require conditional approval.
Park-and-Ride-Related Provisions:
Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Element (Finding #12):
Policy
 
- Transit service will be encouraged in urban and urbanizing areas, where it is an
energy-efficient form of transportation, and in rural areas to meet social service needs.
Implementation strategies:
A) Cooperate with RVTD by: .....(2) identifying and jointly developing park-and-ride
sites on publicly-owned land such as Expo Park, Miles Field, the Bear Creek
Greenway, the Jackson County Sports Park, and libraries.
B) In cooperation with RVTD, cities, and school districts, develop standards to be
included in county ordinances for bus turnouts and other features that would
facilitate bus use and help increase highway capacity.
Land Development Ordinance
Permitted Conditional Not Permitted
GC (General Commercial) Park- F-5 FR
and-Ride lots specifically listed RR-5 EFU
AD-MU (Airport Development- SR-1 and SR-2.5
Mixed Use) R-1
UR-H (Urban High Density Residential )
IC (Interchange Commercial)
RSC (Rural Service Commercial)
Specifically lists Bus station)
NC (Neighborhood Commercial)
GI (General Industrial)
AR (Aggregate Resource)
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 33
White City
White City is an unincorporated Urban Containment Boundary
 
under the jurisdiction of Jackson
County and is served by RVTD s Route #60 with one hour headways to the Front Street Station. The
County adopted new rules in 1996 for White City, found in Chapter 259 of the Land Development
Ordinance, primarily regulating types of housing that can be moved into the area and establishing
street tree standards. No policies relating to transportation are included in these rules. As a result,
the same standards apply to White City as for the remainder of the unincorporated portions of the
county. Jackson County s TSP will address transportation and transit issues in the White City Urban
Containment Boundary.
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 34
Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO)
Overview and Analysis:
The RVMPO is a regional planning agency whose jurisdiction encompasses the cities of Central
Point, Medford and Phoenix, as well as portions of Jackson County including the White City Urban
Containment Boundary. The MPO is responsible for producing the Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) which provides a 20-year blueprint for transportation planning in the region. The RTP
provides a policy framework for transportation decisions that occur in much of RVTDs service area.
The MPO s jurisdictional responsibility does not extend to zoning or land use decisions.
An interim RTP was adopted by the MPO s Policy Committee on April 12, 2000 and includes
provisions specific to park-and-ride facilities. Park-and-ride provisions in this document and the
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Study completed in 1999 for RVTD, are summarized below.
Park-and-Ride-Related Provisions:
Interim Regional Transportation Plan
The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a 20-year planning document designed to address the
transportation needs of the Rogue Valley MPO area, the heart of RVTDs service area. Several
chapters in the RTP have provisions related to park-and-ride facilities including the Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Element (Chapter 7), the Parking Management Element (Chapter 9),
the Transit System Element (Chapter 11) and the Land Use Element (Chapter 12).
The TDM Element most directly deals with park-and-ride facilities. It contains section 7.6 that is
included below in its entirety:
7.6 Park-and-Ride Facilities
Policy : Local governments shall consider the development of park-and-ride facilities
as a cost-effective means of increasing the efficiency of the existing transportation
system.
Park-and-ride  facilities are one of many TDM tools designed to increase efficiency, reduce
energy consumption and provide options to the single occupant vehicle trip. Park-and-ride
facilities increase the effectiveness of transit service by expanding the area from which transit
draws. Patrons living outside of walking distance of an established transit stop can drive or bike
to the park-and-ride and use transit instead of driving or cycling long distances to their
destination. Ease of access, security and safety, easy to understand layouts and good, direct
pedestrian and bicyclist connections make use of park-and-ride lots desirable.
Park-and-rides are frequently located near freeway interchanges or at transit stations and may
be either shared use, such as at a church or Transit Oriented Development (TOD) center, or
exclusive use. Shared use facilities are generally designated and maintained through agreements
reached between the local transit operator and nearby businesses, churches or other entities.
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 35
The Parking Management Element (Chapter 9) includes a discussion of shared parking and other
ways of managing parking. Parking management associations are mentioned as a way of
implementing programs such as providing bus passes or tokens in lieu of parking validation, delivery
services, shuttle buses from remote lots, clear and consistent signage for parking facilities, and long-
term parking. 
Chapter 11 is the Transit System Element, which sets as a primary goal the connection of activity
centers with high quality transit service.  When financially possible, RVTD intends to replace the
current radial pulse system with a system that connects activity centers, based on the Transit
Oriented Development and Transit Corridor Strategies Plan.
Chapter 12 is the Land Use Element, the goal of which is to use transit-oriented design strategies
to encourage the use of local public transportation and discourage reliance upon single-occupancy
vehicles.
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Study
The TOD Study includes TOD sites for Phoenix, Medford, and Central Point.  Section 6 (Transit
Recommendations) of the study discusses park-and-ride facilities. The section discusses strategies
for servicing TOD sites and includes the following text:
This plan proposes that TODs not
 
include park-and-ride facilities, because of the following
reasons:
Park-and-ride facilities at a TOD use valuable land for a low value purpose; and
Unless parking is very constrained downtown, people are not likely to get out of their
cars so close to their destination.
Park-and-rides are most effective when they are situated at least 10 miles from the final
destination.  A park-and-ride in Ashland would make sense.
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 36
State of Oregon - Department of Transportation (ODOT)
Overview and Analysis:
The Oregon Transportation Department (ODOT) maintains many of the roadways on which RVTDs
buses operate. In addition, ODOT owns right-of-ways that may be suitable for park-and-ride facility
development. ODOT s Oregon Highway Plan establishes policy direction for the state highway
system, refines the goals and policies of the Oregon Transportation Plan and is part of Oregons
Statewide Transportation Plan. The policy element of the Highway Plan contains a section on park-
and-ride facilities that is included in its entirety below. The policies as outlined in the Highway Plan
offer strong support for park-and-ride facility development on or along state highways.
Park-and-Ride-Related Provisions:
Oregon Highway Plan - Policy Element
Policy 4E: Park-and-Ride Facilities
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to encourage the efficient use of the existing
transportation system and to seek cost-effective expansion of the highway systems
passenger capacity through development and use of park-and-ride facilities.
Action 4E.1 - In coordination with local jurisdictions and based on an analysis of need and
potential use, provide park-and-ride facilities at appropriate urban and rural locations
adjacent to or within the highway right-of-way.
Action 4E.2 - Acquire right-of-way for park-and-ride facilities during construction or
expansion projects as appropriate. Consider acquisition and use of adjacent right-of-way
for park-and-ride facilities at highway interchanges, consistent with ODOT access
management policies and standards.
Action 4E.3 - Establish partnerships with other jurisdictions and the private sector to site
park-and-ride facilities.
Action 4E.4 - Convert informal parking areas within highway rights-of-way to formal park-
and-ride facilities where appropriate.
Action 4E.5 - Use ODOT surplus property for park-and-ride facilities where appropriate.
Action 4E.6 - Provide park-and-ride facilities located in urban areas that are safely
accessible by pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users whenever feasible. Include secure
bicycle parking in urban park-and-ride designs.
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 37
Jurisdiction Plan or Policy Summary
Draft TSP (Comp. Plan) Contains policies to encourage the use and improve the attractiveness of transit.
Municipal Code
"Public buildings, structures and uses" permitted in R-2 (Residential), C-
1 (Neighborhood Convenience), M-1 (Industrial), M-2 (Industrial 
General); conditional in R-L, R-1 & R-3 (Residential), C-2, C-3 & C-5 
(Commercial); not permitted in C-2M & C-4.
Comprehensive Plan
Contains policy to support, in every way possible, the continuation and 
expansion of RVTD services and facilities.
Draft TSP
Contains several policies supporting increased transit. Policy 1.6 
specifically mentions that park-and-ride facilities should be accessible 
by pedestrian, bicycle, bus and automobile travel modes.
Land Development Code
"Transit stops" permitted in Single and Multi Family Residential, 
Commercial (except for Service and Professional Office and 
Neighborhood) and Industrial. No zones listed as conditional.
TSP (Comp. Plan)
Park-and-rides are mentioned as a way of alleviating traffic problems 
associated with the Britt Festival and Applegate Christian Fellowship 
and as being part of a proposed intermodal (TOD) center.
Municipal Code
"Government structures or uses" conditional in most zones. Not 
permitted in Historical Core and Urban Reserve.
TSP (Comp. Plan) Includes goals and policies that support transit improvements.
Zoning Ordinance
"Public facilities" permitted in Highway Commercial; conditional in 
Residential, Mixed Use and General Commercial; not permitted in 
Tourist Commercial.
TSP (Comp. Plan) Includes policies relating to park-and-ride facilities, including one which 
requires city to identify park-and-ride lots.
Zoning Ordinance
"Public facilities and services" permitted in most Residential and 
Commercial zones; conditional in Neighborhood Commercial and not 
permitted in Light Industrial.
Trans. Element (Comp. Plan) Includes policies relating to park-and-ride facilities, including one which requires city to identify park-and-ride lots.
Municipal Code
"Public buildings, structures and uses" permitted in Retail Commercial, 
Employment and Industrial Zones; conditional in most residential zones; 
not permitted in Low or High Density Multi Family
Trans. Element (Comp. Plan)
Contains general policies that support improvements in the bus system. 
Specifies potential park-and-ride locations and calls for jointly 
developing park-and-rides with RVTD.
Land Dev. Ord.
"Public buildings, structures and uses" permitted in General Commercial 
(specifically lists P&R) and Airport Development-Mixed Use; 
conditional in F-5, RR-5, SR-1, SR-2.5, R-1, UR-H, IC, RSC, NC, GI 
and AR; not permitted in FR and EFU.
Interim Reg. Trans. Plan
Contains specific language and policy in TDM Element promoting park-
and-ride facilities. Policies in Transit, Parking and Land Use Elements 
support transit-related facility development. 
TOD Study
Recommends not including park-and-ride facilities in TOD 
developments. See text for discussion.
State - ODOT Oregon Highway Plan Contains specific policy (4E) supporting park-and-ride facility development.
Central Point
Medford
Talent
Ashland
Jackson County 
(including White City)
Regional - RVMPO
Jacksonville
Phoenix
Summary of Park-and-Ride Policies
for Rogue Valley Jurisdictions
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 38
Appendix B - Park-and-Ride Site Selection Criteria
The following criteria were developed during the course of the study to allow for the objective
evaluation of potential park-and-ride locations. Recommendations from experts in the field of park-
and-ride facility planning aided in the development of the site selection criteria presented here.
Table 1 on page 14 shows how the fourteen illustrative sites compare against one another using these
site selection criteria. There are nineteen criteria that have been weighted on a scale of 1-3, with 1
being the least critical and 3 the most critical. The weighting for each criteria, indicated in the box
above each of the criteria in Table 1, is based primarily on findings and recommendations in other
studies.
Site Selection Criteria Descriptions:
Proximity to Transit The distance a proposed park-and-ride facility is from an established
or proposed transit route. A score of 1is not directly on the route. A
score of 2 is directly on the route. (weighting factor: 3)
Proximity to Commuters The distance a proposed park-and-ride facility is from the highway
or a principal arterial used by those most likely to access the site. A
score of 1 is three to four blocks away. A score of 2 is one to two
blocks away. (weighting factor: 3)
Ease of Development The estimated ease with which a site can be developed by RVTD for
use as a park-and-ride facility. A score of 1 indicates that the site
would need to be modified (paved, etc.) to be useful as a park-and-
ride. A score of 2 indicates that the site could easily be converted to
a park-and-ride from its current use.  (weighting factor: 3)
Visibility The ease with which a proposed site can be seen by passing
commuters (or those most likely to access the site) along a primary
commute route. Also, the ability of a site to be seen by passing
drivers or pedestrians (for security purposes). A score of 1 indicates
that the site is either not visible by passing commuters or not highly
visible for security purposes. A score of 2 indicates that the site is
visible by passing commuters and has good visibility for security
purposes. (weighting factor: 3)
Transit Access The ease with which buses can access the site. This includes
negotiating any required turns, entering and exiting driveways (or
parking along a curb) and getting in and out of the traffic flow. A
score of 1 indicates that there are minor difficulties that may be
experienced in transit access. A score of 2 indicates that transit access
is ideal. (weighting factor: 3)
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 39
Route Logistics The placement of the site in relation to the route direction and layout.
A score of 1 indicates that the site is not ideally located on the bus
route for commuting purposes and/or that the bus may need to change
direction in order to access the site. A score of 2 indicates that the site
is ideal with respect to these characteristics. (weighting factor: 3)
Day Care Availability The relative ease to which day care can be accessed. A score of 1
indicates that the site is likely more than ½ mile from a day care
provider. A score of 2 indicates that the site is likely within ½  mile
of a day care provider. (weighting factor: 3) [Information provided by
The Job Council indicates that day care providers in Jackson County
concentrate near elementary schools. We are assuming that, if an
elementary school is within ½ mile of a proposed site, then a day care
provider would likely be nearby. The Job Councils information
shows a day care facility to exist in the Rogue Valley Mall.]
Neighborhood Impact The estimated impact that would result on an adjacent neighborhood
(either residential or commercial) as a result of developing the park-
and-ride facility. A score of 1 indicates that the site may generate
local opposition due to impacts associated with a newly-established
parking facility served by buses. A score of 2 indicates that the site
would probably not generate opposition. (weighting factor: 3)
Auto Access The ease with which cars can access the site, including the ability of
cars to enter and exit driveways off busy streets and the proximity of
the site to highways. A score of 1 indicates that minor difficulties
may be experienced in auto access and/or the site is not close to a
highway. A score of 2 indicates that auto access is ideal. (weighting
factor: 2)
Bicycle Access The ease with which bicyclists can access the site, including the
provision of either wide shoulders, bike paths, bike lanes or the
existence of minimal traffic volumes. A score of 1 indicates that there
are minor difficulties that may be experienced in bicycle access. A
score of 2 indicates that bicycle access is ideal. (weighting factor: 2)
Pedestrian Access The ease with which pedestrians can access the site. This includes the
ability of pedestrians to cross traffic and whether or not sidewalks are
present. A score of 1 indicates that there are minor difficulties that
may be experienced in pedestrian access. A score of 2 indicates that
pedestrian access is ideal. (weighting factor: 2)
Site Attractiveness The aesthetics of the site, particularly relating to neighborhood or
localized area security. A score of 1 indicates satisfactory aesthetics
contributing to an adequate feeling of security. A score of 2 indicates
good  aesthetics and perception of high security. (weighting factor:
2)
RVTD Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study
January 2001 Page 40
Local Plan Conformity The level of conformance of the site with the land use plans and
policies of the local government. A score of 1 indicates that the
construction of a park-and-ride would meet some planning
restrictions of the local government, such as a conditional use permit.
A score of 2 indicates that construction of a park-and-ride conforms
and would be permitted by the local government. (weighting factor:
2)
Environmental Concerns The relative environmental impacts that would result from
development of the site. Environmental impacts may include air,
water and noise pollution and visual blight. A score of 1 indicates
that significant land use changes required to develop the site would
result in minor environmental impacts. A score of 2 indicates that
minor land use changes required to develop the site would result in
no environmental impacts. (weighting factor: 2)
Parking Area The amount of space available on the site for parked vehicles in its
current configuration. A score of 1 indicates that the site will
accommodate less than 20 parking spaces. A score of 2 indicates that
the site will accommodate 20 or more parking spaces. (weighting
factor: 2)
Lighting The presence of adequate lighting for both functional and security
purposes. A score of 1 indicates that the site does not have adequate
lighting and that major lighting improvements would be necessary.
A score of 2 indicates that adequate lighting is available or only
minor lighting  improvements would be necessary. (weighting factor:
2)
Availability of Utilities The presence and availability of utilities on-site such as water, sewer,
phone and electric. A score of 1 indicates that developed utilities are
not present. A score of 2 indicates that developed utilities are present.
(weighting factor: 1)
Nearby Services The nearby (less than two blocks or 800 feet) presence of services
such as food, coffee, restrooms, dry cleaning and other convenience-
oriented services. A score of 1 indicates that services are not located
near the site. A score of 2 indicates that services are located nearby.
(weighting factor: 1)
Landscaping Either the presence of adequate landscaping or the ability to easily
landscape the site. A score of 1 indicates that the site does not have
adequate landscaping. A score of 2 indicates that adequate
landscaping is present or only minor improvements would be
necessary. (weighting factor: 1)